Every Road You Take: Where Federal Doctrine Stalls, State Law Can Pick Up In the Fight Over Persistent Surveillance

Authors

• David A. Lord

Abstract

In recent years, automated license plate reader (“ALPR”) systems have transformed criminal investigation by providing law enforcement with extensive information about suspects’ movements. Prosecutors have defended this practice as firmly grounded in the Supreme Court’s traditional Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Privacy advocates have responded by arguing that certain Supreme Court cases dealing with new technology show an emerging interest in modifying those doctrines to enhance individual liberty. But to date, with a few isolated exceptions, both state and federal courts have declined to require law enforcement to obtain search warrants before using evidence from ALPRs. This Article explores ALPR evidence in criminal cases and the core Fourth Amendment doctrines that prosecutors rely on to argue that warrants are not required for their use. The Article contrasts those arguments with three Supreme Court cases that privacy advocates believe reflect a judicial desire to revise those doctrines to provide greater protection. The Article then examines how lower courts have resolved legal questions surrounding ALPRs and explains why the Supreme Court is unlikely, in the near future, to hold that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before accessing ALPR data in criminal prosecutions. Finally, the Article points to other potential venues for reform via state constitutional provisions and legislative changes for those who are concerned about the ubiquity of ALPRs.

Recommended Citation

Lord, David A. (2026) "Every Road You Take: Where Federal Doctrine Stalls, State Law Can Pick Up In the Fight Over Persistent Surveillance," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 54: Iss. 3, Article 3.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol54/iss3/3