New York State
Westchester’s license-plate surveillance lawsuit
Four residents argue that years of searchable vehicle-location records invade privacy and that police need specific legislative authority to operate the system. The county says the readers are lawful investigative tools and seeks dismissal on legal and procedural grounds.
- Case
- 65935/2026
- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Westchester County
- Record checked
Yukiko Ann Umemoto et al. v. Westchester County, New York et al.
The current position
Dismissal motion pending
The public record checked October 16 lists the case as active. The county seeks dismissal; no ruling on that motion was listed. Rekor and Croton are not defendants.
Watch for plaintiffs’ opposition, the county reply, any adjournment and a decision. The return date is for written submissions unless the court directs otherwise; it is not a promised decision date.
Next newsroom review:
What could change
The plaintiffs ask for class certification and orders stopping the surveillance system’s operation and spending on it. These are requested remedies. The record checked October 16 does not report those requests as granted.
Why records over time matter
The plaintiffs say a searchable history can reveal routines and associations that a passing observation cannot. The county argues the complaint describes intermittent public-road snapshots with gaps, rather than comprehensive tracking.
Complaint · Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Who decides the rules
The plaintiffs argue that elected legislators must authorize this scale of surveillance and make its privacy choices. The county says existing police powers already authorize cameras, databases and investigative software.
Complaint · Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
What the dismissal request means
The county asks the court to end all three claims, disputing the plaintiffs’ legal theories and raising notice, standing and deadline defenses. A ruling may resolve legal or procedural issues without deciding every disputed fact about the system.
Defendants' Notice of Motion to Dismiss (Corrected) · Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Croton’s unanswered access question
January police minutes described judicial warrants for outside agencies, including ICE. An August presentation described county requests tied to investigations and case numbers, while qualifying knowledge of county procedures. The accounts do not establish that a formal warrant requirement changed.
January 15 Police Advisory Committee minutes · August 19 Village Board police presentation
The timeline
From the recordHow we got here
- Local background
Local context: police minutes describe outside-access warrants
The committee’s minutes account distinguishes participating local law enforcement from outside jurisdictions, expressly including ICE and other agencies.
Why this matters: This is a dated minutes account, not a court ruling or independent verification of current county practice.
- Court filing
Four residents file complaint
The complaint pleads a state constitutional search claim and two claims about police legislative authority, seeking class certification and injunctive/declaratory relief.
Why this matters: The complaint starts the challenge and states the requested remedies; filing does not certify a class or grant an injunction.
- Local background
Local context: Croton police explain readers and county requests
Police discuss investigative uses and outside-agency requests. Fielding qualifies his knowledge of county procedures.
Why this matters: The presentation explains Croton’s involvement and leaves questions about the exact county access rules; it does not establish a formal policy amendment.
- Court filing
Counsel-withdrawal motion withdrawn
Freshfields letter withdraws one lawyer’s withdrawal motion and says the firm continues to represent plaintiffs; the lawsuit itself is not withdrawn.
Why this matters: This concerns counsel’s representation. It does not withdraw or settle the lawsuit.
- Court ruling
Rivera signs briefing schedule
Justice Rivera signs a schedule setting the motion September 11, opposition October 26, reply November 25 and return December 2. The later corrected notice confirms these dates.
Why this matters: This sets a briefing calendar rather than deciding whether the surveillance system is lawful.
- Court filing
County moves to dismiss all claims
The county files its notice, supporting affirmation, legal exhibits and memorandum seeking dismissal of all claims. These papers present the defendants’ arguments.
Why this matters: The filing presents the county’s grounds for ending the case; it is an advocacy document awaiting a ruling.
- Defendants' Notice of Motion to Dismiss (Corrected) · Doc. 30
- Affirmation of Sean T. Carey in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss · Doc. 31
- Ex A - Local Law No 7-1979 · Doc. 32
- Ex B - Local Law No 8-1979 · Doc. 33
- Ex C - Local Law No. 13-1983 · Doc. 34
- Ex D - Laws of Westchester County Sec. 173.01 · Doc. 35
- Ex E - Laws of Westchester County Sec. 273.31 · Doc. 36
- Ex F - Laws of Westchester County Sec. 273.51 · Doc. 37
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss · Doc. 38
- Affirmation of Exemption from Clerk's Fees · Doc. 39
- Newsroom check
Public docket checked
Entries1–39 and Active status reviewed; no decision on motion4 was listed. This is a reporting observation, not a court event.
Why this matters: This records the reporting check’s scope and date. It does not prove the absence of sealed or unfiled material.