EFF says the dismissal "is wrong on the law" and that it "will appeal"
Electronic Frontier FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, in a post on its website by Devanshi Nishar and Andrew Crocker
In an October 13, 2026 post, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said the dismissal is wrong on the law and that it will appeal. It said the court relied on one California appeals court case about individual streetlight cameras, and argued that networked plate readers differ because tracking cars as they travel reveals patterns of life and intimate relationships.
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).
“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.”
Official statement
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
Official statement
About this source
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's post on the dismissal of SIREN v. San Jose, which it litigated with the ACLU of Northern California. It says EFF will appeal, summarizes the plaintiffs' argument and the court's reliance on a California appeals court case about streetlight cameras, and contrasts the ruling with the October 1, 2026 federal decision in Oklahoma in United States v. Kyle.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The Santa Clara County Superior Court dismissed the case on October 2, 2026, a day after a federal judge in Oklahoma held in United States v. Kyle that a deputy's warrantless Flock query violated the Fourth Amendment.
After the quotation
The post contrasts the San Jose ruling with the Oklahoma decision and quotes that court's passage contrasting a casual sighting of someone's car with a 30-day log of its movements. It says EFF will keep challenging plate reader systems in court and at the state and local level.
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. EFF argues that warrantless searches of the plate database violate the California Constitution and calls the ruling that rejected that claim wrong, so we used Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization, because the post disputes the court's comparison of the network to streetlight cameras; it loses because the post also rejects the practice itself and announces an appeal.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseSIREN'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
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 says the dismissal "is wrong on the law" and that it "will appeal"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5693-in-an-october-13-2026-post-the-electronic
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "EFF says the dismissal "is wrong on the law" and that it "will appeal"". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5693-in-an-october-13-2026-post-the-electronic