motion to suppress de novo. See id. {8} The State argues that when the district court erroneously found that, because Investigator Hubbard lacked reasonable suspicion about anything pertaining to the car he had no right to run a license plate check, it equated the license plate check “with an officer stopping a car without reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.” The State asserts that this was inappropriate in that the license plate check “was neither a search nor a seizure because Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the license plate number.” We agree with the State. Although New Mexico has not explicitly addressed this issue, our case law has relied on this assumption in related eases. See, e.g., State v. Reynolds, 119 N.M. 383, 386, 890 P.2d 1315, 1318 (1995) (<HOLDING>). {9} In a similar ease involving a license
holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells holding under smith that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in telephony metadata holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business