N.D.Okla.: ALPR challenge requires standing; even so, it doesn’t violate Carpenter

Defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim about ALPR requires he show standing in the vehicle he was driving, and here he did not. Even if he had standing, Carpenter provides him no relief. “As an initial matter, the court notes that no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in either the license plate or the vehicle’s movements on public streets.” United States v. Acosta, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163286 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 22, 2025).

While Missouri is a carry state, “Officer Sheets explained that it was the combination of the defendant pointing/aiming a gun [with a drum magazine] across the street in a residential area and then concealing it once he realized he was being watched by law enforcement that first raised his suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. The officers’ suspicion was further informed by their familiarity with the area and their knowledge that the neighborhood was known for violence, including homicides, gang activity, and drug trafficking, and their familiarity with the vacant house as location where criminal activity had occurred in the past.” United States v. Conner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163547 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 22, 2025).*

Defendant’s feeling around apparently for a firearm (“security check”) in a high crime area, where the officer could see the magazine, was reasonable suspicion. While it could have been for a cell phone, in the abstract, here defendant’s phone was visible in his hand. United States v. Reams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163372 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Automatic license plate readers, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.