The courts suppose that a theoretical officer could be at any public place at any time for various reasons, and they are correct. Anything viewable from a public space is subject to plain view doctrine.
Your problem is that you say the scope of the actual surveillance available is disproportionate to the reality of what officers could feasibly see in the same timeframe. You are basically arguing that a continuous surveillance of public spaces constitutes an overbroad search.
The problem is that courts have set no upper limit on passive public observation. I cant think of any precedent where “the cops look this way too much” has ever been set as a valid cause of action against a government interest. Your best bet would be trying to argue that its prejudicial, but it’d be hard to proceed when there is surveillance on everyone pretty equally.
My problem with it is mostly that its a private network. If these cameras and services are being paid for with public funds, then the images they capture should be available for public use. Thats a whole new nightmare all on its own, but thats kind of the technohorror future we are building towards. Anyone being able to track down anyone at any time is a scary thought. But that’s what you get when you build a giant spy network with public money. The public gets access according to the law.
You are correct in theory. In reality, its messy.
The courts suppose that a theoretical officer could be at any public place at any time for various reasons, and they are correct. Anything viewable from a public space is subject to plain view doctrine.
Your problem is that you say the scope of the actual surveillance available is disproportionate to the reality of what officers could feasibly see in the same timeframe. You are basically arguing that a continuous surveillance of public spaces constitutes an overbroad search.
The problem is that courts have set no upper limit on passive public observation. I cant think of any precedent where “the cops look this way too much” has ever been set as a valid cause of action against a government interest. Your best bet would be trying to argue that its prejudicial, but it’d be hard to proceed when there is surveillance on everyone pretty equally.
My problem with it is mostly that its a private network. If these cameras and services are being paid for with public funds, then the images they capture should be available for public use. Thats a whole new nightmare all on its own, but thats kind of the technohorror future we are building towards. Anyone being able to track down anyone at any time is a scary thought. But that’s what you get when you build a giant spy network with public money. The public gets access according to the law.