Skip to content
STATEOF WATCH
โ† the record

Flock and license plate readersOct 5, 2026Denver, CO

Elser v. Flock Group: Colorado lawsuit over a theft charge built on a month of Flock history

A Denver woman is suing Flock and two small Colorado towns. She says a police sergeant used Flock cameras to pull up a month of her driving, charged her with stealing a $25 package she didn't take, and refused to look at her evidence. The charge was dropped. She also wants the court to make Flock build a warrant requirement into its system for every Colorado agency. These are her claims; no one has answered them yet.

verifiedchecked v3.33

Elser v. Flock Group, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-04977-NYW (D. Colo.), filed Oct 5, 2026, before Judge Nina Y. Wang. Defendants: Flock; the Towns of Columbine Valley and Bow Mar; Columbine Valley police Sgt. Jamie Milliman; and Chief Bret Cottrell.

The complaint alleges that after a package worth "twenty-five dollars or less" was stolen in Bow Mar on Sept 22, 2025, by a woman who left on foot, Milliman searched Flock for vehicles nearby, found Elser's truck, and pulled about a month of its history. Six Flock cameras cover all three entrances to Bow Mar. He served her a theft summons at her Denver home on Sept 27 and, she says, refused to look at her truck's camera footage. Her truck's GPS, her phone's location history and her tailor's cameras placed her at a fitting more than a quarter mile away. The chief voided the summons on Oct 15, 2025.

The complaint also alleges that Columbine Valley was Flock's first Colorado customer, that Flock trained both officers, and that in November 2021 Flock opened the towns' cameras to all of its police customers in Colorado. It brings six claims: federal unreasonable-search and malicious-prosecution claims, two Colorado constitutional claims against the officers, and two class claims against Flock alone (intrusion upon seclusion and negligence) on behalf of everyone whose vehicle Flock's Colorado cameras have photographed. Elser asks the court to order Flock to build a warrant requirement, case numbers, supervisory approval and auditing into its system for Colorado agencies.

All of this is the plaintiff's account. No defendant had responded as of Oct 9, 2026.

How we know: Complaint read in full from the court record (Oct 9, 2026), with the docket. What happened to Elser and what Flock did are the plaintiff's allegations; no defendant had responded as of Oct 9. Flock's reported response to the press is not in the complaint and is not used here.

โ€œsearched Flock's database for the historical movements of her truck to surveil her every movement by and through Bow Mar over the past monthโ€
Elser v. Flock Group, complaint (Doc. 1), para. 53 (plaintiff's allegation)

Source chain

  1. 01Elser v. Flock Group, No. 1:26-cv-04977-NYW, Doc. 1, class action complaint (D. Colo. Oct. 5, 2026)primarydocket 1:26-cv-04977-NYWdocument (PDF)
  2. 02CourtListener docket 74922498primarydocket 1:26-cv-04977-NYWlink being reconstructed

Tracked case: Elser v. Flock

Machine-readable: /api/v1/claims/elser-v-flock.json