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?