Elk Grove Police, Sheriff and DA defend ALPR surveillance: First of two-part story

This is the first of a two-part report on a presentation made during the Sept. 9, Elk Grove City Council meeting. The second part will examine comments from City Council members and members of the public.

ELK GROVE, CALIF. - Elk Grove's police chief and Sacramento County’s top law enforcement officials offered a forceful defense Wednesday of automated license plate readers (ALPR), portraying the technology as an essential investigative tool that solves crimes, locates missing people and reduces unnecessary police encounters.

During the Sept. 9 Elk Grove City Council meeting, Police Chief Bobby Davis and Real Time Information Center Manager Andrea Cortez outlined the Police Department’s use of automated license plate readers, or ALPRs. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper and District Attorney Thien Ho followed with examples of criminal cases in which the technology was used.

Elk Grove began using a limited number of vehicle-mounted and fixed ALPR cameras in 2008. The city tested cameras from Flock Safety in 2021 and entered a full contract with the company in 2022, Cortez said. The Police Department now operates about 90 Flock cameras and also began a 90-day trial of Axon ALPR technology in July.

Cortez said the cameras photograph license plates and record the date, time, location, and certain vehicle characteristics. She said they do not continuously track vehicles, identify occupants, provide registered-owner information, use facial recognition, or record audio.

Davis argued that ALPR technology allows officers to identify suspect vehicles more precisely, potentially reducing stops of innocent drivers whose vehicles merely resemble a witness description.

The presentation highlighted a 2026 burglary investigation involving several small businesses in Elk Grove and Sacramento. Davis said investigators used Flock data and traffic cameras to trace a suspect vehicle from discarded evidence to an Elk Grove business, identify suspects, and connect them with additional burglaries.

Much of Cortez’s presentation focused on changes made after the California Department of Justice issued ALPR guidance in 2023. Elk Grove subsequently disabled one-to-one sharing with out-of-state agencies and, by February 2024, eliminated access to Flock’s nationwide lookup feature and sharing with federal agencies.

Cortez said searches must be connected to an official law enforcement purpose and supported by a case number, crime code or specific explanation. Access is limited to employees with an investigative or operational need, and users must complete training and use multifactor authentication.

Elk Grove’s stored ALPR data is deleted after 30 days, Cortez claimed. The department conducts audits approximately every 90 days, although she acknowledged that officials are still developing standardized auditing and documentation practices.

Cortez said the system produces a result in about 20% of searches conducted by participating California agencies, emphasizing that a search does not necessarily return a vehicle record.

Davis said he does not have access because his position does not give him an investigative need to search the system.

The officials also addressed erroneous plate reads. Cortez said employees must visually compare the photographed plate with the computer-generated result, verify vehicle information through other databases and, when necessary, contact the agency that entered the vehicle as wanted or stolen.

“If those steps don’t happen, that is not a failure of the technology; that is a failure of protocol,” Cortez said.

Davis said misuse could result in discipline ranging from corrective action to termination.

Cooper and Ho followed with a succession of homicide, kidnapping, human trafficking, and missing-person cases in which ALPR data reportedly helped investigators identify vehicles or suspects.

Cooper’s presentation was more combative. Although he claimed he respected differing opinions, some of his comments appeared to belittle ALPR opponents.

“You can’t have public safety policy be based on facts, not fear or misinformation,” Cooper said, appearing to misspeak while accusing critics of relying on fear or misinformation.

After comparing ALPR records with information collected by smartphones, businesses, homeowners associations and doorbell cameras, Cooper said critics’ concerns were “really misguided.”

Cooper also invoked his experience and authority: “You don’t have to like me, but I am your sheriff,” he said, adding that law enforcement officials have expertise and that society cannot “keep tying their hands.”

Ho used a less confrontational tone but similarly relied on individual criminal cases to make his argument. He said ALPR technology had helped law enforcement solve more than a dozen Sacramento County homicides in recent years.

“Yes, we need to make sure that ALPRs are used properly and responsibly. And when it’s not, there does need to be consequences,” Ho said after describing a homicide investigation.

Cooper and Ho did not directly engage with the broader privacy question of whether the government should routinely collect location information from vehicles belonging overwhelmingly to people suspected of no crime. Instead, they emphasized anecdotal examples of serious crimes in which ALPR information helped investigators.

They argued that restrictions and oversight can address potential misuse without eliminating a tool they believe protects crime victims.

Part 2 will examine whether council members and the public found that assurance persuasive.