Ohio License Plate Reader Laws

Status at a glance

The only ALPR statute: a records exclusion

Ohio’s one statute that addresses license plate readers is narrow. It sits in the public records law, R.C. 149.43, which lists items that are not “public records.” Division (A)(1)(yy) excludes:

“Images and data captured by an automated license plate recognition system that are maintained in a law enforcement database.”

That is the whole provision. Section 149.43 doesn’t define “automated license plate recognition system.” The exclusion reaches only data “maintained in a law enforcement database,” so it doesn’t address data held by a private company.

An Ohio Legislative Service Commission analysis of a 2026 bill confirms this is existing law: “ALPRS images and data that are maintained in a law enforcement database are already exempt from public records requests.” We haven’t verified which act added division (yy) or when.

What the exclusion doesn’t cover

Division (yy) controls what the public can get through a records request. It doesn’t regulate police use of ALPRs. It says nothing about permitted uses, retention, sharing between agencies, stops based on alerts, audits or penalties. It also doesn’t address criminal discovery or whether ALPR evidence is admissible. A public-records exclusion and a defendant’s discovery rights are different questions. We found no other Ohio statute that regulates ALPR use.

H.B. 725 (136th General Assembly), introduced in March 2026, would add restrictions on commercial collection and sale of ALPR data. As far as we found, it hasn’t been enacted. See public records requests for ALPR data.

State v. Brown: a narrow constitutional reading

State v. Brown, 2003-Ohio-3931, isn’t about ALPRs or location tracking. It concerns an arrest for a minor misdemeanor. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s syllabus states: “Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against warrantless arrests for minor misdemeanors.”

The court held that Brown’s arrest violated Section 14, and “the evidence seized in the search incident to that arrest must be suppressed.” It described the Ohio Constitution as “a document of independent force,” with the federal Constitution as “a floor below which state court decisions may not fall.”

The same opinion repeats Ohio’s default approach, quoting an earlier case: “we should harmonize our interpretation of Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution with the Fourth Amendment, unless there are persuasive reasons to find otherwise.” So Brown shows a broader reading in one setting. It doesn’t show that Ohio’s constitution gives broader protection in general, or for ALPR data. Two justices dissented. For the federal question, see is ALPR a search?

Agency policies

With no statute on use or retention, any such rules would come from individual agencies. We didn’t locate a published ALPR policy from the Ohio State Highway Patrol or a large Ohio city police department, so this page doesn’t state any Ohio retention period.

What this can mean in an Ohio case

• Which agency’s cameras captured the data, and does that agency have a written ALPR policy?
• Was the data held in a law enforcement database or by a private company? Division (yy) covers only the first.
• Has ALPR data been sought through discovery rather than a public records request? See requesting ALPR records in discovery.
• Did the case involve a warrantless arrest for a minor misdemeanor, the setting Brown addressed?
• What federal grounds apply to the ALPR use? See grounds to suppress ALPR evidence.