41–50 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.
Of course. We're all here speculating on how the courts will rule. We can come back to this in a few years and see who was right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California, at least, if you are a resident of the state, you are legally required to register cars garaged in California with the California DMV. (It's actually a little ambiguous in an annoying way; even if you have a car that's garaged out of state, simply bringing it to CA for a weekend and driving it around can potentially trigger the CA registration requirement, again, assuming you are a CA resident.) I'd be…
I hear you bringing up 2 separate actions that can trigger a registration requirement. 1) Garaging a vehicle, for x days or more. 2) Driving a vehicle, for x days or more. Have you looked into what the specifics are, and how they are triggered? Poking some holes at this: - Are you on the hook to register vehicles you don't own for actions (1) or (2)? Consider two examples: (a) you rent a vehicle, (b) you drive or cho…
(a) you rent a vehicle,
(b) you drive or choose to house a friends' vehicle.
in both cases, the vehicle would already be registered in the state (by the rental company or by the friend).
it is not clear to me why you think the vehicles would need to be re-registered.
This is a modestly different situation than one concerning warrantless tracking of phone locations, if for no other reason than my phone oftentimes in my pocket. It is not always visible to onlooking bystanders. And even if it isn't, externally there is no reliably way to differentiate one iPhone from another. In comparison: license plates, when in public, are always visible, and very easy to discern from one-another (different state-unique numbers); so in my mind the expectation of privacy is far lower.
I abhor what Flock does, but I'm not sure I see a constitutional argument for why what they do is unconstitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
The argument I struggle to get around and would love to hear a counter-argument to: Let's say a local police department hired 175 police officers, each being told "Go stand on this particular intersection with a pad of paper and write down every license plate you see". This would be a stupid use of resources, but is not outside the realm of something a well-funded police department could do. Every night they take the…
One officer would absolutely not be able to record on that piece of paper every single license plate that passed through a busy intersection. Not even close.
The number of officers that _would_ be required to do so would absolutely be "outside the realm of possibility" for even a well-funded police department.
That's why flock is different. It's a level of scale that was previously—despite your assertions—impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.
I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.
I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.
United States v Jones already answered this question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.
I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections. Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.