developed for battlefield abroad if this entirely in the form of surveillance is allowed to go forward it will drastically change our democratic society this is a system that for one hundred and eighty days and twelve hours a day is collecting plaintiffs and six hundred thousand  baltimoreans movements across their city for months the sense of explaining that this program is designed to identify people and vehicles under d the program the b p t is building a massive database of location information captured from the sky as a contract  establishing the program laid out that you're recording from above will be matched with other surveillance images and data including information from license plate readers and ground surveillance cameras the result will be the identification d of suspects witnesses and  number of other people who come into contact with them and this litigation the b p t suggests that there is much wider area surveillance system cannot do but if the program couldn't identify people it would not exist and the truth is that this is just a catered system n location information is a th amendment search it is a search and the reason is straightforward basically the reason why expected in a privacy tough society does not reasonably expect that government cameras in the sky will record the whereabouts of an entire cit population nd by nd for twelve hours a day one hundred and eighty dollars days this is exactly the kind of permeating police surveillance that chief justice roberts held in carpenter was off the table the district court  one hundred locational data points were collected over a seven day period of time and the  court noted that carpenter was a narrow holding and that the duration of the surveillance made a big difference and as i understand it this didn't go on for  supported by the record it seems to me what we're examining is supported search from these airplanes we're not examining the nature of the investigation where various searches and data are collected and put together into a house you don't know whether it comes out and clearly they say that you cannot pick up the pixel from the prior day because you can identify one from the other you can't distinguish them and so you don't know whether you're looking at the same person or a different person this is so general august that i'm not sure it even fits within the sort of language of the th amendment protecting the privacy of individuals  or protecting people in their papers and houses and so forth this is a generalized photograph taken up thirty two square miles of whatever it is so that each person is only a pixel back can't be identified because it could never be used for identification or it could never be used for conviction suspicion or anything else i find this far different from carpenter where  the what they believe is a person what that what is a person and the automobiles are not much better they can to determine make model shape any identifying factors they say they can with the cameras what they do is they get data from the cameras and then they go back and look at the data from the airplane to see if it corresponds i'm not even sure how that helps this  and that's how the contract explains what it does and that's how the b p t explained over many months that is how it will identify suspects witnesses and others that come into contact with them they will look at the ground camera and find an image on the screen or a license plate and then go to the repository of location information and from that they will be able to follow that pix or around anywhere they want knowing who it is and that is the council one of the problems i have is it we're not exactly sure what is done once the day is collected and what what what troubles me here is you're asking us to to rule this program invalid sort of  program were were perfectly clear the rights we were asked to just sort of cut this off it's such a preliminary stage but i mean what real life difference is it going to make in a criminal case and what is wrong when we get w to introduce that evidence and someone is going to will be object to that use of it when we have a more concrete idea of how this works you know i absolutely appreciate the sentiment there but i think what different about this this is not a situation where the government is engaging in surveillance for the unannounced and then we need to wait until there is more facts or concrete situation to litigate in a criminal context here b p has put out its contract and told us exactly what it is doing it lays all of this out in the contract and i don't think it's our goal to simply allow the government to maybe violate constitutional rights for a month and then because of questions or because we have a question here that the maybe some time but who's constitutional rights violating there's no there they're not going into police are not going into anyone's home they're not making a deep dive into any one cell phone you know there's no search of an individual's dwelling or his car or his belongings their simple observance of public mood much but they are the th of them are right so are are being violated i mean it doesn't seem to me to the program doesn't seem to me take a personal tour into somebody's you know i just disagree with that because that wasn't exactly what was that issue and carpenter and many courts before carpenter agreed with you that the whole of a person's movement because they take place in public are not protected under the th amendment and carpenter resented that and the government argued both in general then carpenter that the fact that people are moving around in public means that they've forfeited a right to privacy and that's not the case that argument fails to take into account judge concerns observation which is that here the data are not individualized they're not focused on the identity of a person they don't provide information except movement of a pixel and  carpenter took individualized information the cell phone operation where people had thought they were speaking in private and had their cell phones  tracked and attributed directly to the individual the data the carpenter you could specifically identify a person here you can't well i think that's wrong if you just look at  people they might not consider very much information at all but when the government requests a set of that that could reveal a person's information even though the government needs to do additional work to make meaning from that and draw out the kind of privacy the black carpenter is concerned with that constitution starts and that's exactly what's going on here not just by conjecture but explicitly in the contract that i understand that looking at the pixels on the page makes it seem like this is a completely harmless case but again i would bring you back to  presentation and in the contract that that is exactly the goal that is exactly the case of the only that is what happened and how it works for the military overseas and that is what it is bringing to collect evidence that might lead to  any number of forensic clues or fingerprints or whatever and so i just wonder whether this is this program is bessie is part of an evidence collection effort  and evidence collection effort how does it how is it distinguished from arriving on a murder scene and coming up on a piece of clothing which shows in fact a much more intimate us socialization with an ground a surveillance cameras and it's a all p r cameras that that is the program that this contract establishes and that is what the plans that have challenged and i appreciate the point that you're making about the diversity of sources of evidence in criminal cases in the way the police need to do their work but what is being done here is bringing these technologies to bear in a single program and that is what we have challenged and that allows the identification of people but  this these these purported searches are the collection of data from an airplane and that is the specific and not just the fact that you can collect data from many sources and overlap  m and then reach some conclusions i think is quite different carpenter made some reference to that carpenter did you know that the cell phone tracks nearly exactly the movements of its own and talks about it goes into private residences doctor's offices political headquarters and other potential really locations including showers this quote right here accordingly when the government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user and that's a lot different than taking a picture of a pixel where you don't know who the  so generalized that the question is whether it is a search and while the data might be useful in helping helping the investigation of crime with use of at the data systems if all the data systems are for example let's say for example d an individual leaves their home every morning at nine am and they go stop off for coffee three blocks down the road and then they take the same streets to work and then afterwards they are in the middle or they go to the same individual's movements over time and that is what these cameras are capturing whether the pixels in the st instance or not is irrelevant to the fact that the pattern of movement the overall movement of these pixels around the screen will allow for the arab nation of identifying information about those individuals and it will also allow for the identification of their associations and all the kinds of private things that the carpenter court can just to sort of my honor just cards that were very important even in the short term that people bring their cell phones anywhere i think that the point was more about the fact that the phone was always going to be generating information but the information generated by itself on ping and carpenter is not nearly as precise as the information collected from the cameras in the sky in this case and that's because that's a gross overstatement the supreme court a carpenter talked about perfect surveillance that matched putting anchor on an individual  those the information that law enforcement that's when it receives information pursuant to a cellphone location request is generalized to that wedge shaped sector size it does not tell you that the person was in the shower just told you that they were in the zone now the fact that the person bringing the phone into the shower of course knows that if they got a call it might ping the tower and generate information and it's true that when people go inside they're not generating information on this in this case but one difference i think that's important here from  this case and carpenter is that in carpenter and the factory carpet are proof that you can you could turn off that surveillance at any time you can leave your phone at home you can turn it off you can do any number of things to make that stop when you are in public and here private but when the government is watching people from the sky and they see dots going out of course there might be three or four that come out and they might be to follow a trail that leads to a false event but eventually they're going to be able to figure out who the person loss of life but on the other hand the touchstone is one of reasonableness and if we just if if we knock dale on every initiative at the outset and say no this won't work no this will work because technology is always going to have privacy implications it has utility in evading law enforcement and it has utility in apprehending  those who commit very serious crimes but what if if we say no to because the broader picture is there no you can't use technology because the technology has implications for personal privacy what what what what do we do about the tragic numbers on folding in baltimore each of  which represents you can look at statistics and they're just arabic numbers but each of the represents a very precious human life that has been taken  tragically and there has to be some some ability under the th amendment to respond to circumstances that as far as i can s far as i think judge bennett could see are really quite dire i have to recall judge bennett's word when he said not even the presence of the pandemic has slowed in any way the the ris homicides and so with that down everything right at the start where does that leave the city of baltimore your honor i appreciate the question and it is hear wrenching and no one knows the tragedy of the loss of life more than the plaintiffs themselves in this case who is who the work is dedicated d to helping solve the problem in baltimore but the fact remains that the d p is the only police department in the world using this technology and they're not the only ones that are facing a serious d crime problem and sometimes the th amendment simply takes tools off the table for law enforcement and that is both a frustration for law enforcement at times but it's also the genius of the th amendment because what the th amendment says is that you need to you need to have a reason to engage in this kind of activity you need to have a d constitutionally adequate reason and and with your respect to the crime problem the issue here  you know the government has never argued that there is a special need in this case that gets it out of the want requirement in order to gain engage in this kind of surveillance and it couldn't because it was pure law enforcement reason that the government  try to make a sort of created especially the argument that this is such a serious crime problem that it that it should be finalized under special needs and overall reasonableness and i don't think that would have succeeded given that you know the cases and i'd better than the others d that we various but the government didn't try to make that argument and i think the case simply comes down to you don't have to make it in terms of a special need doctrine you can just make it in terms of the  general under the th amendment a reasonable need to respond to conditions well know their ground this is you know you raise some very thoughtful objections to this program  were were listened to that they were responded to and that you you have a situation all the things that we are concerned about these days and and quite legitimately so  we're concerned about the excessive use of force and police force but that isn't present here and we're concerned about individual interests or privacy and one's home and in one's as in one's and not a fact but that's not invaded here and so i worry that if even this is all down and illegitimate where do we go from here just allow do we just sit back and allow the problem to get worse and worse and worse what do we do well your honor i appreciate again the sentiment here but just the one factual thing i do not i don't believe that the contribution to the program and that of a civil libertarian objections were certainly worth considering if it were a worthwhile points to raise but i thought the program as a result of the  dialogue that went on and as a result of the efforts that the city and the b p did in the contract and others made to tailor this program and make it more more reasonable  accepted as a reasonable policy outcome does not have an effect on whether the th amendment is violated i just want to come back to a point that you have a few times and respectfully you've said that repeatedly that there's not an invasion of an effect or  person or a home here and i think the carpenter absolutely says the contrary it says that people's movements over time on par with the kinds of effects and private private or private interests  there any information this information goes too far what information could be p g or any city collect from the air all we simply relink the air off we don't take issue with the supreme court cases that the district court cites and that the government sides in this case those cases are good law and they approve of certain kinds of fleeting brief targeted air observations and that is absolutely fine and there are two things to be perfectly frank there's a big gap between those cases and what's happening here as we say this program is light years beyond those cases and whether those are the absolute limit or not is not really raised by this case because this is a case where it is not simply you know a government sending up a police helicopter as it's on for decades to monitor a situation on the ground temporarily this is a d program maddux system of mass collection of location information that is digitized to put into databases and links with other absolutely identifying information all under a private contract and the result of that is an absolutely powerful machine to identify people through their movements and where they move around the city revealing incredible amounts of private information about them and so to the extent that there's a concern from the court that holding that this particular program the most invasive and you've put a lot of people you can identify yet but they didn't know that yet and carpenter is there and the thing the company was talking about was not any of those features but it was talking about the private information was not their features it was the movements of the person it was the collective movements of the he says point blank that it is not capable of reliably doing this every time but he does not reject the idea that it is possible it is absolutely possible both based on common sense based on the study we put into the record picture saying well the technology is capable of collecting all of this information all of this individualized information but in its present operation that's not that's not what's happening in a lot of a lot of what you have the only question i raised was it it seemed to me that your most recent remarks said had pointed out some very real problems that might arise with the use of this technology and that it could be put to more invasive uses then it presently is being put to an end but my response is it seems to me that's all sort of speculative because  the things that you most dread are some of the possible applications down the road and you also seem to be concerned about the fact that this is the product of a into the formulation of the program but i don't i'm not sure why the existence of this sort of private contract would be problematic essentially the baltimore police department and i understand your concern that some of the some of the concerns about the data are speculative but with respect i don't think they are because under the contract b p is collecting this information and the b arguing that the constitution doesn't regulate how they handle it and i think that's simply wrong and it's and it also points out that the important question when analyzing whether the collection of particular information under the th amendment is a search  is what the results of that search could reveal not what in fact it does reveal and i think just going back to carpenter that that's going to be made quite clearly because what the government what the government questioned in that case was seven days of location information and only got two back and you can imagine many requests where you make one hundred and eighty days of requests about location information and you get very little back what is at issue is when you collect that kind of street even on a public street and your honor i think that you know before department or there was there was an indication from the supreme court but people's movements in public were not categorically unprotected under the th amendment and in the court talked about movements from one place to another and then the carpenter court sort of cabin not by calling it as a case about a discrete automated journey and the criminal court emphasized then this case is not about a per person movement at a particular time it's that the there's not not sufficient identification and it seems to me that it's a little bit like the police have a witness statement of a bank robbery and the witness says i saw a man leaving here and he went down this left a bank with a gun and went into a seven hundred and eleven well then they look on the tape and they see a doctor that went from the bank to the seven  but the data doesn't prove that they needed the witness identification to prove that and the data collected here is not individualized in it can't be massaged to get any more information no matter they can't fight the sharpness of it they can't get any more data out of it as they point out it is just a collection of movement dots and squares but the movement your honor is exactly what carpenter says surveillance of an individual and it was unexpected surveillance and that people expected privacy but it was individualized the difference between carpenter and here is the data collected is not individualized to any car or any person it's collected and mass and the fact that it requires a little bit of work which is written into the contract as one single program in order to make sense of an individual movement does not mean that it is anonymous and again i'm sorry he's going back to the big payday would not be doing this if they couldn't make sense of the data to identify people and you know i carpenter was you know it did involve a request for an individual phone numbers information and i respect that that is the difference between this d case and that one but the study in the record makes clear that movements are unique even over a short term the study that we cite in the record that that the government declined to contest at the p r i stage again it just rewind the tape a little we filed this lawsuit before the planes went up and so the record that is before the court now is because interactive and the promises that the con hands and perhaps is in the hands of this private entity but for the purposes of this lawsuit that entity is the d p t they have a database of what cation information that will allow them to examine the movements of the individual a d and then derive identifying information about those people derive private and personal information about those people and that is why this program triggers in the search under the  that the police will be able to find a comprehensive record of their movements it is simply too speculative to confer standing and nd even if the plane of the pilots did have standing they didn't satisfy the rigorous standard here for the extraordinary remedy of a pulmonary injunction it's not enough to simply raise the question about the program's constitutionality even a very serious or grave question they must  you seem to be wanting to come into the back door the side doors with highly technical arguments it seems to me yes these are searches that violate the th amendment standing exists and if they are searches that violate the th amendment then the likelihood of success is carried forward in the injunction area in other words you're right we have to this is an area of discretion and supplementary injunction and there hasn't been a trial on this but if constitutional right it is an individual person and has a constitutional right and a th amendment reasonable expectation can only be invaded by a person here the specific harm that they're alleging is that they are they will be identified but even that is highly unlikely that is what is really more i think speaks to the lack of standing here because as this court has recognized if the alleged harm is one that follows only after an attenuated chain of possibilities then it's speculative to confer standing and it is true that the analysis that one would do to determine whether the harm is specific enough or imminent enough is very similar to be announced as you would do as to whether there is any invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy if the police parked a vehicle outside of my house and aimed a listening device at my window and i understand the technology exists that they can understand conversations within the room and they do that from the street and they listen for three days in a row to what we're saying in the kitchen is that do i have standing to challenge that even though i'm not i've not been indicted or i've been in other words they basically invaded my privacy may yeah but in that case there's no question about who what the harm is and who had to decide what is the harm things and it's important for standing to be clear about what is the alleged harm in their complaint they assert that the alleged harm is that they will be identified and that their movements will be revealed that just as a matter of fact whether or not that stablish is an invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy what we're saying as as respected standing is that just as a matter of fact that is not supported by the record before the court or even the allegations in the complaint based on what we know about how the program operates and and again you can view this as both a lack of standing for as the failure to establish from this program how much do we learn from an individual about an individual from this from the surveillance just to stand so that what individual information is is collected well nothing is revealed by the actual photographs themselves as has been established already the photographs and you can see examples on pages thirty nine and forty of the joint appendix don't reveal anything that could examination of the photograph lead to if by examination you mean just the photograph looking out at itself nothing there's no amount of massaging as judge niemeyer said that could be done to clarify the picture anymore and identify someone what the b p hopes will be useful about these photographs and this is why we're doing the pilot program is to test this it's not confirmed is that by looking at sequential photographs over time analysts can track the movement of what appears as an anonymous dot an individual that's yet to be identified and see if that person goes past the traditional ground  surveillance device and it is only by using the conventional ground based device things like surveillance cameras red light cameras things that already existed before the pilot individual you want to let's say surveillance state you know which individuals do you want to track or or trace or follow through a more traditional manner as i do you figure that out well the program makes it clear that the police can only track someone who is present at the scene of a crime and specifically one of the four target crimes we've identified homicide non fatal shooting carjacking or armed robbery or the person have to cross the paths had to have met with someone who was coming from the crime scene so for example you know someone in a getaway car m might be parked two blocks away from the crime scene but there is a dog seen leaving the crime scene and getting into a car that drives away ok so but how do you know which particular value you know from the dot which particular individual it is you want to you know you want you want to follow or to observe you wouldn't know anything about that individual and still the dot is seen going past a ground bases surveillance tool that the police could then check as it's been explained to me by a police officer this is just a tool that is used to help police officers focus their track two hours worth of movement and they would know for instance this they might be following a dot that goes past a particular intersection and they know that at that intersection there is a police surveillance camera and so they will then look at the police surveillance data and see is there a person that walks by at that precise moment but there are loads of people that go through a particular intersection and there may be loads of people who are at the near the crime scene who go through that particular intersection just because it's near the neighborhood there could be your honor and there could also be any number of factors like obstructions or face coverings or anything that would make it difficult or impossible even if someone does pass by a particular photographs recovery ninety percent of the city but ask you to which of the dots that appear in the photographs representing individuals and vehicles as to which of those will even be tracked in the st place  potentially identified only those that are a crime scene or crossed paths with someone at a crime scene whatever be looked at tracked or analyzed or attemp of movements in public over a short period of time from point a to point b so even if the police are able to pool footage from a surveillance camera and see two thousand and twenty five people go by that's all the information they  have that at that moment in time these twenty five people were there in a public space by the way this is not a program that would allow police to look into private residence and were trying to do things i suppose every investigation i the police collected it they never make use of and some information collection is legitimate and all  those means of collecting information are not it's entirely legitimate to collect all the information forensic evidence our witness testimony personal items around a crime scene that doesn't raise any question that sort of collection of information on the other hand  surveilling a telephone conversation without a warrant raises all kinds of problems and so what you're what you're dealing with here is the collection of information by itself doesn't violate the th amendment the question is how is it collected and your argument as i understand it is that it's collected in when one of enforcement benefits to show for your honor the record as it was before the district court didn't have anything of course because the program how did result i can tell you that publicly and you don't have to recognize correct that  comment i could just say that the commissioner said that i believe there were two arrests that the police attributes to the youth of this program but i don't know anything more about the success of the program and that frankly is why the department is undertaking this pilot program to see if it is effective but it is it is generally true that movements in public are not do not implicate a reason like the patient privacy it is true that in cases such as jones and carpenter the supreme court said that if there is a certain quantity of data that the government obtained over a long period of time that reveals anonymous information about a person's movements then you might trigger the th amendment but we don't have that here in the the limitations of the program most notably the twelve hour data flights taking photographs and the limited resolution of the photograph which makes it impossible to know for instance if a pixel representing an individual goes into that nine o'clock in the morning thanks don they can then getting information assuming you hit the camera which could be one minute later or one hour later whatever they have enough information from th real time tracking the photographs aren't necessarily retrospective looking so it is true as you say that police could look at a pixel look at a dot and see that that's a person coming out of a house on a date in the past and then see that that person in the past went past it around a surveillance tool like a pole camera they could then pull the information that's available on the pole camera from the footage but they could not a crime scene or of suspects house and get that same information and then use traditional traditional surveillance techniques but i do also need to clarify one other thing technologically yes that could be done but under the memorandum of understanding as to how the police have agreed to use this technology what you described would not happen unless it was clear  by some sort of the ground based surveillance tool that from the beginning the person that they were tracking was an exact someone who had been present at the scene of a crime specifically homicide non fatal shooting on how the information is collected maybe less so on what use is actually made of it but the question is does does them that's what now which the information is collected does that violate th amendment privacy interests now that use this made of it may or may not violate privacy interest but is that a question for another day absolutely your honor because as you point out the record before this court is the undeveloped record that was before the district court before this program even took effect but we were there the danger here is there not of going too far afield and we don't want to we don't want to blast a whole lot of uses of the information which might be quite damaging so i thought the narrow question posed to the judge gregory on pocket sized and the government could take those photographs and start stalking you just like george gregory said so it's not just a collection of that data that we  more complex problem but the poll cameras are collecting data every day every day i walk out to get a sandwich i'm on a pole that's correct and i don't understand the planet to be saying that they would be concerned if the police department was taking aerial photographs of everyone and just doing that alone their concern is being a dentist  but as you point out with poll cameras there's there are these are all conventional surveillance tools it's just a matter of using them in a different way the only thing the photographs here do is help police use traditional ground these devices in a more efficient way and as judge wilkinson pointed out baltimore is beleaguered by violence we're facing unprecedented rates of homicides the police are using a technology to aid in observations of movement distinguishable in a few ways st as judge niemeyer has emphasized the court was really struck by the encyclopedic records of a person's movements that this that particular type of data historical sulfite location information was able to provide about the person's movements in that case they emphasize that there is an average of one hundred and one data point for a day and that even when the phone is not being used as long as it turned on it's constantly creating data points  pixel it would be more like saying it's the hit on the traditional ground based surveillance because that's the only time you can a dental five on someone in particular at a particular place but for they hit a ground based surveillance significant distinction between carpenter in our situation and carpenter the court also emphasized the ease with which the police could obtain that's what was particularly troubling for the court that as they described it just the click of a button suddenly the police had this voluminous amount of information here this is actually still a quite labor intensive enterprise because an analyst looking at anonymous starts still has to work a full hour to track two hours worth of movements it then has were able to figure out was a person's movements over an extended period of time here the most that please could figure out here is a person's movements generally from point a to point b maybe a few stops but only within a twelve hour period because yes you could the next day try and guess which takes so could represent another person that you would have no way of knowing with any reliability there always had to be  validation on the ground and there's always going to be a gap of what happened in those twelve hours when there was no plane flying to take imagery from which anyone could even attempt to track movements and make an identification and that's you your honor i just want to make a few quick points in rebuttal so if there are any doubts about whether the record shows this program will identify people the government just spelled them the defendants again used the word impossible but then later admitted that it could only  e idea that they can't track across days was simply something that they can't do reliably and that's what mr mcnutt said that that is an admission that it's possible in addition the identification through this program is not as the government learning that a person was near a particular c c t v camera at a point in time it is about using that information to then follow that person around retrospectively at a minimum for twelve hours but as the record and mr and my adversaries statement made clear today they're able to do that for a much longer period of time as well nd defendants emphasize the limitations in the program that have been written into the contract that there are two couple responses there st as to the potential abuse in carpenter police only looked at a few location points about a few crimes in the data set that they collected but what the court was concerned about was the possible invasion d that's the privacy over the whole period track so the limitations then the rules that the b p t says protect privacy to be changed at whim and that kind of indiscriminate power over d a large data set is something this court has come back to in cases time and time again including most recently a wild about the trash for where the court explained that indiscriminate surveillance implicates the central concern underlying the th amendment the concern about giving police officers too much discretion to ramaj it will among privacy fact and again people's movements over time are a privacy act under the th amendment next point argument does not implicate the use of c c t v or l t r a poll cameras on its own would it what is happening here is the collection of information from the sky that simply changes the game it gives the b p t a key that will unlock a database of every baltimoreans movements over time and the collection is what is at stake and the collection is what provides police with that information about movements i just want to close with a couple references the carpenter that i think may clear the stakes of this case as carpenter court said chief justice roberts as technology has enhanced the government's capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes that this court has sought to  preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the th amendment was adopted and respectfully the founders of the drafters of the th amendment would be absolutely horrified by what is going on in baltimore right now my final point are  points to the retrospective quality of the data as a very significant element and that my adversary plays down that quality but that is its most important element as a carpenter court said two thousand two hundred and eighteen the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information that is otherwise unknowable and with access to this kind of information the government can now travel back in time and retrace the person's whereabouts subject only to the retention policies in that case of any retrospective data of course requester all kinds of data are retrospective in their nature what the cover to court is talking about is retrospective location information that allows the government to essentially when it becomes interested in someone go back and t i go back and get the poll cameras to find out retrospectively who is there a full time or doesn't capture a person's movement over time which is protective which is what is protected under carpenter i understand that there may be arguments out there that capturing a person's photograph on a public street is protected by the th amendment as well but that's not what this case is about this case is about collective movement being captured from overhead and as part of the same program photographs are then used to connect the dots identify people and it should judge gregory explained then be able to with an identity follow a person around over time and that is absolute protected under carpenter this program violates the th amendment