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.

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’m gonna hand you back this part of your argument. Trying to force me to prove a negative

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.”

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 the very suspicious.

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?