Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety 911 Misuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators weigh new criminal offense for repeat 911 callers as dispatch centers report callers tying up resources
Summary
Sponsors of Senate Bill 60 say the measure is needed to give courts and dispatchers tools to stop repeat nuisance calls that can block emergency lines; 911 directors and police chiefs urged passage, while defense and mental‑health advocates warned criminalization could harm people with serious mental illness and clog the justice system.
Sheriff and public‑safety leaders, regional 9‑1‑1 directors and sponsors told the House Judiciary Committee that recurring nonemergency calls are tying up dispatch lines and delaying responses to real emergencies, and they backed legislation to create a narrowly defined offense for repeated misuse of emergency call systems.
Representative Clifford, a prime sponsor, described the problem as calls that flood public‑safety answering points (PSAPs) and consume dispatcher time, noting examples where one caller used multiple phones to place thousands of calls. Aurora 9‑1‑1 testified that one individual placed more than 3,800 calls in a month and was on the line for over 36 hours in October 2024; the center recorded a single day with 764 calls from that person. State communications officials and regional dispatch chiefs said those calls can delay or disrupt responses to life‑threatening events.
Supporters said the bill is meant to provide an enforcement path short of incarceration: the sponsors proposed a petty‑offense citation that can be issued at officers’ discretion and a legislative intent clause directing judges to consider blocking a defendant’s ability to use the 911 system when repeated misuse threatens public safety. Jeff Streeter of GEFCOM and Jeremy Russell of the Colorado State Patrol described recurring nuisance callers who repeatedly harass dispatchers and said prosecutors and police need a clearer statutory tool to respond. The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and several county dispatch centers endorsed the measure as written; some witnesses urged the committee to preserve stronger enforcement options rather than downgrade the offense.
Opponents, including the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and public‑defense advocates, urged caution. Witnesses warned the bill could inappropriately criminalize behavior driven by severe and persistent mental illness, developmental disabilities or cognitive decline in seniors. Margaret Baker of the Criminal Defense Bar said many defendants charged in such cases are later found incompetent to proceed and that adding a specialized criminal offense would likely clog the courts and not produce the intended treatment outcomes. Several social‑work and defense witnesses asked for investment in co‑responder and mental‑health diversion models instead of creating a new crime.
Law‑enforcement testimony and operational evidence Dispatch leaders provided concrete operational figures during testimony. Aurora’s 9‑1‑1 director reported one caller who placed 5,488 calls in 2024 across several activated and disconnected cell phones, producing nearly 60 hours of connected call time. That caller’s busiest week had 2,306 calls; the busiest month counted 3,819 calls and 36 hours 15 minutes of engaged dispatch time. Colorado State Patrol centers reported roughly 1.4 million calls annually systemwide, with 15,000–40,000 nonemergency calls and an estimated 1,400 repeat nuisance‑caller incidents each year.
Prosecutorial and judicial concerns Committee members pressed witnesses about why existing statutes (harassment, false‑reporting, obstruction of government operations) were insufficient. Law‑enforcement witnesses said prosecutors historically have been reluctant to pursue those statutes in repeated‑caller cases because the legal theories (threat, physical obstacle, or false report) do not always map cleanly to a pattern of repeated nonemergency dialing. Deputies and chiefs said a narrowly tailored statute would make prosecutions and judicial remedies clearer and allow judges to consider blocking a caller’s access to emergency lines when public safety required it.
Opponents reiterated an alternative: expand or fund co‑responder mental‑health teams and better technology for dispatch centers to filter repeat nuisance calls. Several witnesses suggested civil remedies, care‑coordination, or co‑response as preferable routes to criminal penalties.
Status and next steps During the hearing sponsors signaled willingness to refine language on burden and process; several committee members requested clearer statutory definitions (for example, what constitutes “repeatedly”). The transcript ends during committee Q&A; no recorded committee vote on the bill appears in the provided excerpt.
