The dragnet nature of the data collection was given as the basis for why the officer's use of the data required a warrant or probable cause, but was not given as the thing in violation itself. The document clearly says that the problem was that the police officer searched the data without a warrant or probable cause, not that the data was collected without a warrant or probable cause.

Here's from the very final conclusion:

> "Alaniz conducted that search ... because he saw her license plate was from California. That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights."

And here's from earlier in the document:

> "In the Court’s view, Alaniz did not have enough information to reasonably believe that Kyle was engaged in unlawful conduct"

The court wouldn't be talking that way if the problem were the data collection and not the circumstance of the stop.

The Bill of Rights does constrain private parties when acting on behalf of, in place of, or in tandem with the government.

Marsh v. Alabama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_v._Wilmington_Parking_A...

Flock is often contracted to install and operate its camera network on behalf of local governments and police. The specific act that violated the 4th Amendment in this case was the government searching the collected data, but it is within the realm of possibility that Flock’s existing business model will be considered an unconstitutional dragnet.