United States v. Curtis Ellison
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22558, 2006 WL 2527973, 462 F.3d 557 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not protect information contained on an automobile's license plate or information retrieved from a law enforcement computer database using that license plate number, as motorists have no reasonable expectation of privacy in such publicly displayed and legally required identifying information.
Facts:
- Officer Mark Keeley of the Farmington Hills Police Department observed a white van, with a male driver inside, idling in a lane adjacent to a shopping center in an area marked with "Fire Lane" and "No Parking" signs.
- Officer Keeley, without issuing a citation or requesting the driver to move, entered the vehicle’s license plate number into his patrol car’s Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) computer.
- The LEIN search revealed that the vehicle was registered to Curtis Ellison, who had an outstanding felony warrant.
- Officer Keeley radioed for back-up and continued observing the van for two minutes, until another male got into the van and it drove away.
- Officer Keeley followed the van until his back-up was nearby, then activated his lights and stopped the van.
- Officer Keeley identified the passenger as Curtis Ellison and notified him that he was being arrested on the outstanding warrant.
- Ellison stepped out of the van, and during a routine safety pat-down, two firearms were found on him.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Ellison was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- Ellison made a timely motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an illegal search in the district court.
- The district court held a hearing and made a factual finding that the van was not parked illegally.
- The district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Ellison's motion to suppress, ruling that the officer did not have probable cause to run the LEIN check and that the evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree.
- The United States (government) filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as the appellant, with Curtis Ellison as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's use of an automobile's license plate number to conduct a search of a law enforcement computer database (LEIN) implicate the Fourth Amendment by violating a motorist's reasonable expectation of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Julia Smith Gibbons
No, a police officer's use of an automobile's license plate number to conduct a search of a law enforcement computer database does not implicate the Fourth Amendment, because a motorist has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information openly displayed on a license plate. The Fourth Amendment protects only what an individual seeks to keep private, and information on a license plate is knowingly exposed to the public and legally required to be in plain view. Following the reasoning in New York v. Class, which held that a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) visible from outside a car receives no Fourth Amendment protection, the court concluded that a license plate—a legally required identifier located outside the vehicle—likewise carries no reasonable expectation of privacy. Using a license plate number to access information from law enforcement databases (LEIN) does not create a privacy interest, as the license plate itself is public, and the information retrieved (such as outstanding warrants) is intended to be readily available for legitimate law enforcement duties. This computer investigation is considered less invasive than other government actions found to be outside Fourth Amendment protections, as the technology merely allows quicker access to already obtainable public information rather than accessing previously unobtainable data. Therefore, an officer who is in a public place and has a right to observe a license plate can use that information without violating the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether there was probable cause for the initial observation (e.g., a parking violation).
Dissenting - Karen Nelson Moore
Yes, the use of a license plate number to conduct a search of a law enforcement computer database, especially without heightened suspicion, raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns that the majority prematurely dismisses without adequate legal or factual development. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority wrongly considered an argument (the Fourth Amendment implications of a LEIN search) raised for the first time on appeal, without proper factual development regarding the LEIN system's capabilities, information, safeguards, and potential for errors or racial profiling. While acknowledging that there might be no privacy interest in the license plate number itself, the crucial issue is the Fourth Amendment implications of using that number to access potentially non-public information from a database without any suspicion. This raises similar concerns to those articulated in Delaware v. Prouse, which prohibited random license and registration stops due to the potential for unbridled discretion and psychological intrusion. The dissent highlights that the "unbridled discretion" afforded to officers by suspicionless LEIN checks risks arbitrary invasions of privacy and racial profiling, and the potential for database errors to lead to unwarranted stops further compounds these risks. The dissent contends that the majority makes unsupported assertions about the LEIN information being "non-private" and "previously obtainable," ignoring evidence suggesting that Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) technology significantly transformed the amount and nature of information accessible to officers in the field.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of Fourth Amendment protection in the digital age, particularly concerning information accessible via public identifiers. By ruling that a license plate check against a law enforcement database is not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, the court grants law enforcement broad authority to run such checks without any suspicion, even if the initial reason for observing the vehicle is invalid. While potentially facilitating more efficient police work by quickly identifying individuals with outstanding warrants, the decision also raises concerns about potential abuses of discretion and privacy implications, particularly regarding data accuracy, the types of information accessible through such systems, and the potential for racial profiling without a judicial check on random checks.
