“We need one solution to integrate body cameras, in-car cameras and LPRs.”
That quote from the “What Cops Want in 2025" survey captures a recurring frustration shared by officers across the country: managing multiple disconnected systems on the street. Specifically, many pointed to one key area in need of improvement — they want license plate recognition (LPR) systems to sync automatically with their video platforms, especially body-worn and in-car cameras.
Instead, officers described a tech environment where critical tools operate in silos — meaning the systems function independently without sharing data. LPR alerts don’t trigger video. Videos aren’t linked to LPR hits. And officers are left to mentally connect the dots while handling traffic stops, high-risk calls or follow-up investigations.
Let’s take a closer look at what officers are saying — and what this integration could mean for safety, awareness and efficiency in the field.
What officers are saying
Officers didn’t just say their technology systems need to improve — they pinpointed where the disconnect is. For many, the issue isn’t with the individual tools, but with how poorly those tools work together.
Only 5% of respondents strongly agreed that their systems are well-integrated. Another 28% agreed, while 36% were neutral — and 31% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Their comments echoed a shared concern: LPR data and video footage aren’t being captured, synced or accessed together in the moments that matter most.
Officers didn’t specify whether they meant in-field use or post-incident review, but based on the platforms mentioned — including LPR, in-car video and body-worn cameras — their concerns appear to reflect frustration with how these systems operate side by side during daily use. Their comments reflect a common experience: doing more work to connect systems that should already be working together. Here’s how that frustration plays out on the street:
Disconnected systems, delayed response
Officers described a familiar challenge: getting an LPR hit, but having no way to automatically pair that alert with camera footage. Without integration, they’re left toggling between systems — trying to flag, sync or recover key evidence manually while handling a traffic stop or call.
One officer noted their department requires “multiple logins and manual syncing just to get video and LPR in the same place.” Another pointed to the gap directly, calling for “integration of LPR into video for both in-car and body cameras.”
For many, these aren’t feature requests — they’re workarounds to compensate for tools that don’t talk to each other.
Automation isn’t extra — it’s expected
Officers aren’t asking for more bells and whistles. What they want is a system that reduces friction and supports fast, clear decision-making in the field. Several described an ideal setup where an LPR hit automatically triggers video, timestamps the footage and connects it to the call log — no extra steps required.
One officer wrote, “A system that will automatically match a plate with a hit and the camera footage at the same time.” Another said, “It would be great if LPR data could automatically flag footage or overlay with call history.”
Some officers also asked for smarter backend workflows — specifically, for video clips related to LPR events to upload automatically into their agency’s digital evidence management system. Currently, this process can take multiple manual steps, requiring officers or support staff to retrieve, convert and transfer clips into a central repository. Removing that friction would not only save time but reduce the risk of missing or misfiling key evidence.
Officers noted this is especially frustrating when working with multiple vendors whose systems don’t allow integration — often because they don’t share APIs or build open functionality. The result is a fragmented evidence process where video tied to LPR or dashcam events must be located in one system, downloaded and manually added to another.
In contrast, body-worn camera footage often uploads automatically. Several officers said they’d like to see that same seamless functionality extended to other platforms — particularly those generating video from LPR or in-car cameras — so all critical footage lands in the same evidence repository without added steps.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about chasing the newest tech — it’s about making the existing tools smarter, safer and more usable.
When systems don’t sync, officers pay the price
Without integration, several officers noted that important footage can be lost, misfiled or missed altogether — especially during high-stress incidents.
“We have to go into three systems to find what should already be linked,” one officer wrote. Another put it more bluntly: “ALPR hits don’t trigger our cameras — we’re relying on memory or luck.”
Moreover, officers who receive real-time LPR hits from crime centers or alerts directly said they’re often told not to dispatch yet — to wait while the system verifies the plate. The high error rate of some systems means this vetting is essential before any action is taken. But without integration between LPR and video platforms, there’s no easy way to ensure that early moments are captured or linked automatically.
For agencies focused on improving safety, transparency and efficiency, officers say the fix isn’t more hardware — it’s smarter, connected systems.
Zoom in
Here are four achievable actions departments can take now to address the specific integration gap between LPR and video platforms:
1. Prioritize vendor interoperability during every upgrade
Why this matters: Many departments have assembled their tech stacks over time — a camera system here, an LPR platform there — without considering how well these tools will work together. Officers on patrol are the ones who feel the impact when systems don’t sync in real time or create more steps than solutions.
What departments can do: Don’t assume compatibility. Ask vendors directly: Will this LPR platform trigger our in-car video? Can we search bodycam footage using plate data? Require demonstrations — not just promises — of how video and LPR systems communicate. Integration should be treated as a core feature, not a bonus.
| GUIDE DOWNLOAD: How to buy license plate readers
2. Configure LPR hits to automatically trigger or tag video
Why this matters: If an LPR alert doesn’t trigger a recording or flag a clip, officers are left juggling technology while conducting a potentially high-risk stop. That split-second distraction adds risk and critical footage may be lost if video isn’t activated.
LPR hits also often require manual verification before dispatch or response. Officers noted that these alerts can produce false positives — like mistaking an “8” for a “B.” In agencies without a real-time crime center, officers often have to pull over, find a safe place and log into multiple systems just to vet the hit before continuing. Integration that bookmarks video at the time of the alert — even if no action is taken immediately — ensures that footage is preserved and easy to retrieve later.
What departments can do: Work with your vendor or IT team to create rule-based automations: when an LPR hit occurs, body-worn and in-car video should start recording (or bookmark an ongoing recording). Tie footage to the plate hit, timestamp it, and link it back to the CAD record or incident number for seamless retrieval.
| GUIDE DOWNLOAD: How to buy in-car camera systems
3. Include officers in procurement and field testing
Why this matters: Survey responses made it clear: officers want tools that support their workflow — not just check a box. Several noted that tech is often selected without input from the people who will actually use it under pressure.
One officer noted that “80% of our technology is picked by someone who’s never actually used it,” which leads to features that sound good on paper but don’t hold up in practice.
What departments can do: Form a cross-functional evaluation group that includes patrol officers, supervisors, dispatchers and IT. Have frontline users test integrations during live scenarios or mock stops. Ask what works, what’s clunky and what would actually make them more efficient. Their insights should drive your tech decisions — not follow them.
4. Train officers to use technology as a connected system
Why this matters: Even the best integration means little if officers are trained to operate systems in isolation. Several respondents suggested they didn’t know whether their systems could sync or how to take advantage of those features on the street.
What departments can do: Incorporate LPR-video integration into scenario-based training. Teach officers how to confirm an LPR hit, review synced footage and connect data to a case — all while managing the real demands of a call. Repetition and familiarity are key to making integrated systems work under stress.
| GUIDE DOWNLOAD: How to buy body-worn cameras
Zoom out
The benefits of fixing the LPR-video gap go far beyond the individual officer experience. While frontline feedback clearly outlines where improvements are needed, the ripple effect of better integration reaches every part of an agency — from real-time supervision to investigations and long-term tech planning.
Here’s what departments stand to gain when systems don’t just function — they function together:
1. Real-time support becomes a reality
What it looks like: When LPR data links automatically to video, dispatchers and supervisors can access footage in real time — providing critical support during high-risk stops. Instead of asking, “Is your camera on?” or “Did you get that plate?” they’re already reviewing what matters.
2. Investigations start stronger and move faster
What it looks like: LPR hits that are automatically tied to case numbers and time-stamped footage create a clean chain of evidence. Investigators don’t have to cross-reference multiple systems or hunt down footage. The result: faster follow-ups, fewer gaps and stronger cases.
3. Tech investment becomes a force multiplier
What it looks like: When agencies get integration right in one area — like LPR and video — it builds a roadmap for future upgrades. Officers gain confidence in the tools. IT teams can streamline maintenance. And departments avoid the cycle of buying new tech that doesn’t play well with the old.
The bottom line
Officers aren’t overwhelmed by too much technology — they’re overwhelmed by technology that doesn’t connect.
When systems don’t talk to each other, the burden shifts to the person in the driver’s seat. Officers are left toggling between platforms, trying to capture key moments, flag footage and make sure nothing gets missed — all while managing the risk in front of them.
Whether the use case is patrol-based or post-incident review, officers are asking for smarter automation — from recording triggers to upload workflows — to reduce the burden of stitching systems together manually. They want tools that work like they do: together, not against each other.
So the question is: Are your tools working together — or are your officers still doing the stitching?
