Most people never expect a knock on the door from a police officer to flip their life upside down. Yet that is exactly what happened to Chrisanna Elser in the Denver area of Colorado, near the small towns of Bow Mar and Columbine Valley.
An officer from the Columbine Valley Police Department arrived at her home and accused her of stealing a $25 package from a porch in the neighboring town of Bow Mar, Colorado.
The officer said surveillance technology pointed directly to her vehicle, a forest green Rivian R1T electric pickup truck. But Chrisanna insists she never stole anything.
What followed became a real-world lesson in modern surveillance. Doorbell cameras, license plate readers and phone location data suddenly became evidence in a case she had to fight herself.
CALIFORNIA PORCH PIRATE CAUGHT STEALING SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS INSTALLED TO CATCH HIM
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.
Chrisanna recently joined me on my Beyond Connected podcast to walk through the moment everything started. She remembers the day clearly. “So I laid down because I had a headache and my husband came in and said, there’s a police officer here for you.”
The officer told her a package had been stolen from a home roughly 1.3 miles away in Bow Mar, Colorado. The officer who confronted her was Sgt. Jamie Milliman of the Columbine Valley Police Department, which provides policing services for both Columbine Valley and Bow Mar.
He believed she was responsible. The accusation was based on surveillance tools used around the area. According to the officer, Flock license plate reader cameras had captured her forest green Rivian driving through Bow Mar between 11:52 a.m. and 12:09 p.m. on the day of the theft.
Bodycam footage captured the officer describing the town’s monitoring network. “You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing.”
Chrisanna said she tried to show the officer evidence that she had nothing to do with the theft. But she says he would not review it. “And basically, he just continued to start with that. I was lying to him. Never lied to him once.”
Instead, the officer issued a summons ordering her to appear in court in Jefferson County, Colorado.
Chrisanna later found the video that triggered the accusation. Neighbors had posted the porch camera footage on the community app Nextdoor while trying to identify the thief. At first, she could understand why the police thought the suspect resembled her. “When I saw the video from far away, I was like, wow, I guess that kind of looks like me.”
But the closer she examined the footage, the more differences she noticed. “She was significantly younger, and she had a bit of a shaved underside under her head.” The suspect ran away from the house and disappeared off camera.
Importantly, the person in the video ran away on foot and did not get into any vehicle, something that conflicted with the police theory involving Elser’s truck. Still, the investigation continued.
COLORADO WOMAN CHASES DOWN ‘PORCH PIRATE’ AND SHAMES HER ON VIDEO
One of the technologies involved in the investigation was a Flock camera. Flock cameras are automated license plate reader systems made by the company Flock Safety. Cities and neighborhoods across the United States install them at intersections and neighborhood entrances.
They automatically capture:
Police departments can search the camera network to see when a vehicle passed certain locations. In Bow Mar and Columbine Valley, Colorado, the cameras are used by the Columbine Valley police to help identify vehicles connected to investigations.
The systems are designed to help solve crimes such as stolen vehicles, kidnappings and hit-and-run cases. But they generate investigative leads, not proof.
Chrisanna’s case shows what can happen when technology is treated as a conclusion rather than a starting point.
Chrisanna began doing something she never expected. She started investigating the accusation herself. While reviewing the evidence, she discovered something critical. Her truck had been parked directly in front of another Flock surveillance camera controlled by the town of Bo Mar during the entire time police claimed she committed the theft.
“Actually, my truck was parked right in front of a Flock camera in my neighbor’s driveway the whole time.” If investigators had reviewed that camera first, the case might have ended immediately.
Chrisanna also discovered another piece of evidence hiding in her own phone. It was a feature called Google Location Timeline.
The setting tracks where your phone travels if location history is enabled. “Anywhere your phone is, if you have your timeline turned on, it will track you,” Chrisanna said. In her case, it helped reconstruct exactly where she had been that day.
She later discovered the data showed she had visited a tailor just outside of Bow Mar for a noon appointment located more than a quarter mile from the theft location.
Chrisanna gathered multiple sources of proof to show where she had actually been.
Her evidence included:
• Google Location Timeline data
• Flock camera images
• Photos from other stops she made that day
• Video from her own vehicle’s onboard cameras and GPS system
She built a timeline and sent the evidence to the police. Eventually, the Columbine Valley Police Chief, Bret Cottrell, reviewed the information and responded by email. Chrisanna read the message she received.
After roughly two weeks, the summons was voided, and the case was dropped. The actual porch theft was never solved, Chrisanna said. The officer involved later received a formal reprimand and was ordered to complete additional training, according to internal police documents.
We reached out to the Columbine Valley Police Department for comment, but did not receive a response before our deadline.
Many people assume they cannot access surveillance footage used by police. In some cases and jurisdictions, they can. For example, in Colorado, residents can request certain government records under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), the state’s public-records law similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Chrisanna said her husband suggested requesting the footage through public records laws. “If the city, if they’re using any surveillance on you at all, you can do a Freedom of Information Act.” While FOIA technically applies to federal agencies, people often use the term to describe public-records requests more broadly.
Access rules vary by state and department. Still, the footage may be available when cameras are owned by a city or town.
Chrisanna does not believe surveillance tools should disappear. But she believes they need clear guardrails. “They are a useful tool, but they are not a replacement for police work as it was in this case,” she said.
Technology can help solve crimes and protect communities. Yet when investigators rely on it without verifying the facts, mistakes can happen.
DOORBELL-CAM COMPANY RING PARTNERS WITH 405 POLICE AGENCIES ACROSS US TO SHARE FOOTAGE, FIGHT CRIME
Chrisanna used Google’s Location Timeline as part of the evidence that helped prove where she was on the day of the alleged theft. Many people do not realize this feature exists, but you can check it anytime through Google Maps.
If enabled, Google Maps may store a record of places your phone has been. Some people use it to remember trips or travel routes. Others prefer to turn it off for privacy. Either way, the data can become important if you ever need to prove where you were at a certain time.
Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com.
Most people assume surveillance protects them. Doorbell cameras catch porch pirates. License plate readers track stolen cars. Phone location data helps people retrace trips. But Chrisanna’s experience reveals another side of the technology. Data can suggest conclusions before investigators verify them. And when that happens, the person accused may have to gather their own evidence. Her takeaway is simple. “If they have evidence on you, you should have evidence on yourself.” For more of Chrisanna’s story and the full conversation, you can listen to or watch the complete episode on the Beyond Connected podcast at getbeyondconnected.com.
Let me leave you with this question. If technology ever pointed the finger at you tomorrow, would you have the data needed to prove where you really were? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
