Civil rights watchdogs sue San Jose police over ‘deeply invasive’ traffic camera searches

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — Two civil rights nonprofits filed suit against the San Jose Police Department on Tuesday, asserting the law enforcement agency conducts warrantless searches of the records from high-speed traffic cameras in the city.

The complaint was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the America Civil Liberties Union of Northern California on behalf of two other nonprofits working in diverse communities: the Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) and the California contingent of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The groups argue San Jose police often violate the California Constitution by using records from automated license plate readers, or ALPRs — fast, computer-controlled cameras that capture photos of every license plate that passes — to search millions of images that include individuals’ “private habits, movements and associations” without a warrant, calling the practice “deeply invasive.” They hope to stop San Jose police from combing the database without a warrant.

“It is urgent we put guardrails on this unchecked police power,” Lisa Femia, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in an email. “Mass surveillance technologies, like ALPRs, are especially dangerous in moments like the present, where law enforcement is taking extreme measures to crack down on the civil liberties of immigrants, protestors, people seeking abortions and many others.”

Femia noted that governments have long used surveillance technology to target individuals from disfavored and marginalized groups.

“ALPR systems are no exception to this history,” she said. “Our lawsuit asks for probable cause and a warrant before officers can search this highly sensitive surveillance data. If California courts agree and grant our requests, we expect police to stop this unconstitutional practice and get a warrant before conducting these invasive searches.”

The plaintiffs contend San Jose’s ALPR program is particularly egregious because they keep the locations of drivers for one year, a longer period than other California agencies.

San Jose also has one of the highest numbers of ALPR cameras in public space, with almost 500 currently on roadways. Last year alone, according to Femia, San Jose police more than tripled the number of ALPR cameras in operation.

“ALPR surveillance is rapidly expanding around the country and here in California, including in San Jose,” Femia said. “This means that every day, as San Jose residents and visitors commute to work, drive their kids to school, go to the doctor or visit a religious institution, San Jose’s network of ALPRs indiscriminately compiles their movements into a database operated by the third-party vendor Flock Safety.”

And it adds up to a lot of searches without warrants, the plaintiffs argue. They explained in the complaint that an audit showed the department searched driver locations from the ALPR database more than 261,000 times between June 2024 and June 2025.

“This case does not raise the question of whether these cameras should be used,” said SIREN executive director Huy Tran in a news release about the lawsuit. “What we need to guard against is a surveillance state, particularly when we have seen other cities or counties violate laws that prohibit collaborating with ICE. We can protect the privacy rights of our residents with one simple rule: Access to the data should only happen once approved under a judicial warrant.”

The lawsuit also includes San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan as defendants.

The San Jose Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.