Colorado Data Privacy Bills Died. The Warrant Standard Shouldn’t.

The Denver Post reports that two bipartisan bills aimed at limiting warrantless government access to Coloradans’ data died after strong opposition from law enforcement groups and, in one case, a veto threat from Gov. Jared Polis. One bill targeted access to license plate reader data from companies like Flock Safety. The other would have asked voters whether law enforcement should need a warrant before accessing personal data from third-party brokers.

The bills made for strange political company, which is usually how you know the issue is real. Progressive Democrats, conservative Republicans, civil liberties advocates, immigrant-rights groups, abortion-rights groups, and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners all found themselves on the same side of the privacy question. Then the law enforcement lobby showed up, the governor flexed, and the whole thing got fed into the Capitol wood chipper.

The Bullet Point Brief

• Senate Bill 70 would have limited government access to license plate reader data without a warrant or other specific conditions. In other words, maybe the government should not be able to track everybody’s movements just because the technology exists. Radical stuff. Call Madison.
• House Bill 1037 originally would have barred law enforcement from buying people’s personal data from third-party brokers without a warrant. After amendments, it became a ballot proposal. Then it died in committee anyway, because apparently even asking voters was too spicy.
• Law enforcement groups opposed both measures, arguing they would limit investigators’ ability to solve crimes. That argument matters. Public safety is not a bumper sticker. But neither is the Fourth Amendment, despite what some lobbyists seem to think.
• Gov. Polis threatened to veto SB70, with his office saying law enforcement needs tools to solve crimes and keep the public safe. Fair enough. But “tools” and “unchecked access” are not the same thing, unless we are now pretending every government power comes pre-washed in virtue.
• The most telling moment came when Rep. Scott Slaugh, a Johnstown Republican, said he supports law enforcement concerns but still believes personal data should stay private from government unless due process establishes a need and a warrant is obtained. That is not anti-cop. That is pro-Constitution. Remember that old thing?

My Bottom Line

This bill was a tough one. I support law enforcement. That has always been a hard line for me. I want our deputies, officers, troopers, prosecutors, and investigators to have what they need to catch criminals and keep families safe. That is not theory. That is public duty.

But I support the law enforcement of today. Who knows what the law enforcement of tomorrow holds? Power handed to government rarely stays neatly inside the box where the first salesman promised it would live. Today it is used for car thieves and violent offenders. Tomorrow it may be used by a different administration, a different agency, a different agenda, and suddenly everybody is surprised the surveillance machine has no reverse gear.

What Republicans did to Rep. Scott Slaugh on this bill was political gamesmanship. Caldwell subbed in, Slaugh got sidelined, and the decisive vote went the other way. But hey, don’t hate the playa, hate the game. The Capitol is a contact sport, and sometimes the referee is holding a fundraiser after the match.

Still, Slaugh summed it up exactly right. Law enforcement did not like the bill because they believed it could restrict their ability to do their jobs. That concern is legitimate. But personal data should be private from the government unless the government establishes, through due process, cause to need it and gets a warrant for the specific data tied to prosecuting a crime. That is the balance. Support cops. Protect citizens. Require warrants. The Constitution is not a museum piece. It is the rulebook, especially when the technology gets shiny and the lobbyists get nervous.

Source: The Denver Post