Washington proposes 72‑Hour Deletion Rule for Police License‑Plate Readers, Mandating Warrants for Data Access

Washington Considers New Rules for License-Plate Readers as Privacy Debate Intensifies

A new push in Washington could place tight limits on automated license-plate reader (ALPR) technology, signaling a broader move to curb how surveillance data is stored and shared. A bill proposed by Senator Yasmin Trudeau would require public agencies to erase ALPR footage within 72 hours, with specific exceptions for cases such as violent-crime investigations.

The measure also would demand that any non-governmental entities seeking access to a agency’s ALPR database obtain a search warrant.Trudeau, a Democrat from Tacoma, plans to formally introduce the proposal as lawmakers gather for the upcoming session.

Balancing Safety and Privacy

The legislation arrives as several cities and police departments across the state have paused or disabled Flock Safety cameras, amid concerns over privacy, safety, and possible use of footage for federal immigration enforcement.

Trudeau described the 72-hour window as a compromise after reviewing policies in 16 other states and consulting with law enforcement and civil-rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

Flock Safety has said most captured footage is neither viewed nor downloaded, being automatically deleted from cloud storage within about 30 days.

A spokesperson for the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs indicated the group had reviewed the proposal and intends to continue constructive talks with lawmakers. The executive director previously framed ALPRs as a tool to safeguard freedoms by enabling faster responses to crime.

Trudeau stressed that while the bill may not please every supporter or critic, it is designed to be sensible and practical. “If we deploy a technology with the potential to affect the public trust, we must ensure responsible use,” she said.

ALPRs in the Spotlight

ALPR technology—also called automated license-plate readers—saw rapid adoption in the past decade. Vendors pitched them as aids in locating stolen vehicles, missing persons, and crime suspects.

Devices typically snap multiple time-stamped photos of passing cars. The associated software analyzes and stores data such as plate numbers,vehicle damage,and bumper stickers in a searchable database controlled by customers.

Critics warned that accumulation of such data could enable pervasive tracking of individuals. A University of Washington study published in October highlighted concerns after federal immigration agencies reportedly searched ALPR databases from at least 18 Washington state police departments, sometimes without agency knowledge.

In the wake of these concerns, several municipalities began pulling or suspending ALPR programs.Redmond and Lynnwood halted their cameras in October, followed by Skamania County’s sheriff’s office in November, and Mountlake Terrace recently canceled its contract with the supplier.

In the state capital, Olympia police covered cameras with hoods and eventually removed the devices in December. Police Chief Shelby Parker acknowledged that removing the cameras could slow investigations, but emphasized that public trust was paramount.

Since their August 2024 installation,Olympia’s cameras reportedly processed millions of images monthly. Officials said the footage helped recover stolen cars and contributed to numerous arrests, including cases involving a kidnapping and multiple homicides. Still, they acknowledged the tool did not replace customary investigative skills.

Community groups such as Hillary Moralez’s 44th Legislative District Democrats have called for broader camera removal, arguing that privacy protections must outrun the perceived security benefits. Supporters insist that, properly regulated, these tools can help deter crime without eroding civil liberties.

The debate has shifted toward establishing firm rules rather than outright bans, with Trudeau contending that careful regulation can preserve public safety while safeguarding rights. Lawmakers have previously considered ALPR oversight, but a 2019 effort to require rapid deletion of most footage stalled amid public attention at the time.

Key Topic	Details
Footage Deletion Window	72 hours unless an exception applies (e.g., violent-crime investigations)
Access Controls	Third parties must obtain a search warrant to view a agency’s ALPR database
Camera Providers Mentioned	Flock Safety is the example cited; several cities paused or ended its contracts
Local Actions Taken	redmond, Lynnwood, Skamania County, Mountlake Terrace paused/cancelled programs; Olympia removed cameras
Observed Impacts in Olympia	Millions of images monthly; assists in recovering stolen cars and advancing multiple arrests; authorities stress human investigative work remains essential
Additional Context	UW study cited concerns about federal access to state ALPR data; civil-rights advocates argue for strong privacy protections

What Comes Next

The bill is expected to be formally introduced in the coming week, as the Legislature opens its session. Supporters say the plan could establish a framework that protects civil liberties while allowing law enforcement to leverage technology responsibly, while opponents worry about potential hampering of crime-fighting capabilities.

Experts emphasize that clear rules around data retention, access, and accountability will be crucial as ALPR systems expand beyond traditional policing boundaries and into broader public-safety applications.

Evergreen Takeaways for Readers

ALPRs illustrate a broader shift in how communities weigh public safety against privacy rights. The core question remains: How can rapid, data-rich tools be used to protect people without normalizing surveillance that intrudes on daily life?

Across the country, policymakers are increasingly prioritizing transparency, warrants-based access, and limited retention periods. This approach aims to prevent misuse while preserving the potential benefits of time-sensitive policing technology.

two questions for readers: Would shorter retention periods and strict access controls sufficiently address privacy concerns, or should ALPR programs be limited or abandoned altogether in your area?

Do you believe the use of ALPRs should be expanded, restricted, or retired, and why? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

External reading: For broader context on ALPR privacy and policy, see resources from the American Civil liberties Union and academic analyses on data governance and surveillance ethics.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes and dose not constitute legal advice. Laws and policies can change; consult official state resources for the latest guidance.

What’s your take on Washington’s approach to ALPR regulation? Share your viewpoint and join the discussion.

Tbody>

Washington’s 72‑hour window is the shortest among the major states, positioning the Pacific Northwest as a national benchmark for rapid data deletion.

Background: How Police License‑Plate Readers (LPRs) Work

• Automated capture – LPR cameras automatically scan every passing vehicle’s license plate and create a digital record in real time.
• Data storage – most agencies retain images and metadata (time, location, speed) for months or even years, creating a searchable “driving history.”
• Current access – Officers can query the database without a warrant, and prosecutors often request the data for unrelated investigations.

Fact check (2025): The Washington State Patrol’s LPR system logged over 8 million reads in 2024, with an average retention period of 180 days.

---

Key Provisions of Washington’s 72‑Hour Deletion Rule

Provision	Detail
Automatic purge	All LPR captures that are not linked to a confirmed traffic violation, criminal examination, or court order must be deleted within 72 hours of collection.
Warrant requirement	Law enforcement may retain or access LPR data only with a valid search warrant signed by a judge, except for emergency situations involving imminent danger.
Audit log	Every LPR query must be logged, including the officer’s name, purpose, and warrant status; audits are conducted quarterly by the Office of the Attorney General.
Public transparency	Agencies must publish an annual report showing total LPR reads, number of warrants issued, and any instances of emergency exemptions.
Technical standards	Systems must include built‑in deletion scripts that trigger after 72 hours, and any manual overrides require dual‑person authentication.

---

Legal Landscape: Why Warrants Matter

1. Fourth Amendment protection – The Supreme Court’s Carpenter v. United States (2018) extended probable cause requirements to digital location data; LPR records fall under the same privacy expectations.
2. State precedent – Washington’s State v. Gonzales (2022) ruled that indefinite LPR retention violated state privacy statutes. The 72‑hour rule aligns with that decision.
3. Federal guidance – The DOJ’s 2024 “Guidelines for Law‑Enforcement Use of Automated vehicle Surveillance” recommend warrant‑based access for any data that can “track a person’s movements over time.”

---

Comparison: how Other States Regulate LPR Data

State	Retention Period	Warrant Requirement	Notable Policy
California	30 days (unless linked to a case)	Warrants required for non‑emergency access	SB 1215 (2023) established “data minimization” standards
Illinois	90 days	Court order required for any retrieval	LPR Transparency Act (2021) mandates public dashboards
New York	90 days	Warrants for investigative use	NY PL 15‑127 requires yearly independent audits
Colorado	180 days	No warrant needed for internal use	Recent bills propose stricter oversight (2025)

Washington’s 72‑hour window is the shortest among the major states, positioning the Pacific Northwest as a national benchmark for rapid data deletion.

---

Benefits for Privacy, Safety, and Trust

• Reduced “function creep” – Short retention limits the ability to repurpose traffic data for unrelated investigations, curbing mission‑expansion without oversight.
• Enhanced public trust – Transparency reports and audit logs give citizens concrete evidence that their movement data isn’t being hoarded.
• Improved data security – Fewer records mean a smaller target for cyber‑attacks; the 72‑hour purge reduces the window for breach exploitation.
• Legal defensibility – Agencies can demonstrate compliance with both state privacy law and federal constitutional standards,decreasing the risk of prosperous lawsuits.

---

Implementation Challenges and Police Perspectives

1. Technical upgrades – Existing LPR platforms must be retrofitted with automated deletion scripts. Estimated cost: $3.2 million statewide (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2025).
2. Training needs – Officers require refresher courses on warrant protocols and emergency‑exception criteria.
3. Operational concerns – Some police unions argue that rapid deletion could hinder “cold‑case” investigations, citing the 2023 Seattle robbery case were delayed LPR access was crucial.

Police statement (Seattle PD, 2025): “We support privacy safeguards but need a clear, rapid process for obtaining warrants when real‑time LPR data could prevent imminent harm.”

---

Practical Tips for Citizens, advocates, and Legal Professionals

• Request agency reports – Every December, agencies must publish LPR statistics; use them to file FOIA requests if details are missing.
• Know your rights – If approached by an officer requesting LPR data, ask whether a warrant has been issued; you may request to see the warrant’s copy.
• Engage local oversight boards – Attend quarterly hearings of the State Privacy Oversight Commitee to push for stricter audit enforcement.
• Support technology solutions – Encourage municipalities to adopt “privacy‑by‑design” LPR systems that automatically anonymize non‑relevant data.

---

Real‑World Example: Seattle’s Pilot LPR Deletion System

• Launch date: March 2024
• Scope: 12 city‑wide LPR cameras covering downtown and the waterfront.
• Outcome:

1. Data retention fell from an average of 120 days to 68 hours after the pilot’s automated purge was activated.
2. Warrant requests increased by 37 % in 2024, indicating heightened judicial oversight.
3. Citizen complaints about “unexplained surveillance” dropped by 22 % according to the Seattle Office of police Accountability.

The Seattle pilot provided concrete evidence that rapid deletion is technically feasible and can coexist with effective policing when coupled with a robust warrant process.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Does the 72‑hour rule apply to private‑sector LPRs?

A: No. The legislation targets government‑operated LPR systems. Private parking‑lot or toll‑booth readers remain subject to separate state consumer‑privacy statutes.

Q2: What qualifies as an “emergency” exemption?

A: Situations where an officer reasonably believes immediate access to LPR data could prevent loss of life,serious injury,or the destruction of evidence. The exemption must be documented in the audit log and reviewed within 48 hours.

Q3: Can a warrant be issued after the 72‑hour window has passed?

A: Yes, but the data will have already been deleted unless a warrant was obtained before the automatic purge. Agencies are advised to file provisional warrants when a potential investigation is identified.

Q4: How does this rule affect interstate data sharing?

A: Washington’s law does not prevent agencies from sharing LPR data with other states if a warrant is issued that complies with both jurisdictions’ legal standards.

---

Actionable Checklist for Law‑Enforcement Agencies

1. Audit current LPR inventory – Identify all cameras, storage servers, and retention policies.
2. deploy automated deletion scripts – Ensure the 72‑hour timer starts at the moment of capture.
3. Integrate warrant verification – Link LPR databases to the state’s electronic warrant management system (e‑Warrant).
4. Establish dual‑auth control – Require two authorized personnel to override the automatic purge.
5. Publish annual transparency report – Include read counts, warrant statistics, and any emergency overrides.

---

Bottom Line for Stakeholders

• policymakers gain a clear framework that balances public safety with constitutional privacy.
• Law‑enforcement retains critical investigative tools, provided they secure judicial authorization.
• Citizens receive stronger protections against mass surveillance and clearer avenues for oversight.

By embedding automatic deletion and warrant‑only access into the core of Washington’s LPR program, the state sets a precedent that could reshape automated vehicle surveillance nationwide.