Quote:
Originally Posted by mav1178
|
That last paragraph really sets the stage.
From the article
"Rooms scans go where people otherwise would not, at least not without a warrant or an invitation. Nor does it follow that room scans are not searches because the technology is 'in general public use,'" Judge Calabrese said.
Few ways you can argue that off the top of my head:
1. If I was an inspection station, the cameras access areas that are not permitted to the general public. I don't allow anyone in the inspection room besides the tech/inspector performing the test. No one is allowed there without a warrant or an invitation (I never give out invitations as a result of my business insurance policy or whatever)
2. If I was an owner of a vehicle I'd say that I only gave permission to the shop to perform this inspection on my vehicle. I did not provide consent to the 3rd party camera operators to look at my vehicle in a manner that is no different than if it were parked on the street. You could also argue that the cameras during the inspection behave in a similar way of having cameras during a gynecologist appointment.
California could respond by changing the parameters of the smog inspection itself, but they'd be facing the same challenges. I'm REALLY curious to see how this plays out.
Shit, I may just buy property in Cali just so I can jump in on the class action lawsuit that's coming.