Daytona police show off drone with loudspeaker, heat detector for coronavirus mission

[Elderberry]

American Military News by Patricio G. Balona - The News Journal  April 08, 2020

A drone soon will be screening visitors to the Daytona Beach Police Department, checking to see if they have a fever as efforts continue to combat COVID-19, officials said on Tuesday.

Others will fly around the city, watching for groups and warning them about the coronavirus.

The drone that can check for fevers, which was bought with seized drug money at a cost of $26,000, is equipped with a digital camera and a heat detecting device, FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared). The machine will be placed for now in the lobby of the police department, said police Sgt. Tim Ehrenkaufer, who heads the department’s Unmanned Aviation Systems Unit.

The drone equipped with FLIR will be able to read people’s temperatures from a distance of 300 to 400 feet, said Messod Bendayan, police spokesman.

More: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/04/video-daytona-police-show-off-drone-with-loudspeaker-heat-detector-for-coronavirus-mission/

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[Smokin Joe]

Well, ain't that a wet dream come true!

A FLIR Drone with the right mods is a lot cheaper to fly than a helicopter.

Lets you track perps through backyards and bushes by the dark of night without them even knowing you are 'up there'.
If you can check for fever, though, it has a thermal mode as well, which allows humans to be tracked at any temperature but 98-99 degrees, angains and even behind most materials not too hot to shield a heat signature.
It has great SAR potential to look for lost kids/people, onshore and off, within range.

But it also opens up a lot of potential for abuse.

[mountaineer]

The drone equipped with FLIR will be able to read people’s temperatures from a distance of 300 to 400 feet, said Messod Bendayan, police spokesman.

To a degree of accuracy of what, plus or minus 4 degrees?  (I've been trying to find out through an online search how accurate these things really are, but haven't found the data).

... “If I zoom in on a crowd of people and somebody in there had a … everybody was 98.6 degrees, or whatever the new normal is 97, and somebody has a 102 fever, he would be red in a crowd of orange people,” Ehrenfauker said.

Or whatever it is.

Ooh, look:

In 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided that 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. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001).[9]

Wiki

[mountaineer]

Found it!

Accuracy     Â±2°C (±3.6°F) or ±2% of reading, for ambient temperature 15°C–35°C (59°F–95°F) and object temperature above 0°C (32°F)

https://www.flir.com/products/a400-a700-smart-sensor/

I was almost spot on. So someone whose temp is really 98.6 might read as 102, and thus feverish?

[Smokin Joe]

To a degree of accuracy of what, plus or minus 4 degrees?  (I've been trying to find out through an online search how accurate these things really are, but haven't found the data).Or whatever it is.

Ooh, look:Wiki

In 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided that 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. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001).[9]]In 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided that 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. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001).[9][/url]

True, that evidence can't be used to obtain a search warrant, it can't even be used as evidence without one.

But with that sort of aerial screening data in hand, the place is on the police radar. What has been seen will not be unseen, whether through 'serendipity' or training exercises that 'mow the lawn' over town.

Surveillance can be set up on the premises, CIs can be fished, "residents"/owners of the building checked out, beat cops, and virtually any other means of gathering the data needed for a warrant can be used without the hit and miss approach of having to find the grow house in the first place.