Ben Garbacz/Daily Mining Gazette From left, Craig Kent, James Niemela, Lee DeLeon and Bill Menge of the Baraga County Board of Commissioners at Monday's meeting. The board decided to table the decision on Flock Safety.

L’ANSE — The Baraga County Board of Commissioners has delayed a decision on the instalation of Flock Safety License Plate Readers (LPR) in the county. At its meeting Monday, the board opted to wait until the full board is in attendance, as Chairman Brad Dakota was absent from the meeting. Further discussion and research will take place between commissioners and their constituents regarding Flock Safety as they mull the pros and cons of LPRs in the county. The meeting featured an online presentation from Flock Safety followed by a lengthy back and forth of questions and answers between the board, citizens and the Flock Safety representatives.

The board tabled the decision last month at which time many issues regarding Flock Safety were discussed, with many of those same topics addressed at Monday’s meeting. One of the concerns Commissioner James Niemela, and some citizens, had was lawsuits brought against Flock Safety and potential Fourth Amendment violations. Trevor Chandler of Flock Safety said the company is confident they are not in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the suits will end in the company’s favor.

The primary case discussed was from Virginia, where Chandler showed that a judge determined accessing LPR data through Flock Safety without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. However Chandler displayed other cases in which LPRs were determined to not be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He showed the results of a case in Florida in which the New Civil Liberties Alliance filled a lawsuit against multiple entities regarding LPRs violating the Fourth Amendment. The courts however determined the Fourth Amendment was not violated and was affirmed on appeal.

“Overwhelmingly, case law has found specifically with license plates, specifically with LPRs, which has been consistently upheld as evidence in court, that these do not violate the Fourth Amendment,” Chandler said. “And we think that the overwhelming case law on this is going to continue, and there’s always going to be an outlier. There’s always going to be one. Going to be one case that’s always working its way through the courts. That’s the way the court system works around the country. But the overwhelming nature of the case law, supporting license plate readers as being non invasive, is pretty self evident.”

The presentation from Flock Safety also went over the data which the LPRs obtain and how it is stored and used. Flock Safety LPRs are capable of detecting vehicles not only based on license plates, but also characteristics such as stickers, color and damage. The data collected by local cameras are compiled and held by the entity which installs them, which in this case would be Baraga County Sheriff’s Department.

The county would determine who it shares that information with, which could be as small as neighboring U.P. counties or as large as nationwide. The sharing of information collected by the LPRs is what leads to arrests of suspects, which has transpired in the U.P. with the arrest of a scammer who victimized an individual from Hancock. Michigan correctional facilities will also have LPRs installed, including Baraga Correctional Facility.

Some attendees raised other concerns, including the expense for the cameras and services. The installation fee of the cameras was waved and Sheriff Joe Brogan plans to pay for the camera services through grants. Brogan believes the LPRs will be an efficient tool to assist law enforcement in locating suspects, and pointed to the county’s drug problems as one of the primary reasons for wanting the LPRs.

“The long and the short of it, we have a drug problem in Baraga County, just like Houghton County does, just like Keweenaw County, the drug problem is from coast to coast,” Brogan said. “So our officers are investigating a drug distribution complaint, and who the suspect is. They track their suspect through multiple jurisdictions. They know when your suspect is coming back, then you make traffic stop on your suspect, bring him to jail. That’s drug interdiction in a nutshell, using this, that’s basically our big focus.”

Regarding the information the cameras collect, some citizens and board members emphasized they trust current law enforcement in the county but cannot be sure of those who might take current officers’ places in the future. Niemela and some in attendance were concerned some with ill-intentions could abuse the system and target individuals. There was also concern regarding stored data, though the Flock Safety representatives said data stored after 30 days is deleted and emphasized the county controls how the data is used.

Niemela said when he discussed the LPRs with his constituents, the ratio of those against the camera installations is seven to one.

“A lot of things are brought in that look good and can be used for good, but later on they’re abused,” Niemela said. “We think of the Patriot Act that was shoved through quickly after 9-11 and it looked good and it seems good and it seemed necessary. But then it was ultimately abused to go after anybody with a different skin color. Once the system was processed and put into place, it seemed good and it seemed necessary, and it seems useful and helpful, but then down the line it was abused.”

The issue of the LPRs will be discussed again at next month’s meeting, with the possibility of a public hearing prior to the meeting.