BY MAIRE O’NEILL
maire@losalamosreporter.com
Imagine leaving a restaurant in Central Park Square, getting into your vehicle and driving away, only to be stopped by a Los Alamos police officer who tells you to put your hands on the steering wheel. The officer then tells you that your license plate indicates the vehicle is supposed to be black—even though it is not.
That is what recently happened to a Los Alamos County resident, according to information provided to the Los Alamos Reporter, and it raises the question of whether the license plate in question was read by an Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR).
When the Reporter was approached about the incident, it was the same day the Los Alamos Police Department held a town hall, or information session, (ALPRs).
During a break in the meeting, the Reporter asked Cpl. Michael Weiss, who gave a comprehensive presentation on ALPRs, how and why a police officer would “read” a license plate while someone was dining at a restaurant and the vehicle was parked in a private parking lot.
Weiss responded that the officer was probably running license plates in the parking lot.
The Reporter then asked Police Chief Dino Sgambellone, who was also on the panel, why this could happen and whether people might consider parking with their rear license plate against a curb—or otherwise positioning the plate where it could not be viewed by ALPR cameras mounted on police vehicles.
The Reporter followed up by email on August 31 and asked Sgambellone whether there was an incident report associated with the traffic stop. Sgambellone responded that he was out of town for the week and directed the Reporter to LAPD Records.
A written request to Records produced an answer that there was no incident report for the incident in question.
The Reporter has encountered increasing difficulty obtaining information and public records from LAPD over the past two years. A request to meet with County Attorney Alvin Leaphart and Chief Sgambellone concerning ongoing Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) issues was denied verbally by Sgambellone, while Leaphart did not respond to the email requesting the meeting.
More recently, the Reporter emailed Leaphart regarding a County posting seeking at least two licensed New Mexico attorneys to hear appeals of fine notifications following enactment of a Speed Camera Ordinance. Leaphart forwarded the email to the County’s Public Information Officer for a response.
The Reporter again contacted Sgambellone on September 8 after LAPD Records stated there were no records concerning the incident involving the vehicle with the “wrong color”. She asked the Chief whether he could explain why there was no record and whether LAPD officers routinely run license plates, including in private parking lots. Sgambellone said it was possible that no records existed depending on the circumstances because “no call was generated.”
“Officers run plates routinely including vehicles parked on private property,” Sgambellone wrote.
He also acknowledged that the statement might not be popular but said there is “no expectation of privacy for a plate in a public setting.”
Sgambellone subsequently wrote that “the last car we have in the system was in April,” although that vehicle does not appear to be the vehicle described in the incident reported to the Reporter.
The Chief also explained that it is possible, although rare, for a person’s name not to be associated with a traffic stop.
“Reasons could be the officer was familiar, the officer got a hot call and ended the stop, etc.,” he wrote. “If he didn’t run the license, a name could still be associated if the Dispatcher ran the registered owner and put it into the call, but that doesn’t always happen either.”
Sgambellone invited the Reporter to provide additional information that might help narrow down the incident.
The incident raises a broader question about how residents understand the scope of LAPD’s ALPR system.
In recent weeks, the Reporter has spoken with community residents who were under the impression that their license plates were read only when they drove past the fixed ALPR cameras installed at various locations around Los Alamos.
That understanding may not reflect the capabilities of the current system.
Los Alamos County’s Axon contract provides for 40 vehicle-mounted ALPR licenses, with one ALPR camera associated with each vehicle. The contract also provides 40 Fleet 3 two-camera vehicle systems.
The LAPD’s ALPR policy states that an ALPR may be used during patrol operations and that reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using an ALPR.
That means a plate can potentially be captured by an ALPR-equipped patrol vehicle even when the vehicle is not being stopped or investigated, as long as the plate is within the camera’s field of view.
Sgambellone said at the September 8 County Council meeting that ALPRs had been in use since 2024.
The question of how effective the system has been is more difficult to answer.
At the September 8 meeting, Sgambellone said Los Alamos is “very blessed” to have a very low crime rate and said most crimes are simple assaults, larcenies and fraud.
He also said he wished he had begun tracking ALPR successes earlier, noting that there had been some good uses of the system that he would have liked to highlight.
That admission raises another question: What measurable effect have ALPRs had on crime, investigations or public safety in Los Alamos?
At present, there does not appear to be publicly available data demonstrating that the cameras have produced a significant reduction in crime in the County.
Sgambellone also said he can change the LAPD’s ALPR policy and that he is looking for a way to “balance technology with citizen privacy rights.”
That balance will become increasingly important as residents learn that license-plate information can potentially be collected without a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
For residents, the central question may be a simple one:
If an ALPR-equipped patrol vehicle can read a license plate wherever it can see it, including vehicles parked on private property, who is being stopped—and why?