What did the Supreme Court case Wiggins vs State conclude regarding RADAR use?

The conclusion of the Supreme Court case Wiggins vs State regarding the use of RADAR is that it is not considered a search. This ruling establishes that the use of RADAR technology by law enforcement to detect speeding does not fall under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The rationale behind this conclusion is rooted in the context and expectations of privacy on public roadways. Drivers have a reduced expectation of privacy when operating a vehicle on public streets, which are open to the general public. Therefore, the use of RADAR to monitor speed is deemed a reasonable method of law enforcement that does not infringe upon a person's constitutional rights.

The other options are not aligned with the Supreme Court's findings in this case. For instance, concluding that RADAR use is a search or requires a warrant would imply that law enforcement is overstepping legal boundaries by using this technology, which the court did not support. Instead, the ruling affirms that law enforcement methods like RADAR are valid tools within their lawful scope in public areas. As such, this case serves as a precedent for the permissible use of RADAR in speed enforcement by police.