Posted on 09/03/2026 7:02:27 AM PDT by Skwor
A federal lawsuit claims the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office used the Flock cameras without a legitimate government purpose and in retaliation against the vet for exercising his First Amendment right. {...} Jones was subsequently arrested "for resisting and obstructing," according to a federal lawsuit he filed against the arresting officers and police department. But after being held in custody for five hours, he was released with no citations or criminal charges. An internal post-arrest memorandum reviewed by Reason revealed that Shayhorn's supervisor informed him shortly after the arrest that he'd, in fact, illegally stopped Jones, and he therefore could not compel Jones to produce his identification.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
read the rest of the thread then hit me again if need be...
So...if there’s no protection from these domestic intelligence collection systems because they only record what’s out in public view..
And..they are paid for with taxpayer dollars...
I can access all the data and do my own searches right?
Illegal aliens don’t catch themselves.
I’d say the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office is in a world of hurt over this whole set of incidents, and IF they were smart, they’d settle this thing out of court for big bucks or risk a likely adjudicated court ordered settlement of MUCH BIGGER bucks ... in any case, the Seriff needs to be ousted one way or another, and the cops that did all of this fired pronto ...
“And further, misuse of the Flock system was the least of the problems here.”
absolutely!
I read the whole thread and I stand by what I said.
as do I...
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.
Wrong. I'm QUOTING the Supreme Court. You're the one trying to mislead people, and you have nothing you can quote from the Supreme Court that affirms your efforts to mislead.
Carpenter held that the courts need a warrant to search your cell phone records.
Half truth, more evidence your efforts to mislead others. I asked you in private mail WHY they held that, and you refused to address it because it destroys the argument you're trying to make. So let me tell you in front of god and everybody why they held that, and I quote:
“individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements”
If you think a nationally networked, electronic surveillance system that logs everyone it can detect doesn't violate that right to privacy you are a moron.
I can lead you to the water. I can drown you in the water. But I can never make you understand until you confront the question of WHY the Supreme Court requires a warrant to track cell phone locations. Your evasion of that question gives you away...
“An internal post-arrest memorandum reviewed by Reason revealed that Shayhorn’s supervisor informed him shortly after the arrest that he’d, in fact, illegally stopped Jones, and he therefore could not compel Jones to produce his identification.”
Why didn’t he just give his ID?
/Boot licking FReeper
Gunslingr3 wrote: “Wrong. I’m QUOTING the Supreme Court. You’re the one trying to mislead people, and you have nothing you can quote from the Supreme Court that affirms your efforts to mislead.”
You are attempting to apply a case involving Cell Phone Data to a generalized expectation of privacy.
Here is a quote from Carpenter:
“Our decision today is a narrow one. We do not express a view on matters not before us: real-time CSLI or “tower dumps” (a download of information on all the devices that connected to a particular cell site during a particular interval). We do not disturb the application of Smith and Miller or call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras. ...”
IOW, the court specifically denied Carpenter applied to cameras.
Here’s an overview of the law governing the expectation of privacy.
AI Overview
A reasonable expectation of privacy is a legal test used under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to decide if a government search or seizure is legal.
The Two-Part Legal Test
Rooted in the landmark Supreme Court case Katz v. United States, a search occurs and the Fourth Amendment applies only when:
Subjective expectation: The individual actually expects a degree of privacy through their actions or choices.
Objective reasonableness: Society as a whole recognizes that expectation as fair, legitimate, and reasonable.
Where Privacy Exists
The Home: Individuals hold the strongest expectation of privacy inside their own houses, apartments, and immediate surrounding areas.
Personal Belongings: Closed containers like luggage, purses, and locked digital devices (cell phones and computers) are generally protected.
Private Communications: Contents of phone calls, letters, and sealed mail are shielded from warrantless wiretapping or inspection.
Where Privacy Does Not Exist
Public Spaces: Actions, visible possessions, and spoken words in open public areas (like streets, parks, or sidewalks) lack privacy.
Abandoned Property: Discarded items, such as trash left out on the curb for collection, have no protection.
Open Fields: Undeveloped or open land outside a home’s immediate boundary can be viewed or walked through by officers without a warrant.
Exposed Data: Information knowingly shared with third parties—such as dialed phone numbers, bank logs, or public social media posts—is generally unprotected.
IOW, you do not have an expectation of privacy in public places.
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.)
How do those boots taste?
Post #17. It took 17 posts before the hardcore bootlicker showed up.
If I were the plaintiff, I would only settle for more than $10 million after taxes and every penny would be paid out of the police pension fund.
Flock is a great aid to battling crime and we are going to lose it because law enforcement folks can not control their urges to us it illegally.
Youre a little late to the party pal... where the fk were you 30 years ago when it mattered. Save youre breath. Go ahead and stick youre chest out to big brother now... You sure are showing them!!
Yes, because I understand the principle behind the ruling. That's the part you keep trying to evade.
They brought this point home in the most recent decision, Chatrie v. United States (2026):
"The Court began its analysis by reviewing what it had said about a different way of tracking “physical location and movements”: the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle.
In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, five Justices had agreed that such tracking counts as a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.”
...
A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government."
You should lay off the paste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.