ELK GROVE, CA (MPG) - Opponents and proponents of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) here squared off during an information-only presentation by the Elk Grove Police Department at the Sept. 9 City Council meeting.

While law enforcement and City Council members praised ALPRs use in solving crimes and enhancing public safety, residents seeking removal of the devices said they lead to civil rights violations, cases of mistaken identity and even persecution by law enforcement of opponents of the cameras.

“This is mass surveillance and we don’t want it here,” Lindsey Halsell, a member of De Flock Elk Grove, a citizen group advocating for the removal of ALPRs, said in remarks during the public comment period.

Twenty residents spoke at the meeting against using the devices and for their removal. It’s the second consecutive meeting the council has heard from citizens about their displeasure with ALPRs. Twenty-one individuals spoke at the Aug. 26 meeting.

Several residents also spoke at the March 25 meeting where Elk Grove Police Chief Robert Davis presented the department’s 2025 annual activity report: a report that included a brief overview of the ALPR program by Real Time Information Center (RTIC) manager Andrea Cortez. That report showed a 2% drop in crime overall in the city.

Opponents of ALPRs told the council early in the Sept. 9 meeting that law enforcement officials would not present evidence ALPRs had led directly to a reduction in crime but rather use statistics about camera activity and anecdotal evidence such as specific crimes solved to defend the devices’ use. Some opponents agreed the cameras played a part in crime solving but contended eyewitness reports and other traditional investigative methods also played roles.

“We are always glad when crimes are solved and people make it home safe, no one disputes that,” Halsell said. “But we have to ask, how much of this success is really due to ALPRs?”

According to the 2025 report, statistics show since the department began using ALPRs in March 2021 they have provided alerts on 1,548 vehicles, with 56 percent of these – 866 – resulting in arrests. Camera data has generated 5,293 total calls for service, leading to 700 arrests, 70 suspicious vehicles, 640 reckless vehicle incidents, 536 vehicle theft reports, 1,548 collisions/hit and run incidents and assisted in the search for 93 missing people.

In their presentation at the Sept.9 meeting, Davis and Cortez provided the council and the public with more information on safeguards and practices that the department has implemented to prevent misuse of the data collected by the ALPRs, especially since new state laws went into effect in 2023 dealing with their regulation. 

Cortez said accessing this data is only done through specific requests with no automatic inquiries performed. When a data search is made, a case number and reason code must be assigned.

“You have to be conducting an investigation,” Cortez said.

Cortez added not all officers are allowed to access ALPR data. Only those specifically trained and defined as needing to access the data are allowed.

“As chief of police, I have no access to this system,” Davis said. “I have no need.”

Elk Grove has also entered into memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with California law enforcement agencies that agree to follow the updated state regulations and terminated MOUs with counties such as Orange and Riverside that have indicated they might not. The department has opted out of Flock data features such as allowing national searches of data. 

The department has tightened its protocols in how alerts are turned into searches if requested by requiring several levels of verification and has begun the process of developing and implementing system auditing requirements.

Law enforcement officials provided specific examples of crimes solved using ALPR technology as well, using anecdotal examples of the devices’ effectiveness. 

Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper acknowledged ALPR opponents’ concerns that data could be used by other agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or by out-of-state law enforcement agencies searching for individuals who might be in violation of local laws but have come to California and are not violating state law.

“We don’t do that; we don’t cooperate,” Cooper said. “We’re not big government. That’s not our job.”

ALPR opponents claim the devices are not only used to track undocumented immigrants but also people crossing state lines to protect their reproductive rights. Opponents also claim while law enforcement can provide statistics on ALPRs use, studies show there is no correlation between these and actual reductions in criminal activity and that their use isn’t worth the potential loss of civil liberties posed by the monitoring.

The few studies that have looked at the use of ALPRs make that claim. A 2025 study by Rowan University criminology and criminal justice professor John Shjarback and Atlantic City Police Chief James Sarkos of that city’s ALPR system indicated the devices did lead to an increase in alerts for stolen vehicles or plates that led to arrests and vehicle recovery that was “two to three times more likely” during patrol activity.

“Thus far, however, there is little evidence that ALPRs reduce crime and even less is known about their impact on solve/clearance rates,” the authors wrote. 

In making their case to have ALPRs removed from city streets, or at least more tightly regulated, opponents also fell back on anecdotal evidence of instances where the devices have been misused.

In Grass Valley, California, law enforcement recently canceled the use of Flock ALPRs over community concerns, but one month after city crews removed the devices, the cameras were reinstalled by the manufacturer because a clause in the contract only allowed Flock to remove the units. Grass Valley subsequently removed two reinstalled units and is monitoring the others for their removal.

Earlier this month, officials in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, covered their Flock cameras and are in the process of canceling their contract after a Flock representative contacted a city official earlier this summer and offered to sell them five years of traffic data the company collected on the city without its knowledge and in violation of the contract.

Elk Grove council members acknowledged ALPR opponents concerns and indicated their own feelings about being monitored without their knowledge. For Councilmember Rod Brewer, surveillance is personal.

“As a Black man, it’s a reality I face every day,” Brewer said. “It’s never positive; it’s always negative and we have to work twice as hard to show that we are part of this society.”

Brewer agreed with other council members that the devices have proven useful in solving crime and the department has taken steps to prevent their misuse, internally and externally.

“ALPRs are a powerful tool for law enforcement,” Councilmember Kevin Spease said. “But we have appropriate safeguards here in place in Elk Grove and we will continue to remain vigilant on the compliance.”

“Here in Elk Grove, we believe in public safety,” Councilmember Sergio Robles said, adding he believes the Police Department is acting with integrity, respect for community and following the law.

“I haven’t seen anything that says otherwise,” he added.