ADRIAN — Whether to install license plate reading cameras along some Lenawee County roads was a topic of discussion at a June 5 meeting of Lenawee County commissioners.

The June 5 meeting was of the criminal justice committee, but because the topic generated a lot of interest last month and was referred back to the committee level for more discussion, all commissioners were invited to take part.

The discussion centered mainly around civil liberties concerns, in particular how long data would be stored. The cameras would be installed by Flock Safety, which works with about 5,000 communities across the U.S. Agencies with Flock cameras include the Adrian Police Department.

Capt. Jake Pifer of the Lenawee County Sheriff’s Office explained the proposal, which is to install six stationary cameras and one “Flex” camera that can be easily moved as necessary, for example during Michigan International Speedway race weekends.

Pifer said that when law enforcement agencies have a specific license plate they’re looking for, they can put it into a “hot list” and see if that plate has been spotted by a Flock camera.

“This is not a surveillance system,” he said. “There’s no camera you can log into and see who’s driving through here right now. This is data that’s captured, and we can go back and look at it later as part of our investigative process.”

The cameras also cannot be used to catch speeders, he said.

He added that there is an audit trail so that management can see who has queried the Flock system about a license plate and why, and that the sheriff’s department is proposing that use of the cameras would be audited at least twice a year.

The sheriff’s department is proposing to install six stationary cameras at three points along Ridge Highway in Macon, Ridgeway and Palmyra Townships — with two cameras, one facing each direction, at each location. The seventh would initially be on Deerfield Road. Pifer said those are locations that the sheriff’s department has identified as main routes in and out of Lenawee County for people who commit crimes.

“Criminals tend to stay off the main highways,” he said. “There is a notion that police officers are on the main highways. If they commit a higher-level crime, they’re going to drive on the back roads.”

Organizations like the ACLU and Electronic Freedom Foundation have raised concerns about license plate readers. In one recent case highlighted by the EFF, a sheriff’s department in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 cameras to track down a woman accused of self-managing an abortion. The ACLU has urged people to oppose Flock and similar camera systems, and when they are installed, to seek shorter data retention periods.

The length of data retention was a key issue for commissioner Kevon Martis (R-Riga), who said that he’s talked to his constituents about the proposal and found that “in general the constituents are not a big fan of this.”

Martis said he could consider supporting the proposal if data retention were limited to 72 hours instead of the proposed 30 days.

Commissioner Terry Collins (R-Adrian), who is also a retired Adrian police chief, said 72 hours is not necessarily long enough to solve a crime. He recalled one kidnapping case he worked on where it took more than three days to get the young victim to open up about what happened and describe the suspect’s car.

“Thirty days might be too long, but I don’t think three days is anywhere near enough,” he said.

Commissioner David Aungst (R-Rollin Twp.), who is retired from the sheriff’s office, said he feels a 30-day retention period is better. He said that constituents he’s talked to have been about 50/50 on whether they support the cameras.

Commission chairman Jim Van Doren (R-Tipton) said he, too, has gotten a roughly 50/50 response from constituents.

“Some people think it’s Big Brother watching us, and some people think it’s absolutely what we need in order to keep our community safe,” he said.

Commissioner Dustin Krasny (R-Onsted) asked about security and whether the devices can be hacked. Jonathan Paz, a representative from Flock, said that no data is stored on the cameras themselves. Instead, the data is wirelessly transmitted with end-to-end encryption, and if somebody stole a camera there wouldn’t be any information on it to access. He said the Flock system has never been hacked.

Sheriff Troy Bevier said he had held back on adopting the system at first, but that his initial concerns have been answered. He also said that cameras on the Flock system have been used to track down suspects in several high-profile crimes in the area, such as a case last year where a Lenawee County shooting suspect was found in Jackson County. The suspect, an Onsted man, led officers on a high-speed chase, shooting at them and tossing pipe bombs from his car, before he was shot and killed by police when the chase ended.

There was also brief discussion of the location of the cameras, but Collins commented, “I’m loath to tell the sheriff where he has to put these cameras. That’s micromanaging.”

Locating cameras along state roads would cost more because of Michigan Department of Transportation requirements.

The cost for the seven cameras would be $29,800 in the first year and $25,250 in the second year. After that, the county would need to decide whether to continue with the program.

The commissioners who were present at the meeting voted 5-1 to advance the topic for possible approval. Voting yes were Aungst, Collins, Krasny, Van Doren, and Ralph Tillotson (R-Adrian Twp.), although Krasny specified that he was voting yes “for the purpose of advancement.” Martis voted no, saying he respects what the sheriff’s department is trying to accomplish but can’t support a 30-day retention period.

The topic is on the agenda for the next meeting of the personnel and ways and means committee, which will be on Tuesday, June 10, at 10 a.m.

To view meeting agendas, minutes and recordings, click here.