Judiciary Committee advances bill to limit data-sharing with immigration enforcement and restrict detainer holds

Representatives Garcia and Velasco co-prime-sponsored Senate Bill 276, a sweeping package of provisions aimed at protecting personally identifying information, prohibiting use of local resources for routine civil immigration enforcement, and clarifying limits on detention and access by federal immigration authorities at courthouses, schools, health-care facilities and other sensitive locations.

In opening remarks Representative Garcia framed the bill as an effort to reaffirm constitutional protections — citing the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments — and to prevent disruptions to court access after judges in one district issued orders warning ICE not to engage in civil immigration enforcement at courthouses. Representative Velasco walked members through specific sections: removal of affidavits tied to driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for students without lawful presence, expansion of data-privacy provisions to political subdivisions (counties, municipalities, boards), restrictions on sharing geolocation and personally identifying information, reporting requirements, and a provision limiting the ability of jails to delay a defendant’s release for immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant.

Supporters who testified included the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition (Gladys Ybarra), the Uniform Law Commission attorney panelists, the ACLU of Colorado, local county commissioners, district attorneys and health-care providers. Gladys Ybarra said rescinding federal ‘‘sensitive locations’’ guidance made state protections necessary. District Attorney Michael Daugherty said the bill protects victims’ ability to access courts and health care and emphasized public-safety benefits of ensuring victims and witnesses can come forward.

Opponents — including the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and several sheriffs and chiefs — argued the bill would place local law enforcement in conflict with federal statute (8 U.S.C. § 1373 was cited in testimony) and could have fiscal and enforcement consequences. Chiefs and sheriffs told the committee they rely on information sharing and intergovernmental cooperation for large multi‑agency investigations and warned the bill’s civil-penalty structure could deter cooperation.

Committee members questioned the sponsors about fiscal impacts, the effect on multi-jurisdictional policing, and details such as the six-hour release window for bond posting. Sponsors said the bill preserves federal authority where a judicial warrant or subpoena exists and that the intention is to ensure state and local entities follow constitutional limits and to reduce instances where local resources are used for routine civil immigration actions.

The committee adopted a technical amendment clarifying policy control over surrounding properties, removed a section on detention agreements, and adjusted language around precise geolocation data. After nearly four hours of testimony and questioning the committee voted 7-4 to advance SB 276 to Appropriations.