Why Denver Replaced Flock Cameras with Axon

Privacy backlash, data control, and the future of surveillance tech

Denver’s decision to replace Flock Safety license plate reader (LPR) cameras with Axon technology marks a major shift in how cities approach surveillance, privacy, and policing. While both systems are designed to help law enforcement track stolen vehicles and investigate crimes, the transition reflects deeper concerns about data sharing, public trust, and control over surveillance infrastructure.

In 2026, after mounting public pressure and political debate, Denver officials allowed their contract with Flock to expire and approved a new agreement with Axon. This move wasn’t just about switching vendors—it signals a broader trend across the United States where cities are rethinking how much surveillance is too much.

This article explores the real reasons Denver made the switch, what changed, and what it means for the future of policing and civil liberties.

What Are Flock Cameras and Why Were They Used?

Flock Safety is a rapidly growing surveillance technology company that installs automated license plate readers (ALPRs) across cities and neighborhoods.

These cameras:

• Capture license plates and vehicle characteristics
• Store data in a shared network
• Allow police to search for vehicles linked to crimes

By 2025, Flock operated in thousands of U.S. communities and processed billions of vehicle scans monthly .

Why cities adopted Flock

Cities like Denver originally embraced Flock because:

• It helped recover stolen vehicles
• It provided investigative leads in violent crimes
• It required minimal infrastructure (solar-powered poles)

Denver police credited LPRs with:

• Recovering hundreds of stolen cars
• Removing firearms from the streets

At first glance, the technology seemed like a clear win for public safety.

The Turning Point: Public Backlash and Privacy Concerns

Despite their effectiveness, Flock cameras quickly became controversial.

1. Mass surveillance concerns

Critics argued that Flock created a nationwide tracking system:

• Cameras log where vehicles travel
• Data can be shared across jurisdictions
• Movement patterns can be reconstructed over time

Civil liberties groups warned this resembles warrantless tracking, raising Fourth Amendment concerns.

2. Data sharing with federal agencies

One of the biggest issues was how data could be accessed:

• Reports showed local agencies could indirectly share data with federal authorities
• Concerns emerged around immigration enforcement and tracking individuals

This became politically explosive, especially in cities like Denver.

3. Security vulnerabilities and misuse risks

Flock also faced criticism for:

• Alleged data exposure vulnerabilities
• Potential misuse of AI-powered tracking tools

4. Community pushback in Denver

Denver residents and activists voiced strong opposition:

• Concerns about over-policing in certain neighborhoods
• Lack of transparency about data use
• Fear of permanent surveillance infrastructure

Ultimately, city leadership acknowledged the backlash.
Mayor Mike Johnston stated the decision to move on from Flock came after the city “heard the community loud and clear” .

Why Denver Chose Axon Instead

Denver didn’t abandon license plate readers entirely—it chose a different vendor: Axon.

1. Stronger control over data

One of the biggest advantages of Axon:

• Data is stored within the city’s existing system (Evidence.com)
• Integration with body cameras and police records
• More centralized control over access

Officials emphasized that:

• Data sharing with federal agencies would be restricted
• Retention periods would be limited

2. Existing relationship with Denver Police

Axon already supplies:

• Body cameras
• Tasers
• Digital evidence storage

This meant:

• Easier integration
• Lower operational friction
• A unified technology ecosystem

3. Reduced surveillance footprint

Denver Police indicated the new system would:

• Use fewer cameras
• Be deployed more selectively
• Focus on high-crime or high-traffic areas

Officials said this would reduce the overall surveillance footprint while maintaining effectiveness .

4. Competitive procurement process

The city ran a formal RFP (Request for Proposal), and:

• Axon emerged as the top vendor
• The decision followed months of evaluation and debate

The Contract Details: What Changed?

Denver’s new agreement with Axon includes:

• 50 license plate reader cameras installed across the city
• A one-year, $150,000 contract
• Deployment in high-traffic areas to assist investigations

Compare that to the previous system:

• Larger, more distributed network under Flock
• Broader data-sharing capabilities

This represents a scaled-down, more controlled approach.

Key Differences: Flock vs Axon

Feature	Flock Safety	Axon
Data network	Shared across jurisdictions	More localized control
Federal access concerns	Yes (indirect access issues raised)	Restricted in contract
Integration	Standalone system	Integrated with body cams & evidence
Public perception	High controversy	Seen as more regulated (for now)
Deployment scale	Large distributed networks	Smaller, targeted rollout

The key takeaway:
Denver didn’t reject surveillance—it chose a more controlled and politically acceptable version of it.

Political and Social Factors Behind the Decision

The switch wasn’t purely technical—it was deeply political.

City council division

The decision passed narrowly:

• 7–6 vote in favor of Axon

This reflects how controversial surveillance technology has become.

State-level pressure

Colorado lawmakers are actively considering:

• New regulations on surveillance tech
• Rules on data storage and access 

National trend

Denver is not alone. Across the U.S.:

• Cities are reevaluating Flock contracts
• Lawsuits and legislation are emerging
• Public skepticism is growing

Does This Mean Less Surveillance?

Not exactly.

While Denver reduced its footprint:

• License plate tracking is still active
• Police still rely on LPR data for investigations

The shift is more about:

• Who controls the data
• How it’s shared
• How transparent the system is

In many ways, this is surveillance evolution—not elimination.

The Bigger Picture: A New Era of “Controlled Surveillance”

Denver’s decision reflects a broader transformation:

Phase 1: Expansion

Cities rapidly deployed tools like Flock:

• Minimal oversight
• Maximum coverage

Phase 2: Backlash

Public concerns emerged:

• Privacy
• Civil liberties
• Government overreach

Phase 3: Regulation (current phase)

Cities now demand:

• Data limits
• Transparency
• Vendor accountability

Axon’s rise is partly due to positioning itself as a “safer” alternative in this new phase.

What This Means for Other Cities

Denver’s move will likely influence other municipalities:

Expect more vendor switching

Cities may:

• Replace Flock with alternatives
• Renegotiate contracts
• Demand stricter terms

Increased scrutiny of surveillance tech

Future deployments will likely require:

• Public hearings
• Transparency policies
• Legal safeguards

Hybrid surveillance models

Cities may adopt:

• Smaller, targeted camera networks
• Integrated systems tied to police infrastructure

Conclusion

Denver replaced Flock cameras with Axon not because the technology failed—but because public trust did.

The decision was driven by:

• Privacy concerns
• Data-sharing controversies
• Political pressure
• A desire for greater control

By switching to Axon, Denver aims to strike a balance between:

• Maintaining public safety tools
• Addressing civil liberties concerns

However, the debate is far from over. As surveillance technology continues to evolve, cities will face an ongoing challenge:

How do you use powerful tools to fight crime without creating a system that watches everyone all the time?

Denver’s answer—for now—is not less surveillance, but more controlled surveillance.

Longmont, CO Speed & Red Light Cameras: Movable Locations

Speeding and running red lights are leading causes of traffic accidents, contributing significantly to road hazards, injuries, and fatalities. In an effort to improve safety, Longmont has introduced automated speed and red-light cameras across specific areas of the city. These photo radar and enforcement systems aim to reduce accidents, enhance driver awareness, and promote safer driving habits.  See our map of Colorado speed cameras and red light cameras. 

What Are Speed and Red Light Cameras?

Automated speed cameras and red-light cameras are advanced traffic enforcement tools that capture violations through photo and video technology. When a vehicle exceeds the speed limit or runs a red light, the camera automatically takes a picture of the vehicle's license plate, providing valuable evidence to issue tickets to the driver.

In Longmont, these cameras are part of the Automated Vehicle Identification System (AVIS), which was approved by the municipal ordinance on November 19, 2024. The system utilizes four cameras as of now, with the possibility of expanding the number of cameras over time.

The Implementation Timeline and Warning Period

The 30-day warning period for the automated speed and red-light cameras began on Monday, April 28, 2025. This means that for the first month, no tickets will be issued, but drivers will receive warnings if they violate traffic laws within the camera zones. However, starting on Thursday, May 29, 2025, Longmont will begin issuing tickets for violations captured by these cameras.

What Is AVIS (Automated Vehicle Identification System)?

AVIS, as defined by Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) 42-4-110.5, refers to an automated system used to detect traffic violations such as speeding and red-light running. The system automatically records violations by capturing images of the vehicle and its license plate. AVIS can be a mobile, temporary, or permanent system that helps enforce traffic regulations.

This technology is designed to improve road safety by reducing the risk of accidents, especially in high-traffic areas, school zones, and construction zones. The cameras help enforce speed limits and red-light rules without the need for human officers to be present at every violation, freeing up resources for other safety tasks.

Locations with Speed and Red Light Cameras

To ensure effective traffic monitoring and enforcement, Longmont has strategically placed automated cameras in high-traffic zones and areas with known safety concerns. If any of these locations become permanent, we will add them to our Colorado map.  These locations include:

• Main Street or Highway 287

• Pace Street

• Ken Pratt Boulevard or Highway 119

• Hover Road (N. 95th Street)

• Airport Road (N. 87th Street)

• 17th Avenue

• Mountain View Avenue

• 11th Avenue

• 9th Avenue

• 3rd Avenue

• Pike Road

• 21st Avenue

• 23rd Avenue

In addition to these fixed locations, cameras may be relocated within the Longmont city limits to address specific traffic safety needs. Always be aware of the posted signs in these areas, which will clearly indicate the presence of speed or red-light cameras.

How Drivers Are Informed of Camera Locations

To ensure that drivers are aware of these enforcement systems, Longmont has made it a priority to post clear signs indicating the presence of automated speed cameras and red-light cameras. These warning signs will help drivers remain cautious when approaching these monitored intersections or zones. It's important to always be vigilant about your speed, especially in areas known to have high traffic volumes or pedestrian activity.

The Benefits of Automated Traffic Enforcement

The installation of automated speed and red-light cameras is expected to have several positive impacts on Longmont’s road safety:

1. Reduction in Traffic Accidents: By deterring speeding and red-light running, these cameras help to lower the number of accidents, particularly at high-risk intersections and school zones.

2. Increased Driver Awareness: Drivers are more likely to obey speed limits and stop at red lights when they know automated enforcement is in place.

3. Efficient Traffic Monitoring: Automated systems can cover multiple locations and operate 24/7, providing continuous monitoring and enforcement with minimal resource consumption.

What Happens If You Get Caught by a Camera?

If your vehicle is captured violating traffic laws, such as speeding or running a red light, the camera system will automatically generate a ticket with your vehicle's details. The ticket will be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, and you will be required to pay the fine or contest the violation.

While tickets for speeding and red-light violations are common, the introduction of automated systems like AVIS helps ensure that enforcement is consistent, unbiased, and efficient, helping to foster a safer driving environment for everyone.

Conclusion: Stay Alert, Stay Safe

As Longmont implements its automated speed and red-light camera system, it's essential for drivers to remain vigilant and obey posted speed limits and traffic signals. With the 30-day warning period underway, drivers have a final opportunity to adjust their driving habits before actual fines are issued. By adhering to traffic laws and respecting the new automated enforcement systems, you can help ensure a safer and more orderly road environment for all.

Make sure to familiarize yourself with the locations of these cameras and be mindful of the signs marking these areas. Safe driving is everyone's responsibility, and these new systems will play a crucial role in keeping Longmont's roads safer for all residents and visitors.

Unpaid Red Light Camera Tickets in Pueblo, Colorado

Red light camera enforcement in Pueblo, Colorado, was introduced with the promise of safer streets and a self-sustaining revenue stream. The city expected that fines collected from violations would cover the costs of leasing and maintaining the equipment while helping to fund public safety initiatives. But reality has proven far more complicated. A significant share of tickets went unpaid, leaving Pueblo with a shortfall that raised questions about the long-term viability of the program.

The Financial Strain of Unpaid Tickets

City leaders quickly discovered that roughly 20 percent of tickets issued by the red light cameras were not being paid. That unpaid balance left Pueblo with a budget deficit of about $20,000. Instead of generating a surplus for safety programs, the cameras became a financial burden.

Pueblo leases three red light camera units from a private vendor at a cost of about $15,000 per month. Over the course of just six months, lease payments totaled $90,000, while actual collections from fines amounted to only around $70,000. The gap revealed a core weakness in the program: it depended entirely on near-perfect compliance to break even.

Why Drivers Don’t Pay

The unpaid ticket problem in Pueblo reflects broader national trends. Drivers choose not to pay their red light camera fines for several reasons:

• Financial hardship. Even modest fines can be a strain on families living paycheck to paycheck.

• Disagreement with the program. Some drivers refuse to pay on principle, seeing red light cameras as unfair or unconstitutional.

• Administrative challenges. Notices may not always reach the correct person, particularly if vehicle registrations are outdated or the car has changed hands.

• Weak enforcement tools. Without strong mechanisms such as registration holds or credit reporting, some drivers simply gamble that nothing will happen if they ignore the fine.

The combination of these factors makes it difficult for cities like Pueblo to achieve high compliance rates.

The Broader Impact of Unpaid Fines

Unpaid red light camera tickets carry more than just financial consequences for city budgets. They also create problems of fairness, credibility, and enforcement consistency.

1. Budget Deficits: Cities often plan around the assumption that revenue from tickets will cover costs. When large numbers go unpaid, taxpayers may end up subsidizing programs that were supposed to pay for themselves.

2. Credibility Issues: Officials who promised that the cameras would be self-funding and improve safety risk losing public trust when the math doesn’t add up.

3. Public Safety vs. Profit: When revenue shortfalls dominate the conversation, the original safety purpose of the program can appear secondary.

4. Unequal Burden: Those who pay their fines shoulder the full cost of compliance, while those who refuse effectively avoid punishment if enforcement mechanisms are weak.

Pueblo as a Case Study

Pueblo’s experience demonstrates the challenges small and mid-sized cities face with automated enforcement. Unlike larger metro areas with broader tax bases and enforcement infrastructure, smaller cities often cannot absorb large amounts of unpaid fines. The result is a cycle in which the cost of leasing and maintaining cameras outweighs the collected revenue, forcing officials to reconsider whether the program is financially sustainable.

What Pueblo Could Teach Other Cities

The Pueblo example highlights several lessons for other jurisdictions:

• Plan for Nonpayment: Cities should budget with the expectation that a portion of fines will go uncollected. Overly optimistic revenue projections can create financial shortfalls.

• Strengthen Enforcement: Options like vehicle registration holds, liens, or partnerships with state agencies can increase collection rates.

• Focus on Safety Metrics: Programs should be judged by their impact on reducing crashes, not by how much revenue they bring in. If cameras prevent accidents, their value extends beyond dollars.

• Transparency Matters: Public trust depends on clear communication about where revenue goes, how much is collected, and how safety is measured.

The Bigger Picture

Across the country, unpaid red light camera tickets are an increasing problem. Nationally, some cities report collection rates under 80 percent, meaning one in five tickets goes unresolved. For larger cities with higher ticket volumes, this can represent millions in lost revenue. For smaller cities like Pueblo, it can be the difference between a sustainable safety program and a financial liability.

The debate over red light cameras often centers on fairness, revenue, and safety. But the Pueblo case shows that unpaid fines are at the heart of the controversy. If enforcement cannot ensure compliance, then the cameras risk losing their credibility both as a safety measure and as a financial tool.

Conclusion

Unpaid red light camera tickets in Pueblo, Colorado, turned a program meant to improve safety and generate revenue into a budget shortfall. With nearly one in five tickets going unpaid, the city found itself covering costs it had expected violators to pay. Pueblo’s experience serves as a warning to other communities: unless strong enforcement tools are in place and realistic collection rates are assumed, red light cameras may become more of a liability than an asset.

Boulder's Expanded Red Light & Speed Camera Program

Boulder, CO - In an effort to enhance road safety, Boulder city officials have announced the expansion of their red light and speed enforcement camera programs. The initiative aims to reduce traffic violations and improve overall driver compliance with traffic laws.

What is the Best Mobile App or Website To View CDOT Cameras Map?

What Is the best website or mobile app to view CDOT cameras Map? 

CDOT Cameras Map - on a browser or web app

Boulder's Photo Enforced Parking Program

The city of Boulder in Colorado had a Photo Enforced Parking Program in place. However, I may not have access to the most recent updates or changes to the program. It's important to consult the official website of the City of Boulder or contact the local authorities for the most up-to-date and accurate information regarding the Photo Enforced Parking Program in Boulder.

In general, a photo enforced parking program typically involves the use of automated cameras to monitor parking violations in specific areas. Here are some key points about photo enforced parking programs:

Automated Enforcement: Photo enforced parking programs use cameras to capture images of vehicles parked in violation of parking regulations. These cameras are typically equipped with optical character recognition (OCR) technology to read license plate numbers.

Violation Detection: The cameras monitor designated parking zones and can detect violations such as parking in no-parking zones, exceeding time limits, or parking in restricted areas. When a violation is detected, the camera captures images or videos as evidence.

Ticketing and Enforcement: Once a violation is recorded, the vehicle owner is typically issued a parking ticket or a citation. The ticket may be sent through the mail, or in some cases, it may be placed on the vehicle's windshield. The ticket usually includes information on how to pay the fine or contest the violation.

Accuracy and Review Process: Photo enforced parking systems strive for accuracy in identifying violations, but errors can occur. Therefore, there is often a review process in place where vehicle owners can contest the ticket if they believe it was issued incorrectly. This may involve submitting evidence or appearing in court to dispute the violation.

Benefits and Challenges: Photo enforced parking programs are often implemented to improve parking compliance, increase revenue, and free up parking spaces. They can help enforce parking regulations consistently and efficiently. However, such programs may face criticism or legal challenges related to privacy concerns, accuracy of the technology, or the potential for overzealous enforcement.

To obtain accurate and up-to-date information about Boulder's Photo Enforced Parking Program, I recommend visiting the official website of the City of Boulder or contacting the local authorities responsible for parking enforcement in Boulder. They will provide the most relevant details, including any changes or updates to the program since my knowledge cutoff.

Previous update Nov 8, 2010:

Boulder, Colorado's new photo-enforced parking program captures images of vehicles, and notes the exact time and place each image was recorded.  The city is using a technology called AutoVu made by a company Genetec based in Montreal, Canada.  The device is a vehicle-mounted camera that can recognize license plates as a parking officer is driving by without stopping. An integrated computer system compares the plates to a database of parking violations and can pick out vehicles that have been parked too long in pay-to-park or neighborhood parking zones. Boulder City officials plan to use the cameras to for criminal investigations as well. Boulder purchased the camera for $46,000.

Colorado Springs Gets 2 More Red Light Cameras

Two more red light cameras are going in at Colorado Springs intersections this week.   Here is a map of Colorado Springs's red light camera locations. 

Red light cameras capture drivers running red lights through intersections 24-hours a day. The goal of the program is to protect drivers, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians from injuries or crashes caused by red-light running.

Two new cameras went live at Woodmen Road and Black Forest Road and at Barnes Road and Tutt Boulevard this week.

“We have seen a higher number of crashes, specifically side-impact crashes, injury crashes, and even in some cases fatal crashes,” said Lt. Steve Noblitt of CSPD. “We look for intersections that have high volume, intersections that have a higher number of crashes ... then we give more weight to an intersection that has a higher number of injury crashes.”

Beginning Monday, motorists captured by the cameras running a red light at the new intersections will be issued a written warning by mail for the next 30 days during a probationary phase.

Following that warning period, drivers who enter the intersections after the light has turned red will receive a $75 citation (no points will be assessed). CSPD said if someone is pulled over by an officer for running a red light, typically it is about a $165 fine and a few points assessed to your license.

“There’s kind of a halo effect if you will that occurs that when someone drives through an intersection that is controlled by either officers being there watching for red light violations, or a photo enforcement program, that people tend to change their driving behavior for miles after that. So, the next several intersections that you drive through, they will be in their mind that we need to be a little more careful at these intersections,” said Noblitt.

The first cameras were put into place three years ago in April 2019. CSPD plans to add more throughout the city this year.

DMV Driving Points & Fines

State Map	Red Light Camera Fine $	Red Light Camera Points	Speed Camera Fine $	Speed Camera Points
Alabama	$50
Arizona	$180	no Points	$250-$250	2-3 Points
Arkansas	$50
California	$446	1 Point
Colorado	$90	4 Points	$40-80	4 Points
Delaware	$75-$230
District of Columbia	$75	2 Points	$75	2 Points
Florida	$75-$125
Georgia	$70	3 Points
Hawaii	$77
Illinois	$100	20 Points	$250 or 25	20 points
Indiana	$100
Iowa	$45-$150		$45-$150
Kansas	$100
Louisiana	$100-$140	No Points
Maryland	$100	2 Points	$40 - $1,000	No Points
Michigan	$100
Minnesota	$130
Mississippi	$100
Missouri	$100
Nevada	$600-$1,000	4 Points
New Jersey	$75	No Points
New Mexico	$70-$250		$70-$250
New York	$50-$100	3 Points
North Carolina	$75-$100	3 Points
Ohio	$100-$200		$100-$200
Oklahoma	$100
Oregon	$355		$355
Pennsylvania	$100	3 Points
Rhode Island	$85
South Dakota	$89	No Points
Tennessee	$50-$100		$50-$100
Texas	$75-$200	No Points	$75-$200
Virginia	$100 - $200	4 Points
Washington	$124		$124
West Virginia
Wisconsin	$75

Please make suggested updates of information in the comments section below.

Blinding Flashes a Nuisance for Motorists

Red-light cameras have become a nuisance for some motorists in the area of Interstate 25 and Lincoln Avenue in Lone Tree, Colorado.

Lone Tree Voice By Chris Michlewicz, Published: 02.12.10

Authorities expect the devices to reduce accidents and traffic congestion. Those who drive along Lincoln Avenue near the I-25 interchange might have seen the bright flashes of light coming from bulbs mounted on light poles at Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive and Lincoln and the highway’s northbound off-ramp, known as San Luis Street. The intersections were identified in a study as problem areas: Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive for congestion, and Lincoln and San Luis for frequent crashes. Lone Tree officials decided to correct the problem by enlisting the services of American Traffic Solutions, which installed and maintains the cameras, prepares violation notices, provides the software for violation approval, and collects fines on behalf of the city’s police department.

Since the first set of cameras was placed at Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive in July 2008, Lone Tree has collected $218,000 in fines. That includes numbers from the second and third sets of cameras, which were installed in November. The cameras, however, have proven effective. There is less bottlenecking at the Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive intersection, an issue that caused major back-ups for eastbound and westbound traffic on Lincoln. Statistics on the number of accidents are not yet available, said Sgt. Scott Cavenah, traffic supervisor for the Lone Tree Police Department.

But some motorists are upset about what they call blinding flashes of light, even when there are no vehicles in the intersection. Parker resident David Wilson said he became aware of the cameras as he sat at a red light on westbound Lincoln last summer. While he applauds efforts to improve safety, Wilson believes the cameras could eventually end up causing an accident. “What I can’t understand is the random timing of the photos being taken,” he said. “I watched it flash twice when there was no one even violating the law.” A city spokesperson attributed the “random” flashes to the system “recalibrating” itself. Wilson said the flashes can be distracting to motorists, especially out-of-towners who might not be aware they are present.

The Lincoln and San Luis intersection was found to be a hotspot for regular violations. The study found a high accident rate, a large number of violations during the research period, and significant congestion. Furthermore, officers could not effectively work at the intersection because of its design. Cavenah has collected data on the intersection but said the numbers are too preliminary to determine whether the red-light cameras have been effective. “A better comparison can be made once we get at least one-year’s worth of data to review,” he said in an update sent via e-mail. The annual expense to Lone Tree for all three cameras is $180,000. The city ultimately hopes to gain voluntary compliance with the traffic laws and maintain better traffic flow in the area.

Wilson would prefer to see the cameras removed, but expects to see more of them in the Denver metro area in the coming years. “Unfortunately, I think things are going that way,” he said. “They are the cops. They can pretty much do whatever they want.”