ALPRs in Schools: What K-12 Leaders Should Consider Before Adoption

Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) are being used in K-12 schools for security and operational purposes, including identifying vehicles associated with custody concerns, investigating stolen or unauthorized vehicles, and verifying vehicles during student pickup.

At the same time, some municipalities are reconsidering their use of ALPR amid questions about data retention, information sharing, outside agency access, and privacy. Some have temporarily shut down cameras, ended contracts, or paused programs while officials review how the technology and the information it collects are being used.

School-based ALPR deployments can look different from municipal programs. While municipalities may place cameras along public roadways, school districts may use the technology at defined locations such as campus entrances, exits, and parking areas. The recent municipal cases, however, raise questions about governance, access, and data practices that school districts may also need to consider when evaluating the technology.

Why Some Municipalities Are Reconsidering ALPR Programs

Newsweek reported that DeFlock, an anti-surveillance organization that tracks ALPR deployments and local government actions, had identified 95 jurisdictions that rejected, canceled, deactivated or banned ALPR systems. According to DeFlock's tracker, those actions included 47 contract cancellations, 25 rejected proposals and 22 camera deactivations.

The reasons for those decisions vary by community. In Mountain View, Calif., Police Chief Mike Canfield turned off the city's 30 ALPR cameras on Feb. 2 after a department-initiated audit found that data had been accessed by federal and state law enforcement agencies in violation of the city's approved policies. The cameras remained offline while officials reviewed the program. On Feb. 24, the City Council unanimously voted to terminate its contract with Flock Safety. Mayor Emily Ann Ramos cited community feedback and public trust in announcing the decision.

In Santa Cruz, Calif., the City Council voted 6-1 to end its contract with Flock Safety after reports that license plate data from Santa Cruz and nearby communities had been accessed by outside agencies on behalf of federal law enforcement, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to Santa Cruz Local, council members who proposed ending the contract cited concerns about those incidents and the company's response.

The city did not rule out ALPR technology altogether, leaving open the possibility of selecting another provider in the future. Police officials had advocated for continued access to the technology, with Police Chief Bernie Escalante reporting that it had assisted in 26 arrests between June 2024 and September 2025.

More recently, in Newtown, Conn., the Legislative Council voted unanimously to prepare a resolution supporting a moratorium on Flock cameras. According to The News-Times, council members cited concerns about surveillance, public trust and the ability of outside agencies to access information through the system. Council members also noted that they do not have direct authority to remove the cameras but could ask the Board of Selectmen to cancel the contract or address funding through the budget process.

The Newtown discussion comes as Connecticut is placing additional limits on ALPR use. CT Insider reported that a state law taking effect Oct. 1 will limit most data retention to 21 days and restrict data sharing to neighboring states unless a judicial warrant has been issued. Gov. Ned Lamont has also urged municipalities to pause the installation of new cameras while the state's police training and standards council develops an updated policy.

Some Connecticut law enforcement officials have defended continued use of the technology. Police chiefs from Farmington and Groton recently cited its role in criminal investigations while also supporting limits on retention, data sharing and unauthorized access.

In West Hartford, Conn., officials have continued operating 35 cameras while requiring officer training, recording the purpose of searches, retaining data for 21 days and providing a public transparency portal. Police Chief Vernon Riddick has also cited arrests and recovered stolen vehicles associated with the system.

Recent Cases Raise Questions About ALPR Access and Oversight

Recent criminal cases, internal investigations, and disciplinary actions have examined how individual law enforcement officers use ALPR systems.

A Newsweek review identified allegations of improper use of Flock Safety license plate reader systems by law enforcement officers in at least 12 states. The cases included allegations that officers accessed ALPR information for personal purposes, including searches involving romantic partners, relatives or acquaintances, as well as other unauthorized purposes.

Some cases resulted in arrests, resignations, terminations or criminal convictions. In Kansas, a former police lieutenant was convicted after authorities said he used Flock technology to track his estranged wife. Newsweek also reported that a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police officer in North Carolina was accused of searching an undercover officer's license plate and providing information to the subject of a drug investigation.

Audits and internal reviews identified some of the alleged misuse. Law enforcement officials interviewed by Newsweek continued to describe ALPR as a useful investigative tool while emphasizing the responsibility of agencies and individual users to use it appropriately.

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley told Newsweek that the cases were concerning but said their detection demonstrates that oversight can identify improper use and allow users to be held accountable. The company has also introduced an Audit Assistance Tool intended to help agencies identify potential misuse.

The Institute for Justice (IJ), a public interest law firm that advocates for restrictions on ALPR surveillance, has also launched a database tracking reported cases of ALPR misuse. As of August 2026, the organization said it had cataloged more than 140 examples, including stalking romantic interests, wrongful stops and detentions, non-law enforcement uses and other alleged misconduct.

IJ argues that auditing and supervisor approval are insufficient safeguards and advocates for requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching ALPR databases. The organization is also challenging ALPR programs in federal lawsuits involving Norfolk, Va., and San Jose, Calif.

How Cleveland Metro School District Is Using ALPR

The configuration and purpose of ALPR in schools can differ from the municipal programs drawing scrutiny. Cleveland Metropolitan School District has 201 license plate readers across 70 buildings, with most schools having readers positioned at an entrance and exit. The district's annual contract was reported at $603,000.

CMSD Safety and Security Chief Lamont Dodson told Signal Cleveland that the district primarily uses the readers when vehicles are stolen from school property. The district has experienced vehicle break-ins and vandalism in school parking lots and also uses the system when an unauthorized vehicle has been identified on school property or in support of Cleveland Police.

According to Signal Cleveland, the district says its ALPR database is available to Cleveland Police but is not shared with other law enforcement agencies.

The outlet also reported that community advocates have questioned the district's use of the technology as its contract comes up for renewal, citing privacy, cost and potential secondary uses of information collected by the cameras.

Other school applications extend beyond security investigations. The PASS Safety and Security Guidelines for K-12 Schools, discussed below, identify the ability to generate alerts when designated vehicles enter school property, including vehicles associated with custody issues, as one potential application.

ALPR is also being incorporated into school operations. In July 2025, Raptor Technologies and Flock Safety announced an integration between Flock's license plate readers and Raptor's DismissalSafe platform. According to the companies, the system can identify registered vehicles as they enter a school car line and associate them with students authorized for pickup, incorporating vehicle verification into the dismissal process.

Flock also markets its ALPR technology to K-12 schools for applications including campus perimeter monitoring, parking areas, events and alerts involving designated vehicles. Those applications represent vendor-described capabilities rather than independent findings about the technology's effectiveness.

Applying PASS Guidance to ALPR

ALPR technology is specifically addressed in the seventh edition of the PASS Safety and Security Guidelines for K-12 Schools. PASS describes automatic license plate recognition as technology that uses optical character recognition to identify and read license plates captured by video cameras.

Start With a Risk Assessment

PASS identifies a risk assessment as the first step toward developing a comprehensive security plan and as a prerequisite for decisions involving security solutions.

Depending on the district, an assessment could identify concerns involving custody disputes, restraining orders, unauthorized vehicles, vehicle thefts, or break-ins. Districts considering ALPR for operational purposes, such as dismissal, would have a different objective.

PASS also cautions schools against implementing advanced or expensive technologies before baseline security measures are in place or deploying systems that do not address objectives identified through a risk assessment or comprehensive security plan.

Establish Policies for Use, Access, and Retention

PASS identifies potential school uses for license plate recognition, including generating alerts when designated vehicles enter school property. The guidelines cite vehicles associated with custody issues as one example and also discuss comparing plate information against criminal and sex offender databases to provide early warning to school personnel.

PASS recommends establishing policies and procedures for security systems and defining the roles and responsibilities of personnel who use them. For surveillance systems, the guidelines recommend policies addressing daily use and how long recorded information will be retained.

Questions about access to school ALPR data have surfaced in recent reporting. An investigation by The 74, based on audit logs and public records from Texas school districts, found that law enforcement agencies had searched databases containing information generated by school cameras for immigration-related investigations. The investigation found no evidence that the school districts themselves conducted the searches.

For districts evaluating ALPR, additional considerations include where information is stored, who controls it, what access the technology provider has and what happens to stored information when a contract ends. State and local laws may also establish requirements governing ALPR collection, use, retention or sharing.

Define Law Enforcement Access and Oversight

PASS recommends that districts establish memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with law enforcement when surveillance information will be shared for emergencies or investigations. The guidelines note that decisions about providing law enforcement with access to surveillance information should be made at the district level and documented. Earlier editions of the PASS guidelines explicitly distinguish between providing information during emergencies and allowing access during normal daily operations.

For districts using ALPR, an MOU can address whether law enforcement receives ongoing access or information upon request, which agencies can access school-generated information and how that access is documented.