You get five arguments that a warrantless ALPR network is unconstitutional and five that it is lawful, built on Carpenter, Jones, Knotts, and New York v. Class, plus the ALPR-specific rulings that matter right now: the Norfolk suppression in Bell v. Commonwealth, its reversal by the Virginia Court of Appeals in Commonwealth v. Church, the Massachusetts mosaic signal in Commonwealth v. McCarthy, the Seventh Circuit pole-camera cases in Tuggle and House, and the standing trap in United States v. Yang. The through-line is one honest anchor: Chatrie strengthens the argument against warrantless access to a detailed, long-term record of movement, but it does not hold that reading a plate, or querying a plate database, is by itself a search.

In this episode:

00:00 The camera on the pole
01:15 Welcome back, and how today's point-counterpoint works
02:15 The mosaic theory, two honest caveats, and the Chatrie anchor
04:00 Five reasons ALPRs are unconstitutional
08:30 A word from our sponsor, The Criminal Mastermind
09:30 Five reasons ALPRs are legal
14:00 Where the line actually falls: the four dials
15:30 Takeaways for your next suppression motion
16:30 Rate, review, and subscribe

The anchor: Chatrie makes the case against warrantless access to a detailed, long-term movement record much stronger, but it does not hold that capturing a plate or querying a plate database is itself a search. The fight turns on scale: camera density, coverage, retention, cross-agency access, and what police actually retrieved about your client.

Cases discussed: Chatrie v. United States (2026); Carpenter v. United States (2018); United States v. Jones (2012); United States v. Knotts (1983); New York v. Class (1986); Commonwealth v. McCarthy (Mass. 2020); Bell v. Commonwealth (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2024); Commonwealth v. Church (Va. Ct. App. 2025); United States v. Tuggle (7th Cir. 2021) and United States v. House; United States v. Yang (9th Cir. 2020).

This episode is brought to you by The Criminal Mastermind, the only coaching community built entirely around criminal defense law firms. Private Slack community, live trainings twice a month, and more than one hundred hours on hiring, marketing, intake, and building systems that let your firm run without you. Learn more at thecriminalmastermind.com.

Enjoyed the show? Leave a five star rating and a review wherever you listen, and hit follow or subscribe so the next case lands in your feed the day it drops.

This episode is legal commentary for practicing attorneys and is not legal advice. The law on ALPRs is unsettled and varies by jurisdiction. AI is used in the scripting and production of this podcast. Before relying on any case discussed, read the opinion yourself.

Jay walks through the facts, the three-step geofence process, and the wild road this case took to the Court, then unpacks how Justice Kagan's majority extends Carpenter, why two hours of data still counts as a search, and how the Court handled the third-party doctrine. You also get the Jackson and Gorsuch concurrences, the Alito and Barrett dissents, and a plain reading of what the Court did and did not decide. It closes with seven takeaways you can carry into your next suppression hearing.

In this episode:

00:00 The robbery that started it all
01:15 Welcome to Unreasonable Expectations, and what this show does every week
03:00 Two terms you need: geofence and Location History
05:00 The three-step warrant, and how Chatrie got identified
06:15 The wild road to the Supreme Court, and the good-faith trap
08:00 The holding and the lineup: five behind Kagan, six for the result, three dissenting
10:00 How the majority extends Carpenter, and why two hours is still a search
14:30 What the Court did not decide: the warrant, reasonableness, and good faith
15:30 A word from our sponsor, The Criminal Mastermind
16:30 The concurrences: Jackson's roadmap and Gorsuch's property theory
18:30 The dissents: Alito on advisory opinions, Barrett on the third-party doctrine
20:00 Seven takeaways for practicing criminal defense lawyers
23:00 Rate, review, and subscribe

Key point: The Court held that acquiring Google Location History is a Fourth Amendment search, even for a two-hour window and even from a third party. It did not strike the warrant or reach good faith. Those questions go back to the Fourth Circuit on remand, which means Chatrie himself could still lose.

This episode is brought to you by The Criminal Mastermind, the only coaching community built entirely around criminal defense law firms. Private Slack community, live trainings twice a month, and a library of more than one hundred hours on hiring, marketing, intake, and building systems that let your firm run without you. Learn more at thecriminalmastermind.com.

Enjoyed the show? Leave a five star rating and a review wherever you listen, and hit follow or subscribe so the next case lands in your feed the day it drops.