Of course they can and of course they do. It gets much more complicated when you consider that each state has different laws about records sharing.

And, lol, yes the 4th amendment extends to driving on a public roadway... roads aren't international waters. Probable cause and such are still important. I recognize what you're saying but -- details matter, dammit.

▲

alex43578 a day ago | parent [-]

Details do matter: extensive case law supports a very low standard for privacy in cars and searches on the roadway. Pat downs, being ordered out of the car, free air sniffs via drug dogs, DUI or immigration checkpoints, etc.

Furthermore, just being recorded on a public roadway doesn’t constitute a search or seizure.

The strongest evidence in support of your position is that Boston aerial surveillance case, which is frankly a stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching, and I’d like to see it or another case reach the Supreme Court for clarification.

▲

chaps a day ago | parent [-]

You really sully your position when you call it a "stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching."

Again, details matter: how is it stupid.

▲

alex43578 a day ago | parent [-]

See the two paragraphs before? That lays out my position.

The courts have repeatedly upheld far more invasive searches and encroachments of vehicles, but now confusingly consider simply observing the outside of your vehicle to constitute an excessive search.

The Baltimore decision is stupid because it contradicts 50 years of case law over what constitutes a search and what degree of privacy you expect to have on a private roadway.

▲

chaps a day ago | parent [-]

No need for snark; I'm genuinely interested in your position. From my re-read and re-read, you've provided a conclusory statement without actually explaining the details.

Is your definition of "stupid" anything that contradicts 50 years of case law? That seems.... tautologically limp.

	▲	alex43578 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I’m saying it’s stupid to equate viewing = searching for multiple reasons. 1) A lay understanding of a search would require way more than just seeing and recording the license plate of a car on a public roadway. 2) Courts have extensively and repeatedly upheld the idea that cops can examine your car, your house, your trash can, your curtilage, and more without it constituting a search. To backpedal and now claim being observed driving on a public roadway is a search creates a huge contradiction in the law that will need to be resolved by either kneecapping basic police investigation or rightfully reversing the idea that you can’t be observed on a roadway displaying a government issued license plate without a warrant. Do you mind providing your position? Do you think being observed on a public roadway constitutes a search or seizure in the context of the 4th amendment?