Hacker News Reader

Comment by estearum | Hacker News Reader

Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.

Above was a quote from Carpenter, and the Court seems to have called out that the completeness of the record meant it recorded them, 'not only in public thoroughfares', but also private homes and doctor's office and so forth.

It does seem like that's an element, then -- this is not to say that it's sufficient for anything, since obviously a sufficiently good record of where one goes on public thoroughfares would fail the same test ('reliably reveals that so-and-so went to visit a specialist doctor, divorce attorney, and brothel all on the same day')

It's the completeness of the record that matters, not the publicness of it.

Yes that feels like a good characterization.

Which, I would say, does seem a lot less black-and-white than the cell phone example, and anyone who thinks it's all settled now might be in for a surprise.

I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections.

Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.

Not if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.

Of course. We're all here speculating on how the courts will rule. We can come back to this in a few years and see who was right.

Sure, well, multiple Courts have ruled several times in different ways against warrantless mass surveillance, so unless you’re planning to stack the Court, my money is on them remaining consistent here.

But will this put a damper in ALPRs from reading cellular/bluetooth radios?

https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soo...

Nope.

United States v Jones already answered this question.

The FCC might be surprised to learn that they do not, in fact, regulate cellphones.

"I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals""

A vehicle is literally considered an extension of your body, and this has been held up many times, starting with Carroll in 1929.

More recently, the 9th circuit put forth a ruling vacating a man's conviction because a cop merely touched the vehicle, thus triggering a warrantless search complaint.

There's a lot of case law that goes against what you're thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com