~~Heat Detection System..?

S

Sativica

Member
Hey guys.

A quick security question:
We've all heard of crackpot reasons why growing is dangerous, but there's one in particular I want to ask about in case anyone has any particularly enlightening information on it and the title says it all:

HEAT DETECTION SYSTEMS??
Word from some paranoid friends on the subject of indoor cultivation, is it possible for cops to detect the heat signatures of a house's grow lamps?
I've heard that this is true, but only to a VERY minor extent--as in, you'd have to have a massive operation to be detected this way (if it is indeed possible).
It seems like it is only an issue if your grow uses hotter light sources (HPS/MH), but seems that cooler light sources (CFL/LED) wouldn't have any detectability.


Any advice at all is appreciated.
~Peace.
 
Figong

Figong

Well-Known Member
Crash course: They can not use any evidence they find by using FLIR through windows/the sides of your house/the roof. The only thing they can almost use, but will not be stand-alone would be if you were to say.. tie your exhaust fans into chimney or something else.. and there is no normal smoke rising from it, but there's an insane heat signature it's giving off. There would already have to be probable cause established along with plenty of reports, and other issues before you got a knock n' talk. (In the US, anyway.) If you get a knock n' talk, talk to them outside.. do not let any law enforcement through the door, and lock the door behind you. If they have warrant, ask to see it before you pop the door and make sure you see exactly what they're looking for. Other than that, not really a headache unless you've talked about your grow with way too many people (see: more than those you live with you), or the forums, as no one here knows you I'd assume.
 
S

Sativica

Member
So, from what I can gather...one would NOT get caught and busted from simple heat detection alone.
The grow would have to be way more obvious--while that is enlightening to know it didn't really answer my other question concerning the levels of heat when comparing light sources.

To put it bluntly:
How "detectable" is a small-scale CFL grow?

Since CFL light arrangements (and LED ones too for that matter (I assume, but do not know)) produce little to no excess heat, are they indeed detectable with the use of FLIR?
They are also very efficient in using far less electricity as well, so I assume there to be little change in the electric bill.

Let me know if anyone has information.
Peace.~
 
zer0ed

zer0ed

Active Member
From the way i understand it. FLIR only detects heat from the surfaces outside the structure.
It will not see your bulbs.

Do you think people with big screen TV's that produce a lot of light, or ceiling fans with CFL's are getting their doors kicked in?

What they look for is windows that have abnormal amount of heat in them, compared to the other rooms of the house.
also they look for exhaust vents, that glow red hot on the camera.

Don't exhaust to the outside, and you should be fine.
 
Figong

Figong

Well-Known Member
Correct, heat signature is not good enough stand-alone... FLIR can see through walls and ceilings, but isn't valid as any form of evidence/proof it that method is used.. and it'd take 1000s of watts to really make it stand out, especially if your operation is in say.. a basement.
 
Rancho Cucamonga

Rancho Cucamonga

Active Member
It's a non-issue for anyone using less than 4,000 watts of light continuously, but I've known a good number of folks who have ran 5,000-10,000 in the city and out in rural areas and never an issue. Unless you are using more than 3,000-4,000 watts you should not even be considering it an issue.
 
BadDog40

BadDog40

Well-Known Member
Figong said:
Correct, heat signature is not good enough stand-alone... FLIR can see through walls and ceilings, but isn't valid as any form of evidence/proof it that method is used.. and it'd take 1000s of watts to really make it stand out, especially if your operation is in say.. a basement.
Click to expand...
FLIR can't 'see' through anything. It detects heat, that's it.
 
lovemymj

lovemymj

Active Member
Rancho Cucamonga said:
It's a non-issue for anyone using less than 4,000 watts of light continuously, but I've known a good number of folks who have ran 5,000-10,000 in the city and out in rural areas and never an issue. Unless you are using more than 3,000-4,000 watts you should not even be considering it an issue.
Click to expand...
I'm on board with this guy...SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO grow veggies.... :) work on computers, have elaborate entertainment centers, use 1500 watt space heaters, air conditioners, etc
 
Jus Naturale

Jus Naturale

Active Member
Figong said:
Crash course: They can not use any evidence they find by using FLIR through windows/the sides of your house/the roof. The only thing they can almost use, but will not be stand-alone would be if you were to say.. tie your exhaust fans into chimney or something else.. and there is no normal smoke rising from it, but there's an insane heat signature it's giving off. There would already have to be probable cause established along with plenty of reports, and other issues before you got a knock n' talk. (In the US, anyway.) If you get a knock n' talk, talk to them outside.. do not let any law enforcement through the door, and lock the door behind you. If they have warrant, ask to see it before you pop the door and make sure you see exactly what they're looking for. Other than that, not really a headache unless you've talked about your grow with way too many people (see: more than those you live with you), or the forums, as no one here knows you I'd assume.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is accurate, so I'm wondering if you have a cite or something supporting it. (Not trying to be contrary or anything, but genuinely interested).

While detecting heat in a particular location in a home might not be sufficient to indicate that criminal activity is afoot, it most definitely would be usable before a judge in swearing out a probable cause affidavit. Though the entire affidavit likely couldn't rest upon the detection of heat within someone's home, I don't see how it would be inadmissible in seeking an warrant. Moreover, as the majority of courts have held that there is no expectation of privacy in the heat one's home emits (if not the SCt itself, I don't recall of the top of my head), I don't see how it would be inadmissible or excluded during any trial either. I'd love to see something to the contrary, though.

Cheers and grow cool!
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Jus Naturale said:
I'm not sure this is accurate, so I'm wondering if you have a cite or something supporting it. (Not trying to be contrary or anything, but genuinely interested).

While detecting heat in a particular location in a home might not be sufficient to indicate that criminal activity is afoot, it most definitely would be usable before a judge in swearing out a probable cause affidavit. Though the entire affidavit likely couldn't rest upon the detection of heat within someone's home, I don't see how it would be inadmissible in seeking an warrant. Moreover, as the majority of courts have held that there is no expectation of privacy in the heat one's home emits (if not the SCt itself, I don't recall of the top of my head), I don't see how it would be inadmissible or excluded during any trial either. I'd love to see something to the contrary, though.

Cheers and grow cool!
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

Performing surveillance of private property (ostensibly to detect high emission grow lights used in clandestine cannabis farming) using thermal imaging cameras without a search warrant by law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
Jus Naturale

Jus Naturale

Active Member
Figong said:
Whatcha think about this for a foot in mouth emotie?

Click to expand...
Honestly, for the enormity of this blunder, it's a bit too subtle.

How could I forget Kyllo. Not that I don't appreciate the result, but it's a great example of Scalia's, um, logic and principles.
 
Sincerely420

Sincerely420

New Member
I hope everyone on this thread saw how clear that flir picked up the Boston bomber....
theres no way you they can't see the lights the the roof, even cfl if they see body heat!

just that they can't use it on court...
 
Figong

Figong

Well-Known Member
Sincerely420 said:
I hope everyone on this thread saw how clear that flir picked up the Boston bomber....
theres no way you they can't see the lights the the roof, even cfl if they see body heat!

just that they can't use it on court...
Click to expand...
Yes, it's amazing, considering we have a few who say that FLIR can't see -through- things, like it could when he was under the cover.. and was not directly pressed against it. Is why I didn't reply to other posts, would rather not try to debate proven technology with the inept. Thanks for your input on that one :D
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Sincerely420 said:
Well damn! Did is say how many watts was under that?!
Click to expand...
No, but more than likely either 600 or 1000watt. They can see an exhaust, the hot air it emits, just as easy if the temps outside are not roughly the same (i.e. at night or not during summers). That's why it's important to exhaust inwards, to another room for example, and not directly outside through an open window.
 
Sincerely420

Sincerely420

New Member
Figong said:
Yes, it's amazing, considering we have a few who say that FLIR can't see -through- things, like it could when he was under the cover.. and was not directly pressed against it. Is why I didn't reply to other posts, would rather not try to debate proven technology with the inept. Thanks for your input on that one :D
Click to expand...
I know know bossman! Thx to big brother for showing us that was in the arsenal :peace:
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Sincerely420 said:
I hope everyone on this thread saw how clear that flir picked up the Boston bomber....
theres no way you they can't see the lights the the roof, even cfl if they see body heat!

just that they can't use it on court...
Click to expand...
Figong said:
Yes, it's amazing, considering we have a few who say that FLIR can't see -through- things, like it could when he was under the cover.. and was not directly pressed against it. Is why I didn't reply to other posts, would rather not try to debate proven technology with the inept. Thanks for your input on that one :D
Click to expand...
Well, of course you can both ignore the difference between seeing heat through a thin plastic tarp and through walls or roof with double walls and air/insulation between them. Heat is transmitted to surfaces, no one disputes that. The difference is that most people have their grow op separated from the camera by more than one barrier, thicker and more heat absorbent than a thin piece of plastic. Air is a terrible conductor of heat which is why it is used to insulate things from cookware, ovens to double pane windows. The heat will light up the inner wall but the air space between you walls and the outside of your house will dissipate a significant amount. The heat has to be high enough to heat the air and then the outer wall/roof like in the pic that Sativied posted. Notice you cannot see the individual bulbs, but just the heat that is generated and transferred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top