tutional law (cc). Moreover, each individual constituent element of the measure is
overarchingly subject to the requirements of proportionality which include requirements relating to transparency, individual legal protection and supervisory measures,
as well as provisions governing data use and deletion (dd).
aa) Police measures carried out in public spaces in search of specific persons or
objects, as authorised under Art. 33(2) second to fifth sentences, Art. 13(1) nos. 1 to
5 BayPAG, generally require objectively defined and limited grounds for an interference with fundamental rights. The legislature must define a threshold for the exercise
of powers that makes state action subject to foreseeable conditions that allow for the
review of compliance (cf. BVerfGE 141, 220 <271 et seq. para. 109 et seq.> with further references).
91
(1) Merely the general interest in identifying and seizing persons or objects sought
by the police is not sufficient to justify automatic number plate recognition measures.
Although a separate legitimate state interest in finding such persons or objects must
be recognised, this does not justify the conduct of random checks targeting all
passers-by. Even if the search alert entered into the records does have its own legal
basis, this does not mean that any measure may be used to carry out the search.
Rather, it requires its own grounds. Carrying out checks on a purely speculative basis, at any time and place, is fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law.
92
(2) The authorisation to carry out checks is proportionate only if it is based on
grounds that make police actions foreseeable and reviewable. In this respect, the
legislature could require the presence of specific dangers. However, besides naming
a specific danger, the legislature may also set out generalised types of situations of
danger as grounds justifying the conducting of checks. For the rest, the legislature
may also authorise checks if in the specific case or in a general situation of danger
the likelihood of finding persons or objects of interest is specifically higher; thus, within its scope of competences, the legislature is free to directly take into account the
public search interest even without reference to any further purposes of the check.
This would require, however, that each specific check be based on justifying grounds
that have a sufficient factual basis and place verifiable limits on state action.
93
(3) This does not completely rule out measures not based on specific grounds. If
police measures targeting dangerous or risky activities or special sources of danger
are carried out, these may already constitute grounds satisfying the principle of proportionality. In such cases, the justification to carry out measures may be found in the
special responsibility the parties subject to the measures bear vis-à-vis the general
public, and therefore does not require more specific grounds. In respect of automatic
number plate recognition measures, this might apply if they are carried out to combat
dangers occurring in connection with the operation of motor vehicles; for instance, in
the context of the enforcement of compulsory insurance, where measures are carried
out to find uninsured vehicles. In this respect, the situation is not different from many
other types of police checks not at issue here, such as random road traffic checks
94
17/34