California Court Upholds Warrantless ALPR Searches in San Jose
Santa Clara judge rules San Jose's warrantless ALPR searches constitutional, dismissing EFF lawsuit.
Why it matters: Legal professionals must track this ruling as it clarifies constitutional limits on surveillance tech like ALPR and shapes data privacy standards.
- Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj dismissed the lawsuit on October 2, 2026, citing no constitutional violation under the California Constitution.
- San Jose uses nearly 500 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras, collecting 361 million vehicle scans in 2024 with a 1-year retention policy.
- Police ran 261,711 ALPR database searches from June 2024 to June 2025, averaging 692 daily, per court records.
- Judge referenced prior California appellate rulings confirming no reasonable expectation of privacy for license plates visible in public.
- The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) challenged the practice as unconstitutional mass surveillance.
- California Muslim Council’s CAIR-SFBA criticized the ruling, noting ongoing concerns about accountability and privacy.
On October 2, 2026, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj ruled in SIREN v. San Jose that the city's warrantless searches of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data do not violate the California Constitution (court website).
ALPR is technology that scans license plates from public street cameras to identify vehicles of interest. San Jose operates nearly 500 ALPR cameras that collected more than 361 million vehicle license plate scans in 2024. The data is stored for one year before deletion (San Jose Police ALPR policy).
From June 5, 2024, through June 17, 2025, police ran 261,711 ALPR database searches—roughly 692 searches daily—to assist investigations. The plaintiffs, including the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), argued these warrantless searches amounted to mass surveillance violating privacy rights.
Judge El-Hajj concluded that license plate information visible on public roads carries no reasonable expectation of privacy. His ruling cited prior California appellate decisions affirming that data about vehicles in public spaces is not constitutionally protected.
Zahra Billoo, Executive Director of the California Muslim Council’s CAIR-SFBA, stressed the continuing stakes: "This case is about more than technology; it reflects power, accountability, and our freedom of movement without unjust surveillance." CAIR-SFBA’s Civil Rights Managing Attorney Jeffrey Wang added that recent San Jose reforms limiting ALPR data retention do not resolve the underlying constitutional questions (CAIR-SFBA statements).
The decision sets a key precedent amid ongoing national and state debates about balancing public safety with individuals’ privacy rights in surveillance technology use. Legal teams, civil liberties advocates, and policymakers should monitor developments closely as courts continue scrutinizing ALPR and related practices.
By the numbers:
- 361 million — vehicle scans collected by San Jose’s ALPR cameras in 2024
- 261,711 — ALPR database searches conducted by San Jose police from June 2024 to June 2025
- 692 — average daily ALPR database searches by San Jose Police Department
Yes, but: Although the ruling permits warrantless ALPR use, critics warn that it leaves unresolved questions about mass surveillance risks and accountability.
What's next: Potential appeals may arise as privacy groups consider challenging the ruling to seek higher court review on constitutional grounds.