Michigan license plate cameras face backlash: Big help, or Big Brother?

Privacy advocates raise concerns over Flock cameras used in over 125 Michigan cities and counties, while police say the tech helps solve crimes.

Jan. 30, 2026 at 12:07pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Automated license plate readers operated by law enforcement agencies in more than 125 Michigan cities and counties are facing growing backlash from privacy advocates who argue the technology infringes on citizens' privacy rights and can lead to data sharing beyond local boundaries. However, police agencies praise the cameras as a valuable tool for solving crimes, locating missing persons, and filling coverage gaps in short-staffed departments. With no state law regulating the use of license plate readers, the decisions on data sharing and privacy protections fall on local governments, leading to a patchwork of policies across the state.

Why it matters

The use of license plate readers by law enforcement raises concerns about government surveillance and the potential for data to be shared with federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), especially amid the Trump administration's aggressive deportation campaign. Privacy advocates argue the 24/7 monitoring of drivers, most of whom have committed no crime, poses major privacy risks. However, police agencies contend the technology is a 'force multiplier' that helps them efficiently investigate and solve serious crimes.

The details

The license plate readers, primarily operated under contract with Flock Safety of Atlanta, take a photo of the back of passing vehicles and collect the license plate number. This information can then be cross-checked against 'hot lists' of plates connected to suspected criminals or missing persons. While Flock claims the cameras do not collect any personally identifiable information about the driver, critics argue the 30-day data retention period allows for tracking of people's daily routines. Some cities, like Bay City and Ferndale, have backed out of Flock contracts in response to community concerns, while others, like Waterford Township, are expanding their use of the technology and integrating it with other surveillance systems.

  • In 2022, Waterford Township police began using license plate readers.
  • In November 2023, the city of Ferndale ended its partnership with Flock amid public backlash to the pilot program.
  • In December 2023, Ferndale tentatively approved a five-year contract with a different company, Axon, for license plate reader services.

The players

Flock Safety

An Atlanta-based company that provides automated license plate readers to law enforcement agencies in Michigan and across the country.

Linda Berker

A retired attorney who expressed concerns about the license plate readers to the Lapeer County Commission.

Todd Bettison

The police chief of Detroit, who has said the city's police department is 'not sharing data' with ICE.

Scott Underwood

The police chief of Waterford Township, who defended the department's use of license plate readers as a responsible and ethical way to investigate and solve crimes.

Gabrielle Dresner

A policy strategist with the ACLU of Michigan who expressed concerns about the privacy implications of the 30-day data retention period for license plate reader data.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We do not spy on residents. We use our Flock technology and all of our technology in a responsible, ethical way to investigate and solve crimes.”

— Scott Underwood, Waterford Township Police Chief

“I see this as one big, slippery slope. I know we have a right to safety, but what about privacy, and what about the right to go wherever you want, whenever you want, without the government tracking you?”

— Linda Berker, Retired attorney

What’s next

The Lapeer County Commission is scheduled to continue discussions on whether to move forward with Flock cameras next month.

The takeaway

The debate over license plate readers in Michigan highlights the broader tension between public safety and individual privacy rights. As more communities consider adopting this technology, local governments will need to carefully balance these competing interests and establish clear policies to govern the use and sharing of the data collected by these systems.