Flock Safety, artificial intelligence (AI), and automated license plate readers (ALPRs) have intensified the debate over privacy and public safety. Critics object to collecting vehicle location data from people who are not suspected of crimes. Police leaders emphasize the ability to locate stolen vehicles, identify suspects, and develop investigative leads.
Both concerns are legitimate. However, collecting information is only one part of the problem. The greater preventable risk may be how the data is searched, retained, shared, and used.
Technology is agnostic. It has no motives or personal interests. People do. They can use technology responsibly, carelessly, or corruptly. Strong governance cannot depend solely on trusting every user to act properly.
The law already provides principles that can guide ALPR governance, although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that every ALPR database search requires a warrant.
In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the government obtained 127 days of historical cell-site location information using court orders that did not require probable cause. The Supreme Court held that acquiring this information was a Fourth Amendment search. The Court explained that the government generally must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring at least seven days of historical cell-site records. The ruling was narrow and addressed cellphone location records, not ALPRs. Still, it established an important principle: aggregated digital location information may deserve greater protection than one observation made in public.
Van Buren v. United States (2021) provides another important guardrail. Georgia police sergeant Nathan Van Buren improperly searched a law enforcement license plate database for money. He violated department policy, but he used valid credentials and could access the information as part of his job. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed his Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) conviction, holding that the CFAA does not cover an authorized user merely because that person accesses permitted information for an improper purpose.
That decision did not approve Van Buren’s conduct. It demonstrated that internal departmental policy violations do not automatically become federal computer crimes. Agencies need clearly applicable laws, administrative rules, technical restrictions, and disciplinary procedures.
Other misconduct can still lead to prosecution. In 2024, former Metropolitan Police Department officer Vincent Forrest received 20 months in prison for bribery, conspiracy, and false statements after selling protected police information (U.S. Department of Justice, 2024).
Society cannot demand the benefits of data-assisted public safety while rejecting every database needed to provide them. Police agencies also cannot expect public trust without enforceable limits.
Every ALPR system should therefore require:
- A case, incident, or dispatch number for each query
- A documented and authorized purpose
- Role-based access and multifactor authentication
- Immutable search and sharing logs
- Independent, recurring audits
- Short, automatic retention periods
- Supervisory review of suspicious activity
- Clear administrative, civil, and criminal consequences
The goal is not unlimited collection or blind trust. It is a system in which every sensitive search is justified, limited, traceable, and reviewable.
–Klyvorek, Google Gemini, and OpenAI
KLYVOREK, a division of the American Academy of Advanced Thinking, LLC, is an AI-assisted law enforcement documentation platform that helps officers create clear, structured incident reports and draft search and arrest warrant applications, while keeping the officer in control of the final document.
________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018).
U.S. Department of Justice. (2024, August 28). Former MPD officer sentenced to 20 months in prison for scheme that sold personal data of traffic crash victims.
Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021).
Unlimited Data?: Placing Limits on Searching Cell Phone Data Incident to a Lawful Arrest – Fordham Law Review. https://fordhamlawreview.org/issues/unlimited-data-placing-limits-on-searching-cell-phone-data-incident-to-a-lawful-arrest.
