Sure, it isn't "illegal" as it hasn't been challenged in court (to the best of my knowledge). Doesn't actually say much as everything is by default legal until it is found (or legislated) illegal.
Just like police using infrared cameras peering into people's homes to find marijuana grows was "legal" until the courts found it to be a Forth Amendment violation.
And why is someone who believes the constitution actually means something labeled "a sovereign citizen"? Were the people during the civil right's movement wrong because they believed the government could do a better job?
This is a good point, and the infrared camera case is the one that came to my mind as well. That case can be easily distinguished on the grounds that Flock doesn’t use any super-human abilities (i.e., infrared sensors) to see the license plates. The Court would have to interpret it broadly, to prohibit use of technology that allows for rapid/broad collection of data at a scale that was not possible by human efforts alone. That may come, but it’s far from certain when (or what side of the line Flock would fall on).
> My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable".
as people knowingly expose their licence plates in public places, as this is a legal requirement for the use of highways, they also reasonably believe they have an expectation of privacy against a constant and continuous search because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places".
Of course, you know, this is just my opinion, man.
Agree on that point. It has yet to be challenged but my mind suspects it would be difficult to go far in that direction. Plates are in public view and unlike gps trackers are not planted in your personal property. The only challenge afaik is due to their issues with permits and utilizing state property. They are atm not allowed in two states but not for the reasons you have listed.
Just like police using infrared cameras peering into people's homes to find marijuana grows was "legal" until the courts found it to be a Forth Amendment violation.
And why is someone who believes the constitution actually means something labeled "a sovereign citizen"? Were the people during the civil right's movement wrong because they believed the government could do a better job?