Flock Cameras (License Plate Readers)
I stumbled across this site which might be of interest to some of you. It discusses Flock LPRs and provides a map of self-reported Flock locations. FYI.
[URL]https://deflock.org/[/URL]
Fourth Amendment Exceptions
[URL]https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation06.html[/URL]
Courts generally recognize six exceptions to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, exigent circumstances being one of them. However, as the article and case citations make clear, compliance with the Constitution is the default and expected position. Any deviation from that is subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. In fact, since numerous cases of this type have been adjudicated over the years, it's safe to say that most circumstances that are claimed to be exigent have probably already been reviewed and ruled on. Which means, unless a prosecutor is claiming a kind of exigency that already has substantial support in case law, they are likely shit out of luck.
Also (from the article), with respect to the various exceptions, digital information has been addressed:
"However, this doctrine does not allow officers to search an arrestee's digital information, such as a cell phone or computer, without a warrant. The Court found in Riley v. California that digital evidence does not pose the same threat to officer safety as a weapon. Additionally, the concern regarding the destruction of evidence is less immediate, given the seizure of electronic devices. ".
In other words, once LE has seized an electronic device, there's nothing keeping them from maintaining possession until such time as they can get a warrant. The only scenario I can think of that would change the calculus would be if there was something on the phone right now that was a legit matter of life and death. For example, let's take the current case of the celebrity's mother who's been kidnapped. If LE arrested a suspect, or person of interest, they could articulate an argument that data on the phone could point to the location of the abducted (who may be in grave danger) and therefore a warrantless search was justified. I would totally buy that argument, and I think most judges would also.
But, unless a LEO has something that rises to that level, or has already been found valid in prior cases, their argument is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
Clearing Up Some Misconceptions
There are quite a few misconceptions in this thread. Let me clear up a few as it pertains to iPhones. Androids are a different beast and you should assume no privacy on an android.
If you have the latest iOS installed on a newer model (last couple of recent years), the encryption cannot be cracked at this time. Period. If the phone is locked, biometrics turned off, and Advanced Data Protection is turned on for icloud backups, you are safe. Point blank. Once upon a time your icloud backups were vulnerable and Apple would access to respond to subpoenas, but with the introduction of ADP that is no longer the case.
However, iOS encryption is a game of cat and mouse with some cybertech firms (Cellebrite, Grayshift, etc) developing methods to crack older iOS and older phones. This is what happened a few years ago when the FBI was trying to get into the deceased mass shooter's phone out in San Bernardine. Apple refused to create a backdoor, the FBI eventually got into the phone via Cellebrite. If the government and NSA had some all seeing, omnipotent way of knowing what was on every phone at all times then none of this would have been necessary. Meaning, iOS protections are indeed legit and can thwart even the US government if used correctly.
Where it gets dicey is even though a new iphone with the latest iOS can't be cracked today, it likely can in the future. What LEO can do is clone your phone in a few minutes. This is common, cheap, and easy for most local law enforcement departments when given reason. The clone they have is locked by encryption. If it is a serious case, they can literally wait years until the encryption method is developed and then access the cloned data at that time. For the average monger, this is above and beyond any reasonable fear.
The Epstein Narrative = The Trafficking Narrative
Not all prostitution-related activity = trafficking. Yet, for LE and their accomplices in the media, it's completely in their interests to portray it 100% as trafficking. Anyone whose name, email, or phone number is found to be connected with an agency or individual provider, no matter how slightly or tangentially, is deemed to be a legitimate target. And, once deemed to be a legitimate target, even if criminal charges are never filed, your life is considered fair game for naming and shaming and otherwise bringing to complete ruin!
Similarly, Epstein has already been adjudged to have been a pedophile and a child-trafficker. So, for most whose names materialize in his files, their guilt is already assumed, facts be damned! Sure, there might be some nuances involved, such as minimal contact prior to Epstein's conviction may get a pass, but it's clearly a case of "guilty until proven innocent" for most. And the same consequences of being a "legitimate target" inevitably follow: Naming, shaming, and a ruined life!
