it please the court kristen there on behalf of appellant j yang i'd like to reserve five minutes for a bottle and i'll watch my time on by searching the learned database to collect the record of mr b anxious movement in the giving personal data through his telephone usage and mr yang who could avoid his whereabouts by simply not using another bill i think that people could also and eighty three percent of adults drive frequently which means several times a week so cars are used very frequently in this society still especially in rural areas suburban areas there might be some more erests had how do you change the license plate but he didn't and license plate was connected to the car that he rented he is the person who's trying to i think this any better for a while but then returns of this so it was i would like to address that the government states that st of all the standing issue was the location information not the in not the privacy right to search the inside of a car but that's the government's line of cases i would submit there is not a political here because we're looking at the  location for mation not you know physical intrusion into the cars such as the car search cases that the government relies on but even if you consider those cases the contracts not dispositive under the supreme court's bird decision to turn the cell phone off and that actually in carpenter i would submit that this court the government inflates or the numbers that actually determine whether there was a search or expectation of privacy in carpenter there was a seven day request for information under one of the orders on the store communications act and only returned two days of roaming data so it actually wasn't continuous tracking for seven days it was two days of roaming data which is sparse and it was only when calls were coming in and out of the phone cell phone pings per day here the record says the license plates are scanned on average per person four times a year so supreme court was concerned about what it called an all encompassing surveillance  earlier this year twenty one thousand there were six billion five hundred million scans but don't we have to decide based on the record before us now what may happen in the future i mean you know several years ago in l a there are red light cameras and there are a lot of privacy concerns now they don't exist they were all taken off so we can't decide on what may happen for five years six hundred and seventy eight years down the road we have decide what's on the record and the and the record here it says on average the license plate scanners scanned for license plates per person a year and that doesn't seem all encompassing as the supreme court cautioned against carpenter decision actually did consider the technology at the time of the search and currently and sort of what its potential and  predictive future use reasonably based on what the technology is capable of what it will look like in the future that's part of the decision that the cell site location information used to be actually quite less precise it was one thousand miles or thousands of feet it's getting a little bit closer to g p s still isn't there yet according to the carpenter decision but the supreme court did acknowledge that that's significant as the advancement of technology even from the beginning of a case to the end of a case and what could happen in the future  without speculating of course it's that there's these numbers show that this is not this is not speculation this this learned database run by this private company is growing exponentially every year and it has no there's no business reason for that company to stop doing that stop selling the cameras and collecting the data as the owner of the company testified at the hearing this is the largest database of l p r data in the nation that's of the record at page and forty one dollars it's clear that the more data that's in the database the more useful it is the more the company can market it to law enforcement through the learned database and law enforcement undoubtedly gets all of the privately  by the private companies as well as the info scanned by other law enforcement companies that bought these cameras so this is a substantial privacy concern it's similar to carpenter i do understand the court distinguishing that it might not be this comprehensive every single dot where you move is captured but i would say that the precision of this it is g p s quality wanted to latitude is provided every time the plates are scanned it's not like cell site which could be thousands of feet away isn't cell phone book by its nature just more invasive than a car so for example if i'm at home i have my cell phone you'll know i'm at home whereas for the license plate i put my car in the garage you have no idea if i'm home if i'm at the supermarket or the baseball game isn't cell phone inherently different from a car that it's much more invasive that you can track where anybody is at any time the record in this case reveals your where your car is a good indication of where you are the record appears three hundred and thirty seven thousand two hundred and thirty eight states that ninety percent of the time people are within a one thousand feet of their car so it is yes there are differences between cell phones and cars but it's not different enough that it's not your car's location is still attached to you in a significant way rule yes or you should not your honor the government has only identified cases where and i've been able to find where there's a good faith reliance on something so there's a reliance on an evolved search warrant there's a good faith reliance on prior precedent that it was over ed later that what there was in place when the police acted there's good face like in carpenter the cell site there's good faith reliance on the stored communications act that had been upheld by many circuits and courts in this country so exclusionary rule wouldn't apply to that action because there was good faith reliance the government was appointed to anything that inspector steel relied on to believe that his search of the learned database without a warrant was legal and that's the crucial difference in this case and that's why the exclusionary rule should apply course there's other circumstances it hasn't applied such as police negligence or you know failing to update an accidental failure to update a search warrant arrest warrant database that's not at issue here we have deliberate action without the reliance on anything  sorry just making sure that it's it was on he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that license plate because it was on the outside of his car where it was required to be it's not something that he can hide from public view and when it was incidentally captured by the tow truck there was no sort of privacy interest that that he can claim most primarily because at the time he was driving a stolen car now the supreme court's recent decision byrd did not change that that talked about a properly rented car that was lent to a friend and the court in bird reiterated that somebody in a stolen car does not have a privacy interest in that car that's what we're dealing with here and the fact that it was beyond lease term doesn't mean one car that's correct your honor but and it was supposed to disable the car and they activated it to disable it they got the car's location and then when they went to find it it wasn't there because mr gang deactivated the g p s and so they took all the steps that they could at that time and it was similar to that that's cracked in just a couple of days later they talked with the postal inspector and so in a case that involved a hotel room in which the hotel tried to exclude the occupants they did that by reprogramming the keys so they thought that they had successfully done what they needed to do to reclaim the hotel unfortunately for some reason that they were still able to get in the room but this court held that there was no expectation of privacy in what had been a stolen room that the hotel was trying to reclaim so once the car company here are trying to reclaim the car those steps are sufficient under q now too remove any expectation of privacy that mr in might have had when he rented the car even if the court reaches the merits of this case the analogy was pointed out earlier from carpenter this case is a lot different there we're talking the supreme court was very concerned about having a comprehensive chronicle of a user's past movements so we're talking about point by point moment may bowman day by day where has someone been using this precise technology that the court like into having an ankle bracelet strapped around your leg because your cell phone is always with you in this case we're talking about  business use a tow truck and repossession companies that are going about their day to day business taking photographs of cars incidentally as they look for these stolen cars on behalf of mostly insurance companies and i don't finance companies and it is correct that they do sell the opportunity to law enforcement to be able to query this database that's not their primary purpose for it and in addition when a query happens the record shows that it's very hit or miss what you're going to get you might get one hit you might get zero hits this case you got one on average you're going to get about four per year according to the testimony from the c e o of this company so this case is qualitatively different than carpenter with there's a tension and carpenter you know the  opinion says it's narrow it's limit to the facts but then as miss they're pointed out there is language saying we have to take into account future technologies how do you reconcile those two competing language in the opinion i think carpenter at base was dealing with cell phone technology as it existed it talked about how this is a deal in effect in mr carpenter in that case but because there's four hundred million people who are subject to that with their cell phones that wasn't really so much predicting the future or was more about what was actually happening with saw phones and kind of being mindful of letting that run away into affecting more than just a few individuals but in this case we're talking about a technology that's not capable of tracking it's not capable of creating those chronicled detailed encyclopedic movements the carpenter was worried about what if a city installs these license plate readers on every street corner would that be all encompassing as outlined in carpenter i i don't think it would be but i think what we would have to do is if that in fact happens how many street corners are we talking about how many data points are recapturing are they on two hundred and forty seven and those sorts of questions but that would be a wholly separate factual scenario from this case and so the court wouldn't need to predict whether something like that may or may not happen because it didn't happen in this case and so the course should avoid trying to predict potential technology and should avoid trying to take technology beyond that technology will improve so that the density of his will improve so you can't just say it's you know one for versus three hundred and ten dollars or whatever in carpenter you have to look at the improvement current systems as well as improvement systems that's correct your honor there are still two differences though so you're talking about increasing number of hits which could happen but it doesn't necessarily mean that it would create this precise trail of somebody for their historical movements and secondly yang hasn't points or anything in the record to show that any technology is currently in development that would do what he's predicted predicting or what maybe carpenter would be predicting we're talking about does p r technology allow you to track an individual the way that one of the problems of a case like this is they start out on kind of a humble beginnings and there really isn't a very good record for instance when what you say you know there isn't really anything in there regard where technology is going so we don't have really a very good record seems that was developed would you agree as far as where the technology is going i think that's right i think that i talked about the specifics of the learn database in this case the capabilities john really as well as specifically what was going on in nevada but even with carpenter in mind talking about where the technology is going i don't think it puts this court in a position to make predictions about that  yeah carpenter was decided last year and so this search took place two years prior the government relied on several things in making its good faith argument for example this court had previously held  there's no privacy interest in license plates taking a picture of the outside of the car the supreme court held similarly in knots and even if you take jones into account which was the where they place the g p s tracker on the car that was in two thousand and twelve so let's take the cases that say no privacy interest in a license plate however you can't track a car with g p s there's just simply no intersection here because neither one of those things happened this is a photo taken on the outside of the car so what that supreme court precedent and  in addition the class case from the supreme court said no privacy interest in the plate so we don't have a privacy interest in the plate jones comes along and says you can't do a trespass and the concurrence sort of predicts what carpenters going to say which is even if you don't have a trespasser could be an issue if you really start to get detailed g p s tracking of a car but again since we don't have that here there was absolute good faith when what happened when there was one query run to a learned database to see if any hit would come up and in this case one hit did come up so as i mentioned at the beginning of the argument we don't think mr yang has standing because this was a stolen car it is distinguishable from carpenter because it doesn't create a detailed chronology of movements and then finally  hat about those cases that you're live in the side of the license plates are not private yes or on of those cases addressed when eight officer was physically viewing a car so in real time either driving behind or seeing a car physically of course carpenter did not disturb those rulings because that is traditional surveillance we're talking about here is advanced technology that provides officers the ability to get retrospective historical information that they otherwise could never get beeper in the chloroform so sort of the traditional there's a line drawn between the traditional surveillance tools of i seeing something happen in real time versus this precise g p s look collection of  points of historical location data that's been stored from indiscriminate it appears it's stored forever there's no purging policy that the learned database creator could tell us about at the hearing so that's the difference here is historically gathered historical information gathered in a database that can be searched indefinitely and forever what is it if this is found not to be a search what does that in presidential year with regard to other types of electronic surveillance i'm thinking about putting the president is one way or the other in this case well if it it depends on if what reason the court would find it's not a search if it's because there's incomplete information based on the record in this case to decide whether the intrusive enough that would be a case decision and it would impact any other challenges to here in the future with the more fully developed record i will admit we did not have the benefit of carpenter we were running this hearing in the court really limited it to exactly what happened in this case and not sort of the full reach of this  traditional sources and because that's what he's used to no your honor carpenters drew that line so carpenter states that it's the difference between at the end of the carpenter's cision it says we're not disturbing traditional surveillance means that were you saying that's that's the limit that the government can use without a search warrant traditional so you can have a policeman doing surveillance maybe two policemen maybe four policeman but everything above that technologically more advanced supported i'd like to turn back to the standing issue really quickly did location information here was gathered only twelve hours after the due to the time period that the car was due back to pr does the closet about the car would be considered stolen states that if it's not returned quote on or before the contract due date this was still within the day that it was due when the location information was gathered some had expectations of privacy in this location information the contract had not even actually expired yet as of that day was one thousand one hundred and thirty at night when the information was gathered by the l p r camera as the possessory interest in the car there's nothing in the contract saying that they can disable the car with g p s or there's no indication that mr wang driving the car would know that it's the bundle company stopping his car versus a hacker i also would submit that we have no idea when that disabling with the g p s occurred we have no idea if it occurred within that twelve hour period when the a o p our data was collected on this car or sometimes later there's about ten days mystery on had this car and we don't know has standard because he rented this car and was driving it the government's admits no one disputes that anyone else mr yang drove this car and more importantly it's his location that's at issue it's not some sort of possessory interest in the inside of the car the contents of it