May 12, 2026 · Appropriations · 3,348 words · 7 speakers · 66 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Two, one. I'm a no. I'm a no now. You had five seconds. We also actually have a small problem with witnesses you signed up. Are they able to join? We have two signed up. That's too bad. Okay. Beautiful. Ms. Bova, please call the roll.
Senators Bright. Here. Gonzalez. Present. Berkmeyer. Present. Colker. Here. Liston. Here. Mr. Vice Chair. Present. Madam Chair.
Barely awake. The Committee on Appropriations will come to order. I know I did that out of order, but I think it's still okay. We are here to hear House Bill 1250. I see our sponsors are at the table. Mr., would you like us to move
the J3 amendment? No, ma'am. Okay.
Mr., are there any amendments that you would like us to move?
No. So, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1250 to the Committee of the Whole.
Do we need to do a roll?
This is a, we just did.
Committee of reference?
This is the committee of reference.
Okay. What about the testimony?
Yeah.
Well, so we're moving the bill.
Oh, I thought.
That's how we usually do it.
You're going to vote on it right away.
No, we oftentimes do that first. Of course, sometimes I forget to move the bill, and then we have to do that later. We always try to take the roll, but usually I call the committee to order, and then I take the roll. And today I took the roll, and then I call this to order. And now.
And tomorrow, what are we going to do?
I don't know what we're going to do tomorrow.
That's been great so far.
We're not going to meet tomorrow is what we're not going to do. We're not going to meet tomorrow.
Today is a gift.
It's why it's called the present. Okay. So we start with, are there any questions for the bill sponsors?
No.
Senator Gonzalez.
I would love to understand in all of, like, with genuine respect and sincerity, I would like to understand whether the reports from, and this is on page four of the fiscal, this is what happens when you all give me ample amount of time to read a revised fiscal note. I'd just like to understand background assumptions. DOLA reports that the total forfeited assets were valued at $9.8 million in 2024. I would like to understand if from your information and belief, if that is constant over time or whether that's just the most recent available information or has it grown or shrunk over time, do you have any insight into that?
Senator Wallace. I think we might have witnesses that could speak to that better. I'm not 100% sure how constant or if that's gone up and down. So I don't want to give you incorrect information. But I can find out and report back or our witnesses can speak to that.
That's the only question I have. And if someone can testify to that, that would be welcome. And if not, they can provide that information on the floor. Thank you.
Committee members, any other questions? All right. With that, we'll call the witnesses. I believe we have three witnesses did I get the list does anybody have the witness list I just heard through the grapevine that there were three I saw somebody had it though
So you can try to call them up, but they're not showing in the sign-up system.
Okay. So can we pull up the witnesses that are online? And then I think I saw Anaya in the audience. Are you the person that's testifying? Mr. Eisenhower, are you testifying? Come on up. We don't have a list? Okay, come on up. Don't feel like you have to. Or don't. You don't have to testify. If they oppose the bill, they might want to. Well, we're just going to call everybody up all at once. Everybody. Yeah, if you're in there, come on up. Everybody testifies. Come on. I know you've got opinions. Okay. We're going to start with you. Tell us your name, who you're with, and you have two minutes to testify.
No Use the other one Just use the big one There we go Share Thank you
Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. M&I Robinson, Public Policy Director at the ACLU of Colorado, here today in support of House Bill 1250. House Bill 1250 addresses a fundamental imbalance in our legal system, one where the government can take a person's property often before any criminal conviction, while the individual lacks meaningful access to legal representation through that process. This bill makes a critical and long overdue correction by establishing access to forfeiture defense counsel and creating a fund to ensure representation is actually accessible, not just theoretical. That matters because without counsel, many people, especially those with low incomes, are effectively forced to abandon their property, not because the government has proven wrongdoing, but because they cannot afford to fight back. This is not just a procedural issue. It is a due process issue. The Constitution guarantees fairness when the government seeks to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. But in practice, forfeiture proceedings have created a system where the burden is often difficult to meet without legal help. The process favors those with resources, and the outcome can hinge more on access to counsel than on merits of the case. By ensuring access to representation, House Bill 1250 improves accuracy and fairness in outcomes, reduces the risk of wrongful deprivation of property, and strengthens public confidence in the justice system. Importantly, this bill does not prevent law enforcement from pursuing forfeiture in appropriate cases. Instead, it ensures that when the government exercises that power, it does so within a system that is balanced, constitutional, and just. There have been a few changes since the bill was introduced to ensure that the LECS grant program is not eliminated. We don't want to strip tools from law enforcement. We want people to have a fighting chance to regain their constitutional right to their property when no crime has been proven. At its core, this bill is about a simple principle. If the government is going to take someone's property, that person should have a fair chance to defend themselves. The ACLU of Colorado asks you to vote yes on House Bill 1250. Thank you.
Perfect timing. Thank you. We're just going to go down the line, say your name, who you're with, and you have two minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Bruce Eisenhower, legislative liaison with the Department of Local Affairs. We are here in opposition of this bill today, primarily because in 2018, the General Assembly created the Law Enforcement Community Services Grant Program. This new bill and program that's being created drains all the fund balance within that grant program, leaving us without. There will not be any funds coming back into that program, so we really have a ghost grant program. program. We receive approximately $240,000 on average each year from civil assets. It has taken four to five years before we could offer the first round of grants available for this. Some examples of projects that are being funded with this, the City of Pueblo is doing a towing and impound relief program. The Town of Los Animas used some of the grant proceeds to help with their new police department. Mesa County is funding an inmate transition program, and Commerce City is doing a crime prevention unit and Colorado response program. So those are the types of programs that law enforcement has applied for with the use of these proceeds. And again, we're here in opposition. Thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Brandon Nathlich. I'm a captain with the Colorado State Patrol, and serve as our legislative liaison. We are also here in opposition today, mainly with the same concerns that you just heard from my coworker from DOLA as far as law enforcement community grant program. As everybody knows, that money is hard to come by in this state and taking this resources away from our locals is not in our best interest in public safety. So that's why we're here in opposition. Happy to try to answer any questions. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Committee members, questions? Senator Gonzalez.
Oh, thank you so much for testifying today, y'all. This is bringing me great joy. I would love to see if anyone has a question, a response to the question that I asked of the bill sponsors around the $9.8 million that was reported valued in 2024. Mr. Eisenhower, do you happen to have any data prior to the 2024 number to give us any sense of the scale of the program? Mr. Eisenhower.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Gonzalez, no, I do not have any information prior to that. Again, we average about $240,000 that our department receives for the community law enforcement grant program. That's 25% of it. So in that period of time, it's been relatively constant.
Senator Gonzalez. Thank you. And then what is your last name? I forgot. Mr. Nathledge, can you, you mentioned that in your opposition to this policy, that given the sort of, my paraphrase is the water flow, the waterfall flow of the impact that this would then cause to the local governments and the local agencies that receive the benefit of these grant programs, how would you then respond to the concern from the, I don't know, people of Colorado who were not convicted of their deprivation of their property?
Mr. Natler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. I do understand the question, but I will say in civil asset forfeiture, typically, and actually not typically, it's a very hard bar to come by as far as instrumentalities of a crime. So it a very transparent process as well as a process that we only looking for that when there is instrumentalities furthering of crime So in these instances that what these proceeds are to make our streets safer by removing that from criminal entities
You know, I noticed that somebody else has signed up to testify, and I can't read the name. But I see you online, and if you would like to unmute and tell us your name and who you're with, You have two minutes to testify.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Todd Reeves. I'm testifying on behalf of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and over 100 chiefs of police in Colorado in support of House Bill 26-1250. I will tell you I've testified in three prior sessions since 2014 and will say that the forfeiture laws have become better as a result of these processes. More difficult for law enforcement, yes, but sometimes more difficult is balance needed to hold us accountable and respect the rights of citizens that we serve. We'll always recognize that a better system needs to work for everyone and to have a fair and balanced outcome. Recognizing that the government holds great authority, it's important to ensure that those who participate in the process all feel comfortable with the adjudication, knowing that it was fair, equitable, and impartial. House Bill 1250 brings forward some restrictions on law enforcement that certainly will challenge us. However, that doesn't completely prevent us from ensuring that the defendants are not reaping the benefits of ill-gotten gains or being able to construct another criminal organization with seed money from previous illegal operations. I will say that working through this process with Representative DeGraff and AML Bacon is illustrative of the power through cooperation and listening to each other. The one thing I've always felt during this process, and I just wanted to make sure that the board hears this, was that Representative Graff and Emil Bacon have just wanted a fair and balanced system to ensure things are done correctly and the rights and processes are respected. This does present a fair challenge to us in law enforcement, but we feel obliged that the citizens of Colorado deserve a raising on the bar on law enforcement to keep us not only moving forward, but it also continues to build the trust that we desire and challenge us to excel each and every day. We can meet our ethical obligation of using the tool to dismantle criminal operations. We just need to ensure we get it right and that the people are provided a due process that should instill more confidence and trust in the police. I ask for your support on this bill. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. And before we have any more questions, we have one more witness. I love this. Do you love this? We're having sort of a rolling witness. It's bringing great joy, Madam Chair. It's joyful.
Hello.
Welcome. Tell us your name, who you're with, and you have two minutes to testify.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Catching Valentinus. Speaking on behalf of Rocky Mountain Gunners in favor of Senate Bill 1250, Coloradans are having their property taken without being convicted or even so much as charged of a crime. This is plainly unconstitutional. For a citizen, the $3,500 average to contract counsel to recover seized property is over $1,000 more than the average value of a seizure, and it's a cost-prohibitive investment. Cars, cash, and guns are seized by law enforcement agencies engaging in this practice and are yearly amassed into slush funds now valued at over $50 million. dollars. Agencies have responded to this perverse incentive by falling into a cycle of property seizure in order to sustain bloat seed funded by the same practice. Witness testimony has revealed that these dollars are being used in ways appearing to violate current civil asset forfeiture statute by creating FTE and part-time staff dependent on what can only be described as a seizure quota. Existing problems with civil asset forfeiture are remedied in House Bill 1250 by removing the perverse incentive currently faced by seizing agencies while still supporting a strong law and order agenda in Colorado and requiring that seized property be tied to convicted crime. Bipartisan negotiations have led to important consensus, which has not yet been reflected entirely on the Secretary of State's website. For example, Colorado Municipal League and Colorado District Attorneys Council have changed from opposing to neutral on House Bill 1250. Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police changed from opposing to support on House Bill 1250. Critically, the House just passed this bill 64 to 1. House Bill 1250 restores our rights in a way that honors the Constitution and law enforcement. I urge this committee to vote for the Constitution, for their constituents, alongside law enforcement and the House of Representatives. Yes, on House Bill 1250.
Okay, thank you. Your timing, everyone's timing was excellent. Committee members, does anyone have additional questions for this group of, this very eclectic panel?
Yeah. Yeah. Reverse.
Okay, I'm, Senator Gonzalez.
Thank you. Madam Chair, I think I will just pose to this distinguished and august and eclectic constellation of witnesses, now that you all are here in your full array. You all heard the question that I asked at the beginning, right? I am trying to understand, and with respect to the data that we have received at the point in time, I am curious if you all have any sort of perspective, right? Because this is not a new issue that just popped up in 2024, and with great respect to the fiscal analyst and to the department that manages these funds, right? I'm trying to just get a sense of, like, over time, how many – Can we capture a sense of how many Coloradans assets have been seized that have then been put into this fund and its valuation That what I want to understand And Chief Reeves, I don't know if you have information on that. If not, like, that's cool. Send it to me on the floor. That's fine. But this being the committee of reference, I feel like I just want to try to get a sense of that number. Okay.
Does anyone have an answer to that question? Mr. Armstrong, bless you. Okay, Mr. Armstrong. I think maybe we could just pull up a chair, share a mic. Okay, no chair. That's full. That's only on the second to last day of the session.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, John Armstrong, legislative council staff. Senator Gonzalez, I texted you a link to the Colorado Civil Asset Forfeiture Reports available on DILA's websites, and I want to make something clear in the background and assumptions section. The value of assets includes all federal cases, all state cases, all local cases. And to your question about how that's varied over time, I would say that there's significant variation between the years that's available on DOLA's website for this. In some periods, it's 228 million. In some periods, it's 12 million. There's a big range, and it varies a lot from year to year, is the short answer to your question. Happy to get into more specifics if you would like.
That, no. And that exactly is, thank you. It is incredibly helpful for us to understand because if we're talking 9 million, 9.8 million, or if we're talking 228 million, then that to me I think demonstrates why my brain is breaking with the Chiefs, RMGO and the ACLU in support and the State Patrol and DOLA in opposition. At the end of the day, Coloradans who ultimately are found to be innocent, or not guilty, should have a process to be reunited with their assets. Full stop. Thank you.
Okay, are there any, Senator Liston.
Yes, I did have one question for Mr. Armstrong, or maybe...
Oh, darn, Mr. Armstrong has to come back. Sorry, you can't get away that quick. Sorry about that.
So the value of this property, would that include potentially drugs as well? The street value of drugs, that's not just money or rings or whatever, or maybe the gentleman from the state patrol would know.
Mr. Armstrong, we'll start with you.
You don't know. I don't think you sell the drugs and put the money in there. So I doubt it. I believe you're correct. You don't get your crack back. You don't get the crack back. Madam Chair, I can answer that if you'd like.
Okay, please go ahead.
put us out of our misery. So thank you very much. The answer to that is, is this is only assets that are forfeitable. So drugs or anything that's evidence of a crime that's illegal is not considered part of the asset forfeiture that's considered evidence. So this is just talking
about actual assets. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other questions? seeing none thank you so much for being here we really appreciate everybody's time and testimony and a little bit of a sense of humor you all have brought me great joy today thank you okay and our bill sponsors are back and do you have any amendments no ma'am okay no amendments. So no further questions. The question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1250. Please call the roll.
Senators Bright? Yes. Gonzalez? Aye. Herkmeyer? Aye. Colker? Aye. Liston? Aye. Mr. Vice Chair? Aye. Madam Chair? Aye.
That bill passes unanimously. Mr. Vice Chair? May I suggest the consent calendar? Any objections? Seeing none, that will be on the consent calendar. I hope we don't take that back. And this concludes the ultimate meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It has been a true pleasure serving with all of you. It has been a true pleasure, and thank you so much. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.