We've had at least two: in US vs Yang, the defense tried to invalidate the use of ALPR data using Carpenter to try and argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and did not accept that argument.
Schmidt was explicitly about license plate reader data and whether a locality could install and utilize such a surveillance network without violating the Fourth Amendment.
Next time you get into this argument, point to Schmidt and its opinion. It has all the elements you need to make the point that a government funded mass scale video surveillance network is legal under current US law.
Then people will think you actually know what you're talking about.
Please go actually read the opinion.
If you do, you'll see the concurrence specifically says, "Hey, I agree we should reject Yang's case, but we should have probably decided this on Fourth Amendment grounds and actually said ALPR data doesn't require a warrant and Carpenter doesn't apply", because the majority EXPLICITLY did not do that and the concurring judge wanted to.
What's baffling here is it's not even that long an opinion. With the dissent, it's less than 30 pages. It's incredibly straightforward.
You apparently just can't accept the ego hit that you were decisively wrong about something.
That's really sad, dude.