Tempe officials first said the Flock brand of automatic license plate readers were out and a new vendor would be chosen.
Then about two weeks later, the city said it was ending all use of the technology.
Apache Junction police Chief Michael Pooley spent decades enforcing the law in Tempe.
“When I came out here, one of the things that I wanted to bring out was ALPR. It's always been something very successful that we used in my prior agency. We were able to solve a lot of cases and do a lot of really good things,” Pooley said.
That was about four years ago. Pooley has since seen officer misuse of the tech.
In April, a monthly system audit sparked a review that found a now former officer had used the system to look up his ex-wife.
“I don't have sympathy for the officers that do this. They violate the trust of the community. They violate the trust of the department. And for me, my officer, when I found this out, I was heartbroken,” Pooley said.
Apache Junction won't drop ALPRs
ALPRs made by the company Flock and others have been the subject of near daily headlines. Within the past month, four metro Phoenix police agencies have launched investigations into potential officer misuse. And the same number of Valley cities have shut off their systems or canceled contracts.
But Pooley is not willing to again copy Tempe and quit using ALPRs, partly because they’re a force multiplier.
Apache Junction police have also gone to weekly system audits, which Pooley said use artificial intelligence to catch bad actors.
“Human beings (are) who we employ, and sometimes humans make these bad decisions,” Pooley said.
Mounting public backlash, driven by what one expert calls a widespread understanding of a constitutional clause that values privacy, does not sway Pooley either.
“Right now, there is no Supreme Court decision. There is no decision out there that has said that this is illegal and that it is a Fourth Amendment violation,” Pooley said.
'Does the Fourth Amendment apply? And if so, where?'
Before deciding if technology like ALPRs violate the protection against unreasonable searches, courts must determine if an officer querying the system is doing an actual search.
“They're wrestling with this very basic question: Does the Fourth Amendment apply? And if so, where?” said Marc Miller, dean emeritus at the University of Arizona law school.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have said police using certain cellphone technology to find suspects were searches under the Fourth Amendment.
Miller said a case now before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will consider a larger ALPR system than an older case from Massachusetts, which said enough cameras in enough locations would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy.
“If you wanted to have one single word to describe all the Fourth Amendment puzzles, the word you would choose is reasonableness. And of course that leaves vast room for argument,” Miller said.
Miller believes there is a point when the Fourth Amendment applies to ALPRs. The line is when they can be used to create an intimate portrait of a person’s life.
“What's different with these technologies is they add up. They go beyond what any number of police officers and any traditional amount of effort could conceivably do,” Miller said.
Public demand for officials to act is moving faster than the courts, Miller noted. Lawmakers have power to put in place limits he calls needed.
“What we're seeing is both political leaders and citizens not identifying themselves in the highly partisan terms of our era, expressing enormous concern about this constant collection of information and its use,” Miller said.
Hobbs and Biggs call for limits
This is evidenced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes now reviewing ALPRs.
Also, at a recent forum with the Republican and Democrat nominees for governor, incumbent Katie Hobbs said it is the state’s job to put guardrails on the tech, and local agencies should continue policing themselves.
“Communities should be able to use that technology, and I trust those local officials and leaders to make those decisions,” Hobbs said.
Her opponent, Andy Biggs, went further, calling an advancement in ALPR technology a gross violation in a free society.
“We are seeing an overwhelming rejection of Flock cameras. And the state will probably have to step in and say, ‘We're not going to have Flock cameras,’” Biggs said.
Scottsdale-based Axon makes ALPRs, too. So does Motorola.
A bill that would have made it a felony for police to misuse ALPR systems failed. Pooley, the police chief in Apache Junction, hopes the governor signs it next year.
“We want to protect the technology that is being helpful to save lives and protect people, but at the same time, we need to make sure that those that have access to it, that use it, are not going to abuse it.
State Sen. Kevin Payne, who was the main sponsor of the misuse bill, said he’s unsure if he’ll run it again in 2027.
KJZZ senior field correspondent Camryn Sanchez contributed to this report.
-
Scottsdale has 85 license plate readers, the city keeps data for about six months and the program costs about $280,000 a year. -
This fall, Arizona voters will have their say on the issue in the form of Proposition 319. If passed, the measure would ban new photo enforcement systems. Those that are already in place would have to be approved by voters in that city or town to stay up and running. -
Tempe officials are scheduled to hold informational meetings Thursday to review a proposed ordinance that would ban automatic license plate readers. -
The Pinal County sheriff was on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify about automatic license plate readers made by the company Flock and others. -
The City Council voted Tuesday night to move up a mayoral request for discussion and potential action.
