Speaker pro tem backs bill to require platforms to respond to Colorado warrants within 72 hours

Speaker pro tem opened the committee hearing on Senate Bill 2611 by telling members the bill targets a narrow problem: investigators can obtain judicial search warrants but then face ‘‘long and sometimes unpredictable delays’’ getting records from large platforms.

"The bill requires platforms to acknowledge receipt of a warrant within 8 hours and provide the requested records within 72 hours unless a court grants an extension for good cause," the sponsor said, urging lawmakers to treat a warrant as a serious, time‑sensitive judicial order.

The bill’s sponsors framed the measure as procedural, not substantive: officers still must obtain a judicial warrant before companies can produce content, but once a Colorado judge signs the order the bill would create clear expectations for how platforms must respond and a 24‑hour staffed point of contact for law enforcement.

Survivor families and advocates gave the committee emotional testimony about delays they say cost investigators critical time. "If an 8 hour acknowledgment and a 72 hour compliance requirement had been in place, it never would have taken Snapchat nine long months and two court‑ordered requests to provide this crucial time‑sensitive information following the death of a loved one," Bridget Collins said while reading testimony for Kim Osterman about her son Max’s death.

Chelsea Congdon, another parent who lost a son, described lengthy, confusing searches for evidence and told the committee the current response process is "the Wild West," arguing the proposed timeline and hotline would allow detectives to clarify ambiguous requests quickly.

Law enforcement leaders and prosecutors also urged the bill. Lieutenant Richard Stevens of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police said delays of "three months" are not uncommon and that lost or changed server configurations have erased evidence; Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke and other DAs called the bill a "common‑sense" tool that preserves constitutional standards while enabling timely investigations.

Committee members focused questions on definitions and enforcement: why the bill applies to platforms with at least 1,000,000 discrete monthly users (a threshold sponsors said mirrors other states), how the 8‑hour acknowledgement operates (witnesses said it would be 24/7), whether the 72‑hour backstop allows exigent exceptions (yes: existing exigent‑circumstance law remains), how contempt or enforcement would work (civil remedies through the Attorney General under consumer‑protection statutes plus court contempt are available), and how the bill treats private messages (witnesses said content that is private would still require a warrant).

Several witnesses noted California has a similar statute and that the 72‑hour timeline there followed substantial negotiation; sponsors said they intentionally paralleled that model.

After extended questioning and testimony, a motion to send SB 2611 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation carried; the chair announced the bill passed the committee unanimously and will proceed to the next stage.

The committee heard multiple amendments were not offered and sponsors said they would follow up with members on drafting questions about jurisdiction and fines. The legislative next step for SB 2611 is consideration by the Committee of the Whole.