Wrong.
Carpenter v. United States
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/
A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.
Thanks for the reply. I looked up the ruling. The ruling based on the 4A, being secure in your home, person, and papers. And in this particular case, your cellphone records.
It was a good ruling. Want the cellphone records, get a warrant.
But I can’t see how it would apply to taking images while out in public. If that were so, cops could not take video of, say, a crowd of people without a warrant.
The whole Flock system is a mess. Stupid and abusive cops have destroyed what value it might have had.
Gunslingr3 wrote: “There is no expectation of privacy in public. Wrong.”
Once again, you’re distorting what the supreme court has said. Under traditional U.S. Supreme Court doctrine, a person generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in things or activities they knowingly expose to the public, but modern rulings have added major digital exceptions for public movement and location data.
Carpenter held that the courts need a warrant to search your cell phone records. Cell phone records are not Flock cameras. The test is that if you can observe something with your naked eyes, it is not protected. Cell phone data requires specialized equipment, not an eye, therefore cell phone data is protected and photograph is not.
However, that does not extend to license plates, which must be displayed on your vehicle. They can be photographed all day without a violation of the law. Facial recognition software, should NOT be allowed. (Not sure about the legality.)
Then why do we need a driver’s license and car tags?