BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 1330
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: simitian
VERSION: 2/23/12
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: March 27, 2012
SUBJECT:
License plate recognition technology: personal information
DESCRIPTION:
This bill establishes parameters for the use of and retention of
data collected from License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology.
ANALYSIS:
LPR technology uses cameras and optical scanners that are either
stationery or affixed to the exterior of a vehicle to record the
license plates of passing vehicles plus data about when and
where the license plate and vehicle were photographed. LPR
technology also allows for the information it collects to be
retained in a database.
Existing law, passed in last year's transportation budget
trailer bill, permits the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to
retain LPR data it collects for up to 60 days and to be
available for use in felony investigations. The law prohibits
the CHP from selling the data for any purpose. This law mirrors
the internal policy that CHP had in place prior to its
enactment.
This bill :
1)Permits a state or local law enforcement agency, other than
the CHP, to use LPR technology only when it:
a) Retains the data that it captures via LPR technology for
not more than 60 days, except when the data is being used
as evidence or for a felony investigation.
b) Does not sell the LPR data for any purpose nor makes it
available to an agency or person that is not a law
enforcement agency or a law enforcement officer. Law
SB 1330 (SIMITIAN) Page 2
enforcement agencies may only use LPR data for purposes of
locating vehicles or persons when either is reasonably
suspected of being involved in the commission of a crime.
c) Monitors the internal use of LPR data to prevent
unauthorized use.
d) Adopts a privacy policy to ensure that personally
identifiable information is not unlawfully disclosed.
e) Reports annually its LPR practices and usage, including
disclosures of data, to the state or local agency that
governs the law enforcement agency.
2)Permits a person, firm, association, partnership, company, or
corporation (private entity) to use LPR technology only when
it:
a) Retains the data it captures via LPR technology for not
more than 60 days.
b) Does not sell the LPR data nor make it available to an
agency or person that is not a law enforcement agency or an
individual who is not a law enforcement officer.
c) Makes the data available to a law enforcement agency
pursuant to a search warrant or when a peace officer is
conducting a criminal investigation and has good cause to
believe that the delay associated with seeking a search
warrant would endanger the physical safety of a person,
jeopardize the investigation, or cause other specified
adverse results. Unless precluded by a provision in the
search warrant, the recipient law enforcement agency must
within five days notify and identify itself to the person
whose information it has received and provide that person a
copy of the search warrant.
d) Monitors the internal use of LPR data to prevent
unauthorized use.
e) Adopts a privacy policy to ensure that personally
identifiable information is not unlawfully disclosed and
posts this policy on its Internet Web site.
f) Reports annually its LPR practices and usage, including
disclosures, to the California Department of Justice.
SB 1330 (SIMITIAN) Page 3
3)Permits an individual to bring a civil action and be entitled
to damages, plus costs and attorney's fees, when a private
entity discloses or sells that individual's information, which
it collected via LPR technology in violation of this bill's
provisions.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose . Private firms store LPR data that law
enforcement, repossession companies, other private firms,
and their own "scout cars" collect. At least one company,
Vigilant, makes this data available both to law enforcement
agencies and to other private companies. The author
asserts that these practices present numerous risks to
Californians' constitutional right to privacy. He notes
that when aggregated over an indefinite period of time,
dozens or hundreds of LPR data points on a single
individual can provide deep insight into his or her life
including friendships, vocation, religious and political
beliefs, shopping and recreational habits, and other
relationships.
Other private entities can buy and store this data without
the knowledge or consent of the individual.
Self-regulation for this sort of behavior is insufficient
to ensure a constitutional right to privacy, especially
when there is a profit incentive.
In response to the concern for the invasion of
Californians' rights and the lack of existing state or
federal law on the subject, the author introduced this bill
to establish parameters for the use of LPR technology and
the resulting data. The bill contains a distinct set of
parameters for law enforcement and non-law enforcement
entities.
2. Opposition . The committee received letters of
opposition from a number of law enforcement groups. They
universally object to the 60-day limit on retaining LPR
data because of its use in solving older criminal cases and
investigating recent crimes based on the habits of the
suspected perpetrator. Opponents note that although LPR
data may not be used as evidence or part of a felony
investigation, the fact that it was retained for a longer
length of time often provides the needed link to solve a
SB 1330 (SIMITIAN) Page 4
crime. Thus, they view the 60-day time limit as a
hindrance to their public safety duties. Some also
expressed concerns about the delay of securing a search
warrant in order to access the LPR data of a private
entity.
3. Technical amendments .
On page 2, lines 13-14, delete "all statutory and
constitutional requirements and"
On page 3, line 13, delete "are" and insert "is"
On page 3, lines 32-33, delete "all statutory and
constitutional requirements and"
On page 4, line 5, delete "The" and insert "Except
as provided in subparagraph (4), the"
On page 4, line 8, delete "not less" and insert "no
more"
1. Double-referral . The Rules Committee referred this bill
to both the Transportation and Housing Committee and to the
Judiciary Committee. Therefore, if this bill passes this
committee, it will be referred to the Committee on
Judiciary.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, March 21,
2012)
SUPPORT: American Civil Liberties Union of California
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
OPPOSED: California Fraternal Order of Police
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers
Association
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
SB 1330 (SIMITIAN) Page 5