������Ƶ

In more than 125 cities and counties across Michigan, nondescript cameras perched near busy roadways snap a picture every time a car drives by.

The cameras — automated license plate readers primarily operated under contract with Flock Safety of Atlanta — are touted by law enforcement agencies as a speedy way to help locate missing people or catch criminals.

But privacy advocates and citizens in communities large and small are increasingly raising concerns, arguing the technology infringes on citizens’ privacy rights, relies too heavily on artificial intelligence and can lead to data getting shared well beyond local boundary lines.

Those concerns have ramped up in recent months amid the Trump administration aggressive deportation campaign.

Flock has said it  data with any federal agency, but system lookup data analyzed last year by  showed local and state police across the country have frequently performed searches for federal partners, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“I see this as one big, slippery slope,” retired attorney Linda Berker told the Lapeer County Commission last week as officials considered allowing its sheriff department to purchase license plate readers.

“I know we have a right to safety, but what about privacy, and what about the right to go wherever you want, whenever you want, without the government tracking you?”

Some cities, including  and Ferndale, have in recent months backed out of contracts with Flock and are reassessing their use of license plate readers in response to community concerns.

In Detroit, Police Chief Todd Bettison has said his agency is “not sharing data” with ICE, but city council members last week , expressing concerns about the possibility of data sharing.

But other communities are still considering getting their own license plate readers or adding onto existing contracts as local police credit the technology with helping ,��,�������Ի��� in short-staffed departments.

“We do not spy on residents,” Waterford Township Police Chief Scott Underwood told local officials during a Monday hearing. His department requested and received a three-year, $60,000 video integration add-on to its existing contract with Flock.

“We use our Flock technology and all of our technology in a responsible, ethical way to investigate and solve crimes,” he continued.

‘Force multiplier’ for police?

In most communities with license plate readers, the devices are placed at or near major public intersections. As vehicles pass by, the reader takes a photo of the back of the car, collecting the license plate number that can be used to look up the vehicle registration.

Photos are typically stored by the contractor for 30 days, though locals can elect to keep them for more or less time. The law enforcement entity can then cross-check those images with “hot lists” of license plates connected to suspected criminals or missing people.

“The cameras get a photo of the back of the vehicle and license plate. There is no personally identifiable information,” Kerry McCormack, a Flock representative and former Cleveland City Council member, recently told Lapeer County commissioners. “Who driving the car, what they eat for breakfast, their Social Security number — any attributes of the person are not captured by this camera.”

McCormack said Flock is designed to be a “force multiplier” to help police collaborate and do their jobs more efficiently.

Contracting agencies can choose to share the collected data with other agencies nationally or limit data sharing to within their state or region, McCormack added, noting that the company takes the balance between privacy and public safety seriously.

Separately, US Border Patrol has worked with technology companies to  in Michigan and other states, according to an Associated Press investigation.

Critics contend that 24-hour surveillance of drivers, the vast majority of whom will never be charged with a crime, poses major privacy concerns. The 30-day standard for storing the data also means anyone with access could gain insight into a driver daily routines, said Gabrielle Dresner, a policy strategist with the ACLU of Michigan.

“That an extensive amount of travel data that being held on people just traversing the roadways, doing nothing wrong,” Dresner said. “You can see a pattern of people movements based on where their license plate crosses through.”

Differing approaches

In Waterford Township, where police began using license plate readers in 2022, law enforcement is adding additional readers and  to its repertoire, despite concerted pushback from locals.

Township trustees on Monday also approved , a system that allows officers to integrate Flock footage with video from cruiser dashcams, body cameras and the Waterford School District.

Other communities have attempted to mollify residents’ concerns by seeking other options.

Last November, the city of Ferndale  amid significant public backlash to the pilot program that began in 2023. At the time, Ferndale Police Chief Dennis Emmi said the city would evaluate other potential vendors for license plate readers and aimed “to balance ethical standards with community expectations while equipping investigators with effective tools to solve crime.”

City officials in December , for license plate reader services.

Emmi told Bridge Michigan that approval of the contract is contingent on the council passing a separate ordinance addressing privacy protections and city oversight of surveillance technology, scheduled to come up in February.

In communities actively considering new or updated license plate reader contracts, much of the public criticism has centered around the possibility of data being used to surveil lawful activity or the possible sharing of data with federal law enforcement agencies, which  but can request data from local police.

Sarah Hamid, director of strategic campaigns for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for digital privacy rights, said community pushback against license plate readers “really exploded” starting in summer 2025 as reports emerged about the data being used for immigration-related searches,�� and more.

“All across the country, you’re seeing this concerted effort to push these surveillance sensors out of their community as soon as possible,” Hamid said.

An Electronic Frontier Foundation  on Flock servers found several instances of protest-related searches, including lookups from the Grand Rapids Police Department that corresponded with a . A department spokesperson that police do not use the Flock devices to target protesters.

Last line of defense, first line of exposure

In Lapeer County, commissioners remain split on whether to move forward with Flock cameras, opting to continue discussions next month.

Sheriff Scott McKenna said he understands the reticence and respects local opinions. But he said the concerns are hard to square with the positive impacts he believes readers could have on the county, citing the technology usefulness for finding elderly residents with dementia or tracking criminals hailing from outside county lines.

“I’ve never seen a tool that more beneficial for protecting the community than this one,” he told commissioners.

Commissioner Scott McMahan wasn’t as convinced, expressing fears that for all the promises that data wouldn’t be shared with federal agencies or other third parties, it may not end up being in the county control.

“We’re talking about enabling a system that will be 24/7 surveilling all citizens, law-abiding, all of us, and storing that data,” he said. “We’re now expected to just take (Flock) word for it that you’re not sharing this.”

As public awareness of automated license plate readers grows, there no exact blueprint or best practice for communities considering new license plate reader contracts or adding to existing ones.

At least 16 states have adopted policies aimed at regulating the use and retention of data collected by license plate readers,��, though efforts in several states to beef up privacy protections .

Michigan has no state law on the books governing the readers, meaning the decision on how license plate readers are used comes down to a “patchwork of local policies,” said Hamid of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“Cities aren’t just the last line of defense against federal encroachment, they’re also the first line of exposure through these data systems,” Hamid said, adding that because agencies often share data across local boundaries, “community members really need to be asking hard questions about where their data actually flows.”