Can police run license plate checks in parking lots without reasonable suspicion? State v. Anderson Explained

Background and Facts

In State v. Anderson, a police officer conducted routine records searches on license plates while patrolling a gas station parking lot. The search revealed that Donald Anderson, the registered owner of one vehicle, had outstanding arrest warrants. After confirming the driver’s identity, the officer arrested Anderson and subsequently discovered drugs and a pipe bomb during a vehicle search. Anderson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the initial records search violated his constitutional rights because it occurred on private property rather than a public road.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether Anderson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his vehicle registration records when parked in a publicly accessible parking lot, and (2) whether the loss of bodycam and dashcam footage violated Anderson’s due process rights. Anderson argued that the private property location distinguished his case from State v. Oryall, which established that motorists lack privacy expectations in government records on public roads.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. Following Oryall, the court held that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in government registration records, regardless of whether the search occurs on public roads or in publicly accessible parking lots. The court distinguished private property that is “open to the public” from truly private areas under exclusive control. Additionally, the court found no due process violation from the missing footage because the records search provided reasonable suspicion for detention regardless of the officer’s parking position.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Oryall applies broadly to publicly accessible areas beyond public roads. Practitioners should note that challenging records searches requires more than showing the search occurred on private property—the property must provide actual privacy expectations. The decision also demonstrates the high threshold for establishing that missing evidence would have been exculpatory under due process analysis.