Defendant’s van was standing in a no parking zone, and a police officer ran the license number, apparently not even intending to issue a ticket. The owner of the vehicle came back with a felony warrant, and that led to an arrest. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate. United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. September 5, 2006):<\/p>\n
No argument can be made that a motorist seeks to keep the information on his license plate private. The very purpose of a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to law enforcement officials and others. The reasoning in Class<\/em> vis-a-vis Vehicle Identification Numbers applies with equal force to license plates: “[B]ecause of the important role played by the [license plate] in the pervasive governmental regulation of the automobile and the efforts by the Federal Government to ensure that the [license plate] is placed in plain view,” a motorist can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on it. 475 U.S. at 114 (discussing Vehicle Identification Numbers).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Comment:<\/em> This is not a remarkable holding. A license plate sits there for the rest of the public to see, and it cannot be credibly argued that the police cannot run “wants or warrants” off the license number of any vehicle, even if just for curiosity. The book argues otherwise, but I’ve mellowed over the years, and, as appealing as it sounds that a motorist should not be subjected to unnecessary stops for official curiosity, there is no way to enforce such a rule as to license plates. (The District Court suppressed, and the government appealed.)<\/p>\n
Bounty hunter entered habeas petitioner’s house to capture him on bond, but defense counsel did not file a motion to suppress. “Counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress does not mean that petitioner did not have the opportunity to litigate this claim.” It would have failed anyway. Moore v. Campbell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62641 (E.D. Cal. September 1, 2006)* (besides, a bounty hunter’s entry is not “state action” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment).<\/p>\n
Controlled buy by confidential informant is PC for a search warrant. State v. James, 2006 Ohio 4543, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4488 (11th Dist. September 1, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading