Police Effectiveness Hindered by Misinformation in Time-Critical Situations

Arizona Police Veteran Defends License Plate Readers as Critical Law Enforcement Tools

The debate over license plate reader technology in northern Arizona communities has missed a crucial perspective, according to veteran law enforcement officer Justin Harris. Drawing on three decades of policing experience, Harris argues that these surveillance tools play a vital role in solving crimes and saving lives.

“I’ve worn a badge long enough to know that most people never see what happens after the headlines fade,” Harris writes, describing the realities of police work that include notifying parents about missing children and investigating crime scenes with limited evidence and time constraints.

Harris, the immediate past president of the Arizona Police Association and current police sergeant, points to a compelling case where license plate reader technology proved decisive. When a one-year-old child was kidnapped at knifepoint in Southern California, an Amber Alert was issued as the suspect vehicle crossed into Arizona. A license plate reader detected the vehicle near Winslow, enabling officers to respond quickly and recover the child safely.

“That isn’t surveillance. That’s policing,” Harris emphasizes.

The technology has become increasingly controversial in Arizona communities, with critics raising concerns about privacy and constitutional rights. These debates reflect a national conversation about the balance between public safety tools and civil liberties, with law enforcement agencies across the country deploying automated license plate readers on patrol cars, traffic lights, and fixed positions.

Critics, including civil liberties organizations, have questioned the mass collection of license plate data, raising concerns about how long information is stored and who can access it. Several municipalities across the country have restricted or banned the technology in recent years.

Harris directly challenges these concerns, stating: “License plate readers do not track people. They do not monitor behavior. They scan license plates that are already visible to anyone driving down the road.” He emphasizes that the data collection is governed by “strict policies, limited retention periods, and controlled access.”

In his experience, the technology has helped locate missing persons, identify vehicles connected to crimes, and disrupt smuggling operations across Arizona’s vast jurisdictions. The state’s position along the southern border makes it particularly vulnerable to cross-jurisdictional crimes where traditional investigative methods may prove insufficient.

Harris expresses frustration at seeing these tools removed “not because of documented misuse, but because of speculation.” He argues that when communities eliminate public safety resources based on fear rather than facts, the consequences fall on officers and the public they serve.

The veteran officer acknowledges the importance of oversight and accountability in policing. “Most officers I know welcome clear rules because they protect both the public and the badge,” he notes. However, he draws a distinction between appropriate oversight and what he characterizes as decisions based on “online conspiracy theories.”

Arizona law enforcement agencies have increasingly turned to technology to address staffing shortages and cover large geographic areas. License plate readers represent one component of this technological approach to modern policing challenges.

As communities across Arizona continue debating the merits of these systems, Harris’s perspective highlights the tension between privacy concerns and public safety objectives. The outcome of these local decisions could have significant implications for how crimes are investigated and solved throughout the state.

“Without that data, cases stall. Evidence goes cold, victims lose answers, and criminals walk free,” Harris concludes, making his case for preserving what he views as an essential tool in modern law enforcement.