Police Leaders Are Building Their Own License Plate Reader Safeguards and Expect Every New Technology to Face the Same Test, NPI Report Finds

Leaders from 21 agencies describe safeguards that align with what the public asked for, concede they cannot yet show what the technology delivers, and say they would set the rules before launch if they started over.

ARLINGTON, Va., Oct. 20, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Leaders of 21 law enforcement agencies say the backlash against automated license plate readers (ALPRs) has changed how they will adopt every technology that follows, according to Safeguards First, a report released today by the National Policing Institute (NPI). Many are adopting safeguards including some practices that go beyond what the public asked for. Several said that if they were starting over, they would engage the community earlier and have rules and auditing in place before launch.

The report draws on two NPI virtual convenings of agency leaders held in September 2026 and pairs their accounts with NPI's national survey of 1,435 U.S. adults and the research on ALPR effectiveness. Together they show that agencies and the public are closer than the current debate suggests: 54.4% of survey respondents oppose ALPR use in their community, yet 60.4% would accept an agency keeping its program, most with new restrictions, and 14 of 16 demographic and political groups chose the same top safeguards.

"License plate readers are the first technology to face this kind of intense and rapid public test, but they won't be the last," said Jim Burch, President of the National Policing Institute. "The leaders that spoke with us aren't standing by. Many are already putting safeguards in place, and some of the most practical ideas came from agencies that found a problem and took steps to address it. The agencies on the firmest ground are the ones that can show their safeguards, independently conducted reviews, and their results when questioned."

What Leaders Told Us

• Every technology now faces this test. Leaders named drones, real-time crime centers, facial recognition, and AI as the next likely tech to face this scrutiny. They described councils that once approved technology on a consent agenda now reviewing all of it, and one proposed ordinance written so broadly that attorneys believed it could reach body-worn cameras. Some agencies have delayed new projects, and some leaders said they would welcome statewide standards over a patchwork of local rules. "What this has done is change the way we have to do everything going forward," one leader said.
  
  
• Leaders are building their own safeguards, often beyond what the public asked for. One agency cut the number of users who could search by nearly two-thirds. Others removed search access from senior command staff and from the people who conduct audits, require a written statement of facts for each search rather than a drop-down code, audit hot lists daily, and treat misuse as a crime where state law allows. Some have ended data sharing with agencies that hold federal immigration enforcement agreements, written data ownership and resale bans into vendor contracts, and posted contracts and sharing agreements in one public place.
  
  
• Leaders would shorten data retention, within limits. Most said 21 to 30 days meets investigative needs, and several with longer periods said they could shorten them with little loss. They resisted windows of seven days or 48 hours, which they said would close off many property crime cases, and raised middle-ground options such as a short default with older data searchable only with supervisor approval or a warrant. Most survey respondents (53.2%) favor 30 days or less.
  
  
• Leaders cannot yet show what the technology delivers. Most agencies report plates read, searches run, and hits received, not whether a read produced a lead or solved a case. Leaders said critics have unturned those activity counts against them, and that when programs ended, no one could measure what they knew was given up. Leaders also said they waited too long to respond publicly and let inaccurate claims fill the gap.
  
  
• Leaders whose programs ended see a long road back. None of the agencies at the convenings whose programs ended had restarted. Leaders said a restart is likely to require a formal public process, a year or more, more than a change of vendor, a working relationship with elected officials, and, for smaller agencies, regional coordination.

What NPI Recommends

"I should have had the guardrails in place, with the auditing, prior to even putting it in place," one leader said. Building on that lesson, NPI recommends three steps for ALPRs and any technology that collects information about the public: set the rules before procurement, build verification the public will trust, and plan to measure value from day one. For agencies whose programs are stopped or paused, the report lays out a path back and closes with question checklists for chiefs, sheriffs, and elected officials planning to launch, expand, or restart a technology program.

Independent Review of the Whole ALPR Program

To help agencies act on these findings, NPI offers ADAPT, an independent review of the whole ALPR program, not only its search log. This new offering examines how a program is authorized, how its data are kept, secured, and shared, who can search them, how the system is used compared with policy, and how the program is audited and reported to the public. NPI can then help agencies build the policies, audit procedures, and public reporting the review recommends. No technology vendor funds, sponsors, or reviews an engagement.

"The field is closer to the public than the current debate suggests," said Burch. "The work now is to make those safeguards visible and verifiable, and to measure what the technology delivers. Agencies that do that work before launch will be in a stronger position to keep the tools they have and to effectively introduce the tech that come next."

About the Research

Safeguards First draws on two NPI convenings of leaders from 21 law enforcement agencies, held in September 2026, with comments reported without attribution; NPI's independent national survey of 1,435 U.S. adults, fielded in September 2026 using a census-matched online sample weighted to U.S. Census Bureau benchmarks for age, sex, and race or ethnicity; and scientific research on ALPR implementation and effectiveness.

About the National Policing Institute

The National Policing Institute (NPI) is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit research and advisory organization committed to addressing policing's most complex challenges through evidence-informed, innovative solutions. Through its Advisory Services, Blue Lumina Labs, and Evidence to Implementation Institute (E2I), NPI helps law enforcement organizations adopt and adapt the most effective programs, resources, and tools available to serve their communities. Learn more at policinginstitute.org.

Media Contact: Megan Webster, [email protected], 571-562-1605

SOURCE National Policing Institute