SIGNALDATAInsights. For the People.
Preview
License-plate readers · Summit County

Summit County

Using license-plate readers · 2 agencies documented

← Statewide map
Beaver CountyBox Elder CountyCache CountyCarbon CountyDaggett CountyDavis CountyDuchesne CountyEmery CountyGarfield CountyGrand CountyIron CountyJuab CountyKane CountyMillard CountyMorgan CountyPiute CountyRich CountySalt Lake CountySan Juan CountySanpete CountySevier CountySummit CountyTooele CountyUintah CountyUtah CountyWasatch CountyWashington CountyWayne CountyWeber County

Summit County Sheriff's Office

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Motorola Solutions
Cameras
Count not documented
Range, so no single number: TownLift reported in May 2026 that the office says it operates 8 to 12 fixed readers, plus mobile readers on patrol vehicles.
Contract
Flock Safety: $55,000 contract · from July 2025 · Flock Nova data-integration platform, not cameras. TownLift: signed by Summit County Sept. 16, 2025, with a statement of work effective July 16, 2025; sole-source. Term not reported. (TownLift, July 14, 2026; TownLift, Aug. 18, 2026)
Sources
TownLift, May 6, 2026; TownLift, July 14, 2026; TownLift, Aug. 18, 2026; KPCW, Aug. 17, 2026; Park Record, May 5, 2026
  1. May 4, 2026 The sheriff's office and Park City police said in a joint statement that neither ran a plate search for federal immigration authorities in the case in question, and that data sharing is essential to the technology. (TownLift, May 6, 2026; Park Record, May 5, 2026)
  2. July 14, 2026 TownLift reported records it obtained showing federal immigration and border agencies on the office's Motorola sharing report. TownLift said the records do not establish whether ICE or another outside agency searched local plate data in a specific case. (TownLift, July 14, 2026)
  3. Aug. 2026 KPCW and TownLift reported the sheriff's office put plate-reader damage at over $10,000 across the prior four months. Two devices in the county's west are thought to have been hit deliberately and are under investigation. KPCW said a third was damaged in a crash. (KPCW, Aug. 17, 2026; TownLift, Aug. 18, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Spokesperson Sgt. Skyler Talbot told TownLift: "the SCSO does not have any Flock cameras, Flock systems, or Flock databases in place in Summit County." TownLift separately reported the Flock Nova statement of work lists both Motorola ALPR and Flock ALPR, and that the contract does not mean the office operates Flock-branded cameras.
  • TownLift reported that no County Council vote or public hearing preceded the program and that the sheriff's budget paid for it. County Manager Shayne Scott said the council approves department budgets and does not oversee individual staff purchases; Councilor Canice Harte said the issue had not been presented to the council.
  • TownLift reported the office's search records cover only its own deputies. Talbot said he was not aware of ICE using the county's system.
  • KPCW did not clearly state whether the $10,000 includes the crash-damaged device. The event is dated to the month of the reports (KPCW Aug. 17, TownLift Aug. 18, 2026); the damage itself is dated only as the prior four months.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Park City Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Motorola Solutions
Cameras
Count not documented
No agency count found. TownLift (May 2026) identified "more than a dozen" Motorola Vigilant readers across Park City and Summit County combined.
Sources
TownLift, May 6, 2026; TownLift, July 14, 2026; Park Record, May 5, 2026
  1. Feb. 2025 TownLift cited a February 2025 Park City procurement document for the department's separate Motorola Vigilant system, compatible with the sheriff's. Amount not reported. (TownLift, May 6, 2026)
  2. May 4, 2026 The department and the sheriff's office said in a joint statement that neither ran a plate search for federal immigration authorities in the case in question. (TownLift, May 6, 2026; Park Record, May 5, 2026)
  3. May 27, 2026 A Motorola VehicleManager sharing report for the department with this date, obtained by TownLift, listed ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol. TownLift said the records do not establish whether ICE or another outside agency searched local plate data in a specific case. (TownLift, July 14, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • TownLift reported the department keeps no regular log of outside-agency searches but can query the system. Its policy limits sharing to law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official purposes.
  • Mayor Ryan Dickey told TownLift officers use the technology "only for lawful public safety purposes."
  • Retention period not reported. Contract amount not found.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Statewide

  1. 2013 S.B. 196 put plate-reader guidelines for "a person or governmental entity" into law, per a legislative staff history. The code shows the Act's title section as enacted by Chapter 447 of the 2013 General Session. (Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, Sept. 16, 2026; Utah Legislature, 2025)
  2. 2014 Legislative staff say S.B. 222 narrowed the restrictions so they cover only government entities and made those entities get a warrant or court order for data held privately. S.B. 51 put public transit districts on the list of allowed users. (Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, Sept. 16, 2026)
  3. 2020 Legislative staff say H.B. 128 let higher education institutions use the readers. H.B. 443 extended that to the Utah Inland Port Authority in 2022. (Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, Sept. 16, 2026)
  4. 2023 Legislative staff say S.B. 250 made police log their plate-data searches and publish their policies, and spelled out which police uses are allowed. UDOT says the bill also set up a way for municipalities to get permission for readers in state rights-of-way. (Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, Sept. 16, 2026; Utah Department of Transportation, date not shown)
  5. 2024 Legislative staff say S.B. 45 let police use the readers to reach the Utah Criminal Justice Information System and added a definition of "active criminal investigation." (Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, Sept. 16, 2026)
  6. 2025 H.B. 468 (Chevrier) proposed 90-day maximum retention, annual reporting to the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, and First Amendment limits. Utah News Dispatch reported it passed the House and died in the Senate. S.B. 138 (Owens), also 2025, would have removed the warrant requirement for plate data from nongovernmental sources. (Utah Legislature, 2025; Utah News Dispatch, Aug. 20, 2026; Utah Legislature, 2025)
  7. Jan. 30, 2025 The State Auditor's privacy office published a draft privacy alert on plate readers listing concerns about retention, sharing and misconfigured systems and recommending published policies and routine audits. It names no Utah agency and gives no Utah counts. (Utah Office of the State Auditor, Jan. 30, 2025)
  8. May 14, 2025 The Utah Office of Data Privacy published its review of a complaint about two unnamed law enforcement agencies. It found neither had a filed retention schedule for plate data, found policy language at one that went beyond or conflicted with the Act, and recommended corrections. (Utah Office of Data Privacy, May 14, 2025)
  9. Sept. 30, 2025 The Utah Privacy Commission's FY2026 report recommended the Legislature consider a version of H.B. 468 reflecting consensus among major stakeholders, including law enforcement. (Utah Public Notice Website, Sept. 30, 2025)
  10. Oct. 14, 2025 The current version of 41-6a-2003 took effect, as amended by Chapter 9 of the 2025 First Special Session, according to the Legislature's code site. Under the Act, plate data a government entity captures is a protected record that may not be kept more than nine months except as listed, and police need a written policy on use, management and auditing. (Utah Legislature, Oct. 14, 2025; Utah Legislature, 2025)
  11. 2026 A Utah Privacy Commission ALPR Task Force advisory recommended a 21-day retention baseline, with up to nine months for agencies in a state study. It asked policymakers to consider immutable audit logs and limits on vendors using Utah data for AI training, and to evaluate protections against direct, bulk or unrestricted out-of-state access. The advisory's text is undated. (Utah Privacy Commission (Utah Public Notice Website), 2026)
  12. 2026 The same advisory said Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Executive Board minutes of Feb. 12, 2014, indicate agreements were prepared to authorize sharing data, including plate data, with Palantir systems. It said the extent of any data provided is unknown and that it had not verified a report the state's Palantir relationship ended around 2021. (Utah Privacy Commission (Utah Public Notice Website), 2026)
  13. March 3, 2026 A House committee report dated March 3, 2026 returned H.B. 327, whose first substitute was titled License Plate Reader and Data Retention Amendments, to the Rules Committee. The substitute would have set 150-day general retention and banned facial recognition. KSL reported, without giving a bill number, that a related 2026 bill did not get a hearing. (Utah Legislature, 2026; KSL, Aug. 20, 2026; Utah Legislature, March 3, 2026)
  14. March 4, 2026 Utah Privacy Commission minutes recorded the expectation that H.B. 327 would likely not pass that session, with issues unresolved between police agencies and legislators. (Utah Public Notice Website, March 4, 2026)
  15. May 19, 2026 Rep. Chevrier wrote to the Utah Privacy Commission asking for recommendations on 1st Sub. H.B. 327 for the 2027 session by Sept. 30, 2026. (Utah Public Notice Website, May 19, 2026)
  16. Aug. 2026 KSL reported that Utah law enforcement agencies need a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Public Safety before they can trade plate data with one another, in a story on Davis County commissioners approving theirs 2-1. (KSL, Aug. 15, 2026)
  17. Aug. 14, 2026 Utah News Dispatch reported Utah Civic Compact figures showing 10 Weber County Flock cameras were searched 5.1 million times from February 2022 through July 2026, with almost 97% of searches from out-of-state agencies. The Compact said it was not alleging unlawful activity. (Utah News Dispatch, Aug. 14, 2026)
  18. Aug. 20, 2026 Gov. Cox said he was "deeply troubled" and asked the Utah Privacy Governing Board and Utah Privacy Commission to review the rules, especially local agency use. "If there are some gaps, then yes, I would absolutely support legislation," he said. (KSL, Aug. 20, 2026; Utah News Dispatch, Aug. 20, 2026)
  19. Sept. 2, 2026 KUTV reported an aide said House Speaker Mike Schultz would seek legislation restricting Flock cameras and setting limits on the handling of their data, including its sale, and did not rule out a special session. Sen. Kathleen Riebe said she wants to propose limits too. (KUTV, Sept. 2, 2026)
  20. Sept. 8, 2026 A Utah Civic Compact presentation to the Utah Privacy Commission set Weber County's Flock contract beside the statute. It showed the contract's "Permitted Purpose" definition next to the four purposes for which police may access captured plate data, and said Flock holds final discretion to veto a camera location. It stated no formal compliance finding. (Utah Civic Compact (Utah Public Notice Website), Sept. 8, 2026)
  21. Sept. 16, 2026 The Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee heard staff, police groups and the Office of Data Privacy on plate readers, with no vote. Co-chair Sen. Calvin Musselman said lawmakers are "not considering a ban on license plate readers," and a bill file was opened. (Utah Legislature, Sept. 16, 2026; FOX 13 News Utah, Sept. 17, 2026; KSL, Sept. 16, 2026)
  22. Sept. 16, 2026 The Utah Law Enforcement Legislative Committee, whose voting members include the Department of Public Safety and Attorney General's Office, told the committee it supports explicit bans on unauthorized use, periodic external audits and notifying people whose data was unlawfully accessed. It said retention changes need further discussion. (Utah Law Enforcement Legislative Committee (via Utah Legislature), Sept. 16, 2026)
  23. Sept. 23, 2026 The Utah Privacy Governing Board's agenda for Sept. 23 scheduled a workshop on its review approach, with speakers listed from the Privacy Commission task force, the Department of Public Safety, the Attorney General's Office, the Riverton City Council, the Cato Institute and the Libertas Institute. (Utah Public Notice Website, Sept. 23, 2026)
  24. Oct. 2026 Privacy advocates presented possible limits to legislators, including tighter access, shorter retention and new ways to challenge misuse, the Tribune reported (weekday only: a Wednesday before Oct. 22). TownLift reported the bill has no number yet. (The Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 22, 2026; TownLift, Oct. 22, 2026)
  25. Oct. 28, 2026 KSL reported that Utah Civic Compact president Connor Radcliffe estimates Utah has at least 1,000 plate-reader cameras, and that a precise count has been hard to pin down. (KSL, Oct. 28, 2026)

State agencies

Utah Department of Public Safety (including Utah Highway Patrol, State Bureau of Investigation and SIAC)

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Vendor not named in source
Cameras
Count not documented
No reader count found. The policy and SIAC page give none.
Sources
Utah Department of Public Safety (SIAC), July 22, 2025; Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, date not shown; Utah Department of Public Safety (Utah Public Notice Website), date not shown; KSL, March 6, 2026; KSL, April 27, 2026; KSL, Aug. 15, 2026; Utah Legislature, interim committee materials, Sept. 16, 2026; Utah Law Enforcement Legislative Committee (via Utah Legislature), Sept. 16, 2026; Utah Public Notice Website, Sept. 23, 2026
  1. Dec. 20, 2023 UDOT special use permit application R2-ALPRS 002 for DPS was signed; the published form lists no locations, camera count or contractor. (Utah Department of Public Safety (SIAC), July 22, 2025)
  2. July 22, 2025 Latest Lexipol copyright date on DPS Policy 639: nine-month retention, release of data to agencies that have signed a memorandum of understanding, and audits "on a regular basis." (Utah Department of Public Safety (SIAC), July 22, 2025)
  3. March 6, 2026 DPS investigations chief Tanner Jensen told KSL the technology is "a vital tool for law enforcement." KSL reported in April that police are working with lawmakers on guardrails, and Jensen said the state is trying to balance the technology with civil and privacy rights. (KSL, March 6, 2026; KSL, April 27, 2026)
  4. Aug. 2026 KSL reported Davis County commissioners approved a plate-data sharing agreement with DPS, and that Weber County approved its agreement with the state on June 2. (KSL, Aug. 15, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • An undated DPS slide deck says "To date, 23 agencies have signed the DPS MOU"; it counts agencies, not cameras, and has no date.
  • SIAC's page says DPS scan data purges automatically after 9 months, DPS cannot access commercial plate data without a warrant, and sharing requires an inter-agency agreement. It names Flock only as an example of a company offering a device, not as DPS's vendor.
  • Policy 639 does not name UHP or SBI, though it refers to troopers. A success-story handout at the Sept. 16, 2026 hearing says UHP used mobile units on I-15 and I-80 in 2018. No separate SBI or UHP program record was found.
  • No Attorney General enforcement action on plate readers was found; the AG's Office appears only as a member of the law enforcement legislative committee and as a scheduled speaker to the Privacy Governing Board.

From agency records.