Colorado woman files federal class action over automated surveillance

A Colorado woman has filed a federal class action in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Flock Safety and the Denver suburbs of Columbine Valley and Bow Mar. The complaint alleges that automated license-plate-reading cameras recorded her movements without consent and that law enforcement used the footage to prosecute her for a crime she did not commit.

The trouble began when a Columbine Valley Police sergeant served a criminal summons at her home on September 27, 2025, citing her for package theft. Although Columbine Valley was Flock Safety’s first customer in the state, the resident stated she had no idea the automated cameras existed. Cameras in neighboring Bow Mar had captured her truck passing a home where a package was stolen, leading police to pin the offense on her.

Allegations of warrantless access and ignored evidence

According to the 64-page complaint filed on Monday, law enforcement officers refused to review evidence that would have cleared her name. Her alibi placed her a quarter mile away getting fitted for a dress during the theft. Additionally, she stated she did not resemble the woman captured on the home’s doorbell camera, and that police initially withheld that video from her.

Although the police department eventually dropped the summons, the false accusation caused severe emotional distress and nearly resulted in her employer putting her on administrative leave. The lawsuit argues that Flock Safety, Bow Mar, and Columbine Valley allowed officers unrestricted database access without requiring a warrant, probable cause, or supervisory approval.

Wider challenges to surveillance networks

Alongside individual claims for civil rights violations, the lawsuit seeks to halt the warrantless collection, cataloging, retention, sharing, and searching of movement records. Civil rights attorney Andy McNulty represents both the plaintiff and a class of Boulder residents challenging Flock’s authority to operate what they describe as a massive mass surveillance network.

What this means for ordinary residents

People living in neighborhoods monitored by automated license plate readers face potential risks if systems misidentify their vehicles or if police obtain data without judicial oversight. If someone receives a citation or criminal summons stemming from automated cameras, they can request the underlying video footage, provide alibi evidence to law enforcement, and consider legal counsel if their rights are violated. The court case also raises questions about corporate accountability for private surveillance firms that fail to set guardrails for police access.

When a person faces criminal charges or reputational harm due to flawed automated evidence, talking to a qualified civil rights or criminal defense attorney can help protect their legal options.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 6, 2026.