FLOCK mrsc restrictions flock cameras
page 3 / 5
- In civil or criminal court cases: Agencies can retain their ALPR data for the duration of a civil or criminal case pursuant to valid probable cause felony or gross misdemeanor warrant or a subpoena, or as otherwise ordered by the court. The agency must delete the data when the case concludes.
- In parking enforcement: Agencies can retain ALPR data used for parking enforcement until 12 hours after final disposition of the case (including exhaustion of all appeals), and they must thereafter delete the data.
- In traffic studies: Agencies must delete ALPR data collected for traffic studies within 30 days of collection.
- In commercial vehicle enforcement: Agencies must delete ALPR data collected to enforce commercial vehicle systems within six months of collection.
- In law enforcement evidence: Law enforcement agencies that collect ALPR data (following restrictions under Section 3 as outlined above) can retain it for as long as it is needed as evidence of specific unlawful conduct described in Section 3.
- In all other cases: Agencies must delete collected ALPR data 21 days after collection.
Other Requirements and Provisions
SB 6002 also contains a number of other requirements, such as ALPR system registration, the local adoption of a model ALPR use policy, the establishment of data audits, penalties, and more.
System registration
Section 3(5) requires agencies using or intending to use ALPRs on or after SB 6002’s passage to register their ALPR system with the Washington Attorney General (AG) within 180 days of the bill’s effective date (basically on or before September 30, 2026).
The registration includes certification from the agency head that the agency’s system meets SB 6002 requirements and that the agency has a documented training process for the officers that use it.
Policy adoption
Section 7 requires the AG to adopt model policies on ALPR use by July 1, 2027. Any agency using ALPRs must then adopt its own use policy on or before December 1, 2027, and provide the AG with a copy. The agency’s adopted policy must either be consistent with the AG’s model policy, or the agency must explain any discrepancies and how their policy nonetheless complies with SB 6002.
Audits
Section 8 requires agencies that use or access ALPR systems to keep certain minimum “audit trail data,” which includes (among other items) the identity of those accessing the system and the date, time, and purpose of the access. Agencies must keep audit trail data for two years.
Law enforcement investigative use of ALPR data
Section 3(6) provides that police cannot stop a vehicle based only on an ALPR “positive match.” Instead, police must either:
- Develop reasonable “Terry” suspicion to stop a vehicle independently of an ALPR match; or
- Immediately confirm visually that the vehicle plate matches the ALPR’s image of it and confirm “by other means” that the vehicle is in fact included in a database or list identified in Section 3(2)(a).
Penalties for violations
Penalties are found in sections 6, 10, and 11. Section 6 renders any information obtained in knowing violation of SB 6002 inadmissible in court (with limited exception). Sections 10 and 11 also impose civil and criminal penalties for improper ALPR system access or unauthorized dissemination of ALPR data.
Unanswered Questions
SB 6002 is new legislation that has yet to be tested and applied by courts, leaving many unanswered questions about its interpretation, a few of which are explored below.
How will this impact existing criminal investigations/prosecutions?
A significant question is whether and how SB 6002’s recent passage affects pending criminal investigations and prosecutions.
Laws generally provide that legislation applies prospectively (from its effective date forward) unless the legislature expresses a different intent. SB 6002 includes no clear “retroactive” legislative intent, so presumably its restrictions will only apply from March 30, 2026, onward. Nonetheless, the spirit and intent of SB 6002 could affect how courts view ALPR evidence obtained before the bill, and the data’s admissibility in court will ultimately turn on specific facts that must be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
What are the data-sharing implications?
SB 6002’s data-sharing restrictions could pose new law enforcement and prosecution challenges because it restricts agencies (defined as 'units of government') from sharing their collected ALPR data with outside agencies or entities unless a judicial proceeding requires it.
SB 6002 does not define “judicial proceeding,” but assuming that it means a filed court case, the restrictions could prohibit ALPR data sharing in scenarios with only a potential for future court proceedings. For example, the restrictions could prohibit a city police department from sharing its ALPR data with outside police agencies for investigative purposes, or with county prosecutors for felony filing decisions. Acoordingly, agencies may need to adjust certain aspects of their investigative information-sharing practices in the wake of the bill’s passage.