The ACLU and EFF filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit court of appeals on November 9, 2026, requesting that courts mandate a warrant for Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) searches.
The legal challenge, filed in United States v. Sturdivant, seeks to overturn a district court ruling that found no Fourth Amendment protections for license plate data. The EFF reported that the case centers on law enforcement’s ability to track suspects’ movements through vast, interconnected databases without judicial oversight.
Sturdivant Case Details
The litigation stems from a series of robberies occurring in and around Cleveland, Ohio. During the investigation, police utilized surveillance footage to identify the make, model, and color of a vehicle involved in the crimes, though the specific license plate number remained unknown.
Officers performed an open-ended search of two prominent ALPR databases, Flock and ELSAG. This query allowed law enforcement to identify a vehicle belonging to the defendant that had been tracked near the robbery sites, which eventually led to his arrest.
The district court previously denied a motion to suppress this evidence. The court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his license plate number because it is visible to any member of the public.
The Scale of ALPR Surveillance
The amicus brief argues that modern ALPR technology is fundamentally different from a bystander observing a passing car. According to the EFF, these systems function as a “virtual time machine to view suspects’, or anyone else’s, past movements (and much more) with just the click of a button.”
The brief contends that this interconnected network constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
Comparing Surveillance Methods
| Method | Observation Type | Data Persistence | Privacy Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manual Observation | Transient/Real-time | None (human memory only) | Minimal; limited to immediate vicinity |
| ALPR Databases | Retrospective/Historical | High; stored in interconnected networks | Significant; enables mass movement reconstruction |
Existing Legal Precedents
The EFF and ACLU are looking to the Sixth Circuit to reverse the lower court’s decision. They argue that the ability to reconstruct a person’s life through movement patterns requires judicial oversight via a warrant.
The brief cites recent legal developments to support its position. Just last month, a federal district court ruled that ALPR use can constitute a “form of indiscriminate mass surveillance” that violates the Fourth Amendment.
This case joins a broader pattern of legal challenges regarding automated tracking. Related litigation includes Wisconsin Council of Churches v. Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha & Green Bay, as well as SIREN and CAIR-CA v. San Jose. San Jose.
The legal question remains whether the continuous, automated logging of public movements constitutes a search that necessitates a warrant. If the Sixth Circuit declines to require a warrant, police may be able to reconstruct the movements of any individual by querying these databases.
