By: Mike Koury | Woodward Talk | Published December 10, 2025
FERNDALE — A decision on a new automated license plate reader system will be postponed until Ferndale has held a community meeting on the topic.
At its Nov. 24 meeting, the Ferndale City Council discussed a potential company to take over as the new partner for the Police Department’s ALPR cameras.
Ferndale and its Police Department previously partnered with Flock Safety for its ALPR program, but they decided to end the relationship after policy changes on the company’s end allowed federal agencies to access their information and outcry from the local community.
At the meeting, Police Chief Dennis Emmi highlighted why the use of ALPR had been successful for the department and helped solve crimes. The Ferndale Police Department has been operating without ALPR technology since Nov. 13.
“Understanding the importance of this technology and the potential delays associated with the approval process — as well as installation — we needed to move quickly to minimize the impact on our ability to solve crime,” he said.
The department looked at four companies to become its next ALPR provider: Axon, Genetec, Motorola and Rekor. Axon currently provides Ferndale police with technology such as body-worn and in-car cameras and was the company that Emmi recommended to City Council.
According to Emmi, Axon only allows sharing on a one-to-one basis, is only available to law enforcement and the company doesn’t have access to department data.
If approved, the ALPR program would be funded with drug forfeiture funds. For nine cameras at a cost of $2,465.95 per camera, each year would cost $27,741.90. As the first year of a five-year contract would be deferred, the total cost of the deal would be $110,967.60.
City Manager Colleen O’Toole explained the preference for Axon.
“In our research of these alternatives, it was definitely clear that Axon was the sole provider that aligned most directly with the goals that we were aiming to accomplish in our existing policies, being that we had ownership and control over the data, that we had no third-party access to the data and gave us the most concrete controls over avoiding things in the future like facial recognition technology, human analytics or real-time monitoring,” O’Toole said
That said, Ferndale residents in attendance at the meeting were unhappy and uncomfortable with the speed at which the city was moving in choosing a new ALPR provider.
Andrea Popovic voiced her support for the Police Department and the value of community-based policing, but she felt the proposal was disappointing.
Popovic said the city just ended its partnership with Flock because of data sharing and privacy concerns.
“That is a serious breach and it shows how easily these tools shift away from protecting and towards surveillance of citizens rather than for them,” she said. “Given that experience, the speed of this new proposal is concerning. We ended Flock only weeks ago and in about a month the department has vetted four new vendors, selected one, obtained a detailed quote and is now asking for an approval of a new five-year contract agreement. A contract that newly elected council members whom residents just chose will have no say in. That feels rushed.”
Popovic continued to say that speed should not be the priority and that trust, transparency and accountability should be.
“ALPRs may help solve crimes, but they also create vast logs of movement data about every single one of us,” she said. “History shows how often that kind of data is misused, breached or shared outside of its original purpose. All I’m asking is that we slow down, allow the new council to weigh in. Let the community fully understand what we are signing up for, and please do not lock Ferndale into a long-term surveillance system just weeks after leaving one that exposed us to harm.”
The timeline and speed at which a new provider was proposed was a major concern, not only from residents but members of council such as Rolanda Kelley. The Nov. 24 meeting took place 11 days after the department announced it was severing its relationship with Flock.
Emmi said he didn’t want to waste any time because of how important they value the ALPR technology.
“We cannot abandon emerging technologies when it comes to law enforcement,” he said. “We have to hold ourselves accountable, and I will hold ourselves accountable. I’m not happy with the last vendor. … We were trying to keep a seamless transition. When I realized that it wasn’t going to be possible, I didn’t want to waste any time. I don’t want to waste your time. I don’t want to waste my time or the community’s time. It was time to pivot and find a better option. And a lot of our engagement said to do that, said, ‘Find a better option for me, Chief.’ So, I did that and I did it as quickly as possible because I think it’s important. So, that is my reasoning for a somewhat compressed timeline, but there’s just truly only so many vendors out there within our price point to accomplish what we need.”
The city decided to postpone a vote on Axon as its ALPR provider and will hold a community conversation this week for input. It will be held at 6 p.m. Friday, Dec. 12, at City Hall, 300 E. Nine Mile Road.
Mayor Raylon Leaks-May told the Woodward Talk that the community is split on the use of this technology. She said there will be a facilitator present at the meeting to hear everyone’s concerns and guide the conversation, and there will be a vote on the ALPRs that will come before council at the Dec. 15 meeting.
As of right now, Leaks-May is for the use of the ALPR program.
“We already have our relationship with Axon. The police have used this technology responsibly, even when it was under the Flock contract. Flock wasn’t the right company for us, but it seems like our police are really asking to be able to have this technology to assist them in solving cases, not preventing cases,” she said. “It is not a preventative tool, but to help them solve, and it’s something that I’ve always believed that technology can assist with cases and even saving lives in some instances. So, I am for it, but really what it comes down to is a council decision.”