House rejects bill to allow license-plate readers on state DOT infrastructure

The North Dakota House of Representatives on final consideration rejected House Bill 1050, a measure that would have authorized the director of the Department of Transportation to enter cooperative agreements allowing law-enforcement agencies to place license-plate readers on DOT-owned or DOT-operated infrastructure. The final roll call showed 42 yeas and 51 nays; the bill was declared failed.

The Transportation Committee, chaired by Representative de Ruby, recommended a unanimous do-not-pass on the bill in committee (14-0), citing privacy and scope concerns. "Your transportation committee was not comfortable with extending this type of technology across the state and without the complete knowledge and approval of its citizens," Representative de Ruby said during the committee report.

The bill carrier, Representative Fraley, described the proposal on the House floor as a change to give the director authority to enter agreements with other state agencies, federal agencies and political subdivisions to place license-plate readers on department infrastructure. Fraley told colleagues the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) and other federal partners had expressed interest in using the readers and that the devices are already present in some local jurisdictions: "In most cases, we learned this information is shared with BCI at their request."

Supporters argued the readers would aid law enforcement and border security. Representative Murphy said he had discussed the matter with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and border-patrol officials and described cases where temporary, portable readers helped identify suspicious vehicles: "These LPRs will give are portable. They allow border patrol to station them where they think something may be happening… and allows for them to do their job."

Opponents raised privacy and scope questions. Representative Fraley told the chamber that committee testimony suggested the system could enable tracking across the state and noted potential legal concerns about tracking people without judicial process: "During testimony, we learned that the tracking of individuals' GPS coordinates requires a warrant, and so this system of tracking through license plate readers is above that requirement." Representative Koppelman warned of potential mission creep: "If you vote green on this, there's no prohibitions on going the next step to facial recognition or having these on every vehicle or in every overpass or in every stoplight."

Several members emphasized limits to the technology and the bill's narrow text. Representative Heineck underscored that the devices read plates only, not faces: "No facial recognition, because that was part of the comment I had heard too. No facial recognition. They're license-plate readers." Representative de Ruby noted the Department of Transportation opposed placing permanent readers on DOT right-of-way structures, citing infrastructure and primary-purpose concerns.

The House vote followed extended floor questioning and debate that covered border security, missing-persons searches and civil-liberties risks. The committee's unanimous do-not-pass recommendation and opposition from DOT were central to the final outcome. The bill's failure does not prevent other agencies or local jurisdictions from using license‑plate readers on non‑DOT property, and the House record notes that tribal nations may enter their own agreements with federal agencies.

Details of the measure and next steps remain as recorded in the chamber; no amendments were adopted on the House floor.