Legal Brief: ALPR Legal Risks Security Pros Need to Know
Key Highlights
- ALPR technology has outpaced the legal frameworks governing it, and security integrators deploying these systems now carry significant, rapidly evolving liability they can no longer ignore.
- No federal statute governs ALPR data -- state rules range from 21-day purge mandates to outright bans on cross-agency sharing, and enforcement actions are accelerating.
- Tightening contracts, implementing compliant retention schedules, and auditing regularly aren’t best practices -- they’re survival requirements in a landscape where new ALPR statutes are being enacted every legislative session.
This article originally appeared in the October 2026 issue of Security Business magazine. Don’t forget to mention Security Business magazine on LinkedIn or our other social handles if you share it.
Automated license plate recognition (ALPR) technology has moved fast – faster, in many cases, than the legal frameworks designed to govern it.
Flock Safety cameras alone are now deployed in thousands of communities across the U.S., capturing the movements of millions of vehicles every day. Law enforcement agencies love them. Civil libertarians do not.
Somewhere in the middle, security industry professionals are being asked to deploy, service, and stand behind systems that carry significant and rapidly evolving legal risk. For integrators, understanding that risk exists is no longer optional.
Balancing Privacy with Law Enforcement Needs
The central legal tension with ALPR technology is straightforward: these systems continuously capture and store the movements of every vehicle that passes, not just those of criminal suspects.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed ALPR data, its landmark decision in Carpenter v. United States (2018) offers a meaningful preview of how the high court might handle an ALPR challenge.
In Carpenter, the Court ruled that the government violates the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell-site location information from wireless carriers without a search warrant. ALPR is a different technology, but the parallels are clear: both involve the mass collection of location data capable of revealing intimate details of a person's life.
Who collects the data, who maintains it, and who owns it must be documented explicitly -- ambiguity on any of those points creates exposure for both agencies and their vendors.
Legal scholars contend that prolonged, warrantless surveillance of any kind constitutes an unreasonable search. In Carpenter, they were right. Whether that reasoning will reach ALPR remains to be seen, but the trajectory is worth watching.
A Patchwork of State Regulations
No federal statute directly governs the collection, retention, and use of ALPR data. Instead, the rules are a patchwork of state laws ranging from permissive to highly restrictive.
States vary dramatically in how long ALPR data may be retained. For example:
- Virginia mandates that system data be purged after just 21 days unless part of an active investigation, and requires vendors to certify their systems can destroy data irretrievably.
- Maine similarly caps retention at 21 days for non-investigative data.
- Vermont requires centralized retention through its Department of Public Safety with an 18-month cap.
- Minnesota mandates destruction within 60 days and requires biennial independent audits.
- Kentucky sets a 90-day limit.
- Washington imposes a 21-day default with narrow exceptions.
For those collecting this data, retaining data beyond the legally permitted window – or failing to implement compliant data destruction protocols – exposes the technology provider to significant liability.
Civil Liberties and Enforcement Actions
Civil liberty concerns are now making front-page news. California filed suit against the City of El Cajon in October 2025, alleging the city illegally shared ALPR data with more than 100 out-of-state law enforcement agencies. California law prohibits public agencies from selling, sharing, or transferring ALPR information to anyone other than another California public agency.
Illinois goes further, barring ALPR users from sharing data with out-of-state agencies that may use it to investigate reproductive health care or immigration status.
State enforcement actions are becoming more common and more stringent. Vast data-collection practices across large populations of motorists carry vast potential liability – and regulators are paying attention.
Contractual and Liability Allocation
Several states now require that contracts between law enforcement agencies and ALPR vendors specify that all system data remains the property of the agency, that the vendor will not independently sell or share data, and that the vendor must immediately notify the agency upon receiving any subpoena or third-party data request.
Security industry professionals should ensure their agreements contain robust indemnification provisions, clear data-ownership clauses, and mandatory breach-notification obligations. Who collects the data, who maintains it, and who owns it must be documented explicitly – ambiguity on any of those points creates exposure for both agencies and their vendors.
Risk Mitigation Recommendations
The proliferation of Flock Safety and similar ALPR platforms is not slowing down. Neither is the legal scrutiny. Stay ahead of it. For industry professionals, the following steps are essential:
- Know the local law. Before deploying or servicing ALPR systems, map the specific statutory requirements of every jurisdiction in which you operate.
- Tighten your contracts. Ensure data-ownership, retention, sharing, indemnification, and breach-notification terms are explicit and jurisdiction-specific.
- Implement compliant retention schedules. Default to the shortest applicable retention period and build automated purge capabilities into your systems.
- Audit regularly. Multiple states now require periodic audits; treat this as an operational baseline, not a regulatory afterthought.
- Monitor legislative developments. New ALPR statutes are being enacted each legislative session. Multiple states adopted new laws in 2026 alone.
About the Author
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq.Timothy J. Pastore, Esq.
Timothy J. Pastore Esq., is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department. Before entering private practice, he was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and Attorney with the DOJ. [email protected] • (212) 551-7707
Meet Timothy J. Pastore
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq., is the newest columnist to join the Security Business magazine family. He is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department.
Before entering private practice, Mr. Pastore was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice. As a JAG, in particular, Mr. Pastore was legal counsel to the Air Force Security Forces and Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Mr. Pastore has represented some of the largest companies in the security industry, including Protection One, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Altice, Mediacom, IASG, CMS and others. He regularly provides counsel on risk management, contracting, operations, licensing, sales practices, etc. Mr. Pastore also has served as lead counsel in courts throughout the country in dozens of litigation matters involving the security industry.
Among other examples, Mr. Pastore led the successful defense at trial of cable giant Comcast in a home invasion case in Seattle, Washington. The case received significant press attention and was heralded by CVN as a top-ten defense verdict.
Mr. Pastore is a graduate of Bucknell University and Boston College Law School.
Reach him at (212) 551-7707 or by e-mail at [email protected].