Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court stated that “because they are in plain view, no privacy interest exists in license plates.” It reasoned that the officer’s registration check on the defendant’s vehicle “neither unreasonably burdened nor restricted [the defendant’s] travel” because “[u]nless a registration check reveals information which raises a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the subject remains unaware of the check and unencumbered.” Id. {12} We agree with this reasoning of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. Because a license plate is located in plain view, a license plate check is not intrusive, and because the United States Supreme Court has held that VIN searches are not Fourth Amendment violations because of the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy, see Class, 475 U.S. at 118-19, 106 S.Ct. 960 (<HOLDING>), license plate checks are not searches under 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that as part of an undoubtedly justified traffic stop officers checking for the vin in order to run a search is sufficiently unintrusive to be constitutionally permissible in light of the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vin (B) holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle (C) holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building (D) holding that this lack of any reasonable expectation of continued employment suffices to establish the lack of property in the constitutional sense and hence the lack of a viable due process claim (E) holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vin on a visible exterior portion of a vehicle and recognizing that a different fourth amendment question would have been presented if the vin had been on an interior portion of the vehicle
Output (English): holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building