Chrisanna Elser: Files Flock Safety Class Action for Wrongful LPR Prosecution

• Chrisanna Elser filed a federal class action lawsuit against Flock Safety and two Colorado towns after being wrongfully accused of theft based on LPR footage.
• Elser alleges that Flock cameras recorded her movements without consent, and law enforcement used this data without a warrant or probable cause to prosecute her.
• The lawsuit seeks to block Flock Safety's warrantless collection, cataloging, retention, sharing, and searching of movement records for Elser and others.
• Flock Safety stated it would defend itself, attributing the incident to human error and clarifying that law enforcement is responsible for interpreting LPR data.
• The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, raises significant questions about mass surveillance, data privacy, and civil rights.

The class action lawsuit directly challenges the legality of the widespread deployment and use of Flock Safety's LPR technology, framing it as a form of mass surveillance.

A Colorado woman has initiated a federal class action lawsuit against Flock Safety, along with the towns of Columbine Valley and Bow Mar, alleging that the use of automated license plate readers (LPRs) led to her wrongful prosecution for a crime she did not commit. Chrisanna Elser filed the 64-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting that her movements were recorded without her consent, and this footage was subsequently used to accuse her of theft.

Elser's ordeal began when a Columbine Valley Police sergeant served her with a criminal summons for package theft at her home on September 27, 2025. The investigation relied on footage from Flock cameras installed around her hometown. Unbeknownst to Elser, Columbine Valley was Flock Safety’s inaugural customer in Colorado, and LPRs in neighboring Bow Mar, which contracts with the Columbine Valley Police Department, captured her truck near a house where a package was stolen. This led police to attribute the crime to her, despite her not resembling the individual seen on the home's doorbell camera, footage which police initially withheld from her.

During the investigation, Elser offered an alibi, stating she was a quarter-mile away being fitted for a dress at the time of the theft, but law enforcement reportedly disregarded this evidence. Although the police department eventually cleared her summons, Elser claims she endured significant emotional distress from the false accusation, and her employer nearly placed her on administrative leave. Her lawsuit contends that Flock Safety failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect individuals' rights, and that all defendants allowed law enforcement unrestricted access to the Flock database without requiring warrants, probable cause, supervisory approval, or any specific justification.

The class action lawsuit directly challenges the legality of the widespread deployment and use of Flock Safety's LPR technology, framing it as a form of mass surveillance. Elser's complaint argues that she was subjected to the "specter of criminal prosecution for weeks" because officers were granted unfettered access to her movement data. The legal filing seeks to block Flock Safety's "warrantless collection, cataloging, retention, sharing, and searching of the record" of her movements and those of others similarly affected.

Elser's attorney, Andy McNulty, is also representing a class of Boulder residents in a separate but related legal challenge against Flock Safety. That case similarly disputes the company's authority to operate what McNulty describes as "one of the largest mass surveillance networks in American history." This ongoing litigation highlights a growing legal front against the deployment of LPR systems by private companies and their integration with local law enforcement, particularly concerning Fourth Amendment implications and data privacy rights.

In response to the lawsuit, the towns of Columbine Valley and Bow Mar have declined to comment. Flock Safety, however, has pledged to defend itself in court. A spokesperson for the company attributed Elser's incident to human error, stating that the Flock system accurately identified her vehicle's location, but emphasized that law enforcement bears the responsibility for interpreting and weighing that information within the broader investigative context. The spokesperson further characterized Flock as an investigative tool intended to assist law enforcement in solving crimes when used in conjunction with other evidence.

This Chrisanna Elser Flock Safety class action lawsuit underscores critical questions surrounding the balance between public safety and individual civil liberties in the age of pervasive surveillance technology. The case could set important precedents regarding the legal requirements for accessing and utilizing data from private LPR networks, particularly concerning the necessity of warrants or probable cause. The outcome will be closely watched by legal experts and civil rights advocates, as it addresses the potential for wrongful prosecution license plate readers and the broader implications of warrantless data collection lawsuit practices by both private entities and government agencies.

This class action challenges the legality of mass surveillance via Flock Safety LPRs and their use by law enforcement without warrants or probable cause. Lawyers should monitor this case for precedents regarding data privacy, Fourth Amendment rights, and potential liabilities for municipalities and technology providers deploying such systems, especially concerning wrongful prosecution claims.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service