One could interpret Katz v. US[0]: > My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a pe

One could interpret Katz v. US[0]: > My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable". as people knowingly expose their licence plates in public places, as this is a legal requirement for the use of highways, they also reasonably believe they have an expectation of privacy against a constant and continuous search because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places". Of course, you know, this is just my opinion, man. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States