The actual opinion in U.S. v. Jones hinges on the fact that "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information," and also stated "[t]his Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search."
So the controlling opinion said: "we won't answer this question." The concurring opinion (signed by 5) said "fluidstack is wrong."
There can't be a "concurring opinion" signed by five Justices. An opinion signed by five Justices is a majority, and would constitute the Opinion of the Court.
I think that the most we can say right now is that although the "plain view" doctrine has been weakened somewhat over the last couple decades, it's not completely dead yet.
The fact is that there hasn't been a case on point to answer the questions as to whether 1/ALPRs constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment (a threshold question that must be answered "yes" to proceed further), 2/whether use of the technology can be "reasonable" under any circumstances, and 3/whether there are any exceptions to the warrant requirement. We have a long way to go before we know what the law is on this technology. Remember, too, that the Fourth Amendment has only a "reasonableness" and a warrant requirement. It does not ban technologies for surveillance outright. (See, e.g., Kyllo v. U.S., where the use of thermal surveillance technology wasn't the issue in and of itself, but rather constituted a search necessitating a warrant.)
So how about you tone down the attitude a bit? You're arguing from shaky ground, and there are more constructive ways to contribute to this debate.
What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point:
> 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 for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark.
So no, I'm not arguing from shaky ground. And no, ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion.
I agree with you that the two concurrences are aligned about this. Interestingly, it did not make it into the majority opinion, even though there was a majority on this point. It probably wasn't included because it wasn't needed in order to reverse the lower court's decision; the physical violation was enough to merit a unanimous decision.
> ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion.
No, it isn't. It is possible, and better, to disagree with someone while remaining courteous--even on subjects you have strong feelings about.
From our Guidelines:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amounts of information to a drone hovering overhead.
I did say earlier, though:
> although the "plain view" doctrine has been weakened somewhat over the last couple decades, it's not completely dead yet.
The aerial surveillance cases are applicable examples of that point.
> 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 for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark.
Altitude has nothing to do with it. Completeness and cost of picture does.
Also, the court has still not subjected the specific question against the Katz test. If they did, they’d might agree that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public travels. On the other hand, they might not.
I think you should consult a local attorney, because you’re not really understanding what the legal impact of these cases is, and I think a deep discussion with an subject matter expert in person would improve your understanding a lot.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137
Who knew?
Ah, yes, I did.
> Ah, yes, I did.
Still a dick.
Perhaps your aversion to perceived dickishness made you misread the situation.
The drone hovers directly over the sidewalk in front of your house. When you step onto the sidewalk, it follows you directly to the front of your workplace. As you go up to the third floor, it hovers up and observes you through the window. As you descend and come back out to the street, it hovers overhead until you arrive back to your home.
It's all plain view doctrine. Not sure what could be ambiguous about this.
There are cases where it's legitimately ambiguous as to where the law lands and this is one of those areas, but fluidcruft is insisting that it's not. To the extent it's not ambiguous, recent case law, the overarching history of the 4th Amendment literally since its ratification, and common sense all point in the same direction: the government cannot arbitrarily monitor everyone's movements (even in public) at near-zero cost with zero warrant.
2. There's nothing dickish in my prior comment whatsoever.
What’s wrong with this? It’s correct that there’s been no case yet on the legality of warrantless end-to-end surveillance technology, and he’s right that the Constitution has no explicit privacy right. Certainly no lawyer I know would advise their client otherwise, and as an attorney myself, I wouldn’t do it, either.
> There's nothing dickish in my prior comment
When someone tells you you’re being dickish, pay attention and take it seriously. They are giving you valuable feedback about how you are coming across. Even if you don’t intend to be that way, and don’t think you are, others can still see it. You need to take that into consideration.
In this case, saying that a wannabe dictator would use the same argument was pretty dickish, particularly in the context of everything you’ve already said to them. It’s well past the time to lower the temperature of this discussion. Don’t keep it on simmer.
If it were more dangerous to insist that these privacy rights already exist (which they do, at least since Katz), then a wannabe dictator would obviously just insist that these privacy rights exist. But... they obviously wouldn't do that. They'd in fact insist that these rights don't exist, they never have, and they're not in the text of the Constitution.
Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance powers. Perhaps you're getting too heated and reading tone into other people's words at this point?
> Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance powers.
I disagree. Again, it matters less what you think and more what impression you leave, especially in the greater context of everything else you’ve said in this discussion.
By analogy, it is absolutely true that a person has a right to self-defense. People in common dialogue should insist on this being actually true. Does that mean your lawyer should go into a courtroom with the strategy of simply insisting that's the case? No, obviously.
The invocation of Dobbs is clearly referencing a political strategy and not a trial strategy.
I am responding (quite clearly) to the proposed political strategy, while you are reading it as a trial strategy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294009
> they are not wrong [per my interpretation]
> you are therefore a dick
I think between 1 lawyer and 2 laypeople talking about law, it's quite likely the lawyer has the idiosyncratic interpretation. I did not fail to ask a question nor did I insult anyone. You did both.