New Mexico License Plate Reader Laws

Status at a glance

What the Act covers

The Driver Privacy and Safety Act was passed as Senate Bill 40 in the 2026 regular session, signed by the governor on March 4, 2026 as chapter 20, and took effect July 1, 2026 (§ 6). It is mainly a law about sharing. Its definition of an automated license plate reader expressly “includes a device that is owned or operated by a person or an entity other than a law enforcement agency” (§ 2(A)). An “automated license plate reader user” is anyone who owns or operates a reader “or has access to automated license plate reader information” (§ 2(C)). So the sharing limits reach private camera owners and agencies that only query someone else’s system. That doesn’t make private ALPRs unlawful; the Act regulates how information is shared.

Limits on sharing

• Protected purposes. A user may not sell, share, allow access to or transfer ALPR information if it has “reasonable belief” the information may be used for immigration enforcement, for investigating or prosecuting a protected health care activity, or to impose liability based solely on constitutionally protected activity such as assembly, petitioning and speech (§ 3(A)).
• Out-of-state access. A New Mexico user may not allow access “by an out-of-state third party or a non-New Mexico law enforcement agency” without first obtaining a written declaration that the information won’t be used in violation of § 3(A). Without one, the user “shall not share” the information (§ 3(B)). See can police search Flock data from other states?
• Non-law enforcement. A user may not make ALPR information available “to non-law enforcement officers or agencies,” except to its own vendor to provide the service (§ 3(C)).
• Private data. “Privately captured automated license plate reader information may only be sold, shared, transferred or released with the express consent of the private entity or pursuant to a valid court order” (§ 3(E)). See private and HOA cameras.

Confidentiality and public records

“Automated license plate reader information is confidential and not considered a public record for the purposes of the Inspection of Public Records Act” (§ 3(D)). The Act defines that information to exclude information used for auditing a reader (§ 2(B)).

Annual reporting

Each law enforcement agency using a system must report to the Department of Public Safety by April 1 each year on the prior calendar year (§ 4(A)). Reports include:

• camera counts, by mobile or stationary placement;
• the state and federal databases the data was compared with;
• the number of queries and their purposes;
• other agencies granted access, and all out-of-state agencies that queried the data;
• identified instances of unauthorized use or access; and
• subpoenas, search warrants and third-party requests for data or audit trails, “including whether data was provided.”

The Department must publish aggregate data by July 1 each year (§ 4(B)). We haven’t found a published report under the Act yet. See ALPR audit logs and search records.

Enforcement and penalties

The attorney general, a district attorney and the Department of Public Safety may enforce the Act (§ 5(A), (C)). A court may award injunctive relief and “may also assess a civil penalty for an intentional violation of Section 3” of $10,000 or actual damages per violation, whichever is greater (§ 5(B)). A noncompliant agency may lose its data-sharing privileges and access to state-managed systems, and a noncompliant vendor may face corrective action, suspension or termination of access (§ 5(D)–(E)). The Act contains no private right of action and no evidence-exclusion rule.

What the Act doesn’t address

The Act doesn’t list permitted purposes for police ALPR use, set a retention period, or address stops based on an alert. It also doesn’t mention criminal discovery. For those questions, agency policy and general law apply. See ALPR data retention and sharing.

New Mexico’s broader constitutional protection

In State v. Crane, 2014-NMSC-026, the New Mexico Supreme Court wrote that “New Mexico courts have long held that Article II, Section 10 provides greater protection of individual privacy than the Fourth Amendment.” The court held that Article II, Section 10 “provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment of the right to privacy in garbage which is sealed from plain view and placed out for collection.” It applied the “interstitial approach” of State v. Gomez (1997), which also governs how a state constitutional claim must be raised and preserved. Crane isn’t an ALPR case, and we found no New Mexico decision applying Article II, Section 10 to ALPRs.

What this can mean in a New Mexico case

• Did the ALPR use or sharing occur on or after July 1, 2026?
• Was data shared with or accessed by an out-of-state agency, and was a written declaration obtained first (§ 3(B))?
• Did the data come from a private camera, and was it released with the owner’s consent or under a court order (§ 3(E))?
• What does the agency’s own policy say about permitted uses and retention, since the Act sets neither?
• What does the agency’s annual report show about queries, unauthorized access and third-party requests?
• Was an Article II, Section 10 claim raised and preserved as Gomez requires?