Mobile LPR · LVMPD INFO

Evidence rule

This page is public-interest research. An argument grade is not a court finding. A watchdog page describes the device. It is not proof a Nevada agency bought it or turned a feature on. A product description is not a Nevada practice. Agencies are not merged: the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Clark County School District, the City of Reno, and the Nevada Department of Public Safety stay separate. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime. Legal review of this page is unverified.

What it does

A mobile plate reader is mounted on a police car, a trailer that moves, or another vehicle. It reads plates while the vehicle drives and stores each read with place and time. The device is the same kind of camera as a fixed reader. The difference is that the camera moves.

Privacy watchdog concerns

Electronic Frontier Foundation. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR). EFF says plate-reader cameras capture plates they see, with location, date, and time, and that stored history can reveal sensitive trips. EFF says the vast majority of scans are not connected to a crime at the moment of capture. This is EFF’s claim about the device. It is not a Nevada contract and not a court holding.

Constitutional issues

Unresolved question

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Mobile LPR: No decision in this library holds that a mobile plate scan is already an unreasonable search. Knotts is counterauthority for a public-road beeper. Carpenter does not decide an ALPR scan. The Reno snippet does not say the readers are mobile, so it is not used as this deployment.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). Counterauthority. United States Supreme Court. Public-road beeper tracking did not violate the Fourth Amendment on the facts of Knotts. A beeper case is not a holding about a plate-reader camera.
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). Analogical constitutional argument. United States Supreme Court. Jones held that attaching and using a GPS tracker was a search. Concurrences discuss long-term tracking. The mosaic theory is not a binding majority rule. Jones does not decide a plate reader.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). Does not decide this technology. United States Supreme Court. Carpenter addressed historical cell-site location information. It does not decide an ALPR scan.

Statutes attached to read, not findings.

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Nevada use

Not documented on this page. The City of Reno snippet does not say the readers are mobile.

Capability only. The Reno plate-reader report is on the fixed-reader card and does not state a mobile mount.

Next record

Mobile LPR: Do not infer a mobile fleet from the Reno snippet or from the Flock extract.

All devices. A document workflow for this page is not built. The arrest correction form is not a surveillance-document inbox. Corrections and source documents for this page follow the corrections policy. Corrections policy.