Stingrays in Minnesota? Who is to say absent research and/or some official inquiry? [UPDATED]

The DFL endorsed Matt Pelikan as party candidate for Attorney General. The question might be asked of the candidate, which office would be most appropriate to initiate an inquiry and to attempt to discern governing Fourth Amendment Stingray principles beyond Katz v. U.S (which was key in instigating the evolution of general Fourth Amendment "expectation of privacy" law).

If not an activist AG, then who should be stepping up for fact-finding, finding precedent, and articulating policy? With it clear the AG would be the best official for setting law-enforcement Stingray policies, statewide; media should be asking Pelikan and other AG candidates what intended specific steps would each take on the Stingray issue.

Responses would help elucidate each candidate's intent and appropriate capability with regard to protection of individuals' right to privacy.

Try searching the fulltext of the Constitution for the word "privacy" sometime. Yet all agree, there has to be a right to privacy inherent in good democratic government.

A closing link, an Economist current issue featured in depth presentation.

___________UPDATE____________
The Hill.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is demanding action from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and private phone companies to better protect Americans from being spied on or tracked.

In an interview with The Hill Tuesday, Wyden accused FCC Chairman Ajit Pai of “stonewalling” his pleas for action.

“Mr. Pai and the FCC are dragging their feet here,” Wyden said. “They are stonewalling. They are ducking. They are trying to conjure up any possible reason to sit it out.”

Pai so far has declined to investigate Stingrays further, but says his agency is open to digging into the matter down the road.

Sad.

Fecklessly sad.

Finally, the earlier post, above, presumed something about the Minnesota AG election this fall, lack of a DFL contest, which did not hold true.