"May a police officer, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, run a license plate check on a passing vehicle?"
That is a question that has been argued in justice and district courts all around Utah for several years now. This issue stemmed originally from a ruling out of the West Valley Justice Court saying that an officer running a license plate without already having reasonable suspicion was a violation of privacy under GRAMA, and the argument spread quickly throughout the state. Almost every court where this was argued around the state ruled in favor of the government, but, until now we never had a case go up on appeal above the district court level to confirm the legality of such police action. Well, now we do! And as expected, the ruling is in the government's favor. Officers may, without reasonable suspicion, run a license plate and complete vehicle and driver license record checks on passing vehicles.
_________________________________________________________________________________
State v. Oryall
Oryall was driving on State Road 198 in Payson when she passed an officer on the side of the road that was running licence plate checks on passing cars. Officer ran Oryall's plate through the government-managed electronic database and revealed Oryall as the registered owner. Officer then ran Oryall's driver license record, discovering she had a suspended driver license. After watching the car park at a nearby convenience store, officer watched the driver got out and walk into the convenience store, allowing the officer to confirm that the person driving the car was in fact Oryall. Oryall came back out and resumed driving, and officer initiated a traffic stop. Oryall exhibited many clues of impairment and after completing field sobriety tests, Oryall was arrested for DUI and other related crimes.
Oryall filed a motion to suppress the evidence based upon the Utah Constitution and her expectation of privacy in motor vehicle and driver records, and that GRAMA recognized that expectation of privacy. Oryall's argument contended that to overcome that reasonable expectation of privacy that an officer must possess reasonable suspicion of criminal activity prior to accessing the records, even though those records are kept by governmental agencies. The district court denied her motion, and Oryall appealed.
Oryall relied upon a state constitutional argument only since federal courts "have unanimously determined that law enforcement officers may conduct warrantless and suspicionless checks on passing motorists' vehicle registration and driver's license information." (quoted from State v. Oryall, see United States v. Miranda-Sotolongo, 827 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 2016). In addition to recognizing the federal law relating to this argument, the Court in Oryall stated it was aware of no other state that has interpreted their own constitution to require a warrant or reasonable suspicion before running similar vehicle record checks.
Oryall pointed the court to the fact that, on rare occasion, the Utah Supreme Court has interpreted Utah's constitution to apply more broad protections from search and seizure than the federal courts have in interpreting the federal constitution. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and distinguished the case cited in support of Oryall's argument. The Court held that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy against government intrusion to a record that the same government they are attempting to prevent intruding already lawfully possesses the record itself.
Oryall's next argument was around GRAMA itself. Oryall argued that the legislative intent section of GRAMA recognized the citizenry's constitutional right to privacy in relation to personal data gathered by governmental entities. The Court points out, however, that this right to privacy is against the public accessing private information held by the government, not prohibiting the government from accessing information held by another governmental agency. The Court further notes that there are three separate subsections in GRAMA itself that specifically allow this exact sharing of information between governmental agencies to occur.
Ultimately the Court ruled that Oryall had failed to meet the required threshold showing that she even possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in her motor vehicle record, and therefore affirmed the decision to deny the motion to suppress made in the district court. We have been waiting for an appellate court to hear this matter for several years now as the overwhelming majority of justice and district courts around the state had ruled in the government's favor, with only a very small number recognizing the right to privacy under this GRAMA argument.
Here is a link to the opinion: State v. Oryall
