Tulsa County Deputy Sheriff Freddie Alaniz was parked on the side of the highway observing traffic when for no apparent reason, he began to follow a driver with a California license plate. He also entered the vehicle's license plate number into an Automated License Plate Reader system — allegedly before seeing the driver commit any infraction.
Alaniz waited to see the driver commit an infraction before conducting a routine traffic stop. That stop resulted in driver Melisa Kyle being arrested and charged with knowingly possessing 91-pounds of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill ruled Alaniz did not have probable cause when he used the ALPR system to track Kyle's license plate. Therefore, it was an unwarranted search and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
"Freedom from persistent, dragnet-style surveillance while in public is not a foreign concept in our society, and it is a reasonable expectation that society already accepts," the ruling states.
Given the violation, Hill granted the defendant a motion to suppress — meaning any evidence gathered following the ALPR searches is void.
Hill was appointed by then-President Joe Biden, and received support from Sen. James Lankford, though she was quietly opposed by Gov. Kevin Stitt. She is the former Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation and a Cherokee citizen.
"No doubt, ALPR technology comes with remarkable benefits that the Court cannot ignore. But the Fourth Amendment requires courts to draw a line when the cost is too great," Hill wrote. "All evidence obtained after Alaniz initiated the ALPR search must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree."
Alaniz's ALPR search queries used at least two systems, including Flock and VehicleManager. Both systems gather and organize historical data about vehicle locations on public roadways.
In recent months, Oklahoma residents have grown increasingly wary of ALPR technology. Opponents to the technology fear the mass collection of data allows government actors to track residents.
In the case of Alaniz's ALPR searches, the queries provided the deputy with over 50 individual records of Kyle's whereabouts across the country. In the ruling, Hill described the technology as indiscriminate mass surveillance.
"We do not expect people we know—let alone strangers, and especially not law enforcement—to randomly approach us to say: 'Hey, I have been following your car for the last 30 days, and here is a detailed log of every place your vehicle has been with supporting photographic evidence. I am also going to share this information with law enforcement throughout the country so they know your whereabouts, too,'" the ruling states.
After using the technology to search Kyle's records, Alaniz pulled her over, citing her failure to signal within at least 100 feet of a lane change and following a vehicle too closely. During the traffic stop, Alaniz questioned Kyle about her recent trip to California and compared her responses to the data he collected through the ALPR system.
Alaniz issued Kyle a warning and returned her license. Hill's ruling states that although the initial traffic stop was justified, Alaniz lacked reasonable suspicion to extend it further.
"Once an officer returns the driver's license and registration, the traffic stop has ended and questioning must cease; at that point, the driver must be free to leave," the ruling states.
After returning Kyle's license, Alaniz told Kyle that based on his experience, her short trip could be indicative of transporting drugs. He asked to search the vehicle, and Kyle refused. Alaniz detained Kyle and called for backup, which resulted in Kyle's eventual arrest.
The ruling states evidence collected following the ALPR search's initiation must be suppressed, as it results from the unconstitutional violation of privacy.
Neither the Tenth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has decided whether law enforcement's use of ALPR technology constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. Hill's ruling could set stricter precedent for how law enforcement may use ALPR systems during investigations.
"Based on the Court's research, it appears that nearly every court examining the issue to date has determined that ALPR technology use is not a search under the Fourth Amendment because people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements on public streets," the ruling states.
"But it becomes constitutionally problematic when law enforcement can indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time and then use that information for any purpose whenever convenient."
According to reporting by The Hill, a Flock spokesperson said they expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately overturned.
"This ruling is limited to the specific facts of this case. It does not set controlling precedent and does not affect law enforcement agencies' continued use of these important public safety technologies," the spokesperson added.
You can read the full ruling here.
