LOS ANGELES (CNS) – A Los Angeles City Council committee Tuesday recommended vetoing a three-month pilot program previously approved by the Board of Police Commissioners for the installation of license plate-reading cameras on streetlights.

The Los Angeles Police Department is seeking to execute a contract with Axon Enterprise for a no-cost pilot program. Under the proposal, 30 cameras would be clamped to the tops of streetlights and draw power from the lights’ electrical connections, according to Ubicquia Inc., a subcontractor that would install the cameras.

A motion by Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez to oppose the contract was approved by a 3-2 vote of the Public Safety Committee with City Council members Nithya Raman and Curren Price joining Soto-Martinez in voting to support the motion.

City Council members John Lee, chairman of the committee, and Traci Park voted no. Lee and Park had earlier sought to advance the matter to the full council without a recommendation.

A final action on the item is set to be settled by the full City Council Wednesday.

The committee took up the matter after the City Council voted Oct. 6 to assert jurisdiction over a September decision by the Board of Police Commissioners approving the pilot program.

The Los Angeles Police Department uses automated license plate reader technology to identify stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with wanted suspects. Axon Enterprise and Motorola Solutions provide automated license plate reader, or ALPR, technology or related services to the department.

Soto-Martinez sought to bring the matter before the council for further review, citing concerns about privacy and data collection policies.

During Tuesday’ committee meeting, Soto-Martinez questioned about how many cameras would be installed, where they would be located, and asked who gets to access the data collected from ALPRs.

LAPD Cmdr. Randy Goddard, assistant commanding officer of the department’s Information Technology Bureau, described ALPRs as a valuable public safety tool.

Goddard emphasized the technology does not use facial recognition, geometric interpretation, or audio recording, or identifies the driver or passenger. It does not create data fields identifying a person’s race, ethnicity, medical status or immigration status. He added that it records a public observation.

“The system generates an alert. Under department policy it is not probable cause. An officer must verify the plate and confirm the underlining status through an independent source before taking action,” Goddard said.

California law and department policy set clear limits on how ALPR information may be used and shared. State laws prohibit sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The LAPD further prohibits searches based solely on First Amendment activity or other legally protected characteristic or activities.

Goddard shared how ALPR technology helped the department crack down on crimes and solve cases.

LAPD Chief Information Officer Dean Gialamas, who also serves as commanding officer of the department’s Information Technology Bureau, explained that on Sept. 22 the police commission approved the ALPR pilot with Axon under an enhanced governance framework created by the LAPD.

“It established a considerably more restrictive and accountable operating model to test, evaluate and report back before any longer-term decision is made. It established a new path forward,” Gialamas said. “Importantly, many of these safeguards are already being implemented.”

On Oct. 16, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell issued a department-wide notice on LAPD’s new ALPR guidelines on data ownership, privacy, and safeguards related to data sharing and access, audits, accountability and transparency, according to Gialamas. The policy was based on recommendations and feedback from the police commission, residents and other entities.

Gialamas said the Axon contract would serve as a template for future ALPR vendors. He added that the department had updated its data-retention and data-sharing policies to strengthen civil liberties and privacy protections.

The LAPD’s updated policy would be implemented at the same time as the pilot program.

Changes to the department’s ALPR policy include:

— Prohibiting unauthorized secondary use and unauthorized sharing of information while preserving city ownership of the data;

— Restricting access to captured data to 4,000 officers and reduces searchable data from two years to 90 days. After 90 days, the data is no longer available for routine searches.

— Limiting data sharing to certain law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Torrance, Huntington Park, Hayward, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, La Mesa, Glendale, Alhambra, West Covina and Livermore, as well as sheriff’s departments in Los Angeles, Madera and San Luis Obispo counties, among others;

— Adjusting the frequency of audits; and

— Requiring officers authorized to access the system to obtain supervisory approval and complete online video training and a test.

Gialamas noted that within California standing or direct access to the department’s ALPR system is currently suspended. Case-specific requests must be documented on official agency letterhead, and will be reviewed individually before any information is provided.

“No new standing data sharing agreements will take effect until the pilot is completed, and the final policy changes and agreements are reviewed and approved by the police commission,” Gialamas said.

He assured that fixed cameras shall not be installed within 200 feet of licensed healthcare facility or clinic whose primary service is reproductive or gender-affirming healthcare.

Goddard explained that under the proposed pilot there will be monthly reports until the pilot is complete. Each report would cover inspection results and the pilot’s status and progress.

“Let us test the technology under our enhanced safeguards, measure its public safety value, and our compliance with those safeguards, identify any remaining risks, and repot the results back publicly before any longer-term decision is made,” Gialamas said.

Soto-Martinez argued that the department should establish its policies before testing the technology.

Council members said the use of ALPRs raises significant public concerns, citing cases in which officers in other states have used the technology to stalk former romantic partners and investigate women seeking reproductive health services outside their home communities.

They also cited incidents in which partial or incorrect data led law enforcement officers to conduct aggressive stops of people who were not suspected of crimes.

Council members Lee and Park argued that the department needs the technology to respond to calls for service, in particular as they face issues with recruitment.

“Those cameras were providing an important layer of protection for a very vulnerable community that needed it,” Park said, referring to the vulnerability of Pacific Palisades in the aftermath of the January 2025 fire.

Soto-Martinez argued that the level of data being collected on Angelenos is unprecedented. The councilman alleged the department has not had an ALPR policy since the pandemic. LAPD first introduced its policy in December 2020, and since has revised it.

“Never has the city had so much information on our residents where we can see what they’re doing and where they’re at,” Soto-Martinez said.

Gialamas defended the department, noting that they are strengthening their ALPR policy to prevent misuse, which he says has not been identified.

Soto-Martinez said he didn’t have enough information whether to say allowing 4,000 LAPD officers to access ALPR data was good or bad. He also wasn’t convinced that LAPD’s new auditing requirements went far enough.

“I think that there is more work to be done. I don’t like that there’s 4,000 people without an analysis whether they deserve to keep having (access to ALPR data) or not. I don’t feel comfortable why we cut off the external… we haven’t talked about the direction those folks want to move forward. The lack of auditing, and not being able to bring a third party in,” Soto-Martinez said.

In September, the Board of Police Commissioners approved a new 10- year, $235 million contract with Axon. The company is expected to provide more than 1,600 patrol-car cameras with automated license plate reader technology, along with thousands of replacement body-worn cameras, Tasers, cloud storage for video footage and artificial intelligence features that would generate initial drafts of police reports from body-worn camera recordings.

In July, the Board of Police Commissioners suspended the LAPD’s use of ALPR technology provided by Flock Safety, citing concerns about data collection and retention.

The LAPD’s three-year contract with Flock expired that month, although officials have said they are working on a new agreement that would better define and enforce data-security and privacy protections.

The decision followed an audit by the LAPD’s Office of the Inspector General concerning the department’s use of ALPR technology.

The audit found that LAPD officers had improperly investigated 161 people whose vehicles were incorrectly flagged as stolen in the ALPR system.