Can Flock Cameras Be Used Against You in a Michigan Criminal Case?

Short Answer

Yes. Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers can become important evidence in a Michigan criminal case because they can record a vehicle at a particular place and time and make that information searchable by law enforcement. Police may use those records to develop a suspect, locate a vehicle, corroborate a timeline, establish operation, support a traffic stop, or build a circumstantial case.

But Flock evidence has an important limitation. A camera observation may establish where a particular vehicle was seen, but it does not necessarily establish who was driving. That distinction can matter in many criminal cases and can become especially important in a Michigan DUI case where the prosecution must prove that the accused actually operated the vehicle while intoxicated.

Why a New Michigan Flock Camera Lawsuit Matters to Criminal Defendants

A new Michigan lawsuit has brought Flock camera records into the public spotlight. In August 2026, Kettering University student Josh Tewolde sued Genesee County after the county declined to disclose several categories of Flock records requested under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act.

As reported in the MLive report that brought wider attention to the dispute, the case raises questions about whether police agencies can withhold records generated through privately supplied surveillance technology. The pending Tewolde litigation involves requests for such information as camera locations, audit logs showing who accessed Flock data and when, and records showing scans involving Tewolde’s own vehicle.

The lawsuit is a public-records case, not a criminal prosecution, and it does not decide what evidence a defendant is entitled to receive in criminal discovery. But it exposes questions that may become critical when Flock information is used against someone accused of a crime: What did police search for? Which cameras produced the result? Who accessed the information? What other results existed? How long was the information retained? And did police obtain only the evidence supporting their theory, or does the larger record tell a different story?

What Does a Flock Camera Actually Record?

Flock cameras are automated license plate readers, commonly called ALPRs or LPRs. They photograph vehicles that pass through the camera’s field of view and can record a license plate together with such information as the time and location of the observation and visible characteristics of the vehicle.

The resulting observations can be searched later during a police investigation. Instead of relying only on an officer or witness who remembers seeing a vehicle, investigators may be able to retrieve an electronic observation showing that a particular vehicle passed a camera at a particular time.

That does not mean the system observes every vehicle everywhere. Camera coverage, agency access, search parameters, retention periods, image quality, and system configuration can all affect what information exists and what conclusions reasonably can be drawn from it.

Can a Flock Alert Lead to a Michigan Traffic Stop?

Potentially. Michigan courts have long recognized that a person generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate displayed on the exterior of a vehicle. In People v. Jones, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an officer may run a computer check of a license plate visible in public even without first observing a traffic violation. People v. Jones, 260 Mich App 424, 427-429; 678 NW2d 627 (2004).

If information returned from a database gives the officer an objectively reasonable basis to suspect criminal activity, that information can contribute to the justification for a stop. The same general principle can become relevant when an officer receives information originating from a Flock system.

But the involvement of technology does not eliminate the Fourth Amendment. A traffic stop remains a seizure, and the prosecution must be able to identify facts sufficient to justify it. A bad stop in a DUI case can result in an outright and final dismissal of a case.

A Flock Match Does Not Automatically Establish Probable Cause

A federal case from Detroit illustrates why the underlying Flock result must be examined rather than simply accepted. In Robinson v. White, police investigating a shooting allegedly used Detroit’s Project Green Light cameras and the Flock license plate reader system to identify a white Dodge Charger resembling the suspect vehicle.

According to the allegations before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the plaintiff’s vehicle appeared in a Flock search approximately two miles from the shooting about 15 minutes before it occurred. The court emphasized that Flock coverage was not comprehensive and that a single matching result did not establish that other similar vehicles were absent from nearby streets that lacked camera coverage.

At the procedural stage before it, the court concluded that the proposed amended complaint plausibly alleged that the single similar-vehicle Flock result was insufficient by itself to establish probable cause. Robinson v. White, No. 4:23-cv-12676, slip op at 9-12 (ED Mich, Oct. 25, 2024).

Robinson was a civil case decided while the court was considering whether an amended complaint could proceed. It was not a Michigan appellate suppression decision and should not be read as establishing a categorical rule about Flock evidence. Its reasoning nevertheless illustrates a fundamental point: an electronic match is evidence to be evaluated, not a substitute for evaluating reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

How Could Flock Camera Evidence Affect a Michigan DUI Case?

The meaning of the term “operation in a Michigan DUI case is very fact specific. Consequently, this vehicle-versus-driver distinction becomes particularly important in Michigan DUI cases. Michigan formally calls the principal drunk-driving offense Operating While Intoxicated, or OWI, although DUI is the phrase most people use when searching for information about impaired-driving charges.

Under MCL 257.625, the prosecution must prove that the accused operated a vehicle while intoxicated or otherwise within one of the statute’s prohibited conditions. Michigan defines “operate” or “operating” to include being in actual physical control of a vehicle. MCL 257.35a.

Operation may be obvious when an officer sees the defendant driving. It becomes more complicated when police arrive only after the vehicle has stopped. A person may be asleep in a parked car, unconscious behind the wheel, standing near a crashed vehicle, sitting inside a disabled vehicle, or otherwise discovered in circumstances where nobody actually saw that person drive.

Michigan appellate decisions involving sleeping and stationary vehicles show why the exact facts matter.

What Do Michigan’s Sleeping and Nonmoving Vehicle Cases Say About Operation?

People v. Wood: A Vehicle Can Still Be in a Position of Danger

In People v. Wood, police found the defendant unconscious at a drive-through window with the vehicle running, the transmission in drive, and his foot on the brake. The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that operation continued because the vehicle had been placed in a position presenting a significant risk of collision and had not yet been returned to a position of safety. People v. Wood, 450 Mich 399, 404-405; 538 NW2d 351 (1995).

People v. Burton: A Running Engine Does Not Always Establish Present Operation

In People v. Burton, the defendant was found asleep in a truck in a parking lot. The engine was running, but the transmission was in park or neutral. The Court of Appeals rejected the prosecution’s attempted-operation theory because the evidence did not establish the necessary intent to begin operating the vehicle in the future. People v. Burton, 252 Mich App 130, 143-145; 651 NW2d 143 (2002).

The lesson from Burton is not that a sleeping person can never be convicted of DUI. The legal question depends on what the prosecution is trying to prove and what circumstantial evidence exists. We discuss that distinction separately in our article addressing whether a sleeping driver can be convicted of drunk driving in Michigan.

City of Plymouth v. Longeway: Actual Movement Is Not Always Required

In City of Plymouth v. Longeway, the defendant consciously started the vehicle, applied the brake, shifted from park into reverse, and then shifted back into park. The vehicle apparently did not move. The Court of Appeals nevertheless held that those actions constituted actual physical control under MCL 257.35a. City of Plymouth v. Longeway, 296 Mich App 1, 7-9; 818 NW2d 419 (2012).

Flock Cameras Could Make Historical Operation Easier to Prove

A different problem arises when the defendant is not operating the vehicle when police arrive, but the prosecution claims that the defendant drove while intoxicated earlier. People v. Solmonson illustrates that distinction.

Police in Solmonson found the defendant unconscious in the driver’s seat of a vehicle at approximately 3:45 a.m. The engine was off, but it was still warm, the keys were in the ignition, the defendant was alone, and other surrounding circumstances supported the prosecution’s claim that he had driven there while intoxicated. The Court of Appeals held that circumstantial evidence could support a finding of earlier operation even though the defendant was not presently operating the vehicle when police found him. People v. Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 660-663; 683 NW2d 761 (2004).

Now consider the same problem in the era of Flock cameras. Police find an intoxicated person asleep in a parked vehicle at 3:05 a.m. Nobody saw that person driving. But an automated license plate reader photographed the same vehicle several miles away at 2:37 a.m.

That observation may eliminate an important uncertainty by providing objective evidence that the vehicle itself was traveling shortly before the police encounter. When combined with evidence that the accused was alone, possessed the keys, was sitting in the driver’s seat, made statements about where he or she had been, or was found with a recently operated vehicle, the Flock record could significantly strengthen the prosecution’s circumstantial proof of operation.

For this reason, Flock evidence is likely to benefit law enforcement more often than defendants when historical operation is disputed. But it still does not answer every question, particularly the identity of the person who was driving when the vehicle passed the camera.

What Can Flock Evidence Show, and What Still Has to Be Proved?

Flock Camera Records Can Also Help the Defense

Objective electronic evidence does not belong exclusively to the prosecution. The same records that corroborate a police theory can sometimes expose weaknesses in it.

Suppose police contend that a defendant drove directly from a bar to the location where officers later found the vehicle. A broader series of Flock observations might establish a different route, a different timeline, or a stop at another location. That location might lead to conventional surveillance video, witnesses, receipts, or other evidence bearing on who was actually driving.

A Flock record can also test statements in police reports. If an officer’s reconstruction of where a vehicle traveled is inconsistent with objective timestamped observations, the discrepancy may affect the reliability of other conclusions drawn during the investigation.

The absence of a Flock observation must be approached much more cautiously. As the federal court recognized in Robinson, incomplete camera coverage means that failure to obtain a hit does not necessarily establish that a vehicle was absent from an area.

The defense therefore should not ask only whether police obtained a Flock hit. The more important question is what the complete available record shows.

How Long Does Flock Keep License Plate Data?

The answer can vary by agency and contract, and that makes categorical assumptions dangerous. Flock historically used a 30-day standard retention period, subject to different state, local, or customer policies.

On August 13, 2026, Flock announced that it was changing its recommended default to seven days and introducing an “Evidence Mode” that allows specified ALPR data to be preserved for an active investigation. Flock also stated that existing customers would keep their currently approved retention periods unless they elected to change them.

Flock’s Evidence Policy states that LPR data is permanently deleted and irretrievable after the applicable customer retention period expires. Because the actual period can vary, the practical lesson for a criminal case is simple: determine the applicable retention policy rather than assuming that evidence will still be available later.

Can a Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Obtain Flock Records?

Potentially, although the legal route depends on the circumstances. The pending Genesee County lawsuit concerns public access under FOIA. A criminal defendant’s discovery rights arise from different law.

Michigan Court Rule 6.201 governs criminal discovery. Depending on how Flock information was used, who controls the records, and how the evidence relates to the charged case, obtaining the complete material may require ordinary criminal discovery, a specific discovery motion, a subpoena where allowed by the court, a preservation request, or another procedural mechanism.

The fact that a police report summarizes a Flock result does not necessarily mean the summary contains everything relevant to the defense. Counsel may need to determine whether the underlying image, metadata, additional observations, search information, audit records, interagency access information, or preservation history is material to the issues in the case.

What Should the Defense Examine When Police Rely on Flock?

The precise inquiry will depend on the case, but several recurring questions can determine how much weight a Flock result deserves:

• What exact image or observation generated the police interest?
• What plate number or vehicle characteristics were used in the search?
• Was the plate an exact match, a partial match, or part of a broader vehicle-description search?
• What was the exact timestamp and camera location?
• What did the image itself show?
• Did an officer independently verify the plate or vehicle before acting?
• Were there other Flock observations of the same vehicle before or after the event?
• Were potentially relevant nearby roads outside the camera network?
• Which law-enforcement agencies had access to the data?
• What records existed concerning the search, access, or sharing of the information?
• What retention period applied, and was any data separately preserved?

These questions are particularly important when police use a Flock result as part of the justification for a stop or arrest, when identity is contested, or when a prosecutor relies on the data to reconstruct vehicle movement.

Does Police Use of Flock Cameras Violate the Fourth Amendment?

There is no single answer applicable to every use of automated license plate reader technology. Michigan precedent establishes that a person generally does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate exposed to public view, and police may run an observed plate through a law-enforcement database without first developing individualized suspicion. Also, the Fourth Amendment only applies to state action, not to private companies.

Broader use of a camera network to assemble vehicle-location information over time presents different questions, and the constitutional law surrounding modern location technology continues to develop. A particular criminal case may not require resolution of that larger surveillance question, however.

A more immediate issue often exists: even assuming police lawfully obtained the Flock information, is it “discoverable,” what did that information actually establish, and was it sufficient when combined with everything else known to the officer to justify the resulting stop, search, seizure, or arrest?

That analysis should focus on the facts known at the time police acted, not simply on the fact that an automated system generated a result.

What Police Technology Proves Matters More Than What the Technology Is Called

Flock cameras are part of a larger change in criminal investigation. Police increasingly can combine automated license plate data with body-camera footage, conventional surveillance video, phone records, databases, witness statements, and other forms of digital evidence.

More technology does not eliminate the need for careful analysis. It can increase it. Each electronic observation establishes certain facts, leaves other questions unanswered, and may lead investigators to additional inferences that need to be tested separately.

In a Michigan DUI case, a Flock observation may substantially strengthen circumstantial evidence of earlier operation when police never saw the accused drive. In another criminal case, a Flock result may provide an investigative lead without independently proving identity or probable cause. In still another case, additional ALPR records may undermine the prosecution’s timeline or point toward evidence favorable to the defense.

The important question is therefore not simply whether police used Flock. It is what the underlying evidence actually proves.

Frequently Asked Questions About Flock Cameras and Michigan Criminal Cases

Can a Flock camera prove that I was driving?

Not necessarily. A Flock record may establish that a particular vehicle was photographed at a particular location and time. The identity of the driver is a separate evidentiary question that may depend on other facts.

Can police stop my car because of a Flock alert?

Potentially. Whether the stop is lawful depends on what information the alert actually provided, its reliability and timing, what the officer independently observed or verified, and the totality of the information known when the vehicle was stopped.

Can Flock evidence be used to prove operation in a Michigan DUI case?

Yes. Flock evidence may become particularly important when an intoxicated person is discovered in a stationary or parked vehicle and nobody witnessed the earlier driving. Evidence that the vehicle was traveling shortly before police contact can strengthen the prosecution’s circumstantial proof, although the observation does not necessarily establish who was driving.

Can Flock evidence help the defense?

Yes. Additional records may contradict a police timeline, establish a different route, lead to other surveillance or witnesses, or expose assumptions in an investigation. The defense should evaluate the complete available evidence rather than only the observation selected by police.

How long does Flock keep license plate information?

Retention periods can vary. Flock announced in August 2026 that it was changing its recommended default from 30 days to seven days while allowing existing customers to retain approved policies and permitting specified information to be preserved for active investigations. The policy applicable to the particular agency should be determined in each case.

Should Flock evidence be investigated quickly?

Potentially, yes. When information is subject to a short retention period, potentially useful records may disappear before a criminal case reaches later stages of discovery. Early investigation can therefore be important when ALPR evidence may bear on identification, operation, location, or the legality of police conduct.

Michigan Criminal Cases Involving Flock Evidence Require Careful Investigation

When Flock data contributes to a Michigan arrest or prosecution, the existence of an electronic record does not end the inquiry. The defense should determine what the camera actually recorded, what police searched for, what information was available, whether the result supported the action police took, and whether additional records tell a different story.

This can be particularly important in DUI cases involving disputed operation, sleeping motorists, parked vehicles, crashes, or circumstances in which nobody actually observed the accused driving. It can also matter in firearm, theft, assault, drug, homicide, and other investigations where police rely on vehicle location or identification.

The Michigan criminal defense attorneys at Barone Defense Firm defend serious criminal and DUI cases throughout Michigan. Our approach is to examine the original evidence and test the inferences drawn from it rather than simply accepting the government’s characterization of what the technology supposedly proves.

For a confidential consultation, call Barone Defense Firm at 248-306-9158 or 1-877-ALL-MICH.

About Patrick T. Barone

Patrick T. Barone is the founding attorney of Barone Defense Firm and has practiced criminal and DUI defense for more than three decades. He is the author of five books, including Defending Drinking Drivers, and is an IACP/NHTSA-certified Standardized Field Sobriety Test instructor and practitioner who has been judicially qualified as an SFST expert.

Mr. Barone’s undergraduate education included biology on a pre-medical track. He is also Board Certified as a Trainer, Educator, and Practitioner in psychodrama, sociometry, and group psychotherapy through the American Board of Examiners, has been recognized in Michigan Super Lawyers continuously since 2007, and has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America.

Sources and Endnotes

1. Tewolde v. Genesee County, Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, complaint filed Aug. 18, 2026.
2. MCL 257.35a and MCL 257.625, Michigan Vehicle Code.
3. People v. Jones, 260 Mich App 424, 427-429; 678 NW2d 627 (2004).
4. Robinson v. White, No. 4:23-cv-12676, slip op at 9-12 (ED Mich, Oct. 25, 2024).
5. People v. Wood, 450 Mich 399, 404-405; 538 NW2d 351 (1995).
6. People v. Burton, 252 Mich App 130, 143-145; 651 NW2d 143 (2002).
7. People v. Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 660-663; 683 NW2d 761 (2004).
8. City of Plymouth v. Longeway, 296 Mich App 1, 7-9; 818 NW2d 419 (2012).
9. MCR 6.201, Discovery, Michigan Court Rules.
10. Garrett Langley, Flock Updates Privacy, Accountability, Security, and Transparency Safeguards, Flock Safety, Aug. 13, 2026.
11. Flock Evidence Policy, Flock Safety.