- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
Brown County Sheriff’s Department in Wisconsin used Flock cameras, which record the license plates of every vehicle that passes by them, to identify and arrest a resident of Wisconsin for purchasing marijuana. Per the report, the cops used Flock’s network of cameras to track the man as he drove from Wisconsin, where possession remains a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for a first offense, to Michigan, where recreational weed purchase and possession are legal.
Per the report, the cops looked up his license plate and found that he “travels to Michigan frequently.” Of course, they couldn’t prove by the cameras alone that he was going to Michigan to buy weed. But apparently just going across state lines is enough to create suspicion. In a criminal complaint filed by the police against the man, they call Michigan a “known source state for marijuana as it is legal there.”
They deeply broke the 4th amendment while doing nothing more than profiling a man for traveling. They then laid in wait for him to return to the city and performed an illegal search (illegal because the justification for said search comes from a 4th amendment violation) once they had him. Without the illegal search prior, they had no justification for the search that actually found the pot.
Even though he broke the law, there’s no way the conviction will stick because the cops fucked their case by doing this shit.
Can you explain how profiling someone’s behaviour breaks the 4th amendment? Can you explain how this profiling broke the 4th amendment? It seems from the article like the author has taken a police statement saying they used evidence of frequent travel to Michigan to justify the following searches, but it’s not like they have a police statement saying that’s all they had, from what I can see.
Absence of evidence may be enough for you to decide that American cops have broken the law, but it seems like a bit of an assumption to me.
Why was this man’s license plate being tracked for him to be caught? If you can answer that question in a manner that implies the cops had suspicion before they did the license plate tracking then you’ve got a strong case that this gentleman’s 4th amendment rights weren’t violated.
But I don’t think there’s any way they knew to search his car where the first step wasn’t “Flock told us he goes to Michigan a lot” which, again, isn’t a crime nor is it suspicious. But more importantly, it means that the only justification for the search of the car came from an UNNECESSARY search of all the activities of all drivers in Brown County.
Yes, in public there’s no expectation of privacy, but that argument hinges on the idea that cops need to spend resources to follow people’s movements when they’re suspects in a crime. Recent SCOTUS cases have drawn the line that full sweep movement tracking could violate the fourth.
But the bigger deal here is how they knew where to be and when. They setup a sting because Flock pinged that he’d just crossed the border back from MI. So, based on Flock’s evidence that this man travels to MI, they began tracking his whereabouts OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION. Reminder that reasonable suspicion of law breaking is required for tracking like that, but, more importantly, so is a warrant.
https://youtu.be/gmnL_Y9CsI0 video on Flock’s “legality” especially concerning unwarranted mass surveillance
I’m gonna hand you back this part of your argument. Trying to force me to prove a negative is a bad look and screams of desperation. But, if you do want to go down that road, I will remind you that you’ve never given proof that you’re not a pedophile and I find that very suspicious. Only pedophiles don’t have proof that they’re not pedophiles.
This may be contained in the video you linked, but I can’t watch it now (and don’t really want to commit time to watching videos on this) - do you have a written explanation of why this kind of surveillance needs prior suspicion?
When a cop is driving round on patrol, they’re looking at everyone for signs that might be suspicious. Cops can only have eyes in so many places, so cameras are a lot more effective than that. You only said that SCOTUS say this “could” make it legally different, though.
I think you are making the positive claim that the police have broken the constitution, and part of that argument relies on the claim that they didn’t have any legal path to their search and arrest, and that claim is based on the absence of evidence.
Here’s how I’d phrase that: “it’s possible from the police’s description of events that this was unconstitutional, and we need to demand they provide a full explanation of every step of the investigation.”
Right, so your accusation that I’m a paedophile based on that lack of evidence would be invalid, right? But you’re accusing the police of having done something wrong here, and the only basis you have for that is that they don’t have proof that they did it right?
No, I have the proof in this article of wrongdoing. Your argument hinges on this not being all the evidence used, sans proof. You’re the person asserting a claim without proof.
So yeah, you’re a pedo. Got it!
I am not claiming that there is more evidence out there, so I don’t think you’ve understood me properly.
Did they have a warrant? If not, it was unconstitutional.
I’m not a US constitutional lawyer so I don’t know why you need a warrant to get information on people’s behaviour. Is a cop not allowed to follow a car for no articulable reason and notice a pattern of suspicious behaviour (a “profile”) (like, I dunno, them driving to the houses of a bunch of known drug users) and stopping them based on that?
If they were observed stopping at multiple known drug houses, that’s fine. Following someone around until you find something you can arrest them for is not.
But then, you can follow them for a bit, right? Just not indefinitely?
So you can build a profile on someone with direct observation - it sounds plausible to me (again, not a constitutional lawyer) that you could do that through technology, without a warrant or anything.
If you happen to be driving behind them for a bit, sure. But if they’re stopping somewhere, if you also stop there, then you’re not just driving behind them, you’re actively following them, which you can’t do without cause, and ideally a warrant, not in person and especially not through state surveillance.