Sacramento Cops Shared License Plate Data With Anti-Abortion States
And a grand jury says that's illegal.

"Sacramento County drivers are likely unaware that, as they travel on county streets and highways, their vehicles are being tracked by an intricate network of stationary and mobile cameras."
That was the conclusion of a report released last week by the Sacramento County Grand Jury, a 19-member panel billed as "the independent watchdog over public entities" within the California county.
Worse yet, Sacramento authorities are not only collecting drivers' information but sharing it with law enforcement agencies in other states—including states that criminalize abortion—all without a warrant.
The California Highway Patrol operates automated license plate recognition systems (ALPRs), cameras that "automatically capture an image of a vehicle and the vehicle's license plate, transform the plate image into alphanumeric characters using optical character recognition, compare the plate number acquired to one or more databases (also known as 'hot lists') of vehicles of interest to law enforcement, and then alert law enforcement officers when a vehicle of interest has been observed."
In 2015, California passed Senate Bill 34, which established rules by which other law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in the state could access ALPR data. For example, the law established that "a public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law." It defined public agency as "the state, any city, county, or city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state or a city, county, or city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency."
In other words, LEAs within the state of California could only share ALPR data with other California-based agencies, not out-of-state departments or the federal government.
"The Sacramento County Grand Jury found the Sacramento Sheriff's Office (SSO) had previously been cited by a state audit to be non-compliant with the state's prohibition on sharing data with out-of-state entities," the grand jury's report found. As a result, jurors opened an investigation into the office's use of ALPR information.
The jurors note the system's staggering capabilities: "ALPR technology does not only capture moving vehicles, but parked cars can also be scanned. Over time, LEAs can piece together details about where individuals live, work, worship, shop, and participate in other daily activities. Some mobile ALPR cameras can capture up to 1,800 plates per minute. The SSO reportedly scanned 1.7 million plates in one week," images it then stores "for two years from the date of capture."
The report also notes the potential civil liberties violations that could come from such a high-tech setup: "The system cannot distinguish between cars used in criminal activities and those operated legally," and multiple newspaper reports have found that "the SSO and the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) were sharing ALPR data with anti-abortion states and unauthorized entities." In 2022, California passed Assembly Bill 1242, which "would prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or knowingly participating in the arrest of any person for performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion or for obtaining an abortion."
Ultimately, the grand jury found that by sharing ALPR information with law enforcement agencies in other states, the SSO and SPD "violated SB 34 and unreasonably risked the aiding of potential prosecution by the home-state of women who traveled to California to seek or receive healthcare services."
This was also not new information: According to the report, a state auditor found in 2020 that "the SSO shared its ALPR images with more than 1,000 entities within California and across the United States" but found "no evidence that the SSO consistently determined whether these entities had a right and need to access the images or if they were public agencies."
In a May 2023 letter to 71 police agencies in the state, three civil liberties groups—the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and two California chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union—asked that officials "immediately stop sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with law enforcement agencies in other states because it violates California law and could enable prosecution of abortion seekers and providers elsewhere."
The EFF alleged that agencies receiving the letter "have shared ALPR data with law enforcement agencies across the country, including agencies in states with abortion restrictions including Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas."
In posts from its official account on X (formerly Twitter), the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office claimed at the time that the groups behind the letter "have lied that law enforcement sharing this information is an attempt to violate people's legal rights," adding, "These false claims are intentional and part of a broader agenda to promote lawlessness and prevent criminals from being held accountable."
"That agency, at least, seems to have had a change of heart," notes EFF's Hudson Hongo, as grand jury foreperson Steve Caruso said that "after meeting with the Sheriff's Office in the course of our investigation, they decided to stop sharing ALPR data with out-of-state LEAs."
Unfortunately, that doesn't put an end to it, as the grand jury's press release noted that "the Sacramento Police Department continues to share ALPR data with Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona LEAs."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So the outrage is that a couple kids might actually live?
It’s weird how between all the gun owners,
deadbeat Dadsabortion-denied individuals, emissions regulations, and drug users; California (and the EFF, ACLU, etc.) only considers Federalism and FFnC as strictly a women’s rights issue.Almost like they don’t give a shit about women as anything other than useful idiots or empty vessels to deliver their political ends.
No, that some women might go to prison for not committing a crime.
Thanks Newsome voting, ad believing, Mike!
Fuck you. Lying sack of shit.
Article is literally about state agreements to share data with all states. Doesnt even define an anti abortion state. 20 weeks? Only 35 weeks? What a retarded article this was.
When you're an activist you don't let facts get in the way of a narrative.
You know you're getting desperate and your cause is losing traction when you're trying to shoehorn it in between broader privacy and traffic cams.
Up Next (Again?): Abortion bans are making deficits larger! The cost of state-sponsored medical care for women who would rather abort is getting out of control. The States should continue to fund the overarching enormous cost of everyone's healthcare but simply allow women to have the cheaper abortive procedures still funded.
My feelings exactly. The author seems to have a bigger problem with this information going to whatever an anti-abortion state might be than the fact that California has a sophisticated surveillance program which has already exceeded the bounds set for it in law.
Exactly.
What the fuck does this have to do with "abortion?" These folks are nuts..."anti abortion" states are just waiting to do what exactly with this data? For that matter you mean "States which value human life" right?
Reason has lost its mind on abortion and open borders. That and a strangely quietness around sexual mutilation of kids and grooming...
I remember reading text written into the CCPA that explicitly exempted the DMV from the privacy law and give it permission to sell the data.
unreasonably risked the aiding of potential prosecution by the home-state of women who traveled to California to seek or receive healthcare services.”
This is something I never understand.
You live in an anti-abortion State. You want to have abortions.
Why not just move to an abortion-friendly State?
That’s how this is all supposed to work. I used to wonder the same thing about Massholes that cross the border into New Hampshire to avoid sales tax. Dude, just LIVE THERE if it’s that important to you. If you are SO AGAINST what your state is doing that you intentionally go to ANOTHER state just so you don’t have to deal with it – then why the heck don’t you move? There’s literally nothing stopping you.
And if you refuse to, then show a little respect for your own community and abide by its democratically established values codified into law.
All of it just screams “have my cake and eat it too” entitlement. Which means I don’t really care what Sacramento cops are sharing or why. Americans need to remember what America is again. And if we happen to save a few lives along the way (or hold accountable the people who took them) – all the better.
Go for it Sacramento. Anyone seeking a tourism abortion should have the cops waiting for them at the state line when they come back to throw them in jail forever. All for it. How can I help?
And if you refuse to, then show a little respect for your own community and abide by its democratically established values codified into law.
And there's the collectivism. Why does the community's interests come before the individual's liberty?
Only when the "community" is Christian.
I know, right? If it's a community like, say, Hamtramck MI, then they're all like "Those damn Muslims should go back to where they came from, I don't care if they are a majority of the town". But if it's Peoria IL, they're all like "Those damn Muslims better fall in line and be respectful for what the majority of the community wants."
WTF MrMxyzptlk; You’ve been champion [WE] mob collectivist State Power this whole time (i.e. Roe v Wade was a mistake).
Well said chemjeff +10000000000.
We've had this argument many times. Why bother again. I can't figure you out.
If it’s a community like, say, Hamtramck MI, then they’re all like “Those damn Muslims should go back to where they came from, I don’t care if they are a majority of the town”.
LOL, Hammtramck is majority Democrat by a huge margin, and the main conflict there is between white shitlibs and traditional Muslims who don't like the former trying to convince their kids of haram beliefs like they were "born in the wrong body" and need to permanently disfigure themselves to "feel like their authentic self."
Good points...
This is at least one of the several bottom-up cracks in the Democrat party. The top-down crack is Biden-must-go vs. Biden-is-still-our-guy. I can’t wait for them to converge. Pass the popcorn!
Or when the community doesn’t like guns, or pot, or pornography.
Things that were never a part of the USA from the beginning and all of which still protected by the 4th in almost all cases.
It's not collectivism. It's society.
And as a society, all those individuals decide what they want as a social value. And if the minority doesn't like that, they're free to try and persuade the rest of society, or go find a more like-minded one.
This is individualism at its highest form in a world of 8 billion people.
But let's not kid ourselves, Jeffy. You've NEVER been on board with society. You want to have your cake and eat it too. And if you can't, then you want anarchy.
Typical marxist.
"Collectivism is a political theory associated with communism. More broadly, it is the idea that people should prioritize the good of ***society*** over the welfare of the individual."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/collectivism
It floors me you can spout such BS as 'society' dictation = Individualism. UR retarded.
The good of society being the democratically established majority will of the individual people! With a States-based federalist approach, heavily protected by the Constitution against federal whitewashing, that allows and encourages a huge diverse nation of like-minded communities.
Good Lord man, do you know ANYTHING about the country you live in?
You're confusing it with the more socialist "what's best for the most number of people" utilitarian approach, that discounts the will of the individual and leaves matters to the State to decide what values they want to impose on everyone collectively.
That is not the definition of a society. At least, not a functioning, healthy, and productive one.
And then you just repeat the BS?
Cute. Stuffing the 'Individual' in there were it has ZERO reason/purpose to be there, "The good of society being" ... [WE] majority RULES (ad-lib: Individual?). WTF does 'Individual' have to do with [WE] majority RULES? 'Individual' =/= [WE] mobs.
"that discounts the will of the individual and leaves matters to the State ([WE] mob RULES) to decide what values they want to impose on everyone collectively. "
Why YES. Exactly what you said right there.
Being collectivist values by the very definition of collectivism.
So... you think a democratic republic is collectivist?
What's the "individualist" (using whatever goofball definition you're apparently using) alternative? Besides anarchy?
a democratic republic is collectivist - Indeed. Yes. It is.
A *Constitutional* Republic on the other hand ensures Individual Liberty. It is not 'anarchy' it just LIMITS Government so it's 'Guns' are only used to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all so they don't turn 'democratically' ([WE] mob) criminal and tyrannical.
I can't even with your backwards pretzel logic.
A *Constitutional* Republic on the other hand ensures Individual Liberty. It is not ‘anarchy’ it just LIMITS Government
HOW? How does it limit government? Oh that's right, groups of individuals (aka, a society) express their shared beliefs and assert what they define as the consent of the governed.
But wait, isn't that collectivism? Groups of individuals aren't individual, that's a collective. Except, no it's not. Y'know, there isn't just one name on the Declaration of Independence, there's 56. All working together to establish a society more of their choosing. Oops, guess that makes them a collective.
Your problem is that you don't actually know what the terms "Individualism" and "Collectivism" mean. Maybe go brush up on that before coming back here again.
Because moving typically takes a lot longer than the time available for an abortion. Now you could say that “if you plan to have an abortion at some time in the future, move to an abortion-friendly state now”. But pretty much no one (including you and me) have that kind of planning horizon.
Regardless, you should definitely care what Sacramento cops are sharing and why. What they are doing is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment and should be opposed no matter what of your opinions about abortion.
Anti-Choice states did violate everyone’s 4th and 13th but prosecuting one State Law over state lines is a violation of Full Faith & Credit.
lol
Tell me you don't understand law without telling me you don't understand law.
Y'know, I've always wondered if a Wyoming resident on the border of Colorado, skipped over the border, took a hit, and then exhaled back on the Wyoming side would be committing a crime. Tourism crime is such an interesting subject.
I think the proper result would be to ban them on return. Sell off their state-located assets at public auction, hand them a check, and say, "Enjoy your new life in a state you clearly prefer to ours."
But pretty much no one (including you and me) have that kind of planning horizon.
Mmm, no, I would say I have that kind of planning horizon. I saw the writing on the wall long before Seattle died. I saw where Seattle was going, and I saw how it might affect family, career, education (for me OR progeny), retirement, investments, etc. And I got off the boat before it sank.
This is the problem with most people these days. They just don't think beyond their immediate impulses. They ask, "What am I going to have for lunch today," and people like me ask, "What am I going to have for lunch in 2030."
Maybe that makes me a weirdo, I dunno. Or care. But foresight is always better than hindsight, and awareness of yourself, your situation, and your environment has always been the #1 key to survival. (Aside, it's why I also do pretty OK in the stock market.)
As this all relates to abortion - well, I mean, it's pretty simple. Are you planning a lifestyle of recreational sex with no desire for procreation? Then, hey, an anti-abortion state may not be the best place to plant roots. Pack up and move to bluer pastures.
Regardless, you should definitely care what Sacramento cops are sharing and why.
Nah, I'm kinda past that. 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you 100%. Now that I see that the singular goal is just to kill inconvenient tiny in utero humans - I honestly don't care. Stop killing the tiny humans. If the best win I can get on that is a handful of states that'll prosecute it, I'll take the abetting of Sacramento cops to see it happen. Especially knowing that they're teabagging California in the process.
What they are doing is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment and should be opposed no matter what of your opinions about abortion.
To the point that, in very #BlackLivesMatter vs. #AllLivesMatter fashion, Reason is deliberately doing a disservice to liberty and libertarianism in an almost rehearsed fashion with the unnecessarily divisive abortion narrative, whether through explicit "Fuck abortion seekers" poison pill or "The primary legal concern here is abortion and I'm male/old/infertile."/"This is a women's rights issue." disinformation.
But pretty much no one (including you and me) have that kind of planning horizon
What are you talking about here? There's been about 20 years of alarmed punditry pointing out that the nation is sorting themselves out sectionally, especially after the Summer of Floyd. Red states are getting redder, blue states are getting bluer. It sounds like having a planning horizon to me. Why stay in a state where people don't share your political views? Better to get out and be with your own.
Why don't California gun owners move to Montana or Wyoming? Why keep trying to change California laws?
Yes, exactly.
I mean, if they think they can change California - then more power to them. But if they think (correctly) that California is too far gone, well... there's a reason you can't find a U-Haul in Cali these days.
“Why not just move to an abortion-friendly State?”
Maybe because there is other reasons to live somewhere than disagreeing with just one law about one specific topic?
You see your family, go to work, pay your taxes, carry your gun… more often than you want an abortion (hopefully).
You see your family, go to work, pay your taxes, carry your gun… more often than you want an abortion (hopefully).
Imagine someone saying, "My current home state's update to their Castle Doctrine to forbid me from firing at someone blindly on my front porch, whether I invited them or not, is too onerous. I need to move to another state."
As is often the situation with the abortion debate, you have to look past and/or condone lots of up front stupidity, if not insanity, to arrive at the, supposedly, critical infringement.
That's called a cost/benefit analysis.
You weigh the benefits (family prosperity, work opportunity, low taxes, firearm rights) against the costs (no abortions).
Like I said - those who want to commit tourism abortion - they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. It's a gross display of entitlement, and for what - so they can kill tiny inconvenient humans. And I truly hope that anti-abortion states have cops waiting at the border to cart them off to jail upon their return.
I honestly don't understand your argument.
- If abortion is murder then cost/benefit or conflict of jurisdiction is not really the problem (from a personal moral perspective at least).
- If it is not murder or evil why not having it outside of your state? Do people have a moral obligation to follow the law of their state... outside of their state? Is it bad to create a company offshore for some tax reason? Or to eat a cheese in Europe that is forbidden in the US when you visit there?
- If your argument is about the moral obligation of respecting the law, whatever the law is: women getting an abortion outside of their home state is not illegal. And the home state can not legally punishing people for such an act (this is not a personal opinion but federal case law). Should people who don't agree with this law leave the US?
Do people have a moral obligation to follow the law of their state… outside of their state?
I suppose that depends on whether there's a moral obligation to respect the will of the people with whom you choose to make your local community. If you don't, then why STAY in that community in the first place? I think the Founders suggested that such a moral duty exists, hence the reason they set things up that way.
Someone suggested a litany of reasons to stay. They're all valid - hence where the cost/benefit comes in. Do you like/respect your community because of all those reasons, enough to forego abortions, or should you find a different community?
Or do you want to have your cake and eat it too?
I like to think of this as congestion pricing, but for ideology.
All the dictionaries in the CA public school system must have the definitions of 'sanctuary' and 'shit hole' switched. That would explain why they keep referring to these places full of homeless, rapists, and baby murderers where anyone can just waltz in, naked, take a dump, and waltz out as they please as 'sanctuaries' and the places like Washington or Oregon or Nevada where they say 'You can smoke some weed or take shrooms, but baby murder is a step too far.' or 'You can have hookers and blackjack, but no killing babies.' need a DMZ around them.
You should have stopped at the end of the first sentence. Perfect distillation.
It isn't just about Abortion. It's also about government buying what they're not allowed to collect and calling it good.
Another example: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/surveillance-network-fedex-retailers-said-to-be-sharing-ai-camera-feeds-with-cops/ar-BB1pbUWA
Dear Girls who get pregnant....
"You can't do that - [WE] own you!"
The State is pissed that their State-owned incubators are escaping.
You decided to have sex and that act makes you State property.
I disagre with the word "decide". When the hormones kick in they aren't deciding to have sex. That comes very naturally and the opportunities are everywhere. Especially now that "Boy Scouts" are now "Scouting" so teen age boys and girls are in the woods together with what their parents hope is a good chaperone but in reality is only doing it because their own kids are in the program.
Especially now that “Boy Scouts” are now “Scouting” so teen age boys and girls are in the woods together with what their parents hope is a good chaperone but in reality is only doing it because their own kids are in the program.
Troops are segregated by gender. Boys and girls are not in the same campsites much less the same tents. They might be at the same camps, but it's been that way for a while.
Imagine being a half-assed ENB.
Isn't that just ENB? Half of zero is what again.
You should abort yourself joe
Yeah an egregious invasion of privacy of everybody in the state but Reason is only worried about abortion. Serious question. Is there any evidence that states with strict abortion laws are hunting down women traveling to CA? How would they even know that they're pregnant? Seems unlikely to me and I have to note that the grand jury isn't making that claim at least as reported here.
Seems like the issue should be collecting the data, and sharing it with any state, regardless of what that state’s medical laws are. It’s not like they could prove why you visited some other state, unless there's a drive-through abortion clinic on a state highway. (California might have some, I'm not sure.)
And it seems like the other states have to ask to search for a specific car, not a blanket search on any cars from their state.
What an absurd level of fearmongering. These cameras exist and they can be shared without a warrant because it's all in public. That's something to be concerned about. Yes.
But then you create a nonsensical fear that these red states are looking to hunt down anyone who leaves the state because the only reason to ever travel to California is to end a pregnancy. You might think it heightens the urgency, but instead it makes it sound like you are reaching for something, anything to panic over.
You might think it heightens the urgency, but instead it makes it sound like you are reaching for something, anything to panic over.
See above. It feels very much like a poison pill. A deliberate "This is *not* an #AllLivesMatter issue, it's exclusively a #BelieveAllWomen issue." framing.
The problem is NOT THE LAW. the problem is that the legislature did not make this sharing a FELONY and define the criminal charge and penalty. This is standard when a government agency is involved.