License plate reading cameras have become one of the more contentious tools in California law enforcement’s arsenal, credited with cracking violent crimes even as privacy advocates warn they’ve created a surveillance net few residents ever agreed to.
Over the past year alone, the technology has helped authorities track down suspected killers, bank robbery suspects and hit-and-run drivers. It has led to the recovery of dozens of stolen vehicles and played a role in convicting a man responsible for setting a destructive wildfire.
But the same cameras have drawn sharp criticism from privacy advocates across the political spectrum. Last month, authorities in Monterey County arrested a man accused of ripping three of the devices off their poles using his truck.
Known as automated license plate readers, the cameras are now a fixture of daily life for many Californians. At least 230 police and sheriff’s departments across the state have installed thousands of them along roadways or mounted them on patrol vehicles. The devices scan and record passing license plates in real time, instantly checking them against law enforcement databases that flag stolen cars, vehicles tied to fleeing suspects, or vehicles connected to missing or wanted people.
Since 2019, Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento have repeatedly tried — and failed — to impose tighter restrictions on how police use the technology. This year, they’re trying again with a bill that would cap how long agencies can hold onto license plate data, restrict who can access it, and limit who that information can be shared with.
Law enforcement agencies and police unions across California are pushing back against the measure, which closely resembles a bill Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed last year.
“This bill rests on a basic principle: protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while making sure law enforcement tools are used responsibly before it’s too late,” said state Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat who authored this year’s legislation, during testimony before an Assembly privacy committee last month. Cervantes did not respond to an interview request from CalMatters.
Critics of license plate readers point to troubling instances in which California police have misused the data — including cases where it was allegedly used to target innocent people. As CalMatters reported last year, officers in the state have repeatedly violated an 11-year-old law that bars sharing this data with federal authorities or out-of-state agencies.
The news outlet 404 Media also reported last year that a police officer in Texas searched a national license plate database in an attempt to locate a woman who had obtained an abortion — fueling concerns that conservative states with abortion restrictions could be tapping into California’s plate-reader data to pursue patients or medical providers.
Cervantes’ bill would generally limit how long agencies can retain license plate data to 30 days, unless the information is tied to an active investigation or a search for a missing person. It would also restrict who can access the data and require additional training and tracking of searches conducted using the system.
Police and sheriff’s departments would be barred from entering into contracts with camera vendors that give default access to license plate databases searchable by federal agencies or law enforcement in other states.
That provision stems directly from concerns about Flock Safety, a major provider of license plate readers that allowed federal authorities to search local plate data as part of a pilot program, according to Tracy Rosenberg of Oakland Privacy, one of the groups backing the bill.
“Police departments found out about this after the fact, just like our activists did,” Rosenberg said. “And everybody said, ‘What the heck…?’ You know, insert whatever four-letter word you want.”
Flock Safety did not respond to an interview request from CalMatters, but the company states on its website that it does not work with immigration enforcement agencies and has suspended its federal pilot programs. According to Flock, local agencies retain full control over the data collected by its cameras.
“By default, the option to share data with federal agencies is turned off,” the company wrote. “ICE does not have direct access to Flock’s cameras, systems or data.”
Why law enforcement is pushing back
At least 39 police agencies and officer unions oppose Senate Bill 1013. Collectively, those groups have spent at least $5.6 million on legislative lobbying since 2000, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.
Law enforcement officials argue the technology has proven indispensable in solving crimes.
Tustin Police Chief Sean Thuilliez, who leads the California Police Chiefs Association, said the cameras have even helped clear an innocent man of suspicion. In one Orange County case, the technology helped identify a suspect after a woman was shot and killed on a Tustin street in May.
The victim had recently testified against her ex-husband in a restraining order case, initially making him the prime suspect, Thuilliez said. But with the help of the city’s 102 license plate readers — eight of which are Flock cameras — detectives quickly ruled him out and instead tracked down her ex-boyfriend, who was arrested near the U.S.-Mexico border. He now faces a first-degree murder charge.
“It’s a combination of technology and good investigative work,” Thuilliez said in an interview. “But within a single weekend, we were able to arrest the suspect in this person’s murder.”
Berkeley police reported similar success after installing 52 Flock cameras last year. In a report to the Berkeley City Council, the department said the cameras had been used in 121 cases, contributed to 58 arrests, and helped recover 37 stolen vehicles.
The department noted that its case-closure rate for auto theft jumped from 34% in 2024 to 49% the following year, a improvement it partly credited to license plate data.
“The technology has fundamentally improved how officers patrol and how detectives investigate crimes spanning a wide range of serious offenses, including robbery, kidnapping, vehicle theft, burglary, weapons crimes, organized retail theft, property crimes and DUI,” the report stated.
Why Newsom vetoed last year’s bill
Success stories like these may have influenced Newsom’s decision to veto last year’s version of the bill, which would have required police to delete license plate data within 60 days.
In his veto message, Newsom said restrictions on data sharing, along with mandatory deletion timelines, could hinder investigators’ ability to solve cold cases and locate missing persons.
He also noted the state budget lacked funding for the mandatory audits by the California Department of Justice that last year’s bill would have required.
To address those concerns, this year’s proposal allows police to retain data specifically tied to missing persons cases and makes a statewide audit program contingent on future funding being secured.
Newsom’s press office declined to say whether the governor has taken a position on the current bill, which has advanced through the Legislature with Republicans casting the only opposing votes. The measure is now awaiting consideration in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Meanwhile, at least one Republican lawmaker is taking the fight to Congress. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky recently shared a meme showing a snake coiled around a surveillance camera, modeled after the Gadsden flag’s “Don’t Tread on Me” design — except this version reads “Don’t Stalk Me.”
“I will soon be introducing a bill to withhold federal funds from municipalities and police departments that deploy Flock (and similar) cameras to surveil law-abiding citizens,” Massie wrote on Facebook.
Rosenberg, of Oakland Privacy, said she recognizes the value these cameras can offer police in California, but believes they’ve become far too widespread. She added that law enforcement shouldn’t have blanket authority to hold onto “mountains” of data indefinitely.
“It’s about finding a balance. As human beings, we also need space that’s free from cameras,” she said. “We don’t want to be in front of cameras every single minute of every single day.”
Original source: CalMatters
