Evidence after a self-driving car crashMost of it sits with the company.

This page is for anyone hurt in a crash with a self-driving car: riders, people on foot, on a bike or on a motorcycle, drivers of other cars, and families after a death. It covers what the cars and companies record, what regulators hold, what is public, and how to ask for each record. It does not cover who is at fault, which is in who is liable, or how to report a crash and deal with insurance, which is in Waymo insurance and claims. Our California self-driving car accident lawyer page covers the whole claim. Wise Law is not affiliated with Waymo or Zoox; the brand names identify the vehicles.

The records map

The evidence after a self-driving car crash falls into five groups, each with its own holder and its own way in.

The 30-second sensor record

Vehicle Code section 38750(c)(1)(G) requires a manufacturer seeking deployment to certify that the car "has a separate mechanism, in addition to, and separate from, any other mechanism required by law, to capture and store the autonomous technology sensor data for at least 30 seconds before a collision occurs between the autonomous vehicle and another vehicle, object, or natural person while the vehicle is operating in autonomous mode." The data "shall be captured and stored in a read-only format" and "shall be preserved for three years after the date of the collision."

The DMV regulations effective April 28, 2026 repeat the certification for testing in 13 CCR 227.54(b) and for deployment in 13 CCR 228.34(b). The deployment application in 228.08 reaches sensor data "for all vehicle functions that are controlled by the automated driving system." The same rules let the DMV demand more after a crash, including "camera footage with target tracking representations" and "the acceleration, braking and steering commands that were issued by the automated driving system" (227.54(a), 228.34(a)). That is a power of the DMV, not a right of the injured person.

The rule is narrow. "Sensor data" is not defined, so it does not promise video. It covers 30 seconds before the collision, not the whole trip, and only in autonomous mode. Nothing in it gives a crash victim, an insurer or the police a right to the data. Three years is the one retention period in the law, and a preservation letter names it.

Waymo video and cameras

Waymo's privacy policy (Last Updated September 30, 2026) says: "We record video inside the vehicle during trips." Waymo's camera help page says "Our Support team may review video under certain circumstances, including after an issue is brought to our attention," and "in more urgent circumstances, Support may access live video during a trip." Waymo's fleet response post (May 21, 2024) says remote staff "can view real-time feeds from the vehicle's exterior cameras" and "can also rewind available feeds."

Regulators expect this video to exist. In an information request dated May 23, 2024, NHTSA asked Waymo for "all video recorded by or of each Waymo vehicle involved in the incident of the 30 seconds leading up to contact with any crash partner and through the conclusion of the crash event." It also asked, "If remote assistance was involved in any way," for "all video of remote assistance involvement." A private request can name the same categories, though that does not prove any video was kept.

Waymo publishes no fixed period for keeping video. Its privacy policy weighs factors including "whether we may need to retain certain information to resolve disputes, make and defend legal claims," and says "In no event will we retain your personal information for longer than reasonably necessary." Waymo's camera page says law enforcement agencies "are directed to follow valid legal processes," and its California police guide says it "may provide data to law enforcement officials in response to proper legal process (e.g. search warrant, subpoena, etc.)." For an injured person, the route is a preservation letter now and discovery or a subpoena later.

Recording inside the car

Waymo says: "We only record audio during active voice calls with Rider Support or when you actively choose to enable microphones inside the car." Its camera page adds that "we do not use facial recognition or other biometric identification technologies to identify individuals." Inside video, in Waymo's words, runs "during trips."

Zoox's support page says: "The cameras record the entirety of your ride." It adds: "To comply with regulations, Zoox records conversations with Zoox Support," and "Other than conversations with Zoox Support, the interior microphones do not record your ride." Zoox's privacy notice (Last Updated August 3, 2026) lists "handling insurance claims" among its uses of data.

For fared driverless service, the CPUC sets a firm rule. Decision 20-11-046, Ordering Paragraph 7(l), requires the carrier to "Record all communications from the passenger in the vehicle with the remote operator while Driverless Autonomous Vehicle Passenger Service was being provided and retain the recording for one year from the date of the recording." A rider's in-car communication with remote staff after a crash is the kind of recording the rule covers, so a preservation letter names it.

Remote assistance logs

Waymo's February 17, 2026 letter to Sen. Markey says its remote assistance agents "provide advice and support to the Waymo Driver but do not directly control, steer, or drive the vehicle." It says: "Every interaction between an agent and a vehicle is meticulously logged and subject to regular audits. All RA actions are documented in proprietary databases." Waymo says about half its on-duty agents work in the Philippines, with "the entire ERT staff" in the United States.

The ERT, Waymo's Event Response Team, handles crashes. In Waymo's words, it "manages the operational response, such as documenting the scene with photos, police reports, and sensor logs for internal and external reporting (e.g., to NHTSA and DMV)." Zoox's March 3, 2026 letter, in the Markey compilation, says "all TeleGuidance tactician inputs are recorded and logged should further review or audit be necessary," and that its tacticians are "all located in the United States."

DMV rules add a record of the people. Under 13 CCR 227.40, a manufacturer keeps "Records, including the individual's true first name, driver's license number and jurisdiction of issuance," showing which remote assistants are trained and certified for which requests. A preservation letter asks for the session log, any audio or video of the session, and the agent's training record.

NHTSA crash reports

Companies running self-driving cars file crash reports with NHTSA under its Standing General Order. A five-day report is due for a crash involving a hospital transport, a death, an air bag deployment or a strike of a vulnerable road user, and for driverless systems a tow-away, according to NHTSA's May 26, 2026 Federal Register notice. The company writes it. NHTSA's data dictionary warns: "Incident report data may be incomplete or unverified" and "The same crash may have multiple reports."

The public file is a spreadsheet, the ADS incident report file, released monthly with redactions. It shows only "the first 11 characters of the VIN," and redactions appear as "[XXX]" or as confidential business information. Its data availability fields matter for evidence: a "Y" in the video field "reflects the Reporting Entity's report that this data is available." That is the company's own statement that video exists, and a good line to quote in a preservation letter. Our self-driving car crash lookup searches California reports by month, city and company.

Since April 28, 2026, manufacturers also give the DMV "the full National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standing General Order 2021-01 (June 2025) crash report for crashes occurring within the State of California" (227.54, 228.34). The DMV points the public to UC Berkeley's TIMS dashboard, which draws on the same NHTSA reports.

Later versions of a report

The first report can leave out what matters. In the October 2, 2023 Cruise crash in San Francisco, Cruise's NHTSA report 30412-6395 went through four versions, all in the archived ADS file. Versions 1 and 2, filed in October 2023, said: "The AV braked aggressively but, shortly thereafter, made contact with the pedestrian." Version 3, filed in November 2023, added: "The AV then attempted to pull over out of traffic, pulling the individual forward, rather than remaining stationary."

The video told the same story in pieces. The report Quinn Emanuel prepared for Cruise's boards (January 24, 2024) says the car sent "a low-resolution, three-second video" and then "a medium-resolution 14-second video ('Offload 2') of collision but not the pullover maneuver and pedestrian dragging." A "full, 45-second, 9-pane video" showed the dragging. A request therefore asks for every version of the report and every video offload, not the first one shared.

CPUC quarterly data

Robotaxi carriers in the CPUC programs report incidents every quarter. Decision 24-11-002 requires incident-level data, including the type of collision, the parties involved, any NHTSA report, and "Whether there were payouts to parties involved in the incident and the total amount (if known)." It also requires deployment carriers to "simultaneously submit to the Commission unredacted collision reports currently submitted to" NHTSA.

The public version is partial. The CPUC's quarterly reporting page posts files through April 1 to June 30, 2026, and notes that "Waymo has claimed confidentiality for certain portions of its reports; these claims are currently under review. Fields subject to confidentiality claims are currently redacted in the public reports posted here." Reports for July 1 to September 30 are due November 1.

Police reports and notices

The police collision report is the first neutral record. Vehicle Code section 20012 requires the agency to "disclose the entire contents of the reports," including "statements of the drivers involved or occupants injured" and "the statements of all witnesses," to people with a proper interest, among them "any named person injured therein" and "any attorney who declares under penalty of perjury" that they represent one. Body camera video, 911 audio and dispatch logs are separate requests.

Since July 1, 2026, an officer can also issue a Notice of Autonomous Vehicle Noncompliance, form OL 325, to the manufacturer. At a traffic stop the officer "shall place the notice in the area where the registration and insurance documents are held" (13 CCR 227.68). The manufacturer must give it to the DMV within 72 hours, or 24 hours if the officer marks priority review, under AVIM 2026-002. The DMV may then require "audio and video data recorded during the initiation of the stop through the conclusion of the peace officer interaction." A notice is not a ticket and not proof of fault: under section 38752(d) it "shall not create a presumption that the autonomous vehicle is unsafe."

Requesting each record

Vehicle Code section 16005 lets the DMV disclose "The names and addresses of insurers" to "Any person injured in the accident." Under Government Code section 7922.535, an agency decides a records request "within 10 days," with an extension of no "more than 14 days." Under 13 CCR 227.74(b) "A redacted version of the submitted information may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act."

Your own records

Keep your phone, your photos, any dashcam card, and the clothes you wore. Riders should screenshot the trip receipt and any in-app messages. Waymo's privacy policy lets users "export and download a copy" of their data. Its account deletion page warns that after deletion "Support will lose all access to your previous trip information" and that "Information including your name, email, and trip history is deleted." Export first, and change nothing in the account until you have advice.

Preservation letters

A preservation letter names each record and asks each holder to keep it. For a self-driving car crash it goes to the company by its legal name, such as Waymo LLC or Zoox, Inc., and names the date, time, place and plate. It asks for preservation, not production. Our post on the evidence preservation letter explains the form; the list for a self-driving car is different:

• The separate 30-second sensor record that state law says is preserved for three years.
• All outside and inside camera video, every offload and every resolution.
• Remote assistance session logs, audio, video and the agent's training record.
• Recordings of the rider's calls with support or remote staff.
• Event Response Team photos, notes and sensor logs.
• Every version of the NHTSA crash report and the material behind it.
• Software version, trip records, and any police notice with its related audio and video.

Separate letters go to the city for traffic camera footage and to nearby businesses and homes for theirs. Our guide to evidence after a commercial vehicle crash uses the same method for company trucks and vans.

Lost or overwritten evidence

Spoliation is the destruction or loss of evidence a party should have kept. In Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, the California Supreme Court called intentional destruction of evidence "a grave affront to the cause of justice." It declined to create a separate tort against a party to the case and pointed to existing remedies: "Chief among these is the evidentiary inference that evidence which one party has destroyed or rendered unavailable was unfavorable to that party."

That inference is Evidence Code section 413, which lets the jury consider a party's "willful suppression of evidence." CACI No. 204 tells jurors: "You may consider whether one party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence. If you decide that a party did so, you may decide that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party." It "should be given only if there is evidence of suppression."

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(f) bars sanctions, "absent exceptional circumstances," for electronic data lost through "the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system," and says this does not "alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information." In our view, an overwrite after a letter that named the system, the car and the time is hard to call routine. The same may be argued for the 30-second record the law says is preserved three years, though no court has ruled on that point.

NTSB investigations

The National Transportation Safety Board investigates selected crashes. One is HWY26FH008, in which a Waymo struck a 9-year-old student pedestrian in a Santa Monica school zone on January 23, 2026; the NTSB page lists its status as "Ongoing." Under 49 U.S.C. section 1154(b), "No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages." The Board's rule at 49 CFR 835.2 treats factual reports differently: "there is no statutory bar to, admission in litigation of factual accident reports."

Cases outside this page

• A Tesla on Autopilot or FSD. That is a Level 2 car with a human driver, and its records and reporting differ. See Tesla Autopilot and FSD crashes.
• Someone died. The evidence is the same; who may bring the claim is covered on our wrongful death lawyer page.
• A public agency was involved. A claim against a city or county is due within six months under Government Code section 911.2.
• You were riding in the car. The rider contract and arbitration are covered in robotaxi passenger injuries.

Next steps for the evidence

After a self-driving car crash, the company controls most of the records, on schedules it does not publish. The first step is a list: the plate, the time, the place, the agency and report number, and any camera you saw. Our self-driving car crash checklist builds that list at the scene. We send the preservation letters, pull every version of the public reports, and track the deadlines.

Josh Kohanim, Esq. is the firm's founder and trial attorney. Call (424) 235-7879, where Spanish-speaking staff answer the phone, or use the form. No fee unless we recover.