License plate reader searches should require a warrant
Points and comments are a snapshot, not live.
Historical ALPR searches will eventually require a warrant under current case law.
Crime analyst Andrew Wheeler argues that automated license plate reader (ALPR) data will eventually require a warrant for historical searches, based on Carpenter v. US and recent geofence decisions. He distinguishes active flags (e.g., stolen vehicle alerts) from historical searches tracing a person's movements. Cameras are cheap (under $3,000) and can reduce crime, but data retention policies do not prevent abuse; they limit legitimate investigations. Wheeler recommends state statutes mandating warrants for historical searches, third-party auditing, and clear punishments for misuse, noting that current standards are 'laughable.'
He testified as an expert witness in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, where the judge ruled ALPR surveillance is not yet unconstitutional but could become so. Wheeler favors warrant requirements now rather than waiting for courts to impose them.
What commenters are saying
Several commenters argued ALPRs are not just license plate readers but general-purpose internet-connected cameras that can be reprogrammed for broader surveillance, including tracking Bluetooth/WiFi signals or faces. One camp sees this as an argument for legislation constraining use, not banning technology. Another dismisses the concern as applying to any networked device. A top comment suggested the term 'warrantless mass surveillance technology' as more accurate than 'license plate reader,' noting that Flock's API already exposes person-tracking objects beyond plates.