S.D.N.Y.: No § 1983 claim for officer’s wrongfully obtaining ALPR information for personal reasons

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim that a police officer used ALPR technology to track her for personal reasons didn’t state a Fourth Amendment claim because of the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy in LPN information. “Here, even if Carpenter provides the correct framework to analyze the purported search, the SAC does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to infer that the LPR database reveals the same ‘depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach’ of information such as CSLI. Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 320. Zambrano alleges only that the LPR helps ‘pinpoint [a] vehicle’s specific whereabouts at a specific time,’ and that Sylvester accessed her LPR location information approximately 111 times.” Rinaldi v. Sylvester, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187115 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2025).

“The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized, or implied, that the defendant’s flight from police officers is the most important factor in the totality of the circumstances analysis.” State v. Williams, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1781 (La. App. 5 Cir. Sep. 24, 2025).*

“As a primarily matter, we note that driving a third under the speed limit, which Paez was doing, together with other circumstances, has been held to support a finding of reasonable suspicion that the driver was driving while intoxicated.” Paez v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7445 (Tex. App. – San Antonio Sep. 24, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.