Thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country hold contracts with Flock, an Atlanta-based surveillance company—and Michigan is no exception.
Over the past year, officials in Menominee, Bay City, Ferndale, and areas of Metro Detroit have voted to terminate contracts with Flock after residents raised concerns about the company’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. And as midterm elections get closer, more and more Michiganders are looking to elected officials to develop regulatory frameworks to safeguard their privacy.
In January, Rep. Jimmie Wilson Jr. (D-Ypsilanti) and Rep. Doug Wozniak (R-Shelby Township) introduced two bills that would create clear limits on how data is collected, stored, and shared by ALPR cameras for private companies and government entities.
“Michiganders deserve to know that new technology is being used responsibly, not in ways that invade privacy or erode public confidence,” said Rep. Wozniak in a press release, adding that the bills will protect Michiganders while “setting clear, commonsense rules that help maintain trust between law enforcement and the public.”
House Bill 5493 would clarify specific ways that government entities can use ALPR systems to aid in their investigation. The bill also proposes that captured license plate data couldn’t be used or shared for any other purpose, and that data can’t be retained for more than 14 days, unless the data is needed for an ongoing investigation, or has been retained by legal request. Government entities that use ALPR cameras would also be required to adopt and publicly post policies on their use, and report practices quarterly to the state or local government that oversees them.
House Bill 5492 would regulate the use of ALPR systems by private companies, requiring them to keep captured plate data for at least 14 days after a request for the data is received by a government entity or defendant in a criminal case. Furthermore, data must be destroyed 14 days after the request is received, and violators could be sued for damages. The bill would also mandate that data held by private companies not be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.
“As someone who is deeply troubled by the threats to civil liberties that these surveillance devices pose, as well as the way they have been utilized to terrorize immigrants and those seeking abortion care, I’m supportive of any and all measures to regulate them,” said Rep. Laurie Pohutsky (D-Livonia), who co-sponsored both pieces of legislation, in a recent email to The ‘Gander.
While the bills have been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary for further consideration, if the legislation were to pass, Michigan would join at least 16 states with laws addressing the use of ALPR cameras and how they retain the data they collect.
“Michigan has an opportunity to join other states across the country in setting a reasonable standard; one that embraces specific and limited uses of ALPR technology while preventing it from becoming an instrument of mass, dragnet surveillance,” said Gabrielle Dresner, a policy strategist at the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, adding that the technology is “ripe for abuse” without proper guardrails in place.
The Great Lakes Surveillance State?
Today, more than 100 law enforcement agencies across the Great Lakes State use Flock to aid investigations.
James Tignanelli, president of the Police Officers Association of Michigan, an organization that represents more than 12,000 retired and active duty police officers, told The ‘Gander that Flock’s ALPR cameras are a “valuable tool for law enforcement.”
“My experience with these cameras is that they catch a lot of bad guys officers had already been asked to look for,” said Tignanelli, adding that the data collected from the cameras are “so locked down” that only certain individuals in each police department can access them, further preventing potential misuse.
However, as more and more stories of agencies abusing their privileges with the cameras emerge—such as federal agencies like ICE using the cameras and the company’s AI-powered searchable database to monitor specific individuals, including immigrants, protestors, and even those in abortion ban states who travel to seek medical care—a growing number of Michiganders are feeling uneasy about state police using the technology.
Dresner said that over time, the amount of information that ALPRs collect can be alarmingly revealing.
“While a point-in-time snapshot might not seem concerning, as ALPR cameras blanket our streets and governmental entities store the collected data for weeks or months in some states, the technology quickly morphs into a powerful tracking tool.” She added that this information can reveal sensitive information, including what friends, doctors, political events, or religious institutions Michiganders visit.
And even with access to Michiganders’ sensitive information, local police are still making mistakes.
Last year, as a result of ALPRs mistakenly tying her vehicle to a shooting in the area, Isoke Robinson of Fraser had her car seized and impounded by police. She was handcuffed and put into a squad car with her 2-year-old child, and detained before being released. Police did not return her car for more than three weeks.
In the lawsuit brought by Robinson against the Detroit Police Department, the court found that the witness to the shooting had not been able to give police even a partial license plate number, and that police used the ALPRs to find vehicles that matched the description, including one that was two miles from the scene of the shooting but only a couple of blocks from Robinson’s home.
Related: Woman wrongly accused of carjacking loses lawsuit against Detroit police who used facial tech
‘Flock’ off
So what should Michiganders do while the proposed ALPR regulation legislation makes its way through the State Capitol? Dresner recommends keeping an eye on their city council.
“Michiganders should check out their city council meetings to see if Flock contracts are showing up in their municipalities,” she said. If a contract does appear, residents can make their voices heard at their next city council meeting by signing up for a public comment or by submitting a written statement.
