State Lawmakers Propose Guardrails To Limit License Plate Camera Data

By Brinda Patel (NJ State House News Service)

Widespread networks of automated license plate surveillance cameras that create hoards of data used to track motorists are under increasing scrutiny by lawmakers and privacy advocates in the wake of their recent use in ICE arrests.

Lawmakers in New Jersey and 34 other states have proposed nearly 100 pieces of legislation regarding license-plate readers – many seeking to prohibit states from sharing or selling years’ worth of data that could be used to extensively track drivers, according to BillTrack50, a legislative tracking service.

These scanners and cameras can be found on roadsides, traffic lights and on police cars. In addition to tracking vehicles, they can pick up details, from scratches to speeding, through data sharing of long-term stored surveillance.

Of particular concern to Senator Linda Greenstein, a Plainsboro Democrat, is the sharing of data collected by license plate readers to investigate people seeking reproductive healthcare services that are legal in New Jersey. She has proposed a bill, S1290, which would prohibit sharing that data with other states. 

“I think it’s important for us to do it, because in our state reproductive techniques or procedures are legal, and we don’t want to facilitate the work of these other states where it isn’t legal,” said Greenstein on regulated data being stored and used unsolicitedly.

Before and throughout her career, Greenstein has supported legal abortion and reproductive rights and she says that this bill aligns with her views. She said that since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court landmark ruling which allowed states to begin restricting abortion services, New Jersey has been put in a difficult position.

“We need to defend our laws and make sure things are done our way,” Greenstein said. “We don’t want our law enforcement to be vending or giving information to these states where these techniques are not legal, reproductive techniques. So it’s just very important that we carry out our laws, and we don’t facilitate the work of states that are doing something different that we don’t agree with here.” 

Assemblyman Brian Bergen, a Denville Republican, believes the systems can be useful for law enforcement, but condemns collected data being stored for prolonged periods.

“They’re definitely a helpful tool, and I don’t think there’s any expectation of privacy when you’re driving down the road that the police won’t know who you are because you’re in a car with a license plate on it,” Bergen said. “I think it becomes a problem when information is stored for a lengthy period of time. I do not want a Big Brother government profiling where Brian Bergen drives around the city at times. That is overly intrusive.”

Bergen said is not opposed to license plate readers for urgent law enforcement use.

“It’s OK to scan and identify who’s on the road and maybe use that in the immediacy, but to store it and maintain it and track it and put it in databases, that’s just ridiculous. That’s too much,” said Bergen.

Other privacy advocates, like the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argue that New Jersey has crossed a line with installed license plate readers. 

“This is an issue that the ACLU of New Jersey is extremely concerned with,” said Dillon Reisman, staff attorney of the ACLU of New Jersey. “In New Jersey, our attorney general’s policy allows local law enforcement and the whole state to keep automated license plate reader data for up to three years. That’s three years in which the entire driving history, the whereabouts of everyone who drives on New Jersey’s roads, can be rolled back, rewound and replayed and surveilled for a long time.”

Reisman added that New Jersey can store data up to three years while other states have shorter limits that erase gathered information in one month to five minutes.

“New Jersey’s three year limit is grossly out of step with standards across the country. Many states have retention limits as short as one month. Some states even have retention limits as short as five minutes,” said Reisman. “I cannot emphasize how absurd it is that we collect it for so long. I mean, would any of us be OK with any officer trailing us for three years? No.”

Flock Safety, the nation’s largest AI-public safety technology company, is working to form a vast network across states and entering into contracts with law enforcement agencies and private organizations. Flock has more than 80,000 cameras in 49 states, according to the Center for Human Rights at the University of Washington.

Critics of the systems say in addition to being used for immigration and abortion-related law enforcement, they can also be used to track people who cross state lines for gender-affirming care.

“Even if you’re not a member of one of these vulnerable communities, this is something all New Jerseyans should be concerned about,” said Reisman. “Automated license plate reader data, by tracing where you go, can create a very detailed picture of your life: who you spend time with, where you work, where you worship, what healthcare you seek, and where you socialize. All of this information can be accessed for up to three years. Retaining it for a longer period of time only increases the intrusion on someone’s privacy.”

Reisman added, “Until there is comprehensive legislation and comprehensive policies on our reigning in the sort of reckless use of surveillance technology, like [automated license plate readers] …
I don’t think any New Jerseyan should rest easy that these systems exist.”

Lawmakers in other states are considering measures to restrict license plate readers:

• In Connecticut, lawmakers have proposed a bill that restricts how long license plate data can be stored by law enforcement or any public agency for the purpose of investigating an individual based on race, ethnicity, pregnancy status or gender identity.
• In Kansas, a bill could limit law enforcement’s use of traffic cameras. An amendment to Senate Bill 478 would restrict law enforcement from installing cameras and other automated license plate readers on utility poles and other structures. The only applicable exception is if police have a warrant, or if the pole is in a public area zoned for commercial activity or recreation.
• In Ohio, House Bill 725 would make it a crime for anyone to sell, transfer, or share data from license plate readers for commercial use.
• In Indiana in February, Gov. Mike Braun signed into law House Bill 1150, banning any homeowners’ association from installing an automated license plate reader system

This article was produced through the Statehouse Reporting Project, a collaborative effort by collegiate journalism programs across the country. The lead reporter was Brinda Patel of the College of New Jersey and contributors were Gavin Foster, the University of Connecticut; Luke Shepherd, Franklin College; Sonja Sutcavage and Andrew Otten. the University of Georgia; Jack Bordeleau, the University of Kansas; and Kayla Gleason, Kent State University.