IFORMATION ON IFRARED TECHNOLOGY ON HELICOPTERS!!! READ THIS!!!

This link brings you to the Law Enforcement section of the FLIR website. FLIR is the LEADING infrared development/supply company....
Read into this...

http://www.cvs.flir.com/lawenforcem...cations/ale.cfm


And research what it REALLY takes for one to LEGALLY fry over in your local area....

Try the local PO websites.

Good luck. Stay SAFE.

link no workie... im interested in this subject though

OK sorry.
Try this....
http://www.cvs.flir.com/lawenforcement/
Click on the airborne law enforcement with the picture of the helicopter.
Thos videos are good info....

no worries... cool,thanks

good post

Great info. I just today got my hands on a FLIR BCAM http://www.goinfrared.com/cameras/B-Series/thermocam-bcam-sd/ from one of my clients who use them in their business (FYI I am in no way related to law enforcement and neither is my client, they use these for a totally different purpose!). I can't wait to go take some pics of my house and growroom to see if there are any heat leaks, though with CMH bulbs I have not had a heat issue this time around.

FLIR = trouble if you're not careful, so take all precautions people....

seams off topic for our use, but then again there not going to advertise to keep us guessing. seams mostly outdoor

lol they were showing how ruggid the thing was so they put it into a tub of water...LOL

can some one post the info on here. I don't dig links lol

PURPLE Wreck - It's pretty much a vid. link. The info is not in text.
Also, the website is a company that makes FLIR cameras. It gives you a goos idea about the SELLING points the company makes to LE to get them to buy 100 of thier cameras...

FLIR Systems shares surge as quarterly profit grows

By Gabriel Madway
Last update: 12:04 p.m. EST Feb. 8, 2007



SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- FLIR Systems Inc. (FLIR:FLIR Systems Inc
News, chart, profile, more
Last: 31.37+0.45+1.46%

4:00pm 04/04/2008

Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio
Analyst
Create alertInsider
Discuss
Financials
Sponsored by:

FLIR 31.37, +0.45, +1.5%) shares surged 11% to $34.08 in Thursday morning trade after the Portland, Ore.-based maker of thermography and imaging products reported fourth-quarter net earnings of $39.8 million, or 53 cents a share, vs. $34.1 million, or 43 cents a share, in the year-ago period. Revenue rose 19% to $185.9 million from $156.2 million. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial were expecting a per-share profit of 50 cents on revenue of $183.9 million. FLIR forecast 2007 revenue of $670 million to $680 million, and net earnings of $1.48 to $1.53 a share.

In 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided that by performing FLIR surveillance of private property without a search warrant, law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
KYLLO v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 99—8508. Argued February 20, 2001–Decided June 11, 2001

Suspicious that marijuana was being grown in petitioner Kyllo’s home in a triplex, agents used a thermal imaging device to scan the triplex to determine if the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. The scan showed that Kyllo’s garage roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest of his home and substantially warmer than the neighboring units. Based in part on the thermal imaging, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo’s home, where the agents found marijuana growing. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed, upholding the thermal imaging on the ground that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home. Even if he had, ruled the court, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the thermal imager did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo’s life, only amorphous hot spots on his home’s exterior.

Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 3—13.

(a) The question whether a warrantless search of a home is reasonable and hence constitutional must be answered no in most instances, but the antecedent question whether a Fourth Amendment “search” has occurred is not so simple. This Court has approved warrantless visual surveillance of a home, see California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, ruling that visual observation is no “search” at all, see Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 234—235, 239. In assessing when a search is not a search, the Court has adapted a principle first enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361: A “search” does not occur–even when its object is a house explicitly protected by the Fourth Amendment–unless the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched object, and society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable, see, e.g., California v. Ciraolo, supra, at 211. Pp. 3—5.

(b) While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some instances, in the case of the search of a home’s interior–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home’s interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Pp. 6—7.

(c) Based on this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search. The Court rejects the Government’s argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home’s external surface. Such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected in Katz, where the eavesdropping device in question picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth to which it was attached. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology–including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home. Also rejected is the Government’s contention that the thermal imaging was constitutional because it did not detect “intimate details.” Such an approach would be wrong in principle because, in the sanctity of the home, all details are intimate details. See e.g., United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705; Dow Chemical, supra, at 238, distinguished. It would also be impractical in application, failing to provide a workable accommodation between law enforcement needs and Fourth Amendment interests. See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 181. Pp. 7—12.

(d) Since the imaging in this case was an unlawful search, it will remain for the District Court to determine whether, without the evidence it provided, the search warrant was supported by probable cause–and if not, whether there is any other basis for supporting admission of that evidence. Pp. 12—13.

190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor and Kennedy, JJ., joined.
Believe it or not, the structure profile is probably the oldest and most common law enforcement application for a handheld thermal imager. It is also the most challenging application, due to a questionable Supreme Court ruling. However, the general notion is that you can use a thermal imager to help identify the presence of an indoor marijuana grow.

The Indoor Challenge

Growing plants indoors is not new, nor difficult. By bringing the soil inside (in a planter), regularly watering the plant, and allowing natural sunlight into the room, you can grow almost anything inside. The problem with growing marijuana inside, however, is that it's illegal (it's illegal outdoors too, but you get the point). And growers are greedy. Since it is illegal, they cannot grow plants near windows. Since they are greedy, they are not happy with just four or five plants.

Therein lays the pot grower's conundrum. He needs light, but cannot use natural light. Therefore, he has to use artificial light that simulates sunlight. Besides the tremendous amount of electricity this requires, it generates an overwhelming amount of heat. This is problematic for the grower, as marijuana does not grow well in hot environments.

So, the pot grower has to vent this excess heat somewhere outside the pot growing room. The greedier he is, the more plants he grows. The more plants he grows, the more lights he needs. The more lights he needs, the more heat he generates. The more heat he has, the more he has to vent. And, since the thermal imager sees heat...it can be a great tool to locate abnormal heat signatures on and around buildings.

By comparing a suspect structure to similar structures, you might see unusual heat build-up that indicates a grow room. Or, you might see strange heat patterns indicating the location and direction of vents. Either way, it can be another indicator in your investigation that the suspect is indeed growing marijuana.

Restrictions

Up until 2001, police officers could use a thermal imager to scan any home, farm, office, shed or other structure at their whim. Obviously, good police work dictates building sufficient probable cause to get an arrest or search warrant. Not only is it unethical, but it would also be a waste of time and effort to scan homes and buildings at random, just hoping to find odd heat patterns. As an investigator, you need to put in the time and effort to do things the proper way. The TI is not a shortcut to a good investigation; it's just a tool to help generate another piece of evidence.

That said, 2001 changed the thermal imaging landscape in the US. Erroneously stating that thermal imaging was a technology not available to the general public, and concerned that some unknown future technology might make it possible to see the intimate details of private life within the confines of a home's four walls, the Supreme Court banned a current technology that does not reveal the intimate details within a home.

Catch that? Yep, worried about something that does not yet exist that could see into a home, the justices decided to restrict a technology that does exist but does not see into a home. So, courtesy of Kyllo v. U.S., police officers must now obtain a search warrant prior to performing a thermal scan of a private dwelling. Notice, the Kyllo decision applies only to private dwellings, where the expectation of privacy is highest.

Now, some jurisdictions have required thermal search warrants for years. Some may now stretch the Kyllo decision to include businesses, outbuildings and the like. But as far as the U.S. Supreme Court cares, the warrant restriction applies only to scans of dwellings.

Ethical Use on Structures

As mentioned above, randomly scanning buildings to find a suspicious heat signature is wrong and a waste of resources. But once you have initiated a proper investigation into a suspect building, the TI can be part of the evidence you collect to prove your case.

Prior to scanning the suspect building, be sure you have your local prosecutors on board. Show them the technology; have them give their interpretation of the Kyllo decision. Demonstrate how the TI can help you gain additional evidence against the suspect without ever intruding into his personal space, or even stepping foot on his property.

Before you take the TI to the street on your first investigation, get formal training. One online article cannot even come close to giving you all the fundamentals necessary to legally and ethically perform a thermal scan of a structure. The Law Enforcement Thermographers' Association is the primary law enforcement trainer for TI use. Yes, I instruct for them. Yes, it's a plug. But, the reality is that if you plan to build indoor grow cases with a thermal imager, you need to be prepared for court. The LETA training is the only way I know to be certified and be ready.

Like every other thermal imaging application, the TI is not the silver bullet or ultimate tool. It is just one more tool in the toolbox that can help officers build a better case. Properly used, the TI can generate additional evidence to help secure the final search warrant, allowing you to go in and seize a lot of marijuana...and put a pot grower out of business.

Click to expand...

Thanks to Chemy@shroomery

39 F.3d 891
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Rick L. ROBERTSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Paul W. BOBZIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 93-3863, 93-3866.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 1994.
Decided Nov. 8, 1994.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec.
28, 1994 in No. 93-3863.
Daniel L. Pahlke, Rapid City, SD, argued (Thomas L. Trimble, on the brief), for appellant.

Steven D. Rich, Rapid City, SD, argued, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

1
After entering conditional guilty pleas to charges of manufacturing marijuana, Rick L. Robertson, Jr., and Paul W. Bobzin appeal the denial of their motion to suppress evidence seized from their mobile home pursuant to a state court warrant. The warrant was issued upon a concerned citizen's report that marijuana was growing inside their trailer, corroborated primarily by Forward Looking Infrared Device ("FLIR") readings of abnormal heat escaping from the trailer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge1 recommended that defendants' motion to suppress be denied, and the district court2 accepted that recommendation. After conditionally pleading guilty to preserve the issue, Robertson and Bobzin appeal that suppression ruling. We conclude there was probable cause to issue the warrant and therefore affirm.

2
Robertson and Bobzin argue that the Meade County Circuit Court magistrate lacked probable cause to issue a warrant to search their mobile home. "Probable cause" is a "fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." United States v. Tagbering, 985 F.2d 946, 949 (8th Cir.1993). "The sufficiency of a search warrant is in the first instance determined on the basis of the information before the issuing judicial officer." United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957, 959 (8th Cir.1986). "A magistrate's determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2331, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (quotation omitted).

3
The warrant in this case was based upon the following information. Special Agent Kevin Thom of the South Dakota State Police submitted an affidavit reciting that, on March 17, 1993, he met with a citizen who wished to provide anonymous information about a marijuana growing operation. The citizen reported that Robertson and Bobzin were growing marijuana at their residence, a trailer located at Lot 50 of the Diamond T Trailer Court in Black Hawk, South Dakota. A week earlier, the informant had seen twelve-to-twenty marijuana plants, one-to-two feet tall, growing in a bedroom directly off the living room, and thirty-to-forty smaller plants growing in the master bedroom closet. The informant described the soil and lighting system being used. He/she stated that Robertson and Bobzin expected to harvest the larger plants in four-to-six weeks, that they had harvested two previous indoor crops, and that they were offering to sell marijuana for $100 per quarter ounce. The informant knew the physical characteristics of marijuana "because of past personal use" and had been in the trailer when marijuana was being used or sold. Thom further averred that he contacted the informant again five days later and was told that Robertson and Bobzin were presently selling marijuana at the trailer other than the marijuana being grown.

4
Thom's affidavit further stated that he contacted the local power company and confirmed that Bobzin was the customer of record at this address. In addition, Special Agent John Walker of the Division of Criminal Investigation submitted an affidavit reciting that he took FLIR readings3 of the Bobzin trailer at 2:55 p.m. on March 22 and at 5:15 a.m. on March 23. Walker observed aluminum foil on two trailer windows, "a common technique used to contain light from escaping" during indoor cultivation. The FLIR readings showed "a somewhat higher degree of thermal energy being radiated" from two or possibly three areas of the trailer, whereas nearby trailers showed no similar heat variations. Walker opined that "the abnormal readings ... would be consistent with a possible indoor marijuana grow, in which a high amount of heat would be caused by the use of grow lights."

5
Thus, the probable cause in this case consisted primarily of information volunteered by a citizen who did not wish to become involved in the resulting criminal investigation. Prior to Gates, many courts had construed earlier Supreme Court decisions as adopting a two-pronged test for determining whether information from an anonymous informant satisfies the Fourth Amendment's probable cause standard. In Gates, the Court rejected that test and "reaffirm[ed] the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that traditionally has informed probable-cause determinations." 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2332. Under Gates, "the informant's reliability, veracity, and basis of knowledge are relevant considerations--but not independent, essential elements--in finding probable cause." Reivich, 793 F.2d at 959. Applying that totality analysis, we conclude that the following circumstances support the magistrate's decision to issue a warrant and require denial of defendants' motion to suppress.

6
First, we must begin with the quality of the informant's information. He or she provided Agent Thom with detailed factual information concerning marijuana growing in Bobzin's trailer, defendants' prior harvesting and sale of marijuana, and their plans to harvest and sell the current indoor crop. In United States v. Jackson, 898 F.2d 79, 81 (8th Cir.1990), we noted that there is an inherent indicia of reliability in "the richness and detail of a first hand observation." As the Supreme Court observed in Gates, "even if we entertain some doubt as to an informant's motives, his explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, entitles his tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case." 462 U.S. at 234, 103 S.Ct. at 2330. Nevertheless, because the informant and the alleged criminal activity were previously unknown to Agent Thom, some independent corroboration or verification of the tip was needed to establish probable cause for a warrant to search defendants' home.

7
Second, Agent Thom's initial attempt to verify his source came when he insisted on meeting personally with the informant, rather than simply taking an anonymous tip over the telephone. This allowed Thom to question the informant face-to-face and to determine whether he or she appeared to be a credible person. That first-hand observation gives greater weight to Agent Thom's decision to rely on the informant's information. See United States v. Lloyd, 36 F.3d 761, 762-63 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Wilson, 964 F.2d 807, 810 (8th Cir.1992). As Thom testified at the suppression hearing:

8
Based on the detailed account of what the informant had [seen] in the trailer, based on my experience and training, having interviewed hundreds of defendants and informants, I didn't feel the informant was being deceptive and [had] legitimately called in as a concerned citizen, had no other motivation ... and was concerned about the activities in the trailer. Based on those factors I felt it lent credibility to them.

9
Third, the primary independent verification of the tip came when Agent Walker observed foil over two trailer windows and took FLIR readings which showed abnormal levels of heat escaping from certain parts of the trailer. As Agent Walker related in his affidavit, the foil suggested an effort to keep light in the trailer, and abnormal levels of escaping heat were consistent with the presence of indoor grow lights. Both tended to corroborate the informant's report that the trailer contained an indoor marijuana grow operation.

10
Defendants argue that only a cold FLIR reading, reflecting the use of additional insulation, would corroborate the presence of an indoor marijuana grow operation, and that the FLIR readings did not accurately predict where marijuana plants were later found in the trailer. However, these assertions are essentially irrelevant to the probable cause inquiry. The agents believed that the FLIR readings corroborated the informant's tip, and they reported their conclusions by affidavit to the Meade County magistrate. Numerous cases have noted that high intensity lights are used to grow marijuana indoors and generate excess heat.4 The agents reasonably concluded that the FLIR readings corroborated the informant's report of wrongdoing in the trailer. That Robertson and Bobzin can now advance alternative explanations for aluminum foil on the windows and abnormal emanating heat does not undermine the magistrate's decision to credit the agents' reasonable inferences.

11
Fourth, Agent Thom also verified that the trailer's utility account was in the name of Bobzin, one of the persons the informant said was growing marijuana. "[T]he corroboration of minor, innocent details can suffice to establish probable cause." United States v. Reiner Ramos, 818 F.2d 1392, 1397 n. 7 (8th Cir.1987).

12
Giving due deference to the decision of the Meade County magistrate, we conclude that the detailed information supplied by a previously unknown informant, who met with Agent Thom but requested anonymity, together with the corroborating information subsequently obtained, furnished probable cause to issue a warrant to search defendants' trailer. Robertson and Bobzin vigorously argue that Agent Walker violated their Fourth Amendment rights by standing in a public street and using an FLIR device to measure the heat escaping from their home. However, following oral argument, another panel of this court held that such FLIR surveillance is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. See Pinson, 24 F.3d at 1058. As a panel, we are bound to follow that ruling.

13
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1
The HONORABLE MARSHALL P. YOUNG, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota

2
The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota

3
FLIR imaging compares surface temperatures, detecting relatively cold or hot areas

4
See United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d 992, 993 (11th Cir.1994); United States v. Pinson, 24 F.3d 1056, 1057 (8th Cir.) cert denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 664, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1994); United States v. Zimmer, 14 F.3d 286, 287 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Deaner, 1 F.3d 192, 195 (3rd Cir.1993); United States v. Broussard, 987 F.2d 215, 222 (5th Cir.1993). See also United States v. Olson, 21 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 230, 130 L.Ed.2d 155 (1994) (vents on the roof and abnormally high electricity bills corroborated informant's report of indoor marijuana growing)

There's a good hours worth of reading for anyone wanting more info on the subject.
DIGITAL - You're right. We should take precautions... It's one of LE's only tools (that I can see) that can catch a grow that otherwise has ALL other bases covered. Ie. odor, blatent light leaks...

There wouldnt be a whole lot to stop LEO from Flirring every house they came across. If from a helo, they could just do it in their spare time or when flying back from an assignment, etc. If they did find a house, they would just start investigating it using other means, garbage pulls, drive bys, knock and talk etc

yamaha_1fan said:

There wouldnt be a whole lot to stop LEO from Flirring every house they came across. If from a helo, they could just do it in their spare time or when flying back from an assignment, etc. If they did find a house, they would just start investigating it using other means, garbage pulls, drive bys, knock and talk etc

Click to expand...

Damn straight! How the fu*k do WE know when they have that thing turned on... It's always pointing at us! I used to think the same thing. If I was some rookie pilot, I would wanna make myself look good...