My most recent investigation, which takes a look at how automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are being used in Connecticut, is rooted in a very simple premise: If government officials are collecting data about you, you have a right to know what is being collected and how it’s being used. Preventing the public from learning that information squelches transparency and allows corrupt practices to go undetected.
Unfortunately, that’s not a belief that all government officials who use the technology share. Delay tactics, which frequently exploit the unusual arrangement where law enforcement owns data collected by ALPR cameras but not the platforms in which it is stored and accessed, are common. Public safety is also often thrown about as a reason data can’t be shared.
In fact, Connecticut legislators recently determined that the sensitive nature of data collected by ALPR cameras means the public shouldn’t have access to it, though those concerns, driven by news headlines about abuse of access to data, are apparently not exigent enough to stop use of the technology.
A new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption for ALPR data, passed by legislators in May, will complicate an already tricky area to obtain records. So, if you want to know more about how your comings and goings might be tracked by ALPR cameras, where do you start?
There are several types of documents you can request that contain information about ALPR technology. Broadly, these include: ALPR vendor contracts, audit logs, and email communication between law enforcement and the ALPR vendors they use.
Contracts
Law enforcement agencies enter into contracts with outside vendors in order to utilize ALPR cameras and other products, like audio detection microphones and drones. Law enforcement typically owns the data that is collected, but has a subscription for hardware, like cameras, and access to software that allows them to view and analyze data. The actual contract usually lists the hardware and software a law enforcement agency is utilizing, the period of time for which the contract lasts, pricing, a description of what’s being purchased, and terms of service.
Those contracts are one of the easiest documents related to ALPR use to obtain. However, they may not always be called contracts. They may be called something like a memorandum of understanding, a service agreement, or a law enforcement agreement.
This is an area where public officials who don’t want to be transparent may use semantics if a request is too narrowly written, i.e., if you ask for the most recent contract between a police department and an ALPR vendor, they may say they have no responsive records because the document is titled something else.
In your request language, it’s best practice to use a series of descriptive words, like “the most recent contract, memorandum of understanding, service agreement, or other form of agreement” in order to ensure the request isn’t denied on narrow semantic grounds when there are actually responsive records by a different name.
Unless you know a town is contracted with a particular ALPR vendor, Flock being the big one in Connecticut, it’s also best practice to ask for a contract between the law enforcement agency you’re interested in and an ALPR vendor or service provider, again, so the request isn’t denied for naming one company when they use another.
Before you file a FOIA request, check the website of the municipality from which you’re requesting records. Some towns are more transparent about how they use ALPR technology and will post documents, like contracts or their policies for how data can be used and accessed, on their websites. These might be on the page of a police department or a page of a town council or board of selectmen. If the contract was discussed during a public meeting or voted on for approval, contract documents and details may also be available in public meeting minutes or in documents attached to public meeting agenda packets.
Audit Logs
Audit logs record how law enforcement agencies access the data collected by ALPR cameras. They tell you when a search occurred, what agency was searching collected data, the time a search occurred, and why a plate was searched. What form those audit logs take and what information they contain vary by vendor. Again, Flock is by far the biggest vendor used in Connecticut, and the language in this section is largely tailored to their audit log formats. But there are several different types you should be aware of and should request by name. These include:
- Organization audit logs, which records searches by a law enforcement agency’s own employees
- Network audit logs, which record searches by law enforcement officers from outside agencies that have a data-sharing agreement
To obtain the most complete information available, you will probably want to specifically ask for both types of audit logs by name. But be aware: Flock automatically redacts certain identifying information, including the names of officers who searched data and license plate numbers, from network audit logs.
Organization audit logs usually contain more information, but they can be a little harder to obtain. That’s because some municipalities who use Flock have so-called “transparency portals.” These are websites that can contain information about the number of cameras a police department has, how many hits have been recorded in the last 30 days, data use policies, and the network of external agencies with which information is shared. Sometimes they also contain a link to download organization audit logs.
But the level of information available through these portals varies greatly, and they do not always contain accurate information. The type of audit logs available through them also often redact information of public interest, like the names of officers, search dates, and the reasons data was searched.
If you request organization audit logs, a law enforcement agency may direct you to their transparency portal instead of providing you with a download of their most recent audit log. You do not have to accept that. The underlying record is a public document and you have a right to obtain it. If the agency points you to a transparency portal rather than the audit log, you can tell them that does not fulfill your request and you want to see the underlying record.
If you receive organization audit logs where fields have been redacted (usually a “***” entry in a spreadsheet cell), make sure to ask for the FOIA exemption that the agency is claiming.
Another issue you may run into when requesting audit logs is a claim from a law enforcement agency that they don’t know how to or can’t access them. Agencies not interested in transparency exploit the fact that while they own the data the cameras they lease collect, it is stored on systems owned by ALPR vendors. The website Have I Been Flocked explains how you can counter this argument for police departments that use Flock, using language from a guide Flock produced in 2025, ostensibly to “help” public agencies respond to FOIA requests.
Requests for audit logs should also include a time frame. Under the ALPR law Connecticut passed earlier this year, the automatic retention period for data was shortened from a standard 30 days to 21 days. You can request audit logs from the past 21 days or a shorter time period. The breadth of your request will obviously affect the size of the files you receive and may impact whether those files can be received electronically at no charge or whether they are too large and need to be provided on something like a flash drive.
Email Communications
Email communication between law enforcement officers and their ALPR vendor can provide a wealth of information about how that technology is being used. Through requests for email communications, Inside Investigator has received information about: camera locations and calibration or placement concerns, how information is shared between law enforcement agencies, additional services law enforcement is looking to implement, and more.
These are also relatively easy to obtain. You can ask for any email communication between “any member or representative” of a police department (it’s good practice to specify that this includes attorneys) and the email domain (ex: @flocksafety.com) of the ALPR vendor with whom that department contracts. As with any request for email communication, you should also include a time frame.
If you want to cast a wide net and see everything that was discussed during that time frame, don’t use any keywords. If you want more specific information, say about camera location or discussions to move cameras, then you can include keywords you think are relevant to the information you’re seeking.
A word of caution: as Connecticut’s ban on ALPR data is implemented in the next few months, some of this is likely to change. The law exempts ALPR data from FOIA, defined as “data captured, recorded, held or stored, processed or derived from an automated license plate reader system, including, but not limited to, license plate characters, vehicle still or video images, vehicle attributes, location data, time stamps and metadata.” The law specifically notes that audit logs are still disclosable, but that ALPR data can be redacted. Exactly how broadly that will be interpreted remains to be seen.
The law also specifies that you can obtain ALPR data on vehicles registered in your own name.
Resources Outside FOIA
The controversy surrounding ALPR cameras does mean that there are a number of good public resources you can use to find out information about how the technology is used in your community without going through FOIA. Given how reluctant agencies can be to release ALPR records, and the state’s FOIA ban for ALPR records, these resources are a good place to start your research and may become increasingly important.
Have I Been Flocked has a lot of information available about how Flock’s platform work and how law enforcement utilizes its search features. You can also look up license plate numbers to see if and when they were recorded by Flock cameras.
DeFlock uses public data to map the locations of Flock cameras. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Atlas of Surveillance also contains information about different types of surveillance technology, including ALPRs cameras, in use in communities around the country (though not all the information available is up to date).
Flock’s API also contains useful information about how their system works and updates they have implemented.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
