{
  "version": "3.33",
  "compiled": "2026-10-09",
  "site": "https://stateofwatch.com",
  "claim": {
    "id": "states-brief-gregory",
    "section": 5,
    "title": "The sixteen-state brief leans on a two-camera, one-house case",
    "date": "Jun 18, 2026",
    "sort": "2026-06-18",
    "status": "verified",
    "checked": "3.10",
    "note": "Confirmed twice (v3.9 against Gregory itself, v3.10 against the brief). A full sentence-by-sentence fairness check of the brief was not done.",
    "category": "court",
    "case": "schmidt",
    "body": "United States v. Gregory, 128 F.4th 1228 (11th Cir. 2025), concerns two warrantless pole cameras on one co-defendant's home for about 10 months. The Eleventh Circuit found no Fourth Amendment violation. The sixteen-state brief quotes the line below as its opening, and Judge Davis's opinion relies on it too. Judge Jordan's partial concurrence cautioned against reading the public-view doctrine as blanket immunity for pole cameras \"regardless of the length of time they record,\" which the brief also quotes at p. 11.",
    "quotes": [
      {
        "text": "[n]othing in the Constitution forbids the government from using technology to conduct lawful investigations more efficiently",
        "from": "United States v. Gregory, 128 F.4th 1228 (11th Cir. 2025)"
      }
    ],
    "sources": [
      {
        "label": "United States v. Gregory, 128 F.4th 1228 (11th Cir. 2025)",
        "primary": true,
        "doc": "gregory-11th"
      },
      {
        "label": "Sixteen-state amicus brief",
        "primary": true,
        "doc": "schmidt-states-amicus"
      }
    ],
    "places": [],
    "url": "https://stateofwatch.com/claims/states-brief-gregory"
  }
}