Federal Court Confirms License Plate Readers Are Constitutional

A federal court decision issued today in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk represents a clear and definitive legal win for license plate recognition (LPR) technology as it is responsibly deployed today.

In the case, plaintiffs challenged the City of Norfolk’s use of LPRs under the Fourth Amendment. The Court granted Norfolk's motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs and upheld the constitutionality of the City’s LPR program, reinforcing well-established legal precedent and rejecting the argument that the technology constituted an unconstitutional search.

A Clear Win On These Facts

The court’s ruling is decisive. Under the facts presented, the use of LPR technology by the City of Norfolk was found to be constitutional.

The court was explicit about why it reached that conclusion. As is typical in Fourth Amendment cases, the decision turned on the specific realities of the LPR program in Norfolk today, not on sweeping hypotheticals about evolving technologies.

As the court explained:

“Despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s effective advocacy, the Court must conclude that the limited number of photographs available on a 21-day rolling basis from 175 camera track clusters in Norfolk does not ‘track’ the whole of a person's movements nor does it provide an ‘intimate’ window into where citizens drive, park, visit, linger, sleep, or patronize.”

In other words, the court found that Norfolk’s deployment — including the number of cameras, the retention period, and the system’s capabilities — did not approach the level of tracking that would amount to an unconstitutional search.

Consistent With Longstanding Fourth Amendment Precedent

This reasoning builds upon decades of established Fourth Amendment case law that has consistently held that LPRs are constitutional under the 4th Amendment. Here, the court emphasized that LPR technology, as deployed in Norfolk, is meaningfully different from systems that enable persistent, comprehensive tracking of individuals’ movements. When used with appropriate limitations and safeguards, LPRs do not provide an intimate portrait of a person’s life and therefore do not trigger the constitutional concerns raised by continuous surveillance.

What This Means for Organizations Using LPR Technology

For organizations currently using LPR technology, the practical impact of this decision is continuity.

There is no change to operations, services, or partnerships as a result of this ruling. Organizations may continue to use LPR technology and associated system functionality consistent with existing law, contractual obligations, and internal policies.

At the same time, the decision reinforces an important principle: how technology is deployed matters. Strong governance, clear policies, retention limits, and responsible use are not just best practices — they are central to ensuring constitutional compliance over time.

On that note, over the last six months, we’ve responded to a lot of public criticism, and had our Product and Engineering teams build the foundation for even more guardrails. We’ve rolled out limitations on federal permissions and access, Search filters, an Offense Type Dropdown. We’ve also brought in a Chief Information Securities Officer (CISO) to lead these initiatives. 

Our Commitment Going Forward

We take legal scrutiny of public safety and security technology seriously. This ruling affirms that responsible use of LPR technology stands on solid constitutional ground, while also underscoring the importance of continued diligence as technology and legal standards evolve.

As always, our focus remains on supporting lawful, transparent, and responsible use of LPR technology — solutions that respect privacy, align with constitutional boundaries, and hold up under rigorous legal review.