TL;DR: San Jose Police track 2.6 million vehicles monthly using 474 Flock Safety cameras. They conducted 261,000 warrantless database searches in one year: 692 searches a day with no judicial oversight. Only 0.2% of scans flagged vehicles police were looking for. The ACLU and EFF just sued, arguing mass retention and warrantless searches of location data violate California's constitutional privacy protections. Cameras sit outside immigration law firms and places of worship.
The Numbers Tell the Story
San Jose has a surveillance problem, and the numbers are staggering: 474 license plate cameras. 2.6 million vehicles tracked in a single month. 361 million plate scans in 2024. And 261,711 warrantless searches of the database in just one year: that's 692 searches a day by police, with no judge signing off on any of them.
On November 18, 2025, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Northern California filed suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court to stop it. The lawsuit names the City of San Jose, Police Chief Paul Joseph, and Mayor Matt Mahan as defendants, arguing the mass surveillance program violates California's constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
"This practice violates the California Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches," said EFF attorney Jennifer Pinsof. "Without a warrant, there is unchecked police power to scrutinize movements."
What the Cameras Capture
San Jose's Flock Safety cameras don't just snap license plates. They record the make, model, and color of every vehicle. They capture bumper stickers, including political ones. They photograph the people inside the car. And they log GPS coordinates and timestamps for every single detection.
The city retains this data for a full year, creating a searchable archive of where millions of people drove, when, and who was with them. According to the lawsuit, cameras are positioned "around highly sensitive locations including clinics, immigration centers, and places of worship." Three ALPR cameras sit directly outside an immigration law firm.
The lawsuit puts it bluntly: "This information can reveal travel patterns and provide an intimate window into a person's life as they travel from home to work, drop off their children at school, or park at a house of worship, a doctor's office, or a protest."
A Surveillance Program That Tripled in Two Years
San Jose had 149 ALPR cameras at the end of 2023. Now it has 474, more than triple in under two years. The surveillance footprint expanded with virtually no public debate about the constitutional implications.
The numbers go beyond just San Jose police. Other law enforcement agencies across California have access to the database too. When you include all those searches, the annual total climbs to approximately 4 million queries: an average of 10,864 searches every single day.
Of all those millions of plate scans, only 0.2% flagged vehicles police were actively looking for. The other 99.8%? Just regular people going about their lives, now logged in a police database.
Who's Fighting Back
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two organizations whose members face heightened risks from mass surveillance: the Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations – California (CAIR-CA).
"Access to the data should only happen once approved under a judicial warrant," said SIREN Executive Director Huy Tran. The organization works with immigrant communities in the South Bay who have reason to fear government tracking of their movements, especially given Flock's documented data-sharing with federal agencies including ICE.
CAIR-CA represents Muslim Americans who've been disproportionately subjected to surveillance since 9/11. For communities that have experienced government monitoring based on their faith or national origin, the idea of police tracking their movements without judicial oversight isn't theoretical. It's lived experience.
The Constitutional Case
The lawsuit rests on a simple premise: location data is private, and searching it requires a warrant.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that tracking someone's physical movements over time, even in public, can violate the Fourth Amendment. California's state constitution goes further, with explicit privacy protections under Article I, Sections 1 and 13.
"We think they need a warrant to search these databases," said EFF attorney Andrew Crocker. "The warrant requirement is massive and should help prevent these searches because they will have to be approved by a judge."
The lawsuit asks the court to declare San Jose's warrantless retrospective ALPR searches unconstitutional and order the city to get judicial approval before searching the database or sharing access with other agencies. It also seeks to stop taxpayer funding of the surveillance program in its current form.
The City's Defense
Mayor Matt Mahan defended the program, claiming: "We have built in robust data privacy and security measures…this system is a big part of the reason we've solved 100% of homicides over the past three years."
Civil liberties advocates aren't convinced. The lawsuit distinguishes between the tiny fraction of vehicles flagged as connected to crimes and the millions of innocent people whose movements are recorded and stored indefinitely, all without suspicion, let alone judicial oversight.
Few California law enforcement agencies retain ALPR data for an entire year. Fewer still have deployed nearly 500 cameras. San Jose stands out not for its crime-fighting success, but for the scale and invasiveness of its surveillance apparatus.
What You Can Do
Check Your City
File a public records request to find out if your local police use Flock or other ALPR systems, how many cameras they've deployed, how long they retain data, and who has access to search the database.
Demand Warrant Requirements
Push your city council to require judicial warrants before police can search historical ALPR data. The technology may be legal, but unlimited access to it isn't necessarily constitutional.
Support Community Control
Advocate for Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) ordinances that require public input and elected official approval before new surveillance technology is deployed.
References
- Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Lawsuit Challenges San Jose's Warrantless ALPR Mass Surveillance." November 18, 2025.
- ACLU of Northern California. "Lawsuit Challenges San Jose's Warrantless ALPR Mass Surveillance." November 18, 2025.
- 404 Media. "ACLU and EFF Sue a City Blanketed With Flock Surveillance Cameras." November 2025.
- Mercury News. "EFF, ACLU sue San Jose over warrantless access to license plate data." November 18, 2025.
- San Jose Inside. "Lawsuit Challenges San Jose's License Plate Surveillance Cams." November 2025.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation. "SIREN and CAIR-CA v. San Jose." Case page.
- CAIR California. "CAIR-CA Joins Lawsuit Challenging San Jose's Warrantless License Plate Surveillance." November 2025.