License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited September 11, 2026). · 32 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison
See the state comparison · Explore the cited laws
License plate reader laws vary sharply by state. As of September 11, 2026, this comparison identifies ALPR-specific statutes in 21 states, while separately identifying future provisions, limited rules, and rules whose current scope could not be confirmed. Each state and Washington, D.C. has its own linked section.
Information last verified on September 11, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article compares statutes and enacted acts for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It does not classify local ordinances or agency policies, and it does not turn an incomplete or blocked source search into a claim that no law exists. See the ALPR laws hub for technology and constitutional background.
How this comparison counts state ALPR laws
The count uses a deliberately narrow method. A state enters the group of 21 only when current official statutory text or an official 2026 session law specifically regulates ALPR operation, data, access, retention, sharing, or oversight. A narrow HOA law still counts as ALPR-specific, but its limited scope is stated. Tennessee and Connecticut sit outside that 21-state count for different reasons: Tennessee has enacted history but limited access to current compiled text, while Connecticut's principal limits have a future effective date.
Four states have only limited or incidental provisions in the material verified here. Twenty-four jurisdictions remain unresolved. “Unresolved” describes the research record, not the absence of law. It also leaves room for local ordinances, agency policies, public-records statutes, privacy laws, contract terms, and constitutional requirements that this statewide statutory comparison does not classify.
Directory: Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · District of Columbia · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming
State-by-state license plate reader law table
| Jurisdiction | Classification on September 11, 2026 | General retention position verified here |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Alaska | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Arizona | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Arkansas | Current specific statute verified | 60 days for covered private landowners, leaseholders, and businesses; 150 days for other eligible entities, with an investigation exception |
| California | Current specific statute verified | No fixed statewide default; the public policy must state retention and destruction practices |
| Colorado | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Connecticut | Enacted; principal rules start Oct. 1, 2026 | 21-day default beginning Oct. 1, 2026 |
| Delaware | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| District of Columbia | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Florida | Current specific statute verified | Maximum period set through the Department of State records schedule |
| Georgia | Current specific statute verified | 30 months, with toll and law-enforcement-purpose exceptions |
| Hawaii | Limited or incidental provision | No general period verified |
| Idaho | Current specific statute verified | No fixed period stated in this section |
| Illinois | Current specific statute verified | No numeric default in the current section reviewed |
| Indiana | Current specific statute verified | No general police-data period in this HOA-specific chapter |
| Iowa | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Kansas | Limited or incidental provision | No general period verified |
| Kentucky | Current specific statute verified | 90 days by default, subject to enumerated exceptions |
| Louisiana | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Maine | Current specific statute verified | 21 days unless a listed hit or investigation exception applies |
| Maryland | Current specific statute verified | No fixed numeric period in § 3-509 |
| Massachusetts | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Michigan | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Minnesota | Current specific statute verified | 60 days for non-investigative data, subject to listed exceptions |
| Mississippi | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Missouri | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Montana | Current specific statute verified | 90 days by default; preservation requests and warrants create qualified exceptions |
| Nebraska | Current specific statute verified | 180 days by default, subject to statutory exceptions |
| Nevada | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| New Hampshire | Current specific statute verified | Three minutes for a non-hit; listed case data may remain through final court disposition |
| New Jersey | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| New Mexico | Current specific statute verified | No general numeric default in these sections |
| New York | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| North Carolina | Current specific statute verified | 90 days by default, with investigation and evidence exceptions |
| North Dakota | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Ohio | Limited or incidental provision | No general period verified |
| Oklahoma | Limited or incidental provision | No general period verified |
| Oregon | Current specific statute verified | 30 days unless tied to an ongoing criminal investigation or court proceeding |
| Pennsylvania | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Rhode Island | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| South Carolina | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| South Dakota | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Tennessee | Enacted; current text verification limited | 90-day cap supported by enactment history |
| Texas | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Utah | Current specific statute verified | Nine months by default; a 14-day preservation process and judicial-process exceptions apply |
| Vermont | Current specific statute verified | Seven days for active access; historical access extends through six months, with judicial rules after that point |
| Virginia | Current specific statute verified | 21 days for system data; audit data remains two years, subject to exceptions |
| Washington | Current specific statute verified | 21 days by default; separate parking, traffic-study, commercial-vehicle, and evidence periods apply |
| West Virginia | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Wisconsin | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
| Wyoming | Rule not confirmed | No general period verified |
The table is a navigation and comparison tool. The sections below give the scope needed to avoid reading a narrow rule as a complete state privacy code. A stated retention period can also have investigation, evidence, court-order, parking, traffic-study, or commercial-vehicle exceptions.
All 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Alabama
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Alabama has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Alaska
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Alaska has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Arizona
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Arizona has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Arkansas
Current specific statute verified. Ark. Code §§ 12-12-1801 to -1805, as amended by Act 668 (2025). The statute controls authorized users, sharing, policies, and reporting. Government entities may not sell, trade, or exchange the data. Act 668 created separate 60-day and 150-day limits and permits investigation retention until the matter concludes.
Retention: 60 days for covered private landowners, leaseholders, and businesses; 150 days for other eligible entities, with an investigation exception.
California
Current specific statute verified. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.90.5 to 1798.90.55. Covered operators and end users must adopt privacy and security safeguards, state authorized purposes, log access, and conduct periodic audits. A California public agency may transfer ALPR information only to another public agency and only as permitted by law.
Retention: No fixed statewide default; the public policy must state retention and destruction practices.
Colorado
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Colorado has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes. The official pages for SB 26-070 and SB 26-071 show final status “Lost,” so their proposals are not current law.
Connecticut
Enacted; principal rules start Oct. 1, 2026. Connecticut Public Act 26-14, §§ 13-15. The act is law, but the principal operational restrictions begin October 1, 2026. Those provisions establish a 21-day default, enumerated uses, recipient controls, warrant requirements for many outside requests, logs, quarterly audits, public policies, reporting, vendor controls, and enforcement. The future date matters when evaluating conduct before October 1.
Delaware
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Delaware has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
District of Columbia
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean District of Columbia has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Florida
Current specific statute verified. Fla. Stat. §§ 316.0777 and 316.0778. These provisions address installation in state-highway rights-of-way and record handling. Data may be used for active criminal intelligence or an active criminal investigation, not to issue a traffic citation, and the records are confidential subject to listed exceptions.
Retention: Maximum period set through the Department of State records schedule.
Georgia
Current specific statute verified. O.C.G.A. § 35-1-22, reconstructed from official enacted acts. The original official enactment and 2025 SB 153 support a 30-month rule, access for a law-enforcement purpose, sharing with law-enforcement agencies for that purpose, a disclosure restriction, and required agency policies and training.
Retention: 30 months, with toll and law-enforcement-purpose exceptions.
Hawaii
Limited or incidental provision. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 291J-5.5 and 291L-4.5. These provisions supply an ALPR-related exception within facial-recognition restrictions. They do not create a general statewide code for ALPR collection, retention, sharing, or audits. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.
Idaho
Current specific statute verified. Idaho Code § 49-1432. The section limits access to authorized personnel for listed crime, accident, missing-person, and traffic-flow purposes. It bars unrelated surveillance and non-law-enforcement use, and requires secure query logs, training, and semiannual access-log audits.
Retention: No fixed period stated in this section.
Illinois
Current specific statute verified. 625 ILCS 5/2-130. The current text bars specified sales, sharing, access, and transfers for reproductive-health-care and immigration-status investigations or enforcement. Out-of-state police sharing requires a written declaration. The opened text does not contain the 90-day retention or 90-day audit rules sometimes attributed to it.
Retention: No numeric default in the current section reviewed.
Indiana
Current specific statute verified. Ind. Code §§ 32-25.5-3.8-2 to -4. This is a narrow homeowners-association rule. An HOA may not install or operate an ALPR, while a law-enforcement agency may install one on HOA property under the statutory conditions. It is not a comprehensive statewide police data code.
Retention: No general police-data period in this HOA-specific chapter.
Iowa
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Iowa has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Kansas
Limited or incidental provision. Kan. Stat. §§ 45-217, 45-220, and 45-221. The verified provisions concern public records. They do not establish a general statewide ALPR collection, retention, use, or sharing framework. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.
Kentucky
Current specific statute verified. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.632. The current official text permits listed public-safety, law-enforcement, commercial-vehicle, toll, and revenue uses. It regulates sharing and requires a law-enforcement policy with an audit process every 90 days. Insurance and finance applications on or after January 1, 2027 receive the specified potential-use notice.
Retention: 90 days by default, subject to enumerated exceptions.
Louisiana
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Louisiana has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Maine
Current specific statute verified. 29-A M.R.S. § 2117-A. Law enforcement needs specific and articulable grounds within the listed purposes. The statute limits access and disclosure to authorized criminal-justice uses and requires an agency policy and access records.
Retention: 21 days unless a listed hit or investigation exception applies.
Maryland
Current specific statute verified. Md. Code, Public Safety § 3-509. Police may use captured data only for a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. Historical data belongs to the agency and cannot be sold. The section limits vendor access and outside uploads, and requires safeguards, user controls, request audits, training, breach reporting, and annual reports.
Retention: No fixed numeric period in § 3-509.
Massachusetts
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Massachusetts has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Michigan
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Michigan has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Minnesota
Current specific statute verified. Minn. Stat. § 13.824. Tracking a vehicle in an active investigation requires a probable-cause warrant unless exigent circumstances exist. Sharing is confined to qualifying police recipients that accept the same restrictions. An independent biennial audit is required, with suspension after substantial noncompliance until the problem is corrected.
Retention: 60 days for non-investigative data, subject to listed exceptions.
Mississippi
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Mississippi has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Missouri
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Missouri has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Montana
Current specific statute verified. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-5-117 and 46-5-118. The public-highway restriction has an express law-enforcement exception. Police must publish a policy, conduct annual audits, keep user-access records indefinitely, and use data only for listed purposes. A reader match alone is not reasonable suspicion. Preserved data generally has a one-year destruction rule unless renewed.
Retention: 90 days by default; preservation requests and warrants create qualified exceptions.
Nebraska
Current specific statute verified. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-3201 to 60-3208. The Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act identifies permitted law-enforcement, parking, and secure-area uses, limits disclosure and sale, and requires policies and safeguards. The Act also provides a damages remedy for violations.
Retention: 180 days by default, subject to statutory exceptions.
Nevada
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Nevada has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
New Hampshire
Current specific statute verified. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 261:75-b. Use is limited to detailed law-enforcement purposes. A match alone is not reasonable suspicion. Other use and sharing are barred except for case-specific investigation, prosecution, and audit access. Every inquiry is logged, and the attorney general audits compliance.
Retention: Three minutes for a non-hit; listed case data may remain through final court disposition.
New Jersey
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean New Jersey has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
New Mexico
Current specific statute verified. N.M. Stat. §§ 29-22-2 to 29-22-5. The Driver Privacy and Safety Act restricts sharing for immigration enforcement, protected health care, and protected activities. It requires declarations for specified out-of-state access, limits non-law-enforcement release, and provides annual reporting and enforcement mechanisms.
Retention: No general numeric default in these sections.
New York
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean New York has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
North Carolina
Current specific statute verified. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-183.30 to 20-183.32. Article 3D regulates police use for criminal investigations, warrants, missing persons, and stolen vehicles. It also addresses agency policies, access, preservation, and disclosure.
Retention: 90 days by default, with investigation and evidence exceptions.
North Dakota
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean North Dakota has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Ohio
Limited or incidental provision. Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43. The verified ALPR reference is a public-records provision. It does not supply a general statewide operational or retention code for ALPR systems. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.
Oklahoma
Limited or incidental provision. Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 7-606.1. The verified provision authorizes an uninsured-vehicle enforcement program. Its subject-specific authorization should not be read as a comprehensive statewide ALPR privacy framework. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.
Oregon
Current specific statute verified. Oregon Laws 2026, chapter 77, §§ 3-9. The 2026 law lists authorized uses, restricts out-of-state and vendor access, and bars unrestricted continuing access. It requires policies, security, training, contract controls, and monthly and quarterly vendor audits. It took effect March 31, 2026.
Retention: 30 days unless tied to an ongoing criminal investigation or court proceeding.
Pennsylvania
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Pennsylvania has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Rhode Island
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Rhode Island has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
South Carolina
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean South Carolina has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
South Dakota
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean South Dakota has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Tennessee
Enacted; current text verification limited. Acts 2014, chapter 625, and the official SB 1664 history. The enactment history supports a 90-day storage cap for governmental ALPR data, with an exception through the end of an ongoing investigation or action. The rule took effect July 1, 2014. The current official compiled text of Tenn. Code § 55-10-302 was not available as a publicly accessible rendering, so this entry is intentionally limited to the enacted history and the current official code-bill cross-reference.
Texas
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Texas has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes. The official HB 2083 history shows referral to a House committee on March 14, 2025 and status “In committee,” not enactment.
Utah
Current specific statute verified. Utah Code §§ 41-6a-2001 to 41-6a-2005. The Act limits collection, use, sale, sharing, preservation, and disclosure. Listed purposes include investigations, warrants, missing or endangered persons, parking, and secure-area control. Court process governs additional disclosure.
Retention: Nine months by default; a 14-day preservation process and judicial-process exceptions apply.
Vermont
Current specific statute verified. 23 V.S.A. §§ 1605 to 1607. Vermont limits operation to legitimate law-enforcement and commercial-motor-vehicle purposes. Historical access requires written, fact-specific requests, and the state keeps request and outcome records for at least three years.
Retention: Seven days for active access; historical access extends through six months, with judicial rules after that point.
Virginia
Current specific statute verified. Va. Code § 2.2-5517 and related sections. Virginia lists authorized police purposes and regulates access, dissemination, vendors, procurement, and public notice. The law requires a detailed audit trail and oversight, while excluding identified private and noncriminal state uses from parts of the scheme.
Retention: 21 days for system data; audit data remains two years, subject to exceptions.
Washington
Current specific statute verified. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 10.130. Washington regulates government operation, protected sites and activities, private-data warrants, vendors, sale, policies, registration, reporting, and remedies. Audit trails last two years and agencies conduct annual internal audits.
Retention: 21 days by default; separate parking, traffic-study, commercial-vehicle, and evidence periods apply.
West Virginia
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean West Virginia has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Wisconsin
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Wisconsin has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
Wyoming
Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Wyoming has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.
How do states limit collection and permitted use?
State statutes use several different designs. California regulates covered operators and end users through public policies, safeguards, authorized purposes, and access logs. Florida ties its provisions to state-highway rights-of-way and active criminal intelligence or investigations. Indiana addresses homeowners associations. These rules answer different questions, so the presence of an ALPR citation does not make every collection or search lawful.
Some states enumerate acceptable police purposes. New Hampshire, Montana, North Carolina, Utah, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington provide examples. Lists often include stolen vehicles, warrants, missing or endangered people, specified criminal investigations, parking, or secure-area control. Readers must also check definitions and exceptions, including which actors qualify as an operator, end user, governmental entity, or law-enforcement agency.
Which states set retention and deletion periods?
Verified defaults range from minutes to months. New Hampshire requires deletion of a non-hit within three minutes. Vermont provides seven days of active access. Maine uses 21 days, as do the general frameworks in Virginia and Washington. Oregon uses 30 days. Minnesota uses 60 days for non-investigative data. Kentucky, Montana, and North Carolina generally use 90 days. Arkansas has 60-day and 150-day categories, Nebraska uses 180 days, and Utah uses nine months.
Those numbers are not standalone promises of deletion. Each statute defines exceptions. Common examples involve a database hit, an ongoing investigation, evidence, a preservation request, a warrant or court order, traffic studies, parking enforcement, commercial vehicles, or audit records. Maryland, California, Idaho, Illinois, and New Mexico illustrate another point: a statute may regulate ALPR data without setting one statewide numeric default.
What rules govern sharing and interstate access?
Sharing rules can be more restrictive than collection rules. Illinois and New Mexico protect specified health-care, immigration, or protected-activity matters and require assurances for certain out-of-state access. Connecticut's rules, once operative, restrict recipients and require a probable-cause warrant for many out-of-region or federal requests. Oregon bars unrestricted continuing access and regulates vendors. Washington restricts outside access and requires a warrant for specified private data.
A vendor contract cannot expand statutory permission. California limits public-agency transfers, Maryland restricts vendor access and uploads, and Arkansas restricts sale, trade, or exchange. The governing questions are who requested the information, for what purpose, under which authority, and what records document that access.
When do warrants, audits, and remedies matter?
Minnesota expressly requires a probable-cause warrant to use ALPR data to track a vehicle in an active investigation unless exigent circumstances exist. Other statutes use warrants or court orders mainly for preservation or disclosure. That variation makes it inaccurate to state one nationwide warrant rule based only on a retention statute.
Oversight also differs. Minnesota requires an independent biennial audit. Montana requires an annual audit and indefinite user-access records. Kentucky requires the agency's audit process to occur every 90 days. New Hampshire requires inquiry logs and attorney-general review. Washington uses two-year audit trails and annual internal audits. Available remedies range from administrative enforcement to damages, civil actions, penalties, exclusion rules, or suspension of a system.
Watch out: A pending or defeated bill is not current law. Colorado SB 26-070 and SB 26-071 ended with the official status “Lost.” Texas HB 2083 remained in committee in the official history reviewed. Their proposals do not establish present rules.
General legal information only. Rules and effective dates vary by jurisdiction and facts. Confirm the current primary authority and obtain advice from a qualified lawyer for a specific matter.
Authorities cited
The state names and statute links in the table and individual sections lead to official legislative or code sources. Arkansas, Georgia, Oregon, Tennessee, and Connecticut are tied to official enactment materials where compiled-code access required a different source path. Illinois is tied to the General Assembly's public file repository.
Last updated: September 11, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many states have current ALPR-specific statutes?
This comparison verifies 21 states from current official text or an official 2026 session law. Tennessee is listed separately because enactment history supports its current rule while a publicly accessible official rendering of the compiled section was unavailable. Connecticut's principal restrictions begin October 1, 2026.
Does an unresolved label mean a state has no license plate reader law?
No. It means the reviewed statewide sources did not support a sufficiently certain general ALPR-specific classification. Local rules, agency policies, public-records law, privacy law, contracts, and constitutional requirements may still apply.
Which state has the shortest verified retention period?
New Hampshire requires non-hit data to be purged within three minutes. Qualifying case data may remain through final court disposition under the statute's listed conditions.
Do all states require a warrant to search ALPR data?
No single statewide rule applies nationwide. Minnesota requires a probable-cause warrant for tracking in an active investigation absent exigent circumstances, while other states attach judicial process to particular preservation, disclosure, or outside-access requests.
Can police share ALPR data across state lines?
The answer depends on the governing statute and purpose. Illinois, New Mexico, Connecticut, Oregon, and Washington contain different recipient, purpose, declaration, warrant, logging, or continuing-access restrictions.
Do state ALPR statutes regulate private companies?
Some do. California covers defined operators and end users; Arkansas regulates specified private users; Kentucky lists certain insurance and financial uses; and several states impose contract or vendor controls. Scope and definitions must be checked state by state.
Does an ALPR match alone justify a traffic stop?
Not everywhere. Montana and New Hampshire expressly state that a match alone does not establish reasonable suspicion. Their provisions require additional grounds or confirmation under the statutory conditions.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated
§ 12-12-1801Title.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
This subchapter is known and may be cited as the “Automatic License Plate Reader System Act”.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
§ 12-12-1802Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this subchapter: (1) “Alert” means data held by the Office of Motor Vehicle, the Arkansas Crime Information Center including without limitation the Arkansas Crime Information Center's Missing Persons Information Clearinghouse, the National Crime Information Center, and the Federal…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
§ 12-12-1803Restrictions on use.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, it is unlawful for an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the State of Arkansas, its agencies, and political subdivisions to use an automatic license plate reader system. (b) An automatic license plate reader system may be…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
§ 12-12-1804Protections.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Captured plate data obtained for the purposes described under § 12-12-1803(b) shall not be used or shared for any other purpose and shall not be preserved for more than one hundred fifty (150) days. (b) Captured plate data obtained by an entity under § 12-12-1803(b)(1) may be retained as part…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
§ 12-12-1805Practice and usage data preservation.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) An entity that uses an automatic license plate reader system under § 12-12-1803(b) shall: (1) Compile statistical data identified in subsection (b) of this section every six (6) months into a format sufficient to allow the general public to review the compiled data;…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
California Civil Code
§ 1798.90.5In forcecited in 6 of our articles
The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this title: (a) “Automated license plate recognition end-user” or “ALPR end-user” means a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system, but does not include any of the following: (1) A transportation agency when subject to Section 31490 of the Streets and Highways Code. (2) A person that is subject to Sections 6801 to 6809, inclusive, of Title 15 of the United States Code and state or federal statutes or regulations implementing those sections, if the person is subject to compliance oversight by a state or federal regulatory agency with respect to those sections. (3) A person, other than a law enforcement agency, to whom information may be disclosed as a permissible use pursuant to Section 2721 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (b) “Automated license plate recognition information,” or “ALPR information” means information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. (c) “Automated license plate recognition operator” or “ALPR operator” means a person that operates an ALPR system, but does not include a transportation agency when subject to Section 31490 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Also relied on in: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Laws Explained (2026), Are Flock Cameras Legal? State Rules and Court Limits, San Francisco Police Audit: Flock License Plate Data Improperly Searched for Federal Agencies (2026)
§ 1798.90.51In forcecited in 4 of our articles
An ALPR operator shall do all of the following: (a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. (b) (1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site. (2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following: (A) The authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR information. (B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system, or to collect ALPR information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
§ 1798.90.52In forcecited in 4 of our articles
If an ALPR operator accesses or provides access to ALPR information, the ALPR operator shall do both of the following: (a) Maintain a record of that access. At a minimum, the record shall include all of the following: (1) The date and time the information is accessed. (2) The license plate number or other data elements used to query the ALPR system. (3) The username of the person who accesses the information, and, as applicable, the organization or entity with whom the person is affiliated. (4) The purpose for accessing the information. (b) Require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy required by subdivision (b) of Section 1798.90.51.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
§ 1798.90.53In forcecited in 2 of our articles
An ALPR end-user shall do all of the following: (a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. (b) (1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site. (2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following: (A) The authorized purposes for accessing and using ALPR information. (B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. The policy shall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
§ 1798.90.54In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) In addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, an individual who has been harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of security of an ALPR system, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm. (b) The court may award a combination of any one or more of the following: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). (2) Punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law. (3) Reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (4) Other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
§ 1798.90.55In forcecited in 4 of our articles
Notwithstanding any other law or regulation: (a) A public agency that operates or intends to operate an ALPR system shall provide an opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the governing body of the public agency before implementing the program. (b) A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. For purposes of this section, the provision of data hosting or towing services shall not be considered the sale, sharing, or transferring of ALPR information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Florida Statutes
§ 316.0777Automated license plate recognition systems; installation within rights-of-way of State Highway System; public records exemption.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Active,” “criminal intelligence information,” and “criminal investigative information” have the same meanings as provided in s. 119.011(3). (b) “Agency” has the same meaning as provided in s. 119.011. (c) “Automated license plate recognition system” means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer-readable data. (d) “Criminal justice agency” has the same meaning as provided in s. 119.011. (2)(a) As used in this subsection, the term “law enforcement agency” means an agency that has a primary mission of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing state penal, criminal, traffic, and motor vehicle laws and, in furtherance of that mission, employs law enforcement officers as defined in s. 943.10(1). (b) At the discretion of the Department of Transportation, an automated license plate recognition system may be installed within the right-of-way, as defined in s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
§ 316.0778Automated license plate recognition systems; records retention.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term “automated license plate recognition system” means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer-readable data. (2) In consultation with the Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of State shall establish a retention schedule for records containing images and data generated through the use of an automated license plate recognition system. The retention schedule must establish a maximum period that the records may be retained.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 35-1-22Prohibition on law enforcement retaining license plate data obtained from automated license plate recognition systems; limited use of data; public disclosure prohibited.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Automated license plate recognition system" means one or more high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms used to convert images of license plates into computer readable data. (2) "Captured license plate data" means the global positioning…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 291J: PHOTO RED LIGHT IMAGING DETECTOR SYSTEMS
§ 291J-5.5Facial recognition software; prohibitedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) No photo red light imaging detector system authorized under this chapter shall use or be equipped with facial recognition software or biometric identification technology. (b) This section shall not apply to: (1) Automated license plate reader systems; or (2) Any non-biometric technology used to verify vehicle identity, registration status, or to generate photographic evidence of a traffic violation. (c) For the purposes of this section: "Biometric identification" includes but is not limited to recognition of facial features, iris scans, retinal scans, fingerprints, or voice patterns. "Facial recognition software" means technology that analyzes facial features to identify or verify the identity of an individual. [L 2025, c 212, §3]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 291L: AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS
§ 291L-4.5Facial recognition software; prohibitedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) No automated speed enforcement system authorized under this chapter shall use or be equipped with facial recognition software or biometric identification technology. (b) This section shall not apply to: (1) Automated license plate reader systems; or (2) Any non-biometric technology used to verify vehicle identity, registration status, or to generate photographic evidence of a traffic violation. (c) For the purposes of this section: "Biometric identification" includes but is not limited to recognition of facial features, iris scans, retinal scans, fingerprints, or voice patterns. "Facial recognition software" means technology that analyzes facial features to identify or verify the identity of an individual. [L 2025, c 212, §4]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Idaho Code
§ 49-1432automated license plate readers — data access and controlIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
49-1432. automated license plate readers — data access and control. (1) For the purposes of this section: (a) "Agency" means the state of Idaho, any political subdivision of the state of Idaho, or any agency thereof.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Also relied on in: Traffic Camera Ticket Laws by State: Where They're Legal, Limited, or Banned, Are Red Light and Speed Cameras Legal in Idaho? 2025 Law
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 625, Act 5 (Illinois Vehicle Code)
§ 2-130User of automated license plate readers; prohibitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this Section: "Automated license plate reader" or "ALPR" means an electronic device that is mounted on a law enforcement vehicle or positioned in a stationary location and that is capable of recording data on or taking a photograph of a vehicle or its license plate and comparing the collected data and photographs to existing law enforcement databases for investigative purposes. "ALPR" includes a device that is owned or operated by a person or an entity other than a law enforcement agency to the extent that data collected by the reader is shared with a law enforcement agency. "ALPR information" means information gathered by an ALPR or created from the analysis of data generated by an ALPR. "ALPR systems" means multi-agency or vendor agreements that allow the sharing of ALPR information collected in Illinois. "ALPR user" means a person or entity that owns or operates an ALPR device. "Law enforcement agency" means a State or local agency, unit of local government, or private entity charged with the enforcement of State, county, or municipal laws or with managing custody of detained persons in any state or jurisdiction.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Indiana Code, TITLE 32. PROPERTY
§ 32-25.5-3.8-2"Automated license plate reader"In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sec. 2. "Automated license plate reader" means a camera designed to automatically capture an image of a vehicle's license plate and convert the image into computer readable data to permit comparison of the license plate number of the captured image with license plate numbers contained in one (1) or more databases. The term does not include a security camera that may incidentally capture the image of a license plate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
§ 32-25.5-3.8-3Homeowners association use of automated license plate readers prohibitedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sec. 3. A homeowners association may not install, maintain, or operate an automated license plate reader.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
§ 32-25.5-3.8-4Permitted installation of automated license plate readers on homeowners association propertyIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sec. 4. A homeowners association may not permit the installation, maintenance, or operation of an automated license plate reader on the property of the homeowners association unless: (1) the automated license plate reader is installed by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency; (2) only a law enforcement agency has access to the data and images captured by the automated license plate reader; and (3) the homeowners association does not have access to the images or data captured by the automated license plate reader.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 45: PUBLIC RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
§ 45-217Definitions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
As used in the open records act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "Automated license plate recognition system" means one or more high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms used to convert images of license plates into computer readable data. (b) "Business day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or day designated as a holiday by the congress of the United States, by the legislature or governor of this state or by the respective political subdivision of this state. (c) "Captured license plate data" means the global positioning device coordinates, date and time, photograph, license plate number and any other data captured by or derived from an automated license plate recognition system. (d) "Clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" means revealing information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, including information that may pose a risk to a person or property and is not of legitimate concern to the public. (e) "Criminal investigation records" means: (1) Every audio or video recording made and retained by law enforcement using a body camera or vehicle camera as defined by K.S.A.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 31 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons (Supreme Court of Kansas 2002, 274 Kan. 194)“…2. The DOC is a ‘public agency’ within tire meaning of K.S.A. 45-217(e)(l). “3. On September 7 and 13…”
- Data Tree, LLC v. Meek (Supreme Court of Kansas 2005, 279 Kan. 445)“…ormation involve a public record as that term is defined by K.S.A. 45-217(f)(1) and, if so, does K.S.A. 19-1204 p…”
- Willis v. Kansas Highway Patrol (Supreme Court of Kansas 2002, 273 Kan. 123)“…requested was a criminal investigation record as defined by K.S.A. 45-217(b) and not subject to disclosure except…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Police Body Camera Laws: Access & K.S.A. 45-254
§ 45-220Procedures for obtaining access to or copies of records; request for records; establishing office hours for inspection; custodian of records, duties; provision of information on procedures.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) Each public agency shall adopt procedures to be followed in requesting access to and obtaining copies of public records, which procedures shall provide full access to public records, protect public records from damage and disorganization, prevent excessive disruption of the agency's essential functions, provide assistance and information upon request and ensure efficient and timely action in response to applications for inspection of public records. (b) A public agency may require a written request for inspection of public records but shall not otherwise require a request to be made in any particular form. Except as otherwise provided by subsection (c), a public agency shall not require that a request contain more information than the requester's name and address and the information necessary to ascertain the records to which the requester desires access and the requester's right of access to the records. A public agency may require proof of identity of any person requesting access to a public record. No request shall be returned, delayed or denied because of any technicality unless it is impossible to determine the records to which the requester desires access.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2016
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Stevens (Court of Appeals of Kansas 1999, 26 Kan. App. 2d 606)“…cedures for making the information available to the public, K.S.A. 45-220. The Open Records Act also establishes…”
- Attorney General Opinion No. (Kansas Attorney General Reports 1996)“…tion of this statute is a class C misdemeanor. Furthermore, K.S.A. 45-220 (c) allows the agency to require the re…”
- State, Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Public Employee Relations Board of the Kansas Department of Human Resources (Supreme Court of Kansas 1991, 249 Kan. 163)“…aining unit to the Union within 30 days. In accordance with K.S.A. 45-220(c), PERB’s order conditioned release of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 45-221Certain records not required to be disclosed; separation of open and closed information required; disclosure of statistical information; records over 70 years old open, exceptions.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public agency shall not be required to disclose: (1) Records the disclosure of which is specifically prohibited or restricted by federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or rule of the senate committee on confirmation oversight relating to information submitted to the committee pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4315d, and amendments thereto, or the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to specific authorization of federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas supreme court or rule of the senate committee on confirmation oversight relating to information submitted to the committee pursuant to K.S.A. 75-4315d, and amendments thereto, to restrict or prohibit disclosure. (2) Records that are privileged under the rules of evidence, unless the holder of the privilege consents to the disclosure. (3) Medical, psychiatric, psychological or alcoholism or drug dependency treatment records that pertain to identifiable patients.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 46 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kansas courts construe the K.S.A. 45-221 exceptions narrowly, and the exceptions permit withholding rather than require it. In Telegram Publishing Co. v. Kansas Department of Transportation (2003) the agency carried the burden and lost an (a)(1) claim. Harris Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore (1987) affirmed a denial under (a)(10).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State, Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Public Employee Relations Board of the Kansas Department of Human Resources (Supreme Court of Kansas 1991, 249 Kan. 163)✓A state hospital gave a certified union its employees' names but withheld home addresses; the Kansas Supreme Court held K.S.A. 45-221 does not prohibit disclosure but leaves it discretionary with the records custodian, so the agency could not refuse the disclosure order.
- Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publishing Co. v. Simmons (Supreme Court of Kansas 2002, 274 Kan. 194)✓A newspaper sought corrections records on parolees charged with murder; the Kansas Supreme Court held the K.S.A. 45-221(a)(20) exemption covers proposed policies, not actions already taken, and that subsection (d) required the agency to furnish redacted records.
- Harris Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore (Supreme Court of Kansas 1987, 241 Kan. 59)✓A newspaper sued for the Duffield murder investigation files; applying K.S.A. 45-221(a)(10), the Kansas Supreme Court put the public-interest burden on the requester and the other four findings on the agency, and affirmed the discretionary denial after in camera review.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Public Records Laws: The Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) Explained, Kansas Laws on Recording Police, Are Autopsy Reports Public in Kansas? (2026 Guide)
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 189: TRAFFIC REGULATIONS -- VEHICLE EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE
§ 189.632Automated license plate reader -- Permitted uses -- Retention and sharing of data -- Written policy -- Procedure before performing traffic stop -- Permit processIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Alert" means a notification generated by an ALPR indicating that a vehicle passed an ALPR with a license plate that matches data held by the National Crime Information Center or other comparable database; (b) "Automated license plate reader" or "ALPR" means a system of one (1) or more automated high-speed cameras used in combination with data processing to convert images of vehicles and license plates into computer- readable data; (c) "Captured license plate data" means the vehicle characteristics captured by an ALPR, including the: 1. Global positioning system device coordinates; 2. Date and time; 3. Photographs of the license plate and vehicle; 4. License plate number; and 5. Vehicle make, model, and color; (d) "Law enforcement agency" has the same meaning as in KRS 61.298; (e) "Public agency" has the same meaning as in KRS 61.870; and (f) "Secured area" means an area, enclosed by clear boundaries, where access is or may be limited. (2) It is unlawful for an individual, entity, partnership, corporation, association, or this Commonwealth, its agencies, and political subdivisions to use an ALPR except as provided in this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 29-A: MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, Chapter 19: OPERATION
§ 2117-AUse of automated license plate recognition systemsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, "automated license plate recognition system" means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration plates into computer-readable data. "Automated license plate recognition system" does not include a photo-monitoring system, as defined in Title 23, section 1980, subsection 2‑A, paragraph B, subparagraph (4), when used by the Maine Turnpike Authority or a law enforcement agency for toll enforcement purposes. 2. Prohibition. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a person may not use an automated license plate recognition system. 3. Exception. Subsection 2 does not apply to: A. The Department of Transportation for the purposes of protecting public safety and transportation infrastructure; [PL 2009, c. 605, §1 (NEW).] B. The Department of Public Safety, Bureau of State Police for the purposes of commercial motor vehicle screening and inspection; and [PL 2009, c. 605, §1 (NEW).] C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Maryland Code, Public Safety Article
§ 3-509In forcecited in 4 of our articles
§3–509. (a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) (i) “Active data” means: 1. data uploaded to individual automatic license plate reader system units before operation; and 2. data gathered during the operation of an automatic license plate reader system. (ii) “Active data” does not include historical data. (3) “Automatic license plate reader system” means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high–speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer–readable data. (4) (i) “Captured plate data” means the global positioning system coordinates, dates and times, photographs, license plate numbers, and any other data collected by or derived from an automatic license plate reader system. (ii) “Captured plate data” includes active data and historical data. (5) “Center” means the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center. (6) “Criminal justice information” means information relating to criminal justice collected, processed, or preserved by a law enforcement agency.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES
§ 13.824AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERSIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Automated license plate reader" means an electronic device mounted on a law enforcement vehicle or positioned in a stationary location that is capable of recording data on, or taking a photograph of, a vehicle or its license plate and comparing the collected data and photographs to existing law enforcement databases for investigative purposes. Automated license plate reader includes a device that is owned or operated by a person who is not a government entity to the extent that data collected by the reader are shared with a law enforcement agency. Automated license plate reader does not include a traffic safety camera system. (c) "Traffic safety camera system" has the meaning given in section 169.011, subdivision 85a. Subd. 2. Data collection; classification; use restrictions. (a) Data collected by an automated license plate reader must be limited to the following: (1) license plate numbers; (2) date, time, and location data on vehicles; and (3) pictures of license plates, vehicles, and areas surrounding the vehicles.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Montana Code Annotated, Title 46
§ 46-5-117Use Of License Plate Reader Prohibited -- Exceptions -- Definition -- PenaltyIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
46-5-117. Use of license plate reader prohibited -- exceptions -- definition -- penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an agency or employee of the state or any subdivision of the state may not use, either directly or indirectly, a license plate reader on any public highway. (2) (a) The department of transportation or an incorporated city or town may use a license plate reader: (i) to collect data for planning. If data is collected under this subsection (2)(a)(i), the department of transportation or city or town shall ensure and maintain the anonymity of the vehicle, the vehicle owner, the driver of the vehicle, and any passengers in the vehicle. Data collected under this subsection (2)(a)(i) without a search warrant or outside of judicially recognized exceptions to search warrant requirements may not be used to investigate or prosecute an individual or as evidence in court. (ii) in a regulated parking system, but only to identify a vehicle's location and license plate number to enforce parking restrictions.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
§ 46-5-118Preservation And Disclosure Of Records By Law Enforcement AgencyIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
46-5-118. Preservation and disclosure of records by law enforcement agency. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), captured license plate data obtained by an automatic license plate reader system that is operated by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency for law enforcement purposes pursuant to 46-5-117(2)(d) may not be preserved for more than 90 days after the date that the data is captured. (2) Data obtained by an automatic license plate reader may be preserved for more than 90 days pursuant to any of the following: (a) a preservation request submitted pursuant to subsection (3); (b) a search warrant issued pursuant to 46-5-220; or (c) a federal search warrant issued in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (3) Upon the request of a law enforcement agency, the custodian of captured license plate data shall take all necessary steps to immediately preserve captured license plate data in its possession.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 60: MOTOR VEHICLES
§ 60-3201Act, how citedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sections 60-3201 to 60-3209 shall be known and may be cited as the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
§ 60-3202Terms, definedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
For purposes of the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act: (1) Alert means data held by the Department of Motor Vehicles, each criminal justice information system maintained in this state, the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Crime Information Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kidnappings and Missing Persons list, the Missing Persons Information Clearinghouse established under section 29-214.01, and license plate numbers that have been manually entered into the automatic license plate reader system upon a law enforcement officer's determination that the vehicles or individuals associated with the license plate numbers are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal or missing persons investigation; (2) Automatic license plate reader system means one or more mobile or fixed automated high-speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer-readable data; (3) Captured plate data means global positioning system coordinates, date and time information, photographs, license plate numbers, and any other data captured by or derived from any automatic license plate reader system; (4) Governmental entity…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
§ 60-3203Prohibited acts; exceptionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or in section 60-3204, the use of an automatic license plate reader system by a governmental entity is prohibited. (2) An automatic license plate reader system may be used when such use is: (a) By a law enforcement agency of a governmental entity for the purpose of identifying: (i) Outstanding parking or traffic violations; (ii) An unregistered or uninsured vehicle; (iii) A vehicle in violation of the vehicle equipment requirements set forth under the Nebraska Rules of the Road; (iv) A vehicle in violation of any other vehicle registration requirement; (v) A vehicle registered to an individual for whom there is an outstanding warrant; (vi) A vehicle associated with a missing person; (vii) A vehicle that has been reported as stolen; or (viii) A vehicle that is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation; (b) By a parking enforcement entity for regulating the use of a parking facility; (c) For the purpose of controlling access to a secured area; (d) For the purpose of electronic toll collection; or (e) To assist weighing stations in performing their duties under section 60-1301.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
§ 60-3204Retention of captured plate data; limitation; updates; use; limitationsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A governmental entity shall not retain captured plate data obtained under subsection (2) of section 60-3203 for more than one hundred eighty days unless the captured plate data is: (a) Evidence related to a purpose listed in subsection (2) of section 60-3203; (b) Subject to a preservation request under subsection (1) of section 60-3205; or (c) The subject of a warrant, subpoena, or court order. (2) Any governmental entity that uses automatic license plate reader systems pursuant to subsection (2) of section 60-3203 must update such systems from the databases used by the governmental entities enumerated in such subsection at the beginning of each law enforcement agency shift if such updates are available.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
§ 60-3205Operator; preserve data; written sworn statement; court order for disclosure; disclosures authorizedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1)(a) An operator of an automatic license plate reader system shall, upon the request of a governmental entity or a defendant in a criminal case, take all necessary steps to preserve captured plate data in its possession pending the issuance of a warrant, subpoena, or order of a court. (b) A requesting governmental entity or defendant in a criminal case must specify in a written sworn statement: (i) The particular camera or cameras for which captured plate data must be preserved or the particular license plate for which captured plate data must be preserved; and (ii) The date or dates and timeframes for which captured plate data must be preserved. (2) A governmental entity or defendant in a criminal case may apply for a court order for disclosure of captured plate data, which shall be issued by the court if the governmental entity or defendant in a criminal case offers specific and articulable facts showing there are reasonable grounds to believe the captured plate data is relevant and material to the criminal or civil action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
§ 60-3206Governmental entity; duties; report; contentsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (3)(b) of this section, any governmental entity that uses an automatic license plate reader system shall: (1) Adopt a policy governing use of the system and conspicuously post the policy on the governmental entity's Internet website or, if no website is available, in its main office; (2) Adopt a privacy policy to ensure that captured plate data is not shared in violation of the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act or any other law and conspicuously post the privacy policy on its Internet website or, if no website is available, in its main governmental office; and (3)(a) Report annually to the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice on its automatic license plate reader practices and usage. The report shall also be conspicuously posted on the governmental entity's Internet website or, if no website is available, in its main office.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
§ 60-3207Use of captured plate data and related evidence; prohibitedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
No captured plate data and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of this state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
§ 60-3208Violation of act; liability for damagesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Any person who violates the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act shall be liable for damages that proximately cause injury to the business, person, or reputation of another individual or entity.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE XXI MOTOR VEHICLES, CHAPTER 261 CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES
§ 261:75-bUse of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The use of automated number plate scanning devices, also known as automated license plate readers (LPRs) is restricted to local, county, and state law enforcement officers who shall only use the devices subject to the following conditions and limitations: I. An LPR shall be installed for the sole purpose of recording and checking license plates and shall not be capable of photographing or recording or producing images of the occupants of a motor vehicle. II. Authority to obtain and issue LPR devices and to administer a documented training process for acquiring proficiency in their operation and compliance with federal and state regulations and other appropriate legal mandates shall be vested in the head of the state police or the chief of police, director, county sheriff, or other head of a law enforcement agency or his or her designee. Only devices authorized by the head of the law enforcement agency shall be approved for its use by its officers and the devices shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Such policy or policies shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. III.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 29
§ 29-22-2DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in the Driver Privacy and Safety Act: A. "automated license plate reader" means an electronic device that is capable of recording data on or taking a photograph of a vehicle or the vehicle's license plate and comparing the collected data and photographs to existing law enforcement databases for investigative purposes and includes a device that is owned or operated by a person or an entity other than a law enforcement agency; B. "automated license plate reader information" means information gathered by an automated license plate reader or created from the analysis of data generated by an automated license plate reader, excluding information used for the purpose of auditing an automated license plate reader; C. "automated license plate reader user" means a person or an entity that owns or operates an automated license plate reader or has access to automated license plate reader information; D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
§ 29-22-3Automated license plate readers; limitations on sharingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. An automated license plate reader user shall not sell, share, allow access to or transfer automated license plate reader information if the automated license plate reader user has reasonable belief that the automated license plate reader information may be used for the purpose of: (1) investigating or otherwise assisting in immigration enforcement; (2) investigating or prosecuting a protected health care activity; or (3) efforts to identify or impose civil or criminal liability upon a person or an entity based solely on the person's or entity's participation in activities protected by the United States constitution or the constitution of New Mexico, including assembly, petitioning and speech. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
§ 29-22-4Automated license plate readers; reportingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. A law enforcement agency that uses an automated license plate reader system shall report to the department of public safety by April 1 of each year regarding the preceding calendar year. The report shall include: (1) the total number of cameras owned or leased, categorized by mobile or stationary placement; (2) a list of all state and federal databases with which the system data was compared; (3) the total number of times the system was queried, including the purposes for the queries; (4) a list of other law enforcement agencies granted access to the system data; (5) the number of identified instances of unauthorized use or access to the system as determined by the respective agency's audit policy; (6) the number of subpoenas, search warrants and third-party requests received for system data or audit trails, including whether data was provided; (7) the number of requests for automated license plate reader information from out-of-state third parties; and (8) a list of all out-of-state agencies that queried automated license plate reader data. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
§ 29-22-5Enforcement; penaltiesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. The attorney general or a district attorney is authorized to enforce the provisions of the Driver Privacy and Safety Act. B. In an action to enforce the Driver Privacy and Safety Act, the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief. The court may also assess a civil penalty for an intentional violation of Section 3 [29-22-3 NMSA 1978] of the Driver Privacy and Safety Act in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or actual damages resulting from each violation, whichever is greater. C. The department of public safety is authorized to enforce the provisions of the Driver Privacy and Safety Act. D. A law enforcement agency that fails to comply with the Driver Privacy and Safety Act may have that law enforcement agency's automated license plate reader data sharing privileges revoked and access to the state-managed automated license plate reader systems restricted. E. A vendor of automated license plate readers that fails to comply with the Driver Privacy and Safety Act or department of public safety rules may be subject to corrective action, suspension of authorization or termination of access.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 20: Motor Vehicles.
§ 20-183.30DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The following definitions apply in this Article: (1) Automatic license plate reader system. - A system of one or more mobile or fixed automated high speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer readable data. This term shall not include a traffic control photographic system, as that term is defined in G.S. 160A-300.1(a), or an open road tolling system, as that term is defined in G.S. 136-89.210(3). (1a) Reserved for future codification purposes. (1b) Reserved for future codification purposes. (1c) Reserved for future codification purposes. (1d) Criminal justice officer. - A criminal justice officer as defined in G.S. 17C-2 and justice officer as defined in G.S. 17E-2. (2) Law enforcement agency.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ncleg.gov
§ 20-183.31Regulation of useIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Any State or local law enforcement agency using an automatic license plate reader system must adopt a written policy governing its use before the automatic license plate reader system is operational. The policy shall address all of the following: (1) Databases used to compare data obtained by the automatic license plate reader system. (2) Data retention. (3) Sharing of data with other law enforcement agencies. (4) Training of automatic license plate reader system operators. (5) Supervisory oversight of automatic license plate reader system use. (6) Internal data security and access. (7) Annual or more frequent auditing and reporting of automatic license plate reader system use and effectiveness to the head of the agency responsible for operating the system. (8) Accessing data obtained by automatic license plate reader systems not operated by the law enforcement agency. (9) Any other subjects related to automatic license plate reader system use by the agency. (b) Data obtained by a law enforcement agency in accordance with this Article shall be obtained, accessed, preserved, or disclosed only for law enforcement purposes.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ncleg.gov
§ 20-183.32Preservation and disclosure of recordsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Captured plate data obtained by an automatic license plate reader system, operated by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency for law enforcement purposes, shall not be preserved for more than 90 days after the date the data is captured. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, data obtained by an automatic license plate reader may be preserved for more than 90 days pursuant to any of the following: (1) A preservation request under subsection (c) of this section. (2) A search warrant issued pursuant to Article 11 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes. (3) A federal search warrant issued in compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (c) Upon the request of a law enforcement agency, the custodian of the captured plate data shall take all necessary steps to immediately preserve captured plate data in its possession. A requesting agency must specify in a written, sworn statement all of the following: (1) The location of the particular camera or cameras for which captured plate data must be preserved and the particular license plate for which captured plate data must be preserved.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ncleg.gov
Ohio Revised Code
§ 149.43Availability of public records for inspection and copyingIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
(A) As used in this section: (1) "Public record" means records kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, and records pertaining to the delivery of educational services by an alternative school in this state kept by…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Also relied on in: Ohio Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence, Ohio Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limitations, Ohio Death Records: Are They Public + How to Get Them
Oklahoma Statutes, Title 47: MOTOR VEHICLES
§ 7-606.1Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement ProgramIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. There is hereby created the Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Program. B. The Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Program shall be implemented and administered by the district attorneys of the State of Oklahoma within their respective districts or at the District Attorneys Council. To implement this program, the use of technology and software to aid in detection of offenses involving uninsured motorists is necessary and district attorneys and participating law enforcement agencies shall have the authority to enter into contractual agreements with automated license plate reader providers to provide necessary technology, equipment and maintenance thereof. C. 1. Participating law enforcement agencies may use automatic license plate reader systems utilizing individual automatic license plate reader system units to access and collect data for the investigation, detection, analysis or enforcement of Oklahoma's Compulsory Insurance Law. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oklegislature.gov
Utah Code, Title 41: Motor Vehicles
§ 41-6a-2001Title.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
This part is known as the "Automatic License Plate Reader System Act."
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
§ 41-6a-2002Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this chapter: (1) "Active criminal investigation" means an officer has documented reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed, and believes the suspected criminal activity may be connected to a vehicle, a registered owner of a vehicle, or an occupant of a vehicle. (2) "Automatic license plate reader system" means a system of one or more mobile or fixed automated high-speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert an image of a license plate into computer-readable data. (3) "Captured plate data" means the global positioning system coordinates, date and time, photograph, license plate number, and any other data captured by or derived from an automatic license plate reader system.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
§ 41-6a-2003Automatic license plate reader systems -- Restrictions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), a governmental entity may not use an automatic license plate reader system. (2) Subject to Subsection (3), an automatic license plate reader system may be used: (a) by a law enforcement agency to access captured license plate data: (i) as part of an active criminal investigation; (ii) to apprehend an individual with an outstanding warrant; (iii) to locate a missing or endangered person; or (iv) to locate a stolen vehicle; (b) by a law enforcement agency to access the Utah Criminal Justice Information System to: (i) verify valid vehicle registration information; (ii) confirm vehicle identification; (iii) verify insurance information; or (iv) identify a stolen vehicle; (c) by a governmental parking enforcement entity for the purpose of enforcing state and local parking laws; (d) by a parking enforcement entity for regulating the use of a parking facility; (e) for the purpose of controlling access to a secured area; (f) for the purpose of collecting an electronic toll; (g) for the purpose of enforcing motor carrier laws; (h) by a public transit district for the purpose of assessing parking needs and conducting a travel…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
§ 41-6a-2004Captured plate data -- Preservation and disclosure.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Captured plate data obtained for the purposes described in Section 41-6a-2003: (a) in accordance with Section 63G-2-305, is a protected record under Title 63G, Chapter 2, Government Records Access and Management Act, if the captured plate data is maintained by a governmental entity; (b) may not be used or shared for any purpose other than the purposes described in Section 41-6a-2003; (c) except as provided in Subsection (3), may not be preserved for more than nine months by a governmental entity except pursuant to: (i) a preservation request under Section 41-6a-2005; (ii) a disclosure order under Subsection 41-6a-2005(2); or (iii) a warrant issued under the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure or an equivalent federal warrant; and (d) may only be disclosed: (i) in accordance with the disclosure requirements for a protected record under Section 63G-2-202; (ii) pursuant to a disclosure order under Subsection 41-6a-2005(2); or (iii) pursuant to a warrant issued under the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure or an equivalent federal warrant.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
§ 41-6a-2005Preservation request.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A person or governmental entity using an automatic license plate reader system shall take all steps necessary to preserve captured plate data in its possession for 14 days after the date the data is captured pending the issuance of a court order requiring the disclosure of the captured plate data if a governmental entity or defendant in a criminal case requesting the captured plate data submits a written statement to the person or governmental entity using an automatic license plate reader system: (a) requesting the person or governmental entity to preserve the captured plate data; (b) identifying: (i) the camera or cameras for which captured plate data shall be preserved; (ii) the license plate for which captured plate data shall be preserved; or (iii) the dates and time frames for which captured plate data shall be preserved; and (c) notifying the person or governmental entity maintaining the captured plate data that the governmental entity or defendant in a criminal case is applying for a court order for disclosure of the captured plate data.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 23: Motor Vehicles, Chapter 15: Powers of Enforcement Officers, Subchapter: AUTOMATED LAW ENFORCEMENT
§ 1605Definitions [Effective July 1, 2025 until July 2, 2025 or July 1, 2027; see also 23 V.S.A. § 1605 effective July 2, 2025 or July 1, 2027, set out below]In forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this subchapter: (1) “Active data” is distinct from historical data as defined in subdivision (5) of this section and means data uploaded to individual automated license plate recognition system units before operation as well as data gathered during the operation of an ALPR system. Any data collected by an ALPR system in accordance with section 1607 of this subchapter shall be considered collected for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. (2) “Automated license plate recognition system” or “ALPR system” means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration number plates into computer-readable data. (3) “Automated traffic law enforcement system” or “ATLE system” means a device with one or more sensors working in conjunction with a speed measuring device to produce recorded images of the rear registration number plates of motor vehicles traveling at more than 10 miles above the speed limit. (4) “Calibration laboratory” means an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17025 accredited testing laboratory that is approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
§ 1606Automated traffic law enforcement systems; speeding [Effective July 1, 2025; Repealed effective July 2, 2025 or July 1, 2027]In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) Use. Deployment of ATLE systems on behalf of the Agency of Transportation by a third party pursuant to subsection (b) of this section is intended to investigate the benefits of automated law enforcement for speeding violations as a way to improve work crew safety and reduce traffic crashes resulting from an increased adherence to traffic laws achieved by effective deterrence of potential violators, which could not be achieved by traditional law enforcement methods or traffic calming measures, or both. Deployment of ATLE systems on behalf of the Agency is not intended to replace law enforcement personnel, nor is it intended to mitigate problems caused by deficient road design, construction, or maintenance. (b) Vendor. (1) The Agency of Transportation shall enter into a contract with a third party for the operation and deployment of ATLE systems on behalf of the Agency. (2) The Agency, in consultation with the Department of Public Safety, may require the vendor to maintain a storage system to store any recorded images or other data collected by the ATLE system. Any storage system shall adhere to the use, retention, and limitation requirements pursuant to this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Also relied on in: Vermont Traffic Camera Ticket Laws: A Pilot That Hasn't Launched, and a 2027 Ban Coming
§ 1607Automated license plate recognition systems [Effective July 1, 2025; see also 23 V.S.A. § 1607 effective until July 1, 2025 set out above]In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Operation. A Vermont law enforcement officer shall be certified in ALPR operation by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council in order to operate an ALPR system. (b) ALPR use and data access; confidentiality. (1)(A) Deployment of ALPR equipment by Vermont law enforcement agencies is intended to provide access to law enforcement reports of wanted or stolen vehicles and wanted persons and to further other legitimate law enforcement purposes. Use of ALPR systems by law enforcement officers and access to active data are restricted to legitimate law enforcement purposes. (B) Active data may be accessed by a law enforcement officer operating the ALPR system only if the law enforcement officer has a legitimate law enforcement purpose for the data. Entry of any data into the system other than data collected by the ALPR system itself must be approved by a supervisor and shall have a legitimate law enforcement purpose. (C)(i) Requests to access active data shall be in writing and include the name of the requester, the law enforcement agency the requester is employed by, if any, and the law enforcement agency’s Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) number.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Code of Virginia, Title 2.2: Administration of Government
§ 2.2-5517Use of automatic license plate recognition systems by law-enforcement agenciesIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. For purposes of this section: "Audit trail" means all records of queries and responses in an automatic license plate recognition system, and all records of actions in which system data is accessed, entered, updated, shared, or disseminated, including the (i) date and time of access; (ii) license plate number or other data elements used to query the system; (iii) specific purpose, as set forth in subsection D, for accessing or querying the system, including the offense type for any criminal investigation; (iv) associated call for service or case number; and (v) username of the person or persons who accessed or queried the system. "Audit trail data" means all forms of data collected or generated by an automatic license plate recognition system for purposes of producing an audit trail. "Automatic license plate recognition system" or "system" means a system of one or more high-speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates, vehicles, or a combination of both into computer-readable data. "Division" means the Division of Purchases and Supply of the Department of General Services.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Revised Code of Washington
§ 10.130.020Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. (2) "Audit trail data" means all forms of data collected or generated by an automated license plate reader system that identify how the system is accessed or used. "Audit trail data" includes information about who accesses or uses the system, and how and when the system is accessed or used. "Audit trail data" does not include automated license plate reader data. (3) "Automated license plate reader data" means all data collected by automated license plate reader systems including, but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates, location, date and time, speed of travel, photograph, license plate number, automobile characteristics, or other identifying information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.030Operation.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Except as provided for in this section, it is unlawful for any agency to access, operate, or use an automated license plate reader system or its associated automated license plate reader data. (2) An agency may access, operate, or use an automated license plate reader system and its associated data only for the following authorized purposes: (a) Any law enforcement agency may use an automated license plate reader system for the purpose of comparing captured automated license plate reader data with: (i) Data in any of the following databases maintained by either a federal or Washington state agency: The department of licensing, the state criminal justice information system, the federal bureau of investigation kidnappings and missing persons list, the national center for missing and exploited children list, and the Washington missing persons list; or (ii) License plate numbers or vehicle characteristics that have been entered into a state or local automated license plate reader system database or entered in order to perform a search, upon an officer's determination that the license plate numbers or vehicle characteristics are relevant and material to an investigation of a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.040Retention.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Automated license plate reader data collected by or on behalf of an agency, as authorized pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2), shall not be used or shared for any other purpose and shall not be retained longer than 21 days, with the following exceptions: (1) When retained pursuant to a valid, court-issued, probable cause felony or gross misdemeanor warrant or subpoena, or as permitted by court order in criminal or civil cases, provided the data is deleted at the conclusion of the criminal or civil case, pursuant to the applicable record retention schedule.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.050Prohibited practices.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) An agency that uses an automated license plate reader system pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2) shall not: (a) Disclose, share, or permit access to automated license plate reader data except as required in a judicial proceeding; (b) Provide any other entity with direct access to the automated license plate reader system, except with other state or local agencies authorized to collect automated license plate reader data under RCW 10.130.030. A third-party vendor providing automated license plate reader system services may access an automated license plate reader system solely to the extent necessary to fulfill a specific agency-authorized purpose. (2) Any agency that uses a database pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2) (a) and (b)(ii) shall use the most recent and updated version of the database that is available to the agency and shall check for and apply any available updates no less than once every 24 hours. (3) An agency shall not sell, lease, rent, or purchase automated license plate reader data or audit trail data. (4) An agency may obtain privately held automated license plate reader data only pursuant to a valid, court-issued, probable cause warrant.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.070Policies.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) By July 1, 2027, the attorney general shall develop and publish model policies on the use of automated license plate reader systems consistent with chapter 239, Laws of 2026. (2)(a) By December 1, 2027, any agency that uses an automated license plate reader system pursuant to RCW 10.130.030(2) shall: (i) Adopt a policy governing use of the automated license plate reader system consistent with the model policies established under subsection (1) of this section and submit copies of the applicable policies to the attorney general; or, if the agency did not adopt policies consistent with the model policies, provide notice to the attorney general stating the reasons for any departures from the model policies and an explanation of how the agency's policies are consistent with the provisions of chapter 239, Laws of 2026, and include a copy of the agency's relevant policies; and (ii) Submit an annual report on its automated license plate reader system practices and usage to the appropriate committees of the legislature. The report must also be conspicuously posted on the agency's public website.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.080Audits.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Each agency operating or accessing an automated license plate reader system shall maintain audit trail data documenting all access to the system. Audit trail data must be retained for two years and must include, at a minimum: (a) A record of each action in which automated license plate reader data is accessed or searched, including: (i) The identity or username of the person who accessed or queried the system, and as applicable, the organization or entity with whom the person is affiliated; (ii) The date and time the automated license plate reader data or the automated license plate reader system was accessed or searched; (iii) Data elements used to query the automated license plate reader system; (iv) Specific purpose for accessing or querying the automated license plate reader system, including the offense type for any criminal investigation; (v) The associated call for service or case number; and (vi) The location of the cameras that are part of the automated license plate reader system accessed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.090Violations—Application of the consumer protection act.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The legislature finds that the practices covered by this chapter are matters vitally affecting the public interest for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. A violation of this chapter is not reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of business and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the consumer protection act, chapter 19.86 RCW. (2) This section applies only to persons, as defined in RCW 19.86.010, who enter into contract with state and local government agencies authorized to use automated license plate reader systems.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 10.130.100Criminal penalties.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Any person who willfully and intentionally queries, accesses, or uses an automated license plate reader system for a purpose not specifically authorized under this chapter, or who willfully and intentionally retains, sells, shares, permits access, or disseminates automated license plate reader system data or audit trail data in violation of this chapter, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Arkansas: Ark. Code §§ 12-12-1801 to -1805, as amended by Act 668 (2025) official source(www.arkleg.state.ar.us).gov
- California: Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.90.5 to 1798.90.55 official source(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Colorado: SB 26-070 and SB 26-071 bill status official source(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- Connecticut: Public Act 26-14, §§ 13-15 official source(www.cga.ct.gov).gov
- Florida: Fla. Stat. §§ 316.0777 and 316.0778 official source(www.leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Georgia: O.C.G.A. § 35-1-22, reconstructed from official enacted acts official source(www.legis.ga.gov).gov
- Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 291J-5.5 and 291L-4.5 official source(www.capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Idaho: Idaho Code § 49-1432 official source(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Illinois: 625 ILCS 5/2-130 official source(ftp.ilga.gov).gov
- Indiana: Ind. Code §§ 32-25.5-3.8-2 to -4 official source(iga.in.gov).gov
- Kansas: Kan. Stat. §§ 45-217, 45-220, and 45-221 official source(www.ksrevisor.gov).gov
- Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.632 official source(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- Maine: 29-A M.R.S. § 2117-A official source(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Maryland: Md. Code, Public Safety § 3-509 official source(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 13.824 official source(www.revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Montana: Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-5-117 and 46-5-118 official source(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-3201 to 60-3208 official source(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 261:75-b official source(gc.nh.gov).gov
- New Mexico: N.M. Stat. §§ 29-22-2 to 29-22-5 official source(www.nmonesource.com)
- North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-183.30 to 20-183.32 official source(www.ncleg.gov).gov
- Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43 official source(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 7-606.1 official source(www.oklegislature.gov).gov
- Oregon: Oregon Laws 2026, chapter 77, §§ 3-9 official source(olis.oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Tennessee: Acts 2014, chapter 625 and SB 1664 history official source(wapp.capitol.tn.gov).gov
- Texas: HB 2083 legislative history official source(capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Utah: Utah Code §§ 41-6a-2001 to 41-6a-2005 official source(le.utah.gov).gov
- Vermont: 23 V.S.A. §§ 1605 to 1607 official source(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- Virginia: Va. Code § 2.2-5517 and related sections official source(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Washington: Wash. Rev. Code ch. 10.130 official source(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Colorado SB 26-071 official bill status(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-118 official source(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- Georgia SB 153 (2025) official signed legislation(gov.georgia.gov).gov
- Tennessee 2026 Code Bill Volume 2 official publication(capitol.tn.gov).gov