And if they did, so what? They still can't muster the manpower to snoop on everyone. Nobody wants to take off that bedsheet. Besides, what privacy? You still can't seem to get it straight that being in public is not private. Who is forcing you to buy a cell phone?

Are they guilty of warrantless surveillance and tracking? I don't think you need a warrant to surveil; that's just collecting general data. And tracking? ARE they? That's the question...not what you imagine they are doing. What civil rights would they be violating if they are not intruding on your actual privacy? How is the flock camera near your home any different than a cop on a beat?

A person's car is a person's property, so there are 4th Amendment protections. They messed with his property to obtain the monitoring, so that's off limits. A person's public movements are not actually a matter of privacy (anyone can see him), so the court may have ruled mistakenly on that point.

I don't think I have been "on the wrong side of every argument", since I don't recall any exchanges with you.

In the whole matter, so long as the surveillance is of public spaces, there is no intrusion on the 4th Amendment, and the fear is groundless. The point is to use it to track down criminals, and I think that is a worthwhile function. It is the whole point of why we have police. Or do you want us to have no police?