Agenda
Westminster says NO to Flock / ALPR
Obi’s Ballot Guide (Statewide + Jefferson County specific)
My Essay on why Prop 134 and 135 are so dangerous
Westminster says NO to Flock/ALPR Cameras
On October 5, Westminster City Council polled 7-0 on 4 asks that I brought forward to say NO to Flock cameras, ALPR technology and mass surveillance.
My 4 asks to Council:
1. (7-0) End Flock and other ALPR contracts and remove existing cameras.
2. (7-0) Build citywide Surveillance Policy w/ enforceable privacy protections & prohibitions of surveillance functionality, including: pooled cloud plate databases, historical location searches, cross jurisdictional sharing, outside agency access, hotlists, secondary uses & data retention.
3. (7-0) Pause new or replacement ALPR/AVI surveillance technology until passage of the citywide Surveillance policy.
4. (7-0) Reverse Westminster’s “official” Legislative Policy Statement so our state lobbyist no longer advocates against state privacy restrictions on ALPR tech and data retention.
Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy. And privacy is not about having “something to hide.” Privacy is about personal dignity. It’s about your ability to control how you present yourself to the world and your ability to move through society without the government constructing a searchable record of your life.
A couple weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that a warrantless search of historical ALPR data violated the Fourth Amendment. The judge called the system: “indiscriminate mass surveillance.” A license plate reader is not just a camera. Connect thousands of cameras, store the locations, then make them searchable and suddenly government can reconstruct where people have traveled over time. That changes the constitutional question entirely.
Eliminating Flock and other ALPR cameras is not a criticism of our current PD staff. It is about codifying Westminster’s values into the city’s technical infrastructure. Technology is just a tool; the rules governing that tool are what ultimately define the relationship between the government and the governed.
Westminster PD has built real privacy safeguards: audits, retention limits, restricted sharing, training; and staff showed us real cases where ALPR helped police. When all 7 Councilors asked staff a series of questions, the answers revealed all the current safeguards were proactively established by Westminster PD staff. Which means future staff could easily reverse those protections. Also, other jurisdictions may not share Westminster’s restraint. A warrantless historical ALPR query can not only reconstruct where a person or vehicle has been, but can also expose your routines, your relationships, your medical visits, your religious activity, your political participation.
Your privacy should not depend on another agency, a vendor, a hacker, or human error. Colorado state lawmakers introduced legislation to restrict government access to databases containing historical location information. Another proposed rules for law enforcement surveillance technology. Neither became law.
Fort Collins canceled Flock, stopped data collection, ordered the cameras removed, and paused new surveillance tech until privacy rules are in place. And across Colorado, cities have canceled, deactivated, rejected, paused, or declined to renew Flock or ALPR systems: Englewood, Longmont, Lakewood, Salida, Steamboat Springs, Denver, Hayden, Hudson, Colorado Springs, Calhan, and more.
How much surveillance power should government have over EVERYONE? Yes, being in public means you can be seen; but it should not automatically mean your movements can be continuously collected & searched later.
Federal courts are questioning it, the state has struggled to regulate it, but cities are filling the gap. Westminster is not at the finish line, but your government we took a stand to defend your privacy.
Obi’s Ballot Guide (Specific to Jefferson County only)
Senator: John Hickenlooper
Congressional District 7: Brittany Pettersen
Attorney General: Jena Griswold
Governor: Phil Weiser & Lesley Dahlkemper
Secretary of State: Amanda Gonzalez
State Board of Education CD7: Karla Esser
State Rep HD29: Lori Goldstein
State Ballot Measures: Amendment 87, Proposition NN
JeffCo County Races: Lisa Cutter, Nicole Hensel, Eric Proctor, Andy Kerr, Reggie Marinelli, Nick Lobello
JeffCo & Special District Ballot Measures: 5A, 5B, 7A
Judicial Retention (I chose these specific judges because they demonstrate affirmative protections for civil rights, workers and constitutional liberties): William Hood, Pax Moultrie, Katharine Lum, Karl Schock, Elizabeth Harris
Why you should Vote NO on Proposition 134 and 135
Propositions 134 and 135 expand government surveillance and control of our children’s bodies.
Working as an EMT changed the way I think about privacy. In the back of an ambulance, people tell you things they would never tell a stranger anywhere else.
They tell you what hurts. What medications they take. What happened to their body. What they are scared to say out loud. You ask because you need to help them.
And then you guard those answers because dignity does not disappear just because someone needs care.
That lesson has followed me onto the Westminster City Council: the government should be extremely careful about creating systems that require people to prove intimate facts about their bodies.
That is why every Coloradan needs to vote NO on Propositions 134 and 135. How much private information about a child should the government be entitled to reach?
Proposition 134 is framed by supporters around fairness and safety in school sports. It would require school athletic teams to be organized around biological sex. But the measure sets no statewide verification method, leaving schools to decide how students prove biological sex.
That could mean medical records, testing, or other deeply personal proof like photographs. And once we build a system for questioning whether one child belongs on a team, that scrutiny extends to more kids.
It will reach the girl who develops differently than her classmates. The kid whose body does not look the way another parent thinks it should. The athlete who is unusually strong, unusually tall, or simply the subject of a rumor.
You do not have to agree on every question surrounding transgender athletes to seriously consider whether we want the government verifying children’s bodies.
Proposition 135 raises a different but related question. It would prohibit certain surgeries on minors when the purpose is to alter biological sex characteristics in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender.
The measure is written around why a surgery is sought, rather than a specific list of prohibited procedures. Colorado’s official Blue Book says that it may also affect surgeries sought by minors who are not transgender. The Blue Book also notes that these surgeries are rare and three major Colorado pediatric surgical providers report they never perform them on patients under 18.
So why would the state need to replace individualized medical judgment with a blanket legal rule? Why should the government get a say in a family’s most intimate medical decisions?
I grew up knowing what it felt like when systems had enormous power over a family with very little power of its own. Today, as a councilmember, I sit on the other side of that equation. For instance, I have raised concerns about Flock cameras because surveillance infrastructure created for one purpose can later be expanded beyond what residents originally consented to.
Every time the government acts, we should ask two questions:
What problem are we trying to solve?
And what new power are we creating?
Propositions 134 and 135 expand government surveillance and control of our children’s bodies. Coloradans must ask: “What private facts about my children’s bodies could someday become somebody else’s business?”
Laws eventually become a form. Then a demand for records. Then a stranger decides whether those records are enough. Then questions about your child’s body.
Then photographs and exams to prove your child is who they say they are.
A NO vote on Prop 134 and 135 would teach the government that a child’s body is private.
If these dangerous measures pass, the question will stop being whose child they meant and it will become whose child is next.
About Obi Ezeadi
Obi Ezeadi is a first-generation American, City Councilor and former first responder (EMT) who champions economic, democratic, and personal freedoms for all of Westminster. He was recently re-elected to Westminster City Council with a record-breaking vote total and is prioritizing affordability in this final term. Obi came in as an outsider and delivered:
Led best-in-class Firefighter Collective Bargaining Resolution and Enhanced Firefighter Collective Bargaining Agreement
Led establishment of first-ever Westminster Downpayment Assistance Program
Expanded open space and parks
Led integration of Childcare as essential infrastructure in Westminster’s Strategic Plan
Established zoning by-right for Childcare providers in 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Led creation of Childcare provider property tax rebate program
Led sales tax exemption for infant formula, diapers, period products, and adult incontinence diapers
Expanded housing options (condos, townhomes, housing people can afford)
Made water more affordable and secured clean water for generations
Increased Mental health support
First-ever gun violence proclamation
First-ever Collective Bargaining Agreement for Police
Led the establishment of free transport service for seniors & disabled residents
Drove police vacancies down from a region-worst 13% to an area-leading 1%
Cut car thefts by 50%
Invested to solve unhoused crisis
Elevated transparency and accountability with our residents