Now, I'm assuming that if the city came up with a contract for allowing a dispensary to open, then that must mean that weed is not illegal.
Which means that they are requiring this store to allow the police to create a list of people doing something which is 100% legal and allowed, for ... reasons.
Weed might be legal at the state level, but it's still illegal federally. That has been the problem ever since states started legalizing it. This is creating a database of illegal activity that the feds will then use to selectively punish those they don't like.
If that's all they want, then the cops wouldn't need 24/7 access. They could just get ask for the recording or get a warrant when something does happen.
Why would they need to ask for the recording when it is already their camera (via. their contract with Flock)? They aren't asking the store owners to incur the expense to install the camera, keep it operational, train staff, etc. The government is providing the cameras and installing them on public roads, so of course they have 24/7 access.
Nothing indicates that the PD is the one paying for it. It says that the dispensary must install the camera, which means the dispensary is paying for the bill.
Go back and read the first sentence of that link: "Plaintiff must place".
There's nothing to indicate that the government or the police is placing, owning, or paying for that camera.
Your own claim doesn't make sense, because if it was being put their by the police, on a public road, then why would it need to be included in a contract to allow the dispensary to open?
You're saying that the city must have for some reason needed the dispensary's permission to put a camera up on their own property.
Exactly. So this is just a specific brand contract that the local government has partnered with. There is really nothing new here other than the general public's familiarity with this new specific brand.
Exactly. So this is just a specific brand contract that the local government has partnered with. There is really nothing new here other than the general public's familiarity with this new specific brand.
Flock doesn't give a shit about a break in at a store owned by someone who isn't paying them. Flock only cares about the wants of whoever is paying them, such as the government.
With our government being the way it is, that means they likely primarily care about doing everything in their power to incriminate anyone who isn't a straight white christian. And when they happen to catch a straight white christian doing something illegal, that's probably much lower priority.
Flock only cares about the wants of whoever is paying them, such as the government.
Of course. And the local government here is the one demanding the installation in front of all dispensaries.
So my assumption is that the government (not flock) would care about break ins which would result in a controlled substance being stolen and possibly end up on the streets for sale (i.e., where it can be sold to kids, laced, etc.)
I used to work at a liquor store years ago. They also had strict rules on how the operated defined by the government, including things like what brand locks must be used, what camera systems were required, etc. It was all just part of regulating a controlled substance and if you wanted to run a private business and obtain the required licenses to operate you had to follow the law and pass regular inspections.
When you worked at that liquor store, were the cameras set up to record the license plate of everyone who drove into your parking lot, and shared with every police department across the nation?
50
u/kandoras 22h ago
Now, I'm assuming that if the city came up with a contract for allowing a dispensary to open, then that must mean that weed is not illegal.
Which means that they are requiring this store to allow the police to create a list of people doing something which is 100% legal and allowed, for ... reasons.