The Santa Clara County court finds "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in San Jose's plate data and dismisses the suit
Superior Court of California, County of Santa ClaraOrder After Hearing on Demurrer by Judge Jeffrey B. El-Hajj, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (No. 25CV480254)
In an order filed October 2, 2026, Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj sustained the city's demurrer to all three claims without leave to amend. Holding that he is bound by People v. Cartwright (2024), he found that the complaint showed no reasonable expectation of privacy in license plate data captured by cameras aimed at public streets, or in later queries of a database of that data. The two state constitutional claims failed on that ground, and the taxpayer claim failed with them.
Responding to
San Jose police searches of the city's stored license plate reader data without a warrant violate the California Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (article I, section 13) and its right to privacy (article I, section 1).
“Applying that authority, Plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action do not state sufficient facts because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in license plate data collected from cameras directed solely at public streets. ... The court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the capturing of license plate data or in later queries of a database of that license plate data.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Judge dismisses challenge to San Jose police's warrantless queries of Flock camera data
On October 2, 2026, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj dismissed a lawsuit by SIREN and CAIR California that sought to require San Jose police to get a warrant before querying the city's stored license plate reader data. The plaintiffs, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California, argued that the warrantless searches violate the California Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and its right to privacy. The city argued that images of vehicles taken on public streets carry no protected privacy interest. Applying a 2024 state appeals court decision on San Diego streetlight cameras, the judge found no reasonable expectation of privacy in the plate data or in later queries of it, and he denied leave to amend. EFF says it will appeal.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The court's 10-page order, filed October 2, 2026, sustaining the demurrer of the City of San Jose, Mayor Matt Mahan and Police Chief Paul Joseph without leave to amend. It applies People v. Cartwright (2024), a state appeals court decision on San Diego streetlight cameras, and holds that the complaint shows no reasonable expectation of privacy in license plate data from cameras aimed at public streets. The court also denied the city's request for judicial notice. This copy is posted on the case page of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents the plaintiffs.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
SIREN and CAIR California sued in November 2025, and the city demurred in January 2026, arguing that images of vehicles on public streets carry no protected privacy interest. The court heard the demurrer on August 6, 2026 and then ordered both sides to file supplemental briefs.
After the quotation
The order acknowledges that San Jose's system is broader in scope than the San Diego cameras in Cartwright but says the case is not different enough to set that precedent aside, and that the court must follow Cartwright unless another appellate court publishes a different position. It also denies the city's request for judicial notice. On October 13, 2026, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the plaintiffs will appeal.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is the San Jose Police Department's practice of querying the city's stored license plate reader data without a warrant. The order holds that the complaint shows no reasonable expectation of privacy in the plate data or in later queries of it, which treats the practice as lawful under the state constitution, so we used Defended or excused. This entry records the ruling the case is about and adds no independent support for either side. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the order says San Jose's system is broader than the cameras in Cartwright and that a different published appellate decision could change the result; it loses because neither point qualifies the holding, which dismisses every claim without leave to amend.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEFF says the dismissal "is wrong on the law" and that it "will appeal"
Electronic Frontier Foundation
“Make no mistake: We believe this ruling is wrong on the law, and we will appeal. ... Networked ALPRs are not individual streetlight cameras. Their net effect of tracking and mapping cars as they travel reveals patterns of life, intimate relationships, and much more.”Read statement
SIREN's Huy Tran says the cameras "have been used to target immigrants already"
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network
“These cameras have been used to target immigrants already, but the reality is that we all will be subject to their far-reaching impact”Read statement
EFF's Andrew Crocker says San Jose police "could get a warrant" and calls the city's new limits "insufficient"
“Clearly these cities are recognizing there’s a problem, and I don’t think that restrictions like this are going to solve that problem. Really any use of ALPRs is harmful, and the only way to stop the risk of this kind of abuse is to end their use in these cities ... Short of that, they could get a warrant, they could go before a court and present probable cause to run these searches, which is what we’re seeking in this lawsuit ... San José has not done that. San Francisco has not done that. So it’s insufficient, and it’s very likely that we will see further abuse of these systems.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- The Santa Clara County court finds "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in San Jose's plate data and dismisses the suit
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5690-in-an-order-filed-october-2-2026-judge
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "The Santa Clara County court finds "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in San Jose's plate data and dismisses the suit". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5690-in-an-order-filed-october-2-2026-judge