Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

How SCOTUS Paved the Way for Flock Cameras (Patreon)

Published:
2026-07-27 08:23:08
Imported:
2026-07

Downloads

Content

OA1282 - Is anything private any more? Depends which Supreme Court Justice you ask. To kick off a series of episodes around data privacy and the law, first Jenessa walks us through a string of Supreme Court cases addressing 4th Amendment rights and technology. In part 1, we cover landmark cases with wiretapping, beepers, GPS trackers, thermal imaging, and more. Stick around for part 2 to hear how the modern composition of the court is responding to the proliferation of new technologies.

Cases discussed:

Olmstead v. United States

Katz v. United States

United States v. Knotts

United States v. Karo

Kyllo v. United States

Riley v. California

United States v. Miller

Smith v. Maryland

United States v. Jones

Part 2 of this breakdown drops early for patrons at patreon.com/law.

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Files

Comments

Greg

The discussion around 32-35 minutes is going to be extremely relevant to the recent CBP case involving an activist allegedly providing a duress pin at the Atlanta airport, wiping his phone. I'd be interested to see if that does result in some conviction on destruction of evidence. This discussion makes it at least seem like, if he was provided a lawyer in the four times he asked for one, that lawyer would advise against providing a pin.

Jenessa Seymour

Yeah, as a general rule, if someone thinks the police are illegally detaining them, searching them, etc. their best bet is to clearly and briefly communicate “I do not consent to this search” and/or “I am exercising my right to remain silent and will not answer questions without a lawyer” (and then actually do that!) but otherwise passively comply (i.e.: Don’t fist fight the cops). It puts them in the best possible circumstances to fight it out in court later. Suppress evidence at a criminal trial, maybe even win damages in a civil suit. Destroying files that a government official is seeking for an investigation can be obstruction of justice, a crime in and of itself, even if those files are not evidence of anything, even if that investigation will later turn out to be bullshit (good faith defense will often work for the LEOs). “The cover up is worse than the crime” kind of deal. There can be a cover up without an underlying crime, and have the cover up become a crime nevertheless. But in terms of giving the actual pin? Like not the fake deletion one, but the actual access pin? Yeah idk, at the border it all gets weird, but there’s a difference between not actively fighting the cops versus actively participating in what’s possibly a civil rights violation. Outside the CBP context, yeah probably best bet is wait for his lawyer AND a warrant before making any decisions, if possible?