Kzoo police shut down immigration-related use of license plate readers
The Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety released a statement Friday confirming the agency blocked outside access to its cameras:
'The Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety was recently made aware of nationwide License Plate Recognition (LPR) camera searches being conducted by outside law enforcement agencies focused on immigration-related violations. Once we learned that our city was being listed in these searches, we made the decision to suspend all external law enforcement access to our LPR cameras, except for local public safety partners within Kalamazoo County.
'This action reflects our continued commitment to ensuring these tools are used in a way that aligns with our city's values. KDPS is and will remain a department that all members of the community can trust and feel safe contacting. Protecting that trust is essential to our mission of serving everyone in the City of Kalamazoo with fairness, respect, and accountability.'
A statement released by the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety read
Several West Michigan police agencies, including Grand Rapids, have Flock Safety cameras installed in their jurisdictions. The system automatically reads and records license plates.
The agencies have defended their use of LPRs amid privacy concerns, arguing the system keeps communities safer by preventing and solving crime.
They've also said they do not use the cameras for immigration-related investigations.
The Grand Rapids Police Department released a statement from Police Chief Eric Winstrom Friday addressing the issue:
'I want to assure our community that GRPD does not utilize license plate readers (LPRs) to conduct immigration-related investigations. A GRPD officer has been falsely identified on social media as conducting searches related to immigration enforcement actions. We are not the source of this document, and are unable to verify its origin, but can confirm no GRPD officers are using license plate readers to engage in immigration-related activity.
'This would be in direct conflict with our policy which states in part: The GRPD is neither responsible for, nor has the authority to, enforce federal civil immigration laws used to detain or remove undocumented immigrants from the United States. This means that the GRPD does not serve as a civil immigration enforcement agency for the federal government. The department does not take on the responsibility of performing immigration functions unrelated to investigating and enforcing criminal violations.'
White House puts out list of 500 'sanctuary jurisdictions'
A statement released by Grand Rapids Police Chief Eric Winstrom read
The statements come one week after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security listed and counties among 500 'sanctuary jurisdictions' nationwide.
Both counties refuted that designation.
DHS has since from its website.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
Teenage girl injured in Knoxville shooting
A teenage girl was injured in a shooting in Pittsburgh's Knoxville neighborhood on Sunday night. Pittsburgh Police say officers were dispatched to the area of E. Amanda Avenue around 10 p.m. on Sunday after receiving a 10-round ShotSpotter alert. Police say when officers responded to the scene, they found a 16-year-old girl who had been shot in the left arm. A teenage girl was injured in a late-night shooting along Zara Street in Pittsburgh's Knoxville neighborhood. KDKA Photojournalist Damian Catanza The girl was taken to the hospital by medics and was last listed in stable condition, police said. Police say that the Mobile Crime Unit arrived to process the scene and officers found shell casings in the area of E. Amanda Avenue and Rochelle Street. Detectives from the Violent Crime Unit are leading the investigation into the shooting.
Washington Post
18 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Pennsylvania man accused of beheading father and posting video of his severed head to stand trial
DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — A Pennsylvania man accused of killing his father and posting video of his severed head online — and calling for others to help him try to overthrow the U.S. government — is set to stand trial Monday in the Philadelphia suburbs. Justin D. Mohn, 33, faces charges of murder, abuse of a corpse, terrorism related crimes and other offenses for the 2024 killing of Michael F. Mohn at the Levittown home where they lived with the defendant's mother. She found her husband's body in a bathroom. Prosecutors have said Justin Mohn shot his father with a newly purchased pistol, then decapitated him with a kitchen knife and machete. The 14-minute YouTube video was live for several hours before it was removed. Mohn was armed with a handgun when arrested later that day after allegedly climbing a 20-foot (6-meter) fence at Fort Indiantown Gap, the state's National Guard headquarters. He had hoped to get the soldiers to 'mobilize the Pennsylvania National Guard to raise arms against the federal government,' Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn said at a news conference last year. Mohn had a USB device containing photos of federal buildings and apparent instructions for making explosives when arrested, authorities have said. He also had expressed violent anti-government rhetoric in writings he published online, and the YouTube video included rants about the government, immigration and the border, fiscal policy, urban crime and the war in Ukraine. Mohn's defense attorney, Steven M. Jones, said last week he did not anticipate the case being resolved with a plea deal. Michael Mohn, who was 68, had been an engineer with the geoenvironmental section of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the video, Justin Mohn described his father as a 20-year federal employee and called him a traitor. During a competency hearing last year, a defense expert said Mohn wrote a letter to Russia's ambassador to the United States seeking a deal to give Mohn refuge and apologizing to President Vladimir Putin for claiming to be the czar of Russia.
Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
BOSTON (AP) — A federal bench trial begins Monday over a lawsuit that challenges a Trump administration campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other political activities. The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Donald Trump and members of his administration, would be one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. 'The policy's effects have been swift. Noncitizen students and faculty across the United States have been terrified into silence,' the plaintiffs wrote in their pretrial brief. 'Students and faculty are avoiding political protests, purging their social media, and withdrawing from public engagement with groups associated with pro-Palestinian viewpoints,' they wrote. 'They're abstaining from certain public writing and scholarship they would otherwise have pursued. They're even self-censoring in the classroom.' Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies. Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities. Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war. Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.' The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.' 'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.' They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically.' But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests. 'Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it,' plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.'
