Poor titling. The restriction is not in place. Thry have only sent it back to the lower federal court to let them determine if it counts as a 4th amendment search before making a decision. The NPR article is significantly better. https://www.npr.org/2026/06/29/nx-s1-5844697/supreme-court-restricts-use-of-geofence-warrants

If this does come back as a 4th amendment search, this might kill Flock and other fixed are surveillance devices in a really fun way. God, I can only hope. (But realistically I know they won't restrict shit)

We should frame all cases as things the supreme court wouldn't want done to them. Like know the location of Clarence Thomas on his owner's yacht.

The fact we had to have the supreme court rule this is insane to me. "Hey this search is going to violate the privacy of hundreds of people in the search of finding one person, do you think this is ok? Yea defo lets do it"

So now LEO's will just buy the data, instead of getting warrants, right?

It's crazy that we need rulings to provide basic rights, but sure I guess,

They'll just do it illegally and conveniently leave out how they tracked down whoever's location but it's a nice sentiment.

Except that this administration only gives a shit about what the courts say when they find in their favor...

Otherwise, we could do a sweep of one of their kid-fuck compounds and see which CEOs and politicians are there.

This way, they can prevent themselves from being spied on while also approving every single warrant against any of us, thus giving themselves all the info on us and jack shit on them.

Because the rich don't want the government to look at their location data.

I mean, they have to have another coup at some point soon right?

So they're going to be taking down all the flock cameras then, right?

In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found that no warrant is required, calling the ruling an “irresponsible escapade” that the court should never have agreed to hear.

He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”

And he says that like it's a bad thing. What an asshole.

Not really a surprise, but worth pointing out anyway.

Misleading headline: The Court didn't actually say that a warrant was required for these geofence searches.

What the court actually said: a request for geofenced location data addressed to a service provider is actually a search that could require a warrant. These requests are not just subpoenas for business records.

The supreme court sent the case back down to the circuit court to determine whether a warrant was specifically required in this case.

When it comes to searches, a warrant is usually required, but there are a number of complicated exceptions for "reasonable" searches where no warrant is needed.

huh, I wonder what effect this ruling will have on Flock's business.