Residents press Westland council to end or audit Flock surveillance contract

A large group of residents and visiting advocates urged the Westland City Council on Monday to end or at least audit the city’s contract with Flock, a company that operates automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs), saying the cameras amount to mass surveillance and pose privacy and safety risks.

Speakers described audits and contract cancellations in neighboring communities and cited reporting and audit figures—presented to councilors by residents from other cities—to argue that Flock data is accessed far more often by third parties than by local police. “The total number of times Ferndale’s system data was accessed was 4,352,252,” one speaker said, noting Ferndale police accessed it about 2,365 times (roughly 0.05 percent of accesses). Residents also said data is stored in third‑party cloud services, can be accessed by federal agencies and persists after contracts are canceled.

Why it matters: Councilors and the mayor said they heard residents’ concerns about privacy and civil liberties and would consider them in upcoming contract decisions. Mayor Kevin Coleman thanked speakers and said the administration would weigh the public’s input when evaluating the technology.

What residents told council: Multiple speakers described specific risks they associate with ALPR systems—tracking of everyday travel patterns, potential misuse by law enforcement or third parties, and the prospect of commercially or federally shared data. One resident described seeing Flock cameras on his route into the city; others cited leaked search logs, concerns about continuous data harvesting and claims that cameras sometimes remain operational after a municipality cancels a contract.

Council and administration response: Coleman said he shares concerns about how the data is used and does not speak for the council, but pledged the administration and council members would consider public comments when the contract comes up for renewal. State Representative Dylan Miguela, who gave a legislative update earlier in the meeting, encouraged audits of local uses of the technology and noted several nearby cities had recently removed or paused contracts.

What’s next: Council did not take immediate action to cancel the contract at the meeting. Multiple residents asked council to schedule an independent audit and to provide public reporting about who accesses data and for what purposes; the administration said it would factor public feedback into future deliberations.

Notable quote: “You don’t own the data,” a resident said, arguing that third‑party storage and access make the system unsuitable for routine policing use.

Ending: The meeting moved on after an extended public‑comment period; the administration signaled it will review the concerns as it approaches any contract decisions.