Detroit Police Scanner Deep Dive: A Tale of Two Michigan Cities
Detroit and Grand Rapids tell two different stories about police transparency in Michigan. Detroit—the state's largest city—encrypted in 2020 and is moving toward complete CJIS-compliant encryption. Meanwhile, Grand Rapids—Michigan's second-largest city—maintains open police communications with zero documented safety incidents. The contrast proves that encryption is a policy choice, not a federal mandate.
The Michigan Paradox: Same State, Different Choices
Detroit (Encrypted)
- Population: 640,000
- Encrypted since 2020
- Wayne County Sheriff encrypted
- CJIS compliance cited as reason
- Complex police-community history
Grand Rapids (Open)
- Population: 200,000
- Maintains open communications
- Kent County Sheriff largely open
- Same CJIS rules apply
- Zero documented safety incidents
Both cities operate under the same federal CJIS requirements. One encrypted; one didn't. The difference is policy, not law.
Understanding CJIS: The Encryption Justification
Michigan agencies cite FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy as the reason for encryption. But the reality is more nuanced than departments often admit.
What CJIS Actually Requires
When Criminal Justice Information (CJI)—such as NCIC data, criminal histories, or protected personal information—is transmitted over radio outside a secure facility, it must be encrypted.
What CJIS Does NOT Require
The FBI policy does not require every word over the radio to be encrypted. Routine dispatch traffic, location updates, and calls for service can remain open if they don't contain CJIS-protected data.
What Departments Choose
Many departments choose full encryption rather than implementing selective encryption. It's administratively simpler—but it eliminates all public access, not just protected information.
The Hybrid Alternative
Departments can keep main dispatch open while encrypting channels used for CJIS data. Grand Rapids and other agencies prove this is operationally feasible.
The May 2025 Guidance
In May 2025, Michigan State Police told all CJIS user agencies that dissemination of CJI over radio must meet federal encryption standards. But this guidance doesn't mandate full encryption—it requires protecting specific sensitive data types. The distinction matters.
What Must Be Encrypted (And What Doesn't)
Understanding the actual CJIS requirements reveals how much transparency could be preserved:
Must Be Encrypted
- Criminal history records
- Social Security numbers
- Full dates of birth tied to criminal records
- Driver's license numbers linked to cases
- Biometric data (fingerprints, facial recognition)
- Detailed case histories from databases
Can Remain Open
- Initial dispatch calls for service
- Unit locations and status
- General incident descriptions
- Traffic stops (without database queries)
- Fire and EMS dispatch
- Routine patrol communications
The CJIS policy protects specific sensitive data—not all police communications. Departments that encrypt everything are making a choice that exceeds federal requirements.
Metro Detroit Encryption Status
The Detroit metropolitan area is in transition, with different counties and agencies at various stages of encryption:
| Agency | Status | Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detroit Police Department | Encrypted | 640K | State's largest; encrypted 2020 |
| Michigan State Police | Encrypted | Statewide | Fully encrypted since 2019 |
| Wayne County Sheriff | Encrypted | 1.8M | Detroit metro; encrypted 2021 |
| Oakland County Sheriff | Encrypted | 1.3M | Encryption completed; P25 system |
| Livonia Police | Encrypted | 95K | Early adopter of encryption |
| Canton Police | Encrypted | 98K | Early adopter of encryption |
| Ann Arbor Police | Partial | 120K | University town; partial encryption |
| Macomb County | Partial | 880K | In transition; varies by agency |
| Sterling Heights Police | Partial | 135K | Macomb County; mixed status |
| Southfield Police | Partial | 75K | Recently moved to P25 standard |
Grand Rapids: The Transparency Model
While Detroit encrypted, Grand Rapids demonstrates that Michigan's second-largest city can maintain open police communications under the same federal CJIS requirements.
Open Communications
Grand Rapids Police Department maintains largely open radio communications. Kent County Sheriff is also largely accessible. The region proves transparency works in major Michigan cities.
Same Rules Apply
Grand Rapids operates under the same FBI CJIS Security Policy as Detroit. They've found ways to protect sensitive data without eliminating all public access.
Zero Safety Incidents
Despite maintaining open scanners, Grand Rapids has zero documented cases of criminals using scanner access to harm officers or evade police. The safety argument doesn't hold.
Community Trust
Open communications contribute to police-community relations. Grand Rapids shows that transparency can coexist with effective law enforcement.
Michigan Encryption Timeline
Impact on Detroit Communities
Local Media
The Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, and local TV stations have lost real-time scanner access. Breaking news coverage relies entirely on official police statements.
Police-Community Relations
Detroit has a complex history of police-community relations, including federal oversight in the past. Encryption reduces opportunities for independent monitoring and accountability.
Emergency Awareness
Detroit experiences significant crime challenges. Without scanner access, residents have no real-time information about active incidents in their neighborhoods.
Explosion Incident Example
Supporters of scanner access cite past incidents where journalists heard about a major explosion that destroyed homes via scanner traffic, enabling quick public alerts. Such real-time coverage is no longer possible.
Social Media Dependency
Without scanner access, residents increasingly rely on unverified social media posts for incident information. This creates misinformation risks that scanner access would have prevented.
ACLU Engagement
The ACLU of Michigan has been active on Detroit police accountability issues, including a 2024 agreement on facial recognition technology. Scanner encryption further limits independent oversight.
The MPSCS System
Understanding Michigan's statewide radio infrastructure helps explain encryption decisions:
Statewide P25 System
The Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS) is a P25 digital trunked system covering most of the state. State Police, Detroit, and Macomb County operate on MPSCS.
Encryption Capability
MPSCS supports encryption but doesn't require it. As of early 2026, MSP and Wayne County Sheriff were encrypted while Detroit was technically still "in the clear" on MPSCS—though planning to encrypt.
Grand Rapids Exception
Grand Rapids shows that P25 systems can operate without encryption. The technology enables encryption; policy decisions determine whether to use it.
Monitoring Options
Services like OpenMHz maintain feeds of accessible MPSCS traffic. When channels encrypt, these feeds go silent—demonstrating the real-time loss of access.
What Michiganders Can Do
If you're a Michigan resident, journalist, or community member concerned about scanner encryption:
- Point to Grand Rapids: Every advocacy conversation should reference Grand Rapids. Michigan's second-largest city operates under the same CJIS rules with open scanners. This proves full encryption isn't required.
- Challenge CJIS Misrepresentations: When agencies claim "the FBI requires encryption," push back with the actual policy. CJIS requires protecting specific sensitive data—not encrypting all communications.
- Engage the Michigan Encryption Work Group: Michigan has an Encryption Work Group addressing these issues. Participate in the process and advocate for transparency-preserving approaches.
- Contact State Legislators: Push for state legislation requiring transparency provisions when agencies encrypt. Michigan law could establish hybrid encryption standards.
- Protect Open Communities: If your Michigan community hasn't encrypted, engage local officials now. West Michigan and rural areas have more open communications—prevention is easier than reversal.
- File Public Records Requests: Michigan's Freedom of Information Act applies to radio communications. Request documentation of encryption decisions and policies.
- Support Local Journalism: Subscribe to outlets covering police accountability. With scanner access gone, independent journalism is more important than ever.
- Document Impact: When encryption affects emergency awareness, news coverage, or community safety, document and publicize these examples.
Take Action for Transparency
Your voice matters. Here are concrete ways to advocate for open police communications in your community.
Contact Your Representatives
Use our templates to email your local officials about police radio encryption policies.
Get StartedRead Case Studies
See how encryption has affected real communities - from Highland Park to Chicago.
View CasesSpread Awareness
Share evidence about police radio encryption with your network and community.
Public Testimony
Learn how to speak effectively at city council and public safety meetings.
Prepare to SpeakRelated Resources
Sources & Further Reading
- Michigan News Source: "Detroit To Hit the Mute Button as Police Encryption Spreads Across Michigan"
- C&G News: "Scanners go silent: Encryption blocks civilians from hearing police comms"
- Dave Bondy Substack: "Police scanner encryption spreading across metro Detroit"
- RadioReference.com: Wayne County and Detroit Metro Area scanner frequencies
- Michigan Encryption Work Group documentation
- FBI CJIS Security Policy requirements
- OpenMHz: MPSCS system feeds
- ACLU of Michigan: Detroit police accountability reporting