Connecticut License Plate Reader Laws

Status at a glance

Two key dates

Public Act 26-14 was approved May 4, 2026. Its ALPR provisions are §§ 13, 14 and 15. Each is marked “(Effective from passage).” But the main limits in § 13 carry their own start date. The use limits, the retention cap, the prohibitions and the private right of action each apply “On and after October 1, 2026.” By their terms, those limits don’t reach earlier conduct.

The act covers a “public agency or private vendor under contract with a public agency” (§ 13(b)(1)). Purely private cameras that aren’t under contract with a public agency aren’t directly regulated by § 13. See private and HOA cameras.

Permitted police uses

Under § 13(b)(1)(B), a law enforcement agency or its vendor may use an ALPR system or its data only to:

• compare data against hotlists and listed databases, including NCIC, the FBI Kidnapping and Missing Persons list, and the Federal Terrorist Screening Database; or
• enter a plate number when an officer determines the data may be “relevant and material to a specific active investigation of a criminal offense in which there is reasonable suspicion that the offense has been or is being committed,” or may help apprehend a person with an outstanding warrant, locate a missing or endangered person, or recover a stolen vehicle.

For investigative searches, each access must “result in a record of the reason for the access and any associated case number” (§ 13(b)(1)(B)(ii)(I)). See ALPR audit logs and search records.

Retention: 21 days

On and after October 1, 2026, ALPR data held by a public agency or its vendor “shall not be retained for a period in excess of twenty-one days,” or a shorter contract period (§ 13(b)(2)(A)). Exceptions include data kept under a warrant or court order, or under court rules on preserving evidence. Data may also be kept as evidence in an active criminal investigation or prosecution if the retention is “approved by a supervisory law enforcement officer” and documented with a purpose and case number. Narrower exceptions cover highway usage fees, de-identified traffic analytics, proof of a subsequent offense, and motor vehicle tax compliance (§ 13(b)(2)(A)–(C)).

Prohibited uses and sharing

On and after October 1, 2026, a public agency may not use ALPR data to:

• monitor or investigate people based on protected characteristics (§ 13(d)(1));
• identify people engaged in First Amendment activity (§ 13(d)(2));
• investigate “a suspected immigration violation” or assist immigration enforcement (§ 13(d)(3)); or
• investigate or prosecute people who sought, received or provided reproductive or gender-affirming care permitted in Connecticut (§ 13(d)(4)).

Sharing is limited (§ 13(d)(6)). Connecticut public agencies may receive data. So may law enforcement in New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and certain task forces, if they give a written declaration that they will follow the act’s limits. Any other agency, including federal agencies, needs “a judicially issued probable cause warrant for the specific data requested,” unless the request concerns a possible Terrorist Screening Database match. Agencies may not allow “real-time, bulk or automatic access” without a documented, case-specific request (§ 13(d)(8)). See can police search Flock data from other states?

Confidentiality and public records

“Automated license plate reader data is confidential and shall not be deemed a public record for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act” (§ 13(e)(1)). Camera locations are public, unless federal Homeland Security funding was conditioned on nondisclosure. So are audit data, usage logs and access logs, with ALPR data redacted (§ 13(e)(2)). A registered owner may get ALPR data about their own vehicle (§ 13(e)(3)).

Admissibility and remedies

Section 13(c) provides:

“Automated license plate reader data may be admissible as evidence in any court of this state, provided such data was collected or otherwise acquired or held or stored in accordance with the provisions of this section or obtained pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge of the Superior Court.”

This is worded as a condition on admissibility. It doesn’t expressly say that data collected in violation of the act must be excluded. We haven’t found a Connecticut court decision applying it.

• Civil action. On and after October 1, 2026, a public agency “may be subject to an action by any aggrieved individual for injunctive or declaratory relief, including a determination of past violations,” for violations of subsections (b), (d) or (e) (§ 13(j)).
• Vendors. The Attorney General may sue vendors that break required contract terms, with civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation (§ 13(i)).
• Officers. An officer who knowingly misuses data with malicious intent faces discipline, which can include loss of certification (§ 13(k)).

Model policy, audits and reports

The Police Officer Standards and Training Council must adopt a model policy by December 1, 2026, and each law enforcement agency must adopt it, or a more protective policy, by January 1, 2027 (§ 14(a)–(b)). The model policy must require access logs and audits “not less than quarterly” (§ 14(a)(6)). Each agency must file an annual usage report by January 31 and publish it on its website (§ 15(b)). The reports include instances when data was kept longer than allowed, and times data was accessed on or after the fourteenth day after collection (§ 15(a)).

An example: Darien’s general order

The Darien Police Department’s General Order 5.34, reissued September 15, 2026, is one agency’s policy. It includes:

• A 21-day retention limit: data “shall not be retained for more than twenty-one (21) days,” except as provided by law.
• Before a stop on a hotlist hit, personnel verify that the plate image matches the plate number and issuing state. “A hit from the hot list, standing alone, is not probable cause to make an arrest.”
• “Unless exigent circumstances exist, officers shall verify the alert and confirm status through appropriate databases before conducting a stop, or develop independent reasonable suspicion.”
• A quarterly audit covering “system use, query logs, hotlist entries, access logs, retention decisions, and data-sharing activity.”

The order also states: “This General Order is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding.” Other Connecticut agencies’ policies may differ.

What this can mean in a Connecticut case

• Did the ALPR use or data collection happen before or after October 1, 2026?
• Was the use one of the purposes in § 13(b)(1)(B)? For an investigative search, does the record show a reason and a case number?
• Was data older than 21 days? If so, which exception applied, and is there a supervisor’s documented approval?
• Was data shared with or obtained by an out-of-state or federal agency? If so, was there a written declaration or a warrant, as § 13(d)(6) requires?
• Was the data collected and held in accordance with § 13, or obtained under a Superior Court warrant, as § 13(c) describes?
• For a stop on an alert, what verification happened first? See ALPR alert traffic stops.