Police used Flock AI cameras to accuse a Denver woman of stealing a $25 package. It took her weeks to prove she was never there

Chrisanna Elser, a Denver resident, found out the hard way when a police officer rang her doorbell and accused her of stealing an Amazon package.

“You know why I’m here,” Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman told Elser, who recorded the engagement on her doorbell video device, as reported by CBS News Colorado.

“You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing, correct?”

Elser said the conversation started with Milliman looking to confirm if her truck, a green Rivian, was the same vehicle seen driving through the nearby town of Bow Mar that was tied to the theft case. It escalated when Milliman produced photos alleging it was Elser in the vehicle identified by the police, and tied her to the theft. “It went right into, ‘we have video of you stealing a package,’” Elser said, noting that Milliman issued a summons before leaving her property.

“It became my job to prove my innocence,” Elser told CBS News Colorado. “And I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.”

Flock cameras are gaining notoriety, but for the wrong reasons

Two weeks later, after Elser provided video images from her Rivian, which recorded her whereabouts on the day noted in the summons, the case was dropped by the Columbine Valley police chief.

Privacy experts say they expect more cases like Elser’s, mostly due to the rising use of Flock camera technology, the conclusions investigators draw from the data and the failure to adequately investigate alternative explanations.

“By placing too much reliance upon a ‘product’ and using it as a crutch to rush an investigation without proper operating procedures being followed, we’ll see an increase in these types of cases,” Philip Farina, founder and chief security and safety advisor for Risky Business, a safety and security company, told Moneywise.

Flock camera misuse could also trigger an avalanche of legal claims that can arise from law enforcement getting it wrong. “False arrest or imprisonment, malicious prosecution, civil rights violations are just a few claims that can be made,” Farina said.

Those lawsuits can name the law enforcement officer, their agency, the city/county and the dealer and manufacturer of the Flock cameras. “Damages can include compensation for emotional distress, mental anguish, lost wages and reputational damage,” Farina noted.

Law enforcement’s investigative game

Data security analysts say there’s no indication the Flock technology malfunctioned in the Elsner case. Instead, investigators developed tunnel vision about who could have committed an offense.

“Here they seem to have assumed the car owner committed an offense as her body shape apparently loosely resembled that of another person,” Nora Demleitner, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and a long-time criminal justice scholar, told Moneywise. “The danger is that once a theory is adopted it’ll be made to fit, however uneasily. Questioning basic assumptions is essential throughout a case.”

Another thorny issue with video technology involves administrative ease. “It may feel easier to move the case onto the person accused to prove her innocence,” Demleitner noted. ”Yet, that is not how the law operates, as the officer’s comments were incorrect. One piece of evidence doesn’t make a case.”