Automatic License Plate Reader Cameras Are Widespread
Due to their increased presence, the state of Virginia passed a law last year requiring significant changes in how police use these systems. However, a new report indicates that police departments are widely ignoring these restrictions.
Key Violations Identified in the Report
Scale of Non-Compliance with the Law
According to the January 2026 report by the Virginia State Crime Commission on police use of ALPR systems, a significant number of agencies appear not to be complying with the law that took effect on July 1, 2025.
“Based on responses to the 2025 Crime Commission survey on ALPR use by law enforcement, some Virginia law enforcement agencies are not using ALPR in accordance with the new statute,” the report states. “Furthermore, nearly one-third of law enforcement agencies did not respond to the survey; therefore, their ALPR use is unknown. Measures will be taken this year to address these issues.”
Data Sharing Violations
The new statute clearly limits the sharing of ALPR data to Virginia law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, defenders, suppliers, or by court order. It does not permit sharing with out-of-state or federal law enforcement agencies.
However, the Crime Commission found that 13% of responding agencies reported providing permanent access to out-of-state law enforcement. Furthermore, six percent reported providing permanent access to federal law enforcement agencies.
The report explicitly states that the statute does not allow such sharing. In total, 20 agencies acknowledged providing permanent access to out-of-state agencies, and 9 to federal agencies. This is not a gray area. It directly contradicts the law.
Ignoring Other Policies
The law requires the deletion of ALPR data after 21 days unless it is related to an active investigation. Yet, 33 agencies acknowledged having a data retention policy exceeding 21 days. Some kept information for up to 60 days for stationary cameras, 180 days for mobile cameras, and 30 days for portable devices. This is clearly significantly longer than the statute allows.
The legislation also requires agencies to adopt a formal ALPR policy and conduct public awareness measures before or shortly after implementation. Despite this, 26 agencies using ALPR openly admitted having no policy at all. Another 14 stated their policy was “in process,” and 55 reported having no public awareness measures. In other words, dozens of departments implemented a powerful surveillance tool without the restrictions established by the General Assembly.
Open Disregard for Requests
Perhaps the most alarming part of this situation is that 110 agencies, representing about 30% statewide, simply ignored the Crime Commission’s survey. Essentially, there is no way to know if they are complying with the law. The Commission’s Chairman now plans to send letters to both non-compliant and non-responding agencies demanding they rectify the situation.
For a surveillance system capable of tracking millions of drivers, “we didn’t respond to the survey” and “we didn’t delete the data” are not minor oversights. These are serious non-compliances. And now attention is focused on the departments that ignored the rules.
This situation points to a systemic problem with controlling mass surveillance technology even after legislative restrictions are introduced. The lack of transparency and open disregard for procedures by a significant portion of law enforcement creates risks for citizen privacy and undermines trust in institutions. The Commission’s further actions and potential sanctions will show how seriously the state takes compliance with established rules and the protection of human rights in the era of digital tracking.