All 12 criteria of the published standard, including
the 9 not yet examined. A criterion that has not been
assessed is shown as unexamined rather than omitted — otherwise a record
could look complete by leaving out the awkward questions.
-
01
No persistent mass ALPR program
Met The municipality does not operate a persistent automated license plate reader program that routinely records ordinary traffic and builds a searchable history of people’s movements.
Ordinance No. 1401 prohibits the installation or use of electronic license-plate scanning devices within the city. This is a direct prohibition in municipal law rather than a lapsed contract or a policy preference, which is the strongest form this criterion can take.
City of Ypsilanti, Michigan — checked Aug 14, 2026
-
02
No vendor workaround
Met The municipality has not simply replaced one platform with another providing substantially equivalent dragnet capability.
The ordinance is written against the device category — electronic license-plate scanning devices — rather than against a named vendor or product, so a rebranded system would not escape it.
City of Ypsilanti, Michigan — checked Aug 14, 2026
-
03
No routine access to another agency's dragnet
Not yet examined The municipality does not evade the standard by routinely querying regional, private, vendor, or neighbouring ALPR databases as a substitute for operating its own network.
Unexamined. A city prohibition on operating ALPRs does not by itself prevent its department from querying a county, regional, state, or vendor database operated by someone else. This is the single most likely way for an otherwise strong record to fail, and it must be resolved before any designation.
What would resolve it Mutual-aid agreements, regional fusion or task-force participation, vendor account access, department policy.
-
04
Targeted investigative exception only under defined lawful authority
Not yet examined Short-term or case-specific use is tied to individualized legal justification, a warrant or court order where required, or a tightly defined exigent circumstance documented by policy.
Unexamined. Whether the ordinance contains exceptions, and how any case-specific use is authorized and documented, has not been assessed.
What would resolve it Written department policy, authorization logs, ordinance text.
-
05
No persistent facial recognition or biometric identification of the public
Not yet examined No persistent facial-recognition or biometric identification system aimed at the general public.
Unexamined. Ordinance No. 1401 addresses license-plate scanning. It does not speak to facial recognition or other biometric identification, and no separate Ypsilanti provision has been reviewed.
What would resolve it Municipal code, department policy, technology inventory, procurement records.
-
06
No purchase of sensitive historical location data from data brokers
Not yet examined The municipality does not purchase sensitive historical location data to circumvent warrant or court-order requirements.
Unexamined. No procurement review has been conducted.
What would resolve it Procurement records, purchase orders, department policy.
-
07
Democratic control of new surveillance technology
Not yet examined New systems capable of identifying, tracking, or profiling the public require advance public notice, an impact and use policy, and approval by the elected legislative body or an equivalently accountable process.
Unexamined. Whether Ypsilanti requires advance public notice, a use policy, and legislative approval before adopting new surveillance technology generally — as distinct from banning one category — has not been assessed.
What would resolve it Surveillance-technology ordinance, council approval records.
-
08
Public surveillance technology inventory
Not yet examined The municipality publishes what surveillance technologies it uses and for what purpose.
Unexamined. No published inventory has been located.
What would resolve it Published inventory, currency of the most recent version.
-
09
Retention and deletion limits
Not yet examined Personally identifying surveillance data is minimized and deleted on defined schedules unless legitimately tied to a specific investigation or legal obligation.
Unexamined for surveillance data generally. A prohibition on one collection method does not establish retention rules for the data the city does collect.
What would resolve it Written retention schedule, department policy, contract terms.
-
10
Sharing controls
Not yet examined Sensitive data is not casually pooled, sold, or made broadly searchable by outside agencies; sharing rules and legal standards are public.
Unexamined.
What would resolve it Sharing configuration, data-sharing agreements, published policy.
-
11
Annual transparency reporting
Not yet examined The municipality publishes meaningful annual reports covering use, sharing, complaints, audits, policy violations, costs, and material changes.
Unexamined. No annual surveillance report has been located.
What would resolve it Published reports and whether they are current and substantive.
-
12
Function-over-brand protection
Met Policies apply to capabilities rather than vendor names, so future technology cannot bypass the spirit of the standard by changing product labels.
The ordinance regulates a device capability rather than a product name, satisfying this criterion for the ALPR category specifically. Whether the principle extends to surveillance technology generally is part of the democratic-control criterion, which remains unexamined.
City of Ypsilanti, Michigan — checked Aug 14, 2026