Privacy Concerns:

Flock Cameras and Colorado's Surveillance Dilemma

In Colorado, the rapid deployment of Flock Safety cameras by law enforcement agencies has sparked intense debate over privacy and constitutional rights. These automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems, installed in communities like Denver, Montrose, and Grand Junction, capture vehicle details including plates, make, model, and color. Proponents argue they aid in solving crimes such as auto theft. However, critics, including the ACLU of Colorado, contend that the network enables mass surveillance without citizen consent, potentially violating fundamental rights.

The Absence of Consent

At the heart of the concerns is the lack of consent. Flock cameras operate 24/7, tracking vehicles on public roads without warrants or individual suspicion. This creates a "vehicle footprint" that maps citizens' movements, from daily commutes to visits to sensitive locations like clinics or places of worship. In Denver, where over 100 cameras are deployed, data is stored for 30 days and shared across a national network, allowing searches by agencies nationwide. Residents are not notified or asked for permission, leading to what advocates call an erosion of privacy expectations. The ACLU warns that this chills First Amendment rights, as people may avoid public gatherings or protests fearing surveillance.

Constitutional Ramifications

Constitutional ramifications loom large, particularly under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Federal lawsuits, such as one against Norfolk, Virginia, argue that ALPR systems like Flock's enable warrantless tracking, akin to prolonged GPS monitoring ruled unconstitutional in cases like United States v. Carpenter. A judge in that case allowed the suit to proceed, noting societal expectations of privacy are violated by such systems. In Colorado, similar issues arise. Audit logs from Denver revealed over 1,400 searches for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since June 2024, despite state laws restricting local aid in federal immigration enforcement. This data sharing raises questions of due process violations and potential entrapment of immigrant communities, infringing on equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

A Twist in Immigration Enforcement

While privacy advocates raise alarms, a key aspect is how Flock cameras support enforcement of federal immigration laws. Illegal entry into the United States violates 8 U.S.C. § 1325, making it a criminal offense for the first improper entry or attempt, punishable by fines or up to six months in prison. Those who enter unlawfully are thus criminals under this statute from the outset. Flock's system aids in identifying such violations through data sharing, as seen in a pilot program with U.S. Customs and Border Protection that granted access to local agency data, including from Loveland Police. This facilitated thousands of immigration-related searches, including on Denver's data, before the city opted out of the national network in April 2025. Supporters argue this upholds the rule of law, though critics contend it skirts Colorado's prohibitions on aiding federal enforcement, exposing communities to risks without adequate oversight. There is a fine line in the use of the information provided by the Flock cameras as it crosses the line on surveillance of citizens as well as criminal illegal aliens. While citizens are entitled to full constitutional protections, illegal immigrants are afforded only limited due process protections. Then there is the issue of the Supremacy Clause, of which Colorado under Democrat left-wing control, believes doesn't exist. 

Civil Rights Violations

The technology's expansion to include AI-driven searches for vehicle features or even occupants amplifies risks of errors. In Colorado, where Flock integrates with departments statewide, unchecked access could lead to abuses, such as stalking or harassment by rogue officers. Proposed state legislation, like Senate Bill 26-070, aims to mitigate this by requiring warrants for data searches in many cases and limiting storage to four days. Another bill would mandate judicial oversight for Flock database queries, reflecting lawmakers' recognition of these threats.

Legal Ramifications for Citizens

Legal ramifications for citizens are profound. Without reforms, individuals could face wrongful arrests from faulty reads or data breaches, leading to civil lawsuits against municipalities. Denver's city council unanimously rejected a contract extension in May 2025 due to these issues, though Mayor Mike Johnston later extended it unilaterally, prompting outcry over democratic processes. Statewide, violations of the Colorado Privacy Act or open records laws could result in fines or injunctions. Broader federal scrutiny, including from the Institute for Justice, highlights how Flock's national network bypasses local safeguards, potentially exposing Coloradans to out-of-state surveillance.

Balancing Safety and Liberty

As Colorado grapples with balancing safety and liberty, the Flock network underscores a slippery slope toward pervasive monitoring. Citizens must demand transparency and accountability to safeguard their rights against this unchecked digital dragnet.

Just one man’s humble opinion.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of 5, grandfather of 3, USAF Veteran, recording artist, entrepreneur, Editor of USA Liberty Report, passionate about Freedom, Liberty, the founders’ genius of the Constitution and current Candidate for Montrose City Council.