SIGNALDATAAccountability. For the People. Preview
License-plate readers · Sacramento County

Sacramento County

Using license-plate readers · 4 agencies documented

← Statewide map
Alameda CountyAlpine CountyAmador CountyButte CountyCalaveras CountyColusa CountyContra Costa CountyDel Norte CountyEl Dorado CountyFresno CountyGlenn CountyHumboldt CountyImperial CountyInyo CountyKern CountyKings CountyLake CountyLassen CountyLos Angeles CountyMadera CountyMarin CountyMariposa CountyMendocino CountyMerced CountyModoc CountyMono CountyMonterey CountyNapa CountyNevada CountyOrange CountyPlacer CountyPlumas CountyRiverside CountySacramento CountySan Benito CountySan Bernardino CountySan Diego CountySan Francisco CountySan Joaquin CountySan Luis Obispo CountySan Mateo CountySanta Barbara CountySanta Clara CountySanta Cruz CountyShasta CountySierra CountySiskiyou CountySolano CountySonoma CountyStanislaus CountySutter CountyTehama CountyTrinity CountyTulare CountyTuolumne CountyVentura CountyYolo CountyYuba County

Sacramento Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Motorola Solutions, Axon
Cameras
180
180 Motorola fixed cameras, per a police spokesperson to The Sacramento Bee (Aug. 2026); Axon in-car ALPR on every patrol car. Public Works separately uses Genetec ALPRs for parking.
  1. June 13, 2024 Department changed policy to stop sharing ALPR data outside California after a county grand jury found it had shared with agencies in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona. (GovTech, June 28, 2024; Industry Insider California / GovTech, June 27, 2024)
  2. Aug. 2026 The Bee reported the city does not contract with Flock; data is kept 90 days to two years and shared through Motorola's network but not with federal or out-of-state agencies. (The Sacramento Bee (via ArcaMax), Aug. 16, 2026)

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Sacramento County Sheriff's Office

Status
Program documented, current use unconfirmed
Vendors
Vendor not named in source
  1. 2023 The Sacramento Bee reported records obtained by EFF showing the office shared ALPR data with agencies in Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas. (AOL (syndicated), date not shown)
  2. June 2024 A Sacramento County grand jury found the office violated state law in handling ALPR data; it reported 1.7 million plates scanned in one week. The office later agreed to stop out-of-state sharing, per the foreperson. (Industry Insider California / GovTech, June 27, 2024; GovTech, June 28, 2024)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Date of the EFF-records report is not shown in the syndicated copy; '2023' is approximate and should be checked.
  • No 2025-2026 source names the office's current vendor or camera count. Records request needed.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Elk Grove Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
  1. June 2024 County grand jury found Elk Grove complied with state data-sharing law. (Industry Insider California / GovTech, June 27, 2024)
  2. Aug. 2026 The Sacramento Bee reported Elk Grove contracts with Flock. (The Sacramento Bee (via ArcaMax), Aug. 16, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • The Bee cited an advocacy group's finding that 97% of searches of Elk Grove data were by other agencies (not verified).

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Rancho Cordova Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
53
53 roadside cameras, per CBS Sacramento (as summarized in its Aug. 2026 report).
Contract
Flock Safety: $1,000,000 five-year total (more than) · Reported as 'more than $1 million' over five years. (CBS Sacramento, Aug. 11, 2026)

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

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.