In the tight-knit and pulsating heart of Detroit, residents are divided over a contentious issue that has the potential to redefine community policing and surveillance: license plate readers. The Detroit City Council approved a substantial $5 million allocation, with a 7-2 vote, to the Detroit Police Department to augment the deployment of license plate readers across various neighborhoods. While authorities assert the technology is aimed at safeguarding the community, pivotal questions loom: Is this a genuine safety measure, or yet another tool to surveil the predominantly Black residents of Detroit? Will this create additional policing issues in an already tension-rife environment?
An impassioned voice amidst the council’s decision, Councilwoman Gabriela Santiago-Romero, District 6, vocalized staunch opposition, citing not just a lack of evidential support for the technology’s effectiveness but also raising ethical concerns. She stated:
“I voted no on the License Plate Reader (LPR) contract because I was not provided sufficient data detailing the effectiveness of the technology — a technology the majority of the public believes will be used for traffic enforcement, rather than a tool to investigate crime. There’s a clear disconnect between intentions and realities. I believe to invest in such a costly technology would be a disservice to my residents,” Romero explained. “At the core of my no vote, however, is my belief that budgets ought to be rooted in values and that we cannot surveil our way to safety. As the Chair of City Council’s Immigration Taskforce in one of the Blackest cities in the country, I cannot support continuous spending on inefficient technology equipping law enforcement to surveil our residents, thereby increasing the chances of hostile encounters, while we fail to appropriately invest in our residents’ day-to-day needs. I voted no on the LPR contract due to worries about data sharing and to the lack of a guarantee that the City would not subject certain residents to potential harm in exchange for the protection of others. Detroit is a welcoming City for all and to invest in such expansive technology without said assurances would be wrong; it’s too big a cost and comes with too big a risk.”
The complexities of the situation are further highlighted through individual resident stories, elucidating the multifaceted impact of the proposed technology.
Daphne Rice, a resident from Detroit’s west side, has suffered the financial and emotional impact of a hit-and-run incident that left her car totaled and her insurance rates soaring. A license plate reader, theoretically, could have identified the perpetrator and potentially provided Rice with closure and financial reprieve. Yet, she, too, like many others, is entwined in the ongoing dialogue about the true cost of such technology. “After my accident, I’ve been living in the aftermath every single day, trying to find my footing. If technology can prevent others from going through what I experienced, I’m all for it. But it’s essential that we don’t lose sight of our values and our privacy in the process,” shares Rice.
On the other hand, Carlos McGlaughlin, from the east side of the City, harbors skepticism, echoing a palpable fear amongst communities of color regarding surveillance technologies and misidentification. His stance embodies a dichotomy — embracing the technology for practical uses like combating car theft or reckless driving while remaining wary of potential misuse, especially concerning unwarranted surveillance of residents.
“It’s a complex situation for me. My community needs protection, especially from car thefts and crimes, but how can we be assured that the technology will be used exclusively for that? How can we trust that this won’t turn into another method to over-police our neighborhoods?” McGlaughlin said, revealing the tension that exists in accepting technology as a means to an end.
These individual tales underscore a poignant question: Can safety and privacy coexist without trampling on civil liberties, especially in communities that have historically been subjected to over-policing and surveillance?
Amidst this technological expansion, the Detroit Police Department (DPD) has logged an 11% uptick in vehicle thefts year-over-year, tallying 6,970 incidents as of September 19—a stark increase of 709 vehicle thefts compared to figures reported in September 2022.
Transitioning our gaze to the providers of the license plate readers, Detroit has engaged in contracts with Flock and Genetec, and the most recent proposal brings Motorola Solutions into the fold. The company, once synonymous with mobile communications, has, over the past decade, pivoted its operational focus towards surveillance, investing millions in acquiring companies offering a diverse spectrum of surveillance tools and shifting its foundational business approach.
Broadening the lens to a national perspective, a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2019 underscores the pervasive adoption of license plate camera technology, with two-thirds of substantial police agencies across the country employing the technology, reflecting a tripling over the preceding decade. On a local echelon, various law enforcement agencies across Metro Detroit have embraced this technology, with Warren, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Southfield, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Troy, Sterling Heights, Chesterfield Township, Van Buren Township, Grosse Ile, Grosse Pointe Park, Metro Airport Police, Michigan State Police, and the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office being documented adopters, according to The Detroit News.
Even with the police department’s assurances that the license plate readers would not be utilized for checking immigration status, issuing tickets, or facial recognition, and with data storage limited to 90 days, the palpable skepticism in the community lingers. Police Chief James White highlighted the success stories, one of them being the resolution of a July kidnapping case involving a 2-year-old, as a testament to the technology’s potential benefits.
Councilwoman Romero emphasizes the weight of ongoing municipal decisions, affirming, “We need to be prioritizing and investing in affordable housing, reliable transportation, quality jobs, peer respite centers, and other proven programs and services that would create the safe, vibrant, thriving communities that all our residents deserve.” Her statement underscores a commitment to robust investment in diverse community aspects, highlighting a belief in the efficacy of foundational, community-oriented investments as a means to achieve multifaceted growth, well-being, and inclusivity among all residents. Thus, the pathway to a revitalized Detroit, according to this perspective, hinges not only on technological advancements but also on a multifaceted approach to socio-economic investments.
Contrarily, Councilmember Angela Whitfield-Calloway’s plea during the city council meeting for installing the readers near John R. Road and East State Fair, citing illegal street racing and reckless driving, adds another layer to the narrative. Does the potential benefit of this technology outweigh concerns about surveillance and misidentification?
As we delve into the multifaceted perspectives on license plate readers in Detroit, it becomes transparent that a robust, inclusive conversation must ensue.
The pivotal question emerges: Will the chosen direction sculpt a future that concurrently ensures citizens’ safety and preserves their freedoms? Or could it potentially initiate a chain reaction, introducing more surveillance into ordinary citizens’ lives, potentially unnoticed? This decision not only creates ripples in Detroit but may also generate wider-reaching waves, prompting questions about civic rights and privacy.
About Post Author
