The polarizing debate over government surveillance technology has reached the Colorado Capitol.
State lawmakers are weighing a bill that would place new limits on how government agencies access and use data collected by automated license plate readers – cameras that log the movements of vehicles as they pass by – and would restrict government officials from sharing the data with outside jurisdictions, with some exceptions.
Senate Bill 70, sponsored by Boulder Democrat Sen. Judy Amabile and El Paso County Republican Sen. Lynda Zamora Wilson, would also require agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing the databases if more than 72 hours have passed since a crime.
The bill aims to strike an “appropriate balance” between allowing law enforcement to use the technology while also protecting citizens’ privacy, Wilson told lawmakers in February.
“The question to ask is ‘how frequently are our movements being captured?’ And ‘is it the role of the government to collect potentially sensitive movements of law-abiding citizens?’” Wilson said.
The proposal comes amid an intensifying fight across Colorado, where the rapid expansion of the technology has drawn alarm from civil liberties advocates about how long location data is stored and who has access to it. Critics, including many law enforcement officials, counter that the tools have become central to solving crimes quickly and that the restrictions the bill would impose could undercut investigations.
The debate playing out in Colorado mirrors a broader national reckoning over surveillance technology. A growing number of cities have deactivated Flock cameras or canceled contracts as officials wrestle with how to balance public safety tools with civil liberties. While law enforcement agencies have used automatic license plate readers, also known as ALPRs, for more than 20 years, privacy advocates warn that, without clear limits, the expanding technology can reveal intimate patterns about people’s lives, from medical visits to political activity.
The bipartisan bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February following about five hours of testimony and roughly 70 people speaking on either side.
Here is what to know about Senate Bill 70, which is headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday.
Supporters say the bill would not remove cameras from streets but would instead enact safeguards to ensure government officials use the technology for legitimate purposes.
“They currently have the ability to map where you sleep, where you worship, the doctor you visit, or what protest you attend, and that is deeply personal information,” Democratic Rep. Yara Zokaie, another sponsor, said during a February news conference on the Capitol steps.
“That data is, in many cases, managed by private companies. This information is automatically being collected on us, regardless of whether someone is suspected of violating a law.”
In Denver, cameras scan roughly two million license plates per month, Zokaie said. Statewide, there are more than 1,000 cameras, and nationally, companies such as Flock Safety operate more than 80,000.
“Coloradans need to know that their cars are being logged into multiple times a day, and I find that to be deeply invasive,” she said.
Advocates say the technology has been abused, pointing to a recent case in which a Columbine Valley police officer used surveillance footage from a Flock camera to wrongly accuse a Denver woman of stealing a $25 package last fall.
“In my world, an accusation of theft is a professional death sentence,” said Chrisanna Elser, a financial adviser who testified in support of the bill in February.
“I am here to testify that this technology is being sold as a shield to protect our communities, but in practice it is a digital dragnet that turns our constitutional rights upside down,” Elser said.
Another highly publicized case occurred in 2020, when police held a woman and four Black girls at gunpoint in Aurora after wrongly suspecting they were inside a stolen car. Officers misidentified Brittney Gilliam’s SUV license plate as one that matched a stolen out-of-state motorcycle. The numbers matched, but officers failed to confirm whether the SUV fit the physical description of the stolen vehicle.
The bill was amended to increase the maximum data retention period from five days to 30 days, with exceptions for valid warrants and criminal investigations.
Several law enforcement officials testified that ALPRs have helped identify suspects tied to violent crimes when a lack of evidence or witnesses made traditional investigative methods difficult.
By accessing data collected through Aurora police’s ALPR system, Virgil Majors, a detective in the department’s special victims unit, said he identified a suspect later convicted of assaulting an elderly woman with dementia and throwing her from a car last year.
“Using a narrow ALPR query limited to the time frame where I saw the truck on the surveillance camera, I was able to locate only one truck, a white Ford F-150, consistent with the vehicle seen in the surveillance footage,” Majors said. “This information was not probable cause. It was an investigative lead that allowed me to identify the registered owner, conduct follow-up investigations and then develop probable cause that was not available through traditional investigative methods.”
Retention limits under the bill do not reflect real investigative timelines, Majors said. Although the assault occurred in Denver, where the woman lived, he did not begin investigating the case until 30 days later. If the data had been deleted at that point, the violent felony against a vulnerable adult would have gone unsolved, he said.
Requiring a warrant to access the data also would have hindered his investigation, Majors said, because warrants generally require specific details such as a license plate number or registered owner.
“We cannot constitutionally obtain a warrant for all white pickup trucks in the area,” he said.
All 23 of Colorado’s district attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, oppose the legislation, according to Michael Allen, the El Paso County district attorney, who testified at the Capitol in February.
Several residents said the technology has allowed police to solve crimes efficiently, from fatal shootings to hit-and-run crashes. Matthew Ricketts, who was pinned between two cars after a driver backed into him in Durango and fled, said license plate readers helped officers track the suspect’s movements.
With the vehicle description, direction of travel and license plate information collected through Flock cameras, police located the car the next day in a town about 50 miles away.
“This technology is not just about catching people. It is about helping victims, supporting investigations and keeping communities safe,” Ricketts said.
License plate readers do not track people in real time and capture information visible in public view, Durango Police Chief Brice Current said.
“This is not a dragnet. It’s a rearview mirror narrowly focusing on one vehicle,” Current said.
He said the focus should be ensuring the technology “stays local and stays out of the hands of ICE.”
Colorado is not alone in considering legislation to regulate automatic license plate readers. States including Iowa, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, New York and New Mexico are weighing similar proposals this year.
Some Colorado cities have acted independently. Denver recently decommissioned and removed all 110 Flock Safety cameras after its contract expired amid public backlash over concerns the company could share data with federal immigration authorities.
City leaders hope to install a similar system operated by Axon Enterprise, formerly Taser International, which the Denver Police Department says has stronger privacy safeguards.
Residents in several other cities, including Durango, have urged elected officials to end contracts with Flock.
Neither Axon, Flock nor Motorola, another company that operates ALPR systems, testified during the Judiciary Committee hearing. In a statement, however, a Flock spokesperson said the company supports regulation but wants changes to the bill.
“Flock Safety strongly supports legislation that creates guardrails for how license plate recognition data is used and shared, enhances transparency, and helps build public trust – while preserving the efficacy of this important public safety tool,” spokesperson Paris Lewbel said in an email.
Lewbel said the company supports amending the bill “to ensure law enforcement can continue using this critical technology in a responsible and transparent way to keep communities safe,” but did not address specific proposed changes.
If the bill passes and is signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis, it would take effect in August. Agencies would be required to document when and why they access license plate data and publish an annual public report disclosing the number and locations of surveillance devices. The attorney general would enforce the regulations, and any historical location data obtained in violation of the law would be inadmissible in court.
The Colorado Sun is a reader-supported, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to covering Colorado issues. To learn more, go to coloradosun.com.
