{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Unreasonable Expectations: A 4th Amendment Podcast","title":"Episode 2: ALPR and Chatrie - Where do we go from here?","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":798,"description":"There is a camera on a pole outside your office, and it is reading every plate that drives past. After Chatrie v. United States, does law enforcement need a warrant to search where your client's car has been? In this point-counterpoint episode, Jay Ruane argues both sides of automatic license plate readers as hard as he can, then tells you where the law actually stands.You get five arguments that a warrantless ALPR network is unconstitutional and five that it is lawful, built on Carpenter, Jones, Knotts, and New York v. Class, plus the ALPR-specific rulings that matter right now: the Norfolk suppression in Bell v. Commonwealth, its reversal by the Virginia Court of Appeals in Commonwealth v. Church, the Massachusetts mosaic signal in Commonwealth v. McCarthy, the Seventh Circuit pole-camera cases in Tuggle and House, and the standing trap in United States v. Yang. The through-line is one honest anchor: Chatrie strengthens the argument against warrantless access to a detailed, long-term record of movement, but it does not hold that reading a plate, or querying a plate database, is by itself a search.In this episode:00:00 The camera on the pole01:15 Welcome back, and how today's point-counterpoint works02:15 The mosaic theory, two honest caveats, and the Chatrie anchor04:00 Five reasons ALPRs are unconstitutional08:30 A word from our sponsor, The Criminal Mastermind09:30 Five reasons ALPRs are legal14:00 Where the line actually falls: the four dials15:30 Takeaways for your next suppression motion16:30 Rate, review, and subscribeThe anchor: Chatrie makes the case against warrantless access to a detailed, long-term movement record much stronger, but it does not hold that capturing a plate or querying a plate database is itself a search. The fight turns on scale: camera density, coverage, retention, cross-agency access, and what police actually retrieved about your client.Cases discussed: Chatrie v. United States (2026); Carpenter v. United States (2018); United...","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/8lkQ8Xk050NJHWCS5YIz6jezz_EJDKxBT8TNl1lARzo/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS85MmNi/NWFhMThhNWY4NDEz/OWM1YmU4YmY1Nzdi/MGY3NC5wbmc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}