Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts bill on evidence viewings; debate over body-worn camera use ends with amendment defeats
Summary
The Colorado House on Feb. 14 approved House Bill 11‑14, which addresses procedures for defense review of tangible evidence and sets rules when law enforcement records evidence viewings. Several floor and committee amendments that would have expanded or narrowed permissible recording methods failed or were withdrawn during debate.
The House on Feb. 14 adopted House Bill 11‑14, which governs how the defense may review tangible objects in preparation for criminal trials and sets conditions for recordings made during evidence viewings by law enforcement. Representative Carter moved the bill and carried it through committee and the floor.
Supporters said the bill clarifies procedures for evidence viewing and preserves chain-of-custody protections. Representative Carter said the bill and a committee amendment were developed with ‘‘the district attorneys, as well as the sheriffs’’ and noted added language about recording and notification to prosecutors and defense counsel.
The bill, as amended in committee, does not require law enforcement to record an evidence viewing. It provides that if law enforcement records an evidence viewing, the recording must be limited to preserving chain-of-custody, the integrity and safety of the evidence, and that law enforcement must notify the district attorney, who in turn must notify the defense.
Representative Armagost offered amendments intended to clarify what objects must remain in frame during a recorded viewing and to allow law enforcement to rely on existing body-worn camera systems for the required recordings. An initial Armagost amendment to require that any object included in a recorded viewing remain entirely within the camera's field of view was offered but failed. A subsequent Armagost proposal to allow use of body‑worn cameras in lieu of other recording systems also failed on recorded machine votes in the Committee of the Whole (first Armagost amendment: 19 yes, 42 no, 4 excused; second Armagost amendment: 22 yes, 39 no, 4 excused).
During floor debate, proponents argued smaller agencies should be able to rely on existing body-worn camera equipment rather than incur new equipment and storage costs. Opponents — including Representative Espinosa — said body‑worn camera footage is often stored in systems that cannot be adequately segregated to protect defense interests and Sixth Amendment concerns.
After votes on the committee report and the failed Armagost floor amendments, the House adopted the committee report and then passed House Bill 11‑14.
The action leaves in place the committee’s compromise language that conditions any recording by law enforcement to limited, evidence‑integrity purposes and notification to the prosecution and defense.
What’s next: The bill passed the House and was ordered placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage, per the Committee of the Whole report.
