How do courts balance park surveillance with Fourth Amendment rights?

[Ava.C]

I'm a journalist covering a developing story where local law enforcement has begun a widespread surveillance program in a public park, citing a vague city ordinance about loitering, and I believe it raises serious questions about constitutional rights, specifically regarding unreasonable search and seizure and the right to assembly. My editor wants a nuanced piece that goes beyond the immediate controversy and examines the legal precedents. For legal scholars or civil rights attorneys, how do courts typically balance government interests in public safety against Fourth Amendment protections in open, public spaces? What are the key tests or standards used, and in recent rulings, have you observed a shift in how digital surveillance tools, like automated license plate readers or facial recognition in public areas, are being treated under existing constitutional frameworks?