That's not what is happening here. The police are not purchasing access like an advertiser would; they are receiving special access for the purpose of tracking suspects.
> If you had, I imagine SCOTUS would rule differently.
The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not, in any way, negate your expectation of privacy from your own government!
SCOTUS has changed drastically since the 1960s, and I will be unsurprised if SCOTUS rolls back every single 'privacy' case that it encounters. But that has nothing to do with the merits of these cases; it's a way of salting the earth so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned while appearing less overtly political.
Yes, but my point was that we're only arguing about how much someone should have to spend to gain access.
> The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not,
But my point, _again_, is that they were _not_ clear that you have some expectation of privacy after _selling your personal data on an exchange_.
SCOTUS ruled explicitly on this question in Katz vs. US -- wiretapping is unconstitutional, regardless of physical intrusion. Just because you route your voice through a switch owned and controlled by a third part does not mean you give up your expectation of privacy.