A California trial court dismissed SIREN v. San Jose, a lawsuit challenging San Jose’s warrantless searches of automated license plate reader data, even as federal courts elsewhere began classifying such systems as indiscriminate mass surveillance.
San Jose Camera Network Dismissal
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU of Northern California represent SIREN and CAIR California, two non-profit organizations that serve San Jose residents, in the lawsuit. The legal challenge targeted the city’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance network. This infrastructure blankets San Jose streets with nearly 500 cameras that continuously photograph every passing vehicle and retain the logs for a month or longer. In their briefs, the plaintiffs argued that law enforcement officers who warrantlessly search the database are violating the California Constitution’s guarantee of privacy and its ban on unreasonable searches.
San Jose's ALPR system (which places 500 cameras around San Jose) does not violate the California Constitution's privacy provisions, Cal Superior Court rules. https://t.co/Ff2WA8fdTZ #N pic.twitter.com/MKZibd1fqh
The California trial court disagreed. Basing its decision on one California appeals court case involving individual streetlight cameras, the court concluded that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when driving on a public road. EFF criticized the decision, pointing out that networked ALPRs are not individual streetlight cameras. The combined tracking and mapping of vehicles over extended periods reveals patterns of life, intimate relationships, and much more.
EFF announced plans to appeal the dismissal.
Federal Court Divergence in Oklahoma
While the California trial court upheld the practice, a federal district court in Oklahoma moved in the opposite direction. Just a day before the ruling in the San Jose case, the federal court classified ALPRs as “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance” and ruled that a law enforcement officer’s warrantless search of ALPR data violated the Fourth Amendment.
That case involved a law enforcement officer observing traffic on an Oklahoma highway who noticed a woman driving a car with California plates. Following the car for no apparent reason, the officer ran the license plate number through Flock’s ALPR system. The search returned at least 30 days of data, enabling the officer to track the vehicle across at least three states over the span of a month from a single search. The federal court rejected the legality of this sweep.
The federal court decision emphasized that citizens do not expect strangers—let alone law enforcement—to randomly approach them to say they have been following their car for the last 30 days, providing a detailed log of every place the vehicle has been with supporting photographic evidence and sharing that information with law enforcement throughout the country.
Next Steps in State and Federal Courts
The decision out of Oklahoma is the first of its kind. EFF stated that it will work to ensure it serves as the first of many legal challenges against automated tracking infrastructure. Alongside ongoing litigation, opposition to ALPR deployment has expanded at local and state levels across the country, where communities have moved to reject the technology.
EFF confirmed it will continue its legal challenges against ALPR deployment on every front.
