If the police has a search warrant for your home and you're not there, they can break in, even if you're not "in violation of something". I don't see how this is any different.
You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return. It's not like this was a long term parking spot. There are just so many options other than tow this innocent car.
They could however, break your door (if you're not there to let them in), and AFAIK they're not responsible for getting it fixed.
>Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something.
That's irrelevant. The standard for a search warrant is "probable cause" regardless.
>They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts.
...because the ring footage isn't in your house, it's in the cloud. Moreover, if you have an on-premise system and you're on vacation or something, it's plausible that they get a search warrant and break in, especially if they think time is of the essence (eg. your system has limited retention and the footage is going to be wiped).
>You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return.
If you read the article the police claims that it's only used if they can't locate the owner. It's unclear what that exactly means, but it's not like they're towing every tesla near the crime scene.
It's clear you and I have polar opposite sentiments regarding this. So I'll leave it here as you are quite tiresome
Unlike some commenters I don't check a commenter's entire comment history before making comments. In fact, I don't even keep good track of what everyone said in a particular thread, so forgive me if I didn't do enough due diligence before making a vague implication that you didn't read the article. That said, you need to chill out. If you can't handle a vague implication that you didn't read the article, maybe online forum commenting isn't for you.
Yeah but you no longer have a front door or window when you get there (the person spoke of them breaking in if you're not home), so you have to make other types of arrangements
Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a search warrant was warranted, based upon other investigation. From what the article said, this sounds more like a "fishing expedition".
That's the fishing expedition part. Again, from what the article said, there was no particular reason to believe it was in Sentry mode.
I don't know why you're bringing up privacy.
Taking someone’s transportation that they assume they have access to, without their knowledge, and without them being able to find out until the very second they need that transportation is dangerous. Emergencies happen.
If you’re taking someone’s car you better have a damn good reason. And “you accidentally parked in the wrong parking spot doesn’t clear that hurdle. That’s what tickets are for. “Really wanting to see the recordings from your car camera” doesn’t clear that hurdle either.
Private lot owners can’t issue legally-enforceable tickets. Their only real option is to tow.
Many people do not want their cameras in the doors, property, cars, etc being used by the police for cases that do not directly impact them.... they do not want to be involved, same as many "witnesses" will simply say they didn't see or know anything and be uncooperative.
As cameras start becoming more and more built into every day items many people suddenly can find themselves thrust into situations they want nothing to do with, so sure search warrants have existed forever but the chance of it impacting the average non-involved party were pretty slim, that chance is growing and people dislike it.
The cops had a warrant. Moreover, search warrants are granted if there's probable cause. Whether someone is a suspect is irrelevant.
>The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers, not towing the car away.
Is it even on tesla's servers? According to the article it's stored on a USB drive in the car.