The act clarifies an existing requirement for the criminal conviction of a property owner by requiring that one or more criminal charges be brought as a prerequisite to any nuisance abatement or forfeiture proceeding. Existing law provides an exception to the conviction requirement for noninnocent owners who are not subject to criminal charges that no criminal conviction is necessary of the nonowner criminal defendant if the plaintiff proves its case by clear and convincing evidence that the property subject to the forfeiture proceeding is traceable proceeds of the charged offense or related criminal activity. The act clarifies this exception to first require a conviction of the nonowner criminal defendant before the noninnocent owner's property may be forfeited, while retaining other various exceptions that allow forfeiture actions to proceed against the interest of a claimant. The act establishes a right for indigent civil asset forfeiture defendants to access forfeiture defense counsel and creates a procedure for the appointment of forfeiture defense counsel in nuisance abatement and forfeiture proceedings. The state court administrator shall enter into a contract for services with a private contractor who regularly provides legal services for indigent clients or litigants to provide a legal defense to a civil asset forfeiture proceeding. The private contractor is subject to certain reporting requirements. The act creates a forfeiture defense counsel fund (fund) to pay for contracted forfeiture defense counsel who are authorized to represent persons against whom a nuisance abatement or forfeiture proceeding has been filed in connection with criminal charges. The fund is capped at $500,000, and starting in state fiscal year 2027-28, no general fund money is allowed to finance the fund. The balance of the fund over $500,000 is credited to the law enforcement community services grant program fund. The act transfers any unexpended and unencumbered money from the law enforcement community services grant program fund to the forfeiture counsel defense fund. The act alters the disposition of property and proceeds ordered forfeited in a nuisance abatement or forfeiture action. Currently, forfeited property and proceeds are applied first toward restitution and cost recovery for a list of stakeholders, and of the remainder, 50% is granted to the local governmental body with authority over the seizing agency, 25% is granted to the local behavioral health administrative services organization, and 25% is granted to the law enforcement community services grant program fund. The act amends the disposition of the remainder so that 50% is granted to the local governmental body with authority over the seizing agency, 25% is granted to the fund, and 25% is granted to the local behavioral health administrative services organization. The act appropriates $556,750 to the judicial department from the fund for civil asset forfeiture defense contracting and $55,000 to the department of local affairs from the fund for civil asset forfeiture portal administration.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Sponsored bills
Maddy summarySB 132, known as the "Magnus Law," requires Colorado law enforcement officers to offer drivers involved in collisions resulting in death or suspected serious injury the opportunity to voluntarily take a breath test for alcohol. The bill mandates officers provide clear, plain-language advisement that the test is voluntary, refusal carries no penalty, and results cannot be used in court. It applies when officers reasonably suspect the driver was at fault and the driver isn't critically injured, creating a standardized protocol to ensure consistent investigation of potential impairment at serious crash scenes. This change aims to preserve evidence that might otherwise be lost, without altering existing legal standards for driving under the influence.
Maddy summaryThis bill designates a two-mile stretch of Colorado Highway 14 in Weld County as 'Mono & Matt Road' to honor Edwardo 'Mono' Hernandez and Matthew Garcia, two high school basketball players who died in a 2014 traffic accident. The legislation authorizes the Colorado Department of Transportation to install signs for the new name and allows the department to accept donations for this purpose while exploring a cooperative agreement with Weld County for future maintenance. By placing the names on a specific roadway, the bill creates a permanent physical tribute to the students in the location where the accident occurred.
The act changes terminology related to child prostitution to commercial sexual activity with a child in the crimes of soliciting for child prostitution, pandering of a child, keeping a place of child prostitution, pimping a child, inducement of child prostitution, and patronizing a prostituted child, including changing the name of the offenses for soliciting for child prostitution, keeping a place of child prostitution, inducement of child prostitution, and patronizing a prostituted child. A court is required to sentence an offender convicted of one of the listed offenses, other than soliciting for commercial sexual activity with a child, to at least the minimum of the presumptive range for the level of offense associated with the crime. For an offense of soliciting for commercial sexual activity with a child, if the court sentences the person to probation, the court shall order as a condition of probation that the person serve 364 days in the county jail. In the crime of soliciting for commercial sexual activity with a child, the act adds knowingly soliciting a child for commercial sexual activity as a means of committing the offense and requires that when arranging or offering to arrange a meeting, the offender must know that meeting will facilitate commercial sexual activity with a child. The act removes the spousal exception from the crime of engaging in commercial sexual activity with a child. The act makes the penalty for internet luring of a child a class 3 felony when the offense is committed with the intent to meet for the purpose of engaging in commercial sexual activity. In this circumstance, a court is required to sentence the offender to at least the minimum of the presumptive range for the class 3 felony.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
The act allows the joint technology committee (JTC), within 90 days after the day that the chief information security officer of the office of information technology (security officer) files a written information technology security compliance report (compliance report) with the JTC as required by the act, to vote to request that the legislative audit committee direct the state auditor to conduct a special information technology security audit (IT security audit) of the office of information technology (OIT) if the compliance report indicates that one or more audit recommendations made by the state auditor is unresolved 2 or more years past the implementation date for the audit recommendation or if a material discrepancy exists between a representation in the compliance report and a previous audit finding. If the JTC votes to request an IT security audit and if the legislative audit committee votes to direct the audit, the act requires:The state auditor to conduct the IT security audit;The state auditor to obtain input from OIT when the state auditor determines the scope and boundaries of the audit;The state auditor to submit the IT security audit report to the legislative audit committee, the JTC, the joint budget committee, and the governor; andOIT to reimburse the state auditor for the auditor's costs incurred in completing the IT security audit. The act requires OIT to establish, maintain, keep, update, and make available to state agency information technology leadership and the members of the JTC a list of all active information technology vendor contracts for state agencies. The act specifies that, except in the case of an information technology security emergency, OIT shall not publish or implement a technical information technology standard, and that the standard is void, unless the standard:Was publicly posted; andReceived approval from the security officer if the standard relates to security, access controls, or the handling of data. The act requires OIT to ensure that, if an information technology contract provides ongoing service and delivery to Coloradans, the contract maintains current architecture diagrams that are updated at least annually. The act prohibits the chief information officer from delegating a duty, responsibility, or power of the security officer. The act requires the security officer to submit 2 annual reports to the JTC. The first report is a written compliance report that includes OIT's current compliance status with applicable security standards; all open audit recommendations regarding OIT made by the state auditor and the date on which each recommendation was made; and a timeline for remediation and a mitigation plan or compensation controls for each open audit recommendation made by the state auditor. The second report is a written statewide information technology security risk report (security risk report) that assesses the overall security risk posture of state agency information technology systems. To support the preparation of the security risk report, the security officer may conduct evaluations of state agency information technology systems, including penetration testing, vulnerability scanning, configuration evaluations, and vendor and system reviews. Each state agency shall provide to the security officer, upon request, the access and information necessary to conduct evaluations of state agency technology systems, including system access, product information, and architecture information. The act requires the security officer, or the chief information officer if the security officer is unavailable, to perform the duties and uphold the responsibilities assigned to the security officer pursuant to law.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
The act makes various updates to language in the 'Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado' to align with technology changes in the division of workers' compensation in the department of labor and employment. These updates include changing current statutory language requiring mailing of documents to allow for electronic mailing or filing of the documents. The act also changes the fund into which an employer or employer's insurance carrier makes payments to the state for a compensable injury resulting in death of a minor without surviving parents from the subsequent injury fund to the Colorado uninsured employer fund.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
The act extends the availability of the conservation easement tax credit from income tax year 2031 through income tax year 2036. The act also prohibits the division of conservation from issuing any additional credit certificates or amending previously issued credit certificates as a result of the additional authority granted by the act for a donation made prior to the effective date of the act.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
The act directs the division of brand inspection (division) in the department of agriculture and the state board of stock inspection commissioners in the department of agriculture to receive reports of lost or stolen livestock. On or before December 31, 2026, the division shall implement procedures that:Facilitate efficient coordination with law enforcement, including procedures to ensure that reports of stolen livestock are provided to relevant law enforcement within 24 hours after the division receives a report of stolen livestock; andEnsure that the public is notified of lost or stolen livestock. The procedures implemented by the division may vary by geographic region depending on the needs of the region.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Under current law, if a defendant is found incompetent to proceed and the defendant will not be restored to competency in the foreseeable future, the court is required to dismiss charges against the defendant and the defendant, in limited circumstances, may be referred for certification for short-term treatment through a civil court process. The act maintains the requirement for the court to dismiss the charges against a defendant if the defendant's highest charged offense is among certain misdemeanor offenses, and the act maintains certification for short-term treatment as an option for the defendant. However, if the defendant is unrestorable or the defendant has reached the statutory maximum time permitted to be restored, the act authorizes the district attorney or county attorney (prosecution) to notify the court that the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement of a defendant if the prosecution can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant:Has a mental disability or developmental disability;Committed an act that, in the absence of any mental disability or developmental disability, would constitute homicide, a crime of violence, or a felony that constitutes unlawful sexual behavior, and the act is or was charged in a criminal case in Colorado in which competency was raised; and Poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others. If the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement, the court is required to stay the order dismissing the defendant's case, set a trial within 91 days after the date the written notice was filed, and order the department of human services (CDHS) to identify an appropriate provider and placement for the defendant in the event a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement is granted. The defendant may stipulate that the court order a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement. If the court finds the prosecution has not met its burden, the court is required to deny the prosecution's request to civilly commit the defendant or order an enhanced protective placement of the defendant; except that the court may consider whether to order other civil proceedings. If the court finds the prosecution has met its burden, the court is required to order the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement of the defendant, place the defendant and issue any related orders, transfer jurisdiction of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to an appropriate civil court with jurisdiction, and dismiss the defendant's criminal case. When the court orders the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the court shall make a finding of the defendant's primary diagnosis that constitutes the mental disability or developmental disability. The court shall order the defendant civilly committed to the legal custody of CDHS unless the defendant's primary diagnosis is an intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) or a neurocognitive disorder, in which case, the court shall order an enhanced protective placement and legal custody of the defendant to the department of health care policy and financing (HCPF). If CDHS proposes placing the defendant into inpatient care, the court shall order, without further court review, that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS if the court ordered a civil commitment or that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of HCPF if the court ordered an enhanced protective placement. If CDHS has not identified an appropriate provider that is willing to accept placement of the defendant, the court shall set a review hearing within 35 days after the order for civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and order CDHS, in consultation with the behavioral health administration (BHA), to identify at least one appropriate provider. Upon receiving jurisdiction of a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the act requires the civil court to supervise the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement by notifying the county attorney, appointing an attorney to represent the respondent, and setting a review hearing. At the hearing, the respondent has the right to request modification of the terms of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and the right to periodic review, including whether the respondent qualifies for termination of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement. The court is required to ensure the respondent is placed in the least-restrictive setting adequate to protect the victims and community. If the respondent is not placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS, or if CDHS proposes to move the respondent into or out of inpatient care, the court shall, prior to modifying the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to change the respondent's provider or placement, review the appropriateness of the proposed provider or placement. The provider charged with the physical care and custody of the respondent is required to submit a report to the court and the parties annually by the date the respondent was civilly committed or ordered into enhanced protective placement unless a substantially similar examination was ordered by the court within the previous 12 months. The act requires the court to terminate the respondent's civil commitment or enhanced protective placement if the respondent no longer poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others or the respondent does not have the applicable disorder or disability that is likely to cause the respondent to be a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others and the respondent has demonstrated sufficient capacity and willingness to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. If the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination, the respondent is not entitled to another termination trial within one year after the conclusion of the previous trial. The court shall convert a civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination but the respondent has a mental health disorder that is an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, without having any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement. The court shall convert an enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination and the respondent no longer has an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that do not include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment. Under current law, an emergency mental health hold (M1 hold) may be initiated against a person for not more than 72 hours if the person appears to have a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, appears to be a danger to the person's self or others, or appears to be gravely disabled. A person detained for an M1 hold and transported to an emergency medical services facility or facility designated by the commissioner (facility) of the BHA is required to receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the person presents to the facility. The act authorizes a person who has an M1 hold initiated against them while in confinement to receive an evaluation at the person's place of confinement rather than being transported to a facility. If the person is released from confinement while under an M1 hold, the person responsible for the confinement is required to coordinate with the BHA to transfer the person to a facility. Under current law, if a person under an M1 hold meets the criteria for certification for short-term treatment, the person may be certified for not more than 3 months. Rather than requiring an M1 hold as a prerequisite to short-term certification or certification for long-term care and treatment, the act authorizes a person to be certified if the person:Has been advised of the availability of, but has not accepted, voluntary treatment or with consideration of all reasonably available information, is believed will not remain in voluntary treatment; and By clear and convincing evidence, has a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, the person is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others, or gravely disabled. A person may not be certified for short-term treatment or long-term care and treatment if the person has an IDD or neurocognitive disorder without any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If a respondent is certified, the court shall order CDHS to provide care coordination and make diligent efforts to find a provider for the respondent that is willing to hold the certification. The respondent may be certified for long-term care and treatment if the respondent continues to meet the criteria and standards for certification for short-term treatment. The certification terminates when the professional person in charge of the respondent's treatment and the BHA determine the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification. To terminate a short-term treatment certification less than 30 days after the initial certification, two professional persons are required to individually consult and review the respondent's case and agree that the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification. A court may order the short-term or long-term protective placement of a person:Who, by clear and convincing evidence, has a neurocognitive disorder;When reasonable grounds exist to believe that the person will not remain in a voluntary treatment program; andWho, by clear and convincing evidence, is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others. The act aligns the provisions for short-term and long-term protective placement with certifications for short-term treatment and long-term care and treatment. No later than October 1, 2027, the act requires CDHS to construct and operate an outpatient treatment facility for adults with behavioral health needs, including adults who are found incompetent to proceed and unlikely to be restored to competency. To implement the act, for the 2025-26 state fiscal year, the act appropriates to CDHS $535,934 from the general fund and $4,777,898 from the capital construction fund. To implement the act, the act makes the following appropriations for state fiscal year 2026-27:$17,802,360 to CDHS from the general fund, of which $242,323 is reappropriated to the department of law and $52,644 to the office of information technology;To the judicial department, $26,296 from the judicial department information technology cash fund and $5,401,437 from the general fund, of which $1,719,409 is for use by the office of state public defender and specified independent agencies;$842,808 to HCPF from the general fund; and$150,000 to the department of law from the general fund.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Maddy summaryThis bill formally declares that the Colorado General Assembly's Second Regular Session will end on May 13, 2026, when it adjourns sine die. The measure directly affects the state legislature by establishing the official conclusion date for the current session of lawmakers. It does not create new laws or change policies, but rather sets the procedural timeline for when the legislative body will stop meeting for this session.