State Sen. Judy Amabile of Boulder has introduced legislation aimed at restricting how police and other government agencies access and share people’s historical location data, which is currently possible through technologies such as automatic license plate readers, including Flock cameras.
While the bill was initially drafted with license plate readers in mind, Amabile said it was later expanded to apply to any technology that collects location data, like drones.
Flock Security provides automatic license plate readers to the Boulder Police Department and hundreds of agencies nationwide, allowing police to retain identifying vehicle data for up to 30 days. Officers can currently search state and national Flock databases without a warrant, using AI-assisted tools that allow descriptive searches such as vehicle color or accessories, like a “ladder in the back.” The police department told Boulder Reporting Lab that Flock “has helped us dramatically reduce auto theft in our community, among other crimes.”
But cities across Colorado and the country have faced growing pushback over privacy concerns and reports of data being shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Longmont has halted Flock data sharing. Boulder plans to renew its contract in March.
For years, Boulder automatically shared data from more than 40 cameras on a national database accessed by ICE, Boulder Reporting Lab previously reported. Last June, after months of scrutiny from local privacy advocates, the city turned off the national lookup feature and switched to a more limited sharing arrangement that restricted access to Boulder’s cameras to about 90 Colorado law enforcement agencies.
Local privacy advocates have called Amabile’s bill “a good start,” saying it is stronger than similar bills in other states, but they still worry it leaves gaps. In particular, the bill would not limit police access to location data collected in the previous 24 hours, which they say could still allow detailed tracking of people’s movements.
Amabile said the bill is meant to address concerns about mass surveillance while preserving tools law enforcement relies on.
“My constituents have expressed deep concerns about how mass surveillance technologies are compromising (or could compromise) their constitutional rights. They do not want Big Brother,” she told Boulder Reporting Lab in an email.
“It is clear that technology can be used effectively to solve crime and promote public safety, but without proper guardrails to protect people’s basic rights, law enforcement will lose public trust.”
The nuts and bolts
Amabile’s bill, “Protecting Everyone from Excessive Police Surveillance (PEEPS) Act,” sponsored with Republican Sen. Lynda Wilson and Democratic Reps. Yara Zokaie and Kenny Nguyen, would prohibit access to or sharing of historical location data unless specific conditions are met. Those exceptions include a judicial warrant, individual consent to be searched, an individual reporting their car stolen, traffic enforcement and urgent circumstances.
Flock already requires officers to provide a reason for searches, but those justifications can be minimal or vague. In a 2024 case, a Kansas police officer entered search reasons like “test” and “investigation” 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend.
Under the bill, a supervisor would be required to review and provide written approval for searches and data-sharing requests, which would then be included in an annual public report. The legislation would also shorten data retention to four days, far less than Flock’s current 30-day window.
Location data obtained in violation of the law would be inadmissible in court, and employee access could be suspended or revoked. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office would have discretion in enforcing compliance.
Privacy advocate concerns about the bill
Will Freeman, a local privacy advocate and founder of DeFlock, said the bill is “better than nothing, and it’s better than a lot of other states.” But he argued it still normalizes mass surveillance.
“I feel like the wrong thing is being regulated,” Freeman said. “The question we should be asking is, do we even want this data to be collected and to be indexed and searchable?”
Freeman pointed to two major concerns. First, the bill leaves out location data from the past 24 hours. He said that means officers could still track someone’s movements by repeatedly checking recent data and saving it elsewhere.
“That’s how a lot of the stalking cases that we’ve seen work,” he said.
Amabile said the exclusion was intentional. “The first 24 hours is not regulated in the bill so law enforcement can respond quickly to circumstances as they are happening,” she said, adding that broader restrictions would likely prevent the bill from passing. “I’m trying to strike a balance.”
Freeman also raised concerns about Flock’s “hotlist” feature, which sends real-time alerts when flagged vehicles pass a camera.
“That could be a way around this,” he said. “It wouldn’t be considered historical location data because it happened right then.”
Anti-Flock advocates are planning a March 7 demonstration in six Colorado cities, including Boulder, to raise awareness about license plate reader technology and surveillance concerns.