Thread by @ProfFerguson

This opinion raises all the right questions, but ultimately fails in its analysis. It reads like the Court knows they are wrong, but feels trapped by the doctrine that is not nearly as narrow as they assume. Three quick points: 1/5

https://twitter.com/orinkerr/status/1415399376038494209

1) The court does not take seriously the digital is different hints of Riley, Carpenter, and Jones. The retrospective, aggregating, long term, pervasive surveillance is different from the analog cases. Camera systems fit this new problem. 2/5

(2) The court minimizes the fact that we are talking about a home. Most of the analogies ignore that it is a home (and the curtilage) that is being protected. Cameras on a public street are not the same thing as cameras on a public street pointing at a private home. 3/5

3) It is great to bookend this case with the 4th Circuit spy plane case. The 4th Circuit saw the import of interconnected technologies and systems of surveillance as the 4th Amendment threat. 4/5

4) Also nice to see scholars respectfully cited like @daniellecitron @CrimProfessor @mtokson @paulohm @MatthewKugler @liorjs and of course @OrinKerr (who apparently speaks for the “mainstream academic view” 😀). Plus a bunch of amazing #lawstudent comments got mentioned.