Footage of the Flock search that a judge ruled was uncosntitutional

AngryData

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.

shermantanktop

I just wonder how this cop got so lucky that he randomly stopped a car with 91kg of meth in it. 91kg!!! LPR will scan thousands of cars automatically, but he stated in the footage that he chose her specifically. Why?

neom

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.” https://www.404media.co/federal-judge-rules-a-flock-search-w...

thangalin

https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png ;-) See also: https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/

pinkmuffinere

Not a big deal, but I’m surprised there’s no auto-correct-ish behavior in the title submissions for obvious errors? Right now, unconstitutional is (mis)spelled uncosntitutional, swapping the s and the n

arjie

Right instinct for the criminal, wrong tool to search. You have to let some number of meth dealers kill people. It is the price of a free society. The ideal amount of meth in a society is not zero.

yieldcrv

what would the cop have needed to do differently for this stop and bust to be on firmer constitutional grounds?

KT-222

I'm 20 minutes into the bodycam. 1) She has no paperwork for the rental vehicle. physical or email. 2) She has an operating radar detector. (illegal in Oklahoma. I didn't know this was still a thing) 3) She admits to a 2 night stay in California driving from Missouri. 4) She has a lot of luggage for a 2 night trip to California. (Officer's opinion, she doesn't necessarily disagree about the quantity of luggage, but makes an excuse) 5) When the officer tells her his dog is going to search after she refuses consent, she admits to having marijuana which is still illegal in Oklahoma. To me this is might be probable cause without any Flock information. She admitted to driving a rental car that she has no information on during the 4k mile, 2 night trip to California. She admitted to possessing marijuana. I think this whole scenario goes the same way if Flock cameras didn't exist.