[text0404]

But Chatrie found that the geofence was unconstitutional because of the wide dragnet which included people not suspected of crimes, not because those people were in private spaces:

> The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie's location data, because, as the opinion put it, "an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."

The analogue with Flock is pretty clear then:

> Just as important as the holding is the reasoning: the Court rejected the government's fallback argument that the search was fine because it only pulled a narrow, time-limited slice of a much larger dataset. Once the Fourth Amendment applies, the majority reasoned, it doesn't matter how small a bite investigators took out of an all-encompassing database.

[twoodfin]

As I understand the ruling, the Court decided these location records were akin to a diary or a personal photograph.

That’s what triggered the essential element of an expectation of privacy, from which the fact of a search was established.

Totally absent in this case, as far as I can tell.

[estearum]

No, they argued these records are akin to a record of the person's travel history.

> As Google puts it, and no one seriously disputes, Location History serves as a “diary” or map “of a person’s travels.”

"Diary" is a red herring here. They're referring to a location log, just like what Flock produces.

[stickfigure]

Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

[nateb2022]

> Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of every passenger using public transit without a warrant.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, your backpack, and your travel history. The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.

[stickfigure]

We probably all agree that a cellphone is closely associated with you and acts as a surrogate brain, so it gets treated as "you", at least as much as the _inside_ of your house or car.

You the right of free travel (with or without your phone). Automobiles are different. You can't take it everywhere; you can't park it everywhere; you can't move it about in secret (plates MUST be displayed, always).

You have an expectation of privacy for the inside of your car. But not the outside of your car. And even the inside... if it's visible from the windows, it's public.

[estearum]

The reason cell tower data is excluded from Third Party Doctrine has nothing to do with the contents of a cell phone. Cell tower data doesn't have any relationship whatsoever to the contents of the phone.

The relevant factors are:

1. It creates a near-complete picture of a person's whereabouts

2. It is effectively not optional to have and carry a cell phone today

You do in fact have a reasonable expectation that the government can't reconstruct a near-perfect timeline of your daily life without a warrant... obviously.

[nateb2022]

As Katz established, the Fourth Amendment protects people, NOT places. The assumption that "if it's visible from the windows, it's public" is a dangerous non-sequiter that completely falls apart under any form of jurisprudence.

Your understanding of privacy misapplies the plain view doctrine. Plain view allows the state to seize evidence provided that the officer seizing the evidence has a lawful right to access or observe the seized object. (Collins v. Virginia)

An officer glancing through a car window is performing a constitutional act.

However, were the state to compile a history of your car's location, which it does, that exposes your "familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations." (Jones) This compilation of data is an action legally defined as a search, since it turns up data NOT readily available in plain view. And this search takes place without warrant.

[skinfaxi]

> The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.

Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history? If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?

[nateb2022]

> Can the police take pictures of every car they see and use that to determine your travel history?

You conflate the generally unremarkable act of taking a picture of a single car in public with the indiscriminate collection of photos of all vehicles. The former is a constitutional, isolated observation. The latter is a search, since in toto it reveals personal information.

> If the police don't have the expertise to maintain such a network can they pay a third party to do so?

May the police pay a third party to execute warrantless searches?

[deathanatos]

All government regulation still has to be balanced against whether it intrudes or not on the rights of the People. The government can regulate vehicles, including ensuring drivers have met whatever requirements a license might require — nobody is arguing against that. But Flock cameras do not help advance any reasonable state interest in that area; their sole purpose AFAICT is for law enforcement, and in a way that intrudes on any basic expectations of privacy.

[estearum]

Just like cell towers record a cell phone's travel history. Cell phones are highly regulated and having one is a privilege. There is no _right_ to carry a cell phone from point A to point B, in secret or not.

[stickfigure]

This is factually incorrect. You do, in fact, have a legal right to own a cellphone. Cellphone ownership is not licensed and law enforcement cannot stop you from buying a cellphone or carrying it from point A to point B.

Cars are different. You must be licensed and cars must be registered with the state. Cars must display tags for the purpose of tracking. They must be inspected periodically. When driving a car on public roads, you are subject to implied consent; for example, taking a blood alcohol test on demand.

As they say, "driving is a privilege, not a right". Cars are different.

Ask yourself: If a US state passed a law requiring geo trackers in all automobiles, do you think it would be unconstitutional? What about drones, airplanes, boats?

[Terr_]

Justifying some control does not justify all control. Voting is a "privilege" too [0] but does that mean any state government should be recording an exact log of your ballot-choices? Surely not.

[0] It should be a far stronger right than what it is right now, but that's separate big debate.

[1shooner]

SCOTUS unanimously ruled that a GPS car tracker is a 4th amendment search.

[stickfigure]

US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant because it trespasses on private property (the vehicle).

On the other hand, law enforcement can follow your car with a drone, helicopter, or other vehicle without a warrant. Are cameras more like a helicopter or more like a GPS tracker? The Supreme Court has not weighed in yet.

[estearum]

No no no, not true.

US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant at least when it involves trespass on private property. That case explicitly did not answer whether it would also require a warrant if no trespass was required, and deferred to Katz v United States analysis. That analysis was used shortly after in Carpenter v United States to answer that the government cannot use third party data that people do not voluntarily give up (like cell tower data) given the completeness of the record.

Fundamentally the issue presented is: "At bottom, the Court must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.”"

Obviously "input name, find location at all hours of any day over the past X years" is not the degree of privacy against government that existed when the 4th Amendment was adopted.

[nkrisc]

That may be true, but I fail to see how that justifies broad, warrantless surveillance. Could you elaborate?

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Flock also has facial recognition. There are Flock cameras on public walking paths.