Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Speckle imaging and eye testing using speckle also use the speckle effect. Speckle is the chief limitation of coherent lidar and coherent imaging in optical heterodyne detection . In the case of near field speckles, the statistical properties depend on the light scattering distribution of a given sample.
The California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is a department within the California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. DCA's stated mission is to serve the interests of California's consumers by ensuring a standard of professionalism in key industries and promoting informed consumer practices.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant. [1]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The Hush-A-Phone was a device designed to attach to the transmitter of a telephone to reduce noise pollution and increase privacy. Sold by the Hush-A-Phone company, the device was frequently described in its commercial advertisements as "a voice silencer designed for confidential conversation, clear transmission and office quiet.
A man allegedly threw an explosive device inside a California courthouse on Wednesday, injuring five people, the same day he was set to be arraigned on firearms violations, authorities said. The ...
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of an electronic surveillance device. [1] The defendants argued that the use of this device was a Fourth Amendment violation. The device in question was described as a beeper that could only be tracked from a short distance.