*559GIBBONS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GRIFFIN, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 564-74), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
OPINION
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.Appellant United States appeals from a district court order granting defendant-appellee Curtis Ellison’s motion to suppress. Because we conclude that the district court erred in its Fourth Amendment analysis, we vacate the order granting the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.
I.
The central issue in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated when a police officer investigates an automobile license plate number using a law enforcement computer database. While on routine patrol, Officer Mark Keeley of the Farmington Hills (Michigan) Police Department pulled into a two-lane service drive adjacent to a shopping center. Kee-ley testified that a white van, with a male driver inside, was idling in the lane closest to the stores, in an area marked with “Fire Lane” and “No Parking” signs. Keeley did not issue the van a citation for being illegally parked, nor did he request that the driver move the van. Rather, he moved into a parking spot to observe the van and entered the vehicle’s license plate number into his patrol car’s Law Enforcement Information Network (“LEIN”) computer. The LEIN search revealed that the vehicle was registered to Curtis Ellison, who had an outstanding felony warrant. Following standard procedure, Keeley radioed for back-up and continued observing the van. After two minutes, another male got into the van, and it drove away. Officer Keeley followed the van until his back-up was nearby, and then activated his lights and stopped the van.
Officer Keeley approached the driver’s-side window as his back-up arrived. He advised the driver that he was being stopped for parking in a fire lane and asked for license, registration and proof of insurance. The driver, identified as Edward Coleman, stated that he had only stopped in front of the store to wait for the passenger. At this time the passenger stated that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. Keeley verified the passenger’s identity as Curtis Ellison and moved to the passenger side of the van. Keeley notified Ellison that he was being arrested on the outstanding warrant. Ellison stepped out of the van, and during the routine safety pat-down, two firearms were found. Coleman was released with a warning about parking in a fire lane.
Ellison was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Prior to trial, he made a timely motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an illegal search. After holding a hearing, the district court made a factual finding that the van was not parked illegally, and thus, the officer did not have probable cause to run the LEIN check of Ellison’s license plate. The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the motion to suppress under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
The government filed a timely appeal. This court has jurisdiction to hear the government’s appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, as the government has certified that the appeal is not taken for the purposes of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material to the proceeding.
II.
This court reviews a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence *560under a dual standard. United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 264 (6th Cir.1999). Factual findings are reviewed for “clear error” and will only be set aside when the reviewing court “is left .with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Ellis v. Diffie, 177 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). As the government does not challenge the district court’s finding that the van was not parked illegally, this appeal does not implicate any factual findings. Rather, it concerns only legal conclusions, which are reviewed de novo. Hill, 195 F.3d at 264.
The government argues on appeal that Ellison had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate, and thus, no probable cause was required for Officer Keeley to run the LEIN check. Ellison contends that the government waived this argument by not raising it in the district court. It is true that the government based its oral argument in the district court on the fact that the van was parked illegally, without addressing the specific interaction between license plate information and the Fourth Amendment.1 However, defendant’s motion to suppress did not allege or argue a reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, neither party made any argument in the district court regarding the expectation of privacy in a license plate. The discussion at the suppression hearing focused instead on probable cause—whether the van was parked illegally.
Although the district court did not expressly state that Ellison had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate, such a conclusion was necessarily implied by the court’s ruling that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. “[T]he State’s intrusion into a particular area ... cannot result in a Fourth Amendment violation unless the area is one in which there is a ‘constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.’ ” New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 112, 106 S.Ct. 960, 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)). Thus, the district court could only find that the LEIN search violated the Fourth Amendment if it first concluded that Ellison had a ‘constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy’ in his license plate number.
Ellison correctly notes the longstanding rule that this court generally will not consider an argument not raised in the district court and presented for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Foster v. Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 408 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Ovalle, 136 F.3d 1092, 1108 n. 17 (6th Cir.1998). An exception can be made, however, for “exceptional cases” or if failing to consider the argument would result in a “plain miscarriage of justice.” Pinney Dock and Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445, 1461 (6th Cir.1988); In re Hood, 319 F.3d 755, 760 (6th Cir.2003), aff'd sub nom. Tenn. Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440, 124 S.Ct. 1905, 158 L.Ed.2d 764 (2004). This is such an exceptional case. The question—whether a motorist has a privacy interest in his license plate—is a purely legal one.2 As the parties have fully *561briefed the issue, it is “presented with sufficient clarity and completeness” to ensure a proper resolution. Pinney Dock, 838 F.2d at 1461. It requires no further development of the record at the district court level, and thus, Ellison will not be prejudiced by the inability to present evidence to that court. On the other hand, fading to consider the issue would result in a plain miscarriage of justice — namely, allowing a conclusion of law to stand that is clearly in error. Based on these factors, we consider the government’s argument that the LEIN investigation of Ellison’s license plate does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
III.
This court has not previously addressed in a published opinion the question of whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his license plate. In two unpublished decisions, however, this court has agreed with the other circuits that have decided this issue by holding that no such privacy interest exists. The reasoning of these opinions, as well as that of the Supreme Court in related cases, leads us to agree that a motorist has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on his license plate under the Fourth Amendment.
A tenet of constitutional jurisprudence is that the Fourth Amendment protects only what an individual seeks to keep private. Katz, 389 U.S. at 351-52, 88 S.Ct. 507. “What a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Id. at 351, 88 S.Ct. 507. It is also settled that “objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure .... ” Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). Following this reasoning, the Court held that an automobile’s Vehicle Identification Number, located inside the passenger compartment, but visible from outside the car, does not receive Fourth Amendment protection:
[I]t is unreasonable to have an expectation of privacy in an object required by law to be located in a place ordinarily in plain view from the exterior of the automobile. The VIN’s mandated visibility makes it more similar to the exterior of the car than to the trunk or glove compartment. The exterior of a car, of course, is thrust into the public eye, and thus to examine it does not constitute a “search.”
Class, 475 U.S. at 114, 106 S.Ct. 960. Logically, this reasoning extends to a legally-required identifier located outside the vehicle.
No argument can be made that a motorist seeks to keep the information on his license plate private. The very purpose of a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to law enforcement officials and others. The reasoning in Class vis-a-vis Vehicle Identification Numbers applies with equal force to license plates: “[B]ecause of the important role played by the [license plate] in the pervasive governmental regulation of the automobile and the efforts by the Federal Government to ensure that the [license plate] is placed in plain view,” a motorist can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained on it. 475 U.S. at 114, 106 S.Ct. 960 (discussing Vehicle Identification Numbers).
*562The dissent implies that even if an individual has no expectation of privacy in a license plate number, a privacy interest is somehow created by the entry of this information into a law-enforcement computer database. This argument flies in the face of established Fourth Amendment doctrine. First, despite the dissent’s concerns over the information available in a LEIN search, Ellison had no privacy interest in the information retrieved by Officer Keely. The obvious purpose of maintaining law enforcement databases is to make information, such as the existence of outstanding warrants, readily available to officers carrying out legitimate law enforcement duties. The dissent fails to state how using a license plate number — in which there is no expectation of privacy — to retrieve other non-private information somehow creates a “search” for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.3 Moreover, the computer investigation utilized in this case was far less invasive than other government actions that fall outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984) (entering private property with “No Trespassing” signs to observe marijuana plants in an “open field” not visible from outside the property); Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 239, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986) (photographing an industrial complex with a precision aerial mapping camera); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213-14, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986) (using aerial surveillance in public airspace to observe the curtilage of a private residence); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 745-46, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (placing a pen register on a phone line to record the numbers dialed from a private residence). This is not a case where the police used a technology not available to the public to discover evidence that could not otherwise be obtained without “intrusion into a constitutionally-protected area.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34-35, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001) (holding that the use of thermal-imaging technology to detect heat inside a private home violates the Fourth Amendment). The technology used in this case does not allow officers to access any previously-unobtainable information; it simply allows them to access information more quickly. As the information was obtained without intruding upon a constitutionally-protected area, *563there was no “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Every court that has addressed this issue has reached the same conclusion. The Tenth Circuit has held on two occasions that license plates are “in plain view on the outside of the car” and thus, are “subject to seizure” because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Matthews, 615 F.2d 1279, 1285 (10th Cir.1980); see also United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972, 974 (10th Cir.1989). The Fifth Circuit has also held that “[a] motorist has no privacy interest in her license plate number.” Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 529 (5th Cir.1999); accord United States v. Sparks, 37 Fed.Appx. 826, 829 (8th Cir.2002); Hallstein v. City of Hermosa Beach, 87 Fed.Appx. 17, 19 (9th Cir.2003). The only two panels of this court to address the question have reached the same result. United States v. $14,000.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 98—4380, 2000 WL 222587, at *3 (6th Cir. Feb.14, 2000) (finding no Fourth Amendment violation in a computer check of a license plate); United States v. Batten, 73 Fed.Appx. 831, 832 (6th Cir.2003) (same). As one panel wrote, “[T]here is no case law indicating that there can be any reasonable expectation of privacy in license plates which are required by law to be displayed in public on the front and rear of any vehicle on a public street.” Batten, 73 Fed.Appx. at 832; see also Wayne R. LaFave, 1 Search & Seizure § 2.5(b) (4th ed. 2004) (“[I]t is apparent that when a vehicle is parked on the street or in a lot or at some other location where it is readily subject to observation by members of the public, it is no search for the police to look at the exterior of the vehicle.”) (citing Katz and Olabisiomotosho).
Thus, so long as the officer had a right to be in a position to observe the defendant’s license plate, any such observation and corresponding use of the information on the plate does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In this case, Officer Keeley had a right to be in the parking lot observing the van — he was in a public place conducting a routine patrol. The district court’s finding that the van was not parked illegally is thus irrelevant — such a finding goes only to probable cause, which is not necessary absent a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.4 Once Officer Keeley conducted the check and discovered the outstanding warrant, he then had probable cause to pull over the vehicle and arrest the man identified as Ellison. The arrest and resulting search during which the handguns were found in no way violated the Fourth Amendment, and the district court’s order granting the motion to suppress was in error.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the order granting the motion to suppress and remand the case to the district court for *564further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. The government’s written response to the motion made a general assertion that the stop and investigation were constitutional but did not specifically address whether there was a privacy interest in the information on the license plate.
. We are not persuaded by the dissent's attempt to create a factual issue where none *561exists. The questions posed by the dissent, see Dis. Op. at 566-67, are not relevant to the question of whether the entry of Ellison’s license plate number into the LEIN system constituted a "search” under the Fourth Amendment. See infra Part III.
. The website of the Michigan State Police contains the following information about the LEIN system:
The Michigan Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) is a statewide computerized information system, which was established July 1, 1967, as a service to Michigan’s criminal justice agencies. The goal of LEIN is to assist the criminal justice community in the performance of its duties by providing and maintaining a computerized filing system of accurate and timely documented criminal justice information readily available to all criminal justice agencies.
* * * * *
LEIN access is permitted to criminal justice agencies in the discharge of their official, mandated responsibilities.
See Michigan State Police, "LEIN Field Services,” at http://www.michi-gan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1564-16248 — ,00.-html (last accessed Aug. 18, 2006). While we would be justified in taking judicial notice of this information, see Fed.R.Evid. 201, it is unnecessary to do so to dispose of this appeal. The above quote amply illustrates, however, the fallacy of the dissent's argument that one has an expectation of privacy in a license plate number or the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant. The dissent's further attempt to impugn all LEIN checks based on "the possibility and the reality of errors in the computer databases accessed by [LEIN-type] systems” amounts to pure speculation and is no way relevant to whether one has an expectation of privacy.
. This court suggested in $14,000.00 in U.S. Currency that it would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for an officer to run computer checks in an "intentionally racially discriminatory manner.” 211 F.3d 1270, 2000 WL 222587 at *3 n. 2 (citing United States v. Travis, 62 F.3d 170, 174 (6th Cir.1995)). Ellison makes a brief argument on appeal that racial profiling occurred in this case, and the dissent surmises that Officer Keeley must have had a discriminatory racial motivation because the district court disbelieved his proffered rationale for running the LEIN check. The dissent offers no support for this speculation, however, because the record is completely devoid of any evidence that the officer ran the LEIN check because the driver was black. While the dissent seeks to differentiate between our treatment of this issue and the analysis of the privacy issue, the complete lack of evidence to support a racial profiling argument obviates the need for any further discussion of it.