March 11, 2026 · Judiciary · 36,409 words · 10 speakers · 402 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Representatives Bacon.
Excused.
Clifford.
Here.
Espinosa.
Excused.
Flannell.
Here.
Garcia.
Here.
Kelty.
Here.
Slaw.
Here.
Soper.
Here.
Zocay.
Excused.
Carter.
Present.
Mr. Chair.
Here.
Okay, committee members, we are going to hear two bills today. I am presenting the first bill, so I'm going to pass the gavel to the vice chair.
Chair Mayberry, when you are ready.
Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Judiciary Committee. It's a pleasure to be here today. It's my first time in front of Judiciary, so I know you'll go easy on me. Colorado has seen a disturbing pattern of sexual misconduct and violence in jails, including sexual harassment, abuse, and invasion of privacy for sexual gratification. These abuses show a critical need for reform. Legislative action is necessary to address ongoing failures and oversight. closed gaps in the enforcement of federal standards, and uphold the rights of all individuals in custody in the state of Colorado. In 2003, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, PREA, which aimed to reduce sexual violence and improve protections for incarcerated individuals. However, while PREA established important safeguards and processes, inconsistent implementation and enforcement of these standards have left significant gaps, especially at the county jail level. These gaps have allowed for horrific abuses to continue for years unaddressed. Earlier this year, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation charged La Plata County Jail Commander Edward Aber with 117 counts of invasion of privacy for sexual gratification, as well as a number of other charges, after allegations came to light against him. Commander Aber's charges stem from improper access of strip search videos of female inmates spanning five years, from 2019 to 2024. Today you will hear from many of the survivors of these abuses who are bravely using their voices to say that this is absolutely unacceptable. Colorado urgently needs to reform of strip search and video retention policies to protect bodily autonomy in jails. House Bill 261123 establishes standards to ensure that strip searches are not being performed improperly and without reason and restrict access to strip search videos. statewide reporting of the reasons and results of strip searches so that the legislature can learn more about the role these searches play in jails. Finally, 1123 will prevent officers who are found to have violated the responsibility placed in them by committing acts of sexual violence from being rehired in other counties by revoking their post certifications. We have spent months working with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement to chart a path towards reform that are substantial and practical. There is more work ahead of us, but it is crucial that we take these steps to increase accountability and limit opportunities for abuse. And I'd just like to take a moment to thank those that have traveled from the furthest corner of the state to share their stories today. It's a privilege to do this work and carry this bill, and I thank you for listening.
Chair Mabry.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I first want to echo my co-prime sponsor in thanking the witnesses who came from the far corner of the state to tell their story and for all of the witnesses here who are here to share their personal experiences. I am very honored to be presenting House Bill 1123. This bill is about preventing sexual abuse in Colorado jails to protect the dignity and bodily autonomy of people in custody. Recently, as noted by my co-prime, Denver 7 exposed deeply disturbing allegations out of a Colorado jail. According to the reports, a jail commander allegedly accessed recordings of strip searches, recordings showing incarcerated people naked and did so for their own sexual gratification. Think about that for a moment. People who are already in custody, who've had their liberty stripped away, who have no ability to leave, who have no ability to protect their privacy, were recorded in one of the most vulnerable moments imaginable, and those recordings were allegedly used not for security, for evidence, for anything dealing with the individual circumstances involving the cases, but for sexual exploitation. Strip searches are one of the most intrusive powers that the government has. They involve forcing a person to expose themselves for inspection. That power must come with the highest possible safeguards and scrutiny. As this incident illustrates, the protections that we have in place right now in the state of Colorado are not enough. And this isn't an isolated concern. Sexual violence and violations of bodily autonomy in jails remain a serious problem nationwide and here in Colorado. Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003 specifically to reduce sexual violence in detention facilities. Yet implementation and oversight remain inconsistent, particularly in county jails. Research shows that sexual victimization in incarceration settings remains alarmingly common. One national study found that within just six months of incarceration, nearly one in four women and one in ten men faced sexual victimization, with transgender people facing even higher risks. For many incarcerated women, this is part of a devastating cycle. Studies show that 86% of women in jails have previously experienced sexual violence at some point in their lives, making them uniquely vulnerable to re in custody So when we see cases like the one my co talked about and the one reported in number seven where the system's meant to protect us, are victimizing our neighbors and exploiting our neighbors, it becomes clear that legislative action is needed, which is why we're bringing House Bill 1123. My co-prime did a good job of hitting the high level of what this bill gets into, but it strengthens safeguards around strip searches and provides guidance on when the strip searches can be recorded. We also care about establishing oversight and accountability protections for whistleblowers. And I will just preview at a high level. We are bringing amendments to respond to stakeholder concerns. In particular, we're stripping out an audit. We are stripping out language that we heard from stakeholders might have been interpreted to unnecessarily interfere with investigations to make sure that the language is narrow and is about protecting victims from potential sexual exploitation while still allowing law enforcement and criminal defense attorneys to access evidence as needed. And with that, we'll take further.
Any questions? Members, any questions for the sponsors?
Representative Flannell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do think I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I do think that something needs to happen because this is incredibly concerning and I feel bad for the victims and I would hate for it to happen to me. I do think it's a little concerning, though, to not do searches on people who go to, you know, these these facilities. just a few weeks ago I toured El Paso County Jail and the first thing that you see when you walk in is just all this stuff on the wall of things that officers have taken from people or found in jails such as weapons and drugs and well they didn't have drugs on the wall but they had a series of weapons I mean they even had nunchucks homemade knives all kinds of stuff even a gun. And I wonder though, you know, because it, it says that you have to, there has to be reasonable belief that, um, you have to have reasonable belief that they have drugs or a weapon on them in order to, to, uh, have this search. I can't help but think that this might bring, this might be sort of detrimental to the safety of other inmates as well as correctional officers, even for themselves. I know that, you know, there's, we even, when we were touring the jail, they even put like a blanket over them in case they're suicidal so that they can't use the clothing to commit suicide. And so I think that's where my main concern lies. Have you guys thought of that, or is there any way around this other than, I guess, the reasonable belief to determine a strip church?
Chairman Berry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Rep. Linnell, for the question. We have had very in-depth conversations about this reasonable belief standard. And from my perspective I think the reasonable belief standard is actually too broad and can be and I bet we will have witnesses today that can talk about this We originally had conversations about this being a probable cause standard, which is similar to what we see in the Fourth Amendment, and we've had conversations about this being a reasonable suspicion standard. A reasonable suspicion standard requires specific articulable facts that are targeted and relevant to the individual to justify a search. I thought that that middle ground was the best place for us to land between probable cause and reasonable belief. In conversations with stakeholders, and in particular with law enforcement, we have talked about this issue ad nauseum, and those with law enforcement strongly advocated for a reasonable belief standard. And I will just state here clearly on the microphone, folks, no, I'm not afraid of talking about how I feel about what's in a particular piece of legislation, even if I want it to be more. I disagree with us keeping it at the reasonable belief standard. But in the interest of the stakeholding we've had, the conversations we've had, we are going to keep it at that point today. But the stakeholder conversation we had with law enforcement a couple of weeks ago, they were strongly advocating for that over reasonable suspicion because it is broader. because, and our judge on the panel here will probably say something like reasonable belief, and we learned this in law school, reasonable belief could be anything. It's very broad. You just have to document why specifically you are conducting a search on this person. Two employees have to do that, and there has to be a reason, but I think under the reasonable belief standard, it could be a lot of things. It could be I got a bad vibe or a circumstance was like this two weeks ago and it led me to believe that I should search in this instance, which to me is too broad, but that's the language of the bill right now. Representative Flunow?
I think I'm still a little concerned, though, about just the parameters of a search. I do think that a search, searching everybody when they come into a facility is helpful just to make sure that they don't have anything on them, whether they look suspicious or not. even in the fact of, you know, I've heard there's a lot of people that might have like lice or wounds on them or even, I mean, when I toured the jail, and again, I'm glad that I toured this jail because it has given me a pretty good perspective as to what goes on there. But I know that they said that even the rate of STDs is incredibly high and that they treat a high rate of that. And so even kind of determining just stuff like that just from a health perspective just to see if this person needs any sort of medical treatment, even if they aren't possessing drugs or a weapon on them.
Chair Mabry So this bill does not prevent facilities from taking reasonable measures when they doing prison intake And so I agree with you that that is a normal part of the process. What we are trying to prevent is unnecessary strip searches. What you're talking about is routine intake that happens to every person who is incarcerated. I will also say that that process is different whether you're going to prison or to county jails. And right now this is focused on jails. And so I know that that intake process will be different. But I do not read this bill as preventing the normal intake process that jails would have to do to keep people safe. Representative Flannell. Representative Sober.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, sponsors, for your attention to this matter. When I first read about this in the news, I certainly was horrified by that. And I do want to get to a little bit of the issue because I think there's some issues in the bill that are maybe not quite hitting at the heart of what happened in La Plata County. We obviously want to have safeguards against a government actor being able to freely access very personal, intimate images, say, of a strip search, which someone was completely naked. However, what is included in the bill is talking about a custodial search. So the person is not going anywhere. It's not non-custodial. They're within the custody of law enforcement. And the Supreme Court of the United States has held in the Bell case that it is lawful to have a blanket strip search policy when someone is going to go into a general jail population, even for detention, and that there's not a constitutional right to not have this. And that's because there's a legitimate government interest in keeping the detention populations safe from each other. And aside from weapons and drugs coming into the general space, which is what's in your bill, And to get to my question, the Supreme Court has also said looking at things like tattoos to make sure you don't have members of opposite gangs together, looking for, I mean, perhaps there's other evidence of people that you don't want next to each other to be able to keep the detention population safe. I mean, that is important. There could be a number of reasons why you would want to make sure that everyone is safe within that environment. And this actually goes away from what the U.S. Supreme Court standard is, which is there is a legitimate interest by the government without having to have reasonable suspicion or a reasonable belief. And what you would say to that.
Chair Mayberry. Well, I'd refer back to something I said in a conversation we had a couple of weeks ago which is that there are three branches of government and the courts can say what they think the government interest is and they can interpret the law in the Constitution and in the statutes as they are written, but we have the prerogative to go further and to write more requirements into the law. And the Constitution protects the negative liberty interest and not the positive liberty interest. And so it's a floor, and we can go further to protect the rights of our citizens. And I would say to a few of the examples that you've made, they would fit under the reasonable belief standard to me. You had talked about, well, let's make sure this person's tattoos aren't gang tattoos. Well, all we're doing is requiring two people to say in documentation, hey, we did a strip search of this inmate because we were worried that they might have gang tattoos that would put them in danger. That would fit within the reasonable belief standard. We're just trying to create some documentation, accountability, and clarity on when these things happen. This bill is not a ban on strip search. It's about creating process on when strip searches happen.
Representative Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Representative Mabry. I mean, just to push back a little bit, I mean, that sounds more like reasonable belief after the fact. If you can't see, for example, a gang-related tattoo, how would you independently create reasonable belief to engage in a strip search if you didn't have a blanket policy to keep your prison population safe?
Chairman Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Well, I would say to that, in my hypothetical response to your hypothetical proposition, I had actually imagined it as they didn't see any tattoos, and they said, hey, we suspect this person might be in a gang. Let's look and see if they have any gang tattoos that might expose them to danger. And then there's documentation from two correction officers or two employees that conduct the search or make the decision that say, hey, this is why we did that. And because the reasonable belief standard is broad, again, more broad than I would like, I think it would likely fit because it does serve that legitimate interest that you talked about. Representative Sober.
Representative Kelty.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. and thank you for bringing this forward for us to review. And what happened was absolutely horrible. Now, going to the bill, though, the bill prohibits uploading qualified jail video recordings to cloud-based electronic system service. Could you clarify how you are expecting them to then be stored and secured, retained and for what duration because as you know thumb drives can be copied or stolen in other hardware can you know local could still be copied and and that so where are you expecting them to put their images or their data that they have from this for the record representative so Kai is present I'm
I'm not Chair Mabry, but I'll take my best shot. Thank you thank you Chair Carter So during this process we looked at the child porn statue and where that evidence is stored and these videos will be stored on a server not connected to a cloud And as far as the timeline, we've done a lot of amendments, but I believe the storage should be accessible for seven days and then after the seven-day period there needs to be written documentation submitted as to why the video needs to be accessed.
Rep Kelty.
Thank you for that. Well, with those requirements, is there any type of encryption requirement? Will there be, I mean, has it been thought of, because I know these systems, if you have an on-site system versus a cloud system, which is why a lot of companies have gone to the cloud because it's a lot cheaper, but to bring something in-house, it could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where are the jails, where is that money going to come from that's going to have to pay for bringing something like that on site?
Chair Mayberry.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. So we do have amendments that we've worked on with the jails and with law enforcement on these issues. I think conversations are ongoing on these pieces. But in terms of specifically what we're trying to do is after the bill is amended, it's going to say a peace officer may only view a video recording conducted in a detention facility for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. I believe that existing systems will allow them to do this. They already have existing systems for retention of data, retention of evidence, and within those existing systems. I mean, there's a system for tracking when incidents happen in jail. That's why they have cameras in there. Rob Kelty.
So the belief that they have a system and knowing what they do or they don't is a big deal here because, like I said, most, not just companies, but even the Department of Defense, I mean, even our jail systems here, they use cloud-based systems because they got away from having on-site hard servers and network equipment, everything that was required for all that. So they've gotten away from that. So what happens to the jail that is now currently cloud-based and they have to bring it in on-site to have to pay for the software and the equipment and the maintenance and the licensing and all that? Because, like I said, that could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per jail.
Rep. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Kelty, for the question. I guess I would refer back to the statement I made earlier, which is where do they store evidence of child porn? that's the exact same place they would store these videos. And I would have to check with experts, but I believe every county has a system set up within existing resources to handle these things. Rep. Kelty.
Representative Slaw.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. For Rep. Stewart, so you had said at the beginning of your introduction that there was a pattern of this misconduct. How many cases are we talking about in any given period of time Can you elaborate about that Representative Stewart
So this case is ongoing, but there have been 117 victims that have been identified with over 3,000 videos that have also been identified as being watched. So this is ongoing. This was not a one-off. This is five years of persistent exploitation of people in custody.
Reps Law.
Thank you, Mr. Carter. So in this instance, though, we are talking about, as horrific as it is, acknowledged and totally agreed, but this is for one case, and though it was ongoing for an extended period of time, Are there other cases outside of that where we are concerned right now that this is also going on? Jim Rayburn.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Well, we have testimony today from people who have experienced things like this. So you're going to hear firsthand from victims of incidents like this that go beyond just the one or two stories that we told in our introductions. And then, like I also said in my introduction, though, that it is well documented that sexual victimization and incarceration remains alarmingly prevalent, not only across the country, but specifically in Colorado. and this is part and an example of how that can happen. But the problem of sexual exploitation in jails is very prevalent.
Rips Law.
Thank you for the answers and thank you, Vice Chair. I have a different question that I'd like to ask. and this is going to is kind of a follow up to Rep Soper's questions in talking about the reasonable belief how often do you think that there would not be reasonable belief that someone might have one of any number of reasons to be believed to need to be searched
Jim Ribery I would say almost always a correction officer could articulate reasonable belief, which is why it's not my preferred standard. My preferred standard is reasonable suspicion or probable cause, which requires specific articulable facts that are relevant to a particular individual in incident in place and time. Reasonable belief is far broader than that. And while I wish the standard were broader, I think what's significant about this legislation is that, at least that piece of this legislation, is that it's going to require the corrections officers to take a step back and document why they are conducting the search. But as a matter of law, I would say it would be quite rare that somebody couldn't come up with something to fit under that standard.
Reps law.
Representative for the record Representative Espinoza is present Rep Espinoza Thank you Mr Vice Chair Thank you so much sponsors for bringing this bill forward and for the amendments which I now had a moment to look at and it does help fill a lot of the holes that I was concerned about with regard to this bill And I do agree with you, Chair Mabry, that I do have problems with the reasonable belief standard for exactly the reason that you articulated. But I wanted to go back to the hypothetical of Representative Soper and just say, wouldn't an individual ask whether they had any tattoos on their body and that provide enough of information for them to then conduct the search?
Chairman Avery. Thank you, Professor Espinosa. We're going to do the Socratic method here? Absolutely.
Representative Espinosa. And I think that goes to the point is before someone would engage in having to go to the steps of doing a strip search, part of the bill, in my understanding of the framework of the bill, is for officers to think about and get information to ascertain whether a strip search would be necessary in this circumstance. Is that the purpose of this bill?
I'm sorry. Chairman Avery. The purpose of this bill is to protect our incarcerated neighbors from risks of sexual exploitation. There are a few mechanisms. One of the key ones is, at a bare minimum, can we get some documentation as to why a strip search of one of our neighbors is happening?
Representative Espinosa. And I just wanted to put on the record, from my perspective, the other part of the documentation is obtaining the predicate information that will go on to the documentation, which hopefully does change some of the patterns and behaviors of officers to begin with.
Representative Stewart.
Sorry, Representative Stewart. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Espinoza. that's exactly it.
Something I didn't mention in my opening is that when I started work on this bill months ago, I did two research requests to county jails to ask, can you tell me how many strip searches you perform every year and the methodology or the reasoning? And both times, zero data was returned to me because that data is not kept. and I certainly don't want to sound cold because I very much acknowledge the impact that this has had on people that I represent in Southwest Colorado but the work that we do here in the building needs to be evidence based but how can we do that work when we don't have the data to figure out how to best protect the citizens of Colorado and that is where this bill is coming from too.
Thank you.
Representative Espinosa. Thank you. And I just want to go back to the other question of Representative Soper. And that was, and I think you may have answered this, Chair Mabry, but maybe a little more clearly the difference between the broad determination of the Supreme Court that Representative Soper talked about and our right in the state of Colorado to narrow that in this circumstance.
Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Rep. Espinoza. That's actually one of my favorite things about this committee is we're always dealing with the tension between the limits that are placed on us as a legislature by the Constitution and the limits of the Constitution and our current laws to protect our neighbors. and I view this as exercising our authority within the Constitution of the State of Colorado and of the United States to go a step further and provide more safeguards for our neighbors who have lost their liberty. Representative Espinoza.
Representative Kluver.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amendments are a little different than I was expecting, so I'm just still working through what all they do and marking up some bills over here. So we're, help me understand with what's coming, we're taking out most of the PREA or the jail standards piece, is that correct? Or the legislative oversight for jail standards.
Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. So we are taking out the audit pieces. pieces. Part of that is just because, so Section 4 and Section 8 of the bill, because there was funding issues with those pieces of the bill. We're bringing an amendment to address to make sure that the bill aligns with previous whistleblower law from last year. We're bringing an amendment that is a discovery fix from the public defenders and DAs to make sure that everybody has necessary access to these searches for court purposes. And then there are some cleanup amendments in terms of the definition of personnel and local detention facility. And we struck section two because it caused confusion with current discovery process. and then outlined how this conforms with discovery process in a different amendment.
Representative Clifford. Do you mind if we dialogue? We should be dialogue.
Thank you. On the conform with whistleblower piece, are we now pointing back to the existing statute,
or how did you address that, if you don't mind me asking? I'll get to it in a minute, but I'd rather just ask you.
oh um can we have this conversation when we get to the amendments phase to be honest uh we got the amendments were like hot off the press at like three o'clock and so the versions that i reviewed this morning were different and so i uh and it's because there were like some typos and then there were some changes we need to make so i need to sit with them to um because you know i like to answer the questions and not refer back to the drafter i will do so when we get to the amendments i appreciate that and then still in dialogue um to talk a little bit about the um
i was surprised to see that the direction that we went um after some conversations between the two of us about how body cams work in jails um there there are not subsequent systems in these jail facilities that have anything to do at all with how the investigative divisions of a law enforcement agency keep child sexual assault materials. There are not separate camera systems. Sometimes when there are separate camera systems, they don't have audio, etc. I am of the opinion that body cams protect people. I wonder why we're going in a direction where we would have a population of people that are now not going to be on body camera. I would prefer that we have body cameras in every interaction where a person could be investigated for any sort of crime Well I not sure I agree that body cameras necessarily make people safer but that a
conversation for another day. What I will say, though, is in terms of why we're keeping the language on that piece as is around turning off body cams. This conversation is driven by the advocates at CCASA and the victims, and their perspective in shaping the legislation was incredibly important. I definitely understand and respect your perspective. but also want to make sure that we're bringing legislation that honors the advocacy of the survivors. And also I recognize in terms of existing resources, nothing in this bill would prevent them from getting a relatively cheap camera to just put in whatever room they're going to conduct the strip search in.
Okay, got it. You good, Jack? I am, thank you.
Representative Flannell. So just to confirm, because there are a lot of amendments and I haven't had a chance to read through them. So body camera isn't allowed, but it's OK to have a camera in the room. Correct. Yes. Sorry.
Can we dialogue? You may dialogue.
And then I'm curious, this guy, Edward Aber. all he viewed all of this stuff within the facility correct or was it remotely i believe it was remotely but there will be witnesses who have more direct knowledge but i believe it was remotely well i'm so i'm just i could be wrong on that i gotta be i gotta be clear but there will be people who who have more direct knowledge of it because i can't help but think that if this footage is stored in at the facility that it could easily be copied i mean let's say it's put on a thumb drive or a hard drive or something it could be easily copied and i don't see anything that requires you know another person to be in there it just says that they have to state why they i mean is there any way to prove that somebody viewed certain footage on a hard drive or a thumb drive within the facility?
I believe that there are absolutely ways to track that. You can make certain footage like password locked, and it would ping if somebody typed in the password to access. It would probably ping which logged in user did that. And as to the other part of your question, and something could be copied and then maybe taken home, I believe we're starting to get into the territory of other crimes are being committed. Okay.
The good, Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as you were talking earlier about the videos and that, I just want to make clear, I have two questions. Isn't it already law that you can't view videos for an unlawful purpose? and my second question is you keep saying neighbor, neighbor, neighbor. Are you talking about the prisoners, criminals in jail? Is that what you mean by neighbor? Because you kept saying the word neighbor. So I just want to clarify what neighbor means Chair Mabry Of course All of our neighbors whether or not they incarcerated have been accused of a crime have been convicted of a crime are worthy of dignity and our respect And I was saying neighbor to be respectful to people who are incarcerated because I believe they deserve to be described respectfully.
Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I was just trying to clarify what you meant by that because you just kept saying that and not what they actually are, which are prisoners in jail.
I actually disagree. I think that they're human beings worthy of our respect. They are human beings. We are going to be respectful to each other, period. I was just trying to get clarification. And actually in this bill, they're not even prisoners. My other question is –
Representative Kelty.
100%. So as my first question was, isn't it already law that you can't view videos for unlawful purposes? Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Rep. Kelty, for the question. I think that it is arguable that a crime was committed and like invasion of privacy, just like I was saying to Rep Flanell that the hypothetical that she described is starting to encroach into the territory of other crimes. But that does not mean that we cannot put some front end protections here to act as prevention. In addition to, of course, there can be consequences on the back end, but I think that the circumstances in any particular case may or may not be a crime in terms of the sort of behavior that we've talked about here. Representative Kelty.
Representative Soper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Mabry, you know, I want to go back to a point that was made earlier. as we talked about the story that brought us here today. And I know there's others aside from the La Plata County case. But it seems like we're mixing up what the victim is. For example, in the La Plata County case, it was the fact that you had the perpetrator, the person who viewed the videos for sexual gratification, and those who were being exploited, those who were within the videos. Then on the other side, I didn't hear at least anyone making any sort of like a 1983 action that the strip search violated their rights. The whole issue that it comes down to was you had someone viewing these videos and turning the individuals into victims. You didn't have an issue where someone said the strip search was overly invasive to the point where they raised on their own a Section 1983 case against the jail or the county, which they could have. Chairman. What you'd say. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. We'll be talking about Section 1983 claims very soon, Judiciary Committee. I appreciate that point And will say I don know all the circumstances here Perhaps what was reported to us as sponsors what was reported in the Denver Post is limited to this incident somebody accessing the footage at home I don't know if this particular individual on the side has had conversations with counsel about potentially bringing a case. I'll also note that bringing a Section 1983 case, I've worked on one, is hard. It's a really complex cause of action. And so maybe the facts in this particular circumstances would have lent themselves to rise to that level of them saying, hey, this search was conducted improperly. but I don't know enough about that initial point, which is a fair point to raise, but I would just say that just because we didn't raise it doesn't mean it's necessarily true that there weren't bad circumstances that led to the search. I would still say, regardless, it is a reminder that here in this body, we can step up, just like I said to Rep. Kelty on the front end, to provide protections to our neighbors when their bodily autonomy is being invaded.
Representative Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Representative Sober.
I did want to add that while I can't speak firsthand, the stories I've heard are strip searches multiple times a week in this facility. and I would offer my anecdotal evidence of until you said 1983, I had no idea. So if I were in that circumstance, I don't know if I would know what tools and levers I had access to. I mean, I can only imagine my feelings in that circumstance. And then the power differential is there, and it's acute and it's real. And to be told that you need to strip down multiple times a week for your safety and not know what recourse you have. So this is a story about an abuse of power and setting up guardrails to hopefully ensure this does not happen again in this state.
Representative Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Stewart and Mayberry. And to that point, wouldn't you also want to have body cameras? Certainly if you're the attorney for the plaintiff making a 1983 action, wouldn't you want to have all the video imagery to be able to make the case that the jailers improperly searched you, The jailers improperly perhaps touched you because the body footage from the body cameras would actually show what has actually gone on. And yet within the bill, the body cameras are not allowed.
Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Thank you for that question, Rep Sofer. And this also touches on the line of questioning we got from Rep Clifford. the issue with the body cams in these instances is the way that the body cams work it's necessary it's impossible to separate their footage um from the cloud and uh um That's one of the things that we're trying to prevent because I can't remember if it was Rep Flanelle or Rep Kelty who made the point that, you know, it might be relatively easy to access this stuff if it's on the cloud. We're trying to make the camera footage when a strip search happens not on the cloud, which is why I said to Rep Clifford that, you know, a jail is probably going to have to buy a cheap camera from Home Depot or something to put in the rooms that's not linked to the cloud to put in the rooms where they conduct the strip searches.
Representative Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate that answer, although I would push back and say that certainly our ability to effectuate change in technology is only limited by our imagination and what we can do here. So certainly, to what you told me earlier, that changing Supreme Court holdings to have a Colorado way, we certainly could have a Colorado way to require that it be detached from the cloud, to be able to have a body camera, much like the old days where you have the U.S. speed ship.
Chairman Avery. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I mean, I agree. Part of this is, as with every piece of legislation, through stakeholding, talking about that, once we open that can of worms, it's like, okay, yeah, potentially, but it's going to be incredibly expensive. And we're talking about trying to make this change within existing resources.
Rep's over. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Mabry. But wouldn't those resources come from the local government and not from the state coffers?
Chairman Mabry. Yes. Yes, it would. But that's also part of the stakeholding process. We have to talk to local governments about how a bill is impacting their bottom line, too.
Rep Silver.
Representative.
Representative Garcia. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I just have a quick question. When you were talking about in the bill, when you were referencing the Jail Standards Committee, the Legislative Oversight Committee concerning the jail standards, there was a requirement in this that then the rules and policies are created in 2026. However, as we know, because of our budgetary constraints, interim committees aren't meeting. So how can we adjust for that piece?
Chairman Averitt. By striking sections four and section eight of the bill.
Rep. Garcia. Well, I appreciate that. I like the intention. I don't think that striking them entirely is probably the best idea. because I do think that that's still necessary. I'm wondering how we can do it in a way where it's maybe not limited to this year.
Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I mean, I agree. That was like one of my favorite pieces of this legislation was that there would be tracking and audits and we be able to keep an eye on this to like better inform these conversations moving forward I think you know just generally in this building we in a place where there are a lot of good ideas that cost too much money And so if you want to work with us on an idea that free we would love to run an amendment on second reading.
Representative Garcia.
Representative Zocca?
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I just was seeking some clarification on the fiscal note. is the fiscal being driven by the fact that we have officers committing sexual assault that we are not able to hold accountable until this passes or is it strictly on the extra work on the post board? Representative Seward. Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you Rep. Sokay. I believe it's the second one the post board certification and I might have to phone in front on that one but it's possible more investigations too. It's post.
Chairman Avery.
Representative is okay. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And is my reading correct then that under current law, when an officer is found to have committed sexual assault, they do not face post board. They don't face the post board for any consequences and that they keep their certification?
Representative Stewart or Chair Mayberry?
I would ask a witness that question because I don't know the answer. Representative's okay.
Representative Clifford. Thank you. I'm hung up on the body cam piece primarily because body cams are designed to be SEGIS compliant. The software that we use is designed to be SEGIS compliant. They have ability to lock those things down so that if they do have something that is sensitive material, they can set that to very, very specific administrator privileges. Who can, cannot see it. But it also ties in with our evidence systems in the courts. There's an entire infrastructure that's built for most people, for most agencies, around how their body cams function and work. So the notion of taking a different camera or even starting to allow outside cameras or Home Depot cameras or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera in a jail facility, I am, for me, somebody who's actually been in and out of a jail, not on the other side of that, never with my handcuffs on my own hands. That didn't come out right. All of my time in prison. right before I was I've never been strip searched but the the realities of that situation introducing something new are the notion that we're going to start bringing some other types of cameras or that an officer might use a you know non-agency phone or anything at all that is not kind of designed around the nature of keeping something safe and secure in addition to that Our body cam systems typically have something that is very auditable so we can see who's viewed that video and when. So I will share my own body cam footage as a police officer. If I pull it up and view it myself and I wanted to make a copy of it for you, even if I download it myself, it's got a watermark that goes across with my information. Now, I'm not certain that that's that way in every agency, but that is how it is in ours. and the only people that can send you the unredacted stuff without some watermark across the front of it would be the administrator that responsible for that So you know I would love to see more security features written into this about how that had to be handled as far as body cam footage was concerned or what type of restrictions and stipulations rather than some sort of outside, like, let's go to Home Depot and get a camera. I think that we're opening a Pandora's box on that. But I do have a question in here. I'm sorry. I'm interested in the direction or why there is a massive concern about that piece, because there seems to be a fear of the body cams. And we have been working since 2020 to get that piece very implemented in law in Colorado. So can you talk to me a little bit about why we're like now diverging from that path?
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. So, you know, on the first point, the Home Depot camera, I was just kind of saying in jest, these facilities have other cameras that aren't body cameras. And if they don't, they can get them. The other point that I wanted to make is the bill and the amendments are based on stakeholding with law enforcement. It's not like we just brought this and didn't have conversations with them about how their video systems work and how the cloud works and if they can lock it down. We've had extensive conversations about those things. And, you know, we can wax poetic about it here as members, but I actually just encourage you when they come up and testify to ask them about why there weren't better opportunities or procedures on this piece, because this is crafted based on feedback that we've gotten from law enforcement. and jails. And we were told that the body camera footage had to be uploaded to the cloud that was told to us by law enforcement and other ideas that we discussed in terms of locking it down just weren't seen as feasible. And so ask them those questions because they definitely know more about it than I do.
Representative Clifford. And then I will do that. I'll make sure that I save these types of questions for the people that are up here. The one thing that probably only you can answer, and I'm more interested in this as the chair of the legislative oversight for jail standards, all of that piece came out. That was the thing I liked the most, by the way. If there was stuff that I liked in here, it was that we were going to put in some reporting and some oversight and might actually get some data. I'd like to know kind of why that went by the wayside or why we're not, you know, if we're concerned about funding that committee, which might be an issue this year, you know, we need to be looking at some off-site work or committee of reference work because there's other work that committee needs to do this summer as well. Can you talk to me about why that just poofed? That committee is not.
Chair Mabry. Yeah. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Rep Garcia asked this question and the committee is not funded and if we can come up with creative way to get at those things that doesn drive a fiscal note as with every other bill everybody running this year things we want to do that cost money and we don have We happy to think of creative solutions but I totally agree with you
Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Yes, we like that part of the bill, too. There just isn't money, but there will be reporting to the legislature of this data. Just the jail standards committee is – I welcome all creative problem-solving solutions, truly.
Representative Clifford. That's all for me for now. Thanks.
Just for the record, if I have not, Representative – or Amel Bacon is present.
Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to know – I'm going back to the whole IT thing. I want to know how many IT engineers or IT departments as far as like the data storage and the on-site equipment, hardware, all that stuff, how many of them have you actually talked to to see if this is actually capable, their facilities are capable of doing that because you have a safety clause on this. And so that means it must be done immediately. So with the knowledge that it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, which will be a huge impact on them, have you talked to any of these departments about what it's going to take for their facilities and how much? Chair Mayberry.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Well, I disagree that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, yes, we've had lots of these conversations, which has driven changes we're making to the bill. I will say conversations with the jails, law enforcement, DAs, public defenders, conversations are ongoing on this bill. And, you know, we expect to continue to make changes. we're open to continuing having and accepting feedback on the pieces related to the filming and storage of strip searches. But the changes that we've made have been in response to those conversations.
Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the changes that you made off of whose recommendation are you talking about? Because the images, I mean, images alone of strip searches of, you know, of the prisoners that are in jail, I mean, that could take up a ton of space. And you're talking about data retention and, you know, backups. And, I mean, I'm not sure that this entire part, this right here, kills pretty much what you want to do with this from even being able to be accomplished.
Chair Mayberry. Well, I would hope that strip searches weren't so prevalent that they took up terabytes of data. But there are folks coming to testify about this bill that are impacted by it. You can ask them those questions.
Representative Keltie.
Representative Espinoza, did you have any questions?
I didn't a long time ago. And I guess this is something we can go through with the police as well, but part of the reason I just want to set out in terms of my recollection when we did the defense evidence review bill last year, dealing with the jails and dealing with cameras. I believe, and maybe everybody can think of their memory too, But my recollection in that discussion was that we were told that body camera data could not be separated from the cloud data at that point in time as well. So I just want to say, in the course of the conversations that you had this year, was there anything in terms of changing the technology that would have changed the statements that they made last year with regard to that evidence? And then secondarily, in light of that requirement, which did say they had to have cameras now that were separate from the cloud for purposes of protecting that information, for defense reviews, wouldn't the jails have already done that to comply with the bill that we passed last year?
Chairman Mayberry. On the first part of your question, yes, those conversations were consistent. And on the second part of your question, I would hope that the jails made changes to reflect changes in the law we've already made. But I can't speak to the fact as to whether it's happened or not.
Representative Espinoza. Representative Espinoza. Thank you. I just want to get clarification as well on this bill's intent. Is this bill's intent directed or its direction? Is it directed an intake at jails, or is it directed at the time when an individual is already in the population and has been through intake? Chair Mayberry.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I believe let's have this conversation when we bring L1 because L1 is clarifying it as drafted its intake. I believe the version of L1 that I read at 730 this morning does broaden it. I need to dig into it and let's look at L1.
Representative Espinoza.
I'm sorry.
Representative Stewart. Thank you. Thank you for the question, Representative Espinosa. The goal is for after intake, and we'll work to thread that needle. Pre-arraignment, post-intake, so continuing work.
Representative Espinosa. And thank you, Representative Stewart. I guess that's been my understanding of this bill, that a lot of the individuals that have been subjected to these searches, The searches are being conducted well after they're in an intake position and routinely, almost routinely during weeks of incarceration. Is that correct? Representative Stewart.
That is 100% correct.
Thank you. Representative Esquinoza. I had a couple of questions briefly. You touched on it, Chair Mabry, just regarding the transgender population and them being one of the most vulnerable. What is the effect or is there any part of this bill targeted towards protecting the transgender population? I also wanted to take note that these are local detention facilities, meaning that these are individuals who are still innocent until proven guilty and therefore have not been found guilty of any type of crime yet. They are post-intake, but it is still individuals who are waiting for trial. But if you can answer the question regarding the transgender issues.
Representative Stewart Yeah thank you Mr Vice Chair for the question So we did work directly with One Colorado and we're very careful and intentional in the language we brought forward with their stakeholding. And in order to – you all know how hard this work is. You all have taught me that judiciary is not the place I want to hang out. So I admire the work that you do in this committee. It's very difficult. And in order to throw the needle and approach this in a very appropriate manner, we are not addressing specific populations in this bill. You know, again, in collaboration with One Colorado.
Representative Flannell. This should be my last question. So I'm just thinking about the smaller counties, the smaller county jails and with the requirements. So two staff members that need to decide that there needs to be a search and they have to document that. They have to get an officer of the same sex, which I don't disagree with. I would prefer, you know, to have somebody of the same sex. But I'm just wondering for these smaller counties if there isn't somebody of the same sex working that day. And then in order to search more than the mouth, you would have to get a nurse. And I just wonder if the smaller county jails are able to sustain this, if they have this kind of – this amount of people, like enough people working in order to fulfill these requirements.
Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. Thanks for the question, Rep. Flannell. I don't think we got feedback along these lines from the stakeholders. So, you know, I think we would be open to conversations around feasibility and timing and practicability and emergent circumstances, et cetera. But through our stakeholding so far, I don't think that this particular issue has come up. And if it has somebody advocating for the bill that is helping us, please feel free to mention it during the witness testimony phase. But I don't remember hearing it.
Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Representative Flannell, for the question. So there have been conversations around this. I represent rural Colorado. One of the counties I represent doesn't have a county jail. It only has 700 people that live there year-round. So this has been front of mind, and we have had these conversations. And some of the language, whether through amendments or in the bill, reflects the fact that we're trying to be mindful of rural Colorado. But please ask questions of the witness panel in order to – it's a more satisfactory answer.
Representative Flannell. i just wanted to state on the record when i toured el paso county jail which is much bigger even that was a little concerning because at times there was one correctional officer for 80 inmates and i think that as it is with a lot of these unfunded mandates they're already stretched thin and so i would hate to again i think that this is an issue that needs i mean this is horrific as to what happened I not justifying that or trying to stick up for that But I do worry that with more mandates and more employees that they going to be stretched even more or thinner and it going to require a lot more fees I guess.
Representative Flannell, do you have a question for the sponsors?
No, I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.
Did the sponsors want to go over the amendments now or at the end? we'll go over amendments during close thank you sponsors we will call up the first panel is there a Suzanne Garcia Katrina Lyle Shrel Begay. Shrel Begay. Raven Nix. Thank you. I'll start with Ms. Newman. So, Ms. Garcia, you have three minutes. State your name, who you represent.
Thank you very much. My name is Suzanne Garcia, and I am a victim from La Plata County. For many years, jail commander Edward Aber in La Plata County Jail has used his power to violate women. Whether it was his female deputy coworkers or inmates who were entrusted to his care, he regularly violated their constitutional rights. He fouled his oath, and he utilized his power to victimize women. I'm one of those women. Over the course of at least four years, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation found that Ed Aber watched strip search videos of over 117 female inmates, and he viewed these 3,166 times. He downloaded them from the server. He watched them at home. He watched them in Arizona, two different households in Arizona. He watched them in a hotel room here in Denver. He downloaded them to personal devices, and he viewed them repeatedly. Now, for his crimes, he was not arrested. He was served to summons in his front yard. And he was not subjected to strip searches. He has not had his firearms removed. and he is not under pretrial services. As victims right now, we live in fear because we're not sure what this guy is capable of. I really appreciate the talk that we've had this afternoon about the fiscal impacts. But let me tell you something. We, the only power we have as victims is to bring a lawsuit. We are bringing a multimillion lawsuit against the county I a sixth Coloradoan and it hurts me to my core to know that I the heart of a lawsuit that is going to impact my county It's the taxpayers who are going to pay for this, not Mr. Aber. I have a daughter here who works for Child Protective Services in La Plata County. Positions are being cut. Funds, benefits, projects that we have in La Plata County are being stripped away, ended because they're fearful of this multi-million dollar lawsuit. I have read every piece of discovery. I've read the lawsuits. I urge you guys to read the civil suit. I am very well versed with how this all went down. I am appalled that our county didn't do more about this. This went on for four years. I believe that this panel and this group, you have an opportunity to make change. But bigger than that, you guys, I think you have an obligation to protect the smaller counties in this state to make sure that this never happens again. The fiscal impact is coming. And just watch La Palada County. Watch what happens. I'm scared. And I feel embarrassed to do this, but we're bringing a lawsuit. We don't know what else to do.
Thank you, ma'am. I'm going to let the survivors go. So Ms. Nix, you have three minutes. State your name, who you represent. You just had your finger on it. There we go. Okay. Sorry about that. Nope, you're good. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Raven Nix. I'm a veteran of the United States Army Military Police Corps. I was a sheriff's deputy in La Plata County for 11 and a half years. I am currently a victim's advocate with the Sexual Assault Services Organization located in La Plata, Montezuma, and Dolores counties. I am a three-time sexual assault survivor. I'm here today representing myself in support of HB 26-1123. As a sheriff's deputy, I began my career in the jail. I was a detentions deputy for four and a half years until I transferred to the patrol division. In both these positions, I served as a field training officer, excuse me, training new to the division deputies, and in some cases, they had no law enforcement experience whatsoever. During my time with the sheriff's office, I have conducted numerous strip searches of inmates. While I was in both detentions and patrol due to the lack of female officers, I have never been taught, have never taught, and have never conducted a strip search using a body camera. When I first heard about the Ed Aber case, where he had been watching body cam footage for his own pleasure, several thoughts went through my head. First was when did they start requiring body cams for strip searches? The second was not surprise, not shock. In my own interactions with Aver as both my sergeant and lieutenant, the interactions ranged from sexual harassment about my appearance to when I asked if I could have a day off to speak about my sexual assault history with a veterans group. I was told if it still affected me that badly... He guessed he could give me the day off. When I speak about my experience, I was dismissed by command staff and was told it was not that bad. For over a year, I struggled with suicidal ideation, alcoholism, potential divorce, and being angry all the time before I finally left the sheriff's office. The system I swore to uphold was failing me. I can't imagine the hardships for those who do not have my privilege. I'm here to give support to this bill because character still counts and integrity never goes out of style. This bill offers protections to survivors, whistleblowers, and the citizens of Colorado, our neighbors, that are so desperately needed right now more than ever. This bill could make sure that an officer that is accused of 117 counts of invasion of privacy for sexual gratification cannot retain their post-certificate or go to work for another agency. Please don't insult me or the other brave souls here to testify by calling us resilient, courageous, or any other lip service nonsense if you intend to politely nod and vote against the protections of Coloradans. Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll go to Ms. Begay. . . Navajo Nation. My name is Sherelle Begay, and I am from the Navajo Reservation near the Four Corners. Today I am here to represent women. I, as a survivor, I am here to stand up for women. Women all the way around, not just the women, those who suffered from what's happening in Durango. I vote for this bill to pass so that others don't have to suffer mental and emotional disorders, such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, shame, and feeling unsafe, as I am today. I speak today so that I don't have to turn to substance, self-destruction, and or repeating unhealthy choices, because I deserve better than that. I am also here representing the Native American women everywhere and the atrocities that we still go through to this day. It took a lot for me to be here because of the injustice I've had experience and still endure without the help of the government system. I ask, let us make a difference today so that other women, our children, our sisters, our nieces, don't have to go what we, I, am going through today. This law must pass. This law must pass for us women who have been abused in the past, present, and in the future. This is more, there's more work ahead. . . It's up to you to decide. I hope my experience is a voice for other women to have the courage and the resilience to stand up for themselves and for others. And I ask that this bill to be passed. And I truly hope that your sisters, your nieces, your daughters don't have to go through what
we've gone through. And with that, I thank you for letting me speak today.
Thank you, Ms. McGay. Ms. Lyle, you have three minutes. Just state your name and who you represent.
Good afternoon, members of the Jeter District Community. My name is Katrina Lyle, and I'm a survivor of sexual assault. And I'm here today representing myself, strong support of Bill HB 26-1123. I am a survivor of the actions of Edward Eber. In 2018 and 2022, while I was held in La Plata County Jail at the ages of 30 and 33, Edward Aber viewed recorded videos of my strip searches. I did not know I was a victim until July 31st when I received a letter in the mail informing me that I was a victim. I was devastated. I was devastated. stated. I called the district attorney's office in a state of shock and they confirmed the details. The emotional toll was immediate. The very next day, my six-year-old son, who is autistic, saw me crying and he told me, mommy, it's okay to cry. In a week followed, the weight of this violation began to bleed into my home life. I realized I was taking my hurt and my anger out on my husband and my son, which was deeply unfair to them. Recognizing I needed help, I sought medical advice and was directed to say so, who connected me with a trauma therapist. I also reached out to Representative Katie Stewart and CASA to ask what could be done to ensure this never happens to anyone else. They have been instrumental in helping me navigate this process. While there are currently open civil and criminal cases, they have yet to be resolved. To be honest, I do not feel the charges are harsh enough for this type of violation. Initially, I was willing to accept a plea deal because I wanted this nightmare to end and so I can move on. However, looking back, it feels like it's an easy out for a crime that was fundamentally broken. my trust in law enforcement and county officials. I struggle with depression. I find it hard to enjoy things I used to love. I find myself breaking down quite frequently. I believe passing this bill is a crucial step for two reasons. The whistleblower protection will encourage people within the system to come forward when they see abuse without fear of losing their jobs. Privacy and rights, it will ensure that survivors and those currently incarcerated are aware of their rights. Many of us had no idea we were being recorded or it was being saved in such intimate moments. Limiting recordings and increasing oversight will protect the dignity of all the Coloradans For these reasons I support HB 26 and urge this committee to vote yes We must ensure that a sentence does not include the state sanction violation of a person's privacy and dignity. Thank you for your time and your work on the issue.
Thank you, Ms. Lyle. if we can have Ms. Newman state your name, who you represent and you will have three minutes
thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee I'm Elizabeth Newman, Director of Public Policy for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault CCOS is a leading voice in the state's anti-sexual violence movement working to promote healing and prevent harm we strongly support House Bill 1123 to address harmful gaps in policies and protections that have allowed rampant sexual violence in Colorado's jails. Sexual violence can happen anywhere and to anyone, but it is especially prevalent in places where there are deep power imbalances, a lack of accountability, and systems that are dehumanizing or degrading places like jails, prisons, and detention facilities. In fact, sexual violence is so prevalent in these carceral settings that prison rape is a frequent well-known joke. That doesn't make it acceptable. Sexual violence is never part of someone's sentence, and people in jail are not necessarily even convicted of a crime yet. And Colorado has a responsibility to prevent this. While people in jail may give up some of their rights, they do have a right to be free from sexual violence and violations of their bodily integrity. In fact, the federal law, PREA, explicitly establishes a responsibility for every carceral facility to prevent sexual abuse. However, after the jail commander in La Plata County was found to have violated the privacy and safety of inmates in his care and sexually harassed staff under his command for years, it became clear that PREA was basically a suggestion at the county level because a lack of implementation and enforcement. This is not a problem in just one county. While some counties are complying with PREA, we found that two out of three jails in Colorado do not appear to be doing so. This is a serious problem because many people in jail, especially women and gender expansive folks, have previously been victims of power-based violence, with some studies that find up to 98% of female inmates have experienced childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence, or sexual assault prior to their incarceration. That makes these violations all the more traumatic and harmful, and this is a critical reason why this bill is needed. House Bill 1123 takes a powerful step for preventing sexual violence in jails by doing three things. First, it reduces the opportunities for abuse and violations of bodily autonomy by limiting strip searches and access to the video recordings of them. Secondly, it ensures that all jail staff report and respond to sexual violence and that people in jail are given information about their rights and how to get resources. And lastly, it increases accountability by extending whistleblower protections to all jail staff, preventing abusive staff from future positions of power and trust in law enforcement as well. While there may be some challenges to still work through related to the amendments, CECASA is incredibly grateful for the leadership of our sponsors and the courage of survivors in making significant strides to addressing this widespread problem of sexual violence in jails. We urge you to support this bill and stand with these survivors so sexual violence is never part of someone's sentence again. Thank you, and please ask me questions. I'm happy to answer them.
Thank you Ms Newman Members do we have questions for this panel Representative Clifford
I want to thank you all for coming here from wherever you came today, and it's important that you spend this time with us. I also want to share, as you hear us deliberate some of these matters, They are matters of law and matters of the words and the semicolons and the commas and the periods and the I's dotted on the paper. And not at all sometimes in relation to the people that are sitting in front of us. We have to get this right as a matter of law and as a matter of policy. We're all very committed to that. I, it is egregious that you're here before us because you have had these types of issues in your county. It should not be happening. No one is ever going to debate that. That is not what we're talking about today. We are talking about an in the weeds conversation. So, permit me to talk to her as a former police officer for just a minute. I have some questions specifically about your county and what you saw when you were doing strip searches in your county. And I understood that as a female officer, you might have been one of the only on a shift that would have to come to the jail because this might have happened. Can you talk to me a little bit about the procedures that were in place at that time? And did you recognize at that time that the procedures were insufficient or would have caused this type of issue?
Mix, mix, mix, mix. Thank you for the question. I'm really looking forward to the officer-on-officer dialogue. We did not use cameras when we conducted strip searches when I was with the La Plata County Sheriff's Office. The reason for that was because there was the fear of it getting out into the public where it did not belong. At the time, we did not have a sufficient server, and the jail cameras were positioned in such a way that when I, as a female deputy or female presenting deputy, I use they, them pronouns, the camera outside of the door where we conducted the strip search, the procedure that I followed every single time, and I'm sure you can appreciate, you know, you have to make sure that you do your pat down. this same way every single time. So that if you are called to court or a committee, you can demonstrate those. And I probably, I've been out of the game for almost six years and I probably could still do a pat down the exact same way that I did when I was in law enforcement. So our policy was down the hall you would have another officer because the other side of the door was the big sliding doors that went down into the pods. and as in most jail settings, they use trustees and we didn't want a trustee accidentally walking by while an officer was conducting a strip search because we had our hand outside the door and on the door handle and you could tell it was the hand because we had gloves on. The only reason why we had gloves on was if we had a combatant inmate or if there was contraband found during a strip search. otherwise you would never touch the inmate it was approximately myself to Ms. Clover that they would stay away, but you would still be able to visually see the inmate while you were conducting the strip search. Hands-on was never a thing. So while you were doing that, your hand was outside, so the camera saw your hand outside. You had your partner that was down the hall making sure that there was no one passing back and forth. The minute you were done, you said, okay, put your clothes up onto the bench. You walked out. The door secured. You walked around, and there was like a garage door window that would open, and you would slide – the inmate would slide their clothes in, and then you would slide them the jail uniform. That was how I was taught and conducted strip searches every single time. I don't understand the weekly strip searches. That blows my mind. I can't imagine why they would be able to have a reasonable suspicion or a probable cause at all to do that. But on top of conducting the strip search, you also logged it into the commuter system called Spellman, and you also made a note of it in the inmate file. If this is no longer happening, then those checks and balances that I was taught as a sheriff's deputy from 2007 to 2019 have gone out the window, and it makes this bill even more important to get passed because they're not even following their own rules and policies.
Representative Plouford. Thank you. I have never been to a facility that didn't seem that they had a lot of procedures in place for something like this. And that is one of the things that I'm having a hard time confronting right this moment. One, how did we have such an epic failure here in this so, I mean, indescribably angering manner. And I completely agree that I don't understand why we need weekly strip searches. Just somebody today, I'm saying that out loud, so as you are testifying, if you have a reason to help me understand it, I do completely understand when people first come into a facility because the things coming into a facility can harm everyone in that facility. And it's, you know, there's a thing there. But as we're talking today on standards for things like reasonable suspicion or raising standards to having probable cause in those particular instances to bring something into a facility, I have some concerns about that. Will you share what your concerns would be as a former deputy there?
Mix-nix. Mix-nix. Yes, thank you. While I was at the La Plata County Sheriff's Department, we had to have a reason to do these strip searches. I need everybody to understand that not every inmate that comes into our facility gets a strip search. It's not straight across the board. instances where you would have that probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do a strip search on an inmate was if they had brought contraband into the facility before, if they were there on drug charges, if they had just been pulled over and there was drugs recovered from the vehicle or their backpack, then yes, then we would do the strip search to make sure that they were not bringing drugs into the facility. But we have to have these hard and fast types of reasons to do a strip search Otherwise we going to be here again and we going to have all of these exorbitant amounts of dollars coming out of small communities like La Plata County I don't know how much you know about La Plata County, but it's not really big. It's about, I believe it's 1,500 or 1,800 square miles. And some days we only have four officers on patrol for that entire county. Jail deputies, there's more places in the facility that we need jail deputies. So they have the higher population. But again, nobody wants to be a female in this field. I can tell you right now, you and I could have gone on the exact same call, given the exact same reason for a probable cause search, you would not be questioned, and I would. And I can tell you that with confidence because it happened over and over and over again. And it happened by this man. All the while, he's sexually harassing over 15 other officers that have come forward since this case started. That's just the ones that have come forward. We have possibly 22 female deputies in La Plata County right now. That's ridiculous. And it's the Old West. It's the Old Boys Club. It is the Old Boys Club down there. They don't care about females. They definitely don't care about our indigenous relatives. The amount of racism that happens in that county is shocking. And then you add things like the trans community, the LGBTQIA community, our two-spirit, our sacred two-spirit individuals that are mocked because it's a choice. So why not further push them down by doing weekly strip searches with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion whatsoever? Because they're not documenting it anymore. And we know they're not documenting it anymore because when they were asked – when the committee asked for the paperwork on it, they didn't give it. So they have strayed so far from their own policies in the six years since I've left that it is not even funny. And to go to your point of anybody can make a recording in there, your point was if you made a recording, a copy of a recording, you would have a water stamp on it, yes? That is not happening in La Plata County. That is how he got away with it.
Representative Clifford. One question about that. I'm only familiar with this case from the conjecture of having conversations about this bill, by the way. We'll spend some time on the weekend learning more about it, I assure you. How were we able to pinpoint all the times that he watched the video?
My understanding, sir, is that CBI came in and took over the investment. so that there was not a conflict of interest and they were able to obtain his devices and they found the strip searches on his personal devices.
Representative Clifford I could probably go on for some time but I will ask just your opinion on something Two things and this is and I understand your opinion and we hear from other people today Do you think that strip searches, do you think that body cams in these situations, if they were properly secured, would protect these inmates? Or do you think that we should not record them? That's the first piece. Don't answer yet, and I'll ask the second piece. And the second opinion is really when I look at this from a conjecture of there being, you know, 290-ish, there's really, you know, or let's say 60-ish jails in Colorado, 62, I think, or something like that. And I'm certain that the policies are very different from facility to facility. Is there anything that's universal about this that you naturally have a concern about? because I'm talking with Bacon up here about concerns about how the cameras work in those facilities very different. I trust some body cam software because I know that, like in our agency, it's very locked down. I don't know what happens with the cameras outside the jail facility and inside the jail facility and what other county employees have access to that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's not the CGIS stuff, but I'd like your thought. You get where I'm going with the question, even though it's kind of very open-ended. I'd like to hear your opinions about those two pieces.
Mixed-nix. So from my understanding, it was not just anyone that could access the body cam footage. It was one of those things where you put it on the charger, the stand, and it just went up into the cloud. So he had to have some sort of access to this that the floor deputy, the jail deputy did not have access to. Or maybe they were just a basically decent human being that didn't want to view this over 3,000 times. I can't speak to everyone's basic dignity. Obviously, he did not have that self-control. I think there is a place for body cam footage for protection for both the officer and for the inmate, for our neighbors. But I also want to make sure that bills like this pass so that our neighbors have the protections. You have that body cam footage for seven days and then poof, it is gone. The only reason why body cam footage needs to be stored for any length of time is only, only if you find contraband. And you have to be well-versed in your definition of contraband. It can't be your diabetic device, your insulin pump. That is not contraband. That's medical equipment. That means you go into another pod. But if you're actually introducing contraband, drugs, weapon, alcohol, then yes, that is the protections. And it should be kept for seven days, and the only time that it goes anywhere is if they find something, and then it gets forwarded to both the district attorney and the defendant's attorney. And that's it. no one else should have access to it because I can't tell you how many times and I bet you you've done it too as a cop you've gone on one call and something went haywire and now it's a training exercise isn't it? That has happened. Yep. So you sit around and be like hey look what happened this is messed up everybody gather around look what the rookie did that should absolutely never happen with a strip search I think we all agree I sorry Ms Newman I don have any further questions
Ms. Newman wanted to respond.
Could I just respond to the question around body cam footage versus jail surveillance? So, you know, what we heard from the survivors in La Plata County, and these folks drove seven-plus hours to be here and to tell you their story and to be seen, and I appreciate all of you witnessing their stories. we asked them and we also talked to legislation inside where those are folks who are currently incarcerated and are providing policy feedback which they felt more comfortable with around body camera footage versus jail surveillance and the largest concern we heard was that footage being uploaded to the cloud that could be accessed by who knows who and who knows where was a large concern for them. It wasn't so much the fact that their strip search was recorded it was about what happened to that footage. We also talked specifically to law enforcement. We said we can either have body cam footage that is locked down or we can have jail surveillance footage, which is just from a farther distance. So again, not as close-up image of people's intimate parts and can still capture if there should be misconduct or there's contraband found and that that would be, you know, secured in normal ways. They assured us that it would be very complicated to remove specifically those pieces of footage when a strip search is happening, and to be able to lock down that piece specifically would take too much effort, and that they largely have existing surveillance systems throughout the jail. Those didn't disappear necessarily when the body cams became the standard. So that is footage that is stored locally on site, and that if we just have some language around making sure it's only accessed for legitimate purposes, that that would then prevent some of this abuse. Again, like the body cam footage is incredibly close up. And when we talk to folks at Justice Detention International, which are the PREA experts in our nation, they said body cam footage is also not even really appropriate for finding contraband because of the location of the camera. they can't really see the hands of the deputies and really be able to witness where things are coming from. And so it is most important that we do capture, if there's misconduct, if there's contraband found, that that is captured on video evidence. Our day and age, we expect things to be captured on video. But for the folks whose bodies are on display, they did not want that footage to be accessible, to be found, and to really be so close and intimate up in their parts. And so I think we have come to an agreement that is workable for law enforcement, for jails, and also for people who are being held and detained.
Representative Clifford? I think that jail by jail, we have very different systems, very different technology that exists in different places. Some people have Motorola. Some people have Axon. Some people have some whatever. I personally, to your point, and we've been talking about body cams for three years now. I mean, you're talking about in the weeds, the two of us, with, you know, 80-something stakeholders. So we've been in some dialogue about it. And I don't disagree with what you said about the impersonal nature of it, the closeness of it. And I think that some agencies may have some real issues with, you know, selecting that piece. Many do not. Many do have the ability to say that included nudity. that is now sequestered in the system, et cetera. Whether it's in the cloud or whatever, as long as it's CJIS compliant, I have less concerns. I do have some concerns about some of the systems in the jail. You know, based on how the county contract is, for instance, for surveillance, The jail's cameras may be part of a system that's for every camera in the county, for instance, like Abjalon or something, where they have a network of cameras, and that's how that stuff works. I don't know how this fits. So we're going to talk to some of the other law enforcement, I'm sure, as they come up today and get that piece. It's a piece that I care about getting right. I also could be swayed by the argument that it shouldn't be recorded at all as long as there was a particular witness or something. So I'm going to engage a little bit more with that today because I'm afraid that we could really break something. I'm also much more concerned that we're not breaking something, if you know what I mean.
Did you have a question, Representative Clifford?
I do. I'd like to know in the particular dialogue, because you did go to some experts that you've talked to in this area. Here, are we talking La Plata County? Have we talked to other executives of law enforcement in Colorado that explain how their system works? Have they given you feedback specifically? Will we hear from people today about how their camera systems work that I can get this issue resolved?
Ms. Newman. Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you, Rep. Clifford. I really appreciate that you are very intentional about trying to make sure that we get this right. And I'm no expert in jail surveillance system, so I do appreciate that we're trying to protect the privacy of people who are being detained. We are also trying to protect, you know, the safety if an officer is accused of misconduct, maybe falsely, right? So there's a lot of interest in this, and I appreciate and happy to continue to have these conversations. You know, the FOP, the chiefs, the sheriffs, they were at the table. And what they, you know, communicated to us was that body cam footage was going to be too difficult for them to separate out those pieces. They put the camera on the charger. It uploads. They don't want to sit there and look through and separate out these strip searches or things like that. And that jail surveillance footage exists. They are in place. they are able to capture this footage and that that is able to be secured in a different manner that is not uploaded to the cloud that is stored locally. That is what they communicate to us, but if, you know, we can continue having conversations to make sure that we don't have any gaps and that we do, you know, enact protections here.
Thank you.
Representative Clifford. That's all. Thank you.
Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sorry, I wrote bacon. I think my question is for Ms. Nix. You're not a sheriff anymore, but you were part of that and everything. And I'm an IT nerd, so I kind of go that direction. So with the data that this officer, Mr. Aber, was able to get his hands on, I know that he was in charge of the jail. Is it because of his position that he was able to access that data, or is that data just kind of hanging out there for just anybody to click on and look at whenever they feel like it? And do you know if there was any type of encryption or anything like that that they had? Mix, mix.
I believe the reason why he had access to all of this was because he was the jail commander. I don't know that I would have been able to have access to that just being a line deputy, even being on patrol because it did get uploaded to it but I'm I am not excuse me I not a tech nerd so I not exactly certain how all of that worked it was just never something that I ever wanted to go back to and watch another strip search There was not ever a time that an inmate walked through those doors where I went, you know what, I want to watch that again. I think it's probably because I'm a decent human being, but I kind of think that we're getting into the weeds on how and why it happened. This bill needs to happen so it doesn't happen again. And your whole concern from the questions that you've asked the committee chairs has been about money. It has. It's been about the expense of getting the systems in place. Right now, the system in place is not working. So I would like for you to weigh the cost of the emotional damage in front of you, behind me, and in the other 117 people who are not here. I would love for you to weigh that cost and be more concerned about that than what it's going to cost so that we don't have to be here again.
Reb Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know it seems that way, but I ask a lot of questions from multiple individuals about multiple things, that the cost that I was getting at was trying to make sure that the bill is actually realistic in being able to be implemented. So if they don't have the finances, they are unable to pay for it, I understand. It's a tragic thing that happened. But for me, I just want to make sure if we're going to implement something, we have to be logical about it and how are we going to be able to do it. Has this been thought of? Have these other questions were asked that I didn't have to ask? So I chose to ask those questions because that's a very important part of being able to implement the plan is to be able to pay for it. If you can't pay for it, you can't implement it, and it does no one any good. So for my questioning, and you'll see I ask questions on everything. I know you've never met me before, and sometimes I tire everyone out here with the amount of questions I ask. But I was getting at basically how are we going to be able to implement something logically and responsibly. That's where I'm going at with those types of questions. I'll have other questions for other individuals. For my question for you, I was really trying to get at the access. Like how is this individual able to access this? Is there other accesses that need to be plugged? Are there other holes that we need to look at? I mean, there's other avenues that we need to protect data. Data protection, to me, is very important. So that's one of the reasons why I go down that avenue. You'll see, there will be more questions from me about other things, but my questions were for the bill sponsors on that particular area.
Representative Kelsey, can we have a question for the panel?
No, I was responding to what she had mentioned.
AML Bacon.
Thank you. And I will apologize if I'm duplicative in my questions. And I do think my questions are for our former officer and for Ms. Newman. I'm so sorry. I just blanked on your name in the moment. But I curious in your experience and your stake holding what was the conversation or the argument for even having body cams in the room in the first place And the reason why I'm asking this is because I do believe there was a world in time before we had them. And I believe this practice existed before there were body cams. Thank you for sharing about surveillance footage and being specific on the differentiation between the type of angles because I do think that's what's at issue. And so what I'm curious about is, did you hear in your working of this bill any particular arguments to have body cams present? You know, because I want to understand the argument. And don't get me wrong, I want to ask you, as well as the other stakeholders, this question to be sure I hear all angles of the conversation. Also, just to, thank you. But just curious if you, in your experience, heard particular arguments as to why body cams are necessary, given that this practice has existed long before them and that there's other surveillance. Ms. Nix or Ms. Newman?
Either one or both, honestly. Ms. Newman. Thank you. And thank you, Amal Bacon. You know, our understanding is there are plenty of benefits of having body camera footage of what happens in places where most people don't go. Right. There's not public access. There's not necessarily people around who could witness something and make a report or express concerns that it's really, you know, there are benefits. And that even was conveyed from folks who are incarcerated, that, you know, the audio of maybe someone saying something could be potentially lost in jail surveillance, that they're not always going to have audio functions. So that is one benefit to body camera footage versus jail surveillance cameras. The other thing we heard is just the fact that officers, deputies might know where blind spots are and might seek those out. So this was a really challenging part of this bill to stakeholder and to find a solid solution. but the vast majority of folks felt that the uploading and the access, the way that it was too difficult to establish stricter access to that video footage, was enough to convince us that the proper approach was to have surveillance footage that would show the setting, that would capture what was happening, but that would be more secure and more easily locked, in a sense, restricted. Ms. Nix. I can't remember if you were here when I did give my testimony, but I – sorry, I have a seizure disorder, so I apologize for the tick. I was pre-body cam footage during strip searches. I don't see it. I just don't because there are other angles in the jail cameras. And, again, the angle of the body cam relative to the height of the inmate and the officer. you might not catch anything even though visually you can see it as the officer The camera may not catch this And I sure you seen that before too during reviewing your traffic stops There are certain things that the camera just doesn't pick up or distorts. So I don't understand when they decided to go with that. It was after I discontinued doing strip searches. Thank you both.
I mean, I guess my question is, and it's okay if it refers back to this bill, but given what you heard by way of why body cams were introduced in the space it seems to me to be ancillary like we created laws around body cams and now it's like oh by the way they catch and so given the things that you heard in regards to the pluses do you feel that there are other ways to then capture right the same type of information or the same issues without body cams being present. So for example, I heard the audio in particular angles, right? Do you think there are other ways? And the reason why I'm asking is maybe to help. I'm asking in your actual professional opinion, as someone who supports sexual assault survivors, given what we may have heard by way of objectives, if you can propose ways to actually get at the same things and mitigating and while also mitigating the harm, right? And where do we then see that in this bill? Does that make sense?
Ms. Newman? Yes, thank you. And thank you, Emil. I think that there's a lot of pieces of this bill that together layer to create a safer situation for everyone. And so while, you know, audio might be nice to have. Someone could be saying things that could be beneficial to understanding what transpired, whether that was misconduct or contraband or, you know, any other type of situation. I, you know, I think for the vast majority of history of jails, that's not been present, right? So that's not been necessary in order to have these same protections in place. and I think when we get to you know the whistleblower protection right so if other officers are seeing concerning things that they feel more confident or other staff perhaps you know medical staff in the facility are seeing things that they can feel comfortable reporting and and making making that known that there are other parts with regard to ensuring survivors are getting access to confidential services so that they can get advocacy and understand how to report and what that might mean and what resources could be available and what safety looks like for them in a space that is inherently more risky. So there are so many other parts to this bill, and I appreciate the focus on getting this right, but I think that the layers of protections that we are putting together present a very comprehensive shift in how people might experience jails as a safer place. And that is my that is our goal is to address the wide variety of risks, not only what happened, the horrific abuses and, you know, abuse of power that happened at the La Plata County. jail, but that across the board that we are working to make the spaces safer and that we are working to ensure there's support for people who do experience sexual violence.
AML Bacon. Thank you for that. And I guess I just want to rephrase my question. The reason why I was asking you, Ms. Nix, is because I was just curious in your experience if there was a clamoring of law enforcement to say, I wish we had a camera that was right here to capture the audio, to capture these angles before body cams even became a thing. Right. And the reason why do you understand why I'm asking for that? Because if this was something that was always an issue, I'm sure we could have thought of different ways to get it. But it seems to me body cans came in and then there were arguments. And so I want to know if that's a correct impression, you know, given your experience and given what you have heard in your law enforcement space about what is needed in that room. Because I do remember when we were advocating for this law, there wasn't exactly a whole bunch of people who wanted body cams, right? And so can you just tell me if some of these experiences, by way of the arguments being made, match to what was happening before they existed? Is that for Mixnix or Mixnix?
mix nicks i can tell you that when they first started talking about doing body cams in the jail a lot of officers were against it because that meant that they now had to behave because there was going to be digital evidence now of the racism of the sexism of all of the bad decisions by them that are leading us to this bill. So no, there was not a clamoring of, or a caucus of individuals that were like, yes, we need to get that.
M.L. Bacon. I have one question for Ms. Newman. we spoke earlier regarding I think Ms. Nix indicated that they were individuals who were our neighbors. Can you maybe better than I can explain to the panel how an individual can be in custody and not actually have been found guilty of a crime?
Well thank you Vice Chair. I don't know that I could explain it better than you can. But I would say that, you know, folks have been picked up on potential violations of parole that may or may not even be true. And that there may be, you know, people being held pre-trial. And there may be people who are arrested and awaiting charges. And there, you know, are all types of situations. And of course, there are people who are sentenced to jail to serve their sentence. But that is not necessarily the only population of folks, and I do know that there are – would you like to say something?
I would like to invite Ms. Garcia to respond to that as well. Ms. Garcia, and I want to be very, very, very respectful. I know some of the survivors have not been convicted of a crime at the time that they were exploited, but I wanted to be very, very respectful. Ms. Garcia, if you would like to speak.
Thank you very much. I'll tell you the story of how I got arrested in August 2020. I had a daughter who had just lost a boyfriend due to a fentanyl overdose I suspected that my daughter was deeply involved in fentanyl and she indicated to me that she wanted to take her own life I called my La Plata County Sheriff Department and I said, I need help. I need somebody to help me find my daughter. I don't know what's going on. My mother, who was living with me at the time, who I cared for, that was the only thing we could think to do. So I get a call back from a deputy, and he says, can you tell me where you are? And I said, certainly, I'm at my home. He pulled into the driveway and kind of parked his car kind of sideways behind my car, which should have been my first clue. And he said, are you Suzanne Garcia? And I said, yes, I am. And he said, I'm so sorry, but I'm going to have to arrest you for violation of a restraining order between my daughter and I. I said, sir, there is no restraining order. I'm not aware of this. I was arrested. I was taken to the jail. I was strip searched. And I was held in custody. Interestingly enough, first of all, my daughter is fine. And it took a long time to get there. But I, while I was being held in custody, found out that the restraining order that was in the system was there because Judge Jeffrey Wilson had left it in place from a previous action. It was a judicial restraining order that should have been pulled out of the system at the termination of that event. It was an invalid restraining order. One day, you know, or the next day, the deputy comes, opens the door and says, you go home now. You don't have to be here. So that was my story. And that's an example of how somebody who, you know, and I've never done drugs. I've never introduced contraband. I was told to take off my clothes, to lift my breasts, to turn around and very publicly expose my undercarriage. And I did as I was told. imagine my shock in July of this past year when I found out that that footage had been downloaded by a person in position of power, a person that I trusted, and it was downloaded to personal devices at different people's homes in a hotel in Denver. I still can't even comprehend. And so we filed a lawsuit that's going to cost La Plata County a tremendous amount of money. That's the only thing we could do, and this just cannot happen anymore. And I applaud deputies like Raven. We have an amazing Durango Police Department. Our Sheriff's Department is great. One guy took advantage of his power, and because of what he did, it is going to cost the people of La Plata County a lot of money. and the damage that it's done to these ladies here, to all of us. We were talking about this. Every time I see a sheriff's vehicle, I feel very, very uncomfortable. I don't, I'm sorry. After that, I don't trust the police. So that's an example. And especially, I understand if you're on your way to prison, sure, all this other stuff. But we've got to do something. The current system is not working. We've got to do better. and I appreciate your interest in making that happen.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. And once again, I want to be very, very respectful to the other members of the panel. And just to be clear this exploitation had nothing to do whether whether or not you had been convicted of a crime Any further questions Thank you very much panel is there a
Sheriff Gary Gittins and I'm going to mess your names up so when you sit down make sure you have me correct you correct me And Mr. Contreras Martinez. Is Jessica Dodder? Ellen Buckley. Mark Pollard. One moment. Okay. Mr. Contreras-Martinez? Okay. State your name, who you represent, and you'll have three minutes.
Hello, members of this committee. My name is Joshua Contreras-Martinez, and I'm an econ student from CU Boulder. A situation where an individual infringes on the rights and liberties of another individual is, in economic terms, a negative non-pecuniary externality. Such situations involve one party affecting another party without their permission, with the affected party then having to live with the negative side effects from that interaction. The government has a duty to provide protections against such infringements on an individual's rights and liberties. This should especially be the case when an individual is under the government's custody and, by extension, under the constant watch and supervision of the government. Instead, we have found ourselves in a situation where we are seeing rampant infringement on an individual's rights and liberties, and not just any infringement, but arguably the ultimate infringement, that of an individual's right to privacy and bodily autonomy. The fact that sexual abuse within prisons has been a prominent issue for years, if not decades, is, to put it lightly, an abject failure by the government. HB 26-11-23 should have been introduced a long time ago, but it is here now, and that is undoubtedly a good thing. However, I still believe that the bill does not go far enough in achieving its title's namesake. There are two areas I wish to highlight specifically that the bill could improve upon, preventing retaliation for reporting sexual abuse and providing prisoners the ability to seek relief from sexual abuse. With the former, the bill acknowledges that retaliation from jails is a problem and a potential risk for staff members reporting sexual abuse and therefore provides protections against such retaliation. The same cannot quite be said for prisoners reporting sexual abuse, especially if the perpetrator is a staff member. Staff members may have a diminished ability to use strip searches and or videos depicting prison annuity as forms of retaliation against prisoners reporting sexual abuse under the bill. However, such reports will still go through institutional channels, allowing the possibility of a staff member or staff members to influence how those reports are handled. With the latter the bill simply does not provide enough accountability when a jail fails in preventing sexual abuse through inadequate policies Prisoners do not have any form of explicit recourse against jails when they suffer sexual abuse or when they are at a heightened risk of sexual abuse due to their inadequate policies The following two recommended amendments are aimed at tackling these specific problems. The first recommended amendment is to make it so that investigations into sexual assault should be done by a third party with the Legislative Oursight Committee authorizing third parties that qualify to handle such sexual assault reports. The second recommended amendment is to allow prisoners to seek relief through a lawsuit against a staff member or staff members for lackluster policies in the event that they have been sexually abused, as well as the ability to sue for being put at a heightened risk of being sexually assaulted due to lack of lustre policies, regardless of if they have been sexually assaulted or not. With these additional amendments, I believe HB 26-11-23 will make greater strides in truly achieving its title's namesake, preventing sexual abuse in jails. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Buckley, you have three minutes. State your name and who you represent.
Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and committee members. My name is Ellen Buckley, and I'm representing the Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association. Sorry. In an amend position, we are highly supportive of this bill, but just have some concerns with the whistleblower section, some of which we understand will be fixed through amendments today, so we'd urge your support for sponsor amendments. No woman should go through what the women in Durango have gone through. And this bill puts important guardrails around the practice of strip searches and how sexual assault reports are handled in jails. And it also creates protection for whistleblowers. Retaliation, as most of you know, is a huge problem for employees who report workplace wrongdoing and a lack of protection against it makes that reporting far less likely. As most of you know, last year you passed HB 251031, Rebs Bacon and Clifford's bill, that protected whistleblower police officers, law enforcement officers from retaliation. And 1123 adapts the whistleblower protections from that bill and makes them applicable to staff members in local detention facilities. The protection in this bill is necessarily broader than just law enforcement officers because civilian staff members, such as nurses, may witness wrongdoing and also need protection from retaliation. Now, PILA has a remaining concern that we also had with last year's bill, and that is the incorrect affirmative defense standard, which is found on page 10, lines 11 through 16 in sub 5. And this came over from 1031, and it only requires a preponderance of evidence standard in showing that the local detention facility would have taken the same action against the staff member in the absence of whistleblowing. The correct standard is clear and convincing, as that is the standard used in dozens of federal whistleblower statutes. To have a different standard here is to further enshrine this incorrect standard in state law and may prove confusing to judges. It also provides much less protection to whistleblowers and we hope that this can be fixed on the floor. And PILA thanks the sponsors for bringing this bill and their willingness to work with and sponsor amendments. So we urge a yes vote on those and a yes vote on the bill, and I'm happy to take questions.
Thank you, Ms. Buckley. Sheriff Pollard, you have three minutes. State your name and who you represent.
Thank you. Just to be clear, I am a deputy to our sheriff. Deputy, sorry. To make sure that's clear, I'm not usurping his authority. Is your light on? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, members of the committee. I'm Lieutenant Mark Pollard with the Weld County Sheriff's Office. I've served with the Sheriff's Office for almost 22 years, 15 years of that predominantly in jail operations and supervision, stent in internal affairs. In my time, I have both investigated complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault. I have founded those complaints in certain situations, and I have unfounded those complaints in others. It is an unfortunate reality that this bill and its purposes are necessary, and it is acknowledged that there is a need to continue in efforts to ensure the prevention of sexual abuse in jails. It is, however, my position that the efforts put forward by sections of this bill do not further those interests but negatively impact that very goal. Specifically, the prohibition of the use of body-worn cameras to document and review strip searches for compliance with the law erodes necessary safeguards made available through the preservation of video, audio, and audit trail evidence that are created. The review of body-worn camera audio and video has protected jail staff from unfounded allegations, And as recent events have shown, audit logs from body-worn camera video has substantiated abuse by a member of law enforcement and provided objective evidence in that process of accountability. The use of body-worn cameras during surf searches is the most effective method to promote and maintain the dignity and respect of the inmates involved. often CCTV video is of lesser quality and does not capture the audio or verbal exchange between staff and jail inmates. With body-worn camera the evidentiary value of the search is preserved to include the video and audio of the entire event, promoting accountability to the agency and documenting the professional manner in which the searches are conducted. I would ask that the committee to reconsider that language that restricts the application, use, and review of body-worn camera when it is directly related to official duties, as this is consistent with current Colorado law and holdings from the courts. There is some communication today about why body-worn camera is the most appropriate. CCTV is available in many jails throughout the state. All jails are a little bit different, has been acknowledged. But CCTV video is specifically not placed in areas of facilities where we expect inmates to be in a state of undress, shower areas, toileting areas, other areas. So those CCTV may not be available in the very spaces that we would expect to conduct searches in a private manner to ensure that the dignity of those searches is maintained to the best of our ability. So it is my belief that we need to maintain the use of body-worn cameras or strip searches because of the evidentiary value and the accountability it provides both for the staff and the safety and dignity and respect of the inmates.
Thank you, Deputy Sheriff. Sheriff Giddens, you have three minutes. State your name and who you represent.
My name is Gary Giddens I Division Chief of the Jefferson County Sheriff Office Jail Thank you for your time today and giving me the opportunity to talk here But first and foremost I just want to clearly state that in Jefferson County we believe in protecting people in custody from abuse and misconduct. So that is not why we're here. It's just about maybe making some amendments to what's being discussed. We do understand the importance of dignity, privacy, and accountability. However, I want to share the operational reality inside the facility. Our mission is to protect the safety of our staff, the safety of the inmates in our custody, and prevent contraband from entering our facility. Every person booked into the jail arrives with an unknown risk, and deputies working in the booking area may not be aware of what they are concealing, such as weapons, narcotics, other dangerous substances, or even other items that can be used for self-harm or assault. strip searches are already regulated under Colorado revised statute and requires reasonable belief that counter band maybe maybe concealed same sex searches privacy protections professional procedures and the like but they also remain to be one of our most effective tools in stopping counter band from entering our facility concerns with this what we're doing what we're talking about today is not about oversight Jefferson County is not worried about oversight or reporting or any. We're absolutely fine with that. Our concerns are more about the limitations due to the number of people that we book into our facility. It is a fast-paced moving thing. And one of the things that we're talking about is the requirement of two deputies to be in agreement. That will require additional procedural barriers during the booking process. Restrictions on the video being stored in the cloud. we we don't videotape strip searches in Jefferson County we don't use them on body cam and we don't have fixed cameras we deliberately do them in places where that they are not recorded by video unless they're exigent circumstances but we also know that when they are videotaped by our body cam they are being uploaded to the cloud immediately but they can be restricted further restricted than what they are the and there are audit trails to know who opened them when they opened them why they opened them things to that nature so our real consequences for us are not the use of the camera because we don't use them for that and we chose to do that for the privacy mostly the privacy of the people in our custody we didn't find the need to record them so our request is not to remove protection from people we are asking that you protect it that policy decisions balance the two critical priorities protecting the dignity of the individuals in custody and maintaining the tools necessary to keep our jail safe those goals should work together and not against each other so in closing policy decisions made here will ultimately affect the deputies working inside detention facilities every day and our staff must make rapid decisions to protect themselves and the people in our custody we ask that you work closely with the colorado sheriffs jail administrators and detentions professionals to ensure the final policy protects both civil rights and facility safety. I thank you for your time, and I can answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Chief Gittins. Is there anyone online that is against or in an amend position? Nobody against and nobody in an amend. Okay. Members, did you have questions for this panel? Representative Kelty.
Thank you Mr Chair and I think this is for the sheriffs that we have here So in your facility I mean obviously a terrible thing has happened and I understand that you guys run your jails much differently and I appreciate that, and I appreciate your good conduct. But obviously there's some that don't. So in this bill, and I don't know if you've seen the amendments yet, But in the belt, what is, I guess, a keepable that would still allow you that would still that would allow or give a protection to the the inmates versus, you know, keeping you safe, keeping them safe. What is keepable and what is the absolute part in here that that is just like, yeah, we just can't function that way. Like we've got to try to find a happy medium here to where we're keeping everyone dignified and safe.
Deputy Pollard.
Yes, thank you for the question. I think there's many parts of this bill that make a lot of sense. There are some reporting functions that provide certain oversight from legislative bodies to the executive branch. What is hard to swallow from a local government standpoint is the intrusion of operations that are entrusted to the executive branch. as it relates to how we go about our business. There is already in state statute many laws, many directions and guidances provided by statute and this legislative body to include in 2020 the desire for all law enforcement, all peace officers, to wear body cameras during interactions with citizens and inside facilities to wear body cameras when we are involved with inmates in places that do not have CCTV coverage. And that would include spaces that we would use for strip searches. So we have a bill, a law, that tells us we must wear body cameras, and then we are getting conflicting legislation. There is also many remedies inside state statute currently for this. There are many criminal laws that outline consequences for voyeurism, for official misconduct that can be utilized that are already existing on the books. The other thing is the direction of this bill to mandate federal PREA standards at the local level. I believe the bill reads in its current form that a PREA coordinator shall be instituted and they shall implement federal PREA standards at the local level. Federal PREA standards are meant for prison systems. for a long duration of incarceration. Most jails run a higher percentage of pretrial detainees, as has been mentioned. World County Sheriff's Office runs anywhere any given day, and 93% of our population will be pretrial defendants. Our average length of stay is 22.4 days. That does not meet the six months where this data was coming from. It is a different animal, and to be asked to utilize local dollars to spend on federal standards does not make sense. Now, I understand that PREA is meant to reduce prison rape, and that is a good thing. And county jails throughout Colorado should do their best part to ensure that there is zero tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual abuse. But there is already enough legislation in place to hold our members accountable Chief Gittins I think the more thing for us is the vast majority of this bill as it pertains to PREA and all that we already do that So it's not like we're asking, you know, we already have a PREA coordinator. We already keep track of all of those sorts of things because we choose to. our biggest issues are we have a number of people that get booked into our facility anywhere between 16 and 20,000 people a year and it's a fast moving thing so like I said earlier one of the things is we do not want to have to have the opinion of another deputy confirming what one deputy already knows and what has been has been very well trained to do and recognize does this search need to happen should it happen, should it not happen, and then document the reasons why it did. The other part is the story. On a rare occasion, we do have people in a state of undress that are captured on camera, whether it be video, body-worn camera, or a static camera somewhere because of a situation that might be leading to a use of force situation or people will be captured on video in a state of undress, but not necessarily a strip search. But almost by definition, if you're untressed in front of a deputy, some would argue that that's a strip search or the equal of one. So when those videos come off of our body-worn cameras, they go straight to the cloud. And like I said, we don't want to have to keep them on site in a separate server. We recently had to just buy additional storage for our static camera system that cost us upwards of $300,000. So we don't really want to have to buy more storage for body-worn cameras, but I was talking to our IT representative, our director, right before I came down here, and our current body-worn camera system does not have the capability of separating it out. It goes to the cloud. We don't have the capability of separating it out and sending it to a different place to store and save. It goes to the cloud. But we do have the ability to know who accessed it, when they accessed it, why they accessed it. It stamps it and it leaves an audit trail.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, and I completely agree with what you said, because that's my realm is the IT world. So I completely agree with that. I don't know if you have any type of encryption for the rest of the data that you have. That would be nice to know, but I'm sure your IT people wish they were here. But, yeah. So in the bill it mentions reasonable belief. How do you feel? I mean, is that, I know it wanted to be stronger language, but they put it into reasonable belief. Is that an acceptable term for that? And then, yeah, I know the body cam thing is very important. I understand that. But that verbiage, is that acceptable language for you to be able to do your job? Chief Giddens or Deputy Pollard.
Yes, ma'am. We believe the reasonable belief part of it is adequate for what we want to accomplish in identifying whether we do or we do not conduct a strip search.
And the way I read this at the beginning, it was mostly about the intake process, or at least that's the way I interpreted what we're talking about here, was that the intake process more so than after someone's been in custody for a while. But we have the same standard at that time too, the reasonable belief. Not everybody's going to get strip searched. I mean, I heard testimony of weekly, and to me that was surprising. Thank you. Deputy Pollard?
I apologize.
Would it be possible to get from your IT departments with their expectation of costs would be for, you know, to upgrade their systems? I just want to be realistic and logical about that portion of it. I know we mentioned that, what, $300,000 already cost you already. I am just concerned. I want proper implementation and all the knowledge to be known. Chief Giddens?
I could ask.
Rep. Kelty. Representative Espinosa.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, members. I guess I'd like to ask our attorney who knows about standards of – may I dialogue?
You may dialogue with –
Well, let me ask one question, then I'm going to dialogue with the sheriffs.
Do you have a question for Ms. Buckley? Buckley. Sorry. Ms. Buckley.
We've talked a lot about the standards, and I think it's important the standard you're asking for in terms of trying to get clarity in the statute. What is your description of reasonable belief versus a higher level of standard that might exist as it is something we're talking about?
Ms. Buckley.
Being representing PILA, which is the Plain of Employment Lawyers Association, not a criminal lawyer. I don't know as I'd want to address that, but I will give it a shot. Reasonable belief is so broad that it literally means anything and nothing. So I would prefer to see a higher standard of at least reasonable suspicion. Thank you.
Representative Espinosa.
May I dialogue just with the sheriffs?
With?
Let me, I guess, let me pick Jefferson County because I think, I think, The, Sheriff, you've already indicated, I think, the answer to part of this question, and it's been the debate we're having with regard to the body-worn cameras and the inseparable nature of the body-worn camera data and the fact that it automatically gets uploaded to the cloud. We had this discussion last year when we were looking at defense evidence requirements, and so that stuck with me that that was a critical problem that you had because your contracts don't allow for that data to be segregated and put into separate places. Is that how you understand your body camera system to work?
And Chief Goodens, you can dialogue with the representative.
That's my understanding of it, yes.
Okay. And so I guess the other question that we heard from the testimony earlier was that one of the reasons that there's a preference not to use the body camera because of its intimate nature and the close view, and the one that was striking to me, the inability to see the hands of the officers to protect them from any allegations of misconduct that might be inappropriate. Can you describe what's different in terms of that view with the CCTV cameras and the body-worn cameras in terms of the view of the site where these searches might happen?
Well, like I said before, when we do our strip searches, we do them in a room that doesn't even have a static camera. So to tell you the difference between the two would be difficult because I don't have a video taken by either one.
Okay, so what this would do for you is requiring a location where there would be a camera available that doesn't exist already. Is that correct?
Yes, if that's the way this went, where we would have to put a camera in the place where we do our strip searches, yes. And to a certain extent to the extent that we talking about protecting officers from misallegations as much as protecting victims would that information even whether body camera or not body camera be helpful for having a record of what happened Yes, it would. And to be honest with you, we've never really had that, gone that deep into the conversations. It's been more about protecting the privacy of the people that are being strip searches more so than the protection of the deputies being falsely accused or misrepresented.
Yeah, and that hadn't come to me except we had the testimony of why that camera might not be able to help the officers, and I think that's an important thing for us to consider as we're trying to weigh this information. So that's why I just wanted to talk to you about your process. And then I guess the other question with regard to how these – let me see if I can remember. I guess in terms of the cameras and in terms of how this would happen, let's see, if the data is stored on the cloud and can't be segregated – Oh, I know. It went to the cost. Under the bill, there's a proposal that the data would be deleted after eight days, therefore not incurring, I would imagine, additional storage costs. Wouldn't you see that as being a benefit?
Because you're not going to have to pay more money for more storage.
But I wasn't aware of the eight-day thing. Okay. So maybe I'm telling you good news that the bill does have that deletion, which hopefully would help with the cost part. And then I just also, just for both of your information, let you know that when the amendments come, there is an elimination of the PREA section out of the bill, so hopefully that also addresses some of your concerns. But I have nothing further. Thank you.
ML Bacon. Representative Clifford.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ms. Buckley. I assert we share some similar concerns here. Do you want to just answer my questions without me even asking them?
No.
Okay. I'm not going to ruin it. We worked, I don't know, a million, billion hours. Yes, a million, billion is accurate.
On whistleblower protections with I think 80-ish people at the table.
And we had hours of dialogue about standards specifically whether we were at a clear and convincing standard, et cetera, and this makes some changes to that, which leaves me with some discomfort. I have – I have – I suggested that what we do in this bill was point back to the law that we created specifically and say this shall be that with the expansion of – we use the terms, I think, non-certified detention deputies or something like that. But, you know, maybe we would expand our existing law to include all personnel in a jail, which is something that I think that they're looking at. If you were to articulate, having spent so much time with us on this thing, how you would correct this so that we had all of the same protections, can you tell us a bit about, from an employment law standpoint, how you would deal with it?
Ms. Buckley.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Rep Clifford it a pretty simple fix and all you have to do on page 10 and who knows what will happen after the amendments but currently page 10 subparagraph 5 on the affirmative defense section just take away preponderance of the evidence and say by clear and convincing evidence, because that truly is the correct standard. And to have a preponderance is not protective of folks, because we know what happens when there's a report of wrongdoing by a whistleblower frequently, and I'm not accusing you fine fellows here, not at all. I'm saying frequently employers look for, during an investigation, they look for reasons to get rid of the whistleblower. This is what happens over and over again. And when all they have to come up with is a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is just too low to just say, well, so-and-so like eight years ago got a bad performance review. It's not low. It's too low. It doesn't protect the whistleblowers, which is the whole goal of whistleblower bills, is to protect whistleblowers so that they report wrongdoing. And we know it's a huge problem in law enforcement because that's why you brought the bill. It's a huge problem, and it's a huge problem in jails. So you need to be as protective as possible of your whistleblowers and just make that little fix, and that fixes it. And it aligns it, like I said, with I don't know of any federal law that isn't clear and convincing. And I don't want to say that I'm going to say I don't think in Colorado, other than your bill, and there was one case in 1985 that referred to a preponderance of the evidence standard. It's not enshrined throughout our laws already.
Representative Clifford.
This is so concerning. Sorry.
Representative Clifford.
One of the things that keeps striking me about it, and I mean the language is good as the way whistleblower was written, but I am still of the opinion that these people today are covered by this protection. I don't know that we missed them as far as people that are working in a local law enforcement agency that would not already be covered today as whistleblowers for this thing. Well, you're not. Oh, sorry. Mr. Vice Chair, Rep Clifford, thanks for the question. I don't think it covers everybody. It certainly doesn't cover a nurse. It doesn't cover somebody in there, probably an IT person. It just doesn't cover non-certified law enforcement, which is what we particularly need to cover in a jail setting.
Rev Clifford.
Do you think that it might be just as prudent for us just to add that to our existing whistleblower protection, just to have any personnel that functions inside a jail facility? Or do you see the need, I guess, is a different question, in us re-expanding this whole area? I'm concerned about there just being some conflict at some point in time between the two, and I would rather have one be as strong as it can possibly be. and then tell me what you think about that.
Ms. Buckley.
Mr. Vice Chair, thanks for the question, Rep Clifford. I think given that the primary impetus of this bill was the protections around sexual abuse in jails I think that was why the whistleblower section was added on So we certainly need those protections. So we need this bill desperately. It's very, very critical. And I think if you think that you could add to 1031 everybody that works in a jail without mucking up that bill too much, I think that would be all right. But I think it would be more difficult than just having this bill, because this bill, as it currently is, the only differences between 1031 and this bill are the two things that I believe are getting fixed today with the amendments. They left out the CGIA. It's not covered. It's not applicable. CGIA is not part of it. And they left out the fact where you have to provide your employees with a written procedure, or it has to exist, or obviously following the procedure doesn't have to be done. So that's the only two that they left out. And as I said, unfortunately, the affirmative defense standard did come over, but it shouldn't. It should get fixed in both places.
Representative Clifford.
Statement on another question for the record and for anybody that's listening that needs to be a whistleblower in this area. Other than the nurses, non-certified detention deputies, the other deputies, the other people that work in the jail, if they need to be a whistleblower today, they are protected. That's all I have.
Representative Zocchi.
Come ye forth. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Question for our sheriffs. We heard in the opening from the sponsors that they were seeking some data and were unable to receive it. And I'm wondering what data you keep as far as how often strip searches occur and why they're occurring.
Sorry. Deputy Pollard.
Thank you. Thank you, Representative. The question, in compliance with statute, if reasonable belief exists, written authorization for that strip search should be conducted and is documented in our jail management system. Chief Kiddens. Much the same answer if a strip search is conducted it's logged in our jail management record system the strip search was conducted on this date at this time and the reason why.
Representative Zocchi.
Thank you Mr. Vice Chair is that information that you would be able to share at least in the aggregate as far as how often these are occurring with the sponsors? Chief Kiddins.
Yes ma'am. Deputy Pollard. Yes.
Representative Zocchi.
Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. I also had a question as far as what consequences an officer faces if they are convicted of perpetrating an act that constitutes sexual assault. We are adding into this bill that they will go before the post board and face revocation of post certification. Does that not occur currently?
GR. Deputy Pollard. Representative. To my knowledge, we are reporting that to the post board in recent events. We would not want that individual to be working in law enforcement any longer. They have betrayed the trust of the people and those that they protect and serve. Chief Gooden. A very similar answer. If we had information like that, we would potentially be considered conducting a criminal investigation, an internal investigation, a report to the state post board, and like the lieutenant said, that is not an employee we want working in our organization.
Representative, is okay?
Just to clarify, the accusation in and of itself does not allow an officer to lose their pro certification.
David Pollard. My understanding is that it has to be a sustained complaint internally or criminally that is reported to the Post Board.
Okay. Any further, or Amal Bacon? Any further questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you. All right. Do we have a Catherine Kimball? Rebecca Njuska? Megan Johnstead? David Carnes? Maddie Dimmick. Aaron Meshke. Lindsay Saunders. Lindsay Saunders Valais are you called Aaron Mischke Conrad Immel and Aaron Carpenter those are online any other individuals in the room that wish to testify in favor anyone online that wishes to testify i'm sorry who raised their hand Anyone in the room that would like to testify in favor? Anyone online that would like to testify at this time? Okay. Okay. Okay. Ms. Gall, if you wanted to come forward as well. All right. Again, anyone would like to testify for or against, for, against, or amend on this bill in person or online? All right Ms Gall state your name who you represent and you have three minutes Thank you Mr Vice Chair and thank you members of the committee
It's been a long time since I've done this, so I had to look for that button. My name is Amanda Gall, and I am a licensed attorney who is testifying in an amend position on behalf of the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police and no other client. Um, I was asked to come and testify to answer some of the legal questions that have been posed by one of the co-prime sponsors, and I'm happy to do that. Um, on behalf of the FOP, since I do have a moment, I will say there is nothing more paramount to that organization. And if you know them from their engagement at the Capitol, they engage on issues of officer safety and officer wellness and not typically criminal justice type, um, bills. And so their focus in this bill is making sure that the bill functions as intended because they share the goals of maintaining safety for everyone, for their officers and for the folks that are held in custody. My background is as a prosecutor in sexual assault specifically. specifically. And the case that I remember most clearly of the thousands of cases that have come to me in one way or the other is one of the sex assaults that I prosecuted against a Denver officer. And, you know, I have handled PREA cases as well. I have also been well-versed in these types of offenses and encountered many folks that have survived these kinds of events and my empathy is absolutely with them. The reason that I'm sitting at the table is because there has been a number of questions about whether the bill is accomplishing what it sets out to do and I think that there are areas of the bill that don't achieve that goal. Many of the amendments you'll see before you are amendments that we helped write in order to try to correct some of those things. And I think there are conversations that are had that is still ongoing. I don't want to, on behalf of the organization or myself, at all appear to minimize the harm. One of the proudest bills I worked on in this building actually was the bill that made it a felony indeterminate offense to commit sex assault by a peace officer with former representative Leslie Herod. But I'm here and I'm happy to answer questions. And I will say that on behalf of the organization, we do have concerns that the current state of the bill will make folks less safe. And that includes folks in custody. And so I'm happy to take any questions that might be helpful to this committee.
Thank you, Ms. Gall. Ma'am, you can, thank you. State your name, who you represent, and you'll have three minutes.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Maddie Dimmick, and I'm an advocate here today representing the Blue Bench, a sexual assault victim advocacy organization serving survivors in the Denver metro area in support of House Bill 1123. I like to speak specifically to the aspect of the bill that is dedicated to the requirement to inform inmates of their rights and access to advocacy services. Every survivor of sexual violence is up against a great number of barriers when it comes to receiving services, resources, and justice, and this is even more true for incarcerated survivors. After an assault survivors tend to have a lot of questions things like what will it be like to report how can I ensure my safety so this doesn happen again where can I access mental health support and much more As an advocate I provide empathetic and trauma care to answer these questions help survivors navigate through the systems in place and give them much information to make the best decisions for themselves Autonomy and choice are of the utmost importance during a survivor's healing journey. Much of that is already taken away through the conditions of incarceration, and it is compounded when survivors do not have access to advocacy services. Currently, jails in Colorado are not required to adhere to PREA standards, the federal legislation that gives incarcerated survivors a right to access emergency and ongoing medical and mental health services, third-party reporting, and outside confidential support services, such as a community victim advocate like me. We see the impact of this gap in services in the statistics. According to RAIN, victims received counseling or mental health treatment in just 45% of staff's perpetrated abuse cases in prisons and 33% jails, a 12% drop in services. I have personally faced significant barriers when trying to get in contact with survivors who have requested an advocate while in jail after an assault. Without a dedicated PREA coordinator in many of the institutions in our service area, I've been bounced around between staff members or made to take time-consuming and unnecessary trainings before being able to contact incarcerated survivors who have requested our services. As an advocate, when I'm able to meet with an incarcerated survivor, I provide confidential and trauma-informed emotional support, answer questions, help with safety planning, give information about what it will look like to report or go to the hospital, and make sure that they're connected to the right resources inside and outside the facility. Being able to receive ongoing advocacy support also means that survivors have resources they need when they leave custody so that the trauma they face while incarcerated does not overly define and derail their ability to successfully reenter their life post-incarceration. This bill will open up a pathway for jails to have the structure and personnel needed to make sure that survivors have access to resources after an assault. When survivors are able to access advocacy in a time-sensitive manner, they can make better, more informed decisions about the best way for them to move forward while receiving support throughout the process. For these reasons, I support Senate Bill 1123 and urge a yes vote from the committee. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Ma'am, you have three minutes. State your name and who you represent.
Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Vice Chair and committee members. My name is Rebecca Andruska, and I am Vice Chair of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, which I am representing today in support of House Bill 26-11-23. Women's Lobby is a statewide coalition that advocates for gender equity and policies that positively impact women and families. As you may know, we compile a scorecard each year where we catalog and interpret the votes of our state legislators on issues important to women and families, such as this bill. People who are incarcerated are too frequently targets of a range of sexually exploitative practices, as the recent case in La Plata County has shown. You have already heard from the survivors of this case earlier this afternoon as they detailed their abuse, which included video documentation of their strict searches being treated as pornography, being accessed outside of work hours, and saved to staff's personal devices. According to a 2014 study, up to 95% of incarcerated men and women have experienced trauma before entering the criminal justice system. The experience of being incarcerated has also been shown to be traumatic in itself. Sexual exploitation by prison staff amplifies incarcerated people trauma and distrust of the system Strip searches without reasonable suspicion are unnecessary and compound trauma Incarcerated people and all vulnerable populations deserve protection from this sort of unnecessary invasive search. The proposed bill ensures the appropriate use of strip searches, appropriate documentation of those searches, and offers a protocol for reporting violations and removing those responsible. We urge you to vote yes on House Bill 26-11-23. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Saunders-Velez.
Hello, my name is Lindsay Saunders-Velez. I am the Chief Consultant and Managing Partner of the Criminal and Correctional Reforms Consultants. I'm also a former Department of Corrections offender, most notably in Colorado for Resolution 18-1007 concerning the Colorado Department of Corrections needing to review and revise policies to improve safety for transgender inmates. I was one of the inmates that were raped three times in the Department of Corrections, but my experience in the county jail was worse. I had to always be strip searched by at least two officers. It was a female and a male officer at one point, and then it was two female officers. It was really humiliating, and at points I refused to do the search, and then followed by being held down and them taking all the clothes off. I think this law, it's a start, but I don't think it goes far enough. I think county gals are not required to follow PREA standards, but the state can make PREA standards for them to follow. I didn't prepare a statement, but that's what I have for now.
Thank you. I'm sorry, can you hear me?
Erin Meschke. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meschke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I am usually an ardent supporter of law enforcement, but will never excuse abuse or misconduct. I do not believe this abuse is happening from most law enforcement, but given recent specific examples, it must be addressed because no amount of sexual abuse is excusable. So I ask for your yes vote on HB 26, 1123 to standardize this practice and ensure accountability when it is deemed necessary. I usually do a fair amount of research as I prepare for bill testimony, but there was next to nothing about the prevalence of this problem specifically towards strip searches. And that itself is an issue. The only related data was from Australia, and it was not about strip search abuse, but about strip search success rates, which are 1 to 15 percent in Australia. And that shows that unless we have data to the contrary, we need to question strip searches as a broad practice. I'm not officially in an amend position, but have a few suggestions for improving HB 26-11-23. First, in Section 3, I think it should be added that all access to strip search recordings are restricted and documented. Second, without an audit and the related costs, standardization of strip search policy and submission of data on when, why, and how strip searches are conducted are valuable to collect because it protects both law enforcement and those being processed. and this data without an audit should be nothing, cost nothing. And third, though this suggestion could impact the fiscal note because of equipment costs, I believe that with current technology, the same information obtained from a physical strip search could be garnered by the combination of metal detector, x-ray, and ultrasound, which seems like a better option than strip search for all parties involved. And making this combination part of standard processing could also remove some reasonable belief standards or other bias. Unless the goal is to dehumanize someone when they are being processed, we could standardize or modernize searches to protect and respect people while also ensuring outside items aren't being brought into jails or prisons. Obviously, all sexual assault in jails and prisons should stop, but most of that does not involve law enforcement. HB 26-11-23 will only affect one part of this equation, but we must make progress where we can, so I ask for
your yes vote. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Meschke. Members, do we have questions for this panel?
Representative Clifford. Thank you, Ms. Gall, and I have met a few times. When you say that this
isn't going to make anything safer, can you please tell me why? Ms. Gall. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and thank you, Representative Clifford, for the question. I don't think that it will – I'm not testifying that there's nothing in this bill that improves safety. I'm testifying that there are still a lot of safety concerns, I think. There's a lot of things that have made it into this version and to the amendments that the FOP believes will further the goals of the bill. but there's also been a lot of testimony today that I think fundamentally misunderstands the impacts of the law here. For example, we heard survivors testify about situations where perhaps someone was mistakenly arrested on parole or we heard survivors testify about being in jail context for weeks and weeks with weekly strip searches. And so I appreciate the question because I think it's an opportunity to clarify the impact of Section 1, which is what we're talking about. And the impact of Section 1 is both not drafted to achieve the survivor's goals and unlikely to further safety. And here's a couple of examples why. right now if you were to pass this bill as drafted it would create a new standard but only post arrest and pre-arraignment it also has an exception for parolees so it does not apply to that if the fundamental question is how can we ensure that a sex offender is not preying on people in custody whether that's another inmate whether that's an officer We haven't achieved it in a number of ways. In the jurisdiction I used to work in, you were arrested for domestic violence, for example, and you were arraigned the next day. So the protections of this bill would evaporate in about 24 hours, the way it's currently drafted. On the other side of the equation, reasonable, you know, the case law in the Supreme Court, and I'm happy to answer any questions about that, There are legitimate reasons that you sometimes may have to perform visual inspections or how the bill defines strip searches that you may not be able to articulate either reasonable belief or reasonable suspicion And in those circumstances we have to remember what these environments are like I appreciate the testimony about the county jail because as a prosecutor that was my experience. This bill would now apply to every class of crime. And in the county jail, because you have folks that are sentenced for things like misdemeanor sex assault, misdemeanor indecent exposure, domestic violence, but you also have everyone awaiting trial up to including F1 murder. And so to place this in context, what you were doing is changing the practice of jail settings for every jail, big jails, small jails, and for environments that are not just custodial settings for women that include every type of offender, including those who commit sex assault. And so in furtherance of accountability, which we absolutely need, we have to be careful not to actually increase victimization in the jail. And there's a great analysis in some of the case law that talks about all of these things, including the fact that with a turn of folks, you can't always know, and often inmates are watching. If you have scheduled searches, for example, of sales. They're going to change their behavior in order to accomplish their goals. There are a number of reasons why requiring reasonable belief in every circumstance will make, will provide folks, whether it's an officer or whether it's somebody who's being held on an F1 or an F2 sex assault, will make the folks who are in the jail, both officers and the people that are held there, less safe. And it would increase that victimization and that is our concern. I'm trying to think of the second part of your question. Oh, the other thing I just wanted to mention, Red Clifford, as well, is that the bill as drafted does apply to intake. It applies to every strip search in a detention facility, whether you're just hitting the door or whether you've been there for six months. And so I appreciate this committee for its thoughtfulness. I think that there are errors in this bill that are nearer to both directions. but we are concerned that despite the significant amount of amendment work that there still remains a lot of discussion to be had when you're talking about changing this broadly for every class of crime in every type of setting practiced within this environment.
Representative Clifford.
Yeah, thank you. And, you know, we've had quite a bit of conversation about this reasonable belief standard. you touched on it we asked miss buckley about it as well as well she didn't find can you give me kind of a more of a prosecutor's view of the standard absolutely thank you mr
chair i was just waiting for the signal mr chair we can dialogue
Mr. Chair and Representative Clifford. It's not necessarily that one of the two is lower or higher than the other. They are set forth in Colorado law for different reasons. Reasonable belief appears in a lot of different places in Colorado law, and it's been part of this law since 1982. It's very well defined in a number of contexts. And a reasonable belief is basically objective facts that would cause a reasonable officer to believe that some circumstance exists, that a person has a weapon, that there is something dangerous. Reasonable suspicion distinctly in our case law in Colorado is specific and articulable facts that with inferences suggest that someone is committing a crime And so you can understand then if you in custody and you are developing something some standard in order to search for something, not everything that you're searching for is a criminal act, right? You might be searching for contraband, but a pen is not illegal. And so the standards are set out for different reasons, but I don't think necessarily that reasonable belief is as broad as has been suggested. It can be Monday morning quarterbacked by a court, just like reasonable suspicion can be. I'm happy to go through the case law if you want. But reasonable suspicion is basically you are justifying an action or decision. You have to demonstrate an inference that some sort of fact, in this case a danger or a violation, exists. Whereas reasonable suspicion is for the purpose and furtherance of investigating a possible crime. And it is the standard that applies to searches outside of detention environments. Strip searches, say, like on a traffic stop. That's right. You're dialoguing.
Sorry. Thank you for that. That was a really good explanation for the differences in the standard and why they exist. Specifically from an officer perspective, you know, it's, Rep. Bacon mentioned it. We talk about it often, you know. In 2020, when Senate Bill 217 was passed, there was a lot of conversation and a lot of people that would have died on a sword of we don't need body cams. And I think that one of the things that has really shifted in law enforcement culture that we've seen, especially as legislators, is that is not the case anymore. When we meet and we talk about these things, they've become important tools. I think that they're critical now to protecting both the public and protecting the peace officers. But I'm certain that you have some thoughts on the body cam and the storage, et cetera, as we're talking about. I mean, we've talked about, like, you know, implementing the same type of system here, like they would keep child pornography, for instance. I am very wrapped up about that piece because it's something that we've worked on so much. I also want to make sure we get it right. My personal view, I really like Jefferson County's policy of do not record these things. It seems reasonable, and I can also understand Weld County's view that has the completely opposite of that, where their policy seemed to be, if I understood him correctly, that they do all the time. Can you kind of talk to me about your concerns or the downsides that you see from an officer perspective or kind of globally, however you want to answer that question? Thank you, Rob Clifford, for the question.
I think generally our subject matter experts' view of this bill is to remember the purposes for which we are here. and that is to ensure prevention, discovery, accountability for folks who could be victimized in this setting by anyone, including officers. And this is a good example, I think, of where we've really tried to thread the needle. But I would urge the committee to consider the number of circumstances that exist here. Certainly body cams are required after 217. in certain circumstances, depending. I saw AML Bacon. And so you know I think that it an easy method of recording because it what folks have And I won opine on the privacy interest because certainly I think that should be survivor in terms of the closeness of the camera But what I will say is that if we pull out to the 30,000-foot level a little bit, it is not prevention to Chairman Bray's point, but this person is being prosecuted. this person will have a sentence potentially if so they will be required to register for this offense they are being sued they will never work as a police officer again and all of that is appropriate right absolutely given the facts of this case but having prosecuted a number of sex offenses I will say that the benefits of body cam in this situation is the paper trail That's how they know how many times it's been accessed. That's how they know where this person was viewing it from. And if you think that someone who is intent on committing this type of offense can't copy a thumb drive and then access it millions of times in a way we would never be able to uncover and prosecute, that would be an error in thinking. And so I'm not sure that that is the most effective way to achieve the goal, but it doesn't offend us either, and we help to write that amendment.
Representative Clifford? I was thinking of one more, and then I got sidetracked. Did I answer that about body cans? Is there something in particular you wanted me to address? No, you did. We have not discussed this, but we are very synonymous in that thought, at least.
Well, and I think what I would add about Clifford, if I could, is a lot of people have been talking about the timelines and why do you need video that closed. And you certainly don't. There's lots of different types of evidence. But I will say in my experience working with sexual assault survivors, they very rarely report immediately. And they also very rarely, just in my experience, not speaking about anyone in particular, I could understand why they would not want to report such an offense when they were still in the custody and control of that detention facility. And so if they don't get out until six months later to report, it's important to still have the evidence that can help us prosecute their cases. And so to those who say, well, why do you keep it forever? I'm not suggesting that we do, but I am suggesting that harms can result from not having available evidence, including paper trails and the type of paper trails that come with electronics. I certainly understand the privacy argument, and again, that's why we tried to be helpful in threading those needles and correcting some of that in the bill. But I'm not sure that that really gets at the heart of what folks are after.
We are dialoguing. I will say that in a non-event, so there isn't evidence that is found or something like that, our current law and the retention policies, even in the case that a body cam would be used, it is highly unlikely that that footage would still exist six months from now. So I don't think we solve anything by that. But I do get your point. I wish we had a lot more data on this. I was so excited about the data pieces in this bill. I'm going to ask you kind of a straightforward question. as somebody who works this space a lot and helps people navigate sometimes bills that are messy. I'm struggling because this, to me, has a few areas. to me that are a little messier than I would like, and I also have a great deal of respect for the people that are working on it. So I have kind of one of those situations where I quite honestly would like to see this go forward so that it can continue being worked on while also being a no right now because I have so many concerns about some of the way things are written. if this proceeded beyond today, is this correctable? Do you think we can get to a place? And I know that's a tough question to ask you, but you are uniquely qualified to answer it. And then the other piece is, or do you think that this is something that we're going to have to spend a lot of time on getting right? Thank you, Representative Clifford.
As a bit of a bystander until we came in to help try to make sure that the bill's goals were going to actually be furthered by the language, for example, in some of the reporting conversations that came out of conversations with us. Because what you want to do is to prevent victimization in custody. And you want to make sure that if you do, because there will always be bad actors, if you do have victimization in custody, that you can provide the maximum amount of accountability that is appropriate for that. But what we have in this bill is timeframes where the folks that testified think that the protections of this bill apply and they will not. What we have in this bill is a complete overhaul of jail practices, which are highly unique environments in a number of ways. And I know we don't want to do that in this committee, but I could give a lot of examples of where one might not have reasonable belief. and because of that it would increase victimization from other officers or potentially from officers or other inmates. But to answer your question more directly, there's a lot of good here, like the codification of PREA, right? I don't know how that squares with every other aspect of Colorado statute. There might be some areas where we would need to align with jail standards, for example. I think that documentation is a wonderful thing, whether there's a standard that applies to it or not. I think that, and we agree that anything that furthers safety of both officers and victims that truly furthers that is critical. But I will say it's a very complicated area, and there are a lot of things that remain in the text, not out of any sort of ill intent, but just because it's a complicated area that requires a lot of expertise that do not function and do not further that goal. And so whether that conversation could be had on the timeline of the session, I don't know. But there's a long way to go, in my opinion. I'll leave it there. Thank you.
M.L. Bacon. Thank you. And my questions are from Ms. Gallen. I apologize. You know, sometimes I need things to be said maybe a different way, but the same, right? And I am curious if you have seen the amendments, because I believe what, at least what's being proposed, I believe there will only be certain sections left in the bill. And given your concerns, I guess I just want to cross-reference and understand. Absolutely. Also, I do, I'm going to ask, I have this question. I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if I may dialogue only for clarity's sake. You know I promise to get to it Absolutely Okay One I do want to just kind of hear again I can always appreciate your expertise in this call for so many reasons but I am just curious about FOP's position and wondering if they do have members that work in jails.
We do.
You do? Okay. I've asked that like five times. Sorry, I didn't say that loud enough.
We do.
Okay, great. Because I've asked that like five times and be like, tell me the positions, right? Absolutely, yeah. And so I guess what I'd like to understand, given what I just heard, you know, the amendments, it is my understanding that we're striking a few sections of the bill.
I am familiar, AML Bacon, with the amendments, yes.
Okay. I've worked on some of them.
So I'm happy to answer questions about them with the chair's permission.
Yeah, thank you. And so I see we are striking Section 3. You know, we have all of Section 4 out. Well, there are some questions on Section 4 that I do think we're going to ask because there was para, right? I'm sorry, not para, Pria, God forbid, your retirement, right? And whatnot. So what I am going to ask you then about is Section 1. Okay. Because what I understand to be coming by way of the amendment to Section 1, the only thing I kind of see around reasonable belief is the addition that there be two personnel also. Because I don't see a change to that standard.
Thank you, Emil Bacon. And yeah, I want you to know that as many times as I've testified here on sex assault and this very issue, even I had to draw a flow chart. And so totally understand. I'm happy to share the flow chart with you. I think the reason that folks are maybe not seeing the entire impact of the changes, even in L-001, is because we are putting this in an existing statute. So when you consider the current state of the law, essentially, right now we have obviously the constitutional standard and in an in custody setting there are some exceptions for if they're just you know temporarily detained but in a general population environment what the courts have said so we have to weigh the legitimate interests of the state which include preventing communicable diseases the gang tattoo example making sure people who may not be of sound mind when and they're booked, don't have wounds or injuries that we need to address. Preventing contraband, there's a number of things. And so they've basically said that you have to weigh all of those legitimate government interests against the privacy interest. And so the baseline in Colorado is in an in-custody general population place, you generally can strip search because the courts have determined that that outweighs the, that those interests and the interest in safety for everyone in the jail outweighs the interest. And the reason I provided that long-winded explanation is because that's the baseline. And then you have this statute that only applies to traffic and petty offenses. By striking traffic and petty offenses, now you are taking every general population strip search. And because the constitutional standard is lower, right, you're raising the entire boat for everyone. And that's where the changes impact.
Thank you because I was going to ask is it the issue that it placed in 16 But I guess my question though too is and I know the sponsors you are not the sponsors but you know I wondering in your conversation did we talk about that right to the extent that we talking about generally the nature of strip searches Or are we just talking about strip searches for traffic stops and petty offenses? And if we are talking about the former, are you saying it needs to exist in another place's statue and we need to revisit the constitutional standards? Because I think what we're talking about today is the pervasive nature of strip searches. I have not necessarily heard from any witness here. I mean, we heard someone that was here for violation of a restraining order. Right. And so I'm not sure. And maybe I'm asking you this, too, and you're in the stakeholding process when you are also hearing from the victims. Are they talking about all the time, you know, or are they only talking about for circumstances of certain crimes, you know? Right. And if it's again, the answer is all the time and maybe it doesn't live in 16, three or four or five. Isn't that something then that we should visit?
Thank you, Amel Bacon. I mean, I agree with you that in some places it doesn't go far enough, and in some places I think it goes too far. And so, for example, my making sure that we all understand that this only applies post-arrest and pre-arraignment, and that it has exceptions for parolees, it has exceptions for folks that are serving a sentence. And so if you think of the impact of the bill in that time-delimited way, we have fairly quick arraignments here, sometimes even the next day. And so you are not offering protections for folks more broadly for most of the time that they're there. So in some ways, we haven't vetted that far enough. And then in other ways, yes, what you're saying is for every jail, for every class of crime, whether that person's sentenced because it's domestic violence, whether that person misdemeanor, whether that person is there awaiting trial for a year on a class two sex assault, kidnapping sex assault of a child. you are saying for every one of those settings you are bringing up a brand new standard and there are circumstances where that will lead to further victimization in my opinion respectfully because reasonable belief and it doesn't the standard you can pick any standard right and the you know reasonable suspicion does apply to strip searches that are not in a general population environment like the side of the road. We also have to ground ourselves in the fact of how strip searches are defined. They can be visual inspections. It's not always, and it's not to minimize it, but it is not always what one might colloquially think that is, right? And so we, you know, whatever standard you pick, I think our concern as an organization is grounded in that safety for everyone inside and for the officer and making sure that we're being thoughtful about the incredible number of circumstances, both on intake and once folks are already in. Just because folks are searching doesn't mean we catch everything. We certainly have fentanyl overdoses in the jail. We certainly have weapons in the jail. And that's because we don't catch everything. And so you have to balance these protections, which there should be many, even maybe more than are here against making these environments more dangerous for folks including folks that perpetrate sex offenses
Thank you for that. I just... I get it. I feel like we might be making some leaps because what this language says, first of all, it's talking about prior to arraignment. And like I said, we heard witnesses say they have all of these experiences and for us to assume i think the other thing that i'm kind of worried about is because we're talking about prior to arraignment which means people are arrested on an allegation you know what i mean they haven't even gone and we're talking about they're automatically more dangerous and therefore should be strip searched with and we are not even in this bill is not raising the standard i feel like that might be a leap so what i'm i think what i was just trying to understand is I think there might be something there about where this is placed, but I do think we are making, this bill is making a statement on prior to arraignment regardless and the nature of the search and what's present including cameras. So I get that. So thank you.
No, I'm happy to answer that. And I completely understand what you're saying. I think what we have to remember, though, is it is raising a standard by deleting traffic or petty offense. So now it's applying to everyone and not just those on traffic and petty offenses. Yeah.
Agreed. Agreed.
And I think that what we have to consider, though, too, is certainly there's a distinction with folks prior to arraignment that's been made in the statute. but those folks are not held in a different place than the folks that are there because they are they have been sentenced and they're also placed with folks who are there after a proof evident presumption great hearing on you know homicide and murder and so it is it is truly and i want to be clear for the record it is truly the organization's interest the safety of everyone And that's why we work so hard on the amendments and we've worked so hard to look and issue spot and add in reporting and other things. But I do think that having that interest in safety requires a conversation that accounts for a number of different scenarios and a number of different folks who are in for a number of different reasons. And we've both gone too far and not far enough in some areas of the bill in that interest. But that is FOP's position. We absolutely 100% support the goal of the bill. Anything that increases safety in custody increases the safety of our officers. So we share absolutely that goal. This feedback is on ensuring that it functions in a way that it actually furthers the goal that we share.
Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my question is for Ms. Gall as well. So I guess it comes down to the golden question for me. is would this bill, as it's written, would it prevent, I mean, it was god-awful what happened in La Plata, god-awful, and would that prevent that from happening? Ms. Gall.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and thank you, Representative Kelty, for the question. I don't believe that it would. the bill would undoubtedly result in fewer strip searches of folks charged with any class of crime and in any Jail setting. However, this officer, as I understand it, and I'm not involved in the case, so I'm just taking the testimony that's here, was accessing videos of those strip searches. So to the extent that there would be fewer strip searches for him to have access, yes. But I don't think anyone anticipates that the functional result of this bill will be to eliminate that type of video. Because you will have, whether you choose reasonable suspicion, reasonable belief, probable cause, whatever level you have, you are going to undoubtedly in this session, in this area, because of the number of things. And we do have statistics on the number of things and well-informed research about how many things get in, how many assaults are in custody, how many sexual assaults are in custody, and how dangerous this environment is. so you would decrease strip searches and the confiscation of those things that can create harm in the jails but you are not going to eliminate the possibility that an officer uses and views those images in violation of the law which is what they're charged with and whether it's on body cam where you actually do have a record you know record or whether it's because they've copied thumb drives or hard drives or whatever, or took out their phone and filmed it on their personal device, the bill does not stop that behavior.
Representative Kelty. I'm good. Thank you. I have one final question for Ms. Gall. Just to be clear, and you've been here for the testimony, and you kind of indicated specifically that this strip search and this exploitation happened regardless of whether someone had actually been convicted of a crime. These were people who were in custody, pre-sentence, post-arrest. And so regardless of whether they had actually been convicted of a crime, they still were being exploited.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for that question. I think it's a really important one, and I agree with you. because there is a great diversity of folks who are in the jails. There are those that have been convicted and sentenced. There are those that are awaiting arraignment. There are those post-arraignment or post-proof evidence that are awaiting trial. There are folks, but there are not folks that are simply detained, although some of the testimony discussed that. They are folks, the bill would apply to folks and only those folks who have been arrested based upon probable cause to believe that they committed a crime and who have not yet been arraigned, who are in custody with that diversity of population. That's a fairly narrow window, but no, they have not been. That particular population has not been convicted of a crime, but many of those who may perpetrate on them are in different circumstances. Thank you.
Thank you.
Any – thank you, panel. Thank you, panel. Thank you, panel. Is there anyone online or in the room that has not testified? Seeing none. Thank you. Testimony phase is over. If I can get the sponsors back. Thank you Do the sponsors have amendments We do. Please.
Chair Mayberry. Thank you, Vice Chair Cutter. I move out one.
That is a proper motion and a proper second by AML Bacon to the amendment.
Okay.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter.
So L1 does a few things. It provides some clarity on the two personnel piece to specify that the two personnel make an independent determination of the need for the strip search. and we believe that's important because it strengthens the procedural requirement by making sure that that reasonable belief standard be independently determined and documented by personnel separately. It expands who can authorize and conduct strip searches. The bill that's introduced was about peace officers, but that doesn't actually reflect the reality of how things happen in jails. And so we changed the term to be personnel. And the amendment defines personnel to include peace officers, non-certified deputy sheriffs, jail employees, contractors authorized by agency policy to perform strip searches, and then applies that standard specifically to local detention facilities clarifying when this applies and what facilities it applies in. We ask for a yes vote.
Questions for the sponsors regarding L1?
Representative Espinosa. I don't have a question, but I may have an amendment.
Wait.
Are you amending?
Are you bringing an amendment to amend there?
Well, I just want to point out something, and this is something that's happening with drafting, which is really bothering me. And in the amendment, you cite to 1.7, but in the bill, the drafters have drafted it 1.5, skip 1.6, and then put 1.7. This is something they've been doing a lot, and I just would love for us to make a conforming amendment in L1 to make it 1.6 so we're not furthering that elimination of section sites in the statute. I don't know if there would be any objection to that.
I see the drafter, I believe.
So the drafter told me that they do that because they don't know if there are going to be things in between. And then my assumption is if there's not, the reviser fixes it as it's set up. No. One second. Then it's the bad story revision committee.
Sorry, Rep. Espinosa.
I mean, and I guess that's why I'm bringing this into the attention in terms of the amendment, because it, I mean, in terms of this drafting policy, because it's a concern that I'm having, seeing, having it being done a lot. And as a lawyer looking at the statute books, it really is troubling to me that we're not putting reserved in any of those positions, because if the policy is to reserve it for some future purpose, which doesn't make sense, because the context of how we're drafting this bill is not something that would indicate there should be something, and we have a practice of putting 1 we have the 0 drafting situations It just something I bring to your attention and maybe we can think about it But other than that no substantive questions or comments
Chair Mabry? Definitely okay with bringing an amendment to the committee report.
Any objection to L1? Seeing none, L1 has passed.
Chair Mabry? Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I move L2.
Proper motion. I believe that was Representative Clifford with a proper second.
L2 expands compliance obligations to jail personnel to reflect the conversation that I had earlier about the reality of how things operate here. It's not just peace officers. And then it adds some clarification on reporting requirements.
Any questions regarding L2, AML Bacon?
First of all, I second it. Let the record reflect that I believe the majority or the AML actually. That sounds like a sound alike. Thank you.
Let the record reflect that AML Bacon actually second that motion. Any objection or any questions regarding L2? No objections, seeing none, L2 is passed.
Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I move L3.
Proper motion, proper second, Representative Zocchi. All right, L3 removes new discovery restrictions that were put in the bill for accessing strip search video recordings. So the bill no longer includes changes to the criminal discovery rules for these recordings and access will instead remain governed by existing Colorado criminal procedure and evidentiary rules. Any questions for the sponsors regarding L3? Any objections to L3? L3, pass.
Chair Mabry. I move L4.
Thank you. Thank you. Proper motion by Chair Mabry. Proper second by Representative Zokai. To L4, sir. L4 clarifies when video recording of a strip search can be accessed. It adds clear definitions of covered facilities and searches, requires documentation as to why officers are accessing the recording. clarifies that courts investigations and record requests are unaffected and includes language about not uploading the footage to the cloud. Any questions for the sponsors regarding L4? Any objections to L4? L4 passed. Sponsors? Thank you Vice Chair Carter.
I move L5.
That is a proper motion by Chair Mabry, a proper second by Representative Garcia. L5. So L5 has to do with the whistleblower protections. We asked the drafter to align the bill with the whistleblower law from last year. We missed the immunity piece, which was in the bill last year, And we also missed the piece that said that the procedures need to exist in writing And then there a conforming change in the amendment to the definition of a local detention facility Any questions for the sponsors regarding L5?
Representative Clifford. We had some conversation today about a clear and convincing standard. Is that something that you would consider?
Chair Mabry. Yes.
Representative Clifford. Is it something you would consider as a conceptual amendment to this amendment?
Chair Mabry. Not as the chair of this committee, nor as the bill sponsor.
Representative Clifford. Thank you.
Any further discussion regarding L5? Any objection to L5? L5 passes.
I wasn't going to send it to you. Chair Mabry. Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I do just want to thank members of this committee for thoughtful discussion and engagement. Because of thoughtful discussion and engagement, we're not going to bring L6 or L7. The reason why, specifically on L6, is L6 had some changes to regulations around body cam that went beyond the context of strip searches in jails. That law that the language is in there affects a lot of activities or instances where police might turn off their body cams. I will say we still need to – we're going to continue working on this with the stakeholders because the problem it seeks to correct is current law has regulations regarding turning off your body cam. And now we're requiring turning off your body cam in some instances. And so we need to work on that amendment so that the language reflects that you wouldn't be violating existing law by complying with this law rather than having sort of a broad carve out. And L7, I'll also just note, thanks to Amy Mel Bacon for bringing that to our attention. And then L7, we're going to work with Reps Zocay and Garcia on as well.
No further amendments from the sponsors?
No.
Any amendments from the committee? Is that Representative Espinoza?
Do you have an amendment? No, but I had a clarification.
Is there any amendments from the committee? We're not really on questions. Well, he just opened an issue. Are there any amendments from the committee? Understanding the amendment phase is closed. That's fine. Sponsors. Go ahead.
Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, committee. First of all, I'd like to say that I am absolutely committed to continue this work. I said many times that this was a tough needle to thread. We are open to these ongoing conversations. I appreciate all of you helping me with this. I mean that sincerely. please talk to me please let's get this to a place that makes sense for Colorado um I'd also like to thank um all of the stakeholders um it you know CCASA FOP um we've had engagement in good faith for months, and I want to highlight that. I'd also like to highlight that this is not an anti-law enforcement bill. This is a protection bill. Okay, I just want to be clear. I'm the mother of a kid that's in law enforcement. He serves in the Air Force. He's security forces. And I have a lot of respect for the work that law enforcement does. But when constituents come to me and tell me their stories and say, please, can we make a change here? I had to do something. And it has been a, I mean, here I am getting emotional when this is not my story to share. But I like to consider myself a pretty empathetic person. And so you have my commitment to continue this work to get it right in hopes that we don't have to be in this building anymore legislating this. Because maybe someday we will have fixed the problem. But, you know, that won't happen anytime soon. But I'll keep showing up. I'll keep doing the work. and I appreciate each and every one of you for the grace that you've given me and your collaboration, and I ask for that continued collaboration through an aye vote. Thank you.
Chair Mayber.
Thank you, Vice Chair Carter. I first want to thank people that came and shared their stories. I know there were people who drove from really far away, and this bill is really important because we have a duty to protect the dignity and bodily autonomy of people who are in custody of the state. Yes, I recognize we have to balance that duty with safety in jails for personnel, for other incarcerated people, but I view this bill as threading that needle. Again, I think that the standard could be higher. I think that reasonable belief allows for almost any inference that could lead to strip searches happening, but I do have comfort in that we're requiring independent employees coming to that conclusion and then documenting why. People who are in custody, people who have no ability to leave, people who have no ability to protect their privacy, are being recorded in some of the most vulnerable moments imaginable. And we heard some of their stories today about recordings being accessed inappropriately, violating the privacy and autonomy of members of our community. And this isn't an isolated concern. We know the problem of sexual violence and violations of bodily autonomy in jail are well documented. They remain serious problems. Congress has addressed this. Not enough, but the fact that it's risen to the level of Congress passing legislation suggests that there are real problems here that we need to work on and I'm proud of the work that we put into House Bill 1123 I recognize there more work to do we going to have continued conversations with stakeholders as this bill moves forward as well as members of this committee and strongly urge a yes vote
Any closing members? Representative Zokai.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I just wanted to take a moment to thank everybody who came forward today and shared their stories and sat before us and talked about some of those traumatic events in their life. I'm always in awe of the individuals that come here and put themselves forward like that. I was struck by a number of things in this hearing. I was struck by the fact that the sponsors were seeking data for months and did not receive it, which I think would have really helped inform this policy. I was struck by how often this happened in this instance that we're now holding accountable, but for five years that this was occurring. And from testimony today, there were a lot of red flags. And the fact that that wasn't caught and stopped sooner, I think should give us all pause about a potential systemic issue here. And I was struck by how often strip searches are happening and whether they really are necessary. Because you have these situations where inmates don't know their rights, and there is this imbalance of power. And so they're not able to take recourse when these things can become inappropriate. And so I want to applaud you for the work you have done to address these issues. This is a tough needle thread. And I think that you have put a very thoughtful bill before us today. There are things that I think we will continue to work on. I appreciate your commitment to work on some of those amendments that you did not run today and that we'll continue talking about those. I think the clear and convincing standard is something that we should consider in terms of affirmative defense. And I appreciate the note Rep Mabry made about the reasonable belief standard. And I think that that's something looking into, but I also feel reassured that there are two independent individuals to make that determination. Ultimately, I have all the faith in the world that U.S. sponsors will continue working with all the stakeholders. I want to thank Ms. Gall for noting that some of the language that she had wanted is reflected in amendments that we adopted today. And I appreciate your work, and we'll hopefully get this out of committee today and keep working on it.
Representative Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors. You highlighted a major issue that happened here in Colorado. It's one that you hate seeing your state in headlines with just another horrific story happening. This time it wasn't funeral homes. It was women who had been viewed by someone who was in a position of trust, taking advantage of that position of trust. The one thing I will say is there are laws. That's why there's over 100 criminal charges currently pending against this individual. The fact that we do have laws on the books that means that this person will never work in law enforcement again. They'll probably register as a sex offender, assuming they're convicted. they likely will spend a considerable amount of time in the Department of Corrections All that tells me that at least many of the laws on the books we have are working But then to go upstream we don want to ever see this happen again And we want to protect certainly the data in the form of images here. I would like to see you continue to work with our law enforcement stakeholders. I think you've done a decent job so far from what it sounds. But I do think there's a disconnect. And there's a difference in interpretation amongst maybe this panel, but also some who are testifying in terms of if we're talking just the arrest prior to arraignment or post-arraignment and how that applies. And I don't like having so many very smart people be unable to agree on what that means. And one area where I would like to see some clarification is what do you intend on this meaning? Because that's a huge shift in policy. We have a duty to keep our jailhouses and those who've been arrested prior to conviction. They still are entitled to a safe environment free from weapons that could harm them or drugs that could also harm them or whether it's communicable diseases or any other illnesses or tattoos that might indicate that they're part of a gang being next to the rival gang member. All these things are important factors for why part of a strip search might be undertaken, especially at intake. And it's not quite as easy as just weapons or drugs. And I would recommend that you continue to think about how that looks. Because I was listening to testimony, and I did hear a difference between what happens at intake and then what happens after they've already been sitting in the detention facility for a while. Those are two different scenarios. I mean, one is keeping the safe space safe. And the other one is you have a suspicion. we can go back and forth about whether it's a reasonable belief or a reasonable suspicion, but whatever that standard is, but it's after you're in the safe space. And those are two completely different fact patterns. For that reason, I will be a no vote today, but I certainly would be willing to relook at changing my vote for second reading based on more clarification. I just want to see a little more clarification because I hate to see too many reasonable people not be able to at least agree on how they're interpreting the words. Thank you.
Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you to the people who came to testify today and for all of the people that have done work and that continue to live with the consequences of something horrific that happened. None of us want to in any way, and I heard that from every individual who testified, diminish the harm that they've already encountered, or recognize that this was a legitimate act that happened. My good colleague from Delta pointed to one of the things I was going to talk about, because the question becomes, at what point does the state have an obligation to act? And what we saw with the funeral home, with one funeral home doing something as horrific as one jail doing something as horrific as what happened here, It is the state's obligation to step in and try to make corrective action to ensure that this does not go to any other place or any other setting. I too wanted to reiterate that I think as I looked at the bill and had spoken to the sponsor at least one of the sponsors it was my understanding that there was an intent to differentiate between that initial need for intake and the kind of screening that might happen there versus the kind of what we're having. And what we heard was multiple strip searches for seemingly lack of reasons in jail, in a jail in particular, where they were not following the standards. So I think there are some standards in place, but standards we know are not statute. And I think that's why it's important that this bill move forward and that we actually establish some of the standards and answer some of the questions that are put out there. As I read the bill, my first note on the bill was reasonable suspicion seemed extremely low. However, again, hearing the testimony, I wanted to go back and look at the different locations. I think if we have reasonable suspicion on a traffic stop, that's sort of a different place than when we're talking about reasonable suspicion, reasonable belief in a different setting. So I'm and to hear that reasonable belief does exist in other statutes of the of the in the jail context does give me a little bit of thinking to do in terms of whether the reasonable belief, because I'm looking at consistency within subsections and statutes of the criminal law. So I'll look at that, even though I was originally inclined to go with reasonable suspicion because reasonable belief sounded like a made-up standard to me. And it still may be because our statutes do have made-up standards in that when I look at criminal law, I look at beyond a reasonable doubt, probable cause, reasonable suspicion. But if it's in other places in the law, I'll have to look at that. But like I said, there's a lot of places where we make up standards, even with the clear and convincing versus in the affirmative defense and the language we've pulled over there that has no corollary. So, you know, we try to make those statutes stronger and better every time we go along. So I do want to continue to work with the sponsors on this bill answering those questions. But ultimately, I believe it is our responsibility to take action in this circumstance and that we have a great framework to move this across the finish line by the end of this session. And I would hate for us to have to wait another whole year to continue to try to get to the perfect at the enemy of the good and the needed. And so I will be a strong supporter and a yes today.
Representative Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. You know, I'm concerned about some of the pieces and the bits and the kibbles and the bits. and I having worked on you know this type of legislation kind of over and over and over am racking my brain in some of the areas about even how to get you there and and also get to the point where I think that what we're actually doing there is stopping sexual assault from happening in a jail. And I want to do that. Like I would love to see, I didn't read the story about the gentleman that kind of started the whole nexus here, but 117 class one misdemeanors, or 118, I guess there was another count of something. Just doesn't seem reasonable to me for what should happen to a person of trust in a situation like this, even with a registration as a sex offender, you know, I would love to, that should be a more serious crime. This person should spend some time in a state correctional facility for a long time for something like this. And, you know, for what it's worth, I would probably take different approaches than you, in some of these things to try to get to that means to protect people. And I didn't write this bill, and people didn't come to me to run it, and I don't exactly know how to help you fix it. I just know there's some areas that I do have some concerns that I hope that you will continue to work with me on to let me see if we can make sure that we don't break anything else anywhere else. I do think that there's a lot of differences between what the jails do, and I think that that is important for us to pay attention to because programmatically you still have to have this work in the real world. You know, you have to function in a jail facility and be able to make this work, and it may not. And I also have some concerns about the safety of other inmates and the situations that you have in a jail facility for both the inmates and the staff when people bring things in and you don't know. And, you know, we are talking about kind of the reason that strip searches are a popular thing in some of these areas is because people bring things in that way. And I think you can visit any jail around here, and the jail staff will tell you a lot of stories about it. So, you know, I'm very hesitant today, and I can tell that this bill is going to move on beyond today. So I'm going to support you getting out of this committee. but the reality is that I hope that we can continue to work on this together so that it doesn't get – I don't want to make a mess. This stuff really matters to me. It matters on both sides, and it really matters that we are protecting the safety of people, and I know that that is exactly what we're aiming to do, and these are tricky areas of law. So thank you for all your hard work, and I appreciate the deep stakeholding.
I know what it takes to do that, and I profoundly respect it. Emil Bacon. Thank you. I'll be brief. I just wanted to add that, one, I do hope you come back to judiciary because your advocacy today is incredibly important, and I have certainly been there with all of the stakeholders all the way up to committee, and I'm grateful that our colleagues here believe and will support in solving this issue. You know, I do believe in the first line of the summary and that the bill requires a reasonable belief standard to conduct a strip search that it apply to all arrests. You know, given the conversation that we had here, I do think you have made the case and that it is compelling that that apply regardless if someone has committed a petty offense or traffic offense or if they have violated a protection order. Because that's also not included here. and so that moves both ways. And as a matter of public policy, given what we heard today it sounds like this area warrants changes And I do believe that we have the potential to get there When I listen to two different sheriffs across our 64 counties and municipal jail and hear different ways that they do this including one way where there's not a camera at all, makes me think it's possible. But what I hope we are not doing to that same sheriff's point is compelling them to do something that they're not doing, and I know that we can write that in there. I want to just say also to everyone who came up all the way from La Plata, I have actually visited that jail of late. And thinking about this notion that this person is charged for over 100 counts makes us know and believe that there is a public policy concern with this. I am just, it is striking to me to see now the advocacy for body cams. because some of us were around when everyone was asking for them not to be the case. And as I also heard, we've had this practice before there were body cams, and again, not everyone needs a camera to be right here. And we cannot look over that. We cannot look over the placement of this camera and how much more invasive it is. I wanted to say that out loud because that is the point of this. You are not talking about to have the folks who are advocates for victims of sexual assault even say, I'm okay with the camera at a different angle. That means the issue is where the camera is. And we have long been able to do what we need to do per the request of law enforcement without them. And so it is in our interest, I believe, and thank you again. I will be a strong yes. I think after the cuts that we have made to this bill, I encourage everyone to look at it again to see what's left. I know what we need to do to protect PREA. Thank you for that. But if there is a way to get to where we need to get, which I do believe there is, I believe we will get there. And again, like my colleague said, I do believe it deserves the time. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Amel Bacon.
I'm going to be brief. I just want to make sure people understand why my questions are pointed and why they were specific. I never want us to forget the humanity of the individuals that we are putting into – we are incarcerating. We are looking for reasons and excuses to stop treating people like human beings. I never want to be in that position. These are individuals. They're just like me. They're just like you. They haven't been convicted of any crimes, and they were exploited. and they need and deserve our protections. I love this committee. I love the robust conversation, but I also refuse to allow this committee to lose the humanity of the people that we were sent here to protect.
And with that, Ms. Colbert pulled the committee.
I sorry Chair Mayberry move the committee or move the bill You on your way to appropriations I move House Bill 1123 is amended to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable recommendation.
Second.
That's a proper motion, a proper second by Representative Espinoza.
Please pull the committee.
Representatives Bacon. Yes.
Clifford. Yes, for today.
Espinosa. Yes. Linnell. Respectfully, no. Garcia.
Yes. Kelsey.
No. Slaw. No. Soper.
No. Zocay.
Yes. Carter.
Yes. Mabry.
Yes. With a 7-4 vote, this bill passes. I don't have to say a minute. We can, members, we have one more bill, and we have the actual sponsors here, so we can go right into it. Are you going? I'm going to. Okay. Who wants to start?
Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair, since our chair's not gone. This bill, Senate Bill 2637, had a little longer history, but it's come to us from the Senate to address concerns that were arising out of Mesa, is my understanding, wherein there was a realization that a program that we established to allow for weekend bond officers to ensure that people are not spending extra time in jail that they shouldn't have to spend, where there was a desire to have judicial officers also be able to serve. And the way the statute was written, they weren't able to do that. However, in the course of the conversation and moving the bill forward, what came about was to serve all of the judicial districts, The better solution to the problem was simply to provide an evaluation system for the bond officers that are hearing these bonds, because it was brought to the attention since they're not under the judicial jurisdiction, they were not subject to the same evaluations, and input was not being obtained from the prosecutors and the public defender office So what this bill now does is a very simple situation which it now establishes an evaluation process for those weekend bond officers that will serve the needs of the community
Representative Silver. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I thank you, Representative Espinoza. That's an excellent description of the bill. As you can see, it's a very short bill. It was a strike blow in the Senate, so it did change quite a bit to the evaluation process that you see before you. So it's now no longer catered just to the 21st in Mesa County, but it's all across the state to be able to allow for input from local DAs and the local judges and would ask for a yes vote. And PDs, thank you. Yeah, public defenders. I mean, they're important, too, if they're listening.
Members, do we have questions for the committee? Seeing none. How would you like me to do the witnesses? Okay. Seeing none. The witness face is closed. Yeah. When I ask for witnesses. Wrap up.
Well, we have no amendments.
Any amendments from the sponsors? For the record, any amendments from the sponsors?
We have none. It was just said a minute ago.
Yeah, for the record, no amendments from the sponsors. Any amendments from the committee? The amendment phase is closed.
Wrap up. Good bill. Vote yes. Ditto.
You want to move the bill?
I move Senate Bill 26-37 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second.
That's a proper motion and a proper second. Representative Espinoza, any closings from the committee? Representative Clifford.
Thank you for going quickly.
Any further closings from the committee? Seeing none. Ms. Culver, call the roll.
Representatives Bacon.
Yes.
Clifford.
Yes.
Espinosa.
Yes.
Flannell.
Yes.
Garcia.
Kelty.
Yes.
Slock.
Yes.
Soper.
Yes.
Zocay.
Yes.
Carter.
Yes.
Mayberry.
Excused.
10-0-1 excused. With a vote of 10 ayes and one excused, the bill passes.