Resistance is futile…

https://www.jalopnik.com/1982690/police-flock-cameras-sued-for-tracking-man-526-times/

Police Used Flock Cameras To Track One Driver Over 500 Times. Now They're Being Sued

… Yet a Flock Safety spokesperson told NBC News, "Fourth Amendment case law overwhelmingly shows that LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This sounds like a lovely little linguistic loophole: The cameras don't continuously track people's movements, they're stationary! But they "capture detailed data about license plates," which enables "quick and efficient action." That sounds a lot like tracking.

… Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed a law in May limiting the circumstances where license plate data can be accessed, and it goes into effect in January 2026. Under the law, authorities will only be able to obtain data during active criminal investigations, missing and endangered persons cases, and in cases where a car or license plate has been stolen. 

You may notice that this means the cameras will still be recording. All this law does is tell law enforcement when they can access the footage. The Schmidt-Arrington case is about being recorded at all, and as the Kansas police chief case shows, that's the crux of the issue. Taking the pictures but restricting access for the moment is like requiring everyone to get a mug shot in case they commit a crime someday.

Tools & Techniques.

https://www.bespacific.com/the-art-of-ai-prompting-in-law-and-dispute-resolution-practice/

The Art of AI Prompting in Law and Dispute Resolution Practice

Lande, John, The Art of AI Prompting in Law and Dispute Resolution Practice (September 29, 2025). University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2025-46, 43 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation (forthcoming November 2025), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5544018 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5544018

This short article offers a practical guide for using AI tools to improve the judgment and efficiency of lawyers, mediators, and arbitrators. It cites ABA Ethics Opinion 512, which describes lawyers’ ethical duty of technological competence under the ABA Model Rules. The article encourages practitioners to begin by selecting AI tools appropriate to their tasks such as general-purpose platforms or specialized tools listed in the article. It explains how to write effective prompts, use follow-up questions to refine outputs, and apply professional judgment when reviewing results. It includes a list of suggested follow-up prompts. Getting useful results from AI tools requires similar skills used in legal and dispute resolution work – skills that people can improve with practice. The article includes numerous examples of AI prompts that can be used throughout the life of a case, from preparation to post-session reflection. It cautions that AI tools can produce inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated content, and urges users to exercise human oversight and to independently verify results.