By Nicole Baker
Staff Writer
If you haven’t seen the news headlines the past couple of days regarding the new police radar that can “see” inside people’s homes, let me get you up to speed. There have been about 50 law enforcement agencies that have instituted the use of radar devices that will essentially help officers determine if there are people inside houses and other buildings. The devices ultimately act like motion detectors. They have the ability to detect the slightest human movements from a distance of more than 50 feet away. While the devices can’t relay a picture, per se, of what’s behind house walls, they can at least detect if anyone is inside the home, where they are, and whether or not they are moving.
As you can probably imagine, there is wide debate over the legality of such radar use and their potential invasions to privacy. Yet, there is good reason. In December, officers had tracked a man, wanted for parole violation, to a house in Wichita, Kansas. The officers did not have a search warrant, but before entering, used the Range-R radar system to determine if the man was actually inside. Now, in previous cases, the Supreme Court has generally ruled that police are barred from scanning the outside of a house with thermal cameras, or other radar-based systems, unless they have a search warrant. Thus, this recent incident has caused many privacy advocates to question the circumstances in which such radar is being used, and the threats it poses to the Fourth Amendment’s guaranteed protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
On the other side of the fence, federal law enforcement officials are defending their use of such radar. They claim that it is necessary in keeping them safe should they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. In other words, it gives officers an idea of what they’re dealing with before they go in on their raid. This especially makes sense when considering that such radar was originally designed for wartime use, particularly in that of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is this set of facts right here that leads me to unquestioningly accept law enforcement’s use of this radar.
Naturally, I have the utmost respect for anyone in law enforcement and the military. If you choose to risk your life on a daily basis to keep others safe and protect your country, then you have my highest gratitude. While the officers in Kansas didn’t necessarily follow “protocol” when invading the house of the parole violator, if you were in their shoes, and knew with certainty thanks to the radar that you could catch a criminal while you had the chance, would you?
Military servicemen aside, police and other law enforcement officials have risky jobs. While we may get mad at those who give us speeding tickets, and wonder how many other criminals got away while we were pulled over, those in law enforcement ultimately look out for the public good. Yet, it’s more than that. The uncertainty and risk that law enforcement officers deal with on a day to day basis undoubtedly takes its toll. So I don’t blame them for wanting to rely on surveillance and radar tools that could help them pinpoint certain criminals and people ahead of time. They deserve to know as much to make their jobs and lives easier, and to reduce their stress levels. If you don’t like it, don’t engage in criminal activities, and they won’t need to invade your privacy. Let’s be real right now—our privacy is already being invaded in other ways. How, you ask? Two words. The Internet.
In light of all this, many are still upset that U.S. law enforcement officials kept this, and other monitoring systems, a secret from the public. Correct me if I’m wrong, but all professions and trades have their own secrets. Advertisers, for example, usually like to keep secret the “ingredients” that make their ads so effective. If we all knew the secrets, nothing would be the same. Thus, trade secrets or protocols are often kept between and among the practitioners of those trades. So when law enforcement officials don’t go advertising their use of high-tech tools, don’t take it personally. They just don’t want the bad guys to be in the know.
Overall, while our privacy might be at risk with the use of such radar systems, that’s a risk I’m willing to live with if it’s for the safety of myself and those around me. I’m also willing to live with this risk if it helps protect the people who put their lives on the line. Without them, we probably wouldn’t be here.
