Really recommend reading Chief Judge Gregory's powerful dissent in the recent 4th Circuit opinion upholding Baltimore's aerial surveillance program.

I'm going to share a few highlights.
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201495.P.pdf

The Carpenter analysis does a nice job trying to pull legal analysis out of individual tools and instead looking at how they're used as part of a surveillance system. (pg. 32)

The Supreme Court directs lower courts to adopt rules that "take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use of development." The dissent rightfully points out the integration of aerial surveillance with other tools is written into the contract.

Chief Judge Gregory also does a great job spelling out how easy it is to re-identify people by analyzing patterns in their movements, especially when you combine different surveillance tools.

Unsurprisingly, those tools tend to be in Black neighborhoods. (pg. 35)

While the surveillance tech may be novel, "dragnet enforcement tactics are nothing new for Black people in Baltimore." In fact, even though Baltimore police are under a consent decree for "a widespread pattern" of discriminatory policing, it continues (pg. 46-47).

The majority opinion tries to make the case that "the community" wanted this kind of surveillance. The dissent forcefully rejects that premise, and walks through "decades of segregationist and exclusionary policy and policing." (pg. 48-49)

The dissent details the leadership shown by community activists like plaintiff Erricka Bridgeford, who organized ceasefires. "The people of Baltimore do, in fact, know where to turn. They turn to each other." (pg. 51)

Cities use rising crime or the threat of looting as a justification for dragnet surveillance systems. They must be rejected.

"This Court should not invoke the tragedies imparted by gun violence in Baltimore to justify its grant of sweeping surveillance powers to the BPD."