Police blotter: When can cops run license-plate searches?

"Police blotter" is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of technology and the law.

What: A Michigan man who was arrested after a police officer checked his license plate against a computer database tried to suppress that evidence on privacy grounds.

When: The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Sept. 5.

Outcome: Defendant loses when appeals court rules that Americans have no Fourth Amendment protection against computer checks--even extensive ones--of their license-plate numbers.

What happened, according to court documents:

When Officer Mark Keeley of the Farmington Hills, Mich., police department was driving around a local shopping center, he noticed a white van idling in the lane closest to the stores. A man was inside and the lane was marked with "Fire Lane" and "No Parking" signs.

Keeley entered the vehicle's license-plate number into his patrol car's Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). According to the Michigan state government's Web site (PDF), LEIN databases include missing persons, Michigan state criminal history, prison and parole information, and a list of wanted people from the National Crime Information Center.

The LEIN search showed that the vehicle was registered to Curtis Ellison, a black man who had an outstanding felony warrant. Keeley called for backup, approached the van and arrested Ellison. During the arrest, Ellison was found to have two firearms. He was later indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law.

The trial judge ruled, however, that the van was not parked illegally and therefore Keeley did not have probable cause to run the LEIN check of the van's license plate. Therefore, the judge reasoned, the results of the LEIN check should be suppressed, including the discovery of Ellison's two firearms.

The U.S. Attorney's office appealed, saying that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their license-plate numbers, and therefore police need no probable cause to conduct computer checks.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel from the 6th Circuit agreed. They said that "a motorist has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate under the Fourth Amendment...The very purpose of a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to law enforcement officials and others." (The majority also rejected Ellison's argument that he was racially profiled because he was black.)

In a dissent, however, Judge Karen Nelson Moore said the U.S. Attorney raised the argument at a late stage and it should be rejected. Without more information collected by the trial judge, such as how much information on the general public is available on the LEIN system, Moore said, it's impossible to evaluate how intrusive the computer check is.

Moore said that the key point was not whether police could read someone's license plate but under what circumstances they could perform an extensive search of computer databases. She said the FBI's National Crime Information Center system contains more than 23 million records about people and vehicles--not all accurate or up-to-date--and "allowing the information contained therein to form the basis for a seizure without any other heightened suspicion, let alone probable cause, compounds the risk of privacy intrusions that errors in these databases impose."

[volterwd]

Privacy?

Not to say that this technique (scanning everyone) is ethical, but how is this a privacy issue. You are obligated to have your lisence out in public exactly so that it can be checked at anytime. What expectation of privacy is there?

[Soulwolf]

Inevitable discovery?

The law of the land says that we should not have to endure ?unreasonable? searches. To conduct a records search without any reason is ?unreasonable?. It?s not that the police can read license plates; it?s what they do with that information that constitutes a search. It requires effort that goes far beyond what any casual passer by could or would be able to do in terms of obtaining information about the driver. What if there were a commercially available to the public equivalent to the police ability to get information about you from you cars plates, would you consider that a violation of your privacy?

From what I read, the vehicle in question could have been ticketed for where it was parked. As a matter of routine procedure a check would have been run and the identity of the driver would inevitably have been discovered.

[zanzzz]

All Super See, No Privacy

Judge Moore in his dissent opinion gets right to the heart of the matter here. At what point do we draw the line of search in public by someone not breaking the law or acting in an overly suspicious manner? Does the mere fact that someone is in public mean that they cannot expect any privacy from government officials that feel it necessary to investigate the legal status of anyone within their reach? Here is an example that is likely to happen in the near future. Facial recognition software exists and has been used to scan Superbowl crowds. Suppose this was used in airports to scan all travelers for known suspects? Most people would agree that forsaking privacy rights in exchange for enhanced airline security is reasonable. What if scanning was done in a public area in a major city? The fact of the matter is that security cameras are ubiquitous in shopping establishments and increasingly in metropolitan public areas. Of course every new intrusive method of observation by law enforcement officials is always justified on the grounds of providing greater safety, cutting crime, and catching terrorists. It seems that the linking of criminal data bases with security cameras and recognition software by legal authorities will be irresistible. The reports of police scanning license plate numbers of random drivers passing by is in reality a form of "search" without probable cause. It is roughly the equivalent of the NSA data mining all phone and Internet transmissions for potentially ones of interest without probable cause or a warrant from a judge.
The problem of defending what "privacy" expectations and rights should be is the thoughtless veal with which so many elected and appointed officials are working towards legitimizing the ever increasing power and reach of various governmental agencies. As citizens increasingly become accustomed to greater scrutiny and surveillance made possible by technological advances it becomes easier for judges to proclaim that there is little or no "expectation" of privacy in a given situation. We become familiar with being continuously observed by greater use of technical devices so it follows that government intrusion and investigation is reasonable.
The uphill battle of preserving privacy rights in this country is in large part due to how such actions are characterized by politicians and legal authorities who dislike the restraint of their power by a Constitutional abstract. To defend the rights of undesirable suspects is to be "soft on crime, terrorism, fill in the blank". Government agencies will always crave and try to employ new tools to further their goals. Intentions may be good and hearts may be pure but history's pages are filled with abuses.

[zanzzz]

All Super See, No Privacy

Judge Moore in his dissent opinion gets right to the heart of the matter here. At what point do we draw the line of search in public by someone not breaking the law or acting in an overly suspicious manner? Does the mere fact that someone is in public mean that they cannot expect any privacy from government officials that feel it necessary to investigate the legal status of anyone within their reach? Here is an example that is likely to happen in the near future. Facial recognition software exists and has been used to scan Superbowl crowds. Suppose this was used in airports to scan all travelers for known suspects? Most people would agree that forsaking privacy rights in exchange for enhanced airline security is reasonable. What if scanning was done in a public area in a major city? The fact of the matter is that security cameras are ubiquitous in shopping establishments and increasingly in metropolitan public areas. Of course every new intrusive method of observation by law enforcement officials is always justified on the grounds of providing greater safety, cutting crime, and catching terrorists. It seems that the linking of criminal data bases with security cameras and recognition software by legal authorities will be irresistible. The reports of police scanning license plate numbers of random drivers passing by is in reality a form of "search" without probable cause. It is roughly the equivalent of the NSA data mining all phone and Internet transmissions for potentially ones of interest without probable cause or a warrant from a judge.
The problem of defending what "privacy" expectations and rights should be is the thoughtless veal with which so many elected and appointed officials are working towards legitimizing the ever increasing power and reach of various governmental agencies. As citizens increasingly become accustomed to greater scrutiny and surveillance made possible by technological advances it becomes easier for judges to proclaim that there is little or no "expectation" of privacy in a given situation. We become familiar with being continuously observed by greater use of technical devices so it follows that government intrusion and investigation is reasonable.
The uphill battle of preserving privacy rights in this country is in large part due to how such actions are characterized by politicians and legal authorities who dislike the restraint of their power by a Constitutional abstract. To defend the rights of undesirable suspects is to be "soft on crime, terrorism, fill in the blank". Government agencies will always crave and try to employ new tools to further their goals. Intentions may be good and hearts may be pure but history's pages are filled with abuses.

[enigma.live]

Drivers Privacy Protection Act

I wonder if the Court of Appeals ignored the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, if as the majority believes that their's no reasonable protection of privacy, than why did congress enact a law specifically title "Driver's Privacy Protection Act" this is another example of courts saying "YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, PERIOD!!!" Scary.Scary.Scary.Police.Should not be allowed to arbitrarily match license-plate numbers to databases of other private information without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If this were the case, the police could spot people with previous traffic violations and continuously pick on them, harass them, follow them and know that accusing them of a new violation will be a much easier process for them in the courts. People please stand up for your rights NOW...DON'T BE SO STUPID...CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN NOW....

[CancerMan2]

Happens All The Time. Happened To Me

I was recently pulled over by the the Paramilitary Police (PP), aka California Highway Patrol. I had done nothing wrong to warrant a pullover at 2:30 a.m. It was a dark road and unfortunately all the donuts shops were closed, so the PP had time on their hands. The Officle-sir asked to see my registration. Well it was 2 weeks overdue (due in the same month as the vehicle tags, so no outward indication of that). I was given a ticket and told to be a good, docile, compliant citizen and to go away before they shipped me off to Gitmo. Note to the Paramilitary Police: I won't be contributing to your widow and orphans fund this year.

[OneWithTech]

Lets put this into perspective here.

First the man was parking in a NO PARKING zone. I'm not a cop and I'd tell you that if I was cruzing by and seen the act of parking in a no parking area then I would see who is parking there. After all, isn't it the cops job to be suspicious?

So the cop runs the plate and it turns out the man that OWNS the van is wanted. If you wanted to challenge the fact of running the plates than what the hell is the technology there for? That is the question you need to be asking. If you going to question the validity of the technology against something that was created TOO MANY years ago then you might as well throw away the technology.

So in retrospect something needs to be changed. Is it the Fourth Amendment Right that needs to be changed or cops running plates?


OneWithTech

[wbenton]

Need to get a new judge.

>>>When Officer Mark Keeley of the Farmington Hills, Mich., police department was driving around a local shopping center, he noticed a white van idling in the lane closest to the stores. A man was inside and the lane was marked with "Fire Lane" and "No Parking" signs.<<<

BUT

>>>The trial judge ruled, however, that the van was not parked illegally and therefore Keeley did not have probable cause to run the LEIN check of the van's license plate.<<<

If I parked in a fire lane which had a strict no parking sign on it... I would expect to be arrested.

Apparently this judge is living in another world!!!

Walt

[enigma.live]

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The dissenting judge should be commended for dissenting, read her opinion.

"An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable
expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to
government regulation. Automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, and often necessary
mode of transportation to and from one?s home, workplace, and leisure activities.
Many people spend more hours each day traveling in cars than walking on the
streets. Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling
in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes
of travel. Were the individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every
time he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment
would be seriously circumscribed."

[doittodeath]

License Plate searches

Time has now expired on your constituional rights. We are governed under the Uniform Commercial code. Forget Privacy and Freedom they were never yours in the first place.

[cooldogjones]

Driving Privileges

For those of you who don't know: 1st of all driving is a privilege,
not a right, 2nd I'd rather have the bad guys off the streets by
merely running plate checks rather creating crimes (particularly
violent ones), 3rd what do you have to hide anyway?

Those of you whining about your rights would be the first ones
to cry and wimper when some guy(s) robs you and/or your
family at gunpoint. It's funny how much you want the police
when you've been violated by a thug but please stay out my
rearview mirror right. Despite what the movies portray Cops are
the good guys. Stop assuming the worst from them. Majority
become police officers to help people.

[mjd420nova]

Big Brother is here

Wrong, Big Brother has been here for years. The abilities of law enforcement and government agencies has been well documented, but is really only the half of it. You are being scanned, observed, and scrutinized every day. And in 99.99 percent of the time, you don't even know it. The devices around you are all subject to being used clandestinely to observe and track you everywhere you go. RFID, GPS, your cell phone, your new car, even your passport and drivers license can and in most cases have RFID tags and chips in them. If you break the law and are observed by any of these devices, you're busted. Either by video cameras, which are everywhere these days, or simple observation by law enforcement agencies, your passage is recorded and noted. Parking in a red zone, fire lane or plainly posted no parking/ no stopping zone is one sure way to draw additional attention to yourself. DUH, wake the hell up, if you break the law, however tiny an infraction, you will be caught. Concerned about your privacy being violated in public, then stay home, out of sight. Remember, your phone and computer lines are not private and subject to being intercepted. If you are a crook, look out, you will be caught and made to pay with the ultimate price, the forfeiture of that prized but illusionary possession--PRIVACY. No need to feel paranoid unless you are a law breaker.

[ReVeLaTeD]

Exigent circumstances, people.

It'll sound like I'm taking both sides, but I'm not. I'm actually not taking either.

On the first hand, the man was parked illegally. That gives the officer the right to run the plates.

HOWEVER...the plate run is exclusive and limited to the sole purposes of (1) identifying its owner, (2) seeing if it's stolen, and (3) verifying its registration status. Everything else should be suppressed, as it's not relevant to the reason the cop ran the plate: a parking violation.

So, the cop was right in being able to run the plate. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the other information farmed from the plate can be used against the man, and I say no.

[bluemist9999]

Privacy vs Security - Where do we draw the line?

Essentially, there are two mutually exclusive needs at work. One is the need for privacy---the expectation that honest, law-abiding citizens have a right not to expose some aspects of their lives to other people. The other is the need for security---the expectation that law enforcment officials/government agencies need to know some information about people in order to prevent or prosecute crimes.

So where do we draw the line? Is any activity in a public place subject to monitoring? If so, what is a public place? And, if so, to what extent?

I feel a license plate itself is public property and can be scanned. However, the contents of the person's vehicle and such are private property and need a compelling need to search (i.e. a warrant).

However, I feel any monitoring MUST be judged on its benefit to society at large --- if it merely "moves" crimes, it has no benefit. That is what happens with the many cameras in the UK---they merely move the crimes to non-camera areas.

I feel if a type or degree of monitoring does not provide compelling success, the rights of privacy for all people must be paramount.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Officer Safety

As part of my duties with a local agency, we run the license plate of any vehicle that is stopped or when we are out of our patrol car to make a contact with the public. This isn't to be nosy, but instead it is for our own safety. We will call in to dispatch that we are out with so and so a car with plate number ABC123 at so and so address. Before we step out of the car, we run that plate so we can check the history. If the RO (registered owner)has had a history of physical violence or threats/assaults on officers, we need to know that before we get out of the car.

This not only helps us to determine how to approach the situation, but also if something happens to us and we are unable to respond to the radio, the dispatcher has a record of what we were doing, where we were, and what vehicle was stopped. That gives other officers a starting point to try to figure out what happened and who to contact.

Do we run plates just out of curiosity? Yes, there are times when you do because the way a car is being driven or something about the driver just makes you suspicious. Most people will look at a patrol car when it's on the road. Those that go out of their way to pointedly NOT look are suspicious and you run the plates just to be sure. Most of the time everything is fine. Sometimes you run across that vehicle that has someone in it you are looking for. You don't know until you check.

It's for both the public and officer's safety to check these things out.

[dmm]

What's the difference?

I hope that everyone agrees that it is OK for police (whether in uniform or not) to look at peoples' faces and compare them with their memory of "wanted" posters.

So, then, what is the fundamental difference between this acceptable behavior and automated scanning of faces at a mall, stadium, airport, or any other public place? All you are doing is replacing human eyes with a camera, human memory with computer memory, and human recognition algorithms with computer recognition algorithms.

And the same argument holds for license plates, or VINs, or anything else that is plainly visible. So, it is perfectly acceptable for police to look through the window into my car to see if there is something suspicious. They don't even need probable cause. But they can't force me to open the trunk without a warrant.

You might try to argue that, in running plates, police are making use of info that is unavailable to the general public. That's not quite true. If I see a neighbor driving dangerously, I can write down the plate number and call the police, who will then run the plate number. If the person turns out to be wanted, they'll tell me to call them when he returns home and then they'll move in. And if he is not wanted, I can still swear out a complaint against him. If several people are witnesses, you can get someone ticketed with no police witnesses. So clearly the license plate info is available to and can be used by the general public, just not directly.

[enigma.live]

Unfortunately it takes a criminal

It's only when a criminal gets his privacy violated do people ever find out about these invasions. We don't hear about how many invasions happen that the police do not expose. Someone mentioned that the NSA likely is data mining this forum, well all you innocents,nothing to hide people are having your rights violated. The issue of nothing to hide is not relevant, some people are not bothered with what they perceive as "minor intrusions" while others do not agree, it's those others whose privacy then matters. I guess if you have nothing to hide then I'm sure you wouldn't mind the police anytime they choose putting a camera in your bathroom at home, now you'll probably say this is quite an extreme example and a major intrusion. Well it's just to show that we all have different lines of what we consider private, and just because you have no problem with a license plate search with no probable cause doesn't mean I do. The issue of being parked illegally in this matter was resolved by the courts in that the vehicle was not parked illegally, thus the issue then became about can a search be done without cause. Unfortunately this is not the case I would've chose to defend privacy on license plate information, however it's here to discuss. Just remember that now your ok with the next time a local sheriff checking out license plates of everyone at a party of the candidate who opposes him for the next election, and just remember your ok with a license plate check next time your parked at a strip club or at a gay bar. No one said a police officer shouldn't check a license plate if their's reasonable suspicion or probable cause, I'm just saying stop the curiosity checks and other hidden agenda checks that have nothing to do with law enforcement. Case law is not about the specific incident that occurred it's about the issue at hand.

My Crazy Ex has been Doing it for Some Time!

My crazy ex has been doing that sort of thing for sometime, trying to convince me that it's God and the like [she's suffers from Narcassistic Personality Disorder - Evangelical]... From time to time, if I change my tags, she would 'befriend' some dumb cop and have him run them in an attempt to find out if the car's actually mind and/or to find out where I live...