WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 4739

Summary of SF 4739 (Minnesota, 2025-2026)

Overview

SF 4739 is a Minnesota Senate bill titled “Automated license plate reader data regulations and provisions modifications.” The bill was introduced and assigned to the Judiciary and Public Safety committees on March 23, 2026. Co-sponsor: Clare Oumou Verbeten. The bill aims to regulate the use, retention, and sharing of data collected by automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems, and to modify existing provisions related to ALPR programs and data.

Purpose and Intent

  • To establish stronger standards governing how ALPR data is collected, stored, accessed, used, shared, and retained by government entities.
  • To protect privacy and civil liberties while permitting law enforcement and public safety uses of ALPR technology under defined rules.
  • To clarify responsibilities, oversight, and accountability for agencies operating ALPR systems.

Key Provisions and Changes (Expected/Typical Provisions in ALPR Regulation Bills)

Note: The exact language of SF 4739 is not provided here, but bills with this title commonly include several core elements. The following items reflect standard provisions found in similar ALPR data regulation bills and are provided as a guide to the likely scope and impact:

  1. Scope and Definitions

    • Define ALPR systems and data (e.g., images, plate numbers, time stamps, location data).
    • Clarify which agencies are subject to the bill (state, local, and possibly tribal agencies).

  2. Data Retention and Deletion

    • Establish retention periods for ALPR data (e.g., non-hit data retained for a limited duration; hit data retained longer for investigative purposes).
    • Require automatic deletion of certain data after a defined period unless specifically authorized for continued retention.

  3. Access and Use Restrictions

    • Limit access to ALPR data to authorized personnel for legitimate law enforcement or public safety purposes.
    • Prohibit use of ALPR data for non-enforcement purposes (e.g., marketing, civil actions) without explicit authorization or under strict oversight.

  4. Data Sharing and Interagency Disclosure

    • Set rules for sharing ALPR data between agencies, contractors, or third parties.
    • Require minimization of shared data and tracking of when, why, and with whom data is shared.

  5. Privacy Protections and Oversight

    • Implement privacy impact assessments or compliance reviews for ALPR programs.
    • Create or empower an oversight body or designate a responsible agency to monitor compliance (e.g., inspector general, auditor).

  6. Audit, Reporting, and Transparency

    • Require regular reports on ALPR activity, data requests, retention metrics, and incident responses.
    • Possibly mandate postings of high-level summaries or annual statistics to the public.

  7. Prohibitions and Safeguards

    • Prohibit certain uses (e.g., correlation with third-party datasets for non-enforcement purposes).
    • Require safeguards such as limiting data capture to public roadways and prohibiting data collection in certain sensitive locations or for non-public safety reasons.

  8. Procurement and System Requirements

    • Set standards for ALPR hardware/software, data security measures, and vendor management.
    • Require encryption, access controls, and regular security testing.

  9. Penalties and Enforcement

    • Establish penalties for violations of data handling rules.
    • Outline enforcement mechanisms, including investigations and corrective actions.

Affected Parties

  • Minnesota state agencies, local police departments, and other entities operating ALPR systems.
  • Contractors and vendors involved in ALPR technology deployment and data processing.
  • The public, through enhanced privacy protections and greater transparency about ALPR use.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Status: Introduced and referred to Judiciary and Public Safety on March 23, 2026.
  • Next steps likely include committee hearings, potential amendments, and floor votes in the Senate.
  • If enacted, regulatory provisions would take effect according to the bill’s specified effective dates (e.g., immediate upon enactment or a staged implementation).

Practical Implications

  • Increased privacy safeguards and clearer data-retention schedules for ALPR data.
  • Potential limits on data sharing and stricter access controls.
  • Enhanced accountability measures for agencies using ALPR technology.
  • Greater public transparency through reporting requirements.

If you’d like, I can update this summary with the exact text of SF 4739 (when available) or add a comparison with existing Minnesota ALPR laws to highlight specific changes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.