Question for the LEOs!

[Ken Ford]

Agreed on the first point.

I’m conflicted about the Flock cameras. I don’t believe in constant surveillance like New York City is, but I see their value in catching crimes in-progress/evidence of crimes and using them to put criminals away.

Now, I have to wonder if criminals have simply become more sophisticated where this has become a necessary evil or if law enforcement (at all levels of the justice system, not just police) simply doesn’t have the means, manpower, or resources to investigate and do the legwork needed? I truly do not know.

SCOTUS has repeatedly up held the vehicle as a place we have a limited expectation of privacy. They remove any expectation of privacy.

 

[Gunfighter]

There has been a lot of "speculation" and quasi-truths stated in this thread. If anyone has questions as it relates to motor vehicle law, the motor vehicle exception to the 4th Amendment, and the relevant case law, from an actual, current POST certified peace officer, PM me and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have, supported by current case law and statuary law.

 

[alexs2006]

Most register their cars to Montana or Texas for emissions reasons.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

 

[jonsmith6391]

SCOTUS has repeatedly up held the vehicle as a place we have a limited expectation of privacy. They remove any expectation of privacy.

Great point. However, to push back on this, my understanding of Flock cameras is that capture “stills” of vehicles and focus primarily on license plates and even the make and model of the vehicle. I don’t think this would fall under privacy since these are already visible entities.

Now, cameras inside of the car monitored by the government? That’s definitely going to be unconstitutional and illegal in the eyes of SCOTUS.

 

[Ken Ford]

Great point. However, to push back on this, my understanding of Flock cameras is that capture “stills” of vehicles and focus primarily on license plates and even the make and model of the vehicle. I don’t think this would fall under privacy since these are already visible entities.

Now, cameras inside of the car monitored by the government? That’s definitely going to be unconstitutional and illegal in the eyes of SCOTUS.

As far as I know, they are used primarily to look and see if you are on a cell phone, at least around here.
Those cameras are insanely detailed, can even see some of the text or picture that is up.
Many states at least 16 are considering strong restriction or limits. 49 of 50 states are using them, and are marketed to HOAs and such.
Until they are challenged to SCOTUS.
That have uses, but IMO they should have limits to how they are used.

 

[jonsmith6391]

As far as I know, they are used primarily to look and see if you are on a cell phone, at least around here.
Those cameras are insanely detailed, can even see some of the text or picture that is up.

That’s insane.

That have uses, but IMO they should have limits to how they are used.

Agreed. Uses within reason and within the Constitution.

 

[medium187mph]

A local business owner I know owns a few nice vehicles and all of those nicer vehicles have Montana plates on them.

 

[Kahrnut]

Montana plate owners don't talk about Montana plates

 

[charlie hotel lima]

Was this originally an astrology question that got derailed ?