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.
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 ...
|
|
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. |
Gunslingr3: “Yes, because I understand the principle behind the ruling. That’s the part you keep trying to evade.”
Obviously, you do not understand the principle. Otherwise you’d realize the key word is ‘reasonable’. It is ‘reasonable’ to expect cell phone data to be protected. It is not ‘reasonable’ to expect what you can see with the naked eye to be protected anymore than it is ‘reasonable’ for a conversation conducted on a street corner to be protected.
You can't even acknowledge the principle. When I asked you what is was you evaded the question.
When I present it to you, you ignore it:
This is the principle upon which they have a based their decision:
“individuals have a REASONABLE expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.”
A Surveillance State just like the Red Communist Chinese have is what they want in Amerika!! We MUST stand up for our rights as FREE freaking Citizens!!!!!!!!! Or ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I remember cops abusing radar guns.
No one called for not using them.
Remember speed traps?
In Ventura County CA in the 50s and 60s they monitored speed using planes. Two pilots were caught fudging speeds to meet quota.
Again, no one complained. The police involved were terminated.
You’re conflating
“Hey, XYZ 123 just ran that red light. Let’s figure out who owns that car through the State records and send him a citation in the mail.”
with
“Hey, who’s been driving XYZ 123 today down on Sleazy St? Let’s look it up in the Flock data-base and go wait for him at his house. We need to have a little talk about his broken tail light - that damage wasn’t there yesterday.”
Then why do we need a driver’s license and car tags?
They don’t do that.
What about private cameras cops can use with permission?
Flock is the name of one of the companies.
Toll cameras read license plates.
You get an invoice in the mail.
my man... what you just said, you could say the very same thing about every friggin law enforcement technique there is... Fine!! Tear out every camera there is!!
Now, How do catch that guy who just raped a little girl and drove away? Just murdered an innocent and drove away... ran away??
If the fkn animals we have out there now, know they are taking/took all the cameras away, what the hell do you think is going to happen!!??
Law enforcement has been a crap shoot from day one... from the Cruisers, Knock Squads... Bruisers... they have always been there and always will!!
You friggin guys are playing a dangerous game... AND YES!! It is EXACTLY the opposite of what we, the “Bootlickers” are playing.
Gunslingr3 wrote: “You can’t even acknowledge the principle. When I asked you what is was you evaded the question.”
I have provided an accurate description of the current law on privacy in public places which you continue to ignore.
I suggest you consult an actual attorney instead of relying upon your unfounded opinions of what the law should be.
I am pretty sure what you are asking for is already built into the Flock system. The problem is that it relies on the police policing the police. And that rarely happens.
Car tags are first and foremost a revenue avenue for governments. Did you think a little rectangle of metal every few years and a sticker each year in between costs over a hundred dollars per year? Remember how Schwarzenegger got elected governor?
The government introduced driving licenses primarily from a safety aspect to make sure the guy hurtling down the road toward you in several tons of mass has awareness of the rules of the road, and demonstrated familiarity with how to drive and obey those rules.
Neither driver’s licenses nor license plates create a log of when and where you have travelled that is available to government agents to peruse without a warrant.
Chatrie v. United States (2026)
”“society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car.” Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 310 (quoting Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (opinion of Alito, J.)). A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government.
It followed a fortiori, Carpenter held, that “[a]llowing government access to cell-site records contravenes” expectations of privacy.
…
And contra the Government, Knotts does not support the view that accessing two hours of Location History is not a search. There, police officers put a beeper in a car to help them follow it from Minnesota to Wisconsin. The Court decided that the beeper did not turn the tail into a search, but was explicit in keeping its holding cabined to that rudimentary technology. The defendant had argued that a ruling against him would enable officials to conduct “surveillance of any citizen of this country” free from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. 460 U. S., at 283. The Court took the concern seriously, stating that if technology progressed so as to allow more sophisticated surveillance, “different constitutional principles” could well apply. Id., at 284. And three decades later, five Justices in two opinions found that they did. When faced in Jones with a GPS device—which unlike the beeper allowed remote monitoring—they decided, notwithstanding Knotts, that privacy was implicated and a search had occurred. See supra, at 14–15. Yet even that was not all. When six years further on, the Carpenter Court held that accessing CSLI was a search, it recounted the Knotts-to-Jones progression to explain why Knotts did not stand in its way. See 585 U. S., at 306–307 (Knotts “was careful to distinguish between the rudimentary tracking facilitated by the beeper and more sweeping modes of surveillance”). For the third time, we reach the same conclusion today.
There are simply a lot of people in this thread that can’t wrap their heads around the fact the Court’s view of privacy has grown with technology, and broad, mass, unwarranted surveillance violates the Bill of Rights.
Exactly.
You miss the point entirely.
It’s about TRACKING people and government agent access to that data without a warrant.
Not whether or not your picture can be snapped in public.
How can I get this to sink in for you when I can’t get you to even acknowledge what the Court has said?
You keep deliberately cutting it out of your replies and refusing to address it.
This is why I find you disingenuous and a fraud.
Good day, sir.
“Ok “Flock Freepers,” tell me again how we should submit to the constant surveillance of Flock because of “save the children” logic.”
The retired cops here will claim that the cop could have accessed his cell phone real-time if he had chosen to.
...of course they won’t bother mentioning that cop would need a SEARCH WARRANT to do so. That’s just a bit inconvenient.
Gunslingr3 wrote: “You miss the point entirely. It’s about TRACKING people and government agent access to that data without a warrant. Not whether or not your picture can be snapped in public. How can I get this to sink in for you when I can’t get you to even acknowledge what the Court has said?”
Simply because you refuse to acknowledge that current law holds that you have no expectation of privacy in the public view. You continue to misrepresent what the courts have said. You continue to insist that because the courts have ruled that using Cell Phone Location Data requires a warrant, that using Flock cameras requires a warrant.
As I said, if you don’t believe me, go consult with an attorney and you’ll find that what I’ve said is correct.
Have the courts repeatedly ruled that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be TRACKED in public view by the government without a warrant?
Gunslingr3 wrote: “Have the courts repeatedly ruled that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be TRACKED in public view by the government without a warrant?”
That isn’t the issue.
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.