Every time you leave your house and get in your car, your location and movements are almost certainly being tracked by a sprawling surveillance system of automated license plate readers, or ALPRs.
In Washington, this advanced surveillance system widely used by law enforcement remains largely unregulated. Police use the tools without any guardrails around how, when and where they can be used, and what happens to the data they collect.
In fact, no one can even say with confidence who ultimately has access to that data — a concern that is especially acute as reporting has revealed a number of instances of federal immigration authorities accessing local ALPR networks across the country, and a series of reports from the University of Washington revealing that happening specifically in Washington state.
Thanks to a bill before the state Senate, Washington now has the opportunity to join a growing number of states and adopt clear standards that not only protect privacy but also ensure that these powerful tools are used responsibly.
ALPRs are a unique surveillance technology. Unlike toll or traffic safety cameras, which only activate in limited circumstances, ALPRs operate continuously — capturing images of every single vehicle that passes by. They were originally intended to look for specific cars on watchlists, but now they indiscriminately gather a massive volume of data, information about every single vehicle that passes, that can later be searched or analyzed. Modern ALPR systems rely on AI to identify unique vehicle characteristics, like make, model and color, and can even draw connections between vehicles.
As a result, the information collected by ALPRs can reveal deeply personal information about people’s lives. ALPRs can expose where someone lives and works, where their children go to school, and what religious or political activities they engage in.
Given the sensitivity of this data, and what it is and can be used for, the absence of guardrails presents real risks. For example, ALPRs don’t always provide accurate results, and some misreads have led to devastating encounters. In one instance, a woman and her family were held at gunpoint after officers failed to verify the alert. ALPR data has also been misused by police officers to stalk an estranged wife and to determine whether an officer was under investigation. Police departments have even used these tools to monitor constitutionally protected speech, including during the 2008 presidential election.
What’s more, some vendors allow law enforcement agencies to access data collected far outside their own jurisdictions, extending the potential for misuse beyond just a single agency. Washington is no exception. A University of Washington study found that local law enforcement agencies shared ALPR data with federal immigration enforcement — sometimes without even realizing it — violating the Keep Washington Working Act. And last year, data from the King County Housing Authority was among more than 80,000 databases nationwide accessed by Texas law enforcement to track a woman suspected of self-administering an abortion.
None of this means that ALPRs lack legitimate public safety uses, such as searching for missing persons. But the existence of potential benefits is not a reason to avoid regulation. It is precisely why thoughtful rules are needed. Clear standards ensure that tools are used responsibly, for defined purposes, and in ways that minimize harm.
One especially important safeguard is data retention. The longer vehicle location data is stored, the greater the risk of misuse and unauthorized access. Reasonable but strict limits on data retention help reduce those risks while still allowing law enforcement to investigate serious crime.
In the absence of statewide standards, Washington has been left with a patchwork of regulation. Sporadic local decisions have left many Washingtonians with uneven protections. In order to ensure equal protection, the Legislature must put commonsense protections into place.
Lawmakers in Olympia already are considering a solution. The Driver Privacy Act, Senate Bill 6002, would institute clear, consistent guardrails across the state. The bill addresses many of the core concerns raised, including limits on data sharing, and protections for sensitive locations such as health care centers and immigration services. Taken together, these safeguards would protect the most vulnerable members of our society.
People deserve to move freely through their communities without fear of constant monitoring. Washington now has the opportunity to implement basic protections, both to protect privacy and strengthen public safety. Now is the moment for Washington to act.
Anita Yandle: is counsel for the Policing Project at NYU School of Law. She lives in Seattle.
