Anonymous #1 11w

What about this reads like a fedpost💀

-1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 11w

You defending flock

4

Anonymous #1 11w

Can you read? I didn’t defend flock and I actually said that its primary use likely is unconstitutional. I just ALSO pointed out that asserting unconstitutionality without backing it up is void of substance and not helpful for discussing this subject.

-1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 11w

It’s unconstitutional there is no argument against it being unconstitutional

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I promise I know a lot more about the constitution than you do (given that it’s literally my job), yes there is an argument to be made for the constitutionality of LPR use in law enforcement. There’s also a strong argument against it (which I think is more compelling).

-1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 11w

I promise you don’t, considering that it is also my job. Unconsentual surveillance is unconstitutional lmao.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Oh my god that’s literally false, have you never opened a ConLaw textbook? Under the Katz test you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy from people reading a license plate that you’re required by statute to display for viewing by the public. It arguably also follows under the third party doctrine.

-1

Anonymous #1 11w

Entanglement dude. What is ur job again?

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 11w

Lmfao Flock cameras do more than just read license plates they literally keep a database of you

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 11w

I’m interning at a law firm in Seattle. Studying for the bar rn

4

Anonymous #1 11w

You should probably rethink your career choice

-1

Anonymous #2 11w

You should rethink yours

-1

Anonymous #1 11w

lol why? Because I know what I’m talking about and watching you fail at defending constitutional law? You’re not gonna pass the bar. There are perks to getting your commission as a JAG officer.

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Yeah #1’s issue spotting and analysis are all over the place, I don’t know what they teach about criminal procedure at his school but clearly it didn’t do much good in this case. Again, I’m actually on their side about it being unconstitutional, they just have no idea what they’re talking about as far as why that’s the case goes.

4

Anonymous #1 11w

Okay, now give me some analysis based on that. Why would it be legal to log read plates in a database if the initial act of reading was constitutionally permissible? What rule are you basing that on? I’m sure you’re normally much better than this in law if you’ve made it this far, but genuinely you’re just talking out of your ass on this, and that won’t get you far with fellow lawyers and law students.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Good luck on the bar btw! I know I’m digging in on the flock issue but I mean that genuinely — that’s super exciting and I wish you the best.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 11w

It keeps track of bumper stickers, facial recognition, pings phones within radius, keeps a database on all of this stuff, and even tracks your movements and maps where you are likely to go. On top of all of that, IT IS A PRIVATE COOPERATION. There have been multiple data breaches. It is not constitutional and everyone in this comment section agrees with me

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Again dude, even I agree with you. The difference is that I’m willing to talk about and have actually alluded to legal reasons why (searches and seizures based on lawful travel activity in this way are unreasonable per se I would argue). Everything you’ve said about the constitutionality has just been conclusory and counterproductive, that’s all I’m taking issue with.

1