A judge dismisses drug evidence after police track an SUV without a warrant

A federal judge has dismissed evidence in a drug trafficking case. The ruling found that an officer broke the rules of the Fourth Amendment by looking up a driver's travel history without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches by the government.

The decision centers on an encounter in Oklahoma. Deputy Sheriff Freddie Alaniz began following an SUV with California plates. The judge stated that the deputy initially followed the car for no clear reason other than its out-of-state plate.

While trailing the car, the deputy looked up its plate in two automated license plate reader systems named Flock and VehicleManager. These setups use roadside cameras to read number plates and log vehicle trips.

The search brought up more than fifty records from the past month. The files showed the car leaving Oklahoma, driving to the border of California and Arizona, and then heading back toward Missouri after a brief visit.

The deputy pulled the driver over for driving too close and failing to signal properly. During the stop, he used the past travel records to treat the brief trip out west as suspicious behavior.

The driver said she had visited family members and enjoyed road trips. The deputy handed back her license with a warning, but then kept her at the scene when she said no to a vehicle search.

A police dog signaled at the SUV, and officers searched the interior. They reported finding 91 pounds of methamphetamine inside the car.

Judge Sara Hill decided the deputy had a valid reason for the first traffic stop, but held the driver for too long afterward without good cause. She also ruled that checking the driver's past travel records without a warrant was illegal.

Government lawyers argued that driving on public streets is not private. Judge Hill rejected that view, noting that old rulings about simpler tools do not match the power of modern camera systems. She stated that the technology amounts to indiscriminate mass surveillance.

The judge barred the camera data and the seized drugs from being used as evidence in court. This decision affects this specific case and does not bind courts across the entire country.

Flock told 404 Media that it was not a direct party in the legal case. The company stated that it expects the decision to be appealed and overturned, citing past rulings that favored the technology.