H_JUD_2018A 03/08/2018 01:36:34 PM Committee Summary

The committee was called to order.  A quorum was present.  Representative Salazar, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 18-1076, concerning the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Board revoking the certification of a peace office who is found to have made an untruthful statement.  Representative Salazar explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need.  He also discussed amendments L.002 (Attachment A) and L.003 (Attachment B).

Representative Salazar responded to questions regarding the use of the term "material fact" in the bill.  Discussion ensued regarding some fact patterns that might result in the termination of law enforcement officers under the bill.

Mr. Don Sisson and Mr. Frank Gayle, representing the Fraternal Order of Police, testified in opposition to HB 18-1076.  Mr. Gayle discussed the need for a universal due process system for matters covered by the bill, and listed some specific concerns with the bill. He discussed the implications of the bill with regard to the use of officer-mounted body cams.  Mr. Sisson explained the circumstances under which POST certification is revoked under current law, and the lack of uniformity among law enforcement agencies for such revocations.  Mr. Sisson also discussed some fact patterns that would be impacted by the bill.  Discussion ensued regarding the potential violation of law concerning compelled testimony by the bill.  Mr. Sissen responded to questions regarding the process of appealing a POST revocation decision, and the process disparity across various law enforcement agencies.

Discussion continued regarding the current process by which a law enforcement officer is subjected to POST certification revocation. Discussion returned to the variation in policy among law enforcement agencies concerning violations that may result in POST certification revocation, and the appeals process under the bill.

Discussion returned to the types of behavior that may result in POST decertification under the bill.

Mr. Marc Colin, representing the Colorado Police Protective Association, testified in opposition to HB 18-1076. Mr. Colin discussed the type of behavior that might result in POST decertification under the bill, and the ramifications of decertifying a law enforcement officer. Discussion ensued regarding perjury charges that result in POST decertification, and punishments involved for law enforcement officers for credibility-related violations.

Chief Mike Phipps and Mr. Ron Sloan, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, testified in support of the bill. Chief Phipps discussed the process by which the bill was created, and the reinforcement of ethical conduct by the bill. Chief Phipps discussed the process of POST decertification under the bill, and addressed issues raised during earlier testimony. Mr. Sloan cited some cases where law enforcement officers disseminated false information, and the options available to the officers under these circumstances. Chief Phipps addressed some concerns expressed about the bill. Mr. Sloan responded to questions regarding the process by which law enforcement agencies are notified about POST certification revocations, and the decertification process under HB 18-1076. Chief Phipps explained how law enforcement officers currently avoid being POST decertified, and cited the number of law enforcement agencies in Colorado that have established policies for POST decertification.

Mr. Eric Bourgerie, representing the POST Board, responded to questions regarding how law enforcement officers are decertified. Chief Phipps responded to questions regarding how HB 18-1076 might operate under certain fact patterns. Mr. Bourgerie testified from a neutral position, and explained how the bill would affect current POST decertification practice. Mr. Bourgerie responded to questions regarding input by the accused individual under the current decertification process.

Mr. Bourgerie responded to questions regarding actions required of the POST Board by HB 18-1076.

The chair laid over HB 18-1076 for future action. The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order. Representative Beckman, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 18-1058, concerning the provision of financial assistance to counties for county facilities.  She explained her request to postpone the bill indefinitely.

Representative Beckman, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 18-1204, concerning measures to reduce the number of people who drive a vehicle without providing for financial responsibility.  Committee members received a letter in support of the bill (Attachment C), a spreadsheet explaining the bill's provisions (Attachment D), and amendment L.001 (Attachment E). Representative Beckman explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need.

Representative Beckman continued to explain the effect of HB 18-1204.

Mr. Tim Cronan, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Cronan explained what happens to those who are in accidents with uninsured motorists, and what happens to the cars themselves. Mr. Cronan responded to questions regarding penalties for lack of insurance in other states, and the function of uninsured motorist coverage.  Discussion ensued regarding efforts in Texas to reduce the pool of uninsured motorists.

Mr. Tony Anderson and Mr. Ted Trujillo, representing the Department of Revenue, made themselves available for questions.  Mr. Trujillo responded to questions regarding trends in uninsured motorist activity, and the number of criminal cases that may result from the bill. Mr. Trujillo responded to questions regarding the ramifications of eliminating the Motorist Insurance Database by the bill.  Discussion followed regarding actions undertaken in Texas to reduce the number of uninsured motorists.  Mr. Trujillo responded to questions regarding the ramifications to the Department of Revenue of requiring prepaid motor vehicle insurance.

Ms. Carrie Thompson, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, and Ms. Maureen Cain, representing the Office of the State Public Defender, testified in opposition to HB 18-1204.  Ms. Thompson explained the penalties for uninsured motorist charges, and discussed the population that would be impacted by the bill.  Ms. Thompson responded to questions regarding the deterrent aspects of the legislation. Ms. Cain addressed questions raised during earlier testimony, and discussed the impact of the bill on the poor.  Ms. Cain responded to questions regarding potential solutions to the uninsured motorist problem.

Mr. Karl Chambers, representing Frank Patterson & Associates, State Farm, commented on amendment L.001, explaining how the amendment would change the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle".

Representative Beckman explained the effect of amendment L.001.

Representative Beckman explained the effect of amendments L.004 (Attachment F) and L.006 (Attachment G).

Discussion ensued regarding the fiscal impact, and timing of effectuation, of amendment L.006.  Committee members received amendment L.007 (Attachment H).

Mr. Jery Payne, Office of Legislative Legal Services, provided input on amendment L.006.  Committee members received amendment L.007 (Attachment H).

Representative Weissman provided his position on HB 18-1204.  Representative Beckman provided closing remarks in support of the bill.

Representative Benavidez presented, for action only, House Bill 18-1089, concerning reform of pretrial procedures, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the use of monetary bonding except for certain defendants and requiring courts to conduct timely hearings to reconsider monetary conditions of bond under certain circumtances.  Committee members received amendments L. 002 (Attachment I) and L.004.  Representative Benavidez explained the effect of amendment L.006 (Attachment J).