License-plate readersMore states move to limit LPR use

Law-enforcement units across the United States have been using license plate readers (LPRs) to monitor vehicles on public roads in order to locate missing individuals, investigate murderers, or track hit-and-run drivers. The LPRs are mounted on police cars, road signs, or traffic lights to capture images which are then translated into computer-readable text and compiled to a list of plate numbers stored in various databases. Once a plate number is identified, law enforcement compares the number against plates registered to criminals or wanted individuals.

SecurityInfoWatch reports that privacy advocates are concerned with the wholesale storage of license plate numbers, and the fact that some municipalities have no limits on how long plate numbers can be stored.

PPublic backlash, has led several states to set limits on who has access to LPR information, and how long the data is stored. SecurityInfoWatch notes that this year alone, three states have place limits on law enforcement’s use of LPRs, and in some cases have banned private firms from using LPRs.

Thye American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) anticipates that more states will consider limits in upcoming legislative sessions.

In New Hampshire, law enforcement and private companies (excluding the tolling company EZ Pass) are forbidden from using LPRs. Utah requires law enforcement to deleted LPR data nine months after collection; Vermont enforces an eighteen month storage limit; and Maine has a three weeks limit.

“It’s been surprising to find out how license plate readers are being used and how long the data is being kept,” said Michigan State Representative Sam Singh, a sponsor of legislation to limit police in Michigan from keeping plate numbers for longer than forty-eight hours.  Singh’s legislation would also make license plate data exempt from public records requests in order to ensure privacy from private individuals.

“We just fundamentally believe that Americans don’t need to be watched unless there’s probable cause of wrongdoing,” said Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the Michigan ACLU, a supporter of Singh’s legislation. “We don’t need a ‘just in case’ database. That just turns democracy and our sense of due process on its head.”

The public backlash against LPRs and other law-enforcement technologies coincides with the public outcry over the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance and data collection program. “People are saying, ‘I can’t control the NSA, but I can rein in what local law enforcement agencies are collecting,’” said Allie Bohm, an advocacy and policy strategist at the ACLU.

Proponents of LPRs worry that the public may compare the technology with the recent NSA revelations. “I would hate to see that because of bad timing, a great technology is banned or didn’t rise to the level it could have,” said Todd Hodnett, the founder and chairman of Digital Recognition Network, a license plate reader manufacturer. “The NSA revelations have created an environment that has people on edge, but it’s unfortunate and quite scary that someone could compare listening to a phone call to photographing a publicly visible license plate,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court and several federal courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for a publicly visible license plate. With this in mind, proponents of LPRs like Hodnett, are building a case claiming the prohibitions against LPRs are violations of the First Amendment.

In Watertown, Massachusetts, where police foundBoston Marathon bomber, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, State Representative

Jonathan Hecht is proposing legislation to limit LPR use. The proposed law would require police to delete license plate information after forty-eight hours unless the data is linked to a criminal investigation. “Public safety is very important and we want to use new this technology for safety,” said Hecht. “But as has been true throughout our history, public safety has to be balanced against other important privacy values. In wake of the revelations about the NSA, people are concerned that we’re letting technology get away from us.”