Filed Date: April 15, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged San Jose's AI-enhanced automatic license plate reader system that photographed and tracked every passing vehicle without warrants.
On April 15, 2026, three individual residents of San Jose, California filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs sought to represent a putative class of all San Jose residents who were drivers of vehicles photographed by the city's surveillance cameras after April 15, 2025. Represented by Michel & Associates and the Institute for Justice, they sued the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department (SJPD), and the San Jose Chief of Police. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants installed 474 AI-enhanced automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras throughout San Jose that automatically photograph every passing vehicle, use artificial intelligence to analyze the images and create "Vehicle Fingerprint" data, and store this information in a centralized database for 30 days. According to the complaint, this system collected over 360 million images in 2024 alone and was searched nearly 2.5 million times every six months by over 1,000 SJPD employees and hundreds of other government entities across California. The plaintiffs contended that this surveillance occurred without warrants, probable cause, or individualized suspicion, and that the data was shared with nearly 300 other government entities. The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit as a civil rights action under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the ALPR camera system constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, a permanent injunction requiring deletion of images and data within 24 hours unless defendants obtained a warrant based on probable cause, nominal damages of $1.00 for each named plaintiff, and attorneys' fees.
This case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.
As of April 202, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (4/16/2026)
Haleigh Knowles (4/19/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73192632/parties/tan-v-city-of-san-jose/
Demarchi, Virginia K. (California)
Barvir, Anna Marie (California)
Frommer, Robert Peller (California)
Soyfer, Michael Benjamin (California)
Woislaw, Daniel T. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73192632/tan-v-city-of-san-jose/
Last updated June 1, 2026, 9:45 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 15, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three residents of San Jose, California who seek to represent a class of drivers who were photographed by the defendant's surveillance system
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
City
City of San Jose, a California charter city
San Jose Police Department
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 5:26-cv-03181
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Policing:
Case Summary of Tan v. City of San Jose, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48099/ (last updated 4/19/2026).