Despite near-unanimous support in both houses of the Virginia state legislature, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) recently amended a significant license plate reader data retention bill, sending it back to state lawmakers. Had the bill passed , it would have imposed a limit of just seven days on keeping such data absent an ongoing criminal investigation.

As put forward by the governor last Friday, the new amendments crucially change that retention period from seven days to 60 days, and modify language that was designed to be a hedge against future surveillance technologies to be restricted to license plate readers specifically.

The Washington Post quoted Brian Moran, the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, as saying on Friday that he had “been informed by numerous law enforcement agencies that license plate readers result in salient and compelling information. The governor’s amendment…represents a significant compromise by law enforcement. The governor believes 60 days is a more appropriate period of time and reaches a compromise with the legislature that’s reasonable.”

New Hampshire previously banned the devices outright, while Maine has imposed a 21-day limit on data retention. However, many jurisdictions nationwide, ranging from the New York State Police to the Oakland Police Department (OPD), have no formal data retention limit. That means the location data—often resulting in millions of records collected over years—is effectively kept forever. Data released from the OPD in California shows that nearly all LPR data is innocuous and does not result in a “hit” for a wanted or stolen vehicle.

Senate Bill 965 will now head back to the General Assembly, which will decide on April 15 if it will accept the governor’s changes. If approved, the law will pass as revised, but if not, it will head back to the governor’s desk, where he will have the opportunity to veto it.

State Senator Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax), who authored the bill, lambasted the governor’s changes on his blog:

The whole purpose of constitutional government is that government only has those powers authorized by law. Nobody has authorized “surveillance technology” used without a warrant and or investigatory purpose against ordinary and unsuspecting citizens. Why should we have to show an injury? Why should there be a compromise? SB 965 was a major step forward for personal freedom and civil liberty. It was supported by a truly novel alliance of supporters and led by civil liberty advocates. This amendment leaves it in tatters—and does so based on arguments that were conclusively rejected by the legislative process just weeks ago.

The governor’s office did not respond to Ars’ request for comment late Sunday evening.