Momentum is building toward stricter regulation for license plate readers — including Flock Safety cameras.
Republican state Senator Jim Runestad of White Lake has introduced legislation that would place new restrictions on automated license plate reader technology used by local law enforcement agencies across Michigan.
In a news release, Runestad said constant monitoring is not necessary for public safety.
“Passively collecting information 24/7 as people go about their daily lives is a drastic overreach and goes well beyond public safety needs,” Runestad said. “This legislation acknowledges that certain emergency situations can be greatly assisted by this technology, but sensible safeguards need to be put in place.”
More than 180 law enforcement agencies in Michigan use the cameras — most prominently manufactured by Flock Safety — to locate stolen vehicles and track vehicle movements during criminal investigations.
Under Runestad's bill, local law enforcement would be required to delete captured data after 14 days. Police would also need a warrant to access that data for anything beyond active criminal investigations and missing persons cases.
The proposal comes amid growing unease over surveillance across the county. Dozens of police officers have been accused of misconduct relating to Flock technology and other license-plate readers, including using the technology to stalk women without their knowledge or consent.
Several communities in metro Detroit have already canceled their contracts with Flock Safety, citing privacy and data-sharing concerns.
Gabrielle Dresner, a policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said the data could theoretically be used to track sensitive information like what doctors people visit, what political events they attend, and what religious organizations they are a part of.
"These cameras are blanketing our streets quickly and this data is being stored for weeks, or months or in some states, even years,” Dresner said. “This technology is quickly evolving into a powerful tracking tool.”
Runestad's bill is similar to House Bills 5493 and 5492, introduced earlier this year by Democrats in the state House.
Dresner also said she is not surprised by efforts on both sides of the aisle.
“The one thing that seems to ring true of all people regardless of party affiliation is that they do not want to be surveilled,” Dresner said. “People feel that they have the right to privacy, even among spaces like roadways, and people protect that privacy fiercely.”
Ron Wiles, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, said some oversight may be warranted but cautioned against rules that might “render an effective tool totally ineffective.”
Wiles added that the public debate hasn't translated into much real collaboration between lawmakers, police and privacy advocates.
"Everyone seems to want to talk about ‘there has to be some regulations or guidelines.’” Wiles said. “Everyone is saying that, but no one is working together on it. We are happy to work together and try to establish that and do what's best for residents across the state."
Courtney Terlecki, a Flock spokesperson, wrote that the company also welcomes common-sense regulation.
“Flock is strongly in favor of common-sense regulation that preserves the ability of law enforcement to use these highly effective technologies, while requiring the sorts of safeguards and accountability mechanisms communities expect,” Terlecki wrote. “We stand ready to be a resource to the legislature as they consider these important issues.”
