Opinion: Warrants Should Be Required for Historical License Plate Reader Data Searches

The Case for Warrants

The author, an expert witness in the Schmidt v City of Norfolk trial, advocates for requiring warrants for historical searches of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data. This position stems from the belief that while ALPR technology can be beneficial for crime reduction, its use must be balanced with privacy concerns.

Legal Precedent and Future Trends

The argument draws parallels to the Carpenter v. US Supreme Court case, which established that law enforcement needs a warrant to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI). The author predicts that as cameras become more widespread, similar warrant requirements for ALPR data will eventually be mandated under existing case law.

The Schmidt v City of Norfolk ruling, which found that ALPR surveillance in Norfolk, Virginia, was not overly intrusive "today," is highlighted as a temporary decision, implying future legal challenges could alter the status quo.

Distinction Between Active and Historical Searches

A key distinction is made between active flags (e.g., for stolen vehicles) and historical searches (e.g., tracking a vehicle's past movements over a period). The author asserts that requiring a warrant for historical searches would not significantly impede police investigations, contrary to potential concerns.

Furthermore, the author criticizes the current lack of data retention standards, stating it does not prevent illegal searches and limits the utility of ALPR data for legitimate investigations. Existing safeguards against abuse of ALPR search systems are deemed insufficient.

Proposed Solution

The author concludes that mandating warrant procedures through state statutes for ALPR data searches would benefit all parties involved. This approach would provide clear legal guidelines, protect privacy, and ensure the legitimate use of ALPR technology.