S.D.Ind.: No REP in ALPR tracking; not as intrusive as GPS

Tracking defendant’s vehicle with automatic license plate readers can’t be equated with GPS placement, so Jones distinguished. There’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in an LPN. There is also interesting Franks and staleness issues. Defendant got a Franks hearing but didn’t prevail because probable cause was shown in any event. And, because the car was used in a shooting, it was reasonable to think that spent shell cases would be inside. United States v. Griffin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97641 (S.D. Ind. May 22, 2025).

“Donovan does not identify on appeal which statements in the affidavits were ‘deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.’ Instead, he cites to the memorandum in support of the motion to suppress submitted to the district court and argues that the Government did not dispute the alleged misrepresentations but rather ‘attempted to justify the affiant’s action.’ Therefore, we have analyzed the filings submitted to the district court.” And he loses for lack of a showing. United States v. Bourrage, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12360 (5th Cir. May 21, 2025).*

Defendant was lost in a construction area because his vehicle GPS wasn’t accurate, and he stopped at a police car for directions. One thing led to another, and he was arrested for DUI. A search of the car revealed a firearm he was prohibited from possessing. The search was valid. United States v. Reed, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96712 (S.D. Ind. May 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Automatic license plate readers, Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.