WELLINGTON, Colo. After Denver7’s reporting on privacy concerns surrounding Flock Safety license plate cameras in Laporte, another Larimer County community is raising many of the same questions.
This time, longtime Wellington resident Leah Kershaw reached out to Denver7 after learning Flock cameras had been installed in her community.
Flock camera debate ignites in Fort Collins
“I was concerned about what exactly data it was collecting and what it was doing here, and what capabilities it had,” Kershaw said.
Kershaw said her biggest concern isn’t just that license plate data is collected, but how that information is shared with hundreds of other law enforcement agencies and what happens to the data once it leaves Larimer County.
“The language gets really tricky when they say that Flock only keeps this data for 30 days because this data is shared by many, many other agencies,” she said. “We don’t have any control over them downloading it and storing it.”
She said residents in smaller communities often struggle to find a place to raise questions about government technology.
“When you’re in a smaller town, there are fewer people that you can really talk to,” Kershaw said.
Another Wellington resident, Carla Biddle, echoed those concerns.
“It feels very invasive,” Biddle said. “And I have a real problem with it.”
Denver7 asked the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office how it oversees searches performed using its Flock camera system, including searches conducted by outside law enforcement agencies with which it shares data.
In a written response via an email, the Sheriff’s Office said data sharing is limited to law enforcement agencies that are subject to legal requirements governing access to personal information. It said it audits searches conducted by outside agencies and that any search prohibited under Colorado law is automatically denied.
According to the agency, random audits are conducted every two weeks. During each audit, 10 users are randomly selected, and every search performed by those users is reviewed. The sheriff’s office said it has not identified any improper use of Flock technology since adopting the system.
The agency also pointed to several built-in safeguards within the Flock platform, including multi-factor authentication, role-based access controls, mandatory search justifications, audit logs, and software designed to flag unusual search activity for administrative review.
The sheriff’s office said that users must select a crime category and provide a written explanation describing the investigative reason for each search. It said case numbers are not always available, such as during BOLO alerts, Amber Alerts, or stolen vehicle investigations, and therefore are not required.
According to the sheriff’s office, 1,033 of the 2,148 Flock searches conducted during the past 30 days were performed without a case number.
While law enforcement says Flock cameras are an important investigative tool that can help solve crimes and improve public safety, some Wellington residents say they remain concerned about privacy, oversight and whether communities should have a greater voice before surveillance technology is deployed.
Biddle said she believes residents should have had more opportunity to discuss the technology before it was installed.
“I believe this should have been brought to a vote for our residents rather than implementation and telling us after the fact this is what it looks like,” she said.