You really sully your position when you call it a "stupid extension of the idea of viewing = searching."
replyAgain, details matter: how is it stupid.
See the two paragraphs before? That lays out my position.
replyThe courts have repeatedly upheld far more invasive searches and encroachments of vehicles, but now confusingly consider simply observing the outside of your vehicle to constitute an excessive search.
The Baltimore decision is stupid because it contradicts 50 years of case law over what constitutes a search and what degree of privacy you expect to have on a private roadway.
No need for snark; I'm genuinely interested in your position. From my re-read and re-read, you've provided a conclusory statement without actually explaining the details.
replyIs your definition of "stupid" anything that contradicts 50 years of case law? That seems.... tautologically limp.