Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

License plate reader searches should require a warrant

andrewpwheeler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 423 posts

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#411

Post by otterley »

estearum wrote: post #409
otterley wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re citing that concurrence again. While that concurrence supports your argument, it’s not binding legal precedent. Perhaps someday it will be, but not today.

No, that concurrence is referencing Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which is binding legal precedent.

That “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard is just the first step of the analysis and goes into the threshold question of “is this a search?” Because if the answer is “no,” then there’s nothing more to be done, not a search, no warrant needed. But if the answer is “yes,” that’s not an automatic win, it doesn’t mean a warrant is needed yet, because there are further analytical steps down the chain.

Also, the court has still not subjected the specific question against the Katz test. If they did, they’d might agree that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public travels. On the other hand, they might not.

I think you should consult a local attorney, because you’re not really understanding what the legal impact of these cases is, and I think a deep discussion with an subject matter expert in person would improve your understanding a lot.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#412

Post by otterley »

estearum wrote: post #410
otterley wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text What’s wrong with this? It’s correct that there’s been no case…

The central claim of the quoted text, and the claim that I'm obviously responding to, is "It's actually far more dangerous to..." If it were more dangerous to insist that these privacy rights already exist (which they do, at least since Katz), then a wannabe dictator would obviously just insist that these privacy rights exist. But... they obviously wouldn't do that. They'd in fact insist that these rights don't exist…

My interpretation of what they said is that it’s dangerous to make the assumption that the 4th Amendment will cause the exclusion of evidence yielded by ALPRs if the question is adjudicated today, based on current law. I agree with this, and as an attorney myself, I would not make this assumption.

> Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance powers.

I disagree. Again, it matters less what you think and more what impression you leave, especially in the greater context of everything else you’ve said in this discussion.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#413

Post by estearum »

otterley wrote: post #411
estearum wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that concurrence is referencing Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which is binding legal precedent.

That “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard is just the first step of the analysis and goes into the threshold question of “is this a search?” Because if the answer is “no,” then there’s nothing more to be done, not a search, no warrant needed. But if the answer is “yes,” that’s not an automatic win, it doesn’t mean a warrant is needed yet, because there are further analytical steps down the chain. Also, the co…

So in other words, it's not as simple as "plain view doctrine, QED?" or "you're either in public or you're not?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137

Who knew?

Ah, yes, I did.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#414

Post by estearum »

otterley wrote: post #412
estearum wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central claim of the quoted text, and the claim that I'm obviously responding to, is "It's actually far more dangerous to..." If it were more dangerous to insist that these privacy rights already exist (which they do, at least since Katz), then a wannabe dictator would obviously just insist that these privacy rights exist. But... they obviously wouldn't do that. They'd in fact insist that these rights don't exist…

My interpretation of what they said is that it’s dangerous to make the assumption that the 4th Amendment will cause the exclusion of evidence yielded by ALPRs if the question is adjudicated today, based on current law. I agree with this, and as an attorney myself, I would not make this assumption. > Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance…

I am extremely doubtful the intention of that comment was, "if I were adjudicating a case, my strategy would be X." Obviously your legal strategy wouldn't rest on this assumption. But we're not talking about legal strategies to bring to the courtroom.

By analogy, it is absolutely true that a person has a right to self-defense. People in common dialogue should insist on this being actually true. Does that mean your lawyer should go into a courtroom with the strategy of simply insisting that's the case? No, obviously.

The invocation of Dobbs is clearly referencing a political strategy and not a trial strategy.

I am responding (quite clearly) to the proposed political strategy, while you are reading it as a trial strategy.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#416

Post by nativeit »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #6
cmiles8 wrote: post #3

Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This middle ground that municipalities try to carve out where it’s fully open to police without a warrant but not subject to FOIL laws doesn’t appear tenable for much longer. There’s been too many cases of police officers stalking exes, poking around the data for fun and such so it’s clear p…

I don't understand why a police cruiser can sit in a public space (or even a private one) and write down licence plates and descriptions of passers-by with pen and paper, or record everything around them with dashcams and bodycams for later use, but when it comes to cameras on a pole this would require a warrant. Going back through police officers' notes or cruiser dash cam videos and tracking a car's movements by it…

You’re not trying hard enough.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#417

Post by otterley »

estearum wrote: post #413
otterley wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard is just the first step of the analysis and goes into the threshold question of “is this a search?” Because if the answer is “no,” then there’s nothing more to be done, not a search, no warrant needed. But if the answer is “yes,” that’s not an automatic win, it doesn’t mean a warrant is needed yet, because there are further analytical steps down the chain. Also, the co…

So in other words, it's not as simple as "plain view doctrine, QED?" or "you're either in public or you're not?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137 Who knew? Ah, yes, I did.

> Who knew?

> Ah, yes, I did.

Still a dick.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#418

Post by otterley »

estearum wrote: post #414
otterley wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation of what they said is that it’s dangerous to make the assumption that the 4th Amendment will cause the exclusion of evidence yielded by ALPRs if the question is adjudicated today, based on current law. I agree with this, and as an attorney myself, I would not make this assumption. > Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance…

I am extremely doubtful the intention of that comment was, "if I were adjudicating a case, my strategy would be X." Obviously your legal strategy wouldn't rest on this assumption. But we're not talking about legal strategies to bring to the courtroom. By analogy, it is absolutely true that a person has a right to self-defense. People in common dialogue should insist on this being actually true. Does that mean your la…

The fact that we are reading this differently is an existence proof that there are multiple ways to interpret the conversation and the points being made within. We should be mindful of that and respond accordingly, perhaps asking more questions instead of being combative.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#419

Post by estearum »

otterley wrote: post #418
estearum wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am extremely doubtful the intention of that comment was, "if I were adjudicating a case, my strategy would be X." Obviously your legal strategy wouldn't rest on this assumption. But we're not talking about legal strategies to bring to the courtroom. By analogy, it is absolutely true that a person has a right to self-defense. People in common dialogue should insist on this being actually true. Does that mean your la…

The fact that we are reading this differently is an existence proof that there are multiple ways to interpret the conversation and the points being made within. We should be mindful of that and respond accordingly, perhaps asking more questions instead of being combative.

You are the only person who made an assumption (a probably-incorrect one) and then was combative about it. People on general message boards talking about state surveillance powers are not generally crafting trial strategies.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294009

> they are not wrong [per my interpretation]

> you are therefore a dick

I think between 1 lawyer and 2 laypeople talking about law, it's quite likely the lawyer has the idiosyncratic interpretation. I did not fail to ask a question nor did I insult anyone. You did both.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#420

Post by estearum »

otterley wrote: post #417
estearum wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in other words, it's not as simple as "plain view doctrine, QED?" or "you're either in public or you're not?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137 Who knew? Ah, yes, I did.

> Who knew? > Ah, yes, I did. Still a dick.

It's fine to realize that you stepped into this conversation wanting to say "this isn't settled law" but somehow positioned yourself as defending the person insisting "this is settled law."

Perhaps your aversion to perceived dickishness made you misread the situation.

Post reply on HN