The Carpenter decision was about the US government compelling mobile data providers to hand over private use information. It's really not relevant to flock. That's why the 9th Circuit decided that automated license plate readers don't need a warrant. A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. A device can do the same.
If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible.
The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observation that are in plain view. The licence plates of cars on the street are in plain view.
I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.
>If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible.
If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny.
>I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.
I don't think that is where the crux of the issue lay.
Why would it fall apart? The plain view doctrine holds that the police don't need a warrant to observe things in plain view. Like your car driving on the public roads.
Privacy laws are generally about protecting what you do in private, not in public. In the US, anyone can film you in public, government or otherwise.
