Skip to content
ORWELL INDEX
Active Updated

Redding Police Department | Vigilant license plate readers

Redding bought roughly 42 license plate readers in 2020 for $800,000. In 2021 they recorded just over 45 million plate detections in a city of about 93,000 people. The department says the camera locations cannot be released, and a records request released them in 2022.

At a glance

Devices
about 42 license plate readers [2]
Vendor
Vigilant Solutions, a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions [2]
Contract
$800,000, summer 2020 [2]
Plate detections, 2021
45,028,750 [3]
Plate detections, 2025
more than 43 million, with 65,000 hits [2]
Data retention period
a minimum of one year [1]
Suspicion threshold before a search
none required [1]
Audit interval
policy 425.6(c) asks for audits on a regular basis and names no interval and no auditor [1]
Required to record why a search was run
the policy contains no such requirement; the department describes a need to know standard [1] [2]
Camera locations
withheld on request, and released in a 2022 records response [2] [3]

How it happened

  1. Procurement

    The city buys the county's largest plate reader network

    Redding enters an $800,000 contract with Vigilant Solutions, a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions. It covers about 42 cameras, the hardware to run them, and access to the central database the department uses to share hot lists with agencies elsewhere. We could not find the council item, staff report or vote for this purchase. [2]

  2. Context

    The cameras record 45 million plate detections in a year

    A detection report produced for the department counts 45,028,750 plate detections across 23 fixed positions during 2021. Redding's population is about 93,000. Four of the 23 positions are radar trailers, the mobile speed signs that show a driver their own speed. [3]

  3. Incident

    A records request releases the camera positions

    The detection report is released under a public records request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It names each camera position in a column heading, among them Cypress at Hilltop, Eureka Way Bridge, Market Street Bridge and Lake at Masonic. The department has separately said that releasing camera locations could jeopardize current or future cases. [3] [2]

  4. Context

    The current version of the policy is built

    Policy 425 is published as a standalone document in the department's public policy manual, which is more accessible than the practice in some neighbouring agencies. What it requires is the vendor template's defaults: a one year minimum retention, no suspicion threshold, and audits on a regular basis with no interval named. [1]

  5. Context

    More than 43 million detections, and 65,000 hits

    Plate data obtained by a local newsroom shows the cameras scanned plates more than 43 million times inside the city limits during 2025, producing 65,000 hits on vehicles of interest to the department or to an agency sharing its hot lists. [2]

The scale

In 2021, Redding’s license plate readers recorded 45,028,750 detections.[3] In 2025 they recorded more than 43 million, producing 65,000 hits on vehicles of interest.[2]

Redding has about 93,000 residents.

A detection is not a person and not even a distinct car. One vehicle driving across town past four cameras is four detections. But the order of magnitude is the point: this is a system that records essentially every vehicle movement past 23 fixed positions, continuously, and has done since 2020.

The city bought it in the summer of 2020, for $800,000, from Vigilant Solutions, which is a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions. The purchase covered about 42 cameras, the hardware, and access to the central database the department uses to share hot lists with agencies elsewhere.[2] We could not find the council item or the vote that approved it.

Where the cameras are

The department has said that releasing camera locations could jeopardize current or future cases.[2]

The 2021 detection report lists them. Each camera is a column heading: Cypress at Hilltop, Cypress at Parkview, Eureka Way Bridge, Hartnell at Churn Creek, Placer at Chestnut, South Bonnyview at Indianwood, Market at Wyndham, Hilltop at Presidio, Market Street Bridge, Buenaventura, Cypress at Hemsted, Lake at Boulder, Lake at Masonic, and others.[3] The report was released under a public records request in 2022 and has been public since.

Four of the 23 positions are radar trailers. Those are the mobile signs that show a driver their own speed, which most people read as a traffic-calming device rather than a plate reader.

What the policy requires

Redding publishes its police policies as individual documents rather than burying them inside one large manual, and the plate reader policy is section 425.[1] That is a better standard of publication than some neighbouring agencies manage.

What it requires is the vendor template’s defaults.

Data is kept for a minimum of one year, under 425.5. Both other plate reader systems in this county keep data for 30 days.

No suspicion is needed before a search. Section 425.4(b) states that reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required.

Audits happen “on a regular basis,” under 425.6(c). The policy sets no interval and names nobody to perform them.

Sharing is permitted with “other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies,” under 425.7, by written request approved case by case. The policy states no federal restriction, though state law supplies one.

The question the record does not close

A local newsroom reports that a records request covering 2025 found the department sharing plate data with no agency outside California, and that a similar request in 2022 showed the department sharing with police in New Jersey, Texas, Nevada, Louisiana and Nebraska, and with Customs and Border Protection.[2]

We have not seen the partner list from either request. What we hold from the 2022 release is the detection report, which counts scans and names cameras and lists no recipients at all.[3] Until someone reads that list, this remains what a newsroom reported rather than a document we can show you.

If it is accurate, it describes a practice that Civil Code 1798.90.51 forbids, and that stopped.[4]

One related thing is not forbidden and is worth knowing. The law bars a California agency from sending this data out of state. It does not bar receiving it. Redding continues to receive plate data from other states, including from as far away as New England.[2]

What an officer has to write down

The department’s agreement with the agencies it shares with requires that each transaction be logged with a case number and an audit trail created.

Asked whether an officer must record the reason for a search, the police chief described a need to know and right to know standard for access to any department information, and said anyone accessing has to have a work related reason.[2] The policy contains no requirement to record one.

Anderson Police, ten miles down Interstate 5, requires a name and case number on every plate search, in writing, in its own policy. A state bill that would have required search purposes statewide was vetoed in October 2025.

Questions

How many plates do the cameras read?
More than 43 million in 2025, and 45,028,750 in 2021. Redding has about 93,000 residents. These are detections rather than distinct vehicles, so one car passing several cameras on one trip is counted several times. [2] [3]
How long is the data kept?
Policy 425.5 says a minimum of one year. The other two plate reader systems in this county, run by the Sheriff's Office and Anderson Police, both keep data for 30 days. [1]
Does an officer have to record why they searched?
Not under the policy, which contains no such requirement. The department's agreement with other agencies requires each transaction to be logged with a case number. Asked whether officers must document the reason for a search, the police chief described a need to know and right to know standard for access to any department information. Anderson Police, ten miles away, requires a case number on every plate search in its own policy. [1] [2]
Where are the cameras?
The department has said that releasing the locations could jeopardize current or future cases. The 2021 detection report, released under a records request, names 23 positions in its column headings. [2] [3]
Has the data been shared outside California?
A local newsroom reports that a records request covering 2025 found the department sharing with no agency outside the state, and that a similar request in 2022 showed sharing with police in five other states and with Customs and Border Protection. We have not seen the underlying partner list from either request. Civil Code 1798.90.51 forbids a California agency from sharing this data with out of state or federal agencies. The same law does not forbid receiving it, and the department continues to receive plate data from other states. [2] [4]

On the map

The community has mapped 87 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 Shasta County.

What we have documented in Shasta 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.
    Redding Police Department Policy 425, Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) · Primary document · · accessed · archived copy · our copy (11 KB)
  2. 2.
    Shasta Scout, "Safety versus surveillance" · News · · accessed · archived copy
  3. 3.
    Redding Police Department ALPR detection report for 2021, released under a records request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation · Primary document · · accessed · archived copy
  4. 4.
    Senate Bill 34 (2015), Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 and following · Law · 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.