License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison

License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison

License plate reader laws vary sharply by state. As of September 11, 2026, this comparison identifies ALPR-specific statutes in 21 states, while separately identifying future provisions, limited rules, and rules whose current scope could not be confirmed. Each state and Washington, D.C. has its own linked section.

Information last verified on September 11, 2026. 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 state enters the group of 21 only when current official statutory text or an official 2026 session law specifically regulates ALPR operation, data, access, retention, sharing, or oversight. A narrow HOA law still counts as ALPR-specific, but its limited scope is stated. Tennessee and Connecticut sit outside that 21-state count for different reasons: Tennessee has enacted history but limited access to current compiled text, while Connecticut's principal limits have a future effective date.

Four states have only limited or incidental provisions in the material verified here. Twenty-four jurisdictions remain unresolved. “Unresolved” describes the research record, not the absence of law. It also leaves 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 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

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Alabama has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Alaska

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Alaska has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Arizona

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Arizona has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Arkansas

Current specific statute verified. Ark. Code §§ 12-12-1801 to -1805, as amended by Act 668 (2025). The statute controls authorized users, 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.

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

California

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.

Colorado

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Colorado has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes. The official pages for SB 26-070 and SB 26-071 show final status “Lost,” so their proposals are not current law.

Connecticut

Enacted; principal rules start Oct. 1, 2026. Connecticut Public Act 26-14, §§ 13-15. The act is law, but the principal operational restrictions begin October 1, 2026. Those provisions establish a 21-day default, enumerated uses, recipient controls, warrant requirements for many outside requests, logs, quarterly audits, public policies, reporting, vendor controls, and enforcement. The future date matters when evaluating conduct before October 1.

Delaware

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Delaware has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

District of Columbia

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean District of Columbia has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Florida

Current specific statute verified. Fla. Stat. §§ 316.0777 and 316.0778. These provisions address installation in state-highway rights-of-way and record handling. Data may be used for active criminal intelligence or an active criminal investigation, not to issue a traffic citation, and the records are confidential subject to listed exceptions.

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

Georgia

Current specific statute verified. O.C.G.A. § 35-1-22, reconstructed from official enacted acts. The original official enactment and 2025 SB 153 support a 30-month rule, access for a law-enforcement purpose, sharing with law-enforcement agencies for that purpose, a disclosure restriction, and required agency policies and training.

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

Hawaii

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.

Idaho

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.

Illinois

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.

Retention: No numeric default in the current section reviewed.

Indiana

Current specific statute verified. Ind. Code §§ 32-25.5-3.8-2 to -4. This is a narrow homeowners-association rule. An HOA may not install or operate an ALPR, while a law-enforcement agency may install one on HOA property under the statutory conditions. It is not a comprehensive statewide police data code.

Retention: No general police-data period in this HOA-specific chapter.

Iowa

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Iowa has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Kansas

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.

Kentucky

Current specific statute verified. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189.632. The current official text permits listed public-safety, 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.

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

Louisiana

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Louisiana has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Maine

Current specific statute verified. 29-A M.R.S. § 2117-A. Law enforcement needs specific and articulable grounds within the listed purposes. The statute limits access and disclosure to authorized criminal-justice uses and requires an agency policy and access records.

Retention: 21 days unless a listed hit or investigation exception applies.

Maryland

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.

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

Massachusetts

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Massachusetts has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Michigan

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Michigan has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Minnesota

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, with suspension after substantial noncompliance until the problem is corrected.

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

Mississippi

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Mississippi has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Missouri

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Missouri has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Montana

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.

Nebraska

Current specific statute verified. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-3201 to 60-3208. The Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act identifies permitted law-enforcement, parking, and secure-area uses, limits disclosure and sale, and requires policies and safeguards. The Act also provides a damages remedy for violations.

Retention: 180 days by default, subject to statutory exceptions.

Nevada

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Nevada has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

New Hampshire

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.

New Jersey

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean New Jersey has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

New Mexico

Current specific statute verified. N.M. Stat. §§ 29-22-2 to 29-22-5. The Driver Privacy and Safety Act 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.

New York

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean New York has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

North Carolina

Current specific statute verified. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-183.30 to 20-183.32. Article 3D regulates police use for criminal investigations, warrants, missing persons, and stolen vehicles. It also addresses agency policies, access, preservation, and disclosure.

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

North Dakota

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean North Dakota has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Ohio

Limited or incidental provision. Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43. The verified ALPR reference is a public-records provision. It does not supply a general statewide operational or retention code for ALPR systems. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.

Oklahoma

Limited or incidental provision. Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 7-606.1. The verified provision authorizes an uninsured-vehicle enforcement program. Its subject-specific authorization should not be read as a comprehensive statewide ALPR privacy framework. No general statewide retention period was verified from these provisions.

Oregon

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.

Pennsylvania

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Pennsylvania has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Rhode Island

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Rhode Island has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

South Carolina

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean South Carolina has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

South Dakota

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean South Dakota has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Tennessee

Enacted; current text verification limited. Acts 2014, chapter 625, and the official SB 1664 history. The enactment history supports a 90-day storage cap for governmental ALPR data, with an exception through the end of an ongoing investigation or action. The rule took effect July 1, 2014. The current official compiled text of Tenn. Code § 55-10-302 was not available as a publicly accessible rendering, so this entry is intentionally limited to the enacted history and the current official code-bill cross-reference.

Texas

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Texas has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes. The official HB 2083 history shows referral to a House committee on March 14, 2025 and status “In committee,” not enactment.

Utah

Current specific statute verified. Utah Code §§ 41-6a-2001 to 41-6a-2005. The Act limits collection, use, sale, sharing, preservation, and disclosure. Listed purposes include investigations, warrants, missing or endangered persons, parking, and secure-area control. Court process governs additional disclosure.

Retention: Nine months by default; a 14-day preservation process and judicial-process exceptions apply.

Vermont

Current specific statute verified. 23 V.S.A. §§ 1605 to 1607. 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.

Retention: Seven days for active access; historical access extends through six months, with judicial rules after that point.

Virginia

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, while excluding identified private and noncriminal state uses from parts of the scheme.

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

Washington

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.

West Virginia

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean West Virginia has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Wisconsin

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Wisconsin has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

Wyoming

Rule not confirmed. The reviewed statewide materials did not support a current, general ALPR-specific rule with enough primary-text certainty for this comparison. This does not mean Wyoming has no ALPR law, and it does not exclude local policies, public-records rules, warrant law, procurement terms, or other generally applicable statutes.

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 provides seven days of active access. Maine uses 21 days, as do the general frameworks in Virginia and Washington. Oregon uses 30 days. Minnesota uses 60 days for non-investigative data. Kentucky, Montana, and North Carolina generally use 90 days. Arkansas has 60-day and 150-day categories, Nebraska uses 180 days, and Utah uses nine months.

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, once operative, 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. Arkansas, Georgia, Oregon, Tennessee, and Connecticut 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: September 11, 2026.