Editor’s note: This article is part of ALPRs in Focus, a Police1 editorial series examining how agencies use automated license plate reader technology, the investigative value it can provide, and current concerns surrounding privacy, data access, retention and misuse.
By Jim Burch, President, National Policing Institute
Agencies across the country are confronting renewed public scrutiny of automated license plate reader programs. In many communities, systems that were adopted years ago and have supported investigations are now the subject of council discussions, public-comment campaigns and legislative debate.
The National Policing Institute recently completed an national survey focused specifically on public attitudes toward law enforcement use of ALPRs. We surveyed 1,435 adults across the country in September 2026. The topline finding is clear: 54.4% of respondents oppose ALPR use in their community, compared with 34.6% who support it. Thirty-four percent of all respondents describe themselves as strongly opposed.
Opposition is not limited to one political group. It was above 40% in every political group we could measure with confidence, from very liberal to very conservative respondents. It appeared across the political spectrum, including among people who rate their own local department highly. Roughly one-third of respondents who gave their agency top marks for treating people fairly and with respect still oppose ALPRs.
The findings suggest that concerns about ALPRs can exist even among respondents who view their local agency favorably.
When respondents were asked about specific uses of ALPRs, their views varied widely. Use of the technology to locate missing or abducted children was acceptable to 88.3% of respondents. More than 80% also found it acceptable to use ALPRs to investigate violent crime (83.6%) and recover stolen vehicles (81%).
Support dropped sharply for broader or more routine uses. Only 22% found general, ongoing monitoring to prevent future crime acceptable, while 25.8% supported its use for routine traffic or parking enforcement. Monitoring protests or political gatherings was acceptable to 17.7% of respondents.
Immigration enforcement was acceptable to 26.4% of respondents overall, but that result varied substantially by political ideology: 2.3% of very liberal respondents found it acceptable, compared with 69.2% of very conservative respondents.
Concern that ALPR data could reach U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) varied even more widely, with a 71.6-point difference between the most and least concerned political groups. That was the largest gap between any two groups on any item we asked.
That’s the pattern across the survey: the question that deserves more attention is not simply whether police should have this tool, but what, specifically, is it being used for and how that use is reviewed. Purpose matters.
Governance may matter more than messaging alone
Before the final questions in the survey, we showed one group of respondents a short, accurate argument for the public safety benefits of ALPRs, a second group an equally accurate argument about the privacy risks, and showed a third group no message. We then asked all three groups what their own agency should do with its ALPR program. The three groups answered similarly.
Public information campaigns may be important, but these findings suggest that messaging alone is unlikely to substantially change public opinion about the technology. The survey did find more potential movement when respondents considered specific safeguards. When asked what would increase their confidence and then what would happen to their support if their department actually adopted the safeguards they selected, 57.5% said their support would increase and 2.9% said it would decrease. That is a net difference of nearly 55 points, based on a question about concrete governance changes rather messaging.
The specific safeguards respondents selected were concrete. Independent audits by an outside entity topped the list at 41.8%. Requiring a documented case number and reason for every search came next at 36.1%, and regular public reporting on how the data is used was selected by 34.2%. Combined with clear limits on use, these measures can help agencies preserve public safety benefits while addressing concerns about oversight.
Retention is another area where agencies may be able to respond to public concerns. More than half of respondents (53.2%) said they don’t want data unconnected to a crime retained for longer than 30 days and 21.3% said it should not be collected at all. Agencies with retention periods measured in months may want to consider how those policies align with community expectations.
What this means for your agency
These findings do not suggest that agencies must abandon ALPR programs. When asked what their local agency should do with its ALPR program, 60% of respondents said it should continue, most with additional restrictions. One-third said the program should be shut down.
The survey gives agencies a clearer sense of the issues communities may want addressed: clearly defined uses, meaningful safeguards and limits on data retention.From this study, I would prioritize three steps:
- Establish a recurring independent audit process, along with the other safeguards respondents identified.
- Review and document your agency’s ALPR use policy, including what your agency will and will not use ALPR data for.
- Review your retention policy, particularly if data is retained for more than 30 days, and consider regular public reporting on how the system is used.
Every agency and community is different. But agencies that treat governance as an operational priority, rather than solely a communications issue, may be better positioned to maintain both the technology and public confidence.
References
National Policing Institute. (2026a, August 27). ALPR backlash: What agencies need to know.
National Policing Institute. (2026b). What the public thinks about license plate readers: Findings from an independent national survey. Arlington, VA.
About the author
Jim Burch is President of the National Policing Institute, an independent, nonpartisan nonprofit that has worked with law enforcement agencies on research, innovation, and agency support for more than 55 years. Before joining NPI, he served as an Acting Assistant Director at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he spent roughly two decades supporting law enforcement through the Department’s research and assistance arm. He also teaches as an adjunct in George Mason University’s Department of Criminology, Law and Society. Disclosure: NPI provides independent ALPR data use auditing services for law enforcement agencies.
