►
From YouTube: Overview of State Law Enforcement Initiatives
Description
Use of force, and particularly deadly force, by law enforcement officers across the states is driving national conversations about policing policy and the impact that state laws can have on local law enforcement policies and actions. Learn about existing state oversight, regulation and recent trends from Amber Widgery, NCSL Criminal Justice program principal, and hear from Colorado State Representatives Leslie Herod and Matthew Soper about the recently enacted bipartisan legislation, SB 217.
Speakers:
Amber Widgery – program principal, NCSL
Colorado State Representative Leslie Herod (D)
Colorado State Representative Matthew Soper (R)
A
Okay,
welcome
everyone
give
a
few
minutes
for
people
to
get
in
out
of
the
waiting
room
here,
but
welcome
to
our
third
and
final
installment
of
ncsl's
virtual
meeting
series
on
policing
policy
hosted
by
the
law,
criminal
justice
and
public
safety
here
at
ncsl.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
today.
My
name
is
amber
widgery
and
I'm
joined
today
by
several
of
my
colleagues
from
ncsl's
criminal
justice
program,
both
in
dc
and
denver.
A
We
are
also
joined
today
by
colorado,
state
representative,
leslie,
herrod
and
colorado
state
representative
matthew
soper.
During
our
time
today
we
will
focus
on
state
law
enforcement
initiatives,
but
I
also
want
to
encourage
you
to
go
back
and
watch
the
earlier
recordings
of
the
previous
two
meetings.
A
But
before
we
get
to
that,
I
want
to
encourage
everyone
to
submit
questions
that
you
may
have
as
you
go
along
in
the
chat
box.
My
colleague,
alice
and
lawrence
will
be
monitoring
the
chat
box
and
we'll
relay
those
questions
at
the
end
of
our
discussion,
where
we
have
some
time
for
that,
ncsl
staff
will
also
be
adding
relevant
resource
links
to
the
chat
box
as
we
go
or
you
can
find
all
of
those
resources,
including
the
slide
deck
from
today's
presentation
on
the
meeting
webpage
for
later
reference.
A
A
A
A
You
can
search
this
new
database
by
keyword,
state
author
bill
number
bill
status
or
by
topic
I
highlight
topics
specifically
as
you'll,
see
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
image
these
topics
were
created
and
curated
by
ncsl
staff,
and
we
manually
sort
legislation
on
a
weekly
basis
into
those
topics
below
the
database
module
on
the
web.
Page
you'll
also
see
a
definition
of
each
topic
which
we
modify
as
we
sort
additional
legislation
into
the
database.
A
A
A
Those
special
sessions
have
also
had
specific
intent
to
address
policing
issues
alongside
covet
19
issues
of
the
339
introduced
bills
that
I
mentioned
on
the
last
slide.
35
of
those
have
now
been
enacted.
Those
actions
represent
the
actions
of
15
state
legislative
bodies
and
also
the
washington
dc
council.
A
On
this
slide,
you'll
see
a
listing
of
the
topics
that
have
been
addressed
by
those
enactments,
but
I
wanted
to
just
briefly
give
you
some
more
detail
about
what
states
have
been
addressing
more
specifically
enacted.
Recent
enactments
have
addressed
most
broadly
something
related
to
police
oversight
or
data
collection
and
reporting
to
give
a
few
examples:
rhode,
island
and
louisiana.
Each
created
new
task
forces
on
policing
and
the
oregon
legislature
has
created
a
new
joint
legislative
committee
that
will
focus
exclusively
on
policing
issues
going
forward.
A
We've
also
seen
a
focus
on
the
use
of
force,
and
this
has
included
changing
statutory
standards
for
physical
force
and
for
deadly
force.
Restricting
the
use
of
specific
kinds
of
force,
including
choke,
holds
or
restricting
when
less
lethal
means
of
force
should
be
used
or
encouraging.
The
use
of
less
lethal
means
of
force
related
to
this
states
have
also
created
statutory
duties
to
intervene
in
excessive
force
situations
and
also
created
duties
to
report.
A
Incidents
of
excessive
force,
use
of
force,
state
actions
have
also
focused
on
creating
frameworks
for
independent
state
level,
investigation
and
also
independent
state
level.
Prosecution
for
police
involved
incidents
in
colorado,
delaware
and
iowa.
These
changes
have
involving
involved.
Empowering
specifically,
the
state
attorney
general
to
take
action.
A
States
have
also
provided
stronger
guidance
for
required
training,
both
annual
training
and
training
required
for
initial
officer
certification.
De-Escalation,
training
and
training
on
new
standards
has
been
mandated
in
some
states
and
iowa's.
New
law
also
requires
annual
bias
prevention
training.
In
addition
to
de-escalation
training,
there
has
also
been
guidance
as
to
what
types
of
serious
misconduct
would
require
that
an
officer
in
a
state
be
decertified.
A
Greater
access
to
decertification
and
disciplinary
records
has
also
been
of
interest
with
some
states
passing
provisions
to
increase
transparency.
To
provide
a
few
examples
of
this.
The
new
new
jersey
enactment
requires
law
enforcement
agencies
to
share
internal
affairs
records
and
personnel
files
with
other
law
enforcement
agencies
in
the
state.
The
new
york
law
repealed
a
provision
that
authorized
confidentiality
for
personnel
records
of
law
enforcement
officers
and
oregon's
new
enactment
required.
A
The
other
notable
thing
that
I
wanted
to
highlight
today
is
the
speed
at
which
some
of
these
new
enactments
have
made
their
way
through
legislative
chambers.
To
give
a
particularly
notable
example
of
this
iowa
house,
bill
2647
was
passed
unanimously
in
both
chambers
of
the
house
in
just
two
days.
It
was
shortly
thereafter
signed
by
the
governor.
A
I'll
leave
my
overview
there
for
now,
but
I
also
wanted
to
highlight
that
what
I
focused
on
today
were
state
actions
from
just
the
past
six
weeks
for
additional
information.
Looking
back
on
what
states
have
done
in
recent
years
on
policing
policy,
there
are
additional
resources
on
the
meeting
web
page
and
that
have
been
added
to
the
chat
box
and
slides.
B
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
We
were
able
to
because
of
covet,
as
you
mentioned
amber-
and
I
thought
your
your
slides
were
very
fascinating,
because
I
do
believe
that
a
lot
of
these
legislatures
are
in
session
right
now
or
were
in
session
during
this
time,
so
that
we
could
be
responsive
to
the
calls
from
the
community
for
change
around
policing.
So
days
after
the
protest
started,
colorado
was
able
to
introduce,
and
then
within
three
weeks
I
think
16
days
pass
sweeping
and
comprehensive
policing
reform
across
the
state
amber.
C
That's
very
important
because
we
believe
that
there
needs
to
be
personal
liability
and
responsibility
for
an
individual
individual's
actions
when
they
act
in
bad
faith.
Additionally,
we
have
a
duty
to
intervene.
That's
tied
into
the
civil
penalties
around
the
qualified
immunity
and
criminal
penalties
for
those
who
who
fail
to
intervene.
C
You,
the
lowest
level
offense
you
will
get-
is
a
class
one
misdemeanor,
which
is
six
months
in
jail,
but
you
could
also
be
charged
with
a
higher
crime
if
you
assisted,
aided
or
supported
an
officer
in
any
way
in
use
of
force.
We
also
reigned
in
use
of
force.
We
banned
choke,
holds
banned
fleeing
felon,
we
also
limited
when
force
can
be
used
and
when
less
lethal
means
of
force
will
be
used.
C
Additionally,
we
required
body
cameras
to
every
for
every
police
department
across
the
state
of
colorado
by
2023,
and
we
require
the
release
of
the
body
camera
footage
within
21
days
in
most
circumstances
and
45
days
tops
to
the
family
and
then
publicly
when,
when
a
use
of
fourth
incident
has
occurred,
there's
a
lot
of
other
provisions
in
the
bill,
specifically
around
data
collection,
which
are
really
important
even
every
time.
You
unholster
your
weapon.
You
must
report
that
and
who
you
point
the
weapon
at
or
where
you?
Why?
C
Who
was
it
at
the
scene
when
you,
when
you
pulled
out
that
weapon?
That's
really
important?
It
was
actually
brought
to
us
by
the
da's
because
they
thought
that
that
provision
was
going
to
be
very
important,
just
figuring
out
where
the
issues
lie.
We
have
pattern
and
practice
investigations
in
our
bill
as
well,
and
I
think,
most
importantly,
we
followed
connecticut's
lead
in
saying
that
if
you
are
our
law
enforcement
and
you
have
excessive
use
of
force,
you
actually
will
no
longer
be
able
to
work
as
a
law
enforcement
officer
in
colorado.
C
Again,
your
post
certification,
peace
officer,
standards
and
training
certification
will
be
removed,
revoked
and
also
those
officers
who
failed
to
intervene
if
they
were
a
party
to
the
excessive
use
of
force,
will
also
have
their
peace
officer
certification
revoked
and
will
not
be
able
to
be
a
law
enforcement
officer
again.
You'll
also
be
added
into
a
public
database
which
is
extremely
important
so
that
other
states
and
the
community
knows
if
you're
shopping
around
from
department
to
department
or
maybe
even
going
into
a
private
security
company
and
harming
someone
there.
C
The
other
thing
one
thing
that
we
did
not
do
was,
we
did
not
add
in
the
special
investigation
unit.
We
are
working
on
that
right
now,
just
to
figure
out
how
we
want
to
have
an
independent
investigation
arm.
We
already
have
independent
investigation
requirements
in
colorado,
but
we're
finding
that
they're
just
not
effective
enough,
and
so
there
is
more
work
that
needs
to
be
done
there.
C
I'm
proud
to
say
that
colorado
passed
this
bill
with
bipartisan
support,
with
only
two
no
votes
in
the
senate,
and
I
believe
it
was
11
no
votes
in
the
house
and
perhaps
representative
soper
can
speak
to
that.
But
we
had
strong
strong
support
and
actually
one
legislator
reported
that
she
had
heard
from
38
000
constituents,
38
000
constituents
and
she
doesn't
represent
denver
on
this
bill
and
on
some
of
the
struggles
that
colorado
has
had
around
use
of
force.
So
people
care
about
this
issue.
It's
not
a
partisan
issue.
A
Thank
you
for
that
representative
herod
representative
soper.
I
wanted
to
now
turn
to
you.
You
had
previously
introduced
legislation
that
addressed
qualified
immunity
earlier
in
the
session
prior
to
the
covet
19
related
recess.
Could
you
please
give
us
a
little
bit
more
information
about
your
interest
in
that
topic
initially
and
how
that
ended
up
becoming,
ultimately,
a
part
of
senate
bill
217.
D
You
know
that's
not
to
say
I
didn't
have
a
lot
of
great
support.
I
mean
I
had
a
lot
of
people
that
supported
it.
The
I
know,
representative
herod,
was
a
one
who
was
in
support
of
it.
We
had
people
on
board
from
the
aclu
to
cato.
We
had
americans
for
prosperity,
I
mean
we,
we
definitely
had
the
balancing
of
stakeholders,
but
ultimately
that
was
not
enough
to
really
overcome
the
opposition,
and
the
opposition
was
was
definitely
fierce.
D
So
that's
when
I
I
asked
to
have
the
bill
postponed
indefinitely,
with
the
idea
that
we
would
spend
the
summer
or
the
interim
time
working
on
some
of
the
language
to
really
try
to
bring
them
around
and
then
a
few
days
later
we
had
covet
19
start
and
that's
when
the
governor
on
march
10th
declared
a
state
of
emergency
and
by
the
end
of
that
week
the
entire
general
assembly
was
back
home
in
their
districts
and
the
whole
world.
Basically
changed.
D
And
then
we
come
back
in
this
session
for
a
about
a
three
and
a
three
and
a
half
week
long
session.
To
finish
our
business
past,
the
state
budget
we
had
to
cut
like
three
and
a
half
billion
dollars
and
representative
harrod
had
introduced
sweeping
law
enforcement
reform,
and
one
thing
that
god
included
was
the
elements
of
qualified
immunity
from
the
bill.
D
You're
welcome
representative
herrera
and
I
just
want
to
lay
a
little
bit
more
of
the
background,
because
you
know
there's
nothing
like
having
a
sense
of
urgency
to
bring
a
lot
of
the
stakeholders
back
to
the
table
and
to
offer
real
solutions,
and
that's
probably
not
what
existed
in
march,
but
fast
forward
to
the
last
day
of
may
1st
of
june.
The
sense
of
urgency
was
there.
So
there
were
things
like
the
25
000
cap
as
far
as
what
would
actually
come
out
of
the
law
enforcement
officer's
own
bank
account.
D
A
Thank
you
for
that
representative.
I
think
both
of
you
have
mentioned
sort
of
the
unique
circumstances
that
resulted
in
the
past
that
just
said
that
bill
217
and,
in
particular
the
bipartisan
effort
representative
herod.
You
mentioned
some
of
that
today
we
have
an
audience
of
other
lawmakers
and
legislative
staff
from
other
states
who
would
be
interested
to
learn
what
challenges
you
faced
and
how
you
built
that
broad
bipartisan
consensus
across
the
aisle
for
senate
bill
217.
C
Sure
you
know,
I
think
it
was
interesting,
because
I
work
well
with
members
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle.
One
thing
that
I
learned
about
criminal
justice
reform
and
also
taking
a
cue
from
ncsl
is
that
when
you
talk
about
criminal
justice
reform,
there
is
an
interesting
team
that
can
that
can
be
built
coalition.
That
includes
liberals
and
libertarians
right.
C
It
includes
democrats
and
republicans
and
even
rural
republicans,
who
really
want
to
come
together
to
work
on
these
issues
directly
because
they
directly
affect
their
communities
and
so
we're
not
so
different,
not
only
in
the
challenges
but
in
our
solutions
to
those
challenges,
and
so
I
believe
it's
just
really
important
to
have
the
conversation,
but
because
of
the
way
covet
had
limited
our
session.
We
had
to
do
things
very
differently
and
I
think
that
caught
people
a
little
bit
off
guard.
C
For
instance,
I'm
I
drafted
and
led
the
bill
and
asked
for
you
know
the
late
bill
approval
and
you
all
know
how
that
goes
with
leadership
and
all
of
that
stuff.
But
we
ended
up
introducing
the
bill
in
the
senate
because
the
house
was
dealing
with
the
budget,
and
so
we
introduced
it
with
the
senate
president
as
the
co-prime
sponsor,
and
he
introduced
it
in
the
senate
and
the
initial
version.
We
didn't
do
a
lot
of
behind
the
scenes
negotiations,
meaning
we
didn't.
C
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everything
was
out
in
the
public.
So
all
of
the
amendments
that
were
offered-
I
would
say
all,
but
the
majority
of
the
amendments
that
were
offered
were
offered
after
the
bill
was
introduced
because
we
believed
it
was
so
important
that
especially
law
enforcement
officers
were
coming
to
the
table
and
speaking
specifically
to
why
they
don't
want
something
in
a
bill,
and
it
was
much
harder
for
them
to
say
we
don't
want
to
ban
chokeholds
across
the
state
you
know
or
fleeing
felon
across
the
state.
C
C
I
think
that
is
very
important
and
I
feel
like
it's
kind
of
unique,
so
I
don't
know
if
we
have
any
of
my
friends
on
the
call
from
massachusetts,
but
they
just
passed
their
senate
bill
at
what
4
a.m.
On
monday-
and
I'm
so
proud
of
the
work
that
you
all
did
and
I
got
to
tell
you-
I
got
a
call
from
massachusetts
and
it
was
like
hey.
Can
you
help
us
on
this
bill?
We
need
you
to
call
some
folks.
You
need
to.
C
You
know,
talk
strategy,
help
me
understand
this
right,
and
so
I
made
the
calls,
but
I
was
like
listen.
We're
denver,
we're
colorado,
there
are
no
movies
and
tv
shows
about
denver
cops.
You
know
what
I
mean,
but
there
are
tons
about
the
boston
pd.
I
don't
know
how
the
heck
you're
good,
there's
whole
tv
shows,
like
everyone
loves
see
them.
I
don't
know
what
you're
gonna
do,
but
this
is
the
right
policy.
C
So
it
is
important
to
have
bipartisan
support,
even
though
we
have
the
majority
in
the
house
and
the
senate,
and
I
had
the
support
from
the
governor
upon
introduction.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
also
had
support
from
our
other
colleagues
across
the
aisle
so
that
coloradans
understood
that
this
wasn't
just
about
a
party.
It
was
really
about
what's
best
for
our
state.
D
I
I
think
something
else
was
kind
of
unique
about
217
and
that's
the
fact
that
the
organized
law
enforcement
lobby,
the
sheriffs,
the
police
chiefs,
the
da's,
they
didn't
immediately
go
to
all-out
opposition
and
that's
really
important,
because
they
were
in
a
very
amendable
position
from
the
get-go,
and
I
know
most
of
the
people
on
this
call
are
also
fellow
state
lawmakers
and
think
about
other
bills.
You've
worked
on
if
a
major
group
says
they're
in
opposition.
What
do
you
naturally
do?
D
Well,
you
stop
talking
to
them,
because
if
you've
counted
votes-
and
you
don't
need
their
support,
why
are
you
bothering
talking
to
them?
And
I
think
that
you
know
at
least
with
this
bill?
It
was
just
a
little
bit
different
dynamics
because
you
actually
had
the
lobby
understand
that
they
couldn't
just
sit
back
and
throw
rocks
at
the
bill.
Instead,
they
needed
to
be
a
very
active
participant
in
actually
working
with
the
sponsors
and
the
sponsors
wanted
to
work
with
them.
I
mean
it
was.
D
A
C
I
am
a
firm
believer
in
running
the
bill
as
one
solid
bill,
because
if
we
had
run
multiple
bills-
and
I
think
my
colleague
might
agree
with
me-
it
would
have
been
much
easier
to
oppose
things
like
the
qualified
immunity.
It
would
be
much
easier
to
oppose
certain
provisions,
and
so
so
I
would
say,
definitely
think
about
running
packages
and
make
sure
that
every
member
in
your
caucus
has
a
role
to
play.
C
What
I
thought
was
so
fascinating,
and
you
know,
let
me
just
say,
I'm
the
first
black
queer
legislator
in
colorado.
So
for
me
it
was
going
on
to
protest.
It's
like
my
community.
Like
I'm
all
good,
I
you
know
I
would
run
a
bill
and
I
would
run
outside
and
go
hang
out
in
the
protest
right,
but
for
a
lot
of
legislators
they
had
never
even
spoke
at
a
protest
or
a
rally.
They
didn't
know
if
it
was
their
role
to
say
something
right
now,
especially
the
white
legislators.
C
So
I
would
just
suggest
that.
But
then
I
would
say
that
it
was
also
so
so
so
important
to
do
that.
And
I
didn't
even
know
at
first
why.
But
when
you're
talking
about
then
figuring
out
the
money
piece
right
all
of
a
sudden,
you
have
joint
budget
committee
members
who
were
stepping
up
for
the
bill
and
showing
up
in
ways
that
you
know
I
couldn't
even
fathom
you
know,
or
you
have
the
public
health
members
stepping
up
and
talking
about
the
public
health
crisis.
C
D
And
I
would
add
to
that,
and
I
would
say
that
the
larger
the
bill,
the
more
you
have
to
have
broad
coalitions,
whether
you
need
them
or
not,
because
if
you're
going
to
have
large
sleeping
changes
in
state
law,
you
need
to
be
able
to,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
say
that
you
had
law
enforcement
as
a
key
player,
you
had
the
opposition
party
as
a
key
player
that
that
everyone
had
a
part
to
the
play.
So
I'd
agree
with
the
representative
herod
on
that.
D
B
B
So
if,
if
a
lawsuit
and
maybe
representative
soper
to
you
as
well
on
how
you
were
running
your
bill,
if
a
lawsuit
were
to
be
filed
who,
at
that
point
or
if,
even
if
it's
criminal
charges
who
represents
the
individual,
who
represents
either
the
officer
the
state
employee
and
if
they
lose,
is
there,
does
it
go
to
the
state?
Does
the
state
pay
the
penalty?
Is
the
state
on
the
hook
for
any
of
that
in
either
one
of
your
bills,
or
does
it
just
go
to
them
personally?
D
D
You
know
it's.
You
know,
think
of
your
best
fact
pattern.
You
know
someone's
shot.
They
shouldn't
have
been
shot,
they
were
innocent,
the
officers
sued
civilly,
and
in
that
case
the
officer
in
theory
is
paying
their
own
legal
expenses,
but
it's
actually
the
agency.
That's
compensating
that
so
they're
actually
paying
the
attorneys.
And
then
let's
say
the
officer
is
found
guilty
civilly
here,
then
it
would
be
a
maximum
of
25
000
in
in
217.
C
My
brother's
a
doctor,
because
you
know
insurance
companies
and
if
you
believe
in
free
market
and
all
of
that
right,
can
help
to
determine
if
that
officer
is
a
higher
liability
or
a
lower
liability
right
or
even
if
that
department
is
a
higher
liability,
and
so
we
are
requiring
you
know
the
identification.
However,
if
you
are
found
in
bad
faith,
you
have
to
pay
that
25
000
out
of
your
pocket.
C
C
Instead,
we
went
the
culture
change
route
with
the
duty
to
intervene
and
some
of
the
other
components
about
you
know
how
we're
going
to
get
officers
to
share
the
responsibility
to
ensuring
that
there's
no
officers
on
their
force
acting
in
bad
faith.
But
if
there
is
an
officer
who
acts
in
bad
faith,
they
are
personally
responsible
for
that
25,
000
or
5
percent
of
the
entire
settlement.
That
is
intentional
because
basically,
the
public
and
the
community
wants
some
type
of
personal
stake
in
the
game
similar
to
other
areas.
C
C
We
haven't
seen
a
case
yet
that
is
challenged
any
of
these
issues,
but
I
do
think
it's
the
right
way
forward
and
eventually
we
might
want
to
change
that
number
here
and
there,
but
I
do
think
that's
a
personal
liability.
That's
high
enough
that
we
can.
We
can
ensure
that
officers
you
know
are
thinking
before
they
do
something
intentionally
against
the
law.
B
And
did
you
represent
herod?
Did
you
put
a?
Does?
It
have
to
be
use
of
force
related?
Can
it
be,
you
know,
pulled
over
an
individual
inappropriately?
Can
it
be
too
many
direct
contacts
within
that?
Is
there?
Is
there
like
a
limit
on
felony
or
misdemeanor
or
a
certain
type,
or
is
it
just
universal
across
all
of
their
work,
scope.
C
So
for
this
section
it
is
tied
to
very
closely
to
representative
soper's
previous
bill,
so
it
is
constitutional
violations
you
have
to
you
have
to
intentionally
and
in
bad
faith,
violate
someone's
constitutional
rights
in
colorado,
and
so
it
does
not
include
just
disciplinary
actions.
So
if
it's
something
internal,
that's
going
on
an
email,
you
know
things
like
that
that
are
happening.
That
would
not
be
included.
B
Okay,
and
do
you
guys
have
a
definition
of
that
that
you
could
share
with
us
as
far
as
what
is
I'm
assuming
you're
talking
like
bill
of
rights,
type
of
rights
or
other
constitutional
rights,
civil
rights
is
defined
in
the
colorado
constitution,
because
that's
it's
very
useful,
but
it's
pretty
broad
and
I'm
assuming.
In
order
for
that
to
be
able
to
be
taken
to
court,
it's
got
to
be
somewhat
defined
somewhere.
That
would
be
super
helpful.
I
think
to
be
able
to
utilize
that
ourselves
and.
D
B
D
D
B
D
D
D
Well,
you
know
that
sounds
really
nice,
but
what
that
actually
did.
Is
it
really
made
1983
to
where
the
only
time
a
plaintiff
could
have
actually
been
successful
is
if
their
fact
pattern
exactly
matched
one
that
had
already
been
successful
in
the
past
and
that's
why
you're
seeing
a
lot
of
states
say
you
know
when,
when
congress
first
passed
this
section
during
reconstruction
right
after
the
civil
war,
you
know
it
was
meant
to
actually
allow
citizens
to
have
a
remedy
for
constitutional
violations.
D
C
Yeah-
and
I
I
see,
and
I'm
sorry
eric,
where
are
you
from,
is
it
utah?
I
know
we
were
at
a
conference
together.
I
just
can't
remember
what
state
you're
from
utah
okay
good
to
see
you.
So
I
see
also
a
question
from
from
cassidy,
hi
friend,
and
it's
about
the
cost
as
well,
so
I'll
just
tie
them
together.
C
We
did
hear
folks
concerned
about
a
lot
of
frivolous
cases
and
all
of
that
we,
we
just
don't
believe
that
that's
going
to
materialize,
there
are
already
a
lot
more
cases
around
police
brutality
in
our
cities
than
we
even
realize.
So
what
was
interesting
was
the
municipal
league
and
the
colorado
counties
incorporated
kind
of
backed
out
from
being
very
vocal
about
the
conversation
when
we
asked
the
first
question,
which
was
please
give
us
a
reporting
of
the
payouts
for
excessive
use
of
force
or
violation
of
the
constitution
over
the
last.
C
C
It
gives
credence
to
say
that
our
bill
actually
save
you
money,
because
those
bad
officers
ideally
will
leave
the
force,
but
they'll
also
be
held
accountable
and
you'll
have
and
you'll
have
officers
who
also
with
the
duty
to
intervene,
step
in
and
create
a
new
culture
of
policing
in
our
communities,
so
that
you're
actually
decreasing
the
cases
and
decreasing
the
payouts
in
your
city
and
across
the
state
and
so
ask
for
those
numbers.
If
you
don't
have
them
for
your
county,
even
get
them.
C
You
know
and
then
start
to
look
at
others
and
ps
the
ones
who
don't
have
a
lot
of
issues.
They
are
really
not
going
to
be
problematic,
and
some
of
them
might
even
already
have
a
lot
of
these
policies
on
the
books.
But
there's
not
going
to
be
a
change
really
for
them.
It's
going
to
happen
in
the
places
where
there
are
excessive
use
of
force.
Where
you
do
see,
issues
come
up
and
it
doesn't
change
the
amount
of
the
settlement,
but
it
does
change
the
officers
liability
when
they
act
in
good
faith.
B
A
A
D
Actually,
while
you're
scrolling
through
that
amber
there's
one
thing
I
might
add
to
what
we
were
just
talking
about
and
one
really
important
thing
with
217.
That
was
a
vast
improvement
from
the
bill.
I
ran
earlier
in
the
session
and
it
really
is
the
25
000
cap,
because
one
thing
we
heard
a
lot
from
the
law
enforcement
community
was
this
is
going
to
bankrupt
the
agency.
D
I
mean
not
that
they're
not
still
going
to
have
the
indemnification,
attorney's
fees
and
things
like
that
involved,
but
they
worried
it
would
have
a
chilling
effect
on
who
would
become
police
officers
and
that
there
would
just
be
this
mass
exodus
from
being
a
police
officer
and
that
what
25
000
says
is
now
you.
You
could
actually
take
out
an
insurance
policy
if
you're,
really
that
worried
that
would
cover
the
25
000
and
it
you
know,
I
felt
it.
C
So
this
is
not
a.
This
is
not
a
may
report,
it's
a
shell
so
they
have
to,
but
then
we
also
did
add
in
the
pattern
and
practice
piece.
I
think
that's
really
important.
That
gives
the
attorney
general
the
ability
to
go
in
and
to
investigate
or
even
may
take
over
when
necessary
departments
that
have
have
pattern
practice
issues.
We
also
have
a
post
certification
and
finally,
funding
funding
is
tied
to
the
to
the
data
collection,
and
so
I
actually
have
a
meeting
with
the
post
board.
C
I
believe,
next
week
or
week
after
that,
to
really
go
through
how
they're
going
to
promulgate
their
rules
to
enforce
this,
but
it
is,
it
is
tied
to.
I
think
the
most
important
part
is
the
money
for
the
reporting
and
and
all
of
the
reporting
is
reporting
into
a
public
database.
The
reporting
the
collection
has
to
start
happening
in
2022.
C
So
again
we
did
give
some
credence
to
the
fact
that
some
folks
are
in
you
know.
Tough
to
all
of
us
are
in
tough
times
with
covid,
and
you
know
asking
folks
to
build
the
database
right
now
with
no
money
and
by
the
way
we
gave
no
money.
There's
no
increase
in
funding
in
this
bill
was
going
to
be
really
tough
for
people,
but
what
we
did
do
was
we
put
out
for
2022
and
I
think
that's
really
important.
C
A
Thank
you.
I
have
another
question
here
from
mike
queensland
wisconsin.
Does
the
colorado
prohibition
on
law
enforcement
officers
using
choke
holds
have
an
exception
for
situations
when
a
law
enforcement
officer
is
acting
in
self-defense
and
does
the
chokehold
ban
also
cover
carotid,
holds
or
holds
it
reduce
blood
flow,
but
not
air
flow.
A
Once
going
twice
all
right
perfect,
so
one
of
the
things
that
I've
heard
from
most
states
that
have
enacted
legislation
sort
of
in
this
unique
window,
whether
they
were
in
session
that
was
delayed
or
otherwise,
and
if
they
managed
to
enact
legislation,
it's
been
often
referenced
as
a
first
step
with
intentions
to
do
more
in
the
future.
So
my
question
to
the
two
of
you
is:
do
you
have
plans
for
2021
to
address
this
issue
again
and
if
so,
what
are
those.
C
Yeah,
so
this
is,
this
is
just
I
know
it's,
it's
not
gonna,
say
it's
a
first
step,
because
I
do
know
that
there's
legislators
who've
been
working
on
this
for
so
very
long.
This
is
a
big
shift,
though
you
know,
and
I
think
it
is
a
big
step
forward
for
colorado,
but
there
is
more
work
that
needs
to
be
done.
C
We
do
need
independent
investigation
and
I
believe
that
she
needs
to
happen
at
the
federal
level
because,
as
you
all
know,
I'm
sure
it's
colorado's
not
unique
in
this
usually
a
da
knows
the
sheriff
knows
the
d.a
and
the
other
county
knows.
I
mean
everyone
is
so
connected
that
it's
hard
to
really
make
it
independent,
and
so
I
do
believe
and
that
we
need
more
independence.
C
There
is
a
lot
more
that
we
need
to
do
around
psychiatric
evaluations
and
ensuring
folks
have
access
to
mental
health
care.
They
need
that
and
the
community
needs
it
and
I
will
go,
and
I
will
say
publicly
that
I
do
support
the
divestment
in
in
the
police
and
policing.
Coven
has
shown
us
specifically
that
we
can
actually
reduce
the
funding
that
we
use
for
law
enforcement
and
move
it
other
places.
We
are
not
putting
the
same
amount
of
people
in
jails
and
prisons
right
now
right.
C
We
can't
there's
no
space
and
we
don't
want
to
keep
I'm
sorry,
some
some
of
you,
some
of
your
states,
maybe
are
doing
a
little
different,
but
we're
all
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
make
sure
that
there
are
space
and
that
we
can
keep
people
safe
in
our
correctional
facilities,
which
means
a
lot
of
folks
aren't
coming
in
right.
We're
not
we're
not
letting
folks
out
early
necessarily
some
people
are,
but
we're
not
letting
people
in
that's
important,
because
there
are
other
ways
that
we
can
affect
public
safety
in
denver.
C
I
started
a
program
and
funded
it
through
through
attacks.
So
thanks
to
my
friends
in
seattle
who
gave
me
this
idea
to
start
a
program
from
eugene
oregon
called
cahoots,
we
have
a
program
now
called
star
where
we
are
working
with
law
enforcement
at
9-1-1
to
dispatch
a
mental
health,
professional
and
an
emt,
as
opposed
to
law
enforcement
on
mental
health.
Scenes
the
star
program
has
been
working
for
since
june,
it's
been
working
very
effectively.
The
money
does
not
go
into
the
police
department's
budget.
C
In
fact,
the
police
department
has
been
helping
and
funding
things
like
the
insurance
for
the
vans
and
things
like
that.
They've
been
a
great
partner,
they
train
together
and
they
should,
but
we
don't
have
to
think
about
just
increasing
policing
budget,
because
we
have
seen
an
increase
in
the
folks
in
folks
who
need
mental
health
or
substance
use
services.
In
fact,
we
can
shift
funding
over
into
those
areas
and
save
money
in
correction,
save
money
in
child
welfare.
You
know
when
we
actually
start
to
think
about
things
differently.
This
too,
is
a
bipartisan
issue.
C
D
D
One
thing
I
find
really
fascinating
is
that
it
takes
twice
as
long
to
get
your
cosmetology
license
as
it
does
to
get
your
post
certification
license.
So
one
thing
I'm
interested
in
is
actually
either
reducing
cosmetology
or
actually
ensuring
that
those
individuals
who
do
want
to
become
post-certified
and
it
stands
for
peace
officer,
training
and
standards.
It's
the
certification
to
become
a
law
enforcement
officer,
but
if
you're
going
to
be
carrying
a
firearm
and
arresting
people,
that's
the
state's
police
power
and
that's
denying
citizens
their
their
liberty
and
their
freedom.
D
That
should
not
be
a
few
week
long
course.
It
should
actually
be
something
where
you
actually
drill
that
in
just
how
critical
it
is
to
get
it
right
every
single
time.
So
that's
something
I'd
be
interested
in
looking
at
the
other
thing,
I'm
well
aware
of
is
217
the
police
reform
bill.
We've
been
talking
about.
It
changed
a
lot
in
colorado,
so
I
think
we
need
to
kind
of
see
how
it
starts
to
play
out
because
we're
we're
constantly
tweaking
statutes.
That's
why
they're
called
the
revised
statutes.
D
This
is
certainly
a
major
topic.
It's
a
very
timely,
it's
one
that
we
very
rarely
in
colorado,
get
to
say
we
were
the
first
at
it
much
and-
and
this
was
something
we're
the
first
at
so
that's
kind
of
cool
as
well,
but
I
appreciate
being
able
to
have
everyone
here
and
and
I'll
also
type
my
email
and
phone
number
as
well
in
the
chat,
but
please
feel
free
to
reach
out.
Thank
you.
A
Perfect,
thank
you
so
much
and
thank
you,
representative
herod
for
bringing
up
the
star
model
and
the
cahoots
model.
I
also
dropped
in
the
chat,
a
link
to
a
new
ncsl
webpage
that
we
just
launched
that
describes
the
various
police
mental
health
collaboration
models
which
cover
those
new
innovative,
and
I
guess
not.
New
eugene
oregon's
been
doing
it
for
a
long
time,
but
some
of
those
interesting
and
different
types
of
alternative
responses.
A
Guys
are
okay
with
that
delaware's
chokehold
bill
house
bill
350
had
an
exception
that
the
use
of
a
chokehold
is
only
justifiable
if
the
person
reasonably
believes
that
the
use
of
deadly
force
is
necessary
to
protect
the
life
of
a
civilian
or
law
enforcement
officer,
which
the
question
describes.
This
feeling,
like
an
affirmative
defense
and
the
person
asking
this
question
anna,
wanted
to
know
what
your
thoughts
were
on
this
kind
of
limited
exception
for
the
chokehold
regulation.
C
Yeah
anna
you're
right,
I
mean
basically
it's
unenforceable
and
it
just
allows
law
enforcement
to
get
away
with
doing
this.
There
is
no
there's,
no
reason
you
need
to
use
a
chokehold
or
carotid
hold,
and
I
will
tell
you
my
father
was
the
head
of
internal
investigation
for
super
max
and
he
was
a
he's:
a
law
enforcement
officer
retired
but
started
at
the
age
of
19
and
then
retired
out
of
the
federal
system,
and
he
agrees
that
we
need
to
ban
the
use
of
chokeholds
and
that
they
are
never
necessary.
C
D
And
I
guess
to
just
also
add
my
two
cents
worth
I
you
know.
I
think
I'd
want
to
see
some
research
into
that
as
well,
that
I
I
just
don't
believe
that
if
you
have
that
type
of
exception
that
you
you
would
probably
have
the
you
know
the
rule
becoming
the
exception
and
so
yeah.
I
would
probably
agree
with
representative
herod
here
that
I
just
don't
think
that
probably
research
would
follow
that.