tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post3644513713595178918..comments2024-03-27T02:20:14.211-05:00Comments on Open Secrets: Spying on innocent and law abiding MinnesotansRich Neumeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01026237058992305593noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932231316992555697.post-6683813394684543642013-02-25T08:25:24.344-06:002013-02-25T08:25:24.344-06:00The sentence, "Until the Star Tribune's a...The sentence, "Until the Star Tribune's attention in a series of stories by Eric Roper the public did not know about this new surveillance tool to spy on innocent and law abiding Minnesotans" is incorrect. Please check the Metro area media archives from 2008/2009 and you will find a number of print and television stories about local law enforcement agencies using LPR. Local law enforcement was very open about using LPP.<br /><br />The "bird dog" example you are using is not really analogous to LPR. Courts have upheld in other contexts the use of technology that enhnaces an officers primary senses as long as its use doesn't enter into protected areas. Affixing a "bird dog" to a vehicle was deemed to enter into a protected area. In a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision about LPR, visual surveillance of a vehicle "in plain view" does not constitute an unreasonable search for Fourth Amendment purposes (U.S. v. Wilcox). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05395820641235946306noreply@blogger.com