As much as I'd love for this to happen, the analogue of ALPRs is a cop following someone all day (no warrant required) or an army of cops on street corners writing down every license plate that passes (no warrant required). Just because it's a computer doing the reporting, how does that suddenly make it a fourth amendment violation?
Cops can't wiretap without a warrant because a phone call is a private conversation between two people in a private space. A cop is allowed to stand next to you while you chat on a park bench or hear your side of a cellphone conversation.
Cops can't gain access to your email without a warrant because those are your private papers, explicitly called out in the fourth amendment. Just like they can't open your incoming and outgoing snail mail. However, cops can look at mail covers with a non-warrant approval just like they can see email metadata without a warrant simply because everyone else can see that mail cover or metadata.
A license plate is not private information. It's bolted on to your car in at least one place and is designed to be very visible from a distance. Public roads are in the public and you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy driving around on public roads (the contents of your car is different). Since your license plate, and possibly your face, are in plain view in the public, how can we effectively protect ALPR data by requiring warrants?
It would be much easier to try to require a subpeona or court order to obtain ALPR data. Even the data created by ALPRs on cop cars should still require a court order except in extreme cases like tracking a violent suspect or a missing person.
> how does that suddenly make it a fourth amendment violation?
The database containing a persons travel history is the violation, as I understand it.
This database can be used to stalk someone and disrupt their life by anyone that has access to it.
Its happened to me personally.
Whereas, a simple snap of a speeding cars plate to send the owner a ticket, says nothing about their actual life, personal and business connections, etc.
I can see that as an argument, it's the patterns that ALPR data produces which could become an invasion of privacy, not the actual photos themselves. However, how is this any different than a cop legally following your car around all day?
But the point remains: a cop writing down license plates on a notepad can build a similar database. And there's plenty of precedence indicating that police don't need a warrant to record observations in public.
A database can be used to stalk someone, but that doesn't make it a 4th Amendment violation. Remember, a cop can just tail you and follow you without a warrant too.
Sometimes officers do not even provide a real reason to search stored ALPR data. EFF found officers logging search reasons such as “LOL,” “LMAO,” “idk,” and random keyboard mashing. These entries are supposed to document why a search complies with an agency’s own use policies. A Goshen (Indiana) Police Department officer searched 6,474 networks, representing data from 82,413 cameras, with “idk” as the reason.
An officer who asked a judge for a warrant to track someone for “LMAO” would be laughed out of the courtroom.
As much as I'd love for this to happen, the analogue of ALPRs is a cop following someone all day (no warrant required) or an army of cops on street corners writing down every license plate that passes (no warrant required). Just because it's a computer doing the reporting, how does that suddenly make it a fourth amendment violation?
Cops can't wiretap without a warrant because a phone call is a private conversation between two people in a private space. A cop is allowed to stand next to you while you chat on a park bench or hear your side of a cellphone conversation.
Cops can't gain access to your email without a warrant because those are your private papers, explicitly called out in the fourth amendment. Just like they can't open your incoming and outgoing snail mail. However, cops can look at mail covers with a non-warrant approval just like they can see email metadata without a warrant simply because everyone else can see that mail cover or metadata.
A license plate is not private information. It's bolted on to your car in at least one place and is designed to be very visible from a distance. Public roads are in the public and you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy driving around on public roads (the contents of your car is different). Since your license plate, and possibly your face, are in plain view in the public, how can we effectively protect ALPR data by requiring warrants?
It would be much easier to try to require a subpeona or court order to obtain ALPR data. Even the data created by ALPRs on cop cars should still require a court order except in extreme cases like tracking a violent suspect or a missing person.
> how does that suddenly make it a fourth amendment violation?
The database containing a persons travel history is the violation, as I understand it.
This database can be used to stalk someone and disrupt their life by anyone that has access to it.
Its happened to me personally.
Whereas, a simple snap of a speeding cars plate to send the owner a ticket, says nothing about their actual life, personal and business connections, etc.
I can see that as an argument, it's the patterns that ALPR data produces which could become an invasion of privacy, not the actual photos themselves. However, how is this any different than a cop legally following your car around all day?
This is a good question for an attorney.
But the point remains: a cop writing down license plates on a notepad can build a similar database. And there's plenty of precedence indicating that police don't need a warrant to record observations in public.
A database can be used to stalk someone, but that doesn't make it a 4th Amendment violation. Remember, a cop can just tail you and follow you without a warrant too.
From the article:
Searches for “LMAO”
Sometimes officers do not even provide a real reason to search stored ALPR data. EFF found officers logging search reasons such as “LOL,” “LMAO,” “idk,” and random keyboard mashing. These entries are supposed to document why a search complies with an agency’s own use policies. A Goshen (Indiana) Police Department officer searched 6,474 networks, representing data from 82,413 cameras, with “idk” as the reason.
An officer who asked a judge for a warrant to track someone for “LMAO” would be laughed out of the courtroom.