Criminal Protection Order & Protection Order Violation
HB1148 revises Colorado’s mandatory criminal protection order laws and the penalties for violating those orders. The bill keeps in place the automatic protection order that applies when a person is charged with a criminal offense, but it narrows and clarifies what those orders may contain. It requires standardized forms to identify the restrained person, the protected people and locations, and whether the case involves domestic violence or certain other crimes. It also specifies that criminal protection orders are meant to protect victims and witnesses, not to impose pretrial-release conditions or restrictions intended to protect the defendant.
The bill also expands and clarifies the court’s authority to issue additional victim- or witness-protection provisions in certain cases, including stay-away orders, no-contact orders, firearm restrictions, alcohol or controlled-substance restrictions when supported by the facts, animal-protection provisions, and other orders needed to prevent imminent danger to life or health. At sentencing or final resolution, courts must review each protection-order provision for accuracy and may modify or dismiss the order in non-domestic-violence and non-specified-crime cases if the provisions are no longer necessary. The bill also updates the crime of violation of a protection order to cover violations involving alcohol, controlled substances, and certain firearm-related conduct, and it makes related conforming changes to alcohol- or drug-related offender definitions. The act applies to protection orders issued for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2025.
HB1148 amends several sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes, primarily sections 18-1-1001 and 18-6-803.5, with a conforming change to section 18-19-102. It changes how criminal protection orders are drafted, served, enforced, and reviewed, and it expands the statutory description of conduct that can constitute a protection-order violation. It also affects courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, peace officers, and protected victims or witnesses by clarifying enforcement authority, adding notice requirements, and specifying when alcohol, controlled-substance, firearm, and other restrictions may be included or prosecuted.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support, as reflected by passage in both chambers and unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes on several amendments. However, the floor votes show meaningful opposition, especially in the House third reading vote and the Senate Judiciary committee vote, indicating that while the bill advanced, it was not universally supported. The overall tone of the debate, as reflected in the voting history, suggests broad agreement on the need to refine protection-order procedures, paired with some concern about the scope of court and law-enforcement authority.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s expansion and clarification of what may be included in a criminal protection order and how violations should be enforced. Potentially disputed issues include whether courts should be able to order alcohol or controlled-substance restrictions, when officers may exercise discretion instead of mandatory arrest, and whether protection orders should include broader safety provisions beyond no-contact and stay-away terms. Another likely area of concern is the bill’s distinction between domestic-violence/specified-crime cases and other criminal cases, especially because the bill gives courts broader authority in the former category and more limited authority to dismiss orders in those cases. The split votes suggest some legislators were concerned about balancing victim safety with defendant rights and enforcement burdens.