August 22, 2017

Archives for March 2017

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/24/2017

On Friday, March 24, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Sanchez v. Surratt

United States v. Valdez

United States v. Billingsley

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 3/23/2017

On Thursday, March 23, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and 24 unpublished opinions.

People v. Leverton

Gallegos v. LeHouillier

Tancrede v. Freund

Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Commission

People in Interest of L.L.

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Reasonable Person Would Not Have Felt Free to Leave When Stopped by Officers

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Hernandez on Thursday, February 9, 2017.

Phillip Hernandez was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). The district court granted his motion to suppress the evidence, as it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful seizure during his encounter with two police officers. The government appealed, claiming that the court should apply the subsequent decision in Utah v. Streiff, and arguing that the district court failed to properly apply the Spence factors to the seizure.

On October 20, 2014, two police officers observed Phillip Hernandez walking near a construction site in a known high crime area. The uniformed officers asked Hernandez if they could speak to him, and began asking him questions while driving along side him in their marked police car as Hernandez continued walking. The officers eventually asked Hernandez to stop so they could ask him additional questions. While questioning Hernandez, the officers discovered an active warrant against him and that Hernandez was in possession of a firearm. Hernandez filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence, which the district court granted.

On appeal, the government asserted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Utah v. Streiff should apply to this case. In Streiff, the Supreme Court ruled that courts may admit illegally obtained evidence as long as the link between the evidence and the illegal method is sufficiently remote, in a case where the evidence in question was obtained by police officers who illegally stop someone and later discover an existing warrant against that person. The Tenth Circuit, however, rejected the application of the decision in Streiff, agreeing with Hernandez that the government had waived the right to present this argument as they had failed to assert it at the district court level.

The court next turned to the government’s argument that the lower court improperly applied the Spence factors to Hernandez’s encounter with the two officers because officers are free to approach individuals and question them. The court stated that the crucial test to determine if an unlawful seizure has occurred is if the officer’s conduct would lead a reasonable person under similar circumstances to believe they were not free to ignore the police presence and leave the situation. The court agreed with the district court’s application of the factors enumerated in United States v. Spence, stating that once the police officers asked Hernandez to stop, because there were two uniformed police officers in a police car at night without other witnesses present, a reasonable person would not have felt he could walk away.

Finally, the court addressed if the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention. In considering the reasonableness of the detention, the court looked at if there were “specific and articulable facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts” that gave the officers reasonable suspicion that Hernandez was involved in criminal activity. The court looked at the officer’s stated reasons for suspicion, including that Hernandez was walking near a construction site where there had been prior thefts, Hernandez was in a high crime area, Hernandez chose not to walk on the side of the street with a sidewalk, and Hernandez was dressed in all black clothing and carrying two backpacks. The court ultimately determined that, although the level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is less than that required for an arrest, the circumstances in this case did not rise to the requisite level for the officers to stop Hernandez.

Justice Briscoe dissented, stating that he believed the encounter between Hernandez and the officers was more along the lines of a consensual encounter and did not constitute an unlawful seizure considering the circumstances.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a motion to suppress the evidence.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/23/2017

On Thursday, March 23, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

United States v. Holcomb

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Electronic Court Notice Bill, Increase of Life Insurance Exemption Bill, Subpoena Clarifications Bill, and More Signed Monday.

On Monday, March 20, 2017, the governor signed 17 bills into law. To date, he has signed 80 bills this legislative session. Some of the bills signed Monday include a bill increasing the exemption amount for a cash surrender of life insurance, a bill authorizing the fiduciary of an endowment fund to distribute principal under a unitrust election, a bill allowing an attorney general or district attorney to issue a subpoena for people engaged in deceptive trade practices, a bill allowing court clerks to electronically notice parties, and a bill increasing the appropriation to the Department of Law for providing legal services to the Department of Education. The bills signed Monday are summarized here.

  • HB 17-1023“Concerning a Clarification of Procedures for Subpoenas for Deceptive Trade Practices,” by Reps. Tracy Kraft-Tharp & Cole Wist and Sens. Chris Holbert & Lois Court. The bill clarifies that the attorney general or a district attorney may issue a subpoena pursuant to C.R.C.P. 4 to a person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe has engaged or is engaging in a deceptive trade practice in violation of Colorado statute.
  • HB 17-1039“Concerning Communication Issues Related to Restorative Justice,” by Rep. Pete Lee and Sen. Daniel Kagan. The bill allows the district attorney to consent to an assessment for suitability for participation in restorative justice practices, including victim-offender conferences, as part of a recommended sentence in a plea bargain.
  • HB 17-1041“Concerning Measures to Inform Students of Education Opportunities Leading to Jobs,” by Rep. Phil Covarrubias and Sen. Kevin Priola. The bill requires schools to inform students of military enlistment as a path to educational opportunities.
  • HB 17-1056“Concerning the Eligibility of a Veterans’ Service Organization to Accept Public Service Assignments Offered in Connection with Misdemeanor Sentencing,” by Rep. Michael Weissman and Sens. Bob Gardner & Andy Kefalas. The bill expands the criteria for organizations that may accept community or useful public service assignments to include veterans’ service organizations organized under 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(19) of the tax code, and specifies that the court or other entity making the assignment retains discretion to determine which organizations may be included in its program of community or useful public service.
  • HB 17-1061“Concerning Modification of the Class of Vehicles that is Subject to Regulation as Commercial Vehicles,” by Reps. Jon Becker & Jovan Melton and Sens. Nancy Todd & Ray Scott. The bill increases the minimum weight for classification as a commercial vehicle subject to the statutory and regulatory standards for commercial vehicles from 10,001 pounds to 16,001 pounds unless the vehicle is registered for use in interstate commerce.
  • HB 17-1093“Concerning an Increase in the Exemption for the Cash Surrender Value of Life Insurance,” by Rep. Kim Ransom and Sen. Daniel Kagan. The bill increases the exemption for cash surrender value of life insurance policies to $250,000.
  • HB 17-1096“Concerning Endowment Care Funds Administered for Cemetery Authorities,” by Rep. Larry Liston and Sen. Jim Smallwood. The bill authorizes the fiduciary of an endowment fund to distribute principal, such as capital gains, under a unitrust election.
  • HB 17-1135“Concerning the Portability of Employment Background Checks for a Child Care Worker who Works for the Same Common Ownership Entity,” by Rep. Jeff Bridges and Sen. Kevin Priola. The bill allows a child care worker who is employed in a licensed facility that is wholly owned, operated, and controlled by a common ownership group or school district to use a single completed fingerprint-based criminal history record check and a check of the records and reports of child abuse or neglect to satisfy the requirements of the necessary background checks if the employee also works for or transfers to another licensed facility.
  • HB 17-1142“Concerning Notices of Certain Court Proceedings,” by Rep. Dominique Jackson and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill allows the clerk of the court to send notice by first-class mail or electronically using the e-filing system of the judicial department.
  • HB 17-1143“Concerning Audits of Correspondence Sent to Medicaid Clients,” by Rep. Lois Landgraf and Sen. Larry Crowder. The bill directs the Office of the State Auditor to conduct or cause to be conducted an audit of client correspondence, including letters and notices, sent to clients or potential clients in Medicaid programs.
  • SB 17-011“Concerning the Creation of a Technical Demonstration Forum to Study Solutions to Improve Transportation Access for People with Disabilities,” by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Polly Lawrence. The bill creates a technical demonstration forum consisting of eight members to study and document how advanced technologies can improve transportation access for people with disabilities.
  • SB 17-041“Concerning Employment Contracts for Positions at Institutions of Higher Education that are Funded by Revenue Generated from Auxiliary Activities,” by Sen. Kevin Priola and Reps. Yeulin Willett & Edie Hooten. The bill exempts certain positions at institutions of higher education from limits for employment contract terms or amounts.
  • SB 17-060“Concerning Relocation of the Colorado Student Leaders Institute from the Office of the Lieutenant Governor to the Department of Higher Education, and, in Connection Therewith, Making and Reducing an Appropriation,” by Sen. Nancy Todd and Rep. James Wilson. The bill relocates the Colorado Student Leaders Institute to the Department of Higher Education with no changes to the program.
  • SB 17-077“Concerning the Eligibility of Certain Government Agencies to Apply for a Special Event Permit to Sell Alcohol Beverages,” by Sen. Cheri Jahn and Reps. Tracy Kraft-Tharp & Yeulin Willett. The bill authorizes certain agencies to obtain a special event permit to sell alcohol beverages for a limited period.
  • SB 17-109“Concerning the Use of Industrial Hemp in Products Designed for Consumption,” by Sen. Kerry Donovan and Rep. Jeni Arndt. The bill creates a group under the commissioner of agriculture to study the feasability of including hemp products in animal feed.
  • SB 17-196“Concerning the Improvement of the Department of Law’s Information Technology Security,” by Sen. Kevin Lundberg and Rep. Dave Young. The bill increases the appropriation to the Department of Law to improve the Department’s information technology security based on an external auditor’s recommendations.
  • SB 17-197“Concerning the Provision of Legal Services for the Department of Education in the 2016-17 State Fiscal Year,” by Sen. Kevin Lundberg and Rep. Dave Young. The bill increases the amount of reappropriated funds that are appropriated to the Department of Law for the purpose of providing additional legal services for the Department of Education.

For a list of the governor’s 2017 legislative actions, click here.

Tenth Circuit: District Court has Wide Discretion to Impose Special Conditions of Supervised Release

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Bowers on Friday, February 10, 2017.

Donald Bowers was charged and convicted on two counts of civil contempt in violation of 18 U.S.C § 401(3) for willfully and repeatedly violating a permanent injunction against him stemming from a civil trade secret misappropriation suit. Bowers was sentenced to fifteen months’ incarceration and, following his release, a thirty-six month period of supervised release, during which he would make monthly payments of the remaining amount he owed to the plaintiff in the underlying civil suit. Bowers appealed, claiming that the court erred by imposing payments to the plaintiff in the civil case as part of his supervised release, denying his motion for disclosure of the criminal referral, and sentencing him for a period that exceeded six months.

The underlying civil case did not actually include Bowers himself, but his son Lonny Bowers (Lonny) and the officers of WideBand, who were sued by ClearOne Communications, Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets. Bowers became involved when he entered into an agreement with the defendants in the case to purchase WideBand’s assets in exchange for money to pay their legal fees. The court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the transfer of assets to Bowers.

In the civil case against WideBand, the jury returned a verdict against the defendants that included compensatory damages against all the defendants, and punitive damages against two of the WideBand officers (not including Lonny). The day after the verdict in the WideBand case, Bowers filed a statement to perfect a security interest in all of WideBand’s assets. When the court ordered Bowers to appear to show why he was not in contempt for violating the existing temporary restraining order, he failed to appear, and the court determined that he was also subject to the existing restraining order as he acted in concert with the defendants in the WideBand case.

After Bowers failed to appear in multiple contempt hearings and again violated the permanent injunction by setting up and operating DialHD, Inc., a company that used the assets of WideBand, the court issued a memorandum decision and civil contempt order against Bowers for violating the permanent injunction, and directed Bowers to self-surrender for incarceration and pay ClearOne’s reasonable attorney fees and costs. Bowers failed to purge himself of the contempt charge, and the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. The court rejected both of Bowers’ appeals from the civil cases.

The district court entered a civil judgment against Bowers in an amount of $57,188.61 in attorney fees for violating the permanent injunction, an amount of $22,743.88 to pay ClearOne’s costs and fees from the original ClearOne civil case, and $8,648 in appellate attorney fees in connection with his first appeal in the civil case. In relation to the contempt cases against Bowers, the district court judge who presided over the civil case sent a memo regarding the referral of criminal contempt charges for Bowers to the United States Attorney for the District of Utah, outlining the details of the civil case. A federal grand jury returned an indictment against Bowers for willfully disobeying the permanent injunction and civil contempt order, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). A jury found Bowers guilty on both counts.

Bowers was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment, followed by a term of three years supervised release, during which he would make monthly payments to ClearOne. On appeal, Bowers argued that the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to make monthly payments to ClearOne, denying his motion to compel the government to disclose the criminal referral, and argued that his sentence is illegal because 18 U.S.C. § 402 limits sentences like those Bowers committed to no more than six months.

As to his first contention regarding the imposition of payments as a condition of his supervised release, the court stated that district court has broad discretion to impose special conditions of supervised release, stating that the conditions must only (1) be reasonably related to the nature and history of the defendant’s offense, the deterrence of criminal conduct, the protection of the public from the defendant’s crimes, or the defendant’s educational and other correctional needs; (2) involve no deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary; and (3) be consistent with pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. The court rejected Bowers’ argument, stating that the special condition in this case satisfies all of the requisite elements.

Bowers’ second argument on appeal, that the district court erred in denying his motion to discover the criminal referral, was also rejected by the court, as the information in the referral did not contain oral or written statements or other evidence that would render it discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Finally, the court also rejected Bowers’ argument that a sentence of fifteen months for his crimes was illegal under § 402, as he did not raise it at the district court level and therefore waived his right to assert the argument at the appellate level. The court added, however, that even if Bowers had not waived the argument, he still would not be entitled to relief because he was not charged under §402, but under § 401, which does not impose a maximum punishment.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Tenth Circuit: Supreme Court Must Explicitly Hold Case to be Retroactive for Retroactivity to Apply

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Jones on Friday, February 10, 2017.

The Tenth Circuit had to determine if a secondary habeas petition was permissible where the first petition failed. Julius Darius Jones petitioned the court, seeking authorization to file a second capital habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to assert a claim for relief under the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hurst v. Florida. The court evaluated Jones’ petition under the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and rejected his petition.

Jones was convicted in 2002 of felony murder and sentenced to death. After Jones’ subsequent appeals were rejected, he filed his first habeas petition in 2007 on the grounds of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, which was denied by the court in 2013, and which denial was affirmed in 2015. In the present matter, Jones wishes to assert that his sentence violates his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the jury was not instructed that for the death sentence to be appropriate, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances of his crime outweighed any mitigating factors.

The court evaluated if Jones was entitled to a secondary habeas petition under § 2244(b)(2)(A), which states that the court may only authorize successive claims when the claim relies on a new constitutional rule of law that was made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, which was not previously available to the claimant.

In rejecting Jones’ petition, the court determined that the case upon which Jones was relying, Hurst v. Florida, (where the court ruled the decision underlying the sentence of death must be found beyond a reasonable doubt) did not warrant retroactivity. The court stated that for a procedural rule of law to be retroactive, the Supreme Court must have explicitly held it to be. Because the Supreme Court has not held the Hurst ruling to be retroactive, the court determined Jones had not met the gatekeeping requirements under § 2244(b).

The Tenth Circuit denied the Motion for Authorization.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/21/2017

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

United States v. Gardner

Lin v. Sessions

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Harold Sargent Appointed to Jefferson County Court; Richard Medina Appointed to Crowley County Court

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the governor’s appointment of Harold Sargent to the Jefferson County Court in the First Judicial District and Richard Medina to the Crowley County Court in the 16th Judicial District. Sargent will fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Hon. Tammy Greene, effective April 1, 2017. Medina will fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Hon. Suzanne A. Grant, effective February 23, 2017.

Sargent is currently a Chief Deputy District Attorney in the First Judicial District. In addition to practicing law, Sargent supervises lawyers in the Juvenile Mental Health Court, Veterans Treatment Court, and Adult Mental Health Court. Before being named Chief Deputy District Attorney in 1999, Sargent was a Deputy District Attorney in the First Judicial District from 1983 to 1999. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and his law degree from the University of Denver.

Medina is currently a Crowley County land use administrator and building inspector, and a Kiowa County GED instructor. Medina has also worked as a park ranger for the National Park Service and a case manager for the Colorado Department of Corrections. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

For more information about the appointments, click here.

Tenth Circuit: District Court Did Not Err in Finding Assault Occurred Despite Poor Quality Evidence

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Henry on Friday, February 3, 2017. Panel rehearing was granted for the sole purpose of adding a footnote; that opinion is available here.

Tremale Henry finished a prison sentence for violating federal drug laws and was under supervised release for five years thereafter. During his five year supervised release, Mr. Henry was found by the district court to be responsible for two separate assaults with a dangerous weapon. The district court sentenced Mr. Henry to a 24-month prison term followed by six further years of supervised release. Mr. Henry argues that the district court impermissibly relied on hearsay when reaching its judgment.

The Tenth Circuit first addressed Mr. Henry’s first assault charge. In finding that Mr. Henry committed this assault, the district court relied on statements from a witness, Candace Ramsey. Ms. Ramsey testified that she saw Mr. Henry lunge at his victim with a small object, but that she could not see exactly what that object was. A probation officer then testified that Ms. Ramsey told him before the hearing that she saw Mr. Henry use a knife. The district court apparently credited this hearsay. Additionally, the district court relied on a surveillance video that showed Mr. Henry make rapid movements towards the victim. Although the video quality was poor and a knife could not clearly visible, the district court found that the reaction of the victim was consistent with a violent assault with a dangerous weapon. The district court found that all of these facts taken together established that Mr. Henry committed the first assault with a dangerous weapon.

The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not err in its finding regarding the first assault. The Tenth Circuit stated that the usual rules of evidence do not apply in revocation hearings, and that the Supreme Court has allowed hearsay into supervised release proceedings. The Tenth Circuit went on to state that Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) grants a defendant in a revocation hearing the opportunity to question any adverse witness. Additionally, in United States v. Jones, the Tenth Circuit held that the application of Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) requires a district court to conduct a balancing test to weigh “the defendant’s interests in confronting a witness against the government’s interest in foregoing the witness’s appearance.”

The Tenth Circuit held that neither Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) nor Jones was applicable with regard to the first instance of the assault charge because the witness was available for cross-examination. Ms. Ramsey did appear at the hearing and Mr. Henry had the chance to question her about her hearsay statement. Additionally, Mr. Henry did not provide evidence to establish that his minimal due process rights were violated.

The Tenth Circuit next addressed the second assault charge, which consisted of the stabbing of the victim. The district court relied on out-of-court statements that the victim and the victim’s girlfriend made to a police detective. That detective then relayed the statements to Mr. Henry’s probation officer. Mr. Henry’s probation officer presented these statements at the revocation hearing, but neither the victim, his girlfriend, nor the detective was subject to cross-examination. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and Jones did apply to this assault charge, and that the district court failed to conduct the balancing test Jones required.

The Tenth Circuit held that the district courts failure to apply the relevant tests was not a harmless error. The Tenth Circuit came to this conclusion because it determined that the district court considered both assault charges when it fashioned its sentence. Therefore, the error was not harmless and the Tenth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for resentencing.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/20/2017

On Monday, March 20, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

Sellers v. Wyoming Attorney General

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Bills Correcting Statutory References, Changing Child Welfare Allocations, Implementing State Engineer’s Functions, and More Signed

On Friday, March 17, 2017, the governor signed 21 bills into law. To date, he has signed 63 bills this 2017 legislative session. The bills signed Friday include a bill to update statutory references to people with disabilities, a bill outlining the procedure to correct statutory references in administrative procedural rules, a bill redetermining the child welfare allocation formula, and a bill exempting steroids injected into nonhumans from controlled substances statutes. The bills signed Friday are summarized here.

  • HB 17-1006“Concerning the Authorization of a Process to Correct Statutory Citations Contained in Executive Branch Agency Rules Published in the Code of Colorado Regulations without the Requirement to Follow Rule-Making Procedures,” by Rep. Mike Foote and Sen. Daniel Kagan. The bill allows agencies to correct statutory citations in the code of Colorado regulations without notice, comment, or a hearing by submitting to the secretary of state a specific, written determination by the attorney general.
  • HB 17-1011“Concerning a Limitation on When Certain Disciplinary Actions may be Commenced Against a Mental Health Professional, and, in Connection Therewith, Requiring that a Mental Health Professional Provide Notice to Former Clients Regarding Record Retention and that All Complaints be Resolved by the Agency within Two Years after the Date the Complaint was Filed,” by Rep. Jovan Melton and Sen. Jack Tate. The bill requires that any complaint filed with the division of professions and occupations in the department of regulatory agencies against a mental health professional alleging a maintenance-of-records violation must be commenced within 7 years after the alleged act or failure to act giving rise to the complaint.
  • HB 17-1014“Concerning the Elimination of the Criminal Penalty Imposed Upon an Elector for Disclosing the Contents of the Elector’s Voted Ballot,” by Reps. Paul Rosenthal & Dave Williams and Sens. Kerry Donovan & Owen Hill. The bill deletes the ballot selfie prohibition in the Uniform Election Code provided certain conditions are met.
  • HB 17-1032“Concerning the Evidentiary Privilege for Communications Made During the Provision of Certain Peer Support Services,” by Rep. Jeni Arndt and Sen. John Cooke. The bill clarifies that privileged peer support communications need not be made during individual meetings in order to be confidential.
  • HB 17-1034“Concerning Licensing Changes to the Medical Marijuana Code to Conform with the Retail Marijuana Code,” by Rep. Dan Pabon and Sen. Randy Baumgardner. The bill creates a requirement for a medical marijuana business operator to be licensed, and allows a medical marijuana licensee to move his or her business anywhere in Colorado upon approval of the state and local jurisdiction. The bill also allows a medical marijuana licensee to remediate its product if it contains a foreign substance.
  • HB 17-1046“Concerning Updating Statutory References to Certain Limited Outdated Terms Relating to People with Disabilities,” by Rep. Steve Lebsock and Sen. Kerry Donovan. The bill updates certain limited terms in statute that refer to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities or physical disabilities using insensitive or outdated terminology.
  • HB 17-1050“Concerning the Annual In-Service Training Required for a County Sheriff,” by Rep. Hugh McKean and Sen. Daniel Kagan. The bill specifies that each sheriff undergo at least the number of hours required for all certified peace officers by the peace officers standards and training board (POST board), but in no case less than 20 hours.
  • HB 17-1052“Concerning Factors to Take Into Consideration in Determining the Child Welfare Allocation Formula in a Given Fiscal Year,” by Rep. Susan Beckman and Sen. Jim Smallwood. The bill removes certain data-gathering factors currently required to be taken into consideration in determining a fiscal year’s child welfare allocation formula for counties and replaces those with a broader scope of factors that directly affect the population of children in need of child welfare services.
  • HB 17-1054“Concerning Partnerships Between Local Governments and Military Installations, and, in Connection Therewith, Identifying Shared-Service Opportunities to Reduce Costs and Increase Efficiencies,” by Reps. Terri Carver & Dan Nordberg and Sen. Nancy Todd. The bill directs the department of local affairs to support cooperative intergovernmental agreements between military installations and local governments to the extent possible.
  • HB 17-1055“Concerning a Voluntary Contribution Designation Benefiting the Urban Peak Housing and Support Services for Youth Experiencing Homelessness Fund that Appears on the State Individual Tax Return Forms,” by Rep. Leslie Herod and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill creates the Urban Peak Housing and Support Services for Youth Experiencing Homelessness fund in the state treasury and adds a check-off to state tax returns for five years.
  • HB 17-1094“Concerning Modifications to the Requirements for Health Benefit Plans to Cover Health Care Services Delivered via Telehealth,” by Reps. Perry Buck & Donald Valdez and Sens. Kerry Donovan & Larry Crowder. The bill makes several changes to broaden the application of telehealth services.
  • HB 17-1105“Concerning Narrowing the Circumstances in Which Physical Inspection of a Vehicle is Required before Issuing Legal Documentation Identifying the Vehicle,” by Rep. Jon Becker and Sen. Randy Baumgardner. The bill specifies that the department of revenue may not require physical inspection of a vehicle, including a VIN inspection, to verify information about the vehicle before registering or titling the vehicle if certain requirements are met.
  • HB 17-1137“Concerning the Scheduled Repeal of Reports by the Department of Revenue to the General Assembly,” by Reps. Dan Thurlow & Edie Hooton and Sens. Dominick Moreno & Jack Tate. The bill amends reporting requirements of the Department of Revenue.
  • HB 17-1140“Concerning Permitted Uses of Fee-for-Service Contract Money by the Colorado School of Mines,” by Rep. Jessie Danielson and Sen. Tim Neville. In addition to tuition supports, the bill allows Colorado School of Mines to use state fee-for-service contract money to fund  other services and programs, including counseling, academic support, student recruiting, and precollegiate programs.
  • SB 17-026“Concerning Requirements Governing Implementation of the State Engineer’s Functions, and, in Connection Therewith, Restructuring the Fee that the State Engineer may Charge for Rating Certain Types of Water Infrastructure, Repealing Certain Requirements, and Updating Language in the Statutes Regarding the Division of Water Resources,” by Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg and Rep. Jeni Arndt. The bill makes several changes to the state engineer’s functions and fee requirements.
  • SB 17-030“Concerning the Exemption from the Schedules of Controlled Substances any Anabolic Steroid that is Administered through Injection into Nonhuman Species,” by Sen. Randy Baumgardner and Rep. Daneya Esgar. The bill exempts from the definition of ‘anabolic steroid’ human chorionic gonadotropin licensed for animal use only if it is expressly intended for administration through implants or injection into cattle or other nonhuman species.
  • SB 17-034“Concerning Extension of the Period Following the Declaration by the Governor of a Disaster Emergency in a County Within Which the Board of County Commissioners of the County may Transfer County General Fund Money to the County Road and Bridge Fund for the Purposes of Disaster Response and Recovery,” by Sens. Kevin Lundberg & Matt Jones and Reps. Hugh McKean & Mike Foote. The bill extends from 4 years to 8 years the period within which the board of county commissioners of the county may transfer general fund money to the road and bridge fund for disaster response and recovery.
  • SB 17-050“Concerning the Consolidation of Grant Programs Relating to Forest Management,” by Sen. John Cooke and Reps. Jeni Arndt & KC Becker. The bill transfers a forest management grant program from the Department of Natural Resources to the Forest Service, and realigns the funding for the new grant program and the healthy forest and vibrant communities fund.
  • SB 17-056“Concerning the Scheduled Repeal of Reports by the Department of Public Health and Environment to the General Assembly,” by Sen. Andy Kerr and Rep. Jeni Arndt. The bill addresses reporting requirements of the department of public health and environment.
  • SB 17-090“Concerning How to Measure the Level of Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol in Industrial Hemp,” by Sen. Randy Baumgardner and Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush. The bill requires the commissioner of agriculture to determine the level of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol in industrial hemp by measuring the combined concentration of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and its precursor, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid.
  • SB 17-127“Concerning an Expansion of the Exemption from the Requirements that Apply to a Mortgage Loan Originator to Include Up to Three Loans Per Year Without Compensation Between Family Members,” by Sen. Jack Tate and Rep. Dan Pabon. The bill expands the mortgage loan originator exemption to include up to 3 loans per year without compensation, other than interest, between family members, and directs the board of mortgage loan originators to define ‘family member’ by rule.

For a list of the governor’s legislative actions, please visit here.