United States v. Jay Yang
958 F.3d 851
9th Cir.2020Background
- Surveillance captured a person using a rented GMC Yukon to "fish" mail from post-office collection boxes in early April 2016. The Yukon was rented by Jay Yang and due back April 5, 2016, but was overdue.
- Prestige Motors (the rental company) attempted to repossess the Yukon by activating its GPS and remotely disabling the vehicle; the GPS then stopped functioning.
- A Postal Inspector queried Vigilant Solutions' LEARN ALPR database using the Yukon's plate; the database stored license-plate images with GPS coordinates collected from commercial and law-enforcement cameras. The query produced an April 5 location near a gated condominium.
- Inspector Steele used the ALPR-generated location to find Yang and the Yukon, obtained a search warrant for Yang's residence, and recovered mail-stealing devices, stolen mail, and a firearm; Yang admitted to the crimes.
- Yang moved to suppress, arguing that the warrantless ALPR query violated his Fourth Amendment privacy in the whole of his movements under Carpenter v. United States. The district court denied suppression; Yang entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yang) | Defendant's Argument (Government / Rental) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yang had a reasonable expectation of privacy (standing) in historical location data of an overdue rental vehicle | Yang: ALPR location data revealed his movements and privacy in those movements; Carpenter protects such records | Government: Vehicle was overdue; Prestige attempted repossession and did not have a practice of allowing late returns, so Yang lacked possessory/expectation rights | Court: Yang lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Yukon's historical location data under these facts; thus no standing to challenge the ALPR database query (affirmed) |
| Whether a warrant was required to query the ALPR/LEARN database under Carpenter's ‘‘whole of movements’’ rule | Yang: ALPR data can reveal comprehensive location history and so requires a warrant like CSLR in Carpenter | Government: ALPR captures limited, publicly observable plate information; here it did not disclose the whole of movements | Majority: Did not reach the Carpenter merits because of standing; Concurring judge: would reject Carpenter-based challenge on the merits because LEARN did not reveal the whole of Yang’s movements in this case |
| Whether evidence and statements derived from the database-search lead to suppression | Yang: Evidence and statements are fruit of unlawful search and must be suppressed | Government: Query was lawful (or defendant lacked standing); warrant and search of residence valid | Court: Denial of suppression affirmed; conviction and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Supreme Court) (government access to comprehensive cell-site location records implicated expectation of privacy in the whole of physical movements)
- United States v. Dorais, 241 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (rental/occupancy cases analyzing expectation of privacy after rental period expired)
- United States v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000) (lessee retained privacy interest in rental vehicle where rental company routinely accepted late returns and took no repossession steps)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (Supreme Court) (warrantless long-term GPS tracking raises Fourth Amendment concerns about tracking movements)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (Supreme Court) (third-party doctrine limiting expectation of privacy for information voluntarily conveyed to third parties)