Massachusetts License Plate Reader Laws (2026)

Massachusetts has no general license plate reader statute. No section of the General Laws is specific to plate readers or sets plate reader retention or access rules, though some general data laws described below may reach plate reader data, and the only enacted texts that name plate readers are two 2026 session laws that authorize or fund them without setting limits. The most important Massachusetts authority is a court decision, Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass. 493 (2020), and a bill that would set a 14-day limit, H.3755, is still pending.

Information reviewed September 30, 2026.

For related pages, see the Massachusetts entry in the state comparison, the ALPR laws hub, Are Flock cameras legal?, What are Flock cameras?, and our Massachusetts surveillance camera laws guide.

Does Massachusetts have a license plate reader law?

No General Law we found is specific to plate readers. The Legislature's General Laws search returned zero results for the exact phrases license plate reader, plate reader, automated license plate, automatic license plate and license plate recognition. As controls, the same tool returned 15 sections for license plate, 14 for registration plate, 23 for surveillance and 25 for personal data (checked September 30, 2026).

The 15 "license plate" sections (in chapters 33, 40, 90, 129, 159A1/2, 175 and 266) concern registration, disabled-parking plates, transportation network company driver information, insurance or theft, not plate readers. A search of the 2026 session laws found only two that name plate readers, described below. Chapter 66A, the Fair Information Practices Act, bars executive-branch agencies (and contractors holding data for them) from giving other agencies or outside individuals access to "personal data" unless a statute or regulation authorizes it, and requires a record of outside access. Its definition of personal data excludes public records and "intelligence information," which G.L. c. 6, section 167 defines to include data a criminal justice agency compiles for a criminal investigation "from any type of surveillance associated with an identifiable individual." We found no ruling on whether state plate reader databases fall within chapter 66A. In McCarthy, the Supreme Judicial Court said the privacy statute, G.L. c. 214, section 1B, has no application to suppressing evidence in a criminal case, though it could conceivably support a tort claim against government actors.

Which Massachusetts laws name plate readers?

Two 2026 session laws do, and neither limits plate reader data.

Cambridge parking enforcement. 2026 Mass. Acts ch. 140, approved July 14, 2026 and effective on passage, provides that "the city of Cambridge may issue notices of violation of any rule, regulation, order, ordinance or by-law established by the city regulating the parking of motor vehicles within the city through the use of automated license plate readers or similar parking monitoring technologies." It applies the procedures of G.L. c. 90, section 20A and treats photographs or data as cognizance of a violation. It is a grant of authority for one city's parking enforcement and contains no retention, sharing or audit rule.

Freetown funding. 2026 Mass. Acts ch. 101, a supplemental appropriations act approved June 12, 2026, in section 33 amends item 8000-0313 of the fiscal 2026 budget (2025 Mass. Acts ch. 9) so that money previously for body-worn cameras for the Freetown police is instead "for an automated license plate reader system for the police department in the town of Freetown." The funds are available through June 30, 2027. This is funding only and sets no use limits.

What did the Supreme Judicial Court decide in Commonwealth v. McCarthy?

Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass. 493 (SJC-12750, decided April 16, 2020), concerned four fixed plate readers on the Bourne and Sagamore bridges, using historical data plus real-time alerts. The court held that this use was not a search under the Fourth Amendment or article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, because the limited data did not reveal enough of the defendant's movements.

The court also wrote that "with enough cameras in enough locations, the historic location data from an ALPR system in Massachusetts would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes." It said the defendant has "a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in the whole of his public movements, an interest which potentially could be implicated by the widespread use of ALPRs," but that the interest was not invaded by the limited extent and use of ALPR data in that case.

The opinion recites that the state police cameras feed a database maintained by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), which "currently has a one-year retention policy for ALPR data," and identifies State Police General Order TRF-11 (July 22, 2014) as an operative policy. That is the court's 2020 description of a policy; we did not locate the current EOPSS or State Police policy. The opinion also says guidelines do not decide the constitutional question. We found no later Massachusetts opinion applying article 14 to plate readers.

Is Massachusetts considering a plate reader bill?

H.3755 (194th General Court), "An Act establishing driver privacy protections," is a proposal and is not law. As filed, it would insert a chapter numbered 90K titled "Driver Privacy Protections"; the General Laws now use chapter 90K for bus lane camera enforcement. As introduced, it would bar a person acting under color of state law from:

• tracking First Amendment protected activity with plate readers;
• retaining plate reader data for more than 14 days absent a specific criminal investigation;
• disclosing or permitting access to the data except in judicial proceedings;
• selling or buying plate reader data; and
• accessing outside plate reader data without a warrant.

The bill also proposes a 120-day limit for toll data, a suppression remedy, a civil action with treble damages or $100 to $1,000 per violation, and Attorney General enforcement. The bill's history shows it was referred to the Transportation committee on February 27, 2025, had a hearing on October 7, 2025, and was reported favorably on March 23, 2026 and referred to House Ways and Means. We saw no later action as of September 30, 2026. In earlier sessions (188th to 193rd), our search found 17 plate reader bills, none enacted.

Do other Massachusetts laws reach plate data?

School bus cameras. G.L. c. 90, section 14C governs school bus violation detection monitoring systems, which capture plates. It provides that images "that do not identify a violation shall be destroyed by a city, town, school department, district or vendor within 30 days of the date the image was recorded, unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction." Violation images must be destroyed within one year of final disposition, and the images are available only under court order other than for enforcement or defense. This is a separate enforcement system and not plate reader regulation.

Toll data. G.L. c. 6C, section 13 requires MassDOT to "maintain the confidentiality of all information including, but not limited to, photographs or other recorded images and credit and account data relative to account holders who participate in its electronic toll collection system." That information is not a public record and "shall be used for enforcement purposes only with respect to toll collection regulations." The section covers MassDOT's toll system, not police plate readers, and sets no retention period.

Bus lane cameras. G.L. c. 90K, section 5 makes photographs and data from bus-mounted and bus stop enforcement cameras non-public and bars the enforcing authority or vendor from using, disclosing, selling or permitting access to that data except as necessary to process violations. It applies only to those bus cameras.

Facial recognition. G.L. c. 6, section 220 requires a law enforcement agency performing a facial recognition search to do so "only ... through a written request submitted to the registrar of motor vehicles, the department of state police or the Federal Bureau of Investigation." It does not mention license plates or plate readers.

Immigration data sharing. 2026 Mass. Acts ch. 163, approved August 5, 2026, adds G.L. c. 6, sections 224 to 227, including limits on civil immigration enforcement in nonpublic areas of state entities, and creates a commission to review "policies regarding data sharing between state and local agencies and the federal government," including criminal offender record information and fingerprints. The act's text contains no occurrence of the words plate or vehicle. Section 7 of the act, however, adds G.L. c. 147, section 64, which bars law enforcement officers and employees and court employees, except as required by federal or state law, a judicial warrant, court order or treaty, or a 287(g) or other intergovernmental service agreement allowed under state law, from knowingly providing a federal immigration authority "nonpublic personal information," defined as "information not otherwise available to the public that is maintained by a law enforcement agency, court or political subdivision." It took effect 30 days after the act's emergency effective date, on September 4, 2026. The Attorney General may enforce it through a civil action for equitable relief, and it creates no private right of action. The section does not mention plate readers, and we found no court ruling or official guidance on whether plate reader data falls within that definition.

Are Massachusetts plate reader records public?

Massachusetts defines public records broadly in G.L. c. 4, section 7, clause 26, and agencies have 10 business days to respond under G.L. c. 66, section 10. Exemption (c) covers data "relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," and exemption (f) in clause 26 covers "investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest."

No plate reader rule exists in the General Laws. We found no Supervisor of Records determination or court ruling on plate reader data, though we did not search the Supervisor's decisions.

Where have Massachusetts municipalities acted?

This list is not complete, and it reflects the status our research recorded on each date, sourced to the linked town, city or news record. Each entry is a local decision, not a state rule.

• Cambridge: ended, December 10, 2025 (city statement).
• Natick: opted out of its Flock pilot, January 21, 2026 (Select Board minutes).
• Watertown: ended, January 27, 2026 (Watertown News report).
• Sharon: ended, June 23, 2026 (town page).
• Framingham: ended, June 26, 2026 (city Transparency and Accountability page).
• Salem: ended, July 23, 2026 (city page).
• Cohasset: Select Board voted August 25, 2026 not to let its Flock contract automatically renew, opening a window to renegotiate or seek another vendor (South Shore News report).
• Groton: ended, August 31, 2026 (town announcement).
• Ayer: ended, August 31, 2026 (town page).
• Dartmouth: announced non-renewal of its Flock contract, August 31, 2026, and Acushnet: paused, September 2, 2026 (New Bedford Light report).
• Barnstable: ended, September 3, 2026 (Hyannis News report).

Check the current status with the municipality, since a paused or ended program can change.

How can I check my local system?

Because no Massachusetts statute is specific to plate readers, most rules for a given system are in the police department's policy and vendor contract. Ask the operating department for its written policy, retention setting, who may search the data, and whether it shares with other agencies. A request for the reads themselves may be answered under the investigatory exemption above. For the technology, see What are Flock cameras?.

Last updated: September 30, 2026. This page reflects the statutes and records described above as we reviewed them; it is general legal information, not legal advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it legal to use a license plate reader in Massachusetts?

We found no General Law that specifically prohibits or regulates plate readers, though general data laws may reach plate reader data. The Legislature's full-text search returned zero results for the plate reader phrases we searched. The Supreme Judicial Court addressed a limited use of four fixed readers in Commonwealth v. McCarthy (2020) and held it was not a search.

What did Commonwealth v. McCarthy decide?

The court held that police use of four fixed plate readers on the Bourne and Sagamore bridges was not a search under the Fourth Amendment or article 14, but said historic plate reader data from enough cameras in enough locations would be a search.

How long can Massachusetts keep plate reader data?

We found no statute setting a retention period. McCarthy recited a one-year EOPSS policy as of 2020, and we did not locate the current policy. H.3755 would propose a 14-day limit but is not law.

Is H.3755 law?

No. It was reported favorably by the Transportation committee on March 23, 2026 and referred to House Ways and Means, with no later action seen as of September 30, 2026.

Does the Massachusetts school bus camera law apply to plate readers?

G.L. c. 90, section 14C governs school bus violation detection systems, with a 30-day destruction rule for non-violation images. It is a separate enforcement system and not a plate reader statute.