{
  "title": "Fourth Amendment rulings on plate readers and location tracking",
  "updated": "2026-10-03",
  "note": "Court decisions on whether police use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), and the location-tracking cases they rest on, is a search under the Fourth Amendment. A row is listed only after its holding was checked against an opinion's own text: the decision itself, or another court's opinion that states it, named in the row. Cases are cited by number; private parties appear by initial. This is a reading list, not legal advice.",
  "update_path": "New rulings are found by a weekly court watch and added here only after their opinion has been read.",
  "rulings": [
    {
      "id": "us-277-438",
      "number": "277 U.S. 438",
      "caption": "Olmstead v. United States",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "1928-06-04",
      "technology": "Telephone wiretap",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "Tapping telephone wires outside the defendants' homes and offices was not a search or seizure, because there was no physical entry and nothing tangible was taken.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "overruled",
      "status_note": "Katz v. United States (389 U.S. 347) held that its trespass doctrine \"can no longer be regarded as controlling.\" Listed for history.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 493",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/277/438"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-389-347",
      "number": "389 U.S. 347",
      "caption": "Katz v. United States",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "1967-12-18",
      "technology": "Listening device on a phone booth",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Electronically listening to and recording a caller's words in a public phone booth was a search, because the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and no physical intrusion is required.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "Overruled Olmstead v. United States (277 U.S. 438). The source of the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test every later row applies.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 35",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-425-435",
      "number": "425 U.S. 435",
      "caption": "United States v. Miller",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "1976-04-21",
      "technology": "Bank records",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "A depositor had no legitimate expectation of privacy in bank records of his accounts obtained from the bank by subpoena.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "One half of the third-party rule; Carpenter v. United States (585 U.S. 296) declined to extend it to historical cell-site location records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 74-1179",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/425/435"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-442-735",
      "number": "442 U.S. 735",
      "caption": "Smith v. Maryland",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "1979-06-20",
      "technology": "Pen register (numbers dialed)",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "Installing and using a pen register to record the numbers dialed from a home phone was not a search, because a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The other half of the third-party rule; Carpenter v. United States (585 U.S. 296) declined to extend it to historical cell-site location records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 78-5374",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/442/735"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-460-276",
      "number": "460 U.S. 276",
      "caption": "United States v. Knotts",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "1983-03-02",
      "technology": "Radio beeper",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "Following a car on public roads with a radio beeper was not a search: a person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements from one place to another.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The decision ALPR cases most often cite for the government's side.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, 460 U.S. at 281 and 285",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/460/276"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-468-705",
      "number": "468 U.S. 705",
      "caption": "United States v. Karo",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "1984-07-03",
      "technology": "Radio beeper",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Monitoring a beeper inside a private residence, a place not open to visual surveillance, violated the Fourth Amendment, though installing it in a container with the owner's consent was not a search.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The limit on Knotts (460 U.S. 276): a beeper on public roads is not a search, inside a home it is.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 83-850",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/705"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-476-207",
      "number": "476 U.S. 207",
      "caption": "California v. Ciraolo",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "1986-05-19",
      "technology": "Aerial observation",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "Police looking into a fenced backyard with the naked eye from an airplane in public airspace did not violate the Fourth Amendment.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "A leading case for the rule that what is visible from a public vantage point is not protected.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 84-1513",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/207"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-533-27",
      "number": "533 U.S. 27",
      "caption": "Kyllo v. United States",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "2001-06-11",
      "technology": "Thermal imaging",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Using a device not in general public use to explore details of a home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion is a search, presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 99-8508",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/533/27"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-565-400",
      "number": "565 U.S. 400",
      "caption": "United States v. Jones",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "2012-01-23",
      "technology": "GPS tracker",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Installing a GPS tracker on a vehicle and using it to follow the vehicle's movements was a search.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 10-1259 (565 U.S. at 404)",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-573-373",
      "number": "573 U.S. 373",
      "caption": "Riley v. California",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "2014-06-25",
      "technology": "Cell phone contents",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Police generally must get a warrant before searching the digital data on a cell phone seized from a person at arrest.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 13-132",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-132"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "us-585-296",
      "number": "585 U.S. 296",
      "caption": "Carpenter v. United States",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "2018-06-22",
      "technology": "Cell-site location records",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "The government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records was a search; individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The decision ALPR cases most often cite for the defense's side.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 16-402 (585 U.S. at 310 and 313)",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-402"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "sct-146-2193",
      "number": "146 S.Ct. 2193",
      "caption": "Chatrie v. United States",
      "court": "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "level": "supreme",
      "decided": "2026-06-29",
      "technology": "Geofence (phone location history)",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Police conducted a search when they gained access to a phone's Location History data; an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone's location.",
      "binds": "Every court in the country, including Iowa's.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The Court vacated and remanded and did not decide whether the good-faith exception saves the evidence; the Fourth Circuit takes that up on remand. Reported at 609 U.S. ___ (page numbers not yet assigned).",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the Court, No. 25-112",
        "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/25-112"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "ca4-12-4659",
      "number": "No. 12-4659 (en banc)",
      "caption": "United States v. G.",
      "court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
      "level": "federal_appeals",
      "decided": "2016-05-31",
      "technology": "Cell-site location records",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "Applying the third-party doctrine, the full court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell-site records the government got from the phone company with a court order.",
      "binds": "Federal courts in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, the Carolinas), not Iowa.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "Carpenter v. United States (585 U.S. 296) later held the opposite: getting historical cell-site records is a search.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Published en banc opinion, pp. 11 and 37",
        "url": "https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/124659A.P.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "mass-sjc-12750",
      "number": "SJC-12750 (484 Mass. 493)",
      "caption": "Commonwealth v. M.",
      "court": "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court",
      "level": "state_high",
      "decided": "2020-04-16",
      "technology": "ALPR (four fixed cameras)",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "Data from four fixed ALPR cameras on the ends of two bridges was not a search, though the court said that with enough cameras in enough locations, historical ALPR data would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy.",
      "binds": "Massachusetts courts only.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "",
      "source": {
        "label": "Slip opinion, pp. 2 and 29",
        "url": "https://www.eff.org/files/2020/05/05/mccarthy-sjc-12750_07_opinion.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "ca9-18-10341",
      "number": "No. 18-10341",
      "caption": "United States v. Y.",
      "court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit",
      "level": "federal_appeals",
      "decided": "2020-05-04",
      "technology": "Commercial ALPR database",
      "outcome": "not_reached",
      "holding": "The court did not decide whether searching an ALPR database is a search, holding instead that the driver of a rental car kept past its return date could not challenge the search; a concurring judge would have held it was not a search.",
      "binds": "Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit (western states), not Iowa.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "",
      "source": {
        "label": "Published opinion, pp. 2-3",
        "url": "https://www.eff.org/files/2020/05/05/2020-05-04-usvyang-9thciropinion.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "iowa-19-0180",
      "number": "No. 19-0180",
      "caption": "State v. W.",
      "court": "Iowa Supreme Court",
      "level": "state_high",
      "decided": "2021-06-18",
      "technology": "Trash pull (Iowa Constitution)",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, an officer in a general criminal investigation who took and opened a resident's trash bags left in an alley for collection needed a warrant first.",
      "binds": "Every Iowa court, under the Iowa Constitution.",
      "binds_iowa": true,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "Decided under Iowa's own constitution, not the Fourth Amendment. Opinion amended August 31, 2021.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion of the court, pp. 24-25",
        "url": "https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/8892/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "ca4-20-1495",
      "number": "No. 20-1495 (en banc)",
      "caption": "L. v. Baltimore Police Department",
      "court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit",
      "level": "federal_appeals",
      "decided": "2021-06-24",
      "technology": "Aerial surveillance of a city",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Because Baltimore's aerial surveillance program let police deduce the whole of individuals' movements, the full court held that accessing its data is a search and its warrantless operation violates the Fourth Amendment.",
      "binds": "Federal courts in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, the Carolinas), not Iowa.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "A civil suit; the court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Published en banc opinion",
        "url": "https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201495A.P.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "va-norfolk-cr23001500",
      "number": "No. CR23001500-00",
      "caption": "Commonwealth v. B.",
      "court": "Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Virginia",
      "level": "state_trial",
      "decided": "2024-05-10",
      "technology": "ALPR (Flock, 172 cameras)",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Collecting and storing license plate and location information through the city's Flock system was a search that should require a warrant, and the evidence was suppressed.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "Published in Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, vol. 113, p. 316. Later history is not in our records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Order granting motion to suppress, pp. 1-5",
        "url": "https://www.eff.org/files/2025/09/26/comm_v_bell_va_2024_finding_reop_in_flock_scans89.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "ca5-23-60321",
      "number": "No. 23-60321",
      "caption": "United States v. S.",
      "court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
      "level": "federal_appeals",
      "decided": "2024-08-09",
      "technology": "Geofence (phone location history)",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Acquiring Location History data through a geofence warrant is a search, and geofence warrants as described are unconstitutional, though the evidence stood because police relied on the warrant in good faith.",
      "binds": "Federal courts in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi), not Iowa.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "Split with the Fourth Circuit's ruling in the case the Supreme Court decided in 2026 (146 S.Ct. 2193).",
      "source": {
        "label": "Published opinion, pp. 1-2 and 21",
        "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60321-CR0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "edva-2-24cv621",
      "number": "No. 2:24cv621",
      "caption": "S. v. City of Norfolk",
      "court": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia",
      "level": "federal_district",
      "decided": "2025-02-05",
      "technology": "ALPR (Flock)",
      "outcome": "plausible_claim",
      "holding": "At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court found the complaint plausibly alleged a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, likening the alleged monitoring to the tracking in Carpenter.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "on_appeal",
      "status_note": "A civil suit, not a criminal case. The same court later granted the City summary judgment (the next row), and the plaintiffs' appeal is No. 26-1227 in the Fourth Circuit.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion and Order, ECF No. 29, p. 19",
        "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.562101/gov.uscourts.vaed.562101.29.0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "va-norfolk-cr24000304",
      "number": "No. CR24000304",
      "caption": "Commonwealth v. C.",
      "court": "Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Virginia",
      "level": "state_trial",
      "decided": "2025-04-25",
      "technology": "ALPR (Flock)",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "Relying on its earlier ruling in No. CR23001500-00, the court suppressed the warrantless use of the Flock system and a statement that followed it, and denied the rest of the motion.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "on_appeal",
      "status_note": "The Commonwealth's appeal is in the Court of Appeals of Virginia (amicus briefs filed September 2025); no appellate ruling is in our records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Order granting motion to suppress in part, p. 1",
        "url": "https://www.eff.org/files/2025/09/26/cr24-304_order_granting_defendants_motion_to_suppress_-_4.25.25.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "ndok-25-cr-00239",
      "number": "No. 25-CR-00239-GKF (2025 WL 2427700)",
      "caption": "United States v. A.",
      "court": "U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma",
      "level": "federal_district",
      "decided": "2025-08-22",
      "technology": "ALPR (Flock stolen-plate alert)",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "The defendant, found in a stolen truck with a stolen plate, lacked standing to challenge the plate-reader use; assuming he had standing, the court held the Flock capture did not violate the Fourth Amendment.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "A live stolen-plate alert, not a search of stored plate history. Later history is not in our records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion and Order, ECF No. 44, pp. 6 and 8-9",
        "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oknd.73413/gov.uscourts.oknd.73413.44.0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "wdok-cr-25-188",
      "number": "No. CR-25-188-D (2025 WL 2444596)",
      "caption": "United States v. B.",
      "court": "U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma",
      "level": "federal_district",
      "decided": "2025-08-25",
      "technology": "ALPR (Flock)",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "Searches of a city's three Flock cameras and a shared statewide plate search did not intrude on an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable, and the motion to suppress was denied.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The court said the city could significantly expand its Flock program to the point of pervasive tracking, leaving room for a different result. Later history is not in our records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, ECF No. 46, p. 10",
        "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.131310/gov.uscourts.okwd.131310.46.0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "edva-2-24cv621-sj",
      "number": "No. 2:24cv621 (ECF No. 191)",
      "caption": "S. v. City of Norfolk",
      "court": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia",
      "level": "federal_district",
      "decided": "2026-01-27",
      "technology": "ALPR (Flock, 176 cameras)",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "On summary judgment, the court held that the City's operation of 176 plate-reader cameras in 75 clusters does not constitute a search, and entered judgment for the City.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "on_appeal",
      "status_note": "The same case as the motion-to-dismiss ruling above. The plaintiffs' appeal is No. 26-1227 in the Fourth Circuit; no appellate ruling is in our records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion and Order, ECF No. 191, p. 31",
        "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.562101/gov.uscourts.vaed.562101.191.0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "edok-cr-25-189",
      "number": "No. CR-25-189-JFH (2026 WL 713083)",
      "caption": "United States v. S.",
      "court": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Oklahoma",
      "level": "federal_district",
      "decided": "2026-01-28",
      "technology": "ALPR (turnpike records)",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "A magistrate judge found no Fourth Amendment violation in obtaining four months of past turnpike plate-reader records by administrative subpoena, and the district judge adopted the recommendation and denied suppression.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The recommendation is dated 2026-01-28; the district judge adopted it on 2026-02-10 (ECF No. 138) without discussing plate readers. Later history is not in our records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 129, p. 10",
        "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oked.39167/gov.uscourts.oked.39167.129.0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": ""
    },
    {
      "id": "ca5-25-60163",
      "number": "No. 25-60163",
      "caption": "United States v. P.",
      "court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",
      "level": "federal_appeals",
      "decided": "2026-03-17",
      "technology": "ALPR",
      "outcome": "not_search",
      "holding": "The use of a license plate reader did not constitute a search, and the court affirmed.",
      "binds": "Federal courts in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi), not Iowa.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "The Altoona Police Department's technology page cites this ruling. Later history is not in our records.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Published opinion",
        "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60163-CR0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": "/police"
    },
    {
      "id": "ndok-4-26-cr-00189",
      "number": "No. 4:26-cr-00189-SEH",
      "caption": "United States v. K.",
      "court": "U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma",
      "level": "federal_district",
      "decided": "2026-10-01",
      "technology": "ALPR (Flock and VehicleManager)",
      "outcome": "search",
      "holding": "A deputy's warrantless query of a month of a driver's plate-reader history, more than 50 sightings across several states, intruded on her reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of her movements and was a search, and the evidence was suppressed.",
      "binds": "No court outside this case.",
      "binds_iowa": false,
      "status": "decided",
      "status_note": "Any appeal is not in our records. The order notes that neither the Tenth Circuit nor the Supreme Court has decided whether ALPR use is a search.",
      "source": {
        "label": "Opinion and Order, ECF No. 62, pp. 29 and 37",
        "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oknd.76981/gov.uscourts.oknd.76981.62.0.pdf"
      },
      "verified": "read_in_full",
      "on_site": "/police#oklahoma-flock-ruling"
    }
  ]
}