[remflight]

If they don’t reveal their methodology then how could this be used as evidence? Shouldn’t that lead to the entire case being thrown out if the police were alerted by this? Seems ridiculous to not allow the defense to see the methodology, even radar guns get that treatment.

[woodruffw]

> If they don’t reveal their methodology then how could this be used as evidence?

It isn't used as evidence; it's used to manufacture pretext to justify collecting "real" evidence. SpotShotter is not an ignorant party: they understand that the service they sell to police departments is a pretextual laundromat for busting up whoever the police feel did the crime.

That's the crux of this case: SpotShotter is being asked to produce evidence that they are compelled to produce, and they'd rather take the loss in this instance (and continue to use it for parallel construction) elsewhere.

[throwaway17_17]

In my experience you are 100% correct. This is also the potential use case for non-warrant based Ring/Nest video and audio along with smart speaker collected audio. I’m also certain this company and those like it are consistently looking for opportunities to advertise and sell the parallel construction utility of their services.

[remflight]

Isn’t that fruit of the poison tree though?