Committee deadlocks on bill limiting uses of automatic license plate readers, front-plate rule fails

The Idaho House Transportation and Defense Committee on Monday considered Senate Bill 1180, which would set permitted uses and privacy safeguards for automatic license plate readers and change the state's front license-plate requirement for vehicles that lack factory-mounted front brackets.

Supporters said the bill restricts government use of automatic license plate readers to specific law-enforcement functions and traffic analysis and adds training, audits and privacy protections; opponents said the proposal's change to front-plate rules would impair officers' ability to locate suspects and missing people. After debate, a motion to send the bill to the full House with a do-pass recommendation failed on a roll call tie, 8-8.

Senate Bill 1180 would define "agency" as a political subdivision of the state of Idaho and limit agencies' use of automatic license plate readers to law-enforcement purposes, traffic-flow analysis, investigations of felonies and misdemeanors, traffic-accident reconstruction and searches for missing or endangered persons. The bill also contains provisions intended to bar use for non-law-enforcement purposes, require privacy and data protections, mandate training, and require audits of agency use twice a year.

"Senate Bill 11 80 deals with automatic license plate readers and, currently there's really no guidelines or policies or even laws really on that," Representative Jason Monks, bill sponsor, told the committee. Monks said the text tries to "provide some guidelines and directions as far as how they could be used, the uses they can be used for, and what they cannot be used for." He also said the bill's language would not force owners of vehicles that lack front bracket mounts to retrofit a front plate.

Some committee members and witnesses pressed for specifics the bill does not include. "How long can the data be stored?" asked Representative Harris. Monks acknowledged the draft does not set a specific retention period and said he would clarify before floor action.

Jonathan Wheatley, deputy director of the Association of Idaho Cities, testified that some definitions in the bill are overbroad and could unintentionally cover routine private surveillance cameras. "There's no definition for the word 'record,'" Wheatley said, and he warned the bill could sweep in cameras in private parking lots and complicate evidence handling for cities.

Sheriff Andy Creech of Payette County, speaking for the Idaho Sheriff's Association, urged preserving two license plates for identification and enforcement. "When we look at people that are lost or missing, runaways, suicidal subjects, wanted subjects, We put out an attempt to locate on a vehicle and it's the front plate that we use to identify those vehicles as we're passing vehicles on highways at high speeds," Creech said, adding that distinguishing vehicles manufactured without front brackets from vehicles whose front bracket was removed would be difficult for officers.

Supporters of removing the retrofit requirement argued most modern vehicles already have front brackets or factory holes for brackets and that making owners retrofit older vehicles can impose needless cost. Representative Monks said, "If your vehicle is equipped with a front license plate mounting bracket, that's when you have to have one. So, if your vehicle is not equipped with one, then you do not have to go and try to retrofit it."

Representatives voiced varied positions on the motion to forward the bill. Representative Crane moved to send SB 1180 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation; after discussion, the secretary called the roll. The recorded vote: Yes -- Palmer, Mitchell, Holtzclaw, Monks, Shepherd, Crane, Hill, Harris (8); No -- Handy, Petsky, Boyle, Clow, Mickelson, Pohanka, Gannon, Green (8). The motion failed on a tie, 8 to 8.

The committee also discussed narrower questions raised in testimony: whether the bill's roadway limit would unintentionally bar cities from using ALPRs for parking enforcement, whether the bill's definition of ALPR is broad enough to include other camera types, and whether the bill should impose a specific data-retention period. Monks said the bill's language applying to devices that "passively record license plates of vehicles on a roadway" was intended to exclude ordinary private parking-lot surveillance from the definition.

No substantive amendment was adopted during the hearing. Committee members and witnesses noted potential follow-up work, including clarifying the retention period, tightening definitions to avoid sweeping in routine private cameras, and considering alternative approaches such as decals or other options for front-plate identification.

With the motion failed, the committee did not advance the bill. The sponsor said he would bring clarifications before any floor consideration and that a similar bill might return to a future committee meeting.

Votes at a glance: Motion to send Senate Bill 1180 to the House with a do-pass recommendation -- Outcome: failed on roll-call tie, 8-8. Yes votes: Palmer; Mitchell; Holtzclaw; Monks; Shepherd; Crane; Hill; Harris. No votes: Handy; Petsky; Boyle; Clow; Mickelson; Pohanka; Gannon; Green.

(Reporting based on committee hearing transcript.)