San Jose Residents Sue City Over Automated License Plate Readers

Lawsuit alleges ALPR cameras violate constitutional rights through warrantless surveillance

Apr. 15, 2026 at 9:25pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Three San Jose residents, backed by the Institute for Justice, have filed a federal lawsuit against the city of San Jose over its extensive network of automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. The lawsuit claims the cameras and police database searches are unconstitutional and amount to nonstop warrantless surveillance of citizens going about their daily lives.

Why it matters

This lawsuit parallels a previous state-level lawsuit against San Jose over ALPR data retention and access policies. It highlights growing concerns over the privacy implications of widespread ALPR surveillance and the potential for misuse of the data, including by federal agencies like ICE. The outcome could set a precedent for ALPR regulations across the country.

The details

The federal lawsuit seeks to have the ALPR system declared a violation of the Fourth Amendment and require police to delete camera data within 24 hours unless they obtain a specific warrant. San Jose recently updated its ALPR policies to decrease data retention from one year to 30 days and designate certain 'protected spaces' off-limits to the cameras, but the plaintiffs argue these changes are 'symbolic' and do not go far enough to protect privacy.

  • The federal lawsuit was filed on Wednesday, April 15, 2026.
  • In November 2025, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Northern California filed a separate state lawsuit against San Jose over ALPR policies.

The players

Institute for Justice

A national nonprofit law firm representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit against San Jose.

Tony Tan

A 27-year-old downtown San Jose resident and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Susana Alcala Wood

San Jose City Attorney, who defended the city's use of ALPR cameras and stated they are used responsibly and lawfully.

Matt Mahan

San Jose Mayor, who has largely supported the city's use of ALPR cameras as a crime-fighting tool.

Michael Soyfer

An attorney for the Institute for Justice, who said the lawsuit aims to 'drive these cases up to federal courts and appeals, and ultimately to the Supreme Court' to set a binding precedent.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“'They're ordinary people driving over to their places of worship, to loved ones, to health care, appointments, and otherwise going about their daily routine. Yet their movements are being tracked and compiled in a government database.'”

— Michael Soyfer, Attorney, Institute for Justice

“'I don't think it's reasonable for the government to keep track of where people go every day, and I am especially concerned under the current federal administration, because I also volunteer as a legal observer to protect immigrants' rights.'”

— Tony Tan, Plaintiff

“'Public safety in San Jose remains the city's top priority, and ALPR is one of many tools used responsibly and lawfully to support that mission and we are actively defending the public's interest to continue to utilize these important tools.'”

— Susana Alcala Wood, San Jose City Attorney

What’s next

The federal lawsuit will now proceed through the court system, with the plaintiffs seeking to have the ALPR system declared unconstitutional and force the city to delete data within 24 hours unless a warrant is obtained. The outcome could set a precedent for ALPR regulations nationwide.

The takeaway

This case highlights the growing tension between public safety and privacy rights when it comes to the widespread use of automated surveillance technologies like ALPR cameras. It will test the limits of how much government tracking of citizens' movements can be justified, even if the data is used to investigate crimes.