“Whether use of a License Plate Reader (‘LPR’) system to track Appellant’s movements is a search under the Fourth Amendment is a question of first impression before this Court. The purpose a license plate attached to a vehicle is to provide information, and such license plate is in plain view when the vehicle is operated on the roadways. Thus we find there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and such use of the LPR is not a search.” LPR’s don’t compare to CSLI in Carpenter. Commonwealth v. Watkins, 2023 PA Super 189, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 444 (Sep. 29, 2023) (2-1).
“Pérez-Greaux’s statement that he was not outside of his residence with any type of firearm during the relevant period amounts to what we have described in the past as a conclusory assertion. It also neither illustrates that Agent Rivera acted ‘knowingly and intentionally, [n]or with reckless disregard for the truth,’ as required by Franks. 438 U.S. at 155. [¶] We have previously held that flat denials of allegations, like Pérez-Greaux’s, fall short of the ‘substantial preliminary showing’ required to justify a Franks hearing because this only ‘set[s] up a swearing contest’ — one side has to be lying — but a flat denial alone ‘do[es] not demonstrate a substantial possibility of affiant perjury.’ Southard, 700 F.2d at 10 ….” United States v. Pérez-Greaux, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25705 (1st Cir. Sep. 28, 2023).*