April 8, 2026 · Judiciary · 13,168 words · 16 speakers · 54 segments
Good afternoon, everybody. Senate Judiciary will come to order on Wednesday, the 8th of April. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.
Senators Carson.
Present.
Doherty.
Excuse.
Henriksen.
Excuse.
Wallace.
Present.
DeMora Wilson.
Present.
Roberts.
Here.
Mr. Chair.
Here. All right. Quorum is present. Just to note our agenda, 71 had previously been on the docket for today. That is going to be heard instead at another time. We are also not taking up Senate Bill 96 today. That will be before the committee at another point, which makes our sole item of business today, House Bill 1123. I will be co-presenting that with Senator Amabile. For that reason, Senator Roberts will be presiding as chair, and I will pass him the gavel. Thank you.
Good afternoon. We are here to hear testimony on House Bill 1123 by Senators Amabile and Weissman, who are before us. Who would like to start? Senator Amabile.
I'll start, because I always like to do the emotional appeal and then turn it over to somebody else to do the actual technical parts. So I'll start with why the bill. And I don't know if you all heard about this case in La Plata County. where the sheriff was found to have been reviewing over and over and over again footage of strip searches of female defendants. And it went on for, I think, five years, and then finally came to light. and there are a bunch of women who were impacted by this who had the footage of them being strip searched being viewed over and over again for I don't want to really spell it out but for some not good purposes and that is an incredible violation of their privacy and of their bodily autonomy and every other thing. So that is the impetus for the bill. And one of the things that came up around this is, of course, we do have this jail standards commission that I helped get going, and they're doing excellent work, and we should probably be consulting with that jail standards commission. But unfortunately, we are not meeting because of the budget cuts. And so otherwise, I think this bill would have come out of that committee. But nonetheless, the bill is here and needed to come out. So really every provision of the bill connects to this one case And you might say well okay that was just one case of one bad actor and that would never happen anywhere else But I don't think that's true, and maybe there hasn't been another thing that's that extreme. But clearly it showed that there were ways that that could happen and that no one would ever know about it. and that is what the bill is trying to address, is that as a matter of policy, that kind of thing shouldn't, there shouldn't be an opportunity for something like that to happen. So there's all kinds of sexual abuse that happens to people who are incarcerated and I think as a nation, we woke up to that, I don't know, a long time ago, maybe 20 years ago and there has been federal policy around that and there have been other state efforts, but it is a problem. And yes, you did a crime, although in jail you may or may not have done a crime because most of the people who are in jail have not been, they've not had a trial. They are innocent until proven guilty, but they are stripped of a lot of their rights. Well, maybe that was a bad word. and we have to make sure that they are protected and even after you've been convicted of course you still have rights in this country and that's pretty fundamental so that's what the bill is addressing it isn't a hypothetical it did happen this extreme case happened but other things have happened and so that's what we're trying to address with the bill And there are a lot of, you know, it's complicated, and certainly no one wants to impugn the sheriff's writ large. I know I don't want to do that. But we also want to make sure we have guardrails in place and so people can feel confident that the people who we have in our custody as a state are protected. Thank you.
Senator Weissman.
Thank you. You know, I thought I would situate this bill in this way. This is my 10th year, believe it or not, serving on one of the two judiciary committees. Something, a kind of architecture of a lot of bills that I think we hear in judiciary in particular. a really horrible thing happens or a class of horrible things has been happening. And, you know, you can't rewind time. You can't undo what happened to you. But you can try to tap into what I call the power of survivorship and funnel that into advocacy and try to keep it from happening to the next person. And just this year in this committee, we have engaged with bills like that on things from not losing that window of opportunity to maybe get evidence when somebody's been driving drunk, or crimes of human trafficking, or crimes of sexual violence, or crimes and losses arising out of distracted or impaired driving. We have done bills instigated by folks who have experienced those things. This bill is that kind of bill in a pretty unique way because as Senator Amabile noted it has come to light I going to try to not you know use specific references here but it has come to light that in a county jail in Colorado strip searches were conducted inappropriately and the video captured thereof was used really really inappropriately There's a profound power disparity. It's important to emphasize what Senator Mabale noted. A minority percentage of people who find themselves in a county jail are actually there serving a sentence. Most people are in some kind of pretrial status. Depending on the county, depending on the year, it could be 90% of people in a county jail have actually not been adjudicated of any offense. They're there in a pretrial way. Percentages will vary. Regardless of why they're there, When they're there, there is this profound power disparity. You may hear about this in witness testimony, and the real point of today is witness testimony. Mr. Chair, we are going to ask you to lay over for amendment consideration at another time. If you really look at the data and you listen to stories, there's a pretty high correlation between women who are themselves survivors of sexual violence and then who maybe later get tangled up in the system. Because the blunt reality is people sometimes turn to drugs, licit and illicit, to frankly self-medicate after they suffer that kind of harm. I've shared some stories of friends of mine in this committee before who have found themselves on that road. So to have been a survivor of one of the worst things that a person can do to another person, and then to find yourself for whatever reason in a county jail and then to be victimized in largely the same way all over again, it should make our blood run cold. And again, we can't turn back the hands on the clock, but we can try to have a better legal framework to make sure it never happens again. And that is what brings us to 1123. You'll see from the gray shaded font, there was significant work done in the House Senator Amabile and I are legislators who hold ourselves to not just spirit and the intent of policy, but also the details. So we are committed to work on a few additional things before the bill moves out of committee. Section one is substantive protections about the conduct of strip searches in jails. You may hear some commentary from witnesses about how this section relates to another existing section in law in a different part of CRS. Valid commentary, that's on our list of things to work through. Section 2 are provisions concerning access to recordings. Okay, you have cameras running for understandable reasons in a carceral environment. Who gets to access that footage and how and how is that logged? Again, this is in the bill because it was part of the very least the problem in one of our counties. is there is an ongoing matter involving over 100 counts, and our judicial system will sort that out. Section 3 tries to better import, Senator Amabile referred to this, provisions of PREA, federal law, the Prison and Rape Elimination Act, which is more than 20 years old now in our country, to better import those substantive provisions into the county jail context Section 4 is whistleblower protection And again maybe you read in the news that some people knew what was going on down in the county and did not feel that they could safely for their own professional sake come forward So we've imported as closely as we could here provisions into this part of the bill, modeled on policy we did last year for peace officer whistleblower protection. That was a multi-year discussion that had been going on in the legislature. At the end, we have some conforming amendments with respect to existing parts of law. this legislature has done a lot of work in statutes about body-worn cameras or BWC for short. We implicate some of that in the operative parts of this bill, so we need to make some conforming amendments at the end. I will stop there. We're happy to take questions.
But again, I think what's really going to tell the story today will be our witnesses. Thank you, Senator Weissman. And committee members, do we have any questions for our bill sponsors?
Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are there federal laws that our jails are covered under this?
Senator Weissman.
Let me try to break down the questions, Senator. Questions of body-worn cameras. Some of the more specific things, best I know, the answer is no, hence the role of state law. the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA, governs facilities that are in receipt of federal funding. So we're not going to say that that doesn't reach state facilities now. We think there's more room to sort of push the protections down. As far as federal law on point, PREA is the primary substantive federal law that is doing anything in any of the aspects that we just spoke about. But as to things like, is there federal law on point for accessing video footage? Not that I know of. Is there federal law on point for whistleblower protection? Not that I know of. Notwithstanding some of the gnarliest crimes are handled at the federal level, really complex, maybe gang activity, drug running, whatever. The reality is that most of criminal prosecution and the whole criminal legal structure is state law, and that includes effectuation through county jails. Does that help?
Senator Zamora Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You mentioned one incident already. Are there more incidences of this as far as abuse?
Senator Weissman.
The big one that we know about, again, I'm trying to not make this about personalities, but it was the La Plata County Jail in southwest Colorado that was in the news. It's why our House colleague, Representative Stewart, was one of the leaders of this bill in the Chamber of Origin, because it was her community where this popped. That's the primary example that's driving this legislation. I think a broader point is in every county jail, you have the risk of this imbalance, this disparity, getting one bad apple in there. And again, neither of us is trying to paint with too broad of a brush, but we did have a bad apple. here, you know, human beings are strange creatures sometimes. We just don't want to run the risk again. So I don't think we have a litany, as long as you're armed, of examples. But this one was bad enough.
Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I'm sure that there's, I'm thinking there's already laws in place as far as the punishment, things that would disincentivize this bad behavior. But moving along with another question, are there, I'm sure we're going to hear from law enforcement, but one of my concerns is, are there, are we opening up risk to law enforcement? Number one, if there's no, if the cameras are turned off, Are we opening them up to a risk of false allegations or to false lawsuits against them?
Senator Mobley.
So just to go back to your previous question, what happened with the one incident, which was multiple incidents over five years, it wasn't just one thing, But what that pointed to is that there were inadequate guardrails to make sure that that didn't happen. And so that's really the bigger policy question, just like we see abuses in other things, like surveillance cameras, for example. And so we want to put guardrails on because we think, well, we don't want that to happen anymore, even if it's only happened a few times. a few times is a window into a situation that doesn't have proper guardrails. And I would say we don't really know. I mean, maybe not this exact thing, but we don't really know. I have a friend whose daughter was in jail for I don't know how long, but I met up with her afterwards and she said, well, you know, I traded sex for drugs with a guard while I was in jail. So, like, it does happen. And, you know, it is about this sort of power imbalance that people are victimized. And so that's what the overarching goal is. To the question of does it open up law enforcement to potential liability or false claims, I think that this draft they really tried hard to not do that and to make sure that everybody actually is protected. And cameras are still being used, and things are being recorded, but you can't just hold on to that footage indefinitely. So some things like that that are both protective and also making sure that there are consequences for not adhering to the guardrails and not doing the right thing. I mean, the person in question is charged with serious crimes. So, yes, we do have a mechanism, but I don't think we want to wait until the thing has happened and then punish somebody. We want to try to prevent it from happening to begin with.
Senator Weissman.
Thanks. To answer that a little bit further, to the question do we already have consequences I think part of the judgment of bringing this bill forward to this point is that again we want a protective architecture We want this to not happen. That's the first thing. But then if it has happened, again, in the future, what consequences? So to work in any way as a municipal police officer, sheriff's deputy, any of a number of other things, you need post-certification, right? and that runs through the Attorney General's office. So we often speak about consequences for law enforcement officials in terms of revocation of post-certification. To summarize, we have provisions in those statutes which are the post-board may revoke if various things, and then on the other hand, shall revoke. In relevant part here, there is a shall-revoke directive to post-board upon criminal conviction, which is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. In a lot of cases, that's appropriate. What you'll see in Section 6 of the bill, pages 13 to 14 of the re-engrossed, is we are adding under the statutes for shall permanently revoke, essentially an adjudicative finding of a couple of different offenses of a sexual nature. Now, there's a due process here. burden, which is the preponderance standard, has to be shown. Somebody doesn't just deem a post-certification out of the way, but the judgment here is that in this case where there's already a power imbalance, where professional ethics and training should have kept us from getting anywhere near this point, where it's nonetheless happened, And it's not doing justice to require somebody to go all the way to a criminal conviction on the beyond a reasonable doubt standard before there can be the consequence of revocation of post status, frankly, to protect who might be the future victims of such an individual who has acted in this fashion, which is why this part of the bill, the individual who did all the things we're talking about here is post certified at present. We don't think that's okay. Now, to the other part of your question, what about officer safety? Absolutely valid. There are things you don't want in a correctional environment, weapons and so forth. The reason this bill was maybe the primary reason, if not the only, the bill was so heavily talked about and amended and negotiated in the House and why you see so much of the gray shade font indicating a House amendment is precisely to try to strike that balance, achieve the protections that we're talking about here, and acknowledge that we don't want to see a hit to safety in the environment. So we have tried to strike that balance. All right.
As you know, for the questions for the bill sponsors, we will move on to the witness testimony phase. I've received a prearranged panel request from the bill sponsors, so I'm going to go with that. Looks like almost everyone is remote on this first panel. Katrina Lilly. Suzanne Garcia. Shrel Briggs Laurie Valdez Megan Johnstad and Megan Johnstad Stacey Wing Jennifer Standards and Misty Salazar Okay, I see Katrina Lilly has joined us. We'll start with you. Whenever you're ready, and just for everyone's awareness, we're going to try to keep testimony to about three minutes. I know we're dealing with some heavy subjects, so if we need some leeway, we'll do that. But in general, just keep an eye on that clock that's ticking and introduce yourself and then you can begin your testimony. You're still on mute, Miss Lily. I think you came off mute.
Okay, now can you hear me? Yes.
Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Katrina Lyle. I am a survivor of sexual assault, and I stand before you today to testify in strong support of HB 26-1123. I'm a survivor of the actions of Edward Aver, and I want to share the reality of what happens when privacy of those in our justice system is exploited. In 2018 and 2021, while I was held in Nevada County Jail at the age of 30 and 33, Edward Aver viewed recorded videos of me during strict searches. I did not know I was being reported as a vulnerable state, and I certainly did not know those recordings were being viewed for illicit purposes. I only learned the truth on July 31, 2025, when I received a letter in the mail informing me that I am one of his victims when a district attorney's office confirmed the news I was devastated. The trauma of this discovery has rippled through every part of my life. My 6-year-old autistic son has had to comfort me as I cried, saying, It's okay to cry, Mommy. The anger and hurt from this violation began to bleed into my relationships with my husband and my children. I am currently struggling with deep depression and frequent breakdowns. I have sought specialized trauma therapy through Say So to manage the aftermath of this crime. This experience has shattered my ability to trust law enforcement or any county official. While there are open civil and criminal cases, the current charges do not feel harsh enough for the gravity of this violation. I reached out to Representative T Stewart and Casa because I knew something had to change so this never happens to another Coloradoan Protect rights ensures that every Coloradon in jail are aware of their rights and limits The reporting of private moments that should never be used for exploitation. Encourage accountability and take a path of Coloradoans to come forward without the fear of losing their jobs or facing retaliation. For many of us, a plea deal feels like an easy way out for the perpetrator, but the trauma for the survivor never truly ends. We need laws that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. I urge you to vote yes on HB 26-1123. Thank you for your time and your compassion. I'm open to any questions you may have.
Thank you, Ms. Lyle. Raven Nix?
Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Raven Nix, and I am 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. And I am a three-time sexual assault survivor. I'm here today representing myself in support of HB 26-11-23. As a sheriff's deputy, I began my career in the jail. I was a detention's deputy for four and a half years until I transferred to the patrol division. In both of these positions, I served as a field training officer, training the new division deputies that in some cases had no law enforcement experience. 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 lack of female officers. I have never taught, I have never been taught, I have never taught or conducted a strip search for contraband while wearing a body camera. When I first heard about the Eber 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 to be worn? Second was, I was not surprised due to my own interactions with Eber as both my sergeant and lieutenant. Interactions with him ranged from sexual harassment about my appearance to when I was asked if I could take a day off to speak about my sexual assault history with a veterans group. I was told if it still upset me about my assault, he guessed he could give me the day off. When I did speak about my experience, I was dismissed by my command staff and told it was not that bad. I have 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, and I can't imagine the hardships of those who don't have my privilege. I'm here to give my 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 that is so desperately needed 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 that are here to testify by calling us resilient, courageous, or any other lip service nonsense if you intend to listen politely and vote against protections of Coloradans. For these reasons, I support HB 261123 and urge a yes vote from the committee. Thank you for your time. I'm open to any questions the committee may have.
Thank you so much. Ms. Suzanne Garcia.
Good afternoon. former jail commander of the La Plata County Jail Ed Aber ordered that all inmates be strip searched upon being detained at the La Plata County Jail the recordings of these searches some from body cameras formed by deputies conducting the searches were kept on file and were indefinitely accessible Eber then downloaded these recordings to personal devices where he viewed videos of 117 female inmates at least 3,166 times. He viewed these recordings from the jail, from his home, from hotels in the Denver area, and at multiple residences in the Phoenix area. I am one of those victims. I was arrested for violation of a restraining order and all the charges were dropped. Despite my innocence, videos of my strip search have been viewed by Eber repeatedly over the past several years. When the Colorado Bureau of Investigation discovered Eber's grossly inappropriate, perverse behavior, the arrest affidavit that they filed said that he should be arrested for 117 counts of invasion of privacy for the purpose of sexual gratification. By the way, those are misdemeanors and one count of official misconduct. Despite the recommendation by the CBI to arrest Aber, the sheriff's department quietly served him with a summons at his front door. He was not arrested. He is not on bond. And despite 117 restraining orders, he has been allowed to keep his firearms and move about our community with no pretrial service supervision. Out of disgust and out of despair and anger, the victims in this case have filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Aver, against La Plata County, against the jail, against complicit deputies and our county commissioners. commissioners. This lawsuit is so fiscally impactful that the county just passed a tax increase that is earmarked according to the Durango-Herald to pay for, amongst other things, pending lawsuits against the La Plata County Sheriff's Department. These are lawsuits against a county that's financially struggling that would have never happened had proper laws been in place to protect the county against the filthy personal actions of a deputy who fouled his oath. The provisions of House Bill 26-11-23 will ensure that strip searches happen only when they're appropriate and that they will be thoroughly documented by multiple officers and that video footage is not going to be retained and viewed outside of the Sheriff's Department for salacious purposes. And I tell you what you guys as horrible as this whole thing has been for me and the other victims I do look at the bright side and I see that we have an opportunity to protect other counties in Colorado Let me say that again. We have an obligation to protect other counties and other victims and other taxpayers in Colorado from this ever happening again. And I urge you to do this for the counties in Colorado because it's going to hurt La Plata County pretty bad. but they're already paying for his uh for legal counsel for the county let's let's put let's put some laws in place you guys please please support the passage of 26 11 23 and thank you for your time we all wish we could be there we just live really really far away we we appreciate that when
we're more than grateful to have you joining us virtually okay committee any questions for this panel? All right. Not seeing any. Thank you all so much for sharing your stories and for telling us about your support for this bill. We appreciate it. Okay. Not sure if any of these folks are available, but I'll call again. Shrell Briggs. Lori Valdez. Okay. Okay. Shrell is the first name. We know that. Megan Johnstad. Stacey Wing. Jennifer Standards. Misty Salazar. Okay. We'll move on. And I think Shrell is still trying to get a Zoom link. So if they're able to get on, we'll call them up. Okay. I'll move on to the next panel that I have here. Catherine Bousquet. Catherine Bousquet, David Carnes, Courtney Sutton, Ellen Buckley, Omni Martine, and Elizabeth Newman. All right. Good afternoon. We'll start. Do you want to start here in person, Ms. Newman, if you don't mind? Please go ahead.
Thank you and good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Elizabeth Newman, Director of Public Policy for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. CCASA is a leading voice in the anti-sexual violence movement here in Colorado, working to promote healing and prevent sexual harm across the state. We strongly support House Bill 1123 to address harmful gaps in policies and protections that have allowed sexual violence to persist in Colorado's jails. Sexual violence can happen to 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, we know sexual violence is so prevalent in these carceral settings that prison rape is a frequent, well-known, so-called joke. But that doesn't make it acceptable. No one deserves to experience sexual violence and Colorado has a responsibility to prevent it While people in jail may give up some of their rights they do have the right to be free from sexual violence and violations of their bodily integrity In fact the federal PREA law explicitly establishes a responsibility for every detention 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 harass staff under his command for years, it became clear that PREA was basically a suggestion at the county level because of a lack of implementation and enforcement. But that is not just a problem in one county. While some counties are complying with PREA, we found that two out of three county jails in Colorado do not appear to be doing so. Sexual violence and violations of bodily autonomy in jails pose a threat to the rights, dignity, and safety of individuals being held in Colorado's jails. And this is a serious problem because many people in jail, especially women and gender expansive folks, have previously been victims of power-based violence. Some studies find up to 98% of female inmates have previously experienced childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence, or sexual assault prior to their incarceration. And that makes these violations all the more traumatic and harmful. and it's a critical reason why this bill is needed. This bill takes a powerful step towards preventing sexual violence in jail by doing three things. Firstly, reducing the opportunities for abuse and violations of bodily autonomy by limiting strip searches and access to the video recordings of them. Secondly, it ensures jail staff report and respond to sexual violence and that people in jail are given information about their rights and ability to access resources. And lastly, it increases accountability by extending whistleblower protections to all jail staff and preventing abusive staff from future positions of power and trust in law enforcement. We do want to make sure that this is right and it's effective, so we are continuing to work on amendments, but that doesn't change the fact that this bill will make strides to address the widespread problem of sexual violence in jails. We are so grateful to the leadership of our sponsors and the courage of their survivors, and we urge you to support this bill when it comes forward for your vote.
Thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll go online. Mr.
Carnes, please go ahead. Chair and members of the committee, my name is David Carnes, and I'm the Public Policy Director at Violence Free Colorado, the State Anti-Domestic Violence Coalition. I'm here today in support of HB 261123. I want to take a moment to recognize the survivors here today sharing their experiences. We know that speaking about these harms is not easy, and your willingness to do so is both courageous and deeply meaningful. While this bill is not specific to domestic violence, the issues it addresses are deeply connected to broader patterns of abuse and victimization. Abuse often thrives in environments shaped by power imbalances, isolation, fear, and dependency. Those same dynamics are especially acute in detention settings where people have limited privacy, limited control, and little ability to remove themselves from harm. Sexual abuse and detention is not only about individual misconduct. It's about bodily autonomy, dignity, and the barriers people face when the person harming them is also part of the system responsible for their custody and care. This bill takes meaningful steps to address that reality. It strengthens protections around strip searches by requiring reasonable belief, requiring two officers to make that determination, and requiring documentation. It also limits the use and handling of recordings that capture nudity, recognizing that privacy violations can become their own form of harm. Importantly the bill goes beyond policy on paper It requires facilities to establish clear reporting and response protocols provide accessible information about rights and resources ensure timely access to confidential sexual assault advocates and designate a PREA coordinator Those measures matter because survivors need clear pathways to support and a way to reach help outside the institution itself. I also want to highlight the whistleblower protections included in this bill. In closed systems, retaliation is a major barrier to accountability. Protecting staff who report abuse in good faith helps create a culture where harm is harder to hide and harder to normalize. Finally, revoking post-certification for officers who commit sexual abuse reflects the seriousness of that violation of power and trust. As I close, I want to acknowledge something that can be difficult. There may be a belief that people in custody are somehow less deserving of protection or that harm against them is simply part of the consequence of their actions. But our constitutional rights do not disappear at the jail door. While incarceration limits certain freedoms, it does not strip a person of their fundamental rights to safety, dignity, and bodily integrity. If anything, the responsibility of the state to protect those rights is even greater when it has total control over someone's environment. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. Courtney Sutton, please go ahead.
Good afternoon, Chair in the Committee. My name is Courtney Sutton, and I'm the Public Policy Director for COVA, the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance. Our mission is to provide training, support, and resources to all crime victims and the professionals that serve them. We support HB 261123 and thank the sponsors and advocates for bringing this policy forward. I would first like to recognize that April Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and yesterday, April 7th, was the National Day of Action. We stand with survivors of sexual violence across Colorado, and we believe sexual violence and abuse must be prevented across all systems, including Colorado jails. This policy works to prevent harm through limiting the use of strip searches, limiting use of body-worn cameras during those strip searches, and limiting access to any recorded strip search materials. This policy also increases accountability by extending those whistleblower protections for staff, enables an audit of local jails, and also removes post-certifications as necessary. These policy changes are critical as both a response to the case in La Plata County and preventing sexual violence in jail facilities across Colorado. Our society often makes jokes of sexual assault within the jail and prison systems. This is a moment for Colorado to stand up and say that is unacceptable. Sexual violence is never part of any criminal sentence, and we must work together to prevent and end this harm. It supports victims of sexual violence by requiring the implementation and enforcement of federal PREA standards or the Prison Rape Elimination Act in our local jails and by providing access to confidential victim services. Survivors deserve support and care after an assault. The added advocacy services through PREA provide access to confidential advocacy, counseling, forensic medical exams, and victims' rights information. The bodily violation of sexual violence can cause long-term mental and physical health conditions, including PTSD, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. But with targeted mental health support and advocacy, survivors can find healing. I would like to thank all of the survivors testifying today for sharing your story and bringing this forward. Thank you so much for your time and attention, and we urge you to support
HB 26-11-23. Thank you. Ellen Buckley.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Ellen Buckley, and I'm representing the Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association in a strong support position for 11-23. No woman should go through what the women in Durango went through by being strip searched multiple times without legitimate cause and having recordings of those searches viewed thousands of times for the viewer's sexual gratification. I imagine you'll hear more from law enforcement, but this bill doesn't prevent recording. It does prevent body-worn camera recordings of strip searches. And the reason for that is that body-worn camera footage is automatically uploaded to the cloud and is too readily available, unlike internal video or audio. This bill puts important guardrails around strip searches and other sexual abuse in jail.
Equally important as those guardrails are the whistleblower protections in this bill. Retaliation is a huge problem for employees who report workplace wrongdoing, especially law enforcement employees. I mean, studies have found that like up to, I think, 70 percent of employees who report wrongdoing are retaliated against. So this is a reality. And this is a critical part of this bill. A lack of protection against retaliation makes reporting of wrongdoing far less likely. To make the strip search and sexual abuse prevent, sorry, sorry, prevention sections of this bill effective whistleblower protections must be in place. As most of you know, last year the legislature passed HB 25-1031. Senator Roberts was one of the sponsors, and Senator Pelton also. Their bill to protect law enforcement officers who are whistleblowers from retaliation. 1123 adapts those whistleblower protections from 1031 and makes them applicable to staff members in local detention facilities. And 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. PILA thanks the sponsors for bringing this bill and we urge a yes vote. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Omni Miranda Martone, please go ahead. Hi, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am the CEO of the Sexual Violence Prevention Association, the SVPA, and I'm here to urge this body to pass HB 261123, Preventing Sexual Abuse in Jails. As many have spoken before me, in July of 2025, former jail commander Edward Eber was charged with 117 counts of invasion of privacy after viewing more than 100 videos of strip searches conducted on women incarcerated at La Plata County Jail. He viewed these videos over 3 times all for his own sexual gratification Some of these incarcerated women are pursuing legal action and the SUPA stands firmly with them Commander Eber is not an outlier He is a symptom of a system that was permitting state sexual violence. It is critical that we understand what that means. When a system allows invasive searches to be routinely recorded, fails to strictly control access to that footage, and lacks strong accountability mechanisms, it creates the conditions for sexual violence to occur and continue. At the the SUPA, we call this state sexual violence. State sexual violence is when sexual harm is required, allowed, or ignored by government agents or institutions. It takes two forms, sanctioned and tolerated. State-sanctioned sexual violence is when the government itself allows or requires non-consensual sexual acts. This is often justified as necessary for safety or security. Stripping cavity searches are a clear example. Currently, Colorado law permits officers to forcibly expose and examine people's genitalia without consent and record it all on body-worn cameras. That is state-sanctioned sexual violence that this bill will address. State-tolerated sexual violence is when sexual harm is technically illegal, but the system allows it to continue by failing to stop it or hold anyone accountable. Commander Ebert viewed thousands of recordings of women being forcefully stripped and recorded, not once or twice, and not accidentally, and not for work purposes. Over 3,000 times. That did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because the system around him failed to catch it, failed to prevent it, and failed to protect those women. That is state-tolerated sexual violence that this bill will address. I'm deeply grateful to the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault for their extraordinary advocacy and leadership in drafting this legislation. 1123 directly addresses the structural conditions that allowed state sexual violence to persist in Colorado. It will prevent state-sanctioned sexual violence by requiring that two officers independently determine reasonable belief before any strip search is conducted, and that the reason and results are documented. It will prevent state-tolerated sexual violence by limiting the recording of strip searches, restricting access to footage showing nudity, barring reproduction of such recordings, and protecting whistleblowers who come forward. It will also strengthen reporting, oversight, and accountability systems under PREA, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, ensuring incarcerated people know their rights, have access to advocacy services, and that all complaints are processed adequately. Passing this bill will not heal the hundreds of people who have already been harmed. That truth sits heavy with me, and it should certainly sit heavy with all of you. The Colorado government failed to protect these women. Colorado laws will continue to cause state sexual violence until there is change. Let the grief and shame of this moment propel you to pass 1123. Once law, this bill will transform the systems that allow these egregious harms. This is a massive step towards preventing state sexual violence. You can set the standard for the rest of the country. I speak to you now as an expert in state sexual violence and in sexual violence prevention more generally. I speak to you as the CEO of the Sexual Violence Prevention Association. And most importantly, I speak to you as a survivor. Pass 1123. Colorado has the opportunity to right its wrongs and lead the nation in confronting state sexual violence. This is not just a bill, it's the beginning of a movement. Thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Boucher. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Catherine Bosquet and I a victim advocate and PREA specialist with the Sexual Assault Victim Advocate Center also known as SAVA SAVA is a sexual assault advocacy organization serving survivors in Larimer and Weld County here in Colorado. I am here today to represent our organization in support of House Bill 1123. When a survivor first walks through our door to speak with an advocate, some of the most common questions we hear are, should I report this? How do I report this? And if I report this, will I be believed? As advocates, our role is to listen, believe, and support survivors. We help them understand their options, navigate complex systems, and most importantly, we strive to provide as much autonomy as possible because when someone experiences sexual violence, their power and control has been taken away from them. This loss of autonomy is especially profound for the incarcerated survivors I work with in my role as the PREA specialist. Individuals who are incarcerated already experience limited autonomy, and that loss is compounded when they experience sexual assault while in custody. Currently, jails in the state of Colorado are not required to follow PREA standards. These standards are critical to ensuring that incarcerated survivors receive the support they need. PREA standards provide access to medical care, forensic nurse exams, mental health services, third-party reporting, and confidential support from victim advocacy organizations. According to the 2024 data from the U.S. Department of the Justice of Bureau statistics, there has been a 25% increase in reported sexual assaults in the jail since 2011. This statistic underscores that sexual violence in jails is ongoing and it's increasing. I have witnessed this trend firsthand here in my role. I have seen a rise in requests for advocacy services from incarcerated survivors, as well as the significant barriers they face. Many individuals are unaware of PREA protections and are unable to access the care they need. Additionally, there are challenges in building partnerships and communication with jail staff, which can limit the awareness of available advocacy services and support to incarcerated survivors. When I'm able to connect with incarcerated survivors, I provide confidential services that include emotional support, safety planning, psychoeducation around trauma responses, following sexual violence. I also help connect them with resources in the jail, discuss reporting options, and link them to support systems outside of incarceration. Incarcerated survivors face a significant barrier to being believed, accessing support, and being treated with dignity and compassion. Community-based advocacy organizations like SAVA and the Blue Bench play a critical role in bridging these gaps. These services help survivors feel less alone and provide essential tools to support healing both during incarceration and after release. This bill would be instrumental in ensuring that incarcerated survivors receive the care and support they so deserve and potentially preventing from them being assaulted in the first place. Being believed, listened to, and given a choice can make a profound difference in a survivor's healing. Incarcerated survivors deserve just as much care and compassion as other survivors. And I want to, again, acknowledge the courage and bravery for the survivors who came forward today to speak on this. For this reason, I respectfully urge the committee to support House Bill 1123. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you so much. And then can we just do one more online person before we get to questions? Erin Meshke. Good afternoon Go ahead whenever you ready Ms Meshke 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'm an ardent supporter of law enforcement, but will never excuse abuse or misconduct. I do not believe strict search abuse is a broad problem, but given the recent specific example in Colorado, it must be addressed because no amount of sexual abuse or abuse of official recordings is excusable. So I asked for your yes vote on HB 26-11-23 to standardize strip search practices and ensure accountability. I usually do a fair amount of research as I prepare for bill testimony, but there was next to nothing about the prevalence of strip search abuse, and that by itself is an issue. The only related data available online was from Australia, and it was not about strip search abuse. It was about strip search success rates, which were only 1 to 15%. That shows that unless we have data to the contrary, we need to question strip searches as a standard practice. I'm not officially in an amend position, but have a few suggestions for improving HB 26-11-23 that I gave in the House, and I will reiterate today. First, all access to strip search recordings should be restricted and documented, which is mostly covered by House amendments to the original bill in Section 2. My second suggestion is mostly addressed by amendments in Section 1, standardization of strip search policy and submission of data for why, when, and how strip searches are conducted must be collected because it protects both law enforcement and those being processed. My last suggestion could impact the fiscal note but could be a valuable addition in the future. With current technology, the same information gained from a physical strip search can almost certainly be obtained by a combination of metal detector, x-ray, and ultrasound, which seems like a better option for all parties. Using some combination of these technologies for standard processing could also remove reasonable belief standards or other bias, so it should be considered when funding is available. Unless the goal is to dehumanize someone when they are being processed, we should standardize or modernize searches to protect people and respect people while also ensuring outside items aren't being brought into jails or prisons. HB 26-11-23 will only affect the strip search part of sexual abuse in jails, but these guardrails are now necessary. So I ask for your yes vote. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, committee, any questions for this panel? Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Ms. Bosquette, I'm going to mispronounce your last name. I'm sorry, even though you just told us. And open to anyone answering this, but thought your testimony went to it most directly. Why don't Colorado jails and prisons have to abide by PREA? It's sounding right now like an opt-in federal law, and I'm confused about why they're not abiding by it or the provisions that you mentioned. Ms. Bosquet. Yeah, yeah. Bosquet or Bosquet, it's pronounced a lot of different ways. So whatever works. Yeah, this is a great question. And I think, please, anybody else in this panel, please add to for what you have. This is an important thing. So, right, PREA is federal. It was created in 2003 during the Bush administration. And so prisons do have to adhere to PREA standards because it is federal. And so they get audited each year. They have a PREA auditor come in to make sure they're following those standards. What is the issue is that jails do not have to follow those PREA standards because they are not federal. They are run by the sheriff's office. And so that where it gets really hard. I can touch on my specific work that then, right, if you are in jail, you may not know that you have PREA rights and they're not, some jails try to follow in good, you know, but they're not, they're not held to that standard. So a lot of things go under the rug or are missed and survivors don't get the access or care they need or things like this happen that we saw because of that. Does that answer your question? Again, if anybody else wants to add. Yeah, I can add a little bit. That's super, yeah, that's super great. I feel like my, the only thing I would kind of add is like that in general, the issue, it comes down to the enforcement. So there is not an enforcement mechanism regarding, there's not an adequate, I should say, enforcement mechanism regarding prior protections in jails specifically. And that's as Catherine just said, and that's why it's specifically in jails. And it's because of the purview of jails, right? Who covers jails? Who's accountable for jails and these protections? So that's why, whereas like, you know, with other prisons, especially federal prisons, those have that accountability. I mean, it's also lacking to be clear, but that accountability structure is present. Yes, Ms. Newman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanted to make very clear that when PREA was passed in 2003, it does very clearly say that every single detention facility, jail, prison in the United States must prevent sexual violence within them and must have a PREA coordinator. And as my colleague said, it is the implementation and enforcement that's lacking because it is relying upon federal funding. And so whether they're giving grants or they're giving federal funds directly to those programs, the state attorney general here in Colorado is responsible for ensuring that the state prisons are following these. And so it's not optional to prevent sexual abuse in jails. It is required. There's just not enforcement and implementation. Senator Wallace. Thank you all so much. That was very enlightening. Thank you all so much. So just a couple of follow-ups just quickly. So these standards within this legislation are the same as the federal standards that are applying to prisons but applying to jails? I'll pause. Ms. Newman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Wallace. Some of the standards align. So the standards overall have language about how they can be implemented in different types of facilities, and they get very specific on things. Some of those are included in this bill. Some of them are not. And so what we want to make sure is that some of the key pieces, for example, having a policy for how staff respond to what they might witness or what might be reported to them, that is required in PREA. It is something that we think that every jail should have. And many of them do. I mean, this is not to say that they don't have some of these things in place. having someone whose job it is to be a resource to connect with community members if they have a family member incarcerated who's telling them that they are experiencing sexual violence you know having an outside community member being able to know who they can contact because there are things that jails can do move with their location change things about their situation get them care that they can do these things to help support someone who's experienced sexual violence however folks like Catherine who are trying to provide these services need to know who they can contact at the jail in order to be able to meet with that person who is being detained And so there are pieces of this is not requiring state law to copy mirror the federal PREA standards for every single jail What it is is highlighting specific pieces that we think are critically important that they should be implementing, and I'm encouraging and urging them to do so by requiring it in this bill. Does that help? Any other questions? Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Meshki mentioned an amendment that talks about other methods of doing a search, and it brings up a great question, and I'm asking anyone, even Ms. Meshki, has other options been investigated, and why aren't we using them? Ms. Newman? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Zamora Wilson, for the question. yes, we do know that some jails are using body scanners. And they are using that in place of or standard strip searches and then using a strip search as a follow-up if there's something identified. Or maybe they don't find what they are expecting on those. And I think law enforcement can speak to that process more specifically. But that is something that more jails are adopting. However, it is costly. and not every jail in Colorado is going to be able to purchase. So one thought was when we were drafting this bill, should we have counties all purchase body scanners so that they don't have to do a visual and physical inspection of every single person? That's a challenge that we leave to each county to determine, but that can then help with reducing the strip searches and the practice of them. Okay. Yeah, and if I can also, so 100%, it is very important to look at alternatives. I think that that sort of thing comes down to funding and definitely funding within the state can be a bit difficult. And so although it's something that at least I know that the SVPA and I think several other folks on this panel and on this that have testified today plan to work on, I think that one of the biggest things is actually just reducing the triggers that trigger a strip search to take place. And so by requiring that I have two officers independently, and by requiring that it meet the reasonable suspicion standard, that's going to limit the number to begin with, right, of strip searches. And so that's actually really one of the key things for us is like, you know, how can we just limit the amount of times this is being triggered to happen? And then the other piece, of course, is what are the alternatives? And it's good to explore those, but there's definitely, you know, a good amount of funding that's required for those. But also there's, you need a bit of like a, you need a plethora of options, because just the body scanners sometimes do miss some things. And so it's important to have like, you know, several, and building up that infrastructure within the jails takes a little bit more time. So that is something I know that a lot of people on the call plan to work on. It's something that I think is going to take a little bit more time. And this is actually addressing some of the more foundational pieces about when are they triggered? Why are they triggered? And how are we recording the fact that a strip search was like, you know, took took place and why? What was the reason? Reasonable? Sorry, suspicion for allowing that to take place. Senators Maura Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK, I'll ask the question. What how much are we talking about for cost for a body scanner? usually it's body scanners between $200,000 and about $500,000 they can range quite a lot but that tends to be the amount that we been quoted it can also be a bit costly to install them typically that requires a little bit of like you know construction and things like that and then there are ongoing maintenance costs that people should be aware of and that would need to be built into the budgets in the future All right. So, no further questions. I'm sorry, Chair. I couldn't figure out. My raise my hand button isn't working. Yes, go ahead, Ms. Meschke. Thank you so much. In my research online, I found, I'm trying to figure out which, in Connecticut, they were looking at doing something similar. And the bill that was brought forward was going to be installing 26 body scanners for visiting rooms and intake units. And they were estimating a $4 million for those 26 body scanners. But then there was another thing that it sounds like had happened earlier that session that was saying five hundred thousand dollars for two body scanners at the correctional facility in York. So there it seems like there's some variation in those numbers. But at the same time, I'm not sure how what the longevity of those systems is and maintenance and all of the rest of that. So obviously, that's something that we would need to look at. But if we're going to have a better system that actually, hopefully would have better results with preserving human dignity, I think we should move in that direction. So I don't know. It's just something that I obviously I said it was a fiscal impact that we can't do right now in our budget situation. But if there's a point in the future where we can do this, even pilot it in a few places, I think it might be worth looking at. Thank you. Thank you. OK, thank you, everybody on this panel. We appreciate your testimony this afternoon. All right. We're going to move to a panel of folks signed up in an amend position. Matt Turnert, Drew Outerman, and then remotely Jeffrey Goetz and Megan Danitz. Is there anybody else here in person that is wishing to testify in amend or oppose or neutral position on the bill? Okay. We'll start here in person, sir. Whenever you're ready, please introduce yourself and go ahead. Thank you and good afternoon. Sorry, could you turn on your microphone? It's at the neck of the microphone. There you go. Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Commander Drew Odeman with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding the proposed amendments to HB 26-1123. We are here in support of further amendment to this bill, not opposition. I'd like to be clear, our agency supports the spirit of this bill, and we appreciate all the work and compromise achieved thus far. We support the safe, professional, and respectful treatment of every person in our custody, and we already operate under strict policies designed to protect the dignity of inmates in our care. To respect and maintain that dignity, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office does not record strip searches using body-worn cameras or fixed surveillance camera systems, unless required by body-worn camera statute. And we do not wish to begin doing so. That said, there is a provision in this bill that raises some operational concerns. We are asking that the two independent determination requirement apply only to discretionary incident strip searches and not to routine protocol searches These routine searches are performed following events where the risk of introduction of weapons or controlled substances to the facility is well established. These events include when inmates return from work assignments, where they have access to hazardous tools and materials, and when they return from being in contact with the public. such as during visits or court appearances. Importantly, intake has already rightly been exempted from this two-staff requirement. The same logic should apply to other protocol-driven situations that present a similar risk profile. We have clear standardized procedures and expectations for when these routine searches occur. They are performed consistently and impartially due to the risk profile of the event the search follows. The conducting of these searches is not discretionary, and the events for which they are required are dictated by policy. Searching individuals following these events is a routine, industry standard, and risk-based practice. We do not object to requiring two staff members to make an independent determination in incident-specific situations where a strip search is based on individualized suspicion. While our deputies are trained professionals who already apply a reasonable belief standard when discretion is permitted, this two-person requirement is still an appropriate and reasonable safeguard. However, applying that same requirement to routine protocol-driven searches adds redundancy without increasing safety. In practice, it will create delays during high activity periods and divert staff from other critical functions. When applied to these routine searches, requiring a second independent determination will not improve safety or preventive use. It will only reduce efficiency. In closing, we share the legislature's commitment to preventing abuse and protecting the dignity of individuals in our custody and care. That said, we are asking for a narrowly tailored adjustment so that this requirement does not apply to routine policy-mandated searches following events with an established risk profile where staff have no discretion. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay, online, Megan Danitz, please go ahead. we can't hear you um we'll go to jeff goats gates while we figure out miss dan let's go ahead hello can you hear me yes uh good afternoon mr chair members of the committee my name is jeff Getz. I'm the division chief for the Boulder County Jail with over 36 years of jail experience. This current bill provides, or proposed bill, covers several topics. I will address issues regarding the strip search portion from an amend position. The current vision of this bill states strip searches can only occur within two circumstances. Both are around the intake of new arrestees. This current bill contradicts Colorado State statute 16.3405, which is strip searches when authorized or prohibited. State statute states no person arrested for traffic or petty offense shall be strip searched prior to arraignment unless there is reasonable belief that the individual is concealing a weapon or controlled substance. This current vision of House Bill 26-11-23 states this new House bill will require that the reasonable belief standard to conduct a strip search apply to all arrests, not just arrests of an individual for a traffic or petty offense. This House bill implies jails no longer have the authority to strip search inmates returning from work details, regardless of if they are within the confines of the jail or assigned to outside work details. Without the ability to apply strip searches to this clientele, inmates will bring contraband that could seriously injure jail staff or other inmates. I believe the majority of jails in Colorado have inmate worker contracts or trustee contracts, which the inmate signs and agrees to the fact that they will or could be strip searched upon their return from work or work assignment. This House bill contradicts CRS 163406 as it has eliminated the wording from a previous version of this current bill. What was removed in the previous section is subsections 1 to 6 of CRS 163406 within section 2. It states this shall not apply when following the arraignment and pursuant to a court order the person is taken into custody or remanded to the sheriff or correctional facility. Feel that this should be added back into this version on this House bill. The safety and security of jail facilities are paramount to the inmate population, jail staff, or any visitor that may be meeting with the inmate population. This is a standard that jails are held to in the court of law, and this House bill is currently written. The House bill will have the unintended effect of enabling inmates to get drugs into the jails and lead to deadly overdoses. Clearly, that's not the goal or intent of this House bill. I would also ask that before this bill moves forward, that House Bill 22-1063, which are the jail standards that went into effect, be compared to this House bill to assure that there aren't other jail standards that are being contradicted within this House bill. Thank you for your time, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. And then Megan Danitz, let's try again. My apologies. Can you hear me now? Yes. All right. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Megan Danitz and I'm the captain of detention operations for the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the County Sheriff's of Colorado, which is in an amend position on House Bill 1123. CESOC supports the goal behind preventing sexual abuse in jails. C-SOC's concern is that there is language in the bill that will make local detention facilities less safe and secure than they are now, which is why C-SOC is seeking amendments. Preliminarily, it is C-SOC's understanding an amendment is in progress to address the competing standards for conducting strip searches under Section 1 of the bill in what is already set out in Section 16-3-405, and we look forward to seeing that amendment. Surveillance cameras within jail settings are essential for upholding the highest standards of safety and security. These systems provide comprehensive, real-time monitoring of all areas, enabling prompt response to emergencies and facilitating the strategic redeployment of staff during critical incidents. The presence of surveillance enhances protection for individuals in custody, especially those who may be at risk if self-harm or pose a threat to others. Furthermore the ability to review footage is invaluable for post analysis helping us understand the circumstances surrounding significant events and continuously improve facility operations But these systems are relatively simple They do not create audit trails of who is watching what feed them and the current version of the bill would not allow their use as a result, which fundamentally undermines safety and security. We also can't feasibly use these systems if staff are required to obtain written authorization from the sheriff and complete documentation before every view. But under the bill, prior written authorization and documentation would be required because any strip searches conducted within the view of a surveillance camera can't be extracted from the feed or stored separately. Body-worn camera systems do allow for tracking who has viewed video footage, but BWC video of strip searches still cannot be stored separately from other BWC footage. access to specific videos can be restricted but it is still stored with other bwc videos and the use of bwcs cannot take the place of surveillance systems csoc urges the committee to consider amendments that accommodates these circumstances thank you and i'm happy to answer any questions all right thank you so much committee any questions for any of these witnesses Yes, Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Mr. Odomen, I believe is how you pronounce your name, you've also just told us. Sorry, I'm having a hard time with names today. What percent of searches are, for you all at least, are protocol versus discretionary? Commander. Thank you. The vast majority of our searches are protocol. I would say 90, 95% easily. Okay. Okay. Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if you heard my question in the very beginning where I had asked, does this increase the risk to law enforcement or lawsuits due to false allegations? I was just curious what your point of view was on this. Commander. We support accountability when it comes to abuse of these sort of surveillance mechanisms. As I said before, we take great pride in our treatment of the inmates that we have in our custody. I know there was some discussion about PREA earlier as well. We take PREA incredibly seriously. Our sheriff actually toured the country instructing on PREA standards. and additionally we testified to the DOJ a few years ago about how we implement PREA requirements at our facilities and received kudos for for the way in which we do that so I we are not opposed to additional accountability for abuse of these systems all right thank you all so much for your testimony and patience this afternoon Okay. Do we have Allegra Mangione or Joseph Bauman? And anybody else who's here to testify on the bill, please come forward. Good afternoon Whoever would like to begin please introduce yourself and then your testimony will start Is that working Yes Hi there My name is Allegra Mangione and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in favor of HB 261123 Preventing Sexual Abuse in Jails. I'm a constituent of Denver, and I've been a Denver resident for eight years. and I'm also a survivor of sexual violence and a volunteer with the Sexual Violence Prevention Association so I come here today both as a constituent and representing the organization. When I learned about the abuses in the La Plata Cotney Jail I was astounded. Incarcerated women are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Their entire lives are controlled by the state Thus, you all, our state legislators, have the responsibility to protect them. Passing 1123 is a necessary first step in accomplishing your duty to provide safety and prevent state sexual violence. As stated before, state sexual violence is when sexual harm is required, allowed, or ignored by people or systems that have power from the government. The women of La Plata being forcefully strip-searched and recorded is state-sanctioned sexual violence, and Commander Eber watching those forced recordings over 3,000 times for his own sexual gratification is state-tolerated sexual violence. 1123 will prevent state sexual violence across Colorado. It places stronger limits and oversights on strip searches. It restricts the recording and limits access to strip search footage while strengthening accountability and protections for those who report harm. As a Coloradan, I know that we can be a leader in this country by passing this legislation to prevent sexual violence against the most vulnerable people in our community. And so I urge the Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate body to swiftly pass 1123. Thank you. Thank you. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Mr. Jira and members of the committee. I'm Anastasia Cole, and I'm with the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. But today I'm going to be reading testimony on behalf of a survivor in Durango who was not able to get their Zoom link, so just wanted to have their statement read into the record. and their name is Sherelle Begay. I stand and agree with House Bill 1123 for multiple reasons. As a survivor, I am here today to stand up for women everywhere, not just those of us affected by what's happening here in Durango, Colorado. I vote for this bill to pass so that others don't have to suffer from mental and emotional disorders such as anxiety, depression, PTSD, shame, guilt, and feeling unsafe, all of which can and will lead to recidivism. It takes a lot of strength for me to be here in front of you all because of the injustices that I have experienced in the past. I ask, make a difference today so that women and our children don't have to experience this. This law must pass for abused women past, present, and future. I pray and hope that because of my experiences, no other woman will have to experience this so that your sister, your daughter, your niece, and your grandchildren don't experience this injustice. Thank you. Thank you so much. Committee, any questions for these witnesses? All right, seeing none, thank you all for your testimony. All right Is there any final call for witnesses Seeing none the witness testimony phase is closed Bill sponsors. I know you indicated previously that your intention is to lay this over to work on amendments. Do you have any comments before we do that? Senator Mobley.
Well, I just want to say thank you to everybody who came to testify. It is, I know, really hard to tell your personal story, especially about something so deeply personal as sexual violence. And so I really want to just shout out the people who came. And also just to reiterate, this isn't a bill about punishing law enforcement. This is a bill about putting guardrails around these processes and this situation that has been brought to light by the case that happened in Durango. So I hope you'll, you know, we're going to come back and we'll have a more fulsome closing comment, but I just hope you'll all keep an open mind about what it is we're actually trying to do here. So thank you.
Thank you. Senator Weissman.
Thank you. Yeah, before we lay over just a few things, a witness mentioned, you know, we have language would be set forth in Title 17 here about strip search standards, limitations, allowances. honestly as a second in Title 17 it was pointed out okay there's another section I don't look back at the introduced maybe on a regular basis when a bill is in front of us in the second chamber posture and I understand if other members don't either but if you did you might have noticed section one of the introduced actually impacted the very section in Title 16 that witnesses have spoken of There were perhaps various concerns from law enforcement stakeholders about that approach. It's why we landed on the approach that is now before the committee. It seems maybe there hasn't been a full meeting of the minds. But I wanted to note that history, and I do want to note we acknowledge that we shouldn't have two sections of law that both speak directive, in this case, to officials who run jails in the sheriff's office. And we will clear that up in some fashion when we come back in the amendment posture. Senator Zamora Wilson, to your point about sort of lawsuits or liability, I would just posit that that's part of what makes the whistleblower protection provision really important. Again, I don't think anybody wants to have to go bring a civil suit like we heard about because they didn't want it to happen to them in the first place. And, you know, civil litigation is essentially about money damages, and that doesn't really ever make anyone fully whole psychically for going through something like this. We know from Durango there were people who knew what was going on and knew that it wasn't right, but they have to pay their bills too and bluntly didn't want to get fired for speaking up because we didn't have a whistleblower statute squarely on point. So if we are concerned about sort of avoiding litigation exposure to sheriffs, deputies, counties, whatever, the public fisc, and we should be, among other things. That's another reason we want the whistleblower provision so that, you know, we talked about the couple of bad apples. There are good apples, too. We want them to be able to speak out that will prevent harm, that will prevent the litigation that can flow downstream from harm. I also thought back to something sitting here that former DOC director Dean Williams would say. Now, DOC doesn't run the county jails, but what's in common is these are carceral environments. He would try to say, look, just having been sentenced is the punishment. You're not at liberty in the world. You're here. The system has your freedom. you don't get to see people you care about. You're kind of an outcast from society and you're going to have a mark on your record unless you can access record sealing or something later and not everybody can. There's not supposed to be more punishment than that. There's not supposed to be grotesque violation of your person in a repeated way. A fortiori when 50 to 90% of people in a jail are there in a pretrial posture. So we will get to work resolving some of the details that have been spoken of. And lastly, and most importantly, to echo the note that Senator Mobile sounded, just thank you to everybody who has leaned into this as you heard It would have been eight hours each way driving For some folks it not a short trip to Rango to Denver This issue isn't just coming in here and talking about regulatory policy or some point of philosophy or how a bill might impact your bottom line. It's talking about some of the most awful stuff that a human being can experience. and it would be easier and probably more comfortable to not do that and come in here and be on the record. But again, that is the nature of survivorship to sort of end where I started is if you can get past the worst of the worst, now you're tapping into something in yourself that leads you to want to be part of driving change, and that's what 1123 is. We look forward to coming back to the committee soon. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. Weissman, and thanks to you both and everybody that came to testify. With that, House Bill 1123 will lay over for action at a future time. And seeing no further business, the Judiciary Committee is adjourned.