DENVER – Colorado lawmakers Thursday continued a conversation on police relations, this time focusing on racial profiling and misconduct.
The House Judiciary Committee heard three measures that seek to bolster the state’s law prohibiting the use of racial profiling by law enforcement, to limit the use of so-called “chokeholds” and to allow a judge to require prosecution in cases of serious police misconduct.
After a more than six-hour hearing on racial profiling, lawmakers advanced the issue to the full House for debate by a 10-1 vote. Only Republican Rep. Kevin Van Winkle of Highlands Ranch opposed it.
The committee then unanimously advanced the chokehold bill, followed by the special prosecutor measure, which passed on a 7-4 vote.
The hearing kicked off with a conversation on racial profiling. A large committee room was packed with black and Latino community members who told stories of being singled out simply because of their skin color.
“This is the most personal bill for me to be testifying on,” said Lisa Calderón, co-chairwoman of the Colorado Latino Forum, who has been testifying on several police-reform measures making their way through the Legislature.
Calderón held a thick stack of citations in a manila folder documenting instances in which her son had been profiled. She suggested that there is a disparity between the number of traffic stops her son experienced compared with young white men.
“He is not a gang member, he is not a drug dealer, he’s a college student who has worked part-time to earn his way,” Calderón said.
The measure would add new categories of profiling to Colorado law that prohibits its use, including age, socioeconomic status, disability and sexual orientation. It also would prohibit the use of evidence obtained via profiling.
The law-enforcement community is concerned that extending the state’s law prohibiting profiling is not the best way to address the situation, but they acknowledge that profiling exists in some instances.
They are worried about eroding clear consent laws that allow officers to make contact with individuals to ask questions.
Lawmakers amended the bill to eliminate the consent language, but police officials say they must still review the bill, which faces an uncertain future.
Lawmakers also amended the bill to add teeth by requiring profiling training for departments that are found to abuse the profiling law.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Angela Williams, D-Denver, pointed to petty crimes as an example of disparities, including marijuana arrests. While blacks and whites consume marijuana at an equal rate, the arrest rate is 2½ times higher for blacks.
With tears in her eyes, Williams, who is black, thanked the committee for having a serious conversation on the subject.
“The message that you’re sending in this state is that we care about the people of Colorado. We care about what’s happening to communities of color.” Williams said.
There was much less debate on the chokehold proposal after the sponsor, Rep. Jovan Melton, D-Aurora, agreed to an amendment that would allow officers to use the technique in cases of self-defense.
“This is about public safety, making sure that no one is unintentionally harmed by this practice,” Melton said. “It rebuilds that trust that is so vital between community and law enforcement.”
But on the special-prosecutor measure, prosecutors suggested that the bill was unnecessary, pointing out that there are already remedies through the courts if a prosecutor chooses not to pursue a case of serious misconduct.