House Judiciary [Mar 24, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Representatives, Bacon.

Clifford.

Espinosa.

Flannell.

Garcia.

Kelty.

Slaw.

Soper.

Zokai.

Carter.

Mr. Chair. All right, members, we have four bills today. We are going to start out with House Bill 1290 with Majority Leader Duran and Rep Hartsook, whoever would like to begin.

Rep. Hartzik. Also, let the record show we've been joined by Rep. Zokai, AML Bacon, and Rep. Sla. Rep. Hartzik.

Okay, committee members, questions for our bill sponsors?

Amal Duran Thank you Mr. Chair that is the amendment that we passed out for all of you to see and we're removing that portion from the bill Thank you Mr. Chair

The amendment is removing the category that was specifically geared towards additional assault on medical personnel, medical providers. It was a very broad definition. Through a lot of stakeholdering all the way up until late last night, there was a lot of give and take. They want to do that separately. So that piece has been removed. The strangulation is what the bill is focused about now. The assault on hospital, medical providers, clinic providers, ambulance, all of that has been set aside. If you strangle them, that's a different story. But assault is now that definitions, that's what the amendment will go through. Those definition portions are what will be removed. If you'd like, I guess if it pleases the chair, we can discuss the amendment to clarify some of that. if you would like the committee and Mr. Chair.

So thank you, Mr. Chair. So if you look at amendment, so there's actually an amendment three. The only difference between amendment three and amendment two is that they came out and they found that there was one specific number that had to be changed in there. But what you'll notice where it says strikes line two, so substitutes lawful duty, that big piece there was changing. the intentional clause. Then you jump down to, on the amendment, line five, where it says on page one, these definitions, if you look over in the actual legislation, that whole bit on the definitions that you are referencing, where it says the medical providers, medical care providers, doctor and nurses, all of that, that all is being struck out. And that will be addressed at a different time. So that's what the amendment is doing. If you look on line five in the amendment, that's what's being struck out of there. Other questions?

Other questions?

Emel Duran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have someone here that can address that for you. those precise questions since it's the first time I'm hearing you're asked here, but it's an important question. So, yes, if you could hold that for when they come out, that would be great. Thank you.

Rep Flanel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I apologize for my ignorance if this does sound ignorant. I am just looking at the bill, and so on page 3, line 20, I'm sorry, page 2, line 20, it still says, well, with intent to prevent one whom the person knows or should know to be a peace officer, a firefighter, emergency medical care provider, and so forth. It also talks about a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider on page 3, line 5. So if this bill now broadly covers everyone and not just medical providers, would that also be struck out, or is there something that I'm missing?

Further questions? Okay. Seeing them, we'll head to the witness testimony phase. Nate Marsh. DA Brockler. Regenia Downing, Elizabeth Newman, and David Carnes. Okay, we'll start with Nate Marsh in the room. You will have three minutes to state in the organization you represent. you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Nate Marsh, and I'm a senior deputy district attorney with the 23rd Judicial District. Specifically, I'm assigned to our Family Violence Unit, which covers crimes against children, specifically sexual crimes, as well as domestic violence, felony-level domestic violence. I'm here to talk to this committee about the importance of strengthening our laws and specifically protecting victims of domestic violence. Here in the context of strangulation, as the committee has already heard, that the risk of death increases by 750% when we have a strangulation incident in a domestic violence relationship. Over half, or I'm sorry, just under half of all domestic violence fatalities include a prior strangulation incident. This bill is really about protecting the most vulnerable here in our community, specifically people in domestic violence relationships. Right now, and I can let this committee know that, say, probably 75% of my caseload as a domestic violence prosecutor are strangulations. This is unfortunately a very prevalent thing in communities across our state and even in Douglas County. It knows no socioeconomic boundaries. It knows no racial boundaries. This is something that happens to anybody in any situation across our state. Right now on my docket as well, I'm prosecuting multiple cases where the offender already has a strangulation conviction previously. Under Colorado law, as it currently stands, the offender is still, if convicted, is still eligible for a probationary sentence between two and eight years in the Department of Corrections. These penalties are not a deterrent to abusers. In fact, many times what they do is they tell their victims that, and has been talked about with the lack of marks many times, 50% of strangulation incidents show no marks whatsoever. What they showed that they can control with impunity. And that is one of the concerns and one of the reasons that we need to have this law to tell victims that it is okay to cooperate. One of my last trials that I just did, it was a strangulation That victim had previously been in a unfortunately had been in another incident where her abuser had injured and strangled her When law enforcement came this was called in by a friend mother When law enforcement came she told law enforcement I don want to cooperate I don't want to tell you what happened. Because what she knew was that in the previous incident, it only got worse. Her abuser got out, attacked her again, and then, in her words, received nothing but a slap on the wrist. She made a decision and what she wanted and she felt safer not reporting, not getting help, not enlisting the criminal justice system than she did by staying silent. This bill will send a message to victims that their voices will be heard to come forward and that we will help you. Sorry about that. I never used the beep in this committee. Whoever was chairing in here before had it on. I apologize if you had anything to say in wrapping up, please. No, that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Okay. We'll now turn online. Let's go to DA Brockler. You'll have three minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, sir. My name is George Brockler. I'm the district attorney for the 23rd Judicial District. Nate Marsh, who testified before you just now as our subject matter expert and lead domestic violence prosecutor, and he consumes these cases by the truckloads as they come in. I'm here to testify in favor of this bill. What I want to talk about, two parts really quickly. One is the nature of strangulation. It is unlike virtually every other injury-causing assault that we see. It is very different than a cut, than a gunshot, very different than a punch because it is a prolonged effort by the offender. And it's the kind of thing that causes a significant amount of fear for victims. It's really unlike anything else when their airway is closed off. This is the kind of crime that in a more perfect world, you can do it once and go to prison. But we don't have that system. So this bill is needed and we're baby stepping our way. Let's be honest with each other. We are baby stepping our way towards justice because to strangle someone is not something that takes place in 5, 10, 15, 30 seconds, a minute. It's not like the TV or movies. This is an intimate hate field crime. And if it's successful, they can hear and watch the life drain out of their victim. And sometimes they get that close and these people defecate on themselves. They urinate on themselves because they are that close to death. This is one of the most intimate violent crimes we can have. And this bill gets us just one step closer towards what would otherwise be justice in this. I'm thankful that it's being brought. But my hope is we keep taking steps like this to protect victims from this and that they don't have to find the courage to come forward, not once, but twice, and not endure one trial, but two, in order to protect themselves by use of the criminal justice system. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll now hear from Virginia Downing. You will have three minutes. Stay in the organization you represent. You may begin. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Virginia Downing, and I'm the training program director at Violence Free Colorado, Colorado's Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And I'm also a survivor of domestic violence. I come to you today in support of House Bill 26-1290 because strangulation is one of the most lethal forms of violence It is a strong predictor of future homicide and it can cause serious internal injury or death without leaving visible marks That reality is dangerous for all survivors, but especially for those of us with darker skin. The signs many responders are trained to look for is bruising, redness, petechiae, and they're often less visible or not visible at all on darker skin. What gets documented as no visible injury can still be life-threatening, and it has real consequences. Survivors may not be believed and cases may not move forward. People who are at high risk may not get the protection that they need. In my role, I work with advocates and professionals across Colorado, and we see this gap constantly. Survivors experiencing strangulation often report symptoms like difficulty breathing, dizziness, or loss of consciousness. yet they lack the visible injury that can impact how seriously their cases are treated. HB 26-1290 is an important step by strengthening how assault, particularly strangulation, is understood and addressed in statute. This bill reflects the seriousness and lethality of this form of violence, including in repeat offenses. So I also ask you to consider the equity and implications. When our systems rely too heavily on visible injury, they do not work equitably for everyone, and Black survivors and others with darker skin are at greater risk of being overlooked. Passing this bill helps move forward towards a more accurate and accountable response to violence, and I urge you for your support of House Bill 26-1290. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll now hear from Elizabeth Newman. You will have three minutes state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Elizabeth Newman. I'm the Director of Public Policy for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. CICASA is a leading voice in the state's anti-sexual violence movement, along with our 100-plus members working to promote healing and prevent harm. And I'm here today in support of House Bill 1290 because strangulation is a growing and serious issue in sexual assaults, and it should be treated as such. In the last 15 years, quote-unquote rough sex has become more mainstream, but it's disconnected from the norms of consent, safety and boundaries that have been present in kink and BDSM communities. Often this is linked to media and porn influences, and while it can be consensual, we are also seeing that it feeds into wider patterns of power and dominance over a sexual partner. One study found that 38% of women under 40 had been choked, with 42% of them saying it was unwanted. And another recent study found that almost two in 10 college-age women, 7% of men in college, and 10% of trans and non-binary students had been strangled during sexual encounters without their consent. It's also been found that sexual assaults linked to dating apps have a higher rate of strangulation than other sexual assaults Whether someone is consenting to sex but not strangulation or not consenting to either strangulation is one of the deadliest harms Even if someone does not have visible physical injuries, that does not mean that they are unharmed. The impact can be both immediate dangers and longer-term injuries to victims. These include things like a loss of consciousness, loss of voice, difficulty swallowing or breathing, bruising, hemorrhages, headaches, brain damage, depression, PTSD. There are also increased risks of stroke, suicidal thoughts, and death, including delayed death that occurs days or weeks after the fact. Strangulation is also a strong predictor of future homicide in intimate partner situations, including during sexual assault. Additionally, perpetrators of violence who use strangulation to control and harm their victims have also shown a greater propensity to kill law enforcement officers than those who do not strangle their victims. This strong link to lethality makes the issue important to treat seriously through law enforcement and prosecution. CICASA has worked over the years to help support access to forensic and sexual assault nurse examiners to document and treat strangulation injuries and increase awareness amongst advocates of the harm of strangulation, But in addition to the medical response, the legal response must also rise to what we know about the danger. Strangulation is too often minimized and misunderstood. This bill recognizes the very real harm of strangulation and helps to challenge the normalization of it. Taking strangulation seriously can save lives and prevent future harm. We urge you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay, we'll now hear from David Carnes. He'll have three minutes. State and the organization you represent. You may begin. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is David Carnes, and I'm the public policy director at Violence-Free Colorado, the state's anti-domestic violence coalition, and I'm here today in support of House Bill 1290. What we see consistently, both in research and fatality review work, is that strangulation is one of, if not the most serious warning signs that a situation may turn deadly. In many situations, it represents a turning point. It reflects a level of control and willingness to cause harm that significantly increases danger for a survivor. When it occurs more than once, it signals a clear escalation in risk. The harm does not just end in the moment. Strangulation can result in traumatic brain injury, cognitive impairment, and long-term physical and mental health impacts that are often invisible or misunderstood. Survivors may experience ongoing symptoms for weeks, months, or even longer without a clear connection necessarily being made to the assault. Part of the challenge is how we talk about and define this violence. The distinction between strangulation and choking matters. Strangulation is an intentional act that restricts breathing or blood flow and carries high risk of serious injury or death. Getting more comfortable with this language and aligning our systems accordingly helps ensure that this form of violence is treated with the seriousness it demands. HB 1290 takes an important step toward closing that gap. By clarifying that second-degree assault by strangulation can be charged as a crime of violence in cases including prior convictions, this bill brings our legal response more in line with what we know about the risk. When someone's previously committed strangulation and does so again, we are no longer looking at a single incident. We are seeing a repeated pattern of behavior that is closely tied to lethal outcomes. This is about recognizing high-risk conduct and responding more strongly before that harm becomes fatal. If we're serious about preventing domestic violence homicides in Colorado, we have to respond to the warning signs that we already understand. Strangulation is one of those most significant. This bill helps ensure our response matches that reality. For those reasons, we respectfully urge your support for House Bill 26-1290. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Committee members, do we have questions for this panel of witnesses?

Thank you, Chair. So to answer the first question about sentencing enhancers for domestic violence offenses, the answer is yes, kind of. So any criminal act can be charged as an act of domestic violence if it is done either one, there's a physical assault, some sort of injury, or whether it's used for power, coercion, control, retaliation, etc. So any charge can. What that means as far as a sentence enhancer is if a domestic violence enhancer is proven, what that instructs our judges to do is that they must impose a domestic violence evaluation and then treatment for whatever is recommended. The exception to that is if they're imposing a custodial sentence, whether that's a jail or a prison, then they don't have to. So the answer is yes, kind of. I hope that answers that portion of the question. The second I think question was regarding sexual assault If there serious bodily injury on a sexual assault regardless of whether it intimate partner violence or otherwise can be elevated Again there a number of scenarios but it could be elevated to a class two or class three felony And those are not even necessarily dealing with any sort of strangulation at all. There's a few different ways, but that's the way those potentially could go. And I'm sorry, I think the fourth question was about the lethality assessment. And then I'll ask if you could remind me the third part. Yeah. Thank you. I think the third question is, I think what I'm hearing, and I'll rephrase it a little bit, is that people are not recognized as having been strangled because perhaps the bruises aren't apparent. But I don't see bruising as an element of the crime of strangulation. And also, if people are not believed, it seems like maybe we need to do something upstream. And the example I gave is we just approved that the lethality assessments are now required. I'm like, can we address then the lack of bruising there, especially also since we're hearing the context of being within domestic violence?

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. OK. So to answer kind of part of that is no, this bill doesn't necessarily address the evidentiary issues that we have regarding strangulation and how difficult it is to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt when there aren't any visible signs or symptoms. Like I said in my testimony, about 50 percent of all strangulation incidents will have no visible signs or symptoms on an individual, regardless of the color or tone of their skin. This goes beyond, and it's due to a number of factors, hand placement, force, length, directionality, positionality, a whole bunch of factors. So this does not necessarily do that. I think what this does do, though, and what it's attempting to do, is to recognize the seriousness of the actual act of strangulation, regardless of whether there are visible signs or symptoms. Well, we know that this is an extremely fatal event, that it's also a very intimate and very personal event. It is a message that says, I control when you breathe or when you don't. That's the message that's being sent here. For example, and why this is so serious, for example, right now, a first conviction for assault via strangulation under subsection I is a probation-eligible offense up to eight years in the Department of Corrections. A second, third, fourth, fifth, all the same. By the same contrast, under second-degree assault, if someone were to cut your arm with a knife, no scarring, you heal. That right now is a probation-eligible offense up to 16 years in the Department of Corrections. And the disparity there, I think, is what this is really trying to accomplish, as well as noting the fact that given the evidentiary concerns, it becomes even more difficult when individuals have a darker skin tone. And then for the lethality assessment, one of the things that we've done, and I can let this committee know here in Douglas County, we actually have modified the lethality assessment that we were using to include strangulation. As ours looked in the 23rd, there were three questions that initially required were automatic opt-ins. So they called out a victim advocate to speak with that person to connect them with domestic violence resources. We've now added a fourth question that would require an automatic screen in, and that is if there had been a strangulation in that incident or previously because we know just how dangerous that is, whether it happened in that incident or previously. And I hope that answers your questions.

35 minutes late. Mr. Marsh. The public shaming is the fine. Mr. Marsh. Thank you. I can take a look at that. I don't think that there's necessarily any reason why it can't be put in the sentencing versus the definitions. My understanding is that it refers then to refers the reader to the sentencing statutes, but I can double check on that. Thank you. I don't think there's any issue with its placement there or in the sentencing, practically speaking. Thank you. Further questions?

So the first answer to the question is there is a modifier for strangulation where serious bodily injury occurs already. That makes it first-degree assault. And right now what we have is when there is not serious bodily injury if we have a continued first incident that is a Class 4 felony of probation up to eight years in the Department of Corrections If an individual commits another strangulation offense where no serious bodily injury results it remains a class four felony probation up to eight years in the Department of Corrections and so on and so forth, potentially into perpetuity. That's the difference there. The other thing that's difficult with specifically strangulation and serious bodily injury, and maybe I'm a little in the weeds here, but I'm happy to explain, is that our Colorado Supreme Court has interpreted serious bodily injury to be specific to the injury that is resulted. Now, what we're talking about with strangulation, it is a very serious risk. And as many of the people have talked about, those injuries may not show up or appear until days or months later. And so that is the issue. I know that this body took up that issue. It was a case where someone was stabbed in the neck with a knife. Ultimately, there was no injury that would have led to death, and the Supreme Court said that was not serious bodily injury. This body took that up and amended the statute to include penetrating knife wounds, gunshot wounds, etc. That has not been done for strangulation or assault in the second degree. So where the injury may simply be a bruise on the neck, that is not serious bodily injury, even though we know how dangerous strangulation events and episodes are. That's why this modifier is needed.

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. This does not have, by definition, serious bodily injury. And I'm asking specifically for what we're talking about right now. There is no serious bodily injury. If there were serious bodily injury, then we'd be talking about a different charge. This is strangulation, no serious bodily injury, no domestic violence, no sex assault. Why are we enhancing the penalties for that specific charge?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The answer is because of how serious the act of strangulation is, that this is a serious offense that leads, And what we know by the studies, it leads to fatalities, and the state has a duty and a responsibility to protect its people and protect for their safety and their life. Thank you, sir.

Good.

Thank you. I guess the phrasing that you just used in this exact moment, that this leads to fatality, that's in the future, right? So are you saying that it leads into fatality because somebody has their hands around somebody and won't let go until they die? So then wouldn't that just be murder? Or is this like this is step one into because they strangled, then we are going to assume that they are then going to kill them in the future?

Oh, okay. So, yes, what we know is that when there is a strangulation incident, that leads to an increased possibility of homicide in the future. What this bill is trying to address is to jump and not end up having a homicide in the future. What this is going to do is that people who have a pattern, who have committed second-degree assault previously, who have strangled an individual, And if they do that again, that they will serve a prison sentence. That's what this bill is trying to address is that very serious, serious issue and the serious consequences that can come when it is not addressed. Certainly, it is always serious, even the first time. But this bill is just addressing whether it happens again and we have a second conviction.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would actually I would like to apply some of these questions to Mr. George Brockler. I think that he would be a great resource to ask some of these questions as well. Can we give him an opportunity to potentially answer?

Listen, I'm always happy to answer, but I also want to recognize that one, Nate is in the room. Two, time is limited. And Nate's pretty smart, dude. This is what he does. This is his career field inside the office at the moment. He's great at it. But I'm happy to tell you that we treat these crimes more seriously because of that risk. I understand the idea that is this something in the future or if they're not stopped with the choking lead. I just want to echo what Nate says. What the studies say are that people who've made the conscious decision to try to strangle a person, arm, hands, anything else, and to choke the life out of them, that those people pose a greater risk in the future to killing an intimate partner. That's why we have to treat this so seriously right now, even in the absence of serious bodily injury. The one thing I would add to what Nate said about the question on domestic violence and the enhanced sentence, it's not really an enhanced sentence. The lethality assessment is important, but it's not like we're doubling a sentence or tripling a sentence or mandatory prison because it's domestic violence. One part I'd add to Nate's description about what qualifies for domestic violence is, remember, it's relationship-based. It's the relationship between the offender and the victim that is kind of that first condition precedent. And then what are they doing in that relationship? And what Nate gave us, the description matters. But it's not like two strangers or people who just met, unless there's sex involved, maybe that falls into it. But by and large, Those are the things I thought of that I would comment on. I just know you guys are busy. I don't want to take up your time. And if I don't raise my hand to say something, it's because I think Nate's super smart. He's given a great answer. Thank you.

You're good.

Thanks. I just have a follow-up on my initial question. the assumption that a second strangulation, what I'm not seeing here is that it's a second strangulation on the same person. So are we assuming that if they strangle somebody once or twice, then the next time, even if it's not the same person, will lead to death? Or is the assumption here that it has to be the same person?

the the statistics say that we have that second strangulation incident now whether it's the same person or a different person i think what we're trying to address here is the act of the offender in this case and how dangerous that act from the offender is it poses a significant risk obviously to the victim the first time the second time whether it's the same victim a different victim but it's the act of the offender that we're really trying to regulate here noting just how dangerous these this act is.

So to follow up the statistics that you talking about then say are maybe this is thing you could somebody could follow up with sending us in a minute or later or something But as I understand what you saying then the statistics are showing that person A strangles person B once person A strangles person C once. There's a highly likely, there's a high likelihood that the third time they strangles someone even totally different, they will kill them. And it doesn't have to be related to person A strangles person B twice, which then leads to the third time that they will kill them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes and no. And I can get back to you exactly there. But the stat that I'm referencing is multiple times within an intimate partner relationship. So it would be person A strangles person B, person A strangles person B. that second time, that is 750% more likely to end in a homicide. Thank you.

Forgive my ignorance here, but currently, when a defendant's convicted of assault in the second degree and they've been previously convicted of assault in the second degree, what are those sentencing guidelines and how is that different than what's in Title 18 here?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently, if there has been one prior conviction for assault in the second degree under subsection I, that first conviction, the sentencing ranges are anywhere from probation up to eight years in the Department of Corrections or anything in between. Currently, as the law stands, a second conviction for assault in the second degree under subsection I, the subsection we're dealing with here, the possible penalties are probation all the way up to eight years in the Department of Corrections, again, potentially into perpetuity.

Yes, Mr. Chair. That has been passed out, and everyone should have a copy of that.

I move L3.

Seconded by Rep. Soper.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So amendment to L003 will bring much of our opposition to neutral and removes the medical provider portion. After extensive stakeholding, we decided this needed much further conversation and did not quite fit into this bill. In addition, it changes knowingly to intentionally to mirror the current standard of law. And I ask for a yes vote.

Committee members, do we have amendments?

I'm not listening to him.

Too much Okay Whoever would like to begin closing comments Rep Hartzik Thank you Mr Chair

M. Aldoran.

Okay, Vice Chair Carter, proper motion is to the Committee of the Whole.

Okay, that's proper motion, seconded by Rep Soper. Committee members, closing comments.

domestic violence

Amel Bacon.

Other closing comments?

Okay. Ms. Shipley, please call the roll.

We don't have a motion. We do have a motion. We did. It was moved by. Soper. Carter was seconded by Soper. That was the amendment, but okay.

Okay Bacon Pass Clifford Yes Espinosa Yes Linnell Yes Garcia Kelty Yes Slaw Yes Soper Yes Zocay Yes Bacon Yes for today Carter. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. House Bill 1280. Did you say, Mr. Chair, did you say, I thought you said 1286. House Bill 1283 is about protecting the basic dignity, safety, and legal visibility of individuals by ensuring they maintain control over their own identification documents. As outlined in the legislative declaration, access to identification is foundational. Without it, a person can be effectively shut out of essential services or systems, including employment, housing, health care, and the legal system. The bill recognizes that confiscating someone's ID can create conditions of fear, dependency, and vulnerability to exploitation, particularly for immigrant workers and individuals in economically precarious situations. To address this, this bill does three key things. It prohibits employers from confiscating or retaining government-issued identifications, with narrow exceptions for lawful verification like the I-9 process. It creates clear state-level offenses for unlawful confiscation of identification documents. We have an amendment as well. It requires written notification to employees in their language, informing them that their employer cannot keep their ID. The last piece is critical. It ensures workers actually know their rights in real time, not just in theory. Why we need this bill, I have heard from members of this committee who states that this law currently exists in federal law. Federal law, including 18 U.S.C. Section 1592, does prohibit confiscating identification document, but only in very specific and severe contexts, such as trafficking, forced labor, or coercion. The federal law applies primarily when the conduct rises to the level of trafficking forced labor. This bill applies earlier in everyday employment settings before harm escalates. Many workers, especially those who do not speak English or unfamiliar with the legal systems, are not aware of federal protections. This bill requires the employers to provide clear written notice in the workers language making rights real and accessible not just theoretical Federal laws are enforced federally and are rarely used for day workplace violations This bill gives Colorado the ability to enforce protections directly, quickly, and consistently. Yes, it is fair also to note that federal penalties are a lot higher. Under federal law, violations of 1592 can result in up to five years imprisonment, and actually 20 years, depending on the crime, and often accompany more serious trafficking charges with even higher penalties. This bill creates a state-level misdemeanor offense, which is lower in penalty but broader in application. Federal law punishes the most extreme cases. This bill is designed to prevent those extreme cases from happening in the first place. This bill ensures that no one in Colorado can be made vulnerable simply by losing control of their own identity and that people know their rights before they are put at risk, not after. I want to speak to also to the other section of the bill around the bias-motivated crimes. The bill goes a step further by recognizing that confiscating someone's identification is not always just a workplace violation. It can also be a tool of intimidation and harassment, especially when directed at someone because of who they are. Under the bill, if a person confiscates an ID or threatens to turn over someone's documentation to immigration authorities with the intent to intimidate, harass based on protected characteristics such as race, national origin, or immigration status, that conduct is elevated to a bias-motivated crime. this reflect a reality we see in communities especially now in 2026 when we have our community members being snatched off the streets and you also have people calling immigration services on people people's identification documents can be used as leverage to silence them isolate them, or make them afraid to assert their rights. This bill recognized that this conduct is not just administrative. It can be targeted and discriminatory. It provides stronger legal consequences when the act is used as a form of harassment or intimidation. It aligns Colorado with the commitment to protecting people from hate-based or bias-driven conduct. So I'll stop right there and ask for a yes vote on the bill. I did receive a note from a particular stakeholder that says that a portion of the bill may be prohibited by federal law. However, I just wanted to know that's not the case because that portion of immigration law, which they're referring to, I believe it's 1373, refers to government entities. And this bill is not just discussing government entities as it relates to the bias-motivated section. I'll stop right there and pass it on to Representative Rex. Rep. Rex. Thank you Mr Chair and members of the committee I proud to bring this Bill 1283 with Representative Joseph She gone over extensively what the bill does I going to go over a few of the Q and things that people are commonly asking about around this bill Isn't this bill primarily aimed at targeting immigration enforcement? And the bias-motivated crime provision seems to single out federal immigration authorities. And we'll say that the bill at its core prohibits, prohibition has nothing to do with immigration enforcement. It applies to all employers and all workers regardless of immigration status, and the bias-motivated crime provision does include threatening to report someone to federal immigration authorities as a form of intimidation, but only when that threat is made with the intent to harass or intimidate based on protected characteristics like race, national origin, ancestry, etc. And using the threat of deportation as a tool to coerce a worker into surrendering their documents is a form of discrimination as well. And that is what the bill addresses. What counts as a government-issued identification card? It incorporates into it Colorado Revised Statutes 8-2-125, subsection 3C, which already exists in statutes in context of employment identity document protections. And that definition covers the standard government-issued ID. The bill does not create any new or expanded definition of what qualifies. And the actual penalties are for unlawful confiscation without any aggravating factor is a Class II misdemeanor and the lower tier of the misdemeanor offenses in Colorado. when the confiscation is carried out with intent to intimidate or harass based on protected status or characteristics or involves threatening to turn someone's document over to the immigration authorities. And this bill covers all individuals regardless of immigration status. The legislative declaration explicitly notes that even documented migrants depend on their identification to maintain lawful status and access protections. So any worker, citizen, lawful resident, or otherwise is protected from having their government issued ID unlawfully confiscated by an employer. With that, I'm going to stop and pause for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. we have three amendments, L01, L02, and L03. L02 is basically, my understanding, is cleanup because it's just relaying out the amendments, the language that's currently in the bill around the notification. And then L002, actually, we're adding the civil penalties. I believe somebody on this committee we were talking to give us feedback on this, and we're adding this to the bill. And we also had some stakeholders, lawyers who work in this space as well, who made this request for civil penalties in the bill or civil enforcement in the bill. And in L-003, based on conversation with the drafter, we're striking, give me a second, I'm pulling it up, section three, because it would have had subsection four 0.7, instead of doing that, what we did is just clean up the section itself and just added knowingly confiscate to already existing statute. So that's L003. Okay, committee members, do we have questions? AML Bacon. I'm sorry. Civil penalties are in L? Civil remedies. Two. L two. Okay. I think my question is, I'm curious how you have talked about the notion that you are creating an issue, something to respond to under Title VIII right now, which means employer. And so the question is, who or what is the entity that is responsible, right? So if, for example, I am a nail shop owner and the manager takes the IDs, am I responsible as the owner or is the manager responsible? And who is responsible criminally versus civilly? Rep. Joseph. Thank you, AML Bacon. And we were speaking to agency laws at this point. Thank you for the question. The employer. So if the employer is considered the person who owns the business, then there would be the person who would be liable. And the individual, as written in the amendment, can bring a suit. Thank you. I have a question. So it appears, or not even appears, that amendments two and three conflict. Do you do? If we ran amendment two, we couldn't run amendment three because there would be a settled question. Specifically, in amendment two, it says amend printed bill page five, line 21, strike. And then Amendment 3 strikes same line for a different reason. So I do want to flag that. Are we intending to bring both of these amendments? We're consulting with our bill drafter. So according to the drafter, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for catching that. it's best to move L003 and then to then do L002 on second reading. That's what the drafter mentioned. Can you come speak? Mr. Sweetman, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members, I'm Richard Sweetman from Legislative Legal Services. There is a conflict between the two amendments. I don't know which of the two amendments the sponsors would prefer to move. It looked simpler to me to do the L2 on second reading, but we'd go either way. Okay. Questions for the drafter? Rep's okay. Thank you Mr Chair It sounds like the sponsors do want all of this in the bill Can we rewrite L3 to include the civil penalty that in L2 so that we can just cleanly do this all at once I think we can do that within a page. Mr. Sweetman. I would like to draft an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rep Zocchi, we can do that if you want to give me time to go draft another amendment. I can do that. I will leave that decision to the sponsors, but I will just say that I would prefer to just amend the bill in committee rather than saving part of it for seconds. Yeah, I'll just go to the – Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sweetman. Okay. Further questions? Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Carter. Before – thank you, Mr. Chair. Are we adding – does the finished product have both a civil and a criminal penalty? Okay, we need to understand that because I'm getting a yes from one side of the room and a no from the other side of the room. Yes, so we intended – thank you, Mr. Chair. We intended to run L-003. In L003, as drafted in the bill, there is a criminal penalty for confiscation of IDs, which is the misdemeanor to what we were doing in L003, because that would have been an additional section to 18-5903.7. Does that make sense? That's what that section would have been. What we've decided to do with L3 is not to add that dash seven into law and to just amend dash five and put knowingly confiscate in front of that. Does that make sense, Rep. Carter? Vice Chair Carter. My question again, are you trying to have both civil penalties, which is L-002, and keep the current criminal penalties even? Yes. Okay. Because may I respond? Yes, Rep. Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, because we're adding the knowingly confiscate in dash five or point five. Okay, further questions. Rep Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in L003, it says on 11 through 14, it says, I'm sorry, 12 through 14, it says, or 13 through 14, I'm sorry, It says their actual driver's license, actual government-issued identification card, actual social security card, actual, actual. So what is the definition of actual? Does that come to mean legal or a legal ID? That's current law, madam. Rep. Oh, that's the actual, yes. I don't know. Rep. Kelty. So you're saying it's not a photocopy. It's the actual hard copy of something is what you're saying. So that's why I'm trying to get the definition of what the actual means. I thought it meant legal, but you're saying it's just the physical card itself. It would be the actual document, and this is current law of Rep. Kelty. That's how it's written in the statues now, which means actual, yes, an actual document, a physical piece of paper. Rep. Espinosa. Thank you Mr Chair Maybe let me just double check because actually looking at the amendment you may have struck the provision that I was concerned about I think you did because by striking Section 3, it does not broaden. So the one thing that's moving it into 0.5 instead of adding a 0.7 that you do is you tighten up the actors and eliminate it to expansion of every other individual. Is that correct? Rep. Joseph. Rep. Espinosa. Yes. So in the original drafting, when you had under the subsection 0.7, adding a whole new provision and crime to the offense, my concern in that drafting and that appearance was that you were discussing that you could have opened it beyond the actors you were talking about. And my example of that that I was going to ask you about is what if somebody pulls a driver's license for purposes of going to the roller skating rink and holding that license until you finish your roller skating and you turn back the shoes of the roller skating rink. As point seven had been drafted, that potentially could have been covered. By omitting that section, my understanding is what you want to do is just add it to an existing penalty, which is more narrow and does not open it up to misinterpretation or expansions that are unnecessary. Is that correct? Rep. Joseph. Yes, Rep. Spinoza. Other questions? Rep's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted some clarification on your new section three that's in L3. Yes. So that language of knowingly confiscates or possesses or controls, is the intent for it to be or knowingly possesses or knowingly controls, or are you intentionally not continuing the knowingly standard, meaning that if somebody owns the business, they didn't knowingly control the identification document, but it's in their control because they are management. Thank you, Madam. Representative Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Zoukai, for the question. I do believe that the knowingly covers both confiscate, possess, or control another person's actual driver's license. But I guess maybe you might be having – are you having reservation? Representative Zoukai. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you could read it either way, and it would make me more comfortable if we just said or knowingly possesses or knowingly controls. We can do that. Representative Joseph. Okay. Representative Flannell. Representative Flannell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just so as I look through this bill I'm just wondering if this actually if this is a problem that needs to be addressed because I'm looking at the fiscal note and it says to form in an estimate on the prevalence of this new crime the fiscal note analyzed the existing offense of unlawful intimidation of a worker a class two misdemeanor as comparable crime from the year of 2022 to 2023 and 2024 to 2025, zero offenders have been sentenced and convicted for this existing offense. So are we creating a law that is that solving a problem that doesn't exist? Representative Joseph Thank you Mr Chair And thank you Rep Flannell for this question I think that a very important question especially knowing that this bill impacts migrant workers and also women who are in a situation of power differences. Oftentimes, those crimes are not being reported. We've heard of circumstances where people's identification or taken away from them when they come here to work as migrant workers. And chances are they are not reporting these cases because their identification is being taken from them. And the bill is requiring that notice is provided to these community members so that they may be able to report these crimes once the bill is in effect. Representative Flunel. So if there's already existing law, though, that would penalize people for doing this, why wouldn't they come forward? Representative Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is current federal law, and there is no notice. As far as I know, in current employment, there is no requirement in federal law that you give notice to the employee that if you confiscate their ID, that's a crime or a violation of federal law. Representative Flanell. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in L203, it does say no only confiscate. How would that affect, I guess you could say, if it's a known fraudulent ID or something someone presents, and maybe I missed it in the bill, but something that is like an ID that's illegal, like an illegal ID or a legal social security card or something that's false, a false card. So how does, if the employer then suspects that this is a false ID, a false social security number or card, how would that pertain to them if they suspect it to be false documentation? Representative Riggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rep Kelty, I mean, if that's a whole different thing, if an employer suspects someone of having, like, false identification, I mean, there's ways that they have to deal with it, you know, with the immigration, Department of Labor, whoever they need to report to. This bill deals with people confiscating people's legal identification documents. That's what it deals with. Representative Kelty. Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to think where to go. I guess I understand the intent here, and I think it's critical, and we've worked on this a little bit together, because I think this is an issue of concern in some communities, especially at this time. So I want to commend that aspect. I guess what I'm struggling with today in looking at this is if the individuals we're talking about are already engaging in what I would suspect is, trafficking and illegal conduct, because the individuals that are doing this are in fact harming these people from the get-go. How do we think that this law is going to get them to actually provide notification? I mean, if they're basically kidnapping these people and forcing them into servitude, and that's one of the means, of course, of control that they're exercising is the confiscation of these documents, how does our putting into law the requirement that they give notice going to be effectuated and how would law enforcement be able to do an inspection of that because it's not the same as the I-9 or something where employers can be inspected or have you thought about that? I just am trying to see how operationally what you're trying to get to is going to happen. I'll take a stab. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Rev Espinosa. I mean, I think that notice It's something that a lot of the labor laws tell you that you need to notify people. There needs to be postings. There needs to be transparency about what the law is. So I think if we tell people at least that, I don't know, maybe someone might be able to understand English and do something about it. We don't know, but I think that people need to know what their rights are, and that's what this bill does. How does someone get found out? I don't know. These things happen sometimes when they get busted. that there's no determination on when that might happen. But I think that transparency in the law is important, and notice to employees is also important. So that's where I went. Rep. Espinosa. Oh. Rep. Joseph. There was a second part to Representative Espinosa's question. I wanted to respond, but I forgot what it was. Representative Espinosa, if you could restate your question. I was struggling to formulate it in the first place. So let me think if I can remember what the second part was. But it was sort of under the premise that this is already a legal conduct happening, I think, for the individuals who are engaging in this conduct. So what enhancement does this bill provide as an incentive to not engage in that conduct? Because I think that's what you're trying to get to. Yeah, thank you. Representative Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Spinoza. I still feel like it was something else that I wanted to respond for you. But I think notice is extremely important, not just for the employee, but also for the employer, because it changes behavior. If as an employer, I know that I have to give you notice that, hey, my behavior could potentially violate law, I'm more likely to do the right thing. And then also, here's what I wanted to respond to. in the bill it also notes that it has to be in writing. The notice has to be in writing and it also must be, the record must be kept. So there is, that's the second part that I wanted to respond for you. Representative Espinosa. Any further questions for the sponsors? Representative Kelty. Thank you Mr. Chair. And I guess my question is kind of on the same line as Rep. Espinoza. If this bill intent is to curb or try to battle against human trafficking labor trafficking mainly why would someone who would use someone documents against them in the first place be even willing or wanting to report or notify them of anything because the whole point of them taking their documents is a form of coercion to keep them from going to law enforcement So I just don't know how it's going to be enforced against the bad guys. The good guys are going to do it, but I don't know how it's going to be enforced with the bad guys. Representative Joseph. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Kelty. I mean, I guess those are the conversations that we have as a legislature, and I've heard it many times on the floor, whether we write laws, who do we write laws for, right? And I think, yeah, mostly people who are law-abiding citizens will be the ones who uphold the law and the ones who are not upholding the law who are human traffickers. We hope that they would uphold the law. But you're right. I think oftentimes it's the law-abiding citizen upholding the law. But that doesn't mean we should not pass laws, right, to ensure that they continue to follow the law. Because if there is no law in place, people sometimes step outside of certain boundaries. And what we're saying in the bill is that there is a box, right? There are certain boundaries that we would like for you to follow. We don't want you to hold on to someone's identification for three months. We've heard of that. We don't want you to hold on to someone's ID for a year because that's wrong to have an employer hold on to someone's identification, whether it's knowingly or unknowingly. Representative Kelty. Any further questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, we have five witnesses. I've got three, four, one amend, one neutral. How do you want me to? Neutral and amend first. Can I call? I'll call everybody. Okay, Owen Brigner. He's probably on the hall. Oh, there he is. He's right in front of me. Christopher Nurse. Catherine Eversberger. Dr. Olivia Compton. And Aaron Meshke. do we have anybody online that wants to testify anyone else in the room that wants to testify for or against this bill okay seeing we'll start with Mr. Nurse state your name, who you represent and you will have three minutes. You're not on, brother. Make sure your mic's on, yeah. Buttons behind your laptop. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members. My name is Christopher Nurse. It's nice to see you all again. And I'm the political director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, a statewide alliance of organizations dedicated to keeping Colorado the safest state in the nation to be an immigrant. I'm here today to testify in support of House Bill 1283. Members, this bill at its core Addresses a very simple question Who gets to hold your identity? For most of us, I would assume The answer is quite obvious But for some workers in this state That basic right is taken away An employer asks for a driver license or a state ID or even an out ID to complete an I form and then they simply just don't give it back. Days pass. Weeks pass. Without that card, that person cannot legally drive to work. They cannot pick up a prescription. They cannot enroll their child in school. And they cannot prove who they are if they are stopped by law enforcement. Members, they become dependent on the person who holds their documents, trapped in a job they might otherwise leave, and they're unable to report unsafe conditions or wage theft because of the fear of unemployment. That power imbalance is not abstract. It is a tool of coercion. Members, House Bill 1283 draws a very bright line. The only permissible reason for holding one's ID document, quite frankly, should be to verify the I-9 Employment Eligibility Form. And even then, this bill will strictly limit our attention to only what time is necessary to get that done. Members, equally important is how this bill strengthens our bias-motivated crime statute. Without being privy to any amendment language, I'm speaking from the bill as it was introduced. The threat of turning over documents to ICE is not just extortion. It's a form of targeted intimidation that preys upon a person's identity and legal vulnerability. This bill makes this unmistakably clear that you cannot do this within the four corners of this state. Members, this bill is grounded in a principle that should unite us. Nobody in Colorado should be made vulnerable through the unlawful control of their own identification. The right to hold one's identity documents is foundational. It enables access to health care, education, justice, economic participation. and members by prohibiting that confiscation and creating a criminal penalty or at least adding on to what may be in law already based on what I've heard about the amendments earlier, House Bill 1283 protects that right for all Coloradans and members of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition strongly urge you to support House Bill 1275. 1283. Thank you, sir. State your name, who you represent. You'll have three minutes. Thanks, Mr. Vice Chair. I'll have three minutes? It says two here. Oh, you're good. You're good. I'm sorry. Do you want me to start? You have three minutes, sir. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Mr. Vice Chair. My name is Owen Bregner, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League and the 271 towns and cities that we represent testifying in an amended position. I'll second what's already been said and that CML appreciates and acknowledges and respects the intent behind the legislation. I'll just say from the jump here that CML is just now seeing the amendments like you all are. So I'll add for Amendment L2, our 271 members would have serious concerns about the civil liability addition. But as currently drafted, the bill creates new prohibitions on the confiscation or retention of government-issued identification, but it does so in a way that creates ambiguity and raises questions about how it would be applied in practice. Much of the conduct the bill seeks to regulate is already addressed under existing criminal and labor laws, including statutes related to theft, coercion, and unlawful possession of identification documents. Creating an overlapping framework without clearly identifying a gap in current law may lead to confusion, enforcement, and inconsistent application across jurisdictions. We're concerned about the inconsistent use of terminology of employee and individual throughout the bill. Another concern is that it may unintentionally capture routine or well conduct The bill creates new requirements for municipalities and I add that to the extent the bias crime section applies to public employees that part of the bill may violate 8 U 1373 which is why CML has asked for exception language there And then one additional concern is subsection 3, which introduces language related to government agencies and law enforcement. As currently drafted, subsections 1 and 2 apply specifically to employers and employer agents, so government actors are not covered by those provisions in the first place. By adding subsection three, the bill creates unnecessary ambiguity about whether government agencies and law enforcement are now subject to the bill's restrictions or limited only to those listed exceptions. And that's particularly concerning because subsection three references warrant requirements and other legal standards that operate in a different area of law. And including that language here could unintentionally be interpreted as narrowing or redefining existing authority rather than simply clarifying it. So we don't believe that CMO doesn't believe that subsection three is needed. And thanks, Mr. Chair. Happy to answer your questions. Okay. Turning to our online witnesses, we'll now hear from Catherine Ebersberger. You will have three minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Hello, Mr. Chair. My name is Catherine Ebersberger, and I'm speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Colorado. and our 2,400 members. I urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1283. The League is committed to equal rights, social justice, and individual liberties for all Coloradans, especially those who are most vulnerable, including immigrants. Today, government-issued identification is not optional. It is essential to daily life. Without it, individuals face barriers to work, housing, transportation, and even personal safety. No one in Colorado should be made vulnerable because someone else unlawfully controls or withholds their identification documents. Historically, confiscating identification has often been a sign of exploitation, whether by unscrupulous employers or human traffickers. And in today's environment, the stakes are even higher. Without identification, individuals face an increased risk of wrongful or unlawful arrest. Courts have already found that federal agents do not always apply consistent or well-understood standards for lawful arrest. That reality makes all of us more vulnerable, but especially immigrants. For many, having identification on hand is the best protection against being wrongfully detained. House Bill 1283 strikes a thoughtful and necessary balance. It allows employers to temporarily hold documents when required for legitimate administrative purposes, but it also ensures those documents are returned promptly. Most importantly, it protects workers from coercion, threats, and intimidation tied to the control of their identification. At its core, this bill is about who we are as a state. Do we tolerate systems that enable exploitation and fear, or do we stand for dignity, fairness, and the rule of law? No one should have to live in fear because someone else is holding the documents that prove who they are. Protecting access to identification is protecting freedom, safety, and basic human dignity. And then with respect to your question about why the notice is important, I think the notice is important because some employers will provide the notice and the word gets out to the community that that is required. So people have to be aware of that. of an idea that holding documents is wrong. Thank you for your time. I urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1283. Thank you. Okay, now we'll hear from Olivia Compton. You will have three minutes. State any organization you represent, you may begin. Okay, thank you Representative Mabry and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Olivia Compton and I am a board member and the vice chair of the Policy and Advocacy Committee at Inside Out Youth Services,

Thank you. Okay, our last witness, Erin Meshke. You will have three minutes. Stay in the organization you represent. You may begin.

Thank you. Committee members, questions for this panel of witnesses? Rep Kelty.

Mr. Nurse.

Rep. Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Nurse. I only ask that because you were the one who brought the allegations that they were doing it. You're saying this is happening. So if you're going to blame someone for doing it, I would expect that you could at least name them.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, as I said, Representative Keltie, I try not to make a practice of naming people who cannot be in the room to defend themselves.

Okay, further questions? Okay. Seeing none, thank you for your time and thank you for your testimony. Having spoken to the bill sponsors and in light of some confusion on the amendments, we're going to lay this bill over for action only for next week to make sure that the amendments, that we're all on the same page. So with that, we're going to lay this bill over. And. 1138. Okay, our next bill, 1138. Okay, Rep. Espinoza, we've got to find Rep. Wug. Thank you Thank you. Okay. Okay. We have our bill sponsors. Whoever would like to begin.

Rep. Espineza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. I've only been on this committee for a year and a half, but I will say this. One of the critical discussions we had last year and that I understood has been had for many previous years beyond that is how do we address the question of retail theft in the state of Colorado And I won't go as far as my co-prime in terms of this committee not ever looking at whether to increase the penalty because I think that we think very thoughtfully about those issues. However, we've not been able to tackle the question especially of retail theft of gift cards. And after our discussion last year, it became very clear that part of the difficulty in that equation is gift cards, as they're hanging on the store's racks, have no value. So setting any criminal offense based on the value, which you would normally do in a theft circumstance, did not make any sense in this context. Additionally, we had heard over and over again about thefts that were happening out of retail stores. So over the interim, we looked at this problem and said, how can we find a threading of the needle, as my co-prime has indicated, a solution that does not increase any penalties, because I think we need to acknowledge that there's not a clean and simple answer for that, but also that does address the critical information that we found over the summer, which is that $78 million is lost to the state of Colorado in sales tax by virtue of the theft that's going on in these retail industries. And that is why we worked with retail and with the Attorney General's Office and other stakeholders to come up with this approach. And this approach is to create a retail theft prevention program, which was modeled on the successful auto theft issues that we had addressed by task force previously. So we tried to find a solution that would fit the unique nature of the kinds of thefts we're dealing with. In addition, we made clear that we did not want to have this go to those individuals who are doing petty theft crimes. That's not what we're targeting. We are trying to target that more higher level felony level theft that is going on in the state. And so that is why we came up with the Retail Theft Prevention Program. In addition, we put it in the Attorney General's office. and unbeknown to me at the initial outset was that the Attorney General, by virtue of the auto theft and other programming, already had something in its office to deal with retail theft. And originally, when we first got our fiscal note, and the fiscal note that will be before you today indicates that the Attorney General asked us to put another .5 personnel into their office in order to administer this program. In the course of that discovery, we tried to negotiate with the Attorney General's office and say, look, if you've already got this program, why are you needing an extra .5 to do something that is going to help you accomplish the mission that you're already attempting to do by creating this subgroup advisory group of people who can focus on this particular problem? So we initially did not have much success, and the CSP moved forward and said, public safety moved forward and said they already had a gifts, grants, and donations program for other types of programs, and they would gladly take this program into their agency. In taking that back to the Attorney General's office, what's important to note is the Attorney General is now looking at whether that .5FT is going to be needed because they would like to keep this program in the Attorney General's office. And so that just sort of gives you the lay of the land of sort of the journey we've been on in the last several weeks. to get to this place. So we are back at where we started, which is we're going to create a program, a Retail Theft Prevention Advisory Board and Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program, which will provide resources to individual communities and towns to start to address these problems. We also include our Native tribes in this program as well for accessing the gifts grants that might be available through the program. There are no penalty increases. It mirrors a proven model applied to felony level retail theft, and it's not just a cost to retailers. As we said, that cost is already to the state because of the loss in tax revenue. We believe that this type of a grant and coordination model to address the felony level retail theft will enhance our public safety and seek to recover lost sales tax that we have while maintaining our current criminal penalty levels and addressing the real problem that we're looking at in the state. And with that, I'm open to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that question. Yes, they have, because whether they're reducing at a moderate level or not, the issue that's still existing is this increase in gift card thefts and then the specific larger felony theft concerns that are existing. So although individual thefts may be going down, the coordination and the larger level of harm continues to exist, and it is resulting in that lost sales tax. So just to follow up on that real quick, and I know Rep Wig wants to chime in. So what you're saying is in spite of the 13% discount from last year to this year, we've seen an increase in the gift card theft. I'm saying this is a persistent problem, notwithstanding that particular reduction. And I would say property crime is not necessarily the same as retail theft. So I'd like to look at the specific numbers with regard to that. and what we are hearing from the retailer association, that this does continue to be a persistent problem for them. And in large part, the problem is because they can't identify the patterns and practices that are being used to increase these thefts in these highly targeted areas, they were looking for a solution from us to try to target those higher level perpetrators.

Great. Further questions?

Rep Wug, Rep Espinosa. So first, there are two things. There's already an existing task force. This would create an advisory board that will be administering the gifts, the grants, and a coordinating strategy as a sub kind of group under the existing task force. So this existing task force does a lot of other things than what we're specifically honing in. And I don't have all of that information. I don't know if we have the Attorney General's office here to ask them what the existing task force does, but I do know they have 4.5 employees dedicated to that task force, and that includes coordination of prosecution in some areas where district attorneys need assistance, like they would in any other area of crime, and investigations. So they are trying to do coordinated-level investigations, which is why it makes sense to keep our advisory board within and connected to that task force So we're not creating something separate. I think to the extent that we have not added the public defenders into this bill at this time, but I do think that would be something we would be opening to do. And I will say we do have an amendment that will be adding the district attorney council designee and the director of the Division of Criminal Justice So I think definitely in seconds or maybe if we have time today we could add a third additional person to recognize the public defenders as well That is something that I don't think we had thought about,

Amel Bacon. Thank you. And so would this board, would the task force be a grantee of any of these grants? I guess I'm just trying to figure out the relationship between – I can hear you say the board's primary function is to be the grant-issuing space. But since there is an existing task force that, quite frankly, needs to be funded because, like I said, we've been through this before in other spaces, is there a relationship then between this advisory board and the task force, and could they end up funding it through the grant? And I'm only asking that because this has been an issue with DPS, and so I'm curious if you've had conversations on particular guardrails. I think that's – thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amal Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do believe, Representative Bacon, that we'll have really good testimony that probably can even get a little more detailed on this for you. So that's a good question. And I just want to let the committee know, and you may know this being on this committee, but the task force was not created through statute, and it was the AG that requested through a budget request. So the advisory committee is just complementary with the legislative directives is what we feel. So but again, we're going to work with the AG's office, continue to do that. And I'm sure you'll get some more thorough answers with the testimony we have coming up.

Rep. Espinosa. Thank you. I think that's why we have set out the terms we have on Section 4 of the grant program. And I don't really, except for the potential for law enforcement agencies also being grantees, don't see anything where we're designating that people could get that money back to the Department of Law or to this sub-task force. That the task force duties and responsibility, or the advisory board's duties and responsibility, is to issue this out based on the information that they're gathering as to the best practices for kind of getting a handle on this issue, which we've not been able to. because so often we end up devolving into petty crime and we don't want to do that. We really want to elevate this to the felony level theft that's happening in the state. And so that was the reason we did it this way. And we really did. I think I wasn't even aware of the concern you had, but I think I was aware just of that and making sure that we were targeting the grant program to the actual retailers and law enforcement that need the assistance in terms of helping to elevate this question. Rep's okay

Rabbi Espinoza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the issue is once we've developed the tools and things that we may need to be giving information, giving out through grants, resources that are necessary for the enforcement of whatever the tools are that the advisory committee is going to provide. So the point is, is by bringing this expertise together, that they will help to inform some of the issues that have been emerging and that because you're a smaller group or entity, you may not know. And then the grant would be to say, I need technology to be able to identify whatever the latest trend is with regard to gift card fraud. So one of the issues that I found out is in looking at this, what Home Depot had done in response to this is they were able to start putting a micro tracker on their gift cards. And when they were stolen, what they found is once they crossed state lines, they also found out that at that point a lot of the retail ruling of those gift cards would happen in California. They would then be shipped with this organized crime back to the states where the stores, where they were originally stolen from and put back on the racks for the unsuspecting consumer to purchase that card. Once the card was activated, they would skim the money off of the top of the card by virtue of the tools that they used to do that. So one of the things that this committee, this would do is to say, if that's happening, we can give you the tool, we can give you a grant to help track that kind of interstate travel of different issues. Now, unfortunately, I heard that then the thefts realized what they were doing, and so now they're not taking them out of state. They figured out a way to do them in state. But this is the kind of technology we're trying to stay ahead of and why we're hoping to give the grants out and then to the other agencies to be able to do that kind of tracking and that kind of work. And that was the theory, is that by providing a location that identified the issues, we could then provide the tools to the local jurisdictions.

I think what's been demonstrated is that at this point in time, police are not responding to certain kinds of issues, and so that's the other kind of a thing that might happen by virtue of this task force is answering some of those questions. Does law enforcement have enough resources or does it not to be able to address these problems? And what we're hearing is that law enforcement on the day-to-day basis or at this higher level may not be able to address these problems adequately, which is why the proliferation of the theft is happening and what we want to get a handle on so that we can bring those tax dollars and that information back, so we can bring them back to the retailers, because we all know that at the end of the day, if there's retail theft, the people that do pay are the consumers who have to pay for the back end of that theft. Rips, okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the answer is because retailers have been trying very hard to get the Attorney General's Office Task Force to work and focus on this issue, but because they also address other issues, this has not risen to the level of being able to be responsive. And so we saw that gap, as we talked about, and so that's what this advisory board is meant to do, is fill a gap that exists so that we can hopefully address this problem more holistically, and I do think our witnesses can also speak to that.

Okay. Rep. Garcia and then Kelty.

Brad Boog. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm going to, and I hate to do this, but I'm going to direct you to testimony. I don't know what more technology they need. All I know is we are told that they don't have the tools, they don't have the resources, and they've been, as Representative Espinoza mentioned, have been focused on higher-level crimes. So I hate to pass that along, but I'm sure we will get some more answers as we go here. But thank you.

One non-voting member from the large retailer, one non-voting member from a small retailer, and one non-voting member from a nonprofit retailer. But it doesn't specify, like there's a difference in retailers, But it doesn't specify retailers that deal in gift cards. So is that something that, I mean, for clarification's sake, shouldn't that be in there so people understand that, you know, I mean, I had my own business, and I didn't do gift cards, but I'm a small retailer. So would that be something, whether you're just picking hodgepodge someone from a basket of retailers or making sure that they're actually qualified I didn't know what they're talking about when it comes to gift cards. Rep. Espineza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is not just limited to gift cards. That's just one of the biggest examples of what we've been encountering year after year, Rep. Kelty. And so that's why I raise that as an example. But the theft is happening for other areas, and so that's why we didn't do that. I would say even the dollar store, which isn't necessarily – I mean, maybe by volume of the number of stores they have, but as an individual business, they carry gift cards. So I don't think we would necessarily get more or less. It's more to get that perspective of large, medium, and small retailers. And because their experiences in terms of what the task force might be addressing might provide different information as to what the priorities should be overall for retail theft. So, yes, we're focusing specifically on gift cards because those pose a unique problem to us being able to regulate by criminal penalties. I just don't think we can. That's what we've seen year after year. And so that's one of the reasons this was established. But it's not limited to. So it's gift cards including but not limited to that kind of retail theft that we're addressing by this task force. And I did just want to say, in addition, one of the things that's important to understand under the gift program, grant program that would not be covered by Prop 130 dollars or other information, is the program can also be given, the grants can be also given to retailers who might need assistance in technology or other ways that are developed to try and curb the retail theft. So it would go beyond the Prop 130 issues by what we're putting into the bill. Rob Kelsey. Thank you, Chair. And so you had mentioned earlier, and I'll make sure I heard it correctly because I am hard of hearing. But you had mentioned that the Attorney General's Office, the reason for this, in addition to the task force is that the attorney general's office is not being responsive within the task force that already set up but then you putting this program under the attorney general as well So what makes you think that he going to be responsive to this one if he's not already being responsive to the first one? Rep Espinosa. I think that the original one is doing its work, but it doesn't have – the reason they're not responsive is they don't have additional resources, which is why they were originally asking for an additional half-time person. I mean half of an additional person in order to expand the scope of what they're working on to address the retailers. So what the retailers told us is there's not enough focus on this aspect of the issues that they're facing, and so that's why they asked us if we would bring forward a process that would expand that capacity. So that's what we're doing. Further questions? Oh, yeah, Vice Chair Carter. And if you already explained this, I apologize. The amendment – the DA's counsel was an amend position. Does that – does this amendment clarify their amend position? I think we'll have to defer to our witnesses who have been negotiating with the DA's counsel, and they'll be able to answer that more clearly, I think. Okay. I just – Vice Chair Carter. And I just wanted – I guess I can ask them directly, but it kind of goes hand in hand with both Roke Kelty and AML Bacon's question as to the makeup of the council. Or, yeah, the makeup of the council. Okay. Further questions? Okay. Seeing them, we'll head to the witness testimony, if you guys. Mitch Morrissey, Rebecca Hernandez, Greer Bailey, Michael Smith, Lieutenant Richard Stevens. Okay, I've called too many witnesses. If you want to just pull that chair up, the nearest chair, that's totally fine. You all can share a mic. Okay, we'll start with Mitch Morrissey. You'll have three minutes to stay in the organization you represent. You may begin. I am Mitch Morrissey. I'm the former Denver District Attorney. I am currently a fellow for the Common Sense Institute. I am a neutral witness on this. We wrote a study in November of 2005 last year on retail theft, organized retail theft in Colorado. We use CBI information. We also did a lot of other work when it came to this serious problem. Retail theft is on the rise in the state of Colorado. If you look at just page five of our study, you will see that it's as high as it's been for over a decade, and it has raised every year since 2021. The other interesting thing about retail theft nationally, and we believe is true in Colorado as well, is that 89% of these incidents go unreported. So these statistics that we quote in our report are way underreported because most of the retailers are not even calling the police They're not reporting it. But what we showed is we used the 2022 numbers. We showed that the loss in this area was $1.3 billion in the state of Colorado. And then the scams that come after, the returning the item with a false receipt, that type of thing, the loss there is $1.4 billion, coming to a total of $2.6, $2.7 billion in this area. I think that Representative Espinoza already pointed out that the state government in tax revenue lost $78 million last year, and that happens at both ends. It's not sold, but when it's brought back, the individual not only gets the amount that it was for sale for, but also gets the tax that's returned to them on a fraudulent or bogus basis. And the bottom line in our report is that the consumer suffers. Affordability of the individuals of the state of Colorado suffer because they pass this on. When we talked to Home Depot, for instance, a few years ago, they were losing $80 million a year. They weren't even investigating anything less than a million dollars when it came to these rings that were attacking them. They indicated that all of these costs are passed on to the consumer. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. We'll now hear from Rebecca Hernandez. You'll have three minutes to state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rebecca Hernandez, and I'm here today on behalf of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce to express our support for House Bill 1138. The chamber represents more than 1,200 businesses across the Denver Metro region. A core part of our policy platform focuses on improving Colorado's economic competitiveness and addressing the rising costs of doing business. 1138 meaningfully advances both of these goals. Organized retail theft has become a growing challenge for businesses across Colorado. retailers, restaurants, and small businesses are increasingly forced to invest in additional security measures, absorb inventory losses, and manage operational disruptions caused by theft. These costs do not exist in isolation. They directly contribute to the overall cost of doing business in our state. 1138 takes a thoughtful approach and targeted approach to addressing this issue. By establishing a Retail Theft Prevention Advisory Board and creating a grant program within the AG's office, the bill enables law enforcement, prosecutors, and regional task forces to better investigate and prosecute organized retail theft and related fraud schemes. It also supports improved data sharing, technology investment, and coordinated prevention strategies. From the Chamber's perspective, maintaining a safe and predictable business environment is essential to ensuring Colorado remains a competitive place to operate and grow a business. When businesses feel confident that the state is addressing organized criminal activity and targets them, it supports continued investment, job creation, and economic vitality. House Bill 1138 represents a pragmatic step forward. It emphasizes collaboration between government, law enforcement, and the private sector while focusing resources where they can have the greatest impact on organized theft networks that harm small businesses and communities alike. For these reasons, the DMCC respectfully He urges the committee to support 1138. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, Greer Bailey, you'll have three minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Greer Bailey, I'm the Executive Director of Colorado Wyoming Fuel Marketers, Colorado Convenience Store Association. As you guys know, last week, the price of fuel went up 60, 70 cents per gallon. I got a call from one of my distributors in LaSalle. who just had reported that 3,500 gallons were stolen from his bulk plant, which is a wholesale mechanism for delivering fuel to farmers, ranchers. Our industry, because we're so public-facing, faces organized crime, faces retail theft on a consistent basis. Everybody's heard of skimmers. Everybody has heard of these groups that go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, state to state, and they do it because there needs to be crossed and increased coordination between not only DAs and not only jurisdictions, but also the aggregation of those crimes against retailers over time. We're held to standards for something as simple as sales to minors with a three-year statute of limitation for a clerk or a business. It is completely reasonable that if somebody is coming into a store, regardless of the misdemeanor or felony threshold of the theft, that that same person needs to have that aggregated, cross-jurisdictional, and even cross-state consideration when doing that prosecution. We absolutely believe that this should remain with the Attorney General because they are best positioned to handle cross-state coordination for organized retail crime. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Michael Smith. You'll have three minutes. State and the organization you represent. You may begin. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Michael Smith, Colorado State Director for NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business. NFIB is the largest advocacy organization for small businesses in Colorado. representing approximately 6,000 small businesses in all types of industry, including retail. I want to thank the bill sponsors, Representatives Espinoza and Woog, for their leadership on this important issue. Enforcement of organized retail crime is a high priority for our members, and I am here today in support of House Bill 1138 to improve coordination and enforcement to combat organized retail crime and gift card fraud. Small businesses are the foundation of the Colorado economy and part of the fabric of communities across the state. Unfortunately, retail theft continues to become a greater challenge for our members to own and operate a successful business. As small business retailers operate on thin margins, the costs of theft have a material impact on the bottom line. And theft not only drives up costs for small businesses, but also for all law-abiding Coloradans in the form of higher prices and to the state as lost sales tax revenue. Recent studies have revealed that retail theft with violence continues to increase, and criminal tactics are becoming more sophisticated than ever. While criminal enterprises employ clever techniques, which can be difficult to identify and track, It critical for law enforcement to have the appropriate resources to investigate and prosecute these criminals The provisions in this bill are an important step in that direction This legislation demonstrates a commitment to improve coordination and enforcement of organized retail crime The bill would also serve as a deterrent to potential criminals to commit other types of retail crime. This is all good news for small business retailers, consumers, and all law-abiding Coloradans. We applaud this effort to improve enforcement against organized retail crime. Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I urge you to support House Bill 1138. Thank you. Okay, Lieutenant Richard Stevens, you'll have three minutes stating the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Chair, and is this on? It is on. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Lieutenant Stevens, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, representing law enforcement leaders across Colorado. Chiefs have taken a support position on House Bill 1138, the Retail Theft Prevention Program. Retail theft continues to be a serious and growing challenge for communities across our state. In fact, Colorado recorded more than 27,000 shotlifting incidents in 2024 alone, a 22% increase from the previous year and the highest level reported in over a decade. Those numbers likely represent only a part of the problem. Experts estimate that as many as 80 to 90% of retail theft incidents are never actually reported, meaning the true scale of the problem may be far larger. Retail theft is not just a business issue. It's a community safety issue. organized retail crime networks frequently operate across multiple jurisdictions, targeting stores repeatedly and reselling stolen goods through online marketplaces and organized fencing operations. US Bill 1138 takes an important step towards addressing the challenge by creating a retail theft prevention advisory board within the Attorney General's office. The board would support collaborative efforts among law enforcement, prosecutors, retailers, and local governments through grant funding, data analysis, and coordinated policy recommendations. One of the key strengths of this bill is that it mirrors a model that has already been proven effective in Colorado, which is the auto theft prevention program. When agencies have access to targeted funding, regional task forces, and shared intelligence systems, law enforcement is better equipped to investigate and disrupt organized criminal activity. House Bill 1138 provides similar tools by allowing grant funding to support technology investments, data sharing systems, and investigative resources to identify patents in felony level retail theft and gift cards. For these reasons, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police respectfully asks for your support of House Bill 1138. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay, committee members, do we have questions for this panel of witnesses? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Morrissey, I hope I'm saying that right. You are. You had mentioned in your testimony that there's many businesses that are not even reporting the losses anymore. They're not even calling the police anymore. Can you expound on that? like why that is? Who was that question for? Sorry. It was for, oh, okay, Mr. Morrissey. Sorry. Go ahead. Thank you. What we did with our study is we could not look specifically at Colorado in that regard So we looked at national studies on reporting and that where we came up with the number the 89 Don't even bother to report because it's just too big of a problem. So why they aren't doing that is probably better for one of the representatives. You know, I'm neutral here. I wrote this report. I'm explaining the statistics that we have in the report. But why somebody is not doing something is probably better for the people that represent the small businesses and represent the frustration level that I have seen talking to the different people involved, both large and small retailers. They have explained to me why they do it, but it's probably better for their representatives to answer that question. Rob Kelsey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could those that are representing the businesses, either Rebecca Hernandez or Mr. Smith, maybe you could expound on that a little bit more? Ms. Hernandez? Sure. Thank you for the question, Representative. We hear from small businesses across the 12 counties up and down the I-25 corridor in which we work with, that many of the issues arise around high response time. It takes several hours or days in order for law enforcement to begin investigating the crime. And by then, it feels as if the crime has come and gone and they're on to the next retail theft case. So high response times, lack of resources, lack of technology that law enforcement has currently, which I think this bill would solve. Rep Kelty, you good? Other questions? Rep's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am wondering if any of your clients or members of your organization would be considering pitching into this grant program. I know it's being paid through gifts, grants, and donations, and heard rumors that retailers may be coming together. I'm just curious if we know who's funding that. Speaking for fuel marketers, when we do report the loss, in the case, again, of my member last week, it's 3,500 gallons at $4.50 per gallon. So I think that if it's a cost-effective solution and you actually see progress and you see the DAs and the district attorneys and the county sheriffs coordinating and actually prosecuting these things, then I think that it would be reasonable to make that return on investment for the association or the petroleum distributors in our particular case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there a plan currently? Should this bill pass to help fund these grants? Mr. Bailey? Not from our particular association, but, I mean, candidly, I mean, a lot of these things don't even get reported unless they're above a certain threshold. I mean, if your deductible for your property casualty insurance is $5,000, then you report something that's going to generate a police report. then all you're really doing is paying out of pocket for something that you already lost which is going to qualify for an experienced mod hit when your next time your property casually, you know, renewal comes up. So that a big problem So I mean I not like Mike guys I mean for me we a lot bigger and sometimes the value of the products in aggregate are way more But, I mean, we invest in all sorts of things that we find valuable. Other questions? Rob Flanell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for anyone who would like to answer. I am just curious how much of the companies that you guys manage or work with, how much have they had to raise costs because of the losses? And have any of them had to close their doors because of theft? Whoever would like to chime in. Mr. Marcy? Not only did we talk to Home Depot and large organizations, they couldn't give us an exact amount on how much they increased, but the small businesses that we talked to that had items that walked out the door due to organized shoplifting indicated to us that they had to go out of business. but they actually found the items that were taken from them online sold for less than they could buy them for wholesale. Other questions? Okay. Seeing none, thank you for your time and for your testimony. Thank you. Okay. Owen Brigner. Kelly Sloan. Katie Wolf. And then online we have a few witnesses. Joe Smith, Julian Jacklin, Dave Ternus. Okay, let's start in the room with Katie Wolf. You'll have three minutes. State any organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Katie Wolf and I represent the Colorado Retail Council. The Colorado Retail Council represents retailers across the state, including grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, online retailers, and nationally and locally owned businesses that serve millions of Colorado consumers every day. The Colorado Retail Council is proud to offer our strong support for House Bill 1138. Here's the reality our members are living with every day. In 2024 alone, law enforcement recorded over a 22% increase in retail theft from 2023. This is also consistently 10% higher than we saw numbers a decade ago. At that number, and that number is an undercount because retail theft has a reporting rate far lower than most other crime categories. This is not a minor nuisance. This is a structural threat to Colorado's economy. The statewide losses translate into ripple effects, an estimated $37.4 million in lost sales tax revenue and stolen goods in 2024, and another $40.6 million from fraudulent returns and retail scams, including gift card fraud, a combined $78 million shortfall and annual tax revenue that should be funding schools, roads, and public service. House Bill 1138 takes a smart, targeted approach to the crisis that we worked really hard with stakeholders to create over the interim. You've seen us on this committee before asking for retail theft to be addressed, and we have never agreed before on a path forward. So we're taking a slightly different approach that acknowledges previous opposition. We are not asking to increase the penalty. We are asking to help create resources to address the gaps. By creating the Retail Theft Prevention Advisory Board and Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program and the Office of the Attorney General, this builds the infrastructure sure we have long needed a coordinated data-driven response to organized retail crime inspired by a successful program through CATPAW or the Auto Theft Task Force. The grant program gives law enforcement the resources to actually pursue these cases. Eligible agencies can use the funds to investigate or prosecute organized felony-level retail theft and gift card fraud, invest in technology and data-sharing tools, and develop prevention and deterrence initiatives. That is exactly what our members have been asking for. The advisory board critically puts retailers at the table and ensures that people who understand this firsthand, the store managers, the loss prevention professionals, the small business owners, help shape the solutions. Our members don't just want tougher laws, they want smarter systems. This bill delivers that. It creates accountability through annual reporting on results, coordinating efforts across law enforcement and prosecutors, and builds evidence based we need for long-term reform. The Colorado Retail Council urges a yes vote on House Bill 1138 and thanks their sponsors for championing this effort. Thank you. Owen Brigner, you'll have three minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thanks, Mr. Chair. My name is Owen Brigner, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League, which represents 271 towns and cities in Colorado testifying in support of House Bill 1138. What we're talking about in this bill is organized felony-level retail theft and gift card fraud. This is coordinated activity, groups hitting multiple stores, often across jurisdictions, in a way that's planned and repeated. These are organized groups moving across communities, targeting multiple retailers, and operating in ways designed to avoid detection, consuming significant law enforcement resources to conduct investigations. We're seeing this happen all around the state. In Boulder, there have been coordinated retail theft rings targeting bike shops across multiple communities in the county, with losses approaching a million dollars. One organized retail theft operation targeting Home Depots in Arvada, Thornton, Broomfield, Golden, Westminster, Firestone, Boulder, Louisville, and unincorporated Jefferson County sold tens of thousands of dollars in merchandise. Colorado Springs law enforcement has investigated a retail theft operation tied to dozens of incidents of retail theft amounting to nearly $10,000 across multiple stores. House Bill 1138 addresses these issues by creating a structure for better information sharing and by crafting policy recommendations with real data to tackle this pervasive problem. This bill is a practical, targeted response focused specifically on organized felony-level retail theft and gift card fraud. And at a time when both the state and municipalities are dealing with strained budgets, it also addresses a problem that is directly undermining state and local sales tax revenues. For these reasons, CML respectfully asks for an aye vote on House Bill 1138. Thanks. Thank you. All right, Mr. Sloan, you'll have three minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members, bill sponsors. My name's Kelly Sloan on behalf of the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, representing local businesses that make up our community with the goal of continuously improving the business climate and build opportunities for growth in Westminster and surrounding areas. We come before you in strong support of House Bill 1138. We have both large and small retailers among our membership, and retail theft impacts them all. For large retailers, as you've heard before, the problem is financially enormous. One of our large retail businesses has reported that they lose between $3 and $4 million a year to theft. Many have had to adopt additional security measures, including the hiring of private security and off-duty police officers to help stem the tide. And all of these costs are, of course, passed along to the consumer. For our small businesses, while the dollar numbers may be smaller, the impact may actually be worse be a little more egregious For in many cases our small storefront businesses keep a limited inventory because they require turnover in order to restock especially those with imperishable goods, think bakeries and that, which are not immune to retail theft. And for all of our small businesses, their inventory is something that they have personally and carefully curated, sourced, and in many cases designed or built themselves. So when that's taken, that has an element of it's personal to them. It's not just financial. And for all of them, it's the equivalent of taking cash out of their pockets. And the problem is in many ways compounded by the fact that many larger of our retailers have a policy of employee non-interference in order to maintain employee safety. However, this also tends to limit reporting of retail theft. And without reporting, there's little that law enforcement can do to combat the problem. That's among the reasons why this bill is so important. data is among our greatest initial weapons against theft, especially organized theft, and this bill will facilitate the collection of that data. Furthermore, it will provide resources that our local law enforcement need to be able to effectively respond. And for these reasons and for the benefit of our local businesses, employees, and consumers, I urge a yes vote on House Bill 1138. Okay, thank you. All right, turning to our online witnesses, let's start with Julian and Jacqueline. You'll have three minutes to state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Yes, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Julian Jacklin. I'm the Director of Economic Development and Urban Renewal for the Town of Erie. I'm here representing the Town of Erie, our legislative agenda, and also today on behalf of ICSC, which used to be known as the International Council of Shopping Centers, all of which asking for your support today and strong support of House Bill 1138. As you've heard from CML and from Westminster, this bill is about protecting your retail base and your sales tax revenue. In Erie, retail is a major drive of our local revenue, contributing to most of our general funded annual budget. That revenue supports our public safety, infrastructure, and core services, and when organized retail crime increases, it cuts directly into that. We hear from our businesses in Erie and across the state, including repeat theft, coordinated activity, and ongoing loss. For national retailers, this impacts the store performance and their future investment. But for many small businesses, this impact is immediate. Many of our small businesses just do not have the margins to absorb it. With those businesses, you'll start to see reduced hours, fewer employees, delayed expansion, and in some cases, closures. This bill, 1138, does create more coordinated response. It helps strengthen enforcement across jurisdictions as those offenders move between communities. It targets organized activity, aligning law enforcement, prosecutors, and retailers, and it improves data sharing so that those repeat offenders do not have the ability to move from community to community as they do now. From ICSC perspective, organized resale crime has been a major primary focus of ours at the national level as our top legislative issue for most of this last decade. For at least the last four years, Colorado members have been going to the Capitol, meeting with our federal delegation at the Hill for each of our annual fly-ins to push for solutions. And those efforts really only work if the states act as well, and this bill does that for Colorado. Lastly, I do want to thank our local representative, Dan Woog, who is our local rep in District 19, for leading this effort and recognizing just how important this issue is to supporting our retail businesses and our local economy. This bill does protect those businesses and generates your tax base and serves your residents. So we support it and ask that you do the same. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Now we have Dave Ternus.

Great. Committee members, questions for this panel of witnesses? Rep Sokay.

Ms. Wolf.

Okay, seeing none, thank you for your time and your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify on House Bill 1138? Oh, come forward, please. All right, state your name, any organization you represent, and you will have three minutes. Make sure your mic is on. It's the little gray button underneath the red light.

Good?

Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Committee members, questions? Amy L. Bacon.

Jeffrey Zaks is my professor. It's a political economics class.

Okay.

Hauk.

Okay.

Jeffrey Zacks. It's Jeffrey Zacks, and it's Econ4231.

You should.

We'd love to have you.

Ms. Huck?

economic efficiency. And then thank you, Mr. Chair, for the ability to dialogue. Okay. Did you also take in the account the cost to the state, particularly around,

It wasn't written directly in the bill.

So that's sort of more what I looked into.

Thank you. So please tell your professor I will be there.

I did not get invited, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to come.

Yes, thank you. Okay. Any further questions? Seeing none. Mr. Reeser, do you want to testify on this? Or maybe you're here for questions. Mr. Reeser.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Easer?

Mr. Smith.

Mr. Ester.

Reps, okay.

Mr. Easter.

Representative Guy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When it comes to looking into technology, data sharing systems, or analytics tools to analyze that felony level retail theft that you're talking about with gift cards, is that something within the scope of the task force currently?

Thank you, Representative Mabry. Representative Zokai, as of right now, it is not. So the task force was something that was created through a decision item. And so it's just the bodies that we requested because IT services can be quite expensive, and we weren't able to get the full requests that we originally made anyway. And so what we focus on is the people to help with the coordination, not on the IT side. There are various theft databases that are used already. Those are not things that our office has any role or responsibility in. But it's always something we're open to exploring. But for us at the time, and I think as you continue to hear, the problem is, is it being investigated? Is it being prosecuted? And that's what our decision item ultimately meant to address. And we don't have the authority to do much more than that other than the fact that we were able to create our own task force with the bodies now that we do have them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ester.

We still working with the sponsors in order to have the most efficient use As of right now there is a 0 FT I believe impact in order to manage this grant process the advisory board so to have someone actually staff it, make sure that they're meeting open meetings laws, etc., things like that. But we are working in order to ultimately reduce that in order to make sure that as many dollars as possible, if this were to pass, are going to the intended recipients of those grant programs.

Mr. Reese

Thanks, Chair Carney.

Mr. Eastern.

Okay, further questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Easter. All right, is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify on House Bill 1138? Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendments, Rep. Espinosa.

Okay. Would you like to move L-3?

Second. Okay, that's proper motion seconded by AML Bacon.

Questions on L3? Any objection to L3? Seeing none, L3 is adopted. Bill sponsors, do you have any other amendments?

Committee members, do we have amendments? Okay, seeing none, the amendments phase is closed. Bill sponsors, wrap up.

Rep Wook. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee and chair, for listening. Thank you for all your questions. This bill, the ideas changed quite a bit over time as we thought about what may be something we could get past. I think this is such a huge issue here. It not only a crime issue but it also as we heard affects cost of living for so many So we dealing with two major issues And I truly believe that this bill can help accomplish you know helping fix each of those issues we have. So the business community certainly supports it. We all know that we certainly could use that $78 million in sales tax revenue and of course over 1.3 billion in stolen retail is an astronomical number, and I just think we can work towards reducing that, listen to the retailers, and at the same time helping consumers with cost of living, and I would strongly urge a yes vote. Thank you for your time.

No, I think we have a...

I will be moving 26-11-38 at this point to appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Second.

Rep. Espinosa, restate your motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm hoping to get that changed, but right now, currently, the proper motion, I do believe, is HB 261138 to appropriations with a favorable recommendation.

AML Bacon. Thank you. I just want to say thank you to the sponsor for that last amendment, but also God bless Mr. Reister from the AG's office. Because we already exist in the state where we receive grand dollars even from the federal government. And I think what this bill does is direct where not only who can help advise to where it goes out, but it also indicates where it should go in regards to the subject matter and the connection to the Department of Law. And so, you know, we have been talking about this issue in this committee for quite some time. I will say, you know, when we see some of the bills that may come from the task force and some of the actions, we'll probably put it through the same judiciary rigmarole. But what we do know is that, you know, in this modern era, in 2026, retail theft is starting to look differently. And we have had conversations on where the federal RICO laws may or may not align with state laws. And so while I can appreciate the research and understanding the new tactics behind this crime, I would also encourage as we get into enforcement of it that we still think about the same guardrails. You know, the way racketeering works is sometimes you get some of the lower level players, right, to trade up. And we just want to think about what that impact will be. And so I hope in supporting this advisory board, what this bill says to me is that there is a group to receive and dole out money for this topic. I will also say to anybody listening, I didn't see DPS here, that when we start looking at what kind of grants they are issuing, we are going to care to see where they go. And generally speaking, we have a tendency to funnel money right back into this space to the tunes that builds up over millions and millions of dollars. and we are really struggling and so thank you for economic student I will also say the reason why I asked that we talk about cost benefit but sometimes we talk about the theft of something around four thousand dollars meaning we pay eighty thousand dollars a year to keep them behind bars and so I am at sometimes it means that and so I not saying that what happening here but I did want to explain this because this issue has been brought here I tend to kind of lean no on these things, but I can at least appreciate the clarity that this will provide because the default, you know, could land somewhere else. So thank you very much.

Rep Sober.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the bill sponsors for bringing this. I liked it. I like it more with the amendment. I think this is a real problem in Colorado. In 2025, five times, I stood at a checkout location in different retailers and watched people walk out with not quite $2,000 worth of goods, almost like they knew what their limit of theft could be. I think any kind of grant, any kind of effort that can help stop that is very good. I've looked at the statistics. Our retail theft is up 10,000 incidents from 2021 to 2024. The 2025 number is not being out yet. uh also in 2025 i as a general contractor and construction guy buy tools those tools require batteries i'm pretty cheap so sometimes i look for batteries on facebook marketplace i found some and the pictures were of used batteries but they were you know in good used condition when i met the individual to purchase these used batteries of his from him at a gas station in north glenn they were not used. They were brand new in the box straight from Home Depot, 100%. So now I know when I do buy my batteries at Home Depot, I am getting a one for two special. I am buying one battery for the price of two because they have to charge an astronomical amount for, uh, for power tool batteries because they are so easy to steal. Uh, two of those five incidents that I mentioned were at a Home Depot and I watched a thief walk out right past the contractor desk. One of those times was with a cart loaded with large power tools and just walked right out. And retailers are almost powerless to be able to do anything about this. I think we need – I appreciate the comment from our other good representative about $4,000 for – $80,000 for a $4,000 problem. However, I would imagine that that $4,000 problem is not just that $1,800 problem. In one of the instances when I was in an auto parts store and a couple weeks later I was back and I asked the same individual that was behind the counter, how much was all the stuff, did you guys get a total? And he said, yeah, it was $1,800 and changed dollars. I would imagine that that individual who took that $1,800 worth of stuff that night is not a one-time offender. I would imagine that that individual is probably doing this in an organized fashion at multiple locations and stealing tens of thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars, if not over $100,000 worth of merchandise in a given year. So costs for penalties you know I think that it really hard to get a good number as to exactly how much we are paying for how much other people are losing Our economy in Colorado are you know the things that we seeing the prices we seeing on things And gosh, this is as a, again, as a general contractor, not even talking about the amount of two by fours that grow legs and walk away and cabinets that grow legs and walk away and things like that from sites, which isn't retail theft and not what we're talking about. But it's just another symptom of similar problem. So, again, I appreciate the bill. I think that it is a great step in the right direction to further development to figure out how we can tackle this growing problem. And I will obviously be an absolute yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this bill and for those who testified. I, as a small business owner, I understand, you know, if somebody steals something, it's very detrimental, whether it's small or large. During interim, I actually went on a trip with Rep Kelty, as well as a bunch of other legislators within El Paso County. And one of them was a small, like a Mexican grocery store. And they said that they are on the verge of going out of business after being in business for, I think it was like almost 50 years or something. uh because of theft and so this is obviously it's a huge problem it's hurting you know all different types of businesses and as you know as it was brought up uh previously a lot of times these crimes aren't even reported because law enforcement doesn't get there in time and at the end of the day it's it's more just a loss on the business they just chalk it up as a loss and and And, you know, we don't really even see the real reports of this. So I think that something definitely needs to be done. And since a lot of us aren't willing to increase penalties for people who commit crimes, I think that this is definitely a step in the right direction. And I will be a yes today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors. One thing that I appreciate about this bill is that it's not just coming up with an idea right away and saying we're going to run with it, but it's actually pulling together a group of experts who will look at this issue from every angle, using a longer runway, and be able to make recommendations back to the General Assembly. And that's a technique that we talk about but we don't often use, and I'd like to see that done. And I think you have done a great job of this here. I'll be in full support. Plus, it's a major problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors, for bringing this. Like I said earlier, I do think this is a real problem in our state and I think across the country. And I will say that I personally have bought a gift card. It's $100, and the number was scratched out. I wasn't able to use it because someone had come in previously and taken that number down and used it as soon as I loaded it up. and we went and got a second $100 gift card. So we thought that would be easier than disputing it. And it happened again. So at that point, we did try to figure it out. And the big box store said we had to call, this was an Apple card, so they said we had to call Apple. And Apple said that I'm out of luck. So that's how that went. And I do think that that's a real issue. And I think that that might be a separate problem that we also have to address is what happens to consumers when they are victims of that. But as much as I appreciate that this is not just increasing penalties on petty theft and that it is focused on that larger organized crime, I still – have issue with these grant dollars, specifically that it goes towards investigating felony level retail theft and training. I think that those are things that we already allocate a lot of resources towards and that voters just approved $350 million for training. And I would like to see those dollars go towards training on this issue. If it were to be limited to the other points in this bill of investing in technology to prevent this and deterrence initiatives, I could get behind that. I think that the current task force that exists could take those pieces on. It sounds like there might be some minimal resources needed to do that, but I think that that is a better way to tackle this issue. And I do appreciate that retailers, it sounds like, want to pull their money together to address this. And I think with the crisis we're facing in our state, with our budget, there are a lot of places where we could use that money. I think that there's already funding for these programs. And if we're able to pull together potentially millions of dollars for grants, there are a lot of programs being cut that could use that support. And it sounds like we're also looking to see if there's places in our budget that could fund this. And that gives me a lot of pause because, again, we are cutting crucial programs for kids and families across the state right now. So I'm apprehensive for those reasons and will be a no today, but would love to continue the conversation. Further closing comments? Rep Kelty.

Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. so this conversation sparked a random memory for me probably about four or five months ago I was watching 60 Minutes and it was about Guy Fieri had a truck of tequila like a giant truck of tequila that was being shipped from Laredo, Texas to Philadelphia. The thieves didn't pull out guns and attack the driver. They went into the system, literally rerouted the truck from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, had the driver drop the cargo. As far as the driver was concerned, he was completely legal. They then had another driver come, who also thought it was legal, and take the cargo to another location, and then they unloaded it. I was having a hard time with this bill because it appeared that the focus was on those smaller individuals. What we've come to and what I've seen now is there is a larger problem going on. And I believe I appreciate you coming together and having these discussions. But I also see it as well. There are items on Amazon and Facebook right now that are fresh out the box that were not stolen by, you know, small time petty theft. They were stolen by larger organizations and then placed out there. this committee knows my position on criminal justice reform, but I understand the purpose of this bill. And I believe that both sponsors, thank you for bringing it. I believe both sponsors had good in their heart when they brought it. So I'm going to be a yesterday.

Ms. Shipley, please call the roll. Representatives Bacon.

Yes. Espinoza. Yes. Linnell.

Yes. Slaw.

No. Carter.

Yes. Okay, on a vote of 9 to 2, that bill passes. as you're on the way to the Appropriations Committee. Okay, we should have our sponsors for 1106. Right outside. I like it. I like it. I am had it. I just wanted to say it. Okay. This is the one. Under witnesses. They going to pee at it What Okay. Whoever... We'll go... We'll try to go fast. Whoever would like to be in. We're at Lindsay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my co-prime, Representative Lindsey, for your passion for this topic. And I was also a renter, and my family was renting in the mountains where we had to have multiple jobs to pay rent, and where for them they were never able to own a home. And I think for many of our community members, it just feels like you're doing everything right and it's still impossible to, you know, really get to that American dream. So I think that for many, many of our families, it's really important that they support their babies and their kids and their families and they feel like the sacrifice is always worth it. But I wanted to share a couple stories of some of the things that are happening in court. And I think for those of us that are not there, but I worked in municipal courts, county courts, and state courts as a legal interpreter for over 10 years. So an anecdote on capping the returns and the impact of inequitable docket management. And CPLP and other legal partners have multiple experiences at the courthouse clinic in Denver, where there are nearly 200 cases set for return dates on a single day and less than 20 on another day that week. And it happens nearly every week because of our capacity and the capacity of the share locks. That necessarily means that people on the high volume day will have to navigate the process themselves, likely only stating why they weren't able to pay rent and that they are waiting on rental assistance. Those people, more often than not, face motions for judgment on the pleadings, cutting their opportunity to cure short and propelling them into a cycle of housing instability. This law was brought because courts throughout the state failed to manage their own dockets and or interpret the law as it currently reads correctly. And then I want to share another story that's not based on one specific client but reflects CPLP sees happening with hundreds of clients. Maria came to the clinic on Friday at 8 a.m. on her return date like she was instructed to do. She had never experienced eviction before but fell behind on rent because she was hospitalized and had to miss work. She had a follow-up doctor's appointment that she needed to attend at 10 and get cleared and get back to work. Unfortunately, 189 other households also had an eviction return that day. So the resources at the courthouse had long lines necessitating her waiting hours to get guidance as her priority was paying her landlord and staying housed. And her landlord told her that that would be enough. She made the best decision she could at the time and wrote in her answer what was caused her to fall behind and that she will be able to pay in a week Unfortunately her opportunity to cure got cut short because the court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings the following Tuesday and her family was propelled into a cycle of housing instability. And we know that people who would have been helped by HB 1106, and I want to share some of those instances where people would have had some support. So the tenant who misses court because of a medical emergency, this bill would have given them a chance to contest their eviction. The tenant who is a day away from getting their next paycheck, this bill would have clarified that they are entitled to appear in court to pay back rent. A parent whose child is named in an eviction case, this bill would have ensured that their child's identity and privacy is protected. The tenant who loses all of their belongings because it pouring when the sheriff executes their eviction this bill would have prevented this The tenant who needs time to move after an eviction The renter who misses a deadline because they needed an accommodation for a disability The tenant who was overwhelmed in court and who became one of the 90% of tenants who never file an answer contesting their eviction. Because hundreds of people were all scheduled to appear on the same day. And the person who had spent their rent money on fixing their heat, who can't afford to appeal their eviction, even though they were within the legal rights. So we really appreciate all the stakeholding and the stakeholders and the good conversations that we had with members of the committee. And I also ask for a yes vote to postpone indefinitely.

Vice Chair Carter. Mr Chair I make a motion to postpone indefinitely House Bill 1106 Second Okay that proper motion seconded by Rep Espinosa

Representatives Bacon.

At the request of the sponsors, yes. Espinosa. At the request of the sponsors, yes. Plano.

Kelty. Yes.

Sokay. No.

Yes. Mr. Chair. No. Okay. On a vote of 9 to 2, that bill is postponed indefinitely. And with that, the Judiciary Committee is adjourned. Thank you.