Open Records Laws Reveal ALPRs’ Sprawling Surveillance. Now States Want to Block What the Public Sees.

Key Takeaways

• Seven states are moving to shield ALPR data from FOIA requests
• Public‑record disclosures have revealed false‑match errors and racist targeting
• Exemptions would also criminalize journalists who obtain ALPR data
• EFF recommends case‑by‑case privacy balancing instead of blanket bans

Pulse Analysis

Automated license‑plate readers have become a ubiquitous surveillance tool, capturing millions of vehicle scans daily. While the raw data can reveal intimate details about a person’s movements, aggregated and audit‑log information has proven invaluable for journalists, civil‑rights groups, and local officials. By filing public‑records requests, these stakeholders have uncovered high false‑match rates, cross‑jurisdictional data sharing, and instances where ALPRs were used to monitor protests or target vulnerable populations. This transparency has driven contract cancellations, policy reforms, and public debates about the technology’s legitimacy.

In the past year, a coordinated legislative push has emerged across the United States to place ALPR data behind a blanket exemption. Bills in Arizona (SB 1111) and Connecticut (SB 4) would criminalize the public’s acquisition of any ALPR‑derived information, while Washington’s new law overrides a court ruling that deemed such data public. Similar measures have already taken effect in Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma and Illinois. The net effect is a chilling reduction in the ability of journalists and watchdogs to scrutinize police practices, limiting evidence of errors, bias, or unlawful data sharing that could otherwise inform reform.

EFF argues that the solution lies in nuanced privacy exemptions rather than wholesale bans. State FOIA statutes already allow agencies to redact personally identifying details while releasing aggregate statistics, audit logs, and data‑sharing agreements. By mandating case‑by‑case balancing, legislators can protect individual privacy without sacrificing the public’s right to oversight. Coupled with stronger procurement rules, data‑retention limits, and mandatory impact assessments, this approach preserves transparency, curbs surveillance overreach, and ensures that ALPR technology serves public safety without eroding civil liberties.