The Complainant in this matter expressed concerns regarding the use of automatic license
plate reader systems (ALPR) by two law enforcement agencies (LEAs). The Complainant was
also concerned with the LEAs’ use, sharing, and retention of the license plate data (Data)
obtained from these ALPRs. Specifically, the Complainant was worried that the LEAs may
retain Data, either in databases that are currently in use or databases that may have been
previously used, longer than allowed by the Automatic License Plate Reader System Act (the
Act) found at Section 41-6a-2001 et seq. The Complainant indicated that the LEAs may not
have established or be adhering to a retention schedule that requires Data to be purged in
accordance with the Act. The Complainant also mentioned that the LEAs may loan out their
vehicles containing ALPR to other LEAs thereby allowing unauthorized access to Data.
Based on the information and materials provided by the LEAs it was determined that both
LEAs have instituted measures to ensure that they use, share, and retain Data as authorized
by the Act. Each LEA has a contract with their ALPR provider containing language which limits
access to and the sharing of the Data. Both LEAs have established a policy that describes the
acceptable uses of ALPR and the Data. These policies are posted and are publicly available
on the LEAs’ websites as required by Subsection 41-6a-2003(3). Both policies state that Data
is only retained for a period of 9 months. The LEAs stated that their ALPR provider retains the
Data, then the Data is automatically deleted after 9 months. The LEAs also indicated that Data
is only shared with other law enforcement agencies if they have entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding, which limits who can have access to the Data and for what purposes.
Finally, both LEAs said they do not loan out vehicles with ALPR.
However, neither LEA has established a retention schedule for the Data. Subsection 63G-2-
604(1)(a) of the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requires all
governmental entities to file a proposed schedule for the retention and disposition of any
material defined as a record. The definition of a record includes electronic data that is
“prepared, owned, received, or retained by a governmental entity or political subdivision”. See
Section 63G-2-103. Each contract that the LEAs have with their ALPR providers indicate that
the LEA owns the Data. Whereas the Data falls within the definition of a record, it was
recommended that the LEAs create a retention schedule for the Data as required by GRAMA.
In addition, one of the LEA policies indicated that ALPR may be used to gather information
related to homeland security and electronic surveillance. Subsection 41-6a-2003(1) prohibits
the use of ALPR except as described in the Act. Subsection 41-6a-2003(2)(a) allows ALPR to
be used “by a law enforcement agency to access captured license plate data” in the following
circumstances:
- as part of an active criminal investigation;
- to apprehend an individual with an outstanding warrant;
- to locate a missing or endangered person; or
- to locate a stolen vehicle.
Nothing in the Act states that a LEA may use ALPR for homeland security or electronic
surveillance. The Government Data Privacy Act (GDPA) at Subsection 63A-19-401(3)(a) states
that “a governmental entity may not establish, maintain, or use undisclosed or covert
surveillance of individuals unless permitted by law”. Therefore it was recommended that the
LEA review its ALPR practices to ensure that they only use ALPR as authorized.
That same LEA policy indicated that reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required to
use ALPR. However, reasonable suspicion is required if ALPR is used as part of an active
criminal investigation under Subsection 41-6a-2003(2)(a)(i). The term active criminal
investigation is defined in the Act as “an officer has documented reasonable suspicion that a
crime is being or has been committed, and believes the suspected criminal activity may be
connected to a vehicle, a registered owner of a vehicle, or an occupant of a vehicle”. See
Subsection 41-6a-2002(1). Therefore it was recommended that the LEA review their policy to
ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act.