Criminal Law Assignment
The new technology violates the privacy right granted by the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution that defines and regulates surveillance conducted by law enforcement agencies. For example, the identification of the car with the help of the new technology allows revealing where the individual was at the definite time while the revelation of this information may affect his/her personal or professional life. The introduction of the plate reader raises the problem of the privacy right violation and the Fourth Amendment provisions that protect the private life of Americans. The problem of privacy may occur not only when information breaches occur but also when the police uncover the information retrieved from the plate recorder and makes it available to the public. Such actions of the police are questionable but still, there is a risk of the revelation of such information by police officers.
At the same time, information breaches may occur, when third parties interfere and capture records of the plate recorder. For example, a company that maintains the functioning of the plate recorder may have access to the information recorded. The company may misuse the information for its own purposes. For example, employees of the company may conduct surveillance over some individuals using their technology. As a result, people become vulnerable to illegal surveillance on the part of a third party. The revelation of private information and surveillance over individuals is illegal and harmful to citizens.
Another questionable issue that leads to the violation of the Constitutional rights of Americans and the Fourth Amendment, in particular, is the possible misuse of the plate reader by the police or other law enforcement agencies. If they use plate readers to survey citizens, they will violate the civil rights of citizens and the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement agencies do not have the right to survey citizens without the authorization of the court and observation of legal surveillance procedures.
The information from the license plate readers should be stored on a computer server to retrieve it whenever needed, but the time of storage should be reasonable and not exceed several months. The retrieval of the information from the server should need a court order just like other evidence obtained in terms of search and seizure procedure, as defined by the Fourth Amendment.
The storage of the information on the computer server may prevent the unauthorized access of third parties to the information recorded by the plate reader. The development of the protected computer server will help to raise barriers to the way of third parties to the information recorded.
Moreover, the use of the computer server will also limit the access of police officers and other law enforcement agencies to the information recorded by the plate reader. For example, they may obtain access to the computer server and information recorded by the plate reader on the ground of the court ruling. Otherwise, they will be denied access to the information recorded by the plate reader. In such a way, the information from the plate reader will be protected.
On the other hand, there is the risk that the owner of the computer server may try to get access to that information and misuse that information. This is why the public control over the computer server protection or the legal ban of retrieving any information from the server without court authorization can decrease the risk of information breaches and revelation of the information recorded by the plate reader.
In such a situation, the court order is essential for the effective regulation of the proper use of the plate reader and the information the reader records. It is only the court that should grant the possibility to get access to the information recorded by the plate reader.
The information gained from the license plate readers should be able to be used in criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions because this information may help to investigate crimes and prove the guilt or incense of suspects, for example, if the location of the suspect at a certain time has to be defined. Therefore, the information from the plate reader may help to investigate crimes by detecting the specific time and place, where a suspect or a victim was at the definite location. However, the information from the plate reader cannot be used as the major evidence of the guilt of the suspect. Instead, this information may be used as complementary evidence that just backs up other evidence and proofs found in the course of the investigation of the crime. The reason for such use of the plate reader is quite obvious because the location of the individual at the definite place does not mean that he is guilty of a crime because he/she could probably be there by chance or because he/she would be there because it is his/her regular route.
On the other hand, there are opponents of the use of the plate reader as evidence in criminal investigations and legal trials. The reason for this position is also quite obvious since the location of individuals and their recording does not mean that they have committed a crime. Their presence does not mean their guilt. A person can be at a definite place because of a variety of reasons and there are no direct links to the crime that derive from his/her presence at the particular crossroad. Therefore, the presence of the individual in a particular place does not mean the individual’s guilty of the crime. From such a point of view, the plate reader may be viewed as the evidence of the crime only in case the plate reader records the crime itself, but, as the purpose and function of the plate reader are to record plate numbers, then the plate reader is still impossible to admit as the tool that can provide valid evidence in the investigation of the crime because it can provide plate numbers only.
Law enforcement agencies should have access to the license plate readers at the state and federal levels. The information should not be accessed by anyone to prevent the violation of the privacy right of individuals. Citizens should be able to file a FOIA request to find out whether the government has information about their daily movements.
The availability of the plate reader’s information to both federal and state law enforcement agencies provides wider opportunities for the fulfillment of the direct function the plate reader has to be introduced for. At the same time, both federal and state law enforcement agencies operate in terms of duties and functions granted to them by the US Constitution and laws. This is why they have to comply with legal regulations and cannot violate them. Legal regulations control the work of the police and other law enforcement agencies to ensure they operate on the ground of laws and the US Constitution and do not violate the civil rights and liberties of citizens.
To minimize the risk of manipulations or misuse of the plate readers by the police or other law enforcement agencies, the public should have the opportunity to control the use of the plate readers by the police and get access to the relevant information under a FOIA request. In such a way, citizens may be certain that the police or other law enforcement agencies do not conduct any illegal surveillance over them and their privacy is fully protected.
Public safety concerns outweigh the privacy concerns created by the license plate readers because they maintain permanent surveillance over road crossings and all citizens, who pass them, are surveyed. These readers may help to detect suspects and terrorists fast on the ground of profiles of suspicious individuals based on their daily movements.
In actuality, public safety is prioritized compared to the privacy right because the interests of many people are put above the interests of an individual. However, such a position is questionable from both legal and ethical perspectives. The violation of one’s privacy right does not make it any better for the individual that the violation of his/her privacy can lead to the successful investigation of a crime or prevention of a terrorist attack.
At the same time, the priority of public safety over privacy does not mean that law enforcement agencies should neglect the privacy right of citizens and violate them systematically. Instead, they should admit the possible neglect of one’s privacy just as the exceptional case, when the violation of one’s privacy right is essential for public safety, for example, for the prevention of a terror attack. This means that law enforcement agencies should have certain information that there is a crime to be committed in the area and that the plate readers could be used to identify the suspect even if it will lead to the violation of the privacy right of other citizens. Other cases of the revelation of the private information of citizens are unacceptable.
