What are the laws about search warrants around home cameras and the 5th amendment?

I’ve thought about setting up old smart phone based IP cameras around my house facing out windows. But decided that if it comes down to arresting people for anti regime speech, that having cameras with background audio of private conversations wasn’t a good idea.

No.

::: spoiler 😎
It should be considered a moral imperative.

🫳
🎤
:::

Yeah, been like this for quite a while. They can drag you for a while, lose their case, shrug it off, and continue as normal.

Meanwhile, you lost your job after your arrest, maybe even were denied bail and had to stay ~2 years in jail waiting for trial, and spent $100k on legal expenses. Winning at trial gives you no restitution for those massive losses. You're expected to also shrug it off and continue life.

This reminds me of how police abuse any new tool they're given.

Like how while trained dogs can actually sniff out drugs, when they're given to police, they get retrained to simply alert whenever the police want them to, and essentially become a flimsy reason to let police violate your rights and search anybody they want to.

And the police suffer zero repercussions for their actions. If they don't find drugs, there's nobody who's going to take them to court and force them to retrain their dogs or to disallow drug dogs from being used as reasonable suspicion.

We are really fucked here. No accountability on their end, while foisting 200% accountability on ours.

Is there some reason victims can't just sue flock into oblivion?

Absolutely disgusting erosion of liberty and privacy, though it’s not the least bit surprising.

Legally, it's not an erosion.
Public spaces aren't private, and it was a charge that hadn't yet reached (probably costly) trial.
It's the same level of erosion as before when they lacked this level of public surveillance.

this cop is fully convinced (or acting as if he were) about the validity of this minimal-effort investigation they apparently were ready to arrest someone over.

That's standard procedure for police in the US: overconfidence & pressure of any kind (eg, lies) to extract a confession no matter if false or the evidence doesn't support it.
Their approach seeks conviction (no matter what) rather than truth.
They're twats.

No accountability on their end

Their unaccountability is standard.
Welcome to US law enforcement.
They were just as bad before.

:::spoiler Apparently, policing can be better.
UK policing was similar to the US until legal reforms (due to high profile cases of coerced confessions) led them to develop investigative interviewing, which seeks to gather evidence (free from biases & contamination) rather than confessions.

Much of the scientific base of investigative interviewing stems from social psychology and cognitive psychology, including studies of human memory. The method aims at mitigating the effects of inherent human fallacies and cognitive biases such as suggestibility, confirmation bias, priming and false memories. In order to conduct a successful interview the interviewer needs to be able to (1) create good rapport with the interviewee, (2) describe the purpose of the interview, (3) ask open-ended questions, and (4) be willing to explore alternative hypotheses. Before any probing questions are asked, the interviewees are encouraged to give their free, uninterrupted account.

When mandatory recordings revealed officers were unskilled interviewers (eg, assumed guilt of interviewee) missing & ignoring evidence due to their biases, and therefore needing training

they devised a program called PEACE with the help of psychologists. The week-long course, which also covered interviewing witnesses, was undertaken by every operational officer in the country. In the UK, unlike the USA, there is a high degree of cooperation and standardization between all forces. The training was a massive commitment, but it has helped avoid miscarriages, and it delivers better justice. Research studies and practical evaluations have also consistently shown higher skill levels and more objective approaches by officers. It is now accepted that not all officers will make good interviewers. PEACE has developed into several tiers of training linked to an officer’s field of work and identified potential.

Moreover, they refrain from lying.

The law does not allow lying to suspects, under any circumstances. Officers are trained to concentrate on probing a suspect’s account, seeking to confirm or negate by comparison with other known information. When the suspect knows that I can’t lie—my job is on the line if I do—I get more information.
:::

How the UK Police Interview Suspects - Innocence Project

^{Innocence Project}

where can I find one of these? asking for a friend.

will a blueray from a burner work, or do I need the get a green laser capable of taking out a pilots vision for this?

The fact that police officers can lie but people can't shows you the terrible power imbalance in our law enforcement.

Remember: Shut the Fuck Up

And that's why you DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE.

If you are detained, do not talk at all, even if you're nervous, even if you think you're being helpful. Do not volunteer anything. If you are arrested, you say exactly this and nothing else: "I invoke my right to remain silent, and I invoke my right to an attorney." Repeat that exact phrase AND NOTHING ELSE until you have your attorney present.

I got pulled over the other day. The reason given was a lane change violation (which was bullshit pretense, it was right outside a very rural, but very busy, bar so this was likely actually entrapment, tho I was for sure under the legal limit - I was there to check out line dancing because I’ve never seen it before, and only had one beer in the hour I was there).

I also had a very expired registration (haven’t driven much, and didn’t realize I forgot to renew it).

But I got let off everything with a warning..? I spent days trying to figure it out because it should have been a ticket.. he didn’t even seem interested in waiting for me to dig out my insurance info (which I had, just had to get it out of my wallet).

But I have a dash cam.. and it records sound. It would have proven I didn’t violate anything, and he was recorded saying why I was pulled over so no way to flub it and say it was actually the registration all along, and thus the pretense for pulling me over in the first place was void. I’m pretty sure that’s the only reason I got off with a list of warnings rather than tickets.

This is exactly the tactic the officer was employing here (for a sub $25 theft), not showing the accused the evidence so they don't know what the police might or might not know.

At some point in the process, there is "discovery" where both sides share their evidence before trial to avoid going to trial for stupid stuff (like this.) But you usually have to engage thousands of dollars of legal services before discovery is available, again over a sub $25 theft allegation.

The officer sweating her for driving through his town on the day somebody porch pirated somebody else is really ridiculous.

that's exactly what I got out of this whole situation.

guilty until proven innocent.

Yes, that's the point. Their glass ball and Tarot layout say you're guilty, so now you have to prove your innocence. And to prove your innocence you have to collect all the data on yourself.

BTW, this is far more subtle than it seems, collecting and giving to someone all the info on yourself all the time is nonsense, but collecting it and having just in case for such situations might seem normal for many honest people. Except in fact these are the same, you don't have tools to collect it all without giving it to someone predictable. So this whole big tech and surveillance con abuses good faith participation in the society. And encourages everyone becoming a cheater.

The police and other such people know that these are bullshit machines, but use them to cheat with impunity. Sometimes to charge a clearly innocent person, because they have an excuse - the computer did it. And the rest of us are incentivized to cheat to get better ratings for loans and worse ratings for scammers, and better danger rating so that police wouldn't just use as a scapegoat to close a case like this, instead choosing someone less dangerous.

Wait till witchcraft becomes a crime again. Nobody would believe in it, of course, but it'd be an easy win for everyone except the convict.

I don't care if Soviet caricatures ("Neznaika on the Moon" specifically) were wrong back then, they are correct now. I mean, yeah, they are correct everywhere now, but still.

That's intentional. Someone just makes shit up, using a magic machine, so that their responsibility were in doubt for other similar irresponsible people with ability to fuck up others' lives.

There should be a responsible policeman for every such decision, going to jail for at least as much time as she would were she convicted, when the decision is wrong.