Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy Alpr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would regulate license-plate readers, set retention limits and restrict third-party access
Summary
Senate Bill 6,002 proposes a state regulatory framework for automated license-plate readers (ALPRs): it generally prohibits ALPR use except enumerated purposes (stolen vehicles, missing persons, specified investigations), requires agency registration and audits, and sets a 72-hour default data-retention limit with multiple exceptions; supporters and civil-liberty groups called for tighter limits on retention and third-party vendor access.
Senate Bill 6,002 would establish statewide rules for automated license-plate reader systems, including permitted uses, registration and auditing requirements, and data-retention limits. The bill generally makes ALPR use unlawful unless an agency meets specific exceptions such as matching plates against stolen-vehicle lists, missing or endangered persons, or vehicles tied to felony warrants; it also prohibits ALPR use at certain sensitive sites, including schools and places of worship.
Staff counsel summarized the bill's core elements: ALPR data would generally be deleted within 72 hours, with explicit exceptions for law-enforcement evidence retention, toll-collection and traffic studies (which have different retention windows). Agencies would register systems with the Attorney General and maintain a two-year audit trail; ALPR data would be exempt from public-records disclosure except for bona fide research that removes identifiable information.
Sponsor Sen. Trudeau said Washington's constitution provides strong privacy protections and framed the bill as a balance between investigatory tools and civil liberties. "Washington's constitution article 1 section 7 grants a strong fundamental right to privacy," she said, arguing for statewide guardrails because communities reported unexpected and sometimes troubling uses of ALPR data.
Civil-rights and privacy organizations urged stronger limits. "A 72 hour limit is a start, but shorter retention better reduces the risk of misuse or breach," said an ACLU witness. Community groups, reproductive-rights and immigrant-rights organizations warned that third-party vendors and out-of-state access could enable surveillance that circumvents state protections; witnesses cited reported nationwide searches of vendor networks.
Local governments, law enforcement and mayors supported a regulatory framework but asked for operational flexibility: several chiefs and prosecutors said a 72-hour default would hinder real investigations and advocated for 30-day retention or carve-outs for misdemeanors and ongoing investigations. City and county representatives also urged protections against burdensome public-records requests for raw ALPR images.
The hearing drew hundreds of witnesses across a broad coalition; sponsors asked for continued stakeholder engagement and indicated retention periods and sharing rules would be negotiated. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.
