• Bipartisan bills introduced in the Michigan Legislature would create statewide regulations on how license plate reader data is used
  • With no state law regulating use of license plate readers, data-sharing decisions currently fall on local governments 
  • The technology has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, though law enforcement agencies defend its use as a crime-fighting tool

In Oakland County’s Waterford Township, concern over the use of automatic license plate readers by law enforcement agencies escalated to a 24-year-old man smashing several of the devices to bits. 

Police credit one of the cameras he’s accused of breaking with helping track him down. The license plate reader, Sheriff Scott Underwood said, captured his license plate data before it was damaged. 

Underwood highlighted that incident as one of many examples where the readers have assisted in solving crimes quickly, but the damaged cameras and subsequent arrest highlight the tension many communities are experiencing as local officials grapple with how and whether to use automatic license plate readers in policing. 

At least 16 states have adopted policies aimed at regulating the use and retention of data collected by license plate readers, which capture pictures of vehicle license plates every time a car drives by. 

A group of lawmakers led by Republican state Rep. Doug Wozniak of Shelby Township and Democratic state Rep. Jimmie Wilson of Ypsilanti are suggesting it’s time for Michigan to do the same. 

“Michiganders deserve to know that new technology is being used responsibly, not in ways that invade privacy or erode public confidence,” Wozniak said in a statement announcing bipartisan bills to regulate the devices, arguing their plan would protect driver privacy and help maintain public trust in law enforcement.

RELATED: 

Absent a statewide policy, decisions on the use of license plate readers have fallen to local law enforcement agencies and municipal governments. 

In communities where license plate reader contracts are being considered, concerned residents have increasingly spoken up at public hearings about the possibility of data being used to surveil lawful activity or the possible sharing of data with federal law enforcement agencies.

At least 125 Michigan agencies contract with the Atlanta-based company Flock Safety, one of the largest providers nationwide of automatic license plate reader technology. 

Law enforcement agencies using the devices tout the technology as a speedy way to help locate missing people or catch criminals, and some police groups are concerned the proposed statewide regulations as written would go too far. 

“We’re not against any regulations — we just don’t want it to weaken what a good investigative tool the license plate readers are,” said Matt Saxton, executive director of the Michigan Sheriff’s Association. 

How the bills would work

If the proposed legislation became law, the biggest change would be a restriction on how long any data collected by license plate readers is stored. 

Lawmakers supporting the bills are pushing for a 14-day limit on data retention, as well as limiting use of the license plate reader system to specific law enforcement actions, including: 

  • Finding missing people
  • Locating stolen vehicles
  • Locating people with outstanding arrest warrants
  • Identifying uninsured or unregistered vehicles
  • Parking and tolling enforcement
  • Criminal investigations 

The legislation also calls for publicly available reports from agencies using the readers on how the data is used and would offer a path for legal recourse if a driver believes his or her data was used improperly. 

State and local governments can support effective policing “while still demanding safeguards that protect civil liberties,” Wilson said in a statement announcing the bills. 

“This legislation creates clear limits on how … data is collected, stored and shared, ensuring these tools are used to improve public safety, not to enable routine mass surveillance,” he continued. 

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.

Critics contend that 24-hour surveillance of drivers, the vast majority of whom will never be charged with a crime, poses major privacy concerns — especially considering the 30-day standard for storing the data also means anyone with access could gain insight into a driver’s daily routines.

Saxton, the executive director of the Sheriff’s Association, said law enforcement criminal investigations or missing person searches can take longer than two weeks to complete. He’s concerned cutting the timeline short could limit the effectiveness of the tool. 

“If that data was gone after 14 days, we couldn’t use that as a tool to help that family find out answers about their missing loved ones,” he said.

The proposed legislation is pending in the House Judiciary Committee and would need to earn majority support in the politically divided House and Senate to become law. 

ACLU of Michigan policy strategist Gabrielle Dresner, whose organization worked closely with lawmakers on crafting the proposal, is optimistic about the chances of meaningful reform. 

“​​In conversations we’ve had with the vast majority of the representatives, we’ve had a lot of support from both sides of the aisle … the most left of left and right of right,” she said. “It’s really a popular issue among everyone.” 

Where things stand statewide 

In the meantime, communities around the state are reaching differing conclusions about how to balance law enforcement requests with increased pushback from citizens.

After weeks of opposition from residents, Lapeer County Sheriff Scott McKenna recently pulled back a request for license plate readers.

He told county commissioners that he personally believes foregoing the readers “leaves us in a vulnerable position,” but, after taking stock of the situation, he “felt it was my duty at that point to pull it off the agenda.” 

Some cities, including Bay City and Ferndale, have in recent months backed out of contracts with Flock and have reassessed their license plate reader policies or switched to a different provider in response to community concerns. 

In Detroit, city council members recently requested a report on how data collected from the city’s more than 500 license plate readers is used, 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 locate stolen vehicles, bust human trafficking rings, solve serious crimes like rapes and murders and fill coverage gaps in short-staffed departments.

Local officials in Trenton and Taylor this week considered renewing existing contracts with Flock Safety. Taylor police credit the tool with arrests in a 14-year-old’s shooting death and a sting operation involving possible child predators, among other things.

In Waterford Township, where police began using license plate readers in 2022, law enforcement was recently approved to add additional readers and Flock-powered drones to its repertoire, despite concerted pushback from locals.

After several cameras were destroyed — including the camera that led to an arrest in the crime — Underwood, the Waterford police chief, in a press release said the public is entitled to their opinions regarding the readers, but aren’t entitled to maliciously interfere. 

The license plate readers “collect only images of vehicles and license plates,” he said in the release. “Those images, coupled with a number of other investigative techniques, led to a successful resolution in this case, that being the arrest of a person who committed three felonies.”

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com