Government cameras across Arizona are quietly photographing your car — recording where you go, when you go there, and how often — all without a warrant, without probable cause, and without your knowledge. So-called automated license plate reader, or ALPR, technology has spread fast, raising constitutional concerns regarding privacy, due process, and other civil liberties.
That’s why the Goldwater Institute is sending public records requests to cities, towns and universities across Arizona — 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. So far, Goldwater has sent requests to Peoria, Prescott Valley, Arizona State University, and the University of Arizona, which have reportedly implemented ALPR surveillance.
Here’s what we know: Government entities across the state have been deploying networks of ALPR cameras — often supplied by vendors like Flock Safety — that continuously capture and store the license plates, vehicle descriptions, and locations of every passing motorist. Not just suspected criminals—everyone. Some cameras and AI search tools go even further, recording details such as the type of clothing you’re wearing (tech gurus call this “attribute-based” or “nonbiometric” tracking). These systems create a detailed, searchable record of residents’ daily travel patterns without individualized suspicion or judicial oversight.
Goldwater’s public records requests seek 12 categories of records — including camera locations, vendor contracts, data-retention periods, data-sharing agreements with other agencies, and the policies governing who can search the data and under what circumstances. We’re also asking whether these systems can track a vehicle’s prior locations across jurisdictions and even search based on partial plate numbers or vehicle characteristics like make, model, and color.
Think about what that means. A government database can potentially track your car’s movements for weeks or months. Police personnel — and possibly non-sworn employees and contractors — can search that data, in some cases without a case number, supervisory approval, or any stated justification. Arizona’s public records laws exist precisely for moments like this: the law favors disclosure, and Arizonans have a right to know what their government is doing.
The legal stakes are real. In Carpenter v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that warrantless acquisition of historical cell-site location information constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. And just this year, the Court held in Chatrie v. United States that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone’s “location history” data. ALPR data is functionally equivalent — a comprehensive, retroactive map of a person’s physical movements. In addition to federal constitutional protections for that kind of data, Article II, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides an independent, potentially broader privacy guarantee.
But here’s the problem: no Arizona appellate court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of municipal ALPR programs. Cities, towns and even universities have expanded their surveillance capabilities in a legal gray zone without clear constitutional guardrails.
This week, during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike expressed concerns about the growing use of ALPR technology. There’s a reason there are growing calls across the political spectrum to scrutinize the government’s use of this technology and to rein in the surveillance state: it’s a liberty issue. And it’s one the Goldwater Institute intends to press by obtaining the relevant public records and, if we find anything improper, taking steps to protect Arizonans’ rights.
After all, under our constitutional system, transparency is for the government, and privacy is for individuals. While the digital age may bring new types of privacy concerns, our fundamental rights still apply. Whenever the government wants to invade privacy, the answer should be the same today as it was when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791: “Get a warrant.”
Tony Napolitano is a Senior Attorney at the Goldwater Institute.
