March 17, 2026 · Judiciary · 72,847 words · 23 speakers · 494 segments
All right, the committee will come to order. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.
You ready? Representatives Bacon.
Here.
Clifford.
Here.
Espinosa.
Present.
Flannell.
Here.
Garcia.
Here.
Kelty.
Here.
Slaw.
Here.
Soper.
Here.
Zokai.
Excused.
Carter.
Present.
Mr. Chair.
Here. All right. As I announced on the House floor today, we're switching up the order a bit. We're going to hear House Bill 1276, Reps Velasco and Garcia, whoever would like to begin. Also, because of the amount of witnesses we have today, we're going to do two-minute testimony, 15-minute question panels. Whoever would like to begin. Rep. Velasco.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the Judiciary Committee. I am happy and excited to present House Bill 1276 with my co-prime, Rep. Garcia. And this is a much-needed continuation of the work that we began with, Senate Bill 276. But we know that this work has been done since 10 years ago. This is nothing new. But we believe that as we're seeing attacks on our communities, that it's important for Colorado to stand up and protect everyone that lives in our state. this bill was written in response to issues that we have seen with the implementation of 276 as well as growing concerns that we are seeing across colorado and the nation that includes the conditions in detention centers instances like mesa county sheriffs using signal to communicate with ice about a daca student and even our own governor complying with a non-judicial subpoena from ICE. In Colorado, we have made a commitment over the last several years that our laws protect the dignity, safety, and constitutional rights of all people in our state, no matter your zip code, no matter your immigration status, no matter the color of your skin. But right now, we are seeing an increasing level of fear and uncertainty in our communities, and this bill is a response to that. I stand before you as an immigrant from Mexico, the first in the legislature here in Colorado, and we are here standing not only for ourselves, but we carry the stories of our families across the state, across the Roaring Fork Valley, in my district, Petkin, Garfield, and Eagle Counties. Families who are working, raising kids, building lives, and contributing every single day to our communities. And I also carry and share the reality that many of those families are living in fear right now. We are seeing people hesitate to go to court or attend immigration appointments. Families worry that a loved one could be picked up at a work site or even the grocery store and not make it home. And communities are questioning whether public safety systems are there to protect them or to harm them. So with our bill we are expanding the current liability to follow our immigration laws to public employers We also looking at state transparency of federal requests for information because we believe that people should know when their information is being shared. We're also bolstering health and safety protections in our local county and private immigration detention centers. And this is in response to the stories that we have heard from community members dying in detention center to the deplorable conditions that they're experiencing at these detention centers, where they're not being fed, where children are being abused, and where they can't even sleep because the lights are never shut off. And we're also restricting the use of government-owned and contracted transportation services to be used for deportation. So I believe that we are at a time where we must end up against the Trump administration to protect our state. I urge your yes, Paul.
Keb Garcia.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, it is an exciting day to come and present this bill to all of you with our community advocates and community members here today to talk about why this is so needed. I think what we've seen in the last year, a blatant and extreme overreach of federal law, of ICE, immigration enforcement, making our communities much less safe, attacking citizens, unlawfully detaining and deporting individuals. and we need to put a stop to it. And the question is, how do we do that as a state? Well, 1276 is one of the ways that we can help to make sure that our communities are safer from this unlawful overreach of immigration enforcement. I want to just talk through a little bit briefly, again, just so that everyone's aware of what exactly we are trying to do in this bill. so we also have amendments that we're going to bring that are very important so I'm going to talk through the sections and the amendment that will come to the bill I think all of you should have the amendments with you the first section addresses task forces what we saw last year over a year ago in Adams County and since then is that local law enforcement would get brought up into a task force with the federal government that wasn't under the guise of immigration enforcement. However, the outcome ended up becoming immigration enforcement. So what we are saying in Section 1 is that there does need to be transparency when our local law enforcement is engaged in a task force or a multi-jurisdictional coordinated investigation at an appropriate time so that we can understand how our local law enforcement is being used. Section two is around the civil penalty for data privacy breaches. And we have an amendment that will address this section, and that is on L-001. And so we are clarifying that last year, if you remember, we said that any employee who intentionally violates provision of 74 or Section 252108.5 are subject to up to $50,000 in penalties for each violation. Now what we doing with the amendment L is we are clarifying when an employee can actually be held liable This came from individuals from some of our labor allies who wants to make sure that this doesn't open the door for willy-nilly anyone that is required to or forced to break the law out of their own volition, can also be held liable. This is strictly for those that choose to do so on their own. So that is what L-001, the first section of L-001 addresses. Section 3, we've seen and we've heard, as my co-prime Rep. Velasco mentioned in her opening, that there have been already violations of our initial law last year protecting personal identifying information. And so what we are saying here is that in order for the state to understand what is happening between our governments, whenever there is an unsealed subpoena, those subpoenas for information need to be made public after they have been executed. we are bringing an amendment to address that particular portion to say that it is unsealed because right now as written it could potentially result in a and that is l004 it could potentially result in a challenge with the federal government that we can't really tell a federal judge what to do and we'd have no intention of doing so so when a judge presents an unsealed subpoena we are then able to publish that according to this bill should it pass. What it also does is it says that, hey, if your information is turned over because of subpoena, you actually have a right to know. And so we are also saying now you need to go and tell the person if you're turning over their information that you turned over their information. Section 4 is when we are expanding on provisions that we have passed years back around using our local resources for purposes of federal immigration enforcement. This section, Section 4 and Section 5, address our local transportation authorities, so our buses, our trains, and our airports. We're bringing an amendment to Section 5 because one thing that we did not intend was to impact contracts between our airports and airlines. We don't want to touch any of that. The only thing that we are doing in House Bill 1276, and you'll see that in L001 as well, lines 18 through 21, that we are striking Section 5 sub 1, and we are replacing that with an amendment that clarifies that we are only prohibiting the use of our local municipal airports for the transportation of immigrants for immigration enforcement. That means that, let's say, if there is an airline that does engage with ICE to transport immigrants, they can go ahead and use a military base we have here to do so. They don't have to use our local resources, which we already have precedent to block that. and then section 6 and 7, section 6 is where we are making sure that when we do have detentions and as you all know that there are detentions popping up and wanting to pop up and there a lot of efforts to create new detention facilities but they have to do so in a way where people are kept healthy and safe So if you are going to have a detention facility then you are going to be subject to quarterly spontaneous health inspections to make sure that individuals who are detained are actually kept in humane conditions. We have seen and continue to see countless reports of detainees who die in custody of ICE because of not having access to health care, because the conditions aren't well, because of many different reasons. And so we need to make sure that if ICE is operating a detention facility in this state, that they are not putting people who are simply detained because of where they're from are at risk of health of death. We are also creating, giving the CDPHE the authority to be able to levy fines on facilities when they are found in violation of these regulations. I also want to be clear that who we are regulating here are contractors. These are not any sort of facilities that are directly operated by the federal government. This is what allows us to do so. So, and then after, I guess after that, that's pretty much it. That's basically the bill. Any questions?
Committee members, questions for our bill sponsors?
Rep Sopper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors. Wow, that's quite the list of things that the bill does. Certainly glad you have a broad bill title. I do want to look at the civil penalty side of $50,000 per incident or offense. And it's in several places within the bill. One is found on page six, but there's several other places in the bill where the $50,000 civil penalty is listed. And I just want to know a little bit more about your intent. Is the intent of this to be punitive for the actions of our law enforcement officers here in Colorado?
Thank you for the question, Representative Soper. No, this is what was already in place last year from 276. This was we created this penalty when any individual violates the protections of sharing personal identifying information. So that was even our state agencies, our local agencies, any employee that collects information that could be turned over to ICE. And if they turn it over to ICE without a judicially signed subpoena, then they are in violation. So this already exists. It already exists from 276. What we are doing in particularly in this bill is we are extending that liability just from the employee that violates to the employer. And we have an amendment to address that the employer. So, for example, let's say that let's say somebody in Boulder decides to turn over information and Boulder had already set up a training program. They train their employees on what it's necessary. Then they are not held liable. But if Boulder didn't train them on what the law is, and the employees still said, yeah, I see that these are five undocumented immigrants, I'm going to turn over their information to ICE, then the employee... and the employer are both held liable. So the $50,000 is not about penalizing law enforcement. It's about deterring the actions of the desire to break this law to support immigration from any sort of government entity.
Rebs Helbert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I appreciate hearing the history of that. I mean, certainly 50,000 for a civil infraction is still quite staggering, whether it was in last year's bill or this year's bill. Especially, do you know how much, like, the average law enforcement member makes in Colorado?
Rep Garcia. I don't.
Rep Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's certainly around $50,000. So it appears to be very punitive in nature if an individual were to lose an entire salary for what's laid out within this bill. And I certainly worry what could happen with our law enforcement and keeping members of Colorado safe as well if it has a chilling effect from people to actually go into the profession of law enforcement and what you would say to that.
Rep Velasco. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much, Rep Soper. So in the language of the bill, it does say that the fine must be not more than $50,000, and this is when the law is broken. So I think that what we are trying to do is deter people from breaking the law, And we have seen that law enforcement is enforcing the law. So they should be very well versed in any law that is passed here in the state.
Rob Garcia. Thank you. And the not more than $50,000 also offers judicial discretion based on the offense, based on could they actually pay it, could they afford it. So we were very clear that the $50,000 is the ceiling of what the civil penalty would be.
Further questions?
Rep Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair, sorry, I lost my question sheet. I guess my question is, How is the state going to enforce? Obviously, this is an anti-ICE bill, the way I read it. But I see it as, really, there's nothing you can do about ICE in the state of Colorado. So I see it as an anti-law enforcement bill, and it's putting a lot of lives of our law enforcement and their families in danger. That aside, how do you believe that this state law is going to enforce against federal agents who are operating under the supremacy clause?
Rep. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Representative Kelty, if you reread the bill, you'll see that 1276 does not actually, in fact, address ICE at all. We are not talking about the Immigration Enforcement Agency in any sense of the word. We are addressing what the state is doing. We are addressing when the state is able to go into check for wellness and well We are addressing when the state engages or when local communities engage in or don engage in transportation. So we are not telling ICE what they can and cannot do. We're also not addressing law enforcement in this bill. This is not an anti-law enforcement bill. This is a let's keep people in Colorado safe bill.
Rob Kelty. Well, I guess we're going to have to disagree on that one. because I have, reading between the lines, it has ICE written all over it. You know, and for me, you know, I worked with these agents, and I know how hard that they work to keep America safe. I just don't understand how you, what is the purpose? I mean, you say it's to keep people safe, transportation and that, but in the end, it's going to create unsafe conditions for our law enforcement. How do you plan on addressing that?
Rep. Garcia. Can you maybe go into detail, Representative Kelty, on how 1276 will make law enforcement unsafe?
Absolutely. Rep. Kelty. Absolutely. So on page three, line five, you took out in there, they had put in aggregated and broken down for the lists that they were to put together for Division of Criminal Justice report penalties, you're taking aggregated and broken down out. By doing that, that now goes backwards, and that actually creates the safety issues for the officers and their families, but being able to identify who they are.
Rep Garcia. Thank you. No, this does not identify individual law enforcement in any way, even disaggregated. the reason why it's disaggregated versus aggregated, this is when you say aggregated and broken down, in total and disaggregated is actually the same framing. And what we're asking for is like task force A happened here. This is what happened. Task force B happened here. This is what happened. We're not asking for, and there's nothing in here that says, and we want the names and addresses of every law enforcement officer.
Further questions?
Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for the sponsors. If you can help me either point to or if it's part of amendment, when a law enforcement agency is working in a task force, and that task force has either, I don't want to say legitimate, but a non-immigration enforcement related duty. Say it's a drug enforcement task force. That task force then, during the operation, it's being used with an outside agency or a federal agency. How does this bill affect that task force and how would those officers be affected if they were also doing some type of immigration enforcement or taking individuals in custody that had not only local state crimes, but also some type of immigration enforcement crimes?
Rep. Garcia. Thank you for the question, Representative Carter. So L005 clarifies when we talking about the task force agencies that the only reporting that we expecting is when the task force results in an immigration enforcement action So if it like for drug enforcement and people get arrested for that crime there no reason that they need to actually report any of that If in the example that you mentioned, the example that I gave that happened in Adams County, where it was a drug enforcement related task force, not a single person was actually charged with the crime. and all of them were actually deported and detained and lost, that is when we would actually say that is when it turns into that it has a result that is immigration enforcement action.
Vice Chair Carter? Nothing further.
Rob Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as you know, federal subpoenas issued under agencies like the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, are legally binding. How does requiring public posting and notification to the subject of a subpoena not interfere with active federal investigations or violate federal confidentiality standards?
Rob Garcia. I just again want to point you to L004 and this addresses that concern that we are only requiring the unsealed subpoenas to be publicized. Rep. Espinosa. May I dialogue, Mr. Chair?
You may dialogue.
Thank you. I'd like to start with the last question, well, not the last question, the question before last, which talked about the amendment which adds the results in an immigration enforcement action. the difficulty I'm having with this is there is no immigration enforcement action there may be an immigration consequence as a result of the task force it has nothing to do with initial task force so I'm just struggling with how that conversion is supposed to be determined and how any local local law enforcement officer because if we're looking at the state is supposed to be addressing that issue. Because if they are entering into the task force for the purpose of DEA, as you articulated in the Adams County, the consequence of what happens with the individuals who are picked up by virtue of their status doesn't convert that into an immigration enforcement action. So can you explain how, I guess, I'm concerned about the language not leading to the proper, the task force was never an immigration enforcement action. The consequent of the task force may be individuals picked up and processed through immigration, which is a very different issue. Can you explain to me your thought process or how, explain to me your thought process. Well, I think what you're saying, Representative Espinoza, is exactly our thought process. I really appreciate you engaging this because I think it makes sense then that we would go back and change the term action into consequence. I think one, which we're totally happy to do, I think one thing that comes up is if, for example, when Douglas County was engaged in the task force that came to Adams County, there was no there was actually no um justice had for the crimes that were committed in Adams County because there was no crimes uh there was no criminal charges filed and so that in essence turned it into um uh an operation for immigration enforcement enforcement But the federal government always has a determination of how they process individuals in a criminal proceeding So they can either choose to go with the criminal charges or they can choose to put someone in immigration. There's nothing we can do and the task force report does nothing to change that ability. We're not trying to change an ability. We're just trying to bring transparency to our communities so they know what's happening and where? Well, I mean, wouldn't they know what's happening, as you said? They may not know. I guess my concern is there's no way they can know if someone is placed into immigration proceedings. I hear the underlying concern that you're raising, which is that those individuals, according to your statement, disappeared. But that's not going to change by virtue of this statute, the proposal, or your amendment. We are addressing how our local law enforcement, our local resources are being utilized. This isn't about the individual person who is then swept up. This is about, hey, are you aware, Douglas County, that your local law enforcement is being wrapped up and sent to an entirely different county to engage and work here? Do they know that? Are they okay with that? Hey, Adams County, do you know that your local sheriffs are being brought into a task force that ends up going to Colorado Springs that does something. It's just about transparency. This isn't about, we're not able to then turn this into you can or can't do this because task forces outside of ICE exist. They are lawful in Colorado, but when they turn into ICE immigration enforcement, then they're not. When they are initially already brought in on a, for example, DEA or something, then we lose sight of the fact that like, oh, is this, forgive me if this sounds a little like conspiracy, but is this a front to be able to find people to then deport them? And I would articulate that if there's a criminal activity that has been properly developed for a task force, there's criminal activity that our communities, immigrant and non-immigrant alike, want the police to act upon, irrespective of who might be involved in that criminal action. So why then, in Adams County, why then of those 50, 60 people did not a single person get charged with a crime? Because the federal, I'll answer you, we're in a dialogue, so I'll answer you, because the federal government has a choice to either place individuals in deportation. But our local law enforcement, Representative Espinoza, is meant to keep our, is meant to address crime. It's meant to keep our community safe. And when they're pulled into a task force where that is not even something that happens, where then actually due process can occur. But they are not... We are not putting people, we are not putting communities safe. We are just then sending them back without any sort of due process. I would submit the individuals who are safe from the drug dealers who were picked up in that raid does make the larger communities safe in the first perspective. And I don't believe that anything we do here is going to affect how the federal task force agents decide to charge any individual coming out of that criminal consequence. and I don't think that has any interplay with regard to our local participation in that federal task force. So it's a concern I'm having in terms of how the public safety issue is being addressed in this context of that issue because I think we're conflating the consequence of what happens to the individuals picked up because of their status and the criminal activity that the task force initially enters into for legitimate purposes. And I understand, I hear now the goal and objective. I'm just concerned that the language in this bill right now does not begin to address that and conflates into an area where we would not have jurisdiction because of the individuals in question. My next question, though, is turning to the transport, and I do see your amendment with regard to transportation. I had first initial question. Who regulates what airlines fly in and out of airports? Doesn't the FAA have some standing with regard to that? you dial in oh thanks so it's around flight paths and how like it's the traffic that is regulated it's if you have a certain weight load it's regulated it's you know the type of aircraft those are the things that is regulated there's certain things that are prohibited of transport into like public airline airports and then there's also things that our local airports can also regulate. And where, I guess, because I'm concerned about what you are attempting to regulate in terms of even the transport, and I guess even with the amendment, I'm trying to find it. I still had a concern. It's actually LL1. What it means by not transport by any means individuals detained. I guess, could you describe what you mean by that language in your amendment. Yes. So I think as you have seen, there has been a court recently ruled that hundreds of people have been detained illegally by ICE. And part of the action here is when our transportation is used to be able to transport these individuals who are detained illegally, they are participating in that illegal detainment. And so whether or not, because the immigration enforcement is an unlawful agency that does not follow the laws, we are saying we cannot put our local airports, our local transportation at risk, and we are not going to utilize the services that we have for our local transportation as Coloradans for federal immigration enforcement. They have their ability to use their air force base. They have their ability to use their military bases to transport people if they choose to. Again, I'm having trouble in terms of the difference. I understand now what you're attempting to do, but your language does not address that in this regard. The term of art that you've used in this paragraph is deportation. Deportation can only occur after a process and a determination the individual is removable from the country. If what you're trying to get at is the illegal movement or transfer of individuals prior to that due process happening, that is not at all what's in this bill, and that's a concern for me. So I hear what you're saying, but the use of the term deportation does create an issue in terms of that objective that you're trying to reach. And so I would point that out as one of the problems I have, even with your amendment. I'm also concerned just in terms of how operationally that part of this bill is going to be made possible. I also just wanted to go back to the subpoena question, just a quick question, because we recently heard in this committee a real concern about public information or personal identifiable information being gathered, collected, and utilized. and so I think I understand the objective that you want transparency but my concern in reading the bill as it was drafted is that it creating a vigilante opportunity for individuals because the issuance of the subpoena and the publication of that information on the website that the subpoena has been issued may encourage individuals to go track those individuals down who are listed in the subpoena Have you thought about that? Of course, we thought about it. The intention is not to publish personal identifying information if there's a subpoena that is identifying specific error. Well, let me go back. The publication of the subpoena is also after the fact. It's after it has been addressed or after it has been fulfilled, if you will. We are not expecting that people's personal identifying information is published with the subpoena. It's the purpose and to the agency of which it goes to. And I guess, again, this is just a drafting question that I would raise then, because rather than simply saying the data or the information contained within it for numbers and transparency, but for me the transparency is also to try and figure out, and I do think this is a legitimate goal, one of the questions that I believe is motivating this is if the federal government is targeting specific populations and we can gather that data through this process, that we would want to know that information. So I think that's a legitimate objective. Again, just a little bit concerned about how it's written in the bill. That's it for now. Thank you.
Rev. Velasco. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I do want to thank you, Representative Espinosa. And I think we're definitely very open to some of the changes that you mentioned. But I did want to go back to the conversation around the task forces, just to say that, you know, this transparency piece wouldn't prevent any criminal investigations, because this would be done after the fact, after all the pieces had been done. And I think that the piece that you mentioned around consequence instead of action totally makes sense. But as we have seen that these task forces are supposed to be used for criminal investigations, and we have seen them not be used for that, you know, where there's just locker room talk on email thread. So I think that the piece around transparency for task forces is another one that's very important for us.
Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question kind of goes directly to Representative Velasco. So it appears that we are going after or the purpose of this bill is to concentrate on law enforcement that is consciously cooperating with maybe some type of immigration enforcement. My question is, what if the task force is under the guise of something legitimate and it is communicated to those members, those agencies, that this is a legitimate task force going after whatever criminal activity? But in reality, the government's actual purpose is enforcement of some type of immigration. Is there some type of safe harbor for those law enforcement agencies, those local law enforcement agencies, if the purpose of the task force is not known to them and they are still being used for some type of immigration enforcement
Brett Velasco. Thank you so much, Representative Carter. And we definitely want to address the bad actors. You know, we're not going against task forces that are doing the work of public safety. and you know with the instance that we saw with the messa county sheriff um that issue was directed directly to the one deputy that was in the thread and no one else in the thread was in trouble um because it was the actions of the one deputy that were um unlawful
vice chair carter and i i have to say it again what do we theoretically that would be a bad actor that is someone who is um using their position to and they wouldn't even part of a task force they were they were they were not helping local law enforcement but what if local law enforcement under the guise that they are in a legitimate task force we have been contracted out to go to whatever this is and what they've been told specifically is this is about drug enforcement. But the reality is the government is not using it for drug enforcement. The reality is they are trying to use it for immigration enforcement. Is there some type of safe harbor for those members of that task force, those local members of that task force?
Thank you. So as the bill states and also when we look at 276, participation in a task force that's not intended for immigration enforcement is totally allowable if it turns into or a consequence of that happens it doesn't mean that they're sharing information and so nobody's held liable for anything our penalties are civil penalties what exists here is when an employee or an agency willfully shares information about immigration information to ice It's not if a local law enforcement is task-forced, they are task-forced. They are in an agreement under a certain agreement, whatever they're supposed to do together, whether it's drug enforcement, arms enforcement. And if it turns into ICE, there's no civil penalty there. There's no criminology. There's no crime there. There's nothing in that, in this bill or in 276. It's all that we're just saying is we just need to let people know that this task force ended up being used for this.
Reb Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a I know I haven't engaged with you a whole lot on this bill before today. And I appreciate that there are some areas that I know that you guys are willing to continue to work on. I have some concerns around the $50,000 penalties, the loss of grants, et cetera. I didn't see that we made big adjustments with any of the amendments to some of that, but I want to look specifically at if there is a pathway, say, for instance, if an agency misses a single agency that was involved, et cetera, if there's some leeway or latitude that we can give them. So if it's corrected within 30 days within good faith or something like that, if it wouldn impact their standing as far as those types of things and those penalties are concerned And I have concerns about the penalties all the way around but especially with no guardrails for clerical error
Rob Garcia. So the correction, if you will, is found in L-001, right, where you see that they can issue, a judge can choose to issue a civil penalty of essentially up to $50,000. I just want to make sure it's not set. The ceiling is $50,000. If an agency intentionally failed to take measures within the agency or political subdivision to implement policies or procedures to discourage or prevent the violation from occurring, right? So this already gives these agencies like a way to say, look, you can't hold us liable because we did this training. We made sure everybody has, understands their policies. They signed the handbook. then the agency is off the hook. If they intentionally chose not to do it then they are on the hook. So that's essentially where that is.
I'm curious, Reb Clifford, if you can point out the loss of grants piece because we were actually, we affirmatively said we don't want the actions of an employee to impact grants coming from... I might have... Reb Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you mind if we dialogue? I know there's a lot of witnesses today. Thank you. I might have misread something there. So I digress on that. We'll come back to it and talk offline at a later time about it. I have some questions about your language about what an enforcement action is. So this is also like detainer interviews, those types of things. Would those things be considered enforcement action, or do we need to further clarify specifically what we're talking about as an enforcement action there, where an arrest or some type of thing? I just want to make sure that what you're talking about here is where we're actually putting someone in custody, I assert, not necessarily having an interview. So if, as I understand it, if a law enforcement officer during a task force ends up having an interview and information about somebody's status comes out and they don't do anything about it, that doesn't turn into results in immigration enforcement action.
Even if they're charged with a crime and they know this person's immigration status, it doesn't turn into an immigration enforcement action. I think Representative Espinoza laid out clearly, which is why we will be willing to shift this, is that action could actually be better phrased as a consequence. I like that.
My concern here is really how agencies will know in real time what they need to report. You know, law enforcement agencies are usually IDOT and T-Cross and folks. You know, the forum's got to have the question on the box kind of thing. and we need to make sure that it's clear to them so that they're not having to decide along the way what is reportable and what is not. And that's sort of where my line comes from there is making sure that there's some sort of clarity about that. I would be, I think we would be really, really welcome continuing that conversation with you if we're able to get to seconds on how to strengthen that area. Rep Clifford. My next thing is really about the transportation piece. So can you – I know that you touched it, but now that this amendment that you're planning to run is in place, how do you foresee that working, just kind of big picture overall, whether that's related to municipal buses, the airport, et cetera? Can you just kind of describe what your view is here with the amendment?
how that transportation piece works. I guess I would just say that if this is the case, then if we're able to get this passed and signed into law, then ICE would not be able to charter an RTD bus, for example, to take detainees from GEO to DIA, put them on a plane and send them to El Salvador, for example. They just wouldn't be able to use our local resources. They'd have to have their own, which they do. And so we just want to make sure that we are strengthening, like, the protections of our local transportation resources for everything else that we need in our society. So I think they just wouldn't be using them.
That might be a preventative. Do you know of any areas where that's happening currently, like is RTD using buses for anything like that?
It's preventative. So we just want to make sure that we are protecting our local resources and not allowing them to be commandeered by the federal government.
Okay. Thank you. Rebs okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to seek some clarity on that same section. You have the words for the purpose of deportation. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what that means. Is it, for example, if somebody is being sent to a detention center, is that for the purpose of deportation?
Thank you for the question, Representative García. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, essentially, that is a step that the vast majority of immigrants take when they are going to be deported. So, yes, that is for the purpose of deportation.
Reps, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also was wondering if you can, I know we've talked about this a lot, but provide just a little more clarity around this task force piece because there seems to be different interpretations here. As far as the transparency measures you're taking, what does that look like in practice?
So there is a multi-jurisdictional task force. What are the steps that then would happen to disclose the information? I believe it's a yearly report, but if you could just explain what that would look like.
Rep Garcia.
I will do my best, although I can't pretend to know how local law enforcement will operate. But essentially, to the Department of Public Safety, once a year they would then report, we did these task forces that led to these consequences that are found under 1276. um then the department of um the department of public safety would present this committee and the senate committee with that information saying this is when local law enforcement has actually engaged in a task force that did result in an ice um enforcement task force of some kind And so we are very I want to say just another like historical piece on this piece is initially we had contemplated this in 276 And we wanted to be we were much more aggressive on what we wanted task force reporting to be And we heard feedback that you could potentially put these task forces in violation, which we don't want to do. So our goal here is that once a year after a task force is complete, that is when they report. It's not in the middle of, it's not like this task force is currently happening so everyone knows it is after the task force job has been complete. Once you, then you come back and report those.
Rep. Zoka, you get Rep. Clifford. On that, L5 makes that clear that we're talking federal multijurisdictional, federal multijurisdictional, federal multijurisdictional, federal multijurisdictional. So you've cleaned up a concern that I had about that. We're not talking about task forces. we're talking specific federal task forces. My question still remains, when you're talking about the reporting and the completion, so we're basically reporting out on the operation as it's unsealed, if you will, or those things are completed, what do you think is a reasonable amount of time for that? Sometimes that type of information is not very real time. Sometimes that is a very long time even before the other participating agencies even have good working knowledge of what the end result of those things are.
Rep. Velasco. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Clifford. I think that we're definitely open to exploring what a good time frame would be because we are aware that many of these investigations may take years. You know, it might not be resolved in one year. So definitely open to making sure that this is implementable.
Rob Clever. Yeah, sometimes these things are also taken in bits and pieces where you may have a member of an agency, say a person that works for the sheriff's department may be a member of a task force. that might get their agency involved in something that is seemingly small and inconsequential, and it might not be like what you see on TV as an operation or the community reports all of these vehicles coming in. You know, sometimes those enforcement actions are, you know, I checked on a house today and saw this person doing X, Y, or Z, and that was their participation, and they may have another deputy in that agency go do something on their behalf. Hey, you know, can you tell me where this car is, what this person's doing, that kind of thing. And I'm being very generic and general about that. But, you know, that is an action that would be something that would be being taken in that task force currently. It might not turn into anything. It might turn into something. It might turn into a much larger investigation later. I think that we get in kind of a really confusing area about what just participated or what participation looks like in that moment. Was that other deputy that was asked to do something by the person that's a legitimate member of that task force and is sworn to both? Are they now participating? Is that reportable? I mean, there's something. These things don't all look like large actions, I guess. So how do we delineate it? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that I understand where you coming from but I do want to just say that I think all policy that we bring we could continue to debate hypothetical after hypothetical after hypothetical I think what we're trying to do here, and when we're saying report, we're not taking report in this sense as you have to report because you did something wrong. We're taking this as you have to report just because it has to be transparent. So there is no penalty, there's no punishment that comes with the reporting of a task force that could end up with some sort of immigration enforcement. That's not the intention. The intention here is that people want to know, and we saw this clearly in Adams County, people want to know how their local law enforcement or when someone else's law enforcement has no jurisdiction in that community comes into the community and engages in a task force. And so people just want to know. It's all just about transparency. And I think when you're earlier in your conversations, in your comments, and you're talking about, like, people, like, data comes in later, data comes in after. I think what we're asking for here specifically, if you look from page 3 to page 4, you know, lines 20 through 17 on page 4, you'll see that we are asking for very specific things that are already trackable. These are already things that are trackable. And even if they're trackable later on, great. This provision says you can update it within the next year or the next year or the next year.
Rob Clifford. No, thank you.
Rob Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to get a clarification. Earlier you mentioned about the signal text thread that was discovered. Can you clarify what law enforcement agency was involved in that?
Rep. Velasco. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Representative Kelty. So I can look for some articles that I can send over to you, but we know that this was a task force with federal agencies like DEA and ICE. and the investigation came directly to that one deputy because he flagged a young student that was driving through as having an accident. So that was what was the trigger for ICE to then pull her over, detain her, take her to GEO, and then we found that she actually had DACA. So she shouldn't have been detained at all.
Rob Kelty. Thank you. And you mentioned the county earlier. You actually had mentioned El Paso County. And I want to clarify that that was actually Mesa County. So if you have any other differing information, I would like to get that.
Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you. Representative Kelty, and I don't believe that we said El Paso, it's Mesa County. This issue happened in Mesa County. Mesa County, thank you. Thank you.
Representative Kelty. Thank you Mr. Chair. While we're on the Mesa County case considering I represent Mesa County, let's use that case as an example. And I have a couple other questions beyond that, but it's just to the point that was is just being made here. You had a Utah student pulled over close to the border between Colorado and Utah It was a signal chat that was involved in which ICE members were part of the signal chat along with the State Patrol and Mesa County Sheriff deputies Would you consider that a task force?
Rep. Garcia. A task force is a task force that has an agreed-upon function where you are actually bringing on your local department and there's an agreement between the local department and whatever agency that you have. And so if there was an agreement that officially made it a task force, then it would be, but I don't know if it was or not.
Rep. Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you're having a conversation amongst colleagues within different law enforcement ranks, does that constitute a task force?
Rep. Garcia. I just answered the previous question that there is an agreement that is made to create a task force. If you're just having conversations, you're not in a task force. Could you maybe get to the point you're trying to make?
Rep. Sepper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Garcia. I'm trying to define when it is that under law, because we're talking about making law here. If we are looking to enforce the law, at what point has a task force been created? So in the future, when we're trying to look back, I mean, let's pretend this is law of the land. And I'm being asked, has a task force been created? I now need to have exact elements written down in statute that tells me what I'm looking for so that I can match facts to law and determine whether or not the elements satisfy whether or not a task force has been created. Because that pivots as to whether or not, for example, the civil penalties apply to the individual or the agency.
Rep Garcia. Thank you for your thoughts. We will consider that and how do we clarify that? Rep Soper. Thank you Mr. Chair. The question that I kind of wanted
to come back to was really back to the subpoenas on page 7 and really looking at your amendment for that you know thank you for asking those on it in advance. We appreciate that. It's, you know, I see unsealed, unsealed, unsealed, unsealed, and unsealed subpoenas on a public facing page. It needs to be provided within 72 hours after the federal immigration authorities, you know, sent this subpoena in. I don't see anywhere here where it talks about a delay until after an action has taken effect. Instead, what I see here is because sometimes you'll have a subpoena come through before something happens. You don't have subpoenas after the fact. And I do have concerns because I'll tell you a brief anecdote within my question here. I used to be in the sweet corn business and we used to have a lot of our migrant workers who were from Mexico and south of the border, harassed. And usually it was over seatbelts at that time because farm vehicles way back then did not have seatbelts really. And my question here is, you know, if... you are publicly, like, having it unsealed, the subpoena out there in public before action has taken effect. Now, all of a sudden, you're basically saying to any sort of bounty hunter, private investigator, any other person who wants to make a point or even scare off certain Coloradans, you're giving them carte blanche authority to do so. And I'd like to know how we're protecting our friends and neighbors with this provision.
Rep. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Soper. And I appreciate you bringing this point up. And I think that this is a fix we need to make specifically on page 7, line 10, where instead of saying receiving, it should say fulfilling. Thank you.
Okay, we will start with Christopher Nurse. You'll have two minutes. State and the organization you represent. You may begin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Nurse, and I am the political director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, a statewide alliance of organizations dedicated to keeping Colorado of the safest state in the nation to be an immigrant. I'm here today to testify in favor of House Bill 1276. Members, this bill is about transparency, accountability, and basic dignity. It reaches into the corners of our state where immigrant communities have long been left in the dark, unsure of what happens to their neighbors, their co-workers, or their family members when they encounter federal immigration enforcement. And this bill shines a light on that. Let me start with what happens when we do not have transparency. Members right now, law enforcement agencies across this state participate in multi-jurisdictional task forces with federal partners operating under very little public oversight. Communities don't know who is being arrested or how many people are being arrested or who is being detained for immigration purposes, but 1276 changes that by requiring the annual reporting on these multi-jurisdictional task forces. Members, it is up to groups like ours to ask these tough questions, even when we don't get the answers. And this bill is part of that accountability that our communities are asking for. Members, the communities most affected by federal immigration enforcement are often the least able to advocate for themselves. They are afraid to come forward. They are afraid to ask questions. This bill does the asking for them. It demands transparency. It demands accountability. It demands that when people are detained in our state, that they are treated with dignity. Members, this bill does not solve every problem. In fact, no bill ever really does, right? But it promises something just as important, that we will not look away. We will gather the information we will conduct the inspections and when we find something wrong there will be consequences Members the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition strongly and emphatically urges you to support House Bill 1276 Thank you
Jordan Garcia, you'll have two minutes to state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Jordan Garcia. I work at the American Friends Service Committee. It's a Quaker-based organization that's 108 years old. Here in Colorado, we've been working on immigrant rights for about 40 years, and we're just happy to be here discussing this bill with you all. My job here is to talk specifically about the detention component of the bill. The AFSC is an anchor organization for a very large coalition of organizations and individuals called the Shutdown Geo Campaign. We have released two reports. We're trying to do them quarterly, and they are essentially a report of what happens inside that detention center in Aurora. The current report is called the Housed in Isolation, a community accountability report. And what I want to tell you about it is that the hospitalization and lack of medical care is the focus of this report. It is 58 pages long, and it mirrors the report that the Congressman Crow has tried to do for the detention center by really examining different components of what happens inside that detention center. But the focus of this one is mental health care and medical care, which is almost non-existent. So in our report, we talk about how there are examples of ongoing mismanagement, including regularly waking up a person in his late 70s with an anemia on a medical check between 1 and 3 a.m., relying on emergency medical services in order to address issues that should be addressed within the facility. And in particular, I want to quote what Aaron Slade, an attorney with Novo Legal, shared about a man who died inside the detention center named Melvin. Melvin died because the medical staff here failed to diagnose and detect a dangerous blood clot in his right leg. A key issue in this case is that failure of the geo-medical staff to refer Melvin to a higher level provider, including a doctor or even a registered nurse. The only care that Melvin received in those weeks leading up to his death was from a low-level, entry-level medical professional who was not qualified for diagnosis, treatment, or medical decision-making. So yeah, we believe that the inspections inside this detention center through CDPHE could help to solve some of these problems. Thank you. Denise Madrid, you'll have two minutes to stay in the
organization you represent, you may begin. Good afternoon. My name is Gladys and I'm actually reading testimony on behalf of Denise Madrid who could not be here at this time. Will you state your full name for the record, please? Gladys Ibarra. My name is Denise Madrid. I support House Bill 26-1276. My family is made up of immigrants and I am married to a Colombian immigrant immigration enforcement has affected my family in ways most people will never have to consider in 2011 when I was a child my father was taking me to school when ICE agents stopped him outside of our home and took him into custody I will never forget the fear of watching him being taken away while I stood there helpless Thankfully with a lawyer we were able to secure his release But many in my family were not so fortunate In 2009, my uncle, Ruben Madrid, was deported after a minor traffic violation that led to unpaid fines and jail time. Instead of being released after serving his sentence, he was deported and later murdered in Mexico. In 2010, another uncle, Omar Madrid, was deported under similar circumstances. He too was later killed. These were not violent criminals. They were family members who made small mistakes and paid their ultimate price. When officers act without clear identification or accountability, families like mine are left powerless and terrified. This bill matters because transparency and accountability and immigration enforcement can prevent these strategies. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.
Okay, now we'll hear from Lamine Kane. You will have two minutes to state any organization you represent. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lamine Khan.
I am a community organizer with Colorado People's Alliance, COPA, and a resident of Aurora. I'm here to urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1276. I work closely with members of the community, immigrant community members across our state, and what I'm seeing right now is a loss of trust and deep fear. People don't know who is showing up in their neighborhoods. They don't know which agencies are involved, what role they are playing, or who is responsible when something is going wrong. that uncertainty has created fear and that fear is real i have members who wanted to be here yesterday but due to fear they held back last night they talked amongst each other and they talked to their family members they were like you know what never mind if law enforcement agencies are participating in joint or coordinated operations that must be reported, period. People deserve to know who is operating in their communities and if that information is withheld, there must be consequences. Because transparency is not extra work at all. It is just what allows trust to exist in the first place in our communities. And right now we are seeing what happens when that trust breaks. People are pulling back. Community spaces are quieter. Participation is dropping. Not because people don't care, but because they do not feel safe or informed by those who should do. Another part of this bill is just as important. It makes clear that local government and public resources should not be used to transport individuals for federal immigrant enforcement. That boundary really matters. Because when local institutions are involved in detention and transport, it sends the message that there is no separation and no place where people can feel safe engaging with public systems. This sets clear expectations. This transparency must exist and that accountability must exist amongst us and that our local resources must be used to serve our communities, not to create fear and detriment. As an organizer, I can tell you this matters and I urge you, I strongly urge you to vote yes on this bill so there is no longer confusion and lack of accountability. Thank you.
Thank you. Too many members, questions for this panel of witnesses?
Okay, oh, we're up supper. Thank you Mr Chair I do have one question This is one that we tend to ask on a lot of major policy issues If this bill as amended and everything was in law today would it stop the types of ICE detentions and deportations that we've read about either in our state or other states? Mr. Nurse, Christopher Nurse.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Soper, I do not wish to engage in any kind of conjecture when it comes to any kind of bill of what it would do, but I can look into that and give you an answer later.
Other questions?
All right. Seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. I'm next going to call up a panel of witnesses who are in opposition. Deputy Chief Todd Reeves, Missy Espinoza online, Chief Robert Grotto, Jeannie Rush online. Okay, let's start with Deputy Chief Reeves. You'll have two minutes, state and the organization you represent.
You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Todd Reeves. I'm a representative of the Colorado Associations of Chiefs of Police and over 100 chiefs of police in the state of Colorado. I'm here today in opposition of this bill for various reasons, mostly to the fact that this creates a lot of ambiguous reporting requirements that many times we're unaware or even have that information to be able to report. And as a result of that, it jeopardizes civil penalties for law enforcement as well as jeopardizes grant funding opportunities. I can tell you that in my 35 years in law enforcement, I've never participated solely in an immigration enforcement. I will tell you, though, that as a part of task forces, and I ran a major metropolitan task force for seven years, there are a lot of times where there are criminal investigations that then do result in immigration violations and potentially deportations, either because it is discovered later or because it's a part of a plea bargain. this bill the way it's written doesn't differentiate between those two and doesn't allow for the fact that a criminal investigation can parallel with an immigration detention and it still holds us accountable one of the examples i'll provide is is uh the way i read this bill and the way that others have read this bill is if in fact we end up making an arrest say for a terrorism act in old town or some other place and we transport them to the local police department and discover there that they have an immigration detainer on them, we're almost stuck with them. We can no longer, this bill, use our transportation fleets or any apparatus in that to be able to then move them to another facility. It makes it very difficult. I understand the intent of this. The complexities of law enforcement, though, I think will override that, and I think it's very important to understand there are many scenarios where even transporting is even better for the detainees than it is others. So I vote that you please oppose this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Online Chief Robert Grotto, you will have two minutes.
Stay in the organization you represent. You may begin. Yeah, good afternoon. I represent also the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police in opposition of House Bill 1276. I'm going to testify regarding operational impacts and unfunded mandates. Colorado law already places strict limitations on local law enforcement participation in immigration enforcement. Our agencies follow those laws and focus on protecting public safety for everyone in our communities. Our concerns with House Bill 1276 are primarily about unworkable reporting mandates, operational impacts, and the creation of liabilities for local governments. The first concern is multi-jurisdictional task force reporting requirements. The bill requires agencies that do participate in multi-jurisdictional investigations or task forces to submit extensive annual reports to the state. The challenge is that local departments are often not the lead agency and do not control those records necessary to comply. For example, the bill requires reporting of all participating agencies, total arrests made by participating agencies, individuals detained for immigration status. Local police departments only control their own records for their own arrest, and they do not involve other agencies in task force. Only the lead agency would typically have this information. Second concern is, as discussed earlier, the potential civil penalties. And this places law enforcement organizations at risk of penalties for data that may be impossible for them to obtain or verify. Third concern is unfunded technology and administrative mandates. The bill requires tracking data points that most agencies do not currently track. Departments would need to build entirely new data tracking systems or pay vendors to modify existing record systems. None of these costs are funded in the bill. For local governments already facing tight budgets, this represents a significant unfunded mandate. In closing, I'll say Chiefs share the goal of protecting our communities and maintaining the trust with our residents. HB 1276 creates reporting requirements and liability structures that are operationally unrealistic for local law enforcement agencies. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, we'll now hear from Missy Espinosa.
You'll have two minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Missy Espinosa, representing myself. Looks like citizens are going to have to start a volunteer program to transport these illegals out of here. I bet there's a lot of people who would happily do that. We voted for these illegals to be deported by the masses. You should be facilitating that. This does the opposite. Me personally, I'm surrounded by illegals in my apartment complex and nothing is happening. Zero ICE agents to this day. And I've had not one but multiple incidents of illegals, men, trying to get into my apartment. Once was while I was asleep in the middle of the night. I'm a woman that lives alone and they prey on us. I wonder, too, how all these little bullshit laws of yours will affect when we have to remove ISIS or the Taliban ops or Hezbollah. When an American dies at the hands of these illegals, it's on you and those that didn't allow ICE to remove them. Only traitors help invaders.
Thank you We now hear from Jeanne Rush She will have two minutes State in the organization you represent You may begin Myself 76 year old grouch Ice ice baby Okay let get to it Holy moly You actually put this bill in print. You're worrying about the CDPHE monitoring cleanliness for the illegal invading people, mostly criminals. And you're worrying about their civil rights, which they shouldn't have if they're not a legal citizen. You didn't want to clean up abortion clinics for women in the second and third trimester with botched abortions, babies in, you know, toilets and blood, but you wanted to protect dogs and wolves and cats and the cleanliness of their facilities. But that's not even, I digress. You're penalizing the very people, the law enforcement, and that includes local, federal ICE who are protecting you every day with their lives and you insult them with this kind of it's communist garbage is what it is it's scary as all get out and worse um let me get to this you don't seem to understand these people millions came across our borders and tens of thousands of Human beings have been raped, killed, destroyed. And we have over 40,000, 50,000 people in this state who don't belong here. They came here as invaders. And you're worrying about them. And we get to Bojica and our people get raped and killed. Millions of women are attacked every year. And you want to make sanctuaries. I apologize to the people that think they're not, you know, doing wrong. I'm an immigrant. I came here and I had to respect America and respect what the rules are. People come here now and they want to change everything and they want to spit at our law enforcement. And, you know, there's some bad guys in there. There's bad everywhere. But they are the majority protecting you and your neighborhoods and my neighborhood and my children. I don't think that these kind of bills do anybody good. And the safety clause is a ripoff because now we can't even vote on it. How is any of this constitutional smart and you're ripping off our national security? You are destroying what it means to protect communities. And I've been watching. I've written, what, over 250 bills now. I don't know what number of Zoom day this is, but I think this is wrong. You're doing something that is totally against America.
Miss Rush, you're over time, if you could please wrap up. Well, okay, let's just do this right and kill these dumb bills and get to real respect for the law and our people who are risking their lives for us. Thank you. Committee members, questions for this panel of witnesses. Reps, okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for either member of law enforcement as to the reporting requirements for a multi-jurisdictional task force. Is it, am I understanding correctly, that for law enforcement participating in a task force, you do not have the information as to the purpose of the task force, which agencies participated in it, or the consequences and ultimate result of the task force?
Deputy Chief Reeves.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. We have a lot of that information going into it. It goes beyond task forces. It goes into what's defined as a coordinated investigation, which I really don't know what that is. We don't perform uncoordinated investigations, meaning I don't mean that flippantly. I mean that we go into this understanding our missions and our goals Unfortunately when we do work with our federal partners a lot of times that information is not readily available to us nor is it our property So they could be doing an operation that may be in four different states. We could be at an element or a part of it in Colorado and have an incident in just one city where we participate. But to meet these reporting requirements, we would have to get the information from all the other areas. And one, we wouldn't have the ability of the access to that because they're not our records. And two, I don't know the likelihood of them sharing it if it's going to be going to a grand jury or something like that. Probably unlikely that we'd be able to get that. So that's one of the concerns that sets us up, I believe, to not be successful in meeting some of these reporting requirements.
that's okay thank you mr chair would you know the consequences to colorado residents
deputy chief reeves maybe not um it depends on what the actual operation is i've had and participated in many operations for example with dea where we've made multiple arrests and the person has been taken and detained and uh personally like a month later i called to find out what's going on with this case and I found out that they had done a plea bargain that it was a plea bargain for a deportation instead of facing the criminal charges. That's one example where I found out a month later and I could have reported that back but in that particular case there were eight individuals that were a part of that whole arrest that me solely operated on that task force I didn't have the information of the other seven and I don't know that I would have been able to get that.
Reb's okay. You good? I'm good. I find that concerning, but I don't have any other questions. Reb Kelsey.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for our law enforcement gentlemen that are in the room as well. With a no-hold-back answer, just flat-out honesty, for the regular people of Colorado, what kind of situations are you thinking where if you can expound that this law would actually be a down-to-earth problem?
Deputy Chief Reeves. So, you know, just thinking through one of mine, we could have, let's say, an active shooter in a part of our town where we go out and make an arrest. And ultimately, during that, we find out that there is an immigration detainer on them or even an order for deportation. and it would severely limit our ability to be able to transport that prisoner or be able to work with him further related to the criminal part because this bill does not have any exceptions. The other aspect of that is understanding the fundamental complexities of law enforcement. There are times when it is the safest alternative to have law enforcement transport an individual. And I look at some of these stories throughout the United States. One just recently where they were arresting an individual that was wanted for a child molestation back in one of their home countries. If we're on scene of that and ICE is doing enforcement action, it may not be anti-ICE protesters that we're encountering. It could be those offended by the original violation that occurred in another country. We have no jurisdiction. It's an ICE detainer, and it's for them to make that arrest. But for the safety of that individual if this crowd starts to get angry and upset and turns chaotic it may be best that we put them in one of our patrol cars for the safety of that individual and get them out of that scene so we can diffuse that This adds complexity to those abilities to do those kinds of things
Rep. Selber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question also is for the Deputy Chief. Just kind of looking at what's included is, you know, in terms of if you look at page 10 and 11 of the bill, a facility that would be housing or detains an individual who are non-citizens for the purpose of civil immigration proceedings. You said something earlier that sparked a curiosity of trying to understand the lay of the land, which is, let's say you've arrested an individual and you take them back to the station house for booking and you discover at that point in time that not only you had the rest of them say it's assault, a serious assault, but they also have an immigration detainer, and you learn about that at that point in time. Has your facility now just changed to being where you're now holding that person on the immigration side, but you still have a very live, active criminal side that probably endangered someone else, maybe even in an immigrant community, what do you do at that point in time?
Deputy Chief Reeves. And I apologize, Rep Sober. I think I'm going to answer this correctly. I'll answer it under the current law of how we operate. It'd be irrelevant to us. We don't enforce immigration detainers. We don't hold them for immigration detainers. We don't do anything related to that. We would process it as the assault and we'd take them to jail. Under this legislation, it would make us very difficult for us to then move that person from our facility to another facility because it's paralleled with an immigration detainer, which this prevents the use of equipment in order to do that.
Rep. Sober. Thank you, and I appreciate that explanation. That actually helps greatly. So then because of the parallel nature, then all the elements on pages 11 and 12 and 13 would now start to apply to any municipal owned property that potentially the detained individual might be in. so you would have to have the four times a year inspections be subject to an environmental impact study which is interesting you would have to you know if you failed to do some of these things which I mean some of these I think are outlining a detention facility like a jail but if any one of these elements you failed on, it'd be 50,000 for an individual and then 50,000 for the law enforcement agency. Is that how you read it?
Deputy Chief Reeves. That is how we understand it, yes.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Another question that came up was about airports. So on page nine of the bill, It talks about an airport operator not being allowed to allow a federal immigration airplane to land or take off from a public airport. If you have a public airport within your jurisdiction, I would assume you would have the ability to act there. How would your office respond to such an issue, given the fact that the FAA would regulate the airspace and the takeoffs and landings?
Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Rep Soper. I can only speculate, having worked prior to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, The airport was under my purview, and I could only speculate that it's incredibly difficult to – we can take enforcement action in the hangar areas or in the terminal areas. When we're talking about getting out onto runways and actually stopping aircraft or those kinds of things, I don't even know how that would be done or how that could be done, to be honest. That's something that I think has to be regulated and taken care of through the FAA. And the permissions denied or given to individual aircrafts prior to them landing or taking off.
We're up sober. Thank you. And I greatly appreciate that. That was the questions we had earlier. I asked the sponsors how they would define task force. And I'm going to ask the same question of you. would a signal chat amongst law enforcement members in which, say, a member of ICE happened to be a part of the signal chat constitute a task force?
Deputy Chief Reeves. I do agree with Rep. Garcia that generally there is some agreement in place, but yes, generally that when you pull together a task force, there's a talking channel or a way of communication to share information, and that is somewhat common, yes.
Rep Soper. Thank you. Would an agreement be formalized amongst agencies or would you just have a handshake agreement that you're now entering into a task force? Is there something that's a bit more formal to know that we are now part of a task force versus three seconds ago we weren't?
Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Rep. Sober. Yes, when it's a task force specifically, there is agreements and understandings basically based upon what equipment, what money, what monetary exchanges will occur, as well as what is the overall goal or direction of that task force. With this bill, it also refers to coordinated investigations, which those could happen spontaneously. When I got home or get back this afternoon, I could spontaneously be involved in a coordinated investigation with another entity, not even of this state.
Rob Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this will be my final question here. seeing that all throughout the bill it's 50,000 for an individual civil infraction over and over and over again. Because that relates back to law enforcement and any sort of coordination with the Federal Immigration Authority or ICE, how would, you know, assuming this becomes law, how would your office deal with that knowing that pretty much any involvement could be faced with a $50,000 penalty. I mean, do you even go in neighborhoods where there's immigrants? I mean, do you just completely withdraw at that point in time?
Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you for the question I will tell you law enforcement will never stand down in participating in our communities regardless of the demographics What I will tell you is it will provide great pause and great hesitation on how we participate and what we get involved in just under the fear or the risk of having these civil penalties levied on us
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a number of pieces of this bill that certainly don't fit what I know are operationally sound in how you engage with law enforcement. I think that the sponsors are seemingly open to correcting some of those things as we go along. One of the concerns, and you've answered it already for Rep. Soper, one of the things that I still have some concerns about are the financial implications for departments here and making sure that we have at least some way for you to report and know what you need to report, what constitutes a violation of lack of reporting, et cetera. We heard a little bit about the concerns that Colorado chiefs have about collecting this data and reporting. Given that the onus of this entire section is really about transparency as it relates to community wanting to know that an operation has taken place in their community and some type of enforcement action or immigration enforcement action or some consequence has happened. do you see a way to be able to give that to the community because i know that and i don't know that you've had these actions in arvada for instance um but i i have seen some of them happen and i can tell you that my email box just gets blown up every time we have anywhere in the state these types of actions. I mean, the community is coming to us saying we must know, we must do something. We are completely terrorized by these events. You know, when I'm talking to law enforcement, I know that you also feel that from the community and would like to have some ways to respond. How do you see we could go about this differently that isn't necessarily the punitive actions or kind of the massive issues with trying to collect this data or knowing what task forces are doing what, et cetera, if you were to approach how we would engage community on this and give them real answers about what was happening as a result of federal officers coming into our community kind of by surprise and taking actions that result in consequences of people being taken away, deported, et cetera. How would you go about it and what do you think might be good tools for the General Assembly to give law enforcement to be able to accommodate both? Deputy Chief Reeves is who that's for. I'm looking right at him, but for the record.
Thank you Mr Chair Rep Clifford I appreciate the question It a very complicated one and I think that this bill makes that clear that the importance of being transparent and being able to provide that comfort and safety in our communities is paramount for us The good thing about Colorado law enforcement is I think we can start with the education aspect. We do not participate in immigration enforcement. And I think that that's important to understand that when you see the presence of local law enforcement alongside those federal partners, We're there to protect our community and ensure that there's not something that comes out of that that could be detrimental or harmful to them. If the ICE agents decide to come into our community and execute their job and do that, we certainly can't interfere with that. But we can be there to support our community and be able to provide protection for them. When you talk about legislating something that can provide that transparency and that can provide that comfort for our community, I think that, quite honestly, that's such a complicated question that it would take a lot more than just me and law enforcement. It would take members of our community to be a part of that and to have a robust conversation of understanding their side and their versions of these, as well as understanding the complications and the difficulties of law enforcement, to be able to come up with, I think, would be a really good resolution to this. That combined with the education aspect. I know that you and I share an affinity for deep stakeholding, time at the table, having conversations to work things out. And I'm pretty much a stickler for doing things that way. And I'm also forced to deal with many of these actions that have caused the largest alarm for community happened after legislative deadlines this year.
So we're dealing with a shortened timeline. We're also dealing with the reality that now is kind of now or never when we get to May. This is all over again until next year, barring having to come back for special sessions or something like that to deal with certain things. It is a greater volume of community concern than any other types of bills that I've had since I've served in the General Assembly. It's more emails per day. It's more phone calls than all the gun bills combined. all the abortion bills combined, all the things that I have gotten communications about since I've been in this place, about this concern, about the concern for the fear that has been created by the actions and the way that federal law enforcement has functioned in this area. So I think that it's important that we are engaging the public about their concern about that and that we are taking action.
Do you have a question, Rep. Clifford?
I do. Yes, sir.
Okay.
I need the chief to answer the question, so I do need to set it up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not able to do nothing in this area. and I'm not able to say we need to stop and meet over a long period of time to sort something out when the community that is concerned about this I know also has that shared concern from the officers that are on the street I know that your cops don want to have to deal with it this way I know that police officers are also sharing with me their concerns about having to engage federal law enforcement over these issues. And I know that that's a balancing act. but I do know that there's something here that needs to get addressed. I recognize that in this bill and the way that it's going about some of the reporting and the way that it's going about some things are not operationally sound. I do want to know there has to be the same type of comments coming to your departments. There has to be the same types of comments coming to your city councils and your concerns for it. I hear it from the city and county of Denver. Where do we decide to engage and how do we put forth something that puts our citizens at ease, that we're going to tell them what is happening in our community, and that we're going to make sure that irrespective of how the federal partners engage, that we are going to make sure that we are transparent with our communities and that we're being supportive of their right to be.
Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Clifford. I do understand this dilemma. And I think that I'm first going to start off by telling you that we talk about the community and we talk about your obligations as legislation. And I don't want it to be forgotten that I have police officers who have these same problems and fears. And I work with them. I listen to them. I give them a shoulder to talk to and to be able to say what's going on in their lives. So we also experience it as police officers in our personal lives as well. I would tell you that drafting legislation that penalizes a profession who's trying to do the best they can, who's trying to provide what information we can, and keep coordinated efforts to not drastically go awry or impact our community makes it very difficult to say that this is the solution. I understand there's a timeline under this, and I understand this came up after the legislation, but I think putting on penalties towards law enforcement when there's already laws that prevent us from participating in this and then also taking away grant opportunities is not the solution. I would be more than willing, as I know any chief of police in the state of Colorado would be, to engage in these conversations and be able to have these well-fleshed out stakeholding meetings so we can find out what that sweet spot is and how that would look and what that solution is. I do fear that this legislation will stymie some of the conversations with our federal partners. and whether we want to accept it or not ice communicating with us as a local authority is very important and we're not going to help them we're not going to participate in that but if they decide to just show up in a neighborhood and start their actions i think we saw the news story a few weeks ago in lakewood i don't know all the specific details but it was enough to make the news and cause community concern and this has the potential of even cutting that off. And so we've got to be really careful on what we think that solution is going to be. And I think that the profession that is mostly targeted in this is not the answer to this.
Rep. Espinosa.
Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this goes to both law enforcement and kind of piggybacks on the sheriff's last statement. What do you say to, or what is your answer to the federal government when they are using your goodwill and your willingness to protect, perchance, your communities. And they're using that goodwill to overrule or effectuate their immigration policy. So you as an actor are trying to cooperate but also follow these laws. However, the federal government may or may not be a good actor in their attempts to take or to enforce these immigration policies, What do you say to the federal government when they're using your goodwill to effectuate their immigration policy?
Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep Carter, for the question. I guess what I would tell you is that that's not going to happen in my city. I can assure you that if there is a federal task force that under the cloak of investigating a crime, they're actually doing it just for the purpose of immigration, that all the chiefs in Colorado would be not only offended by that, but would completely oppose that. I think what you're alluding to is the instances that were pointed out, and I don't know the details of those instances, and it's unfortunate that those have occurred. But what I will tell you is that in my communications that I've had with ERO, with ICE, with Homeland, they know better than to even ask us to do those kinds of things or to even be a part of that. And lastly, I would tell you that if I have an officer who's a part of a task force that recognizes that that's being used for that purpose, they have an ethical and moral and legal obligation to bring that forward to us, and we would immediately withdraw from that task force if that was their intended purpose.
Coach Chair Carter.
Any other comments from law enforcement? I apologize. There's another sheriff.
Chief Grotto. Julian Chairman. well i've been sitting here listening and thank you um and i'm agreeing with everything the deputy chief is saying there um i i think we have unintended consequences occasionally um but it's it's a rarity and um i i just you know i think all of our all of these agencies individually have policies on how to deal with this, and they're good policies. My fear is kind of chiming in on what Chief Reef said, is that they stop communicating with us, and they just show up. It's better for us to know ahead of time what's happening, and then at that point, we move forward and follow good policy on our behavior on how we're going to not Not work with them, but just be aware of the situation in case we're needed.
I guess you can speak to the statement. My fear is they are showing up with or without cooperation. And because they masked the only individuals that they recognize are your members of law enforcement Can you understand why that community would have some type of trepidation to deal with law enforcement and or why they would bring forth some
type of policy to address that? Deputy Chief Reeves, Chief Grotto. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Carter, for the question. Yes, I do understand that and I do get that. I think that it's important to understand that in this case coming after local law enforcement putting owners reporting requirements putting up barriers to good communication and the ability to be able to execute our job and what we feel is the safest for the community regardless of their status makes this very difficult to say this is the solution.
Okay. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. We're going to move on to our next panel of witnesses. Nick Robles, Owen Brigner, Ian Ketcher, and Alex Sanchez. Okay, we'll start here in the room with Nick Robles. You will have two minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm Nick Robles, policy analyst for Boulder County. I'm here testifying to Boulder County's current amend position on HB 1276. Boulder County supports the safety and well-being of all individuals in Boulder County irrespective of race ethnicity national origin and immigration status likewise Boulder County defends the privacy of confidential information of our program participants for several years for several years Boulder County has implemented policy that prohibits a county employee from providing confidential immigration status country of origin citizenship status or other immigration related records or information without prior authorization from our county attorney's office. Furthermore, no Boulder County employee shall inquire about the immigration status of an individual except where required by law. Our policy provides clarity for staff and supervisors and a safeguard for our community. Last year's legislation, Senate Bill 276, about a level of employee accountability as it relates to sharing personal identifying information. HB 1276 brings the same level to political subdivisions. Boulder County believes that employers should take measures to ensure that a person's personal data is not breached, and we believe that Amendment L-001 strikes a balance between holding a political subdivision accountable while also recognizing a political subdivision's policy and procedures to discourage or prevent a violation from occurring. The passage of HB 1276 will help protect sensitive information and help ensure the health and safety of individuals who are immigrants, including those who are detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings. I'd like to thank the sponsors representatives Velasco and Garcia for their leadership with this bill and their engagement of local government With the adoption of the proposed amendments specifically L.001 and passage out of committee as staff I will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners a support position on HB 1276. Thank you for your time
Thank you Well I hear from Owen Brigner You have two minutes state in the organization you represent You may begin Thank you Mr Chair My name is Owen Brigner and I here on behalf of the Colorado Municipal League which represents
99% of the cities and towns in Colorado. Some of the changes that will be offered via amendments later are definitely improvements, but there are still areas that would benefit from significant clarification. Amendment L4, limiting posted subpoenas to those that are unsealed, is a reasonable adjustment. However, it does not fully address concerns around duplicative reporting requirements that still exist in the bill. Amendment L5 is a step in the right direction by narrowing reporting requirements to multi-jurisdictional efforts that result in immigration enforcement actions. That said, additional clarity is still needed, and I won't belabor this point. I think the law enforcement community has done an excellent job addressing it. Lastly, on Amendment L1, CML appreciates the change to employer liability so that it only applies when an employer has intentionally authorized, encouraged, or failed to prevent a violation that is certainly an improvement. The CML remains concerned about the transportation provisions, including at airports, and with regard to holding municipalities liable for the passive use of their buses for deportation purposes without actual knowledge of it happening. Regarding airports, it's completely unclear how this would work in practice. Would airports have knowledge of these activities, and how would compliance be enforced? Do airports just force airplanes to sit on the runway indefinitely to prevent the plane from taking off? Is that even legal under federal law? It's also unclear what it means for an airport to transport people, when in reality it's airlines that actually transport people. CML has serious concerns about the implications for airports as they will be put in the impossible position of negotiating conflicting state prohibitions and federal mandates, particularly given the FAA's oversight of airports and the continually evolving federal regulations and requirements in this space. Additionally, the bill would attempt to prohibit any airport in Colorado from allowing a plane that has an emergency in flight that needs to land at a Colorado airport, including the Denver International Airport, to keep its passengers safe. And then it's unclear if that plane does land, would it even be allowed to leave if it had to do an emergency landing? Overall, some of these amendments are inching in the right direction, but the bill continues to create new responsibilities in areas of excessive potential liability and confusion for local governments. And as reflected in the fiscal note, these requirements carry real costs and serious implementation concerns for both the state and local entities. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Okay, Ian Ketcher, you will have two minutes stating the organization you represent. You may begin.
Hello. Thank you for having me here. My name is Ian Ketcher. I am representing myself. I am a student of Colorado State University, and I urge that this bill should be passed. It is an act of harm reduction that is desperately needed, but I also am here to advocate that this bill does not go far enough. These detention facilities should not be hosted in our state in the first place. I have heard of the health situation at the Aurora Gia facility. It's abysmal that we are allowing this to happen. Mold grows on walls. Cold eats at people's skin. I've seen a woman who has sent to the geo facility and she went in healthy and when she came out she was completely emaciated because of a lack of health care. Yeah please pass this bill but note that these facilities are nothing more than concentration camps that should be
completely abolished. Thank you. Thank you. Turning online, we have Alex Sanchez.
You'll have two minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Alex Sanchez. I'm the president and CEO of Vosas Unidas We are in an amend position HB 261276 cleans up important loopholes and we support the bill but it is missing one major loophole that impacts rural Latinos reflected in L-006. We thank Representative Velasco and Garcia for their leadership on this bill. Colorado already has passed laws that place limits on how local governments and local law enforcement participate in civil immigration. For example, we have said as a state that local jails should not hold people for civil immigration enforcement only unless there's a judicial warrant. We have also said as a state that local law enforcement cannot collaborate with ICE to facilitate civil immigration enforcement only unless, of course, there's a judicial warrant. We drew those lines as a state because we did not want the community to see local law enforcement as an extension of ICE. We knew that that would undermine crime reporting, cooperation with local police and district attorneys, not to mention erode trust of local law enforcement. But in some rural counties, ICE still has many willing helpers. Some local law enforcement agencies do work with ICE, even for civil immigration enforcement only. Some rural jails, for example, have backdoor arrangements that still allow people to be transferred into ICE custody while in county custody. In practice, some local jails are doing what the ban on ICE holds was supposed to stop. They just don't call it ice holds or transfers.
In Garfield County, Voces Unidas has documented nine cases where people have disappeared while still in custody of that county government. Families were waiting for their loved ones outside to be released, but instead they were transferred into ICE custody. We also see this activity in Mesa, Delta, and other counties. It may not be happening in Denver, but it is happening in rural Colorado. Voces Unidas has reported this activity to the Attorney General. We know this is not a simple enforcement issue. We believe these local governments believe their activity and their behavior to be legal under current state law. When the law is not clear or applied similarly in urban or rural counties, public safety suffers. People stop reporting child abuse to local law enforcement. They stop going to court. They stop participating with district attorneys. We support Amendment L-006. We either believe what we have said in Colorado, that local governments and local law enforcement do not enforce or facilitate civil immigration law, or we do not. We cannot have two Colorados. Yesterday, more than 300 Latinas and Latinos came to the Capitol for Latino Advocacy Day to support this bill because we understand what is happening in our community. Please adopt L-006 and pass HB 26-1276 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Committee members, questions for this panel of witnesses? Rebs, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question for the gentleman from CML. You mentioned duplicative reporting requirements. Can you point to what in this bill is duplicative? Mr. Bregner. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Representative Zokai, for the question. I'll say I think there are like three reporting buckets in this bill, the task force reporting, the subpoena reporting, and then the public posting through the department. So for the subpoena part, I think posting it on the department's website and then also having to submit the subpoenas, even when they're unsealed, to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and then to the Department of Public Safety is duplicative. And then on the multi-jurisdictional task force part, I'll say there are multi-jurisdictions on that task force. And so if you're expecting all jurisdictions to report on the same activity, that feels a little unnecessary when only one of the jurisdictions could do so and that would achieve or accomplish the same goal. Reps okay. Got it. So to clarify, this is not duplicative with any current existing requirements. You're saying that there is overlap within the bill. Mr. Brigner. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yeah, that's right. Reps okay. Other questions? Okay, seeing none. Thank you for your time and your testimony. Okay, Jean Demler, Papadia, Tony Bird, Patrick Holgerson. Okay. Do we not have Papa Dia, Tony Bird, or Patrick Holgerson? Okay. Okay. Selena Lopez? Naomi Andre? Maria Parra. Joel Benjamin. Let's see, Cassandra Tauto. Asmen Ba. Holly Cheng. And Ira Kladjes. Okay. Let's start with the witnesses in the room. Can we start with the witness on my right? State your name, any organization you represent, you may begin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jean Demler. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Colorado Council of Churches and the Interfaith Immigration Network in support of House Bill 1276. The Colorado Council of Churches has 14 Christian denominations. The Interfaith Immigration Network includes individuals who are Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian. As people of all these faiths, we agree that God has a mandate for us to support the lives and rights of our immigrant neighbors. We especially endorse this bill for its expansion of the authority of our state health department to inspect and report on the conditions of the detention centers. You've heard Mr. Garcia in the first panel and others talk about the current conditions in the detention centers. I think equally important is when conditions would improve expanded inspections would ensure continued protection of the health and well of individuals and families incarcerated in the facility While it is understandable that for facilities would provide conditions to maximize profit for the managing corporation, our responsibility as lawmakers and as citizens is to ensure that detainees experience humane treatment and sufficient resources for their well-being. I urge a yes on House Bill 1276. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next witness over, state your name, any organization you represent. You'll have two minutes. Sorry. Hi, my name is Naida Benitez. I am reading for Patrick Holgerson, who signed up. Unfortunately, the committee started sooner than anticipated, so he's not able to make it. But yeah, reading on his behalf. My name is Patrick Holgerson, and I want to testify about what has happened to my loved one, Marco, and the impact his detention has had on his friends and family. Marco was detained the morning of October 8, 2025. He is currently detained in immigration custody here in Colorado. He called me as he left his house to tell me he was headed to work and that he had borrowed my car because his car was not working. About two minutes into the call, he said, oh, no, I am being pulled over. I asked what happened. He said, I don't know, but I don't like how this feels. He left the phone on so I could hear what was happening. I heard someone knock on the car window and Marco rolled down his window. An officer asked for identification and Marco said he had it. Then the officer told him to get out of the car. As the car opened, the officer asked, do you speak good English? Marco said yes, and the officer said, well, I hope you understand this. We have a warrant for your arrest. The phone went silent. About two minutes later, Marco called me back and said I had come to pick him up and that they were leaving his car on the side of the road with the keys by the driver's seat. the vehicle is licensed and registered uh to to to the community member so it is clear that they had been following or tracking him since that day it has been an extreme challenge for everyone who cares about him marco lives with his mother and younger sister he helps them with rent and utilities because his mother does not work much due to a health condition since we don't have much time um i will end with this we are i hope this testimony sheds light on what we have had been through and why we need change. We ask you to support HB 1276, and we're asking for compassion, fairness, and for Marco and others like him to be returned to their families. Thank you. Could you state your name one more time? Yes. Okay. Next witness over, state your name, any organization you represent. You'll have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Navas. I will be reading Maria Marcela Paras' testimony. So good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony. My family and I strongly support House Bill 1276. We believe it is important that protections exist for people who are detained in immigration detention centers in Colorado. All people deserve to be treated with dignity and humanity, and no one should face abuse or negligence inside these centers. I want to share the experience of my son, Raul, who was detained at the facility operated by GEO at the Aurora Ice Detention Center He was detained from August 6 2024 to July 28th 2025 for a total of 11 months and eight days Before he was detained my son was a healthy happy man who was very devoted to his family. He was someone who enjoyed life, cared deeply for his family, including his two daughters, and always tried to help others. Our family was very close and we were happy, but everything changed during his time in detention. While he was detained, he began to suffer serious medical problems, including seizures, something he had never experienced before. Despite this, he often did not receive the medical care or medications he needed. He also faced insufficient food, constant stress, and unfair collective punishments. If one person misbehaved, everyone was punished. They would lose their right to make phone calls, and sometimes they were not allowed to use the microwave to prepare food before going to sleep. In addition, alarms would go off at any hour of the day or night and remain on for long periods of time, creating a constant atmosphere of tension and anxiety. Another painful reality is that many detained people cannot attend religious services or mass because there are not enough priests or pastors allowed into the facility. For many people, faith is one of the few things that gives them strength during a difficult time. The consequences of this experience do not end when someone leaves the detention center. Their harm continues. Today, my son is not the same person. He is depressed and lives with fear and psychological trauma because of everything he experienced there. As a mother, it is very painful to see how someone who was once so joyful and full of life now struggles every day with sadness and anxiety. Today, he cannot see his daughters because after his deportation, their mother does not allow them to leave the country to visit them. The separation from his family has been another very deep wound. With that, we ask that you vote in support of House Bill 1276 and listen to the lived experiences of our populations. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And can I get your name one more time? David Navas, N-A-V-A-S. Okay, great. We just didn't have you signed up. Okay, next witness over. State your name. Any organization you represent, you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Naomi Andre. I live in Fort Collins, and I am here in support of House Bill 26-1276. From what we've seen and heard of ICE's detention centers, detainees are being kept in horrible conditions and denied basic amenities and are subject to medical neglect and malnutrition. 2023 reports from the detention center in Aurora confirmed this, and we've heard the same story in detention centers in El Paso, Texas, and also from people here today. given ice's reluctance to release data on a regular basis and the effort that our congress people had to go through in order to visit these detention centers there is no guarantee that conditions will be better in new detention centers and every concern that it will remain the same as such it would be unacceptable to allow detention centers by ice or by any other agency that may open them up to detain immigrants to open without some attempt at health and environmental oversight beyond that of the occasional congressional visits. There are no justifications for the way people have been treated in these detention centers, and it should not be allowed to continue. Furthermore, willing and voluntary collaboration between our state and ICE agents only serves to drive a wedge between the people of Colorado and their government. Increasing transparency with regards to subpoenas and resource allocation will help bolster the trust that Coloradoans have that the state government is working to keep them and their neighbors safe. Even as the federal administration moves to degrade its relationship with the country it is supposed to serve, there is no reason why our states should do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, turning online, we'll start with Papadia. You will have two minutes to state any organization you represent You may begin So thank you My name is Papaja I here to represent the African Leadership Group a nonprofit organization based here in the Denver metro area. And I'm here in support of House Bill 26-1276. As an immigrant myself and working with a lot of immigrants, I've seen the latest behavior from the ICE officer to our community. And knowing that historically, if any police officer approach you for any reason, they have to identify themselves and they have to tell you what you are being arrested for. I quite don't understand, our community don't quite understand why recently an ICE officer will come and mask their face and arrest you and detain you without telling you the reason why. We believe that we are in a country of law. We believe that we are in a country that people have rights, and we don't quite understand why ICE is allowed to have this behavior to detent people without telling them why, to detent people without identifying themselves. It's having a huge impact in our community. Our community members, even they have the proper document to go to work, to drive, but they are fearful of leaving their home. We have children that are fearful of leaving their home to go to school. So this behavior is not acceptable. We cannot allow to afford to live in this condition. So once again, I'm here in support of House Bill 26-1276, and I call on all these elected officials to take a close look to this, to allow us as immigrants to live with our right and to live properly in this great nation we call home. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we will hear from... I'm having a hard time. Mr. Byrd, you'll have two minutes to state the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you. I'm Tony Byrd, superintendent of the Summit School District here in Colorado. I'm calling, representing myself. However, I am speaking for those that I work with very closely. In our community, I will say that ICE activity has wreaked a level of havoc on this community that I don't think the community has seen in a long time. A number of people have been arrested and detained. I have many stories that I won't go into at this time of very fearful children in schools, fearful children related to going outside, parents that are very scared as well. I'm particularly interested in anything related to HB 261276 that will support violations for sharing of personal and private information and also the health and safety and local county and private detention centers. Unfortunately, I have stories through students of their relatives and detention centers that are everything you've just heard, not sanitary, not safe, and not welcoming for people to come and visit. So I thank Representatives Velasco and Garcia for this work, and I stand quite strongly in support of HB 261276 and in partnership with Hispanic community leaders and our leaders across Summit County. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we'll hear from Ira Klachis. You will have two minutes to state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Hello, my name is Ira. I represent myself. Nothing about ICE really makes me feel safe. Just like a bunch of emboldened thugs coming into my community, ripping apart families, using deadly threats towards people with different political opinions, imprisoning children. Like that might sound like a lot. surprise you, but it doesn't really inspire confidence in that organization. I want to make it clear to like every single person in this room, on the bench, in the audience, if you're concerned with immigration and how that impacts our society, that's fine. I probably disagree with you, but you can have that opinion. But you need to understand that when you justify terror and harm against any person, you welcome that terror and harm against yourself and the people that you love. There's nothing that's stopping ICE from perceiving you as a threat and treating you the exact same way that they've been treating their victims. Right now, children are being detained in these facilities. If ICE agents feel like it's justifiable to imprison children, what makes you think that they're gonna show you any mercy or justice? And also to the law enforcement here today, the communities that you're supposed to be protecting, they want to trust you. If you support the deregulation of ICE, you're making it harder for them to trust you. The police will be inexorably linked with the activities of ICE. And when there's no accountability for those officers, that accountability in the public eye spreads to the police officers. It makes law enforcement jobs harder. I'm in full support of this bill, and I actually think that we should go a lot further. I don't think I should be allowed within our state at all. I think any support of this organization sets a dangerous precedent for our state and country moving forward. I want my tax dollars to be funding schools. I don't want it to be funding ripping children out of schools. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, committee members, do we have questions for this panel of witnesses? Okay, seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify against House Bill 1276? Okay. Against? Come up, sir. Against or amend? Okay, let's start with the witness to my right. State your name, any organization you represent. You will have two minutes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Kelly Song representing the Colorado Aviation Business Association. We're officially in an amended position. Our only concern with the bill is Section 5 concerning the airports. Airports are part of the national airspace system, and as such they are regulated exclusively by the Federal Aviation Administration. Among those regulations are a number of grant assurances, and among those grant assurances is one that prohibits economic discrimination by airports. So, for instance, airports cannot ban any particular type of use or class of flight. And we feel at this section of the bill would put our airports, our public use airports, in violation of those grant assurances and, of course, put those grants at risk and future grants at risk, among other consequences. Furthermore, we have some concerns that the wording of the bill could potentially put some of our airport businesses at risk. For instance, fixed base operators, a lot of which in the state have contracts with the federal government, not agency specific. They could cover forest service, DOD, a lot of them Centennial Airport, there's a lot of refueling of DOD aircraft and so on and so forth. and part of our concern is that if one of these FBOs happens to refuel a plane that may have some of these individuals on board that the bill is addressing that they could put themselves at risk of the civil penalties in the bill As for the amendment we thank the sponsors for reaching out to us and making the attempt to address these concerns Unfortunately, I don't think the amendment as I've seen it does do that. First of all, as you heard before, the wording is somewhat confusing. Airports don't transport people. They facilitate the transport of people. even given a fairly narrow interpretation of it, which I think is the intent of the sponsors, that would still put them in violation of the FAA grant assurances. And I think the broad wording of the amendment would probably further the risk to some of the FBOs and airport businesses. So for those reasons, we're opposed to that section of the bill. And happy to take any questions. Thank you. All right. Our next witness over, state your name. Any organization you represent, you will have two minutes. My name is Mark Goodman. I'll make sure the mic is on. My name is Mark Goodman. I'm from Avon, Colorado. I'm against HB Bill 1275. I might be a little late for it or early for it. I don't remember. You are early for it. We will be hearing testimony on 1275 probably starting in about an hour. So I should wait? Yes, unless you're here to testify specifically about House Bill 1276. If you're not... And what does it pertain to? I'll ask you to wait for the next bill. I'll just wait for the next bill. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for our witness? Rep. Espinosa. I'm on a weird seat here. Sorry. I did have concerns as well about section 5, so I'd like to ask you, what do you believe the cities and municipalities or localities would have as a tool if they were trying to do something in the airport space to stop these transports? Is there anything in your experience that wouldn't trigger problems with the federal government or FAA? Mrs. Flynn. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you. Representative Espinosa, not that I can think of. Again, the airspace is federally regulated, and that includes the use of that airspace, you know, from down to takeoff and landing. Airports, of course, and the entire aviation industry can regulate illegal activity for, like, drug flights or something. They can't prohibit those flights, obviously, but if, take an absurd example, if a plane came in and announced to ATC that they're bringing in cocaine, then ATC would contact local law enforcement and that would be dealt with. Again, it's an absurd example, but to show how we work, and the airports work with the FBI, with other, obviously on pretty much any airport, there are CBP officers there because we are international ports of entry. and since 9-11 of course we've been very active in if you see something reported whether it's a suspected criminal activity or anything like that so to that extent and i know at denver international airport for instance denver police department has an agreement with them they enforce some some local laws on on the non-faa controlled part of the airport but beyond that anything dealing with airspace or use of the airspace is strictly uh controlled by FAA for safety reasons And that been like that for I think for decades now Rep Espinosa. Rep Kelty. No. Or you did have a question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Sloan, for being here. So just so I can understand and clarify. So the airspace and the use of the airspace is FAA, federally controlled or allowed. And I believe I know the answer to this, but I would like to have you put it on record. So as far as like TSA, the security for the airlines or at the airports, and the air traffic controllers who control whether they land or take off, of that, are they also all FAA federal employees as well, where they could not control ICE? Mr. Sloan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Keltie. I can't speak to TSA. Our organization focuses on general aviation, business aviation, or regional airports. But I will say air traffic control, yes, is a function of the Federal Aviation Administration, and they, again, control the airspace. So there would be a jurisdictional question here, and I think that's what we're trying to get at, is that we're concerned that this specific section of the bill creates some jurisdictional conflicts. Rob Kelty. And thank you very much for that. And just so everyone knows that TSA agents are under the Department of Homeland Security, So they are federal agents. I've worked with them for numerous years. So thank you. Further questions? Okay, seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. Okay, Nicole Severa-Loy, Fannie Rodriguez, Andrea Loya. is there anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in support of house bill 1276 okay i see three hands come forward we'll pull a chair up we've had many witnesses today come forward and testify who did not sign up moving forward can you please register, you can do so online. And sir, just feel free to grab one of those chairs. And is there anyone else online? Okay, while we wait on that, let's start with the witness to my right. State your name. Any organization you represent, you will have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nicole Cerver-Loy. I'm the Senior Policy Manager at the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, or COLOR. We are here in strong support of HB 261276. This bill takes necessary steps to begin to address the fear and mistrust Coloradans are facing due to federal immigration instability. The bill adds limits to cooperation with federal enforcement, increases reporting, and adds guardrails to detention facilities in order to support our communities from abusive federal immigration enforcement overreach in Colorado that is paralyzing and impactful to our communities. We are hearing from families that they afraid to call the police if they witness a crime afraid to take their children to medical appointments and who aren going to food boundaries to get the food that they need due to this fear This isn just our immigrant families There are mixed status families. There are U.S. citizen families. They share with us that they check apps for immigration enforcement activity before deciding if they will go out to dinner, for a walk, or to the store, all for the fear of harassment based on how they look. Policies like 1276 help address that fear by ensuring there is clear separation between local law enforcement and the local resources used for federal immigration enforcement. This bill is about community safety, and it isn't just focused on enforcement. It's about Coloradans being able to live, seek care, and move throughout the day and their lives without fear and harm. For these reasons, Colora respectfully urges a yes vote on HB 26-1276. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Okay, next witness over, state your name and the organization you represent. You may begin. Hello, my name is Brittany Gutierrez. I'm the DocuTeam Coordinator with the Colorado Rapid Response Network and the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. I am reading this testimony on behalf of Fanny Rodriguez, who is a directly impacted community member connected to CERC. She would like to share her family's story to be heard, but was fearful to share this testimony herself. On November 9th, my husband was driving near our house on Alameda. There is a Conoco gas station nearby where he was stopped by an officer who was waiting there. When my husband asked the police officer why he had stopped him, the officer said, It doesn't matter. Show me your documents. What documents? My husband asked. Your driver's license, insurance, and car registration, he said. My husband took the documents out of the car. He had a marked license. At that moment, the officer saw his license. He said, that's why you're being detained for your marked license. You are illegal here. You have no right to be here and arrested him. They took him in front of the library to change the car. The officer said, I'll make you more comfortable and put shackles on his feet. He took him to Arapahoe County and gave him a paper to sign. They then took him to GEO. Because of the conditions at GEO, my husband already wants to sign the deportation papers. He wants to give up his rights. He has asked his agent for the papers to sign, but they have not given them to him. He says that they will punish anyone in the unit, even when two people fight. They take away blankets and jackets, do not give food, and take away privileges of phone calls. They also punish people when they gather outside every Monday for a vigil. He says that it's better that they do not protest outside because they get punished. He had the flu, and they did not give him medicine. My 18-year-old daughter is the only one in the family who can visit my husband. My family is broken. With the loss of a family income, finances are a source of stress. There is no longer a way for us to pay all the household expenses, so we move to a cheaper place. I work cleaning houses. My 16-year-old son wants to drop out of school to work and help me. I urge this committee to stand in solidarity with the immigrant community and vote yes on HB 2612-1276. Thank you. Okay, next witness over, state your name and the organization you represent. You will have two minutes.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Miriam Mordonez-Rodriguez, and I'm here to read the testimony of Maria, who is too afraid to walk into this building.
My name is Maria, and I support 1276 as someone who was detained at Gio Aurora and was moved around to five other immigration detention centers. I'm here to say that the cruelty at Gio is standard. While I was being transferred from detention centers, I was not allowed to use the restroom, which led me to developing UTIs that cause kidney infection and put my life at risk. After I was finally taken to the doctor after begging, he stayed that I needed to be sent to the hospital because I could die, but instead of receiving care, I was deported. I once saw a pregnant woman given just a pill. She was bleeding. I do not know if the baby died. There's not more deaths reported because they rushed to get rid of us so we don't die inside these centers. We die in our countries instead so they're free of the blame. However, the medical negligence we face when trapped in these cages is what is killing us. We die of conditions we develop while detained. We die of conditions that worsen because we are not given the care that we could have sought if we weren't detained. They are starving us. They are causing our deaths by the dying of health care. It is torture. The infections I have follow me still. This doesn't end at detention. It follows you the rest of your life. I urge you to support 1276. This is a bare minimum. They're killing us. And I urge the committee for any questions about the Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, next witness over. Say any organization you represent in your name. You'll have two minutes.
Thank you. Hi there. My name is Ant Albrecht, and I am representing myself. I'm here today to speak in favor of House Bill 26-1276 at a time where there are at least nine secret ICE detention centers across our state as detailed in a Colorado Times recorder article by Jason Salzman. and there are reports of, quote, dehumanizing treatment at the Aurora Geodetention Center, it is essential for the safety of Coloradoans that 1276 is passed. The bill upholds the most basic principles of ensuring that human rights are protected. We all recognize the importance of environmental inspections in the food industry, so I ask, why would it be any less important to conduct environmental inspections when human lives are on the line? Additionally, as a CSU student, I watched as my university was impacted by the Trump administration's federal overreach. CSU's funding was cut by the federal government. And it is baffling to me that right here we are having a debate over legislation that upholds the most basic human rights. Additionally, I have heard concern voiced around the families of law enforcement officers, but there is no discussion around the families of immigrants whose families are ripped apart, whose families cannot hear from their loved ones, or if they do, they hear horrifying conditions. And unfortunately, the people most impacted by the decisions made here today are people who are unable to leave their house without fear looming over them. Task force that are formed to subject people to these conditions should absolutely be broken up. And in closing, I say this, to be a legislator is to give your voice, to give your constituents a voice, and this bill does that. I hope that today we make it clear that the people of Colorado stand with our immigrant communities that these communities make our state great, and that we the people support House Bill 26-1276. Thank you.
Okay, next witness over. State your name and the organization you represent. You may begin.
Thank you so much, representatives, for your time. My name is Coral Diaz. I'm the president of the Colorado Coalition for the Advancement of Latinos in Higher Education. I'm just here to bring the voice of every college and university here. When I travel across the state, every corner, meet with every college, every university, students, staff, and faculty, we just heard from one, right? You hear how passionate they are. The biggest thing that they're looking for right now is transparency. When I ask them, what are your needs? What's going on? They're asking for transparency. Things move so fast for them, they don't even know what's going on. And they want to make a sense of things We talking about college students who are trying to better their lives and better the lives of everyone here in Colorado When you talk to them they thinking of everyone here in Colorado And now they are losing trust in our system I listen to all of them all races, all colors, every student. They are losing faith. We don't want our college students to lose faith in our system. It's important that they keep the faith in our system. So I'm asking you all please to support this bill. Give our students here in Colorado what they're asking. They're asking for a lot more, but they're asking for something very, very fundamental right now. And that is just for some transparency around what's happening in their communities, what's happening with their own loved ones, our faculty are confused about what's happening with their students. There's so many different questions going on, and this bill will bring a little bit of that transparency that they're looking for and hopefully bring some ease, because imagine going to school during this time and trying to think and do these things while you're under these stresses. So thank you all for your time. I appreciate you. Thank you.
Committee members, do we have questions for this panel of witnesses?
I do have a question for Ms. Ordonez. Can you head specifically flagged that we should ask about examples, further examples of the horrific conditions at GEO? Could you provide some of those?
Yes, sadly I can. We have a lot of documented cases. These are coming from surveys that we conducted from people in there, as well as some of the casework I do with families. I had one man who was bleeding from his eyes. This was horrific, and I remember calling Gio to ask if he could please get medical help. They wouldn't listen to me until I pushed further and explained that this man was bleeding, hadn't had health care. They finally said that they were going to do a check on him, but for most of the people that I work with, I have to do congressional inquiries on their health so Congress people can inquire upon them. We also have cases of people walking in without mental health conditions, but walking out with schizophrenia and a ton of medication, which has also led to horrible conditions for after right and sudden death as well. I also have another case where right now this man has a toothache. He has diabetes. He's not getting the care he needs. we have a lot of cases around solitary confinement we also have documented cases of close to no food they are being starved they're being starved there's no real way of them getting any health care right because they're dependent upon the health care that is given to them within we have another case that Maria sent to me that I was going to read but once again I only had two minutes where this man was detained after he got surgery and he was you know seeking care for his surgery while he was detained. At GEO, they did not provide him the care, and once he got to Mexico, he died. I have another case where I was working with a family. He had been complaining since, I believe, December that he had pneumonia. Well, not pneumonia. He had a condition, right? We don't know what it was. After he was deported, we couldn't find him for around close to two weeks. It turns out he was at the hospital because once he was deported, he crawled to the hospital, and it took him two weeks to be able to call his family. I have way more stories around this sadly They also use solitary for close to no reason and as punishment Another thing that happens right is we are talking when we talk about health care a lot of these conversations are around physical health care right We haven't even started talking about the mental health conditions that people face. And there is just this giant leap, right, where you go in there, you're trapped, you have a condition, and they give you a pill, most likely Tylenol. And this is how they continue to take care of our people. This isn't taking care. Another thing that Maria said, which couldn't add to the testimony, is that they feel like they are treated like dogs. And I believe there was a testimony earlier from someone that, you know, was saying that dogs should get more health care. And these are people who all are under civil violations. This is cruel and unusual punishment. I can elaborate on any other stories. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, committee members, further questions? Okay, seeing none, thank you for your time and your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify? Please come forward, sir. And again, on future legislation, if witnesses could please sign up. We had way fewer sign-ups than we actually had people here to testify. we'll start with you, state your name, any organization you represent you will have two minutes and then it looks like we have a witness online as well
can y'all hear me? yes awesome, my name is Kelly Leone and I'm an organizer with the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition and I'm here reading a testimony for Juanita, a community member who was too afraid to be here but still wanted to testify my son was detained at GEO for eight months I would send him money so he could call me and eat but the funds never seemed to get to him The air was always cold, and it felt like death. He was starved and was denied medical care. His head hurt from a former head injury, and they could not give him care. I was also detained in a detention center. I was there for four days, and I could not tell when it was day or night. They took all my clothes and put me in a gown that looked like the ones you get at a hospital. I had a cot on the floor like a dog. The air was so cold, and I prayed that I would not die. It was just so dark. The Department of Public Health and Environment is authorized to inspect facilities that house or detain individuals who are non-citizens for purposes of civil immigration proceedings. I urge you to pass this bill to expand inspection authority, including the frequency of inspections and items that are subject to inspection. Thank you.
Thank you. And Katie, could I get your last name one more time? I got your first name.
Yeah, Leon, L-E-O-N.
Okay, thank you. Katie Leon. um okay online um we have one witness state your name any organization you represent you will have
two minutes hi good afternoon um joel greenberg but joel benjamin to uh try to avoid certain kinds of trolling uh i represent myself um i don't know if you can hear me but my timer hasn't started so i just want to make sure we can hear you beautiful okay thanks i represent myself uh i'm just a guy I've testified in front of this committee before on other bills. I think all the time about my grandparents surviving the Holocaust and the conditions they saw. They were teenagers. They were preteens when they were pulled into that system. They survived. Most of their families did not. My grandfather found the corpses of his mother and sister while being transferred between two labor camps between two trains on a long march I really just want to echo one of the things that the first speaker mentioned I'd like folks to consider strongly, we, a number of organizations locally, have put together reports on what we've seen out of ICE detention in Colorado. So coloradowithoutcages.org has two reports. We just published one on Monday. And we're talking about situations that are egregious. A reasonable adult, whether you are a fan of the things I'm a fan of or think those are reprehensible, would look at these conditions and say, what the heck? We're talking about folks not getting life critical medication. We're talking about folks being given food that a reasonable person would not consider food. We're not even talking about dietary restrictions or needs. We're talking about people not getting adequate health care because there is one doctor who may not be licensed, might have been disbarred as a doctor. I don't know the details on that process. um one doctor for 1500 people in a crammed facility um i want to encourage folks to grapple with the truth as it is about what happens um we spent i'm 35 my entire childhood my entire uh education cherry creek schools uh shout out rep hamrick my own teacher was sort of about grappling with the events of the last century. The cruelty, the war, the indiscriminate pain caused by folks who had power to abuse and chose the abuse of power path. I want to encourage folks to understand that the things that scare you the most about the 1930s and 40s or the 1960s and 70s are happening in my life. over your time if you could modern aurora if you could wrap up i'm sorry i certainly will thank you um i want to ask folks also to when you look at this report um the report is partially constructed from the testimony to us by people who were detained who got out um their stories matter the drawings they drew of what they see inside matters um and you know i hope that is informative as we talk about this as a part of a larger system of choices made by our government. Thank you.
Okay, committee members, do we have questions for our witnesses? Okay, seeing none, thank you for being here. Thank you for your time and your testimony. Having previously made a last call for witnesses, the witness testimony phase is closed. Bill sponsors amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, you have a stack of new amendments. So I'm first going to share that some of these are replacing current amendments. So you can go ahead and toss L1, you can toss L5, and you can get rid of L4. Those ones we will not be bringing, and then we will talk through the changes to these amendments as we get to them. As we get into the, as we're in the amendment phase, I do really just really quickly want to thank all of the testimony. I want to appreciate everyone that came in an amend position. Thank you for your comments because then as we're listening in testimony, we're able to make changes based on some of the things that we've heard. Would like to encourage if there's additional changes to please feel free to come and speak with Rep. Velasco and I because we do want to make sure that these things are implementable. So with that said, okay, we move L8.
Okay, L8 has been moved, seconded by Rep Sokai.
Rep Garcia, please describe L8.
Thank you. So L8 is a bill that clarifies the, well L8 clarifies the intentionally authorized that we are making it intentional so the violation has to be intentional when sharing PPI from either the agency. We also found a typo in L1 that we changed in L8 on line 9 and we asked for an aye vote. Committee members are there questions on L8?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just so I can understand this fully. So when it comes to, I guess the sharing of data, it's just, you're just making it incredibly clear that it's intentional. Rob Garcia.
Correct. We are making it incredibly clear that it is intentional and it's not an accident or it's not because you are forced to do so by your employer, then the employee is held liable. We are saying that you are choosing to break the law. Web sober.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate this clarification. So when, for example, an employee doesn't necessarily know the full scope of what they're working on, they believe it's a drug enforcement task force, how would then this apply? Because they are still intentionally sharing data, but it's not for the exclusive use of immigration authorities. Webb Garcia.
Yeah. So again, here on line 12, it says intentionally authorized or encourage the violation. Right. So there has to be that the intentionality behind breaking the law. So if the intention there that they're working in a task force and they are sharing information necessary for a criminal investigation, I mean, that's not that doesn't fit within this this provision of protection. Thank you.
Rev Silver. Yeah, thank you. Just to be really clear, what is the difference between L001 and L008?
Rev Velasco. It was just a typo.
So that's the only change. Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Rev Silver. So that's the only change. Okay. Okay.
Okay further questions on L Any objection to L Noting... Okay. Let's get AML Bacon back here for voting. I think... Okay. Okay.
Ms. Jensen, call the roll on this one
and then we should get Rep Bacon back here I texted her if somebody could call her
Ms. Jensen, please call the roll on this one
Representative Bacon Excuse
Clifford
Espinosa Pass Pass Garcia Yes. Kelty.
Excused. Slaw. Excused. Soper. No. Zokai.
Yes. Khalil. No. Carter. Yes.
Mr. Chair. Yes. I think you forgot me. Mr. 2. Okay, I'm about a 6-2. L8 is adopted. I actually did not vote, Mr. Chair. Oh, we skipped Espinosa. No, I passed. Oh, Espinosa said pass. Okay.
I'm a yes.
Espinosa is a yes. Okay, on the vote of 6-2, L8 is adopted.
Rep. Garcia. I move L3. Okay, that's a proper motion, seconded by Rep. Zocay.
Rep. Velasco.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
L3 creates a cash fund using the funds that detention facilities will pay the state to cover inspections within CDPHE, and it strengthens inspection requirements to epidemic or communicable diseases. And this language comes from the State Board of Health.
Okay. Are there any questions on L3? Any objection to L3? Okay, seeing none, L3 is adopted. Rep. Garcia.
I move L9. Okay, that's a proper motion, seconded by Rep. Zocchi.
Rep. Garcia.
Mr. Chair, this L9 replaces L4,
and the only change from L9 to L4 is found on line 5 and 6 of L9, where we are correcting when the subpoena should be made public. So it's not upon receiving, but it's upon fulfilling the subpoena. And then we're maintaining the unsealed. We're keeping the unsealed language that we had in the original L4. All right. Any questions on L9?
Any objection to L9? Okay, seeing none, L9 is adopted. Rep Garcia.
Move L6. I mean, excuse me, sorry, I move L5. Second. Sorry, I withdraw the motion to move L5.
I withdraw the second. Okay, that motion is withdrawn.
Rep Garcia I move L7 Okay L7 has been properly moved seconded by Rep Zocay Rep Garcia Rep Velasco Thank you Mr Chair
So L5 was around reporting all of multi-jurisdictional task forces or coordinated investigations to those that result in any immigration enforcement actions. And then after the comments from Representative Espinosa, we changed the word actions for consequence. Because as she mentioned, there are other consequences besides deportation. So we added the language that says that immigration enforcement consequence means a civil immigration detention, removal, or deportation proceedings. or offenses related to immigration status, including violations, and we list the statutes. So that's L-007 that replaces L-005.
Thank you.
And this is just in response to the questioning that came up by Representative Espinoza and Representative Clifford with what exactly is an immigration enforcement action. Okay, any questions on L7?
Any objection to L7? Not any objection from Rep Soper.
Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.
Representatives, Bacon.
Excuse. Clifford.
Yes. Espinosa.
Yes. Planell.
Respectfully, no. Garcia.
Yes. Kelty.
Excused. Slaw. No. Soper. No.
Sokai. Yes. Carter. Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes. 6-3.
Okay, on a vote of 6-3, L7 is adopted.
Rep. Garcia. I move L6. All right, that's proper motion,
Seconded by Rep. Zocay, Rep. Velasco.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
So with L-006, our goal is to make sure that ICE is not allowed to enter secure areas of jails for civil enforcement only without a judicial warrant. And these are the issues that are happening in the Western Slope, because if jails allow ICE to enter secure areas for civil enforcement, local jails, than a pipeline for ice. And this is happening in Garfield, Monroe's, Delta, and Mesa counties, and there are 10 open investigations around that issue.
Okay, any questions?
I'm sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative Velasco. I wondered if maybe you could kind of repeat, because we were still shuffling through some of the amendments, because we've been doing a lot here in the last couple of minutes. What you were talking about, the open investigations in Delta, Mesa, and Montrose counties and how that relates to the amendment.
Brad Velasca. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Soper. So currently, letting ICE to walk into secure jail areas like their cells and to detain them is currently legal. so it feels like a transfer or a nice hold without saying that it's a nice hold or a nice transfer and i can tell you more about the 10 cases So this is the issue where a person gets arrested, they post bond, was ordered to be released by a judge, and this person never walked out of the jail. So under Colorado law, posting bond is not a technicality. state statute explicitly recognizing that posting bond as a release triggering event, meaning that the person is legally eligible for release from custody. But in these cases, the release never happened. Instead, according to the impacted persons, ICE agents entered the jail. County jail deputies facilitated the transfer of the person into federal custody, and I transported them away using the jail's secure cell report. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thought you had another question. No? Okay. Any further questions? Okay, you're objecting? Okay. Okay. Noting objection to L6. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.
Representative Bacon.
Excuse.
Clifford.
Yes.
Espinosa.
No.
Planell.
No.
Garcia.
Yes.
Heltie.
No.
Slaw.
No.
Soper.
No.
Sokai.
Yes.
Carter.
Yes. Mr. Chair.
I am going to hold the vote on this until we get Rep. Bacon back. The committee will stand in a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're ready. Okay, we are in the middle of a vote on L6. I paused the vote to wait for Rep Bacon. Rep Bacon is the only member of the committee who has not yet voted. Rep Bacon.
Yes.
Six to five. Okay, on a vote of six to five, L6 passes. Rep Garcia.
I move L10.
Is there a second? Hello, committee members. Rep Zocay?
Second.
Okay, that's seconded by Rep Clifford. Rep Garcia?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is brought in response to the concerns we heard from testimony that we are simply adding, not simply because it's a huge deal, we're actually adding knowingly to any violation by transportation. So if the transportation agencies, if like our RTDs, buses, or even our airports knowingly facilitate the transportation of detainees, then they can be held liable. I'm going to ask for an aye vote.
Committee members, other questions on L10? Rep Soper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we heard several fact patterns during testimony, particularly on this point. One was, say, an assault has taken place, law enforcement arrests an individual. They're being transferred back to the station house for booking and at least a 48-hour detention. So in that scenario, they wouldn't know that a person had, for example, a federal immigration detained are issued until they had reached the station house. So that would not be knowingly. Would that be correct?
Correct.
Rep.
Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then to have the counter example that we also heard during testimony to make sure we're abundantly clear, let's say same fact pattern. There's an assault, but at the place of the incident, officers were made aware of the fact that the individual did have a federal immigration detainer issued and outstanding. The minute that person was put into the squad car would be violating this because they would know.
Rob Garcia. Thank you. It would not because if they are transporting the individual for criminal prosecution, it's not for immigration enforcement. So that would not actually fall under this knowingly as well.
Rob Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Garcia. that that's not quite how I understand this that it it works either way that if you had a parallel structure the minute you had that secondary element of of knowledge and of immigration then even if you had on the other parallel for criminal prosecution the fact that you had that second parallel track exist I don see anything in here that says the words exclusively for example
Rob Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page 8, line 12, 10 through 12, it says, Transport by any means, including by municipal bus or train individual detainees, by federal immigration attorneys for the purpose of deportation. So that is the exclusivity clause, but then the rest will follow. And so what we're saying here is then if a local transportation knowingly violates this part, then they can be held liable. But if it's just knowing that somebody's immigration, knowing someone's immigration status, yet they're still proceeding with criminal prosecution because of an assault, which is what should happen, they're not going to be held liable for transporting that person for criminal prosecution to a local jail.
Rep Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in reading this, under the same fact pattern, law enforcement knows that the person has a federal immigration detainer against them. And by having this specific knowledge, the end result is going to be deportation, even though the state of Colorado, acting as our own sovereign, would be able to file a charge, prosecute the individual, maybe sentence the individual, but they still have the knowledge that at least on the federal side, detention is what's going to happen.
Rep Garcia. Well, respectfully, that's actually not entirely the case, because if somebody is undocumented and they commit or they're accused of committing a crime, right, so the law enforcement there, or let's say that they are on a bus or something and they are accused of committing assault, they are not actually therefore charged and therefore considered a crime and therefore put on a target list for deportation. So if that is like a secondary or third degree of impact, that is not necessarily for the purpose of deportation. It's for the purpose of criminal prosecution.
Rep. Selber. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Garcia. But I would just respectfully point out that in the fact pattern, I kept using the words that they had a detainer against them. I mean, we're not talking about the person who was fully undocumented, that has never come across any sort of immigration court in their entire life, that they have managed to be completely anonymous until they committed a crime. We're talking about a person that already has a federal immigration detainer issued against them and has committed a crime. And so under that fact pattern, law enforcement are charged with the crime. Thank you.
Allegedly.
And in that particular case, law enforcement does know that the end result is deportation. And so the way I read this, you have that parallel track. and the minute they get into, for example, the bus that's owned by the municipality or the squad car.
Rep Garcia Thank you Mr Chair I think if that were the case and a squad car were to show up and have to arrest somebody for allegedly committing a crime even if there is that detainer the law enforcement agency is there to arrest the person for allegedly committing the crime That is not part of this use of our public transportation system. They are there. They could be at the bus station. They can arrest the individual, walk them out to their squad car and walk away. And that is not what this is doing. That is that does not count. That action is not part of what Section four is entailing. This is not saying law enforcement can't enter the property to detain somebody who has committed a crime for that at all. This is saying that our spaces cannot facilitate the transportation through our public transportation systems for the purposes of deportation.
Okay, I'll also just say I am hearing from the bill sponsors and as has demonstrated with the amendments that have been brought, probably a willingness to further clarify in addition to this language. I'm not hearing that it's this language moving forward and then nothing else. Is that right? Okay.
Rep Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors. I would agree with the chair. just in listening to our back and forth. I mean, this is definitely an area that still needs clarification beyond what you have in L010. And regardless of what happens today, I would say this is an area that you need to go back and relook at because the fact that you can have reasonable minds, see this completely differently, you then need to put yourself in the shoes of a person on the outside who's now trying to follow the law. And if you can have well-educated people of differing minds read the same sentence and come up with two different conclusions, we need to find some way to have this be better written. And that's all I'm asking.
Rob Garcia? Yeah, we are happy to continue engaging. And like I said, I think hearing from testimony, some of the concerns, I would like to put out another public call that if you came and testified and you have these amendment concerns, please come talk to us directly. We probably could have addressed some of these had we had this engagement with these stakeholders, had they told us after they read the bill what the specific concerns were. And we're trying to make it up as we go right now, responding to what we're hearing in committee. and we are 100% wanting to make sure, like I said at the beginning, that this is implementable. So I do hope that those who came and testified in amend on this position, on this section, on anything else, that you will please take us up on our offer so we can get this right. We don't want to have unintended consequences that don't keep people safe.
Okay, further questions on L10? Is there objection to L10? Seeing no objection, L10 is adopted. Rep Garcia, further amendments?
That is all.
Committee members, do we have amendments on House Bill 1276? Okay, seeing none. The amendments phase is closed. Bill sponsors, wrap up. Rep Velasco.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee, for listening to everyone that came to testify. Thank you. Thank you for coming and making your voice heard. I did want to talk about a case in the Supreme Court that Monel versus Department of Social Services from 1978 where Monell liability from 1983 for the mentality and mens rea test for intentional violation On the second one, the Boulder County language shows that established that the local governments, governments, municipalities, counties can be sued for money or damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional violations, but only if the violation resulted from an official policy, custom, or practice, rather than just the actions of an individual employee. the Federalist Society the key aspects of the liability it says that the violation must be caused by a formal policy, ordinance, regulation or a widespread well-settled custom, deliberate indifference shows that failure to train, supervise or discipline employees can constitute a policy if it shows deliberate indifference to constitutional rights. So I think what we are assuming is that the plaintiff must prove that municipal action was the moving force behind the constitutional injury. So in this case, the municipalities were not liable simply because they employed the person who committed that violation. So I can definitely share this information with you. But I did want to share some of the statements that the 19-year-old student made after she was released from the detention center in Gio. She was 19 years old, and she said, I was scared. I felt alone. I was placed in a system that treated me like I didn't matter. In detention, we were given soggy, wet food. Even the bread would come wet. We were kept on confusing schedules. And the moment they realized I spoke English, I saw a change. Suddenly, I was treated better than others who didn't speak English. That broke my heart because no one deserves to be treated like that. Not in a country that I've called home since I was seven years old. And it's all I have ever known. And I also wanted to share the statement that the sheriff's office made in Mesa County, where he calls out the bad actor that this deputy was. So it says, in accordance with Colorado law, the Mesa County Sheriff's Office does not investigate residency status during any law enforcement interaction. interaction that really stated before explaining that the sheriff regularly worked with federal law enforcement. Our deputy was part of a communication group that included local, state, and federal law enforcement partners participating in a multi-agency drug introduction effort focusing on the highways throughout western Colorado. The statement continued, we were unaware that the communication group was used for anything other than drug interdiction efforts, including immigration. We have since removed all Mesa County Sheriff Office members from the communication group and our administrative investigation to ensure that we are compliant with state law and department policy is ongoing. So I think that what we are hearing is that there are bad actors out there, and that's harming everyone that lives in our communities, no matter our immigration status. So we are looking to do what we can to address these issues. And I hear Cheyenne's vote.
Rep. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very grateful for the level of engagement that we had today from all sides, from the witnesses. I really, really sincerely appreciate the call-outs on words that we're using and the way that the language that we're using could either help or hurt our intention. I think that is what makes policy actually work when we all have our eyes on it and when we all share, as you were saying, Representative Soper, what it looks like when we are reading it from different perspectives. This bill truly is a bill that is with the motivation of protecting Coloradans. there is no desire here to to negatively harm local law enforcement none there is no desire in this bill to put our local law enforcement officers at risk there's the only desire in this bill is to make sure that our that our neighbors that coloradans no matter where they're from are protected, are safe, and in turn our communities are safe. When we can help increase transparency on how our resources are used, it increases safety. It increases confidence amongst our community in our law enforcement. It increases trust in our government. I think for me, if you believe that there has been overreach, that there has been unlawful actions that have harmed cohesion of our communities, that has harmed individuals, that has led to very unnecessary deaths, this bill should be an easy yes. Thank you.
Okay, Rep. Garcia, a proper motion is to the Finance Committee as amended. Sorry, I'm just sitting through the Finance Committee for routing. This happened to me earlier this year. Wow, okay.
Mr. Chair, I move House Bill 1276 to the Committee of Finance with a favorable recommendation as amended.
Second. All right, that's seconded by Rep Zocay. Committee members, closing comments.
Rep Soper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, sponsors. I do appreciate your openness to continue to engage in dialogue. That being said, one thing I do wanna lay on the record, not just for the bill before us but for a number of other bills that I seen over the last eight years which is we have a duty to the people of Colorado to draft legislation with plain meaning that readable, that can be understood by someone of average intellect. It doesn't take high-level law degrees to be able to understand what the law is saying. And I preface this, you know, these closing comments by saying there's parts of the bill, even with the amendments, that it's still hard to read and it's still hard to understand. I will be voting no today for a number of reasons. Number one, I understand what the issue is, that there's many in our state who are fearful of federal immigration authorities knocking on their door and taking them in the middle of the night for deportation, heaven forbid, to a third-party country with absolutely no due process. I absolutely understand that fear. Being married to an immigrant who just recently became a U.S. citizen, being the brother-in-law of an immigrant from Mexico, and every single one of my uncles and aunts, also married, non-Americans. Perhaps I reflect a family of immigrants. We talk about these issues all the time as a family, not just looking at the newspaper in isolation. But in looking at the bill and knowing that this is a preempted area of law, meaning the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to immigration and immigration enforcement. And what I see written here in House Bill 1276 is an attempt to be able to intervene and stop any Colorado law enforcement or municipal assets from being used by federal immigration authorities, and then including very high fines, fines that I fear might even violate the Eighth Amendment excessive fine clause, to try to intervene and to stop any engagement between Colorado law enforcement and ICE. The hardship that I see here is there's complexities. One is if ICE is going to have an action, I kind of want our local law enforcement knowing about it at the very least. And the bill would prevent that. At least it would stifle that to a great extent. I also want our law enforcement showing up to immigrant communities. And I fear that if they were to show up and there happens to be an ICE engagement going on at that particular time, that they would be chilled away from any sort of engagement to keep our friends and our neighbors safe. the disclosure of the subpoenas. I do worry about vigilantes. I worry about bounty hunters. I worry about private investigators taking it upon themselves to further harass Coloradans. I also see some of the penalties that are included in here. I mean, looking at, for example, airports. I mean, this also is another exclusive federal area when it comes to the runway and we heard testimony about that and which planes can land and take off from an airport To be able to try to intervene and stop there you know it puts our law enforcement in a very difficult position of which law do you not obey, and which one do you follow? And if you, you know, by failure to act, you're going to be violating someone's laws, either the federal government's laws or the state's laws. And if it's the state laws, then you're hit with a $50,000 penalty. On page 12, even the facility that may detain an individual, and this could be a regular jail, not just a ICE detention facility. I mean, one of the elements they have to pay for and pass an inspection on is whether they've done an environmental impact study. I mean, that's the type of thing that I'm not entirely sure that has anything to do with the title of the bill, which is concerning immigration and individuals who are immigrants within Colorado and how to protect them and keep them safe. I see that there's a lot of work still to be done. but when I asked the question of the first proponents panel, if this bill was the law of the land today, would it stop ice raids? Would it stop deportations? And would it keep your friends and families safe? And the response was no answer. And there was no answer because the bill wouldn't actually do anything. If this bill were law today, there would still be raids. There would still be deportations. It's a federal area of law, and I know it may be frustrating, but handcuffing our law enforcement in placing more liability on them is not the answer. I'll be a no vote. Thank you.
Rep. Calzi.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad for the testimony that we had today, but as I called it out in the beginning I'm going to really call this out for what I see this really is for a bill that was said to not be an anti-ICE bill by the sponsors in the opening as it didn't say anything about ICE in the bill all I can say is I stopped around 80 80 times ICE was mentioned by both sides that came up and testified today It was ICE, ICE, ICE. If this bill truly has nothing to do with ICE, it sure sounds like everyone on all sides disagrees. I want to be clear. This bill will have zero impact on ICE, who are federal agents. it's obvious to me that is a punitive bill on our colorado law enforcement and that's a shame because i know how hard they work to keep our community everyone in our community safe there are no protections for them as we see many times in many bills For me, this will be a massive safety issue. I do worry on the impact that it will have to minority communities or communities that are known to have people who are not here legally The involvement in police not saying that they would do it on purpose but maybe with some hesitation internally, instinctively. I'm not sure how to explain that. Where they may not respond possibly the way they should in fear of their own safety or their own protections for them and their family. to be charged for something when you're only trying to do the right thing. I'm a first-generation daughter of an immigrant here in America. She was a legal immigrant. We never had a problem, never had to worry, because we did everything the right way. I think this comes down to doing things the right way gives you peace in mind, gives you peace in life. For me, this is an anti-ICE bill, which again, this bill will not protect against in any way, shape, or form. It's the wrong way to go about it. And it will definitely be a no today.
Further closing comments?
Rep. Espinosa.
Okay, Rep. Zocay.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't going to say anything. I think you all know how I'm going to vote on this, but I do want to take a moment to thank the sponsors and the proponents who came out to share their stories and for those who didn't feel safe doing so that they still took the step to send in written testimony. I really appreciate hearing directly from community about how this bill impacts them. What we have before us, even though it is not directly calling on any action from ICE, nowhere in this bill does it dictate any action from ICE or any prohibition on ICE activities. We find ourselves in a situation where we are tasked with keeping our community safe. And what we have right now is an agency that always has, but now with much more resources, is terrorizing our communities. And what we have before us today is very simple steps that we can take forward, that we can enact into law in order to keep people safe. I'm surprised at how much we danced around this reporting from task forces. I think it's great to have more information, and this is just a transparency measure. I was concerned that our law enforcement didn't know if they could comply with that because they don't have information from the task forces that they are a part of. And so I'm hoping that once this bill is law, it urges our law enforcement to get those answers because they should know the results of investigations that they are participating in. and as far as the provisions in this bill around detention centers i am so grateful for the work the sponsors put into this bill to to allow us to have some oversight i don't care how anybody came into this country we have constitutional rights for everybody and nobody should be subject to nearly dying because they existed in this country. And the stories that we heard about the health conditions in these centers are horrifying, and that alone should be enough for all of us to vote yes today. We should be doing everything we can to prevent that regardless of where you are on the political scale, no person should be subject to torture within concentration camps in our state. And so I am an enthusiastic yes. Thank you for all of your work on this, and I look forward to seeing it become law.
Rep Clifford.
I am not quite as thrilled as Rep. Zokai. There are pieces of this bill that I like. I really love the CDPHE parts of it. I appreciate how far even today some of the amendments have come. I am concerned about several of the things as they relate to operations for police matters. And I'm hopeful that based on some of our back and forth dialogue that you will continue to whittle with us until we get something that is much, much, much more in the middle. that will take some of my heartburn out of a few of these sections. And there's been evidence of that today alone just in the dialogue. So I'm not jumping up and down in hair on fire, and I'm also not hesitant to vote yes. There have been, as I said earlier to somebody that I guess it was Deputy Chief Reeves when he was up here, I don't have an item that people have come to my office more about than this issue. It's overwhelming. We've had to build new email filters to even make sure that I can read my inbox in the mornings to deal with these issues. And I know that our local law enforcement has not created this phenomenon. They don't want this. They didn't ask for it either. They don't want to be put in the middle of it. and I think that by and large they're willing to support our community's efforts in making sure that there is transparency and there's also the understanding that there's very little that we're going to do about an ICE operation and what that looks like. We can absolutely educate our law enforcement officers about the differences in what warrants and detainers are and the difference between civil immigration action versus criminal and really draw some definitive lines there, and I think we've done a job of that in previous years, even before today. I'm scared for some of the directions that some of these things are going, but I'm also, as a legislator, having to balance a demand from community that we hurry and that we address concerns for the fear that is now here for the way that enforcement actions have been taken. I also want just to say for the record, I am not against immigration enforcement. I am not against a lawful and reasonable way of dealing with immigration policy. but I do not believe that doing so in a manner that doesn recognize that every person that stands upon this soil is protected by our rights given in the Constitution and that we treat people as if they have rights in this country. Irrespective of what their situation is with immigration, irrespective of whether they have been detained, and respected of whether they've been arrested, we treat people in this country with the rights that are afforded by the Constitution. And I have seen time and time again where that is not the case. And it does put us in the unfortunate situation where we now must decide our own policy and how we engage with that. And I just want to say to the sponsors that are sitting before me that deal with the immigrant community far more than I do. I feel for the fear that is shown in the communities. I hear it coming from teachers. I hear it coming from Greenwood Village and Centennial and Arapahoe County. And I hope that you will work your rear ends off to get this policy right before it gets out of the House, and I will be getting you out of committee today.
Rep. Espinosa.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to begin by thanking the people who came to testify, especially those who spoke for those who could not speak. As you know, as many of you may know, this has been my life's work. I started doing immigration work in 1982 prior to legalization. I was one of three immigration attorneys in the state of Utah to help process all the legalization applicants who were going through a process because of the fear and the shadows that they lived in at that time. So I understand the deep hurt of our community who have been pushed into shadows because I know those people. I also continue to work with them to today. And I know that we, in my own church and my community, we are working with families who are too afraid to come out and get food and ensuring that our food bank is providing that for them. So I understand and have lived this life for this community for much of my life. And that's why I want to say thank you to you who are speaking on behalf of the people who cannot speak. I also just want to acknowledge that I understand the current status of the law because I am, as a former appellate immigration judge, I'm a member of what's called the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges. And we have written over 70 amicus briefs against the due process right violations that have been happening by this administration. Many of those briefs have been cited by up to even the Supreme Court to grant rights and due process to immigrants. So in that context, I look at the law in a very different way than many in this room, because I bring to knowledge that experience as an immigration professional, that experience as a federal immigration judge, and my experience as a state prosecutor, where I worked with the local communities and law enforcement on how we could be better to reach out and connect with our communities who need help. I think there are times when we impose barriers between local law enforcement in our communities that preclude them from calling the police and knowing that they can get protection if they a victim of crime or domestic violence And I think we need to stop that We have to be very careful about that And so I want to say I also looked at this bill in the context and I think it's important for the community to understand the context of where we, as a leader in the state of Colorado, have been to provide protections and ensure that we've given clear direction to our law enforcement, that they are not to participate with ICE or CBP or DHS, that in any of those circumstances we have put forward very clear lines, and I heard from the chiefs today, the deputy chief, that they understand those lines and they're incorporating them institutionally. I also heard from the sponsor that the error that was done in Mesa County has been acknowledged and recognized and was a teaching moment. We have a law already on the books that can and will be holding that officer who violated the law in place already accountable. Because that's what we do, is we operationalize law after we've implemented it. So as I looked at this bill today, it was very difficult for me because I want to pass some legislation that will help our community. And had this bill been left to the sections with regard to the detention facility, especially in light of the horrific stories I heard today of the conditions of the facility and the fear that we have about facilities coming into the state, secret or not secret, I wished we could have targeted that action, which at this point doesn't have the holes all filled as we have with the other parts of our state law to date. but let me go through the concerns I have with the bill as it's been written in section one first and foremost it's unclear to me how law enforcement is defined in section 2.5 all the compounded ores lead me to wonder how a law enforcement entity is supposed to know which action or which of those ores because compounding sentences become very difficult to determine will trigger an adverse consequence to the police. We talked about large actions and small actions. I believe both can be hampered by the language in the law today. That is large actions and the need to engage in public safety offenses, which is why we had the task force issue last year, I believe. We couldn't come up with a good definition of that, but those might be hampered if our local law enforcement feel that there's too much jeopardy or too much potential harm if they engage with federal law enforcement officers, even in pure criminal activities. And then with regard to the small offense, I thought it was interesting in terms of how a task force is defined. If law enforcement is on a signal chain, but they are not part of a task force in that signal chain, Does that trigger under this statute? I'm not so sure. I would question whether a pure signal chain becomes a task force dependent on the members that are there. So I see unintended consequences and a possible chilling of public safety enforcement in Section 1. In Section 2, I don't believe that the penalty is proportioned to the harm. I've been having a lot of discussion with people on other bills who are putting in the terms civil infractions and unspecified misdemeanor. Is it unspecified Is that the word It something like that where it not designated as a misdemeanor And so as I see those things spreading through the statute I have concerns because I been trying to figure out the history And in civil fractures, my understanding is they're both a holdover in the statute and also part of the CCJJ amendment process that would have addressed lower penalty generally with the elimination of petty offense, some class three misdemeanors. So there was a lower threshold kind of placed on what the civil infractions were meant to be, but it's clear it can be defined as anything. I think this expands it way farther than what the intent was on a civil infraction, so that was a concern for me just from a legal standpoint. In section number three, when we get to the subpoenas, adding the unsealed subpoena does not solve the problem because the statute that was written says the subpoena. The subpoena has embedded in it PII for the individual. It is not data from the subpoena. It is not a redacted subpoena. It is a subpoena, which by nature has to have the PII in it, and so therefore that's a problem even with the amendment. In addition, I know the amendment was trying to say that it should only be after the enforcement action, but I think that the language is still unclear in the amendment. And then as Rep Soper said, I'm also concerned about bounty hunters and vigilantes who might go after individuals whose data might be in those unsealed subpoenas. In Section 2A, this was something we didn't talk about, but right now there's an obligation within 72 hours after the posting of that data to notify the committees of this House and Senate. The problem is we don't meet 365 days a year, so I'm not sure how that would be operationalized or effective. In Section 4, I would say the proponents say this is not to allow municipal resources to be used for immigration. However, that's not how the section is drafted. It doesn't refer to contracting those services. I don't know how we preclude anybody from getting on a public transport. They're public for a reason. Unless they fall into some defined category that would prohibit them from being on those public locations, I'm not sure how that part works. I think the words transport and provide are not specific to the purpose of what was discussed, which was not contracting or utilizing our state and local resources. This section also has a punishment to the state money in terms of the violation, that money being also included as to state and localities. And I think that adding up to a $50,000 fine to many of the smaller jurisdictions could bankrupt those law enforcement entities. And I don't think that knowingly, as we have the discussion on the amendment, adequately takes that into consideration. in section five when we're dealing with the airport first i would submit that the fa regulates the airspace i think if there was a way to look instead at contracting uh that then we just reaffirm what we already say in our state statute which is we can't contract to engage in ice i think our current law already covers that none of our and none of us or state entity or money could be used to contract with those facilities if the purpose of the bill is not to contract and utilize our state and local assets, then I don't know what the section is actually trying to do. It didn't seem very clear to me in terms of section In sections 6 and 7, this to me is the heart of the bill that I would have loved to have seen expanded and developed instead alone. Because I do think we have an obligation, as I said, to address the horrors that are going on in GEO and to put out some guardrails. We would have had an opportunity to put out some guardrails for the potential new facilities that might come into our state. But in those sections, I was very concerned by the lack of testimony from any of the government agencies that would have been required to implement these sections to see if they are on board, to have heard from them to make sure that the provisions that are in the bill are accurate and necessary. And then the last section, 9, I voted against in the amendment because I just didn't feel I had enough time to address that issue. And finally, I would just note that the Section 1983 comments of the great sponsor in this bill, in closing argument, is something that I think we'll be looking at in SB 5, and I look forward to hopefully being able to see that bill passed to be able to address those concerns. In closing, let me thank the sponsors for your attention and commitment to this community and to this bill. I do appreciate it, but because of the reasons I've cited, I will not be a yes today. Thank you.
Okay. Vice Chair Carter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll be brief. while most of you know me as the representative from Arapahoe and Adams, the reality is I am the representative from the city of Aurora. My city has over 25% of the individuals that are in that city were born outside of the United States. my city has a school population that speaks over 100 different languages yet in the heart of my city there is still a GAO facility my citizens and my constituents want exactly what I feel like the sponsors of this bill are trying to bring forward they want some assurances and they want some protections. There are questions about this bill, and I think those have been commented on by my colleagues. But what needs to be understood and why I'm actually speaking on it is I've had citizens, I've had constituents, and I've had members of House District 36 that have been detained and taken into custody while dropping their children off at school or at the bus station and also while actually on their way to work. My understanding, this is exactly what we want an individual who comes to this country to do. We need to have some type of assurance for those individuals that, while they are one of the highest targets regarding crime, That at a certain point they have to have some kind of faith that law enforcement is not there to infringe upon their rights, but they are there to protect them. I reiterate the bill still has work to do But I also want to make sure that everyone who came to testify on behalf of the bill understand that I believe the sponsors are willing to do that work I'm going to be a yes today. I'm going to be a yes because I believe in the sponsors and I believe in the thought that you should be allowed to take your children to school. You should be allowed to go to work. You know, you should be allowed to believe that the country that you've come to isn't using every means it can to put you in custody and take you back out of that country. And so for those reasons, I'm going to be a yes.
All right. I think it is incredibly important in this moment that we have leaders with the courage to say clearly that the best thing about our country is that we are a nation of immigrants. This is an existential moment for this country. ICE is murdering people in broad daylight. The government is telling us not to believe the evidence before our eyes. The vice president is falsely asserting that they have the ability to enter people's homes without warrants, violating the Fourth Amendment. Transparency and how local law enforcement may or may not be cooperating in operations like that is really important. I'll also note that last year, Senator Ossoff released a report documenting horrific incidents of abuse by ICE agents in detention centers. And one of those reports tells the story of a pregnant woman who was bleeding and seeking medical care who then had a miscarriage. She was then sent back to the ICE detention facility where she continued to bleed for 11 days before she got any follow-up medical treatment. Other reports suggest sexual misconduct against children. The testimony we heard today about inadequate food was incredibly troubling. We heard testimony today about horrific conditions in ICE, geo-detention facility where people are getting sicker, people are getting ignored, needed medical treatment. we as a state have a duty to step in and protect the people who live here. I'll also note that the Colorado Times reporter revealed last week that there's a hidden network of detention centers across our state in strip malls. Between January and October of 2025, about 3,000 people passed through these facilities, ranging between a one-year-old girl to a 91-year-old man. Many had no criminal records and most of the charges that they originally faced were minor. It is important that we as a state enshrine guidelines in oversight because here in Colorado, our own members of Congress tried to see what was happening in the geo facility in Aurora and they were denied entry. They had to file a federal lawsuit just to get through the door. And they've accused ICE of cleaning up the facility, making it look better, found staff who couldn't answer basic questions when they were trying to figure out what was going on, detainees reporting overcrowding, inadequate food, illness, and an estimated 1,100 people being held there each night. this bill addresses these problems that are happening in our community Is it a perfect bill No The sponsors acknowledge that I think they had trouble getting direct feedback on how to make the bill work properly And what we've seen today is in response to legitimate feedback that was raised in committee, they live-drafted amendments to make things work. and I appreciate some of the line-by-line feedback that we got in our closing comments. I'm pretty sure you're open to addressing feedback in any section of this bill as long as the heart and soul of transparency and safer conditions for immigrants and more certainty for immigrants is maintained. I think it's critical that we show our neighbors, whether they were born here or not, that we have their backs. And with that, I will be an enthusiastic yes.
Ms. Jensen, please call the roll.
Representatives. Bacon. Yes.
Clifford.
Yes.
Espinoza.
Respectfully, no.
Flannell.
No.
Garcia. Yes. Kelty. No. Slaw. No. Soper. No. Zokai. Yes. Carter. Yes. Mabry. Yes.
All right. On about a six to five, that bill passes. You are on the way to the finance committee. Okay, we are now going to hear House Bill 1275. Reps Froelich and Zocay. All right, all right, we're going to take five minutes, but actually five minutes. I'm going to start us at 3 26. So be back here at 3 26. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. This is why I never put us in recess for the record. It's been 10 minutes. Thank you Okay. Okay. We will now hear House Bill 1275. whoever would like to begin. Rep. Froelich.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to present House Bill 1275, a bill that comes from our neighbors who have a long history of interactions with federal law enforcement. Our coalition understands that the introduced bill would have to be amended. We understand the necessary compromises and changes that will be made. But let's remember why we're here. Following the inauguration of the new administration, the campaign promises of mass deportations and going after the worst of the worst seemingly overnight became the deployment of masked, often plainclothes federal agents, roaming patrols, raiding workplaces, going door to door, operating in school parking lots, entering daycare centers. And all of this filled our nightly news and social media. For folks already subject to this behavior, the escalation was particularly terrifying. Do we not all remember the night raid in Chicago with agents rappelling from helicopters? 300 agents were deployed. That resulted in children zip-tied in their pajamas and the apprehension of a whopping 37 individuals and no criminal charges ever filed. As people took to the streets, the focus turned to Minnesota. Residents organized neighborhood watches, protests continued, attempts to document ICE or Border Patrol were undertaken by both press and individuals. In a neighborhood, Renee Nicole Good encountered ICE agents, and the world watched what happened. She was shot in the face and died after ICE delayed emergency services. Not two weeks later, we watched Alex Preddy get shot in the back. It's not lost on me that it was the death of two U.S. citizens in the suburbs that was the catapult to our constituents begging us, crying out for help and for justice. Legislators across the country and at every level want a remedy. And it's also important to remember that this was two months ago. Renee Good died on January 7th and Alex Preddy died on January 26th. I want to state clearly that the concern on this bill is rogue, unlawful, violent actions by federal agents, particularly by masked unidentified unidentifiable agents These operations put our neighbors in danger The fear instilled also affects our Colorado police peace officers Trust between community and police has been cultivated, and this is threatened by ICE agents. Rogue ICE agents jeopardize our law enforcement. Our efforts to hold federal agents accountable are an attempt to do just that. We want to continue to work with our law enforcement to make this bill workable and fair, and we want to reiterate our appreciation for the difficult position local peace officers are in. But we are in this moment in history. The introduced bill was ambitious and in some aspects maybe overly creative. we propose that very simply, one, peace officers should not be concealing their identity. That's the law in Colorado. That's the practice among our peace officers. Two, federal agents should be accountable when they break Colorado law. Three, our peace officers have a duty to intervene when they see folks subject to excessive use of force. Four, there should be training for our peace officers on our immigration laws and how to handle this unprecedented threat from federal government. And on five, we swung for the fences and tried to say that working for ICE or Border Patrol would prevent you from getting post-certified in Colorado. That has now been changed to be a disclosure process of internal affairs documents. but that is still and these things are still what we want and we think we can get there we ask for your yes vote we also ask for your grace as we continue to thread the needle of respecting our colorado peace officers and protecting our neighbors during the one of the most terrifying and challenging moments in our nation's history we ask for a yes vote
Reps, okay. Oh, you're going to say this track below.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. We are sitting here before you because our immigrant community is under attack. They have been under attack, but now those attacking them have far more resources. The actions that are being taken by the federal government in the name of immigration enforcement are actually just a blatant violation of constitutional rights. those violations include unlawful detentions without due process warrantless searches and seizures force and retaliation against people exercising their first amendment rights and the use of least lethal force murdering innocent individuals who are trying to administer aid follow directions or just go about their day innocent children are sleeping on cement floors separated from their parents people have been snatched from the street by masked agents with no identification into unmarked vehicles. The highest ranking officials in this country have asked us to deny facts that we can see on camera with our own eyes and ears. What we are facing is a crisis. As a daughter of immigrants, the actions coming from the federal government do feel personal. And as the only Middle Eastern representative in the House, I feel a tremendous responsibility to represent the interests of my community. My community, both my Fort Collins community and my Middle Eastern community, have been exceptionally clear. They want us to do every we can to protect them against the fascist overreach of the federal government. And much of that action that I would like to take are actions that can only be taken by the federal government. So what you have before you is a representation of the moderate steps that we are able to take within the Constitution and our authority as a state government. And you will see a strike below before you in L-001 that shows the new bill that we are contemplating here today. House Bill 1275 is calling on those whose job it is to protect and serve us to do just that. We are asking our law enforcement to be our partners when it comes to keeping us safe from overreach and a violation of our rights. I want to recognize that this can be an uncomfortable position for our law enforcement, as those violating our rights are now from the federal government. But I am asking us to send a clear message that the Constitution does apply to everyone and no one in Colorado will be treated as above the law. I am asking us to make it clear that it is the will of this body that our law enforcement act so that anyone in immigration enforcement knows that there will be accountability should they violate our laws. The key components of the bill before you, and they are outlined in L-001, are a requirement that law enforcement identify themselves. A failure to do so constitutes interference with community engagement and is subject to a civil infraction. that federal agents are subject to our laws and that and to and that they are subject to arrest should they violate those laws unless they are acting within their authority of immigration enforcement that our law enforcement should hold federal agents to our standards in regards to physical force unless those agents are acting under color of their federal authority that anyone employed by federal law enforcement provide their internal affairs file if they are applying to work for our law enforcement and that our law enforcement train on our immigration laws. And again, I'd like to stress that this bill has changed significantly since we first started working on it over the interim. The murders of Renee Good and Alex Preddy shifted the conversation and added a sense of urgency for us to defend against unlawful actions by the federal government. And it has then shifted again to be more narrow. And I want to thank individual law enforcement members who provided us feedback so that this bill can be workable and enforceable. We have significantly pared down from the original iteration to accommodate concerns while still being responsive to community. In these unprecedented times, we find it important to emphasize our law enforcement's jurisdiction and obligation to uphold our laws. Again, these actions from the federal government negatively impact our law enforcement, and it is unfortunate that we do all find ourselves in this position. But the items before you in this bill are an important step to provide us protection, to build community trust, and quite frankly, to maintain the foundation of our democracy. And I hope I can count on all of your yes votes today.
Committee members, questions for our sponsors?
Rep. Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple questions. But the practice of policing profession is highly regulated already here in Colorado, especially after the bills that we have forced through the last decade therefore making things very complex Did you consult with any experts in law enforcement stakeholders and collaborate in the development of this bill before stakeholdering a complete draft policy and with who? Rob, is that okay?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question.
Rep. Kelty. I suspect your question is reflective of discomfort among the law enforcement traditional organizations in frustration in the way that this moved fast through introduction and and on to where we are today. So our engagement began in June in a very different way because this bill looked very different in June. And this bill was actually drafted in conjunction with the bill you just heard. And after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Preddy, this bill spun off to be its own entity. And therefore, law enforcement engagement became incredibly more important. and we put the accelerator pedal on law enforcement engagement probably too late for their satisfaction, but at a later time following the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Preddy. So the answer is yes, although we had been involved with our local law enforcement and in conversation with community. But this bill mostly came from community over the interim and in the drafting. it was drafted with an eye towards our immigrant community and our activists in that community.
Rep Kelty.
So I'm hearing differently, but can you specifically tell me which law enforcement agencies and individuals that you actually worked with to create this bill? Who?
Rep Sokay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Kelty. So as my co-prime mentioned, this bill started out as a bill aimed at ICE action. And so it was a very different bill until there were court case decisions that restricted what we can do here in Colorado. With that said, once we realized what this bill needs to look like in order to fit within the Constitution and with Supreme Court or California and other court decisions, we did engage law enforcement from across the state FOP, the DAs and we've had calls with law enforcement from every county
Reb Kelty
So I'm under after talking to DAs and law enforcement and FOP and all of them there was zero stakeholdering that is being said was done with any of them in the creation of this, the experts in law enforcement Who exactly have you talked to or stakeholder with or created or used as anything to do with this bill in any way, shape, or form? I'm just asking who. If any. If you didn't, then just say you didn't. I don't think that's what they're saying. Meg Froehlich? Rep Froehlich? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Kelty. I, as stated previously, I do not believe that we will satisfy the objections of FOP sheriffs and chiefs and our level of stake prior to we did massive meetings prior to introduction but got down to the nitty gritty post introduction and that has been a frustration for law enforcement. We will concede to that. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Rep Kelty. I certainly reject the notion that we have not stake held this bill with all interested parties to ensure that it is written in a way that is enforceable and that works for our law enforcement. In fact, we have significantly pared down what we would have liked to present to you in order to respond to concerns from law enforcement. Now, I am also disappointed in a failure to engage in any written feedback to us. Nonetheless, we did hear general concerns. We did our best to accommodate those concerns in the revisions you're seeing before you, despite not receiving specifics. So I want to thank individual law enforcement members who helped fill those gaps and make this bill workable, even when their representatives refuse to do so. Rep. Kelty. Thank you for that. But can you specify who? I just want to know who. Rep's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Kelty. We had a call with a number of law enforcement officers. I will go and pull the list of who was on that call, and I believe we have notes on who gave what feedback. So I will get that to you while we're waiting here today. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors. So knowing that we're going, I guess, first off of the strike below and then the stack of amendments that we were distributed with, I'll keep my questions to those. I just want to ask about section three on page two of the strike below or L001. So we are saying that the police officer shall not knowingly conceal the officer's name or employing agency, except, and then it lists within the exceptions. You know, hazardous material suit to protect against exposure to toxins, identified airborne hazards, imminent risk of physical harm from projectiles, fire, smoke, or chemical irritants in a specific ongoing incident. A couple of questions here. Knowing how often I drive, of course not this year, so this is in other years, across the mountain passes, oftentimes you see members of the state patrol checking on whether it's different semis or accidents and they will normally be wearing some sort of a knit face covering mainly because it's really really cold outside how does that fit in here in terms of the weather? Thank you Mr. Chair thank you Rep Soper for the question we heard feedback about climate in the stakeholding that we actually did with law enforcement. And it was our it is our intention and our belief that it is the knowingly conceal. So wearing a knit cap or a bella cava in the cold is not an intent to conceal your identity. It's an intent to keep warm. And we purposefully went about the knowingly conceal your identity rather than you cannot be masked as a framing of this section precisely because we didn't want 10 pages of exceptions. And so we put the knowingly conceal your identity emphasis on that intent. Rebs over. Oh, sorry, Rebs. Okay. Thank you Mr Chair yeah I just wanted to reiterate that this bill I know initially started out as a demasking bill and so that might be where some of your questions are coming from When we had our conversations with law enforcement we heard of all these situations where masks may be needed And what it really came down to is we want individuals to know who they are interacting with. And so that is why in the strike below, rather than it being a demasking measure, it is about concealing identity. and the exceptions here that we've listed are not exhaustive and it's not related just to masking. So if a law enforcement officer knows best about when they might need to wear a mask for weather, hazardous conditions on the road, what have you, and they are still able to do so. If their name, badge number agency is displayed, they have met the requirements in this bill. Rep. Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to have one suggestion and then a question with that attached to it. You might include the phrase including so that it's actually a list of what could suggest to a person who's trying to interpret this section of law. Because you say accept when specifically necessary, and then you list the exceptions. But if you were to say including, then there could be at least the ability for the latitude of something that you might not have foreseen at this moment in time. Rips, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to make sure that we're clear on what we're talking about. So this is about concealing identity. And so really it is only when specifically necessary to do so for these conditions. It's not just including. These are really the only conditions when we think it is okay for an officer to not identify themselves in any way. Rep Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's okay. I hate to go through very specific fact patterns, but there are other things that we certainly were able to come up with. For example, when engaged in underwater search and rescue operations, they will be concealing their identity at that point in time. They won't necessarily have their name or their agency displayed. You won't be able to see their face very clearly. So, I mean, you've kind of like hurt the ability to engage in certain operations there. There could be other operations in terms of aerial operations. I mean, not that we engage peace officers for smoke jumping, but you could. Yeah, like bodyguards for the governor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep Soper. you know you and i have been able to work together and we're we're both have senioritis this year um i i think that's the kind of i mean i would love to work with you to get you to a place where you're in support of the bill because we work together on this section so that's my commitment to you reb sober thank you mr chair thank you rep frolic uh yes you know it's been uh eight years we've worked together and I will say, we definitely have a duty to make sure that the law can be understood and followed. And I think that's the least we can do here. Those would really be kind of my main questions with this part because I think if this part is actually understandable, I mean, a lot of other parts of the bill start to change. And because once you start to have the log jam up here, because we can get into a very long list of things that we can't foresee. And I mean, you may think that this is the only thing, Certainly we could sit here and come up with a really long list. Rep. So are you good? Rep. Flannell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Given that there's been a lot of changes to state law, including prohibiting law enforcement from cooperating with ICE, can you tell me if there's anything in the bill that targets ICE rather than local law enforcement? Rep. Zocchi. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Flannell. we cannot dictate ice activity as the state government so ice is implicated in this bill in that we are saying if you violate our laws and it's not within your federal immunity there are consequences but we cannot say ice for example can have to reveal their identity cannot mask in this state so we are doing what we can here to put consequences when our laws are violated but we cannot specifically dictate what they do in our state. Rev Prillik. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep Plano, for the question. It is our position, and of course we would look forward to more conversations about it, but the fact that our law enforcement operates without concealed identity in a forthright manner to protect our neighbors is a benefit to our community, and it stands in stark contrast then when you do have a masked agent in doing attempting to go out into community and enforce their own particular brand of justice. Further questions? Rep Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, so on page two, lines 16 through 23, Reading on this, what protections are you providing for the safety of Colorado officers in this section? For example, I can see this section having issue if you have ICE agents and local police agents or law enforcement, sorry, who are in an area or working the same area but not on the same thing, but they're both relate people relate law enforcement across the board they just blanket it what protections if the ICE agents are masked which they can be and that's that's what they do and our police officers are our law enforcement are not masked in a situation like that do you not can you see how that could put our police officers in danger by identification and basically being assumed that they're working with ICE or that, you know, they're guilty by association in a situation where, you know, either there's violence going on or whatever it is, but they're around or with ICE agents. Do you not see how that can be a safety issue for our officers in that type of situation? Because now they can't identify the ICE, but now they can identify the police officers and then if they can identify the police officers what keeps them from then going doxing not just doxing them but going after them their families this is a whole state do not see the safety implication on this rebs okay thank you mr chair and thank you representative
kelty i think you've named the exact issue of what we have in our state when you have an agency that is operating the way it is when you have masked people ripping people out of their homes with no identification it puts our law enforcement at risk You are exactly right However our law enforcement are forthright They do identify themselves And the solution to having this agency in our state is not to say our law enforcement should stoop down and also mask themselves and hide their identities as well. Our law enforcement will continue to operate with high standards. And it is unfortunate that we have an immigration agency that's putting them at risk. Reb Calte.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, there's nothing you can do about ICE agents or any federal agent in any way, shape, or form. But what you are doing with this bill, because right now our police officers, our law enforcement, has the ability to protect themselves by being masked in a situation where they feel that it protects them in various situations. I mean, the situations they can be put into, the violent situations, are vast. So right now they have that ability to protect themselves. With your bill, they no longer have that ability to be able to protect their own identity in situations where they feel it may be necessary.
Rep Zoka? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rep Kelty, I think that it is a balance that we have to find, and I think it is a very difficult situation. But I don't think the response to our community living in fear, because we do have masked agents violating our laws, is to say that our law enforcement should also add to that terror and hide their identities as well.
Rep Kelty. I think I'm failing to communicate here. it's not the fact that they're also trying to hide their identity because they just don't want to be identified for non-emergency situations. Sometimes there's a need to protect yourself, whether they're an illegal immigrant or whether it's a police officer or whoever it is. if you feel that your life is in danger and you have to keep it, we're not giving the safety standards that you're wanting for other individuals to our own law enforcement. They also, too, need to be protected. Do you not believe that they need to protect? And can you not see how this would actually cause them to be put in harm's way?
Reps, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, I want our law enforcement to be safe and to be protected as well. Ultimately, what we are trying to do here is rebuild trust in law enforcement. And if our law enforcement are there and identifying themselves and our community knows who they are speaking to, that does make our law enforcement more safe. What is happening now with the way ICE is operating is putting them in jeopardy. And this is our solution to make sure that we can continue to have trust in law enforcement. As you mentioned, law enforcement and ICE are getting swept under one broad umbrella. This is a way to differentiate them. Further questions?
Rep Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to jump to another section of the strike below to page three, section five. So the duty to report use of force by a police officer and law enforcement animals and to intervene. And on line 32, we talk about, you know, an on-duty officer may intervene to prevent or stop a federal law enforcement officer, including federal law enforcement officer, who's the handler of an animal, who's using more than the commissarate amount of force, and then it cites our state statute on use of force A couple of questions really jumped out at me in this section One is there a federal felony for intervening in a federal law enforcement action So thinking about a Colorado law enforcement officer, let's say a municipal officer, they see an ICE raid going down, and they believe that it violates 18-1-707. What is that officer to do? Because the minute they were to intervene, now they're in jeopardy of committing a federal felony. But failure to intervene would actually be in breach of this section, And so they have just been placed in a lose-lose situation. And then while you're thinking of how to answer that, a closely related question tied to that is the word on duty on line 32. Law enforcement is deemed to always be on duty. So even when they're not, quote, unquote, on the clock, and air quotes for those listening at home, if they see something, they have a special duty of care to intervene. So if they see a fleeing felon, they have a duty to intervene there. If they see someone whose life is in peril, they have a duty to rescue, and we expect that as a society. Even if they're in plain clothes on a Sunday and they're wearing their favorite sports team's jersey, they still have to act at that point in time. So they would instantly go to on duty. So I guess with those two questions, how would you answer?
Rep Zokey. an ICE agent acting within the color and scope of their authority and they are enacting immigration enforcement, that does have federal immunity. And you are correct that interfering with that would put our officers at risk. However, if that agent is not acting in immigration enforcement authority and violates our laws or is just out on a Friday night and is using excessive force against an bystander that is a very different situation and that immunity then does not apply and so the this section of this bill is clarifying when our law enforcement does have responsibility and authority to intervene. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Rep Soper for the question. A couple things we specifically said may so um we feel it we moved it from a shall um to a may and we had this exact exact thing happen in durango where an ice agent shoved a elderly person in the course of their activities but they shoved this person to injurious like down a hill and the uh local police felt responsible for their constituent and um and so i'll just put a plug in for the part of the bill that is the training component because these conversations need to take place in local law enforcement in conjunction with post and and the ag office to exactly work through these situations And you know to the conversation between Rep Kelty and Rep Zocci we don't feel like we have put law enforcement in this situation. We feel like this existential threat is coming and has, in some cases, been in Colorado creating these situations. And so we are trying to, as best we can, thread that needle of what is our law enforcement's obligation to our neighbors and how can we keep the trust that has been built, as you guys have correctly identified, over a series of pretty comprehensive police reform bills. We now have quite a gold standard in the nation. And so as much as we have absorbed and understand the criticism from law enforcement that this places them in danger, we are still continuing to push back on that. We are not the folks in masks shoving citizens. We are not the folks in unidentified police garb. We have a photograph from Aurora that one of our legislators shared with us. An ICE agent and Aurora PD, indistinguishable, because the ICE agent wants you to think they're Aurora PD. And Aurora PD does not go door to door trying to bust down doors and arrest people. But regular citizens don't know that. And then they hear the president say Aurora is a place where they're eating cats and dogs. So that's the tension that already exists. And we are trying to lessen that tension, increase. And we understand that this is kludgy and difficult and that it's going to take some real jujitsu moves to get this to a place where people feel where we should be. But that's our commitment to try to get there. And we hope you take the first step today. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you.
I greatly appreciate that. Colorado has become the gold standard for law enforcement. I mean, we got there. If you can make it here, you can definitely make it in any state in law enforcement. I do want to understand how Section 5 interacts with Section 3. So I'm going to give you a fact pattern. And let's take the Durango incident that happened. And let's say it's October 31st, also known as Halloween, and it's a law enforcement officer. He's, quote, unquote, not on the clock. He's at a Halloween party, or she. I should keep it gender neutral. He or she is at a Halloween party. They're in a costume. It doesn't have their name or their agency with them. they see the indistinguishable ICE agents push a member of the community using excessive force that no member of law enforcement should ever use, and they decide they're going to execute the may to intervene. Well, the minute they see the duty to rescue, as it were, because that is a duty that we place on law enforcement, they would automatically at that point in time be on duty but then they're violating section three because they don't have their name and their agency identifiable and and forbid they have some sort of face paint or mask on at that point in time. How do you rectify those two situations playing out?
Reb's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep Soper. Love a fact pattern. In Section 5, we do have it listed as on duty, as you had noted. And so if an officer is on duty and is going to be complying with Section 5, I would think that they are identified. I would be happy though to take a look at section three and clarify that this is also when on duty. Rebs over.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Representative Zocca. Yes, that would help. If we could clarify this to the extent that we really do define that the minute someone is, quote unquote, off the clock, but even though they still have that duty on them. I mean, law enforcement, once you pass post and once you've sworn to be a law enforcement officer, I mean, you always carry that burden with you, that the public expects you to intervene when you see a crime, the public expects you to intervene when you see someone in peril, and we also have legal sanctions if you don't. And so we just need to make it really clear because the minute you intervene, you're on duty at that point in time. I mean, you have the power to arrest. You have the power to detain. You have special privileges that most of us sitting in this room don't have, well, except for that group over there. But most of us don't have that ability. And, you know, if I were to detain someone, they'd probably, you know, yell that it's false imprisonment. you go rep for like reps okay thank you mr chair um thank you representative i uh i completely agree i do just want to point you also to the word knowingly in section three i in my mind that gets at exactly what you are talking about but we can clarify what the word knowingly means in that context if that um adds some comfort rep for like and then uh thank you mr chair and thank you for the question, Rep Soper, in the conversation. I think also the effort here, should that incident occur on Halloween, that police officer has a duty to intervene regardless of whether that person committing the assault is a federal ICE agent at the party or whether they're just the guy from the corner. And I think what we want to say, and maybe we haven't achieved it, but we would like to get to the place where we say it doesn't matter if they are a federal agent, if they are not operating in the scope of their color of law, that you absolutely have the, you may intervene and not face repercussions, certainly not in the state of Colorado.
Further questions? Rep. Linnell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at page 4, line 30 through 33. So interference with community engagement is a civil infraction, and this is punishable of a fine of up to $20,000 or more, but no more than $200,000. So civil infraction, isn't that normally like $300?
Rob's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. civil infractions and civil liability varies vastly. I think it is a lower amount typically for this violation and that why we think that this violation specifically for concealing identity is more egregious And that is why we have upped the dollar amount Okay, and this, oh, sorry. And this violation, it can only be committed by local Colorado Peace Officer. Rep's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep Flanell. no, it cannot only be committed by peace officers. We are saying that anybody who is intervening and concealing their identity is also violating this statute.
Rep. Funnell. So I'm curious, why doesn't this have a good faith exception or indemnification like SB 217 or I guess the same due process offered in civil court?
Rep's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Flanell. We believe, again, that word knowingly is giving that standard, that if somebody is acting in good faith, they're not knowingly violating the section. And as I mentioned to Rep. Soper, I'm happy to clarify what that means.
Rep. Flanell, you good?
Rep. Clifford. I'm sorry, I got to reading over here. I have so many places to start, but I'm going to start with Colorado peace officers didn't mess this up. And I have said to both of you and to many people time and time again, while I appreciate some effort to create some separation, attacking the very people that we are expecting to stand as a line between right and wrong here, even when it's from federal partners, if you will, is a hard thing to thread, as you say, is threading the needle. And I didn't... the way, the reason that I use the word attack is kind of how this bill came out, how it's had a draft that's been floating around that's scary and egregious and has constitutional violations and then kind of the process in it. So there's a few things though, but I just want to start with kind of the dialogue that we were there today in law. peace officers who are on duty in the state of Colorado must intervene with an inappropriate use of force. That is what law is today. So any conversation that there is about may versus must, you are now altering existing law that is a must and taking that to a may, and that is something that is an interesting choice because we expect for peace officers to intervene, and that is something that we should discuss in a much larger way, in a much larger category, before we go making changes to something like that. Now, some officers might like a May or an opportunity to make a determination, but we've had a number of people who have already been prosecuted under that particular act, and in some cases that was a big thing. So that piece is interesting. I'll just leave that there. We have already today in law a must intervene in an appropriate use of force and I would assert that given that it's not further defined and that we do define most federal agents in this category including HSI ICE etc are listed in Title 16 that we would already have that duty to intervene in a use of force should that be the case There are, first of all, the other amendments that you have coming to amend the strike below, can we get those? They were emailed to us. Okay. I will print those out.
Clifford, do you have a question?
Yeah, I do.
Okay.
So I want to understand kind of the direction and the intention of what exactly you would like peace officers to do. specifically if, and I'm going to create a hypothetical, but it's the one you would think of, like we have a protest that's happening here in Denver and all of a sudden ICE shows up unexpectedly while we have a large gathering outside and they intervene in something that's happening out there. What is your expectation in that moment of what you would expect Denver police that would have jurisdiction here to do. Rep Zoka?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Rep Clifford, I do want to touch on some of the other things you said, and I'm sure Rep Prolog does as well, that this bill is in no way created to be an attack on our law enforcement. This is a partnership with our law enforcement to say this is what is the will of this body of how we want our law enforcement to work with us to keep our community safe. And if anything in this reads as an attack, I will just say I apologize. That is not the intent of this bill. And I think we have been very clear in our conversations that the threat is coming from outside of our state and that we want law enforcement to work with us. I also want to respond to your must versus may. Nobody's been held liable under this section because it has not existed. This is specifically about federal law enforcement and our interaction with federal law enforcement. So we are not lowering a standard that exists otherwise. This is to say in interactions just with federal law enforcement, it is May. Now to your question, which was... So...
Rev Frelick. Thank you. Go ahead. Rev's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're hypothetical about if ICE were to show up during a protest, for example. If they are here conducting immigration enforcement, they are acting within the color and scope of their authority. I do not expect our police to intervene with that. I don't think that they can. However, if they are to come and start shooting into a crowd and say that they are running crowd control for the protest, that is not within the scope of their authority. I would expect Denver police to intervene to stop that from happening and to arrest officials who broke our law. Reb Clifford. I think so. I. I accept that and I want you to be careful that I do understand that the attack for me comes from kind of the way that it's culminated, not necessarily that I think that you as the sponsor intend to attack law enforcement. But this has created a very scary scenario one in which I reminded Rhett Froelich just yesterday Please remember that sometimes here in Denver Colorado I am one of those people that you asking to do this So it means something to me. And these gentlemen that are sitting in the back back here, it means something to them. So how we get these words right is so critically important. And I don't know how we get there. There's a lot of sections in here. So, but yes, you want to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Clifford. I think that points to the very crux of the issue. And we introduced with shall and that exact scenario was presented. So do you want us to face off gun in the face to gun in the face with federal agents? and that is why we wanted to introduce discretion on the part of our local law enforcement to not say that faced with a gun in your face, you still have to intervene, and yet we're still not at the right language. But that was the motivation to change from shall to may. I think what my question is, given the nature of this section comes from the infamous and also powerful Senate Bill 217, And what my question is in regards to this duty and use of force. And so I'm going to ask kind of technically if we might be trying to accomplish the same thing here. There are two references to statute. So first, it's a peace officer as defined in Title 24. That definition does not include a federal agent. right and then we have use of force as defined in title 18 which we do have you know some experience with now since the passage of it i mean i people talk about i was not here to vote for it i'll put that on the record but you know that's just for everybody whose emails i typically get okay and so my question then just becomes is there a world then where we just add federal agent to the definition, or it seems like what we're trying to accomplish is saying that there's a duty to report, even if, you know, I do think there have to be questions on to whom, given who the agent works for, right? But there's a duty to report use of force. It seems like that's what this section is about. Now, and I'm sure I will get to a question, but thank you, Mr. Chair. But given also what I think I just heard you say, one, I'd like to believe that if local law enforcement is present, where federal law enforcement is, they may know that already. And two, I do think I want to hear from the law enforcement in the room, is that the nature of your relationship with the federal agents that they're pointing a gun at you? Because I don't care what kind of law there is. They might just react to that period, right? And so I'm curious if that's what we're trying to say here, that we have a duty to report If there's excessive use of force, particularly for a law enforcement entity that is not of the state or any of its subdivisions, but should be acting under the same kind of color of law of what is expected from a law enforcement officer, period. Because the other question that I have is, and maybe for you as well as any witnesses, Do we expect federal law enforcement to be acting differently than the profession calls for with its training that we can't recognize when excessive use of force is either happening, either pointed at me as another law enforcement agent, you know, or generally out in community? Because if that is the case, then that is a practice right now that we are trained under. We, you know, law enforcement is trained under. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep Bacon. One of our challenges in this is that our standards on use of force do not match federal standards on use of force. And if they're operating under the color of the law, they can have their standards. And the administration is very willing to have incredibly low standards in terms of what federal agents are allowed to do in the course of their duties. And so the question is, are they conducting an immigration enforcement operation? And therefore, what they do, they're protected and they're under the color of law and they're living to their standards. And at what point in their interaction with community are they then not under the color of law and susceptible to our duty to intervene because they use excessive force? So these are one of the challenges also that you'll see reflected in the new language is that we we can't as much as we have been frank about this being ICE and Border Patrol. We cannot implicate just ICE and Border Patrol. It has to be a universal all federal agents. so there are as much as we the community wanted us to say eyes can't mask, they can't shoot people, they can't haul people out of houses without a warrant and it's very difficult to thread that constitutional I don't want to say thread the needle again, it's very difficult to wordsmith between the supremacy clause and the different standards that federal agents operate under our, as previously noted, exceptional Colorado peace officers. But they also have a duty to keep our neighbors safe. And so what we're trying to establish is when any federal agent crosses that line, what should our peace officers do? AML Bacon so this paragraph then does and maybe I'm not reading it correctly so please correct me if I'm wrong what we're saying is they may intervene when the line then hits the state standard and so right okay And so I think I just trying to understand and maybe I not sure who the witnesses will be I think I'd like to understand then within the practice, within the law enforcement space, what our state and local law enforcement, one, understands the federal thresholds to be, in their own words. and then to some extent I'm just trying to understand if we need to write down in statute that they may intervene so be curious of any thoughts or feedback on that thank you Mr. Chair thank you AML Bacon I think it's less about understanding the difference between the federal standards and our state standards as it is understanding when federal agents are acting within the scope and color of their authority versus not. And because if they are not, then our state standards should apply because they do not have immunity. They are not acting within the scope of their authority. And so it's, I think, more about understanding that difference and then saying they may intervene but still offering that discretion because we are talking about federal agents. Amel Bacon? It just, okay. I think what I'm, one, I'm trying to understand the circumstances in which, or we are creating a duty, especially if it's permissive, right, that they may or may not. And also what would keep them from doing that, which I can only imagine law enforcement. I would love to hear them say why they wouldn't intervene if someone was getting hit, for example, or shot at. because if there's something keeping them from doing that, because this is my question then to the room, I would like to understand, to match, I think, the purpose of this because I'm stuck on may intervene. I think for me, we have created a duty, right, around excessive force for our officers, and a duty is tied, because it is a duty, it is tied to must, right? And if it's not a must or required, then what are we saying unless we have to give them permission? And I think that's what I'm trying to get out of this. And if we do or do not, I would be curious, not only from the sponsors, but from the witnesses. And at the very least, I do see that our law enforcement should have a sense of what 181707 says. but then also just trying to figure out what we then expect them to know as attached to something that might be permissive. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Bacon. I think a lot of the challenge here is, and I don't want to be repetitive, but we are literally seeing things we have never seen before. We are living in unprecedented. The word unprecedented doesn't even seem sufficient anymore. So I can envision a scenario under what we have described in which there is one local law enforcement person, one local peace officer, seven federal agents heavily armed. And I think that that law enforcement officer should not be under a shall intervene imprimatur in that circumstance. That should never happen. And it should never happen in America. But it is now And this is our new reality And so when it at a Halloween party and the person has begun a fight that seems pretty clear When we're out in community, it becomes murkier. But in the situation that Rep Clifford described, where you're literally having lines of agents versus lines of police, it becomes very difficult to determine how the duty to intervene will be played out without terrible consequences. Amy O'Bacon. Amy O' Thank you. And I do hope those who are testifying can also kind of share in regards to their experience to match that here, because I think I get where we're going. I have a question. I have another question about the civil infraction, just for clarity's sake. 24-31-908 is, we are adding. And so under Section 3, Section 8 refers back to Section 3. And so I just want to be clear that we are saying if a peace officer does not, it says knowingly conceals their name, and then it does have the request requirements and may report to the Attorney General, I think I just want to understand if you can better articulate who the civil infraction is levied against and what that may mean by way of the difference between an officer and an agency. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Bacon. And what we're trying to get at here, and as we say, we are open to clarification, but this serves to be any person. Any person masked and disturbing community engagement in a threatening manner, right? A person who knowingly violates that section of being masked and operating as if they were a police officer, we don't know, is liable to be construed as having violated community engagement. So that's a random person who joins in on an ice raid just by pulling up a balacava and slipping on a piece of clothing that they bought on Amazon. Okay, further questions? Okay, I will remind members that our bill sponsors have been here for one hour answering questions. Rev Clifford, with that in mind. Thank you. We don't really define what intervene means, And that is always expected to be defined in policy, typically by a department, so that they use words like reasonable and within their means and within expectations, et cetera, so that there's definitions for what that intends. I don know that we need to change that piece I think that we have it The question that I have here too is related to something that came up earlier in dialogue about starting to define again what is on duty That is also something that is clearly defined by policy. It's not something that is a matter of – we've not defined it in statute at all. The law enforcement agency determines that. What are you thinking there as far as how you would clean that up? You said that you wanted to clean up the on-duty piece. Rep's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep Clifford. I was not talking about defining on-duty, though happy to discuss that with you offline. I was discussing adding on-duty to Section 3. Rep Clifford. Thank you. I misunderstood. Just for the sake of time, I'll save these for other witnesses. Rev. Kelsey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's one part in here. The whole bill I have problems with, but the one part that I really have to ask about, it's on page four. It's the part about civil infraction and the $200,000. Now, what I understand civil infraction to be is something like you didn't wear a seatbelt or you're floating down the river with an open can of beer or a headlight is out or things like that. And it goes from like, I understand, but I need more clarification. So for me, the fee is usually between $15 and $100 for such an infraction, not having your insurance with you when you get pulled over, things like that. I just need to understand completely where, because you don't get a jury trial, you don't get the rules of evidence, you get an attorney, you're just going to slap on a $200,000 fine. Where in God's name did the $200,000 come from versus, I know I understand that the lower level of the regular infractions, but $200,000 from $15 to $100 for a regular civil infractions is such a far cry from each other. I just need to understand where in God's name did that come from. Rips, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. In crafting this section, we looked at what civil liability looks like across the state, and it's a wide range. And so there is a wide range here of $20,000 to $200,000. When we were initially looking at this bill, knowingly concealing your identity would have constituted impersonating a police officer. And you can see that in the introduced version, which is an F5. So we wanted to pare that down and not put criminal charges on somebody who's impersonating a police officer. But I will also say we do view it as that harsh of a violation, that somebody is impersonating our law enforcement and making our community less safe. And so trying to relate that into a civil infraction did require a large range. Rep. Kelsey. So, but you understand, though, I mean, you're slapping a $200,000 fine on someone without a jury trial, without, you know, representation, without going through the steps that something that large, especially an F5, something that large could impact someone. I mean, I guess I'm just failing to understand the puzzle pieces that come together and the thought process of coming up with 200 grand for something that you're saying is a civil infirmation. that is equivalent to someone just forgetting their insurance in their car. So they don't have any recourse. There's no jury. There's none of that. So that's, I guess I'm not understanding where or why. I mean, I understand you feel that, but did you bounce that off of anyone else? Is it something that you saw somewhere else that they were using in another state for a civil infraction, the same amount? I mean, or is this just something you came up with on your own? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. Again, I don't think that knowingly concealing identity is the same as not having insurance. And so this was initially thought of as impersonating a police officer, and we are trying to bring it down so that there is not an additional criminal charge on anybody. And with that said, that somebody would still have to be convicted of knowingly violating that section. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we are hopefully wrapping up and moving into witness testimony. Just want to clarify who was in on at least one of our stakeholder meetings. The biggest one was Denver Police, County Sheriffs of Colorado, Durango Fraternal Order of Police, Chiefs of Police, uh county sheriffs mead police patrol association laramah county aurora mineral county rio grand denver sheriff douglas county jeffco keenasburg eagle louisville town of elizabeth we then began an extensive amendment process coalition was very nervous to not meet the introduction deadline because last year their introduction was delayed as a way to hopefully not have the bill pass. So we didn't want to miss our deadline. So we then began to engage in extensive amendments that's reflected in the strike below, But we were told that we could not get engagement from those same stakeholders because they had taken a position to oppose and would not be engaged in amending process. We did then have, for example, I have a good relationship with my county sheriff. So we did continue to stakeholder with individual law enforcement folks in an effort to try to get the bill to a better place. And we're going to continue doing that, hopefully. Okay, I'm going to cut off questions there. We've been asking questions for more than an hour. We have 50 witnesses. You'll have plenty of opportunities to ask questions. Okay. Okay. Lamine Cain, Osman Ba, Vanessa Martinez, and Miriam Ordonez. We're on? Okay. Okay. We will start with Mr. Cain. You will have two minutes to state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Sorry. Sorry about that. Can I let somebody else go first? Yes let start with Vanessa Martinez You will have two minutes State in the organization you represent You may begin Hi my name is Nicole Cervera I speaking on behalf of Color Vanessa had to leave to pick up her kiddo Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nicole Cervera-Loy with the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights. COLOR empowers Latine communities across Colorado to speak out on issues that directly impact their lives, including the ability to raise our families in safe, healthy environments. We are here in strong support of HB 26-1275. This bill builds on Colorado's commitment to protecting our communities' civil rights, transparency, and safety across our state. HB 1275 supports community members to be able to differentiate who is a police officer and who is a federal agent. It also supports focused training for law enforcement so that they are able to better support our communities. This bill is not about tying the hands of law enforcement in our state, but rather a way to begin to build trust in law enforcement that communities do not have right now. The consequences of the loss of this trust extend far beyond any individual or family. The effects ripple throughout our schools, healthcare systems, workplaces, congregations, and local businesses, impacting the fabric of our entire state. You've already heard how rampant the fear is, and there are clear demands for action for our state to do all we can to protect Coloradans' civil rights and rebuild trust. Community members across the state are paying attention. They're showing up, asking questions, and expecting real solutions. HB 1275 is one of these solutions. For these reasons, Color respectfully urges a yes vote on 1275. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Kane, are you? Yes. State your name, who you represent, and you have two minutes. Thank you. My name is Lamin Khan. I am a community organizer with Colorado People's Alliance and also resident of Aurora. and we work with hundreds of Coloradans across Aurora and the Denver-Meshwar area to organize around economic, environmental justice and immigrant justice. And I'm here today to urge you to vote yes on House Bill 26-1275. I'm also a product of immigration and work closely every day with the immigrant members of our community. and right now, as I said, multiple times in these rooms here is that we're seeing a lot of fear from our community members. I'm seeing people question whether they are safe to go to work, whether they can trust law enforcement, whether they will protect them if something goes wrong, and more and more I'm seeing more people lose trust in systems that are supposed to serve and protect them. I have noticed community gatherings dropped tremendously recently. English classes and skills building workshops are seeing lower attendance. I mean, I was surprised last time I was there. People are pulling back from spaces that are meant to support them because they are afraid to show up. This bill is necessary because that trust is breaking. When harm happens during enforcement, people are left asking a basic question. Who holds that person accountable? And right now the answer is often very unclear. If a federal law enforcement officer commits a crime in Colorado, they must be held accountable under Colorado law, just like anyone else. There cannot be exceptions when people safety and rights are on the line And just as important this bill requires peace officers to step in when excessive force is being used Now, I know that's being discussed, but I hope you all take that seriously. Because I've seen what happens when no one steps in. I've seen the fear it leaves behind. I've seen how quickly that fear spreads across as a whole community. I myself have to pretend in front of other community members because I'm scared, but I don't want them to see it. When people believe no one will protect them, they stop speaking up, they stop reporting harm, they withdraw, and that makes all us unsafe. This bill sets a clear standard in Colorado that accountability must exist here in our state. that excessive force will not be ignored, and that no one is above the law. I urge you to vote yes on Senate Bill 1275. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, sir. I'm sorry. I do not have your name. If you can state your name and who you represent, you'll have two minutes. I already went. I do not have your name. If you could state your name, who you represent, you also have two minutes. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Miriam Mordoños-Rodriguez, and I'm representing American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker-based organization in favor of House Bill 1275. AFSC's core belief is that every human deserves to have their God-given dignity respected. For this reason, we stand against the federal government's use of terror tactics, like kidnapping in our immigrant community. We have heard countless of calls from our immigrant neighbors who are terrified at the sight of law enforcement because they do not know what agency is terrorizing them anymore. No human being deserves this terror and uncertainty. Today, I testify that almost every case I have documented of people detained are those that are doing, quote unquote, the right way, each one targeted for being brown and poor. No matter of immigration status, everyone deserves the dignity of knowing who is ripping you from your life and placing you into a cell. Being able to see a badge and a name is not a small detail. it is a fundamental safeguard that allows the public to understand who is exercising authority over them. This is a basic security for all of us. I ask the committee and those in the room to imagine the horror of having an individual rush upon you, throw you in an unmarked vehicle, on your way to work or after paying a traffic violation, or shoot unprovoked at your card. This has already happened in Colorado Springs, or engage in a high-speed chase in a quiet neighborhood to meet a detention quota like it happened in Lakewood. It is only a matter of time before someone is killed. If this was not our immigrant neighbor, something would have already been done. The police would be called if a citizen was picked up by someone wearing tactical gear without visible names, badges, or clear agency identification, and a lack of face coverings. Our already vulnerable communities are at risk of unimaginable crimes committed against them, not only by the federal agents, but also by nefarious actors. This legislation is an investment in our immigrant community who want to keep working, to take their children to school, to seek health care, but they're too afraid to leave their home. We are more than our labor, but the economy will call our rest on our back. And yes, a vote yes for today is an investment in our safety, our economy, and it's a protection against federal overreach in our state. Please vote yes, and I'm open to questions around those detained doing it the right way. Members, do we have questions for this? Chair, excuse me, I just wanted to flag that. One second, sir. One second, sir. You will be more than happy to, if we have questions for you, we can actually have, you can answer those questions. but if you could hold on Members do we have questions for this panel Representative Garcia Thank you Mr Chair I was compelled by your testimony on having to put up a brave front. And I guess just wanted to comment on that. But my question to any of you on the panel is, with the members that you all work with, because I know that you all work directly with community members. Have you encountered moments or instances where folks are, as we discussed earlier, are having a hard time deciphering between a local law enforcement agency or agent, a peace officer, and what could possibly be ICE? Yes, we have. Ma'am, I apologize. That's fine. No, I just have to, for the record, announce when you are speaking. So, Ms. Rodriguez. Thank you. My apologies. And I can start. Yes, we have countless of documentation of evidence showing that members of our community are calling because they cannot tell whether it's an ICE agent or a peace officer. Or I also have calls where people don't know if it's a security company that is ICE in the neighborhood or not because they're wearing tactical gear. And they're also using unmarked vehicles, right? So what's happening is our community is just every time they see an agent, they run away or they call someone for help. This is not keeping us safe in any way, shape, and form. Representative Garcia. Mr. Kane. Yeah. I mean, I have so many of them. The most recent one, Malik checks in with me regularly because he's like, I don't know who these people are. somebody called me and they said, somebody knocked on my door. I opened the door. They were asking for such and such. They weren't here. I said, who were they? What were they wearing? He said, they just had a vest on. They didn't identify themselves. I don't know who they were. And so now when I go into my house meetings to teach about what I do in community for people to get civically engaged. This question is the most one talked about. When I go to Friday prayer, it's the thing that people ask me the most about. Who do they talk to? They don't know who's who, and they don't know who has the right to do what because individuals are driving. They get pulled over for some traffic thing. Now they no longer know whether that's actual police officer or an ICE officer that had knocked on the door last week. Right. And that's due to the confusion they've received at their doors. They know it's a police officer, but like they don't know if they can trust police officers now. Right. Because of the experience that they're having at their doors. I mean, I could give you multiple folks, but this is happening for me on a weekly basis. Somebody or two people or more will tell, will ask me who like who's supposed to be ICE. And we've given them the trainings already, but they're not getting identification when they interact with folks. And folks have been actually picked up, and it took days before we know who picked them up. Representative Garcia, any other questions for this panel, members? Seeing none, thank you. One second. Thank you. you you guys can be released I'm just trying to ask the sponsors who they want me to call up next and I've lost one sponsor can you go ask me who she wants thank you I got it is there an Owen Brigner she's at the bend thank you Bennett Rudledge? Arion Frosh? Is there anybody in the room on an amend position? Is there anybody online in an amend position? All right. We'll start with the gentleman to the right. State your name, any organization you represent. You will have two minutes. Make sure your microphone is turned on. All right. My name is Bennett Rutledge. I am a card-carrying lobbyist, but I have no client for this issue, so I'm going to be speaking for myself as a Coloradan. I'd like to suggest that this bill be amended to focus more tightly on the issues that it is said to cover, law enforcement ID and ICE training, and that it be focused down to make sure that not only Colorado law enforcement, but federal law enforcement, whatever agency they're from, are playing by the same playbook when they come to Colorado. The short title is Visible and Accountable Policing Act. Yes, we want everyone claiming to be law enforcement to be accountable. I'm glad that the vindictive prohibitions on who can do what in their future career have been reduced. the interaction of the supremacy clause and the 14th Amendment should be covered in any training for these officers because the 14th Amendment simply by the date on it amends the supremacy clause and even the Tenth Amendment Details available on request Credential carriers should be made available to every such law officer with a badge and a photo ID in it. And yes, these things are generally waterproof enough that you can stick them in the zipper on your wetsuit when you're doing underwater work. They need to be taught about First Nations peoples whose ancestors go back to before Columbus hit the beach. Mexicans with treaty citizenship. Mr. Rutledge, you're a little bit over your time, if you could please wrap up. Okay, reasonable force and the duty to intervene going all ways. more details available on request thank you very much for your careful attention thank you okay mr brigner you will have two minutes state in the organization you represent you may begin thanks mr chair my name is owen brigner and i'm here on behalf of the colorado municipal league which represents 99 of the cities and towns in colorado testifying in an amend position uh cml wants to start by acknowledging that state and local law enforcement has earned the trust of the public because they have done and do an excellent job every single day in every corner of Colorado keeping our community safe. CML recognizes that the intent of this bill, House Bill 1275, to increase transparency and accountability from federal law enforcement authorities. However, even with the bill as amended, it's still unclear how these requirements would even apply to federal law enforcement, specifically given Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. The risk of overcorrecting here in response to the actions of the federal government, even in good faith, is that these burdens and potential safety and legal risks will actually only apply to state and local law enforcement, while federal law enforcement agencies will still be able to operate without any of these requirements. Despite this glaring problem, there are parts of the bill that could benefit from further refinement. CML would request the provision prohibiting officers from concealing their name and employing agency be clarified to apply specifically to physical identification rather than verbal identification. CML also appreciates that the sponsors have removed the $20,000 to $200,000 civil penalty from the bill via Amendment L-8. Additionally, CML appreciates the clarification that law enforcement may intervene if or when federal law enforcement is using excessive force under Colorado standards despite the fact that the federal government's training standards are different than Colorado's and any intervention risks Colorado peace officers and deputies at legal risk from the federal government rather than the introduced version of the bill saying that local law enforcement shall intervene. To that end, the language on page 4, line 13 of L1 should refer to a peace officer's ability to intervene rather than a duty to intervene. And finally, on behalf of the 271 towns and cities in Colorado, I'll close by thanking our state and local law enforcement officers who continue to do this work professionally and with accountability already every day. CML recognizes the concerns prompting this legislation. Our communities are raising them too. And CML just wants to acknowledge one more time that House Bill 1275 won't address any of those concerns. Because House Bill 1275 will only apply to state and local law enforcement, not ICE, not Custom Border Patrol, not the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and not the federal government. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Frosch, you'll have two minutes state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I will be brief. I know a lot of folks have testimony today. My name is Ariane Frosh, and I am the policy counsel for the ACLU of Colorado. We are currently in an amend position but thanks to the sponsors and some really careful stakeholding that they have done and conversations that they have had with us to really work through a lot of our concerns about the bill as introduced, if all of the proposed amendments are adopted, we would move into a support position. And again, appreciate the sponsors taking the time to talk through our concerns. I'm happy to answer any questions about the amendments or anything I can answer questions on. Thank you. Thank you. Committee members, questions for our witnesses? Okay, seeing none. Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. Okay, we're next going to call up a panel of witnesses in opposition. Chief Vasquez. I think Chief Vasquez is remote. Chief Chavez. I have signed up in person. Deputy Chief Reeves, Chief Newbanks, Chief Current should be online, and Deputy Chief Gonzalez should be online. Okay. Let's start in the room with the witness on my right. State your name and the organization you represent. You may begin. Mr. Chairman and Chief Asquez will start first online. Who online is going to start? Oh, did we get Chief Asquez? No. Okay, well then who would like to begin? Chief Asquez is not online. Would you like to begin, sir? Oh, okay. No, that's Deputy Chief Gonzalez. Okay, who would like to begin? Bryce Curran online, I could start. Okay, go ahead. You'll have two minutes state in the organization you represent. Okay, Chair and members of the committee, thank you. As a police chief representing the Colorado Associations of Chiefs of Police, my primary duty is the safety of this community, which relies on information sharing and cooperation with our federal partners. This bill does not explicitly prohibit that, but it creates a legal risk and operational barriers and constitutional conflicts that will inevitably discourage it. One example is the expansion of the duty to intervene. Under this bill, Colorado officers may be put in a position to intervene if they believe a federal officer is using force that exceeds Colorado standards. I've dealt with that personally, but federal officers operate under different legal authorities and use of force standards, and this places officers in an impossible position. If they intervene in a policy issue with limited information about the level of crime, which is important as we do not communicate with ICE, they may interfere with a lawful federal operation. If they don't, they could face criminal charges and lose their certification. That legal exposure will deter agencies from joining federal operations altogether leading many to avoid federal task force altogether And that matters because the most serious threats human trafficking drug trafficking violent fugitives cross jurisdictions and require coordination with federal agencies like the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, and others. Without cooperation, we lose access to critical information that helps us prevent crime. And respectfully, I would suggest that law enforcement should not become the pivot point of shifting political priorities. Our role is in a system of separation of powers by design. We're not judges or juries or policymakers. We're tasked with enforcing state law and bringing people before the courts. When policy decisions place officers in legally conflicting positions, they undermine the balance that make our communities safe. public safety depends on clear roles strong partnerships and the ability to share information and simply put information saves lives and for this reason i respectfully urge the committee to oppose 1275 and i'll be open for any questions thank you okay who would like to go next state your name any organization you represent you'll have two minutes mr chairman and members of the house judiciary committee my name is kenneth chavez i'm the chief of Police for the town of Severance in Weld County. And here representing the chiefs of police, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police includes over 120 agencies across the state. I'm a proud Colorado native and a 45-year Colorado law enforcement veteran. House Bill 1275 creates criminal exposure for law enforcement officers across the state for simply doing their job. This bill links concealing identity while performing a valid and reasonable law enforcement Act to the crime of impersonating a peace officer. The language assumes and implies concealment is intentional and deceptive. In reality, many forms of concealment are incidental to required safety equipment, cold weather conditions, tactical response, etc. The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police finds this unbelievable and an insult on the duties officers and deputies perform for the public hundreds of times each day in Colorado. In practice, this creates a significant risk for officers in routine and urgent situations, and I'll give you four quick examples. First, peace officers responding quickly to emergencies before fully displaying identification, such as those officers and deputies and troopers that responded to the recent Evergreen High School shooting, some even coming directly from their home. Second, peace officers working in plainclothes assignments, such as detectives or surveillance units, that don't wear nameplates or patches identifying their agency. Third, peace officers off-duty in civilian clothing who observe and voluntarily attempt to stop a violent crime in progress, who only have their voice and badge in their wallet to identify themselves as law enforcement officers. And fourth, officers, deputies, and state troopers responding to an auto crash where they, by policy, need to don their traffic safety vest for visibility in order to direct traffic at the accident scene. This vest, such as the one I'm wearing right now, covers their nameplate and their badge. The officer is in full uniform near a clearly marked police vehicle with its lights on. In this situation, the officer would be in violation of this proposed House bill. Does this suggest that the sponsor's goal is to prevent officers from performing these functions in the name of community safety? This bill creates a legal environment where an officer or deputy or trooper acting in good faith could be accused of impersonating their own profession. The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police finds this implausible and not what the citizens of this state want. This bill discourages proactive policing and rapid emergency response by officers and deputies and troopers at a time when we need these actions the most in order to reduce crime and improve safety across Colorado. I beg of you to oppose this bill. Thank you. Okay, we'll turn online to, it looks like we've been joined by Chief FASFA. You will have two minutes, state in the organization you represent. You may begin. You're muted. We cannot hear you. still can't hear you okay we'll come back to you chief Esquiz let's go next witness over in the room state your name in the organization you represent you'll have two minutes thank you mr. chair and committee my name is mark Rees I'm here today on behalf of the Colorado associations of chief of police and I appreciate the opportunity opportunity to speak with you. My comments today will focus on the civil penalties associated with this bill. You've just heard from police chiefs and will hear some more about the conflicting and unclear elements within this proposed legislation, particularly federal supremacy and the duty to intervene and the question of whether an officer's failure to display identification is intentional or simply incidental based on a bystander's perception. Consider the practical realities presented here today. These scenarios are not hypothetical. They reflect the daily, unpredictable nature of police work. Under this bill, an officer who has invested more than a half a year of great effort and time and as much as $13,000 of their own money to obtain post-certification required for this noble profession could face post-revocation for such incidental circumstances. That consequence is too extreme, especially considering post-revocation also applies to officers who commit felonies, lie under oath, engage in serious misconduct, or repeated disregard of mandatory training. Additionally, the proposed civil infraction for interference with community engagement carries fines from $20,000 to $200,000. This is entirely disproportionate. These penalties are tied to definitions that are ambiguous at best and place officers in untenable positions where compliance is nearly impossible to determine in real time. This bill is said to build on Senate Bill 2217, and in that bill, God forbid, if a peace officer witnesses a constitutional violation, an egregious one, they're only subjected to a $25,000 maximum. For these reasons, we remain strongly opposed to this bill, even with the strike below. we urge the committee to reconsider the unintended consequences it would impose on officers who are acting in good faith while performing complex and dangerous duties. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next witness over. State your name and the organization you represent. You'll have two minutes. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Brent Newbanks, Chief of Police for the Meade Police Department, and I'm honored to testify before this committee and represent the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police HB 1275 insinuates that there is an issue with our state police officers not following existing state law Colorado officers already undergo extensive vetting and oversight. Becoming a police officer in Colorado requires extensive background investigations and training before someone ever wears the badge. Typical requirements include post-academy training and certification. This requires hundreds of hours of training, 556 hours at a minimum, including education in state, federal, and constitutional law, de-escalation and crisis intervention, use of force standards, community policing, ethics, and professional conduct, to name a few. Officers then participate in additional ongoing training requirements throughout their careers. There's also hiring requirements, which can include written employment testing, oral board interviews, physical agility testing, and an integrity interview or polygraph test. Comprehensive background investigations include criminal history checks, driving records checks, financial history reviews, employment verification, and interviews with references and neighbors. There's also psychological screening, which includes psychological evaluation and sustainability assessments for public trust positions. Finally, medical and physical testing. Colorado already has some of the strongest police accountability laws in the nation, including mandatory reporting and intervention requirements for excessive force. Creating vague and associated statutes only creates confusion over standards that already exist. HB 1275 suggests that officers are operating without oversight or accountability, when in reality, the exact opposite is the case. As chief of police and as a representative of over 180 members of the Colorado Association of chiefs of police, I urge the members of this committee to vote against 1275. Thank you for your time, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay, Deputy Chief Reeves, you will have two minutes. State any organization you represent, you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Todd Reeves. I'm a deputy chief. I'm here representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and over 100 chiefs throughout the state in a much larger membership. I'll first by start saying that we've heard a lot of the concerns and we understand those. We understand the difficulty in today's world as police officers are also not immune to the difficulty and sadness that this brings for many. As a matter of fact, I mentioned earlier in my testimony that many of us have employees, coworkers, friends, and family that are also impacted by these events nationally. We have to find that balance of how we are able to perform our job, keeping our community safe, and yet being able to still be able to meet the needs of our community. Maintaining peace and safety is truly a difficult balance. Earning the trust is also another hard bar to raise for law enforcement. Colorado is always striving to find the balance, and in many cases I would argue that Colorado is the leader in policing when it comes to several areas. House Bill 26-1275 creates constitutional conflicts, criminal exposure for officers doing their jobs, disproportionate penalties, and barriers to cooperation with federal agencies, which we know could be important for us. As you've heard from some of the testimony, We have dozens of police chiefs that were willing to come down or could come down We decided to keep it into a concise panel so we can get those issues out there One of the things that struck me is during the opening words I heard about the identity of police officers and keeping that. And it came to me that there has been, although on rare occasions, there is a necessity sometimes to keep a police officer's identity secret or at least go through a court before that identity is released and i'm willing to share that i urge all members to please vote no on this and thank you for your time thank you okay let's try again chief esklaz you'll have two minutes state in the organization you represent you may begin thank you mr chair can you hear me okay now yes we can thank you sir my name is adrian vaskas i'm the chief of police for the colorado springs police department and i'm here to testify in opposition of house bill 1275 on behalf of the city of Colorado Springs and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police. And I want to focus my comments today on the portion of this bill that adds federal law enforcement to the duty to intervene statute. As introduced, the bill would require Colorado officers to intervene to prevent or stop a federal officer from using more force than a Colorado officer would be permitted to use under criminal law. The core issue is that federal officers operate under federal law while Colorado officers operate under Colorado law. Because of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal officers aren't governed by Colorado statutory use of force standards when they're performing authorized federal law enforcement duties. Instead, they operate under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and their federal agency policies. Colorado law sets a different standard, and it's one that federal law enforcement does not have to follow. For example, Colorado law prohibits Colorado officers from using chokeholds. Federal agencies generally treat these techniques as a form of Debbie force that may be used if Debbie force standard is met. Under this bill, a Colorado officer could be required to intervene against a federal officer who is acting within federal law and policy. This creates a serious dilemma for Colorado officers. If they intervene, they could face federal crimes and civil exposure for interfering with federal officers performing official duties, and it could escalate into a volatile situation between agencies. If officers don't intervene, they could face criminal liability under Colorado's duty to intervene statute and risk their post-certification. That places Colorado officers in an impossible position during fast-moving fluid incidents where legal standards may differ. We respectfully request that you vote no on this bill. Thank you, and happy to answer Thank you. Okay, committee members, do we have questions for this panel of witnesses? Rep. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all so much for being here. I guess this question is more for, is it Captain Vasquez? Chief Vasquez. Chief Vasquez, forgive me. You spoke about the supremacy clause, but as I understand it, the Supremacy Clause does not actually hold immunity for federal law enforcement when it is crimes that are of personal passion, excessive force, or unauthorized acts. And so knowing that this strike below or this bill that we're debating today is essentially addressing those actions, how then would this law coming into effect be a violation then of the Supremacy Clause? Chief Vasquez. Oh you muted again Sorry Mr Chair So this supremacy clause does basically take effect as the law of the land And the relevant issue here is the bill would require Colorado officers to judge a federal officer's use of force against Colorado statutory standard. And when we think about maybe those sort of bright line incidents, and I heard maybe in other testimony or other conversation today, something like an officer shooting into a crowd or maybe using an excessive force that is any reasonable officer would understand is, you know, above and beyond what an officer should, a reasonable officer should be using in that moment of time. But it's relevant here because federal officers' use of force against Colorado statutory standards is not the same. For example, the information on the chokeholds is a great example. We cannot use those chokeholds here in Colorado, but a federal authority can use those if that threshold for deadly force is utilized. So meeting the standard and having an officer in real time responding to a situation, they're getting to an event and they see something unfolding and trying to help them understand a Colorado officer, help have them understand what happened preceding that use of force, what's happening in the moment of the use of force, and then asking them to delineate federal authorities versus state authorities. and those situations are so fluid that it would be difficult and really puts our officers in peril to try to understand and intervene in all situations that they could come across. Thank you. Further questions? Rep. Espineza. Thank you. This is for Deputy Reeves. I'd like to ask the question of how law enforcement currently under our current law is addressed, whether there's any adverse impact of ICE's actions on your ability to engage in public safety with the community and what effect this bill of past might have on anything you're already currently experiencing. Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Esonosa, for the question. a difficult one i will tell you that many times i see actions of officers throughout the nation and like a sporting event i yell at my tv trying to understand what are we doing yes i do have that same reaction when i see a lot of the things that are going on although i don't know the individual circumstances what i do know is we've taken individuals out of the desert and standing on a wall and we've stuck them into an inner city and told them to do policing any police officer up here would tell you that there's a vast difference in how we do it and unfortunately by the way that it is being executed i believe that it is having some credibility issues for us and that's noticeable just in some of the legislation when i came down this year i was thinking boy that we've done a really good job in colorado with policing i don't know that there's anything that could come after us and i was wrong this bill really does not change anything the actions are still going to continue of the ICE officers. It's going to make it more difficult for us to continue those partnerships and those communications with other agencies, and it doesn't change how things are being done today. We have Espinosa. I guess my question that was focused on how is it impacting the state? Your relationships in the community right now. Deputy Chief Reeves. Yep, you're actually right. I apologize. I did miss that part of it. It's been a little bit detrimental in the community. I think a lot of people tend to paint us with the same brush, and they look at us sometimes under the same lens, and really not understanding the differences in responsibilities. They see the enforcement, the authority as a police officer and sometimes think that we have that ability for immigration enforcement, which we don't, as you all know. And so we're constantly having to get over those hurdles to continue those community relationships to understand that they're an entity that works on their own and we're an entity that's there to support and provide safety for our community. Rep. Espinosa. This is a little bit different question from the first officer who testified with regard to the Veston and those issues. Or I guess anybody can answer this question. I'm trying to get an understanding of the use of the word peace officer versus law enforcement officer in the context of the bill. And then secondarily, with regard to that, what other levels of peace officers exist who may or may not have uniforms or identity? I know in the gun space we talked about a whole group of people who work with FFLs, for example, that are peace officers or post-certified. Is there a distinction then between law enforcement, peace officer, post-certified, and how it would apply to this bill? Deputy Chief Reeves. Or anyone who would like to take that? Chief Chavez. Chief Chavez, go ahead. Yes, ma'am. Peace officers define in state statute. It's very clear. But not all peace officers in the state of Colorado wear a full uniform. And detectives are a very good example. I think we've seen many instances where you see a detective in a suit and a tie or a jacket. They show their identification. They talk to you. They handle a case, whatever. But they don't wear a nameplate. They don't wear patches. They don't wear a badge on their uniform specifically. But they're still a peace officer. And they're not hiding their identity. If you ask them, they'll give you a card at any time. If we do a traffic stop, we'll give a card if we don't issue a ticket or summons or citation. This bill hurts our ability to interact with the public by restricting us more and more and more. you on the previous question does it affect us working with the public absolutely one of the things that i love to say and to assure my hispanic brothers and sisters out there is no somos la migra somos la policia somos diferente we are not immigration we are the police and we are different it is something we have to fight every single day on the street because we are lumped in with the actions of ICE. We are not ICE. We are totally separate. There's a law in effect that we don't cooperate and we don't. But more and more things are dumped on top of us because of this inadvertent association and linkage. Rep. Espinosa. And just another follow-up in terms of those individuals who may not be identified. I think another category that I thought of, And it was briefly mentioned, I think, in one of the testimonies, are plainclothes individuals who may not even identify themselves. I think of security guards for the governor or like I said this whole group that deals with FFLs I not sure that they would be identified And I just wanted to say my understanding is that giving of a card at any traffic stop is already a part of the state law Is that correct? Chief Chavez, whoever wants to take it. Yes, ma'am. Again, even if a detective or an officer is in plainclothes, and there are some, vice narcotics officers, something like that. If asked, or if necessary, they will identify themselves when they're making an arrest or making a contact with a person. They will do that. And some of them, you would not believe that they're officers by their appearance, but they still will. No police officer or peace officer in the state of Colorado will intentionally hide their identification unless it's for an operational need, like undercover work, to do their duty, but not anything that has to do anything at all with ICE. Robert Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I appreciate you very much. I'm going to ask a rhetorical question in my mind, but I want to ask you this. do you consider yourselves experts in your field of law enforcement, public safety, crime solving, crime prevention? And do you feel or how will this bill put your ability to do your job safely for the public? Not that you wouldn't do it, but safely for the public. and possibly could it cause your own families to be targeted and put in harm's way? Do you feel as citizens as well, because you are citizens of Colorado and your officers, do you feel that you also deserve a level of protection just like any other citizen? Whoever would like to take that.
Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. There is concern there. And, you know, I'll share a story with you that it's happened a couple of times in my career. And after 35 years, I like to always say I've seen it all, but that's never the case. But we had a police officer who was involved in a shooting, and the person that he had shot was a gang member. I have never seen a family and friends act out in more violent and more visceral threats and actually showing up at the PD that we had to conceal this officer's identity. It was incredibly clear that they were intent on killing this police officer. and if we weren't able to keep his identity uh down as you know it's easy to find out a lot about everybody and so we actually knowing that this was going to create problems and knowing the value and the importance of transparency we actually asked to meet with a court and camera explain to them that we need the time to do a threat assessment and understand the entire family dynamics and the threats that are against this officer, as well as put a safety plan into place. So when you ask that question, you know, the rhetorical first part, I hope we're there. I'm being the professionals and knowing how to do this. But the second part, I think, is very profound in the fact that I can't tell you what's going to happen this week that I may need the latitude to do things I never thought in a million years that I would have to conceal a police officer identity on more than one occasion because of just massive threats and actual actions towards their lives and the lives of their families. The last thing I'll tell you, it goes beyond just policing on the streets, but I've mentioned before I was the commander for the Jessica Ridgway case, and I bring that up because when that suspect was arrested, one of the things we wanted to do is we wanted to do an in-depth interview to understand the psychology and the behavior of that suspect. After a year, we were unable to find that suspect because he was given an anonymous name or a pseudonym. And the reason for that was is because the prison guards who were protecting him, the families began getting threats from people that if they didn't harm that subject in prison, they would harm their family. So again, when I say that you think you've seen or heard at all, it doesn't ever surprise me. And so having something so rigid and so strict that locks us into this really makes it difficult to use our discretion when there are the chips on the table and lives at threat.
Ava Bacon. Thank you. Chief Chavez, did you want to jump in on that?
Thank you, Chairman. Yes, ma'am, if I could expand upon that, your question. Probably the greatest risk in this bill, if it's passed, is the duty to intervene. And I'll give you the example that any of the situations we've seen recently on TV involving ICE agents using force, especially deadly force. If a Colorado Peace officer tried to intervene at that point, there'd be a force on force encounter of two entities, both armed. And I will guarantee that the federal officers will not back down. And that will put our officers in a direct harmful situation. Because they're going to try to intercede. And the federal officers say, no, this is our duty and this is our job and this is what we're doing. And now you are interfering and you're armed at that point, too. So now we've got two armed entities. And there's a face off. That is the greatest risk of this House bill being pushed forward. And that puts every peace officer in the state of Colorado, all officers, all deputies, and all state troopers at great risk of this type of a situation.
Amy Mal Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Chiefs, for sharing. I apologize. I did step out. And so if you've answered this, you know, again, I apologize. And I'm wondering if I might briefly, Mr. Chair, dialogue so I can just kind of get to the underlying question.
Yes.
So early, you know, when we were talking to the bill sponsors, I kind of asked them and I also asked the room, if you will, what you all would articulate as any duty to do anything. And so I'm putting it that broadly because ultimately my question is, in the event you do see some of the things that we're talking about here happening, how would you articulate what your response would be? And the reason why I asking that is because what I can appreciate about what you said a moment ago and even though it was in Spanish and differentiating yourself from immigration or police I do think it harmful that our trusts now are being conflated I think our community does need to rely on law enforcement, and especially those who are around us the most. You all know our communities better than, I would argue, the federal government does. And because you know our communities, and you may even know, honestly, the building or like literally who's ever there. I am curious on what your articulation is in regards to what you can do or what you might do if you did see what, and I would just call it objectively excessive force, like someone being thrown or shot. And I'm going to just use that hypothetical because it exists. And so I would just love to know what your articulation is of that. If there are any opportunities, what could be done? What could be said from your estimation as law enforcement and then quite honestly also as community partner? You can respond directly.
Thank you for the question, Rob Bacon. if I can briefly just say that these issues aren't new. We, some of us, well over 30 years in this profession, have been working and collaborating with federal agencies the entire time. And so seeing actions in other parts of the country that we know would not go well in our community, those have been concerns for all my career. How we go about working with federal agencies to make sure that those things don't occur in our communities is through collaboration. And if we have the ability, when we have the ability to collaborate with federal agencies, sometimes we have a very significant impact on how those situations go. So, for example, the U.S. Marshals goes around the country picking up the worst of the worst fugitives. We all know that, right? They're a relatively small organization. They don't bring a lot of agents with them when they show up. But we know that they go around the country and typically with a warrant, hopefully in most cases, kick a door and go after someone very bad. And we see a few shootings every year that occur because of that activity. Knowing that, as a local law enforcement officer, I know that I have better tools to bring to those situations to prevent those shootings from occurring. Maybe better tactics that can be implemented in those situations. So when given the opportunity, I can think of several times that we were able to collaborate with the U.S. Marshals and go, look, can we collaborate on this? We know the territory here. We know this apartment building we're going to, this residence we're going to, the suspect you're after, whatever the case might be. We'll bring the necessary tools to bear to make sure that this is a safe operation. and if we can find that person there we'll get them safely into custody and turn them over to you we've been able to do that successfully time after time in local our local communities in But when we're prevented from sharing information, from collaborating, from working with these agencies, we don't have that ability. And I really feel like right now we don't have that ability with ICE. And that wedge has kind of been driven between our organizations and prevented that capability. Sorry. Go ahead. Madam, to further answer your question, like if we did observe, if a police officer in Colorado observed what they felt was an inappropriate or egregious action by a federal agent, we can do what anybody else does. We can file a complaint. Now, on my agency and the agencies I've worked for, if there's a complaint of excessive force, it doesn't get judged at the moment it happens on the street. It's reviewed. Body-worn camera is checked. Surveillance cameras from the area. Any witnesses, evidence and facts are determined. And then a conclusion is made after the fact, after all the facts have been reviewed. we can always make a report or a complaint on the actions of a federal officer. But the requirement to immediately intercede without knowing all the facts, again, as I mentioned before, would create a force-on-force, firearm-versus-firearm confrontation between Colorado law enforcement officers and federal agents. It should be reviewed thoroughly and then a determination after the fact. Thank you.
So I think my follow-ups are this. I don't necessarily know the police chief of the law enforcement agencies in Minnesota, but I have interacted with them through state and national conferences. And I do believe that the law enforcement agencies in the spaces that we find challenging are also professionals and that they have been trained. And so my question is, in the event that, and I can even appreciate to the extent that you describe around collaboration, but in the event that the federal agency does not want to, I think that's the hypothetical. and also given what you just shared about filing a complaint. What I heard was we can check the body-worn cameras. And I think that's interesting because part of me wants to then know what responsibility do we have at all in being there, with our cameras being on, with being able to see what's happening, or even defining intervention to the extent of asking a question, presumably when it's safe. because if you can file a complaint as well, some of the things, some things need to be happening to even substantiate that, like your body cam is on and you're asking a question or you're even witnessing something. And so that's why I'm asking this in the event that there is not collaboration or interest and you are on site and knowing the tools that you have as well as your actual professional judgment because reasonableness depends on people who are similarly situated. That's why I'm asking what can you do. So could you be present to observe, right? Could you be present to even say, hey, maybe that person needs a doctor. You know, what are those things in the event where you cannot be collaborative because of a deliberate decision and also you are the professionals in the space and you have tools that other people do not including your equipment That the frame that I asking because I can understand to respect a boundary. It kind of worries me that law enforcement would get a fire on fire response from each other. That makes me just question some others' professionalism that they would even point a gun at someone with a badge and who's a professional like yourself because you're asking a question, but maybe that's something I can talk about with federal law enforcement. But given your presence, your tools, and the lack of collaboration, is there something to be said about observations? Is there something to be said about maybe my weapon isn't drawn, but I can say, given our own definition and statute to which we have all been trained on as excessive force, Is there not something that could be done in that space?
Deputy Chief. Chief Curran. Oh, I didn't even. Chief Curran, go ahead. Yes, thanks, madam. That's a real question and a real circumstance. And that's really what we need to get down to. We had some, there was an example shared at the very beginning about Durango. And that was a great example. You know, we'd like to be in that area. We had an ICE facility that was surrounded and the gates were locked with chains. But if we're out there standing and removing people, then we're in essence facilitating in the movement of the people that were in there. And it's a no-win situation at that point, too. We were talking to the state police and we're collaborating with all of our partners. And we knew that we could go in there and maybe use a scalpel when the feds use the shovel. but there's state law that precludes us from being able to have that type of intervention where we are there. So we were not in the area when that incident occurred. And like the chief stated previously, most use of forces that we're involved in, where we're talking about a duty to intervene, the time for intervention is gone because the use of force is over. And most of our intervention takes place during the review. There was intervention by another ICE agent in this specific situation. And there was information revealed that the community member had pushed the ICE agent first. And then there was information from the ICE agent that he was going to effect an arrest, which I don't know if he was or he was not. But I'm probably one of the only chiefs that has filed a complaint, as he was just talking about with the. And I don't know if you there was a New York Times article and the explanation in the article. You know, we even a chief of police faces substantial risk when we do that, but we're still going to do the right thing. And we expect our officers to make those decisions on the spot when they don't have all the information. And and that's how we invest. Investigation of use of force is one of the most complex issues I've ever seen in law enforcement. And that's why we do like to look at the at the body cam. We go through use of force review boards and we even took that information with that community member and looked at multiple camera angles, multiple witnesses, multiple statements before we pass that on to CBI and then called the FBI for a color of law investigation as well. um so you know the and you learn some things about the complexity of the federal government and what their what their rules are their use of force rules and how it different and there different determinations than state law and so that why it hard for officers to be able to make those decisions because even through that process I learned that there was you know different ideas and with the federal system like the chiefs were just saying, that wouldn't fly here in Durango. At face value on the video, that was not within our policy, but it was within the policy of the federal government. Now it's still over at the DA's office and the DA is currently trying to figure out if they can overcome immunity. And that's another issue that I don't know if the officers even have that amount of information on scene to intervene in certain ways or to have the expectation to. Unless they see something outright unlawful, then of course we'll intervene. Okay. We are almost double time over for this panel. I will allow a few more questions because it is going to be our law enforcement panel. I have Kelty Flanell and then Clifford. Kelty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask the chiefs here. So as we know, in Colorado, there is a deficiency in law enforcement right now in hiring, being able to hire. It was estimated about 70% of the agencies across Colorado are saying that they are having a hard time hiring for police officers and law enforcement in the state, which would, in fact, then reduce ability to respond in 911 calls, operations, and things like that. Do you see a bill like this impacting that even more to be able to hire good quality law enforcement in the state of Colorado? Keep us safe.
Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep Kelty, for the question. Absolutely. We lose officers out of Colorado that have gone to other states to perform their jobs because of the difficulties and the liabilities that continually are coming our direction. And so although I don't have anything tangible to say that Officer A from Minnesota didn't put in for a police officer position at the city of Arvada, I know that I've had city of Arvada police officers leave and they said, I can't do policing in the state anymore. I'm going here or I'm going there. So I do think it works on both sides. Chief Vasquez, did you want to chime in on that? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the question. I couldn't agree more. Not only do we have to look at our ability to retain officers, but getting officers to come here. You know, I just came back from talking to multiple chiefs in Florida. And during those conversations, we have conversations, we talk about different laws and those things that are on the books, or maybe during the legislative session like this and those comparisons. Even when I talk to other chiefs in other states and they hear about a piece of legislation, a bill like this, they are really surprised. And, you know, they they ask those questions. How are you doing in recruiting officers to your state with those kind of laws that you may be facing? But internally with the police department, we try to do a really good job of briefing our officers on what types of legislation are being introduced into law. And every time that we look at something like this that puts an onus on our police officers when it is difficult at best to come onto a scene that they don know anything about and then expect them to have a duty to intervene on facts that they couldn't possibly know, you know, what led to that incident, they have great concerns. And so losing those officers out of, you know, the mere fact that we have no qualified immunity, any longer. You know, when we have all of these facts lining up, then officers become concerned, and it makes it more difficult for us to recruit and retain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a safety clause on this bill, but the training has a deadline to
comply of July 1st of 2027. Is it fair to immediately penalize local law enforcement officers for noncompliance before they're even aware of the new laws and trained on them? And this question is for anybody who would like to answer.
Chief Newbanks. Well, I can tell you the mandates on training just keep coming. and it's becoming a full-time job to track what those are and how to meet those requirements. We absolutely do the best we can. We try to follow all those post rules and provide training to our officers. But, yes, adding new requirements to that. And, I mean, we've already planned our training out for this year. So, you know, give us some time to add that, to come up with the training. And I forget who was coming up. I think somebody was mandated to come up with the training in this, which I'm assuming is an additional cost. But, yes, we would like some more time and able to incorporate that if that's something that the legislature desires. But I really feel like a lot of this is already being covered. so I'm not convinced an additional training mandate is even necessary when it comes to the things in this bill. It seems like those are things that are already being covered by peace officers in Colorado. Rebs Hopper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my question is directed towards the Durango Police Chief. You mentioned something in your exchange with Representative Bacon about the immunity piece, I assume qualified immunity of the federal immigration officers. As your response back, when I look at the strike below, it talks about one that there's immunity unavailable in 18-1-201.5 that's being proposed here. However, it would be under federal law that I'm assuming they would assert their qualified immunity, even though a Colorado law enforcement officer would have no qualified immunity. I guess I'm trying to parse out what would actually happen in terms of the intervention piece when it comes to even if your officers were to intervene.
That's a great question. Oh, sorry, Chair. Please go ahead. Chief Curran. Thank you, Chair. It's a great question because the answer is I don't know, and if I don't know, Oh, and I have the stars on my shirt. I just, that's what becomes really hard for the officers in the moment and not knowing all the facts. When most of our force is, we do have people intervene in the jail. There was an intervention in this case that I talked about with another ICE officer that grabbed a hold of the ICE officer that I felt was using too much force and pulled him back. But, you know, it doesn't stop there. But I'm still trying to find out the answer to your question right now with the case sitting over at the DA's office that came through CBI, which is a risk on my part, even filing the case in the first place. But that's not the way we do business here in Durango, and we're trying to protect our citizens. But I think that's a very high task to place on an officer out in the field without something that's completely obvious that's against the law.
Reb Semper, quick follow-up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick follow-up there. So in the case you just described, let's say there's the use of force in jail by the ICE officer. your officer pulls back, let's say enough that it could be considered assault under federal law. Does your officer run the risk of being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for a federal crime?
Yeah, I mean, that was kind of the purpose. Oh, yes, Chair, sorry. Um, that was kind of the purpose of the article, um, was that risk that I was running, even, even, um, look seeking charges for what I saw a long time after the fact. And so, yes, I think our officers run the risk of that. And then they run the risk, the opposite direction on the post side. And if they're not Goldilocks, if they're not just right, if they're too hot or cold, it's gonna, they're going to run a risk. And, um, that's gonna, uh, it's really putting them in the position where it goes back to officers, putting police officers in the position to fix everything, to be mental health therapists, to be interventionists, to be, and I just don't feel like we're always the tool, but everybody comes to us. And then we get back to Chief Velasquez's point. It gets very hard to recruit and hire and maintain under those circumstances.
Rep Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple things. One, currently in law, our duty to intervene, and we've talked a lot about this. I don't personally see that there's a differentiation between the standard we have for our peace officers, for another peace officer in the state, and their inappropriate use of force. In fact, I would assert that the reason that CERSA insurance has increased for agencies so much is related to the Clear Creek incident, where the lowest paid amount out of the $19 million settlement in that overall settlement was $3 million. and I believe all the trooper really did was got out of his car and said, you know, basically, do you need anything? And that was also charged with a failure to intervene. Do you guys have a different interpretation of that when it comes to federal law enforcement officers?
Well, everyone wants to take that. Chief Chavez. Thank you, Chairman. The difference here is the fact that they acting under federal authority and federal law There a difference between duty to report and duty to intervene intervene means physically getting in the way or stopping In doing so, the officer is placed either in an interference or an obstruction position where they could be charged. and they might not know the totality of the whole circumstances because their back was turned or they caught the last part of the of the the instance and didn't get the full picture it puts an officer a peace officer in colorado in a very difficult impossible situation act you could get charged by federal crime don't act and now you're under state charges and a civil penalty. You're in a rock and a hard place. And for a law enforcement officer, that's what causes officers to say, I can't do this anymore. It's impossible. I'm going to leave the profession. And that hurts our retention and that hurts our recruitment.
Rob Clifford. The other piece that I have is related to what is the current I really kind of ask the mood in your departments from officers currently. I recognize very much so the concern that you have about recruitment and retention, but I'm talking about this overall nature of what we're dealing with right now because it has certainly taken the legislature by storm to have so many things change so fast with the relationship between federal law enforcement and the public today, just the overall view. What are your officers asking for as far as tools or help from us in this moment?
Chief Newbanks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think officers just want to be able to do their job. They signed up for this to be servants to their community. They want to be there to serve and protect, and they want to be able to do that job without further complication. we've we've made this way too difficult um we've we've stretched um what they're responsible for i think um that's been talked about um and then we we keep on putting these penalties in place if if you screw this up you're civilly liable and we and we just and that seems to be the trend we do it over and over and over and i and i think that's wearing on the officer today um it doesn't uh They don't feel that that supports them and is quite the opposite. And so I think what they want is to know that their community needs them to do their job and that they're supported in that. And I don't think this helps if that's clear. And so I know as a person that sees this and feels that, I try to make sure that my officers know when they are supported, either by their community, by their city council, by their state legislature. Like when those things happen I try to make sure that they aware of that because it is important to them they not following all these bills Some of them are some of them aren But in the end they feel when they go to the training next year for what the new statutes are I think that's when it really hits them. And there's a balance there. Either it shows they're supported or they're not. And they make that, they weigh that, and they make that determination, and it can weigh on them considerably. And I think then we see what Chief Chappas alluded to is people stepping away. Thank you.
One quick question, Mr. Chair, about training. Rep Clifford. Thank you. And then we've got to wrap. We've been about 30 minutes over the time limit for this. And thank you for your patience. You're likely the most important panel before us this evening, so we appreciate the Chair's latitude. The current training that we're offering officers about the differences between federal detainers are between criminal ICE actions that are warranted versus the civil actions. Is that something that you guys are putting together on your own?
Do you see the need for us to have post or the Attorney General's office or something create something universal that we can do that would help people understand the differences or the nuances of these things? Deputy Chief Reeves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep Clifford. I think what I would tell you is we have already interrupted what we had planned for training this year. I think many law enforcement agencies have because we have gone back over laws that already exist just to reiterate and make it clear when we get involved, when we don't, what things we will be a part of, what we won't, even into the aspect of the civil part of this. I would even offer to you a little bit to AML Bacon's original point is we're even re-drumming up our ABLE training, which is the active bystander in law enforcement training. And there's other versions of that. But what that does is that allows police officers to know how they can intervene when they see someone not necessarily just using excessive force, but let's say they're getting a little amped up or let's say they're just not maintaining their composure. because of all of these events and everything. I think what you would find is a lot of the police departments in the Colorado and all of the chiefs recognize that. And we've already interrupted training and inserted training that we feel is necessary. So what this legislative body could bring to us, I don't think is of great value compared to what already exists in reiterating the laws that you've already passed, the training that's out there and available, and the ways that we can continue to be professional through ABLE or ICAT or one of those forums. Okay, and with that, I'm going to wrap this panel. Thank you for your time. I know you waited around all day through the earlier bill to testify, and then you took 45 minutes of questions from us, so we appreciate it. Okay, next panel, Miriam Mata. Consuela Redhorse, Tony Bird, Christopher Nurse. And do we have Miriam Mata here? Oh on Zoom Okay great I going to call up a few more support panelists on Zoom Chloe Bailey Karen Artel and let see Who else do we have in the room that is here to testify in support of this bill? in support of the bill. Okay. Do we have Selena Lopez? Nicholas Chapman? Come forward. Isaac Bevis? Naomi Andre? Okay. Okay, let's start with the witnesses in the room. We'll start with the gentleman on my right. State your name, any organization you represent. You will have two minutes. Yes. Yeah, yep. Make sure your microphone is turned on. Okay, there you go. I'm Nicholas Chapman and I'm here to I'm here by myself I'm not representing any organization as an American who is fortunate enough to look the way I do I'm able to exist in the current semi-dystopian society without fear riddling my every public movement millions of others who are citizens of this great country all call home do not have that luxury that I do When I think of jackbooted masked thugs shattering car windows, I picture movies such as the Star Wars franchise. Not real life. I've conversed with friends from all across the country, and some are even scared to drive their cars, not knowing if they'll ever see their family again or if their infants will get blinded by tear gas. institutions in my worldview that have power over and authority over regular citizens should be held to a higher standard than the public and if that comes to a greater risk of those officers safety that is a price i am willing to pay for they took an oath and signed a social contract to protect and serve the people of this nation not oligarchs and rich barons overseas to extract and plunder public resources. There's a saying, a few bad apples, but that is taking the entire adage out of its original context and stripping the meaning down to its chassis of its parts. The full saying is, a few bad apples ruins the bunch. And right now, the streets are rife with a lot of bad apples. When you think back to the 1930s, you wonder why. Why did the Germans not do anything to stop the coming genocide and Holocaust? As a descendant of Jewish refugees who fled Europe because of the Holocaust, these troubles hit me very deeply. These are those days that you look back on and question why. ICE has already murdered way too many people, and even one would be too many. Alex Preddy and Renee Good come to mind. What you allow the government to do to others, they will eventually do to you. And that is the most important message that the Founding Fathers talked about. This bill will help stop future generations from asking us and people of our time period why we didn't do anything. What makes America the greatest country on earth is our unity and diversity. Please support this House bill and vote yes so we can save countless future lives. And if you are not Native American, you are the descendant of immigrants. Nobody is illegal on stolen land. Thank you. Okay, next witness over. You'll have two minutes. Stay in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Isaac Beavis, and I'm here representing myself. And I'm here to put my voice heard in support of HB House Bill 26-1275. I believe that immigration and customs enforcement, better known as ICE, is an existential threat to the immigrant community, the broader Colorado public, and on a national level, democracy itself. Every person on American soil is entitled to its freedoms and constitutional rights at both the state and federal levels, regardless of whether they are a citizen or not. In every place, ICE agents have been deployed. Portland, Oregon, Los Angeles, California, the Twin Cities, Chicago, Illinois, and even our own backyard here in Colorado. They have violated many of these rights, including the First, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments to our Constitution. I believe that ICE, as an organization, should be abolished entirely, and I would go so far as to say that it should never have been created in the first place. However, it is here to stay for the time being, so we as Coloradans need to band together and stop the illegal actions of ICE. and that is why I am here testifying and urging you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next witness over. State your name, any organization you represent. You'll have two minutes. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. Once more members, my name is Christopher Nurse, and I'm the political director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, and I am here this evening once again before you to testify in support of House Bill 1275. Before I get into the bulk of my comments, there was a previous panel where a gentleman officer had to reiterate that Colorado peace officers are not immigration agents. I'd like to thank him for proving the premise behind the bill. House Bill 1275 rests on a simple premise, members, if you have the authority to serve and protect, or the privilege to serve and protect, you must be known to all of us. Members, when law enforcement officers conceal their identities, the harm is not abstract. It is felt in the pit of every parent's stomach when they cannot tell if the person detaining their child is a police officer or an imposter. It is felt by witnesses who want to report a crime but cannot bring themselves to approach officers that they may not recognize. It is felt by communities who learn to see every unmarked car as a threat. Members, the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve is built on visibility and predictability. When officers are clearly identifiable, there is accountability. But when officers operate anonymously, that path disappears. And I understand that there are exceptions in the bill, and we will not touch that this afternoon but when officers operate under anonymity there is no accountability Members this bill restores what that anonymity takes away By restoring transparency by ensuring that federal officers who commit crimes face state prosecution when they commit state crimes House Bill 1275 tells every community across the state, you have the right to know who is policing you. You have the right to due process, and you have the right to be free from excessive force. And members, when those rights are violated, there will be accountability. This is what public safety looks like, and this is what trust is built upon. Members, the right to life, liberty, due process, and freedom from unreasonable force are not abstract constitutional privileges. They are guarantees. And this body, you all here today, have both the authority and the obligation to protect those rights within the four corners of this state. Members, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition strongly urges you to support House Bill 1275. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next one is over. You'll have two minutes. State and the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Naomi Andre. I am here on behalf of myself. I believe that this bill is about safety and about trust. I think it is unfortunate that we cannot control the actions of federal agents within our state, but I also think that it's an opportunity for us to prove the difference between them and our own local law enforcement. By having the law enforcement be open about their identities, they can build trust in the communities that they serve and prevent the fear and panic that might come from approaching someone with no identification and then attempting to arrest them. I also believe that these law enforcement officers have a duty to protect and serve Coloradoans and to take action against ICE agents who are not performing their duty, who are off the clock, who may believe that they have immunity from the law when they should not and do not, and that if they do not do that, that also prevents Coloradoans from feeling safe within this state. Therefore, I would ask that you pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Miriam Mata, state your name. You will have two minutes. Yes, my name is Miriam Mata, and I'm speaking on behalf of CERC, Colorado American Rights Coalition. In October of last year, DPD used our parking lot to stage for an operation. I'm trained on what to do in case of possible ICE activity. I train others on what to do. Despite this, my body's natural response kicked in and I was paralyzed. I did my best to fight it off and do as I was trained. I called the hotline and went into the neighborhood to find the military style vehicle I'd seen and the officers in tactical gear. Upon arriving, I found more unmarked vehicles in a closed-off street. I asked the nearest officer who was operating and what was happening. He refused to answer. I asked for a business card and was told to wait and stay back for my safety, which I did for almost an hour until I realized my request was being ignored. When I felt safe, I approached further and asked other officers the same questions. I was met with scoffs, eye rolls, and was talked down to by an officer who covered the patch on his best while telling me they had a warrant I hadn asked about warrants All I wanted to know was who was operating Had I known I would have left When I pulled into that parking lot I did not see DPD The UPS delivery driver on that street did not see DPD The frightened parents who sent young children out to see what was happening did not see DPD. sorry it was the resident of the house that was being investigated who told me who was operating not any of the officers i felt a sense of relief reporting back to the children and the rapid response network but i was left shaken with anger instead of cooperating the officers ignored disrespected and humiliated me. They broke trust and didn't uphold their responsibility to the local community. We do not deserve that fear and anxiety that we experience to be dragged on. This law serves as a tool to keep the promise of accountability to our local community. I urge you to vote yes. Thank you. Is there a Ms. Artel? Yes, thank you chair and committee members for the opportunity to comment today. My name is Karen Arkell. I'm representing myself. I particularly support the House Bill 1275 provision that requires the Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to deny certification to an individual who previously has been employed or is currently employed by ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Though I learned listening this afternoon that this provision will be changed, I don't have access to the bill changes. I still think that this provision is important. I live in Fort Collins. I do support and appreciate the Fort Collins Police Department, the Larimer County Sheriff, CPW, and Natural Area Rangers, and the work they all do in our community. I am not anti-law. We know an immigration detention center is planned in Hudson. ICE is retrieving in northern Colorado, and agents have been observed and confirmed in Fort Collins by the Colorado Rapid Response Center. We've watched the current federal administration violate the rights of law-abiding immigrants, many of whom have been trying to comply with immigration requirements. U.S. citizens have been detained, brutalized, and even killed. Children have been mistreated and detained. Individuals with the federal administration have made racist statements despite their actions and racial profiling. I have family members who could be subject to racial profiling and detaining. We know that agents who have injured and killed individuals over the last year have been employed by immigration agencies for eight to ten years and more. No one in the U.S. should be subject to a police state with anonymous agents acting with impunity and with no accountability for their actions. Hiring these agents would endanger Colorado residents. We cannot allow these rogue agents to become a part of our community law enforcement and to endanger Colorado residents. Thank you for your consideration. Okay, next, Chloe Bailey, you'll have two minutes state in the organization you represent. You may begin. Thank you very much My name is Chloe Bailey I was born and raised in Colorado I representing myself today as a criminologist I speaking to you as a neighbor educated both by academics and lived experience when I urge you to support this bill I grew up just around the corner from where a neighbor was torn from his family by federal agents less than three weeks ago. Our community is showing up to demonstrate our solidarity and I'm asking you to stand with us. Everyday America's relationship with policing is fraught as it is. Can you afford to lose what little trust we still have in our law enforcement institutions? Can social order and public safety even be maintained when strangers, masked, armed, and high on the false promises of total immunity invade our streets and brutalize our neighbors? Transparency and sustained ethical conduct by law enforcement are essential to retaining public confidence and institutional legitimacy. Her 2023 FBI law enforcement bulletin on maintaining community trust, building a consensus, elevating the importance of ethical conduct, and then establishing clear expectations for infractions is not complicated. Coloradans deserve clarity, oversight, accountability, and respect from our law enforcement agencies. We demand this for all Coloradans, regardless of race or creed. We deserve and we demand more comprehensive training so that state officers are prepared when they have to respond to federal violence in our defense. We deserve and we demand protections against bad faith actors posing as our guardians. No federal agent should have the right to criminal immunity when they violate our state's laws. We deserve and we demand that those who pledge to protect and serve us do that for all Coloradans. We cannot waver in our convictions when we're threatened by a regime of greed and cowardice. Failing to stand against federal efforts to intimidate us in our own homes is not an option. Coloradans will not say idly by while this fear becomes normalized. I'm asking you to show your commitment to your constituency today Stand alongside us, link arms with us, we are your neighbors And create legal and legislative guardrails that help us keep these jackals at bay House Bill 1275 provides the framework for this exact endeavor Coloradans deserve better than an existence plagued by the fear of reckless, criminally negligent RoboCop wannabes deployed to our streets by a feckless federal administration I know law enforcement personnel in the room will be very familiar with my final supposition for you today. If you have nothing to worry about, you have nothing to hide. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, Selena Lopez, you'll have two minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Selena Lopez. I'm representing myself and I'm here to support House Bill 1275. I grew up in Minnesota. Many of my friends and family still live there. My fear for their safety has stayed with me every minute of every day and only increases with each new violation of rights we see federal officers commit. We have an opportunity to prevent the same horrors in Minnesota from happening in Colorado. We Coloradans need to make a point that this behavior is unacceptable in our state. We need to very clearly and pointantly declare that state criminal jurisdiction still applies to federal law enforcement officers. We also need to ban them from wearing masks to conceal their identities. Why are we normalizing seeing armed masked men kidnap people? How can we determine who is and isn't an officer? On June 14th, 2025, Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, were murdered by a man impersonating a police officer. This tragedy left me and my loved ones terrified. We shouldn't have to question whether someone is or isn't a police officer. Me and my neighbors will be safer if local law enforcement and those they work with ensure their identity is not concealed using masks. We ask a lot of them. We ask them to risk their lives to protect their community. This is one non-action local officers can take to ensure our safety. Officers should have dedicated training regarding immigration law and officers' duty to intervene and what constitutes excessive force. I don't want to have the same fear, frustration, and anger towards officers in Colorado that my friends and family do in Minnesota. We can start, and this is a start. by banning current and former federal enforcement officers from becoming Colorado officers. Please do what my home state wouldn't. Protect Coloradans. Establish Colorado law enforcement as protectors of our Constitution. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we'll hear from Consuelo Redhorse, who will have two minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Consuela Redhorse. I live in Silverthorne and I am on the school board in Summit School District. I am here today to represent myself and to uplift the voices of students. I am testifying in support of House Bill 26-1275 because our communities deserve to be safe from abuse by our own federal government. Colorado has taken important steps to protect immigrants, but there are still loopholes in current state law that put families at risk. We need to close these loopholes and strengthen protections now. People cannot meaningfully protect their rights or trust law enforcement when officers hide their identities, act without clear accountability, or do not understand Colorado laws that protect immigrants. In our school district, we have policies and procedures that keep our students safe at school and during school activities, and we provide resources so families understand their rights. However, students of all ages continue to be concerned for their safety and the safety of their friends and families. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit with fourth graders at one of our schools about issues that matter to them. Students were excited to share their concerns and solutions that focus on the environment, water, keeping wildlife safe, and renewable energy. The other topic that they were most concerned about was ICE in their communities. Some of our students have had parents, family members, and neighbors kidnapped during their regular daily routines, on their way to work, supporting their families. We're a small community, and the impact of unlawful kidnapping of hardworking community members has far-reaching impacts, including fear and uncertainty. These students had ideas I wanted to share with you all as you consider this bill. They want a specific type of badge that identifies ICE on their chests and no masks. They want ICE to stay at the border instead of knocking on doors. They would tell ICE, don't catch people randomly, don't just show up. Our students care about one another, their families, and their communities, as do I. We want to ensure that families are safe and their rights are protected, and that immigration and law enforcement is following Colorado law and accountable for that. Thank you for the opportunity to share their voices with you directly, and I urge you to vote yes on House Bill 26-1275. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, committee members, do we have questions for this panel of witnesses? Okay. Seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Is there anyone in the room who's here to testify in opposition to House Bill 1275? No more opposition testimony. Come forward, sir, please. And online do we have Jeannie Rush Aaron Meshke Missy Espinoza And is Mark Goodman here Okay, we'll start with our witness in the room. State your name, any organization you represent. You will have two minutes. You may begin. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Major J.P. Berta of the Colorado State Patrol. The Colorado State Patrol is opposed to this bill in its entirety, and while it may have been imagined with the best of intentions, this bill is prejudicial to Colorado law enforcement, and it undermines the community partnerships that have been fostered by generations of law enforcement professionals in Colorado. This bill attempts to hold Colorado law enforcement accountable for actions federal agencies and other places have committed, And this bill does not acknowledge the culture of accountability that Colorado law enforcement practices daily in our actions to keep communities safe. The facts given already by the chief's panel, I don't think I would replicate in view of the committee's time. But I would be more than happy to take any questions in regards to information that I received from my peers and from the Department of Public Safety. thank you uh okay turning online uh we'll start with jeannie rush you'll have two minutes state in the organization you represent you may begin what we have here folks is a failure to communicate i am so offended by this bill and the last one and all your ice bashing law enforcement control bills that I'm deviating from the message I already sent you in writing. You are in contempt of everything sane, federal law, state sanity. 1.9 million women reported rape in 12 months by the CDC. OK, that's pretty bad. Millions of military-aged illegal invaders entered our borders in the last five years prior to this president. These are men that are criminals, insane and out to do harm. They're not here to play tiddlywinks. They are. You all are targeting both ICE agents and law enforcement. It's worse than a Salem witch trial. What you're doing. You're not even monitoring the joke and parasol patrol, Antifa, the Communist Party of this one and that one. All these groups that have all these rallies, they wear masks and they do more harm than anybody. Let me keep going here. Your whole bill talks about masks and penalties for police. All these awful things when these are the people that stand to defend every one of us every day. retrained them. What is this, a gulag, you know, a concentration camp? You're tying the hands of the law enforcement. Those law enforcement panel, you said they were great and they need to be honored. The civil rights of the victims. Y'all talk about all these illegal people over what, 40, 50,000 in Colorado. They're here illegally. They committed a crime of just coming in here illegally they are not citizens they don't deserve to be honored over citizens and they're harming us and the safety clause here you go again nobody gets to vote on this garbage that you writing i feel these bills are treason i feel like you have insulted our protections as citizens and all the people that just spoke about wanting safe communities Are they delusional Because by letting all these illegal criminals Miss Rush, you are over your time. If you could please wrap up. I think you need to stop this bill garbage and get the real bad people off the streets and honor our law enforcement. Let them interact with ICE who are not the criminals. Quit making villains of the only people that will ever save you. I know the training they get. They have been trained tremendously. Ms. Rush, if you could please wrap up. Well, I've done some of that training. I know what we're talking about. Thank you. Honor our chiefs. Thank you. All right, Erin Meschke, you will have two minutes. State in the organization you represent. You may begin. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Erin Meschke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I normally say thank you for the opportunity to speak, but I was not allowed to sign up for testimony on the previous bill at the beginning of the hearing as I have for most of the session with my current unpredictable schedule. Online testimony options also didn't work after multiple attempts, so I won't offer appreciation for the ability to exercise my right as a responsible, engaged Colorado citizen to speak on any bill, even if it has been changed by a strike below that isn't available to normal people. Colorado law enforcement should not be penalized if they need to protect their identity during the course of their work. As more and more officers are doxed for doing their job, it has become increasingly necessary for some to cover their face or even obstruct what agency they're with. Six years ago, masks were required and anyone who refused was denied service. But now we have people using medical masks and other face coverings to commit crimes, evade detection and even protests. So there is a nonsensical disconnect in expectations for when face coverings are acceptable. State law enforcement should work with federal law enforcement, especially for illegal immigration. And if this relationship had not been politicized, some recent tragedies could have been avoided. The legislature should not be able to cherry pick which types of operations are approved and attempts to pit local law enforcement against federal law enforcement are also a problem. Declaring that officers have a duty to intervene, but making it a problem to intervene in a crime like illegal immigration is another problem. There are many instances of the legislature trying to ensure employment opportunities for criminals, so it is a complete hypocrisy to limit future employment for any former ICE or CBP employee, though it sounds like this may have been removed. HB 261275 is another virtue signaling bill that will not help legal immigrants who I support and potentially puts peace officers in jeopardy. So I ask for a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. And Miss Meschie, thanks for bringing that to our attention. We might have had some technical difficulties because on the last bill, we had a bunch of people who were here in person who also didn't sign up. So there might have been a technical issue there. I did see Missy Espinosa briefly pop on. Is she still online? Okay. Okay, committee members, questions for this panel of witnesses? Okay. Seeing none. Okay. Missy Espinosa, you will have two minutes. State any organization you represent. You may begin. You're muted if you're trying to speak. Missy Espinosa you are muted if you trying to speak We cannot hear you Okay, we're going to move on to another panel of witnesses. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes, yes, we can. You'll have two minutes. Okay, so on a road trip to visit family in Michoacan, my youngest sister wakes up to a masked man with a rifle in hand looking down at her. At first, startled, but then reality hits. Those are the good guys. Well, it's Mexico, so good is relative because you have entered the upside down. In Mexico, Magico, even local law enforcement has to cover their face because death threats come with the job short of a guarantee. um democrats are creating a similar situation in the u.s for ice and supporting agencies and for proof of that you just have to for proof that people want to kill them you just have to look on tiktok uh democrat policies tie up leo here in colorado lets criminals they arrest out over and over again great community partners uh from you know the talk was about being a community partner. This bill pits our law enforcement against the feds conducting legitimate operations. They will and should completely ignore this. You have no authority over ICE. And I think it's funny that you think you do. The reality is that unvetted people from over 140 countries abused the open border under Biden. We want them out and the missing children found. Also, I noticed on the Last bill, zero concern at all for my lived experience being victimized and preyed on. Where's the concern for my safety? Thank you. Okay, committee members, questions for this panel of witnesses? Okay, seeing none, thank you for your time and your testimony. Okay, who else do we have in the room who's here to support House Bill 1275? Okay, let's see. I see Crystal Murillo come forward. And I'm just going to read names here. Joel Benjamin, Ian Ketcher, Kimball Perdana, Aunt Albrecht, Sophia Johnson. Arnie Carter. Okay. Looks like we got a whole panel. And then remotely, do we have Zoe Tuttle, Carrie Halliday, Christina Alejo, Brady Watson, Laura Hines Ira Klages and let's see Holly Chang Alright let's start in the room with Crystal Murillo you will have two minutes State Uni organization you represent you may begin Thank you members. I'm actually reading testimony on behalf of somebody, one of our members who could not be here with Colorado People's Alliance. My name is Zule and I live in Summit County. I served on the board of Mountain Dreamers, a local nonprofit advocating for immigrant families as a member of the Equity Committee for Summit School District, on the District's Youth Advisory Council, and on the Community Board for the Communities That Care Coalition. Beyond my volunteer work, I serve Colorado families daily as a family advocate, and in that role, I come before you today. I am here in strong support of House Bill 1275. This bill is about protection, accountability, and the future of Colorado. Let me tell you what that looks like on the ground. Recently, I chaperoned a fifth grade overnight trip to a museum. The kids were having a wonderful time. We stepped outside to a nearby park and a man walked by wearing a mask. He was a construction worker protecting himself from sun and dust during a remodel. But one of my students didn't know that. She froze. Then she began to cry. Then she began to hyperventilate. She told us she thought he was an ICE agent coming to take her. She's 10 years old. She's a U.S. citizen, and through her tears, she asked whether she would ever see her parents again. Let that sink in. A 10-year-old girl terrified by the sight of a construction worker in a mask. This is what fear does to a child. This is what is happening in our schools, our parks, and our communities right now, And that's exactly why this bill matters. This bill requires law enforcement to be visibly identified and accountable during interactions with the public. Children and adults should never have to wonder whether the person in front of them is a legitimate officer or someone operating outside the law. Accountability and visibility are not just policy details. They are the difference between safety and terror for the families I serve. Colorado's economy, diversity, and future depend on the people who built it. Immigrants contribute $2 billion in taxes to this state. They are our workforce, our neighbors, our parents, and they are raising the next generation of Coloradans. How do we expect children to learn, grow, and contribute to this state when they are having nightmares about mass strangers taking their parents away? We can do better. We must do better for that little girl on the field trip and for every child in Colorado who deserves to feel safe. I urge you to support House Bill 1275. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next witness over. State your name in the organization you represent. You will have two minutes. My name is Sophia Johnson, and I will be representing Kamal Perdana today. He couldn't be here. He's sick. Kamal lives in Fort Collins just like me and is a Colorado State University economics Ph.D. student and is testifying in support of the Visible and Accountable Policing Act. Since its inception in March 2003, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has caused immeasurable harm to Colorado communities. They have separated our children from our families, our neighbors from our neighborhoods, and working people from their livelihoods. They dehumanize people that look like me, immigrants and people of color regardless of whether you pay taxes regardless of whether you contribute to society regardless of whatever metric they use to assess you ice sees your skin color they assume your background and they treat you as less than human they throw you into concentration camps they tear your life apart and they don't apologize for any of it in 2026 alone at least 15 people have been murdered by ice we know renee good and alex pretty two peaceful law activists who were legally observing ICE when they were murdered in cold blood Alongside these noble activists 13 other people have been murdered by ICE Keith Porter Giraldo Lunes Campos Luis Gustavo Nunes Carceres Luis Beltran Yanez Cruz Parila, Herbert Sanchez Dominguez, Victor Manuel Diaz, Emmanuel Damas, Lorth Sim, Jario Garcia Hernandez, Alberto Gutierrez, Reese, Mohamed Nazir Pacquiao. In 2025, at least 32 people were murdered in ICE custody. As of February 2026, at least 71,000 people have been recorded as being in ICE detention. ICE has detained tens of thousands, murdered dozens with no accountability, with practical immunity. ICE is carrying out these crimes in Colorado as we speak. This bill, which prevents Colorado law enforcement from concealing their identities, prevents current or previous ICE or CBP agents from becoming law enforcement officers in Colorado, and requires law enforcement training in the state to cover immigration rights, is not enough to stop the unconsciousable crimes that Immigrations and Custom Enforcement carries out in Colorado. I want to see families reunited. I want to see kids going back to school. I want to see reparations. I want to see the punitive so-called immigration system uprooted. I want to see justice. I want to see collective liberation. And I no longer want to see these white supremacists in ICE and CBP walking our streets. This bill is a start. We must hold the system and its perpetrators, perpetrators, Jesus, accountable for their inhumanity. ICE does not keep us safe. We keep us safe. Please support the Visible and Accountable Policing Act. Solidarity to all those who resist. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness over. State your name in the organization you represent. You will have two minutes. All right. My name is Ant, and I am a representative of myself today. I'm a Colorado State University student, and I'm here to speak in favor of House Bill 26-1275. I believe that passing this legislation is an essential step in the right direction of protecting all of Coloradoans from the threat of ICE. When these agents make their way into our neighborhoods, schools, and places of work, they bring death with them, and they tear families apart. The conversations around ICE have not centered the humanity of the undocumented asylum-seeking or broader immigrant communities nearly as much as they should have. And I stand here to say that the 11 documented deaths of people at the hands of ICE this year alone are not just statistics that I desperately throw out at you to make you care about this, but they are people. They are human beings. They are community members who had stories. People who have families and individuals whose absences are deeply felt. As a future school teacher, I have not been able to fully grapple with the idea that I may have to sit a child down and tell them that their parent was killed or abducted by a masked agent. And I cannot even begin to imagine that I might have to tell that same child that their parent's killer or abductor is roaming free with there being no way to identify them or to enforce law against them. Without the subjection to state and local laws, ICE agents exist as what is essentially a white supremacist paramilitary group who goes around and attacks and kidnaps our neighbors and their kids. If you do not want to vote in favor of this bill for the sake of protecting Coloradoans alone, it is still a good decision from a political standpoint More Americans don favor than favor ICE at this time and their brutality is on full display. By voting in favor of this, you stand with your Colorado constituents. Thank you. Okay, next witness over. State your name, any organization you represent. You will have two minutes. My name is Ian Katcher. I am here representing myself. and I wanted to join Sophia in listing off the names of the people that ICE has killed, but my list is incomplete, and I think a large part of that is because there is zero accountability and zero transparency from ICE. We don't even know all the names of the people that they have killed. We don't know how many they have killed this year. According to Reuters, ICE is on track to kill 100 people this year in the streets. all of these people deserve justice and having masked murderers with the protection of the federal government makes that impossible also do you want these killers to work for colorado police departments do you think that they are going to protect your constituents that voted you into office pass this bill and do right by all of those who will inevitably fall victim to state oppression and also i just wanted to add that i think it's kind of ridiculous that cops got 50 minutes to speak and you all asked them a bunch of questions and we've had what like i think 12 people speak in support of this bill uh people who say that they are scared of federal law enforcement coming into their house kidnapping them murdering them and you haven't asked them a single question so thank you please pass this bill thank you uh okay uh switching to our online witnesses. Let's start with Joel. You will have two minutes. State any organization you represent. You may begin. Good evening, Joel. Speaking for myself and only myself. Thank you all for the time. First and foremost, I want this panel to know and also acknowledge verbally that the police who spoke earlier are not the most important folks in this room. That is not the most important panel of the night. The people are. The people those police are supposed to serve. The masses, you know, the working folks who we, by and large, suffer because the same state legislature dumps money on police. They have incredibly powerful unions. And that all happens at the expense of our elementary schools, our roads, our livelihoods. I want to remind this committee that complaints of excessive force, that's a phrase we heard earlier, and evidence behind them, including body cameras, surveillance from the area, and this sort of thing, aren't sufficient for what we're talking about. Because as my neighbors in Aurora know maybe too well, what is the use of an investigation after an incident when your neighbor ends up dead and by the way those are all situations with a properly identified properly labeled uniformed officer we're not talking about federal we're talking about policing broadly it would be a logical fallacy and a malicious choice for any lawmaker to overlook that policing as a default results in bloodshed and with a lot of irony rarely results in justice of any kind I think reasonable people would disagree on what justice looks like when police kill our neighbors but perhaps that might include a life sentence for an assassin Man, this is hard, folks, but it's also not. We shouldn't have assassins in our streets. Those assassins should not be labeled as state actors. We put an overall outsized weight on the impact of police chiefs and unions and lobbyists as if their voices represent an expertise. not one of those people is an expert. We shouldn't even be calling them by their titles. We should be calling them by their first and last names. But never mind all of that. I think it's really critical for this panel to recognize that there are incentives in play here. There's money in play here. And we should not have anything less than fully labeled police in our streets, ideally not interacting with the public in any way other than when specifically warranted by a judge thank you sir you're over your time thank you okay we'll now hear from carrie halliday you'll have two minutes state any organization you represent you may begin thank you chair my name is carrie halliday and i am representing myself as a denvite who has a lot of immigrant neighbors I urge the committee to vote for House Bill 1275, and I greatly thank the sponsors who brought it. So a friend of mine who lived in the apartment adjacent to one targeted by ICE during last year's raids in Aurora, his apartment was not the apartment being targeted. It wasn't the one that was on the news with all the cameras. But nonetheless, my friend experienced a very chilling experience. An unnamed, unidentified man in a uniform came to his door. This man, who refused to identify himself, wanted to know, did my friend speak Spanish? Did he know of any of his neighbors who spoke Spanish? I have many, many neighbors who speak Spanish and many other languages besides. And at this point, I assume it's just a matter of time before masked ICE agents or anyone who wants to play modern-day brown shirts comes to terrorize my neighborhood. ICE agents go out of their way to conceal their identity, and they say that this is because they are afraid for their safety. Well, I'm afraid for the safety of my neighbors and for my family. So by allowing supposedly legitimate law enforcement to conceal their identity creates a very, very dangerous situation all around. Not only does it make accountability next to impossible, as many people have already said quite well, but it allows an easy opportunity for opportunistic, violent, racist vigilantes to hurt people. So once again, I thank the sponsors for bringing House Bill 1275, and I urge the committee to vote for it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll now hear from Holly Cheng. You will have two minutes. State any organization you represent. You may begin. Yeah, hi, my name is Holly. I work in public health, and I manage a team that goes into clients' homes within Arapahoe County, although I'm speaking on my own behalf. I'm urging you to pass this bill because it is critical to our community's safety. Thank you. Aside from six of our patients that have had their husbands and household earners detained while going to work, there are numerous other stories of those impacted by the unraigned terror of federal immigration within Aurora that we serve. Disappointed but not surprised so many officers testified against this bill. What ICE is doing actually undermines your stated mission, if you agree that mission is to increase safety in our neighborhoods. I recently sat in the past month in a living room of a young grandma and mom of two teens that was threatened at knife point twice by an intimate partner. I could not convince her to call the police had he shown up to her door in her new apartment. That's because police and law and ICE are indistinguishable within the community. This is one of several examples in the past months. I've been told multiple times by parents of other teen parents, they're afraid to send their kids and grandkids to school because ICE is present at the school. So these kids are not going to school, which is another issue that we're, you know, aside working with. But in many of these instances, they've referenced. Miss Chang, you froze. okay uh we'll now hear from laura hines you'll have an atv um but a distinguishable within the community um this is holly can you hear me uh yeah you broke up there for maybe about 20 30 seconds if you just want to wrap up your uh testimony sure um there are multiple students not going to school because their parents think ICE is in the schools and in fact it's APD but they're indistinguishable from themselves. I've been at the ICE facility in Centennial and several calls in the community where ICE has been present. On those calls it's been FBI, SWAT, APD, DPD. I've gotten cards from them after several attempts to ask them but again it's it's that's the point of this bill. You cannot tell the difference between the two and it's terrorizing our communities. It's undermining public safety. It's undermining education. It's undermining all the things that we've done in our community to build up community resiliency. And to the officer that said that they're afraid of going after ICE agents, not knowing if it's a criminal charge. Well, only 20 percent of people sitting in Aurora Geo right now have a criminal charge. So we should be demanding that warrants are present when they're picking people up, although we know that's not occurring. So you want everyday people to fight against this that we're seeing in the streets, people like Alex Preddy, people like Renee Good, rather than those of you that say that you have the training to operate arms to protect your neighbors. And that is the job that you swore to do. So I thank those that brought this bill and I ask that you pass it. Thank you. Okay, we have Laura Hines. You'll have two minutes. State any organization you represent. You may begin. Ah, good evening, committee. Thank you, chair, committee members. Thank you for hearing my testimony. My name is Laura Hines. I'm representing myself today in support of House Bill 1275. I'm going to take a tiny bit different take than some people and start by talking about Lacey Miller. She was a woman who was murdered in Fort Collins by a man that gained her trust by – he was impersonating a police officer in 2003. Now I only a few years older than she is and I grew up in Fort Collins although I didn know her But I remember the circumstances of her murder even now many many years later obviously because as a young woman in the early 2000s I was cautioned to beware of men potentially impersonating a police officer. I was told legal techniques I could use to keep myself safe when I was driving around, that kind of thing. So when these videos surfaced of masked men, masked federal agents pulling people from cars or their homes or their schools, I immediately wondered how anyone could tell whether they were in fact agents or whether they were just some guys who ordered stuff off the Internet, decided to kidnap people. And this is how a lot of women and even and sometimes some men to think, because if somebody is masked and they're in tactical gear, you have no idea what they're doing. I think it's incredibly important to not have masked police officers or law enforcement officers, federal or otherwise. and and you know people made a big deal about all the um all the different circumstances like divers or that kind of thing that is not the same thing as what ice is doing that's not the same thing as what some of the other border patrol uh agents are doing um if if i have a person who approaches me in any way masked with tactical gear i as a civilian i do not know whether that person is intending to attack me, whether they are a federal agent and I'm facing a federal felony by not paying attention to what they're doing, or whether I should take every means possible to attack them or defend myself. And this is true for everyone, immigrants or natural-born citizens or anyone who looks anyway. Anyway, I support House Bill 1275, and I thank the sponsors for putting it up. Thank you very much. Okay committee members questions for this
panel of witnesses. Rep Espinosa. To the witness who talked about the PD not
being indistinguishable, can you point to something in this proposed legislation that would help alleviate that? Because I don't, I mean right now the Aurora police department is using identification. So, and DPD and the schools, I'm certain, or APD and the schools are also using identification. So what in this bill will change to help alleviate the concern that you're raising from the community, if you know? Yeah, I believe this bill, and I apologize. I ran straight from work with my two kids to testify here, so did not go line by line, but I believe it says that they must have identification on them. So whether or not APD does have identification, in almost any instance I've seen ICE, they do not, and yet they look just like APD or DPD with their tactical gear and they're masked, right, so you can't identify them. If they were to have some kind of identification on them, saying ICE, saying Border Patrol, whatever it is, that would be more identifiable to people. Oh, you muted yourself for a moment there. That was it. That was my answer. Okay, got it, got it. Okay, got it. All right, right past Vanessa. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. But this bill does nothing to require ICE to have identification nor to be unmasked. So I just wanted to let you know that the bill here is only directed at Colorado law enforcement So I just wanted to clear the record in terms of what we were not able to do in this bill Thanks. Further questions? Sir, I see you with your hand up. I only recognize witnesses who are on the current panel. I'm sorry. Okay. Seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify on this piece of legislation? Come forward, please. And then online, I believe we have Christina Alejo, Evan Peterson, Ausman Baugh, and Lidwana Davis. Hi. Thanks for having me speak today. State your name. Karen Olvang from Loveland, Colorado. Any organization you represent? No organization. I'm speaking on behalf of myself. Loveland has made infamous online when a Loveland police officer used excessive force on a frail 75-year-old woman with dementia. Thank goodness for body cams because the fellow officers didn't turn themselves in for abusive practices. Just, okay, this bill partners unmasked, body cam wearing, Colorado law enforcement in case of ICE impropriety. We need to pass this bill to give safeguards to our most vulnerable, which these days can look like any of us. watching minnesota videos i got the feeling i was engaged in filling out a sick bingo game card with the center free square being walking away from committing the murder of renee good free if only a local peace officer had detained and arrested sergeant ross or even entertained the idea of protecting the scene of a crime maybe ross could hide behind a mask but our officers should not be able to hide in plain sight. My immigration bingo card would include the basic restraints in this bill because we respect and look up to our law enforcement. It shouldn't appear that we are giving carte blanche to federal officers who are mostly acting under anonymity. I don't want my community police officers hiding behind masks within a group of ICE officers committing unconstitutional infractions as co-conspirators. Cell phone-carrying citizens can only document the crimes and are only left to fill out bingo cards and maybe file a complaint. We are up against masks, unmarked vehicles, and cannot FOIA request body cam footage because ICE doesn't wear any. However, if unmasked, body cam-wearing, Colorado Peace Office are on the scene, I would feel safer in the community, also because of a mandate to intervene. maybe before it is too late. I want them protecting my neighbors to the best of their ability using consistency across the board. And finally, I would not want the officers who put 10 bullets in Alex Freddie's back to be hired for police duty in Colorado. That would be my main ask. And the reason you aren't able to be hiring police officers maybe is because so many people are going to work for ICE. Thank you, ma'am. Yeah. Thanks. Is there Evan Peterson? State your name who you represent and you have two minutes sir My name is Evan Peterson I represent myself on Northern Colorado and I as a citizen proudly support House Bill 2-1-2-7-5, the Visible and Accountable Policing Act. It is important legislation—I'm sorry, this, rather—confronts the urgent issues surrounding our immigration policies and law enforcement conduct in Colorado. Bad things tend to happen when good people do nothing. Our current immigration system creates a climate of fear and strongly parallels the police state across the nation. And our state police don't understand why we want them to have accountability when they have when all they have are excuses and capitulation. We don't usually trust the police enough to do the right thing without being constantly recorded on the body cam. The thin blue line. When it comes to learning how much force our police can use on citizens, they have zero problem taking risks. But if someone armed to the teeth like themselves with a badge, it's conveniently too ambiguous. Many immigrants live in terror of being targeted and killed by aggressive federal enforcement actions, particularly by ICE and Customs Border Patrol. This has led to tragic losses and serious civil rights violations. hard-working individuals like JBS and the factory workers face raids and detentions that tear apart their families and communities while they strive just to provide for their loved ones. The environment of fear is unacceptable and we must act now. Accountability is crucial for rebuilding trust in our communities. Furthermore, it mandates training on immigration laws to ensure officers understand the jurisdiction and limitations. Federal immunity should not shield agents from consequences when they violate state laws, Additionally, denying certification to individuals previously employed by ICE or Customs and Border Patrol sends a strong message. Our law enforcement must prioritize community safety over federal overreach. You can't cry states' rights when we demolish our rights. Then the Supremacy Clause when you let secret police abduct and violate our civil rights without having law enforcement protect us. They will kill us and the police will just file a complaint. HB 1275 is about more than just law enforcement. It upholds human dignity and protects the rights of all Coloradans. By passing this bill, we affirm that Coloradans stands for justice, accountability, and compassion, especially for vulnerable populations. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you, sir. Is there a Christiana Alejo? Yes, I'm here. Please state your name, who you represent, and you will have two minutes. My name is Christiana Alejo and I represent myself. Thank you for hearing me. This comes really close to home as my husband of seven years was taken into custody by an ICE agent, what we think is ICE agents. They never told me who they were as I was trying to get information from them when they were detaining him. Along with that came threats against myself as I was asked multiple times if I was an American citizen and I was not able to leave until I gave them my ID. There was also threats made to my daughter, which she was not with us at the time, but because they heard us talking about her, they did make threats against her. I was never able to see if they were immigration or immigration agents. I never knew who they were with if they were with El Paso County which this happened in. And I never uh to see a warrant um having mask agents for me um has caused a lot of trauma i'm having to do therapy because of the incident i have not um yet been able to deal with my husband being taken and my family because of the mental that has caused me. I have a four-year-old that I have to protect now. And if anything was to come, I wouldn't be able, I think, to call law enforcement to protect me and her now that we are by ourselves because I don't know who's behind the mask. I never knew who was behind the mask. this bill will help others that have or that are going to be dealing with this. Excuse me. Sorry, I'm getting emotional. Due to the fact that we will be able to see who is taking our loved ones and who are making these threats to the people, to your Colorado people. I am a sixth generation pioneer family member. My family is the second oldest family member in Colorado, and I was treated as a third-rate citizen. I wasn't allowed to retrieve my items from my vehicle until I showed them an ID, whoever these people were to this day. Like I said, we still don't have a warrant or why they took him from El Paso County as he was just going to court for a traffic ticket. And we probably never will get those answers. So I just want to let the panel know that there are families in Colorado that are hurting because we're not able to see these people that are terrorizing us. And I don't know how to explain that to a four-year-old baby. So thank you, and please consider this bill. Thank you, Ms. Alejo. Is there anyone online that would like to testify? Is there anyone in the room in person that would like to testify at this time? Panel, do you have questions for these witnesses? Okay. Seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. One last call for witnesses in the room. Okay. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Bill sponsors. You can move it. Mr. Chair.
Rep Zocay.
I move L1. Second. Okay, that's proper motion,
seconded by Vice Chair Carter.
Rep Zocay.
L1 is the strike below
that we have been discussing as the bill this evening and I ask for a yes vote Okay do we have No you have amendments to the strike below I have amendments to L1, that is correct. Yeah, okay. If you would like to move your first amendment to the strike below, and then we can talk about that. Two is okay with you, right? Yes, I move L2 to L1.
Second.
You have three? And now four is okay? Mm-hmm. Okay. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I think we're getting those all passed out. Okay, okay. Stand by, we're passing out the amendments. Okay. Oh, that's what we've heard. Okay. Okay. Okay. Reps. Okay. Please explain L2.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. L2 removes names from the ledge deck and adds that this bill is building on reforms from House Bill 20-217 to promote officer identification and comes from conversations with stakeholders and colleagues.
Okay. Committee members, questions on L2? Any objection to L2? Okay, seeing none, L2 is adopted. Reps, okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move L4 to L1. Second. I have L4. We'll hold for L4 to be passed out. I have digital copies in the amendments. I think they were emailed. Mr. Chair, if I may, the amendments are the same ones that were emailed out other than L9, which you are all receiving now. Okay. Okay, while those are getting passed out, Rep. Zokai or Rep. Froelich, if you would like to describe L4.
Do you need to call me?
Yes, perhaps okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
L4 is adding some of that clarifying language that our federal officers are immune when they are acting within the scope of and color of their authority.
And so we are making it clear that that is a distinction. And we also did not want any sort of reverse implication that we cannot act in other situations. And so there's a clarification from feedback we receive from stakeholders.
Rep. Espinosa.
Thank you. I think there's a word still missing in L4 because it's under color of comma, and I believe it should be under color of law, comma, and within the scope of the officers of federal authority.
No Rep Zoka Thank you Mr Chair I think that the same point is made without that word law
I don't know if that's a conceptual amendment or not. I read it as under color of the officer's federal authority. Right. Okay, further questions? Any other questions on L4? Any objection to L4?
Carter, Vice Chair Carter seconded L4.
Okay, seeing no objection, L4 is adopted.
Rep Zocci.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move L5 to L1.
Second. All right, let's pop our motion. Seconded by Vice Chair Carter.
Rep Zocchi, please explain L5.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the same as the reasoning for L4. We want to make it clear that it is for officers not acting within the color of or scope of their federal authority. Okay. Committee members, other questions on L5?
Rep Soper, did you need a second?
You're good? Okay, any objection to L5? Seeing none, L5 is adopted.
Rep Zocay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L6 to L1. Second.
Rep. Zocay, if you could please describe L6.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is some clarification around the information that must be disclosed for a federal agent who is applying for post-certification and to be law enforcement within our state. it requires them to submit their internal affairs files to the hiring agency before applying for their post-certification, that the hiring agency will review any investigation on use of force incidents that could disqualify someone from employment under Colorado law and comes from conversation with stakeholders.
Rep. Espinosa.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I just have a question about L6 in that, first of all, do we know whether these officers would even have access to these internal investigation files? It's my understanding, especially at the federal level, that they would not have access to this information. And what is the board to do or the employment agency to do in that context?
Rep. Perlick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Espinosa. So this was a suggestion from folks in law enforcement, though not the people that you heard from, but the people who were willing to talk to us, as a way to not do a blanket prohibition against federal agents, as a way to do an additional step, and they suggested internal affairs. But my question is, do we know that especially when we're talking about federal agents, which seems to be the focus to try to single out in some ways those individuals. Do we know whether they would even have access to this information? It our understanding that they can have access to them in the process of applying for a job in Colorado It my understanding Thank you I appreciate that It my understanding that the federal statutes would preclude that from being released to the individual officers And I just, I don't see an alternative in the option that you're providing if they don't have access to that information. Was that contemplated?
Reb Zokai, Reb Fulick, whoever would like to respond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It wasn't a concern that we heard in our stake holding. And so we can add clarification that the internal personnel file must be requested. And if for some reason they're not able to attain it, then that is a different circumstance. But at the very least, we think they should request their internal personnel file and submit it.
Okay, further questions? Is there any objection to... Rob Kelty, is that a question or objection? Okay, and sober too. Was that objection? Okay, okay. Okay, noting objection, Ms. King, please call the roll.
Representatives Bacon? Clifford?
Yes.
Espinoza?
Pass.
Plano?
No.
Garcia?
Yes.
Kelty?
No.
Slaw?
No.
Soper?
No.
Zocay?
Yes.
Espinoza?
Yes.
Carter?
Yes.
Mr. Chair?
Yes.
That passes 7-4.
Reb Zocay?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do just want to note that we are not moving L7 or L8 this evening. We do think that these sections need some work. In particular, L8 is something we want to be thoughtful about and how the civil infraction will apply. And we've heard concerns from the committee this evening. And I don't think L8 adequately addresses those concerns. And so we are going to take time, hopefully, if we are out of committee, to rewrite that amendment and bring that before you. So for now, we're not moving L8. And you have L9 before you instead of L3 for the same reason. I think there are pieces of L3 that we heard as concerns, and we want to continue to work on those pieces. So with that, I move L9 to L1. Second.
All right, that's proper motion. Seconded by Rep. Carter. Rep. Zocca, please describe L9.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is some clarifying language and using operation rather than task force. This is something that we heard in our stakeholding would better address what we are speaking about. We have changed shall to may to give discretion because we do not want our law enforcement in a position where they are faced with two impossible choices and believe that they can make those discretionary decisions as needed. And then we have some clarification around investigating reports to the post board.
Committee members, do we have questions on L9? Any objection to L9? Okay. Seeing none, L9 is adopted. Rep. Zocci.
No more amendments, Mr. Chair.
Okay, we need to adopt L1. I apologize.
I do now want to move L1 as amended to House Bill 1275. Second.
Not sure we need Motion on it, we just need to vote on it. But is there any objection to L1? Oh, as amended, okay, okay. Rebs, okay, restate your motion, please.
I move L1 as amended to House Bill 1275. Second.
All right, that's proper motion. Any questions on L1 as amended, which is now the bill? Okay, any objection to the adoption of L1? Okay, seeing none, L1 is adopted. Bill sponsors, do you have further amendments?
No more amendments, Mr. Chair.
Committee members, do we have amendments? Okay, seeing none, the amendments phase is closed. Bill sponsors, wrap up. Whoever would like to begin.
Rep Ferlich. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee, for your thoughtful engagement tonight. Thank you to the folks who came to testify. I appreciate the time given to this discussion, and particularly the time given to law enforcement. And while I understand that their opposed position meant that they would no longer engage with us, I would have loved to have been able to offer amendments to address their concerns. If we are allowed to go further in this process, I will be going back to their testimony and to the individual law enforcement folks who have been engaged in the process and attempt to get to a place where our law enforcement does not feel like this bill attacks them. That was certainly not our intent. And our intent was and remains to address the concerns of our neighbors. And I think you heard their concerns tonight. I very much would like to be able to say to them that we tried. We tried everything we could think of to make the distinction between the unlawful acts of masked ICE agents and your local law enforcement and to make our neighbors safer and address their fears. And I ask for an aye vote as this heavily amended bill, which we will continue to work on if allowed to.
Reps, okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members, for your engagement this evening. And thank you especially to everybody who took the time and stuck it out to share very personal stories and how this bill impacts them. I think what we heard here this evening is that ICE is terrorizing our communities. And we heard from law enforcement as well that the actions of ICE are so out of bounds from the way they operate that they don't want to be conflated with them. And so it's extremely important that our community members can tell the difference between immigration enforcement from the federal government and our local law enforcement. And unfortunately, I cannot make ICE identify themselves. But when our law enforcement are known as an entity that does identify themselves, it will allow our community members to tell the difference and to know who they are speaking to. I also want ICE to know that in Colorado, the law does apply to them as well. That if they are going to go rogue and act outside of their authority, that we will have accountability. I want that to be something that federal immigration considers when they are acting in our state I think that there is a deterrent effect if they know that our law enforcement in Colorado works with our communities to keep us safe even if they have to defend against federal agents. I think we are facing a moment that future generations are going to look back on. and I think they're going to ask us what we did and if we did everything in our power to stop what is happening I think that the horrors that we have heard from ICE enforcement only scratched the surface and our communities are begging us to do something this is something that we can do tonight and I understand it might not be perfect and I understand that our change as needed for some of you on this panel. You have our commitment that we are going to continue to work with you and to anyone who is willing to speak to us to make this workable. But not doing anything in this moment is simply not an option. So I'm asking you to stand with community tonight and vote yes.
Okay, Reps, okay. A proper motion as amended is to appropriations.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1275 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Second.
Okay, committee members, do we have brief closing comments?
Rob Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I sometimes hate this job and I sometimes really love this job. It's tonight, it's nights like tonight where the balance of it all gets heavy. You know, we are friends, we are colleagues, we work together in this building, and it's hard to determine how to go about things. And the way that I have looked at this bill tonight and ongoingly is what is the bang for the buck? and I do want you to know that the biggest fear that I had when this bill came out is something that I heard tonight from community, and that is rather than making a separation of Colorado law enforcement, the conversation mostly has centered around what we would really like to be doing about what federal agents are doing. And we have no ability to really affect that in this room or in this building or to deliver the result that people are asking us to do. And we've somehow given them hope that somehow tying in Colorado peace officers in these conversations allows us to do that, and it doesn't. And I look section by section here. I am glad that we have the protections that we have for peace officers' duty to intervene and use of force. I do not think that there should be a difference for what we do with Colorado peace officers versus any other peace officer. I don't think there should be a different standard for federal officers in this state for Colorado peace officers. but unfortunately I don't get to choose what federal officers do I do not want armed confrontation between peace officers and federal agents in our streets That may be something that has to be a reality but that will have to be something that will have to be determined based on the circumstances, based on the peace officer's view of how they need to address a situation. And I just can't even imagine how they get there in a safe and effective manner for the public. In looking at the bill before this one, there were pieces of that bill that I thought had something that could affect a real change. And in this, there are bits and pieces of something, like if we took training, for instance, would it net a new result? or if we took the conversation about identity, which I agree with, would it affect a new result? And I don't think that it gets us where we need to go. I mean, in Colorado, if a peace officer has contact with a member of public, they have to give them either a summons or something that's got their information on it or a business card that even includes the words for how to make comments about them or file a complaint with every single interaction that they have with a member of the public. We have an enormous amount of safety built in to how our peace officers are engaged with the general public. And that's not what we've been talking about here. We have been lumping this together. And I would love to find something in here that I thought would make a monumental difference in this area or would protect the public some way, and instead it occurs as a burden and something that doesn't get the value that we intend for it to get. What we really want to do here is have a say over how federal agents function in our jurisdictions. And, you know, we're going to have to figure out a way to focus on what it looks like when they operate outside the color of their authority. I appreciate what the Attorney General's office has been doing to try to make sure that we get reports of these things. I'm just not there with that there's something here that I think is going to change something, and that is heartbreaking for me. It is more heartbreaking for me that the dialogue that we've had for the last hour or more is that community is related to Colorado peace officers, is that they're doing something inappropriate. and I want you to know that hearing that from community is very hurtful to me and I'm sorry for whatever has happened in our society that leaves you with that and I can tell you I've not seen it firsthand and I do not believe that Colorado peace officers are here to harm you and so tonight I'm not going to get there on this so my apologies to the sponsors.
Further closing comments?
Rep Soper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors. I appreciate everyone who came out to testify this evening or this afternoon. It's now this evening. One thing that I heard loud and clear throughout the evening was it said that Colorado's law enforcement rules and regulations are the gold standard in America. we also heard in testimony from law enforcement that they do really what the law or what the bill is effectively proposing I mean when they have contact with members of the public typically they in uniform with a body cam the officer's name, and the department or agencies that they're with. The trouble I have with the bill as amended before us that we're considering, in many ways I agree with Representative Clifford, my colleague on the other side, in that we're pitting two law enforcement agencies against each other. You either commit a civil infraction worth $20,000 to $200,000 under Colorado law, or you're committing a federal felony under federal law, subjecting yourself to time in federal prison. With the civil infraction, there's no right to counsel, no right to the Fifth Amendment, limited due process. Yet this feels very penal and in many ways very much like the end of an officer's career as is laid out. Also in Section 6, which effectively bars any federal officer from being employed by a law enforcement agency within our state, I know several former FBI agents who work within Colorado. And they're people that you want. You want to have that difference in training, and you want to see those individuals who've worked elsewhere to be able to come to our state. Not everyone builds a long career. I mean, I'm from the millennial generation, and shoot, we're known for only working about three years at a time before changing jobs. And that is completely understandable. The intersect between Sections 3 and Section 5 is one area where I have absolutely a major problem, which is when an officer is actually intervening. Yes, I want them to intervene. I want them to stop force. I don't want one of our community members to be hurt, injured, abused by someone else. But it's the question of when they're on duty versus what this off-duty is. I mean, it's undefined. And as we talked about earlier, the Halloween costume example, that isn't just a law school discussion. that's a very real fact pattern because as we heard throughout testimony there are many wild fact patterns that happen in life and you can't predict everything that's out there which is why even in section three having the list that talks about including is a much more effective way to draft than having this complete exception and that's the end of the story I know your hearts are in the right place, and I appreciate that. And I know that there are many in our state because they've reached out to me who are very concerned about the state of affairs. But I cannot get there with this bill tonight for the items that I just listed. Thank you. Rep. Kelsey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard tonight that the intention or the desire or part of this bill was to keep people safe. And in my opinion, it does exactly the opposite. In my opinion, this bill is detrimental to our law enforcement officers here in Colorado. They are our law enforcement family. I believe it aims intentionally or not. to put our law enforcement officers in unforgivable, harmless way, including their families. Year after year, they are assaulted by bills just like this. And I'm not sure how much more they can take if they just all up and leave. And they say, forget it, and they leave Colorado. And I wouldn't blame them. thankfully not all have left as they still love their communities and the state of Colorado but everyone has a line and I can guarantee putting their families lives in danger is going to cross that line for many law enforcement couldn't be more clear tonight the damage that this would do to them their families, their own safety pitting them against federal agents. As I said, they are our law enforcement family. It is federally illegal for anyone to interfere in a federal agent's job, including ICE. This bill does not regulate ICE in any way, shape, or form. It actually creates criminals of our own law enforcement. If that were to happen, I couldn't forgive that. There are no protections in this bill. It's creating unsafe conditions, both locally and federally. It's going to get people hurt. and I will be an absolute no today and tomorrow and forever.
Rep. Espineza. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sponsors. Thank you, witnesses that came today. Don't know if anybody understands how much this has been a difficult process for me in terms of looking at this bill and working with the sponsors to get to the point that we were at today. I want to commend them for all the work and the listening that they've done. I want to thank the witnesses that came forward. I was on the fence on this back and forth and back and forth until the last couple of panels of witnesses came forward. And the problem that I had is everyone in the community is saying what I'm always afraid of. They're misinterpreting the good intent of what we're trying to do here to do something that we cannot do. And whenever we do that, especially to an immigrant community, my fear is that we put them in harm's way. If they think that by passage of 1275, they will have protection to know who those ICE officers are, then they're going to be mistaken. This bill, as you know, and you know well because you've worked really hard to address that issue, doesn't do that. But that's not what the witnesses talked about. What the witnesses want and the witnesses think, regardless of how transparent you are, what they think is somehow this bill will help us identify the rogue ICE agents. It cannot. And thinking about that and knowing my first priority is always to do no harm to the immigrant community by misleading them to think they have protection that they don't. I just and I looked at every subsection of this bill to see if there was something that I could have voted for because even in the last bill as I told the sponsors if it was just the detention facility I could have changed my mind and voted for that bill I couldn't find anything in here that we're either not already doing in the state of Colorado, because I think a lot of this is already covered, or covered by the ability of the law enforcement to do that. We know they can intervene already if there's separate criminal activity. an assault by a federal officer who's in a bar fight, a DUI, any of those violations of state law subjects a federal officer to criminal prosecution in this state. This bill acknowledges that with one of the subsections. So there's nothing new there. And I guess I was struck, especially by the witness who said, you know, people are afraid of the school resource officers because they think they're ICE. I don't know what we can do. Would we say all officers in Colorado have to wear yellow uniforms to distinguish them from ICE in some way? And then that led me to think about, well, if we did have some requirement like that, that would make some uniform of our law enforcement to separate them from ICE law enforcement, what would that mean? That could lead to lots of targeting of our law enforcement officers for people who want to make an easy target of a law enforcement officer, because there are people who might do that. I mean, I'm just not sure how we can effectuate for the public what they want, which is a distinction between our law enforcement officers and the people who are ICE officers. And since I couldn't find that in this bill or find a way to get that into this bill, I will be a no tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Though I do not come from the Aurora School District, who has over 100 languages in their school district, Greeley District 6 has over 75, which is still pretty good. And a third of the students come from multilingual families. So we have a lot of people in the largest municipality in my district that are likely closely related to immigration questions. There are some words that I've heard as we have listened to the sponsors and to witnesses. Some of them are rogue. Some of them are masked terrorists. not sure about some of these words as an individual who has served in a place in through my military work where i would say there were absolutely rogue terrorists we had to provide masks to forces to be able to protect them and their families from the absolute retaliation that true terrorists would have actually perpetrated on those individuals and their families. That was in Somalia, and it's a place where I have a lot of immigrants in my district that are from. I'm sure they would tell you significantly different stories. On a technicality, I found myself in immigration custody in Somalia one time. I would much rather be in Aurora, Colorado, in an immigration enforcement agency's custody than in Somalia in immigration enforcement custody. I think a lot of the discussion that we had and a lot of concerns that we see are part of a failure of federal culture to enforce immigration laws over the last handful of decades We now have an executive who is intent on enforcing those laws, and I feel like a lot of the things that we hear are a kickback to finally having actual laws enforced. I recognize the people who are immigrants are still people, and that means a lot to me. I most certainly grew up with and had good friends as a kid who were likely not here with families that were legally documented to be in the state of Colorado. They're good people. those children had parents who had made the choice to break the law and be here illegally. I wish that that would have been different because I love them and consider them good friends. I'm grateful that most of them have found their ways to be U.S. citizens now. For those that have not done that, another word that I have heard a lot is fear. It concerns me that we would talk about fear as though it is not an appropriate emotion for having broken a law. If I had a fast car, which I do not, and I chose to drive down I-25 150 miles an hour, I should have fear that I'm going to be pulled over and that I'm going to have the law enforced upon me. I think that is the case, again, with our topic of immigration. I recognize that this bill doesn't necessarily do exactly some of the things that I think some of the intent is, but I think that these are a lot of the topics that have promulgated this legislation or this proposed legislation. I am concerned that it is somewhat retaliation legislation based on some misguided ideals that all people have to be accepted regardless of their legal status. And although as individuals and as people, they should get the dignity and respect that humans all deserve, that does not mean that they are above the law. And for all of these reasons, I will be a no, and I believe that we need to not hamper our local law enforcement and keep them from doing the fantastic job that they do for us all every day. Thank you.
Amal Bacon. Thank you. I wanted to kind of recap what I, not just what I heard today, but where I think we are with the bill, because I do still have curiosities that I wonder if we can explore, given what we heard today. And so when I recap the bill as we passed it, including the amendments, here are the things that I believe we did today. So first, we at least named for our law enforcement officers that they mustn't mask and they must identify themselves. We said that we can ask for information from the federal government We said that someone can report directly to the AG office if they believe that someone and our own peace officers aren properly identified And we did talk about how POST can review, I'm sorry, well, hiring agencies can review personnel files before submitted to POST. I understand that we did not run the amendments today in regards to the fines and the civil infraction that I do believe is connected back to if a Colorado peace officer does not properly identify themselves in any event they are masked. And so while I can understand all of the things that I think my colleagues talked about here today, you know, to my colleague who just spoke, to my colleague from Denver, I can appreciate your assessment of the situation and what it is that we're trying to respond to. I too have the concern that our communities are deeply afraid. And as a member of the Judiciary Committee, our responsibility is to understand the confines of law, whether they are through supremacy clauses or our own statutes. And I think it's important, given what we heard, and I want to thank you to the witnesses who asked us why we didn't ask them questions, And I think the reality is because that's how I spend most of my time. I spend most of my time with my neighbors who are afraid and concerned. We have been gathering these insights for a long time. And so it's not for a lack of interest. I also want to say thank you to one of the last witnesses. I think her name was Ms. Alejo for talking about how she was a sixth generation Coloradan. And that didn't matter. with dealing with ICE. And so at the very least, I feel like what we demonstrated here as a legislature is receiving our neighbors and talking about their experiences. And so that we may have an opportunity to not only respond, but to send some cues and clues somewhere, particularly to the federal government and how we feel about this. And again, that's why I can appreciate some of the comments that were said before. but I also what I think is workable in this bill and I was also kind of hoping for this and we got a little bit there but I was hoping we would get more from our own law enforcement because I got to tell you when I saw what happened in Minneapolis my first thought was for the families not only Renee Good but then Alex Preddy but then I did think about I know these law enforcement agencies in this town since George Floyd have been working very hard to build relationships and I don't understand. It took a while before we heard from law enforcement in the Minneapolis area to be like this is not how we police. And I was hoping we would hear more of that today. Can they be on our team and say this is not how we police. Here are the things we can do. And that's why I asked that question. So yeah, Maybe there is room for us to talk about the consequence of not identifying yourself if you're a Colorado police officer. Maybe there is something to be said about, I do hope that we talk about the civil infraction, because I think where it is, is tough. But I also really hope that we can actually work with law enforcement and be clear and hear from them what our expectations are on force. because when we look at the federal standard, it's a reasonableness standard. And I did hear from law enforcement say we can file a complaint, which means they are there, which means they have body cameras. And if we have to define intervention all the way up to the federal line of saying, maybe I'm going to ask if that person needs a doctor, maybe I'm going to question if this was reasonable, is there a conversation to be had there? And I think the answer is this. Here is the last question that I had that I did not hear today. How do you know someone is an ICE agent? How does law enforcement know? That means they have to go up and ask them. They have to go up and ask for some sort of identification. And hopefully they do that with a body cam on and write down a touchpoint card so we know who they are. Because what is the difference between me buying a costume and just saying I'm a federal agent, I don't even think that's good enough for law enforcement, quite honestly. And at some point, someone has a right to ask them who they are. And the notion that we are talking about supporting a law enforcement agency that will point a gun at another cop is crazy to me. And then talk about support. I don't know why nobody's questioning why that's okay on behalf of them. with a badge. And if they're going to point a gun to quote unquote tell a law enforcement officer what they're supposed to do, I sure as hell know what they're going to do to me with pointing a gun at it. And so I would at least like my law enforcement agencies to be able to ask them who they are and it be verified, which I don't think is a violation of federal law. There is a difference between intervening on their actions, and thank you for the federal statutes, and asking them to verify who they are. on behalf of us and on behalf of the fidelity of a law enforcement action. And again, I still have not heard the answer to that. And so given some of the things that we have to work with by way of what the expectations are around our own law enforcement, sure. I do believe there are very real boundaries in regards to what we can legislate to. I do believe that there are boundaries in regards to what we can ask our own law enforcement to do. with the federal government, and I believe that should be respected as much as I am frustrated by it. And if we're going to talk about liabilities, given the language of the amendment with the legislative deck, I hope it could be as much as an alignment with existing law and that we do not create new responsibilities, particularly under Senate Bill 217, which also includes liabilities. And so I hope that if we cannot find it in this bill, we have others in which we can look at. But there are a few little things that we can do that are still workable, while also having to be honest with our communities, that perhaps we cannot deliver on what it is that you want and need. Maybe I might say this is why it matters who elected in November elsewhere there But we do have that responsibility to be honest with our neighbors Because we along with law enforcement all owe them a duty of care And we get to define what community safety is and have our law enforcement execute on that. That is the difference between an executive branch and a legislative branch. And so thank you, sponsors, for this effort. It was a big one. We were all looking for ways that we can support, and it came to you to kind of carry this work for us. And to the extent that there's something to do here, I would like to continue to support that. So thank you very much.
Rob Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sponsors. I want to just start with an important clarification that I think many people miss, and that is who is actually at risk of immigration law enforcement. SCOTUS recently allowed ICE to profile on the basis of race and ethnicity. This means that people who are brown, who speak Spanish, who work in jobs that are largely held by brown Spanish speakers, are available to profile by ICE. ICE does not care if a person has paperwork, an ID, a passport. ICE does not care if a person has the legal status of being an asylee. a refugee, DACA, TPS, a green card, or even a citizen. ICE enforcement is allowed on the basis of race and ethnicity. I just want to make that clear because what I'm hearing is a lack of understanding of who ICE is actually going after and who they're allowed to go after. There also seems to be an automatic reaction to bills that come forward that impact law enforcement as an attack on law enforcement. From my perspective, this type of reaction stems from an unwillingness to accept that there is always room for improvement and change that can make things better. Should we not want to work towards a society where law enforcement can be trusted by all communities? Is it wrong to state the realities that many communities simply do not trust law enforcement and that the conflation between local law enforcement and ICE agents only continues to further erode trust? Is that wrong to state? No, it's not. I agree with the officer who stated that local peace officers are not ICE. ICE has completely abandoned any credibility in hiring. they pull people off the streets they have shortened training from 13 weeks to six weeks they scrapped college degree requirements they've added 50k signing bonuses and in many cases including one by a slate journalist they are hired despite never submitting paperwork taking a fitness test passing drug screening or undergoing background checks i would hope that local law enforcement wants to distance themselves so far from these so-called agents as far as possible. But that's not what I heard here today. The testimony from law enforcement lacked acknowledgement that there is actually a problem. I heard from the law enforcement panel that there are already laws in place to hold law enforcement accountable. That's great. And yet trust of law enforcement continues to decline and actions of federal ICE agents who parade around the streets with vests that say ICE police only add to the distrust of law enforcement Accepting that there can be improvements instead of the response of we just want to do our jobs does that same reaction then not exist for community members being faced with unlawful and aggressive overreach of federal immigration enforcement where we just want to live our lives? The concern that this can lead to mass exodus of peace officers because of the conflict between when one should intervene or not, tells me that then there is really a problem. And that is why this is needed. Is there really that much excessive force or unlawful actions from federal agents that could cause the strength of the blue wall of silence to shake? Yes, and we have all been inundated with videos and stories of ICE agents using excessive force, violating people's civil and constitutional rights, and police officers are trained to make snap judgments about the actions of community members. So can that skill then not be translated to the judgments of their peers? This bill is intended to draw a clear line between qualified local law enforcement and unqualified, untrained, and unlawful federal ICE agents. my mom was an elementary school teacher for 35 years and for many of those years teaching second third or fourth graders she would bring in police officers to her classroom to help the students get to know the police to ask them questions to start to feel comfortable around police but later on during her career she stopped doing this because the fear amongst her students grew that the minute the police officers entered her classroom, the students would scream, they would cry, they would run, or they would hide. So she stopped bringing police to her classroom. We want to help build trust in our communities. But when there is an unwillingness to accept that there is a problem, and that it just simply requires more conversations about police versus ICE, well, I'm sorry, then we are forced to legislate. I know and I believe that the majority of law enforcement wants to uphold public safety, want to keep people safe, and want to hold ICE agents accountable for breaking the law and supporting transparency. Then why not support this? Why oppose transparency except and unless you want to operate behind a veil of secrecy? I will be voting yesterday.
Vice Chair Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I will be brief. One of the reasons I enjoy judiciary is that my colleagues can be succinct and so I will attempt to be. what I I want to thank Representative Slaw and for a better part Representative Garcia for pointing out what immigrants look like because sometimes we are confused They look like the panel that you see before you So when we are aiming at a specific group, the reality is, I think even Rev. Kelty indicated she is a second generation. Her mother was an immigrant. So what I want to make sure we understand is and just depending on how you view. The laws that we are creating. Just depending on your perspective, the law is either a sword. A shield or a blunt instrument. I don't have the benefit. Of the law being a shield all the time. I can only walk around as this. And so on many occasions, the law has not been a shield, but a blunt instrument. And what we are asking, what I was asking, what I am asking on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of House District 36, was that you please attempt to have a different perspective on how the law is being used against the people in my community. I will disagree in that one of the things the officers said, and I'm glad Representative Espinoza brought it up, the way the federal government is enforcing immigration is making us feel unsafe. And law enforcement said the same thing. I don't want to be in a situation where I cannot call for help from a police officer because I'm afraid they're going to arrest me for being an immigrant, or afraid they're going to arrest me because I'm undocumented. Imagine that conversation. Imagine having that conversation internally when you need help and you are afraid of the person that's supposed to help you because they might take you into custody. Because, like I said, we all look like immigrants. So I'm a yes. I'm a yes. And all I'm asking for, I appreciate Rep Bacon's comments of the continued conversation. But I have to ask everybody, I need us to have some perspective. Excuse me. I need us to have some perspective. I need it. Because your neighbors, your fellow students, people sitting next to you, they're begging for help. They're begging not to be afraid in their own city and not to be afraid of the police. I'm a yes.
I first want to point to one of the comments just made by Vice Chair Carter in how I thought about this bill, which is how are we not all seeing this as a bill that improves public safety? because a couple of months ago, the Supreme Court said the color of your skin and your accent and the job that you have mean that there's probable cause for ICE agents to detain and deport you. That is the society that our immigrant are living in right now. That is the society that all of us are living in right now. So maybe in the state of Colorado, when ICE agents are notably across the country driving around and throwing people in the back of unmarked vans wearing masks, we can say, hey, every law enforcement officer in Colorado identifies themselves, the agency that they're a part of, their name. So when you call 911, you're not going to be afraid you're going to be thrown in one of those unmarked vans. That is clearly about community safety. I do not understand so many of the harsh conversations we had about concerns in this bill. I really don't, because I did not hear the bill sponsors say they wouldn't be willing to make amendments like SOPR suggested in terms of what we're going to list for these exceptions. I'll note right away that the first exception is including if they're doing some sort of undercover law enforcement work, which is most of what I heard from the law enforcement panel about why the needing to identify yourself wasn't necessary. Why can we not say in the state of Colorado that somebody who can point a gun at me and put handcuffs on me and throw me in jail doesn have to tell me what his name is i mean for real that is the main crux of this bill that is the main crux of this bill and so yeah maybe it doesn't apply to ice agents maybe we don't have the authority to do that here in the state of colorado but the idea that those things are completely detached, I actually find that ridiculous. They're not. They're not. They're linked because of what Vice Chair Carter said. They're linked because of how we can lead in this moment. I'll also note that I think Section 4 of this bill is unnecessary, and it's important to state on the record that if you are an ICE agent in the state of Colorado and you violate our criminal laws, You are subject to arrest, prosecution, and punishment under criminal law. I'm glad that we stated that in this bill. That's already the law. It's important to point that out. I also just want to note in this moment when we are living through such a vast enhancement of the police state in such a short amount of time We have to have to as this body recognize that the law is not keeping up with the surveillance state The law is not keeping up with the ability of law enforcement agencies to synthesize vast arrays of data on us and partner with big AI companies to, you know, I believe violate our Fourth Amendment rights. To me, this bill was common sense. It was about community safety. It was about keeping not only our immigrant community safe, but all of us safe. And I am an enthusiastic yes.
Ms. King, please call the roll.
Representatives Bacon.
Yes.
Clifford.
No.
Espinosa.
Respectfully, no.
Flannell.
No.
Garcia.
Yes. Kelty? No. Slaw? No. Soper? Respectfully no. Zocay? Yes. Carter? Yes. Mr. Chair? Yes.
Okay on a vote of five to six that vote fails Do we have a second motion Vice Chair Carter I move on a reverse roll call vote that the bill be postponed indefinitely
Second.
Any objection?
Object.
Okay.
Noting objection from Rep. Garcia, Ms. King, please call the roll.
For members that haven't done this before, you vote.
If you want to have your original intent reflected, you vote the opposite way.
Representatives Bacon?
No.
Clifford?
Yes.
Espinosa?
Yes.
Linnell?
Yes.
Garcia?
No.
Kelty?
Yes.
Slaw?
Yes.
Soper?
Yes.
Zokai?
No.
Carter?
No.
Mr. Chair?
No. That passes 6-5. That passes 6-5. House Bill 1275 has been postponed indefinitely. With that, the Judiciary Committee is adjourned. I'll note real quick for folks who are going to do their homework tonight, I'm going to not call up 1285 tomorrow. So 1285 was scheduled for tomorrow. We're not going to hear 1285. And with that, the Judiciary Committee is adjourned.
Is that voting still?