| ▲ | text0404 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
You're confusing the technology used in Jones with the principle Carpenter cited it for: a person can have a 4A privacy interest in the whole of their physical movements, including movements in public. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
And for the second time, you're trying to dodge the distinguishing factor between Jones and Flock. The former tracked movements in public and in private. The latter, only in public. That, and the Jones case involved the police accessing someone's vehicle without a warrant. You seem to be under the impression that the opinion of the court in the Jones was that everyone's public movements are private and the police need a warrant to track your public movements through and any all means. But that was not the decision of the court. The police and still just follow you, Jones notwithstanding. You can desire your public movements to be protected by the Fourth amendment all you want, but that does not make it so. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||