Indiana License Plate Reader Laws

Status at a glance

The 2026 HOA law

House Enrolled Act 1150 (2026) added a new chapter to the Indiana Code, IC 32-25.5-3.8, titled “Homeowners Association Use of Automated License Plate Readers.” The act marks the chapter effective July 1, 2026. The Governor’s 2026 Bill Watch lists HEA 1150 as signed on February 24, 2026. The chapter applies to a homeowners association “established before, on, or after July 1, 2026” (sec. 1).

Section 3 states the core rule: “A homeowners association may not install, maintain, or operate an automated license plate reader.”

Section 4 covers cameras placed on HOA property by others: “A homeowners association may not permit the installation, maintenance, or operation of an automated license plate reader on the property of the homeowners association unless: (1) the automated license plate reader is installed by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency; (2) only a law enforcement agency has access to the data and images captured by the automated license plate reader; and (3) the homeowners association does not have access to the images or data captured by the automated license plate reader.”

All three conditions are joined by “and.” Under section 2, an automated license plate reader is a camera designed to capture a plate image automatically and convert it into computer-readable data for comparison with plate numbers in one or more databases. The term “does not include a security camera that may incidentally capture the image of a license plate.” For how private and HOA cameras fit into the Fourth Amendment analysis, see private and HOA cameras.

What the HOA law doesn’t cover

The chapter regulates homeowners associations. It doesn’t regulate police use of ALPRs in general. It says nothing about permitted police uses, retention, sharing between agencies, stops based on alerts, public records, audits or penalties. We found no other Indiana statute that does. Where rules on those points exist, they come from agency policies and from constitutional law.

The chapter also doesn’t say what happens to data from an HOA camera operated in violation of it, or whether such data can be used as evidence.

One agency’s policy: Indiana State Police

Indiana State Police Standard Operating Procedure ENF-017, “License Plate Reader,” has an effective date of March 1, 2015, and replaced a 2012 version. It is still posted on the state’s website, but we haven’t confirmed it is current. It is one agency’s policy, not a statute. Other Indiana agencies may follow different rules.

• Use. Only trained personnel may operate the readers, which “shall only be used for approved law enforcement purposes” (section II). Readers are used during normal traffic patrol and targeted enforcement details when available (III.A).
• Access to stored data. Requests go in writing, through channels. “Each request requires a specific patrol or criminal investigative purpose,” and the LPR Supervisor keeps a record of all requests to review stored data (III.F).
• Retention. Criminal investigative information is extracted and kept with the case. “All other information collected by the LPR shall be retained for 30 days before being purged from the system; unless, specifically requested in writing, through channels, to the AC/S CIS” (III.H).
• Alerts. Personnel “Shall confirm the validity of all associated LPR alarms prior to taking enforcement action.” The procedure adds: “Activation of an LPR alarm alone does not necessarily establish probable cause” (III.E).
• Logs. The LPR Supervisor maintains “current user logs of reads, alarms, and other enforcement actions associated with LPR use” (III.I).

The procedure doesn’t address sharing with other agencies, public records or remedies.

Article 1, Section 11

Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In Lanier v. State (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2025), a traffic-stop case that didn’t involve ALPRs, the Court of Appeals quoted earlier decisions saying that Indiana “has explicitly rejected the expectation of privacy as a test of the reasonableness of a search or seizure.” Instead, reasonableness turns on the degree of suspicion, the degree of intrusion on ordinary activities, and the extent of law enforcement needs. The court added that “Indiana courts interpret and apply [A]rticle 1, [S]ection 11 independently from Fourth Amendment analysis.”

Independent isn’t the same as broader. The opinion we reviewed doesn’t say Section 11 gives more protection than the Fourth Amendment, so we list that category as not verified. We also found no Indiana appellate decision applying either provision to ALPRs. For the federal question, see is ALPR a search?

What this can mean in an Indiana case

• Was the camera that captured the vehicle owned or operated by a homeowners association? If so, when was it installed and operated relative to July 1, 2026?
• If a law enforcement camera sits on HOA property, does the record show that only law enforcement had access to its data and images, and that the HOA had none (sec. 4)?
• Which agency’s ALPR policy applies, and what does it say about retention, access and logs?
• For Indiana State Police data, was there a written request stating a specific purpose, and was data kept past 30 days?
• For a stop on an alert, was the alarm confirmed before enforcement action? See ALPR alert traffic stops.
• How would Section 11’s reasonableness factors apply to the ALPR use in the case?