United States v. Jackson, 6:24-cr-10010

Defendant Sidney Jamar Jackson moved to suppress evidence obtained via warrantless use of the Flock Safety automatic license plate reader (ALPR) system, arguing a Fourth Amendment violation.
Law enforcement used the Flock System to track a Chevy Cruz associated with potential drug activity in Wichita, Kansas; nine Flock camera captures over four hours led to a stop and search.
Jackson was a passenger in the car; after a traffic stop for a red light, a drug dog alerted, and 2.38 kg of methamphetamine was found, leading to his indictment.
The Flock System collects, stores, and allows authorized law enforcement (and some private actors) to search historical location data of vehicles via license plates; data is generally deleted after 30 days.
Jackson argued that the use of Flock System data constituted an unreasonable search, drawing analogies to cell-site and GPS tracking cases requiring warrants.
The court held a hearing on the suppression motion, focusing on the scope, nature, and privacy implications of using ALPR technology and the Flock System in particular.

Issue	Defendant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless use of Flock ALPRs is a Fourth Amendment search	Jackson: Warrantless ALPR tracking violates a reasonable expectation of privacy in movements	U.S.A.: No reasonable expectation of privacy in public vehicle movements or license plates	Not a search; no reasonable expectation of privacy under Katz
Whether limited use of Flock data is analogous to mass location tracking (Carpenter issue)	Jackson: Flock data aggregation allows broad, retrospective surveillance akin to CSLI tracking in Carpenter	U.S.A.: Flock is limited in scope; data is not detailed or continuous like CSLI/GPS	Limited, brief use does not constitute pervasive surveillance; Carpenter does not apply
Standing of a passenger to challenge evidence from vehicle tracked via ALPR	Jackson: Has standing due to interest in suppressing evidence from vehicle search	U.S.A.: Argued property interest lacking, but focused on Fourth Amendment merits	Court found standing for passenger to challenge the ALPR use
Future privacy implications of evolving ALPR technology	Jackson: Expansion could raise constitutional issues	U.S.A.: Current use is limited and reasonable	Current Flock deployment not yet pervasive or intrusive enough to violate Fourth Amendment; court urges legislative action for future regulation

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy if society is prepared to recognize it as reasonable)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (Warrant required for historical cell-site location tracking due to pervasive surveillance)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (GPS tracking of vehicle for extended period can be a search)
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (No expectation of privacy in movements on public roads)
Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (Exterior of vehicles on public roads has diminished privacy)
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (Inspection of VINs visible from outside vehicle not a search)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Standing to challenge search requires personal Fourth Amendment interest)