Are Tag Readers Legal in Georgia? Statute, Retention, and Penalties

Automated tag readers are legal in Georgia when operated by law enforcement, but their use is tightly controlled by O.C.G.A. 35-1-22. The statute limits who can look at the captured data, caps how long agencies can keep it, exempts it from open records requests, and makes unauthorized access a criminal offense.¹

What the Georgia Statute Allows

An automated license plate reader, in the statute’s definition, is one or more high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms that convert images of plates into computer-readable data. What the system captures is more than just the number itself. “Captured license plate data” includes GPS coordinates, the date and time of the scan, the photograph, the plate number, and any other information derived from the system or from another source.¹

The law covers a wide range of agencies. The definition of “law enforcement agency” reaches the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Transportation, and any state, federal, local, public transit, school, college, or university agency responsible for crime prevention, code enforcement, or enforcing traffic, toll, regulatory, or controlled substance laws. Campus police and transit authorities operate under the same restrictions as municipal and county departments.¹

When Officers Can Access the Data

Captured plate data must be stored immediately upon collection and cannot be accessed except for a “law enforcement purpose.” The statute defines that phrase narrowly: the investigation of an offense or activity initiated by a law enforcement agency. Running a plate out of curiosity, checking on an ex-spouse, or searching someone’s movements without an active investigation falls outside that definition.¹

Agencies may share captured data with other law enforcement agencies, but only for law enforcement purposes. The statute does not create any mechanism for sharing with non-law-enforcement entities.¹

How Long Georgia Agencies Keep Plate Data

All captured plate data must be destroyed no later than 30 months after the original collection date. Two exceptions apply: data that is the subject of a toll violation, and data tied to a law enforcement purpose. A plate scan from routine patrol that never connects to any investigation is purged at the 30-month mark. A scan linked to an open case can be preserved as long as the investigation requires it.¹

Georgia’s 30-month window is on the long end compared with states that have set shorter limits. It is the current ceiling under state law.

Private Vendors Like Flock Safety

Many Georgia agencies contract with private companies to operate the cameras and store the resulting data. The statute explicitly permits this. Agencies can contract with a “person” (a term the statute defines to include corporations and other business entities) to hold and maintain captured plate data. The contractor must follow the agency’s use policies and faces the same criminal penalties for misuse that apply to anyone else.¹

Outsourcing storage does not outsource legal responsibility. A contractor employee who accesses plate data for personal reasons has the same criminal exposure as a sworn officer who does the same thing.

Can the Public Request Tag Reader Data?

No. Captured license plate data collected by a law enforcement agency is explicitly exempt from Georgia’s Open Records Act. You cannot file an open records request to obtain ALPR data, and agencies are prohibited from disclosing it through that process.¹

Penalties for Misusing Tag Reader Data

Any person who knowingly obtains, uses, requests, or attempts to obtain captured license plate data under false pretenses or for any purpose other than a law enforcement purpose is guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature for each offense. Under Georgia law, that carries up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. Because the statute reads “for each such offense,” someone who runs unauthorized searches on multiple occasions faces separate charges for every search.¹

The statute reaches “any person,” not just officers. A contractor’s employee, a civilian who gains access, or anyone else who knowingly misuses the data can be charged.

Depending on the facts, misuse may also trigger charges under Georgia’s Computer Systems Protection Act at O.C.G.A. 16-9-93. Accessing an ALPR system without authorization to view someone’s personal data could amount to computer invasion of privacy. Using the system to alter or delete records could qualify as computer trespass or computer forgery. Computer theft, trespass, invasion of privacy, and forgery each carry a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 15 years. Victims can also pursue civil damages, including lost profits.²

Recent Enforcement

These penalties are not theoretical. In November 2025, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested the Braselton police chief on charges including violation of oath of office, stalking, harassing communications, and multiple counts of misuse of automated license plate recognition systems. The investigation found that the chief used the ALPR system to harass and stalk multiple individuals.³

In January 2026, the GBI charged a former Echols County Sheriff’s Office employee with eight counts of misuse of license plate data, along with stalking and violation of oath of office. The investigation began when the sheriff discovered the employee had accessed the agency’s Flock Safety account for personal reasons, searching for tag information on two people she knew personally.⁴

Eight plate lookups became eight separate criminal counts. The per-offense charging structure stacks fast.

Do Police Need a Warrant to Query a Tag Reader?

Not under the Georgia statute itself. The law restricts access to “law enforcement purposes” but does not require a judge’s approval before an officer queries the system.¹

The constitutional question is unsettled. In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that accessing seven days or more of historical cell-site location data was a search requiring a warrant. The Court called its ruling “narrow” and said it did not address conventional surveillance tools like security cameras.⁵ Whether Carpenter’s reasoning extends to ALPR data remains open. ALPRs collect location information passively and in bulk, which shares some characteristics with the cell-site data at issue in Carpenter, but no published Georgia court decision has applied Carpenter to require warrants for ALPR access.

Looking Up the Owner Behind the Plate

An ALPR scan on its own does not reveal who owns the vehicle. It captures the plate number, location, and timestamp. Identifying the registered owner requires a separate query of the state’s motor vehicle database, and that query runs into the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act at 18 U.S.C. 2721. The DPPA prohibits state motor vehicle departments from releasing personal information tied to a plate unless the request falls within specific permitted uses, including law enforcement functions, vehicle safety, and certain business verification purposes.⁶

The two layers work together. Georgia’s statute controls who can access the ALPR data itself. The DPPA controls who can use the resulting plate number to look up the person behind it.

1
Justia. Georgia Code 35-1-22 – Prohibition on Law Enforcement Retaining License Plate Data Obtained From Automated License Plate Recognition Systems; Limited Use of Data; Public Disclosure Prohibited
2
Justia. Georgia Code 16-9-93 – Computer Crimes Defined; Exclusivity of Article; Civil Remedies; Criminal Penalties
3
Georgia Bureau of Investigation. GBI Arrests Braselton Police Chief for Harassment and Stalking
4
Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Former Echols County Sheriff’s Office Employee Arrested on Multiple Charges
5
Supreme Court of the United States. Carpenter v. United States
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 2721 – Prohibition on Release and Use of Certain Personal Information From State Motor Vehicle Records