Ottawa County, MI (WGHN) – The Ottawa County Sheriff is responding to concerns over the use of Flock license plate reader cameras.
The issue drew several public comments during Tuesday’s County Board meeting, with commissioners suggesting a future work session on the technology:
Sheriff Eric DeBoer says he welcomes the discussion and wants to provide more transparency. He says the cameras check license plates against law enforcement databases for stolen vehicles, missing persons and Amber Alerts, but do not use facial recognition, identify drivers, track vehicles or access Secretary of State records.
The Sheriff’s Office says the technology has contributed to 124 arrests since 2024, along with the recovery of stolen vehicles and more than $906,000 in stolen property.
Official Statement below:
Today’s Ottawa County Board of Commissioners meeting included a number of public comments regarding the Sheriff’s Office’s use of Flock license plate reader cameras, and the Board has suggested holding a future work session on the topic. In the hours since, our office has received questions from several news outlets asking for comment. Rather than respond individually, I want to offer this statement to all media and to the public directly.
I take the public’s concerns about this technology seriously, and I understand why residents want more transparency about how it’s used. I’d welcome the opportunity to participate in a Board work session to walk through exactly how our office uses this system, what it can and can’t do, and the safeguards we have in place.
I’ve been following the national conversation around this technology closely, and I think it’s important to say plainly: a lot of the concern being raised is based on misinformation or a genuine misunderstanding of what this system actually does. To be clear about that, it captures an image of a license plate already visible on a public roadway, the same information any deputy could lawfully observe and photograph without a warrant. It checks that plate against law enforcement databases for stolen vehicles, missing persons, and Amber Alerts, and notifies our office of a match. It does NOT run the plate with the Secretary of State to find the registered owner, it does NOT use facial recognition, it does NOT know who’s driving, it does NOT track where a vehicle is headed, and it is NOT used for traffic enforcement. Every search of our system requires a documented reason, and no enforcement action is ever taken based on an alert alone; deputies independently verify every hit before acting.
Beyond what the technology itself can and can’t do, the other legitimate concerns people raise are the misuse, overreach, or lack of accountability of a system like this. These concerns are addressed by having a strong department policy governing the system and its usage, as well as by our office’s long track record as good stewards of this community’s trust. That’s not something I take for granted, and it’s exactly why I welcome scrutiny of how we operate rather than avoiding it.
Since 2024, this technology has contributed to 124 arrests in Ottawa County, helped recover more than $906,000 in stolen property, and led to the recovery of 72 stolen vehicles and 11 illegally possessed firearms. It’s helped identify suspects in serious violent crimes, including assisting in the ongoing investigation of a shooting that injured five people, an armed robbery, multiple road-rage shootings, and a suspect facing a ten-count criminal sexual conduct charge, and helped bring home missing and endangered residents, including elderly community members and at-risk youth, safely and quickly. And it’s worth noting this technology doesn’t just point toward suspects. In at least one case, data from this system helped confirm a timeline that cleared a person as a suspect entirely. This tool can rule people out just as readily as it can generate a lead.
I also want to address a separate and troubling trend directly. We have seen an uptick in the deliberate destruction and disabling of these cameras in recent weeks. I want to be clear that public debate about this technology is welcome. Destroying publicly funded property is a criminal act, not a form of protest, and it will not be tolerated. An arrest has been made in one recent camera destruction case. Captain Sparks will be releasing further details on that investigation shortly.
I understand not everyone will agree with the use of this tool. But I’d rather have this conversation in the open, with real information, than let it happen based on assumptions about what the technology does or how we use it. I look forward to that discussion with the Board, and my office remains glad to answer any follow-up questions from media or residents in the meantime.
Comments