ICE Using License Plate Database to Track Undocumented Immigrants

By: Emily Chen

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU NorCal) is raising privacy concerns after it recently obtained records confirming Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) use of a license plate database. 

This is a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by the ACLU NorCal demanding records of ICE’s access to information about drivers through Automated License Plate Reader (APLR) databases. 

APLR technology provides scans of each license plate that passes through an automated camera along with the date, time, and exact location the scan was recorded. APLR databases allow access to extremely sensitive information about an individual’s whereabouts, commonly visited locations, and place of residence, threatening the core rights and liberties to privacy protected by the Constitution, according to the ACLU NorCal.

The ACLU NorCal obtained records via the FOIA lawsuit that confirmed ICE’s use of an APLR license database maintained by Vigilant Solutions, a private company specializing in surveillance technology that aids police departments with criminal investigations. 

According to the records obtained by the ACLU NorCal, since 2018, ICE has gained access to Vigilant Solutions’ database under a $6.1 million contract, providing over 9,000 ICE officers with license plate information collected by private businesses, such as insurance companies and paid parking lots. Reportedly, ICE uses this database solely for the purpose of tracking undocumented immigrants. 

“Like most other law enforcement agencies, ICE uses information obtained from license plate readers as one tool in support of its investigations,” said Dani Bennett, spokesperson for ICE in an official statement. “ICE is not seeking to build a license plate reader database and will not collect nor contribute any data to a national public or private database through this contract.” 

Nevertheless, the ease of access ICE has to such information raises issues of privacy. Resistance against APLR technology has started in the Bay Area as cities begin rejecting contracts with Vigilant Solutions. In 2018, the City of Alameda rejected a proposed $500,000 contract to purchase Vigilant Solutions’ APLR readers for use, reported the ACLU NorCal. After city residents expressed their concern with the proposed contract, Alameda City Council members ultimately decided they did not want to work with a company that sells its products to ICE. Instead, the council adopted strict safeguards regarding future use of tracking technology, reported the Alameda City Council.

On the other hand, some cities that have contracted with Vigilant Solutions strictly limit use of the technology to criminal investigations. The Union City Police Department revealed that while they have signed a contract with Vigilant Solutions, they very rarely use the APLR databases, and when they do, it is only for assisting in criminal investigations.

“We are very transparent with our use of this technology,” said Travis Souza, Captain of the Union City Police Department. “There are many policies and procedures in place to prevent any misuse,” he said. “There will always be people who dislike surveillance but in a way it’s necessary.”

The problem of “misuse,” however, raises the question of what exactly constitutes a misuse of this technology. According to W. David Ball, Professor of criminal law at Santa Clara University School of Law, any private information that is exposed to the public cannot be expected to be kept private under the Fourth Amendment. This provision includes the location of privately owned vehicles the moment they are viewed in public places. Ball said that this idea is consistent with the search and seizure doctrine.

“Nothing is a search if there is no subjective expectation of privacy that the court recognizes as reasonable,” he said. “If you walk outside and hold up a sign incriminating yourself, the police don’t have to look the other way. It’s more or less the same about a car’s location on the road — you’re on the street so you’re in public,” said Ball.

However, there is a difference between public exposure of a private vehicle at a certain instant and the continual tracking of said vehicle’s location through APLR scans. Vigilant Solutions is a privately owned company offering contracts to its database, which differs drastically from public information that the police have used in the past.

In 2015, California passed Senate Bill 54, which prohibits selling APLR data to an agency that is not a law enforcement agency or an individual that is not a law enforcement officer. Furthermore, the bill requires that APLR data cannot be kept for more than 60 days unless the data is being used as evidence or for the investigation of a felony. This bill offers comfort to individuals who are concerned with their privacy, at least until September 2020 when Vigilant Solutions’ contract with ICE ends. In the meantime, the ACLU NorCal is encouraging localities to pass ordinances requiring transparency and oversight whenever a police department purchases surveillance technology.

*Vigilant Solutions declined to comment.

(Editor's Note: This article was originally published in the October 2019 [Volume 50, Issue 1] version of The Advocate.)