Four Bills Filed to Ban or Limit Automatic License Plate Readers, or Restrict Their Funding

Four bills filed Nov. 9 for the 90th Legislature would change how Texas governments may use automatic license plate readers, or how one stream of insurance-fee money may be spent on them. They are introduced bills, not law. None has been referred to committee. All four would take effect Sept. 1, 2027, if they pass in their present form.

The bills are not interchangeable. The Texas Tribune reported the filings this morning and, in earlier work, described state grant spending on Flock Safety cameras. Those spending figures are the newspaper's. This account follows the introduced texts. The local fight is already underway; we covered it in League City Voters Reject Flock License-Plate Cameras. These filings would set statewide rules, if they become law.

SB 232: a limit on one fee, not a camera ban

Senate Bill 232, by Sen. Carol Alvarado and others, is captioned as relating to "restrictions on the use of fees imposed on motor vehicle insurers by the motor vehicle crime prevention authority." The official history page lists Alvarado, Roland Gutierrez, José Menéndez and Taylor Rehmet as authors and shows the bill was filed and received by the secretary of the Senate on Nov. 9.

The introduced text amends Section 1006.153 of the Transportation Code. It defines an "automatic license plate reader" as "a system that reads and records license plate numbers taken from digital photographs," and it adds subsection (f): "Notwithstanding Subsection (e), a fee deposited to the credit of the general revenue fund under that subsection may not be used to purchase or use, or contract with a person to purchase or use, an automatic license plate reader." The official statutes site did not yield a readable copy of the current subsection (e) in the form reviewed here, so Dock Line is not restating that subsection from memory. The bill text itself restricts the use of that deposited fee. It is not a general prohibition on cameras or on every form of authority spending.

HB 331: a prohibition, and a private lawsuit

House Bill 331, by Rep. John Bucy, would add Section 750.004 to the Transportation Code. A governmental entity, including the state, a political subdivision, or an officer or employee of either, "may not use an automatic license plate reader." The device definition matches SB 232's.

A person could sue for damages from a violation. A prevailing claimant would be entitled to actual damages, "including damages for loss of business, personal injury, loss of reputation, and mental pain and suffering," or statutory damages of $1,000, plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. "Sovereign and governmental immunity to suit and from liability is waived to the extent of liability created by this section." The new section would apply only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date.

HB 847: a warrant, and a narrower use

House Bill 847, by Rep. Brian Harrison, uses the same device definition. A law enforcement agency "may use an automatic license plate reader only as authorized by a warrant or court order." Images and related data "may be used only for the purpose of investigating a criminal offense that is a violent offense as defined in Article 17.50(a)(3), Code of Criminal Procedure." Dock Line is not expanding that cross-reference beyond the bill's words.

The images and data "must be destroyed promptly after collection" unless they come from a motor vehicle involved in such an offense or an ongoing investigation of one, or registered to a person who is. An agency may not agree to provide the images or data to another person "except for a purpose otherwise authorized by this section." An agency that uses a reader would have to adopt a use policy, compile an annual report on plates scanned and on scans used in an investigation that led to an arrest or prosecution, and publish the policy and the report on a publicly accessible website.

HB 763: listed uses and a 48-hour clock

House Bill 763, by Rep. Mary González and signed "González of El Paso," would add Chapter 732 to the Transportation Code. Its definition of an "automatic license plate reader system" is broader: "a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras used independently or in combination with software or a computer algorithm to convert an image of a license plate into computer-readable data." "Captured plate data" would include GPS coordinates, dates and times, photographs, plate numbers, vehicle characteristics, "and any other data collected" by such a system.

Except as authorized, a governmental entity "may not operate" such a system or use its data "for any purpose." The authorized purposes are detecting or investigating a felony; identifying unregistered or uninsured vehicles; investigating a report of a missing person; identifying or recovering a stolen motor vehicle; collecting or enforcing tolls or parking requirements; or controlling access to a "secured area," which the bill defines as an area enclosed by definite boundaries, not open to the public, and limited by specific access-control points.

For the unregistered- or uninsured-vehicle purpose, the bill would forbid operating a system in a manner that "intentionally targets individuals based on race, ethnicity, or income level," or that "disproportionately targets" them beyond their share of the population in the entity's jurisdiction. It would also forbid sharing, selling, transferring or otherwise making captured plate data available to a person who is not a governmental entity (except under a court-order path), to a governmental entity for an unauthorized purpose, or to the federal government or anyone acting on its behalf.

A governmental entity or a criminal defendant could apply for a court order requiring retention and disclosure, and would have to offer "specific and articulable facts showing that probable cause exists to believe the captured plate data is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation involving a felony offense or a missing person." That is a requirement for compelled retention and disclosure. It is not, in the introduced text, a warrant requirement for every use listed in Section 732.003(a).

Unless a listed exception applies, a governmental entity "shall destroy captured plate data ... not later than 48 hours after the time the data is collected." Data could be kept as long as reasonably necessary if it is evidence in a criminal action that is pending final disposition, subject to a written preservation request, subject to such a court order, or subject to a warrant. Entities would have to adopt and post rules, and submit an annual report to the Department of Public Safety. Captured plate data would be confidential and not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code, the Public Information Act, with limited exceptions for a redacted audit or access log and, under sworn conditions, data about a vehicle the requestor owned or leased. A civil action, with a $1,000-or-actual-damages choice and an immunity waiver, is similar to HB 331's; the introduced text of HB 763 also lists "personal injury and death" among actual damages.

Four lines, not one law

License plate readers can locate a stolen truck. They can also build a record of where law-abiding people drive. The four bills draw that line in four different places. Lawmakers will have to choose, in public, how much of a person's travel the state may keep, for how long, and at whose expense.

Luke 16:10 says, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much." A photograph of a plate is a small thing until it is stored, shared and searched. The test is whether the Legislature will write a rule it is willing to live under, and then vote it up or down in the daylight.