re: "expectations of privacy"
Yes, this is all very interesting.
Here's the 4th Amendment text:
-----------------------
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
---------------------------------------
Not seeing anything in there about location or expectations of privacy or placing tracking devices, or any such things. How did I miss it?
Well, this brings up a very important distinction in government, which is the difference between "authority" and "power".
Authority comes from the people, and the government is limited to ONLY what it is permitted by the Constitution, and especially strict prohibitions/instructions of government are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, in order to make certain things crystal clear that they SHALL NOT do . Period.
That's "authority", and in the US Federal Government, the authority is very strictly limited in terms clearly described in the US Constitution.
But, "power" is another thing completely. It's what government can do simply because it's the biggest baddest street gang on the block, and it has a lot of people with guns who will go after you, on command. No lawful basis necessary. And this is how the majority of the government do things.
So, how does this tie in to the discussion?
Well, it ties in because the "expectation of privacy", and "being in public" is not part of the 4th Amendment which is the restriction on gov't. And the 9th and 10th Amendments say that anything not enumerated is in the purview of the States and the People. NOT in the purview of the Federal Government, right?
Right.
So, all these "interpretations" and "case law" and "precedents" are in fact, made-up fiction. They are not law. They are one-sided decisions by the government that it is going to usurp these aspects which are beyond its specific authority granted by the people. These are decisions made by politically appointed judges, and made with specific intent to set "precedent" so as to expand the latitude of what government can do, based on some lies by a judge, and sworn-to by the rest of the government cronies who will profit by this "precedent" which increases their power over the people. It is a "jedi mind trick" which makes people think that this is a lawful process, and therefore people think it is lawful, so they they dutifully obey. But it is not lawful. The judiciary has no authority to legislate from the bench. Its role is to decide guilty or not guilty, based on the law. It has been given no authority to make law. But, they use this procedure to make "color of law", so that they can foist it over on everyone and act as if it "is law", when it isn't.(Disclaimer: Simply because it's not "lawful" doesn't mean that they won't throw you in jail or shoot you if you don't obey, so be aware of that.) They use the term "legal".
It's "POWER". And they enforce it as if it is law, when it is not, because they CAN. They have the guns, they have the thugs, they have all our money that they have taken from us to pay for all this, and they use it to control us for their own gain.
"Color of law" is what most governmental operations today are comprised of. That is why the constitution is pushed aside, because it is a painful reminder of how far government has strayed from their commission, into an over-reaching unlawful and oppressive monster that we see today. It is the result of the conniving and scheming of men trying to break the bonds of the Constitution for their own self-aggrandizement and power, for over 100 years. And some would say a significantly longer time period than that.
And for those who want to cling to "case law" or "precedent", then I submit this one that trumps all others.
Marbury vs Madison 1803
"A law which is repugnant to the Constitution is void".