Senate Judiciary [Mar 16, 2026]

Good afternoon, everyone. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order on Monday, the 16th of March. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.

Mr. Chair. Present.

all right thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee my name is Brandy Harper and I serve as the deputy administrator for the juvenile parole board The Juvenile Parole Board was established by statute and is responsible for granting, denying, deferring, suspending, revoking, specifying, and modifying the conditions of parole for all juveniles adjudicated to the Colorado Department of Human Services. The board is composed of nine members who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Four members represent state agencies, including the Department of Education, Human Services, Labor and Employment, and Public Safety. The remaining five members are public representatives not employed by the state, one of whom resides on the Western Slope. It's my privilege to be here today to introduce Tiffany Palom-Webb, for reappointment to the Juvenile Parole Board. Tiffany is a citizen member residing in Denver, Colorado. She has served on the board since 2024 and was recently elected vice chair. Thank you.

Well, I'm just really happy to be here. I have loved the past year and a half on the board. I'm thrilled to be vice chair of the board now. I just really love getting to know the youth and their teams and verifying that the youth who are up for early parole have really made a bunch of progress towards rehabilitation and specifically that all youth leave commitment facilities with a plan both in their best interest and in the best interest of society. So thank you very much for considering me today, and I really wish to continue.

Ma'am, I think I just had one very philosophic one. When somebody is up in front of you looking for, let's just say, a favorable disposition, grants of parole modification maybe in a more relaxed way What are you hoping to see in that young person

I appreciate that. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, Mr. Vice Chair for a motion.

Proper motion. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.

Mr. Chair. Aye. All right. Seven to zero. Mr. West-Chair.

Seeing no objection, we'll be on the consent calendar. Thank you, and I appreciate your willingness to keep serving the people of Colorado in this way.

All right. Moving right along, the first bill that we will take up is House Bill 1009. We will give Senator Wallace a moment to go around to the other side of the table. And I have... We may need to be in a recess in order for Senator Pelton to be able to join us.

Judiciary Committee will come back. We thank Senator Pelton for joining us. And Senator, I believe you are also the first build up in education. So if you would like to make opening statements and deal with any questions, understand you'll need to go back upstairs. But with that, whoever would like to begin opening comments for 2009.

Senator Wallace Thank you Mr Chair and thank you as well to my co I love working together on this bipartisan common sense legislation As was mentioned we happy to bring House Bill 261009 forward and to help promote policy that is grounded in evidence centered on survivors and dedicated to prevention. Research tells us that domestic violence homicides often follow clear warning signs, as my co-prime just pointed out. This bill ensures that when law enforcement is present, a proven method is in place to identify these high-risk situations and connect survivors immediately to confidential support and safety planning. This approach isn't new for my community. Boulder, along with the entire 20th Judicial District, already use this assessment as common practice. And this legislation is about expanding an already successful response so survivors throughout Colorado receive similar coordinated evidence-based intervention. Simply put, a survivor's access to strong support should not be determined by their zip code. What stands out most to me about this bill is its commitment to survivor safety without compromising survivor autonomy. The lap is voluntary and puts survivors at the center. They may choose whether to complete the screening or speak with an advocate. Most crucially, support is offered during moments of crisis, not delayed when the opportunity may slip away. This model connects survivors directly to confidential community-based domestic violence advocates through 24-7 hotlines or other similar services, recognizing that emergencies rarely occur simply within business hours. And since domestic violence, sexual assault, and other gendered and family violence are rooted in power and control, giving victims a choice, a voice, and an advocate to help them at these critical moments will mean a restoration of power for survivors. Finally, this bill emphasizes critical accountability. As was mentioned, it tasks the Attorney General, partnered with a Colorado-based domestic violence survivor coalition, with developing training for police officers. Statewide reporting then becomes mandatory in January 2028, covering incidents, assessments, high-risk cases, and referrals. And then by 2030, the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board will evaluate the law's impact and report findings to us, the legislature. We're not simply setting a standard. We are measuring its effectiveness and pledging ongoing improvement based on outcomes. And we desperately need this in our state where we're seeing growing domestic violence deaths. Lethality screenings add just another layer of safety, a research-driven, evidence-based measure that helps pinpoint high-risk survivors and quickly link them to resources. In Colorado, agencies familiar with this protocol can attest, as we will hear today, that it improves risk detection and response coordination and provides quicker access to vital services when timing matters most. With that, thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to the conversation.

Senator Wallace. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a fair question and one that I'm open to folks, witnesses who are on the ground and administer this. If I'm understanding your question correctly, are you asking us to identify what those situations might be? yeah I'm not sure that I have a great answer for you though I will just say that I think the chaos of those particular situations can be difficult right and so it you know I think that there's it's a clause that's in there so it's not you know we're giving folks some space for a chaotic situation but also we'll hear folks from the 20th judicial and others today who will be able to speak to what this looks like on the ground. Thank you.

Sure. Okay.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name is Gabriela Duran, and I'm here to testify my opposition to HB 26-1009. based on my own personal DV experience and professional DV interaction working with women in transitional housing who were DV victims. Then for an NGO where victims were referred to me by police department advocates for victim services. Post my DV experience, I would prefer for myself and suggest to someone in need of having an advocate choose the police department advocate over an NGO advocate, mainly because of the direct authority and immediate access to the legal system that police department advocates already have During my DV experience a police department advocate reached out immediately That person was professional, compassionate, knowledgeable, and available. And if I recall, 24-7 through the police department, available. And there was a source to communicate if that person was not. A few days later, an advocate from an NGO reached out to offer emotional support and community resources. In my initial interaction and four subsequent conversations, I found that person lacked good personal boundaries, was limited in accessibility to legal information I needed from the police department, and had limited communication availability due to their work hours. I made the right decision to stay with the police department advocate. I experienced high-level accountability and official documentation from the police department advocates. The police department advocate worked closely with the officer and investigator, ensuring my case moved forward efficiently, quickly connected me with the right people in the criminal justice system, provided updates on the investigation, and assisted me with coordinating reports, protection orders, court processing, and for each and victim's services resources. I can't express enough the support from an advocate within the police department who is part of the same system handling the case, made communication efficient, more readily accessible, and more transparent. My concerns and safety risks for my child and I were taken seriously and documented with the official process. Again, this was imperative for me dealing with restraining orders, threatening abuser, and the judicial system. Later, in a professional capacity working for NGOs, I found the most consistent resources for multi-trauma victims was not NGO advocates, but the initial police department advocate assigned because they were a better position to navigate the legal and procedural aspects of a case and advocate for safety within the judicial system itself. For someone who wants their case handled efficiently and with direct access to law enforcement resources, that kind of advocacy can feel more practical and reassuring. I respect the work NGOs do and recognize that many people benefit from their services. However, NGO advocates are not equipped and lack resources for stronger integration with the official investigative process. Last, I'm a taxpayer. This process is already in place within the police department to provide advocates that taxpayers fund, whether it's metro or rural. There are circumstances where NGOs are involved, and that is a relationship in rural areas that they maintain. Every facet of accountability is upheld in the process of serving victims at every level. NGOs require funding from grants and government sources which come from taxpayers. NGOs are not accountable to taxpayers. I've experienced firsthand the salary paid to NGO executives, which is more substantial than public servant wages. While services to victims are scaled back, our victims have to meet higher criteria. My question is, who seeks to gain the most from this bill? surely to me it's not the victims of Colorado. Thank you.

I may not be against. I think I'm more in the modify, so I don't know if you want me to speak now.

My name is Linda Bloom. I'm a citizen, and I support the intent of the bill, but I am very concerned about how it's going to be implemented with some of the language. When I first read this, I looked at the word community, and I felt that all victim advocates were part of the community. And then, as I've soon realized, there are two different ideas of what community is. and the law enforcement VAs are not part of the community that is indicated in this bill. I feel that when this bill is implemented, we are going to have duplication of effort. From my knowledge of victim advocates, they are on the scene quite readily, and they are brought in in many times very traumatic situations. And I can see that if it were a severe situation, that there's also going to be a second person brought in that may not be necessary because the other person is already there. And so are we going to have confusion because we have two advocates from different perspectives actually dealing with the same person. So I think this could be remedied with a change in language and either eliminate community or also indicate that it could be either type of VA that's called in.

Good afternoon. My name is Deb Oster, and I'm a Colorado resident, and I'm opposed to this bill. I'm familiar with the victim advocacy world and have been volunteering as a community service provider for more than 20 years. I don't understand why this bill, we need a bill like this. To me, it seems like it's just creating a mandate for a nonprofit advocate to come to a scene when there is already a law enforcement advocate there. The law enforcement victim advocate is background checked, just like a police officer, and are trained to utilize all other community resources and services. It's not just one that comes to the crime scene. Who is this for? It doesn't seem like it's for the victim, but it's for the nonprofit organization. Once you create a mandate when they need to ask for more money to meet these new mandate needs, victims are very vulnerable and have needs for safety and protection. They have financial needs, transportation needs, and basic needs. Law enforcement advocates will work with all these agencies who help meet all the victims to keep them informed in the court process and hearing. It seems to me that telling a victim that the need to work with a community-based advocate when they already have law enforcement advocates is very complicated for the victim. Victims should have the right to choose who they want to work with. If the victim does not want to work with the law enforcement advocate, they are still giving all the resources to reach out to a community-based advocate and other support services like Family Justice Center and legal services.

My name is Andrea Bradbury, and I planned for three minutes, so I'm going to talk really, really fast and try to get it all in. I'm a graduate of FBI Victim Assistance Academy, and I hold a Master's of Public Safety from UVA. I'm here testifying on my own behalf and in my individual capacity. As a point of reference, I do currently sit on the Domestic Violence Offender Management Board. and was just reconfirmed for my second four-year term. I'm here today in an amend position for House Bill 261009. Let me be clear about one thing. I love LAP. I think it's an incredible assessment tool. Sheriff Attorney Spiller-Ark implemented the use of LAP at the Douglas County Sheriff's Office around 2015. I worked in the Douglas County Victim Assistance Unit from 2017 until 2023. and I supervised that unit for the last two years I was there. And just because I haven't heard anyone mention in either of the hearings, I want to point out that when I was in Douglas, our amazing judicial bench used this as a tool for additional safety information in FAC when making their bond decisions. I want to point out to you that a simple language change was made after the bill was introduced, and this is why I chose an amend position. The original bill language simply read a victim advocate. The modification made was adding the word community in front of victim advocate, therefore changing the meaning in a law enforcement agency that already has an in-house victim assistance unit. Many larger agencies and some smaller ones already have assistance units. In-house advocates, whether they're paid or volunteer, they're on call 24-7, 365 days a year. A system-based advocate by law has a mandatory statutory obligation to uphold VRA. If an agency does not comply with VRA, they may be held accountable by the state and issued sanctions. As all of you are aware, funding to victim services over the last few years has been drastically reduced. The system-based staff advocates at an agency who has a victim assistance unit are already being paid to connect a victim to resources while they're holding their duty to victim rights. There are many other agencies in the 64 counties and 250-plus municipalities in the state of Colorado that maybe don't have an in-house, and that would be amazing. I ask you, I'm skipping through because I see my time, I urge the sponsors to change the language of this bill back to reflect if a law enforcement agency has its own VAU, then the law enforcement advocate will be responsible for connecting that victimization. to a community-based advocate that fits their needs. Thank you for your time.

Please go ahead. Okay, Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding House Bill 261009. My name is Jennifer Roger Flynn, and I'm currently the Victim Services Coordinator for the Lone Tree Police Department and have served as a law enforcement victim advocate in Douglas County for over 20 years. Douglas County law enforcement agencies have used the Lethality Assessment Program since 2016. In 2019, partners revised the process with guidance from the Division of Criminal Justice after concerns that victims were overwhelmed by multiple contacts following an incident. Officers now contact the on-call law enforcement-based advocate first to provide crisis support, explain available services and victim rights, and help victims understand their options. The initial contact helps stabilize the situation and allows victims to begin making informed decisions about next steps. If a victim screens into LAP, the advocate then coordinates consent-based follow-up with community partners. There is no doubt the LAP is a vital tool, identifying victims at high risk of serious harm or homicide and connecting them with support. The concern isn't the tool itself, it's how this bill directs its implementation. For agencies that already have law enforcement advocates available, we encourage consideration of the language that allows those advocates to provide the initial response and coordinate the connection to community-based partners when a victim screens into LAP. Many Colorado agencies already have system-based advocates available 24-7. This approach maintains the intent of their program by recognizing the systems already in place to serve victims across Colorado. The bill requires officers to contact a community-based advocate when a victim screens into lap. While well-intended, it bypasses existing law enforcement-based advocacy programs and may duplicate service, extend call times, overwhelm victims with multiple contacts during an already traumatic, chaotic event. There are also important statutory considerations. Law enforcement advocates help agencies meet their responsibilities under the Colorado Victim Rights Act, including providing required notifications and information about victim rights. While community partners provide critical service, the legal responsibility for ensuring those rights is met remains with the criminal justice agency. Having a system-based advocate involved early helps ensure those requirements are addressed promptly and effectively. When a victim screens into LAP, community-based advocates play an essential role, providing long-term confidential services that law enforcement advocates cannot. The key question is not whether they are involved, but when and how that connection happens with the victim's knowledge and consent. The goal is a coordinated response that provides the right support at the right time. We value our partnerships with community-based advocacy organizations and share the goal of ensuring victims receive the right support through a coordinated and victim-centered response. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kim Messina, and I'm the Victim Services Manager for the Brighton Office for Victim Assistance. Our program provides system-based victim services for the communities of Brighton, Commerce City, Fort Lupton, and Lock Bowie. I have worked in victim services for 35 years in both system-based and community-based organizations. I want to begin by being very clear that I support the Lethality Assessment. They are evidence-based tools that help officers identify victims at high risk and at serious harm. My concern is not the lethality assessment itself but the requirement for an immediate on connection to a community advocate In many metro jurisdictions including ours police departments already have system victim advocates embedded within their agency as part of an established and funded response system These advocates provide on-scene victim services under the Colorado Victims' Rights Act, and many jurisdictions operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days out of the year. In many ways, this infrastructure is already designed to accomplish exactly what this bill intends. Research from the National Institute of Justice, as well as the Department of Justice, shows that early personal contact with victim advocate increases not only satisfaction, trust in our system, and connection to services. That is why law enforcement agencies embedded advocates within to meet victims' needs during that time of the initial response. System-based advocates also connect victims with those community-based advocacy organizations, which provide critical long-term services, shelters, counseling, and ongoing support. These partnerships work really well together. However, requiring a second advocate introduced at the scene may unintentionally create confusion for victims already feeling overwhelmed, while also raising the capacity and funding challenges that we already face. The model may be helpful for rural communities with embedded victim services may not exist or readily available, but the metro jurisdictions have strong systems that are already in place and a one-size-fits-all requirement risks duplicating those services. My hope is that as the legislation moves forward, that there will be flexibility that honors what we're already working with victims and allowing system-based advocates and community-based advocates to continue to collaborate in providing clear, coordinated, trauma-informed support. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Am I? Thank you very much. My name is Drew Hogan. I appreciate the opportunity to address you this afternoon, and I concur with the statements from the women before me, but I'd like to bring something else to your attention. I am a domestic violence survivor myself. I have worked in the field of advocacy for the last 21 years. At first blush, this bill looks to be in favor of domestic violence victims. However, I urge you to understand the implications of what this brings to the victim's experience. This bill is a misallocation of safety accountability. The focus on the lethality assessment, which brings a lot of information to the law enforcement officer, the judge, and the criminal justice system, also begins to shift the burden of protection onto the victim. The lethality information should inform the judge, the officer, the criminal justice system, and of the offender's ability to bring harm to the victim. We have a system responsibility. The criminal justice system, specifically the judge, has the primary ability to enact immediate safety through protection orders and bond conditions. This is for the protection of the victim. The victim shouldn't be responsible for protecting him or herself. The lethality assessment is a valuable tool for the judge. this information belongs in the criminal justice system. This essentially is victim blaming, mandating that a victim participate in an assessment to prove lethality and then force them to work with a non-profit advocate. If a victim declines or does not score high enough the system may fail to provide the protection they are constitutionally entitled to Today the responding law enforcement officers and victim advocates in tandem will provide safety planning and access to all community resources, regardless of the assessment tool. So I am not opposed to the assessment tool. It's how the assessment tool is being used in bringing a nonprofit or a community-based advocate onto the scene in front of a law enforcement advocate creates a circumstance that is not trauma-informed. Survivors are in survival mode. Complex decision-making is difficult. Placing another community-based or nonprofit advocate on the scene with a law enforcement advocate essentially creates a dilemma for the victim. Who is she or he supposed to choose? This bill really acts in opposition of its own intent, It actually acts like the perpetrator in the crime, forcing the victim into situations where they have no control over things. We need to allow the victim to decide who they choose to work with. If the victim declines to work with a law enforcement victim advocate, they are very swiftly entered into the realm of a community justice advocate system. We recognize that all victims are safe to tell their story. and we're asking another advocate to come on scene for which our law enforcement officers can't just start blurting out everything to them. There has to be MOUs and all kinds of things in order for the law enforcement officer to present that information to the new community advocate that just came on scene. So it forces the victim into a situation where they must retell their story to a whole new partner or a person who they don't even intend to bring into their circumstance. This is really unfair to the victim and it really causes more trauma for the victim. So at first blush, this looks like it's in favor for the victim, but we're actually putting them through a system they didn't ask to be a number one and we're forcing them to tell their stories all over again to somebody that they didn't ask to come to the scene. And they have the right to decline services from any law enforcement advocate and they're not in the responsibility to even provide information to the law enforcement professional who's there on scene with them. I think it is not in favor of the victim.

Thank you for having us today. My name is Adam Agleston. I'm a system-based victims advocate in Northern Colorado. I come to amend to the removal of the community partner or the community advocate for a few reasons. Just logistically, we have a really good partnership with our community-based nonprofits that provide domestic violence shelter and support. But in the area that I serve, we represent about 2,500 square miles. And last year we had roughly 486 domestic violence victims. And the current capacity within our county of our community-based partners would not be able to cover our entire county with the resources they have. And so taking away the ability for system-based advocates to respond immediately and then put those victims in contact with the resources they need as well as we can, as quickly as we can, is important. Several times our community-based partners may not have the capacity or the space to help that particular domestic violence victim in that immediate time, and we're often having to find resources out of the county, out of the area, to find someone that can support that victim immediately in the days over and finding a safe space. So reducing or restricting the capacity of response and communication to simply community advocacies really does reduce the ability to respond to victims needs in real time and also helps inadvertently cause gaps where victims can fall through the cracks I encourage this bill. The bones of the bill is great, and I think there's a lot of positivity about it, but reducing or restricting to just community-based advocates really does reduce the ability to serve victims and help our communities. Finally, any time there's a mandate, I feel that there is a chance that we can take away the agency or the choices of victims. And a lot of times the part of domestic violence is lack of agency, choices, and self-determination. So making sure that we still provide the opportunities to the victims to make those decisions is paramount to making sure that we listen to the voices and lift them up. So my only recommendation would be to remove the community-based advocate portion of the bill.

No.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Ms. Rogers-Flynn from the Lone Tree Police Department. How do you work right now with the community advocates? I mean, what is the relationship there? I mean, it sounds like you have good resources in the police department, but this is kind of new to me how we've got two different groups here. So I don't know. What's the relationship?

Senator Carson, good for now?

All right, members, other questions? Seeing none, thank you all for being with us.

All right. Final call for anyone who wanted to testify either against or amend, but hasn't had the chance to do so. Please come up. Okay, ma'am. And if you'll let us know your name and affiliation, if any, and please go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Members, questions for our witness? All right, no questions? Thank you, ma'am. Okay, we will pivot to folks who signed up in a supportive position. I will call anyone who's indicated in person first so that you can go on with your day if you'd prefer not to stay after testifying. All right, David Carnes. Virginia Downing. Shanna Epler. And Angela Rodriguez. Okay, and Mr. Carnes, we'll start with you and then just move down the line. Please go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Ma'am, please go ahead.

Thank you, ma'am. Please go ahead.

Thank you, ma'am. At the end, please go ahead.

All right, ma'am. Thank you for sharing. Committee, are there questions for any of our witnesses?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. The answer is no. The survivor is able to decline the assessment at the beginning. They can stop at any time. They can decide that they don't want to participate in the phone call. What we're asking, and with the language of the shall make the phone call, is based on the officer needs to make the attempt. If the survivor declines, that can be noted. Additionally, the officer may also speak to the victim advocate and say, hey, this is the situation. The individual has declined to speak with you. Any safety planning tips that I might pass on? Anything that you'd like them to know about your services? So no, at no point is anyone forced to participate in any of the process.

Thank you for the question. Not all communities have a great relationship with law enforcement. For example, as a black woman, I wouldn't necessarily feel completely comfortable sharing everything with a law enforcement advocate when I know that all of that information can be shared with not only law enforcement officers, but also prosecution. so having that community based advocate is essential to be able to have that open communication where I would feel comfortable sharing any and everything that has occurred without the fear or the risk of this getting back to the person that has caused me harm or putting me at more risk and just having that open communication and I'll also mention that another thing that's helpful for survivors and victims of domestic violence just hearing those questions or even reading them is a realization of the danger that they're in. Just being able to see those questions. A lot of those questions aren't even things that the abuser could be arrested for, but they are high-risk lethality indicators. That is important that the public is aware of these indicators as well. I just wanted to say for me, it was more of, like she said,

That's good for now. Members, any other questions? There's one more thing I just want to flesh out. We're talking very closely around the edges of it. The idea of a community-based victim advocate and confidentiality. So on page three, we find what I've come to appreciate as a pretty common cross-reference here to CRS 1390-107-1K2. And that's not just a convenient place in the statute where a definition lives. it is in the evidence code and that section is captioned who may not testify without consent. And then the definition goes on to say that we're talking about folks who may work for a couple different organizations and does not include an advocate employed by any law enforcement agency. So I'll put a leading question and I guess I'll invite anybody to speak to it. the architecture of the statute means that anybody listed, and there's a bunch of other ones, we want there to be robust testimony in court, but public policy also acknowledges various folks who shouldn't be able to be examined. Doctor privilege, marital privilege, this is another one of them, because policy in the past, and this section's been on the books as long as I've been around, has come to value this connection between the community-based advocate and the survivor of DV. So I understand this section to be saying a community-based advocate cannot be called and made to testify in a court proceeding without consent of the person with whom he or she spoke. However, this definition, 1K Roman II, does not apply to that system-employed advocate so that if that person is called he or she can be made to testify The requirement of permission from the person spoken to on the scene the survivor, isn't there because the statute doesn't put it there. Comma isn't that right. Or tell me if it's wrong. Mr. Carnes.

Thank you for that. All right, members, any other questions? Okay, thank you all for testifying. All right, we'll call another panel of folks who signed up in support, indicating in person, do we have Teddy McCullough? Heather Marcy. Pat Rothschaffer. All right, was there anyone else in person who wanted to testify in support? Yes, Representative Singer, please join us. Okay, and then we'll start. Okay, looks like we've got some folks online. All right, let's add others online, and we'll do one big panel. Can we please promote to the Zoom, Monica Snowbird. Great. I'll read a few more names. Do we have Aaron Myrent, M-Y-R-E-N-T? Okay. Okay. Ted D'Agostino Courtney Sutton and that exhausts this list. We'll do a final call but we'll proceed this way for now. Representative I'll pick on you first.

Thank you. So we'll invite everyone in the room to testify, then we'll go online, then we'll open up to questions for everybody at the end.

Moving to a standardized evidence-based tool to assess the risk of lethality across the state would help to ensure that victims and survivors in high-risk circumstances have the opportunity to be connected with a confidential victim advocate. In fatality review work, we talk about the three C's, communication, coordination, and collaboration, and what was the degree of coordination between those systems. That connection gives victims access not only to risk assessment, but to safety planning resources and coordinated support during some of the most dangerous and critical moments. By identifying risk earlier and connecting survivors to support sooner, we create real opportunities to prevent domestic violence fatalities so that we aren't left picking up the pieces in the future asking how did we get here and how could this have been prevented. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. My name is Pat Rotschafer and my words today are my own. On May 30, 2003, my daughter Christy and her boyfriend Oh, excuse me.

I thought I'd manage. They were driving around town. It was a Friday night, and this was apparently a usual thing for them. That night they were having quite an argument, and the driver was concerned and called law enforcement. Sheriffs came out and talked with them. They separated them, they talked to them. And both of them said, I don't want to press charges. which tells me there was evidence of something. And the sheriffs said, okay, all right, go on your way. Be done. Don't do this again. And later that night, they went to the boyfriend's house. Later that night, of course, the argument continued. And he got angry, and he pulled out his gun, and he shot her. And when he realized what he'd done, he shot himself. Two young adults dead because the sheriffs didn do anything except listen to them a little bit and let them go on their way Had something like this bill proposed has been in effect that night my daughter might be alive today She might have at least survived that night. This is one of those unknowables. We have no idea. Everytown for Gun Safety has research that indicates that in a domestic abuse situation, a woman is five times more likely to die if there is a gun handy. And that is one of the questions on the assessment. In my opinion, this bill doesn't go far enough, but it is a good start. Let's do something to protect our society and to protect the women in our society. Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee. My name is Monica Snowbird. I'm the program director for the Sweetgrass Advocacy Program in Colorado Springs. For over eight years, we've provided culturally-centered advocacy for Native survivors of domestic violence. We also say that Sweetgrass works as MMIR prevention. I am one of the co-founders of the MMIR Task Force, so most of my waking hours are responding to violence against Native people here in the Pikes Peak region. Four out of five of Native people will experience violence in their lifetime. more than half of our Native women will experience domestic violence and the majority of the women represented on the MMIR databases across the country have documented histories of abuse prior to going missing or being killed. Strengthening how law enforcement identifies the lethality risk could keep our people off of the MMIR list. Native survivors tend to have fewer resources than other populations. In Colorado we are the only direct service response for the Native off-reservation community. And so they're less likely to receive formal support. So connecting a person immediately to an advocate means survivors don't fall through the cracks. We work hand-in-hand with our local police advocacy department very regularly. We receive referrals from them. There are very different types of advocacy, as you've heard from other panelists today, so I don't want to take up time for that. But because we are a confidential program and a culturally centered program, people will share things with us that they won't share with CSPD advocates, yet we still refer them back to CSPD. This bill doesn't change the fact that any victim of a crime is going to still be able to have access to CSPD advocacy. Law enforcement arrives here, I think they have three days of training within the police academy. Even a volunteer advocate has to have at least 40 hours within the state of Colorado. So when they arrive, it's common for the person that's causing harm to appear composed, rational, and cooperative. The victim, meanwhile, might be crying, shaking, confused, or struggling to recall events in a clear chronological order. Trauma disrupts the memory recall and speech, which is a neurological response, not deception. Without a standardized assessment tool, officers may rely on presentation, and an abuser may seem to be credible in the moment due to power and control tactics. A lethality assessment asks specific research-based questions about escalating behavior. These indicators are far more predictive of homicide risk than just the demeanor. And so requiring this doesn't just mean better data on how domestic violence is high risk and how referrals are happening. This also could influence saving people's lives. So we've already talked about how this is already working in 44 jurisdictions, so let's take it across the state. We encourage you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and the Committee. My name is Courtney Sutton, and I'm the Public policy director for COVA, the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, and we fully support HB 2610-09. I would like to thank the sponsors for bringing this bill and all the survivors that have shared their experience today. The Lethality Assessment Protocol assists law enforcement and victims of domestic violence to identify high risk for homicide. If a victim screens as high risk, they are connected with a community-based advocate by phone, and this is a warm referral and short phone call focused on safety planning and giving resources for the victim with a confidential victim advocate. That confidential victim advocate is a key part of the implementation and research finds 35 to 45 percent reduction in intimate partner homicide. Advocates, both systems and community-based, play a vital role in safety planning and educating victims on their risk and resources. This policy does not alter the duties of a system-based advocate, and we must recognize that victim services is a violence disruptor and a homicide prevention tool. My next statements are from a domestic violence survivor. Had something like this been in place, I would have reported the abuse sooner than ending up in the hospital after a beating I sustained by my former spouse. I was reluctant to report due to the easy accessibility of guns in our home and for fear of retaliation. My life prior to that beating was filled with financial abuse, sleep deprivation, and he was very jealous, texting and calling me all day causing problems at my job. From the beating, I now have a TBI and PTSD. I've had many surgeries and complications since that event. A huge fear of reporting was that he would come back extremely upset and lash out as he did over those days. And yes, days. I was held against my will and denied medical attention until I was able to escape. No one should ever have to experience fear of reporting, and the lab would help those being abused to get away before getting severely injured or even killed. Looking at the assessment, the only questions I would have answered no to are 8 through 10 and I'm very lucky to be alive. I believe that this assessment and early intervention for victims will save many lives. I urge you to vote yes and support HB 26-1009. Colorado needs to take a significant action to end domestic violence fatalities. Okay, thank you and please

chair and members of the committee. My name is Heather Marcy and I'm the executive director of the Safe House Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence in Boulder. SPAN has served victims and survivors across the state for decades providing shelter, advocacy for kids, parents, and their pets who are fleeing interpersonal violence. And I'm here today sharing my professional knowledge and experience in my personal capacity. I strongly urge you to support HB 26-1009. Boulder County has 100% participation in the LAP and had no DV fatalities in 2025. The LAP is an evidence-based tool that helps slow down time and space after a DV incident to assess the risk of lethality and provide survivors with connection to other ongoing and sometimes life-saving services. By having law enforcement screened for lethality, utilizing an evidence-based tool, and immediate at connecting high-risk individuals with trained advocates during those most dangerous times means that we can change outcomes for victims and survivors in Colorado A couple of points just to reiterate based upon what I heard today The LAP is a partnership and we work very closely with law enforcement, our DA's office, victim advocates, and we've been participating in a unified response for several years. Victims and survivors are not mandated to participate in the LAP or speak with community advocates. It's just about providing services in those critical moments, and our advocates do not provide on-scene response. Finally, this bill recognizes that we cannot fix what we do not measure. Through reporting requirements under the SMART Act and a 2030 evaluation, it provides the accountability needed to see where systems are working and where we have more work to do. HB 26-1009 is not just a procedural change, it's a life-saving intervention. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee members. My name is Erin Myrant. I'm a board member of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, which I'm representing today in support of 1009. The Women's Lobby is a coalition of individual and organizational members advocating for gender equity and policies that positively impact women and families. Why is this bill so important for domestic violence victims? Victims are frequently isolated from friends and family and have been torn down emotionally long before the first time the police are ever called. Victims are repeatedly told the abuse is their fault and eventually believe that lie because no one else is in their lives to tell them it's not true, that they don't deserve to be abused and don't cause their abuse. The first opportunity they may have to hear that the abuse is not their fault and that they have options for leaving their abuser safely is when they speak to a victim advocate. All abuse victims are in danger, but some victims are at higher risk than others. The assessment mandated in this bill in these high-risk cases facilitates an immediate connection to an advocate who deeply understands DV and can help begin the transformation from victim to survivor. This bill is one important step in identifying which victims need immediate help from an advocate and in getting victims to safety and preventing deaths. In 2024, 38 victims were murdered by their abusers and eight children were murdered by their abusers, and we find this to be unacceptable. I urge you to vote yes on 1009 and on any amendments offered by the sponsors.

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Teddy McCullough. I'm an enrolled citizen of the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians and a Denver resident. I'm also here today as one of the co-founders of the Colorado Intertribal Policy Alliance in support of this bill. I'm also here because this bill is personal to me. My mom survived years of brutal physical and emotional abuse at the hands of my biological father. He controlled everything, where she went, who she talked to, what she ate. We lived hundreds of miles away from her family, and she was allowed one monitored phone call a month to her mom. He kept us completely isolated. My grandma was, of course, worried, so she called the police and asked them for a welfare check. The police came but my mom was coached on exactly what to say and threatened if she strayed She would stand at the door and tell them she was fine even though she was wearing a long turtleneck in 90 heat had sunglasses on inside and yet no one separated them. No one pulled her aside and asked her anything without him standing right there listening, and they took her answers at face value and left. The violence continued to escalate over time, and my mom believed that if she absorbed it, I would be safe. One day in a rage, he shoved me and my crib over and across the room and made her leave me crying on the floor. That night while he slept, she picked me up, walked out the door, went to the police, and never went back. It was January 2nd, 1994. and my mom and I still celebrate that day every year. We call it Freedom Day. I've told her my whole life that it was the day she found the strength to save my life and recently she told me I had it backwards. From where she stood, January 2nd was the day I saved hers. My grandma had eight welfare checks done in a one-year period. Each were a chance for someone to step in, and a lethality assessment might have changed the outcome on any one of those eight checks. My mom shouldn't have had to wait until her child was thrown across a room to find a way out, and if she hadn't found the strength to leave that night, there is a very real chance that neither of us would be here today. Native women face domestic violence at rates higher than any other population in this country. Many of them are living in situations with the same layers of isolation my mom faced. And when law enforcement shows up, those visits are often the only opening

Senator Wallace, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

with FAN as a high schooler doing peer education on gender violence issues. So I'm grateful for all of your work, both in terms of response, but also prevention, which doesn't get nearly enough attention. It was surfaced earlier that there might be cases of knowing community advocates and survivors wanting to avoid knowing community advocates, which in small towns, I imagine, is probably a consideration. Can you tell us more about what we do either in SPAN, in Mason, Boulder, or just generally in the 20th Judicial District as you all implement the LAP, how you would navigate that.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, Boulder's absolutely a smaller community. So in cases where that happens, we have either multiple advocates that somebody can work with or we can refer back to our colleagues that provide victim services as well. And sometimes that is what has to happen just because of the small community, right? So I think part of this work is creating those relationships and that takes time as well And we all have different sizes of community but it really becomes the conversation and sitting down together and working through if X Y or Z happens what our alternative response

Okay, Ms. Sutton, I think I had two pretty quick questions for you. First, just to clarify testimony, COVA, the organization through its internal processes, has collectively voted to support this bill now, presently. Is that correct?

Okay, thank you. Second question, you alluded in the opening part of your comments to a 30 to 45% reduction in IPV homicide if, and I just wasn't sure what the second half of that fact was.

there. Wow, okay, so not more narrowly than that, but we can sort of measure jurisdictions that have implemented this, for example, through a bill like this one against those that haven't,

seeing none. Thank you all for testifying with us. Thank you for being with us online. All right. Last call for witnesses. Any position who've not had a chance to testify? Confirming nobody on the Zoom? Okay. It looks like maybe two more folks. Okay, so you are showing up as just Teddy. Let us know your name and affiliation, if any, and please proceed. Thank you.

our relatives who truly need this advocacy the most. Thank you. All right, sir. Thank you. Members, questions for our witness? Seeing no questions, thank you for taking the time to testify today. Okay, one more call. Anyone else in the room? Was that the last witness online? Okay, we will close the witness phase.

Why don't we do... Okay, we'll be in a senatorial five. Thank you. Thank you. Okay we come back to order So Senator Pelton is detained in the Education Committee for that reason

Senator Wallace, we're through the amendment phase. Do you have amendments for our 1009?

Committee, amendments to HB 1009. Seeing none, amendment phase is closed. Any wrap-up comments, Senator Wallace?

I vote. All right. Thank you. Members, any closing comments? Senator Zamora Wilson.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, Senator Wallace,

Members, any other closing comments? Senator Zamora Wilson, then Senator Carson.

Reminding everyone that we are in closing comments, I'll invite Senator Wallace to reply.

Senator Carson.

Senator Wallace.

closing comments um senator wallace just briefly i appreciate the bill i think the data are pretty

The motion is yours. Unfortunately, it needs to be made to appropriations.

All right. Proper motion, Ms. Jensen.

Yes. Doherty. Yes. Henriksen. Yes.

Roberts. Aye.

We'll give him a sec to come around to the other side of the table.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. House Bill 1185 is a sunset bill. This bill would continue the cold case task force within our state government for 13 years until 2039 per the DORA recommendation. It also makes a few other minor changes. One is it changes the review type when this comes back up for sunset from a Title 24 review, which is a more intensive review by DORA, to a Title 2 review, which is less intensive and typically done for advisory committees such as this. And then it also gives the executive director the ability to appoint a few more members to the task force to help based on emerging technologies and evidentiary practices that they may want to engage technical experts or people with certain expertise in order to help engage and support the task force. Cold cases, by definition, are homicide cases that have been, that are over three years old from the date of the offense that have not yet been solved. This task force has been around for a couple decades now. and does not cost the state any money, as you'll see in the fiscal notes. So this is strongly supported and utilized by law enforcement and can be a helpful advisory group to assist in some of these very challenging investigations.

thank you thank you committee members I want to speak in support of this legislation to continue the cold case task force the task force has been in existence since 2007 Although it's been 18 years, there's still much work to be done on these investigations for the state of Colorado. The Cold Case Task Force keeps cold cases around the state on our radar. These cases are listed in the Cold Case Database, which is maintained by the CBI. So I have some stats for you. Currently, there are 1,965 cases in the Cold Case Database. database today. A little more than 1,300 of them are homicide cases. And although the state's large, Denver has nearly half of those cases. So the task force really looks to help those agencies in rural Colorado work through those cases. Task force meetings really are a place to ensure communication with those who are working these important cases in our state. Really, it's an exciting time for cold case investigations around the state and the country as we talk about the emergence of forensic investigative genetic genealogy, which is allowing us to bring answers to cases that have been waiting for decades. The Cold Case Task Force allows us to communicate with updates about technology and breathe new life into some of these old and challenging cases. It's also a place for us to talk about the impacts of those new technologies by way of investigation and by way of the first introduction into those courtrooms. Thank you for the confidence that you have in the group in the Department of Public Safety to continue this. We hope it will go for the next 13 years, and then allowing the Department of Public Safety to appoint new members with relevant experience to move these cases forward Thank you so much Thank you Ms Snowbird please go ahead Hello again Right now, I am testifying on behalf of the MMIR Task Force of Colorado. We are a grassroots organization dedicated to addressing the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous relatives in Colorado through advocacy, info-sharing, and policy development. Our task force has a member that was recently appointed to the Cold Case Task Force, precisely because of longstanding investigative focus and data sharing are essential to justice. We work very closely with Audrey, and we love her and respect her and the other people in her office. Extending this task force not only acknowledges the systematic changes in solving cold cases, but also ensures that families from Indigenous communities, which are disproportionately impacted by violence and disappearance, have continued hope for answers and accountability. We strongly support House Bill 1185, which extends the Cold Case Task Force for families impacted by MMIR cases. The work that the Cold Case Task Force is doing is critical. Our task force is currently tracking approximately 50 of the unsolved homicides and missing relatives in the state of the approximately 1900 that Audrey said that they were tacking in the cold case task force The cases could easily be forgotten without dedicated resources collaboration across jurisdictions and sustained investigation attention The cold face, the cold, there's too much testimony today, I can't talk. The cold case task force enhances interagency cooperation, brings specialized expertise to complex investigations, and provides continuity where cases would otherwise fall through the cracks. And for those reasons, we strongly support that the committee passes House Bill 1185 today, and this extension strengthens Colorado's commitment to victims, families, and communities seeking justice in cases that have remained unsolved for far too long. Thank you.

I move House Bill 1185 to the Committee of the Whole.

Senators Carson.

Doherty.

Conrickson.

Wallace.

Zamora Wilson.

Roberts.

Mr. Chair.

There's no objection, Mr. Chair. I would request that this be placed on the consent calendar.