SIGNALDATAAccountability. For the People. Preview
The License-Plate Reader File · CaliforniaIn reporting · updated Oct. 17, 2026

Who is reading your plate?
County by county.

California sheriffs and police departments buy automated license-plate readers from Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions, Axon and others. State law since 2016 limits how the data may be used and shared. This map tracks which agencies use them, what they pay, and which have pulled back.

License-plate readers in other states →

A county’s color reflects any documented agency in it: the sheriff’s office or a city police department. “Not yet checked” is not the same as “none”.

Using license-plate readers
In use; some cameras may have been switched off or removed.
Removing or limiting cameras
Removing cameras beyond state roads, or limiting use, while some remain.
Use suspended
Cameras switched off or use paused; no contract termination reported.
Program documented, current use unconfirmed
Records or reports show the agency bought or used plate readers, but no source found confirms whether they are still in use.
Ended or removed
Contract terminated, program discontinued, or all cameras removed.

Statewide

  1. Jan. 1, 2016 SB 34 (Statutes of 2015, Chapter 532), codified at Civil Code section 1798.90.5 and following, took effect. It requires ALPR operators and end users to keep a usage and privacy policy, log access, and share ALPR information only with public agencies. The Attorney General reads 'public agency' to exclude out-of-state and federal agencies. (California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 27, 2023)
  2. Feb. 13, 2020 The California State Auditor released report 2019-118 on the Fresno Police Department, LAPD, Marin County Sheriff's Office and Sacramento County Sheriff's Office. It found none of the four audited staff searches of ALPR images, three of the four shared images without first checking the recipient's right and need to know, and 70 percent of surveyed agencies ran or planned to run ALPR. It recommended a state model policy and a maximum retention period set in law. (California State Auditor, Feb. 13, 2020)
  3. Oct. 27, 2023 The Attorney General's Division of Law Enforcement issued Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06, telling state and local agencies that SB 34 bars sharing ALPR information with out-of-state and federal agencies, with model policy guidance. (California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 27, 2023; California Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 3, 2025)
  4. April 2, 2024 Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a California Highway Patrol contract with Flock Safety for about 480 cameras: about 290 on Oakland surface streets and 190 on East Bay state highways, with a 28-day retention period. (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, April 2, 2024)
  5. June 18, 2025 CalMatters and The Markup reported, from a search log obtained by Oakland Privacy covering April 28 to May 30, 2025, that 10 agencies, nine in Southern California and six in Los Angeles County, ran searches for ICE, including LAPD; the Orange and San Diego County sheriffs ran searches for Border Patrol. Riverside County logged four 'hsinvest' searches but said they were narcotics cases. (The Markup / CalMatters, June 18, 2025)
  6. Oct. 2025 Gov. Newsom vetoed SB 274, which would have required deletion of some ALPR data after 60 days, officer training, documented case reasons for searches and random Department of Justice audits. His veto message said the 60-day limit could impede investigations, particularly cold cases. (CalMatters, Oct. 3, 2025)
  7. Oct. 3, 2025 Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a petition for a writ of mandate in San Diego County Superior Court against the City of El Cajon, its police department and Chief Jeremiah Larson, alleging the department shared ALPR data with agencies in 26 other states in violation of SB 34. The AG's office said it had contacted 18 agencies about possible violations since 2024. (California Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 3, 2025; CalMatters, Oct. 3, 2025)
  8. Nov. 24, 2025 CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee wrote to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley that data from CHP's Flock cameras may not be shared with federal officials, citing the contract's bar on sharing outside California. (KTVU FOX 2, Nov. 24, 2025)
  9. Jan. 2026 The Attorney General filed a motion in California v. City of El Cajon asking the court to order the city to stop sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies; the AG said the data reached more than 100 agencies outside California. A hearing was set for Feb. 13, 2026. No ruling was found in sources checked as of Oct. 17, 2026. (California Office of the Attorney General, Jan. 21, 2026; NBC 7 San Diego, Jan. 22, 2026; NBC 7 San Diego, Feb. 8, 2026)
  10. Aug. 31, 2026 SB 1013 (Cervantes), similar to the vetoed SB 274, passed the Senate but did not receive an Assembly floor vote before the session ended; CalMatters reported Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry held it. CalMatters counted this as the fifth straight year without new ALPR rules; nearly 40 law enforcement agencies and unions opposed the bill. (CalMatters (republished by LAist), Sept. 3, 2026; CalMatters Digital Democracy, date not shown)
  11. Oct. 2026 A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge dismissed a challenge to San Jose's ALPR network, rejecting claims that warrantless searches of ALPR data violate the state constitution's privacy and search provisions (outside this researcher's counties; recorded as statewide legal context). (San Jose Spotlight (republished by Local News Matters), Oct. 7, 2026)

State agencies

California Highway Patrol

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety, Vendor not named in source
Cameras
Count not documented
No statewide count found. The 2024 East Bay contract covers about 480 Flock cameras (about 290 Oakland streets, 190 East Bay highways); CHP also runs mobile ALPR on patrol vehicles under General Order 81.1.
Data sharing
CHP's contract with Flock bars sharing with the federal government or any entity outside California, per the commissioner's Nov. 2025 letter (ca1-ktvu-chp-letter). Vehicle Code 2413 bars making data available to non-law-enforcement agencies or individuals.
  1. Oct. 2020 General Order 81.1 (revised October 2020) sets CHP's ALPR rules: mobile ALPR data is kept 60 days and then purged, access is limited to personnel with an investigative need, and ALPR use is reported each year in the auto theft report to the Legislature. (California Highway Patrol, Oct. 2020)
  2. Oct. 2020 Vehicle Code 2413 limits CHP retention of plate-reader data to 60 days except for evidence or felony investigations, bars selling the data, and limits its use to locating vehicles or people suspected in a public offense. (California Legislature (via california.public.law), date not shown)
  3. Feb. 8, 2024 The Oaklandside reported CHP would run Oakland's 300-camera Flock network funded by a $1.2 million state loan; CHP keeps data 60 days while Oakland and Flock agreed to 30. (The Oaklandside, Feb. 8, 2024)
  4. April 2, 2024 The governor's office announced the CHP-Flock contract for about 480 cameras in Oakland and the East Bay with 28-day retention. (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, April 2, 2024)
  5. Nov. 24, 2025 The CHP commissioner told Flock in writing that CHP camera data cannot be shared with federal officials. (KTVU FOX 2, Nov. 24, 2025)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Retention differs by source: 60 days (GO 81.1, mobile ALPR; Vehicle Code 2413 cap), 28 days (governor's release on the East Bay Flock network), 60 days (Oaklandside on CHP practice). These may describe different systems.
  • No CHP Flock deployment in the ten southern counties was found; not checked through CHP contract records (searches exhausted).

From agency records.

Every county

All 58 counties
AlamedaUsing license-plate readers5Flock Safety343
AlpineNot yet checked———
AmadorNot yet checked———
ButteUsing license-plate readers3Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions58
CalaverasNot yet checked———
ColusaNot yet checked———
Contra CostaUsing license-plate readers5Axon, Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions232
Del NorteNot yet checked———
El DoradoUsing license-plate readers1Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions12
FresnoUsing license-plate readers3Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions70
GlennNot yet checked———
HumboldtUsing license-plate readers2Flock Safety9
ImperialProgram documented, current use unconfirmed2Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions14
InyoNot yet checked———
KernUsing license-plate readers1Flock Safety130
KingsProgram documented, current use unconfirmed1Flock Safety18
LakeNot yet checked———
LassenNot yet checked———
Los AngelesUsing license-plate readers15Axon, Flock Safety, Mallory Safety and Supply, LLC, Motorola Solutions, Neology (PIPS Technology)1398
MaderaNot yet checked———
MarinUsing license-plate readers1Flock Safety—
MariposaNot yet checked———
MendocinoNot yet checked———
MercedUsing license-plate readers2Axon, Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions—
ModocNot yet checked———
MonoNot yet checked———
MontereyUsing license-plate readers2Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions63
NapaNot yet checked———
NevadaNot yet checked———
OrangeUsing license-plate readers9Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions212
PlacerUsing license-plate readers1Flock Safety—
PlumasNot yet checked———
RiversideUsing license-plate readers4Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions580
SacramentoUsing license-plate readers4Axon, Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions233
San BenitoNot yet checked———
San BernardinoUsing license-plate readers5Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions147
San DiegoUsing license-plate readers7Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions176
San FranciscoUsing license-plate readers1Flock Safety400
San JoaquinUsing license-plate readers2Flock Safety120
San Luis ObispoProgram documented, current use unconfirmed1——
San MateoUsing license-plate readers5Flock Safety213
Santa BarbaraProgram documented, current use unconfirmed2Flock Safety56
Santa ClaraUsing license-plate readers9Flock Safety, Genetec692
Santa CruzEnded or removed1Flock Safety8
ShastaUsing license-plate readers2Flock Safety22
SierraNot yet checked———
SiskiyouNot yet checked———
SolanoUsing license-plate readers3Flock Safety101
SonomaUsing license-plate readers2Flock Safety143
StanislausProgram documented, current use unconfirmed1Intellisite LLC—
SutterNot yet checked———
TehamaNot yet checked———
TrinityNot yet checked———
TulareUsing license-plate readers1Axon, Flock Safety13
TuolumneNot yet checked———
VenturaUsing license-plate readers5Axon, Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions169
YoloUsing license-plate readers1Flock Safety—
YubaNot yet checked———

How this map is built

We start with each county’s sheriff’s office and its largest city police departments, then work outward. Each agency’s entry says whether it comes from agency records or from news reports, and links every source. Companies are tracked separately, so the map can show one company’s customers or all license-plate readers together.

Have a contract, invoice or records response for an agency here? Send it to tips@signaldata.org.

Sources