Interesting the police spokesperson makes no mention that yesterday the PAPD, also using license plate readers, wrongly stop another car, demanding at rifle point that the driver and passenger get out, then handcuffed them.
People with guns are a menace, but so are license plate readers that trigger police to make what could be lethal mistakes.
If this had happened to me or my daughter, I would not only be angry, but sue the pants off the police and City.

Electronic license plate readers and inaccurately reported rental car thefts can also pose a problem.

Hertz settled a huge lawsuit last year to compensate customers who were pulled over at gunpoint and improperly jailed for wrongly reported rental car thefts.

Nice to see some license plate reader early arrests to get the word out on the street to keep away from Palo Alto.

@Comment Would definitely hope that all reader-based contacts are being monitored and reviewed during this initial period. BTW, it's my understanding that police almost never take out their rifles - are you sure it wasn't sidearms?

Most modern cars have GPS sensors and can be easily traced by rental agents and law enforcement.

License plate recorders are useful for recording traffic violations and tracking older stolen cars.

Thieves today prefer to steal newer, high-end vehicles with GPS.

Stories like this just underscore the fact that the Bay Area is a region not a collection of islands with borders preventing free passage.

I am pleased to see that there is cooperation between various police departments across the Bay.

A stolen car was hauled away from my street that was stashed there and sitting on the sidewalk. I had called that car in since it was on the sidewalk. Depending on where you live relative to freeway offramps there will be more instances of strange activity. We also have people who park here to leave their cars while in vacation. Why not at their own homes? After three days those get called in. If near your home then be happy that the police have all of the tools to sort out strange activity. And yes - thieves often steal license plates.

@Comment the PAPD said they would check to confirm the make and model of the car match the license plate before pulling folks over. You are claiming otherwise. They are also required to file a use of force report every time they point a firearm at someone. If what you said really happened the person who was wrongly pulled over should complaint to the police (which will be reviewed by our auditor) and also report it to PA Weekly Online and PA Daily Post.

More details on the original crime, and the suspects Web Link

Great to see the license plate readers being used so effectively to catch criminals that carried out an armed carjacking. And with only 6 of the 14 installed, so far. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the ACLU's misplaced "4th amendment" opposition to these readers is an attack on both police effectiveness and the people that they serve.

As @Mondoman said, the word should get out quickly to the criminals that if they bring a stolen car into Palo Alto, they will likely be caught.

Some Council members approved the readers on the condition that they show results. They are largely a deterrent, but it is good to see that they also enable arrests for serious crimes. It is also telling that the reader Ickes up the stolen car at the Stanford Shopping Center, while like so many merchants, are seeing huge increases in property theft.

Policing is an incredibly difficult job, and we need to be vigilant against abuses. But, the police need these tools and support, or this city is at risk of ending up in the same state as San Francisco.

So this is a good outcome and use for this kind of system. But we also see allegations in the first comment about how it can go wrong.

What is not mentioned anywhere that I've seen is what is the data policy on the ALPR records? How long are they kept? Who are they shared with? What are they allowed to be used for?

IMO, we should have a clear non-retention policy beyond a very short time (30 days maybe 90 days max) unless the event is flagged as potential evidence (when it would be retained as long as needed).

Along with this, we must not share the data from the ALPR systems with ANY agency that does not have the same or more restrictive policies (for example as soon as our local police share intel with the Federal data center, it is retained there indefinitely and defeats our local policy). This does not mean that PAPD cannot cooperate just like this case. But it would require the alert or request to come in specifying the suspected vehicle rather than allow external fishing that may not have the same restrictions or oversight.

There is no reason the government should retain movement data on citizens any longer than absolutely necessary. This is not tin hat paranoia. There are so many ways we haven't even imagined to cause issues when you can aggregate data about people. Not the least of which being subpoenas in civil lawsuits (say a divorce proceeding).