A new Virginia government report offers a rare look at how widely police use license plate readers and what happens after cameras flag a vehicle. The Virginia State Crime Commission found that 191 law enforcement agencies reported using the technology, while 20 agencies said they had identified unauthorized use of their systems by employees. Those numbers tell different parts of the same story: a widely used police tool whose benefits and safeguards are still being tested.
The commission’s November 2026 report draws on an August survey and preliminary records of traffic and investigatory stops from January through September. It provides useful evidence for communities deciding how license plate readers should be used, but it is not a verdict on whether the cameras are good or bad.
How widely are police using the cameras?
Of 359 law enforcement agencies surveyed, 351 responded. Among those respondents, 191, or 54%, said they used automatic license plate recognition technology. Flock Safety was the most commonly reported supplier, used by 165 of those 191 agencies. Some departments reported using more than one supplier.
Police use license plate readers to check vehicles against information about stolen cars, missing people, wanted persons and other investigations. In their survey comments, agencies described the cameras as useful for finding vehicles and helping officers work more efficiently. Those are the agencies’ reported experiences, not independent proof that any particular camera program reduces crime.
What actually happened after camera alerts?
Virginia has started collecting something many communities lack: statewide information about police stops involving license plate reader notifications. During the first nine months of 2026, agencies reported 759 such stops out of 987,347 traffic and other investigatory stops overall. In 712 of the 759 cases, a license plate reader query or alert was identified as the reason the stop began.
The recorded notification reasons included 178 stops involving stolen vehicles, 175 involving stolen license plates, 153 involving wanted persons or outstanding warrants, and 29 involving missing persons. Other criminal investigations accounted for 217. A few stops had more than one recorded reason.
The 759 stops involved 789 people detained for investigation. The report lists 342 arrests and 202 instances in which no enforcement action was taken. An arrest is not a conviction, and a stop ending without enforcement does not necessarily mean a camera made a mistake. The figures also do not count every camera scan or every database search; they describe reported stops linked to license plate reader notifications.
What did the oversight review uncover?
Twenty of the 191 agencies using license plate readers reported identifying unauthorized employee use. The explanations ranged from searching an officer’s own license plate to searches for outside agencies and incorrectly recorded search reasons. That does not mean 20 agencies were convicted of crimes or that every incident involved intentional surveillance of a person. It does mean the report found problems that deserved correction.
Virginia’s license plate reader law limits permitted uses, generally requires plate data to be deleted after 21 days unless an exception applies, and calls for an agency policy and internal audits at least every 30 days. Yet six agencies reported having no policy, seven reported keeping some plate data longer than 21 days, and 17 reported auditing searches less often than every 30 days.
The commission cautioned that its survey relies on agency reports and that camera programs have been changing quickly. It did not determine that every responding agency complied with every provision of the law. The gaps are reasons to check practices, not to assume every department is operating the same way.
The numbers also raise questions about who gets stopped
Among the 789 people detained in reported license plate reader-related stops, 332, or 42%, were Black. The commission compared that with Black residents making up approximately 20% of Virginia’s population. Black men accounted for 32% of those detained, compared with roughly 9% of the state’s population.
Those differences warrant investigation. By themselves, however, they do not establish what caused the disparity or whether officers discriminated in particular stops. Comparing stop data with population is a starting point, not a complete explanation of where cameras are located, which vehicles generate alerts, or how officers respond.
The next test comes in 2027
The commission says rigorous research on the overall public safety effectiveness of license plate readers remains limited. Meanwhile, the state has begun collecting more information about their use. Agencies are due to submit detailed reports by April 1, 2027, and Virginia State Police must publish a statewide summary by July 1, 2027.
The November report discusses possible additional safeguards, including stronger auditing and clearer limits on sharing data. Those ideas are not new laws. For residents, the practical questions remain straightforward: Who can search plate records, for what purpose, how long are they kept, and what happens when the rules are broken? Virginia’s new numbers make those questions easier to ask. The next round of reporting should help answer them.
For a different approach, consider what happened in Florida. While Virginia is gathering statewide information about license plate reader use, Daytona Beach and Volusia County have suspended or restricted some local camera programs. Read how Daytona Beach and Volusia County handled their license plate readers.
Sources
Virginia State Crime Commission, Law Enforcement Use of Automatic License Plate Recognition Update (November 2026); Code of Virginia § 2.2-5517, governing law enforcement use of automatic license plate recognition systems.