Ohio License Plate Reader Laws (2026)

Ohio has no statute that says who may use license plate readers, how long the data may be kept, or who may receive it. The only Ohio law we found that names plate readers is a public-records provision: R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(yy) removes plate reader images and data "maintained in a law enforcement database" from the definition of a public record.

Information reviewed October 1, 2026.

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

Does Ohio have a license plate reader law?

Not one that regulates how plate readers operate. We opened the full text of the chapters of the Revised Code most likely to contain one and phrase-searched them for license plate reader, license plate recognition, automated license plate, license plate number, vehicle location, location data and geolocation. The only ALPR provision was R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(yy).

The chapters we opened were 4501, 4503, 4511, 4513 and 4549 (motor vehicles); 2913, 2921, 2933 and 2935 (crimes and search warrants); 9, 109, 121 and 149 (state government, the Attorney General and public records); 1345, 1347 and 1349 (consumer sales, personal information systems and related commerce law); and 5501, 5502 and 5537 (ODOT, public safety and the Ohio Turnpike). The few plate hits outside 149.43 were unrelated: specialty plates in chapter 4503, a rule in chapter 4511 about reporting a violator's plate number, and an age-verification geofence provision in chapter 1349.

We did not open the Ohio Administrative Code or state records retention schedules for the Highway Patrol, Public Safety or ODOT, and we did not search the bodies of all 136th General Assembly bills, so a provision we did not find could exist.

What does Ohio's public-records exclusion say?

Division (yy) is in the list of things "public record" does not mean. The text reads: "Images and data captured by an automated license plate recognition system that are maintained in a law enforcement database."

The current section on codes.ohio.gov shows an effective date of September 7, 2026 and lists House Bill 31 of the 136th General Assembly as its latest legislation. That bill (signed June 8, 2026) concerns parole board recordings and reprinted division (yy) unchanged.

The exclusion originated elsewhere. Division (yy) appears in the enrolled Am. Sub. H.B. 96, the FY26-27 operating budget bill signed June 30, 2025, and in the as-introduced H.B. 96 text. The Legislative Service Commission's as-introduced analysis says the bill "Exempts images and data captured by an automated license plate recognition system that are maintained in a law enforcement database from the Public Records Law." The enrolled bill shows division (yy) as new text, and the official code history first includes it in the version of R.C. 149.43 effective September 30, 2025; the version effective April 9, 2025 does not contain it.

What does the exclusion not answer?

It is a disclosure rule only. The text leaves several questions open:

• It covers images and data "maintained in a law enforcement database." It does not say who owns the database, for example an agency or a vendor's cloud system.
• It does not address hot lists, camera locations, audit logs or contracts. Those are separate records, and division (yy) does not mention them.
• It excludes covered data from the definition of public record generally, rather than only during an active investigation.

The Attorney General's 2026 Sunshine Laws Manual lists division (yy) but only restates its text. We found no Attorney General opinion or court ruling interpreting it.

How long can Ohio agencies keep plate reader data?

We found no Ohio statute or rule setting a retention period, a limit on sharing, an audit requirement or a restriction on who may use plate readers. Those matters are left to each agency's policy and its contract with the vendor. We did not open a current State Highway Patrol policy, so we make no statement about its rules.

Do Ohio's general privacy laws reach plate reader data?

In our chapter searches, chapter 1347 (the Personal Information Systems Act) had no plate or location hits, and the criminal, search-warrant and transportation chapters listed above had no plate reader provisions. We found no Ohio provision that limits sharing plate data with out-of-state or federal agencies. Two general laws touch the edges without naming plate readers. R.C. 5537.29 bars the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission from disclosing personal information, including a photograph or digital image, obtained in processing tolls, but it allows disclosure for the use of a governmental agency, including a court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions. R.C. 9.63(B) says no municipal corporation may adopt a policy that would "materially hinder or prevent" local employees from cooperating with state or federal immigration services, and a city that does loses eligibility for state homeland security funding. We found no ruling on whether a city limit on sharing plate reader data with federal immigration authorities would fall within R.C. 9.63. That reflects the searches we ran, not a survey of every Ohio law.

What have Ohio courts said?

The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hawkins, 2019-Ohio-4210 (October 16, 2019) involved a plate reader mounted on the officer's patrol car that beeped to signal it had captured a plate; the officer then ran the plate number himself. The court held that when a vehicle's color differed from the color in the registration record and the officer believed the vehicle or plates may be stolen, the officer had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop. It did not decide whether use of a plate reader is a search, so it is not an ALPR-lawfulness case.

A CourtListener phrase search found about 49 Ohio appellate opinions from 2016 to 2026 that mention plate readers, Flock or LPRs. We opened two, State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-1701 (9th Dist.) and State v. Patterson, 2025-Ohio-5671 (6th Dist.). In both, the plate reader evidence was background testimony and the assignments of error concerned other issues. We found no opinion deciding a Fourth Amendment, Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 14, or public-records challenge to plate readers, but this search is not proof that none exists.

A March 17, 2026 Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Porter, stated that "the use of an LPR did not constitute a search." It comes from a different federal circuit and does not bind Ohio courts, which sit in the Sixth Circuit. We found no Sixth Circuit ruling on plate readers in our search.

What bills would change Ohio's rules?

Each of these is not law. The official legislative API shows only the as-introduced version of each.

• H.B. 725 (Restrict commercial use of license plate recognition data) would enact R.C. 4549.07. House Public Safety Committee meetings were listed for March 11 and March 24, 2026.
• H.B. 1010 (the Ohio Freedom from Mass Surveillance Act) would enact R.C. 5507.01 to 5507.07 and 5507.99. As introduced, it makes captured surveillance data inadmissible unless obtained under a valid search warrant supported by probable cause, transferred by a private person as the bill authorizes, or exempt under the bill, and says warrant-based data may not be kept over ninety days unless relevant to an ongoing matter. No committee meetings were listed.
• S.B. 469 would amend R.C. 149.43 and enact R.C. 5507.01 to 5507.05 and 5507.99 "to regulate the use of automated license plate recognition systems." No meetings were listed. We did not read its text for specific terms.

Where are plate readers reported in Ohio?

This list is not complete, and it records only what the linked sources show on the dates given.

• Cleveland. A City of Cleveland legislation record dated July 15, 2026 is the basis for listing the Cleveland Division of Police as approved. We did not summarize its terms.
• Oxford. WVXU reported on August 19, 2026 that Oxford's city council voted 6-1 on Tuesday night, August 18, to terminate the police department's contract with Flock Safety.
• Monroe. Local 12 reported on September 22, 2026 that Monroe's city council voted unanimously to end its Flock Safety contract and deactivate the city's 23 plate reader cameras.

How can I check my local system?

Ask the operator for its written policy, its data retention setting and its contract with the vendor. Because R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(yy) excludes plate data in a law enforcement database from the public record definition, a request is likelier to produce a policy, contract or council record than plate reads. Council agendas and minutes, as in the examples above, are where deployment decisions usually appear. For the technology itself, see What are Flock cameras?.

Last updated: October 1, 2026. This page reflects the 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 Ohio?

We found no Ohio statute that authorizes, prohibits or conditions plate reader use. The only ALPR provision we found, R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(yy), concerns public records.

Are Ohio license plate reader records public?

R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(yy) says images and data captured by an automated license plate recognition system that are maintained in a law enforcement database are not a public record. It does not address audit logs, contracts or policies, which are separate records.

How long can Ohio police keep license plate reader data?

We found no statute or rule setting a retention period. Retention is left to agency policy and vendor contracts.

Is there a pending Ohio bill on license plate readers?

Yes. H.B. 725, H.B. 1010 and S.B. 469 were introduced in the 136th General Assembly, and the official site shows only the as-introduced versions as of October 1, 2026. None is law.

Did an Ohio court decide plate readers are legal?

We found no Ohio opinion deciding that. State v. Hawkins (2019) involved a plate reader capture but decided only whether an investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.