ALPRs: You’re Being Watched, Arizona.

By Hunter Smith. 

In 1949, George Orwell envisioned a dystopian society where the government constantly surveilled its citizens. While “1984” was certainly a powerful voice of warning, a surveillance state like the one Orwell imagined was not thought to be possible. That is until Eric Snowden blew the whistle on the National Security Agency in 2013. Today—more than a decade after Snowden’s revelation and seventy-seven years since Orwell’s prophecy—Arizonans worry that Orwell’s dystopian society has become even more of a reality with the continued use of and improvement in automatic license plate readers (“ALPR”).

What are ALPRs?

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ALPRs are systems that “use cameras and software to automatically capture, analyze, and store vehicle license plate information.” Based on this description, the common reader may justifiably think that ALPR use is no different than the use of a regular safety camera that law enforcement has deployed for decades. The common reader would be mistaken though. The technology behind and use of ALPRs differ dramatically. A safety camera, like a red light traffic camera, functions by recording and/or photographing a particular traffic infraction and nothing more. That is not the case for ALPRs. Rather than recording or photographing a vehicle when a driver breaks the law, an ALPR is constantly recording and storing the movements of all drivers on the road, not just those who commit traffic violations. As such, ALPRs are not used as a way to enforce the law in the traditional sense; rather, they are used primarily as an “investigative tool” by law enforcement.

Additionally, ALPRs are not used exclusively by law enforcement and they are not limited to tracking the movement of vehicles. With the continued development of technology—in particular, AI—ALPRs have become more cost effective and availability to other consumers has increased. Government agencies, businesses, and even home owner associations have been known to use ALPRs to track the movement of people for purposes ranging from pollution research, loan assessments, and neighborhood safety. Developments in technology have also increased the capability of ALPRs. Instead of just tracking license plates, some ALPR cameras can monitor individual people and can even provide fine details like “the type of clothing [they are] wearing.”

In short, ALPRs are not your grandma’s safety camera. They are a highly advanced technology capable of vehicle and person recognition that can precisely track the movements of individuals. And if you live in Arizona, they may be coming to a city, town, or university near you!

ALPRs in Arizona

As of October, 2026 there are roughly twenty agencies in the State of Arizona that use ALPRs, and some of these agencies are expanding their use. More indicative of the prevalence of ALPRs in the lives of Arizona citizens is not the number of agencies that use ALPRs, but which agencies do. The most prominent Arizona agencies using ALPRs include the Phoenix PD, Tucson PD, Scottsdale PD, Mesa PD, City of Maricopa PD, and Casa Grande PD. Together, these agencies have the potential to surveil a large portion of Arizonans. In fact, a cursory population count of each of these cities totals approximately 3,143,272 citizens. This means that—based only on the agencies listed above—roughly 41% of Arizona’s total population is subject to potential surveillance by an ALPR on a daily basis.

Constitutional Concerns

More than 41% of Arizona’s population being subject to ALPR surveillance is certainly a large number, but who cares? If ALPRs are making society better, what’s the big problem? Many concerned citizens, civil right activists, and legal scholars point to the Fourth Amendment as the biggest problem.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures and has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as “safeguard[ing] the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials.” However, because there is no expectation of privacy when driving on public roads, the Supreme Court has generally held that law enforcement have fewer restrictions when it comes to performing basic searches on license plates. Despite this, a recent U.S. Supreme Court case may provide a precedent for the Court to interpret ALPRs and their use as being different from a standard license plate search. 

Occurring against the backdrop of the warrantless seizure of data showing the location of individuals’ cell phones by law enforcement, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. U.S. that “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.” Additionally, the Court held that the “depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach” of geographical data in cell phones, along with “the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection” by simply carrying a cell phone, necessitate obtaining a warrant. Could this provide a framework for a dispute against the use of ALPRs? Certainly the depth, breadth and reach of ALPRs coupled with their automatic nature of collecting and storing data at minimum reach that of cell phones, right? Time will tell.

Policy Concerns

What about the policy concerns of ALPRs? While  there are too many to list, one of the most prevalent concerns is the daily invasion of privacy in the lives of innocent citizens. A recent audit conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department found that 99.9% of the images their ALPR cameras stored were of vehicles that were not suspected of being linked to any crime. And the LAPD are not the only agency with this problem. Storing information like this “can reveal individuals’ movements and help create detailed pictures of their private lives.” 

Another prominent policy concern is the lack of transparency among agencies that use ALPRs. In fact, a prominent public policy research organization, The Goldwater Institute, recently submitted public record requests to several Arizona agencies demanding they “come clean about how they’re using this surveillance technology, how long they’re keeping your data, and who they’re sharing it with.” The driving force behind the demand for transparency are concerns about potential misuse by those in control of ALPRs: a concern that has proven substantiated in Apache Junction, Chandler, and potentially Goodyear in 2026 alone.

Arizona Regulations

While there are several federal lawsuits and lawsuits in other states, there are currently no active lawsuits relating to ALPR usage in Arizona. However, this is not to say that there has been no action taken against them in Arizona. 

As previously mentioned, the Goldwater Institute recently submitted public records requests to several Arizona agencies using ALPRs. Additionally, several bills have been proposed by the Arizona legislature to address and govern the use of ALPRs. Though all failed, their presence in legislative hearings does not go unnoticed and helps to bring awareness to ALPRs and their potential for misuse. Perhaps the most forceful action came on August 27, 2026 when Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced a statewide review of all ALPR technology. In her announcement she stated that, “Arizonans are rightfully concerned about the documented examples of the misuse of this technology as well as how it affects their privacy rights. I share those concerns. We need a statewide approach to this issue.”

Conclusion

Laws governing ALPRs nationwide are still in their infancy, much like the technology behind the devices themselves. ALPR law is even less developed in Arizona. As is the case with any matter of public policy, the health and safety of the citizens of a state must be balanced against their inalienable rights. There may be significant litigation and legislation before Arizonans determine what that balance is. Maybe ALPRs will be banned altogether. Maybe ALPR use will be expanded. For now, we wait. In the meantime, always remember: “Big Brother is watching you.”