San Jose restricts use of license plate readers

The issue has pitted critics of the surveillance technology — who warn it can be used to track law-abiding residents and target immigrants — against its supporters, who argue the cameras, first introduced in San Jose in 2022, have become an invaluable investigative tool for the city’s chronically short-staffed police force.

“I personally believe — from everything I have read, seen, studied, discussed with folks in the city and outside the city — that we’ve struck the right balance here,” Mayor Matt Mahan said during the meeting.

Among the approved changes, the measure will reduce the default retention period of license plate reader data from one year to 30 days. It will also prohibit the placement of cameras outside abortion clinics, health care facilities offering gender affirming care, consulate offices and places of worship.

In addition, the new rules place firmer controls on access to the data. That includes a requirement that law enforcement agencies wishing to search the database provide additional compliance documentation indicating the type of crime under investigation, as well as the case number related to the request. Another rule will mean that any request from a law enforcement agency that does not have a data access agreement with SJPD will require approval from a command-level officer.

Even before Tuesday’s vote, partner agencies requesting data access have had to provide a “legitimate law enforcement purpose,” though they don’t need a warrant. San Jose already prohibits use of the database for investigating a person’s immigration status or for monitoring legally protected activities like protests or rallies.

The surveillance technology has come under increasing scrutiny in recent months. In November, a coalition of local advocacy groups sued San Jose, alleging the city’s practice of allowing warrantless searches of its license plate data violates drivers’ privacy rights.

Nick Hidalgo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit, said he is “encouraged” by the new safeguards, though he contends they still fall short.

Hidalgo argues the city must only allow searches of its database when the requesting agency provides a judicial warrant.

“Otherwise, it’s a violation of our California constitutional right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” he told San José Spotlight. “These (cameras) are ripe for abuse.”

Earlier this year, three South Bay jurisdictions — Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills and Mountain View — terminated their contracts with Flock Safety, amid concerns the company has allowed transfers of license plate reader data to out-of-state law enforcement agencies, a practice that is barred by state law.

Flock Safety spokesperson Paris Lewbel said the company’s customers are able to control who accesses their data.

“Flock provides transparent tools, compliant with California law, that help solve serious crimes and find missing people while protecting civil liberties, and we welcome continued discussion with city leaders,” Lewbel told San José Spotlight.

SJPD officials maintain that audits conducted by the agency confirm the city’s database has not been accessed for any purpose that violates city policy or California law.

During his testimony before councilmembers, Police Chief Paul Joseph laid out the investigative merits of the city’s automated license plate readers.

“I have never seen a technology advance so impactful to our ability to keep the community safe as I have with these license plate reader cameras,” he said. “It’s assisting us in locating at-risk persons. It enhances the coordination … and it’s also increased the solvability rate for our cases for our detectives.”

Critics of the technology — including dozens of residents who spoke out during a marathon public comment section and a City Hall rally held prior to the vote — have been pushing back against such claims of the cameras’ public safety benefits.

“We put up these camera networks all over the place, and they track every single person that falls within their view, regardless of whether they’re suspected of a crime or not,” Huy Tran, executive director of the advocacy group Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network, said during the rally. “And so we’re not talking about fighting crime in that instance, right? We’re talking about tracking and monitoring what everyone does.”

Meanwhile, many other residents spoke in support of the cameras, warning that jettisoning the technology entirely would amount to a major setback for public safety in San Jose.

“I’m here to say that we want the Flock cameras to remain as is,” South San Jose resident Lorrie Landis said during the meeting. “They make our families and our neighborhoods safer…. I want the criminals found.”

As they prepared to cast their votes in favor of the new safeguards, several councilmembers acknowledged the decision would leave many residents dissatisfied.

“I understand our community’s concerns, and that’s why I believe in codifying these safeguards,” District 8 Councilmember Domingo Candelas said. “While I know that community advocates wanted more, know that we as a council are paying attention and that we will have oversight, and it will continue.’’

While San Jose’s contract with Flock Safety appears secure for now, Tuesday’s measure does instruct the City Manager’s Office to “explore alternative vendors” for providing automated license plate reader services.

“My concern is not with (automated license plate reader) technology itself,” District 5 Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who pushed for the inclusion of the directive, said. “My concern is with Flock Safety as a vendor, and honestly, I believe we should end our contract with Flock today. But unfortunately, I don’t know if we have the votes for that.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, some residents questioned Mahan’s participation in the vote, noting that a number of major contributors to his gubernatorial campaign have invested in Flock Safety. However, City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood said the vote does not fall under California’s campaign finance laws because it didn’t involve any decision about a contract with the city.

This story was originally published by San José Spotlight and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.