Can a Mississippi city use automatic license plate readers to issue insurance violation tickets, working with a private vendor and the state's MVIVS database?
Plain-English summary
A private vendor was approaching Mississippi cities with a pitch: hook up automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) to the state's Motor Vehicle Insurance Verification System (MVIVS), use the combination to identify uninsured vehicles, and issue citations or generate revenue from the program. Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney asked the AG whether this is legal under Mississippi law, and on what conditions.
The AG walked through the statutes:
-
Can MVIVS data be released to private entities? Yes, but only if DPS authorizes the release in its rules under §§ 63-16-3 and 63-16-7. (Same answer as the companion Chaney opinion of the same date about MVIVS data transfer.)
-
Can municipalities use ALPRs to verify insurance coverage? The answer is conditional and turns on three statutory provisions:
-
§ 17-25-19 bans automated recording equipment (cameras and optical devices "designed to record images that depict the license plate") that "work in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both" for traffic enforcement. So a city cannot use a red-light or speed camera to issue traffic tickets, including indirect ALPR-based traffic enforcement that pairs ALPRs with signal or radar.
-
§ 63-16-5 lets a law enforcement officer access MVIVS during a traffic stop or accident investigation, but says the officer cannot use MVIVS as the sole cause for a stop. There has to be a separate reasonable cause (another traffic violation, an unsafe vehicle, etc.) before the stop can occur.
-
§ 63-15-4(3) allows MVIVS use at a roadblock where "all passing motorists are checked," but no driver may be stopped solely to verify insurance unless the stop is part of such a roadblock.
The AG read these together: ALPRs not paired with traffic signals or radar are not categorically prohibited (the 2009 Sorrell opinion confirmed they can be used for criminal enforcement). But whether a particular vendor-driven program crosses into unlawful "traffic stops" or unlawful "roadblocks" is a fact question outside the AG's scope.
- Can a private entity decide how a fee is divided? That is a contract question, and the AG does not interpret contracts.
The opinion is unusually careful about scope. It hits the statutory framework but explicitly declines to bless or condemn the specific vendor pitch. The reason: the program design varies (where ALPRs are placed, how the data flows, who reviews the hits, how stops are initiated). Each design needs its own legal analysis.
What this means for you
Mississippi municipal officials and city attorneys
The opinion holds that municipalities are not explicitly prohibited from using ALPRs to verify insurance coverage, but that certain factual and legal determinations outside the opinion's scope must be considered. It identifies three statutory limits: Section 17-25-19 bars ALPRs that work in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed equipment for traffic enforcement; Section 63-16-5 bars using MVIVS as the sole cause for a stop, absent reasonable cause that the driver committed another violation or that the vehicle is unsafe or improperly equipped; and Section 63-15-4(3) bars stopping a driver solely to verify insurance unless the stop is part of a roadblock where all passing motorists are checked. Whether a particular program is a lawful "traffic stop" or "roadblock" is a mixed question of fact and law the AG declined to decide.
Police chiefs
The opinion relies on the 2009 Sorrell opinion, which read Section 17-25-19 to allow pole-mounted ALPRs for enforcement of criminal activity so long as they are not used in conjunction with a traffic signal or radar speed equipment. Under Section 63-16-5, MVIVS may be accessed during a traffic stop or accident investigation, but not used as the sole cause for a stop.
ALPR vendors
The opinion holds that information from MVIVS may be released to a private entity only if DPS authorizes it in accordance with its rules under Sections 63-16-3 and 63-16-7. The opinion does not bless any particular vendor program, and it treats the fee-split arrangement as a contract matter on which the office may not opine.
Mississippi drivers
Under the opinion, Section 63-16-5 provides that an officer may not use MVIVS to stop a driver for an insurance violation based on the system alone; there must be reasonable cause that the driver committed another traffic violation or that the vehicle is unsafe or not properly equipped. Section 63-15-4(3) allows insurance checks at a roadblock where all passing motorists are checked.
Common questions
Q: Are ALPRs legal in Mississippi?
A: Yes, with limits. ALPRs paired with traffic signals or radar speed equipment for traffic enforcement are banned by § 17-25-19. ALPRs used for other purposes, including criminal enforcement, are allowed under the 2009 Sorrell AG opinion's reading of the same statute.
Q: What is MVIVS?
A: The Motor Vehicle Insurance Verification System, run by the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. It is the state-run database for verifying mandatory liability insurance.
Q: Can the police pull me over because an ALPR system says my insurance is lapsed?
A: Not under § 63-16-5, which says MVIVS data alone is not sufficient cause for a stop. The officer needs separate reasonable cause for the stop (another traffic violation, an unsafe-vehicle observation, etc.). Once stopped for an independent reason, the officer can verify insurance through MVIVS.
Q: What about insurance roadblocks?
A: Section 63-15-4(3) authorizes roadblocks where all passing motorists are checked. Whether a particular operation qualifies as a "roadblock" or instead crosses into selective targeting is a fact question. Constitutional law on roadblocks (Fourth Amendment) also applies and was not addressed in the AG opinion.
Q: Does this opinion say ALPRs can be used for things other than insurance enforcement?
A: It addresses insurance verification. On ALPRs generally, it relies on the 2009 Sorrell opinion, which read Section 17-25-19 to allow pole-mounted ALPRs for enforcement of criminal activity, provided they are not used in conjunction with a traffic signal or radar speed equipment.
Q: What happens to fee splits between cities, DPS, and vendors?
A: The opinion states that any fee-split agreement between a municipality, DPS, and a third-party vendor is a contractual matter on which the office may not opine, citing Section 7-5-25.
Background and statutory framework
Three statutes converge in this analysis:
Section 17-25-19 bans automated recording equipment paired with traffic signals or radar:
(1)(a) Neither the board of supervisors of any county nor the governing authority of any municipality shall adopt, enact or enforce any ordinance authorizing the use of automated recording equipment or system to enforce compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations on any public street, road or highway within this state or to impose or collect any civil or criminal fine, fee or penalty for any such violation.
The definition narrows the prohibition to cameras "installed to work in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both." So pole-mounted ALPRs not so paired are not within the prohibition.
Section 63-16-3(3)(c) sets up MVIVS access:
[B]e accessible, without fee, to authorized personnel of the department, the courts, law enforcement personnel, and other entities authorized by the department under the provisions of Section 63-16-7.
DPS controls the "other entities" gate via its rulemaking under § 63-16-7.
Section 63-16-5 governs traffic-stop use of MVIVS:
(1) A law enforcement officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system established under Section 63-16-3 to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy in at least the minimum amounts required under Section 63-15-3(j).
...
(3) Except upon reasonable cause to believe that a driver has violated another traffic regulation or that the driver's motor vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, a law enforcement officer may not use the verification system to stop a driver for operating a motor vehicle in violation of this chapter.
Subsection (3) is the key constraint: MVIVS data, alone, is not enough.
Section 63-15-4(3) governs roadblock use:
[N]o driver shall be stopped or detained solely for the purpose of verifying that the motor vehicle is covered by liability insurance in the amounts required under Section 63-15-3(j) unless the stop is part of such roadblock.
The AG opinion's bottom-line analysis: vendor-driven ALPR programs are not categorically banned, but their legality depends on whether they comply with each of these limits in their specific implementation.
Citations
- Miss. Code Ann. § 17-25-19(1)(a), (2)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 63-15-3(j)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 63-15-4(3)
- Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-16-1 et seq.
- Miss. Code Ann. § 63-16-3(3)(c)
- Miss. Code Ann. § 63-16-5
- Miss. Code Ann. § 63-16-7
- Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25
- MS AG Op., Sorrell (Apr. 17, 2009)
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/M.Chaney-May-21-2024-Usage-of-Automatic-License-Plate-Readers-for-Auto-Insurance-Citations.pdf
Original opinion text
May 21, 2024
The Honorable Mike J. Chaney
Commissioner of Insurance
State of Mississippi
501 North West Street, Suite 1001
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Re: Usage of Automatic License Plate Readers for Auto Insurance Citations
Dear Commissioner Chaney:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Background
According to your request, you have been made aware that several municipalities have been approached by a private vendor ("Vendor") with proposals to initiate an automatic license plate reader ("ALPR") program to verify motor vehicle insurance coverage. As you have related, the Vendor would use the Department of Public Safety's ("DPS") Mississippi Vehicle Information Verification System ("MVIVS"), a database for verifying a motor vehicle's compliance with Mississippi's mandatory insurance laws, in conjunction with ALPRs to verify insurance coverage.
Questions Presented
1. May information recovered from DPS's motor vehicle insurance database, MVIVS, be released to private entities?
2. Do municipalities have the legal authority to initiate and utilize ALPR cameras to verify motor vehicle insurance coverage?
3. Does a private entity have the legal authority to determine how a fee may be divided?
Brief Response
1. Information recovered from MVIVS may be released to private entities if such action is authorized by DPS in accordance with its rules as set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 63-16-3 and 63-16-7.
2. Although municipalities are not explicitly prohibited by Mississippi law from initiating and utilizing ALPR cameras to verify motor vehicle insurance coverage, certain factual and legal determinations, which are outside the scope of this opinion, must be considered in regard to the proposed uses of MVIVS under the applicable ALPR-based program.
3. Any fee-split agreement between a municipality, DPS, and a third-party Vendor is a contractual matter upon which this office may not opine. See Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25.
Applicable Law and Discussion
To begin, this opinion concerns matters of state law only and does not address U.S. Constitutional or federal law or any contractual considerations.
You first ask if information recovered from MVIVS may be released to private entities. The Public Safety Verification and Enforcement Act is set forth in Sections 63-16-1, et seq. In accordance with Section 63-16-3 therein, DPS established MVIVS, a database for verifying a motor vehicle's compliance with Mississippi's mandatory insurance laws. Section 63-16-3(3) sets forth various statutory requirements for MVIVS. Among these, Section 63-16-3(3)(c) provides that MVIVS must "[b]e accessible, without fee, to authorized personnel of the department, the courts, law enforcement personnel, and other entities authorized by the department under the provisions of Section 63-16-7."
Under Section 63-16-7, DPS is given broad authority over the administration and enforcement of MVIVS and is granted the power to enact rules for the same:
(1) The Department of Public Safety, hereinafter referred to in this section as "department," shall administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter, as applicable, and shall make rules necessary for the administration of the motor vehicle insurance verification system created under Section 63-16-3.
...
(3) The department may adopt additional rules to:
(a) Assist authorized users in interpreting responses received from the motor vehicle insurance verification system and determining the appropriate action to be taken as a result of a response; and
(b) Otherwise clarify system operations and business rules.
Given these provisions, it is the opinion of this office that information recovered from MVIVS may be released to private entities in the instance such action is authorized by DPS in accordance with its rules as set forth in Sections 63-16-3 and 63-16-7.
In regard to municipalities utilizing ALPR cameras, Section 17-25-19 provides:
(1)(a) Neither the board of supervisors of any county nor the governing authority of any municipality shall adopt, enact or enforce any ordinance authorizing the use of automated recording equipment or system to enforce compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations on any public street, road or highway within this state or to impose or collect any civil or criminal fine, fee or penalty for any such violation.
...
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term "automated recording equipment or system" means a camera or optical device installed to work in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both and designed to record images that depict the license plate attached to the rear of a motor vehicle that is not operated in compliance with instructions of the traffic control signal or the posted speed limit.
In sum, Section 17-25-19 prohibits the use of ALPRs that work in conjunction with traffic signals or radar equipment. This office addressed Section 17-25-19 in MS AG Op., Sorrell (Apr. 17, 2009), and opined that the statute did not completely prohibit the use of ALPR cameras but rather allowed municipalities to "continue to utilize cameras mounted on poles . . . for enforcement of criminal activity within the municipality as long as the cameras are not used in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both and designed to record images of a license plate." Furthermore, Section 17-25-19 only addresses traffic laws, rules, and regulations.
The second part of your question asks if said ALPR cameras may be used to verify insurance coverage. As highlighted previously, Section 63-16-3(3)(c) states that MVIVS must "[b]e accessible, without fee, to authorized personnel of the department, the courts, law enforcement personnel, and other entities authorized by the department under the provisions of Section 63-16-7." Additionally, Section 63-16-5 permits a law enforcement officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency to access MVIVS in relation to a traffic stop, with certain limitations. Specifically, Section 63-16-5 prohibits law enforcement officers from using MVIVS as the sole cause for a stop:
(1) A law enforcement officer or authorized employee of a law enforcement agency may, during the course of a traffic stop or accident investigation, access the verification system established under Section 63-16-3 to verify whether a motor vehicle is covered by a valid motor vehicle liability policy in at least the minimum amounts required under Section 63-15-3(j).
...
(3) Except upon reasonable cause to believe that a driver has violated another traffic regulation or that the driver's motor vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, a law enforcement officer may not use the verification system to stop a driver for operating a motor vehicle in violation of this chapter.
Further, Section 63-15-4(3) permits the use of MVIVS "at a roadblock where all passing motorists are checked as a method to enforce traffic laws." That section also states that "no driver shall be stopped or detained solely for the purpose of verifying that the motor vehicle is covered by liability insurance in the amounts required under Section 63-15-3(j) unless the stop is part of such roadblock." Miss. Code Ann. § 63-15-4(3).
Presumably, these provisions were enacted to prevent illegal searches. This said, whether the scenario you provide would constitute a "traffic stop" as contemplated by Section 63-16-5 or a "roadblock" as contemplated by Section 63-15-4 is a mixed question of fact and law upon which this office may not opine. See Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25. Nonetheless, if it is determined that such use does not constitute a "traffic stop" as provided in Section 63-16-5 and does not constitute an unlawful use of a "roadblock" as provided in Section 63-15-4, there are no other provisions within the Public Safety Verification and Enforcement Act that limit an entity authorized by DPS or a law enforcement officer's ability to access MVIVS. Rather, as noted above, DPS is provided broad statutory authority over the administration and enforcement of MVIVS.
Finally, you ask if a private entity has the legal authority to determine how a fee may be divided. Any fee-split negotiation and resulting agreement between these parties is a contractual matter upon which this office may not opine. See Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25.
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Maggie Kate Bobo
Maggie Kate Bobo
Special Assistant Attorney General