EFF's Andrew Crocker says San Jose police "could get a warrant" and calls the city's new limits "insufficient"
Andrew CrockerSurveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, interviewed by KQED
Speaking to KQED after the ruling, Andrew Crocker of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the city's new restrictions on its cameras will not solve the problem and that any use of license plate readers is harmful and should end. Short of that, he said, police could go before a court and show probable cause before running searches, which is what the lawsuit seeks, and he said San Jose has not done so.
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).
“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.”
Reporting
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
Reporting
About this source
KQED's report on the October 2 ruling. It quotes an emailed statement from City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood and an interview with Andrew Crocker of the Electronic Frontier Foundation given on October 5, and it describes the city's 2026 limits on the cameras and the separate federal lawsuit against the city.
Before the quotation
The court dismissed the case on October 2, 2026. San Jose had cut its data retention period to 30 days in March and limited camera placement near sensitive sites, and city officials disclosed in September that an officer was fired for misusing the camera network.
After the quotation
In the same interview, Crocker said the plaintiffs were considering their options and pointed to a federal district court in Oklahoma that reached a different conclusion about plate reader searches. On October 13, EFF said it 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. Crocker calls the city's restrictions insufficient and says police should go before a court and present probable cause before running these searches, which criticizes the warrantless practice, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he offers a warrant requirement as a fallback to ending the cameras' use; it loses because both options reject the current practice.
- 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
City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood says the dismissal shows the city's plate reader system "meets constitutional scrutiny"
“The city adopted stringent guidelines for its deployment, seeking to balance the use of a significant crime detection and community safety tool with stringent protection of individual privacy rights ... The court's dismissal of the complaint is testament to the fact that the city's ALPR system meets constitutional scrutiny and only gathers information that is already observed from the public rights-of-way.”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
- EFF's Andrew Crocker says San Jose police "could get a warrant" and calls the city's new limits "insufficient"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5692-speaking-to-kqed-after-the-ruling-andrew-crocker
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "EFF's Andrew Crocker says San Jose police "could get a warrant" and calls the city's new limits "insufficient"". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5692-speaking-to-kqed-after-the-ruling-andrew-crocker