Keeping an Eye on Surveillance Bills in Ohio

Automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) remain one of the hottest policy topics throughout Ohio and the country. In Ohio’s big cities, suburbs, and rural towns, local residents continue to voice their opposition and concerns to this type of invasive technology. The ACLU of Ohio is proud to report that community-led, nonpartisan efforts are working as local elected and government officials, news media, and local groups learn more and more about the web of mass surveillance, not just ALPRs, imposed upon us by our government.

Legislators at the Ohio Statehouse have taken notice. In September, and while the legislature was on pre-election break, four bills addressing ALPR use were introduced. However, it is not expected any of the bills will pass during this current legislative session, ending in December.

In other words, each of these bills – Senate Bill 469, House Bill 1009, House Bill 1010, and House Bill 1011 – are a starting point for further discussion and a signaling of intentions for the next legislative session starting in January 2027 and lasting two years.

At the ACLU of Ohio, we believe the only acceptable outcome for ALPRs is total banishment. No amount of regulation or restriction is satisfactory as it is abundantly clear government cannot be trusted with such widely used, invasive surveillance tools. Even law enforcement or other government entities currently acting responsibly are subject to future changes in policy, practice, and leadership that result in ever more surveillance.

All that said, at the ACLU of Ohio we are no strangers to harm reduction efforts across all our issues, not just government surveillance. In some Ohio communities, total elimination of ALPRs is not politically viable at this moment. At the Statehouse, legislators are split on what measures are needed, if any.

Indeed, the ability of ALPRs to be utilized for the purposes of mass surveillance can be significantly curtailed with specific laws in place governing their use. Key among these are warrant requirements, and a strict, very short deadline for deleting ALPR data unless it is relevant to an ongoing, criminal investigation. Unfortunately, Ohio has no statewide laws governing the use of ALPRs (other than in our public records law) and almost no local laws, anywhere in Ohio, specifically addressing the use of ALPRs. (Except for Ironton, where a ban was passed in August)

But, as said, we now have four bills at the Ohio Statehouse that approach ALPRs in different ways. Two of the bills, SB 469 and HB 1010, present intriguing starting points. The ACLU of Ohio opposes the other two, HB 1009 and HB 1011, we oppose as unhelpful and counterproductive pieces of legislation.

HB 1010 is sponsored by Rep. Dean(R) with cosponsor support from four fellow Republicans and one Democrat. Currently, it is the only formally bipartisan ALPR bill among these discussed.

Of the four bills, HB 1010 is the closest to a total ban on ALPR technology. That is, it generally bans ALPR usage except for some specific exemptions. For example, HB 1010 contains a warrant requirement for ALPRs used by law enforcement. It has additional exemptions for other government functions such as traffic monitoring, toll collection, police body worn and dash cameras, school bus safety laws, and for prison, jail, and court security purposes, among similar locations.

Data Retention
HB 1010 requires data to be deleted within 90 days unless it is relevant to an ongoing investigation.

Data Sharing
HB 1010 prohibits government and private entities from sharing ALPR data with any other government and/or private persons or entities, with limited exceptions.

Warrant Requirements
As mentioned, HB 1010 requires search warrants for the collection of data via ALPRs, with some specific exceptions. Under HB 1010, data obtained in relevant situations without a search warrant is not admissible in court and other legal proceedings.

Audits/Transparency
No provisions/requirements.

Penalties/Enforcement
HB 1010 allows for civil lawsuits for money damages, among other relief, by people against government entities and private parties when they are surveilled and that data is sold, transferred, shared, collected, accessed, etc. in violation of HB 1010. Or, if the person in question was cited, ticketed, etc. because of data obtained via an ALPR.

The Office of the Attorney General is also authorized to investigate possible violations and file civil lawsuits.

There are also criminal penalties ranging from a 1st degree misdemeanor to a 4th degree felony for violating provisions of HB 1010.

SB 469 is sponsored by Sen. Cutrona(R). It has no additional cosponsors. Like HB 1010, SB 469 is a comprehensive bill.

A notable difference between this bill and HB 1010 is SB 469 allows for broad ALPR usage but with most controls and regulations focused on the back end. That is, who the data can be shared with, how it can be used, and so on. SB 469 also explicitly bans ALPRs and surveillance tech within 500 feet of a house of worship or a firearms retailer.

Data Retention
SB 469 requires data to be deleted after 10 days unless relevant to an ongoing investigation, or it was obtained with a warrant, or its deletion is prohibited by law.

Data Sharing
Like HB 1010, SB 469 prohibits ALPR data sharing with any other government and/or private persons or entities unless a relevant government entity first obtains a search warrant.

Warrant Requirements
A government entity can access stored ALPR data with a search warrant under SB 469.

Audits/Transparency
SB 469 mandates monthly internal audits of government entities to ensure compliance with the law. It also requires yearly reports to the Office of the Attorney General on government usage of ALPRs. The AG will then summarize those reports for the legislature.

Penalties Enforcement
SB 469 allows for civil lawsuits by people against government entities and private parties when they are surveilled and that data is sold, transferred, or shared in violation of SB 469. Or, if they are surveilled within 500 feet of a house of worship or gun retailer. Successful lawsuits may result in money damages, among other relief.

The Office of the Attorney General is also authorized to investigate possible violations and file civil lawsuits to obtain an injunction.

Violations of SB 469’s provisions on data retention, data sharing, and the 500-foot provision applicable to house of worship and gun retailers are a 4th degree felony.

HB 1011 was introduced by Rep. Click(R) with one other Republican as a cosponsor. HB 1011 is a moratorium bill, halting much ALPR use for one year. This legislation is a general ban but with various exceptions, such as for AMBER alerts, finding missing persons or escaped inmates, toll collection, and some other uses. However, included among those other exemptions is explicit permission for ALPRs to be used for cooperation with ICE for the purposes of immigration enforcement. At a minimum, that ICE exemption makes HB 1011 a non-starter for the ACLU of Ohio.

HB 1009 is sponsored by Reps. Newman(R) and Willis(R) with ten additional Republican House members signed on as cosponsors.

The most succinct way to describe HB 1009 is it explicitly preserves the status quo of mass surveillance with few restrictions. It still allows law enforcement and other government entities to use ALPRs for mass surveillance and lawfully accessing that data “in the course of” their “law enforcement activities” or the government entity’s “normal activities.”

HB 1009 otherwise largely focuses on law enforcement misuse of ALPR databases. Under current law, the penalty for unauthorized uses of similar databases is a felony of the 5th degree. HB 1009 extends this to ALPR/surveillance tech databases.

Thus far, HB 1009 has the most visible support, judging from the number of cosponsors. Indeed, inside and outside the Statehouse, some bipartisan supporters of mass surveillance contend the only meaningful, needed regulation for this technology is to punish misuse from individual actors. Time will tell if Statehouse leadership agrees something like HB 1009 is all that is needed; whereas the ACLU of Ohio is fully aware that widespread, systemic change is the solution to protect our privacy rights.

For additional context, the General Assembly recently and overwhelmingly passed House Bill 251. This new law explicitly allows government and law enforcement to conduct mass surveillance via drones, for any reasons whatsoever, as long as the person/people recorded are outside. Concerns about HB 251’s sweeping scope and unclear language were ignored by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. HB 251’s outcome signals a rocky road ahead at the Statehouse but not an insurmountable one.

After a summer and fall of constant news and developments about ALPRs, we should soon know more how other state legislators react and respond to the public’s numerous concerns about mass surveillance, government spying, and Big Tech invading our privacy.