S1: Hey there , San Diego. It's Andrew Bracken in for Jade Heineman. Law enforcement agencies in California have shared license plate data with federal agencies. What privacy groups are saying about it under the backdrop of increased immigration enforcement. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. Under state law , police departments cannot share license plate data with outside agencies. That law has been routinely violated in California. The San Diego Police Department shared data with federal agencies approximately 60 times in 2024. The department has since stopped sharing its data after the state attorney general got involved. But advocates are voicing their concerns about privacy and surveillance , especially amid President Trump's mass deportation campaign. We want to discuss more what this looks like on the state and local levels here to help us do that. Gustavo Solis , he is KPBS investigative border reporter. Hey , Gustavo. Hello. And also Corey Johnson joins us. He's a technology reporter with Calmatters Hikari. Hi.
S2: I've been following this issue on and off for a couple of years now. I'm an immigration border reporter by trade , so I come into it when police surveillance interacts with immigration enforcement. Um , and this example , uh , multiple folks reached out to me about this. There's been a year long advocacy effort to try to impose more limits on the police use of this. And more recently , you know , with what the Trump administration is doing in terms of immigration enforcement , that push to limit some of these surveillance technologies is getting a lot of strength , a lot more support , because people are connecting the dots in a more direct way between police surveillance and immigration enforcement.
S1:
S2: I mean , it's collected every time you you're out in the public. Right ? So alpr automated license plate reader data. These are cameras installed throughout the city. There there's about 500 throughout San Diego. They capture your license plate every time you drive by , and they don't just capture it once. Right ? They keep track of it in a way. Right ? They like , like , just think about this , right. Every time you drive by , they get your car. Obviously the make model color of it , the time of day it passed and the direction it was heading. And if you have 500 of these cameras throughout the city. Like , think about that. If they get enough data. Yeah , they're going to be able to figure out if they want to. Where do you like to do your grocery shopping ? When do you like to do go to the gym. Which gym do you like to go to ? normally. What time do you leave your house ? Right. That's what this data allows people to do. Right. That's what I want to be clear. That's not how the police is using it , but that is the the potential applicability of it. I mean , you can track a lot of people's whereabouts throughout the day.
S1: And , Corey , you know , Gustavo , there's kind of illuminating some of the power that this data could potentially have and some of , you know , the information it holds. What do we know about , you know , what law enforcement agencies actually do with this data ? Yeah.
S3: Law enforcement agencies can use the data to trace the last time. You know , a vehicle registered to a certain person was in a place. So , you know , there's , um , those kinds of searches are available , but , you know , tracking down stolen vehicles , I think is a is a common , um , use that is , you know , that law enforcement agencies talk about people who are connected to crimes in the Oakland area , for example , there was a lot of , you know , a push for a license plate reader activity , I believe , uh , in response to stolen vehicles.
S1: I see so , Gustavo. Even though state law , it does bar local police from sharing this data with federal agencies.
S2: And that's what we've been finding out more recently. Right. You alluded to it in the intro more than 60 times. It was 62 times that we found or really not we found. I shouldn't say it that way. It's really 62 times that. The police department in their annual surveillance report disclosed that they did this right. But again , and they the report does make it clear none of those 62 times were for immigration related searches. But that's beside the fact , because that 2015 law , SB 34 is clear. It says no sharing without a state or federal agencies , independent of whether it's an immigration related search or not. So I think that's become clear. Uh , since the police department disclosed this , uh , the city's privacy advisory board raised concerns. Uh , the trust coalition , different privacy advocates raised concerns. And I think most noteworthy , the , uh , state attorney general , you know , reached out to the department and said , hey , we need to talk about this. We need to review your policies. And now , finally , uh , the department has stopped sharing with those out of state agencies.
S1: So , Cory , zooming out here , you're reporting , as you mentioned , you know , looks at police agencies across California who share data with federal agents. What other departments were found to be sharing data in your reporting ? Yeah.
S3: So , uh , calmatters obtained a blog of automated license plate reader data and searches that were carried out in Riverside County from April 20th 8th to May 30th. And some of those are by Riverside County Sheriff's Office and summer by outside agencies. And that log contains for each search a justification. And more than 100 of those searches have the justification htsci , which we believe stands for Homeland Security Investigations and the Sheriff's Department in Orange and San Diego County carried out searches involving CBP , uh , which is we believe stands for Customs and Border Protection or the Border Patrol. And in total , about a dozen law enforcement agencies throughout Southern California were involved with those searches. Uh , you know , I'll note here , though , that , uh , you know , ongoing public records requests by , uh , groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation dating back to 2022 2023 , found that more than 70 law enforcement agencies statewide were in violation of Senate Bill 34. This law that was passed a decade ago , um , which includes , you know , security standards and things of that nature. Privacy standards for how this , uh , uh , information can be used. But also , as Gustavo is talking about the prohibition on sharing that information with , um , out of state or federal public agencies. Gustavo.
S1: Gustavo.
S2: Well , I just wanted to to ask Carrie a little bit more about , like , what was San Diego Sheriff's Department doing ? I'd be curious to know , like reading your piece. It sounds like they were doing searches on behalf of federal agencies.
S3: Uh , that's the impression we got. You know , the San Diego Sheriff's Department , uh , when asked for comment about those particular searches and sent the particulars and time stamps of the searches and things of that nature , said that , um , that the matter required further internal review , And if any personnel are found in violation of their policies , that they'll take appropriate action. We haven't heard anything since then , but , you know , 491,000 searches were in this log over this time period. And again , it's some of them are from Riverside County and some are from law enforcement agencies from other parts of the state , and some that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department were doing were , I think roughly a dozen of them mentioned something about like Air Bud. This is the 1997 Disney film. Oh , weird. Um , you know , that's not what I'd characterize as probably the kind of justification that the attorney general had in mind when asking law enforcement agencies to spell out why a search was done.
S2:
S3: Yeah.
S1: Yeah. What was the reason ? Random.
S2:
S3: Uh , I requested additional , um , comment on that , um , and had an opportunity to speak with the undersheriff who essentially said in a in a number of words that that doesn't seem right. Um , I think the word insane was used. But , you know , so I think some of the agencies who I spoke with were clear in articulating that the justifications for different searches did not seem up to par with what is necessary for articulating why a search was done in the first place. And really , I think that that's a big part of , um , you know , an important part of this discussion. Um , you know , uh , what's more concerning than the 100 searches involving HRC or CBP ? Um , Oakland Privacy , the group who shared this information with us said , uh , is that there's more than 60,000 searches in the log that just have vague justifications , and those could be done for just about anything. And I'm not implying that this happened here , but in some instances in other parts of the country , police officers misused alpr data to do things like track ex-girlfriends. So again , you know , for for all of those different searches that could be done for federal authorities or just about anything.
S1:
S2: They've been around for a long time. They definitely have a large presence in this space in supplying law enforcement agencies across the country with this technology and using their platform for data storage and things like that. I know they've come under criticism multiple times over a number of years for their involvement in collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies like Ice , like Border Patrol , and now more recently , a Homeland Security investigation. So that's something this is not a new concern because of the Trump era. I mean , folks are raising these concerns in the first Trump term during the Biden administration. This is a company that , at least in the immigrant rights privacy advocacy space , has been under scrutiny for a long time now.
S1:
S3: I think by their count , uh , there in more than 5000 communities. You know , I it's it's unclear to me what it looks like , uh , when deployed , uh , in San Diego. Uh , but alpr cameras from flock , um , you can see them in public places and in busy thoroughfares. And , you know , you can usually recognize them by the solar panel on top. And this thing that kind of looks like a ring doorbell below it.
S1: So , you know , you both spoke to anti surveillance groups in your reporting that were , you know , working to bring attention to this issue. And you spoke with the Trust Coalition in San Diego.
S2: One is just how this data could be used in the wrong hands. I mean , like I said , it gives us a lot of information. So in the age of , uh , you know , Trump's mass deportation campaign , it does raise some , some very obvious concerns. But besides that , there's a couple different aspects of it , right ? Uh , right now San Diego is in the middle of budget cuts. Right. We are cutting , uh , some library services and services , while at the same time asking every San Diegan to pay more for , uh , trash pickup , to pay more for parking. And this technology isn't cheap. The police department spends about $2 million a year to to keep it going. So the ask was , hey , look , it's a bad combination to keep this funding while eliminating this this program. And they made an interesting argument , not just the trust coalition , but also the city's privacy advisory Board. They looked at the internal data from the San Diego Police Department showing the number of searches and the number that those searches resulted in useful information for an investigation. And they discovered that even by the department's own data , it shows that less than 1% of all searches result in a successful search. So they're saying , look , this data is potentially very dangerous. If it's put into the wrong hands , it's very costly. It doesn't result in a high number of successful searches. Let's maybe pause. And that's not even to mention the potential for human error with this policy. Right ? The generally speaking , just the concern is that we have this new technology , like the shiny new toy that has a lot of capabilities that we don't really fully understand yet , and we're implementing it before we really build a comprehensive data retention plan , data safety plan and the layer of , you know , this eroding trust between immigrant communities and the local police when local communities think that even indirectly. Right. I want to make it clear in California , state sanctuary laws prevent the police department from enforcing immigration laws , from asking you where you're from or what your status is. But there's the concern that indirectly , data collected by that department could then be used in the immigration enforcement context. And even though that's not the intent of the local agencies , that still disrupts disrupts trust in the community.
S1: It's still striking to hear you say , just kind of questioning the efficacy of it , because I think a lot of times when we think about data and using data is it's exacting and it's like , you know , it's helping with whatever problem we're trying to have it solved. But you're saying it's not even that effective at the end of the day either. On top of all.
S2: This , not if you look at it at the as just the data , right. The overall percentage of successful searches versus overall. Now the police department , you know , I brought these criticisms up to them , and they said it kind of misses the point , right ? The the police captain , Charles Lara , said , look , I have a lot of tools in my tool belt. I don't use all of them every day , but when I need to use one , you better believe I'm glad I have it. They did point that since this data has been since this program has been installed , they've recovered about 350 vehicles. So they can kind of point to individual examples , individual investigations like , look , we helped a hate crime investigation around the Hillcrest area. Right. They can point to individual examples to say yes. Overall it's less than 1%. But it makes a big difference for these individuals. That's kind of how they're combating that that criticism.
S1: When we come back , we continue our conversation on the concerns over license plate data and how it could be used.
S3: We have a lot of unanswered questions about how law enforcement agencies throughout the state are using this technology , and the extent to which they may be assisting in immigration efforts and violating state law.
S1: That's ahead on midday. Welcome back to KPBS midday edition. I'm Andrew Bracken in for Jade Hindman. Right now we're talking about the trend of California police illegally sharing license plate data with federal agencies. That includes law enforcement in San Diego. I'm joined by Gustavo Solis. He's KPBS investigative border reporter , along with Carrie Johnson , who covers technology for Calmatters. So , Cari , Gustavo spoke with the Trust Coalition here in San Diego. And as you mentioned earlier , you connected with the group Oakland Privacy. What were their concerns about license plate data and how it's being used ? Yeah.
S3: You know , I think there's two things that come to mind. You know what ? One part of what I said earlier , you know , of , uh , Oakland privacy advocacy director Tracy Rosenberg , uh , she's really a person who spent a long time thinking about how this technology could be misused. And concerned about that and advocating for laws to regulate its use in Sacramento. And , you know , I believe she's a person who has a concern with it. You know , the data hoovering up data of people who aren't accused of crimes. Um , and , you know , something that we discussed was that the rise of the surveillance state and how something like Alpr could play a role in that is something that she feels like used to be hypothetical. Um , but it's not something that she has to in this context. Thinking about it , the information being shared and possibly being used in immigration and deportations. It doesn't feel hypothetical anymore , is the way that she put it. Um , and again , you know , I think her her concern has a lot to do with the number of these searches , uh , that were vague and their justification because those could be used for just about anything.
S1: And Corey , there has been some , you know , push for statewide legislation. It's been introduced to better regulate these license plate reader programs. Where does that effort stand right now ? Yeah.
S3: So State Senator Sabrina Cervantes is actually represents Riverside. And , um , she put forward a bill to , uh , require , uh , deleting collected alpr data. Um , I want to say after 60 days , uh , that bill , um , passed out of the California Senate and is on its way to be considered by committees in the , uh , California Assembly. Uh , but , you know , uh , she was telling me in a statement that law enforcement agencies across our state , uh , are not following existing state law governing the use of automated license plate readers and that an audit that the state of California carried out for a smaller amount of agencies in 2020 , showed that to be the case.
S1:
S2: There was a definite shift in tone after the immigration rate in South Park. Right ? It was militarized. HRC was there. HRC you know , for the audience , Homeland Security Investigations , they're an organization that mostly has had good standing throughout its history. Right. They're seen as sort of an elite unit within Ice , and they don't go after , you know , workplace raids and rounding up farm workers. They focus on long term investigations , going after the head of international drug cartels and human trafficking rings. So they've had a good reputation of that , but now they're being used for rounding up folks , rounding up folks without status and who also don't have a criminal record. And they're lost a little bit of that status. So , um , they were at that rate in South Park. And I think the , the shift in tone , you can really see it play out in one of the most recent City Council budget hearings we had , there was a lot of pushback over these policies. And one council member in San Diego , Stephen Whitburn , um , had like a this really interesting line when he talked about , look , he voted for this system. He believes in it. He , he thinks it can be a good tool to use crime or to fight crime. Sorry. Uh , but he started to connect the dots and see , like , you know , in the past I thought this was hypothetical , but now I can see how a reasonable person would be afraid of this getting in the wrong hands. I can see how a reasonable fear would be that the Trump administration will just go straight to FLoC and take their data through a subpoena or legal action or whatever , right ? Because once it's in a third party , we lose local control over it. That's the fear. So he did say , like , look , I support this technology in the past , but now it's a totally different ballgame. And he said a line that I really liked that said , look , the point of public safety , the primary focus , the primary objective of public safety is to have people feel safe. And now I can see , after hearing from the audience and after seeing what happened in South Park , I can see how Alpr technology is right now making people feel not safe. So he was he is open to having conversations about whether or not we should use it going forward.
S1: Corey , you know , as a technology reporter , you're kind of in this space around data a lot. I think one common thing we've probably at this point , all of us have experienced data breaches or had our data leaked. It seems like every other week some companies something , you know , um , you know , has happened at this point and to Gustavo's point , this is a large amount of information. Um , and we kind of lose control over it. I guess I'm just curious , you know , in your beat the kind of things you report on. It does seem like this is taking on getting more attention , and people are becoming more concerned about it.
S3: Um , as Gustavo , just so , um , well , you know , did such a good job articulating where just how much data is being collected or how that might play a role in our lives is no longer hypothetical. And , you know , I think. What we see in the reporting , me and my colleague did and and Gustavo's work , you know , is is also being reflected in , you know , the concerns that have been shown and some of the reporting of local law enforcement agencies in places like Illinois or Oregon by , for or for media's reporting in the last couple of weeks , uh , also , um , doing searches , uh , license plate searches , um , it's believed on the behalf of federal authorities. And , you know , I think the reporting me and my colleague did shine a light on Alpr data in one county for one month. And I think we have a lot of unanswered questions about how law enforcement agencies throughout the state , um , are using this technology and the extent to which , uh , they may be assisting in immigration efforts and violating state law.
S1: I've been speaking with Corey Johnson. He covers technology for Calmatters. Corey , thanks for joining us today. Absolutely.
S3: Absolutely.
S1: And Gustavo Solis has also been here. KPBS border Reporter Gustavo , thanks as always. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. Thank you Andrew.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm Andrew Bracken. KPBS Midday Edition airs on KPBS FM weekdays at noon , again at 8 p.m.. You can find past episodes at KPBS or wherever you listen. Thanks again for listening. Have a great day.
