556 F.Supp.3d 1123
N.D. Cal.2021Background
- Defendant Lembrent Rubin was charged with Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm after a Safeway pharmacy robbery in which a suspect left in a blue Jaguar.
- Surveillance video showed the suspect run to and enter the Jaguar’s passenger side; the plate was partially visible.
- An SFPD sergeant queried the NCRIC ALPR database using the partial plate and located a blue Jaguar registered to Rubin; the ALPR report showed limited reads (San Francisco and Vallejo).
- Police obtained a warrant to install a GPS tracking device on the Jaguar (30 days), installed it, then later obtained warrants to arrest Rubin and to search his motel room and Vallejo apartment.
- At arrest and in the apartment officers recovered a loaded firearm on Rubin, oxycodone and other drugs, magazines/ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and clothing/shoes/backpack matching the surveillance footage.
- Rubin moved to suppress evidence derived from the ALPR query and sought a Franks hearing alleging omissions/misstatements in the GPS-warrant affidavit; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether accessing the NCRIC ALPR database was a Fourth Amendment search | ALPR query was a warrantless search of location data and thus unconstitutional | ALPR returns were sparse and not a detailed location history; querying did not implicate Carpenter privacy concerns | Court: Not a search here — the ALPR data was limited and not the "detailed, encyclopedic" tracking at issue in Carpenter; evidence not suppressed |
| Whether Rubin is entitled to a Franks hearing based on alleged omissions/misstatements in the GPS-warrant affidavit | Affidavit omitted material facts (witness didn’t recognize suspect, existence of mugshot/fingerprint hits, braces, known address) and included improper opinions about Rubin’s guilt | Omissions/ opinions were immaterial given strong probable cause (surveillance showing suspect entering Rubin’s car) and the affidavit disclosed lack of database identifications | Court: No substantial preliminary showing of intentional/reckless falsehood or material omission; Franks hearing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for challenging warrant affidavits and when a Franks hearing is required)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (cell-site location records can be a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (long-term GPS monitoring and trespass concerns implicate the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (short-term tracking of a vehicle on public roads is not a search)
- United States v. Yang, 958 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2020) (declined to decide ALPR-as-search; concurrence found limited ALPR data not a search)
- United States v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2002) (application of Franks requirements in the Ninth Circuit)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable-cause standard: fair probability standard)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (advancing surveillance technology can implicate privacy and require warrants)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (modern cell phones contain vast sensitive data—warrants generally required for their search)