"but there's no reasonable expectation of privacy legally."
Um. Isn't that what this case is trying to establish? It's unclear what the legal expectation is or isn't.
Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean it immediately follows that erodes a given right. The government can tap just about any call, but courts have restricted that substantially (at least in theory...). If you have not, I recommend watching The Wire and checking out all the hoops that the police have to jump through to establish cause and perform wire taps. Technology is very dated now, but it gives an interesting view. (It is also, I'll add, a damn good show...)
Here, the ACLU is trying to establish that constant camera surveillance of a house is a violation of your rights. Nobody is arguing it's not technically possible, nor is anybody arguing that my neighbor can't have a Ring camera that happens to have my house in its field of view.
But the state planting a camera specifically to surveil a house for months at a time is, arguably, a violation without showing any cause or getting a warrant to do so.
"Um. Isn't that what this case is trying to establish? It's unclear what the legal expectation is or isn't."
Not really. The general terms are quite settled that it is fine for a person to film stuff from a public area, even if they are able to see a private area. The question is about whether police can also do that or if the 4th amendment prohibits it. Based on the long standing decisions that you don't have an expectation of privacy of being filmed from a public location and that the reasonable expectation of privacy is all that prohibits a "search", then it's a pretty logical outcome. Unless, again, they want to change the longstanding test. So it would not be about establishing anything, but rather changing something.
Um. Isn't that what this case is trying to establish? It's unclear what the legal expectation is or isn't.
Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean it immediately follows that erodes a given right. The government can tap just about any call, but courts have restricted that substantially (at least in theory...). If you have not, I recommend watching The Wire and checking out all the hoops that the police have to jump through to establish cause and perform wire taps. Technology is very dated now, but it gives an interesting view. (It is also, I'll add, a damn good show...)
Here, the ACLU is trying to establish that constant camera surveillance of a house is a violation of your rights. Nobody is arguing it's not technically possible, nor is anybody arguing that my neighbor can't have a Ring camera that happens to have my house in its field of view.
But the state planting a camera specifically to surveil a house for months at a time is, arguably, a violation without showing any cause or getting a warrant to do so.