Sen. Bob Gardner

, Read More

The bill creates the Colorado domestic violence fatality review board (board) in the department of law (department). The review board includes the attorney general or his or her designee, who acts as chair, and at least 17 other members, to be appointed by the attorney general. The review board shall: Coordinate with local and regional domestic violence review teams (review teams) to collect data; Review and analyze the data; and Prepare recommendations for the general assembly. The board shall submit a written report of its recommendations to the health and human services and judiciary committees of the senate and the public health care and human services and judiciary committees of the house of representatives on or before December 1, 2018, and on or before December 1 each year thereafter through December 1, 2021. The report may include, but is not limited to the following: Recommendations for improving communication between public and private organizations and agencies; The number of domestic violence fatalities and near-death incidents that occurred in each county during the preceding year and the factors associated with each fatality; Recommendations for reducing the incidence of domestic violence in the state, and for improving responses to domestic violence incidents by the legal system and by communities; and Recommendations directed at primary prevention of domestic violence. A city, county, or district court may establish a review team to review fatal and near-fatal incidents of domestic violence, related domestic violence matters, and suicides related to domestic abuse. Each review team shall collect data and report it to their communities and to the review board. A local or regional child fatality prevention review team may operate as a domestic violence review team. The bill creates the Colorado domestic violence review board cash fund (fund) and authorizes the department and the review board to seek, accept, and expend gifts, grants, and donations to the fund from private or public sources. The board is repealed, effective September 1, 2022. Before the repeal, the review board shall be reviewed by the department of regulatory agencies. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill places a cap on the number of plants that can be possessed or grown on a residential property at 16 plants unless a local jurisdiction permits possessing or growing more than 16 plants. The criminal penalties for violating the cultivation limit are: A level 1 drug petty offense for a first offense if the offense involves more than twelve plants, punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars; A level 4 drug felony for a second or subsequent offense if the offense involves more than twelve but not more than thirty plants; or A level 3 drug felony for a second or subsequent offense if the offense involves more than thirty plants. A medical marijuana patient or primary caregiver who cultivates more than 16 plants must cultivate the plants in compliance with applicable city, county, or city and county law. The bill requires a patient or primary caregiver cultivating medical marijuana to comply with all local laws, regulations, and zoning requirements. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill authorizes the commissioner of insurance to issue a license that allows an owner or operator of a self-service storage facility to offer limited lines insurance to the occupant of self-storage space at the facility to cover the occupant's personal property that is stored in the self-storage space. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill creates the aviation special license plate. In addition to the standard motor vehicle fees, the plate requires 2 one-time fees of $25. One of the fees is credited to the highway users tax fund and the other to the licensing services cash fund. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill creates the criminal offense of posting a private image by a juvenile. The offense can be committed in 2 ways. The first way is if a juvenile, through digital or electronic means, knowingly distributes, displays, or publishes to the view of another person a sexually explicit image of a person other than himself or herself who is at least 14 years of age or is less than 4 years younger than the juvenile: Without the depicted person's permission; or When the recipient did not solicit or request to be supplied with the image and suffered emotional distress; or When the juvenile knew or should have known that the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private. The second way is if the juvenile knowingly distributes, displays, or publishes, to the view of another person who is at least 14 years of age or is less than 4 years younger than the juvenile, a sexually explicit image of himself or herself when the recipient did not solicit or request to be supplied with the image and suffered emotional distress. The offense is a class 2 misdemeanor; except that it is a class 1 misdemeanor if: The juvenile committed the offense with the intent to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or otherwise cause emotional distress to the depicted person; or The juvenile had previously posted a private image and completed a diversion program or education program for the act pursuant to the provisions of the bill or had a prior adjudication for posting a private image by a juvenile; or The juvenile distributed, displayed, or published 3 or more images that depicted 3 or more separate and distinct persons. The bill creates the criminal offense of possessing a private image by a juvenile that prohibits a juvenile, through digital or electronic means, from knowingly possessing a sexually explicit image of another person who is at least 14 years of age or is less than 4 years younger than the juvenile without the depicted person's permission. It is not an offense if the juvenile: Took reasonable steps to either destroy or delete the image within 72 hours after initially viewing the image; or Reported the initial viewing of such image to law enforcement or a school resource officer within 72 hours after initially viewing the image. The offense is a petty offense; except that it is a class 2 misdemeanor if the unsolicited possessor of the image possessed 10 or more separate images that depicted 3 or more separate and distinct persons. The bill creates a civil infraction of exchange of a private image by a juvenile if a juvenile, through digital or electronic means: Knowingly sends a sexually explicit image or images of himself or herself to another person who is at least 14 years of age or is less than 4 years younger than the juvenile, and the image or images depict only the sender and no other person and the sender reasonably believed that the recipient had solicited or otherwise agreed to the transmittal of the image or images; or Knowingly possesses a sexually explicit image or images of another person who is at least 14 years of age or is less than 4 years younger than the juvenile, and the image or images depict only the sender and no other person and the juvenile reasonably believed that the depicted person had transmitted the image or images or otherwise agreed to the transmittal of the image or images. The civil infraction can be punished by participation in a program designed by the school safety resource center or other appropriate program addressing the risks and consequences of exchanging a sexually explicit image of a juvenile or a fine of up to $50, which may be waived by the court upon a showing of indigency. If a juvenile's conduct is limited to the elements of the petty offense of possession of a private image by a juvenile or limited to the elements of the civil infraction of exchange of a private image by a juvenile, then the juvenile cannot be charged with sexual exploitation of a child. If a juvenile is charged with posting a private image by a juvenile, he or she cannot be charged with sexual exploitation of a child. The bill allows a juvenile to petition the court to not impose sex offender registration if he or she is charged with sexual exploitation of a child and the juvenile's conduct satisfies posting a private image by a juvenile or possession of a private image by a juvenile. It is an affirmative defense to the two criminal offenses and the civil infraction if a juvenile is coerced, threatened, or intimated into distributing, displaying, publishing, possessing, or exchanging a sexually explicit image of a person under 18 years of age. The court must order the records of any of the 2 criminal offenses or civil infraction expunged within 42 days of completion of the sentence or program. The bill requires the school safety resource center to make available a sexting curriculum for school districts to use. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

A qualified investor who, prior to January 1, 2018, makes an equity investment in a qualified small business from an advanced industry is allowed an income tax credit that is equal to a percentage of the investment, up to a maximum credit of $50,000. The Colorado office of economic development (office) determines the eligibility for the tax credits and issues nontransferable tax credit certificates that are used to claim the credit. The maximum amount of tax credits allowed for a calendar year is $750,000. The bill extends the credit by allowing qualified investments made on or after January 1, 2018, but prior to January 1, 2023, to qualify for the tax credit. From 2019 through 2022, the total maximum amount of credits for a calendar year is increased to $1.5 million. Beginning with the 2018 calendar year, if the office authorizes less than this amount in a year, then the remaining, unused credits are added to the next year's total maximum amount. In addition, the definition of 'qualified small business' is expanded to include a company that has annual revenues of less than $5 million or that has been actively operating and generating revenue for less than 5 years. Currently, a business must meet both criteria, in addition to other criteria that will continue to apply. The advanced industry investment tax credit cash fund, which was started with money transferred from another cash fund and has no current revenue source, is repealed. In 2022, the office is required to submit to legislative committees a report that includes information about the tax credits issued after January 1, 2018, and the economic benefits from the related qualified investments. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill changes the length of time that a parolee may serve for a technical parole violation. If the parolee is on parole for a class 2 felony; level 1 drug felony; a crime of violence, stalking, menacing, or unlawful sexual behavior; or a crime against an at-risk adult or is a sexually violent predator, the length of revocation is up to the remainder of the parolee's parole period. If the parolee is on parole for a level 2 drug felony or a class 3 nonviolent felony, the length of revocation is up to 90 days. If the parolee is on parole for a level 3 or level 4 drug felony or a class 4, class 5, or class 6 nonviolent felony, the length of revocation is up to 30 days. The bill requires the division of adult parole to conduct a parole plan investigation prior to the parole release hearing and to inform the parole board (board) of the results of the investigation. If the board finds an inmate's parole plan inadequate, the board can table the release decision and order the department to submit a revised parole plan developed in conjunction with the inmate within 30 days of the board's order. The bill allows the board to conduct a parole release review instead of a hearing without the presence of the inmate if the inmate is assessed 'low' or 'very low' on the risk assessment instrument and victim notification is not required. The bill creates the justice reinvestment crime prevention initiative in the division of local government in the department of local affairs (division). The division shall develop the initiative to expand small business lending in the target communities of Aurora and Colorado Springs. The division will issue a request for participation from one or more nondepository community development financial institution loan funds to participate in the small business lending program. The division shall enter into a contract with the selected funds to define the operating terms of the loan program. The loans are limited to 5 years and $50,000. The division shall also develop the initiative to implement a grant program for programs, projects, or direct services aimed at reducing crime in the target communities. The division shall issue a request for participation to select a community foundation or foundations to manage the grant program. The division shall sign an agreement with the selected foundation or foundations that defines the role and responsibility of the foundation in managing the grant program. The grant program may fund: Academic improvement programs; Community-based services; Community engagement programs; Increasing safety and usability of common outdoor-spaces programs; Technical assistance related to data collection, data analysis, and evaluation; and Administrative costs of the foundation. Only a nonprofit organization in good standing and registered with the internal revenue service and the Colorado secretary of state, a school, a unit of local government, or a private contractor hired to provide technical assistance are eligible to receive grants. The bill requires the division to present a status report to the joint judiciary committee regarding the initiative. The bill reduces the appropriation to the department of corrections by $6,628,401 as a result of the changes to the parole statutes. The bill appropriates that $6,628,401to the department of local affairs to fund the lending program and the grant program. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill addresses issues related to the state commission on judicial performance and the various district commissions on judicial performance (state commission, district commissions, or collectively all commissions), including: Procedures and duties common to all commissions are combined in a more user-friendly fashion. The current membership of all commissions is left in place as-is until January 31, 2019, at which time the governor's attorney appointment to a district commission and the chief justice's two nonattorney appointments to a district commission expire. The terms of all other existing commissioners continue until such time as the commissioner's term was originally set to expire. Beginning February 1, 2019, the membership of the commissions is structured as follows, with new appointing authorities making appointments on or before March 1, 2019: The state commission consists of 11 members, one attorney and one nonattorney each by the president of senate and speaker of the house of representatives; one nonattorney each by the minority leader of each house; two attorneys appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court; and two nonattorneys and one attorney appointed by the governor. Each district commission consists of 10 members. The make-up of each district commission is the same as that of the state commission except that the governor only appoints two nonattorneys to each district commission and makes no attorney appointment. In the case of a vacancy, the original appointing authority shall make an appointment within 45 days after the date of the vacancy. If the original appointing authority fails to fill the vacancy within 45 days, the governor shall make the appointment. Other conditions related to the membership of state and district commissioners remain as they exist in current law. Duties of all commissions are outlined. The state commission is tasked with developing uniform rules, guidelines, and procedures,, including those related to the development and distribution of surveys for persons affected by justices and judges; promulgation of rules concerning the evaluation of justices and judges, the creation of a standards matrix related to statutory performance criteria and a description of the thresholds for the recommendations of 'meets performance standard' or 'does not meet performance standard', and the continuous collection of data for use in evaluations; and the development of a systemwide judicial training program and a systemwide volunteer courtroom observer program. The state commission is tasked with developing surveys to provide to persons who are affected by justices and judges and to develop guidelines and procedures to make such surveys readily available to those persons. The state commission shall develop rules, guidelines, and procedures to provide attorneys, pro se litigants, and clients with accessible and timely opportunities to review the surveys. Current law requires the state supreme court to approve rules promulgated by the state commission. That requirement is removed. The state commission may, however, at its discretion and within existing appropriations and resources, retain independent legal counsel to review any rules, guidelines, or procedures adopted. The state commission shall post a notice of any proposed rule, guideline, or procedure, allow for a period for public comment, and give the public the opportunity to address the state commission at a public hearing on the proposed rule, guideline, or procedure. The bill adds retired judges who have returned to temporary judicial duties per contract with the judicial department, as allowed by statute, also referred to as senior judges, to the list of judges that commissions are to evaluate. Every third year following the initial appointment of a senior judge to the bench through a contract, the state commission shall conduct a performance evaluation of such judge. The performance evaluation shall be completed and communicate the related narrative to the chief justice no later than 45 days prior to the expiration of the senior judge's contract for that year. Judicial performance evaluation criteria is retained, as is the requirement for all commissions to perform election-retention-year evaluations as well as initial and interim evaluations. Narratives and recommendations stemming from such evaluations are still required. The option to develop an individual improvement plan (improvement plan) for a justice or judge is authorized. If the state or a district commission recommends that a justice or judge receive an improvement plan, the commission shall communicate that recommendation to the chief justice or appropriate chief judge. The chief justice or chief judge shall then develop an improvement plan for the justice or judge in question and forward such improvement plan to the state commission for review. After the state commission reviews and approves an improvement plan, the chief justice or chief judge has the responsibility for implementing the improvement plan. A copy of the improvement plan and a statement of the results of such plan will be maintained in the appropriate commission's files. If a justice or judge is required to complete an improvement plan and he or she fails to satisfactorily do so, the appropriate commission shall automatically issue a 'does not meet performance standard' designation on his or her performance evaluation summary. The state commission is required to gather and maintain statewide data and post a report of the data on its website at least 30 days prior to each retention election; and Beginning in January 2019, and every 2 years thereafter, the judicial department shall include a summary of the commissions' activities in the department's 'State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act' presentation to the joint judicial committee. A private right of action is established in which final actions of the state commission are subject to judicial review if a person is adversely affected or aggrieved by such final action. A 'final action' for purposes of the private right of action is defined as a rule, guideline, or procedure adopted by the state commission. A 'final action' does not include a final recommendation regarding a justice or a judge, an improvement plan, surveys developed by the state commission, or any aspect of an individual justice's or judge's judicial performance evaluation.(Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)

The bill amends the pharmacy practice law to specify that it is unlawful to possess, sell, dispense, give, receive, or administer an adulterated or misbranded drug or device, within the meaning of the 'Colorado Food and Drug Act', or a counterfeit drug, as defined in the bill. A person who engages in an unlawful act is subject to a civil fine of between $1,000 and $10,000. (Note: This summary applies to the reengrossed version of this bill as introduced in the second house.)