In the lead-up to the Nov. 3, 2026, election, Boulder Reporting Lab asked each of the 19 mayoral and city council candidates to answer our questionnaire. Their answers are presented in a random order, but you can jump to each candidate’s responses, listed alphabetically below.
Mayoral candidates: Taishya Adams • Aaron Brockett • Jameson “Jamo” Goldstein • Aquiles La Grave
City council candidates: Benita Duran • Sam Fuqua • Jill Grano • Rachel Rose Isaacson • Ryan Jamieson • Tina Marquis • Dave Martus • Scott Rendleman • Jamillah Richmond • Ryan Schuchard • Tara Winer
Four candidates — Lisa Ann Jacobs, Fred Smith, Lee Gilbert and Lynn Segal — did not respond to BRL’s questionnaire.
The City of Boulder has faced prolonged community pushback over the city’s use of Flock, an automatic license plate reader company that is facing growing national scrutiny over privacy concerns and access to its data by federal immigration officials.
In May, Boulder residents sued Police Chief Steve Redfearn over the use of the AI-powered cameras, alleging they amount to “mass, suspicionless, warrantless surveillance.”
More than 40 Flock cameras in Boulder record each time a car passes, capturing identifying information about the car in addition to license plate numbers. A recent investigation by 404 Media and Wired found that Flock software also “explicitly detects people,” despite the company’s repeated claims to the contrary. Police departments have searched the cameras for people, with phrases like “heavy-set male with a black and white hat.”
Flock data is stored for at least seven days (previously 30 days) and can be searched by hundreds of police departments in Colorado without a warrant.
Across the country, cities have paused or ended their contracts with Flock and other automatic license plate reader companies. Vandalism of the cameras has also increased nationwide, including at least one camera that was sawed off in Boulder.
In response to pushback, this year Boulder opened a bidding process for license plate reader services to other companies. This month, the city officially paused that process to make time for “engagement and policy conversation” expected to extend into the spring of 2027.
City staff have said that Boulder’s Flock contract is an administrative matter overseen by the city manager, but city council could establish broader surveillance and privacy policies that would guide future contracts.
So far, council has declined to take up the issue.
Most candidates favor ending Boulder’s use of automated license plate readers like Flock, with many citing privacy, data-sharing and surveillance concerns. Several also called for city council to establish clearer rules governing surveillance technology and how residents’ data can be collected, retained and shared.
Others favor a more cautious approach, calling for more community discussion, stronger safeguards or alternatives that preserve the technology’s public-safety benefits. A smaller group supports continuing to use license plate readers, citing their value to law enforcement while also supporting limits on how data is used or shared.
Question: Would you end Boulder’s use of automated license plate readers, yes or no? Why or why not?
Mayoral candidates
Aquiles La Grave
Aquiles La Grave
Age: 47
Yep. License plate readers can be useful for public safety. But Boulder installed a surveillance network whose access stretches beyond Boulder and has no clear public policy on what to do with the collected data. We’ve found out that Boulder’s Flock system was part of a national network which gave outside agencies (like Federal Immigration Authorities) access to the collected data before Boulder shut down access. Speaking as a data professional, this should have been a big topic of conversation at the council level.
I’d put the current program on hold until council creates specific policies regarding how long we keep data, who can search data, who has access to our data from outside agencies, how often we audit data, and how we report publicly about data usage. All of this is in keeping with Boulder’s commitment to being a welcoming community.
This isn’t against police. I want to give officers the tools they need to do their jobs well. It’s about having democratic control over what we allow in our communities. Council makes policy. Staff implements policy. Before we implement a piece of technology that tracks thousands of people, we need to create clear public rules.
Aaron Brockett
Aaron Brockett
Age: 53
I wouldn’t end them unilaterally, but ALPR’s have justifiably come under significant scrutiny over data privacy issues. We have added many safeguards to the system to make sure data is only shared for legitimate reasons, that only the minimum amount of data is kept and for a short period of time, and that data is shared only with a small percentage of Colorado law enforcement agencies and never with the Federal government.
To address community concerns, I support the city manager’s plan to have a community conversation on the topic in the early part of 2027 and make a decision with the community about whether to continue or end ALPR use. I also support state legislation mandating additional safeguards and guardrails on their use.
Taishya Adams
Taishya Adams
Age: 52
I do not support the use of automated license plate readers at this time due to documented cybersecurity issues and corporate misconduct. I advocated strongly for a pause to the contract negotiations and believe the council should weigh in on policy issues related to privacy. Right now, neither the city manager or police chief can guarantee data security. The amount of documented misuse across the country is enough to make them too dangerous to be useful right now. The cities that have produced data about the effectiveness of Flock and other ALPR systems have ended their contracts largely, which is telling.
ALPR technology isn’t going away and there HAVE been limited areas where it has been helpful or even vital, but until rule of law catches up to making these systems safe and introducing proper penalties for misuse, as well as safeguarding against other agency’s overreach, this simply isn’t the right direction for Boulder.
Jamo Goldstein
Yes. I would end Boulder’s Flock automated license plate reader contract. The network records the movements of ordinary people who are not suspected of a crime and places that information in a private surveillance system. Residents should not have to give up privacy just to travel around town. Police need effective tools, and I would work with them on targeted, accountable methods for investigating specific crimes that do not collect everyone’s movements as a matter of course.
City council candidates
Dave Martus
Dave Martus
Age: 59
Yes. I would end Boulder’s use of Flock Safety’s automated license-plate-reader system. I am particularly skeptical of relying on a private surveillance company whose business model depends on expanding camera networks, collecting vehicle-location data, and building ever-larger searchable databases.
Boulder has not shown residents clear, independently verifiable evidence that Flock has produced public-safety benefits commensurate with its privacy cost. The city has also not adequately answered concerns about data retention, data sharing, cybersecurity, vendor access, and mission creep.
If a future council considers any similar technology, it should first establish a public, independently audited record showing a specific need, narrowly tailored use, short retention, no immigration enforcement access, strict sharing limits, and a sunset provision.
Benita Duran
Benita Duran
Age: 65
Yes. This is not a use that is in the best interests of the people of Boulder. Boulder should end its use of automated license readers. The benefits to policing do not justify creating a system that records the movements of people suspected of no crime. We should consider where this technology is headed and should decide what surveillance powers law enforcement should have before building infrastructure that can become substantially more powerful as AI develops. Privacy safeguards today do not eliminate that long term concern.
Sam Fuqua
Sam Fuqua
Age: 62
Yes. There is too much potential for misuse and abuse of the data collected by ALPR systems. If there is widespread community support for using ALPR’s and a majority of council approves the use of this technology, I will push for very tight restrictions on data access and retention.
Ryan Schuchard
Ryan Schuchard
Age: 42
Yes, I would end Boulder’s use of automated license plate readers, because our safety depends on public trust, and mass surveillance without the community’s consent erodes it.
I’ve been a leading council voice to stop Boulder’s use of Flock and similar cameras, and I’ve named them as a budget item ripe for cutting. I also support Boulder’s work as a sanctuary city, which these cameras put at risk.
Priorities:
- Adopt a moratorium on ALPRs. Stop using Flock and similar cameras now, and put the savings toward other services with public value in a tight budget.
- Require explicit council approval. Make any use of ALPRs or other cloud-based, networked surveillance technology subject to a council vote after a full public process. Set enforceable limits on how data is shared and kept, guarding against federal intrusion and misuse documented elsewhere, including for immigration enforcement.
- Create dedicated oversight. Form a council committee or task force to oversee surveillance technology and make recommendations to the full council. Keep supporting our police with effective tools residents can trust.
Jill Grano
Jill Grano
Age: 44
I would not renew our contract with Flock, and would not choose a new ALPR system until we have had a robust community conversation about data and privacy. I don’t support sharing residents’ information across jurisdictions or with other entities without very clear limits and oversight. We need to understand what level of surveillance residents are comfortable with. Where do we draw the line? That conversation will inform my decision.
I am grateful that our Police Chief and DA are refusing Trump administration demands for information, but our privacy shouldn’t depend on who happens to be in office or whether someone is willing to say no. The safeguards need to be built into the system itself. I want to understand whether an ALPR system can provide public-safety benefits while meeting that standard. I haven’t gotten a clear answer on that yet.
Finally, we need to look beyond license plate readers. Removing city cameras would not resolve questions about privately collected data or information the city can obtain elsewhere. We need clear rules about what information the city collects and shares. We cannot call ourselves a Sanctuary City if we are sharing information across jurisdictions without a community conversation.
Jamillah Richmond
Jamillah Richmond
Age: 42
Yes, I would end the use of automated license plate readers like Flock Safety. I would also decline to explore any further contracts with firms like Flock Safety that use AI technology to surveil or monitor drivers.
I would do this because public safety should not be put in the hands of the private sector and companies that track and collect citizens’ data. I oppose this technology not only because of data privacy concerns, but also because of disproportionality in the way this technology is wielded against under-resourced communities. For example, data from some communities shows that Flock cameras are disproportionately concentrated in Black communities and high poverty areas.
Scott Rendleman
Scott Rendleman
Age: 58
At this moment, no, I am not ready to end Boulder’s use of automated license plate readers. The license plate readers can help police find missing people and investigate serious crimes. These are legitimate public safety purposes. As a lawyer, I look at what a person’s expectations of privacy are in public.
A person’s use of cell phones, which transmits much greater information than a license plate, must be taken into consideration for an expectation of privacy weighed against the benefit of legitimate police investigation. That said, given the cases of abuse of FLOCK, we should require an audit trail of the system that shows who accessed the system. We should also put in place enforceable restrictions on information sharing. Finally, the city should prohibit the use of FLOCK as a monitor of political engagement or immigration enforcement.
Ryan Jamieson
Ryan Jamieson
Age: 46
Yes.
I’ve worked in cybersecurity for more than twenty years and I’ve never seen a surveillance system that wasn’t eventually abused or a dataset that wasn’t eventually stolen. I understand the value of Flock to solve crimes related to automobiles and arrest criminals on the move. It has legitimate value there, which is important to note, and the data is valuable for legitimate law enforcement actions. But Flock devices record much, much more than just plates, and that data is collected and stored in a way that is repeatedly shown to be insecure or abused. Flock systems have been used to track Hispanics without cause at the behest of ICE, profile a Texan woman suspected of going out of state for an abortion, and even surveil participants at a No Kings rally. Flock profits by tracking all our movements, not just criminals.
I don’t want my car stolen. I also don’t want to live in a surveillance state. Insurance will pay for a stolen car, but what insurance do we have against abuse of our privacy?
Rachel Rose Isaacson
Rachel Rose Isaacson
Age: 29
Yes. No sanctuary city should rely on Flock or broad AI-enabled surveillance. I would ask the Police Department to identify the investigative needs these cameras meet and propose less intrusive ways to meet them. Any future surveillance proposal should require a public Council decision, evidence of its benefits, enforceable limits on access and sharing, independent audits, and meaningful community input. Our commitment to public safety must include the safety and trust of residents.
Tina Marquis
Tina Marquis
Age: 55
We have taken important measures to reduce the risk of Flock data being shared inappropriately, including severely limiting who can access our data, whether an employee or other agency, and shortening the time data is kept.
However, I am very interested in alternatives to license plate readers while maintaining public safety. Additionally, I support the work the city initiated to review all of the data we collect and how it might be shared, as LPR data isn’t the only opportunity to misuse personal data. This work is incredibly important and the City of Boulder is a leader in this area.
Tara Winer
Tara Winer
Age: 68
Automatic License Plate Readers perform an important public safety function. They take a picture of the outer exterior of the car including the license plate, not the interior. ALPR’s are especially effective in Amber Alerts and stolen vehicle cases (a 34.5% drop since Boulder adopted Flock). Flock helped BPD with the June 1 terrorist attack on Pearl St. Mall.
However, no one wants to live in a surveillance state. The community’s concerns are real and we need to address them. Our data already ended up in federal hands once: from 2022 to 2025, Boulder’s Flock data was on a national network that Border Patrol searched more than 100 times before we caught it and restricted access to Colorado agencies only. We must continually close gaps as we find misuse. We need to limit how long the data is kept, and we need to make sure data is not misused by individual officers. So heavy guardrails need to be required.
The City of Boulder, according to a press release, will carry on engagement and policy conversations with the community through mid 2027. Our City Manager said “we want to advance public safety work while safeguarding civil rights” and I agree.