This past summer, the City Council in Culver City, California took an important step toward strengthening public safety – it decided to regulate how its police department can use and share data from its automated license plate readers (ALPRs).
Police departments across the country have been using ALPRs for years, often with no regulations or oversight – and with plenty of harms as a result. In recent months, however, in response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement and its cooperation with local law enforcement agencies, we have seen an unprecedented number of jurisdictions place restrictions on how their police departments can use ALPRs and share data with external agencies, including the federal government and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
These regulations are effective for protecting the privacy and civil liberties of community members and building trust in law enforcement. Our Tech/Advocacy Counsel Quincy Blair spoke with Culver City Mayor Freddy Puza about why the Culver City Council decided to regulate its ALPRs, how it decided what those regulations should look like, and lessons learned for other jurisdictions considering implementing their own ALPR restrictions.
Quincy Blair: To start, can you set the scene for us? What prompted the Council to revisit Culver City’s ALPR policy at this particular moment? Was this an issue raised by the community?
Mayor Freddy Puza of Culver City, California
Freddy Puza: Culver City began its ALPR program in 2023, under a previous council configuration. It was approved on a 3–2 vote, and I didn’t support it at the time. I didn’t see enough data to justify more surveillance technology, and I believed our police department was already doing enough. But the policy passed, and ALPRs have now been in use for nearly two years.
Cut to earlier this year, when President Trump deployed the National Guard and ramped up immigration raids by US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Our community in Culver City wanted to respond in multiple ways. One of those ways was to look at our automated license plate reader program. Reporting from CalMatters and 404 Media found some police agencies using ALPRs for reasons related to immigration enforcement, which is against state law and the law of many cities, including Culver City, which is a sanctuary city.
That’s how it came to the Council’s attention. We called an emergency meeting to address this and a few other items in response to the increased immigration raids.
Quincy Blair: The City Council ultimately voted to limit data sharing with outside agencies, require regular and frequent reporting, and strengthen transparency requirements. How did you reach those decisions, and what resources or expertise informed that process? Can you walk us through that process?
Freddy Puza: Your organization, the Policing Project, was, for sure, a great help for me. I also consulted with some gun violence prevention organizations, and some community organizations. which are not issue-specific, but are neighborhood groups that care about what’s going on in Culver City.
The city is divided over many issues, which is not uncommon in a lot of cities. But a lot of people came and spoke in favor of the ALPRs and said, “this is not what ICE is using to go after undocumented immigrants.” They felt that this is a really good program, that it has helped solve crime, and that we shouldn’t touch it – that this is an overreach and exaggeration of what’s going on.
The other side said – and I’m generalizing, there’s nuance to all this – there’s evidence of police agencies, even within Los Angeles County, where officers are searching for immigration-related incidents, so this is a violation of civil rights, and we should discontinue the program altogether. This is the time to shut down everything. With surveillance tools like ALPRs, the central issue is risk management. These technologies are powerful, and even with strong leadership, misuse can occur without clear guardrails. That’s why careful attention to data access, sharing, and oversight is so important—especially when data could potentially be accessed by entities beyond the local level.
So that’s the gist of the comments we received from the separate groups. For me, personally, where I came down is that there’s a lot of people who said we should shut down the program, but, at the same time, they did see some benefits of the program especially when it came to gun violence prevention. This program has been able to get some ghost guns off the streets. So, while it’s still a harmful program, it was still reducing harm in some way.
I don’t 100% agree with that, but I was sympathetic to it. So, I supported shutting down access to outside agencies and then looking at data and increasing transparency. So now we could have more eyes on what’s going on. We have more work to do, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
The Police Department supports continued use of the program and views it as an effective tool. At the same time, I think it’s important to strengthen accountability structures. Currently, oversight is largely internal, and I’ve suggested exploring third-party audits as an added layer of transparency. While there hasn’t yet been agreement on that approach, I see independent oversight as an essential part of responsible implementation and hope we can revisit it.
Quincy Blair: You’ve talked about the importance of balancing public safety benefits with the need to protect privacy and civil rights. How did that balance shape the Council’s final recommendations?
Freddy Puza: In the past, different departments have experienced different approval processes. As we move forward, our goal is to apply a consistent, data-informed standard across all departments when evaluating requests for new tools, technologies, and resources, so decisions are equitable, transparent, and effective citywide.
In terms of this specific decision, making sure that our residents are safe is number one. At the same time, we also have to ensure that civil rights and the dignity of all people are respected. It’s not always the loudest voice that should win. It should be a values-based decision. This was based on the values of our city. It was based on how to ensure respect and dignity for all of our residents.
At the same time, we looked closely at whether ALPRs were actually helping reduce crime in Culver City. Many of the vehicles identified through the system were linked to incidents that originated outside our city. That raised questions about whether our resources were being used effectively to protect Culver City residents. So, we required that future reports specify whether the incidents occurred within city limits.
Quincy Blair: Culver City is not alone. We’re seeing a broader pattern of localities across the country now reevaluating their use of ALPRs. How do you see Culver City’s approach fitting into that broader trend, and what do you see as the role of advocacy organizations in supporting cities through that process?
Freddy Puza: I’m cautiously optimistic about the trend. Surveillance technology can be a powerful tool, but without clear guardrails it can also cause real harm. Given the moment we’re in, it’s prudent to limit opportunities for misuse and to be thoughtful about how data is collected, stored, and ultimately controlled..
I believe strongly in grounding our decisions in data and evidence. When policymakers have access to rigorous research and clear analysis, it strengthens both the policy outcome and public trust. Organizations like the Policing Project are invaluable in this regard, helping communities make informed decisions based on facts rather than assumptions.
Quincy Blair: So, as we mentioned, other cities are coming to the same conclusions as Culver City and taking similar legislative measures as a result. Were there examples from other jurisdictions that influenced your thinking about limiting data sharing?
Freddy Puza: While I hadn’t seen many examples directly related to immigration or ICE (although more reports are being documented), I was aware of similar protections in other contexts, including abortion access and gender-affirming care. Those experiences shaped my perspective, especially given how often we’re told these tools won’t be misused, only to see that they are.
Quincy Blair: Was law enforcement a partner in this decision? Or How did they respond to these changes?
Freddy Puza: The Police Department supports continued use of the program and views it as an effective tool. At the same time, I think it’s important to strengthen accountability structures. Currently, oversight is largely internal, and I’ve suggested exploring third-party audits as an added layer of transparency. While there hasn’t yet been agreement on that approach, I see independent oversight as an essential part of responsible implementation and hope we can revisit it.
Quincy Blair: What made this policy update politically feasible in Culver City, and what lessons would you share with other jurisdictions considering similar reforms?
Freddy Puza: As with everything, community outreach. If the community hadn’t come out to support this, it just wouldn’t have passed, and it would have been a lot more difficult. Also: data, data, data. We also relied heavily on data to make our decision. You have to be willing to ask tough questions, even when officials push back, or it feels like they dismiss your concerns as exaggeration or hysteria. Don’t back down. The more informed you are, the stronger your position will be.
Quincy Blair: Beyond ALPR regulation, has the Council taken other steps to address the same community concerns related to immigration and public safety?
Freddy Puza: Yes. We’ve provided grants to two nonprofit organizations that support immigrants affected by recent enforcement actions. One offers legal aid, and another provides daily necessities. We’re also exploring measures like rental assistance or eviction moratoriums or a rent pause to help vulnerable residents, but those haven’t been discussed yet and raise complex legal and privacy questions.
Additionally, we’ve expanded “Know Your Rights” outreach, and we’re planning trainings for City Council staff on how to respond if ICE appears at community events. We also wrote a letter of support for a long-time community member who was detained by ICE earlier this year. These are small but meaningful ways we can stand by our residents and uphold our values.
Quincy Blair: Well, it sounds like the Council is doing a lot of really important work, and I’m so grateful you were able to sit down with us for this conversation and provide some insights into what this process looks like. It’ll be really valuable for other localities to see how it can be done.