Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure Evidence Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary Committee advances bill to standardize defense access to tangible evidence, limits body-cam use during viewings
Summary
A bill to standardize how criminal defense counsel may inspect physical evidence in police custody won committee approval after several negotiated amendments. Sponsors said the measure protects defense work product; law-enforcement groups pressed for limited recording authority to preserve chain-of-custody and officer safety.
House Bill 1114, sponsored by Rep. Michael Carter, would require law enforcement to make tangible evidence in criminal cases available for confidential inspection by defense counsel no later than 35 days before trial, subject to court-ordered protections and law-enforcement supervision to protect evidence integrity.
Rep. Michael Carter described the proposal as a practical measure to ensure defense counsel can investigate and prepare pretrial. “In order to effectively represent a criminal defendant, defense counsel must be able to view any tangible evidence held by law enforcement that is relevant to the case,” Rep. Carter told the committee.
What the bill would do
The bill instructs law enforcement to provide access to physical evidence and allows either party to seek a court-ordered protective protocol when recorded evidence views exist. It includes language that clarifies child-exploitative material is handled under the existing special statutory process. Sponsors and defense representatives negotiated several amendments to narrow the bill and to address law-enforcement concerns about recordings and chain-of-custody.
Testimony and major concerns
Public defenders and defense attorneys told the committee they increasingly face delays, curtailed inspections, or recorded viewings that chill their ability to discuss strategy during inspection. “I have had many cases where confidential evidence viewings were not permitted,” testified Megan Bishop, a criminal-defense lawyer. She and others said being observed and recorded while inspecting evidence prevents candid strategy discussions and, in some cases, prevents meaningful inspection.
Law-enforcement witnesses — including the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and local city attorneys who serve as police legal advisers — said they need recording authority to protect officers, preserve the evidentiary record and guard against allegations of tampering. Several witnesses described the practical hazard of fentanyl and other toxic substances in evidence viewings and said recording helps document how evidence was handled.
How the committee addressed those concerns
Committee negotiators produced a set of amendments that forbids the routine application of body-worn-camera rules to defense inspections and instead allows controlled recordings in appropriate circumstances while directing judges to issue protective orders where needed. The amendments were shaped in multi-stakeholder discussions with district attorneys, chiefs of police and the public defender’s office.
Committee vote
After the agreed amendments were adopted, the Judiciary Committee voted to send HB 1114, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
Why it matters
Supporters said the bill will reduce litigation delays and ensure meaningful defense investigations; law-enforcement advocates said the statutory structure must avoid creating unfunded operational burdens. Both sides said they intend to continue working the details as the bill progresses.
Ending note
Sponsors asked the committee to advance the measure so the judicial branch can weigh protection orders and judges can provide case-specific protocols to allow both evidence integrity and confidential defense preparation.
