Can Arkansas police use automatic license plate readers, electronic tickets, or roadblocks to find uninsured drivers?
Plain-English summary
State Representative Ryan Rose asked the AG four traffic-enforcement questions tied to uninsured motorists. AG Tim Griffin answered each:
- Automatic license plate readers (ALPRs). Arkansas generally prohibits them under A.C.A. § 12-12-1803(a), but four narrow exceptions allow them: (i) state, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies may use them to check captured plates against specified databases; (ii) parking-enforcement entities may use them; (iii) they may be used to control access to secured areas; and (iv) the Arkansas Highway Police may use them to verify registration, logs, and other compliance data.
- Electronic tickets. Yes, allowed. A.C.A. § 16-10-202(3) defines an electronic ticket as "an electronic citation or warning printed by a law enforcement officer and issued to a person accused of violating the law."
- Pulling over a vehicle to check insurance. Yes, but only on probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. Under A.C.A. § 27-22-104(a)(2)(A)(ii), an online insurance-verification system that fails to show current coverage creates a rebuttable presumption of no insurance, and Arkansas appellate courts have held that probable cause for the stop. Without that probable cause (or a constitutional checkpoint), an officer cannot pull a vehicle over just to check insurance.
- Insurance roadblocks. Likely constitutional under the Fourth Amendment if minimally intrusive, with the public interest served outweighing the interference with motorists' liberty (Brown v. Texas balancing). Lower courts have approved roadblocks that briefly stopped vehicles to verify driver's license, vehicle registration, and insurance.
What this means for you
If you are a law-enforcement officer or agency
ALPR use is heavily restricted. If your agency wants to deploy ALPRs, the use must fall into one of the four exceptions in A.C.A. § 12-12-1803(b). Cross-reference to specific statutory authority before deployment, and document which subsection (b)(1)-(4) authorizes the use.
For traffic stops, the on-the-ground rule is unchanged: probable cause is required. An online insurance-verification system that returns "uninsured," "unconfirmed," or "canceled" is treated as probable cause under recent Arkansas Court of Appeals decisions (Erby, Cagle, Small). If your patrol car's display shows that result, document it before the stop and before the citation issues.
For roadblocks, the Brown v. Texas balancing factors are: (1) the gravity of the public concern; (2) how well the seizure advances that concern; and (3) the severity of the interference with liberty. Operate roadblocks under a written supervisory plan, limit officer discretion in vehicle selection, detain only as long as needed to accomplish the purpose, keep stops minimally intrusive, and make the checkpoint clearly visible. Crime-control roadblocks unrelated to road safety are unconstitutional under City of Indianapolis v. Edmond.
If you are a city attorney or municipal-policy adviser
ALPR ordinances or contracts must align with A.C.A. § 12-12-1803. Generic surveillance use is prohibited; only the four enumerated purposes are authorized. If a vendor's marketing pitches "real-time crime tracking" or "general surveillance," that use is outside the statutory exceptions.
A municipal insurance-verification roadblock policy should be drafted to satisfy the Brown v. Texas factors: written supervisory plan, no officer discretion in stop selection, minimal duration and intrusion, and clear advance signage.
If you are a defense attorney
Two doctrinal hooks: (1) An ALPR-based stop or evidence chain can be challenged if the use does not fit one of the A.C.A. § 12-12-1803(b) exceptions. The statute is a general prohibition; the exceptions are narrow. (2) An insurance-status stop without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment outside a properly designed checkpoint. The "online verification failed to show coverage" pathway is now well-established in the Arkansas Court of Appeals, but if the actual evidence at suppression is something less, that may be vulnerable.
If you are an Arkansas driver
If your insurance lapses or if the state's online verification system has not updated to reflect a renewal, an officer who runs your plate may have probable cause to stop you under Erby, Cagle, and Small. Keep your insurance card or proof of coverage in the vehicle; that is the rebuttable side of the rebuttable presumption.
The opinion also confirms what officers cannot do: arbitrarily pull over vehicles without probable cause, just to ask about insurance. Outside a properly run roadblock, that kind of stop is unconstitutional.
Common questions
Q: Can the police read every license plate that drives by?
A: Not without statutory authorization. A.C.A. § 12-12-1803(a) generally prohibits ALPR systems. The exceptions in (b) limit law-enforcement use to checking plates against specified databases (Office of Motor Vehicle, ACIC, NCIC, an ongoing investigation, or the FBI), parking enforcement, secured-area access control, and Arkansas Highway Police compliance work.
Q: Are electronic tickets the same as paper tickets legally?
A: For purposes of A.C.A. § 16-10-202, yes. The statute defines a "citation" to include an "electronic ticket," and an electronic ticket is an electronic citation or warning printed by a law-enforcement officer and issued to a person accused of violating the law. The legal effect tracks the paper version.
Q: Can an officer pull me over just to ask if I have insurance?
A: Not without probable cause or a properly designed roadblock. The Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness, and absent specific suspicion of a traffic violation (including the rebuttable presumption from a failed online verification), an arbitrary stop violates the Constitution.
Q: What does "minimally intrusive" mean for an insurance roadblock?
A: Courts look at the duration of each stop, whether the questioning is limited to verification, the predictability and visibility of the checkpoint to drivers, and whether officers have discretion in selecting which vehicles to stop. Lower courts have approved checkpoints that briefly stop vehicles to verify license, registration, and insurance information.
Q: Did the U.S. Supreme Court ever rule on insurance-verification roadblocks specifically?
A: Not directly. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), suggested in dicta that a checkpoint to verify driver's license and vehicle registration in the interest of highway safety would be permissible. Lower courts have extended that to insurance verification.
Q: What kinds of roadblocks are clearly unconstitutional?
A: City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), held that checkpoints set up for general crime control unrelated to road safety, including drug interdiction, violate the Fourth Amendment. The roadway purpose has to be the actual purpose, not a pretext.
Background and statutory framework
The opinion ties together three Arkansas statutory schemes and the federal Fourth Amendment caselaw on traffic stops and checkpoints.
ALPR statute (A.C.A. § 12-12-1803). Subsection (a) generally prohibits ALPR systems. Subsection (b) lists four categories of permitted use:
- Law-enforcement comparison against specified state and federal databases;
- Parking-enforcement entities regulating parking;
- Controlling access to secured areas;
- Arkansas Highway Police verifying registration, logs, and other compliance data.
Electronic tickets (A.C.A. § 16-10-202). The statute treats electronic citations and warnings as functionally equivalent to paper citations for purposes of compelling a person to appear in court.
Mandatory insurance + verification (A.C.A. § 27-22-104). Arkansas requires liability insurance for motor vehicles. The online verification system creates a rebuttable presumption of no coverage, which Arkansas appellate courts (Erby, Cagle, Small) have held supplies probable cause for a traffic stop.
Fourth Amendment framework. A traffic stop is a "seizure" (Whren, Prouse, Martinez-Fuerte, Brignoni-Ponce). Probable cause supports a discretionary stop on individualized suspicion (Burris, Pokatilov). For roadblocks without individualized suspicion, the Brown v. Texas balancing test (gravity of concern, advancement of public interest, severity of liberty intrusion) governs (Lidster); the Court has approved sobriety checkpoints (Sitz), Border Patrol checkpoints (Martinez-Fuerte), and information-seeking checkpoints (Lidster), but not general crime-control checkpoints (Edmond).
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 12-12-1803, ALPRs
- A.C.A. § 16-10-202, citations and electronic tickets
- A.C.A. § 27-22-104: mandatory insurance and verification
Cases:
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)
- Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
- Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
- Burris v. State, 330 Ark. 66, 954 S.W.2d 209 (1997)
- Pokatilov v. State, 2017 Ark. 264, 526 S.W.3d 849
- Erby v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 220, 663 S.W.3d 811
- Cagle v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 69, 571 S.W.3d 47
- Small v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 80, 543 S.W.3d 516
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-075
October 22, 2024
The Honorable Ryan Rose
State Representative
819 Powderhorn Circle
Van Buren, Arkansas 72956-6664
Dear Representative Rose:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on several questions regarding uninsured motorists and the use of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs).
You ask the following questions:
- Does Arkansas law allow the use of ALPRs?
Brief response: Yes, but only by specific entities for purposes listed in statute.
- Does Arkansas law allow the use of electronic tickets?
Brief response: Yes.
- Does Arkansas law allow a vehicle to be pulled over to check insurance status?
Brief response: A police officer may stop and detain a motorist if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. An online insurance-verification system's failure to show current insurance coverage can provide the probable cause necessary for the stop. But, except for certain limited circumstances like those discussed in response to Question 4, an officer cannot stop vehicles to check insurance status without probable cause.
- If not, is there an exception for roadblock or other scenarios?
Brief response: A roadblock to check automobile insurance would likely be held constitutional under the Fourth Amendment if it is minimally intrusive, with the public interest outweighing the interference with motorists' individual liberty.
DISCUSSION
Question 1: Does Arkansas law allow the use of ALPRs?
Arkansas law generally prohibits the use of ALPR systems. But they may be used in the following circumstances:
- State, county, and municipal law-enforcement agencies may use ALPR systems to compare captured plate data with data held by certain enumerated state and federal agencies (the Office of Motor Vehicle, the Arkansas Crime Information Center, the National Crime Information Center, a database created by law enforcement for the purposes of an ongoing investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any lawful purpose);
- Parking-enforcement entities may use ALPR systems to regulate parking;
- ALPR systems may be used to control access to secured areas; and
- The Arkansas Highway Police may use ALPR systems to electronically verify registration, logs, and other compliance data.
Question 2: Does Arkansas law allow the use of electronic tickets?
Yes; electronic tickets may be issued under Arkansas law. An electronic ticket is defined by statute as "an electronic citation or warning printed by a law enforcement officer and issued to a person accused of violating the law." A "citation," in turn, is "a written order or electronic ticket issued by a law enforcement officer or employee of the department of public safety of a city or incorporated town who is authorized to make an arrest, requiring a person accused of violating the law to appear in a designated court or governmental office at a specified date and time."
Question 3: Does Arkansas law allow a vehicle to be pulled over to check insurance status?
Yes, assuming the officer has probable cause to believe there was a violation. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." A temporary detention of individuals during a traffic stop constitutes a "seizure" of "persons." Thus, a traffic stop must be "reasonable" under the circumstances to comply with the Fourth Amendment. A police officer's decision to stop a vehicle is reasonable when the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Probable cause exists "when the facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge are sufficient to permit a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed by the person suspected."
In Arkansas, it is unlawful for a person to operate a motor vehicle when the vehicle and the person are not covered by insurance. There is a rebuttable presumption that a vehicle or its operation is uninsured if an online insurance-verification system fails to show current insurance coverage. Thus, Arkansas appellate courts have held that when an online insurance-verification system fails to show current insurance coverage, an officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. The officer may then pull the vehicle over to check insurance status. But to the extent you are asking whether an officer can arbitrarily pull vehicles over to check insurance status without probable cause, the answer is "no."
Question 4: If not, is there an exception for roadblock or other scenarios?
While a "search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing," there are "limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply." In some cases, "special law enforcement concerns… justify highway stops without individualized suspicion." To determine the reasonableness and, consequently, the constitutionality of a roadblock, courts weigh "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." In applying this balancing test, courts consider factors like whether a checkpoint operates according to a plan devised by supervisory law enforcement personnel, strictly limits the discretionary authority of police officers, detains drivers no longer than necessary to accomplish the checkpoint's purpose, is minimally intrusive, and is clearly visible. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld suspicionless seizures at a Border Patrol checkpoint, a sobriety checkpoint, and a traffic checkpoint at which police sought information from motorists about a hit-and-run accident. By contrast, the Court has ruled that checkpoints set up for general crime control unrelated to road safety, including the interception of illegal drugs, violate the Fourth Amendment.
While the Court has not specifically ruled on the constitutionality of roadblocks set up to check insurance status, the Court has suggested, in dicta, that a roadblock to verify drivers' licenses and vehicle registration with the interest of serving highway safety would be permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, lower courts have held that checkpoints at which vehicles were briefly stopped to verify the driver's license, vehicle registration, and insurance information were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, I believe that if a roadblock to verify automobile insurance is set up in such a way as to be minimally intrusive, so that the public interest served outweighs the interference with motorists' individual liberty, it would be upheld under the Fourth Amendment.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General