In United States v. When the facial signature is collected, there may be no investigation underway, which may seem to imply that there is no Fourth Amendment search—just some inert administrative process.
Doing so, the Court produced a wrong result.
Olmstead, of course, was the case in which the Court found that a Fourth Amendment search had not occurred when government agents wiretapped the telephones of suspected bootleggers. The general rule is that Verizon does not share customer data, and there are exceptions to the general rule.
But they are mostly familiar and commonsensical. The imperfect record in the case suggests three substantial seizures and many more minor ones, with six legal justifications among them.
The extent of the seizure is not important,  and the question for administering the constitutional right is not whether an otherwise actionable trespass has occurred. This rationale applies the same way to Internet communications, which operate similarly to mail and telephones.Gathering a facial image in the visible spectrum does not give exposure to concealed things, so collection of a facial image is not a search on that basis. The observer draws inferences about things, and about the people who own and control them. Officer Ruggiero exercised further dominion over the car by opening the hood, for example, the trunk, and other compartments. The evidence was secured by the use of the sense of hearing, and that only. Pity Justice Butler. Sensing often rises to the level of searching in a way that is relatively easy to recognize. Justice Brandeis's famous dissent in Olmstead v. Search can also exist if government agents intensely examine exposed things.
New York v.