But Chatrie found that the geofence was unconstitutional because of the wide dragnet which included people not suspected of crimes, not because those people were in private spaces:

> The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie's location data, because, as the opinion put it, "an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."

The analogue with Flock is pretty clear then:

> Just as important as the holding is the reasoning: the Court rejected the government's fallback argument that the search was fine because it only pulled a narrow, time-limited slice of a much larger dataset. Once the Fourth Amendment applies, the majority reasoned, it doesn't matter how small a bite investigators took out of an all-encompassing database.

▲

twoodfin an hour ago | parent [-]

As I understand the ruling, the Court decided these location records were akin to a diary or a personal photograph.

That’s what triggered the essential element of an expectation of privacy, from which the fact of a search was established.

Totally absent in this case, as far as I can tell.

▲

estearum an hour ago | parent [-]

No, they argued these records are akin to a record of the person's travel history.

> As Google puts it, and no one seriously disputes, Location History serves as a “diary” or map “of a person’s travels.”

"Diary" is a red herring here. They're referring to a location log, just like what Flock produces.

▲

stickfigure an hour ago | parent [-]

Flock produces a record of a car's travel history. Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

▲

nateb2022 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Automobiles are highly regulated and driving is a privilege. There is no _right_ to drive a vehicle from point A to point B, in secret or not.

If we accept your premise that the government can spy on you simply because an activity is regulated, then the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead. Under that logic, the state could mandate interior cameras in every heavily regulated business, or search the backpack of every passenger using public transit without a warrant.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, your backpack, and your travel history. The police cannot search your trunk without a warrant just because you are driving on public roads. They should not be able to search your travel history either.

▲

deathanatos 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All government regulation still has to be balanced against whether it intrudes or not on the rights of the People. The government can regulate vehicles, including ensuring drivers have met whatever requirements a license might require — nobody is arguing against that. But Flock cameras do not help advance any reasonable state interest in that area; their sole purpose AFAICT is for law enforcement, and in a way that intrudes on any basic expectations of privacy.

▲

estearum 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just like cell towers record a cell phone's travel history. Cell phones are highly regulated and having one is a privilege. There is no _right_ to carry a cell phone from point A to point B, in secret or not.

	▲	stickfigure 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is factually incorrect. You do, in fact, have a legal right to own a cellphone. Cellphone ownership is not licensed and law enforcement cannot stop you from buying a cellphone or carrying it from point A to point B. Cars are different. You must be licensed and cars must be registered with the state. Cars must display tags for the purpose of tracking. They must be inspected periodically. When driving a car on public roads, you are subject to implied consent; for example, taking a blood alcohol test on demand. As they say, "driving is a privilege, not a right". Cars are different. Ask yourself: If a US state passed a law requiring geo trackers in all automobiles, do you think it would be unconstitutional? What about drones, airplanes, boats?

▲

1shooner 3 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

SCOTUS unanimously ruled that a GPS car tracker is a 4th amendment search.

▲

Terr_ 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Justifying some control does not justify all control. Voting is a "privilege" too [0] but does that mean any state government should be recording an exact log of your ballot-choices? Surely not.

[0] It should be a far stronger right than what it is right now, but that's separate big debate.