|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Paul Bean
As Vermont’s law enforcement agencies mark the 12th year of the state’s regulation on Automated License Plate Recognition Systems (ALPRs), members of the VDC team have highlighted the potential double-edged sword of this surveillance technology and the increasing prevalence of electronic surveillance technologies.
Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems, also known as Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), are high-speed, computer operated camera technologies designed to capture and analyze vehicle license plates in real time.
ALPR systems are used by law enforcement and other agencies to enhance efficiency and public safety, however their use raises privacy concerns due to mass data collection.
Going forward the question is— how do Vermonters feel about this kind of technology and what are some of the potential positive and negative consequences?
Enacted in 2013 Title 23, Section 1607 sought to balance the crime fighting potential of automatic policing with privacy protections.
With statewide scans now exceeding thousands annually, concerns have risen on whether these “robocops” enhance safety or erode civil liberties. According to Vermont Public, In the 18 months that ended Dec. 31, 2014, the 67 license plate readers in Vermont had stored 8,438,377 license plate sightings.
They use software to convert images of license plates into data for law enforcement, which can then be cross-referenced against other federal and statewide databases for identification. ALPR systems typically include one or more cameras and processor data analysis.
As of 2025, legislative updates effective July 1 emphasize cost reporting and supervisor approvals for data entry. By 2015, 67 patrol cars were equipped (costing ~$1 million federally funded), with ongoing expansion.
ALPR systems are mounted on street poles, traffic lights, highway overpasses, or buildings. They look like surveillance cameras that are small, weatherproof boxes with lenses facing roadways. They may include solar panels for power and infrared illuminators for night operation. They are also attached to police patrol cars, trailers, and government vehicles.
They are primarily mobile on patrol vehicles statewide, though no public 2025 map exists for fixed locations. For example, however, they can be seen on interstate 89 between Montpelier and Burlington, and on the Appalachian Gap.
Vermont’s concerns about the technology trace back to an early 2014 Vermont Public report that disclosed police had captured nearly 8 million license plate scans from July 2012 to December 2013, using 61 ALPR units deployed across state and local agencies.
The ACLU of Vermont, which lobbied for the 2013 law (S.18), credits it as a “first step” in addressing ALPR abuses nationwide, yet still calls it a gateway to a “surveillance society.”
The ACLU website said following the passage of S.18 back in 2014 that “Vermont’s law contains these important provisions:
- The length of time data may be retained has been shortened from four years to 18 months (we had pushed for 30 days). Police may ask a court to order preservation of data for longer periods if the data’s possible connection to a crime can be shown.
- Who can have access to the data and under what circumstances are clearly defined.
- Annual reporting on the use of ALPRs and data requests is required.”
Annual reports to legislative committees provide transparency, detailing everything from unit deployments to enforcement outcomes and costs.
Vermont’s 2025 ALPR law seeks to implement privacy controls by requiring officer certification, supervisor-approved written justifications with articulable facts for all data access, restricting active data to the past 7 days, mandating warrants for historical data older than 6 months (except in pending criminal cases), enforcing an 18-month destruction rule, and banning ALPR evidence in civil cases.
The debate boils down to a classic trade off: Does the pursuit of security justify the prospect of constant surveillance?
Law enforcement say that In a rural state like ours, where response times can stretch, this tech closes gaps without boots on every backroad.
Back in 2014, Executive Sgt. John Sly of the Rutland City police told Vermont Public the devices could be used in a kidnapping case.
“If we find that we’re looking for a kidnap suspect, and it was described as a blue Chevy, they can query that database in the area of interest and see if any license plates were read that would match a blue Chevy,” he told Vermont Public.
Rutland police scanned more than half a million license plates over the study period. Sly said the information is extremely helpful.
“It followed the same information technology mindset that went along with the computers in the cars, the digital video systems,” he said. “It is new and emerging technology that makes us far more efficient in what we do.”
Yet critics argue the cons outweigh these gains, framing ALPRs as an automated eye that restricts free movement. The ACLU has long warned of “big data” pitfalls:
Even when regulated, the tech logs innocent people en masse, creating profiles of where Vermonters drive, shop, protest, or convene.
Overall, some of the pros include rapid alerts for stolen vehicles, missing persons, and fugitives; and boosts rural enforcement efficiency.
Critics have argued however that their implementation would risk over-reliance on tech, diverting resources from community policing.
For now, the ALPR experiment explores a new American dilemma: In the rising era of smart cities, can the Constitution keep pace with the scanners?
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Law Enforcement
Now that you’re accustomed to the QR code on your windshield, what’s not to like?
I don’t have a QR code on my windshield… life’s all about choices and I choose not to play.
When one enters the public right of way, he/she is subject to all the laws and in some cases mere regulation(s) that are written into the book. That “book” would take a lifetime to digest. BE AWARE OF YOUR PLACE, in the ROW bears being especially watchful. Most always, any person coming afoul of the “book” is guilty until proven inocent. And on top of all other bells and whistles, if one has a VT inspection sticker on the drivers’ side, there is a QR code there on it.
So Be It.
J Hall
Unless you are driving and being paid for the service, you do not need to have a license, etc… when at a meeting with a constitutional lawyer about 5 years ago I was asked to read a passage out of the “book” and it specifically stated the above (not in those words, of course).
And if you don’t have an inspection sticker, you don’t have a QR code… just sayin’
The information is downloaded to AI – which is sold to third parties to track, to monitor, to surveil without consent or knowledge. The issue was brought up within a city where a neighborhood was equipped with such cameras. The residents put up a fight with the city and the cameras removed. Essentially, the city could not ensure the information collected was secure or remained confidential for law enforcement purposes only.
The issue about data collecting and privacy is the government contracts with a data collection private contractor. The information collected is the property and control of the private contractor. If your information is sold, released to the public, is false, defamatory or liable – it is the fault of the private contractor, not the government. See how it works? The horse was let out of the barn and ran counties away years ago. Many give up all privacy by clicking agreements without reading them. Much of it hidden now in “new updates.”
I’m not a fan. Cops should NEVER have been defunded, DUH. There are actually valid reasons for written warnings or an officer issuing a lesser violation on a ticket on site – and there is a huge difference between a normally lawful citizen buzzing by a cam traveling at 11 mph over a limit and the gangsta’s or druggies (who VT refuses to prosecute properly no matter what) endangering lives going 90 mph or better because they don’t give a rat’s patootie about you or your 2-year-old with you in the car seat. Nor will THEY be paying any of your convenient automated tickets; you will again mostly be penalizing some retired grandpa with an enlarged prostate who is trying to make it home in time.
HIRE POLICE, damn it! This isn’t about yet another avenue for collecting state revenue – it’s about saving lives and removing hardened thugs off VT roads!
As far as this system being used to thwart serious crimes such as “kidnapping” or stolen cars (GM vehicles themselves have ground-positioning on board & have had for decades already, btw) as the Sargeant from Rutland describes – there are ALREADY cameras in place at most major intersections all over the county that are not used to assist in issuing tickets, but are in use for those types of purposes alone.
Pursue those doing genuine damage & detriment to this state and leave most of us alone. We aren’t your problem & never were. The real problem is the elected of this state & their anointed judiciary. Maybe go after them for dereliction of duty. Can you issue a summons for that??
Is this just to check Vermont cars or all cars, including the 15 million tourists each year, stolen vehicles, and illegal truck drivers? Most states don’t require a front plate and many cover their rears with bicycle racks. Somebody please straighten me out on this.
Plate readers are great tools for quickly finding those who committed serious crimes, stolen cars, and smugglers crossing our international border. And I’m all for speeding tickets being written via camera – speeding is way out of control now on interstates and local state highways . Keep in mind, a warrant signed by a judge is required to dive into the plate data base in VT
If Vermonters go to NH to shop, expect a bill from the tax dept to collect sales taxes. The state can and learned do collect sales data from credit card companies and can bill a person for amounts bought. This makes shoppers criminals.
Cash, cash, CASH! The only way to shop in N.H..
Tom, It is already expected by the Dept of Taxes that you report ALL out of State purchases on items subject to and to which no Vermont sales tax was paid to be reported on your Vermont Income Tax form in April and tax on the item paid at that time
Looks like Vermont is going to use the New York City plan. The TEL. LIE. VISION weather man already has cameras installed all over the State of Vermont.
Hi, Richard, I just read about the new moneymaking scheme to charge people to use state lands. I wonder if this will be a charge to Vermonters only or to tourists as well? I would be happy if they only charged the tourists as there are more of them than there are of us. Also, free access to state lands if you are over 65 years old.
The state cannot force you to pay NH tax. or any other state.
NH has no sales tax. The Vermont Dept of Taxes says you must declare items purchased out of State that are subject by category to Vermont Sales Tax on your Income Tax form and pay the taxes due then, even if was not delivered into Vermont but carried in a personal conveyance. Personally think it is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the US Constitution since it involves Interstate Commerce.
From the Income Tax Instruction Booklet pdf. “When a seller does not charge the buyer Vermont Sales Tax on an item taxable in Vermont, the buyer must pay
Vermont Use Tax. Non-taxable items such as food and clothing are excluded. Taxable items sold over the internet,
by mail-order, by phone, or bought out-of-state and used in Vermont generally qualify. Use tax applies whether you
are a resident or nonresident. The use tax rate is the same as the sales tax rate: 6%.
If you didn’t keep records of qualifying purchases, Vermont offers an option for estimating them in Part 1. If you did
keep records, you should use Part 2. The total for any purchases that cost over $1,000 each needs to be reported on
Line 3a.
Please note: Act 73 of 2017 requires vendors to report certain transactions on which no sales tax was paid to the
Vermont Department of Taxes. Included in these reports is buyer information which will be used in compliance”
What libs don’t want these devices? Then why did Burlington put money in their budget to acquire them. Ah traffic enforcement/ revenue from fines would be my guess.
Greg Reese just put out a video on Ring cameras and Flock Safety: https://rumble.com/v72kfgk-rise-of-the-safety-state.html?e9s=src_v1_clr%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a. The surveillance state is marching forward whether we want it or not.