Concerning measures related to peace officer participation in matters related to peace officer performance, and, in connection therewith, requiring the attorney general to submit a proposal to update law enforcement academy training programs...
HB26-1312 makes several changes to Colorado’s peace officer standards and training system. It directs the attorney general to submit, by December 31, 2030, a proposal to the P.O.S.T. Board to update basic, reserve, and refresher law enforcement academy programs with the stated goal of improving future academy graduates’ performance. The proposal requirement is temporary and would be repealed once the board approves a comprehensive update and the board chair notifies the revisor of statutes.
The bill also expands and rebalances the P.O.S.T. Board from 24 to 28 members. It adds representation for line-level officers, training academy directors, and reserve officers, while reducing the number of chiefs, sheriffs, and non-law-enforcement members. It further bars anyone whose peace officer certification has been revoked from serving on the board or acting as a skills instructor, and prohibits a training academy from being approved if it employs such an instructor.
HB26-1312 changes certification standards by requiring a person to be at least 21 years old to become a certified peace officer in Colorado. It also allows a full-time peace officer academy instructor to attend P.O.S.T.-funded or hosted certification classes, though not to receive individual grant funding from the P.O.S.T. Board itself. The act takes effect after the standard post-session period unless referred to voters.
The bill’s impact is primarily on the governance, training, and certification rules for Colorado law enforcement. It amends multiple sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes governing the attorney general’s duties, the composition and powers of the P.O.S.T. Board, and peace officer certification requirements. In practical terms, it shifts more board influence toward line officers and training institutions, raises the minimum certification age, and tightens eligibility rules for board service and instructor approval.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s structure is reform-oriented and supportive of updating training and broadening participation from rank-and-file officers and academy personnel. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate opposition or amendments beyond the bill text itself. The main points of potential contention are the reallocation of board seats away from chiefs, sheriffs, and non-law-enforcement members, and the new age-21 requirement for certification, which could be viewed as limiting entry into the profession.
The bill amends Colorado statutes governing the attorney general, the P.O.S.T. Board, and peace officer certification. It expands the board’s membership, changes who may serve, adds restrictions on revoked-certification individuals, sets a minimum age of 21 for certification, and authorizes certain academy instructors to access P.O.S.T.-funded training opportunities. It also creates a temporary statutory mandate for the attorney general to propose academy training updates, with repeal provisions tied to board approval of a comprehensive update.
The bill appears generally supportive of law enforcement training reform and more inclusive representation for line officers and academy stakeholders. Because no committee testimony or vote details were provided, there is no recorded public opposition or support to summarize beyond the bill’s text. The measure’s design suggests an intent to modernize training and improve officer performance, while also tightening standards for board participation and certification.
Likely points of contention include the shift in P.O.S.T. Board composition away from chiefs, sheriffs, and non-law-enforcement members toward line officers, academy directors, and reserve officer representatives. The age-21 certification requirement may also be debated as a barrier to recruitment. Additional concern could arise over the prohibition on revoked-certification individuals serving on the board or as instructors, though that provision is framed as a safeguard rather than a disputed policy.