Sacramento Police | License plate readers
Of the six agencies a grand jury reviewed in this county, five were found to comply with the law on sharing plate data. This is the sixth. The finding against it is written in the present tense.
At a glance
- What a grand jury found
- That the department was sharing plate data with agencies in four other states, which it concluded violates SB 34 [1]
- States named
- Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona [1]
- How the other five agencies compared
- The grand jury found every other agency it reviewed complied with SB 34 and the Attorney General guidance [1]
- Deadline the grand jury set
- 1 January 2025, to comply with the Attorney General information bulletin of 27 October 2023 [1]
- Whether the department had to respond
- No. The grand jury invited a response rather than requiring one [1]
- Cameras
- no camera count appears in any document we read [1]
- Retention
- not stated in any document we read. We have not read this department's own plate reader policy [1]
- What happened after the deadline
- unknown to us. We have not found a response from the department, and none was required [1]
How it happened
- Context
The Attorney General issues guidance
California Attorney General information bulletin 2023-DLE-06 sets out how state and local agencies are to collect, store, share and use plate reader data in compliance with SB 34. The grand jury later used compliance with this bulletin as its measure. [1]
- Denied
A grand jury finds the department is not complying
The grand jury records that the department currently shares plate data with agencies in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona, that representatives had recently met Attorney General's staff about compliance, and that "Notwithstanding that discussion, the Grand Jury must still conclude that SPD is not complying with SB 34." [1]
- Context
The deadline the grand jury set
Recommendation R2 asked the department to comply with the Attorney General's bulletin by this date, "as the other LEAs in Sacramento County have done". Whether it did is not something we know. [1]
One agency out of six
The 2023-2024 Sacramento County Grand Jury reviewed the plate reader policies of six law enforcement agencies in this county: the police departments of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt and Sacramento, and the Sheriff’s Office. Rancho Cordova contracts its policing to the Sheriff, so it was not interviewed separately.
Five of those agencies came out of the review the same way. One did not:
All of these police departments, with the exception of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD), comply with SB 34 and the Attorney General’s Informational Bulletin prohibiting California LEAs from sharing ALPR information with private entities or out-of-state or federal agencies, including out-of-state and federal law enforcement agencies. Currently, SPD shares ALPR data with LEAs in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona.
SB 34 has prohibited that sharing since 2016.
The tense is the finding
The grand jury wrote two findings about out-of-state sharing, one for each agency, and the only substantial difference between them is the tense of a single verb.
For the Sheriff’s Office: sharing plate information with out-of-state entities violated SB 34.
For this department: the practice violates SB 34.
The report explains why it left the second one in the present tense. Department representatives had met the Attorney General’s staff and were reviewing their sharing policy and practice as a result. The grand jury recorded that, and then wrote:
Notwithstanding that discussion, the Grand Jury must still conclude that SPD is not complying with SB 34.
A review under way is not a change made. The grand jury declined to score the intention.
Who has to answer, and who does not
The grand jury required a written response from Sheriff Jim Cooper under Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, within sixty days. State law obliges an elected official who receives such a request to answer every finding and every recommendation, in writing, on the record.
For the finding against this department, the grand jury sent an invitation to respond. It went to the Chief of Police, the Attorney General and the Mayor.
The difference is not a judgement about the seriousness of the two findings. It is how the statute works: required responses run to elected officials and to the governing bodies of public agencies, and an appointed city police chief is neither. The agency the grand jury found to be currently violating the law was, for that reason, the one it could not compel to reply.
That is worth knowing before you ask why there is no answer on this page. It is also the most useful thing a resident can do something about, because a city council can ask a chief a question that a grand jury cannot.
What we do not know
This page rests on one document, and that document is about sharing. It is not a description of the department’s plate reader system.
We have not read this department’s own plate reader policy, which state law requires it to publish. We have no camera count, no retention period, no cost, and no account of what the department sends to the four states named or receives back. We do not know what happened after 1 January 2025.
The department’s wider surveillance record - a real-time crime centre, a drone programme, gunshot detection - has not been researched here at all. This page covers one finding about one practice, and should not be read as a description of the department.
What we do not know
- Whether the department still shares plate data outside California. The grand jury's finding describes the position in mid-2024 and asked for compliance by 1 January 2025. We have found no document either way since.
- Whether the department responded to the grand jury at all. Its response was invited rather than required, so one may not exist.
- What this department's own plate reader policy says about retention, access and sharing. We have not read it. California law requires it to be published.
- How many cameras the department operates and what the system costs.
- What the department shared, and with which agencies in those four states, and on what terms.
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 Sacramento County.
What we have documented in Sacramento 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. Sacramento County Grand Jury, 2023-2024 Investigative Report, "Keep Your Eyes Off My Privacy!" · Primary document · · 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.
One click to unsubscribe. What we do with your address is on the newsletter page.