LA Council to Vote on Resolution License Plate Reader Pilot Program

The Los Angeles City Council is expected to vote next Tuesday on a proposed three-month pilot program for the installation of license plate-reading cameras on street lights.

The council was scheduled to take up the matter Wednesday, but it was continued to Oct. 27. The pending decision comes after the five-member Public Safety Committee recommended vetoing the pilot program after it was already approved by the Board of Police Commissioners in September.

The Los Angeles Police Department is seeking to execute a contract with Axon Enterprise for a no-cost pilot program that would see 30 cameras clamped to the tops of street lights, drawing power from the lights’ electrical connections, according to Ubicquia Inc., a subcontractor that would install the cameras.

A motion by Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez to oppose the contract was approved by a 3-2 vote of the Public Safety Committee, with council members Nithya Raman and Curren Price joining Soto-Martinez.

Council members John Lee, chairman of the committee, and Traci Park voted no. Lee and Park had earlier sought to advance the matter to the full council without a recommendation. The committee took up the matter after the City Council voted Oct. 6 to assert jurisdiction over the issue.

The LAPD uses automated license plate reader technology to identify stolen vehicles and those associated with wanted suspects. Axon Enterprise and Motorola Solutions provide ALPR technology to the department.

Soto-Martinez sought to bring the matter before the council for further review, citing concerns about privacy and data collection policies. During Tuesday’ committee meeting, Soto-Martinez questioned how many cameras would be installed, where they would be located and asked who gets to access the data collected from ALPRs.

LAPD Cmdr. Randy Goddard, assistant commanding officer of the department’s Information Technology Bureau, said the technology does not use facial recognition, geometric interpretation or audio recording, or identify the driver or passenger. He added that it does not create data fields identifying a person’s race, ethnicity, medical or immigration status.

“The system generates an alert. Under department policy it is not probable cause. An officer must verify the plate and confirm the underlining status through an independent source before taking action,” Goddard said.

California law and department policy set clear limits on how ALPR information may be used and shared. State laws prohibit sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The LAPD further prohibits searches based solely on First Amendment activity or other legally protected characteristics or activities.

LAPD Chief Information Officer Dean Gialamas, who also serves as commanding officer of the department’s Information Technology Bureau, explained that on Sept. 22 the police commission approved the ALPR pilot with Axon under an enhanced governance framework created by the LAPD.

“It established a considerably more restrictive and accountable operating model to test, evaluate and report back before any longer-term decision is made. It established a new path forward,” Gialamas said. “Importantly, many of these safeguards are already being implemented.”

On Oct. 16, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell issued a department-wide notice about new ALPR guidelines on data ownership, privacy and safeguards related to data sharing and access, audits, accountability and transparency, according to Gialamas. The policy was based on recommendations and feedback from the police commission, residents and other entities.

Gialamas said the Axon contract would serve as a template for future ALPR vendors. He added that the department had updated its data-retention and data-sharing policies to strengthen civil liberties and privacy protections.

The LAPD’s updated policy would be implemented at the same time as the pilot program.

Changes to the department’s ALPR policy include:

— Prohibiting unauthorized secondary use and unauthorized sharing of information while preserving city ownership of the data.

— Restricting access to captured data to 4,000 officers and reduces searchable data from two years to 90 days. After 90 days, the data is no longer available for routine searches.

— Limiting data sharing to certain law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Torrance, Huntington Park, Hayward, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, La Mesa, Glendale, Alhambra, West Covina and Livermore, as well as sheriff’s departments in Los Angeles, Madera and San Luis Obispo counties, among others.

— Adjusting the frequency of audits.

— Requiring officers authorized to access the system to obtain supervisory approval and complete online video training and a test.

Gialamas noted that direct access to the department’s ALPR system is currently suspended. Case-specific requests must be documented on official agency letterhead, and will be reviewed individually before any information is provided.

“No new standing data sharing agreements will take effect until the pilot is completed, and the final policy changes and agreements are reviewed and approved by the police commission,” he said.

He said fixed cameras shall not be installed within 200 feet of a licensed health care facility or clinic whose primary service is reproductive or gender-affirming health care.

Goddard explained that under the proposed pilot there will be monthly reports until the pilot is complete. Each report would cover inspection results and the pilot’s status and progress.

“Let us test the technology under our enhanced safeguards, measure its public safety value, and our compliance with those safeguards, identify any remaining risks, and repot the results back publicly before any longer-term decision is made,” Gialamas said.

Soto-Martinez argued that the department should establish its policies before testing the technology.

Council members cited cases in which officers in other states have used the technology to stalk former romantic partners and investigate women seeking reproductive health services outside their home communities.

They also cited incidents in which partial or incorrect data led law enforcement officers to conduct aggressive stops of people who were not suspected of crimes.

Lee and Park argued that officers need the technology.

“Those cameras were providing an important layer of protection for a very vulnerable community that needed it,” Park said, referring to the vulnerability of Pacific Palisades in the aftermath of the January 2025 fire.

Soto-Martinez argued that the level of data being collected on Angelenos is unprecedented. The councilman alleged the department has not had an ALPR policy since the coronavirus pandemic. The LAPD first introduced its policy in December 2020, and since then has revised it.

“Never has the city had so much information on our residents where we can see what they’re doing and where they’re at,” Soto-Martinez said.

Gialamas said the department is strengthening its ALPR policy to prevent misuse, which he says has not been identified.

Soto-Martinez said he didn’t have enough information to say whether allowing 4,000 LAPD officers to access ALPR data was good or bad. He also wasn’t convinced that the LAPD’s new auditing requirements went far enough.

“I think that there is more work to be done. I don’t like that there’s 4,000 people without an analysis whether they deserve to keep having (access to ALPR data) or not. I don’t feel comfortable why we cut off the external … we haven’t talked about the direction those folks want to move forward. The lack of auditing, and not being able to bring a third party in,” Soto-Martinez said.

In September, the Board of Police Commissioners approved a new 10-year, $235 million contract with Axon. The company is expected to provide more than 1,600 patrol-car cameras with ALPR technology, along with thousands of replacement body-worn cameras, Tasers, cloud storage for video footage and artificial intelligence features that would generate initial drafts of police reports from body-worn camera recordings.