ORLANDO — The controversy surrounding automated license plate recognition (ALPR) could become an opportunity for police leaders to help shape how emerging technologies are governed for years to come.
That was the message from Axon founder and CEO Rick Smith at IACP 2026 in Orlando, where he encouraged law enforcement leaders to look beyond the immediate debate over license plate readers and consider the broader implications of artificial intelligence, biometrics and automated public safety systems.
“What I would like to avoid is we slap a Band-Aid on ALPR and call it good,” Smith told attendees.
His concern is that legislation focused exclusively on today’s technology could leave agencies facing the same questions when the next generation of capabilities becomes available.
Rather than viewing regulation as an obstacle, Smith encouraged the profession to see it as an opportunity to establish clear expectations for responsible innovation. “I think regulation can be helpful,” he said.
Thinking beyond today’s technology
Smith described ALPR as one of many technologies that will raise questions about how law enforcement balances operational effectiveness with individual privacy.
As artificial intelligence and automated systems become more sophisticated, police agencies will increasingly need to consider not only what those technologies can accomplish, but how they should be used.
Smith argued that these decisions should be guided by clear principles established before new capabilities become the subject of public controversy.
He described how Axon established an independent ethics advisory council to help the company consider the implications of emerging technologies and identify potential concerns early in the development process.
The council’s recommendations have not always been easy to hear, he acknowledged, but engaging people with different perspectives has helped the company better understand concerns that might otherwise emerge after a product reaches the market.
“We’d rather talk to them early, so we understand what their concerns are going to be,” Smith said.
He also emphasized the importance of making ethical principles understandable and practical.
Complex policies and lengthy technology roadmaps may contain valuable guidance, but Smith suggested that organizations are more likely to apply principles that can be easily remembered and incorporated into everyday decisions.
For Axon, he described the guiding objective as using artificial intelligence to detect danger while protecting privacy.
That balance, he suggested, will become increasingly important as law enforcement evaluates technologies that offer new ways to identify threats, gather information and support investigations.
Building privacy protections into the process
Smith also discussed the importance of considering privacy and data governance as technologies are developed and deployed.
Using ALPR as an example, he described how decisions about data ownership, access and sharing can have significant implications for police agencies and the communities they serve.
Technology can make it easier for departments to exchange information across jurisdictions, but Smith emphasized that agencies also need to understand how those arrangements work and maintain appropriate control over their information.
He explained that Axon’s approach to ALPR data sharing requires agencies to establish explicit sharing relationships rather than automatically combining their information into a common pool.
“And again, I’m gonna tell you, this is less convenient,” Smith acknowledged.
But he suggested that taking additional steps to manage data sharing can help agencies maintain greater control over how information is accessed and used. For police leaders, the broader lesson is that decisions about privacy, transparency and accountability should be considered alongside operational capabilities when evaluating new technology.
Smith also encouraged greater collaboration between agencies, technology providers and independent researchers to document the outcomes associated with ALPR. He suggested that tracking how license plate reader alerts contribute to investigations, vehicle recoveries and other outcomes could help agencies better explain the technology’s benefits.
He also emphasized the value of independent academic research in building a stronger evidence base for future policy discussions.
Three possible paths for regulation
Smith outlined three approaches lawmakers and police leaders could take as they consider how to regulate automated public safety technologies.
The first would focus specifically on ALPR, addressing immediate concerns through legislation tailored to license plate readers.
The second would establish a broader legislative framework governing automated public safety systems, including technologies that use artificial intelligence, algorithms and other forms of automation.
While that approach could provide more comprehensive guidance, Smith acknowledged that developing appropriate safeguards would require considerable work.
His preferred option combines elements of both approaches. Under a two-stage process, lawmakers would address current ALPR concerns while establishing a task force to develop recommendations for a broader regulatory framework capable of guiding future technologies rather than addressing each new capability through a separate legislative debate.
For police leaders, that approach offers an opportunity to contribute their operational experience to discussions that will influence how emerging technologies are used.
Giving police leaders a voice
Throughout the session, Smith emphasized the importance of collaboration among technology companies, law enforcement agencies, professional associations and policymakers.
During the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, he discussed Axon’s engagement with chiefs’ and sheriffs’ associations on legislative issues.
“We don’t do anything in any state without talking to the Chief or Sheriff’s Association around any legislation,” Smith said. “That’s our first protocol.”
He also expressed support for federal guidance that could establish baseline expectations for emerging technologies without necessarily overriding state laws.
Smith’s broader message was that police leaders should participate in developing the rules that will govern the tools their agencies may eventually use. Chiefs and sheriffs bring an operational perspective to those discussions, including an understanding of how technology can support investigations, improve public safety and affect the communities they serve. Their involvement can help ensure that regulatory frameworks reflect both the potential benefits of innovation and the practical considerations associated with implementing new systems.
Turning today’s debate into tomorrow’s opportunity
Smith drew on Axon’s history to explain why he believes periods of controversy can also create opportunities for improvement.
He recalled the scrutiny surrounding TASER devices in the early 2000s and described how the experience contributed to the company’s thinking about technologies that could provide a clearer record of police encounters. That thinking helped lead Axon into body-worn cameras, which subsequently became a major part of its business.
For Smith, the lesson was that organizations can use difficult moments to address larger challenges rather than concentrating exclusively on the immediate controversy. He sees a similar opportunity in the current discussion surrounding ALPR.
As law enforcement gains access to increasingly sophisticated technologies, Smith argued, the profession must find ways to benefit from those capabilities while maintaining public confidence.
And for Axon, he emphasized, the responsibility extends beyond delivering technology that police agencies trust. “Protecting the trust between you and your community is equally important.”
