Local
Waymo Hit-and-Run Cases Stall as Police Requests for Camera Footage Go Unanswered
Police records show most hit-and-runs involving Waymo robotaxis in metro Phoenix go unsolved, with officers repeatedly requesting video from the company that never arrives. Waymo says it generally requires a warrant or court order, citing privacy concerns.
PHOENIX â When other drivers strike Waymo's driverless cars and flee, police in the Valley often find their investigations stalled by an unexpected obstacle: the company's own camera footage.
Police records reviewed by local investigators show that in multiple crashes, officers documented repeated requests for video from Waymo that the company never provided, leaving cases inactive or closed without an arrest.
The findings follow a broader review showing that 43 of the 88 Waymo crashes reported to police in metro Phoenix from September 2020 through December 2024 were hit-and-runs. Adjusted for miles driven, Waymos were involved in police-reported hit-and-runs at 2.4 times the rate of other Maricopa County drivers.
Waymo says it may simply report crashes to police more consistently than the general public does.
In a 2023 Chandler crash, someone hit a Waymo carrying two passengers. One passenger photographed the fleeing vehicle's license plate and gave it to police. Officers repeatedly requested video from Waymo but never received it, according to police reports, and the case eventually went inactive.
That same year in Tempe, an SUV rear-ended a Waymo with a safety driver. Police followed up twice seeking video, but a month later officers suspended the investigation without receiving it.
In a 2024 Mesa crash, officers reported that a Waymo representative was reluctant to share information after an SUV backed into the robotaxi, citing privacy concerns. The representative identified the suspect vehicle only as a silver Honda SUV and said he lacked authority to decide whether to press charges, according to the report. The officer closed the case in the field.
Later that year in Phoenix, a truck hit an empty Waymo and fled. With no witnesses, the company's roadside specialist told the responding officer he couldn't access the vehicle's cameras at the scene.
"The cameras are pretty good. They capture a lot," the specialist said on body camera video, adding that people above his pay grade were in charge of the footage.
"I assume if the Tesla could show faces and license plates, I assume the Waymo can," the officer replied.
In his report, the officer sounded a hopeful note, writing that the Waymo's cameras would likely reveal additional information once reviewed. The case file ends there.
Asked about its policy on sharing video with police, Waymo said it generally requires a warrant or court order. A spokesperson said the company's policy is to "challenge, limit, or reject requests that do not have a valid legal basis or are overbroad."
Waymo's senior director for ride-hail operations, Camille Dredge, cited privacy concerns in a 2025 interview.
"We do have camera footage, but privacy is very important," Dredge said. "When it makes sense, our teams leverage the footage as needed to review those cases."
Josh Kolsrud, an Arizona criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, suspects Waymo may be trying to protect itself from liability.
"They're probably trying to hide a little bit of liability," Kolsrud said.
Missy Cummings, a George Mason University professor who studies autonomous vehicles, raised a similar theory. She believes companies may be reluctant to release footage that could reveal phantom braking, when a self-driving vehicle suddenly brakes for something that isn't there.
"If they turn over the footage in a court of law, the phantom braking problem will become very obvious," Cummings said.
Neither expert presented evidence establishing that Waymo withheld footage for that reason. Waymo disputes that sudden braking is a significant factor in rear-end collisions, saying its peer-reviewed research found its vehicles were not hard braking in any rear-end crashes that set off airbags in the study.
Even when police obtain video, an arrest isn't guaranteed. In one Tempe case, Waymo provided footage and the suspect vehicle's license plate, but the investigation still didn't result in an arrest.
Kolsrud explained that identifying a vehicle doesn't necessarily establish who was driving it. Detectives may need additional surveillance video or witness testimony.
The challenge extends well beyond Waymo. New York City recorded 35,324 hit-and-run complaints in 2025, but only 362, or about 1%, were marked as resulting in an arrest, according to NYPD data. For crashes involving only property damage, less than 0.2% ended with an arrest.
Kolsrud said prosecutors can pursue criminal cases even without a cooperating victim, as they sometimes do in domestic violence cases. He believes police should work more closely with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office on "having subpoenas ready to get that surveillance footage."
He said unsolved cases carry a public safety risk.
"If somebody does a hit-and-run, they're already breaking the law. And they don't want to get caught. So they're going to start speeding," Kolsrud said.
Under Arizona law, leaving after hitting an unattended vehicle is a misdemeanor, and Kolsrud said an empty Waymo counts. If a passenger is hurt, it becomes a felony.
Kolsrud said the law isn't the problem.
"It's not the law. It's the enforcement," he said.