Skip to content

School

A Man’s House is His Castle: Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment

…continued from A Man’s House is His Castle: Historic Development.

Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment has been in place for over 200 years. In that time, America and the world have changed drastically. Nations have literally come and gone within that time, and yet the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights have remained steadfast. There does, however, remain a question of how one should interpret the text of Fourth Amendment.

With the advent of electricity, telegraphs, telephones, radio communication, and the Internet, the question of what the Framers of the Fourth Amendment intended is more important now than it ever has been before.

Broken into sections, the Fourth Amendment seems straightforward in its meaning: People within America have the right not to be unreasonably searched themselves or in their place of residence. People within America also have the right not to have papers and other items seized unreasonably. These rights shall not be violated unless someone under oath (or affirmation) declares that there is probable cause that describes the places to be searched and/or the persons or items to be seized. Only then shall a warrant be issued for only the above-mentioned places described to be searched and/or the persons or items to be seized.

However, there remains much to interpret. Thomas Davis, an Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, explains that “evidence indicates that the Framers understood ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ simply as a pejorative label for the inherent illegality of any searches or seizures that might be made under general warrant…thus, they never anticipated that ‘unreasonable’ might be read as a standard for warrantless intrusions.”1

The idea that the Framers never considered there might be ‘reasonable’ searches and seizures is shown by the fact that the “ex officio authority of the peace officer [was] still meager in 1789. Warrant authority was the potent source of arrest and search authority. As a result, the Framers expected that warrants would be used. Thus they believed that the only threat to the right to be secure came from the possibility that too-loose warrants might be used.”2

Based on Davis’ research, it then becomes entirely reasonable to assume that the Framers intended warrants to be used significantly more liberally than warrants are used currently. Thus, the only reason warrants are not used as liberally would be due to the expansion of the ex officio authority of peace officers to search and arrest, which is exactly what happened during the 19th century3.

Throughout the 20th century, the Supreme Court often had to clarify ambiguous parts of the Fourth Amendment. In Olmstead v. United States, 27 U.S. 438 (1928), the defendant argued “that the wiretapping of ‘private telephone conversations between the defendant and others…amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment.'”4 In a five-to-four ruling, the Court held that the defendants Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the Court could not “justify the enlargement of the language employed beyond the possible practical meaning of houses, persons, papers, and effects, or so to apply the words search and seizure as to forbid hearing or sight.”5 Moreover, the majority wrote that “[t]he reasonable view is that one who installs in his house a telephone instrument with connecting wires intends to project his voice to those quite outside, and that the wires beyond his house and messages while passing over them are not within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.“6(Emphasis added)

The Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment literally and since the telephone was not listed in the Amendment, it was not covered. The dissent countered that a “sealed letter entrusted to the mail is protected by the Amendments. The mail is a public service furnished by the Government. The telephone is a public service furnished by its authority. There is, in essence, no difference between the sealed letter and the private telephone message.”7

While the Olmstead decision was a blow to the right to be secure, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), overturned Olmstead and established a wider scope of protection given by the Fourth Amendment. The Court wrote, “For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”8 The Court also took time to correct the thinking in the Olmstead case, writing, “[the] Amendment was thought to limit only searches and seizures of tangible property. But ‘[t]he premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seizure has been discredited.'”9

The major development from Katz was the implementation of the “Katz test – whether the individual has an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”10

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), furthered the protection offered by the Fourth Amendment and affirmed the decision set forth by the Katz decision. However, Kyllo is not as straight forward as Katz. In Kyllo, an Agent of the United States Department of the Interior performed a thermal imaging scan of the petitioner’s home from the passenger seat of the Agent’s car and from the street behind the petitioner’s home. Performing the scan allowed the agent to “[conclude that the] petitioner was using halide lights to grow marijuana in his house.”11

The Court had already ruled that “[visual] surveillance [is] unquestionably lawful because “‘the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of trespass.'” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 628 (1886) (quoting Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B. 1765)).”12 Thus, one might think there is little thought required to assume that the passive surveillance conducted by the Department of the Interior Agent is “unquestionably lawful.” The Agent simply shifted the frequencies of the emitted energy rays into ones that could be perceived by humans. However, the Court took a more philosophical approach.

Referring back to the Katz decision, the Court writes, “We held that the Fourth Amendment nonetheless protected Katz from the warrantless eavesdropping because he ‘justifiably relied’ upon the privacy of the phone booth. Id., at 353. As Justice Harlan’s oft-quoted concurrence described it, a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the Government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.”13

When the Katz test is applied, is becomes apparent that Kyllo‘s right to privacy as provided by the Fourth Amendment was, in fact, violated.

The Court concluded in its opinion:

While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no “significant” compromise of the homeowner’s privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward.

“The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925).

Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant14.

Continued tomorrow with Statement of Question and Arguments Favoring Fourth Amendment Limitations…

  1. Davies, Thomas Y. Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review. 1999, Vol. 98, 547. p. 551 ↩

  2. Davies, Thomas Y. Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review. 1999, Vol. 98, 547. p. 552 ↩

  3. Davies, Thomas Y. Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review. 1999, Vol. 98, 547. p. 552 ↩

  4. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5. p. 781 ↩

  5. Olmstead v. United States. 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1928. ↩

  6. Olmstead v. United States. 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1928. ↩

  7. Olmstead v. United States. 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1928. ↩

  8. Katz v. United States. 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1967. ↩

  9. Katz v. United States. 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1967. ↩

  10. Kyllo v. United States. 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 2001. ↩

  11. Kyllo v. United States. 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 2001. ↩

  12. Kyllo v. United States. 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 2001. ↩

  13. Kyllo v. United States. 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 2001. ↩

  14. Kyllo v. United States. 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 2001. ↩

A Man’s House is His Castle: Historic Development

…continued from A Man’s House is His Castle: Introduction.

Historic Development
After the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, a series of amendments were proposed and passed. The fourth of these amendments reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized1.

The Framers wrote the Fourth Amendment in response to both “English and American experiences of virtually unrestrained and judicially unsupervised searches”2 carried out by the British government. Indeed, the British government had not always had such a liberal display of search and seizure. The movement toward expanded powers began with the Tudor dynasty.

During the Tudor dynasty, which lasted from 1485 until 16033, the state licensed the production of printed matter to control the “seditious and nonconformist publications [that] had become a matter of intense state concern.”4 In order to suppress the undesirable publications, the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers (more commonly called the Stationers’ Company)5 was “instructed ‘to make search wherever it shall please them in any place…within our kingdom of England…and to seize, take hold, burn…those books and things which are or shall be printed contrary to the form of any statute, act, or proclamation…’.”6 In exchange for performing this duty, the Stationers’ Company was granted a monopoly over the production of all printed material. However, the British government’s search and seizure power was not done expanding.

During the reign of James II, the Townshend Acts of 1767 were passed which “placed a tax on common products imported into the American Colonies, such as lead, paper, paint, glass, and tea.”7 It was not the tax that was most problematic, but rather the fact that the Act legalized writs of assistance – generally issued and open-ended search warrants that required all parties to help in its execution8. The writs of assistance, which only expired six months after the death of the issuing king, were issued to government officials and allowed them to search anyone or anywhere they pleased. Ergo, the desire and need for limits on search and seizures was born.

On October 26, 1774 “the Continental Congress petitioned the King…for a redress of grievances, and among those listed was the abuse of the search power: ‘The officers of the customs are empowered to break open and enter houses, without the authority of any civil magistrate, founded on legal information.'”9 This grievance is similarly alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”1011

Around the same time that the Declaration of Independence was adopted, Virginia was already moving to ensure that unencumbered search and seizure powers would never be brought forth again. Article X of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights:

That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted12.

Virginia’s Article was the first “provision in any American constitution” that sought to limit the power of searches and seizures13. However, unscrupulous officials could easily take advantage of several gaping holes in Virginia’s Article, primarily, the clause that states warrants “ought not to be granted” but does not outright prohibit them14. In short, Virginia’s search and seizure Article is merely a suggestion.

Virginia diligently campaigned for inclusion of a similar article in the United States Constitution; however, Virginia eventually ratified the United States Constitution without such an article and instead pushed to have an even broader provision included in the Bill of Rights15.

Continued tomorrow with Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment…

  1. Constitution of the United States, Fourth Amendment. ↩

  2. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5. p. 774 ↩

  3. Tudor dynasty. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 14, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_dynasty. ↩

  4. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5. p. 774 ↩

  5. Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., March 39, 2008. [Cited: April 2008, 17.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers. ↩

  6. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5. p. 774 ↩

  7. Townshend Acts. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 17, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townshend_Act. ↩

  8. Writ of Assistance. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 10, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writs_of_Assistance. ↩

  9. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5. p. 778 ↩

  10. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5. p. 778 ↩

  11. United States Declaration of Independence. ↩

  12. Virginia Declaration of Rights. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 2, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights. ↩

  13. Levy, Leonard W. Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights, and History. New
    Brunswick : Transaction Publishers, 1995. 1-56000-170-4. p. 162 ↩

  14. Levy, Leonard W. Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights, and History. New Brunswick : Transaction Publishers, 1995. 1-56000-170-4. p. 161 ↩

  15. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5. p. 778 ↩

MediEval Days – EDays 2008 Photo Roundup

I was going to link to these last time, but I forgot. So here are quick links to all the EDays photos I shot.

General


Day One

Day Two

Day Three

A Man’s House is His Castle: Introduction

I’ve spent the last several weeks working a paper for my Constitutional Law and Civil Rights class. I now present you with the fruits of my labor, presented as multipart serial. Today will be the title page, abstract, introduction, and works cited.

A Man’s House is His Castle
A Discussion on the Fourth Amendment and National Security
by Andrew Ferguson
4/21/2008

Abstract: The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect the people of the United States “against unreasonable searches and seizures.”1 However, the degree of that protection is a careful balance of the people’s right and the Government’s protection, especially when national security is involved.

Introduction
The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect the people of the United States “against unreasonable searches and seizures.”2 However, the degree of that protection is a careful balance of the people’s right and the Government’s protection.

Recent global developments, specifically the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing “global war on terrorism,” have caused the Government to exercise power over the Fourth Amendment. However, doing so may be unconstitutional. This poses the question: Should the right of unreasonable searches and seizures be limited to protect national security?

The author will show that despite the Court’s varied interpretations over the years, national security is not a compelling enough interest to overturn the people’s right granted to them in the Fourth Amendment.

Also, note that this paper will deliberately not deal with the exclusionary rule or the concept surrounding “fruit of the poisonous tree.” This paper is strictly limited to warrants and the Fourth Amendment. Any instances of illegally performed searches and seizures fall outside the purview of this paper.

Works Cited
1. Constitution of the United States, Fourth Amendment.
2. Cohen, William and Danelski, David J. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights. New York : Foundation Press, 2002. 1-58778-075-5.
3. Tudor dynasty. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 14, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_dynasty.
4. Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., March 39, 2008. [Cited: April 2008, 17.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers.
5. Townshend Acts. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 17, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townshend_Act.
6. Writ of Assistance. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 10, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writs_of_Assistance.
7. United States Declaration of Independence.
8. Virginia Declaration of Rights. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Online] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., April 2, 2008. [Cited: April 17, 2008.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights.
9. Levy, Leonard W. Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights, and History. New Brunswick : Transaction Publishers, 1995. 1-56000-170-4.
10. Davies, Thomas Y. Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review. 1999, Vol. 98, 547.
11. Olmstead v. United States. 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1928.
12. Katz v. United States. 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1967.
13. Kyllo v. United States. 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 2001.
14. Schenck v. United States. 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1919.
15. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 494 U.S. 259, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1990.
16. Yoo, C. John. Memorandum for William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Department of Justice, United States. 2003. Memorandum.
17. Brandenburg v. Ohio. 395 U.S. 444, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1969.
18. United States v. U.S. District Court. 407 U.S. 297, Washington, D.C. : Supreme Court of the United States, 1972.
19. Hess, Pamela and Jordan, Lara Jakes. Memo Linked to Warrantless Surveillance. [Online] April 2, 2008. [Cited: April 14, 2008.] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8VQ5HFO4.

Continued tomorrow with Historic Development…

  1. Constitution of the United States, Fourth Amendment. ↩

  2. Constitution of the United States, Fourth Amendment. ↩

MediEval Days – EDays 2008 Roundup

I was going to post this over the weekend, but I ended up writing my paper instead (which I’ll post as a serial soon). I also appologize for the length of this post. It’s a little on the long side, but I packed it with some pictures and graphs for all you ADD kids. So here’s the much belated EDays 2008 post:

I’ve been shooting EDays for about 3 years now and it’s one of my favorite things to shoot. It’s three days of non-stop action with little sleep and lots of variety. Over the three days of shooting, I got about 11 hours of sleep. But I took 1190 photos and only 456 made the decent cut (38% isn’t actually half bad). Of those, I think there’s less then a dozen (about 1%) that I really like (and you’ll see those in a few months when I do my next round of inductions into my portfolio.

But, I still wanted to do something fun and different this year, so I rented a lens. In my current setup, I have a:

  • 18-70mm
  • 70-300mm
  • 50mm f/1.8

…all Nikkor.

I decided that going with a small focal length lens, somewhere on the order of 10-18mm, would be ideal to rent. The first thing I did was find places to rent from. In the greater Denver area, I found Mike’s Camera Store and Camren Photography.

Mike’s didn’t have any Nikkor lenses with a small enough focal length, so I was able to narrow the selection to the DX 10.5mm f/2.8 AF-S G and DX 12-24mm f/4.0 AF-S G.

Both those links go to Ken Rockwell’s site. He does what I believe to be the best and most useful review of lenses. When I get an aching to buy a lens, I pretty much always head over to his site and see what he thinks.

Based on data from Wikipedia on viewing angles, I whipped up this graph that shows viewing angle as a function of focal length:

DSC_3081 (by Mr Ferguson)

I found it very interesting that relationship isn’t linear, so I opted to go with the smallest focal length to get the most “bang for my buck.” That and I’ve always wanted to shoot with a fisheye.

So I rented the 10.5mm for two days and since Camren Photography isn’t open on the weekends, I got it for four days (for the price of the aforementioned two days).

Here’s a breakdown my day of the lens I used, how many photos I took with each lens, and how many photos with each lens (by day, again) ended up making the cut. Numbers above the zero axis are photos taken, numbers below the zero axis are photos that made the cut.

DSC_2267 (by Mr Ferguson)

When I edit photos, I ask myself three things: Do I like it, does it tell a story, and does it move the story along. If it doesn’t meet all three of those criteria and I can’t make it meet those three criteria, then I dump it.

That’s why there is a lot of atrophy on the lasts days pictures. I tend to take a lot of photos of action shots (because you can’t predict everything) and then severely whittle them down to ensure the story continues.

Shooting the fireworks was absolutely amazing this year. Having the wide angle lens allowed me to get all of the fireworks and often times the crowd (at least for the non-aerial shots). Many people thought that this has been the best show since 2004.

Norm Zehr (L) and Al Ireson (R) (by Mr Ferguson)

The alumni panel was pretty interesting. I wish I could have stayed for the entire thing, but I had to race over to shoot Deanne Bell from Smash Lab. If you’ve ever seen Smash Lab, you know that Deanne is very animated when she talks. I had a blast photographing her while she presented.

DSC_2626 (by Mr Ferguson)She also had a great slide about her life philosophy that I thought was pretty spiffy as well and worth mentioning here:

  • Surround yourself with people who love what they do and are damn good at it
  • Don’t get too comfortable
  • Suck it up sometimes
  • Be confident and persistent
  • Imagine the impossible

The concert was also pretty good. The music was okay. I think that I Hate Kate should have headlined instead of Goldfinger (who enjoys listening to 40 year-old emo has-beens?). Learning from last year, I talked with all the bands and CSC before hand to get the rules for this show. All three bands were very fine with me taking picture throughout. Wes, the CSC supervisor, was also very helpful and nice, especially when compared to their performance last year.

Here are some notes I made while editing; mostly for my reference, but you may find some use as well:

  • Don’t use a flash during concerts (or anywhere else where there is non-white light), it destroys the Look and Feel (LnF).
  • When nothing is going on (relatively), posed shots always win over bland.
  • Using a fisheye makes it bit harder to crop since the distortion is uneven across the plane.
  • I need to shoot with a faster shutter more often.
  • Talk with the comics before hand. This will ensure that you don’t tick them off and that they don’t make fun of you.

DSC_2431 (by Mr Ferguson)

I’ve also come up with the official checklist for a good EDays:

  1. Are you drinking, drunk, and/or hungover?
  2. Are you sleep deprived?
  3. Are you sore?
  4. Do you have a sunburn?
  5. (Bonus) Did you meet attractive members of the opposite sex?

Answering “yes” to all of the questions means you had a good EDays.

Study Abroad Update

I’ve actually needed to write this post for a while now. Nobody really ever asked about it, so I didn’t feel a particular need to write it.

And there’s the fact that I’m still in Colorado, so it should go without saying that I never did study abroad.

But let me back up a bit.

I did a lot of investigating, but things really didn’t fall into place the way I wanted them to. This year has been a rather vigorous year and I ended up deciding around November of 2007 that it made more sense to stay at Mines then study abroad.

However, I have not given up on my dream. At the very least, I will spend some time abroad. However, I am also hoping to work abroad as well, using three day weekends to purchase preciously cheap tickets from local airlines.

Insert cheesy joke about studying several broads instead of just one here.

General Outline for the Next Four Months

I decided not to pursue working in Houston this summer for a variety of reason. Mostly, I don’t think it’s the right time yet and I think I end up having a better hand by staying in Seattle.

In any event, here’s a brief outline of the next four months:

  • May 1st: Last day of Spring 2008 class
  • May 7th: Last final of Spring 2008
  • May 12th: Summer Field Session Begins
  • May 30th: Summer Field Session Ends
  • June 6th: Start Boeing Internship in Seattle (really Kent, though)
  • August 2nd-3rd: NERDS @ the 2008 NASA Centennial Challenge at San Louis Obispo, California
  • August 7th: End Boeing Internship in Seattle (but actually Kent)
  • August 19th: Fall 2008 Classes begin

Operation of Hydroelectric Facilities and the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Generating Plant

A while back I posted some picture on Flickr of the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Generating Plant. At one point, I was going to write up a little post here explaining what they were and why I had picture of such a cool (albeit old) facility.

Instead, I decided to write the paper for my class and post that in lieu of writing an actual post.
The downside, though, is that posting my paper creates about five pages of technoblable that most readers will turn away from in utter disgust. However, posting my paper does have the effect of pushing forward my “long standing desire post my school work online” and I think the latter serves the purposes of this blog better then trying to remedy the former.

I generally detest posting things on here in the PDF format, however the IEEE format for publication is rather odd and doesn’t it lend itself to online publication very easily. However, I will include the abstract and index terms for the benefit of those who are at least a little curious but do not necessarily want to read the entire paper:

Operation of Hydroelectric Facilities and the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Generating Plant (April 2008) [PDF]
Andrew J. Ferguson, Member, IEEE

Abstract – Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Generating Plant has been in continuous operation since 1910. While the technology behind the operation has seen some upgrades, the infrastructure is mostly the same as it was almost a century ago.

Index Terms – Breaker, Hydroelectric generators, Synchronization, Transformer, Water.

Update: Received 95/100 on this paper.

10.5mm and RAW are Hawesome!

I shot just a bit over an entire roll on RAW (RAW is the format and an entire roll for me, at the moment, is a 1gig memory card, which is about 187 RAW photos).

The 10.5mm fisheye lens is freaking amazing! Also, shooting in RAW is the way to go, hands down.

I’ve taken a quick glance at the roll in Adobe Lightroom (which is also awesome and probably the best way to ‘develop’ RAW photos) and I am sooo happy with how everything has turned out so far.

I won’t get to any processing until after EDays, so don’t expect anything to appear until after Saturday at the very earliest and realistically not until later in the week.

I’m off to bed. I’ll get about 4 hours of sleep and then I have to get up for the Orecart pull (which I really actually have to get up for since the Oredigger photographer won’t be able to make it).