United States v. Yang

Citation958 F.3d 851
Decision Date04 May 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-10341,18-10341
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay YANG, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

PIERSOL, District Judge:

In April 2016, Defendant Jay Yang was observed on surveillance cameras driving a rented GMC Yukon and stealing mail out of collection boxes at the Summerlin Post Office in Las Vegas, Nevada. When U.S. Postal Inspector Justin Steele spoke with representatives of Prestige Motors, from which Yang rented the Yukon, he was informed that the vehicle was approximately six days overdue and that Prestige had attempted to repossess the vehicle by activating its Global Positioning System unit ("GPS") and remotely disabling the vehicle. Inspector Steele was also informed that the vehicle was not at the location indicated and that the GPS unit was no longer functioning, apparently having been disabled by a third party.

Two days later, Inspector Steele queried the largest license plate-location database in the country, operated by a private company called Vigilant Solutions, with hopes of locating the Yukon and Yang. This database receives license plate images and GPS coordinates from digital cameras mounted on tow truck, repossession company, and law enforcement vehicles. These camera-mounted vehicles photograph any license plate they encounter while driving around in the course of business. The Automatic License Plate Recognition ("ALPR") technology loaded on a laptop inside the camera-mounted vehicles interprets the alphanumeric characters depicted on the plate into machine-readable text and records the latitude and longitude of a vehicle the moment it photographs a license plate. The software also generates a range of addresses estimated to be associated with these GPS coordinates. This information is uploaded to the database and is searchable by law enforcement agencies that pay a subscription fee.

In December 2016, there were approximately 5 billion license plate scans and associated data stored in the database. The database continues to grow as these camera-mounted vehicles go about their daily business capturing images and location data at thirty frames per second, and as the use of these cameras and technology becomes more ubiquitous. It was estimated that as of March 2019, the database contained over 6.5 billion license plate scans and affiliated location data.

When Inspector Steele inputted the license plate number for the Yukon in the LEARN database, his query revealed that it had been photographed on April 5, 2016, at approximately 11:24 p.m., after the deadline to return the Yukon had passed. Inspector Steele promptly proceeded to the gated condominium complex that had been identified by the ALPR software as most closely associated with the GPS coordinates of the repossession vehicle at the time it photographed the Yukon’s plate. In short order, Inspector Steele located Yang at his residence as well as the Yukon. After further investigation and visual surveillance, Inspector Steele obtained a warrant to search Yang’s residence. There, he found devices known to be used for stealing mail out of mailboxes, numerous pieces of stolen mail, and a Phoenix Arms model HP22 pistol. After waiving his Miranda rights, Yang spoke to law enforcement and admitted to stealing mail from collection boxes in the area and to owning the firearm.

Yang moved to suppress the evidence seized from his residence and the statements he made to law enforcement on the basis that the search warrant obtained by the Postal Inspection Service relied on evidence that was obtained illegally. Yang argues that the ALPR technology used by Inspector Steele without a warrant to track and locate Yang at his residence violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy on the whole of his movements under Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018) —a decision issued by the Supreme Court after Yang’s motion to suppress was denied.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court’s decision denying Yang’s motion to suppress. We do not address the potential Fourth Amendment privacy interests that may be implicated by the warrantless use of this ALPR technology because we conclude that Yang does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the historical location data of the Yukon under the facts of this case.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Warrant and Search

In April of 2016, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service received information that mail theft was occurring at the Summerlin Post Office located in Las Vegas, Nevada. On April 6, 2016, Postal Inspector Steele obtained video footage from surveillance cameras at the Summerlin Post Office which showed a person engaging in "fishing"—a method of stealing mail from a mailbox in which an individual lowers an object—which usually has adhesive or some grasping mechanism—into the box and then retrieves mail from the box by pulling it out with this object.

The surveillance footage showed that on April 5, 2016, at 2:17 AM, a slim Asian or white male with short hair exited a dark colored GMC Yukon ("Yukon") and placed a fishing device into the collection box. Although the April 5th surveillance footage showed the individual losing his fishing device in the collection box prior to removing mail, surveillance video on April 6, 7 and 8, 2016, showed the same individual exit the Yukon and use a fishing device to remove mail from the collection box. The surveillance video did not capture a discernable license plate for the Yukon on those days.

On April 7, 2016, afternoon surveillance video from the Summerlin Post Office revealed another vehicle, a Budget rental truck with Oklahoma license plate 2QD483 ("Budget Truck"), with what appeared to be the same driver as that of the Yukon on the previous days. On this day, the driver again was observed on the video engaging in fishing activity with a collection box.

On April 9, 2016, the Yukon was again observed on surveillance video with the same driver engaging in "fishing" activities as seen on the previous days. On this day, the license plate for the Yukon was viewable and was identified as California license plate 7RIV310.

On April 11, 2016, Inspector Steele conducted a DMV records check for the Yukon and its license plate number and learned that the vehicle was registered to Prestige Motors, a car rental company located in Las Vegas, Nevada. That same day, Inspector Steele visited Prestige Motors to obtain additional information. There, he learned that the Yukon had been reserved and rented on a third-party website by Jay Yang. The contract rental period began on April 2, 2016, and the vehicle was due back on April 5, 2016, at 10:48 a.m., but had not yet been returned. The credit card used to complete the transaction was subsequently revealed to be stolen.

Inspector Steele testified at the suppression hearing that Prestige had attempted to repossess the vehicle by activating its GPS unit and remotely disabling the vehicle. Inspector Steele was also informed that the vehicle was not at the location indicated by the GPS unit and that the GPS unit was no longer functioning, apparently having been disabled by a third party. Although a representative of Prestige Motors stated that Prestige considered the vehicle to be stolen, Prestige had not filed a stolen vehicle report with the police.

On April 12, 2016, Inspector Steele contacted Budget Truck Rental ("Budget") and obtained the rental information for the Budget Truck that had been viewed in the surveillance video on April 7, 2016. Inspector Steele was informed that the Budget Truck had been rented to Jay Yang on March 14, 2016, and had not been returned by the contract due date on March 16, 2016.

On April 13, 2016, Inspector Steele requested a vehicle detection report for the Yukon through a license plate-location database called LEARN. The LEARN database was created and is maintained by a private company named Vigilant Solutions. The LEARN database receives license plate images from digital cameras mounted on tow truck, repossession company and law enforcement vehicles. These camera-mounted vehicles photograph at thirty frames per second any license plate they encounter while driving around in the course of business. ALPR technology loaded on a laptop inside the camera-mounted vehicles interprets the alphanumeric characters depicted on the plate into machine-readable text and records the latitude and longitude of a vehicle the moment it photographs a license plate. The software also generates a range of addresses estimated to be associated with these GPS coordinates. This information is uploaded to and stored in the database for years after its collection, and is searchable by law enforcement and government agencies that pay a subscription fee.

The LEARN database receives about thirty-five percent of its images from law enforcement vehicle cameras and the remaining sixty-five percent of its images from commercial vehicle cameras. Access to the LEARN database is limited to law enforcement subscribers. The Postal Inspection Service has a user access subscription to the LEARN database, but does not contribute any images to the database. There is a companion database used by commercial clients, but this database only contains information obtained from commercial vehicles, not law enforcement vehicles. All commercial scans and attendant location information are transferred to the LEARN database and law enforcement has access to those commercial scans.

At the suppression hearing, Mr. Hodnett, president of the holding company of Vigilant Solutions, testified that there were approximately 5 billion license plates scans and affiliated location data stored in LEARN’s database and that on average, the license plate for any particular vehicle is scanned and uploaded to the database approximately four times per year. Inspector Steele...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Rubin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 25, 2021
    ...nor the Ninth Circuit has addressed whether using an automated license plate reader system constitutes a search. See United States v. Yang, 958 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2020) (declining to address the question). But concurring in Yang, Judge Bea explained that the use of an automated license plat......
  • Romero-Millan v. Barr
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 4, 2020
  • USA v. Rubin, 18-cr-00568-CRB-1
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 25, 2021
    ...system constitutes a search. See United States v. Yang, 958 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2020) (declining to address the question). But concurring in Yang, Judge Bea explained that the of an automated license plate database was not a search because there was no evidence that the database at issue “re......
  • United States v. Bowers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • October 11, 2021
    ...at 863 (Bey, J. concurring); see also United States v. Rubin, No. 18-CR-00568-CRB-1, 2021 WL 3773609, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021) (citing Yang); v. City of Albany, 6:16-CV-1185 (NAM/TWD), 2019 WL 3857995, at **8-9 (N.D.N.Y. Aug 16, 2020). Although none of these opinions is binding, I fi......
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...(1978) 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (D may have subjective expectation of privacy in activities conducted in home); U.S. v. Yang (9th Cir.2020) 958 F.3d 851, 858 (existence of privacy interest depends in part on whether individual's conduct shows that he sought to preserve something as private); ......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...(9th Cir. 2021)—Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(1)(b)[3][a]; §2.1.1(3)(a) U.S. v. Wilson, 472 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1972)—Ch. 5-A, §5.1.3(3)(a) U.S. v. Yang, 958 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2020)—Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(1)(b)[1][a] U.S. v. Zanche, 541 F. Supp. 207 (W.D. N.Y. 1982)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(1)(c)[2][d] U.S. v. Zenni, 49......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT