The Fourth vs. Flock?

 Yesterday's SCOTUS ruling on "geofencing" being a 4th Amendment violation (in the case of criminal suspicion) brings up another possibility:  that "Flock" is also subject to 4th Amendment restrictions.

As the Ticker opines:

 ...[Another decision] that is likely to have wide-ranging impact in the world of ever-increasing surveillance, particularly the "Flock" nonsense as it both exists now and is expanding rapidly with scanners that profile on Bluetooth and WiFi MAC (and similar) addresses tying people to locations beyond that of license plates.

This decision in fact goes to exactly that "beyond" question in that it applies to "geofence" requests made to providers that are not governments, in this case Google.

The government did not seek a warrant and doesn't on a routine basis when it uses FLOCK and similar data today.  This decision ends that when the inquiry is one of criminal culpability beyond something like a license plate that is otherwise subject to direct casual, personal observation....

It is not likely that Flock's observations of license plates is per se a violation.  However, when the cops are seeking a criminal suspect and utilize Flock's videos to determine criminal culpability --that is, whether Suspect A was "at the scene" or not--it may, indeed, be a violation of the Fourth.