S_JUD_2018A 04/09/2018 01:35:07 PM Committee Summary

Senator Gardner explained that SB18-084 was originally heard in Senate Health and Human Services in February and was referred to Appropriations thereafter.  He noted that he would not take public testimony on the bill due to the previous hearing. 

Senator Kefalas introduced and explained SB18-084, concerning enhancing protections for minors who are victims of human trafficking.  He relayed that the bill provides a more streamlined pathway for young victims of human trafficking to access needed services.  He explained the amendments made to the bill in Senate Health and Human Services.  Senator Kefalas further discussed immunity provisions, the stakeholders he worked with on the bill, and safe harbor laws.   He emphasized that the bill is needed to protect child victims from coerced or forced prostitution. 

Senator Kefalas answered questions from the committee about safe harbor laws in Colorado and other states, affirmative defense, immunity, young victim and police interactions, and diversion programs.   The committee and Senator Kefalas further discussed the number of juveniles who have been prosecuted for sex trafficking as well as the role of law enforcement. 

Senator Kefalas distributed and explained Amendment L. 009 (Attachment A). 

The committee discussed the amendment and asked questions about Victim Rights Act (VRA) and non-VRA misdemeanors committed by a minor who is a victim of human trafficking.  Further discussion followed about blanket and qualified immunity, and reporting requirements.  Senator Kefalas commented on philosophical differences regarding whether minors should be prosecuted for prostitution, even with immunity.   

Senator Kagan introduced and distributed Amendment L.012 (Attachment B).  He explained that the amendment preserves the most crucial part of the bill and ensures that minors who are victims of human trafficking get the help and resources they need. He reiterated that the bill, as amended, would simply create a line of communication between human service agencies and law enforcement.  The amendment eliminates the controversial sections of the bill regarding immunity and VRA crimes.  

Committee members raised questions about the amendment. 

Committee members discussed the current need for the bill versus looking at the issue more comprehensively over the interim.   The committee members further talked about legal protections for minors and finding common ground on immunity. 

Senator Fields explained HB18-1040, concerning incentives for provision of sex offender services in the Department of Corrections. 

Heidi Hanes, representing The Arc of Colorado, testified in support of the bill.  She stressed the need for access to treatment and health care. 

Rev. Marcia Meier, representing the Colorado Council of Churches, spoke in support of the bill. She emphasized that treatment facilitates rehabilitation and employment.

Senator Fields stated that the bill is recommended by the Legislative Oversight Committee Concerning the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System.  She discussed the lack of sex offender treatment services in rural areas and in a prison facility.  

Senator Fields made closing comments and reiterated the importance of treatment services for parole eligibility.  Committee members questioned the need for the bill.  Discussion followed regarding the shortage of treatment providers in under-served areas and the need for incentives. 

Senator Cooke explained HB18-1257, concerning a correction to House Bill 16-1316 by reinserting the word "not".   The bill from 2016 allowed for the transfer of venue in child welfare cases between counties.  The current bill corrects an error to specify that a transfer can occur only if adjudication has not taken place. 

The committee raised questions about why this could not have been part of the Revisor's Bill. 

Lauren Harvey, representing Denver Human Services, testified in support of the bill.  She explained that the bill makes a substantive change to the law, and that's why it could not be included in the Revisor's Bill.  She discussed the need for reinserting "not". 

Jen Collins, representing the Denver City Attorney's Office, spoke in support of the bill.  She stated that the bill makes a small but necessary and significant change. 

Ashley Chase, representing the Office of the Child's Representative, spoke in support of the bill.  She explained the oversight and subsequent uncovering of it.

Senators Court and Gardner, co-sponsors, explained HCR18-1001 regarding the ballot format for judges.  They emphasized that this resolution proposes to simply change and streamline the format of the ballot as it pertains to judges.   

Terry Scanlon, legislative liaison for the Colorado Judicial Branch, spoke against the resolution. He expressed concerns that the new format may cause confusion and suggested an amendment for clarification purposes. 

Suzanne Staiert, representing the Secretary of State's Office, spoke in support of the resolution.  She stated that the bill does not change the process for judicial retention and countered that the new format would be easier for voters to understand.  She suggested that the rule-making process can address minor clarification issues. 

Amber McReynolds, Director of Elections for the City and County of Denver, testified in favor of the resolution.  She emphasized that the change will save space on the ballot and reduce repetitive language. 

Carol Tone, representing the League of Women Voters, testified in support of the resolution. 

Senators Fields and Cooke, co-sponsors, explained HB18-1264, concerning measures to clarify the scope of revenge porn criminal offenses. 

Cynthia Kowert, representing the Office of the Attorney General, spoke in support of the bill.  She explained that it strengthens current law and brings Colorado in line with the majority of other states.  She answered questions about determining emotional distress, intent to harass, and newsworthy, as used in the bill. 

Cassandra Kirsch, representing herself as an attorney, spoke in favor of the measure.  She discussed her work representing victims of online crimes and addressed the newsworthy exception, affirmative defense, and free speech.  Discussion followed regarding cause of action and invasion of privacy.