Inside This Report

• A Santa Clara County judge is weighing whether drivers have a privacy right in where their cars travel on public streets — and his answer could reshape how police use license plate cameras statewide.
• CAIR and the EFF say San Jose's nearly 500 cameras let police build a searchable map of anyone's movements without a warrant; the city says public roads carry no expectation of privacy.
• The judge has signaled he's leaning toward San Jose, but ordered new briefing before ruling — and both sides expect the loser to appeal.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

CALIFORNIA - San Jose's roads are watched. Nearly 500 automated license plate reader cameras are bolted to intersections and corridors across the city, silently logging every car that passes beneath them. Now a Santa Clara County courtroom is asking the question that technology has outpaced for years: just because police can watch where you go, does that mean they're allowed to?

The answer isn't coming easily. A judge has asked both sides in a closely watched privacy lawsuit to submit additional briefing before he rules — a delay that keeps the case alive, even as he's signaled which way he's currently leaning.

The lawsuit, filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), argues that San Jose is violating a California law governing how police collect, retain, and share license plate data — and, more fundamentally, violating drivers' constitutional privacy rights.

For CAIR's Zahra Billoo, the danger isn't any single photograph of a passing car. It's what happens when thousands of those photographs are stitched together into a timeline of a person's life.

"Police should not simply be able to follow where our cars are and where they went," Billoo said. "It's not just about whether or not someone has committed a crime, it's about whether you want the government in your business."

That distinction is the heart of the case. A single camera catching a single car at a single moment is one thing. A network of nearly 500 cameras capable of reconstructing where someone has been for months — including, potentially, visits to a medical clinic, or a place of worship — is something else entirely, the plaintiffs argue.

CAIR and EFF want courts to treat license plate data the way the U.S. Supreme Court has treated cellphone location tracking: as information sensitive enough that police need a warrant before searching it. That precedent, they argue, should extend naturally to a technology that does essentially the same thing — just aimed at cars instead of phones.

San Jose disagrees, and it has case law of its own. The city points to a California appeals court ruling that allowed police to pull traffic camera footage of a murder suspect without a warrant, arguing there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for anyone driving on a public road in plain view.

It's that argument the judge appears to find persuasive, at least for now. He's indicated he's leaning toward the city's position — but before committing to a ruling, he wants more research on where exactly the legal line should sit.

EFF attorney Andrew Crocker called the judge's request for more briefing an encouraging sign that the case isn't over, even while conceding the plaintiffs face what he described as an uphill battle given the judge's early signals.

Legal analyst Steven Clark read the hearing more bluntly: a procedural win for San Jose, with the court essentially telling the plaintiffs they need to allege more facts to move forward.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan's office was quick to claim the moment. In a statement, the mayor's office said it appreciated the court's careful consideration and the tentative ruling in the city's favor, adding that San Jose remains committed to using public-safety tools responsibly.

Under pressure, the San Jose Police Department has already made one concession: it cut its data retention window from a full year down to just 30 days. But shortening the shelf life of the data doesn't answer the deeper question at the center of the lawsuit — what the technology is capable of revealing about a person's private life during whatever window it does exist.

The department defended the program in a statement, noting that the cameras help solve crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing people. Police also emphasized that data sharing is not unrestricted, stating that any sharing of ALPR data must meet defined policy requirements, be directly tied to a legitimate investigative purpose, and comply with all applicable laws and oversight requirements.

Clark's prediction may be the most important line to come out of the hearing: no matter which side the judge ultimately rules for, the case is headed for appeal. That means San Jose's cameras — and the legal framework governing every other city considering the same technology — will remain in limbo for months, possibly longer.

The judge is expected to issue his decision within the next few months. Until then, the cameras keep watching, and keep recording, while the courts decide just how much of that record the public is entitled to keep private.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel López has built a reputation for translating dense legal filings and courtroom proceedings into reporting that's accurate, sourced, and accessible to readers who deserve to understand what's happening to their rights.

Stay Ahead of the Story

Cases like this one rarely stay contained to a single courtroom — they set the precedent every other city watches next. If you want the investigative depth, the legal analysis, and the national security context behind the headlines before anyone else covers it, this is exactly the reporting the USA Herald newsletter delivers straight to your inbox.

👉 Subscribe to the USA Herald Newsletter 👉 Follow us on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald