License plate cameras have become one of the most polarizing law enforcement tools in California, and for the fifth year in a row, state lawmakers have failed to pass any meaningful oversight of the technology — even as public frustration boils over from the Inland Empire to the Bay Area.
A bill that would have tightened rules on how police collect and share license plate data, and added new safeguards against misuse, cleared the state Senate this year but was quietly blocked in the Assembly on Monday, the final day of the legislative session, before it could even reach the floor for a vote. Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry was behind the move, according to legislative records, ending what had appeared to be one of the session’s more promising reform efforts.
It’s become a familiar pattern. Every attempt since 2022 to update state law governing automated license plate readers has stalled or failed outright. Last year, a similar measure actually made it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk — only to be vetoed.
“It’s a really disappointing outcome at a time when there is bipartisan concern about this mass surveillance tool,” said Catherine Crump, co-director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Law and Technology, who testified in favor of the bill this summer.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1013, was authored by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, and aimed to limit how the more than 230 California police and sheriff’s departments that use license plate readers can deploy the technology. It would have restricted use to locating criminal suspects or missing persons, mandated privacy and cybersecurity training for officers, curbed default sharing with national databases, and required the state attorney general’s office to conduct random audits to catch misuse.
“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” Cervantes said in a statement.
Law enforcement groups, however, argued the bill would have hamstrung a tool they credit with solving crimes, locating missing people and even clearing innocent suspects. Nearly 40 police unions and law enforcement agencies opposed the measure.
“We were concerned that this bill was going to limit the utility of ALPR data to solve crimes, find missing persons, exonerate innocent individuals, and so the fact that it did not pass, we’re glad for that,” said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association.
The debate comes as skepticism toward license plate readers — and in particular the widely used Flock Safety system — is intensifying across the country. Police departments in Los Angeles and Redwood City, along with city leaders in El Cerrito and Campbell, have recently cut ties with Flock. Nationally, more than 200 cities and law enforcement agencies ended their Flock contracts in August alone, the most in any single month since 2021, according to the privacy advocacy group Secure Justice.
That group’s leader, Brian Hofer, has personal experience with the technology’s pitfalls: he was once held at gunpoint by sheriff’s deputies after a license plate reader wrongly flagged his car as stolen.
Supporters of tighter regulation point to a growing list of abuses. Reporting by CalMatters found that Southern California law enforcement agencies have repeatedly shared license plate data with federal immigration authorities in violation of state law. A 2020 state audit and a subsequent investigation by Attorney General Rob Bonta uncovered similar violations, and the state has since contacted 18 agencies about potential breaches of Senate Bill 34, which bars sharing this data with out-of-state or federal agencies. The attorney general’s office has also sued the city of El Cajon over the issue.
Misuse hasn’t been limited to immigration enforcement. The Washington Post has documented roughly 70 cases nationwide of officers exploiting license plate systems to track spouses, stalk ex-partners or pursue romantic interests. One of those cases involved a former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy, Alexander Vanny, who used Flock’s network to stalk his ex-fiancée and was sentenced in February to six years in prison.
Accuracy concerns have also emerged. A Los Angeles Police Department audit released in July found that one in three vehicles flagged as stolen by Flock cameras had been misidentified — a troubling statistic given the potential for dangerous encounters between officers and innocent drivers.
Oakland activist Crystal Zermeño, who joined a protest against the cameras outside City Hall last month, said she worries about the broader implications of unchecked surveillance, including cases elsewhere in the country where the technology has been used to track women seeking abortions. After Cervantes’ bill died, she asked pointedly: “How could we not as a state have the political will to do this in a moment when all of these [federal immigration enforcement] attacks are happening and we have limited defense?”
Even if the bill had reached a floor vote, its fate was uncertain. Lawmakers had already softened key provisions, replacing an original requirement that police delete license plate data after 30 days with a rule allowing them to “archive” it after 60 days — after which a warrant would be needed to access it, unless tied to an active investigation. Law enforcement groups argued that older data has proven useful in solving cold cases, and some, including the state sheriffs’ association, still opposed the bill even after the compromise. Newsom cited the 60-day data retention requirement as one reason he vetoed last year’s version.
For now, California remains without updated rules governing a technology that continues to expand across the state — and continues to generate controversy in communities from the Inland Empire to the coast.
Original source: CalMatters
