We’ve seen in several cases that involve newer technologies (such as the use of heat sensors and the house growing marijuana) that when it is argued that the technology merely replicates an analog or non-technological equivalent, then this type of technology is permissible. However, the dissent makes the point that the amount of information available through MDT technology seems to surpass that which the police were able to gain before this technology became available.

The intersection of Fourth Amendment doctrine and search technology is tricky because in many ways, newer technology has allowed us to perform searches on a vast scale. (Of course, First Amendment and technology has also proven to be a challenging spot. However, I think the difference lies in the fact that many of the technological problems that we have encountered with the Fourth Amendment are a question of scope: tools dramatically expand the government’s power in this case, while in First Amendment cases it’s more a question of uncharted territory and what category it falls into.)

In any case, though, simply because information is already previously available through disparate sources, its availability through the collection into one large database, which seems to be the case here, shouldn’t mean that its use is automatically okay. I can probably find out lots of information about a person by doing different types of research online and through various different types of sources. However, it seems questionable that if all this information were accumulated into one big database, that the government would be able to simply use this.

Part of me wants to argue that this type of technological surveillance or the casual use of vast license-plate networks and similar tools should not be permitted because we shouldn’t be allowing the government to have such massive control over our lives. However, at the same time, part of me also wants to argue that, well, maybe in the past this type of technology was not available in the past, and why then should we not allow the police/government from using it now when criminals are free to take advantage of this type of technology? (This unfortunately helps to demonstrate the fact that challenges invoking the Fourth Amendment tend to arise when issues of crimes and criminals are present.)