In early April, mobile license plate readers across Seattle and other parts of Washington went dark. At least six police departments and two sheriffs’ offices in the state deactivated part or all of their ALPR programs for fear of violating a new state law.
That law — SB 6002, which took effect March 30, 2026 — prohibits gathering license plate data in certain places, including on the premises of, immediately around, and on access routes to or from schools, courts, food banks, places of worship, immigration facilities and locations related to reproductive healthcare. It does not specify distances, leaving agencies to interpret phrases such as “immediate surroundings” and “access to or from.”
For jurisdictions with fixed cameras, compliance was easy enough. But those with mobile programs had no practical way to stop gathering data every time an officer drove past a prohibited location.
“We suspended our mobile license plate readers because we could not ensure that they wouldn’t incidentally capture license plates in those restricted, protected areas,” Kent Police Chief Rafael Padilla told local station KUOW.
The state’s approach to location-based restrictions is thought to be unique in the U.S.
Questionable practices drive debate
Washington lawmakers may have had viable reasons to rein in how their ALPR data was used. The University of Washington Center for Human Rights reported in 2025 that at least eight state law enforcement agencies enabled direct sharing of their ALPR data with federal immigration authorities, in possible violation of state law, and 10 additional Washington PDs were exposed to federal searches despite not explicitly authorizing that access. As well, Texas deputies last year used cameras in Washington and other states to search for a woman who’d had an abortion in apparent hopes of charging her.
Legislators’ broad response, however, inadvertently deprived state law enforcement of a valuable tool that’s solved a lot of cases and done a lot of good. And Washington is only one of several states tightening their rules around ALPR technology.
“ALPR is no longer a plug-and-play application for law enforcement. It’s now becoming a regulated tool,” said Nate Maloney, vice president of marketing for Leonardo, whose ELSAG vehicle-recognition technologies are a popular choice in U.S. law enforcement. “We’ve seen a lot of concern over privacy and surveillance in the ALPR market space, and legislative decisions based on some bad practices. Legislation like Washington’s is going to really impact law enforcement’s use of the technology.”
It can be difficult to keep emotions tamped down around these kinds of conflicts, and much, like the actions of federal officials, remains out of the control of American law enforcement. But if police and sheriffs in other jurisdictions want to avoid obstacles like those imposed on their colleagues in Washington, there are a few things they — and the vendors that supply them — can do to help shape a more positive public perception of their ALPR programs and how the data they produce is used.
“Law enforcement agencies need to be proactive in communicating how and why they use this technology,” Maloney said. “One of the cases that helped demonstrate the value of ALPR involved the abduction of two girls in Atlanta who were quickly recovered unharmed after the system identified the suspect vehicle and officers were able to intervene. Cases like that highlight the potential public safety benefits of the technology when it is deployed responsibly. At the same time, privacy concerns are legitimate and should be addressed through clear policies, oversight and accountability. The focus should be on ensuring appropriate implementation and safeguards, rather than broadly characterizing all ALPR technology the same way.”
What departments can do
For local departments that want to address concerns and improve public support for ALPR, persuasion should center around transparency. Leaders should be specific about the problems they’re trying to solve and publish a plain-language policy before cameras go live. It should cover authorized and prohibited uses, retention limits, access controls and data sharing, audit procedures, and consequences for misuse. The Bureau of Justice Assistance and International Association of Chiefs of Police both have policy resources local jurisdictions can use as starting points, though the IACP’s predates the modern ALPR environment. The IACP also has an ALPR resource hub.
In many places data retention periods are set by law. Where they’re not, departments must balance the investigatory benefits of longer retention intervals vs. the public appeal of shorter ones. Many states split the difference by allowing longer retention of data tied to investigations, but that still requires a timely initial linkage.
One of the most important things departments can do is to thoughtfully control how their data is shared. Many ALPR skeptics worry less about their local PDs than where else their data might go. Departments should disclose all other agencies and networks that will have access to it; require written agreements governing it; prohibit onward sharing; and disable broad “open network” access unless the jurisdiction has explicitly approved it.
ALPR systems should also keep humans in the loop and be audited regularly.
“People should be aware and educated on exactly what the technology is and does,” said Maloney. “Most of the negative stories have been the result of bad actors, not technology problems. Like any technology, we have to look at how we provide consequences to the people who use it inappropriately.”
What vendors can do
An interesting split is developing in the ALPR market. Some major players support national pooling of data. That lets users query data from the vendors’ opted-in networks in other states — a feature that’s obviously useful for law enforcement but may raise some public ire, as in the Texas/Washington case. Conversely, others emphasize local retention and control of ability to share.
In today’s atmosphere that may emerge as a distinguisher. It’s a key feature for Leonardo.
“I think the biggest hurdle people have is the notion of a national database and the control over their data an agency gives up once it’s in someone else’s server,” said Maloney. “While we encourage data sharing, we don’t have our agencies load their data up into any kind of pool. They keep it on their server or in controlled cloud storage and allow their partner agencies to access it — they retain 100% control.”
Too much commerce around that data may also not sit well. While most citizens likely understand sharing plate data for investigative purposes, some vendors sell their commercial data. Feeling like a product in this kind of arrangement may breed distaste for an otherwise-useful system.
Similarly, aggressive sales and deployment approaches that lead to broad or sudden deployments in communities may leave residents feeling steamrolled. That’s a place where local PDs should take the communications lead, but vendors can also earn support with a strong emphasis on local control and privacy protections.
“We don’t worry that there’s competition — we worry that it’s disrupting communities,” said Maloney. “Some of these practices are forcing city councils and state legislators to implement rules around how ALPR is used that we’ve never seen before. And that’s affecting everything from finding stolen vehicles to Amber Alerts and Silver Alerts. An investigation tool is being made less useful due to restraints on operational deployment of the technology.”
Nor do the downstream ripples necessarily stop with missing persons. ALPR increasingly powers functions like tolling, parking and access control. Washington’s law carved out some exemptions for such purposes; private hospitals aren’t affected by SB 6002, but public hospitals may wish to seek review if using ALPR for access and parking enforcement.
In the case of Washington’s law, basic geofencing technology like is used in smart parking may permit the restoration of mobile ALPR use. But for now that’s a manual process, with operators switching as they go. “The technology exists, but making it more automated needs some development,” Maloney said. It also relies on specific distances not defined under the Washington law.
Tools maximize local control
Leonardo’s ELSAG line of ALPR products has served American law enforcement for more than 20 years.
Its mobile option, the ELSAG Mobile Plate Hunter, is suitable for both vehicle mounting and temporary enforcement actions. It checks plate data against hot lists, wanted lists and active investigations and returns alerts nearly instantly. Data is managed through the ELSAG Enterprise Operations Center (EOC), which helps share intelligence, discern patterns and produce reports. Mobile Plate Hunter integrates fully with CAD, RMS and other law enforcement databases.
Fixed readers include the ELSAG Fixed Plate Hunter and solar-powered Street Sentry. Known for its accuracy, the Fixed Plate Hunter mounts along roadways to automatically collect data 24/7, digitally capturing data across multiple lanes and at speeds up to 120 miles an hour. It alerts in real time to command, officers on patrol and mobile devices. Alert data includes vehicle make, model and color; a plate image; GPS coordinates; and date and time stamps. All collected data can be stored for further analysis.
Installed in minutes and operational without grid power, the Street Sentry lets departments extend coverage quickly and easily. Without infrastructure costs, solar units are affordable to operate and easy to maintain. They can be easily moved as needed. Video Plate Hunter is an additional option for rapid expansion; it can extend ALPR capabilities to IP cameras jurisdictions already have.
All ELSAG LPR models feature advanced optical character recognition designed to operate in a range of weather and lighting conditions, as well as machine learning models trained on millions of plate images. Leonardo supplements them with 24/7 support, regulatory compatibility and a focus on data autonomy.
“We’ll help build the technology out and keep it functioning, but we really want to allow municipalities to decide what features are right for them,” said Maloney. “If they want to share data, we allow them to share data. If they don’t want to be forced into a big pool, they should have the ability to say no. It’s all about giving the agencies the utmost control.”
Proper implementation supports balance
Like so many law enforcement tools, ALPR carries tremendous value but a potential for headline-grabbing misuse. To avoid having its key capabilities lost or restricted, departments must craft and adhere to thoughtful policies that support not only their investigative imperatives but also the privacy rights of concerned citizens.
That requires flexibility baked into the product and discipline in how it’s used.
“At the end of the day, police work for the public — public tax dollars pay for law enforcement. So law enforcement needs to be aware of what concerns the citizenry has and make its case for how the tools it uses will keep them safer,” said Maloney. “It’s a balancing act — nobody’s getting 100% of what they want. But the last thing you want is a case where a crime could have been prevented or solved quickly, but the technology wasn’t there.
“If the technology can be implemented properly, it will make the community safer. But we have to build the regulations and guidelines around that so both sides of the equation feel comfortable in the deployment.”
Leonardo offers additional thoughts on this difficult balance here. For more information, visit Leonardo.
