Flock cameras keep telling police a man who doesn't have a warrant has a warrant

Re:Flock cameras keep telling police a man who doesn't have ... by ranger_danger on Friday May 01, 2026 @04:19PM (#47979744)

I'm not convinced they can always get around it... I think they could challenge their arrest in court on Fourth Amendment grounds and have a chance at winning:

https://epic.org/vehicle-fingerprinting-through-pervasive-ca...

>In the 2018 case Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their long term movements (even in public spaces) and, because of that expectation, queries into long term location tracking data constitute a Fourth Amendment search that requires a warrant.

I suppose they would also have to argue that they are not the actual target of the warrant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Flock cameras keep telling police a man who doesn't have ... by joquarky on Friday May 01, 2026 @11:54PM (#47983154)

That's all fine until you learn about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Flock cameras keep telling police a man who doesn't have ... by ranger_danger on Saturday May 02, 2026 @12:17AM (#47983245)

My problem with this is that Flock explicitly does not manage their own equipment or store data obtained by cameras installed by their customers on any Flock-owned servers, so I'm not sure how they would be tipped off to anyone from outside the police department.

And if that did happen, I feel like one could have a strong case against it by claiming that there is no reasonable way to have had that information without obtaining it illegally.

[ Parent | on HN ]