Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) capture images that can be read by computers.  The technology is used by law enforcement to compare plate numbers against plates of stolen cars or cars driven by individuals wanted on criminal charges.  The technology may also be used for non-law enforcement purposes including but not limited to transportation research, commercial vehicle enforcement, parking enforcement, and toll enforcement.  Devices using ALPR systems may be mobile, deployed in vehicles, or stationary, affixed to traffic lights or buildings, and are placed in a variety of locations for the maximum utility. 

At least 16 states have enacted laws regulating the use of ALPR systems and the data captured by those systems.  Washington State does not have a state law regulating ALPR systems.  

Operation.  ALPR use by an agency is unlawful except for:

• law enforcement when comparing data to watch lists for stolen vehicles, missing or endangered persons, vehicles registered to persons with felony warrants, or investigations related to vehicles involved in a felony;
• parking enforcement agency, including the Department of Enterprise Services and defined institutions of higher education, when enforcing time restrictions on parking uses, or identification of vehicles on a watch list for impoundment;
• toll systems when enforcing toll violations; and
• transportation agencies when real-time traffic information for the public, studies—such as delays—or commercial vehicle enforcement at weigh stations. 

State and local agencies operating ALPR systems are the legal owners of the associated ALPR data.

Prohibitions.  ALPR use is prohibited for immigration investigation or enforcement, tracking protected activities—free speech—or collecting data near protected health care or immigration facilities.  ALPR use is prohibited on the premises or immediate surrounding of schools, places of worship, courts, or food banks. 

Certification.  Agencies must register ALPR systems with the attorney general, and certify that: 

• the ALPR system is in compliance with the law;
• there are policies in place governing its use; and
• a documented training process for the officers who will use it. 

A positive ALPR match alone does not justify a vehicle stop, officers need independent reasonable suspicion.

Data Retention.  ALPR data must be deleted within 21 days, except for:

• probable cause felony warrants or subpoenas when data must be deleted at the end of the case—ALPR data may be shared in discovery according to court rules;
• when permitted by court order in criminal or civil cases;
• parking enforcement when data must be deleted 12 hours after collection;
• tolls that may be retained as long as needed for the collection of tolls;
• traffic studies when data must be deleted 30 days after collection;
• commercial vehicle enforcement when data must be deleted four hours after collection; and
• law enforcement purposes that may be retained as long as needed for evidence of specified unlawful purposes.

Other Prohibited Practices.  An agency may not disclose, share, or permit access to ALPR data except in judicial proceedings.  No direct access may be shared except for other state or local agencies authorized to collect ALPR data, or for third party vendors providing ALPR services.  Watch lists must be updated every 24 hours.  An agency may not sell, lease, or purchase ALPR data.  An agency my obtain private ALPR data only via warrant.

Public Records.  ALPR data is exempt from public records disclosure except for bona fide research that does not contain individually identifiable information.

Recordkeeping and Admissibility.  Agencies must log all access of ALPR data including the date of access, queries, user, and purpose.  Logs of ALPR access must be maintained for five years.  ALPR data obtained in knowing violation of this law is inadmissible in court, except by a person who is bringing a lawsuit for damages for the violation of this law.

Policies and Reporting.  By July 1, 2027, the attorney general must develop model policies on the use of ALPR systems.  Agencies must adopt compliant policies by December 1, 2027, submit them to the attorney general, and provide annual reports—such as, matches leading to arrests, data sharing, and audits. Prior to implementation, local agencies shall promote public awareness of ALPR systems.  Agencies that adopt policies must publish the policies on their agency website.

Audits.  Agencies must maintain two year audit trails for all access of ALPR data including the identity of the user, date of access, search terms, and sharing details.  Annual internal audits are required for compliance with this law. 

Consumer Protection Act.  A violation of this law is a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.  A private right of action exists under this law for violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

 
Penalties and Remedies.  Willful violations of this law are gross misdemeanors.  Injured parties can sue for damages, injunctions, and attorney fees.

• Excludes toll cameras from the definition of an ALPR system.
• Includes the Department of Enterprise Services and institutions of higher education as defined in RCW 28B.10.016 for parking enforcement lawful uses of an ALPR system.
• Makes state and local agencies operating ALPR systems the legal owners of the associated ALPR data.
• Increases the general retention period from 72 hours to 21 days.
• Allows ALPR data to be retained longer than 72 hours as permitted by court order in criminal or civil cases.
• Requires ALPR logs to be maintained for five years.
• Requires violations to be knowing to be excluded as inadmissible in any civil or criminal case.
• Reduces the responsibilities of the Attorney General's Office and requires agencies that adopt policies to publish the policies on their website.
• Removes responsibilities of the State Auditor. 

The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard.  PRO:  WA has a layer of privacy protection that goes beyond the federal constitution.  WA constitution article 1 section 7 grants a strong fundamental right to privacy, protecting individuals from state intrusion into their private affairs without legal authority offering even broader protection than the federal 4th amendment in cases like warrantless searches.  Allowing surveillance technologies without any oversight or regulation is an affront to our constitution.  We want tools that help solve crimes but also want to ensure that tools have safeguards in place.  The bill attempts to regulate the use of surveillance technology.  The bill does not make a values judgment on any company or technology, and it does not take away this tool.

ALPR data should be retained as short a time as possible. New Hampshire keeps their data for 3 minutes.  Audit data should be subject to public disclosure.  There should be a warrant requirement prior to access of the data.  People are terrified of being tracked.

CON: The 72 hour retention period undermines the effectiveness of investigations.  The bill should include gross misdemeanors and misdemeanors.  These are trying times, we would like to see the underlying images even if the data is not available.  It should be clear that the government is the owner of these records.

OTHER:  Reasonable regulation is appropriate.  We should have a 30 day retention period for ALPR data to allow greater effectiveness.  Some investigations are not even assigned in 72 hours.  Misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors should be included as a basis for the use of ALPR systems.  Does the bill's reference to schools include institutions of higher education?  There should be a safe harbor from civil liability.

PRO: Senator Yasmin Trudeau, Prime Sponsor; Tee Sannon, ACLU of Washington; Guillermo Zazueta, OneAmerica; Jaelynn Scott, Lavender Rights Project; Alasdair Whitney, Institute for Justice; Gabbi Nazari, ProChoice WA; Alizeh Bhojani, Legal Voice; Courtney Normand, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates; Rebekah Gardea, QLaw Foundation of Washington.

PRO: Loi Lumala, Latinos en Spokane; Anita Yandle, Policing Project at NYU School of Law; Scott Nelson, Office of the Washington State Auditor; Heather Kelly, Washington Defender Association / Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Jonathan Pincus, The Nexus of Privacy; Patrick Stickney, WA Office of Equity; Andrew Villeneuve, Northwest Progressive Institute; Lydia Zepeda, League of Women Voters Washington; Jim Leighty, Wa Coalition for Police Accountability; Kristin Ang, Faith Action Network (FAN); Nickeia Hunter, Wa coalition for Police Accountability; Sonia Joseph, Washington Coalition for Police Accountability; Jevan Hutson; Tim Warden-Hertz, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project; Kaitie Dong, Budget and Policy Center; Anusha Nasrulai; Nathan Tippmann, Evergreen Geoduck Student Union; Heba Qatrani, Associated Students of University of Washington Tacoma.