I'm going to predict right now that this will boil down to "automobiles are not individuals" and automobiles do not get 4th amendment protections.

Automobiles are not cellphones, and the state is free to regulate automobiles. It could mandate tracking devices in all cars, if there was political will.

▲

0x1d7 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

But will this put a damper in ALPRs from reading cellular/bluetooth radios?

https://www.thedrive.com/news/license-plate-cameras-will-soo...

▲

FireBeyond 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The FCC might be surprised to learn that they do not, in fact, regulate cellphones.

▲

iamnothere an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not if the Supreme Court says “no” after a successful challenge.

▲

stickfigure an hour ago | parent [-]

Of course. We're all here speculating on how the courts will rule. We can come back to this in a few years and see who was right.

	▲	iamnothere 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, well, multiple Courts have ruled several times in different ways against warrantless mass surveillance, so unless you’re planning to stack the Court, my money is on them remaining consistent here.

▲

estearum 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Nope.

United States v Jones already answered this question.