WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5492

Law enforcement: other; guidelines for use of registration plate reader systems; provide for. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5493'26

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 26 co-sponsors

Regulates ALPR use to protect privacy by limiting data retention to 14 days, requiring policies, court-ordered disclosures, and quarterly transparency for both private and governme

bill electronically reproduced 01/29/2026
#lawenforcement:other #vehicles:registrationplates
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5492

Summary of HB 5492 (2025-2026) — Michigan

Note: HB 5492 is paired with HB 5493. The two bills are intended to be enacted together and create separate acts governing automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems.

1) Purpose and intent

  • Create a regulatory framework for the use of automatic license plate reader systems.
  • Regulate both private and governmental use of ALPR systems and the handling, retention, sharing, and disclosure of captured plate data.
  • Establish remedies and penalties for violations.
  • Promote privacy protections and oversight through mandated policies, reporting, and time-limited data retention.

2) Key provisions and changes

A. Definitions and scope

  • Defines ALPR system as one or more cameras (mobile or fixed) with software to convert license plates into data.
  • Defines captured plate data to include license plate numbers, GPS coordinates, dates/times, photos, vehicle characteristics, and related metadata.

B. Creation of two new acts

  • HB 5492: Regulating Automatic License Plate Readers Act
    • Regulates ALPR use by private entities and governs the handling of captured data.
    • Establishes preservation requests and court-ordered disclosures for ongoing investigations.
    • Sets limits on retention and access, and outlines remedies for violations.
  • HB 5493: Regulating Governmental Entities’ Use of Automatic License Plate Readers Act
    • Regulates ALPR use by state and local governmental entities.
    • Specifies authorized uses, retention/sharing rules, and requirements for policies and reporting.

C. Preservation and disclosure

  • Governmental entities or criminal-defendant can submit a preservation request to ALPR operators, requiring data be preserved for at least 14 days.
  • Preservation requests must include:
    • Each camera or license plate number to preserve.
    • Date/time window for preservation.
  • A court can order disclosure of preserved data if there are reasonable grounds that it is relevant to an ongoing investigation, prosecution, or defense.
  • If the disclosure order is denied or 14 days elapse, preserved data must be destroyed.

D. Use and disclosure restrictions

  • Governmental entities may obtain or use privately held captured plate data only with a warrant or preservation request, and only if data is retained for 14 days or less.
  • Data subject to the act cannot be used as evidence in trials or official proceedings if disclosure would violate the act.
  • Captured plate data are not subject to FOIA; disclosure limited to the vehicle’s registered owner or with prior written consent.
  • Protection orders protecting a driver may restrict disclosure unless a warrant or court order is obtained.

E. Remedies and damages

  • An aggrieved person can sue for actual damages (including economic/non-economic) or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.

F. Data retention, sharing, and privacy policies

  • General prohibition on sharing/retaining captured plate data for more than 14 days, with listed exceptions (evidence for authorized purposes, preservation/disclosure orders, warrants, or ongoing investigations with strict destruction on conclusions or lack of charges).
  • Requires governmental entities to adopt:
    • An ALPR use policy (publicly posted).
    • A privacy policy detailing retention limits, prohibited sharing, and automatic deletion after retention period.
  • Quarterly reporting obligations on ALPR practices, including:
    • Number of plates scanned.
    • Details on alert checks, matches, and investigations.
    • Counts of preservation requests and disclosure orders.
    • Instances of manual data entry, external data sharing, policy violations, and changes to privacy policies.
  • Requires storage/security measures to protect data from unauthorized access.

G. Authorized uses (governmental entities)

  • Compare captured plate data with alert data for items such as uninsured/invalid insurance, unregistered/expired registrations, warrants, missing persons, stolen vehicles, or ongoing criminal investigations.
  • Parking enforcement, access control to secured areas, and electronic toll collection are expressly permitted.

H. Special handling of alert data

  • “Alert data” can include state/federal databases and manual entries by officers when determining relevance to ongoing investigations.

3) Who is affected

  • Governmental entities (state and local) that operate ALPR systems or rely on captured plate data.
  • Private entities operating ALPR systems or hosting data for governmental use.
  • Individuals and vehicle owners whose license plate data may be captured, stored, or disclosed.
  • Law enforcement officers who manually enter plate numbers into ALPR systems for certain investigations.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Effective date: HB 5492 and HB 5493 include an enacting clause noting they do not take effect unless enacted together (both must be law).
  • Data retention cap: 14 days for most purposes, with specific circumstances allowing longer, under preservation/disclosure orders or warrants.
  • Preservation window: At least 14 days post-preservation request.
  • Destruction timelines: Data destroyed if disclosure order denied or after retention period ends (whichever is later).
  • Reporting: Quarterly public and internal reporting requirements by governmental entities using ALPR.
  • Privacy postings: Public posting of ALPR policy and privacy terms by entities using ALPR.

5) Potential impacts and considerations

  • Enhanced privacy protections for individuals by constraining retention, restricting disclosures, and requiring court orders for access to private ALPR data.
  • Increased transparency and accountability through required policies, public postings, and quarterly usage reports.
  • Establishes civil remedies for violations, providing a remedy framework for affected individuals.
  • May require governmental entities and private operators to invest in data security and governance processes to comply with policies and reporting.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison with existing Michigan ALPR frameworks or a timeline highlighting when various provisions would apply once enacted.

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

Sign in to ask a question.