San Jose Police Restrict License Plate Reader Data
Amid growing privacy concerns, the San Jose Police Department is tightening its policies on access to data from automated license plate readers (ALPR). The new rules are intended to create a better balance between using the technology for public safety and protecting the privacy of individuals.
The San Jose Police Department's policy shift follows a November 2025 lawsuit from the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The suit alleges that the city's extensive network of nearly 500 ALPR cameras, which can capture over 2 million license plates monthly, constitutes warrantless mass surveillance in violation of the California Constitution. Previously, San Jose’s policy allowed for the retention of ALPR data for a full year, a significantly longer period than the 30 days common in many other cities. Public records revealed that the SJPD performed more than 260,000 searches of this location data in the year following June 2024, all without obtaining warrants. In response to the growing controversy, San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph has proposed significant changes. The new policy would slash the data retention period from one year down to just 30 days and explicitly prohibit sharing the data with any federal agencies. The proposed rules also include banning the placement of ALPR cameras in sensitive areas such as near churches, clinics, and hospitals. This move comes after allegations that San Jose police had conducted searches on behalf of federal agencies like the DEA, a practice critics call "side-door" searches that may violate state laws like SB 34 and SB 54. This policy revision in San Jose is part of a broader regional trend of re-evaluating ALPR technology. Nearby, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors recently adopted a policy that effectively ends its use of the same vendor, Flock Safety, due to concerns about data being shared with federal immigration authorities like ICE. While proponents, including San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, argue the cameras are vital for solving serious crimes and have helped arrest at least 60 suspects in a recent three-month period, privacy advocates remain concerned. Groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations argue the technology creates a chilling effect, allowing for the tracking of individuals' movements to sensitive locations like places of worship or doctors' offices.
