Let me correct that to Garcia ignores relevant portions of Katz. There is no discussion of the idea that some actions in public show there is an expectation of privacy.
I think it would be illegal gambling to take you up on your offer. If we hadn’t waived the fourth amendment by talking about it in public, perhaps I’d have taken you up on it.
So far as I know, predicting the future is not a part of valid legal analysis.
In my opinion, since the supreme court has specifically left open the question for this type of activity, there is a presumption that they do not like it. When it was raised before, they could have said it has no merit instead, closing the door instead of the invitation.
There is A LOT you’re not considering.