Overview:
AI-powered Flock cameras are spreading across Colorado. Police call them crime-fighting tools, but critics say they threaten privacy.
For Denver resident Max Marshall, the cameras are impossible to ignore. Driving through the metro area, Marshall says it feels like Flock cameras are everywhere, quietly collecting data on the vehicles that pass below.
“The fact that there are as many cameras as there are specifically in the Denver Metro area,” Marshall said, “and they’re always on, always recording, always collecting data, specifically about where I go and what I do, is just horrible.”
Across Colorado, police departments are rapidly adopting automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, manufactured by Flock Safety, a $7.5 billion technology company. The solar-powerd cameras automatically scan passing license plates, alongside other identifying details, and upload the data to a searchable database used by law enforcement to help police locate specific cars.
Denver has installed roughly 111 Flock license plate readers along major roads since May 2024. Aurora has deployed about 114 cameras, while Douglas County has roughly three dozen and Jefferson County more than two dozen. Other municipalities, including Arvada, Golden, Thornton and Northglenn, have also installed their own networks.
For police officers like Eric Morales of the Castle Rock Police Department, the technology has become an important investigative tool.
“A lot of it is criminal-related,” Morales said. “We don’t look at it just to look at it. I think it is absolutely helpful, especially in the law enforcement community, because it allows us to actually do our jobs and get criminals off of the street.”
Denver officials say license plate reader cameras have helped recover more than 400 stolen vehicles, contributed to 16 homicide investigations and led to the removal of dozens of firearms in recent years. Morales explains that officers must follow strict policies when accessing the system.
“There’s a lot of policy that goes into it, and if we violate those policies, then we will get in trouble for it,” Morales said. “They train us on how to use the system and the ramifications that go beyond that if we do use it for personal use.”
But critics say the growing network of cameras amounts to mass surveillance. Marshall believes the cameras collect personal data without public consent.
“I don’t want my data floating around anywhere,” Marshall said. “These cameras are collecting my data without my consent, because I never said that I consent to my license plate being tracked everywhere I go.”
Concerns about surveillance grew after reports surfaced that federal agents were accessing license plate data gathered by local police departments. For instance, last year in Loveland, federal agencies, including ICE, accessed data collected by local Flock cameras via law enforcement databases, raising concerns about how the information could be used beyond local policing.
“It’s obviously going to get into the wrong hands at some point and be a total breach of privacy,” Marshall said. “I hope, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, we see the downfall of these cameras just as quickly as they popped up.”
Public outrage over the technology has begun to influence policy in Denver. On Feb. 24, Mayor Mike Johnston announced that the city plans to stop using its network of Flock Safety cameras after months of criticism from residents and civil liberties advocates.
Instead, the city plans to replace Flock with Axon, a competing provider of automated license plate reader technology that city officials say offers stronger privacy protections. “We’ve heard the community loud and clear, and it is time to make a change,” Johnston said in a statement announcing the move.
The new proposal would reduce Denver’s camera network from 111 cameras to about 50, at least initially. If the contract is approved by the Denver City Council, the city will pay Axon approximately $149,000 for one year of service.
The mayor said the change is meant to address the main concern he heard from residents: how long data is stored and who can access it. Under the proposed contract, license plate data would be retained for 21 days unless it is needed for an active investigation, and Axon would be required to comply with Colorado laws prohibiting data access for civil immigration enforcement or abortion-related investigations.
While Denver officials debate how the technology should be used locally, state lawmakers are also stepping in. State Sen. Judy Amabile, D-Boulder, is sponsoring Senate Bill 26-070, which would establish statewide rules for how police can use data collected by automated license plate readers. The bill recently passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee for further consideration.
“I do think they are a useful law enforcement tool and our car thefts are way down; our response to stolen vehicles is way better, and a lot of that has to do with these Flock cameras,” Amabile said. “There is a pull between what tech and law enforcement want and what the privacy advocates want, so we’re working to strike a balance.”
If passed, the legislation would create new rules for how law enforcement agencies store and access license plate data. The bill would require police to obtain a warrant to access historical location information collected by license plate readers, except in limited emergency situations. It would also limit data retention to 30 days, prohibit the sale of location data, restrict sharing with out-of-state agencies and require audits and public reporting of data access.
“It will give you some assurance that you won’t get swept up in some monitoring unless they have probable cause to believe you committed a crime,” Amabile said. “It’s putting some guardrails around how long you can keep the data and who can access the data, creating some paper trail of who accessed what data and requiring that if you want to do a longer-term investigation, you have to get a judicial warrant.”
For Marshall, however, the issue remains simple. He believes the rapid expansion of surveillance technology is happening faster than the public conversation about how it should be used.
“It’s just wrong,” he said. “Where I draw the line is when [the government] surveils without consent, and they don’t have the right to. There was no heads-up, no warning. I didn’t hear about it initially, and I definitely didn’t vote for it.”
