“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin’s warning remains as relevant today as ever. While public safety is essential, it should never come at the expense of our constitutional freedoms.
The City of Brea’s use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) raises serious questions about privacy, government accountability, and the Fourth Amendment.
ALPR cameras record the license plate, location, date, and time of every passing vehicle. One scan may be insignificant. But thousands of scans collected over months or years create a detailed record of where law-abiding citizens live, work, worship, receive medical care, attend political meetings, and spend their personal time.
Per Brea’s policy, law enforcement does not need a warrant to search this database. Police can search this database without an assigned case number, unlike other agencies.
The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable government searches. In United States v. Jones (2012) and Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court recognized that prolonged electronic surveillance can reveal an “intimate window” into a person’s private life. These decisions reflect the principle that technology should not allow the government to circumvent constitutional protections simply because collecting data has become easier.
In Chatrie v. United States (2026), the Supreme Court decision said that a technique, known as geofencing, violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain data from cellular phone carriers of the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a crime. Attorneys argued that these geofence warrants allow the government “to search first and develop suspicions later.” Although ALPR technology differs from geofence searches, both raise similar concerns because they allow the government to reconstruct the movements of individuals who are not suspected of a crime.
These constitutional concerns are not theoretical—they are precisely why Brea’s ALPR program deserves greater public scrutiny.
Unlike many cities such as San Diego, Culver City, and San Jose, that automatically delete ALPR records after 30 days. Per Brea PD’s policy manual, the data is stored for a minimum of one year with no specific date for deletion. If true, the City is effectively creating a permanent government database documenting the movements of countless residents who are not suspected of any crime.
Equally concerning is the lack of transparency.
Who has access to this data?
How many agencies can search it?
How often is it accessed?
What safeguards prevent misuse?
Residents should not have to guess.
The City also appears not to have conducted an independent audit to verify that the system is functioning properly, that access controls are effective, that privacy policies are being followed, and that citizens’ constitutional rights are adequately protected.
Surveillance technology should never operate on blind trust. It should operate under independent oversight.
This is not an argument against law enforcement. ALPR technology can help recover stolen vehicles and assist criminal investigations. But constitutional rights do not disappear because technology makes surveillance easier.
Barring the dissolution of the program and removal of the cameras – significant reforms are necessary. A number of cities, including Denver, CO, Mountain View, CA, and Santa Cruz, CA, have all opted to dissolve the program and remove the cameras.
The City Council should immediately adopt several commonsense safeguards:
- Establish a reasonable limit on how long ALPR data is retained.
- Conduct regular independent audits of the system.
- Publish annual transparency reports.
- Disclose which agencies have access to Brea’s database.
- Require documented justification and accountability for every database search.
Public safety and constitutional liberty are not opposing values. A free society can—and must—protect both. The question before the City of Brea is not whether technology should assist law enforcement, but whether its use will remain subject to the transparency, accountability, and constitutional limits that define a free people.
That is a conversation every resident of Brea deserves to be part of.
Michael Martinez is a business owner who has held management and leadership positions in the corporate world and the U.S. Army. He holds an MBA from the University of Southern California and a BA in Finance from California State University Fullerton. Michael held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Reserves, serving with distinction for 30 years.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
