Senate Judiciary hears testimony on bill to limit strip searches, restrict recordings after La Plata County case

DENVER — The Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee on April 8 heard testimony for House Bill 11‑23, a measure sponsors said is designed to prevent abuses like those alleged in La Plata County by limiting strip searches, restricting access to recordings and extending whistleblower and accountability provisions to county jails.

Sen. Amabile, co‑sponsor, opened the hearing with survivors’ accounts and said the bill grew out of an investigation in La Plata County in which a former jail commander reviewed recorded strip searches ‘‘over and over and over again’’ for non‑official purposes. ‘‘That is an incredible violation of their privacy and of their bodily autonomy,’’ she said. Survivors and advocates who testified described long‑term trauma and urged lawmakers to adopt statutory guardrails.

The bill as described by co‑sponsor Sen. Weissman would: tighten standards governing when strip searches may occur; require documentation and two‑person determinations in specified circumstances; limit use, retention and access to recordings that show nudity; import key provisions of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) into county jail practice; and add whistleblower protections and provisions to revoke post‑certification for certain adjudicative findings.

Survivors detailed the La Plata County allegations at the hearing. ‘‘I am one of his victims,’’ survivor Katrina Lyle said, and described the personal, family and mental‑health harms she said followed discovery that recordings existed and had been viewed. Suzanne Garcia, who said she was arrested and later had charges dropped, told the committee that the arrest affidavit alleged the former jail commander viewed recordings of 117 female inmates ‘‘at least 3,166 times’’ and that victims have filed a multimillion‑dollar civil lawsuit against Aber and La Plata County.

Advocacy groups and victim‑service organizations, including the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Violence Free Colorado, urged passage and urged the committee to require clearer reporting, access to confidential advocacy, PREA‑aligned investigation and designated PREA coordinators in jails. David Carnes of Violence Free Colorado said the bill would ‘‘strengthen protections around strip searches by requiring reasonable belief, requiring two officers to make that determination, and requiring documentation’’ and would ‘‘limit the use and handling of recordings that capture sexual abuse.’'

Law‑enforcement witnesses generally supported the bill’s goals but asked for narrowly tailored amendments. Commander Drew Odomen of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, speaking in an amend position, asked that the two‑staff independent‑determination requirement apply only to discretionary, incident‑specific strip searches and not to routine, protocol‑driven searches such as returns from work assignments. ‘‘Applying that same requirement to routine protocol‑driven searches adds redundancy without increasing safety,’’ he said, urging an operational exemption for non‑discretionary procedures.

Jeff Getz, a Boulder County jail division chief, raised potential conflicts with existing Colorado statutes governing strip searches (he cited CRS 16‑3‑405 and related sections) and asked the sponsors to reconcile language so routine safety searches remain lawful. Megan Dannitz, captain of detention operations for Arapahoe County speaking for the County Sheriffs of Colorado, said some surveillance systems used for safety do not create separate audit trails and the bill as drafted could make routine review and post‑incident analysis infeasible; she urged amendments to preserve operational safety while protecting privacy.

Committee members asked witnesses about PREA enforcement and alternatives to visual strip searches. Witnesses said PREA is federal law but jails often lack consistent enforcement because it is tied to federal funding; several witnesses noted some jails use body scanners as an alternative but that cost and installation pose barriers. Estimates given at the hearing ranged from roughly $200,000–$500,000 per scanner to a cited example estimating about $4 million to install 26 machines in one state’s plan.

The sponsors acknowledged outstanding statutory and operational questions and said they planned to work with stakeholders on amendments. With no final vote, the committee laid HB 11‑23 over for action at a future date so sponsors and staff can reconcile statutory cross‑references and operational concerns.

What’s next: The committee took no final vote and laid over the bill for amendment; sponsors said they will return with revised draft language addressing statutory overlaps, routine‑search exemptions and other technical fixes.