Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey El‑Hajj delivered a ruling on Friday that throws out a lawsuit challenging San Jose’s automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) system. The decision affirms the city’s practice of allowing police to search ALPR data without a warrant, finding it consistent with the California Constitution’s privacy protections.
Legal background
The plaintiffs argued that the city’s use of more than 500 ALPR cameras across San Jose amounted to an unreasonable search and violated the state’s guarantee of privacy. They sought a court order requiring law‑enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing the data. Judge El‑Hajj rejected those arguments, citing a 2024 decision from the California 4th District Court of Appeals that held drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while traveling on public streets.
In his opinion, the judge noted that the cameras simply record information already visible from public rights‑of‑way, and that similar technology has been upheld in other California cases, including a murder prosecution that relied on street‑light camera footage in San Diego.
City response
San Jose City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood welcomed the ruling, stating, “The court’s dismissal of the complaint is testament to the fact that the city’s ALPR system meets constitutional scrutiny and only gathers information that is already observed from the public rights‑of‑way.”
Backers of the system argue it is a vital tool for an overstretched police force, helping solve a growing number of crimes by providing rapid vehicle identification.
Opposition and ongoing litigation
The lawsuit, filed in November 2025, was brought by two nonprofit groups that advocate for South Bay illegal immigrants – Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) and the Council on American‑Islamic Relations. Surveillance litigation director Andrew Crocker of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the ruling was “wrong on the law,” and that the plaintiffs are reviewing their options, including an appeal.
In addition to the state case, the city faces a separate federal lawsuit challenging the ALPR program, which remains pending.
Recent controversies and safeguards
Last month, San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph disclosed that an officer was terminated in April for allegedly sharing location data with a family member. The incident sparked public outcry and prompted several city councilmembers to propose new safeguards, including stricter controls on personal devices accessing law‑enforcement data.
Earlier in March, the City Council passed a package that reduced the retention period for ALPR data from one year to 30 days. Critics, however, argue that the measures do not go far enough. They call for San Jose to follow neighboring jurisdictions such as Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View by ending its contract with Flock Safety, the vendor that supplies the ALPR technology.
“These cameras have been used to target illegal immigrants already, but the reality is that we all will be subject to their far‑reaching impact,” said Huy Tran, executive director of SIREN.
What’s next?
The plaintiffs have the option to appeal Judge El‑Hajj’s decision. Meanwhile, the city continues to evaluate its data‑retention policies and oversight mechanisms to address community concerns while preserving a tool that many law‑enforcement officials say is essential for public safety.
Original reporting: Alexandria, VA News – WTOP News — read the source article.
