Breaking: Lawmakers Move to Block Access to ALPR Records
State legislatures across the United States are rapidly enacting or considering bills that would exempt automated license plate reader (ALPR) data from public records laws, according to civil liberties groups. The moves come directly in response to investigations by journalists, advocates, and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that used freedom of information requests to reveal widespread misuse and privacy violations tied to police ALPR programs.
“These bills are a direct attempt to shut down the very transparency that exposed how ALPRs are harming communities,” said Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at EFF. “Law enforcement doesn’t want the public to see how many plates they scan, how often the data is shared, or how many errors occur.” EFF has strongly opposed pending legislation in Arizona and Connecticut that would create broad exemptions for ALPR information under state public records acts.
Background
Every U.S. state has laws—often called freedom of information acts (FOIAs) or public records acts (PRAs)—that grant citizens the right to obtain government documents. These laws have been a critical tool for oversight, allowing reporters and advocates to uncover that police departments collect hundreds of millions of license plate scans each year, often retaining data for months or years without warrants.
Investigations have revealed that ALPR data is shared across agencies, leading to unwarranted tracking of individuals and false “hits” that waste police resources. Public records also showed that some departments used ALPRs to monitor journalists, protesters, and domestic violence victims. The EFF has long argued that ALPR systems violate privacy by creating detailed maps of where people go and whom they meet.
What the Proposed Laws Would Do
The new state bills would categorically exempt ALPR data from disclosure, including information about the number of scans conducted, the locations of cameras, sharing agreements between agencies, and error rates. Some proposals even seek to seal images of vehicles captured by the readers. “Lawmakers are not just protecting raw data—they are hiding the extent of surveillance itself,” noted Gennie Gebhart, research director at EFF.
Supporters of the exemptions argue that releasing ALPR data could harm individual privacy by exposing where people drive. But critics counter that the current bills are overly broad. “There is a middle ground that protects privacy without destroying public oversight,” said Schwartz. “For example, redacting license plate numbers from released records would preserve privacy while still allowing scrutiny of police use.”
What This Means for Transparency and Privacy
If these laws pass, the public could lose the ability to hold police accountable for how they use ALPRs. Past FOIA requests have led to policy changes, including limits on data retention and requirements for warrants before querying plates. Without access, similar abuses may go undetected.
Privacy advocates stress that ALPR data is intrinsically sensitive. “A person’s location history can reveal their religion, political activities, medical appointments, and personal relationships,” said Gebhart. “We oppose police having this data in the first place. But if they must collect it, the public must be able to check how it’s used—otherwise, we’re flying blind.”
The EFF is urging lawmakers in Arizona and Connecticut to reject the pending Arizona HB 2581 and Connecticut SB 1002, and instead craft rules that balance privacy with transparency. The organization has proposed model legislation that would redact personal identifiers from released records while keeping aggregate statistics public.
Background
Automated license plate readers are cameras mounted on police cars, streetlights, and buildings that scan every passing license plate and record the time, date, and location. Many agencies share this data through regional networks. EFF reports that a single police department can collect millions of scans per month.
Public records requests have been essential in documenting: the sheer scale of ALPR use, how long data is kept (often years), whether police share data with federal agencies or private companies, and how often systems produce false matches leading to wrongful stops. In one case, records showed that a department kept scans of individuals who had never been suspected of any crime.
What This Means
The rush to seal ALPR data threatens to undo years of transparency gains. If states succeed, police use of these invasive systems could become a black box. “The public has a right to know if their government is engaging in mass surveillance, even if the underlying data is sensitive,” said Schwartz. “We can protect privacy through targeted redaction—not by eliminating access entirely.”
For now, Arizona and Connecticut remain battlegrounds. Similar bills have been introduced in at least four other states. The outcome may set a national precedent for how law enforcement surveillance is overseen in the digital age.