Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Balt. Police Dep't - 2 F.4th 330 (4th Cir. 2021)

Rule:

A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. For that to be the case, it must be impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party. As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.

Facts:

In August 2016, the public learned for the first time that the BPD was using new aerial technology called Aerial Investigation Research (AIR) program, which were planes equipped with high-tech cameras to surveil Baltimore City. News reports revealed that, several months earlier, defendant Baltimore Police District partnered with a private contractor to conduct aerial surveillance. The planes transmit their photographs to ground stations where contractors use the data to track individuals and vehicles from a crime scene and extract information to assist defendant in the investigation of Target Crimes. The AIR program is not designed to provide real-time analysis when a crime takes place, though. Rather, the analysts prepare reports and briefings about a Target Crime as requested by the defendant’s officers on the case. Plaintiffs Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, Erricka Bridgeford, and Kevin James, were a group of grassroots community advocates in Baltimore. Their advocacy necessarily involves traveling through and being present outdoors in areas with high rates of violent crime. Before the pilot program commenced, plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant police district and Commissioner Harrison in his official capacity. As relevant here, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the AIR program under the Fourth Amendment via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While appeal was pending, the AIR program completed its pilot run and Baltimore City leadership decided not to renew its operation. Defendants then deleted the bulk of the AIR data, retaining only the materials that relate to specific investigations. Defendants then moved to dismiss this appeal as moot. 

Issue:

Should the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on mootness be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that plaintiffs' appeal from the district court's denial of their motion to enjoin the defendant police department from operating the program and from accessing any stored images created during the pendency of the lawsuit was not moot because while the planes had stopped flying, the fruits of the program persisted as defendant stored the program images and reports, and was free to access them at any time. The court held that if plaintiffs obtained the injunction they requested, defendant would be barred from accessing those materials as the litigation proceeded, thus, effectively granting plaintiffs the relief they sought. Also, the court held that because the program enabled police to deduce from the whole of individuals' movements, accessing its data was a search, and its warrantless operation violated the Fourth Amendment, and thus, plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. The court then reversed the judgment and remanded the case.