| ▲ | tcp_handshaker 8 hours ago | |||||||
Its by design. By using a third party, they can get around the 4th amendment. | ||||||||
| ▲ | LocalH 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Using a third-party to bypass legal restrictions should in and of itself be considered willful and knowledgeable intent to violate the Constitution under color of law, regardless of the specific actions taken | ||||||||
| ▲ | ranger_danger 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
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. | ||||||||
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
How are they not an 'agent of the state' and how does the 4th not apply? If the government asked for the scan/info on the vehicle, they are acting on behalf of the government? https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-unde... | ||||||||
| ||||||||