Key Takeaways
- Boulder Police Department operates 31 Flock automated license‑plate‑reading (ALPR) cameras that continuously scan every vehicle on public roads without a warrant.
- Plaintiffs William Freeman and Gwen Steel allege the system constitutes a dragnet search that violates the Colorado Constitution’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures.
- The lawsuit also claims Boulder denied a public records request for Freeman’s own Flock data, breaching the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act.
- Until June 2025, Boulder allowed out‑of‑state law‑enforcement agencies—including some that cooperate with ICE—to access its Flock database.
- Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and an injunction ordering the city to stop warrantless use of the cameras; the city says it is evaluating the claims.
- Police Chief Stephen Redfearn defends the technology, arguing its public‑safety benefits outweigh misuse risks, while Flock maintains its data are controlled by customer agencies and that courts have repeatedly upheld fixed LPR as constitutional.
Boulder’s deployment of Flock license‑plate‑reading cameras has become the focal point of a class‑action lawsuit filed Thursday morning in Boulder County District Court. William Freeman and Gwen Steel, who regularly work, frequent, or drive through the city, contend that the Boulder Police Department (BPD) has turned its 31‑camera network into a warrantless mass‑surveillance dragnet. According to the complaint, the cameras scan the license plates of every vehicle traveling on Boulder’s public roads twenty‑four hours a day, seven days a week, capturing data on ordinary activities such as dropping children at school or commuting to work. The plaintiffs argue that no court has ever found probable cause to justify such pervasive, continuous tracking, and therefore the program violates the Colorado Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The lawsuit further asserts that BPD Chief Stephen Redfearn deployed the Flock system without implementing any privacy safeguards or oversight mechanisms. By indiscriminately collecting and retaining plate‑read data, the department allegedly creates a comprehensive record of individuals’ movements that can be queried at any time, effectively turning public streets into a monitored corridor. The suit emphasizes that with thirty‑one cameras strategically placed throughout the city, it is virtually impossible for any resident or visitor to travel within Boulder without being logged by at least one device.
In addition to the constitutional claims, the plaintiffs allege a violation of the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act. Freeman submitted a records request seeking all Flock data pertaining to his own vehicle, but Dawn VanAckeren, a Boulder police records specialist, denied the request. The complaint argues that this denial was unlawful because the request fell under the state’s public‑records statute, which mandates disclosure of law‑enforcement records unless a specific exemption applies. The suit contends that the denial was made without proper justification and thus deprived Freeman of access to information about his own surveillance.
The complaint notes that Boulder has employed its Flock cameras continuously since January 6, 2022. While there are at least nine additional Flock units in the city operated by the University of Colorado Boulder Police Department or private businesses, the plaintiffs maintain that BPD still leverages those systems to surveil anyone driving within municipal limits. Moreover, until June 2025, Boulder permitted out‑of‑state law‑enforcement agencies—including some known to collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to view its Flock data. This data‑sharing practice, the suit argues, exacerbates privacy concerns by extending the reach of the dragnet beyond Colorado’s borders.
Freeman and Steel, represented by attorney Andy McNulty of the Newman‑McNulty law firm, are seeking two primary forms of relief. First, they request undetermined monetary damages for what they describe as a series of unreasonable searches and seizures inflicted upon the class of individuals whose vehicles have been scanned without a warrant. Second, they ask the court to issue an injunction compelling Boulder to cease using Flock cameras absent a warrant or individualized suspicion. The plaintiffs estimate that the class could number in the tens of thousands, given the volume of traffic that traverses Boulder’s streets daily.
In response, Boulder city spokesperson Sarah Huntley stated that the municipality and its police department are evaluating the allegations raised in the lawsuit. She indicated that any further arguments or perspectives on the case will be conveyed through forthcoming court filings. The city’s statement also referenced an ongoing request for proposals (RFP) for license‑plate‑reading technology that was issued in March, following concerns expressed by several City Council members about Boulder’s relationship with Flock ahead of an anticipated contract renewal.
During a January town hall, Police Chief Stephen Redfearn defended the Flock system, asserting that the data are not shared with ICE and that the technology has aided investigations, including locating suspects and, in some instances, victims of kidnappings. He characterized the risk of misuse as “far outweighed by the public safety benefits it provides.” Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that customer agencies retain ownership and control of their data, that the company prioritizes privacy and security, and that courts nationwide have repeatedly upheld fixed license‑plate‑reader systems as constitutional.
The lawsuit thus raises pivotal questions about the balance between public‑safety tools and civil‑liberties protections in an era of ubiquitous automated surveillance. As the case proceeds, the court’s determination will likely influence how municipalities across Colorado—and perhaps the nation—deploy and regulate ALPR technology moving forward.