Michigan communities are weighing the benefits and risks of automated license plate readers, technology that critics say can turn everyday driving into persistent surveillance. The devices, often associated with contractor Flock Safety, have spread across the state as local law enforcement agencies describe the systems as a practical way to locate stolen vehicles and support investigations. At the same time, residents and advocates have questioned how long data is kept, what safeguards apply, and whether information can reach agencies beyond local boundaries.
The technology works by capturing an image of the back of a vehicle and collecting its license plate number as cars pass camera locations near major roadways. The collected data can then be compared to “hot lists” tied to suspected criminals or missing people, and the results can help officers cross-check registrations. While officials and contractors describe those lookups as targeted, critics argue the underlying collection is broad and that stored records can reveal patterns about where people go.
In Michigan, the debate has intensified as cities and counties consider buying new systems or modifying existing contracts, with some communities backing away while others move ahead. The Associated Press reported that in more than 125 Michigan cities and counties, nondescript cameras perched near busy roadways capture images each time a vehicle passes. Privacy concerns have escalated in recent months, including amid a deportation campaign tied to the Trump administration, according to the report.
Retired attorney Linda Berker told the Lapeer County Commission as officials discussed whether to allow the sheriff’s department to purchase license plate readers that she viewed the technology as a “slippery slope.” She said she believed there is a right to safety, but questioned “what about privacy” and “what about the right to go wherever you want, whenever you want, without the government tracking you?” The concern centers on the fear that data gathered for local purposes could be used for broader surveillance and enforcement.
Law enforcement officials in some jurisdictions say the systems are used responsibly and do not facilitate spying on residents. In Waterford Township, Police Chief Scott Underwood told local officials during a Monday hearing that his department uses the technology “in a responsible, ethical way to investigate and solve crimes.” Underwood’s department also sought and received a three-year, $60,000 add-on for video integration, expanding how Flock footage can be combined with other sources such as cruiser dashcams and body cameras.
Flock representatives and officials also say the camera data is limited and designed to protect privacy. Kerry McCormack, a Flock representative, told commissioners that the cameras collect “the back of the vehicle and license plate” and that there is “no personally identifiable information.” He said the system does not capture information about who is driving, or details like Social Security numbers, and described the technology as a “force multiplier” that helps police collaborate more efficiently.
A central point of contention is whether license plate reader data can be accessed or used in ways that extend beyond local control, including for immigration enforcement. While McCormack said contracting agencies can choose to share collected data with other agencies nationally or limit sharing within a state or region, privacy advocates argue the structure of the system creates exposure risks. The Associated Press reported that analysis by 404 Media last year found local and state police across the country performed searches for federal partners, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even as Flock has said it does not directly share data with any federal agency.
In Detroit, Police Chief Todd Bettison said the department is “not sharing data” with ICE, but city council members requested a report on how data collected from more than 500 license plate readers is used. Council members said they were concerned about the possibility of data sharing, reflecting a broader push for transparency and documentation as communities reconsider contracts and add safeguards.
Other municipalities have changed course in response to public scrutiny. The report said Bay City and Ferndale backed out of contracts in recent months and reassessed use of the readers. Ferndale ended its partnership with Flock in November after backlash to a pilot program that began in 2023, and the city later tentatively approved a five-year contract with another company, Axon, for license plate reader services. In that case, the police chief said city officials would evaluate vendors while trying to “balance ethical standards with community expectations” and investigators’ needs for effective tools.
As communities continue to consider how to govern license plate readers, there is no single statewide blueprint, according to advocates cited in the report. Sarah Hamid, director of strategic campaigns for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, 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 other concerns. Hamid and other advocates argued that agencies often share data across local boundaries, meaning residents should ask “hard questions about where their data actually flows.”
In Lapeer County, commissioners remained split, opting to continue discussions next month rather than closing the decision. Sheriff Scott McKenna said he understands the reticence and respects local opinions, but argued the tool could protect the community, including by helping find elderly residents with dementia and tracking criminals who hail from outside the county. Commissioner Scott McMahan expressed concern that, even if promises are made about limiting federal sharing, the system still involves 24/7 surveillance and storing data about law-abiding residents, and he said officials were being asked to rely on the contractor’s assurances about sharing.
The Associated Press story concluded that as awareness grows, communities face difficult trade-offs without a standardized framework for procurement, retention, and data-sharing limits. It cited research indicating that at least 16 states have adopted policies aimed at regulating license plate reader data retention and use, while Michigan has no state law specifically governing the devices. Under that landscape, the report said decisions in Michigan depend largely on a “patchwork of local policies,” leaving residents to press local leaders for clearer rules about oversight, retention periods, and access.