3 ms·
“United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning Syste
by tedggh 6mo ago
“United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
- a-posteriori 6mo agoI am against Flock as a company. Are they "installing a Global Positioning (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicles movement"? No.
- rkomorn 6mo agoIf they have sufficient camera coverage to achieve similar tracking of a vehicle within a certain area, I'd say it becomes a distinction without a difference (which I'm guessing is along GP's point).
- Gormo 6mo agoA more applicable case is Carpenter v. United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States), in which SCOTUS ruled that aggregating an "exhausting chronicle" of information from third-party data sources -- in that case, location data from cellular towers -- does indeed amount to a Fourth Amendment search.