On Apr 25, 2:06*pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:

But, you see, the entry itself is neither a search nor a seizure.

But entering in search of evidence is. If the cop ain't looking for
evidence, why does he need to enter?

It's the bug which is the search or search.

The infrared camera is not an entry at all - it is merely recording the
emissions coming from the dwelling in any case.

But clearly is seeking evidence if that is how they use it.

....
(And it would be pretty easy to defeat infrared searches, a bit of
metal over the walls and it doesn't get out of the house. *A few rolls
of aluminum foil would do it, as would metal-backed insulation in the
walls and ceiling.)

I wonder.

No need to wonder, talk to any physicist and he'll tell you that metal
blocks IR. That's how a space blanket works. In fact Columbia
Sportswear recently came out with clothing with aluminum dots to
reflect the IR the body generates and thus increase insulation value.

....

Under the English common law, the constable was allowed to stand out
side the dwelling and if he saw (or heard) evidence of a crime through a
window, take appropriate action.

Judges must decide whether doing the same thing with the benefit of an
infrared detector or a sound amplifier is more akin to the constable
standing outside or more akin to an actual entry.

There is a difference between looking through an un-curtained window
and looking through walls that people have every reason to expect are
opaque.

....

Why can't a lawyer ask, "Officer, you say you had probable cause to
search my client's house. *Just how probable was it that you would
find evidence there and how did you determine that probability?"

The question wouldn't even be allowed.

Why? If evidence was obtained by that claim of probability, why
should the defense not be allowed to ask about it?

....

That's not how "prudent and cautious" people operate in the real world.
A court of law is hardly reflective of most of the world.

The courts of law ABOUND in "reasonable man" standards!

And that would exclude probability?

And probable cause operates on the basis of such individuals, who are,
in almost all instances, NOT statisticians.
You don't have to be a statistician to understand the basic concepts
required for such calculations. *In fact modern technology could help
here. *It would be simple to produce a computer program to calculate
everything they need, you'd only have to help them understand the
concepts. *For most people of average intelligence, a few hours (maybe
4-8) of class time would be more than adequate.

I fear you rather underestimate the complexity of what you're proposing.

Each case is unique with it's own particular facts and circumstances and
is unlikely to fit into any preconceived computer calculation.

You make it unnecessarily complicated. All you need is some basic
understanding of probability and the ability to multiply, divide, add
and subtract. Wouldn't even get into square roots except in
extraordinary cases.