Oakland County approves 9‑month Flock drone pilot after heated debate and mass public opposition

Oakland County commissioners voted April 8 to approve a nine‑month pilot program with Flock Safety to test unmanned aerial systems and automated camera services for limited public‑safety uses.

The pilot—presented to the board as "Project Prove It" by the public health and safety committee—was approved after commissioners adopted an amendment that requires any subsequent contract to be brought to the full board under existing county procurement rules, prohibits the private vendor from retaining county "customer data" (the amendment says data shall remain the property of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office), and restricts drone deployments to officer‑generated calls for service, search and rescue and closely related responses. Commissioner Penny Lubs presented the program; Commissioner Hoffman offered the amendment that the board adopted (amendment vote reported 16–1). The final, amended pilot proposal passed in a later roll call (reported 13–4).

Why it mattered: The vote came after more than three hours of public comment, during which many residents, civic groups, students and faith leaders told the board they oppose new aerial and license‑plate surveillance. Speakers cited privacy risks, examples of misuse elsewhere, data‑sharing with federal agencies and the potential chilling effect on immigrants and protesters. Multiple speakers urged the board to spend county dollars on housing, legal aid and services rather than surveillance technology.

What supporters said: Commissioners and some advocates argued the pilot will help emergency responders access information more quickly and expand search‑and‑rescue capability. Supporters said the program is intended as a narrowly scoped trial, limited in time and subject to oversight.

What opponents said: Faith leaders, students, township officials and civil‑liberties groups said Flock and similar systems have been misused in other jurisdictions, that the companies’ data practices are insufficiently constrained, and that pilot language left too many operational and retention questions unresolved. Several public commenters urged the board to codify restrictions on immigration enforcement on county property and to fund legal aid and food assistance for residents affected by ICE activity.

Next steps: The pilot is due to run for nine months under the terms the board adopted; any extension or contract beyond the pilot will be subject to full board approval and the county’s procurement rules, per the amendment. Commissioners and staff also face requests from multiple municipal leaders for clearer, itemized data and written guarantees about data handling and access before any longer‑term arrangement.

Vote details: The amendment restricting data retention and requiring board approval for any future contract was adopted (vote reported 16–1). The main motion as amended was later recorded as adopted (vote reported 13–4).