zlacker

Doesn't all surveillance require a warrant?

>>SN7647+(OP)
As I understand it (not a lawyer or law enforcement), 4A protections effectively only apply where either the search is of a space where the subject has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" or the police are actually handling the subject's property (e.g. attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle).

>>SN7647+(OP)
For it to be admissible in court.

Most people can’t afford an attorney and end up taking a plea.

>>godzil+q2
Actually, there's a "good faith" (aka. "ignorance of the law") exception for cops. So even a lawyer might not be able to save you.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/search-and-seizure...

>A mistake of law by a police officer sometimes can trigger the exception. If an officer takes steps based on the existing interpretation of the law, but a court later rules that the law should be interpreted differently, they may be found to have acted in good faith.

>>gruez+Lb
Your mainstream explanation isn't correct. This only applies when a court replaces an existing precedent - a relatively rare occurrence. Police shouldn't be expected to anticipate the court's change of heart ahead of time.

>>SN7647+(OP)
Mass surveillance certainly doesn't.

>>SN7647+(OP)
On public streets and property? Outside your home in plain view (from the street)? no.

>>SN7647+(OP)
Welcome to the world of "Parallel Construction" which is a "legal" way of ignoring the constitution