Utah License Plate Reader Laws

Status at a glance

When government may use ALPRs

The Act starts from a prohibition: “Except as provided in Subsection (2), a governmental entity may not use an automatic license plate reader system” (§ 41-6a-2003(1)). A law enforcement agency may use a system to access captured plate data:

• as part of an active criminal investigation;
• to apprehend an individual with an outstanding warrant;
• to locate a missing or endangered person; or
• to locate a stolen vehicle (§ 41-6a-2003(2)(a)).

An “active criminal investigation” means “an officer has documented reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed,” and believes it may be connected to a vehicle, its registered owner or an occupant (§ 41-6a-2002(1)). Police may also use a system to check the state criminal justice information system for registration, vehicle identification, insurance and stolen vehicles (§ 41-6a-2003(2)(b)). Other listed uses include parking, secured areas, tolls, motor carrier laws and several named public bodies.

Legislative staff told an interim committee in September 2026 that 2025 and 2026 bills would have narrowed police uses and tightened retention. Staff reported that the version of HB 450 that passed in 2026 did so “without these provisions.”

A posted written policy is required

A law enforcement agency may not use an ALPR system unless it “has a written policy regarding the use, management, and auditing of the automatic license plate reader system” (§ 41-6a-2003(3)(a)). Stationary devices aimed at state highway traffic need a Department of Transportation special use permit first. The policy and any permits must be “posted and publicly available on the appropriate city, county, or state website,” or on the Utah Public Notice Website (§ 41-6a-2003(3)(b)–(c)).

Retention: nine months, with exceptions

Captured plate data “may not be preserved for more than nine months by a governmental entity except pursuant to” a preservation request, a disclosure order, or a state or equivalent federal warrant (§ 41-6a-2004(1)(c)). Nine months is a ceiling. Outside those exceptions, an entity “shall destroy as soon as reasonably possible, in an unrecoverable manner,” plate data that isn’t specifically necessary for an authorized purpose (§ 41-6a-2004(4)(a)). Toll data and aggregate data without plate identifiers have separate rules (§ 41-6a-2004(2)(c), (3)). See ALPR data retention and sharing.

Preservation requests and disclosure orders

Utah’s preservation procedure is open to both the government and the defense. A person or governmental entity using an ALPR system must “preserve captured plate data in its possession for 14 days after the date the data is captured pending the issuance of a court order” when “a governmental entity or defendant in a criminal case” submits a written statement (§ 41-6a-2005(1)). The statement must identify the cameras, the plate, or the dates and time frames, and say that a court order is being sought.

A court “shall issue a court order requiring the disclosure of captured plate data if the governmental entity or defendant in a criminal case offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the captured plate data is relevant and material to an ongoing criminal or missing person investigation” (§ 41-6a-2005(2)(b)). See requesting ALPR records in discovery.

Sharing, private cameras and public records

• Data kept by a governmental entity is a protected record under the Government Records Access and Management Act. It may be disclosed only under that Act’s protected-record rules, a disclosure order, or a warrant (§ 41-6a-2004(1)(a), (d)). See public records requests for ALPR.
• An authorized entity “may not sell captured plate data for any purpose,” and may not share or use it for an unauthorized purpose (§ 41-6a-2004(2)(a)–(b)).
• Governmental entities may share system access or data with each other by memorandum of understanding (§ 41-6a-2005(4)). The Act doesn’t specifically address out-of-state agencies.
• A governmental entity may obtain data from a nongovernmental entity only under a warrant or the disclosure-order procedure, and only for authorized purposes (§ 41-6a-2005(5)). See private and HOA cameras.

Search records and penalties

Each law enforcement agency must record the number of searches of captured plate data and “the crime type and incident number associated with each search,” and keep those records “for at least five years” (§ 41-6a-2005(6)). Knowingly or intentionally using, obtaining or disclosing data in violation of the Act is a class B misdemeanor (§ 41-6a-2006). The Act contains no exclusionary or inadmissibility rule. See ALPR audit logs and search records.

One agency’s policy: Utah DPS

The Department of Public Safety’s Policy 639 applies the Act to its own systems and adds rules, including:

• “Troopers will not run ALPR data prior to, or during a traffic stop unless reasonable suspicion can be articulated for an active criminal investigation.”
• “Any time ALPR data is used, written documentation and a case number must be completed.”
• The officer requesting or using ALPR data must “confirm the accuracy of the information with the Source Agency before taking any action.”
• Data is destroyed “at the end of the 9-month retention period” unless subject to a preservation request, disclosure order or warrant.

This is one agency’s policy. Local policies may differ within the Act. Herriman’s police policy, for example, says an officer “should verify an ALPR response through the appropriate law enforcement database before taking enforcement action that is based solely upon an ALPR alert,” if practicable. See ALPR alert traffic stops.

What this can mean in a Utah case

• Which authorized purpose under § 41-6a-2003(2) supported the search? If it was an active criminal investigation, where is the documented reasonable suspicion?
• Did the agency have a posted written policy, and a special use permit for any stationary highway camera?
• Was a written preservation statement sent within 14 days of capture, and was a disclosure order sought?
• Was data kept past nine months, and under which exception?
• Do the agency’s search records show a crime type and incident number for the search?
• Did the data come from a private camera? If so, was there a warrant or a disclosure order?