Skip to content
STATEOF WATCH
← case tracker

U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal.

United States v. Melvin L. Riley and Kenneth Michael Holly, Jr.

Suppression motion over Culver City's Flock and Carson's Motorola ALPR systems.

Docket

No. 2:25-cr-00380-VAP

Judge
Judge Virginia A. Phillips
Where it stands
Suppression denied Sept 10, 2026 (Doc. 181).

No next date recorded

Pending

  • No next date is recorded in this file.
  • The Riley order cites "Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393 (1960)." That citation is the 1914 case. Flagged as a likely error in the order, not corrected on our authority.

Docket timeline

  1. 2026-09-10

    Suppression denied (Doc. 181).

as of 2026-09-24

Documents

Entries in the record

Sept 10, 2026 · Culver City, CA · Carson, CAverifiedCulver City and Carson: federal court denies suppression of two ALPR systems

United States v. Melvin L. Riley and Kenneth Michael Holly, Jr., No. 2:25-cr-00380-VAP (C.D. Cal.), Document 181, Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Culver City's Flock system (52 cameras, 28 intersections, about 4% intersection coverage, about 18M photos a month, 30-day retention) and Carson's Motorola system (85 fixed cameras plus 4 trailers, 31 locations, about 75% of entry and exit points, data "maintained for five years" as of April 2025) were both used.

Five years is Carson's own configured policy, not a Motorola limit. Motorola's own FAQ says data "is held according to the retention policy set forth by you," with no vendor default or ceiling. LASD, which runs Carson's system, has a written policy (MPP 5-09/550.05): 2 years active, then archived, permanently deleted at 5 years. LASD's policy states zero inter-agency agreements with any federal agency for this system.

The court denied suppression, distinguishing Carpenter, Chatrie, and Beautiful Struggle on the same bounded-snapshot reasoning as Schmidt, Church, and Jackson.

How we know: Order read directly (v3.18). Carson retention framing corrected v3.20 and layered v3.24. The order appears to misdate a Weeks citation (1960 for the 1914 case); flagged, not corrected on our authority.

Full record →checked v3.24

“is held according to the retention policy set forth by you [the agency]... Retention policies may be adjusted by the Agency or Site Manager at any time”
Motorola Solutions, LPR data management FAQ

Source chain

  1. 01U.S. v. Riley, No. 2:25-cr-00380-VAP, Doc. 181 (C.D. Cal.)primarydocket 2:25-cr-00380-VAPdocument (PDF)
  2. 02Motorola Solutions LPR data management FAQ (PDF)primarylink being reconstructed
  3. 03LASD MPP 5-09/550.05primarydocument (PDF)
  4. 04LASD Civilian Oversight Commission presentationprimarylink being reconstructed