High Country Advocate Staff Report
As law enforcement agencies embrace automated license plate readers, concerns mount over accuracy, privacy, and the Fourth Amendment
Across Colorado and throughout the nation, a network of automated cameras is quietly building a massive database of vehicle movements—capturing not just license plates, but creating what civil liberties advocates warn is an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure operating without warrant requirements or meaningful oversight.
Flock Safety cameras, now deployed in Colorado Springs, Denver, Durango, Lakewood, Castle Rock, Boulder, and other Colorado communities, are part of a system that performs over 20 billion vehicle scans monthly across 5,000 communities in 49 states. The technology has become a cornerstone of modern policing, but mounting evidence suggests it may come at a steep cost to constitutional protections and accuracy.
Beyond License Plates: What Flock Really Captures
Flock Safety markets its cameras as license plate readers, but the systems capture far more. Using artificial intelligence, the cameras identify vehicles’ make, model, color, bumper stickers, roof racks, and other distinguishing features. While Flock states the cameras don’t capture identifying information about drivers, the comprehensive vehicle profiles they create can effectively track individuals’ movements.
Even more concerning, Flock was developing a product called Nova in May 2025 that would supplement license plate data with information from data breaches, public records, and commercially available data to track specific individuals without warrants. Though Flock later denied they would supply data from breaches, the controversy highlighted the expanding scope of private surveillance technology available to law enforcement.
In Arapahoe County alone, the system generated 60,000 “hot list hits” in one year, including 54,000 stolen plates, 5,000 stolen vehicles, 470 felony warrants, 110 missing persons, and 33 vehicles used in felony crimes. Proponents argue these numbers demonstrate the technology’s crime-fighting value.
The Accuracy Problem: When Cameras Get It Wrong
Studies reveal alarming error rates for license plate readers, with misread rates between 10% and 35% depending on conditions. The consequences of these errors can be severe and sometimes dangerous.
In Española, New Mexico, a Flock camera mistakenly identified a car as stolen because it confused the number 2 for a 7, possibly due to a license plate cover. Two sisters were held at gunpoint and handcuffed as a result. In Toledo, a misread contributed to a Black man being mauled by a police K-9 after a traffic stop.
Colorado has seen its own problems. A Colorado woman was wrongly accused of theft when Columbine Valley police used Flock cameras that incorrectly placed her vehicle at a crime scene, demonstrating how technological errors can upend innocent lives.
When deputies receive alerts from Flock cameras, the notification doesn’t provide probable cause for arrest—officers must still verify information with dispatch. But the initial stops based on faulty data have already occurred, and the encounters have already escalated.
Constitutional Collision: The Fourth Amendment Debate
The legal landscape surrounding Flock cameras remains fractured and contentious. In June 2024, a Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled that collecting location data from the city’s 172 Flock cameras constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and cannot be used as evidence without a warrant. The judge drew on the Supreme Court’s 2018 Carpenter v. United States decision, which required warrants to obtain cell phone location data.
However, in October 2025, a Virginia Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that “a person driving his vehicle on a public street with his license plate in plain view has no reasonable expectation of privacy.” This position aligns with appellate and federal district courts in at least fourteen states and the 9th and 11th Circuits, which have upheld license plate reader evidence as constitutional without warrant requirements.
The split creates a patchwork of protections—or lack thereof—depending on where Americans happen to drive.
Currently, law enforcement agencies do not need warrants to query Flock systems. While some departments have implemented internal approval processes—requiring requests to go through supervisors or lieutenants—these represent administrative oversight, not judicial review. The distinction matters: internal policies can be changed at any time, while constitutional protections cannot.
Colorado’s Privacy Reckoning
Colorado communities have wrestled publicly with Flock’s implications. In May 2025, Denver City Council voted against extending a Flock contract due to privacy concerns, but Mayor Mike Johnston extended it anyway, highlighting the disconnect between public accountability and executive authority on surveillance decisions.
Boulder has taken a more restrictive approach, requiring supervisor approval for all data-sharing requests and maintaining strict audit trails. In June 2025, Boulder deactivated the “national lookup” feature, preventing out-of-state agencies from searching their system. It’s an acknowledgment that once data enters a network, controlling its use becomes nearly impossible.
The cameras’ placement has raised additional concerns. Flock cameras have been stationed outside abortion clinics, halfway houses, churches, mosques, and gun ranges—creating records of who visits sensitive locations that implicate First Amendment freedoms alongside Fourth Amendment protections.
The Insider Threat
The system’s vulnerability to abuse by those with authorized access poses another concern. In 2022, a lieutenant from the Kechi Police Department was arrested for illegally using the Wichita Police Department’s Flock system to track his estranged wife. In California, despite state law prohibiting sharing license plate reader data with federal agencies, several state and municipal law enforcement agencies did so anyway in 2025.
These incidents demonstrate that technological systems are only as trustworthy as the people operating them, and that policies restricting use are meaningless without enforcement and accountability.
Data Retention and the Surveillance State
Flock retains captured data for up to 30 days after information is first logged. In that window, the system creates a detailed record of vehicle movements across participating jurisdictions—a capability that historically would have required extensive physical surveillance and, likely, judicial authorization.
The 20 billion monthly scans create what civil liberties organizations characterize as warrantless mass surveillance. Unlike traditional policing, where officers must observe specific vehicles or obtain warrants based on probable cause, Flock cameras record everyone, everywhere they’re deployed, storing that information for later searches.
Looking Forward
As Flock cameras proliferate, the fundamental questions remain unresolved: Does the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches extend to the comprehensive tracking of vehicle movements on public roads? Should accessing this data require a warrant? How do we balance legitimate law enforcement needs against the risks of creating a surveillance infrastructure that could be abused?
Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU and Institute for Justice, are actively challenging these systems in multiple jurisdictions. The ultimate answers may come from the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, millions of Americans are being tracked daily by a system operating in a constitutional gray zone.
For Colorado residents, the cameras are already watching. Whether adequate protections exist to prevent that surveillance from becoming oppression remains an open question—one that deserves far more public debate than it has received.
Editor’s Note: This investigation reflects information current as of October 2025. Legal challenges to automated license plate reader systems remain pending in multiple jurisdictions.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 