Blog
You Never Had That Right
Someone on X asked critics to name a single criminal statute added since 1789 that should not be there. If the law is not secretly manufacturing new crimes, the story goes, the fear that a location file will be used against you later is a fantasy. In the same stretch of posts: you are asserting a right not to have your license plate read that you do not have and have never had. You are not losing a freedom. You are inventing one.
Two claims. Neither is a joke. Both miss.
Take the statute dare first, because it sounds like empiricism. It is a category error. The database does not need a new code section to become a weapon. It needs old statutes plus a new search. Immigration through a city’s cameras. A family-court fishing trip. A jealous cop. A prosecutor who decides a pattern of driving looks like a conspiracy. A future administration that decides travel to a clinic, a range, a mosque, or a newsroom is the sort of thing worth reconstructing. The Database of Ruin already said you do not get to define what is incriminating after the file exists. The post is asking for a future title in the U.S. Code. The harm is the file.
The dare is also historically false, which would matter more if it were the right test. Prohibition. The federal drug schedule. A stack of regulatory crimes nobody in 1789 would have recognized as crimes. “New crimes invented out of thin air just hasn’t happened ever” is a sentence you can only write by forgetting the last century. We have added plenty. We have also, more to the point, pointed old crimes at new people once the watching got cheap.
The dare also pretends the code is still a short list of things everyone knows are crimes. It is not. Harvey Silverglate, a civil-liberties lawyer, put the problem in a phrase that has been repeated until people treat it like a count: the average busy professional may commit three federal felonies a day without knowing it. Treat the three as a warning, not a census. Nobody has counted the crimes. The Justice Department tried in the 1980s and quit. Estimates now run to several thousand federal statutory offenses, and hundreds of thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties. In 1940, Robert Jackson told the country’s prosecutors the danger that follows from a code that thick: with the law books full of a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation on almost anyone. It stops being “discover the crime, then find the man.” It becomes pick the man, then search the books. That is what a location file is for. You do not need a new statute invented out of thin air. You need a map of where someone went, and a code already too thick to know. “Name one that shouldn’t be there” is a dare issued from inside a haystack.
The second claim, you never had a right not to have your plate read, is true of a cop’s eyes. False of a vendor cloud.
Displaying a plate on a public road is a legal condition of driving. It is not consent to a searchable, multi-agency index of everywhere that plate went. A glance is particular. An officer sees a car in front of him, in a place he actually is, in a moment that will not be sitting in a server for the next department to rewind. The mosaic is the opposite of particular. It is everyone, in advance, in case a reason is wanted later. If “it was always legal to look” settled the Fourth Amendment, Carpenter would have come out the other way, because you also “always” carried a phone in public, and Chatrie would have come out the other way, because you also “always” stood on a sidewalk near a bank. The Court has already refused that collapse for location records held by a company. The remaining move is to insist a plate is different because the government issued the metal. The government also issues passports. That does not make a passport a warrant to follow you home.
“You’re not losing a single freedom” only works if freedom is defined as the absence of a new prohibition in the code. Freedom, on this site, includes the unwatched space in which a person can drive to the doctor, the lawyer, the church, and the ex without assembling a record for a stranger with a login. Take that space away and you still have a license and a road. You do not have the same country.
The same stretch of posts has a smaller point mixed in that is worth keeping. Every lookup system has been abused, NCIC included, and catching the abuser is better than not catching him. Flock logging a reason is better than a notebook in a glove box. Better is not the same as sufficient. An audit that fires the cop who stalked his girlfriend leaves the archive of everyone else intact. The product is the archive. I have already refused to treat the vendor’s log as a Fourth Amendment.
The rest of that argument is garnish. Critics don’t care about your family. Imagine a kidnapping and no cameras. Crush this in front of suburban women. Soros. Defund. Name the smear and leave it. Objecting to a general warrant is not abolition. Wanting a kidnapped child found is not a brief for a national rewind of every errand. Precision is a real police good. A dragnet is not how a free country buys it. The cop who would have stopped ten innocent Golfs has a legitimate grievance against imprecision. The answer is not to photograph the other ten thousand cars so the eleventh stop can be clean.
Three posts. One campaign. Flock as liberty because fewer stops. Flock as settled law because a handful of panels have not yet applied Carpenter. Flock as a right you never had because plates are public. The first is a stolen word. The second is a snapshot. The third is a glance pretending to be a mosaic. The cameras still photograph everyone. That is the mechanism, and no amount of civil-libertarian branding changes what the mechanism is.