By KELLY HEARN,
UPI Technology Writer

BOULDER, Colo., May 30 (UPI) -- A federal agency is developing a radar-like device that uses electromagnetic waves to peer through clothing and detect concealed weapons from up to 15 meters (50 feet) away. News of the planned system comes amid national angst over domestic terrorism while adding a new dimension to the debate over the constitutionality of high-tech policing practices. Government sources said they hope to have a working prototype of the device by year's end. The apparatus could one day be mounted on police vehicles and driven through unruly crowds to spot individuals carrying guns, knives and perhaps even plastic explosives. Engineers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Boulder, Colo., office are developing the technology with funding from the National Institute of Justice and the Federal Aviation Administration. NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency. The technology is based upon a radar-like apparatus that illuminates groups of people with low-level electromagnetic waves that penetrate clothing but reflect off objects concealed beneath them. The reflected energy is collected, focused onto a detector array and ultimately transformed into an image that is displayed on a policeman's laptop, said sources at NIST. However, "When does a technology-based search constitute a search for constitutional purposes? How do you evaluate the level of intrusiveness?" posed James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based privacy group. Dempsey said U.S. courts have held that airport metal detectors do not violate the Fourth Amendment about unreasonable search and seizure in part because such searches are overt and minimally intrusive, and because individuals have a choice not to board an airplane. "In this case, your right to be in the street, and particularly your right to protest, is more significant than the right to get on a jet plane. Furthermore, the use of this device is not overt and there is no warning of it. Already, there are two strikes against it," he told United Press International. "My concern is over the way we think about these technological tools," said Kristian Miccio, professor of law from Western State University College of Law in Fullerton, Calif. "I fear we will put the concept of unruly crowds and crime on the back burner while putting the technologies to enhance law enforcement on the front burner. "In our fear of crime and terrorism, we are giving up so many freedoms we haven't thought about," she continued in a telephone interview with UPI. "We have to decide what kind of culture and society we want to live in, that is, what are we willing to sacrifice in a war on crime." The system uses a high-powered, commercially available power source that operates at 95 gigahertz in a pulsed mode. NIST engineers said that such a power range would not impact human health or cause stoppages in pacemakers. "What we are doing is more along the lines of radar," said Erich Grossman, a NIST researcher on the project. "We illuminate an area with high frequency radiation or three-millimeter-wavelength millimeter waves. That allows us to see details but anything finer than three millimeters we won't see." While millimeter waves do not penetrate deep into human tissue, the device could conceivably detect, say, a metal plate near the surface of an individual's skin, said Grossman. But, he said, the system produces images of objects rather simply detecting them, which would allow officers to discriminate between benign objects and weapons. Grossman said the device is more powerful than airport metal detectors. "That's because our system doesn't require a cooperative subject," he said. "In other words, it's not a portal-based system where a subject has to cooperatively walk through a particular area. That is not intent of this program." He said the device could operate in two modes. It can image an area two meters in diameter, which could cover one or two people. If the system detects a hotspot on a particular individual, the operator can zoom in more closely. Experts said legal considerations regarding such a device are analogous to those involved in a case currently pending before the Supreme Court. Police in 1992 arrested an Oregon man after authorities used a high-tech device to sense invisible heat waves emanating from his home. Police subsequently obtained a search warrant and found a marijuana growing operation. The suspect, Kyllo, claimed the search violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. "Like the Kyllo case, here is another technology that raises what is currently a major issue under the Fourth Amendment," said Dempsey. "There are many things to consider -- such as how intrusive is this search? Is it like taking a person's clothes off? Can the police see a person's body or do they only get an image of the weapon? Those are factual questions that make a difference in how it is assessed from a privacy standpoint," he said. When asked if officers would be able to see a detailed image of a human body, Grossman said that in theory engineers could incorporate a digital camera into the device, allowing the millimeter image to be superimposed over an optical image. Such a move would let officers see a person's body in detail. "In a practical system you could certainly do that, but we are not planning to do that with the prototype," Grossman said. Officials at the National Institute of Justice and the Federal Aviation Administration said they could not provide comment by press time. The agencies have funded the project to the tune of $200,000 a year for about three years, said Grossman.

-- Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Ben's Comments:

I am an American Veteran. I took an oath when I joined the U.S. Army at seventeen to "Preserve the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic." This article has things in it that concern me as a Second Amendment supporter and as an American voter. When will we feel that the situation has gone far enough? I believe it has gone too far and we need to start informing the federal and state governments that we are tired of the intrusions on law abiding citizens that are scrutinized as if they were committing a crime by being at a football game, political rally, or any other lawful gathering. We should not be photographed, radared, microwaved, or anything else that the technology today will allow simply because the act assumes that we are committing a crime. The Constitution states we have certain rights against search and seizure, self incrimination, and also limits the government's ability to intrude on what we decide is best for ourselves and families. Now in the politically correct world, the federal government has basically stated, "If you are not guilty of a crime why are you worried that we will see or observe and keep records on you?" The rule is, "I am innocent until proven guilty." Or it was. Now it is, "Innocent after proving yourself guiltless."

I believe that this is another attempt by the federal government to assure that the people of the United States of America are intimidated into doing "What they are told, regardless of their wishes." That quote by the way is from the Democratic Party. It was made by the Anti-Gun crowd at a state convention concerning the average gun owner by the Justice Department and the Democrats while the last eight years have been sneaking by. Remember, the ATF, FBI, Treasury Department, and the IRS are all part of the Justice Department which has a multitude of Clinton hold-overs in it. Makes you think hard doesn't it?

In case you wondered, I do not believe the explanation that is given in the article. I believe that the federal agencies that have been funding this "wonderful technology" are really aiming at the search capabilities because of the proliferation of the concealed carry laws in all of the middle American states (minus the east and west coast on average). This is another example of how Washington, D.C. is out of step with the regular non-fanatical American Voter, the people who just do not want to be bothered by the politicians, translation: people like us, the "fly over" people.

We in regular America (as opposed to New York, California, Washington D.C., and most larger cities except for Texas cities) have pressed for and gotten the right to bear arms in concealment and the federal government is VERY concerned about it. This is their answer.

President Bush needs to clean house and remove all of the Clinton hold-overs that are still a bad influence over the agencies that fund this type of research. Research like this is intrusive and makes me wary of the intentions. After all, we all know we can bank on the truthfulness of the government agency's statements don't we?

They never kill innocent people in Idaho or Texas, they never "forget" where documents are in Oklahoma, they never ever refuse to prosecute rich and well connected politicians or their friends in Washington, D.C., and they NEVER sell pardons to those that are convicted of crimes.

Oh yeah, they never ever intrude on American rights....

I trust them, don't you? I believe that the federal government is really removing my Constitutional Rights one by one out of a concern for my health and welfare. My children, my family, and myself will be safer too all because I let the government take care of me. I believe all of this don't you? If you read just a bit of understated sarcasm here, you should.

Now I sound like a fanatic don't I? I guess I am, at least when it comes to freedom and the way the government is always trying to intrude on the Constitution. I refuse to be quiet about these things. If the government insists on trying to remove the freedoms I and all veterans defended from Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, and a host of others (not all are from outside this country either), then I will continue to voice my concerns. I will continue to be wary and purchase both rifles and handguns. I will keep defending every American's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Those who will give up some of their freedom for security soon will have neither freedom nor security." I give up nothing; ever!

Signed An American Gun Owner,
A U.S. Army Veteran, and An Independent voter