Rafael A. Mangual argues that the pushback against Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) is misguided:
One company, Flock Safety, has become the movement’s primary target. Flock cameras, like other ALPRs, capture information about vehicles—not the people inside them—as they pass. They record license plates, along with details such as a car’s make, model, color, and distinguishing features, including bumper stickers, custom paint, or visible damage. That information is stored by flock on behalf of its customers (who actually own the data) for short periods, allowing them to track, and in some cases intercept, vehicles involved in criminal activity.
That police sometimes want to keep an eye out for vehicles of interest shouldn’t be controversial. Agencies have done that as part of AMBER Alerts for years. The idea was simple and uncontroversial: widely disseminating information about such vehicles could help turn ordinary citizens into intelligence assets in child-abduction cases, when time is crucial. AMBER alerts have unquestionably saved lives. The widespread adoption of advanced ALPRs would build on what has been gained from AMBER alerts by making it easier to find vehicles when time is of the essence.
But that hasn’t stopped politicians from across the spectrum—at both the federal and local levels—from announcing support for legislation banning or restricting the deployment of ALPRs.
[…]
For starters, there is no right not to be photographed in public—whether by private citizens or by the government. So-called First Amendment auditors take joy in illustrating this fact. There’s now a whole genre of YouTube content featuring self-styled auditors obnoxiously filming people in public to get them to call the police, who are often forced to admit they can do nothing. Filming public space is, in fact, protected activity.
In addition, the Fourth Amendment has never been understood to prohibit law enforcement officers from observing what is in plain view from a place where they are lawfully present. If an officer walking past a car sees contraband on the front seat, he may act on that observation—even without a warrant.
[…]
The notion that local governments are using these cameras to compile long-term logs of Americans’ movements runs up against several realities. For one, such an effort would quickly create enormous data-storage demands. For another, Flock cameras default to retaining data for no more than 30 days, a setting that most jurisdictions leave unchanged. Many police departments also impose their own restrictions on which vehicles can be searched and under what circumstances. To be sure, this doesn’t mean that the technology can’t be misused (as shown by a handful of cases involving police officers using department assets to track people for personal reasons). But these abuses don’t justify a rejection of the technology any more than some cases of excessive force justify condemnation of policing as an institution.
