Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lethality Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colorado committee advances bill to standardize domestic‑violence lethality screening
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send HB26‑1009 to Appropriations after sponsor and wide stakeholder support for a statewide, evidence‑based 11‑question lethality assessment; amendments clarified victim choice, training and data reporting.
Majority Leader Duran, a prime sponsor and a self‑identified survivor, asked the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday to approve HB26‑1009, the Colorado Mandatory Lethality Assessment Act, saying the measure would standardize an evidence‑based screening officers already use in parts of the state and connect high‑risk victims immediately with confidential advocates.
Supporters — including district attorneys and domestic‑violence advocates — told the committee the 11‑question protocol (the LAP) is validated and has been credited in Boulder County and elsewhere with identifying victims at heightened risk of homicide and increasing referrals to advocates. Michael Doherty, a district attorney who described Boulder County’s experience, said agencies using the tool can better prioritize cases and make more informed safety decisions; Violence Free Colorado and SafeHouse advocates urged the committee that warm handoffs to confidential advocates in the moment can be life‑saving.
The bill requires a peace officer who responds to a domestic‑violence incident to administer the standardized lethality screening beginning in 2027, document the result and, if a victim screens high, immediately offer a connection to a trained community‑based victim advocate. Sponsors and witnesses emphasized that the assessment is for safety and that participation by the victim is voluntary.
Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on several operational issues: how officers identify the predominant aggressor when multiple people are present, whether answers on the form become part of the police report (and discovery), protections for non‑English and hearing‑impaired victims, how intoxication is handled, and whether scores can be misused. Witnesses said the form is intended to be used after investigators identify the likely victim, that agencies already attach the form to police reports (making it discoverable), and that training and translation contingencies are part of implementation planning.
Sponsors offered four amendments (L001–L004) during the hearing to address concerns from district attorneys, sheriffs, the Fraternal Order of Police and the attorney general’s office. The changes clarified the definition and discretion around high‑risk determinations, allowed assessments to be completed off‑scene when appropriate, required annual reporting mechanisms to the attorney general for SMART Act oversight, grandfathered recent LE training, and made explicit that victims may refuse an assessment. All four amendments were adopted without objection.
Vice Chair Carter moved the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. The committee adopted the motion and voted 11–0 to advance HB26‑1009.
The next formal step, if the bill clears appropriations, would be floor consideration. Sponsors said they would continue implementation planning, particularly around training and rural access to advocacy services, and stressed the bill is intended to build on programs already operating in 44 counties.
