Fact Check: No, ALPRs Are Not Standard Traffic Enforcement Cameras

Many residents assume that automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), especially those installed on poles or intersections, are simply red-light or speed-enforcement cameras. This confusion is understandable — the devices can look similar from a distance. However, they serve fundamentally different purposes and collect very different data.

What Traffic Enforcement Cameras Do

Traffic enforcement cameras — such as red-light, speed, or school-zone cameras — are designed to enforce specific traffic violations. Their key characteristics include:

  • Capture images only when a violation occurs (for example, running a red light or speeding)
  • Produce evidence linked to a specific alleged offense
  • Issue a citation or warning
  • Collect a single event, not a long-term movement history
  • Operate under clear, violation-based triggers

These systems are event-based enforcement tools, not continuous surveillance tools.

What ALPR Cameras Do

ALPR systems are continuous data-collection networks designed to record and store information about every plate that passes within view, regardless of whether a crime or traffic violation is suspected. ALPR systems typically:

  • Scan every passing license plate, 24/7
  • Upload data to searchable databases
  • Record time, date, and GPS location
  • Capture vehicle characteristics (make, model, color, unique features)
  • Retain data for days, months, or years depending on policy
  • May share data with other agencies or private vendors

The issue is not the capture of a single plate image — it is the creation of searchable, long-term movement histories.

A Simple Comparison

ALPR Cameras

  • Purpose: Surveillance and investigation
  • Trigger: Continuous, automatic collection
  • Data scope: Every passing vehicle
  • Stored data: Time, date, location, and vehicle metadata
  • Retention: Varies widely; can be long-term
  • Sharing: Often multi-agency databases or vendor networks

Traffic Enforcement Cameras

  • Purpose: Issue citations for specific violations
  • Trigger: Activates only when a violation is detected
  • Data scope: Only suspected offending vehicles
  • Stored data: Single incident evidence for a ticket or case
  • Retention: Typically tied only to the citation or legal proceeding
  • Sharing: Generally limited to the local authority handling enforcement

Why the Difference Matters

The public often accepts red-light and speed cameras because they are narrow-purpose enforcement tools. ALPRs, by contrast, raise broader privacy questions because they:

  • Track individuals who are not suspected of wrongdoing
  • Can reveal sensitive patterns (for example, visits to churches, clinics, political meetings, or shelters)
  • Can be shared widely across jurisdictions and vendor networks
  • Can be retained indefinitely where there are no statewide standards

Courts, policymakers, and privacy experts focus on retention and secondary use, not the simple act of taking a picture. A system that silently builds a long-term map of a person’s movements is fundamentally different from a camera that snaps a single image when a driver runs a red light.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception 1: "If you’re not doing anything wrong, surveillance shouldn’t matter."

Even innocent data can be misinterpreted, misused, leaked, or accessed outside its intended scope — including in personal disputes, political targeting, or civil litigation. Once detailed travel histories exist, they can be repurposed in ways original users never imagined.

Misconception 2: "This is no different than a security camera."

Traditional security cameras record video; many are never reviewed. ALPR systems convert vehicle movements into searchable, analyzable, location-based intelligence. A simple query can reveal where a plate has been for weeks or months, and at what times.

The Bottom Line

ALPR cameras are not the same as traffic enforcement cameras. One enforces specific driving violations; the other collects location-based intelligence on all drivers, regardless of suspicion. In Indiana, there are currently no statewide standards governing how long ALPR data can be kept, how widely it can be shared, or what transparency is required.

Understanding the distinction is critical for informed public debate and policy design.

To learn more or join our effort to bring clear safeguards to Indiana’s ALPR system, visit: eyesoffindiana.org/petition