S_JUD_2022A 03/03/2022 01:35:22 PM Committee Summary

Christopher Gregory, executive director of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, made brief introductory remarks about the confirmations.

Mindy Sooter discussed her reasons for wanting to serve on the commission.

James Carpenter discussed his reasons for wanting to serve on the commission. 

Committee members asked questions and thanked Ms. Sooter and Mr. Carpenter for their service. 

Senator Lundeen, bill sponsor, explained Senate Bill 22-067, concerning the creation of a grant program to provide grants to local law enforcement agencies to provide critical incident training to the agencies' peace officers.  He discussed training around critical incidents. 

Public Safety Director Chris Heberer, representing Fountain Police Department, testified in support of the bill.  He discussed critical incident training.

Mayor Sharon Thompson, representing City of Fountain, testified in support of the bill.

Committee members asked questions about the grants, dollar amounts, and intended use. 

Talaya Banks, representing Soul 2 Soul Sisters, testified in opposition to the bill. She expressed concerns about racist policing strategies.

Committee discussion ensued about rebuilding trust with law enforcement, deescalation, and cultural sensitivity. 

Maureen Cain, representing the Office of the State Public Defender, testified in support if amended.  She recommended an amendment to address mental health or substance abuse. 

Mr Dustin Olson, representing Colorado School of Mines, testified in support of the bill.  He discussed the need for critical incident training at institutes of higher education. 

Committee members asked questions about various components of the training. 

Ellen Koski, representing Department of Law, testified in support of the bill.

Jefferey Riester, representing Department of Law, answered questions about access to training and best practices. 

Committee members asked further questions about length of training, hours involved, and costs. 

Senator Lundeen discussed strike below Amendment L.003 to move the grant program to the Department of Public Safety, as well as include institutions of higher education (Attachment A). 

Committee members discussed the grant program and asked questions about the fiscal note. 

Senator Lundeen distributed and explained Amendment L. 005 about peace officer interactions with persons experiencing a mental health or substance abuse crisis (Attachment B). 

Committee members discussed laying the bill over for questions.  The bill sponsor asked that committee members vote on proposed amendments before doing so. 

The committee chair announced the bill will be placed on the March 10 agenda, for action only.

Senator Gonzales, bill sponsor, explained Senate Bill 22-103, concerning a remedy for improperly entered guilty pleas. She discussed immigration consequences. 

Hans Meyer, representing the Meyer Law Firm, testified in support of the bill. He discussed unconstitutional pleas, immigration detention, and deportation. 

Committee members asked questions about legislative remedies that allow for individuals to withdraw unconstitutional pleas. 

Tim Lane, representing CDAC, testified in support of the bill as amended. He discussed time lines and allowable evidence. 

Senator Gonzales distributed and explained Amendments L. 001 and L.002 , which address time line and evidence concerns (Attachment C and D). 

Senator Gonzales made closing remarks.

Senator Gardner, bill sponsor explained SB22-122. concerning the uniform voidable transactions act.  He asked that the bill be postponed indefinitely. 

Senator Gardner, sponsor, explained Senate Bill 22-089 concerning the sex offender managemetn board (SOMB).  He briefly recapped the bill  and noted upcoming proposed amendments. 

Committee members asked questions about the sunset review process, the juvenile and adult boards as proposed in the bill, polygraphs, and the legislative audit conducted by the Office of the State Auditor. 

Committee discussion ensued about the bill's stakeholder process. 

Ms. Jessica Dotter, representing Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in support of the bill.  She walked the committee through the bill and covered the SOMB audit, treatment providers, composition of the boards, risk-need-responsivity model, data collection, and sexually violent predator designation (SVP). 

Committee members asked questions about the stakeholder process, the SOMB standards and guidelines, and the Department of Corrections (DOC) sex offender treatment programs. 

Mr. James Karbach, representing the Colorado State Public Defender's Office, testified in opposition to the bill.  He raised concerns about the stakeholder process, the board composition as proposed in the bill,  SVP status, lack of treatment in DOC, the sunset date, and polygraphs.  

Dr. Gene Katz, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed evidence based practices and polygraphs.

Ms. Tarah Morgan, representing CSOR, testified in opposition to the bill.  She discussed SVP status.

Ms Justina Madenska , representing self, testified in opposition to the bill.

Tami Floyd , representing COALITION FOR SEXUAL OFFENSE RESTORATION, testified in opposition to the bill.  She raised concerns about the global referral list and treatment options at DOC.

Committee members asked questions about therapy standards, polygraphs, and the sex offender notification process. 

Rick Ostring, representing CSOR, testified in opposition to the bill.

Marsha Brewer, representing Advocates for Change, testified in opposition to the bill.  She discussed parole eligibility dates. 

Pat Harris, representing Advocates for Change, testified in opposition to the measure.  She suggested a smaller SOMB with more therapists represented.  

Susan Walker, representing Coalition for Sexual Offense Restoration, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed treatment providers and programs and the SVP designation.

Committee members inquired about grievances and ramifications.  Further questions were raised about SVP and federal funds. 

Liz A, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill. She raised concerns about the broad application of no contacts with minors.

Mr. Michael Dell, representing Colorado CURE, testified in opposition to the bill.

Stacie Colling, representing Colorado Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed juvenile registration.

Mrs. Cheryl Floyd, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill.

Ms. Dianne Tramutola-Lawson, representing Colorado-CURE, Inc, testified in opposition to the bill.

Erin Campbell, representing The Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the board composition. 

Mr. Roger Kincade, representing Advocates for Change, Colorado-Cure and myself, testified in opposition to the bill.

Anonymous witness, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill.

Committee members asked questions about provider visit time frames.

Mr. Michael Rose, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill. He raised juvenile registration concerns.

Mrs. Jessica Meza, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill. She addressed culturally competent providers. 

Committee discussion ensued about recidivism. 

Sterling Harris, representing Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, testified in support of the bill. She supported the overarching premise of the SOMB. 

Mr. Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, representing Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, was available to answer committee questions.

Committee members asked questions about SVP status and federal standards or requirements, sex offender registration and notification, and victims. 

Further discussion ensued about SVP status and polygraphs.

Gail Johnson, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the board composition and wrongfully convicted sex assault cases.

Ms. Laurie Kepros, representing Office of the State Public Defender & Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in opposition to the bill.  She discussed determinate sentences, DOC treatment options or lack thereof, parole eligibility dates, lifetime supervision, polygraphs, therapist discretion, community notification, treatment provider selection, among other topics. 

Mrs. Amelia Sapp, representing Denver District Attorney, testified in support of the bill. She discussed polygraphs.

Ms. Danielle Robinson, representing Denver District Attorney's Office, testified in support of the bill. She discussed treatment expectations.

Amanda Gall, representing the 1st Judicial District, testified in support of the bill. She discussed the bill and its attempt to find common ground. 

Committee members asked questions about standardization, data collection, polygraphs, and revocations. 

Senator Gardner distributed and explained Amendment L.001, which changes "defendants" to "persons" throughout the bill (Attachment E).  

Senator Gardner distributed and explained the following amendments: 

• Amendment L.003 (Attachment F). 
• Amendment L.016 (Attachment G)
• Amendment L.017 (Attachment H).
• Amendment L.018 (Attachment I).
• Amendment L. 019 (Attachmetn J). 

Senator Gardner made closing remarks.

Committee members made comments in support of or in bopposition to the bill.