dfltr
20 hours ago
> But by virtue of how ALPR technology works, Alaniz and other officers using these systems have access to a continuously updated location history for all vehicles caught on ALPR cameras within the network. This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance. It is not targeted on a single individual, as in Carpenter. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand.
For those saying that the headline is incorrect, I disagree. I believe that the judge's ruling was specifically that Flock's mass surveillance network is, in itself, a violation of the fourth amendment.
BugsJustFindMe
19 hours ago
The dragnet nature of the data collection was given as the basis for why the officer's use of the data required a warrant or probable cause, but was not given as the thing in violation itself. The document clearly says that the problem was that the police officer searched the data without a warrant or probable cause, not that the data was collected without a warrant or probable cause.
Here's from the very final conclusion:
> "Alaniz conducted that search ... because he saw her license plate was from California. That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights."
And here's from earlier in the document:
> "In the Court’s view, Alaniz did not have enough information to reasonably believe that Kyle was engaged in unlawful conduct"
The court wouldn't be talking that way if the problem were the data collection and not the circumstance of the stop.