First, this bill undermines effective cooperation among law enforcement agencies.
Automated license plate reader data is routinely used to investigate violent crimes, human trafficking, kidnappings, drug trafficking, stolen cars, and organized criminal networks.
These crimes do not respect borders, and quick access to data is often critical.

This bill prohibits sharing information unless an out-of-state agency signs a written declaration promising not to use it in certain investigations.
That requirement is bureaucratic, untested, and unrealistic in fast-moving situations. It increases the likelihood that an investigation could be delayed or fail altogether.

Second, the bill exposes individual officers and personnel to civil penalties if they inadvertently violate it.
This is a complex standard applied to front-line officers who frequently respond to urgent requests.
We should not be putting law enforcement in the position of choosing between public safety and personal liability.

Third, the bill claims to protect privacy, but it does not address the privacy risks posed by ALPR systems.
There are no limits on data retention, no transparency, no audit requirements, and no oversight of private vendors.
Instead, the bill establishes a narrow, politically motivated exception, leaving all other uses of ALPR data unregulated.

If the goal is protecting privacy, this is not a privacy bill.
Real privacy legislation would be comprehensive and even-handed.

Fourth, this bill invites interstate conflict and potential litigation.
By restricting cooperation based on the anticipated use of data in another state’s legal system, New Jersey risks violating constitutional principles and creating friction with neighboring states that routinely cooperate on major investigations.

Finally, this bill attempts to create a selective data sanctuary policy.
Once we establish a precedent for selectively refusing cooperation based on New Jersey’s political preferences, it becomes very easy to extend that logic to other issues—firearms, drugs, immigration, or anything else.

We should not normalize a patchwork approach to law enforcement cooperation where states pick and choose which crimes they will assist with based on politics.

• Hinder legitimate criminal investigations
• Create legal exposure for law enforcement
• Fail to protect privacy
• Invite litigation
• And undermine cooperative policing

There are better ways to address privacy concerns without endangering public safety.

For these reasons, we oppose this bill.