SB070, titled the “Protecting Everyone from Excessive Police Surveillance (PEEPS) Act,” restricts government access to databases containing historical location information about individuals or vehicles. The bill generally bars government officials from accessing such databases unless a valid judicial warrant is obtained, the individual or vehicle owner gives express consent, the vehicle is reported lost or stolen and the owner consents, exigent circumstances exist, or the access is for limited operational purposes such as toll collection, traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, or information security. It also defines historical location information broadly to include data derived from photos, videos, license plate data, facial recognition data, and cell site location data when it reveals location more than 24 hours old.
The bill goes beyond access limits and imposes handling requirements on government entities that collect historical location information. Those entities may not share the information outside their jurisdiction except under the bill’s narrow exceptions or a valid court order, and they may not sell or convey the data to private third parties except for tightly limited vendor maintenance or troubleshooting. Agencies must adopt compliance policies, encrypt or otherwise protect the data, require supervisor approval before access, keep detailed access records, audit those records at least every 90 days, publish annual public reports, train personnel, and destroy the information within four days unless a warrant, court order, active investigation, or consent authorizes longer retention.
The bill also changes Colorado public records law by making historical location information not a public record under the Colorado Open Records Act. In addition, evidence obtained in violation of the bill would be inadmissible in criminal, civil, judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceedings. The attorney general is given enforcement authority, and local governments are prohibited from adopting less restrictive rules. The bill applies prospectively to violations occurring on or after its effective date.
Overall, the bill appears to have been received favorably in committee, with multiple amendments adopted unanimously in Senate Judiciary and a 4-2 vote to advance the bill to Appropriations. The later Appropriations vote also advanced the bill, though by a narrower 4-3 margin, suggesting some continuing concern even as the measure moved forward. The available voting history indicates support for the bill’s privacy and surveillance-limiting goals, but not unanimous agreement on its scope or implementation.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the restrictions and the operational burden on government entities. Potential concerns include whether the warrant requirement and short retention period could hinder law enforcement, tolling, traffic, parking, and emergency-related uses, and whether the reporting, auditing, training, and disciplinary requirements are administratively costly. Supporters appear focused on privacy, transparency, and limiting warrantless surveillance, while opponents or skeptics likely worry about public safety, investigative flexibility, and the practical effects on agencies that rely on location-related technologies.
SB070 would add a new section to Colorado criminal procedure law restricting government access to historical location databases and would amend the Colorado Open Records Act to exclude historical location information from public records. It creates new compliance duties for government entities, establishes evidentiary exclusion for unlawfully obtained data, authorizes attorney general enforcement, and preempts less protective local policies. The bill would affect law enforcement, local governments, transportation and parking enforcement agencies, and any public entity that collects or uses location-tracking technologies or related databases.
The committee and vote history suggest generally positive sentiment toward the bill’s privacy protections, with unanimous support for several amendments and majority support for advancing the measure out of Judiciary and Appropriations. At the same time, the narrower vote in Appropriations indicates some reservations remained. The overall tone appears supportive of limiting surveillance, but with some concern about implementation and the effect on government operations.
The most notable contention is between privacy advocates, who favor strict limits on government access to historical location data, and those concerned about law enforcement and operational needs. The bill’s warrant requirement, short retention limits, public reporting obligations, and broad definition of historical location information may be viewed as too restrictive by critics. Supporters likely emphasize protection from excessive police surveillance and misuse of commercially available data, while skeptics may argue the bill could impede investigations, emergency response, toll and traffic enforcement, and agency administration.