In Thornton, there are only 16 Flock Safety cameras installed. Despite their limited number, these electronic eyes, attached to poles at various intersections in a city with a population of nearly 150,000, sparked a heated discussion at the Thornton Community Center. The debate centered around the use of controversial license plate-reading cameras and whether they should be employed at all.
Law enforcement agencies argue that the automatic license-plate readers, known as ALPRs, are a valuable tool that enhances their ability to identify and apprehend suspects who may be en route to committing crimes like assault or robbery.
However, Meg Moore, a resident of Thornton for six years and a vocal opponent of Flock cameras, expressed concerns about the impact of the expanding surveillance system on residents’ privacy and Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thornton’s Flock camera data is accessible to over 1,600 law enforcement agencies nationwide.
“We want to ensure that this system is genuinely safe and effective,” Moore stated in an interview.
The discussion surrounding Atlanta-based Flock Safety’s cameras, which not only capture license plate numbers but can also search for specific vehicle characteristics linked to alleged crimes, has been gaining traction in recent years. These conversations have mainly taken place in metro Denver and Front Range cities, but they have now reached the state Capitol, where lawmakers are proposing legislation to tighten regulations on surveillance practices.
The number of police agencies using Flock Safety’s cameras now exceeds 6,000, according to the company. The “DeFlock” website, which crowdsources data on the number of Flock cameras in operation, currently lists nearly 74,000 cameras across the country.
Denver, with 111 Flock cameras, has seen Mayor Mike Johnston clash with the City Council over the issue. Johnston extended the city’s contract with Flock in October, despite opposition from much of the council. In contrast, Longmont’s City Council voted to pause sharing Flock Safety data with other municipalities, declined to expand its contract with the company, and began exploring alternative options.
Louisville took a proactive approach by disabling its Flock cameras in June and removing them by October, citing privacy concerns raised by residents as the primary reason for the decision.
Thornton resident Steve Mathias, who has lived in the city for nearly a decade, advocates for the removal of Flock’s cameras. He emphasized the importance of implementing reliable controls on how street-side data is collected, stored, and shared.
“In our efforts to enhance community safety, we may be overlooking the risks we are exposing ourselves to,” Mathias cautioned. “While we may be securing ourselves in some aspects, we are compromising our safety in others.”
The debate over Flock’s cameras in Thornton unfolded during a recent community meeting and continued at a City Council session where the Police Department presented on the Flock system.
Cmdr. Chad Parker highlighted several instances where Flock’s cameras played a crucial role in apprehending individuals involved in various crimes, ranging from homicide to theft.
Just this week, Thornton police announced on X that a hit-and-run suspect who fatally struck a 14-year-old boy was identified within 24 hours with the help of a Flock camera in the city.
During the council’s study session, Police Chief Jim Baird commended Flock’s camera system as one of the most effective tools he has encountered in his 32 years in law enforcement.
Despite these endorsements, some residents in Thornton remain skeptical of the camera network.
“I am not in favor of advancing towards a surveillance state,” Mathias expressed.
He pointed out that the risks associated with a system like Flock extend beyond the data collection methods used by the company to potential misuse by unauthorized individuals, such as rogue law enforcement officers or hackers breaching Flock’s database.
Debate: Crime-fighting tool or potential for abuse?
In a recent incident, a Columbine Valley police officer faced discipline after falsely accusing a Denver woman of theft, primarily relying on evidence from Flock cameras. The officer incorrectly alleged that the woman had stolen a $25 package in a nearby town and claimed to have tracked her car using Flock cameras.
Will Freeman from DeFlock expressed concerns about the widespread adoption of Flock technology by numerous police agencies, emphasizing the need for caution.
9News reported that the Loveland Police Department shared access to its Flock camera system with U.S. Border Patrol and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, raising questions about data sharing and potential misuse.
Thornton police commander Parker assured that searches related to immigration or abortion cases would not be conducted using the Flock system, in compliance with state laws restricting cooperation in such matters.
Deputy city attorney Adam Stephens affirmed that motorists’ Fourth Amendment rights are not violated by Thornton’s Flock camera network, citing recent court cases supporting the lack of privacy rights while driving on public roads.
Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel defended the company’s partnership with the Thornton Police Department, highlighting instances where Flock cameras helped in solving crimes and locating missing persons.
During the council’s study session, Parker shared more examples of Flock’s contributions to law enforcement in Thornton, including apprehending suspects and finding missing individuals.
Thornton installed its first 10 Flock cameras in 2022 to address a surge in auto thefts, adding five more cameras and a mobile unit two years later. The city reports that Flock cameras have been instrumental in 200 cases resulting in arrests or warrant applications over the past three years.
Thornton police have access to over 2,200 other agencies’ Flock systems nationwide, while nearly 1,650 law enforcement agencies can access Thornton’s Flock data.
Anaya Robinson from the ACLU of Colorado raised concerns about the interconnected nature of Flock cameras across different jurisdictions, potentially infringing on individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights.
Robinson also highlighted the extensive surveillance capabilities of Flock’s technology, capturing data from all vehicles passing by, not just those on a watch list.
Despite being a cost-effective crime-fighting tool, Freeman cautioned against indiscriminate deployment of Flock cameras solely based on affordability.
Local vs. State Legislation
State lawmakers are working on bills to regulate the use of surveillance technologies like Flock’s at the state level.
Senate Bill 70 aims to restrict access to databases revealing historical location information of individuals or vehicles and prohibits sharing such information with third parties or outside jurisdictions, with exceptions.
Senate Bill 71 directs law enforcement agencies to use surveillance technology for lawful purposes related to public safety or active investigations, forbidding facial recognition technology without a warrant and imposing limits on data retention.
Thornton confirms that it does not utilize facial recognition technology and retains Flock data for 30 days.
Regardless of state legislation, the debate over license plate readers is expected to continue at the local level. Thornton’s council plans to further discuss the use of Flock cameras in the coming months.
For Moore, concerns about potential surveillance of the immigrant community are paramount.
“We need to ensure the safety of all residents in our operations,” she emphasized. “While completely removing the cameras may be challenging, there must be a conversation about setting boundaries.”
Mayor Pro Tem Roberta Ayala, a Thornton native, acknowledged the diverse perspectives on the benefits and risks of Flock technology among constituents.
“While there is a potential for misuse, we must strive to prevent it,” Ayala stated.
Having been a victim of crime herself, Ayala understands the impact of crime on victims and their families, underscoring the importance of justice, especially for children and families affected by crimes.
“If it can save even five kids,” she remarked, “I support the use of cameras.”
Stay informed about Colorado Politics by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Spot.
