TL;DR: Colorado's SB 26-070 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 5-2 on February 24. The bipartisan bill requires police to get warrants before searching Flock Safety and other license plate reader databases for data older than 72 hours. Data must be destroyed after 30 days, searches must be logged, and violations make evidence inadmissible in court. A companion bill (SB 26-071) would require warrants for facial recognition too. The $2 million price tag could be a hurdle in Appropriations.
The Bill Advances
Colorado just moved closer to requiring warrants for license plate surveillance. Senate Bill 26-070 cleared the Judiciary Committee on a 5-2 vote February 24, with bipartisan support from both Republican and Democratic senators [1].
The bill's premise is simple: if police want to search historical location data collected by Flock Safety's network of cameras, they need a judge to sign off. No more fishing expeditions through databases tracking where you've driven.
"Of course solving crimes with constant surveillance is easier," said co-sponsor Senator Lynda Zamora Wilson, a Republican from El Paso County. "But [that] is not a constitutional justification" [2].
What the Bill Requires
SB 26-070 puts real restrictions on how Colorado police can use automated license plate readers:
Warrant Required After 72 Hours
Police can search ALPR data without a warrant only within 72 hours of a crime being reported. After that, they need judicial approval. No more indefinite access to your driving history.
30-Day Retention Limit
Agencies must delete ALPR data after 30 days unless there's a warrant or written supervisor justification. The original draft proposed just 5 days.
Mandatory Access Logs
Every search must be logged. Agencies must appoint a supervisor to oversee access and produce annual public reports.
Evidence Exclusion
Information obtained in violation of the law is inadmissible in court. Teeth that actually bite.
The bill also restricts data sharing. Agencies can't share ALPR data outside their jurisdiction without a court order, a direct response to revelations that Colorado police were sharing Flock data with Border Patrol.
What's Exempt
The bill carves out exceptions for:
- Toll collection systems
- Red-light cameras
- 911 emergency systems
- Speed enforcement cameras
These exemptions recognize the difference between targeted enforcement and mass surveillance databases.
Flock Safety's Surprising Position
Here's what's unusual: Flock Safety isn't fighting this bill. The company's lobbyist worked directly with Senator Judy Amabile on the legislation.
"[Flock] strongly supports legislation that creates guardrails," company spokesperson Paris Lewbel said, while also claiming the bill "enhances transparency, and helps build public trust" [3].
Translation: Flock sees regulation coming and wants to shape it. Better to accept warrant requirements now than face outright bans later. The company watched Milwaukee ban facial recognition and Oregon cities cancel ALPR contracts. Playing ball on warrants might preserve the rest of the business model.
The Federal Data Problem
Colorado's bill comes after troubling revelations about where ALPR data ends up. Loveland police shared Flock data directly with Border Patrol [4]. Denver's data was accessible to thousands of agencies nationwide through Flock's "national search" function until the city deactivated it in April.
Mayor Mike Johnston extended Denver's Flock contract despite City Council opposition. The new contract restricts third-party access without city agreement, but that only matters if someone's checking compliance.
SB 26-070's sharing restrictions would make unauthorized federal access a violation with real consequences.
The SAFE Act Companion
Senator Zamora Wilson is also sponsoring SB 26-071, the Surveillance Accountability and Freedom Ensured Act. It goes broader:
- Requires public input and government approval before deploying surveillance tech
- Mandates warrants for facial recognition use
- Implements data retention limits across surveillance technologies
The two bills work together: one targeting ALPR specifically, the other creating a broader surveillance accountability framework.
Law Enforcement Pushback
Police aren't happy. Senator John Carson and Senator Dylan Roberts voted against the bill in committee. Aurora police argued warrant delays would let cases grow cold [5].
Carson said he didn't "see this rising to the level of the Fourth Amendment". Essentially, he was arguing that tracking your car's location across the state isn't a search that needs judicial oversight.
The Institute for Justice's Alasdair Whitney disagreed: "The constitution and its protection are not designed for maximum efficiency."
The $2 Million Question
The bill now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where its $2 million price tag could be a problem. That cost comes primarily from court processing for warrant requests [6].
If it clears Appropriations, it goes to the full Senate. Given bipartisan sponsorship from Amabile (D-Boulder), Zamora Wilson (R-El Paso), Zokaie (D-Larimer), and Nguyen (D-Broomfield), passage looks possible.
The legislative session runs until May 7. That's time enough for a floor vote if the bill survives Appropriations.
What You Can Do
If You're in Colorado
Contact your state senator. Support for SB 26-070 sends a message that voters want warrant requirements for surveillance. The Appropriations vote is the next hurdle.
Check Your City's ALPR Use
File a public records request asking whether your city uses Flock Safety, what data it retains, and who has access. See our surveillance database request guide.
Track the Bill
Follow SB 26-070 and SB 26-071 through the legislature. Showing up at hearings (or submitting written testimony) matters more than you think.
The Bottom Line
Colorado's bill joins a growing wave of ALPR restrictions. Washington's Driver Privacy Act already passed the Senate. Oregon cities are canceling Flock contracts. The Ring-Flock partnership collapsed under pressure.
The pattern is clear: unregulated license plate surveillance is facing real resistance. Colorado's bipartisan approach, requiring warrants rather than banning the technology, might be the model that spreads.
Flock Safety seems to think so. When the surveillance company itself supports warrant requirements, something has shifted in the political landscape.
References
- Colorado Newsline: Colorado Bill to Limit License Plate Reader Data Access Passes Senate Committee (February 24, 2026)
- Denverite: Flock Camera Surveillance Restrictions: Colorado Bill Moves Forward (February 24, 2026)
- Denverite: Colorado Could Limit Police Use of Flock and Other Mass Surveillance Networks (February 18, 2026)
- Axios Denver: Colorado Lawmakers Want Limits on Surveillance Tech Like Flock (February 24, 2026)
- Aspen Times: Bipartisan Bill Would Limit Colorado Law Enforcement's Ability to Access Data from Flock Cameras
- Colorado Politics: Colorado Bill Seeks to Limit Surveillance Tech to 'Lawful' Public Safety Purposes
Published: February 25, 2026