On February 12, 2012, police executed a search warrant at a commercial building at 2953 Imperial Avenue in Grant Hill. "Numerous items" were seized related to a marijuana-growing operation said to belong to Howard Maurice Greenspan.
The police's information was based in part on information derived from a warrantless thermal-imaging scan of Greenspan's building in an earlier search for a suspect in an unrelated armed robbery.
Greenspan filed a motion to suppress the evidence because it came from a warrantless thermal-imaging scan of the building. The prosecution argued that there was no constitutional violation because the police were legitimately using the thermal imaging device to search for a robbery suspect, and they could properly use any evidence in plain view.
On July 8, superior court turned down Greenspan's argument and the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal upheld the court trial.
On February 12, 2012, police executed a search warrant at a commercial building at 2953 Imperial Avenue in Grant Hill. "Numerous items" were seized related to a marijuana-growing operation said to belong to Howard Maurice Greenspan.
The police's information was based in part on information derived from a warrantless thermal-imaging scan of Greenspan's building in an earlier search for a suspect in an unrelated armed robbery.
Greenspan filed a motion to suppress the evidence because it came from a warrantless thermal-imaging scan of the building. The prosecution argued that there was no constitutional violation because the police were legitimately using the thermal imaging device to search for a robbery suspect, and they could properly use any evidence in plain view.
On July 8, superior court turned down Greenspan's argument and the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal upheld the court trial.
Comments