The state testified in opposition to HB26-1037 in a public hearing on the bill last Thursday. Supporters of the bill, consisted of a non-partisan public, constitutional lawyers and rights activists. They argued the bill was clear and would strengthen due process in state law enforcement operations.

Data Protected by HB26-1037

If passed and enacted, HB26-1037 would block personal private data from being obtained through a third party by law enforcement. If that data was presumed to be privately held information.

The bill’s sponsor Rep. Jennifer Bacon moved to clarify what data would be protected. “This bill is not about law enforcement. This bill is not an indictment on law enforcement.”Rep. Bacon claimed it is about setting a standard and expectation for consumer data.

The bill concerns when and what law enforcement can do to seek information, however. It prohibits purchasing, obtaining and the use of personal data without reason, and probable cause. Rep. Bacon said of reason “People set the reasonable standard in this country. I’m going to go back to it. If you look at your phone and google it, people don’t like it.”

(For more on this: How Americans View Data Privacy, Pew Research Center, 2023)

Rep. Bacon explained, “Personal data means information collected from or generated by a specific person.” Under the bill’s provisions personal data shared through a ‘consumer transaction’ would not be considered public data for investigative purposes.

“What kind of data are you obtaining and using? If it is not data exempted from this bill.” Rep. Bacon asked members testifying on behalf of the state.

District Attorneys from the state Judicial Department and law enforcement representing the Colorado Department of Public Safety called for the bill not to pass. Many officers joined remotely and in uniform.

Sgt. Michael Titlon responded in the 2^nd panel, on behalf of the City of Aurora Police Department. “The bill’s language includes access fees, service fees, licensing fees and maintenance fees.” Sgt. Tilton explained. The platforms being used for investigations and intelligence often obtain data via those exchanges. He said the bill is ambiguous “…whether routine investigative access becomes prohibited.” and “the bill creates private right of action and mandates suppression of data obtained in violation.”

The exceptions made for criminal investigations are broad but easy to follow. These exceptions are in-line with the public’s expectation of due process. Due process is a duty officers and government officials must uphold, because of the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.

For Context: The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

For Context: Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado State Constitution

“The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.”

With the internet, AI technologies and abusive federalism the goal for this bill is written between the lines and is guided by these principles. The purview of HB26-1037 is to regulate the process law enforcement agencies and courts use to obtain personal data from non-governmental, private organizations and businesses.

Ian Escalante, the Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners testified as part of the 3^rd panel in support of the bill.

“All of the amendments protected by our Bill of Rights are intertwined and should be intertwined. Specifically, when it comes to privacy.” Escalante connected, the 2^nd and 4^th amendments and continued. “This bill will prohibit law enforcement from purchasing data regarding gun owners.”

This logic can be made of any collection data based on voting rolls, political leaning, religion, race, sex, gender, nationality, culture, location and other surveillance labels.

Data not affected by HB26

• Public data, which is made free to access through public accounts, public social media, or a publicly sourced database.
• Data provided to the government or is part of the intergovernmental record.
• Data that is authorized by the specific person to be public through a terms of service, privacy agreement or similar consumer contract.

Exemptions made for law enforcement in HB26-1037

• Unchanged process of obtaining a subpoena, warrant or order from a judicial court with a signed affidavit that explains who or what is covered by the search and possible seizures.
• Public safety emergencies that require immediate law enforcement response, like death or serious harm.
• Express consent is given by someone to law enforcement to search for specific personal data. Or consent is given by an individual to a third party to allow the law enforcement to access specific personal data.
• Personal data shared within national missing child databases, regarding missing and exploited child cases.

If the bill were to pass, personal consumer data found in violation would be inadmissible in court and may constitute injury of the violated person. Unless waived by the court because of one of the mentioned exemptions.

Opinion by Flora –The bill should not be an issue for officers operating within the limits of the Fourth Amendment.

###

Feature Image by Florence Alden. November 2025.