 |
| Tim Lee |
Public concern over high crime rates remains at elevated levels, with 2024 public opinion polls revealing over 70% of Americans are concerned about crime in their communities.[1] And yet, crimes remain difficult to solve, and victims are often left without answers or justice. In fact, the FBI estimated in 2019 that only 17% of property crimes and 45% of violent crimes are ever solved.[2]
To address that concern, local authorities are using new technologies that can aid law enforcement agencies in collecting objective evidence that helps them find suspects and solve more crimes.
License plate recognition, or LPR, technology offers a promising and effective tool that law enforcement, businesses and homeowner associations can add to ensure public safety.[3] These cameras are placed on roads to capture still images of passing vehicles. These images are then used by law enforcement, only in active criminal investigations, to identify suspects or reported vehicles.
However, LPR technology has also been the source of public debate, and the laws surrounding its use are often misconstrued. Just like many new innovative technologies, LPR faces skepticism.
Misplaced privacy concerns have led to proposed laws aiming to ban the use of license plate readers. For example, California is considering a bill that would effectively ban private use of LPR.[4] This would be hugely detrimental to law enforcement's ability to solve crimes since it often partners with the private businesses that have installed these cameras.
Imagine, for example, a case in which a child is abducted from a mall parking lot. If the mall were banned from installing these kinds of security measures, police would not have access to essential information related to this crime and would have a much harder time rescuing the child. These bills can result in real harm, depriving law enforcement of a vital tool that protects communities.
According to a 2019 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, at least two-thirds of metropolitan police agencies were using LPR.[5] That represents a more than threefold increase in LPR acquisition in the last decade. Police agencies acquire LPR technology because it helps solve crimes, including by helping recover missing children, gather objective evidence, combat drug trafficking and apprehend fleeing suspects.
For that same reason, the law enforcement community remains outspoken on the benefits of LPR technology. As just one example, Police Chief Eric Rush of Trussville, Alabama, stated in 2022 that LPR technology was "worth its weight in gold."[6] Tulsa's police chief also said in 2022 that adopting LPR cameras was "like flipping the light switch on" after operating in the dark.[7]
When asked by reporters in 2024 if LPR solves crimes, Virginia Beach Police Chief Paul Neudigate said, "Unequivocally, 100% yes," and that there were "24 examples of crimes that we have solved recently or [where LPR] led to significant investigative updates because of those [LPR] cameras in just the past probably six weeks."[8]
Meanwhile, opponents of LPR technology criticize its use on Fourth Amendment unreasonable search-and-seizure grounds, claiming that this technology violates citizens' right to privacy.[9] However, a review of legal precedent demonstrates that these privacy concerns are unfounded.
To begin with, parts of automobiles knowingly exposed to the public — like license plates, which are the basis of LPR data — create no reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment privacy protection. That finding is confirmed by numerous decisions:
- In its 1974 decision Cardwell vs. Lewis, the U.S. Supreme Court established that visible parts of automobile exteriors, such as license plates, create no reasonable Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy.[10]
- In its 2020 decision in Massachusetts v. McCarthy, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the limited and targeted use of LPR data does not infringe upon privacy rights.[11]
Additionally, even cases recognizing some limits on surveillance expressly exclude the circumstances central to LPR technology.
For instance, in its 2012 decision in U.S. v. Jones, the Supreme Court recognized that actual physical intrusion or long-term monitoring may require a warrant in order to safeguard Fourth Amendment protections.[12] Short-term, nonphysical monitoring of the sort used by license plate readers does not violate constitutional privacy protections.
And in its 2018 decision in Carpenter v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruling prohibited government acquisition of ongoing and significant cell phone data without a warrant because of cell phones' inherently private nature.[13] On the other hand, conventional surveillance techniques like cameras in public places do not violate this precedent.
U.S. v. Yang, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2020, is the most relevant case of all, specifically allowing the use of LPR data because, the court held, data collected from public roadways where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists does not violate the Fourth Amendment.[14]
In other words, LPR technology falls squarely within constitutional privacy parameters.
That said, states still have a role to play in ensuring that protections keep up with technological advancement. For instance, states can add clarity regarding proper permitting of LPR providers on state roads, as well as the length of time that data is kept.
Rather than calling for bans on this technology, policymakers should focus on implementing clear, responsible guidelines.[15] That means establishing uniform data retention policies, such as preserving material for 30 days; ensuring information is used only for active law enforcement investigations by requiring officers to provide a case number to access any LPR data; and increasing public education on the applications and limits of the technology.
In the end, society need not choose between safety and liberty. LPR technology allows us to protect both.
Indeed, a sense of security is intrinsic to liberty, since people cannot fully exercise their rights if they don't feel safe in their own neighborhoods. In pursuit of that balanced goal, LPR cameras provide law enforcement a critical tool to locate criminal suspects and bring justice to victims, while respecting constitutional rights.
Lawmakers must therefore disregard alarmist myths and capitalize upon the proven benefits of LPR on behalf of the communities they serve.
Tim Lee is the senior vice president of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] https://irp.cdn-website.com/47fdcd9f/files/uploaded/CRIME_CHANNEL_NATIONWIDE_SURVEY_REPORT_2024.pdf.
[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/clearances#:~:text=Overview,6.2.5.
[3] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48160.
[4] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1355.
[5] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rapid-diffusion-license-plate-readers-us-law-enforcement-agencies.
[6] https://cahabasun.com/community/worth-its-weight-in-gold-flock-safety-proven-instrumental-for-trusville-pd/.
[7] https://www.newson6.com/story/62feb9cf5e0a39072981687a/tulsa-police-chief-mayor-bynum-praise-cameras-in-recovering-stolen-property.
[8] https://www.wtkr.com/news/in-the-community/virginia-beach/virginia-beach-adds-license-plate-reading-cameras-some-call-for-restrictions.
[9] https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/hands-off-my-license-plate-the-case-for-applying-4th-amendment-protections-to-license-plate-numbers/.
[10] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/583/.
[11] https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2020/sjc-12750.html.
[12] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1259.
[13] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf.
[14] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-10341/18-10341-2020-05-04.html.
[15] https://www.newson6.com/story/67775af1e5996642be8017f8/oklahoma-lawmaker-raises-concerns-over-license-plate-reading-cameras.