>We used to call those dragnets which are illegal under the 4th amendment

How is surveillance related to dragnets? A dragnet being an indiscriminate stop and search of suspects that sweeps up lots of people. Police have always been able to watch people and see their license plate. It's the wide-spread stop and search with no specific suspicion that makes something a dragnet.

This plate reader surveillance network, for better or worse, is the exact opposite.

The example they lead with in the article is the police pulling over a woman who spent too much time driving in the left lane. Stupid. But targeted.

I mean in many (most?) states travelling in the left lane is a moving violation

Using it to fish for other violations is where it crosses into the fuzzy and sometimes outright illegal

The counter to this is demand that they write you the ticket for the moving violation, don't answer any questions other than providing the legally required license, registration, and insurance, and move on

If they don't have evidence of a crime, they can't detain you forever on the roadside

Generating suspects from mass data collection is close to the definition of a dragnet, both metaphorically and legally. The only difference is it's now being done electronically.

This isn't a case where they've identified a suspect using some specific investigative lead, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.

Instead, they're using a widespread fishing tactic - a "dragnet" - to gather information in order to generate suspects without any reasonable suspicion. This kind of behavior has been found illegal in the past, because it clearly violates constitutional protections.

Judges in some flock related cases seem to be disagreeing with your assessment on the plate reader surveillance network.