Apparently the bail jumping charge was weak? That seems like a black-and-white situation to me so no idea what the details were, but there was clearly something wrong with that charge.

If the charge was so weak then they probably couldn't get a warrant to arrest him outright? Therefore they needed the marijuana probable cause to stop and search him.

Regardless the disturbing part is that they're using surveillance state footage of a person traveling to a state where something is legal as "probable cause" for a crime.

They actually wanted to add another charge. The cameras helped them find the right opportunity to do that.

If they just picked him up driving around, they would only be able to charge those existing crimes.

By waiting for him to cross state lines, they have a chance to add on another charge.

They already had enough PC for the stop, and they could have searched the car as incident to the arrest at any time.

Article also states bail jumping charge was dismissed but the weed charge is the only charge that remains.

2. the article address that specifically:

> The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged criminal suspected of committing a violent crime. But it is also an example of police surveillance overreach *in that the cameras were specifically used to create a pretext to tack on additional petty crimes* based primarily on where a person’s vehicle had traveled.

Yes. That's exactly the point. Comply with every little thing, no matter how absurd, or else your life will unravel.

Look through a historical comment (especially from back when "big data" was the buzzword) thread on any subject where HN is pro regulation and pro government. This is EXACTLY what the useful idiots want.

They want some NYC liquor store owner to pay a hundred grand to the state because that one time he visited NH he loaded up his van with tax free henny to sell back home.

They want that exurban undeveloped lot owner to lose their house for letting their buddy with a tree service dump there and fill in a few hundred square feet over the course of half a decade.

They want some random industrial employer that makes nuts and bolts or something to be fined millions of dollars because their maintenance employees spray painted a piece of equipment in the parking lot without the PPE and pollution compliance measures befitting a commercial paint operation.

They want the jackboot on the throat of everyone who steps out of line on any axis that they care about.

They see the way the banking industry tries to stay away from weed, porn and guns because the upside isn't worth the risk of being combed over by the enforcers. And instead of seeing it as cautionary, they see it as a model that needs to be scaled down to the small businesses and the lowly individual peasants.

Of course they don't lay it out so plainly. They use words like "negative externality" and "antisocial" and "dis-incentivize" to whitewash it but that doesn't change what it is.