San Diegans are increasingly uneasy about the implications of automated license plate recognition technology (ALPR) following its recent implementation in the city. The concern has heightened amidst fears that federal law enforcement could misuse the data, particularly against individuals based on political speech, immigration status, or reproductive health pursuits.
The ALPR systems capture photographs of license plates and convert them into a searchable database. Currently, the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) is the sole user of this database, which includes data collected from around 500 ALPRs installed across the city in late 2023, an initiative approved by the San Diego City Council to combat crime.
Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who represents District 9, expressed a dual understanding of the technology’s advantages and its potential risks. “I understand the benefits, that’s actually not super difficult to understand,” he stated, but added, “I also see significant risk in how the technology can be used, how the data can be used and what that means for San Diegans.”
Since the ALPR’s launch, which recorded an initial cost of approximately $3.5 million in installation and usage fees, the SDPD has utilized the technology in 454 instances to assist in locating missing persons and apprehending suspects in hate crimes.
Despite the apparent benefits, many residents question whether the advantages outweigh the privacy concerns and financial expenditures associated with the technology. The ALPR’s ongoing operating costs are nearly $2 million annually, a hefty sum particularly amid budget cuts affecting other community services such as libraries and parks. Alarmingly, the ALPR funding remained unaffected despite rising community opposition regarding its safety and oversight.
During a budget meeting on June 10, as the City Council approached a budget finalization for fiscal year 2026, skepticism about ALPRs was prevalent among several council members. Stephen Whitburn, representing District 3, shared his evolving viewpoint on the technology, acknowledging his previous support, but raising concerns about the changing political dynamics. “It seems within the realm of possibility that this (federal) administration would try to force the city of San Diego to share ALPR data,” he remarked, expressing worry that it could be used for purposes many would oppose.
The City Council’s decision comes at a time when reports indicate an uptick in raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, intensifying fears about possible federal access to San Diego’s sensitive data.
While California law, including Senate Bill 34 enacted in 2016, generally restricts sharing ALPR data with federal, out-of-state, or private entities, recent revelations highlighted that some data sharing has occurred. According to the SDPD’s 2024 annual surveillance report, data was shared four times with Homeland Security Investigations and six times with Customs and Border Protection, all of which were not related to immigration. SDPD Capt. Charles Lara emphasized that the policies have since been refined to halt all data sharing with federal and out-of-state entities, putting a firmer restriction in place.
Despite these measures, privacy advocates remain concerned about the potential vulnerabilities that could allow external entities to exploit the data access. Elo-Rivera articulated a balanced view, asserting that while trust exists in the SDPD’s adherence to data sharing protocols, uncertainty remains about the integrity of federal agencies involved in joint operations. “We can fully trust San Diego Police Department to abide by the policies the city has about not sharing information,” he pointed out. “But what we don’t have any control over is whether or not the federal law enforcement agency that is in that task force is being honest.”
Moreover, past incidents in other jurisdictions underscore the possible misuse of ALPR data. In one noted case in Kansas, a police chief inappropriately tracked an ex-girlfriend using ALPR technology. New Jersey’s recent auditing of law enforcement agencies also uncovered unauthorized sharing of ALPR login information, indicating troubling patterns in data usage among officers.
The ALPR debate further intensifies under the umbrella of the Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance in San Diego. This law mandates regular reviews of surveillance technologies and their applications, yet the Privacy Advisory Board had previously recommended against employing ALPRs, a suggestion the City Council did not hew to.
Going forward, the council is set to evaluate whether to renew its contract with Flock, the company providing the ALPR database for the SDPD. Flock allows various law enforcement agencies to access data based on their respective privacy configurations.
Sarah Hamid, Associate Director of Activism for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, stressed that if the contract with Flock is renewed, the city must thoroughly scrutinize the consequences, including privacy violations, and address community demands for greater oversight and possibly the removal of the cameras altogether.
Meanwhile, Lara recognizes the limitations and potential public safety compromises of ceasing the use of ALPRs entirely, elaborating that manual plate checks might not be feasible due to staffing constraints. However, he indicated openness to negotiating other recommendations proposed by advocates, such as reducing the data retention period, albeit he expressed skepticism about the practicality of limiting it to 24 hours.
Concern also lingers around the nature of multiple-affiliated officers who might exploit their access to ALPR data. This includes officers working alongside federal task forces or private entities, engendering fears that requests framed under legitimate premises might be misused for immigration enforcement or unwarranted scrutiny of reproductive health investigations.
Ultimately, trust in the authority’s integrity and the technology’s management falls short when considering the possible “what-ifs” surrounding access and use of the data. “We don’t know how it’s being used, and that lack of guarantee over how it’s being used means that it could be used in any number of harmful ways that we wouldn’t even be aware of,” emphasized Seth Hall from San Diego Privacy, reflecting a common worry among constituents.
As the San Diego City Council prepares for its next steps regarding ALPRs, the crux of the discussion remains the delicate balance between public safety and safeguarding civil liberties. The pivotal question emerges: can the city enhance security without infringing upon the privacy rights of its residents?
image source from：timesofsandiego
