Michigan could soon join 16 states that restrict how long law enforcement can keep data collected by license plate cameras springing up across the state. 

State House lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation this March to establish a 14-day limit on data retention. The bill limits the amount of data that can be accessed to specific  law enforcement actions and requires public reports on data usage to be released by each agency using the technology, according to 

Bridge Michigan. Currently, regulations governing data usage and retention are determined individually by the more than 180 local and state law enforcement agencies that already use the technology. 

The small cameras are positioned at intersections and traffic stops across Michigan, recording the license plates of passing cars. License plate readers have been a cause for concern for Michigan residents, in particular after independent journalist Benn Jordan and 404 Media revealed how the open-source AI for certain models of cameras could be accessed and retained by members of the general public. 

The readers are intended to capture images of license plates which are then stored in government databases and cross-referenced with other data points available to authorities, according to the Detroit News. The stated purpose is to assist police in solving crimes, standardize ticketing, and locate missing people.

State Rep. Jennifer Wortz, a Republican who represents Hillsdale County, said the House legislation represented a good first step towards regulating agencies’ retention of collected driver data. 

“Any time we seek to protect people, privacy is a good thing to consider,” Wortz said. “This legislation is trying to ensure that the data is not being stored if it’s collected and used. There needs to be due diligence in any investigation project process on the side of law enforcement. It just has to be with good guardrails. I think that’s the point of these bills, to provide better guardrails.” 

State Sen. Jonathan Lindsey (R-Coldwater) said he favors the House legislation because of its potential to protect the privacy of  Michigan drivers.

“I support these types of efforts,” Lindsey said. “People are always willing to trade off and say, somehow this is going to make us safer. But most of the time, the legislature is not thinking about things like whether people have a right to privacy if they’re not breaking any laws. And they’re also not thinking about some of the dangers of this data.” 

State Sen. Joe Bellino, a Republican who represents part of Hillsdale County, said the privacy concerns were not as important a concern as the potential infringements on personal liberty. 

“We don’t have privacy right now,” Bellino said. “But it’s different when you shoot my license plate and send me a bill. I’d be all for a mandate that says you can’t do it.” 

The proposed legislation, even if incomplete, would be worth passing, according to Lindsey. But, he continued, a determinative solution would need to go even farther. 

“I think this legislation from the House would be better than having no rules about these things,” Lindsey said. “But, what I think would be far better would be legislation that actually protected people’s rights that should be protected under the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure and the government indiscriminately collecting images and data about people just living their lives when they’re not committing crimes. After all, doing so is inherently a violation of those basic principles that should be protected under the Fourth Amendment.”

According to Lindsey, the cameras themselves are potentially detrimental due to their manufacturing history. 

“There are some very serious concerns to be raised concerning China’s connection to these surveillance cameras,” Lindsey said. “A lot of these traffic cams are either produced by or have components that come from China, and at least one recent study suggests that a significant percentage of data collected is actually being transferred back to and retained on servers in China. It’s not just license plate images, either. These cameras are potentially capable of capturing people, even pedestrians, walking in cities.”

Lindsey said he supported local measures such as those enacted by Bay City and Ferndale, which reject the camera systems entirely. 

“It’s fully appropriate for local jurisdictions to decide that they aren’t going to employ any systems that do blanket data collection, absent crimes being done,” Lindsey said. “There are layers of how we’ve organized our law enforcement efforts in the state of Michigan that appropriately established these local systems and push a lot of the responsibility for the administration of the law down to a local level.  I would encourage it, frankly.”

Hillsdale City Manager, David Mackie, told​​ The Collegian that license plate readers were not coming to Hillsdale — at least for now.  

“Hillsdale has not considered and is not slated to consider implementing license-plate readers,” Mackie said.

Lindsey said the main issue is protecting the citizens of the state of Michigan from what he describes as new ways of infringing on their rights. 

“My default is always protecting against government overreach in these areas,” Lindsey said. “While I can’t say that I’m just objectively against any of these measures ever at any time, I can say that what I believe is that we need to go in the direction of protecting people’s rights more, not inventing new ways to infringe on those rights. Are people trying to grow the surveillance state? Yes, that’s usually what’s going on. Is it a healthy instinct for everyone, including local governments, to push back as much as possible against the growth of the surveillance state? Yes, it is a healthy instinct to do that.”