The police have no repercussions for sending warrants to Google for phone information. Is searching someone for their legal driving behavior any better?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-geofence-warrant...
Yes, because judges, who are also human beings, love when cops flood them with stacks of bullshit requests.
If Google wants to obey non-warrants, that's on them but not legally required.
Those warrants.
Observing the same car coming and going on public roads seems like it requires a lower bar. IANAL.
The question isn't whether it was legal to observe the driving, but whether it was legal to search the car based on the observed patterns.
Then we have a Supreme Court problem.
Doesn't that mean that more than half of the people that the dog signaled on were actually found to have drugs? That actually sounds pretty good. I assume it would meet the legal standards of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause".
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
Paper's not magical. If my behavior is sticking out of my pockets for everyone to see, they're not allowed to search through those unless they've got a fucking warrant. The amendment wasn't written with the express (or even covert) purpose of giving them ludicrous excuses to bypass its requirements. Reading it as if it were is wrong and deceitful.