License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison

License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison

See the state comparison · Explore the cited laws

License plate reader laws vary sharply by state. As of October 1, 2026, this comparison identifies ALPR-specific statutes in 26 states, while separately identifying limited or incidental rules, including the District of Columbia's rulemaking directive, and states where a completed search located no ALPR-specific statute. Each state and Washington, D.C. has its own linked section, and each section links that state's surveillance-camera guide. For the vendor most local deployments involve, see Are Flock cameras legal?.

Classifications and sections were checked against each published state guide on September 30, 2026. Every state and the District of Columbia now has a published guide. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article compares statutes and enacted acts for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It does not classify local ordinances or agency policies, and it does not turn an incomplete or blocked source search into a claim that no law exists. See the ALPR laws hub for technology and constitutional background.

How this comparison counts state ALPR laws

The count uses a deliberately narrow method. A jurisdiction enters the group of 26 states only when current official statutory text or an official session law specifically regulates ALPR operation, data, access, retention, sharing, or oversight. A narrow law, such as Indiana's homeowners-association rule or Oklahoma's uninsured-vehicle program statute, still counts as ALPR-specific, but its limited scope is stated. Connecticut entered the count on October 1, 2026, when the principal limits of Public Act 26-14 took effect. The District of Columbia sits outside it because D.C. Code § 50-2443 directs the Mayor to issue rules for parking and moving-violation systems rather than setting limits itself.

Nine jurisdictions have only limited or incidental provisions in the material verified here: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas. Sixteen states carry the label no ALPR-specific statute located: the search described in that state's section found no ALPR-specific statute. Those searches differ in scope. Some cover the whole code; others cover the titles, chapters, or official indexes where an ALPR law would sit, and each section says which. Mississippi's compiled code could not be opened from an official source, so its finding rests on the Legislature's official measure lists and bill files, as its section explains. None of those labels means the jurisdiction has no ALPR law. They describe the research record and leave room for local ordinances, agency policies, public-records statutes, privacy laws, contract terms, and constitutional requirements that this statewide statutory comparison does not classify.

Directory: Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · District of Columbia · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming

State-by-state license plate reader law table

The table below covers 9 states in the Northeast.

The table below covers 12 states in the Midwest.

The table below covers 16 states in the South, plus the District of Columbia.

The table below covers 13 states in the West.

The table is a navigation and comparison tool. The sections below give the scope needed to avoid reading a narrow rule as a complete state privacy code. A stated retention period can also have investigation, evidence, court-order, parking, traffic-study, or commercial-vehicle exceptions.

All 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Alabama

Detailed guide: Alabama license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. Alabama has no dedicated ALPR statute, and the statute that comes closest is an information-systems mandate. Code of Ala. § 41-9-621, as amended by Act 2019-495, directs the Alabama Justice Information Commission to maintain systems supporting the collection and dissemination of criminal justice information and other public-safety data, “including data from license plate readers, biometrics and geospatial information,” and provides that the information in those systems “is privileged, not public record, and subject to the same criminal penalties for misuse as provided in Sections 41-9-601 and 41-9-602.”

The operating rules sit one level down, in the Commission's own regulations. Administrative Code chapter 265-X-6, License Plate Recognition Systems for Law Enforcement, effective March 17, 2022, limits collection to a criminal justice or public safety purpose and requires a capturing agency to move data to a secure repository “within 24 hours of the collection.” LPR data “shall not be shared with any entity for a non-criminal justice or non-public safety purpose” and “shall not be sold to any entity for any reason.” Agencies keep access and dissemination logs, and both the data and the access log “shall be retained for no more than five years, at which time it will be destroyed or erased,” unless an active investigation or pending case applies. ALEA's CJIS Division audits “all capturing agencies at least once every three years,” noncompliance that persists 90 days after notice suspends the agency's access to ALEA's LPR systems, and each agency must “adopt and publicize a written policy governing its use prior to capturing or using any LPR data.”

Because the detailed rules are administrative rather than statutory, the Commission can revise them without legislation, and they bind law enforcement agencies rather than private operators.

Retention: Five years under Administrative Code rule 265-X-6-.06, set by rule rather than statute, with an active-investigation exception.

The wider camera and recording rules that apply in Alabama sit outside this comparison; they are covered in our Alabama surveillance camera laws guide.

Alaska

Detailed guide: Alaska license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. On September 30, 2026, every title of the Alaska Statutes was downloaded from the Legislature's statute service and titles 1 to 47 were searched for license plate reader, plate reader, license plate recognition, automated license plate, automatic license plate, and automated plate. None of those phrases appears in any section, while a control search for license plate and registration plate did return registration and plate-display provisions, so the search reached the text it was meant to reach. No statute located sets retention, permitted use, sharing, or audit rules for plate readers. The general rules that could apply are the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution and the Public Records Act, neither of which mentions plate readers, so specific limits would appear in an agency's own written policy.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Alaska, see our Alaska surveillance camera laws guide.

Arizona

Detailed guide: Arizona license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. The only Arizona statute verified here that names plate-reading technology is in the toll-collection article. A.R.S. § 28-7751(3) defines electronic transaction and payment technology as “a system for recording and paying a toll electronically, including using a transponder, a reader system, automatic vehicle license plate recognition technology, a global positioning system or any other electronic means.” That authorizes a payment method. It says nothing about retention, permitted use, sharing, or audits of police plate data. The one Arizona statute found that regulates data from this kind of camera is narrow: A.R.S. § 44-7953, added by Laws 2026, chapter 232 (SB 1552), requires a contract between a law enforcement agency and “a business that uses a camera system that has the sole purpose of identifying motor vehicles” to prohibit the business “from selling or disseminating to third parties any data collected by the camera system.” It sets no retention period, no limit on how the agency itself may use the data, and no penalty.

A general ALPR article was proposed rather than enacted. The official Senate Fact Sheet for S.B. 1111 of the 2026 session describes a bill that would outline “official law enforcement purposes for which a law enforcement agency may use automated license plate readers and requirements relating to automated license plate reader use, training and data management.” The statutory index for Title 28 shows no article on license plate readers in Chapter 3 on September 14, 2026, and the section number the proposal would have used returns no text.

Retention: No ALPR retention period; the tolling definition sets none.

Arizona's general rules on cameras and recording are set out in our Arizona surveillance camera laws guide.

Arkansas

Detailed guide: Arkansas license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Ark. Code §§ 12-12-1801 to -1808, as amended by Act 668 (2025). The statute makes ALPR use unlawful for anyone, public or private, except for listed uses, and controls sharing, policies, and reporting. Government entities may not sell, trade, or exchange the data. Act 668 created separate 60-day and 150-day limits and permits investigation retention until the matter concludes. A person injured by a violation may sue for actual damages or $1,000 in liquidated damages, whichever is greater, and Act 668 added Attorney General enforcement under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Retention: 60 days for covered private landowners, leaseholders, and businesses; 150 days for other eligible entities, with an investigation exception.

Anyone reading this alongside Arkansas's fixed-camera and consent rules can use our Arkansas surveillance camera laws guide.

California

Detailed guide: California license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.90.5 to 1798.90.55. Covered operators and end users must adopt privacy and security safeguards, state authorized purposes, log access, and conduct periodic audits. A California public agency may transfer ALPR information only to another public agency and only as permitted by law.

Retention: No fixed statewide default; the public policy must state retention and destruction practices. The California Highway Patrol alone is capped at 60 days under Vehicle Code § 2413, except for data used as evidence or in felony investigations.

The wider camera and recording rules that apply in California sit outside this comparison; they are covered in our California surveillance camera laws guide.

Colorado

Detailed guide: Colorado license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. Colorado has no statute written for license plate readers. The only provision naming them is a definitional carve-out: C.R.S. § 42-4-110.5(1.1)(a)(III), added by SB 26-152 effective August 12, 2026, says “‘Automated vehicle identification system’ does not include automated license plate reader systems.” Separately, C.R.S. § 24-74-103 bars state and local government employees from disclosing or making accessible, including through a database, non-public personal identifying information, which the article defines to include a license plate number, to assist federal immigration enforcement except as federal or state law or a court-issued subpoena, warrant, or order requires, and § 24-74-107 sets a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per intentional violation. C.R.S. § 24-72-113, “Limit on retention of passive surveillance records”, limits access to government passive surveillance records after one year and requires their destruction after three unless the section authorizes retention, but it does not mention plate readers, and no official source was found confirming that it governs them. The official pages for SB 26-070 and SB 26-071, which would have created a dedicated ALPR statute, show final status “Lost,” so those proposals never became law.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Colorado, see our Colorado surveillance camera laws guide.

Connecticut

Detailed guide: Connecticut license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Connecticut Public Act 26-14, §§ 13-15, approved May 4, 2026, applies its principal operational restrictions on and after October 1, 2026; its vendor-contract rules applied from passage. Those provisions establish a 21-day default, enumerated uses, prohibited uses including immigration enforcement, recipient controls, warrant requirements for many outside requests, logs, quarterly audits, public policies, reporting, vendor controls, and enforcement. Public Act 26-76, § 46, approved May 27, 2026, removed the vendor-contract ban on storing one agency's plate reader data together with plate reader data held under contracts with other agencies or persons. The October 1 date still matters when evaluating earlier conduct.

Connecticut's general rules on cameras and recording are set out in our Connecticut surveillance camera laws guide.

Delaware

Detailed guide: Delaware license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. All 31 titles of the Delaware Code were downloaded from the official code site and searched on September 14, 2026 for license plate reader, license plate recognition, automated license plate, and automatic license plate. There was no match in any title, while a control search for license plate returned 214 matches in the motor vehicle title alone, so the search reached the text it was meant to reach.

The nearest provision protects plate images instead of regulating the readers. 21 Del. C. § 2126(e) makes it unlawful “to sell, offer to sell, transfer, possess or use any kind of device, product, plate cover, or object, including any image altering device or spray, for the purpose of hindering, inhibiting, impeding, impairing, or preventing the photographing, recording or imaging of a license plate in connection with the enforcement of this motor vehicle code or any local or municipal traffic laws,” with a first-offense fine of “not less than $50 nor more than $1,000.” Nothing found in the search addressed retention, permitted use, sharing, or audits, so a Delaware agency's own written policy and a municipal ordinance are where those limits would live.

Retention: No ALPR retention statute found in the Delaware Code.

Anyone reading this alongside Delaware's fixed-camera and consent rules can use our Delaware surveillance camera laws guide.

District of Columbia

Detailed guide: District of Columbia license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. D.C. Code § 50-2443, License plate recognition systems; usage and privacy, created by D.C. Law 25-325 on May 2, 2025, requires the Mayor, within one year after the section's applicability date, to issue rules that put every District agency using LPRS for parking or moving-violation enforcement on the same database, “Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect LPRS information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure,” and “Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of LPRS information is consistent with respect to individuals' privacy and civil liberties.” Section 50-2431(8) defines an LPRS as a device “capable of recording data on, or taking a photograph of, a vehicle or its vehicle identification tag and comparing the collected data and photographs to existing databases for investigative and enforcement purposes.”

Two features limit what this does. The section's creation was “subject to the inclusion of the law's fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan,” and the Law Library still carries a note concluding, on that basis, that “that amendment has not been implemented.” A later act removed the condition: section 2 of D.C. Law 26-120, effective May 21, 2026, amended section 401(a) of Law 25-325 by striking the phrase “Sections 113, 114(b) and 201(c)(2) shall apply” and inserting “Section 201(c)(2) shall apply” in its place, which is why the Law Library's current note reads that “the creation of this section by §113 of Law 25-325 has been implemented.” That correction is a temporary act that “shall expire after 225 days of its having taken effect,” or about January 1, 2027. Section 5 of D.C. Act 26-344 makes the same change permanent, and the Law Library projects that act to take effect on December 8, 2026, after congressional review. The duty also runs to the Mayor's rulemaking rather than setting limits directly, and it sits in the parking-enforcement chapter, so it does not speak to all police ALPR use in the District; that is why this comparison lists the District with limited provisions. The operating rules for police readers come from the Metropolitan Police Department's General Order GO-OPS-303.09, effective April 30, 2026, which limits stored LPR information to 90 days; it is department policy, not a statute.

Retention: No statutory period; retention would come from the Mayor's rules, and MPD's General Order sets a 90-day limit as department policy.

The District's broader camera and recording rules sit outside this comparison; they are covered in our District of Columbia surveillance camera laws guide.

Florida

Detailed guide: Florida license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Fla. Stat. § 316.0777 addresses installation in state-highway rights-of-way. Data may be used for active criminal intelligence or an active criminal investigation, not to issue a notice of violation or a traffic citation, and the records are confidential and exempt from public-records disclosure subject to listed exceptions. Fla. Stat. § 316.0778 separately directs the Department of State, in consultation with the Department of Law Enforcement, to set a retention schedule establishing the maximum period the records may be kept. On August 31, 2026, FDOT Engineering and Operations Memorandum No. 26-01 revoked every LPR approval FDOT had issued to local law enforcement agencies for State Highway System rights-of-way, required removal within 30 days, and said FDOT would cease issuing future LPR approvals. The memo covers readers in state highway rights-of-way.

Retention: Maximum period set through the Department of State records schedule.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Florida, see our Florida surveillance camera laws guide.

Georgia

Detailed guide: Georgia license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. O.C.G.A. § 35-1-22, added by HB 79 (Act 452, effective July 1, 2018), lets law enforcement agencies collect captured plate data, requires it to be stored immediately, and bars access except for a law enforcement purpose, defined as the investigation of an offense or activity initiated by a law enforcement agency. Agencies may share the data with other law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes, must maintain policies for use and training, and may contract with a vendor that is then subject to the agency's policies. Knowingly obtaining or using an agency's plate data under false pretenses or for a non-law-enforcement purpose is a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, and captured plate data is not subject to public disclosure under the Open Records Act. The section lists no approved uses and sets no audit, public reporting, or warrant requirement. The official code site opens a full section only after a Captcha, so the text was read from HB 79 as passed and the current-code excerpts the site displays; SB 153, the 2025 code revision act, changed the section only by replacing Department of Public Safety with department each time the term appears.

Retention: 30 months, with toll and law-enforcement-purpose exceptions.

Georgia's general rules on cameras and recording are set out in our Georgia surveillance camera laws guide.

Hawaii

Detailed guide: Hawaii license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 291J-5.5 and 291L-4.5. These provisions supply an ALPR-related exception within facial-recognition restrictions. They do not create a general statewide code for ALPR collection, retention, sharing, or audits. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.

Anyone reading this alongside Hawaii's fixed-camera and consent rules can use our Hawaii surveillance camera laws guide.

Idaho

Detailed guide: Idaho license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Idaho Code § 49-1432. The section limits access to authorized personnel for listed crime, accident, missing-person, and traffic-flow purposes. It bars unrelated surveillance and non-law-enforcement use, and requires secure query logs, training, and semiannual access-log audits.

Retention: No fixed period stated in this section.

The wider camera and recording rules that apply in Idaho sit outside this comparison; they are covered in our Idaho surveillance camera laws guide.

Illinois

Detailed guide: Illinois license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. 625 ILCS 5/2-130. The current text bars specified sales, sharing, access, and transfers for reproductive-health-care and immigration-status investigations or enforcement. Out-of-state police sharing requires a written declaration. The opened text does not contain the 90-day retention or 90-day audit rules sometimes attributed to it.

A narrower program statute also reaches plate images. Under the Expressway Camera Act, 605 ILCS 140/5, images from state-operated and Illinois Tollway expressway cameras, “including, but not limited to, images of license plates,” may be used by law enforcement for listed offenses, including vehicular hijacking, motor vehicle theft, terrorism, and forcible felonies, and for highway safety. Images exported through a law enforcement database “shall be deleted from that law enforcement database within 120 days, unless the images are relevant to an ongoing investigation or pending criminal trial.” The section is scheduled to be repealed on July 1, 2028.

Retention: No numeric default in 625 ILCS 5/2-130; the Expressway Camera Act requires expressway camera images exported through a law enforcement database to be deleted from that database within 120 days, with investigation and trial exceptions.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Illinois, see our Illinois surveillance camera laws guide.

Indiana

Detailed guide: Indiana license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Ind. Code §§ 32-25.5-3.8-2 to -4, added by House Enrolled Act 1150 (2026), Public Law 26-2026, signed February 24, 2026, is a narrow homeowners-association rule. An HOA may not install, maintain, or operate an ALPR, and may allow one on its property only if it is installed by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency, only a law enforcement agency has access to the data and images, and the HOA has none. The definition excludes a security camera that may incidentally capture a plate, and the four-section chapter sets no retention period, audit rule, or penalty. It is not a statewide police data code: a search of the full 2026 Indiana Code found no other provision mentioning plate readers, so police practice rests on agency policy, such as Indiana State Police procedure ENF-017, which in its posted 2015 version purges non-investigative plate data after 30 days unless a written request is made.

Retention: No statutory period; the HOA-specific chapter sets none, and the Indiana State Police procedure as posted (2015) purges non-investigative data after 30 days unless a written request is made.

Indiana's general rules on cameras and recording are set out in our Indiana surveillance camera laws guide.

Iowa

Detailed guide: Iowa license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Iowa Code § 321P.4, added by 2024 Acts, ch. 1181, § 4, is one of the few ALPR rules that binds whoever runs the camera rather than only the police. The operator of a plate reader or any associated storage device “shall permanently delete from the plate reader and storage device, as applicable, every image of a vehicle registration plate captured by the plate reader, and any other accompanying data, no later than thirty days after the image was captured.”

Before that deadline a law enforcement agency may copy and store an image “if the image and data are relevant to an ongoing criminal case or investigation,” must then hold it “in accordance with the agency's evidence retention policies,” and those copies are expressly outside the 30-day rule. The definition reaches “a camera or other optical device designed or programmed to automatically detect a vehicle's registration plate,” which covers private as well as government cameras, and a person who violates the deletion duty “commits a simple misdemeanor.” The section does not enumerate permitted uses, restrict sharing, or require audits, so those questions fall to other law.

Retention: 30 days for every captured image, with copies tied to an ongoing criminal case or investigation kept under agency evidence policy.

Anyone reading this alongside Iowa's fixed-camera and consent rules can use our Iowa surveillance camera laws guide.

Kansas

Detailed guide: Kansas license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. Kan. Stat. §§ 45-217, 45-220, and 45-221. The verified provisions concern public records. They do not establish a general statewide ALPR collection, retention, use, or sharing framework. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.

The wider camera and recording rules that apply in Kansas sit outside this comparison; they are covered in our Kansas surveillance camera laws guide.

Kentucky

Detailed guide: Kentucky license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.632. The current official text makes it unlawful for an individual, entity, partnership, corporation, or association, or for the Commonwealth, its agencies, and political subdivisions, to use an ALPR except as the section provides, so private operators are covered. It permits deployment only for regulating parking, controlling access to secured areas, and promoting public safety, deterring crime, and addressing auto theft, plus listed law-enforcement, commercial-vehicle, toll, and revenue uses. It regulates sharing and requires a law-enforcement policy with an audit process every 90 days. Insurance and finance applications on or after January 1, 2027 receive the specified potential-use notice. The section was created by 2026 Ky. Acts ch. 71 (HB 58) and took effect July 15, 2026; under KRS 189.990(33), a violation can bring a fine of $20 to $2,000, up to one year in county jail, or both.

Retention: 90 days by default, subject to enumerated exceptions.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Kentucky, see our Kentucky surveillance camera laws guide.

Louisiana

Detailed guide: Louisiana license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. Louisiana protects the cameras without regulating the data. La. R.S. 14:57.1, added by Acts 2024, No. 343, makes it a crime to vandalize, tamper with, or destroy a crime camera system, and defines that system to include “any camera or license plate reader erected or installed for the purpose of observing or deterring illegal activity,” along with its poles, housings, software, and data-connectivity hardware. A violation carries imprisonment “for not more than two years” or a fine of up to “two thousand dollars,” or both.

On September 30, 2026, a full-text search of every law body on the Legislature's law search, covering the Revised Statutes, the Civil Code, the procedure, children's and evidence codes, and the Constitution, returned that section alone for license plate reader and plate reader, and nothing for license plate recognition. That database is updated through the 2025 First Extraordinary Session; the 2026 Regular Session bill-text search returned no instrument containing license plate reader, and the 2025 and 2026 supplemental appropriations acts fund plate reader equipment for several police departments without setting rules for its use. The search did not cover the Louisiana Administrative Code, agency policies, or Attorney General opinions, and no statute found sets a retention period or limits searching or sharing. The statewide program Louisiana considered never became law: the official history of 2016 Senate Bill 54, which would have created a pilot Statewide Motor Vehicle Theft and Uninsured Motorists Identification Program using license plate recognition devices, ends with “Involuntarily deferred in House and Governmental Affairs-Considered 5/24/16.”

Retention: No ALPR retention period; § 14:57.1 is a criminal-damage provision.

Louisiana's general rules on cameras and recording are set out in our Louisiana surveillance camera laws guide.

Maine

Detailed guide: Maine license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. 29-A M.R.S. § 2117-A. The section starts from a ban: “a person may not use an automated license plate recognition system” except the Department of Transportation to protect public safety and transportation infrastructure, the State Police for commercial motor vehicle screening and inspection, and state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies when providing public safety, conducting criminal investigations, and ensuring compliance with local, state, and federal laws, and authorized users may use a system only for their employer's official and legitimate purposes. A violation is a Class E crime. A law enforcement system may use only information an officer enters based on specific and articulable facts, information entered under a civil order, or NCIC or official bulletin records. The statute limits access and disclosure to a law enforcement agency carrying out its functions, to the agency that collected the data for its intended purpose, and to related civil or criminal proceedings. The section's own text does not require the agency to adopt a written policy or maintain access records.

Retention: 21 days, except for data that is intelligence and investigative record information under 16 M.R.S. § 803(7) or was collected for commercial motor vehicle screening; the section sets no storage limit for those categories.

Anyone reading this alongside Maine's fixed-camera and consent rules can use our Maine surveillance camera laws guide.

Maryland

Detailed guide: Maryland license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Md. Code, Public Safety § 3-509. Police may use captured data only for a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. Historical data belongs to the agency and cannot be sold. The section limits vendor access and outside uploads, and requires safeguards, user controls, request audits, training, breach reporting, and annual reports. Separately, Public Safety § 3-529, as amended by 2026 Md. Laws ch. 874 effective July 1, 2026, requires an entity operating a law enforcement database, including one a private vendor maintains for an agency, to deny access to anyone seeking it to enforce immigration law unless that person presents a valid warrant from a federal or Maryland court.

Retention: No fixed numeric period in § 3-509.

The wider camera and recording rules that apply in Maryland sit outside this comparison; they are covered in our Maryland surveillance camera laws guide.

Massachusetts

Detailed guide: Massachusetts license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. The Legislature's own full-text search of the General Laws answers “No results were found. Try broadening your search.” for license plate reader, plate reader, license plate recognition, automatic license plate, and automated license plate, checked on September 14, 2026. Control searches on the same tool return section text, including 8 sections for the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt, so the silence is the tool working rather than failing.

The subject has been filed and dropped repeatedly. A bill search for automatic license plate reader returns 17 measures, all from the 188th through 193rd General Courts. That search misses H.3755, a broader driver-privacy bill in the current 194th Court that covers automated license plate reader data; it was reported favorably by committee on March 23, 2026 and referred to House Ways and Means, so it is not law. Two 2026 session laws name plate readers without regulating them: 2026 Mass. Acts ch. 140 lets Cambridge issue parking violation notices through automated license plate readers, and ch. 101, section 33 redirects a Freetown police appropriation to a plate reader system; neither sets use, retention, or sharing limits. A Massachusetts department's ALPR practice therefore rests on its own written policy and on generally applicable law, which is what to request by name when asking an agency what it keeps.

Retention: No ALPR retention statute found in the General Laws.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Massachusetts, see our Massachusetts surveillance camera laws guide.

Michigan

Detailed guide: Michigan license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. A full-text search of the Michigan Compiled Laws for license plate reader, registration plate reader, license plate recognition, and automated license plate returned no provision on September 14, 2026, and the Legislature's own analysts say the same thing. The House Fiscal Agency's official analysis of the pending bills states that ALPR data “can theoretically be stored in perpetuity by either the service provider or the user (or both), and Michigan law does not currently provide for statewide data retention or deletion requirements for these systems or entities.” The same analysis notes that Michigan State Police procedure asks providers to “not retain data obtained from department hardware longer than 30 days,” and that “this policy does not apply to local units of government, other law enforcement agencies, or private entities.”

Two tie-barred bills would change that. House Bill 5492, covering private entities, and House Bill 5493, covering state and local governmental entities, were introduced on January 29, 2026 and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. A third bill, Senate Bill 1131, introduced July 29, 2026 and referred to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety, would regulate governmental use and also includes private-operator provisions. None of the three had moved past committee referral as of September 30, 2026, and none is law. An earlier attempt, House Bill 4981 of 2013, was referred to committee and went no further.

Retention: No statewide ALPR retention or deletion requirement, which is what the House Fiscal Agency analysis states.

Michigan's general rules on cameras and recording are set out in our Michigan surveillance camera laws guide.

Minnesota

Detailed guide: Minnesota license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Minn. Stat. § 13.824. Tracking a vehicle in an active investigation requires a probable-cause warrant unless exigent circumstances exist. Sharing is confined to qualifying police recipients that accept the same restrictions. An independent biennial audit is required, and if the Commissioner of Administration finds a pattern of substantial noncompliance, the agency must suspend its readers until the commissioner authorizes reinstatement. Minn. Stat. § 626.8472 separately bars using a reader without a written agency policy.

Retention: 60 days for non-investigative data, subject to listed exceptions.

Anyone reading this alongside Minnesota's fixed-camera and consent rules can use our Minnesota surveillance camera laws guide.

Mississippi

Detailed guide: Mississippi license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. Mississippi's ban on local automated traffic enforcement does not mention plate readers. Section 17-25-19, as reproduced in the 2025 bill that tried to amend it, bars a county or municipality from adopting “any ordinance authorizing the use of automated recording equipment or system to enforce compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations,” and required removal of such equipment before October 1, 2009. The compiled code could not be opened from an official source, so that text is taken from the official bill file that reproduced it, and the no-statute finding rests on the Legislature's official measure lists and bill files rather than a title-by-title read of the code.

The ALPR language exists only in failed bills. House Bill 528 of 2025 would have added automated license plate recognition systems to the ban while letting local police use them under a published written policy addressing databases, “Retention of data associated with the automated license plate recognition system,” sharing, training, and “Supervisory oversight of automated license plate recognition system use,” and would have provided that a positive match alone is not reasonable suspicion for a stop. The official history shows it “Died In Committee” on February 4, 2025. House Bill 1104 of 2026, which died in committee on February 3, 2026, is not an ALPR bill: it concerns hand-held automated recording equipment used with traffic signals or radar. In United States v. Porter (5th Cir. March 17, 2026, published), an appeal from the Southern District of Mississippi, the court held that use of fixed plate readers in Gautier was not a Fourth Amendment search on those facts.

Retention: No ALPR retention statute found; the 2025 bill's policy requirement was never enacted.

The wider camera and recording rules that apply in Mississippi sit outside this comparison; they are covered in our Mississippi surveillance camera laws guide.

Missouri

Detailed guide: Missouri license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. A full-text search of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for license plate reader, license plate recognition, automated license plate, and automatic license plate returned no provision on September 14, 2026. The two sections that come closest do something else: § 303.430 builds an insurance verification system in which “the department of revenue shall maintain a historical record of the system data for a period of no more than twelve months from the date of all requests and responses,” and § 303.440 sets that system's deadline. Neither mentions plate readers.

Missouri's proposals point the other way from most states. Senate Bill 1027 of 2026 “prohibits political subdivisions and state agencies from using automated license plate reader systems, or accessing or using captured license plate data of vehicles located on a public highway, with certain exceptions,” and its status on the Senate's page is “Second Read and Referred S Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee.” Until something passes, the access question runs through the Sunshine Law, whose definition of a public record in § 610.010 reaches records “created or maintained by private contractors under an agreement with a public governmental body or on behalf of a public governmental body,” which is how vendor-held data can be in scope even with no ALPR statute.

Missouri now has an executive-branch standard instead. On September 16, 2026, Governor Kehoe signed Executive Order 26-18, which, “to the greatest extent permissible by applicable law,” directs state agencies and state-funded local law enforcement entities that use ALPR technology to follow minimum standards until the General Assembly acts. Those entities must ensure captured plate and vehicle images are permanently deleted within 30 days unless the data is tied to an active criminal investigation, an active life-safety emergency, or a court order; must bar vendors from selling, sharing, or commercializing Missouri-generated data for any non-law-enforcement purpose; may use ALPR only for the administration of criminal justice and bona fide lifesaving efforts; must log the user and a case number or justification for every query; and may not integrate AI facial recognition with ALPR systems. The order also directs the Department of Public Safety to set controls and draft legislation. According to the governor's office, other local agencies are encouraged, not required, to follow it. An executive order is not a statute, so the statutory search result above still stands.

Retention: No ALPR retention statute found in the Revised Statutes of Missouri; Executive Order 26-18 (September 16, 2026) requires state agencies and state-funded local law enforcement to delete captured plate and vehicle images within 30 days unless the data is tied to an active investigation, a life-safety emergency, or a court order.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Missouri, see our Missouri surveillance camera laws guide.

Montana

Detailed guide: Montana license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-5-117 and 46-5-118. The public-highway restriction has an express law-enforcement exception. Police must publish a policy, conduct annual audits, keep user-access records indefinitely, and use data only for listed purposes. A reader match alone is not reasonable suspicion. Preserved data generally has a one-year destruction rule unless renewed.

Retention: 90 days by default; preservation requests and warrants create qualified exceptions.

Montana's rules for cameras that record people rather than plates sit elsewhere in the code; see our guide to Montana surveillance camera laws.

Nebraska

Detailed guide: Nebraska license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-3201 to 60-3209, the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act, prohibits use of a plate reader by a governmental entity except for listed law enforcement checks, parking facility enforcement, secured-area access control, electronic toll collection, and weighing stations. Agencies must adopt and post use and privacy policies, and law enforcement users report annually to the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Captured plate data held by a governmental entity is not a public record and may be disclosed only to the registered owner, with the owner's written consent, under a court order, or as the result of a match. Plate data may not be received in a Nebraska proceeding if its disclosure would violate the Act, and any person who violates the Act is liable for damages; the Act has no criminal penalty. The prohibition reaches governmental entities, and private operators are addressed directly only through the duty to preserve data on request. LB1176 and LB600, which would have changed the Act, were indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026.

Retention: 180 days for law enforcement data, unless it is evidence related to a listed purpose, subject to a preservation request, or the subject of a warrant, subpoena, or court order.

Camera placement and recording rules that apply alongside the Act are covered in our guide to Nebraska surveillance camera laws.

Nevada

Detailed guide: Nevada license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. The Nevada Revised Statutes carry no plate-reader provision. The Legislative Counsel Bureau's NRS Subject Index, 2025 edition revised April 15, 2026, was read across all 26 of its letter files on September 15, 2026. It carries 351 "license plate" entries and no entry at all for "plate reader," "plate recognition," "automated license plate," or "automatic license plate," and the only plate-technology entry under its "Motor vehicle license plates" heading is "Digital license plates, 482.265, 482.2665." Statutory text pulled in full from the Legislature's own NRS pages for 23 chapters, among them chapter 480, Administration of Laws Relating to Public Safety, chapter 482, Motor Vehicles and Trailers, chapters 484A through 484E, chapter 179, chapter 239 and chapter 289, returns 1,558 matches for "license plate" and no match for "plate reader," "plate recognition," "automated license plate," or "automatic license plate." Those matches concern registration, plate issuance and display, and special and digital plates.

No Nevada bill has changed that. The Legislature's official Index of Bills and Resolutions for the 83rd (2025) Session records license-plate measures only for special and digital plates, such as AB 296 on digital license plates and AB 409 on special and personalized plates, and the index for the 36th (2025) Special Session, current through sine die, carries no license-plate entry at all. Nevada's Legislature meets in odd-numbered years, and its 84th Session does not convene until February 2027, so no later enactment exists to check.

The closest general provision is not an ALPR rule. NRS 484A.600 provides that, except as otherwise provided in NRS 484A.605, "a governmental entity and any agent thereof shall not use photographic, video or digital equipment for gathering evidence to be used for the issuance of a traffic citation or civil infraction citation pursuant to NRS 484A.7035 for a violation of chapters 484A to 484E, inclusive, of NRS unless the equipment is a portable camera or event recording device worn or held by a peace officer, the equipment is otherwise installed temporarily or permanently within a vehicle or facility of a law enforcement agency or the equipment is privately owned by a nongovernmental entity." That section never names plate readers, it reaches only evidence gathered for a traffic or civil infraction citation, and its own exceptions cover equipment installed in a law enforcement vehicle or facility, so it sets no collection, retention, sharing or access rule for plate data. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to Nevada surveillance camera laws.

New Hampshire

Detailed guide: New Hampshire license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 261:75-b. Use is limited to detailed law-enforcement purposes. A match alone is not reasonable suspicion. Other use and sharing are barred except for case-specific investigation, prosecution, and audit access. Every inquiry is logged, and the attorney general audits compliance.

Retention: Three minutes for a non-hit; listed case data may remain through final court disposition.

For the separate rules governing cameras that record people rather than plates, see our guide to New Hampshire surveillance camera laws.

New Jersey

Detailed guide: New Jersey license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. New Jersey now regulates plate-reader data by statute. P.L.2026, c.4, the "Privacy Protection Act," was approved on March 25, 2026, after Assembly Bill 4070 (First Reprint) passed both houses on March 23, 2026. The act's own codification note assigns its sections 1 through 5 and section 8 to a new chapter 4CC of Title 52, C.52:4CC-1 to 52:4CC-6. Section 3 defines an "automated license plate recognition system" as "a searchable database resulting from the operation of one or more mobile or fixed cameras combined with computer algorithms to read and convert images of license plates and the characters they contain into computer-readable data." Section 5(b)(1) then provides that "A government entity shall not sell, share, or transfer automated license plate recognition information concerning the operation of a person's motor vehicle," subject to four exceptions: transfer "to another government entity when permitted by law"; transfer under a valid judicial order or judicial warrant; disclosure under subsection c., which covers a person's knowing written consent; and transfer "to a law enforcement agency of another jurisdiction for the purpose of a criminal investigation."

The out-of-state exception carries conditions. The receiving agency must certify, electronically or in writing, that "the information shall not be used for any purpose related to civil immigration enforcement," that "the information shall not be shared, sold, transferred, or made searchable by the receiving law enforcement agency," and that it "is bound by the same restrictions, use limitations, and data security requirements applicable to the government entity under New Jersey law and in accordance with any regulations and protocols established by the New Jersey State Police and directives or guidance issued by the Attorney General of New Jersey." Those agreements are governmental records under the open public records act, and if an outside agency violates them the Attorney General "may, by order, prohibit the sharing of automated license plate recognition information with that law enforcement agency or deny access to the government entity." A government entity compelled by judicial process to disclose plate-reader information must notify the person "within 90 days of the disclosure" unless notice would compromise a criminal investigation, and an entity that knowingly uses the information for a purpose the act does not permit is "subject to injunctive relief and civilly liable for damages to the person to whom the information pertains." Section 9 made the act effective immediately on approval, with a later date only for its health-care section.

The statute sets no retention period, so retention still comes from executive policy. Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2022-12, issued October 21, 2022 to "All Law Enforcement Chief Executives and County Prosecutors," replaced the 2010 guidelines set by Directive 2010-5 and recorded a decrease in the "retention period for both ALPR data and records from five years to three years." Its operative rule reads: "Records and ALPR data covered by this Section shall be retained for three years," and stored data "shall be purged after the retention period, unless it is associated with an active investigation or pending judicial process, in which case the data should be exported from the relevant storage system and retained in the case file." Agencies that store ALPR data must maintain "an automated record-keeping of all access to stored ALPR data," keep records "in a manner that makes them readily accessible for audit," and private entities "may provide ALPR data to New Jersey agencies but cannot receive law enforcement-owned ALPR data." The directive binds New Jersey law enforcement, but it is executive policy rather than a statute, so the Attorney General can revise it without legislation.

Retention: No period in P.L.2026, c.4; three years under Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2022-12, set by directive rather than statute, with an exception for data tied to an active investigation or pending judicial process.

Before the 2026 act, New Jersey had no ALPR statute at all. A full-text search of the official New Jersey Statutes database, compiled through P.L.2025, c.405, returned 151 matches for "license plate" on September 15, 2026 and no match for "license plate reader," "plate reader," "automated license plate," "automatic license plate," "license plate recognition," or "plate recognition." That database predates the new chapter, so the chapter law itself is the current text to read. Camera and recording rules for the state are covered in our guide to New Jersey surveillance camera laws.

New Mexico

Detailed guide: New Mexico license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. N.M. Stat. §§ 29-22-1 to 29-22-5. The Driver Privacy and Safety Act, Laws 2026, chapter 20, in effect since July 1, 2026, restricts sharing for immigration enforcement, protected health care, and protected activities. It requires declarations for specified out-of-state access, limits non-law-enforcement release, and provides annual reporting and enforcement mechanisms.

Retention: No general numeric default in these sections.

Camera and recording rules outside the Act are covered in our guide to New Mexico surveillance camera laws.

New York

Detailed guide: New York license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. A review of New York's official consolidated laws on September 14, 2026 found no ALPR provision. Executive Law § 840, the Municipal Police Training Council section that Assembly Bill A907A and Senate Bills S963 and S10419 propose to amend, contains no reference to license plates at all, and the Vehicle and Traffic Law index carries no plate-reader section.

The proposals are live rather than enacted. Assembly Bill A907A would add a new subdivision 10 to Executive Law § 840 requiring the council to "develop, maintain and disseminate a minimum standards policy" for automatic license plate reader systems, covering permissible uses, data sharing, prohibited uses, retention and training. Its own opening clause renumbers "Subdivision 8 of section 840 of the executive law, as added by chapter 632 of the laws of 2025," which is an unrelated 2025 amendment rather than an ALPR rule, and the bill was advanced to third reading on April 23, 2026. Assembly Bill A563A, which would amend Executive Law § 94-a so the Department of State's consumer protection division issues a policy for ALPR use by non-law-enforcement agencies and non-government entities, and would add General Business Law § 399-zzzzzz requiring those users to post it (it does not amend § 840 or reach police), passed the Assembly on January 12, 2026, was substituted for Senate Bill S10227 and passed the Senate on June 4, 2026, and was returned to the Assembly the same day. Rechecked on September 30, 2026, the official Assembly action list still records no delivery to the Governor, no chapter number, and no veto, so the bill is not law. Passage is not what starts the Governor's clock. Under article IV, § 7 of the New York Constitution, a bill that “shall not be returned by the governor within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him or her” becomes “a law in like manner as if he or she had signed it, unless the legislature shall, by their adjournment, prevent its return,” and the same section provides that “no bill shall become a law after the final adjournment of the legislature, unless approved by the governor within thirty days after such adjournment.” Both periods run from presentation or from adjournment rather than from the vote, so a bill the Legislature has not yet sent to the Governor can sit unsigned without any deadline expiring. Both would take effect one year after becoming law, so New York's position can change while today's statute book stays silent. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to New York surveillance camera laws.

North Carolina

Detailed guide: North Carolina license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.31 and § 20-183.32, part of Article 3D, regulate police use for criminal investigations, felony warrants, missing persons, and stolen vehicles, and require a written agency policy addressing databases, retention, sharing, training, and oversight. The 90-day retention default and the preservation-request process sit in § 20-183.32, not § 20-183.31. S.L. 2026-41, section 43.26, approved July 7, 2026, added G.S. 20-183.34, which lets the Department of Transportation enter agreements with the State Bureau of Investigation to place readers on its land and rights-of-way, requires an annual SBI report by March 1, and has no sunset.

Retention: 90 days by default, with investigation and evidence exceptions.

The state's camera placement and recording rules are covered separately in our guide to North Carolina surveillance camera laws.

North Dakota

Detailed guide: North Dakota license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. A search of the complete North Dakota Century Code, taken from the Legislative Council's official Century Code data set dated September 8, 2026, returns exactly one statutory reference to plate readers, and it is an exclusion rather than a rule. N.D. Cent. Code § 29-29.4-01, the definitions section of chapter 29-29.4, "Surveillance by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle," defines "robot" to include a system "capable of using force, conducting surveillance, or moving independent of direct human input," then provides that the term "does not include a law enforcement body-worn camera, a law enforcement in-car camera or license plate reader, or any other law enforcement camera that does not require a search warrant."

That carve-out keeps plate readers outside the drone and robot surveillance chapter. It creates no retention period, no permitted-use list, no access controls, and no audit duty, and its closing clause is a legislative characterization rather than a grant of authority. The same full-code search returned no match for "automatic license plate recognition," "automated license plate," or "plate recognition," so no general operational code was located. A 2025 bill requested by the Attorney General, H.B. 1050, would have required the Department of Transportation to allow plate readers on its equipment or infrastructure at the request of a law enforcement or border agency; it failed to pass the House, 42 to 51. Camera rules that reach people rather than plates are covered in our guide to North Dakota surveillance camera laws.

Ohio

Detailed guide: Ohio license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(A)(1)(yy), added by Am. Sub. H.B. 96 (2025) effective September 30, 2025, removes “images and data captured by an automated license plate recognition system that are maintained in a law enforcement database” from the definition of a public record. It does not supply a general statewide operational or retention code for ALPR systems. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.

The camera and recording rules that do apply statewide are covered in our guide to Ohio surveillance camera laws.

Oklahoma

Detailed guide: Oklahoma license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 7-606.1 is narrow: it creates the Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Program, administered by the district attorneys or the District Attorneys Council, and lets participating law enforcement agencies use plate readers for the investigation, detection, analysis or enforcement of the Compulsory Insurance Law. ALPR data may not be used for other purposes except as otherwise permitted by law, and we found no court opinion settling how far that exception reaches. Program data being used as evidence of a violation is retained and must be deleted or destroyed once it is no longer needed as evidence. No law enforcement agency or other entity authorized to operate under the program may sell captured plate data for any purpose, or share it for any purpose the section does not expressly authorize. ALPR data, except data retained as evidence of a violation, is exempt from the Open Records Act, and the District Attorneys Council must publish an annual program report by September 1. The program provisions do not apply to, or prohibit, plate readers used by individuals or private entities for purposes not otherwise prohibited by law, and the section is not a comprehensive statewide ALPR privacy framework.

Broader camera and recording rules for the state are covered in our guide to Oklahoma surveillance camera laws.

Oregon

Detailed guide: Oregon license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Oregon Laws 2026, chapter 77, §§ 3-9. The 2026 law lists authorized uses, restricts out-of-state and vendor access, and bars unrestricted continuing access. It requires policies, security, training, contract controls, and monthly and quarterly vendor audits. It took effect March 31, 2026.

Retention: 30 days unless tied to an ongoing criminal investigation or court proceeding.

Rules for cameras that record people rather than plates are covered in our guide to Oregon surveillance camera laws.

Pennsylvania

Detailed guide: Pennsylvania license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. On September 30, 2026, the General Assembly site's full-text search of all consolidated statutes, the Constitution and Titles 1 to 79, returned no results for license plate reader, plate reader, plate recognition, or automatic license, and the separate search of the unconsolidated statutes, which include the Right-to-Know Law, returned none for license plate reader or plate reader. License plate appears in registration, plate display, towing, tolling, automated speed enforcement, and similar provisions. The nearest rules govern other programs: under 74 Pa.C.S. 8117, Turnpike toll images, records, and vehicle movement records are for the exclusive use of the commission and law enforcement and are not public records under the Right-to-Know Law, and work-zone speed camera and school-bus stop-arm camera images are not public records and must be destroyed within one year of final disposition. The search did not cover the Pennsylvania Code of regulations or agency policies, so retention, use, and sharing terms for police readers come from agency policy and contract.

The framework Pennsylvania would need is still a bill. Four 2025-2026 bills would address plate readers, HB 1125, SB 933, HB 2174, and HB 2771, the most recent referred to House Judiciary on September 14, 2026; each has only been referred to committee, and none is law. The House Judiciary and Transportation Committees scheduled a joint informational meeting on plate reader systems for September 28, 2026, which was not a vote on any bill. In Commonwealth v. Watkins, 2023 PA Super 189, the Superior Court held that police use of a plate reader system to track a defendant's movements was not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to Pennsylvania surveillance camera laws.

Rhode Island

Detailed guide: Rhode Island license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. On September 30, 2026, every one of the 32,852 section pages of the General Laws on the official Law Revision site, across 49 titles and 2,817 chapters, was opened and scanned in full text, and plate reader, plate recognition, ALPR, and LPR appear in no section. The automated traffic violation camera law, R.I. Gen. Laws 31-41.2-8, makes its images non-public and sets 90-day and one-year destruction deadlines, but it applies only to those enforcement systems and does not mention plate readers. The scan covered statutes only, not regulations, open-records findings, or local ordinances.

The vehicle for such a law remains a bill. 2026 House Bill 8077, An Act Relating to Criminal Procedure, Automated License Plate Readers, would, in the words of its official summary, provide “for municipal and state police authorities to acquire and to utilize automated license plate readers and identify what data may be collected and in what ways the data can be used.” It was introduced and referred to House Judiciary on February 27, 2026, and on March 24, 2026 the committee recommended that it be held for further study; it is not law. On August 18, 2026, Governor McKee announced in a press release, not a numbered executive order, that the State Police would not install or activate additional readers during a 60-day review of statewide standards, while existing State Police cameras keep operating, and urged cities and towns, without ordering them, to pause new installations. Local limits come from agency policy: Providence Police General Order 350.05 limits stored plate data to 30 days unless it is evidence, which is city policy, not state law. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to Rhode Island surveillance camera laws.

South Carolina

Detailed guide: South Carolina license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. South Carolina's code carries no ALPR section. The official section list for Title 23, Chapter 1, the law-enforcement chapter South Carolina's ALPR bills would amend, runs from § 23-1-15 to § 23-1-250 and contains no § 23-1-235, the section those bills would create.

That section has been proposed without passing. S. 447 of the 2025-2026 session would add § 23-1-235 "so as to define terms related to license plate reader systems, to provide that only certain entities may use an automatic license plate reader system, and to provide guidelines for the ways in which information obtained through the system may be used by law enforcement." The official history shows a favorable Judiciary committee report on April 9, 2026 and the status "Currently residing in the Senate." H. 4013 proposes the same section and is "Currently residing in the House" after referral to the Committee on Education and Public Works on February 13, 2025. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to South Carolina surveillance camera laws.

South Dakota

Detailed guide: South Dakota license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. Full-text searches of the official South Dakota Codified Laws on September 14, 2026 found no plate-reader provision. Title 32, Motor Vehicles, Title 22, Crimes, and Title 23, Law Enforcement Officers and Standards, pulled in full from the Legislature's own statute service, return 264 matches for "license plate" and no match at all for "plate reader," "plate recognition," "automated license plate," or "automatic license plate." Those "license plate" matches concern registration, plate issuance and display, plus an unrelated fuel-theft reporting provision. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to South Dakota surveillance camera laws.

Tennessee

Detailed guide: Tennessee license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Tennessee has three provisions that name plate readers rather than one full regulatory scheme. Under Tenn. Code § 55-10-302, enacted by Public Chapter 625 of 2014 and in effect since July 1, 2014, captured plate data a governmental entity collects or retains through an automated license plate recognition system, which the section defines as fixed high-speed cameras, may not be stored for more than 90 days unless it is retained as part of an ongoing investigation; investigation data must then be destroyed when the investigation ends without criminal charges or when any criminal action involving the data ends. Tenn. Code § 10-7-504(a)(32)(A) makes captured plate data from mobile or fixed reader systems confidential and closed to public inspection. The 2021 act that created that rule set it to be repealed on July 1, 2026, but Public Chapter 672 of 2026, signed April 7, 2026, deleted the repeal, so the rule continues. Tenn. Code § 55-31-202 bars a commercial parking lot owner from using a plate reader to enforce its parking requirements without first posting LICENSE PLATE READER IN USE signs at each designated entrance and, in a multilevel lot, on each level. None of these provisions lists permitted police uses, limits sharing with other states or federal agencies, or requires audits, and the retention rule applies only to governmental entities.

Retention: 90 days for government data from fixed systems, with an exception through the end of an ongoing investigation or any resulting criminal action.

For camera placement and recording rules beyond plate capture, see our guide to Tennessee surveillance camera laws.

Texas

Detailed guide: Texas license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Limited or incidental provision. Texas has no general ALPR statute. Its plate-capture rules sit in the Transportation Code's toll articles. Sec. 228.058 lets the department use automated enforcement technology for tolling, “including automatic vehicle license plate identification photography and video surveillance,” limits it to the image needed to classify the vehicle and read its plate, and adds that the section “does not authorize the use of automated enforcement technology for any other purpose.”

Sec. 372.051 restricts the data. A toll project entity “may not use motor vehicle registration or other information derived from a license plate on a vehicle using a toll project, including information obtained by the use of automated enforcement technology described by Section 228.058,” for anything but toll collection and enforcement and “law enforcement purposes on request by a law enforcement agency,” and an interstate exchange agreement must carry the same limit. That reaches the department, tollway and mobility authorities and counties alike, and Section 370.177 admits the same technology as proof of nonpayment. These are toll provisions, not a general police ALPR statute, and none sets a retention period.

A full-text search of the Transportation, Government, Local Government, Occupations, Business and Commerce, Penal and Criminal Procedure codes on September 15, 2026 found no other plate-reader provision. Government Code Section 552.108 excepts a law-enforcement record from public disclosure when release “would interfere with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime,” Section 730.004 bars an agency from disclosing personal information from a motor vehicle record “except as provided by Sections 730.005-730.007,” which between them require or permit release for a list of purposes, including a request by a government or law enforcement agency, and the red-light-camera ban in Sec. 707.020 reaches only what Section 707.001 defines as a camera system and vehicle sensor “installed to exclusively work in conjunction with an electrically operated traffic-control signal,” so it leaves plate readers alone.

Austin's police department ceased ALPR operations by July 1, 2025 and removed the general order governing them, and on April 23, 2026 the council adopted Ordinance No. 20260423-029, adding City Code chapter 2-19, which lists “automated license plate readers” as surveillance technology and provides that, except as that chapter otherwise permits, “City departments must obtain approval of the city council before” acquiring it, using it for an unapproved purpose, or agreeing to share it or its data with an outside third party.

On the constitutional question, the Fifth Circuit, whose decisions bind the federal courts in Texas, held in United States v. Porter (March 17, 2026, published) that use of a plate reader system giving periodic location hits from a small number of fixed cameras in Gautier, Mississippi was not a Fourth Amendment search, so no warrant was required. The decision rests on the limits of that system and does not interpret any Texas statute.

Retention: No ALPR retention period; the toll statutes set none.

For the broader camera and recording rules in Texas, see our Texas surveillance camera laws guide.

Utah

Detailed guide: Utah license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Utah Code §§ 41-6a-2001 to 41-6a-2006, the Automatic License Plate Reader System Act, bars a governmental entity from using a plate reader except for listed purposes, including active criminal investigations, outstanding warrants, missing or endangered persons, stolen vehicles, parking enforcement, secured areas, tolling, and specified transit, university, Inland Port Authority, and airport uses. A law enforcement agency needs a written policy on use, management, and auditing, a Department of Transportation special use permit before installing a stationary reader aimed at a state highway, and public posting of the policy and permits, and it must keep a record of its plate data searches, with the crime type and incident number for each, for at least five years. Captured plate data is a protected record under GRAMA and may not be sold; a governmental entity may obtain a private operator's plate data only with a warrant or a court disclosure order; and knowingly or intentionally misusing the data is a class B misdemeanor. Outside the Act, § 53-10-1002(3) lets an investigating law enforcement agency use a plate reader to locate a vehicle sought in connection with an issued Amber Alert, and § 53G-8-805, which requires schools to make building security cameras accessible to law enforcement, says that section is not subject to the restrictions in § 41-6a-2003. H.B. 327 (2026), which would have repealed and replaced the Act, did not pass.

Retention: Nine months by default for a governmental entity unless a preservation request, a court disclosure order, or a warrant applies; on a written request meeting the statute's requirements, data must be preserved for 14 days after the date it was captured, and toll data may be kept as long as needed to collect the toll or penalty.

Camera placement and recording rules outside the Act are covered in our guide to Utah surveillance camera laws.

Vermont

Detailed guide: Vermont license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. 23 V.S.A. §§ 1605 to 1608. Vermont limits operation to legitimate law-enforcement and commercial-motor-vehicle purposes. Historical access requires written, fact-specific requests, and the state keeps request and outcome records for at least three years. Data gathered through an ALPR system may be retained for only 18 months after it was obtained; at that point the Department of Public Safety and local agencies must destroy the data and all copies unless retention continues under a preservation request or disclosure order under § 1608 or a Rule 41 warrant, in which case a court may extend preservation by up to 90 days at a time. These rules are time-limited: under Act 135 of 2024, §§ 1606 to 1608 are repealed on July 1, 2027 and § 1609 then provides that no state agency or department or political subdivision shall use automated license plate recognition systems, unless the legislature acts first.

Retention: 18 months after collection unless preserved under § 1608 or a warrant; access to active data is limited to the past seven days, and historical data older than six months is released only under a warrant or a court order.

For the separate rules on cameras that record people, see our guide to Vermont surveillance camera laws.

Virginia

Detailed guide: Virginia license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Va. Code § 2.2-5517 and related sections. Virginia lists authorized police purposes and regulates access, dissemination, vendors, procurement, and public notice. The law requires a detailed audit trail and oversight. The section does not apply to systems used to enforce traffic laws (including parking regulations, speed limits, tolling, high-occupancy vehicle requirements, and on-road emissions monitoring), by the Department of Motor Vehicles at permanent weighing stations and in mobile weighing operations, or by any state or local agency or private entity for non-criminal justice purposes.

Retention: 21 days for system data; audit data remains two years, subject to exceptions.

The state's broader camera and recording rules are covered in our guide to Virginia surveillance camera laws.

Washington

Detailed guide: Washington license plate reader (ALPR) laws

Current specific statute verified. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 10.130. Washington regulates government operation, protected sites and activities, private-data warrants, vendors, sale, policies, registration, reporting, and remedies. Audit trails last two years and agencies conduct annual internal audits.

Retention: 21 days by default; separate parking, traffic-study, commercial-vehicle, and evidence periods apply.

For camera placement, notice and recording rules beyond plate capture, see our guide to Washington surveillance camera laws.

West Virginia

Detailed guide: West Virginia license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. The official article index for West Virginia Code chapter 17C, Traffic Regulations and Laws of the Road runs from article 1 to article 25, with lettered variants such as 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 10A, 11A, 13A, 17A and 17B, and contains no article 6A, the article West Virginia's ALPR bills would create.

Those bills died in committee. Senate Bill 646 of the 2019 regular session and Senate Bill 2 of the 2020 regular session each proposed a new article 6A on automated license plate reader systems and were referred to Government Organization without further action. Two 2026 bills that name license plate readers, H.B. 4628 and H.B. 4682, were referred to House Judiciary on January 21, 2026 with no further action shown. Neither is law. Because the proposed article was never codified, the chapter that would house a West Virginia ALPR rule does not contain one. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to West Virginia surveillance camera laws.

Wisconsin

Detailed guide: Wisconsin license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. Wisconsin's statute book contains neither of the sections its ALPR bill would have created. The official chapter text for Wis. Stat. ch. 86 ends its 86.10 series at § 86.105, with no § 86.107, and ch. 968 carries §§ 968.373 and 968.375 but no § 968.376.

Those are the sections 2025 Assembly Bill 576 would have added. Its relating clause reads "Limiting the use of automatic registration plate readers, requiring a search warrant for data from an automatic registration plate reader or security camera, and providing a penalty." The official history records introduction on October 24, 2025, referral to the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety the same day, and "Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1" on March 23, 2026. No Wisconsin Act number was assigned. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to Wisconsin surveillance camera laws.

Wyoming

Detailed guide: Wyoming license plate reader (ALPR) laws

No ALPR-specific statute located. A full-text search of all 42 titles of the Wyoming Statutes published by the Legislative Service Office, run on September 14, 2026, returned 305 matches for "license plate" and no match for "plate reader," "plate recognition," "automated license plate," or "automatic license plate."

The regulation Wyoming considered never reached a vote. The Legislative Service Office's bill record for 2026 House Bill 0181, catch title "Biometric data and license plate readers-regulation," shows a last action of "H Did not Consider for Introduction" on February 13, 2026, with no enrolled act and no chapter number. Its title would have prohibited governmental entities "from using automatic license plate reader systems to identify motor vehicles or collect fees on highways," required policies, provided exceptions and created a civil cause of action. None of that is law. Camera and recording rules that do apply in the state are covered in our guide to Wyoming surveillance camera laws.

How do states limit collection and permitted use?

State statutes use several different designs. California regulates covered operators and end users through public policies, safeguards, authorized purposes, and access logs. Florida ties its provisions to state-highway rights-of-way and active criminal intelligence or investigations. Indiana addresses homeowners associations. These rules answer different questions, so the presence of an ALPR citation does not make every collection or search lawful.

Some states enumerate acceptable police purposes. New Hampshire, Montana, North Carolina, Utah, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington provide examples. Lists often include stolen vehicles, warrants, missing or endangered people, specified criminal investigations, parking, or secure-area control. Readers must also check definitions and exceptions, including which actors qualify as an operator, end user, governmental entity, or law-enforcement agency.

Which states set retention and deletion periods?

Verified defaults range from minutes to months. New Hampshire requires deletion of a non-hit within three minutes. Vermont keeps data no more than 18 months and limits active-data access to the past seven days. Maine uses 21 days, as do the general frameworks in Connecticut, Virginia, and Washington. Oregon uses 30 days. Minnesota uses 60 days for non-investigative data. Kentucky, Montana, and North Carolina generally use 90 days, and Tennessee uses 90 days for government data from fixed systems. Arkansas has 60-day and 150-day categories, Nebraska uses 180 days for law enforcement data, Utah uses nine months, and Georgia sets a 30-month ceiling.

Those numbers are not standalone promises of deletion. Each statute defines exceptions. Common examples involve a database hit, an ongoing investigation, evidence, a preservation request, a warrant or court order, traffic studies, parking enforcement, commercial vehicles, or audit records. Maryland, California, Idaho, Illinois, and New Mexico illustrate another point: a statute may regulate ALPR data without setting one statewide numeric default.

What rules govern sharing and interstate access?

Sharing rules can be more restrictive than collection rules. Illinois and New Mexico protect specified health-care, immigration, or protected-activity matters and require assurances for certain out-of-state access. Connecticut's rules, operative since October 1, 2026, restrict recipients and require a probable-cause warrant for many out-of-region or federal requests. Oregon bars unrestricted continuing access and regulates vendors. Washington restricts outside access and requires a warrant for specified private data.

A vendor contract cannot expand statutory permission. California limits public-agency transfers, Maryland restricts vendor access and uploads, and Arkansas restricts sale, trade, or exchange. The governing questions are who requested the information, for what purpose, under which authority, and what records document that access.

When do warrants, audits, and remedies matter?

Minnesota expressly requires a probable-cause warrant to use ALPR data to track a vehicle in an active investigation unless exigent circumstances exist. Other statutes use warrants or court orders mainly for preservation or disclosure. That variation makes it inaccurate to state one nationwide warrant rule based only on a retention statute.

Oversight also differs. Minnesota requires an independent biennial audit. Montana requires an annual audit and indefinite user-access records. Kentucky requires the agency's audit process to occur every 90 days. New Hampshire requires inquiry logs and attorney-general review. Washington uses two-year audit trails and annual internal audits. Available remedies range from administrative enforcement to damages, civil actions, penalties, exclusion rules, or suspension of a system.

Watch out: A pending or defeated bill is not current law. Colorado SB 26-070 and SB 26-071 ended with the official status “Lost.” Texas HB 2083 remained in committee in the official history reviewed. Their proposals do not establish present rules.

General legal information only. Rules and effective dates vary by jurisdiction and facts. Confirm the current primary authority and obtain advice from a qualified lawyer for a specific matter.

Authorities cited

The state names and statute links in the table and individual sections lead to official legislative or code sources, except the Tennessee § 55-10-302 link, which goes to Justia's copy of the section because the official code site's full-document pages sit behind a CAPTCHA. Arkansas, Georgia, Oregon, Tennessee, Connecticut, and New Jersey are tied to official enactment materials where compiled-code access required a different source path. Illinois is tied to the General Assembly's public file repository.

Last updated: October 1, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many states have current ALPR-specific statutes?

This comparison verifies 26 states from current official text or an official session law, including Iowa (Iowa Code § 321P.4, enacted 2024), New Jersey (P.L.2026, c.4, approved March 25, 2026), Oklahoma (47 O.S. § 7-606.1, a narrow statute built around an uninsured-vehicle enforcement program) and Connecticut, whose principal Public Act 26-14 restrictions took effect October 1, 2026. The District of Columbia is listed with limited provisions because D.C. Code § 50-2443 directs the Mayor to issue rules rather than setting limits itself.

Does no ALPR-specific statute located mean a state has no license plate reader law?

No. It means the statewide statutory search described in that state's section found no ALPR-specific statute. Local rules, agency policies, public-records law, privacy law, contracts, and constitutional requirements may still apply.

Which state has the shortest verified retention period?

New Hampshire requires non-hit data to be purged within three minutes. Qualifying case data may remain through final court disposition under the statute's listed conditions.

Do all states require a warrant to search ALPR data?

No single statewide rule applies nationwide. Minnesota requires a probable-cause warrant for tracking in an active investigation absent exigent circumstances, while other states attach judicial process to particular preservation, disclosure, or outside-access requests.

Can police share ALPR data across state lines?

The answer depends on the governing statute and purpose. Illinois, New Mexico, Connecticut, Oregon, and Washington contain different recipient, purpose, declaration, warrant, logging, or continuing-access restrictions.

Do state ALPR statutes regulate private companies?

Some do. California covers defined operators and end users; Arkansas regulates specified private users; Kentucky lists certain insurance and financial uses; Indiana bars homeowners associations from installing, maintaining, or operating plate readers; Tennessee requires signs at commercial parking lots that enforce parking rules with plate readers; and several states impose contract or vendor controls. Scope and definitions must be checked state by state.

Does an ALPR match alone justify a traffic stop?

Not everywhere. Montana and New Hampshire expressly state that a match alone does not establish reasonable suspicion. Their provisions require additional grounds or confirmation under the statutory conditions.