Nebraska License Plate Reader Laws

Status at a glance

When government may use ALPRs

The Act starts from a ban: “the use of an automatic license plate reader system by a governmental entity is prohibited” except as the Act allows (§ 60-3203(1)). “Governmental entity” includes Nebraska agencies and political subdivisions, and also “the federal government, another state” and anyone acting as their agent (§ 60-3202(4)). Law enforcement may use a system to identify (§ 60-3203(2)(a)):

• outstanding parking or traffic violations;
• unregistered or uninsured vehicles, and vehicles violating equipment or other registration requirements;
• a vehicle registered to someone with an outstanding warrant;
• a vehicle associated with a missing person or reported stolen; or
• “A vehicle that is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Parking enforcement, secured-area access control, toll collection and weighing stations are separately allowed (§ 60-3203(2)(b)–(e)). An officer may manually query captured plate data only after determining the vehicle or people are “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal or missing persons investigation.” Each manual entry must document its reason, and manual entries are purged at the end of each shift unless the investigation remains ongoing (§ 60-3204(3)). The Act doesn’t address stops based on an alert.

Retention: 180 days

A governmental entity “shall not retain captured plate data obtained under subsection (2) of section 60-3203 for more than one hundred eighty days” unless the data is (§ 60-3204(1)):

• evidence related to a permitted purpose;
• subject to a preservation request under § 60-3205(1); or
• “The subject of a warrant, subpoena, or court order.”

Systems must be updated from the alert databases at the beginning of each shift if updates are available (§ 60-3204(2)). For how retention works in practice, see ALPR data retention and sharing.

Preservation and disclosure for defendants

Nebraska names the defense in its preservation rule. An operator of an ALPR system “shall, upon the request of a governmental entity or a defendant in a criminal case, take all necessary steps to preserve captured plate data in its possession pending the issuance of a warrant, subpoena, or order of a court” (§ 60-3205(1)(a)). The request must be a written sworn statement identifying the camera or cameras, or the plate, and the dates and timeframes (§ 60-3205(1)(b)).

A governmental entity or a defendant in a criminal case may also apply for a court order for disclosure. The court shall issue it if the applicant “offers specific and articulable facts showing there are reasonable grounds to believe the captured plate data is relevant and material to the criminal or civil action” (§ 60-3205(2)). The same subsection says the government may still disclose data to the parties to a criminal or civil action. See requesting ALPR records in discovery.

Section 60-3205 refers to “An operator of an automatic license plate reader system” without limiting it to government. Whether it reaches private operators hasn’t been settled in any source we found.

The evidence bar and damages

Section 60-3207 provides: “No captured plate data and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of this state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act.”

The rule is tied to disclosure that would violate the Act. It doesn’t say, in those words, that data used or kept in violation of the Act is excluded. We found no decision applying it. It’s a statutory rule, separate from the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule; see grounds to suppress ALPR evidence.

Separately, “Any person who violates the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act shall be liable for damages that proximately cause injury to the business, person, or reputation of another individual or entity” (§ 60-3208).

Public records, policies and reports

• Captured plate data held by a governmental entity “is not considered a public record” under Nebraska’s public records statutes. It may be disclosed only to the registered owner, with the owner’s prior written consent, under a § 60-3205(2) disclosure order, or as the result of a match (§ 60-3209(1)).
• Each entity using a system must adopt and post a use policy and a privacy policy “to ensure that captured plate data is not shared in violation of the Automatic License Plate Reader Privacy Act or any other law” (§ 60-3206(1)–(2)).
• Law enforcement users must report annually to the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice on the lists checked, confirmed matches, and matches that didn’t correlate to an alert, including for manual entries (§ 60-3206(3)). The Commission posts agency reports on its website.

The Act has no specific clause on sharing with out-of-state agencies.

One agency’s policy: Hall County

Agency policies vary, and this is one agency’s policy, not state law. The Hall County Sheriff’s Department’s SOP Section B-80 ties retention to the 180-day limit “or as otherwise provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-3,204 as may be amended.” But it also says: “Flock Safety will purge (hard delete) the data after 30 days.” It requires that “Before any law enforcement action is taken on an ALPR alert, the alert will be verified through NCIC inquiry via MDC or through dispatch,” and an audit of detection browsing inquiries each calendar year. Other Nebraska agencies may differ.

What this can mean in a Nebraska case

• Was a written sworn preservation request made under § 60-3205(1), and when, compared with the 180-day limit and any shorter vendor deletion schedule?
• Was a court order for disclosure sought under § 60-3205(2), and what specific and articulable facts supported it?
• Which permitted purpose under § 60-3203(2) did the agency rely on?
• For a manual query, does the entry document a reason, and was the investigation ongoing (§ 60-3204(3))?
• Was any data disclosed in a way the Act doesn’t allow, which could bring § 60-3207 into play?
• What do the agency’s posted policies and annual report show?