Introduction

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia addressed a pivotal issue concerning privacy and data collection practices in the case of Harrison Neal v. Fairfax County Police Department, et al. Decided on April 26, 2018, the case centers around whether the retention of information collected by automated license plate readers (ALPR) by the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) violates the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (Data Act). Harrison Neal challenged the FCPD's "passive use" of ALPRs, seeking to halt the collection and storage of his vehicle's license plate data absent any suspicion of criminal activity.

Summary of the Judgment

The circuit court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the FCPD, determining that a license plate number does not constitute "personal information" under the Data Act, as defined by Code § 2.2-3801. Consequently, the Data Act did not apply, and Neal's case was dismissed. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed this decision. The Court held that while the ALPR database does store "personal information" through photographs and associated data, it could not conclusively determine whether the database constitutes an "information system" under the Data Act. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the circuit court for further analysis on whether a link exists between license plate numbers and vehicle owners within the ALPR system.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several precedents to interpret the Data Act, emphasizing its remedial purpose. Key cases include:

• Board of Supervisors v. Windmill Meadows, LLC (2014): Affirmed the Court's role in reviewing statutory interpretations de novo on appeal.
• UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA v. HARRIS (1990): Highlighted that remedial statutes like the Data Act should be liberally construed to fulfill legislative intent.
• Collins v. Commonwealth (2016) and FRYE v. COMMONWEALTH (1986): Demonstrated that license plate numbers can identify vehicle owners in DMV contexts.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on the definition and scope of "personal information" and "information system" under the Data Act. It acknowledged that while license plate numbers alone may not always constitute personal information, the associated images and data (e.g., time, date, GPS location) do. Furthermore, the Court noted that the term "identifying particulars" should be interpreted broadly to include information that can infer an individual's characteristics or activities.

Importantly, the Court differentiated between "passive use" and "active use" of ALPRs. Neal's challenge concerned passive data collection without immediate criminal suspicion, which the Court found insufficiently addressed in the circuit court's dismissal. The Court emphasized that the Data Act aims to protect individual privacy against broad governmental data practices, thus requiring a more nuanced analysis.

Additionally, the Court scrutinized the exemption clause in Code § 2.2-3802(7), concluding that FCPD's generalized intelligence-gathering does not specifically pertain to criminal investigations, thereby making the ALPR system subject to the Data Act.

Impact

This judgment broadens the interpretation of "personal information" under Virginia's Data Act, potentially encompassing more government-collected data. By remanding the case, the Court signals a need for stricter oversight on how police departments utilize ALPRs, especially concerning data retention and privacy safeguards. This decision may influence future cases by setting a precedent that extends privacy protections to include automated surveillance data, thereby compelling government agencies to justify data collection practices more rigorously.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)

ALPRs are systems used by law enforcement to automatically read and record vehicle license plates. They capture images of plates and convert them into alphanumeric data, which can be stored and analyzed for various purposes, including tracking vehicle movements or identifying stolen vehicles.

Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (Data Act)

The Data Act is a Virginia statute designed to protect individuals' privacy by regulating how government agencies collect, store, and disseminate personal information. It grants citizens the right to challenge and seek remedies if their personal data is mishandled by government entities.

Personal Information

Under the Data Act, "personal information" includes data that directly identifies an individual (like social security numbers) or allows for the inference of personal characteristics and activities. In this case, while license plate numbers alone may not always identify an individual, the associated data like location and time can link a vehicle to its owner.

Information System

An "information system" refers to any record-keeping process that contains personal information and identifiers about individuals. Determining whether a system falls under this definition involves assessing if it can link collected data to specific individuals.

Summary Judgment

A legal procedure where the court makes a decision based on the facts presented without a full trial, typically because the essential facts are undisputed and the law is clear.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia's decision in Harrison Neal v. Fairfax County Police Department marks a significant step in the evolution of privacy law concerning automated data collection by law enforcement. By recognizing that ALPR systems may encompass "personal information" and potentially constitute "information systems" under the Data Act, the Court underscores the necessity for government accountability in data practices. This case sets the stage for more robust privacy protections and requires governmental bodies to meticulously assess the implications of their data collection technologies. As technology advances, such judicial interpretations will be crucial in balancing security measures with individual privacy rights.