Colorado drivers whose vehicles were photographed by Flock Safety license plate cameras may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Flock records, keeps and lets police search their movements without a warrant or consent. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Flock Group, Inc., the towns and the officers named in the case have not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Flock Group, Inc., which does business as Flock Safety, was sued on October 5, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The case, Elser v. Flock Group, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-04977, also names the Towns of Columbine Valley and Bow Mar, a Columbine Valley police sergeant and the town’s police chief.The complaint is brought by a Denver woman who says a Columbine Valley officer came to her door in September 2025 with a theft citation for a $25 package taken from a porch in Bow Mar. According to the complaint, the citation rested on Flock camera records showing her truck had passed through Bow Mar around the time of the theft, and the officer had used Flock’s system to review about a month of her movements. She says the doorbell video showed a different woman on foot, that her own records placed her at a tailor’s shop more than a quarter mile away, and that the police chief voided the summons on October 15, 2025. The defendants have not responded, and no court has ruled.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Lawsuit Alleges About Flock
The complaint describes Flock’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras as a statewide surveillance network. According to the complaint:- Flock’s cameras photograph every passing vehicle and record its plate, make, color and distinguishing features with the date, time and location, without signs telling drivers they are being recorded
- Flock stores those images on its own servers and lets any authorized officer type in a plate and pull up every time and place the network captured it during the retention period
- Agencies can opt into statewide and national sharing, so an officer in one town can search cameras far beyond it
- Flock did not require a warrant, a case number or supervisor approval before officers searched a person’s movement history, although it could have built those limits into its system
The complaint also says Flock went beyond selling a product to the two towns: it set up the police department’s account, trained its officers and obtained approval to share the towns’ camera data with other Colorado agencies. None of the allegations has been tested in court.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The class claims are brought only against Flock. The complaint proposes two classes:- A damages class of people who own or lease a vehicle that one or more Flock cameras in Colorado photographed during the limitations period, and whose plate, photo, location and time of capture Flock recorded and kept on its servers
- An injunctive and declaratory relief class covering the same people plus anyone whose vehicle Flock’s Colorado cameras photograph in the future
Flock and its affiliates and officers are excluded. These are proposals; a court would have to certify a class before anyone is formally part of the case.
Legal Claims and What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings six claims. Four are the named plaintiff’s own: unreasonable search and malicious prosecution under the U.S. Constitution, and unlawful search and seizure and malicious prosecution under Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution. Two are brought for the class against Flock: invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and negligence, including negligent design and failure to warn. The complaint says those two claims seek to extend existing Colorado law.For the class, it asks for damages and an injunction requiring Flock to stop collecting, keeping and disclosing location data without a warrant, and to build a warrant requirement, case-number documentation, supervisor approval and auditing into the system it sells to every Colorado agency. It also seeks orders limiting how long the two towns keep plate data and requiring them to adopt written ALPR policies. Those are requests, not amounts or orders anyone has obtained.
How This Differs From the California Flock Case
OCA also covers Javorsky v. Flock Group, a separate case in California. That suit relies on California’s ALPR privacy statute, which carries statutory damages, and centers on allegations that California plate scans were made searchable by federal and out-of-state agencies. The Colorado case does not rely on a license plate statute; it is built on constitutional claims, a privacy tort and negligence. California retailers that run their own plate cameras have faced a separate wave of suits, including the Lowe’s license plate case; OCA’s ALPR privacy explainer covers how these cameras work.What Happens Next
The defendants must be served and respond. Flock and the towns can be expected to move to dismiss, and the class claims depend on a court accepting the complaint’s argument that collecting and keeping location data from public roads can be an intrusion on privacy under Colorado law. If the class claims survive, a ruling on class certification would come later. There is no settlement, no claim form and nothing to file.Questions
Is there a Flock Safety class action in Colorado?
Yes. Elser v. Flock Group, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-04977, was filed on October 5, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The class claims are against Flock only. The case is at the complaint stage; no class has been certified, there is no settlement, and there is nothing to claim.
Who would be in the Colorado Flock class?
The complaint proposes a damages class of people who own or lease a vehicle that one or more Flock license plate cameras in Colorado photographed during the limitations period, and whose plate, photo, location and time Flock recorded and kept. A second class seeking an injunction would also cover future captures. Neither class has been certified.
How is this different from the California Flock lawsuit?
The California case, Javorsky v. Flock Group, is built on California’s ALPR privacy statute and alleges plate scans were made searchable by federal and out-of-state agencies. The Colorado case relies on Colorado privacy and negligence law and the U.S. and Colorado constitutions, and it grew out of one driver’s theft citation. The two cases are separate.
Does the Colorado lawsuit ask for money for class members?
Yes. The class claims for intrusion upon seclusion and negligence seek damages, plus an injunction requiring Flock to stop keeping and sharing location data without a warrant and to build warrant, case-number and audit requirements into its system for Colorado agencies. Those are requests, not awards.
