Chrisanna Elser sues Flock and two Colorado towns over a plate-reader hit an officer called 'a lock'

Sergeant Jamie Milliman already had the paperwork in his hand when he knocked on Chrisanna Elser's door in Fort Logan on September 27, 2025 ^[1]. "I guess this is a shock to you, but I am telling you, this is a lock," Milliman told her. "One hundred percent. No doubt." ^[2]

His "lock" was two plate reads taken 17 minutes apart ^[22], and the accusation rested on that Flock hit ^[18]. Milliman told Elser that nobody gets in or out of Bow Mar without the department knowing ^[5]. He also said her truck had been through town about 20 times in the prior month ^[6]. Both statements are about vehicles crossing the town line, and that is what the cameras recorded. The officer used the record as proof of something a plate read cannot show: who stood on a porch. According to the complaint, the doorbell video of the theft shows a woman who bears no resemblance to Elser leaving on foot, never getting into a car ^[9].

The summons came before anyone reviewed contrary evidence. Milliman said she would get to see his video evidence in court, and warned that if she denied it, she could expect no courtesy from him ^[13]. Ten days after the "lock" visit, on October 7, the department went on Nextdoor to ask neighbors for footage of a dark green Rivian, according to the complaint ^[14]. Her employer in the financial industry nearly placed her on administrative leave ^[21]. Elser sent her evidence to Chief Bret Cottrell by letter on October 11 ^[10]. He wrote back a few days later: "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons we issued." ^[10]

The complaint sorts the defendants by what each did. Malicious prosecution is pleaded only against Milliman, Cottrell and the two towns ^[15]. The Fourth Amendment count names every defendant, Flock included, and treats the warrantless pull of Elser's location history as an unreasonable search ^[16]. Flock is a private company. The complaint brings it under that count by arguing it acted jointly with the towns ^[16]. The other counts aimed at the company are intrusion upon seclusion, negligence and negligent design, built on the theory that Flock sold a searchable product, in Gizmodo's account of the filing ^[17]. The claims over treating a camera hit as proof run against the police and the towns. The claims against Flock concern the record it built and sold ^[17].

A town that buys these cameras can sort its own cases on two axes. The first is what the action claims: that a vehicle was present, or that a person did something. The second is when contrary evidence gets heard: before the charge, or only in court. A plate read treated only as evidence that the car was there, and checked before charging, is being used as a lead. Presence used as proof of an act, with review put off until court, is where Elser's case sat ^[13]. The other two combinations are worth checking too, because a department that reviews early can still overread a hit, and one that reads hits narrowly can still charge before it looks.

For any single case, first write down what the camera recorded, without naming the crime. Then add whatever else ties the person to the act. On the day Elser was served, the only thing tying her to the act was a plate read ^[18].