Civil liberties groups have raised concerns over California police departments continuing to share automated license plate reader data with other states, which could potentially use the information to track individuals seeking or providing abortions. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there are fears that states opposed to abortion could weaponize this data to block access to the procedure and potentially criminalize those involved. Despite guidance from California Attorney General Rob Bonta against sharing such data, some police departments have continued to do so, prompting criticism from civil rights organizations.
California law SB 34 prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from sharing information collected from ALPR systems with out-of-state or federal agencies. Despite this, some police departments are still sharing data with agencies outside of California. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU reported in a letter to Bonta that they had contacted 73 police agencies in California that were sharing such data out of state. While some agencies have agreed to stop this practice, others have either refused to do so or failed to respond altogether, raising concerns about potential privacy violations.
The concerns over data sharing come as several states have implemented severe restrictions on abortion or banned the procedure altogether, leading to an influx of individuals traveling to California and other states to seek abortion services. This has heightened fears that individuals seeking or providing abortions could be monitored or targeted by law enforcement agencies in anti-abortion jurisdictions. California Attorney General Bonta has stated that while information-sharing among law enforcement agencies can help identify criminal activities, it must be done within the confines of the law.
While some police departments in California, such as those in the Bay Area communities of Pittsburg and Hercules, have limited data sharing to other California agencies in response to Bonta’s guidance, others, like the Sacramento Police Department, continue to share data with out-of-state agencies. Despite assurances from some departments that they will comply with Bonta’s advice, there are concerns that other agencies may be disregarding the guidance. Monitoring compliance with data sharing practices remains a challenge, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as there is limited oversight over how police departments are handling ALPR data with outside agencies.
The potential weaponization of ALPR data for anti-abortion purposes raises broader questions about privacy, data sharing, and law enforcement practices. The ability of law enforcement agencies to track individuals’ movements through ALPR systems highlights the need for clear regulations and oversight to protect individuals’ privacy rights. As technology continues to advance and data sharing becomes more common, it is crucial for authorities to balance public safety concerns with safeguarding individuals’ rights and liberties. The ongoing debate over sharing ALPR data across state lines underscores the complex legal and ethical issues surrounding law enforcement practices in the digital age.
