More

NYPD Testing Long-Distance Gun Detection Device

Terrahertz Imaging

First Posted: 01/18/12 02:32 PM ET Updated: 01/18/12 06:02 PM ET

The New York Police Department, with assistance from the Pentagon, is testing a scanning device that can remotely detect concealed firearms, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Tuesday.

The device measures natural radiation emitted by people and can detect when this flow of energy is impeded by an object, such as a gun.

"This technology has shown a great deal of promise as a way of detecting weapons without a physical search," Kelly said in a speech before a police group in Manhattan.

Known as terahertz imaging detection, the technology functions similarly to night-vision goggles, which detect infrared radiation. But unlike much infrared radiation, the terahertz wavelength is not blocked by clothing.

"With terahertz, you will be able to identify a gun as a gun," said John Federici, a physics professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

The device is being developed in conjunction with a Department of Defense counter-terrorism unit, which has expressed interest in the technology to thwart suicide bombers and similar threats. The device could be mounted in a squad car or placed in an area with a high number of shootings.

A prototype is being tested at a police shooting range in the Bronx and has proven effective at distances up to 16 feet, Paul J. Browne, an NYPD spokesman, told The New York Times. The department hopes to increase the detection's effective distance to around 80 feet, Browne said.

Kelly did not specify when it would be ready for the streets. "The development work is moving forward and we hope to utilize the sensor as soon as it meets our requirements," he said.

Civil libertarians took a cautious stance on the technology, which Kelly said would only be used under "reasonably suspicious circumstances." "We find this proposal both intriguing and worrisome," Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

If effective, Lieberman said, the device could essentially bring to an end the NYPD's controversial "stop-and-frisk" campaign, which subjects more than half-a-million New Yorkers per year to largely random search by the police. Police officials have defended the searches as necessary to remove illegal guns from the streets, but civil liberties groups have decried them as a racially biased and unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

Yet the scanners could themselves be considered a breach of privacy. "The ability to walk down the street free from a virtual police pat-down is a matter of privacy," Liberman said.

"If the NYPD is moving forward with this, the public needs more information about this technology, how it works and the dangers it presents," she said.

Some terahertz detection devices, particularly those designed to work at long distances, emit radiation when scanning an object or person. But that radiation would not be at a high enough level to cause harm, according to Federici, the physicist.

"This is a lot different than nuclear radiation or X-rays," he said. "It doesn't really cause any damage."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CRIME

The New York Police Department, with assistance from the Pentagon, is testing a scanning device that can remotely detect concealed firearms, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Tuesday. The device ...
The New York Police Department, with assistance from the Pentagon, is testing a scanning device that can remotely detect concealed firearms, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Tuesday. The device ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 983
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
04:46 PM on 01/23/2012
SCOTUS hasn't weighed in on using this in public, but with criminals endangering us all and no harm done to the law abiding, its a no brainer.. Its a great way of getting criminals off the street.
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
07:07 PM on 01/23/2012
You are right. It's a no brainer. It might be a great way to get criminals off the street. And SCOTUS hasn't weighed in on this tactic.

No harm done to the law abiding? I have a CHL. If I am stopped and searched by police, I have just had a target painted on my back for the criminals. No harm?

I am being scanned with ionizing radiation, which has been shown to cause numerous and various cancers. I will be scanned without my knowledge. No harm?

While there is a chance at the SCOTUS this could be allowed, I don't believe the SCOTUS will ever get the chance. I think it will fail at every level of the court, so it will never be appealed to that level. I believe the police, whether intentionally or just by accident, will use this device to profile people, which is definitely illegal. I don't believe the court will allow this to be used because of the problems with an ionizing radiation exposure, that will be totally unnecessary for the vast majority of those scanned.

This scan I firmly believe will be found to be an unconstitutional 4th Amendment search, and Kyllo vs. US will be used as precedent, and several others also.

Just because something is easy, and efficient, and possible doesn't give the government free reign to use that technology without any limits and guidelines. It will not be used for a fishing expedition.
09:09 PM on 01/23/2012
Please, protecting criminals because you think you have a target on your back? That is just a liberal fantasy. Scanning hasn't been shown to cause cancer, more liberal hyperbole. Prolifing is a liberal stand by. Kyllo was about home surviellance, not public areas. This liberal soft on crime attitude allows gangbangers to carry at will.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
08:51 PM on 01/23/2012
You really need to look at Kyllo v. US.
09:04 PM on 01/23/2012
Kyllo was about drug pushers and surveilance of a home, not public spaces. Nice liberal spin on your part.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:45 PM on 01/22/2012
Part 1:

I have seen several comments on this tool. They range from thinking that this is a good thing, to outright distrust of this. I have seen comments that claim the individuals rights to privacy is not violated because they aren’t touched. That since this tool isn’t touching the person who is being scanned they wouldn’t know about it, therefore their rights aren’t violated.

How many people know how to tell if there is an illegal wire tap on your phone? Not too many. They do not know that their phones are being tapped. Does that mean their rights are not being violated.? The same goes for women who have been given a drug that will make them pass out. Then they are raped. They are not aware of it at the time. Does that mean that rape did not occur?

I have also seen comments that say it’s more important to get the criminals off the streets than the right to privacy. That if you really an honest law abiding citizen you would have nothing to hide, so why object? Yes why object? Maybe just for the sake of principal. Why forego one or more rights just for the sake of minor security? If you are so willing to give up your rights for security, there will come a time when you have neither rights nor security.
01:11 AM on 01/23/2012
NRA deflection talk about anything other than gun use, but date rape and wire tapping, really?

A scan is not a search. It is done in public not in private.

Object for the principle is a liberal way of saying let the gangbangers will have their guns. No one is giving up anything, except the criminals, they will have their guns confiscated.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
08:03 AM on 01/23/2012
Get a grip. This is about the 4th not the 2nd right now.

A scan in the context as presented in the article IS a search. It replaces the actual physical search with a scanning search. And your reply just helped prove my point that I was making.

"Object for the principle is a liberal way of saying let the gang-bangers will have their guns."

Are you now saying that the liberals believe in gun ownership and the right ot keep and bear arms and concealed carry for law abiding honest citizens? Are you saying that the liberal view points are stricter enforcement of the current laws and no new gun control laws? So are you saying that the Brady Bunch and the VPC is conservative?

Remember, there are 30,000 Brady lies that have to be told. Get busy. You have 8 hours, 20 minutes, and 20 seconds. BTW that's 30,000 seconds. Get to work. All those lies have to be told.
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
09:38 AM on 01/23/2012
Funny! We have given you several examples of how this scan IS an illegal, unreasonable search. You know, court cases. You come back and totally ignore any evidence, and refuse to provide any case which would contradict our evidence. I am beginning to think you are in middle school, and that's why you post on such an irregular basis. Go away, tro//!
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:44 PM on 01/22/2012
Part 2:

There have been posts that distrust the idea that this tool will be only used for the good. With this tool, the way it could scan a person without them even knowing that it has been done is even more so of a violation. Then there were comments about when this tool has been used on a legal concealed carry permit holder. How are the police going to react before they find out about the legal aspect of the persons permit? My very own posting consisting most of them. I do not want to be walking down the street and have several police officers appear out of nowhere with guns drawn, pointed directly at my face, then slam down, handcuffed and then asked if I was legal. At that point it’s way too late. Rights have been violated and it has gone way too far.
01:14 AM on 01/23/2012
The Police aren't the NRA, they ask questions before they start shooting. Fear of the police is a lousy reason to let criminals be armed.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
08:12 AM on 01/23/2012
There are 30,000 lies in the Brady Bunch propaganda machine. They all have to be told. There are 30,000 deflections that SSDD has to comit to day. There are 30,000 comments that have to be twisted. Save the world from rudeness. End all the lies. Ban free speech. Right Commrade?

Again, you have just proved my point. Thanks for the help. You may be usefull after all.

Remember, there are 30,000 SSDD comments that are being ignored and/or laughed at.
02:21 PM on 01/23/2012
Wow... you can't be serious.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
field-man
The bounty hunter
03:31 PM on 01/22/2012
The libs will cry like babies when they go through this as the airport however on the streets of America they are for it !!! even if it is against there 4th Amendment Right, Somebody explain to them Libs that this is agaisnt the law and Bloomberg knows it
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
12:12 PM on 01/22/2012
"Some terahertz detection devices, particularly those designed to work at long distances, emit radiation when scanning an object or person. But that radiation would not be at a high enough level to cause harm, according to Federici, the physicist."

Just like Thalidomide was safe for pregnant women? Just like the "Shoe Fitting X-ray Machine" were considered safe? Just like the radiation from cell phones and electrical transmission lines was considered to be totally safe?

The thing is, there may or may not have been enough study on the effects of transmitting at living tissue, even in very low doses, this terahertz radiation. Until the effects on living tissue has been thoroughly studied, and the long term effects of many exposures has been evaluated, why doesn't the NYC police and administration have any desire to err on the side of caution?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ethelmertzrules
Yeah, I said it.
01:42 PM on 01/22/2012
Well, it's no secret that Police value their lives over that of civilians. So they probably believe they ARE erring on the side of caution if their not so thoroughly tested new toy will increase officer safety.
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
01:53 PM on 01/22/2012
Until one of the officers cooks his own boys off. Then watch the screaming that will be coming from the very officers who will be using this abomination. Most officers I know are great, and care deeply about the entire BoR's. I don't think the officers I know would want to use this until it has been tested thoroughly.
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
02:25 PM on 01/22/2012
Police officers do NOT take an oath to die for you. They take oaths to protect society only. Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that you or I, as individuals, have NO Right to be protected by the police!
Semper fi
01:17 AM on 01/23/2012
Just like guns are safe in the home yet 30,000 Americans lose their lives to gun use killing yearly. Criminals carry guns with wild abandon, erring on the side of caution is letting the gangbangers rule our streets.
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
09:41 AM on 01/23/2012
One trick pony strikes again. Good grief, Charlie Brown!
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
12:55 PM on 01/23/2012
If you want to let police scan you with a device that emits what is referred to as "ionizing" radiation, you are welcome to do that. Me, I will require anyone who does that to provide to me with assurances the radiation is safe (one physicist saying it doesn't make it so), and I would probably want them to provide a prescription from a physician, since in hospitals and clinics, that's what it takes to get an x-ray.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
11:48 AM on 01/22/2012
This device would be useful to criminals who could use it to discover under-cover cops at sporting events, on the subway and at other events. If the cops can get such a device, so can the criminal-- probably cheaper they just steal it.
photo
stymie500r
Live Free or Die
11:05 AM on 01/22/2012
This is what happens when a mayor puts his agenda over the peoples, you get "stop-and-frisk" laws without cause, insane gun laws and restrictions, devices to invade privacy, and MORE CRIME. NYC needs to finally look and see how little freedom they have left, especially when it comes to self defense. Maybe he'll really turn the screws if re-elected, why not give him the ability to install cameras IN your homes to monitor POTENTIALl crime since he's so concerned for your safety.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ethelmertzrules
Yeah, I said it.
01:46 PM on 01/22/2012
I'm sure nothing would please him more if he could get away with it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hagagaga
My comments are funnier than yours.
04:18 PM on 01/22/2012
And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LordoftheBrown
Obama. DUH.
10:48 AM on 01/22/2012
With half of the country being mentally deranged GOP'ers that love guns, maybe this isn't such a bad idea.
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
10:59 AM on 01/22/2012
So, you don't mind letting the government search you for no reason, no warrant, and without your knowledge? I guess the 4the Amendment isn't one of your favorites either, is it?

By the way, nice straw man argument. Not original, but I've given up on expecting originality from those who think all our rights are up for infringement.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
11:36 AM on 01/22/2012
Old jarhead

Liberal Posters such as "Lordofthe Brown" do not have the capacity to grasp the ramifications of a particular legislative/ or law enforcement initiative as it effects our rights and freedoms. They contradict themselves in favor of making an idiotic point on a minor issue while ignoring the major issues affected.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
04:16 PM on 01/22/2012
With half of the country being liberal that think the BoR is a smorgasboard menu, it's a wonder we have any rights left.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hagagaga
My comments are funnier than yours.
10:06 AM on 01/22/2012
I'm having trouble figuring out whether the NYPD wants to be more like the SS or the Stasi.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
04:18 PM on 01/22/2012
KGB
07:26 PM on 01/21/2012
no, this isn't right for the simple fact that people cant walk around anymore minding there own business because now the cops keeping an eye on them..
05:39 AM on 01/22/2012
Its about safety. Getting armed criminals off the street.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:39 AM on 01/22/2012
And in the mean time turn in your rights. All of them. COMMRADE!
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
09:46 AM on 01/22/2012
No, it's about violating the 4th Amendment rights we all enjoy. Even the criminals.
photo
eaglespark
"Why waste time learning? Ignorance is quicker."
07:24 PM on 01/21/2012
Some other opinions:
[The New York Civil Liberties Union is raising a red flag. “It’s worrisome. It implicates privacy, the right to walk down the street without being subjected to a virtual pat-down by the Police Department when you’re doing nothing wrong,” the NYCLU’s Donna Lieberman said.
“We have involved our attorneys as we go forward with this issue. We think it’s a very positive development,” Kelly said.
People on the street have differing opinions on the price they’d be willing to pay for safety.
“There are a lot of cameras already here, so as people walk they’re being filmed. And most of the time they don’t know it,” said Jennifer Bailly of Jersey City.
“If they search you, you’re not giving consent, so they can do what they want, meaning they can use that as an excuse to search you by other means. I don’t think that’s constitutional at all,” Devan Thomas said.
“I don’t agree with it. I have the belief that if you forgo some of your freedom then it’s not freedom at all,” added Erwin Morales of Hoboken.
“I think it’s good. I think if someone has something to hide and they’re going to worry about it, who cares?” Robert McDougall added.
Do you think this is an invasion of privacy? Or are you in favor of relinquishing some freedoms to keep the streets safe? Please offer your thoughts...]
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/nypd-testing-gun-scanning-technology/
photo
eaglespark
"Why waste time learning? Ignorance is quicker."
07:55 PM on 01/21/2012
Key words, for me:

"if someone has something to hide..."

If I "have nothing to hide" (how many times have you heard this one?), this should not concern me? Really?...

"relinquish­ing some freedoms..."

Give up some some of my civil rights and freedoms in exchange for "keeping the streets safe" (according to... someone's definition of "safety")? Seriously?...
05:41 AM on 01/22/2012
Wow! Gun use apologists worrying about criminals carrying arms! Worrying about the freedom of armed criminals is the last thing we need.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:41 AM on 01/22/2012
No, it's our freedoms and rights we are worried about. When you take away one groups rights, you take away the rights of all. It's called due process. But wait....O did away with that last month. Aren't you just all warm and fuzzy inside?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RDWidner
A Libertarian by nature. A free man by act of God.
11:10 AM on 01/22/2012
You really don't care what rights you give up do you?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

There are provisions of the Bill of rights that are written to prevent us from living in a police state. One of those is the 4th Amendment. This would be a clear violation IMHO.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
04:08 PM on 01/21/2012
The only valid criticism of this device is the cost. It isn't unconstitutional since police can pat people down for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion to contact them. And it doesn't cause police brutality, militarization, etc. as the anti-police reactionaries allege.

Personally, I don't think this device will be very popular. Many officers won't trust the device and still rely on pat-downs.
photo
eaglespark
"Why waste time learning? Ignorance is quicker."
06:10 PM on 01/21/2012
"It isn't unconstitu­tional since police can pat people down for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion to contact them."

For me, that is a very big "if". I am definitely not "anti-police", but I am anti-unconstitutional. This technology could obviously be used in an abusive manner. Pointing a gun-detector at me when I am in public could amount to a warrantless search without probable cause. If an officer has genuine need, all he has to do is ask if I am carrying and I will show him my concealed carry license. In my state I am not required to inform an officer that I am carrying during a traffic stop, but it is considered a polite and cooperative thing to do, because of obvious safety concerns. That was explained to me by the experienced police officer who taught my Oregon concealed carry class. Search me or my vehicle? If you have no warrant or probable cause that seems reasonable to me, I may legally say "no".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
06:27 PM on 01/21/2012
The point of this device was to scan people before the police contact them. Since cops should only be contacting and patting someone down if they have reasonable suspicion (not probable cause), the device will only be letting the officers know where the gun is prior to a pat-down.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Namdoc
Retired Navy Corpsman
10:34 AM on 01/22/2012
It is clearly unconstitutional. This divice can scan everyone, not just those suspected of criminal activity. It is a clear violation of the Fourth Admendment. Of course, so is Obama's new detention without trial law.
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
10:48 AM on 01/22/2012
Absolutely true. And though the police commissioner stated this would be used only in reasonable circumstances, just having the device available will create situations where police abuse the technology. Then again, this new law passed and signed is just another assault on our rights by the federal government.

BTW, thanks, Doc!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
11:28 AM on 01/22/2012
Many devices can be used in unconstitutional manners. That doesn't mean we get rid of the devices. We just set up policies and procedures for how those devices are to be used without violating someone's 4th Amendment rights.
photo
ElmCreekSmith
If the truth hurts, it should.
03:01 PM on 01/21/2012
Amendment IV:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,..."

Do the police, or anyone else, need to know if you have an implanted insulin/morphine/chemotherapy pump? Do the police, or anyone else, need to know if you have an external or internal brace to one of your limbs or rods supporting your spine? This device won't just pick up guns. I'll also wager that my "Aluma-Wallet," "As Seen on TV," would register as a big rectangular shape on that gizmo as well.

"...secure in their persons..." Think about it for a minute.

ECS
05:49 AM on 01/22/2012
SCOTUS disagrees with you,

The Heller decision,
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (1) The Second Amendment ..to use that arm for traditiona­lly lawful purposes, such as self-defen­se within the home. Pp. 2–53”

Being soft on criminals?
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
09:25 AM on 01/22/2012
What are you blathering about? The court in Heller determined that the 2A was an individual right, and that a total ban was unconstitutional. This deals with an illegal search, and in no way is related to the Heller Case. Read about the 4th Amendment.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:42 AM on 01/22/2012
You don't even quote it correctly SSDD. Lying to the end again I see.
photo
ElmCreekSmith
If the truth hurts, it should.
02:54 PM on 01/21/2012
If this piece of equipment is actually fielded, expect to see gangbangers dressed in surplus BDU and ACU uniforms since they are opaque to IR. It would be easy to hide sawed-off shotguns under them, let alone a handgun in a pocket.

ECS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hagagaga
My comments are funnier than yours.
03:03 PM on 01/21/2012
And they're also more comfortable than similar clothing.
05:50 AM on 01/22/2012
Thermal imaging can be used instead
photo
Old Jarhead
often tested, always faithful, brothers forever
09:29 AM on 01/22/2012
IR imaging is thermal imaging. The military has been making battle dress uniforms for years that can defeat even much more sophisticated IR scanners than what the NYCPD will be able to field.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:43 AM on 01/22/2012
It's still against the Constitution and Bill of Rights to do it without a warrent. Rights to privacy.
12:17 AM on 01/21/2012
Personally I think i'ts great that there is a device being used to detect if someone is wearing a gun or not, even though there are pros and cons to just about every new invention or discovery, in this case I think this device would do more good than harm. I believe those carrying firearms illegally would really think twice before just strapping a gun on and walking around freely.

Concerned Bronx Woman.
photo
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:04 AM on 01/21/2012
I do not think that violating my 4th Amendment rights is a good thing. This is clearly a warrentless search, and that is unconstitutional. And being unconstitutional is a bad thing. Myself, I like my privacy.
05:51 AM on 01/22/2012
Lovers of privacy when it comes to guns, usually have something to hide.

The Heller decision,
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (1) The Second Amendment ..to use that arm for traditiona­lly lawful purposes, such as self-defen­se within the home. Pp. 2–53”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RevJimIII
Open Carry Oklahoma!!
10:23 AM on 01/21/2012
Can you guarantee that it won't be used to harass law abiding Citizens? NY is quite infamous for it's end runs around rights.
05:51 AM on 01/22/2012
So you prefer to be soft on armed criminals?