Trending
LANSING - As communities in Michigan consider automated license plate reader technology, law enforcement officials and Flock Safety are advocating for measures to provide privacy protections without compromising the technology.
Flock Safety cameras record the image of vehicles and their license plate as they drive past. The database can be used by police during an investigation, and automatic alerts can notify officers when a vehicle matches a license plate or vehicle description associated with a crime.
Flock Safety, based in Georgia, is the country's largest manufacturer of license plate readers.
However, the technology has come under greater scrutiny from people worried about how long data is retained, who can have access to it and whether the cameras could be used to track vehicles' movement.
The privacy debate has been unfolding in Michigan as local governments decide whether to keep using the technology.
The Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police backs legislation that would set guidelines for the automated license plate readers (ALPR), such as Flock cameras, said Ron Wiles, its executive director.
"We believe in reasonable guidelines for ALPR technology," Wiles said. "There should be guidelines for ALPR use and other technology use, not just in law enforcement, but in everything."
Ron Wiles, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.
The association backs a 30-day retention period for ALPR data, along with audits of searches and training for officers using the technology, Wiles said.
The technology can be beneficial when investigating a crime, but officers shouldn't use an ALPR hit as the only reason for making a stop or arrest, Wiles said.
"A Flock camera will never replace the investigative ability of a person doing an investigation. They are a tool," Wiles said.
Officers still have to confirm information that comes from the cameras as part of a more comprehensive investigation, he said.
"We want to make sure they take that Flock information or ALPR information for what it is, but follow up on that using other resources as well to make sure it was accurate before they go arrest somebody or take somebody's rights away from them," Wiles said.
Flock Safety also says protections are needed to ensure that the technology is not misused.
Courtney Terlecki, a Flock Safety media relations representative, said customers, including law enforcement agencies, are the ones in control of data gathered by cameras.
"Customers own and control the data generated by their cameras, and data sharing is not enabled by default," Terlecki said.
Terlecki said Flock has added technology to identify potentially improper searches.
Such concerns involve instances in which officers have used ALPR technology to monitor their own current or former partners and private citizens, according to reporting by The Conversation.
"Flock has had audit logs in place, but earlier this year the company introduced Audit Assistance, which detects abnormal activity and flags it for administrator review," Terlecki said.
The company is looking to implement the Audit Assistance feature for all law enforcement customers before the end of 2026, Terlecki said.
In addition, users are required to record the purpose of searches, Terlecki said.
Each law enforcement agency determines which users are authorized to access the system, and Flock is broadening the requirements for law enforcement searches, she said.
Wiles also said it's important to record searches so departments can figure out what their officers were looking at when accessing the system.
"It has to be for legitimate law enforcement purposes," Wiles said.
Terlecki said Flock cameras do not follow people around in real time or use facial recognition to identify vehicle occupants.
"Flock cameras capture separate, point-in-time images of vehicles visible in public, along with the license plate and limited vehicle characteristics such as make, color and distinguishing features," Terlecki said.
Those can be things such as roof racks, window stickers, toolboxes and any damage or modifications to the vehicle, according to Flock.
Flock has shortened the amount of time data from its cameras is stored for new customers to one week.
"Flock has updated its recommendation and default retention period for new customers to seven days," Terlecki said but noted that some investigations require information to be retained longer, so the company is introducing an Evidence Mode to preserve specific data connected to active investigations.
Recently, Grand Rapids brought its automated license plate reader system under the city's surveillance technology policy, adding additional oversight to technology the city has used for years, according to its website.
The policy calls for extra approvals from the city's Public Safety Committee and City Commission for future surveillance technology purchases, renewals or expansions.
In Lansing, the City Council voted to ask the mayor and police department to terminate the city's contract with Flock Safety. Bridge Michigan reported that Bay City and Ferndale have cancelled their Flock contracts, while the Lapeer County Sheriff's office recently dropped its request for license plate readers.
Residents have also voiced concerns on social media about the technology.
For example, in a Sept. 9 post in the St. Clair Shores "What's Going On" Facebook group, John Parkinson wrote, "They are a double-edged tool. Good for some things but the mass surveillance has got to stop." In a Sept. 17 post in the Shelby Township & Utica Michigan Residents Group, Alex Portell called for the cameras to be removed, writing, "I want only one outcome. I want these cameras gone."
Bills to regulate license plate readers statewide are pending in the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. Lead sponsors are Sen. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake Township, and Rep. Douglas Wozniak, D-Shelby Township.
Wiles, from the police chiefs' association, said, "At the end of the day, the decision on whether you have ALPR technology in your community or not is a local decision. It's not the [Association of Chiefs of Police's] decision. It's not the Legislature's decision."
"Communities and elected officials have the authority to evaluate this technology based on their laws, policies and priorities, and Flock respects those decisions," Terlecki said.