[etchalon]

... you should probably read that opinion and maybe some legal analysis on what precedents it established. Specifically, that it established none.

Schmidt was explicitly about license plate reader data and whether a locality could install and utilize such a surveillance network without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Next time you get into this argument, point to Schmidt and its opinion. It has all the elements you need to make the point that a government funded mass scale video surveillance network is legal under current US law.

Then people will think you actually know what you're talking about.

[Manuel_D]

It established the precedence that use of automated license plate reader data does not require a warrant in at least some circumstances. The decision did mention that an overdue rental car has a lower expectation of privacy, but the court did not say that a warrant would have been required outside of that circumstance.

[etchalon]

No it didn't. You keep insisting it "set a precedent" when the opinion explicitly cites precedent to say they don't need to set any precedent or make a novel ruling because existing precedent already establishes that there's no expectation of privacy in a rental car. It didn't set a precedent. The majority APPLIED existing precedent to the case facts.

Please go actually read the opinion.

If you do, you'll see the dissent specifically says, "Hey, I agree we should reject Yang's case, but we should have probably decided this on Fourth Amendment grounds and actually said APLR data doesn't require a warrant", because the majority EXPLICITLY did not do that and the dissenting judge wanted to.

What's baffling here is it's not even that long an opinion. With the dissent, it's less than 30 pages. It's incredibly straightforward.

You apparently just can't accept the ego hit that were were decisively wrong about something.

That's kinda of sad, dude.