Skip to content
ORWELL INDEX
Active Updated

Concord Police | License plate readers

Concord wrote its own plate reader policy rather than adopting a template. It sets a six month retention limit, requires purging from backups as well as live systems, and lists exactly what an audit record must contain. The posted version is dated January 2016.

At a glance

Retention
No longer than six months, or the partner agency period if shorter, then purged from active and backup systems [1]
Inadvertent captures
Records captured contrary to the collection rules are purged on identification, and repeat problems trigger repair, realignment or training [1]
Audit record contents
User name, employing agency, date and time of access, the specific data accessed, and the authorised purpose supplied [1]
Training currency
Nobody may use the system if they have not completed training within the past year [1]
Date of the published policy
Effective January 2016, revised January 2016, with a review date of January 2017 [1]
Limit on federal or out-of-state agencies
the document contains none. Its stated purpose refers to supporting local, state and federal agencies. This describes the posted document, not current practice [1] [2]
Camera count
not in the policy. The EFF Atlas snapshot in this repo records Flock Safety readers without a count [3]

How it happened

  1. Context

    Policy effective

    The plate reader policy the city publishes carries an effective date and a revision date of January 2016, and a review date of January 2017. It sets a six month retention limit and details what an audit record must contain. [1]

What the policy establishes

Concord’s plate reader policy is the department’s own drafting rather than a commercial template, with lettered sections instead of the numbered chapters used elsewhere in this county. The header reads “EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/2016 REVISION DATE: 01/2016 REVIEW DATE: 01/2017”.[1]

Its retention rule is the tightest in this county and specific about backups. Data “shall not be retained longer than 6 months, or the length of time required by the partner agency who is custodian of the record – whichever is shorter”, after which “the record will be purged entirely from all active and backup systems unless a reasonable suspicion has been established that the vehicle identified by the ALPR read is connected to criminal activities”.[1]

The policy also anticipates its own errors. It acknowledges that “in rare instances, ALPR units may inadvertently capture information contrary to the collection guidelines set forth in this policy”, says such records “will be purged upon identification”, and directs that a notable increase in those incidents from particular units be followed up “with for equipment repairs, cameras realignment, or personnel training as necessary”.[1]

On auditing it is unusually concrete about content rather than frequency. Access “is logged for audit purposes”, and audit reports “will be structured in a format that is understandable and useful” containing at minimum the user’s name, the employing agency, the date and time of access, the specific data accessed, and the supplied authorised law enforcement purpose.[1] Nobody may use the system who has not completed training within the past year.[1]

What the document does not contain

A full-text search of the posted policy returns no mention of immigration, the California Values Act, or out-of-state sharing. Its opening purpose describes supporting “authorized law enforcement and public safety purposes of local, state and federal agencies”.[1]

The document is dated January 2016 and carries its own review date of January 2017. The Attorney General guidance reading state law to bar sharing plate data with out-of-state and federal agencies came in 2023.[2] We did not sweep the city site for a newer posting, so we make no claim that this is the department’s current policy, and none at all about what it shares.

Where to ask

The audit record fields this policy lists are precise enough to request by name, which makes a records request for recent audit reports straightforward to write and hard to answer vaguely. Ask also whether a version newer than January 2016 exists, since the document sets its own review date nearly a decade ago. Concord City Council meets in public and takes comment.

Questions

How long does Concord keep plate data?
Six months at most, and less if a partner agency that owns the record requires less. The policy says the record is then "purged entirely from all active and backup systems" unless reasonable suspicion connects the vehicle to criminal activity. Purging from backups is a detail most policies leave out. [1]
What does the department record about who looked at the data?
More than most. An audit report must contain at minimum the user's name, the agency employing them, the date and time of access, the specific data accessed, and the authorised law enforcement purpose they supplied. [1]
Does the policy address immigration or out-of-state agencies?
No. A full-text search of the posted document returns no mention of immigration, the California Values Act, or out-of-state sharing, and its opening purpose refers to supporting "local, state and federal agencies". The document is dated January 2016. California's Attorney General guidance reading state law to bar out-of-state and federal sharing came in 2023. We did not sweep the city site for a newer posting, and we hold no record of what the department actually shares. [1] [2]

On the map

The community has mapped 577 devices of this type in the county on OpenStreetMap. These are community reports: the vendor and operator of each point are unverified, and none is confirmed to belong to this system. See them on the map →

Street names from reverse geocoding — © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

What we do not know

What you can do

Show up

Systems like this one are approved by boards, councils and committees that meet in public. We have not yet confirmed where each of them meets in Contra Costa County.

What we have documented in Contra Costa County →

Protect yourself

Practical steps to shrink your personal data trail. Our guides publish at launch; until then, EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense is the best starting point.

Surveillance Self-Defense →

Sources

  1. 1.
    Concord Police Department, Department Regulations Procedure 96 / I.D. 307, Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Policy, effective January 2016 · Primary document · accessed
  2. 2.
    California Department of Justice, Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06, guidance on sharing licence plate reader data · Law · accessed · archived copy
  3. 3.
    EFF Atlas of Surveillance, Concord Police Department ALPR entry (snapshot captured 2026-08-20) · Dataset · accessed · archived copy

Get the digest

A regular digest of what changed in the world of surveillance: the counties we published, the devices that appeared on the map, and the public meetings where these decisions get made. We send it when there is enough to report.

Subscribe to the newsletter

One click to unsubscribe. What we do with your address is on the newsletter page.