Committee weighs pilot program for automated vehicle noise enforcement cameras; privacy advocates raise concerns

The Senate Transportation Committee held a public hearing March 31 on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1423, which would authorize a pilot program, overseen by the Traffic Safety Commission, allowing cities with populations of at least 2,000 to use automated vehicle noise enforcement cameras in locally designated vehicle racing enforcement zones between Jan. 1, 2026, and July 1, 2028.

Staff explained the bill would permit cameras to detect violations of maximum permissible vehicle noise levels set by the Department of Ecology or equivalent local ordinances and would limit recordings to audio of the vehicle immediately before, during and after a violation. The Traffic Safety Commission would report to the Legislature in 2028 on deployment, locations, demographics and violations. Brandon Popovac said the fiscal impact to the Traffic Safety Commission is indeterminate, depending on the number of participating cities, with minimal costs to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Representative Brandi Donaghy, the bill’s sponsor, said the legislation targets vehicles intentionally modified to be much louder and to facilitate street racing. She said the pilot requires signage 30 days before camera use, limits retention to what is necessary to enforce infractions, and involves human review of recordings before enforcement. Donaghy urged jurisdictions of varied size and income levels to participate in order to gather representative data.

Supporters emphasized health and community impacts. Sol Keeter of Sithron, a technology vendor piloting noise enforcement in Kirkland, described 20‑second captures triggered around a sound‑pressure peak (10 seconds before and after the peak), beamforming to triangulate the source and software to obfuscate faces; he said non‑vehicle audio is discarded before upload. Ben Zorlingo, a city council member, told the committee racing noise is a top concern in his community and urged the Legislature to advance the bill.

Opponents and privacy advocates raised concerns about data capture and retention. Tee Sanon of the ACLU of Washington said microphones and cameras in neighborhoods create privacy and civil‑liberties risks, could record movements and conversations without consent, and lacked explicit retention limits in the bill. Ramona Brandes, representing criminal defense organizations, requested amendments to limit use of audio strictly to identifying vehicles modified for increased performance; she also noted the bill text contains no explicit storage‑limit language.

Committee members asked technical and equity questions. Senator Alvarado asked what the microphone records when not triggered; staff said that was not specified and could be clarified by sponsors or technology providers. Senator Wilson and others asked about health thresholds and whether noise standards would tie to human‑health benchmarks; speakers said Ecology sets permissible noise levels under existing statutory authority but the pilot uses local ordinances or Ecology rules as triggers. Senator Fortunato and others noted the bill requires the Traffic Safety Commission to analyze camera placement by area demographics and household income in its report to the Legislature.

The hearing included requests for narrow language to guard against mission creep, explicit limits on retention, and stronger protections for communities that could be disproportionately affected. No committee vote occurred during the hearing.