N.D.Cal.: No standing in ALPR info of car def didn’t drive

Defendant’s motion to suppress automated license plate reader (ALPR) data on the family car that he didn’t drive is denied for lack of standing. Also, the holder of the information was a third-party contractor. United States v. Butler, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125338 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2024).

“Applying [Leon], the Court finds it unnecessary to determine whether the PCSO affidavit established probable cause. The Court finds that, even if the affidavit failed to meet the necessary standard, none of the four exceptions to Leon applies here. In reaching this conclusion, the Court acknowledges the numerous deficiencies in the PBCSO probable cause affidavit, including the following: ….” United States v. Demezier, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124537 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2024).*

Defendant had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court including appealing the adverse ruling, so it’s barred by Stone. Even if not, “[b]ased on the testimony presented at the suppression hearing, Petitioner has not established that the state court made an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence nor that the state trial and appellate courts unreasonably applied the law.” Rivera v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125054 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123877 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing, Surveillance technology, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.