brass2mouth

quote:

---

Italian baws who know what’s up about to have twice the seafood.

---

I read an article on this not too long ago and the Italians don’t even like them to consume. They’re considered a trash byproduct of fishing and are insanely cheap if they’re even sold.

Is there really 26 pages of people arguing about how to make a certain religion a political organization to then regulate it?

US. v. Jackson,
Which also cited US v. Jones and US v. Carpenter.


Part A analysis:

quote:

---

Thus, under current guidance from the Supreme Court, Defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his license plate or in his movements on roads which would make the actions of the police in using the Flock System to capture pictures of his license plate violative of the Fourth Amendment.

---

Part B:

I’m going to post more snippets of B just because it directly relates to the question you raised about cell phone searches

quote:

---

Contrast these two clear examples of widespread mass surveillance with the limited surveillance of the Flock System in this case. It is true that the Flock System captures photographs of any car that passes a camera; however, the limited number of cameras means that the amount of data collected is incomplete and does not track the totality of an individual’s movements. As persuasively noted by Judge Ambrose in the Western District of Pennsylvania, “[u]nlike the all- pervasive cell-site location data collection in Carpenter, and its ‘all-encompassing’ and ‘near- perfect surveillance’ of a cell phone user's comings and goings, the ALPR technology at issue captures only the public movements of vehicles that happen to pass by locations on a public street in view of an ALPR camera . . . Even in the aggregate, the ALPR cameras [sic] ‘capability to capture multiple shots of a single vehicle and/or store historical data does not approach the near- constant surveillance of cell-phone users’ public and private moves that so concerned the Court in Carpenter.” United States v. Bowers, No. 2:18-CR-00292-DWA, 2021 WL 4775977, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2021). Judge Milazzo in the Eastern District of Louisiana agreed, noting, “the data collected by the ALPR system is far more limited than CSLI. A person must actively pass by one of the cameras for any data to be collected and even then, only a small amount of information is collected and retained. Individual snapshots in certain locations at specific times ‘hardly rise to the level of persistent, unceasing public surveillance that the courts found troublesome in Carpenter.’” United States v. Cooper, No. CR 23-131, 2025 WL 35035, at *6 (E.D. La. Jan. 6, 2025) (citing United States v. Martin, 753 F. Supp. 3d 454, 473 (E.D. Va. 2024)). The above reasoning convinces the court that the amount of information currently obtained by the Flock System in Wichita is not the pervasive and continuous gathering of information with which the Supreme 17 Court was concerned in Carpenter and Jones, but rather is the limited sort of information that augments law enforcement’s natural abilities in Knotts. Ultimately, “the Constitution does not forbid the government from using technology to conduct lawful investigations more efficiently.” United States v. Gregory, 128 F.4th 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2025).

---

quote:

---

Second, Flock cameras do not capture images of people, but rather the Flock System is limited to capturing only pictures of vehicles. As a result, data obtained from Flock cameras is very different from data obtained from cell phones. At the hearing, Mike Molina testified that the Flock System may be able to gain some information about the passengers in a vehicle if they are sticking their hands out the window at the time a photograph is taken by a Flock camera. However, the Flock System cannot identify any biographical or biological information which would allow law enforcement to track individuals instead of just their vehicles. Ultimately, the Flock cameras “exposed no details about where [Defendant] traveled, what businesses he frequented, with whom he interacted in public, or whose homes he visited, among many other intimate details of his life.” United States v. Brown, No. 19 CR 949, 2021 WL 4963602, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2021). Instead, a search of the Flock System “only reveals when, where, and in which direction a certain vehicle was driving—information of limited value, and data from which it is difficult to discern an individual’s familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” United States v. Jiles, No. 8:23-CR-98, 2024 WL 891956, at *19 (D. Neb. Feb. 29, 2024). Given that the Flock System does not capture any biographical details of any individuals apart from incidental details to driving on a public road, using the Flock System to track a vehicle is not the same kind of personal search that the Supreme Court critiqued in Carpenter.

---

They also said this regarding the potential of further Flock usage:

quote:

---

Nevertheless, the fact that the Flock System does not presently violate an expectation of privacy does not foreclose the potential for Flock to one day rise to the level of dragnet search with which the Supreme Court has voiced concern. Indeed, the court can easily see how the more widespread and pervasive deployment of Flock cameras (or cameras connected to the Flock System) could eventually rise to the level of systemic and continuous tracking with which the Supreme Court took issue in Carpenter. As was noted by Judge Carlos Bea of the Ninth Circuit, “I understand that ALPRs may in time present many of the same issues the Supreme Court highlighted in Carpenter. ALPRs can effortlessly, and automatically, create voluminous databases of vehicle location information . . . In retrospective searches, detailed and potentially private information may be exposed.” United States v. Yang, 958 F.3d 851, 863 (9th Cir. 2020) (Bea, J., concurring). Undeniably, the use of automatic license-plate readers to generate a pretext for stopping drivers is something which is not new. See United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557, 564 (6th Cir. 2006) (Moore, J., dissenting) (noting that an officer running a license plate number through a computer database search without any heightened suspicion could raise Fourth
Amendment concerns); see also United States v. Lurry, 483 F. App'x 252, 255 (6th Cir. 2012)
(Moore, J., dissenting). However, the court is not convinced that the use of the Flock System in
Wichita has yet risen to an insidious level such as would warrant the drastic and remedial action
of invoking the exclusionary rule in this case.12 “This Court must rule on the facts as they are and
may not speculate about what the future may hold for Flock's capabilities.” United States v.
Martin, 753 F. Supp. 3d 454, 476 (E.D. Va. 2024).

With the rise of new technologies, courts are left to apply aging Fourth Amendment
doctrines in an era of increasing government surveillance. Increased computing power, when combined with artificial intelligence, allows the government to process vast amounts of data on nearly all its citizens. We live in a constitutional republic, not a burgeoning authoritarian society.

Many Fourth Amendment carveouts and doctrines were crafted in an era where there was no capacity to replace human surveillance with computer surveillance. This presents unique challenges, since aggregated data on actions and movements can now be cross referenced to create individual profiles once suspicion has become centered on an individual. As the Supreme Court in Carpenter noted with regard to CSLI information, “the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to reconstruct a person's movements were limited by a dearth of records and the frailties of recollection . . . this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone. Unlike with the GPS device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.” Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 312.

---

quote:

---

guess you prefer your president to call a lid before lunch or just be a parrot and say politically correct "presidential" things

---

No, but him maintaining some sort of decorum from time to time would be nice. Going on these flamboyant adjective filled rants gets old. I say that as someone who voted for him three times.

Just say “meh I don’t care for them much anymore” and move on…or…there’s probably no reason to tweet out anything anyway.

The social media maturity level in government is that of a middle schooler, at best.

Darth how much is free hand and how much do you air brush? Like 50/50?

quote:

---

And stop all foreign conflicts on behalf of the mult-national firms, creating the refugee crisis in Latin America and the Middle East.

---

El oh el

quote:

---

Black motorists fault for the tropper being a retard? Sure, pit the guy, but wait until there arent any fricking cars around. This isnt rocket science, but it is physics. Physics doesnt cease to exist because your car goes woowoo and has flashing lights.

---

To be fair that SUV was about a 1/4 mile away when he initially went to hit it and if he had done it correctly, would’ve never known he was there. The problem is the cop missed with the pit and the bad guy then lost control and hit the SUV.

Not saying it was still the best time to do it, given hindsight, just saying there was an “opening” where it appeared safe to do it.

quote:

---

conservatives are not motivated on what we are all seeing with this socialism crap and threat to the American way of life, than I don’t know what to say.

---

Unfortunately I believe conservatives are more likely to realize that we are voting for the same person, just one has a D or an R behind their name and more of the “frick it just leave me alone.”

Just swapping one for another.

quote:

---

Here in LA we exempt the data centers from a majority of property taxes and all state and local sales taxes.

---

Yeah I’m not sure why they made it 20 years of exemption. That’s insane.

5-10 years would’ve been enough to make it appealing.

quote:

---

Buy a comfortable house in a place you love and use it as your base of operations. Get your dream car. Donate to charity. Fly commercial all over the world. Stay in expensive hotels. You can do everything you want and still earn millions annually on the interest.

What you don’t do is give anything to anyone who asks for money.

---

I don’t know if I would still fly commercial, but I don’t think I would purchase a plane. Probably just fly private so o don’t need to deal with upkeep/insurance.