BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1330|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1330
Author: Simitian (D)
Amended: 5/1/12
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 5-3, 3/27/12
AYES: DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Pavley, Rubio, Simitian
NOES: Gaines, Harman, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lowenthal
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 4/24/12
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Leno
NOES: Harman, Blakeslee
SUBJECT : License plate recognition technology
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill places restrictions on the use of
license plate recognition (LPR) technology by private
entities, including restrictions on the retention, use, and
sale of such data.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the California Constitution,
provides that all people have inalienable rights, including
the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (California
Constitution, Article I, Section 1)
Existing law permits the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to
retain license plate data captured by a license plate
CONTINUED
SB 1330
Page
2
reader for no more than 60 days, except in circumstances
when the data is being used as evidence or for all felonies
being investigated, including, but not limited to, auto
theft, homicides, kidnaping, burglaries, elder and juvenile
abductions, Amber Alerts, and Blue Alerts. (Vehicle Code
(VEH) Section 2413(b))
Existing law prohibits the CHP from selling LPR data for
any purpose and making it available to an agency that is
not a law enforcement agency or an individual who is not a
law enforcement officer. The data may be used by a law
enforcement agency only for purposes of locating vehicles
or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being
involved in the commission of a public offense. (VEH
Section 2413(c))
Existing law requires the CHP to monitor internal use of
the LPR data to prevent unauthorized use. (VEH Section
2413(d))
Existing law requires the CHP to report to the Legislature
its LPR practices and usage, including the number of LPR
data disclosures, a record of the agencies to which data
was disclosed and for what purpose, and any changes in
policy that affect privacy concerns. (VEH Section 2413(e))
This bill:
1. Imposes the following restrictions on any person who
uses LPR technology other than a state or local law
enforcement agency:
the person shall not retain license plate data
captured by LPR technology for more than 60 days;
the person shall not sell LPR data for any
purpose and shall not make the data available to an
agency or person that is not a law enforcement agency
or officer;
the person shall make data available to a law
enforcement agency only pursuant to a search warrant.
Unless the search warrant contains a provision to
the contrary, the law enforcement agency shall
SB 1330
Page
3
immediately, but within no more than five days,
notify the person whose information was disclosed
that his or her records have been obtained. This
bill requires the agency to give a copy of the search
warrant to the person and include the identity of the
agency or officer who received the records; and
the person must allow a peace officer who is
conducting a criminal or traffic collision
investigation to obtain personally identifiable
information of a person if the officer has good cause
to believe that a delay in obtaining the information
by seeking a search warrant would cause an adverse
result, as specified.
2. Requires a person using LPR technology to monitor the
internal use of LPR data to prevent its unauthorized
use.
3. Requires a person using LPR technology to adopt a
privacy policy to ensure that personally identifiable
information is not unlawfully disclosed.
4. Requires a person using LPR technology to report
annually to the Department of Justice on its LPR
practices and usage, including the number of LPR data
disclosures, a record of the law enforcement agencies or
peace officers to which data was disclosed and for what
purpose, and any changes in policy that affect privacy
concerns.
5. Provides that any person whose information is sold or
disclosed in violation of this bill's provisions
relating to the use of LPR technology by persons other
than a state or local law enforcement agency may bring a
civil action and shall be entitled to recover any and
all consequential and incidental damages, including all
costs and attorney's fees.
Background
License plate technology uses cameras and computer
technology to record license plate information of vehicles.
The cameras are either mobile (e.g., attached to the
SB 1330
Page
4
outside of a vehicle) or stationary, and the images they
collect of license plate numbers are converted into
computer-readable data which is then instantly checked
against various databases such as the National Crime
Information Center. LPR technology captures other data as
well, including the geographic location of the vehicle and
the time and date that it is scanned. This information can
then be retained in a database. The technology works at
lightning speed; one company, VeriPlate, indicates that its
cameras can capture one license plate every second.
Law enforcement uses LPR technology to identify and locate
stolen vehicles or compare the information obtained against
databases of outstanding warrants. Auto repossession
companies take advantage of LPR technology to help find
debtors who are behind on their car payments. In January
2012, a California Watch article entitled "Private company
hoarding license-plate data on US drivers" noted:
Capitalizing on one of the fastest-growing trends in law
enforcement, a private California-based company has
compiled a database bulging with more than 550 million
license-plate records on both innocent and criminal
drivers that can be searched by police. . . . ÝP]olice
around the country have been affixing high-tech scanners
to the exterior of their patrol cars, snapping a picture
of every passing license plate and automatically
comparing them to databases of outstanding warrants,
stolen cars, and wanted bank robbers. The units work by
sounding an in-car alert if the scanner comes across a
license plate of interest to police, whereas before,
patrol officers generally needed some reason to take an
interest in the vehicle, like a traffic violation.
But when a license plate is scanned, the driver's
geographic location is also recorded and saved, along
with the date and time, each of which amounts to a record
or data point. Such data collection occurs regardless of
whether the driver is a wanted criminal, and the vast
majority are not.
While privacy rules restrict what police can do with
their own databases, Vigilant Video, headquartered in
Livermore, Calif., offers a loophole. It's a private
SB 1330
Page
5
business not required to operate by those same rules. .
. . Vigilant distinguished itself from competitors by
going one step further and collecting hundreds of
millions of scans to create what's known as the National
Vehicle Location Service. A West Coast sales manager for
the company, Randy Robinson, said the scanners - as well
as data from them compiled in the location system - do
far more than simply help identify stolen vehicles.
Stories abound of the technology also being used by
police to stop wanted killers, bank robbers, and drug
suspects. Kidnappers could be intercepted, too.
Existing law restricts the use of LPR technology by the
California Highway Patrol. In 2011, the Legislature passed
and the Governor signed AB 115 (Assembly Budget Committee),
Chapter 38, Statutes of 2011, the transportation budget
trailer bill, which allowed the CHP to retain data captured
by LPR technology for no more than 60 days except as
specified. The bill also prohibited the CHP from selling
the data or making it available to anyone other than law
enforcement.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/7/12)
American Civil Liberties Union
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Public Interest Research Group
Consumer Federation of California
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Gun Owners of California
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/7/12)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Public Parking Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
SB 1330
Page
6
City of Beverly Hills
League of California Cities (initial opposition)
Los Angeles Police Protective League
MuniServices
MVTrac
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Several private entities have "scout cars" that cruise
city streets, parking lots, and highways to track the
surrounding vehicles with LPR. One company claims to
scan 40 percent of the vehicles in the country on an
annual basis; another says that it captures data on 50
million vehicles each month. This data is sold to
financial institutions, repossession companies, and
private investigators.
Today, there are no regulations on this practice. In
fact, LPR records can be sold to any person or
organization for any purpose. This poses public safety
risks and threatens Californians' constitutional right to
privacy.
Senate Bill 1330 establishes rules of the road for the
use of LPR by private entities. Other states like New
Jersey and Utah have imposed regulations on LPR; Maine
prohibits private entities from utilizing the technology
altogether, and New Hampshire does not even permit law
enforcement to use LPR.
This bill is supported by the Consumer Federation of
California which writes that the measure will "safeguard
Californians' constitutional right to individual privacy by
reining in the use, and increasing abuse, of license-plate
recognition (LPR) software on both innocent and criminal
drivers. . . . Innocent Californians should not be
having their vehicles monitored, potentially tracked, and
that data stored and then sold for profit to third parties
like asset recovery companies and financial institutions
(among others) - all without their knowledge or consent."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District
Attorneys Association states, "Our opposition stems from
SB 1330
Page
7
the fact that district attorneys presently obtain the data
in question without the use of a search warrant and that
adding a search warrant requirement is unduly burdensome.
Additionally, we are concerned about the requirement that
mandates law enforcement to notify the person whose
information has been disclosed unless each search warrant
contains a provision to the contrary. This requirement,
notwithstanding the exigent circumstance provision in the
bill, could have the effect of jeopardizing and/or delaying
an ongoing criminal investigation and/or prosecution."
JJA:kc 5/8/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****