Good. This stop and interrogate shit shouldn't be legal. Now they can pull up days of driving history and locations you have been in and everything else on demand and try and bullshit the naive into convictions that they profit off of. It is like pulling up to the border between East and West Germany except they can do it any place any time for practically any reason, as evident by the fact ive multiple times been pulled over for BS reasons myself just so they can run all my shit and try and ask leading questions into violations and crimes.
Yeah but it shouldn't have mattered, cops shouldn't be using random people's naivety as a weapon to extort them for crimes. How many other hundreds or thousands of people were scared and coerced in an attempt to get them to lick boot and potentially admit to crimes?
Cast a big enough net and you'll catch a fish. No surprise there. Many cars are being stopped using Flock every day. But, you'll also destroy the ocean floor and kill dolphins. Or have police officers engaging in petty corruption, like stalking exes.
Well, had the officer not been lucky, he'd've opened the trunk and found nothing. The stop would presumably end there¹, and so too would any discussion of the legality of the stop unless the person whose rights had been violated had the time and resources to pursue the violation "on the principle of the matter"… not something I think most people are going to have the resources to do.
So I wonder if we could be seeing a bit of survivorship bias.
California plates. I was pulled over and searched years ago in Kansas for the same reason.
In this case, the Flock data then showed a bunch of recent interstate travel, which cops consider to be probable cause. They know it’s not legally probable cause though, so they pointed to her “nervousness” (aka not consenting to search).
The real question is how many times the same cop pulled over people who he searched and found nothing. Certainly nonzero.
You can tell 100 people in a day that you pulled them over specifically. And you'd be technically correct. With training to always act as if you're being recorded, it gets a lot easier to say with a straight, serious face.
It just doesn't necessarily mean anything, instead of hiding a secret reason -- which is what a statement like that is often intended do: make someone feel anxious, nervous, and vulnerable.
A Flock spokesperson told 404 Media, “The ruling goes against the overwhelming weight of authority in similar cases across the country, including multiple recent decisions in Oklahoma, and we expect it will be appealed and ultimately overturned. This ruling is limited to the specific facts of this case. It does not set controlling precedent and does not affect law enforcement agencies’ continued use of these important public safety technologies.”
fwiw she didn't have to answer any questions, he would have had to work a lot harder to establish fake probable cause if she hadn't talked...
See also: https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/
LPR will scan thousands of cars automatically, but he stated in the footage that he chose her specifically. Why?
So I wonder if we could be seeing a bit of survivorship bias.
¹though with cops you never know
In this case, the Flock data then showed a bunch of recent interstate travel, which cops consider to be probable cause. They know it’s not legally probable cause though, so they pointed to her “nervousness” (aka not consenting to search).
The real question is how many times the same cop pulled over people who he searched and found nothing. Certainly nonzero.
It just doesn't necessarily mean anything, instead of hiding a secret reason -- which is what a statement like that is often intended do: make someone feel anxious, nervous, and vulnerable.
https://www.404media.co/federal-judge-rules-a-flock-search-w...