Skip to main content
Colorado General AssemblyToggle Main Menu
Agency NameToggle Agency Menu

H_JUD_2016A 04/05/2016 01:36:46 PM Committee Summary

Final

STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING



HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Date: 04/05/2016
ATTENDANCE
Time: 01:36 PM to 09:04 PM
Carver
X
Court
X
Place: HCR 0112
Dore
X
Foote
X
This Meeting was called to order by
Lawrence
*
Representative Kagan
Lundeen
X
Melton
X
This Report was prepared by
Salazar
X
Bo Pogue
Willett
X
Lee
X
Kagan
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB16-1320

HB16-1348

SB16-102

SB16-116

SB16-132
Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole

Amended, Laid Over

Amended, Referred to Appropriations

Amended, Referred to Finance

Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only





01:37 PM -- HB16-1320



The committee was called to order. A quorum was present. Representative Foote, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 16-1320, concerning the regulation of massage therapy to modify practices that are linked to criminal behavior. The committee heard testimony on the amendment at its March 24 meeting. Representative Carver joined Representative Foote, as she will be a co-prime sponsor of the bill. Representative Foote explained the effect of amendments L.003 (Attachment A), L.006 (Attachment B), L.008 (Attachment C), and L.010 (Attachment D). Representative Carver explained the effect of amendment L.011 (Attachment E).



16HouseJud0405AttachA.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachA.pdf 16HouseJud0405AttachB.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachB.pdf



16HouseJud0405AttachC.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachC.pdf 16HouseJud0405AttachD.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachD.pdf



16HouseJud0405AttachE.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachE.pdf

















01:49 PM



Representative Foote responded to questions regarding the effect of amendment L.010.

BILL: HB16-1320
TIME: 01:53:55 PM
MOVED: Foote
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.003 (Attachment A). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED: Melton
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection




















































BILL: HB16-1320
TIME: 01:54:19 PM
MOVED: Melton
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.006 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED: Salazar
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL: HB16-1320
TIME: 01:54:42 PM
MOVED: Foote
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.008 (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED: Lee
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection












BILL: HB16-1320
TIME: 01:55:34 PM
MOVED: Foote
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.010 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED: Salazar
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection





The committee discussed the effect of amendment L.011.


BILL: HB16-1320
TIME: 01:56:16 PM
MOVED: Carver
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.011 (Attachment E). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED: Lee
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection













02:01 PM



Representatives Foote and Carver provided closing remarks in support of HB 16-1320.

BILL: HB16-1320
TIME: 02:02:07 PM
MOVED: Foote
MOTION: Refer House Bill 16-1320, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a vote of 11-0.
SECONDED: Court
VOTE
Carver
Yes
Court
Yes
Dore
Yes
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
Yes
Melton
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Willett
Yes
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS





02:04 PM -- HB16-1348



Representative Ryden, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 16-1348, concerning a specific crime of cruelty to law enforcement service animals. Representative Ryden explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of "service animal" in both state and federal law, and what constitutes cruelty to an animal under the bill. Representative Ryden responded to questions regarding the ability to plea bargain a charge of cruelty to a service animal under the bill. Ms. Jane Ritter, Office of Legislative Legal Services, responded to questions regarding the definition of service animal under the bill.





02:19 PM



Ms. Ritter responded to questions regarding the inability to plea bargain a cruelty to a service animal charge under the bill, and potential separation of powers issues associated with this provision. Ms. Ritter responded to questions regarding the crimes covered by HB 16-1348, and a fact pattern that may result in charges under the bill.

























02:34 PM



Discussion continued regarding a fact pattern that may result in criminal charges under HB 16-1348. Representative Ryden responded to questions regarding the number of incidents that have taken place involving violence against a police service animal. The following persons testified regarding HB 16-1348:



02:40 PM --
Sergeant Brandon Samuels, representing the Colorado Police K9 Association and the Aurora Police Department, testified in support of the bill. Sgt. Samuels discussed a rise in violence against police dogs, and the circumstances under which police deploy dogs. Sgt. Samuels responded to questions regarding his position on a provision in the bill that criminalizes cruelty to off-duty police dogs, and charges that are usually applied to circumstances where violence is visited upon police service dogs. Sgt. Samuels responded to further questions regarding the intent of the bill, and cases of off-duty police dogs being targeted for violence.





02:52 PM



Sgt. Samuels responded to questions regarding interactions between dogs and defendants when dogs are ordered to subdue the defendant, and the potential deterrent effect of HB 16-1348.



02:58 PM --
Mr. Jeffrey Justice, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Justice read the names of dogs that have died in police cars, and spoke in favor of providing protections for police dogs in cars. Mr. Justice responded to questions regarding penalties applied to police officers who were responsible for dogs harmed by being left in cars.



03:01 PM --
Sheriff Chris Johnson, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Sheriff Johnson discussed the excellence of police service dogs, and the need to strengthen penalties for violence against these animals.



03:05 PM --
Mr. Gilbert Abdulla, representing the Adams County Sheriff's Office the Colorado Police K9 Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Abdulla discussed the type of deployments that involve police dogs.





03:07 PM



The committee recessed.





03:17 PM



The committee returned to order. Representative Kagan explained the effect of amendment L.001 (Attachment F). Representative Ryden provided her position on the amendment.



16HouseJud0405AttachF.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachF.pdf



















03:21 PM



The committee recessed.





03:22 PM



The committee returned to order..

BILL: HB16-1348
TIME: 03:18:33 PM
MOVED: Kagan
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment F). The motion passed on a vote of 6-5.
SECONDED: Lee
VOTE
Carver
No
Court
Yes
Dore
No
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
No
Lundeen
No
Melton
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Willett
No
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS





03:23 PM



Discussion ensued regarding the potential for amending the bill to address a provision that creates a felony for cruelty to an off-duty police dog, as well as other concerns raised.





03:26 PM



The bill was laid over pending further action.



























03:27 PM -- SB16-102



Representative Moreno, prime sponsor, presented Senate Bill 16-102, concerning the elimination of mandatory sentences to incarceration for certain crimes. Representative Moreno explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need. Representative Moreno responded to questions regarding the effect of the bill on the sentencing ranges for the crimes covered by the bill, and the reasons why certain crimes were included in the scope of the bill. The following persons testified regarding SB 16-102:



03:34 PM --
Mr. Tom Raynes, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Raynes discussed the history of addressing mandatory minimum sentences and judicial discretion, and the crimes selected for inclusion in the bill. Mr. Raynes rebutted common arguments against mandatory minimum sentences. Discussion ensued regarding dialogue surrounding potential reductions in certain mandatory minimum sentences, and the merits of reducing the sentences for the specific crimes covered by SB 16-102.





03:48 PM



Discussion ensued regarding the potential for additional dialogue on mandatory minimum sentencing among stakeholders, and the effectiveness of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ). Mr. Raynes responded to questions regarding assault with a deadly weapon.



03:56 PM --
Mr. Michael Dougherty, representing the First Judicial District and the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in opposition to SB 16-102. Mr. Dougherty discussed the seriousness of the crimes covered by the bill, and the implications of the legislature not setting minimum sentences for crimes. Discussion ensued regarding the range of behavior covered by second degree assault, and who should be responsible for setting criminal sentencing ranges.





04:09 PM



Mr. Dougherty responded to questions regarding how certain crimes are charged by prosecutors.



04:11 PM --
Sheriff Chris Johnson, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. Sheriff Johnson responded to questions regarding how mandatory minimum sentences impact law enforcement.



04:12 PM --
Ms. Tara Koumantakis, representing Project Safeguard, testified regarding the bill. Ms. Koumantakis explained how victims are granted a sense of protection by mandatory minimum sentences. Ms. Koumantakis responded to questions regarding the potential for amending the bill to address her concerns, and the portion of the bill to which she objects.



04:20 PM --
Mr. Scott Turner, representing the Office of the Attorney General, testified in opposition to SB 16-102. Mr. Turner discussed the prerogative of the General Assembly to address sentencing ranges, and the potential for CCJJ to address sentencing reform. Discussion ensued regarding the ability of CCJJ to address sentencing reform in the near future.



















04:26 PM --
Ms. Lydia Waligorski, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, testified regarding the bill, noting some concerns her organization has with the bill. She responded to questions from the committee.



04:31 PM --
Ms. Lisa Wayne, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Wayne provided information regarding intent to cause serious bodily injury. She also discussed judicial discretion relating to sentencing guidelines. Ms. Wayne responded to questions from the committee regarding protecting victims, the appropriateness of mandatory minimums, and incarceration trends.



04:41 PM --
Mr. Nathan Ojanen, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of SB 16-102. Mr. Ojanen discussed the facts surrounding a case he litigated. Mr. Ojanen responded to questions regarding the factors considered in taking a plea in the case, and the resulting sentence the defendant received.



04:50 PM --
Ms. Andrea Hall, representing herself as a defense attorney, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Hall discussed the facts of a case she litigated involving a mandatory minimum sentencing scheme.



04:54 PM --
Mr. Josh Tolini, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of SB 16-102. Mr. Tolini discussed the facts of a case he litigated involving a mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, as well as cases involving service members. Mr. Tolini responded to questions regarding how mandatory minimum sentencing schemes affect litigation strategy, and the ability of a judge to intervene in the process observed in sentencing for a second-degree assault case. Mr. Tolini responded to questions regarding his litigation strategy for the case he described.



05:07 PM --
Mr. Alex Garlin, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Garlin discussed the facts of a case he litigated involving a mandatory minimum sentencing scheme.



05:13 PM --
Mr. Patrick Mulligan, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Mulligan discussed a number of cases he litigated involving mandatory minimum sentencing schemes. Mr. Mulligan responded to questions regarding the frequency with which a judge will entertain a motion to reconsider a mandatory minimum sentence.



05:21 PM --
Ms. Carrie Thompson, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Thompson addressed earlier discussions about the CCJJ taking up sentencing reform, and explained why the crimes covered by SB 16-102 were selected for inclusion in the bill. Ms. Thompson discussed the facts of a case involving a mandatory minimum sentence, and costs associated with incarceration. Discussion ensued regarding amendments made to the bill in the Senate, and her organization's position on a potential amendment. Ms. Thompson responded to further questions regarding potential future attempts at addressing sentencing reform.





05:37 PM



Discussion continued regarding amendments made to SB 16-102 in the Senate.





























05:42 PM



Representative Carver explained the effect of amendment L.004 (Attachment G). Discussion ensued regarding the effect and merits of the amendment.



16HouseJud0405AttachG.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachG.pdf

BILL: SB16-102
TIME: 05:43:57 PM
MOVED: Carver
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment G). The motion passed on a vote of 9-2.
SECONDED: Lee
VOTE
Carver
Yes
Court
Yes
Dore
Yes
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
Yes
Melton
No
Salazar
Yes
Willett
No
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

















































06:01 PM



Representative Moreno provided closing remarks in support of SB 16-102. Various members provided their positions on the bill.

BILL: SB16-102
TIME: 06:02:55 PM
MOVED: Court
MOTION: Refer Senate Bill 16-102, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 7-4.
SECONDED: Salazar
VOTE
Carver
No
Court
Yes
Dore
Yes
Foote
No
Lawrence
No
Lundeen
Yes
Melton
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Willett
No
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS





06:20 PM



The committee recessed.





06:31 PM -- SB16-116



The committee returned to order. Representative Lee, co-prime sponsor, presented Senate Bill 16-116, concerning the creation of a deceptive trade practice under the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act" for a private custodian of criminal justice records to fail to remove a sealed criminal justice record from the custodian's database after receiving notice of a court order sealing that criminal justice record. Representative Lee explained the effect of amendment L.006 (Attachment H), and then explained the effect of the bill. The following persons testified regarding SB 16-116:



16HouseJud0405AttachH.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachH.pdf

















06:36 PM --
Ms. Carrie Thompson, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Institute, testified in support of the bill.





06:38 PM



Representative Lee explained the effect of amendment L.006.

BILL: SB16-116
TIME: 06:38:28 PM
MOVED: Lee
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.006 (Attachment H). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED: Melton
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection



















































06:39 PM



Representative Lee explained the effect of amendment L.007 (Attachment I). Discussion ensued regarding the fiscal impact of the bill.



16HouseJud0405AttachI.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachI.pdf

BILL: SB16-116
TIME: 06:40:11 PM
MOVED: Lee
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.007 (Attachment I). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED: Melton
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

















































06:42 PM



Representative Lee provided closing remarks in support of SB 16-116.

BILL: SB16-116
TIME: 06:42:54 PM
MOVED: Lee
MOTION: Refer Senate Bill 16-116, as amended, to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 11-0.
SECONDED: Salazar
VOTE
Carver
Yes
Court
Yes
Dore
Yes
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
Yes
Melton
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Willett
Yes
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS





06:45 PM -- SB16-132



Representative Foote, prime sponsor, presented Senate Bill 16-132, concerning clarifying that test results relating to certain DUI offenses are not public information. Committee members received copies of an example of a blood alcohol test report (Attachment J). Representative Foote explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need. Representative Foote responded to questions regarding who would want the information to be redacted under the bill. The following persons testified regarding SB 16-132:



16HouseJud0405AttachJ.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachJ.pdf



07:00 PM --
Mr. Jeff Groff and Ms. Ann Hause, representing the Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), testified in support of the bill. Ms. Hause further explained the effect of the bill, and explained how the department determines what information is subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). Ms. Hause also provided an overview of the department's program related to alcohol breath testing, and the costs of the program. Ms. Hause responded to questions regarding department cost recoveries associated with fulfilling a CORA request, and potential costs associated with redacting certain information under the bill.















07:11 PM



Ms. Hause responded to questions regarding court cases involving information disclosures associated with the department's blood alcohol testing program, and the grounds for the department to deny certain information. Ms. Hause responded to further questions regarding why the blood alcohol program is housed with CDPHE. Discussion returned to court cases associated with disclosure of blood alcohol test information.





07:21 PM



Discussion ensued regarding the differences between CORA and the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, and the ability of a criminal defendant to access records for court purposes. Mr. Groff responded to questions regarding the processing of information in the CDPHE blood alcohol test database by law enforcement and a third party vendor, and how data on potentially faulty breathalyzers might be discovered under the bill.





07:36 PM



Discussion continued regarding the ramifications of the bill with respect to the ability to stage a criminal defense. Mr. Groff provided an overview of the information in Attachment J, and discussed the merits of SB 16-132. Mr. Groff discussed the stakeholder process in crafting the bill.



07:46 PM --
Mr. Tim Bussey, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Bussey discussed the impact of the bill on transparency, and the ability of a defendant to stage a defense in a DUI case. Mr. Bussey provided examples of why he might need the information to be redacted under the bill for criminal defense purposes. Mr. Bussey responded to questions regarding the ability to detect corrupted DUI screening data under the bill.



08:02 PM --
Mr. Vince Todd, representing himself, testified in opposition to SB 16-132. Mr. Todd addressed questions raised during earlier testimony, and provided information on some court cases that litigated issues associated with the disclosure of DUI testing information. Mr. Todd discussed potential increases in cost associated with the passage of the bill. Mr. Todd responded to committee questions.





08:18 PM



Representative Foote read the holding of a court case associated with the bill.



08:19 PM --
Mr. Conor Hagerty, representing the Orr Law Firm, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Hagerty provided an example of why the information to be redacted under the bill is necessary to stage a DUI criminal defense. Mr. Hagerty responded to questions regarding the ability to access the necessary information through means other than petitioning the CDPHE. Discussion ensued on this point.



























08:30 PM



Discussion continued regarding the impact of SB 16-132 on the ability to stage a DUI defense.



08:32 PM --
Mr. Michael Nicoletti, representing CDPHE, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Nicoletti addressed issues raised during earlier testimony. Mr. Nicoletti explained the relationship between CDPHE and the Department of Public Safety for the purposes of the blood alcohol testing program, and discussed efforts to include stakeholders in the crafting of the bill.





08:39 PM



Representative Willett explained the effect of amendment L.004 (Attachment K). Representative Foote provided his position on the amendment. Discussion ensued on the merits of the amendment.



16HouseJud0405AttachK.pdf16HouseJud0405AttachK.pdf

BILL: SB16-132
TIME: 08:40:09 PM
MOVED: Willett
MOTION: Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment K). The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED: Lundeen
VOTE
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Melton
Salazar
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:





09:04 PM



The committee adjourned.


COVID-19 Resources
2021 Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book)
NORTH ENTRANCE IS CURRENTLY CLOSED.  TO ENTER THE CAPITOL, USE THE SOUTH ENTRANCE, UNDER THE STAIRS, AT 14th AVENUE AND SHERMAN STREET.