On Apr 24, 1:22*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:

If a camera can really look through walls then police use constitutes
a search which must meet the same requirements as if they cop goes
into the house.

The English common law said THAT?

Nor does it say that cops can't have someone sneak a bug into
someone's home without a warrant. It simply says (if I understand
correctly) that you need a warrant to search private homes etc. That
is any search, be it by physical entry or infrared. The question is
if it is a search and if so is there probably cause.

In addition the forth amendment
clarified the need to get a warrant based on probable cause.
We can add "probable cause" to the list of constitutional imponderables..
I would like to see a number put on that. *At least 75% probable that
there is evidence etc. there before the warrant is issued. *Of course
that would require teaching some probability to cops and judges.

Just how would you presume to place a number on THAT.

What constitutes "75%" or whatever probability? However would you
compute that?

That's the sort of thing I can have lots of fun with. You do things
like determining witness reliability, or the probability that the tire
tracks at the scene. Most likely you will have to calculate joint
probabilities.* Not that difficult to do if you have a bit of
statistical knowledge.

*For example, tracks show about a size 10 shoe. There are probably Y
people in the area with that shoe size. The right shoe has unusual
wear on the outer side of the toe. The thief stepped in mud and
probably weighed about 200 pounds. Thief was able to reach the entry
window without putting any box or ladder in the soft dirt underneath
which means he must be six feet or more tall. Calculate the joint
probability of all those. Then combine that with things like witness
reports, what a pawn shop owner might remember or have records of from
the stuff being pawned and you can get some pretty good numbers.