Minnesota License Plate Reader Laws (2026)

Minnesota has a specific ALPR statute, Minn. Stat. § 13.824. In one sentence, ALPR data collected by law enforcement is generally private or nonpublic data that must be destroyed within 60 days unless it relates to an active criminal investigation or another listed exception applies, agencies must keep a public log and undergo an independent audit every two years, and an agency the Commissioner of Administration finds in a pattern of substantial noncompliance must suspend all of its readers.

Information reviewed September 30, 2026.

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

What does Minnesota's ALPR law cover?

The statute's definition covers readers mounted on police vehicles or in stationary locations. It also reaches privately owned readers in one situation: "Automated license plate reader includes a device that is owned or operated by a person who is not a government entity to the extent that data collected by the reader are shared with a law enforcement agency." Traffic safety camera systems are excluded and may not be used for ALPR purposes.

Those cameras have their own data rules in Minn. Stat. § 169.147, which authorizes a pilot program. A traffic safety camera system is limited to collecting "recorded video or images of the rear license plate of a motor vehicle," images needed to identify a violation or calculate speed, related date, time and location data, and general traffic data that does not identify anyone, and it may record or retain the plate, image and location data only if it identifies a potential violation for review (subdivision 15). The data are private or nonpublic unless a section 13.82 exception applies, and a private entity handling the data "must not share or disseminate the data with an entity other than the appropriate implementing authority, except pursuant to a court order," although it may share summary data (subdivision 14). Under subdivision 16 the data "must be destroyed within 30 days of the date of collection" unless they are criminal investigative data about a signal or speed violation, with other listed exceptions.

Under subdivision 2, a reader may collect only license plate numbers; the date, time and location of vehicles; and pictures of plates, vehicles and surroundings. Anything else is prohibited.

What limits does the statute put on use?

Matching is limited to the Minnesota license plate data file. Other sources may be used only if related to an active criminal investigation.

A reader "must not be used to monitor or track an individual who is the subject of an active criminal investigation unless authorized by a warrant, issued upon probable cause, or exigent circumstances justify the use without obtaining a warrant."

The statute also says "[a] central state repository of automated license plate reader data is prohibited unless explicitly authorized by law."

How long can Minnesota agencies keep plate data?

Under subdivision 3, data not related to an active criminal investigation "must be destroyed no later than 60 days from the date of collection."

The statute lists exceptions. A person facing a pending criminal charge can make a written request that preserves data until the case resolves. Participants in the chapter 5B address confidentiality program may require destruction at collection or on request. Inactive investigative data follows the schedule in section 138.17.

Who can see the data, and who can it be shared with?

ALPR data is classified as private data on individuals or nonpublic data. The exceptions are data that is public under section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3 or 6, and active criminal investigative data under subdivision 7 of that section.

Under subdivision 4, non-investigative data may be shared with another law enforcement agency only if the recipient meets the access standards in subdivision 7, and the recipient must follow the section's classification, destruction and security rules. Otherwise the data "may not be shared with, disseminated to, sold to, or traded with any other individual or entity unless explicitly authorized by this subdivision or other law."

Subdivision 7 requires written authorization from the agency head or a designee for a legitimate, specified, documented purpose. Each access "must be based on a reasonable suspicion that the data are pertinent to an active criminal investigation," and the agency must record the factual basis and case number. Access must be role-based, and all queries and actions are logged in a data audit trail that is public to the extent not otherwise classified.

What are the logging, audit and suspension rules?

Under subdivisions 5 and 6, an agency must keep a public log of its use. The log covers the times of active collection, aggregate reads, databases compared, hit counts and fixed-reader locations. The agency must also keep a public list of current and previous fixed reader locations, unless it determines the locations are security information under section 13.37, which is subject to in-camera review.

The agency must arrange an independent audit every two years, and the results are public. The Commissioner of Administration may order additional audits. Audit summaries go to the Commissioner and to legislative committees within 30 days. If the commissioner, reviewing the audit results, determines there is a pattern of substantial noncompliance, "the agency must immediately suspend operation of all automated license plate reader devices until the commissioner has authorized the agency to reinstate their use."

What does an agency have to tell the state?

Within ten days of installing or using a reader, or integrating reader technology into another surveillance device, a law enforcement agency must notify the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), under subdivision 8. The BCA keeps a public list of agencies and fixed reader locations on its website, except locations an agency determines are security information. This page did not review that list.

Must Minnesota agencies have a written policy?

Yes. Minn. Stat. § 626.8472 requires every state and local law enforcement agency that maintains a reader to adopt and enforce a written policy incorporating section 13.824 and the discipline standards in section 13.09. The statute says "[u]se of an automated license plate reader without adoption of a written policy under this section is prohibited."

Can you request ALPR records in Minnesota?

The classification rules above decide the answer. Data collected by readers is private or nonpublic unless a listed exception applies. The public log, the public list of fixed reader locations, the independent audit results and the data audit trail are the records the statute itself makes public to the extent not otherwise classified. Fixed-location lists can be withheld if the agency determines they are security information.

This page did not review how the Data Practices Office or the courts have applied these rules to a specific request.

Toll data is classified separately. Under Minn. Stat. § 13.72, subd. 13, data on applicants for or users of toll facilities and fee-charged high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including transponder application data, "personal and vehicle identification data," financial data, and "toll road usage data," are private data on individuals or nonpublic data. The subdivision does not mention license plate readers.

Have Minnesota courts addressed ALPR?

In State v. Lelyukh, No. A21-0699 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2021), a nonprecedential opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed an order suppressing evidence after an officer, without a warrant, used a casino's plate reader to locate a car during a suspected drunk-driving investigation. The court assumed without deciding that subdivision 2(d) applied, as the parties agreed, held that the state had not shown exigent circumstances, and treated as forfeited the state's argument that suppression is the wrong remedy for a statutory violation. One judge dissented. A nonprecedential opinion does not bind other courts, and this page did not confirm whether the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case or whether other decisions apply the statute.

Has any change been proposed?

The revisor page for section 13.824 lists amendments through 2024 (2024 c 127 art 3 s 2, 3) and no 2025 or 2026 session-law amendment as of September 30, 2026.

None of these bills became law. The Legislature adjourned its 2026 session in May 2026, ending the two-year session in which they were filed, so each would have to be reintroduced. The official status pages list introduction and referral for each, and the House's Session Daily reported that HF 4205 failed to advance from the Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on a 7-7 vote on March 17, 2026. Sponsors have said they plan to bring ALPR legislation back in 2027.

• HF 3856, introduced March 2, 2026, would prohibit government use, regulate others, and repeal sections 13.824 and 626.8472. It was referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law.
• HF 4205, introduced March 12, 2026, concerns enhanced restrictions, BCA centralization and regulation of private entities. It was referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law.
• HF 4661, introduced March 25, 2026, concerns third-party service providers. It was referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law.
• HF 188, introduced February 10, 2025, concerns ALPR placement in rights-of-way. It was referred to Transportation Finance and Policy.

What have Minnesota cities done?

Three Minnesota cities moved to end Flock camera contracts in 2026, according to the sources below. MPR News reported in September 2026 that more than a dozen Minnesota jurisdictions had paused or ended Flock use, so this list is not complete.

• Columbia Heights: the city council voted June 8, 2026 to end its Flock Safety camera contract, as reported by MPR News.
• Duluth: the police department told Flock on August 3, 2026 that it would not renew its 12-month grant-funded contract, which the city said would end September 7, 2026, according to an August 11, 2026 city press release. The department said it will continue to use automated license plate recognition applications.
• Plymouth: the city council voted September 22, 2026, with the mayor dissenting, to end the city's Flock contract, per MPR News.

How can you check your local system?

Start with the statute's own public tools. Look for your agency's public use log and its list of fixed reader locations, and ask for the results of its most recent independent audit. The BCA's public list of agencies that use readers is another starting point. Then compare what you find with the agency's written policy, which section 626.8472 requires it to have.

Last updated: September 30, 2026. Statutes cited reflect the text reviewed on September 30, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Minnesota have an ALPR law?

Yes. Minnesota Statutes section 13.824 governs automated license plate reader data collected by law enforcement, and section 626.8472 requires a written agency policy.

How long can Minnesota police keep license plate reader data?

Data not related to an active criminal investigation must be destroyed no later than 60 days from the date of collection, with exceptions for a pending criminal charge, chapter 5B program participants, and inactive investigative data.

Is Minnesota ALPR data public?

Generally no. It is private data on individuals or nonpublic data unless public under listed parts of section 13.82. The public log, audit results and the data audit trail are treated differently, to the extent not otherwise classified.

Do Minnesota's rules cover privately owned readers?

The definition includes a device owned or operated by someone who is not a government entity to the extent its data is shared with a law enforcement agency.

What happens if an agency does not follow the law?

If the Commissioner of Administration, reviewing an audit, determines there is a pattern of substantial noncompliance, the agency must immediately suspend all of its readers until the commissioner authorizes reinstatement.

Is Minnesota changing its ALPR law?

Not so far. Bills introduced in 2025 and 2026 did not pass before the Legislature adjourned in May 2026, and one failed in a House committee on a 7-7 vote. Sponsors have said they plan to reintroduce ALPR legislation in 2027.