2 ms·
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
by stickfigure 3mo ago
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.
- iamnothere 3mo agoNot if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.
- stickfigure 3mo agoOf 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.
- iamnothere 3mo agoSure, 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.
- 0x1d7 3mo agoBut will this put a damper in ALPRs from reading cellular/bluetooth radios? https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soon-track-phones-wearables-infotainment-and-even-your-pets https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soo...
- estearum 3mo agoNope. United States v Jones already answered this question.
- FireBeyond 3mo agoThe FCC might be surprised to learn that they do not, in fact, regulate cellphones.
- lightedman 3mo ago"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.