Law enforcement seeks DOT authority to place license-plate readers on state infrastructure; DOT, privacy advocates push limits

Ben Langan, chief agent with the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, told the House Transportation Committee that House Bill 1050 would let the Department of Transportation director enter into cooperative agreements with city, county, state, federal and tribal law enforcement agencies for placement of automatic license-plate readers (ALPRs) on DOT-owned infrastructure.

Langan called ALPRs an important tool for public safety and border security. "ALPRs do not collect personal identifying information," he said, describing a detection record as a plate image, a collateral image of the vehicle, GPS coordinates, and date and time. He cited case studies in which ALPR detections led investigators to suspect vehicles and contributed to drug seizures and arrests. Langan said ALPRs can speed identification of stolen vehicles and help Amber and Silver alert efforts; he noted that, in North Dakota, many silver alerts involve motor vehicles.

Langan said the Bureau of Criminal Investigation has worked with DOT and other agencies on pilot projects (fixed cameras in the Greater Bismarck–Mandan area) but that DOT legal staff concluded it lacked authority to allow law enforcement equipment on DOT property. The bill would authorize the DOT director to enter cooperative agreements and, in Langan's view, provide the legal certainty DOT lawyers sought.

Langan proposed several guardrails in testimony: limited access to ALPR data to authorized law enforcement personnel with a criminal predicate and case number; audit logging of every query; retention policies; training and accountability; and an exemption to public-records law for ALPR audit logs, which he argued could reveal a person is under investigation and jeopardize cases.

Matt Linneman, deputy director for engineering at the North Dakota Department of Transportation, testified in opposition as drafted and offered an amendment that would narrow DOT authority. Linneman said the highway right-of-way exists primarily for safe movement of people and goods and cautioned against using it for permanent law-enforcement infrastructure that could create safety conflicts or require additional permitting. His proposed amendment would: limit DOT cooperative-authority to federal agencies with border-security responsibilities, and change statutory language from a mandatory "shall" to permissive "may" so DOT retains engineering discretion about locations and installations.

Committee members pressed witnesses on privacy and misuse risks. Representative Hendricks cited documented cases in other states of officers abusing ALPR access to stalk individuals and asked what safeguards would prevent similar misuse in North Dakota. Langan pointed to audit trails, training and the need for meaningful sanctions; he said modern ALPR systems log every access and that misuse can result in loss of privileges, discipline or prosecution.

Representatives asked about data sharing and federal access. Langan said agencies enter user agreements that define what is shared; "your data is your data," he said, and agencies can limit sharing. He also distinguished ALPR snapshots from continuous GPS tracking, saying a plate detection is a one-moment record rather than round-the-clock location tracking, a difference that courts consider when weighing privacy intrusions.

Multiple legislators and public witnesses focused on civil-liberties concerns. Mike Blessam, a Minot city council member speaking on his own behalf, said the technology raises Fourth Amendment and First Amendment risks and warned of disproportionate deployments in high-crime or minority neighborhoods; he urged either banning ALPRs or legislating strict safeguards, including transparency of audit logs. Travis Zablotny, a Minot resident, offered broader warnings about mass surveillance and urged the committee to reject the bill.

Questions addressed tribal lands and ownership of right-of-way. Langan said BCI intends to include tribal law enforcement in agreements but that lawyers are still researching legal mechanics and that he planned to offer an amendment to add tribal partners. Linneman said DOT permits non-transportation uses in the right-of-way case by case and that state-owned highways that run across tribal lands may require coordination with tribes and federal entities.

Committee members also discussed how ALPRs are already used in the state: Langan said many local agencies mount ALPRs on patrol vehicles and that BCI is not yet operating fixed readers but has cameras in storage awaiting permission to install on DOT infrastructure. Linneman said some traffic-signal cameras are used for signal timing and vehicle detection and are not currently transmitting video to outside parties.

Langan testified there is no fiscal note because agencies currently fund ALPRs themselves. He said an amendment is likely to be offered to exempt ALPR detection records and audit logs from open-records requests to protect active investigations.

The hearing produced no vote; committee members asked for draft amendment language and more work on engineering, data-sharing, tribal inclusion and privacy safeguards before further committee action.