I don't know... I haven't given too much thought to the specifics of flock cameras, but...
There is no expectation of privacy in public places. There is no 4th amendment issue here that I can see. Now, if the car was parked in your garage and the police showed up to see the car in your garage, then yes, a warrant is required.
That said, I wouldn't mind some oversight on the use of flock database. I would support a police officer or detective requiring a capatain's approval to search the database, so there is a senior officer's approval on the record.
The problem, to me, isn't the camera, it's the license plate. I don't think the license plate on the car is in the same class as "being secure in your papers". A license plate is evidence that you registered the car for safe operation on public roads. Having a flock camera recording your license plate is no different than when Lovely Rita records your license plate number on a parking ticket or an automated toll camera records your passing.
I'm open to debate on this, but this is my first take on the issue.
-PJ
All flock database searches should be recorded and tied to a specific individual.
They definitely need to require a specific and VALID JUDICIAL WARRANT for ANYONE to access Flock databases
……………………………………………………………………………….
I don’t know... I haven’t given too much thought to the specifics of flock cameras, but...
There is no expectation of privacy in public places
****************************************************
True. But I would like to see ACCESS to the data RESTRICTED to official business and metadata kept on all searches that can reveal WHO searched, for WHAT they searched and WHEN each search was conducted. That would help minimize abuse of the data (e.g., ex-boyfriends tracking an ex-girlfriend, STALKERS tracking movements of a “target”) and have a searchable record of the stalking/abuse.