Colorado committee hears bill to limit strip-search recordings after La Plata County revelations

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee on (date not specified in transcript) held a hearing on House Bill 11-23, a measure sponsors said is intended to curb sexual exploitation in county jails by tightening rules around strip searches and access to recordings.

Sponsor Representative Stewart told the committee the bill responds to an ‘‘ongoing pattern of misconduct’’ and gaps in the state’s implementation of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act. She and co-sponsors described provisions that would require documentation for strip searches, narrow when officers may make or access recordings, and create reporting so the legislature can better track practices in county jails.

The hearing opened with sponsors citing the La Plata County investigation into jail commander Edward Aber as the impetus for the bill. ‘‘There have been 117 victims identified, with over 3,000 videos that have also been identified as being watched,’’ survivor Suzanne Garcia told the committee, later saying the discovery showed videos were downloaded to personal devices and viewed off-site. Garcia said survivors are pursuing civil litigation and urged lawmakers to adopt protections to prevent recurrence.

Survivors and advocates described emotional harms and procedural lapses they say enabled exploitation. Raven Nicks, a former La Plata County deputy and now a victim advocate, said she never used body-worn cameras when conducting strip searches and that standard jail procedures and recordkeeping broke down in ways that, she said, made abuse possible. Elizabeth Newman of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault said two of three jails she reviewed did not appear to be complying with PREA requirements.

Committee members focused on several technical and operational questions. Lawmakers asked whether the bill raises the legal standard for searches from the status quo and whether it would apply only at intake or also to searches conducted after a person is in the general jail population. Sponsors said the measure targets county jails and that the language will be refined; they described ‘‘reasonable belief’’ as the practical standard reached through stakeholder discussions, though some sponsors and members said they preferred a narrower standard such as reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Members also pressed sponsors on how recordings would be stored if uploads to cloud systems are disallowed. ‘‘If body‑worn camera footage is uploaded to the cloud and can’t be segregated, that was a critical problem we heard from local agencies,’’ one member said. Sponsors and advocates said survivor preference and stakeholder conversations drove the current compromise: use on‑site video systems (or jail surveillance cameras at a greater distance) stored locally and accessible only for legitimate law‑enforcement or judicial purposes, with a default short retention window and a documented process to access footage after that window.

Law‑enforcement witnesses urged caution. Lieutenant Mark Pollard of the Weld County Sheriff’s Office said body cameras and audit logs protect both deputies and detainees and that CCTV often lacks the placement, audio or clarity to serve the same evidentiary function. Gary Giddens, division chief of the Jefferson County jail, said immediate on‑site retention and segregation capabilities vary across counties and that the equipment or storage upgrades can carry significant costs.

On accountability, witnesses and sponsors agreed the bill should include whistleblower protections and measures to prevent officers found to have abused access from being rehired by other agencies. Representatives and counsel discussed aligning the bill’s whistleblower language with last year’s whistleblower statute and debated the proper legal standard for employment defenses; plaintiff‑side counsel urged a clear‑and‑convincing standard.

Committee members asked many technical follow‑ups and said sponsor amendments are expected. Several members praised the bill’s goals while noting implementation and fiscal challenges that need resolution, particularly for smaller and rural counties.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. Sponsors said they would present amendments intended to narrow some provisions, conform discovery language with defense and prosecutor needs, and address funding and operational concerns raised by sheriffs and IT staff. The committee proceeded to take testimony from additional advocates and law‑enforcement professionals and signaled continued work on the measure.

The next procedural step and any potential vote were not specified in the transcript.