By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS

Black community leaders are staging a rally today to demand accountability for the death of a Denver jail inmate who died at the hands of five sheriff officers.

The non-violent march is starting today at 4:30 p.m. at 14th and Bannock St. and will end at the Justice Center. Community activist Alvertis Simmons is helping lead the march to show support for Marvin Booker, a black man who was choked, tased and pinned down by officers before dying at the Denver jail on July 9.

“What happened to Marvin Booker should not happen to anyone anytime anywhere no matter what race or color they are,” said Simmons. “That’s why we’re together as a community.”

When the march and rally ends at the Justice Center, Simmons plans on being escorted inside the center to issue a list of five demands. The demands are:

Ą Eliminate the type of chokehold that was used on Booker before his death. Officers have been told not to use the chokehold for the time being, though it’s possible local law enforcement agencies could bring the chokehold back in the future;

Ą The five deputies who handled Booker prior to his death must be suspended without pay. The deputies are currently on paid leave while the investigation into Booker’s death is being carried out;

Ą The coroner must specifically list the cause of death or Booker. Although the coroner ruled the death a homicide, which doesn’t necessarily imply wrongdoing, he listed several factors that could have contributed to the death, including the cocaine in his system and the officers sitting on him;

Ą Release the tape of the jail that shows the “killing” of Booker.

Simmons is also demanding that there is a grassroots effort to determine the next Denver manager of safety. Manager of Safety Ron Perea resigned last month after receiving intense pressure for not taking stricter discipline against officers accused of using excessive force. Mary Malatesta is the city’s interim manager of safety.

Rev. Patrick Demmer, who appeared along with Simmons at a press conference yesterday, said while he met Perea and thought he was a “fine man,” he wasn’t ready for the manager of safety job.

“As citizens, the manager of safety needs to cause the citizens to feel safe,” he said. “He works for us.”

Denver Sheriff Spokesman Frank Gale said the sheriff department would take a look at Simmons’ list of demands.

“Certainly we’re very interested in anything the community has to say about the operation of the facility and the agency,” he said. “We want to hear what anybody has to say about the operation of the facility and the agency.”

The investigation into the death of Booker is still ongoing. Gale could not comment on the details of the case due to the ongoing investigation.

According to multiple media outlets, Booker died of cardio respiratory arrest as Denver sheriff officers penned him down. Booker reportedly got into a scuffle with sheriff officers while he was trying to get his shoes. Sheriff officers reportedly shocked Booker Ń a 150-pound 56-year-old homeless man Ń choked him and held him down to the ground.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Gov. Bill Ritter on Friday vetoed a bill that included an amendment that would have allowed sex offenders to choose the court-ordered treatment program they wish to attend.
In his veto letter, Ritter cites the amendment by Sen. Joyce Foster, D-Denver, who lied to local media about a personal connection she had with the amendment before it came to light that her brother-in-law attended one of the treatment programs in question.
Foster’s brother-in-law, Julian Newman, is a registered sex offender who attended the very treatment program that Foster cited as the impetus for her amendment to House Bill 1364. The amendment would have allowed sex offenders to choose from three programs selected by their probation or parole officer. The bill itself would have extended the life of the Sex Offender Management Board for another five years.
Foster had taken aim at the Teaching Humane Existence Program (THE), criticizing the program for allegedly threatening clients with prison time for not meeting obligations of the program. Her brother-in-law had attended the program.
In his veto letter, Ritter cited Foster’s controversial amendment as his reasoning for vetoing the legislation.
The language of the amendment “does not, in my view, adequately provide for the systematic treatment of offenders,” wrote Ritter, a Democrat and former district attorney. “In fact, allowing offenders to choose from a list of three providers potentially degrades systematic management and treatment, based on specific evaluation tools and accepted practices.”
The governor also pointed out that the amendment was introduced on the floor without consideration in committee, meaning it received no public comment.
“On an issue that is this critical to public safety and the overall success of the sex offender treatment program, this failure of adequate vetting and thorough debate constitutes a fatal flaw with the bill,” wrote Ritter.
The Sex Offender Management Board will sunset on July 1, 2011, so lawmakers have time next year to reauthorize the board.
Greig Veeder, executive director of THE, had taken aim at the bill both because of the controversy surrounding Foster’s personal connection with her amendment, as well as because he felt the amendment would result in sex offenders choosing the most lenient of treatment programs.
He said Friday that the governor made the right choice to veto the legislation.
“Clearly sex offenders are a real challenge for all of us,” he told the Denver Daily News. “We have to both care for them and carefully manage and treat them because there really is no known cure, which means the challenge does not go away.”
HB 1364 would have also removed language that “no known cure” exists for repeat sex offenders who commit sex abuse. Critics disagree with this.
Proponents, however, say HB 1364 and the Foster amendment is necessary to improve offender-treatment matching. They say the bill would not have given offenders total freedom to choose any program they want, pointing out that decisions would have still been made by probation and parole officers.
Foster did not immediately return several calls by the Denver Daily News on Friday seeking comment.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Critics of a measure that would allow sex offenders to choose the court-ordered treatment program they wish to attend are outraged to learn that a family member of the sponsor of the amendment attended one of the treatment programs in question.
Sen. Joyce Foster, D-Denver, admitted to the Denver Post Monday that her brother-in-law, Julian Newman, is a registered sex offender who attended the very program that was the impetus for her amendment to House Bill 1364.
Fox 31 reported yesterday that Newman, while he was a doctor and therapist in Wisconsin, admitted to having sex with patients even though he knew it was against the law.
The Fox 31 report by Julie Hayden also said that Newman forced an inmate at Kenosha County Jail to have sex with him by threatening to refuse to renew medical prescriptions if she did not, a lawyer for the victim said. Hayden also wrote that Newman admitted to doing the same thing to other victims for more than a decade.
Newman eventually pled guilty to sexual exploitation by a therapist, lost his medical license and moved to Denver, Fox 31’s Hayden reported.
Foster’s amendment to HB 1364 would allow sex offenders to choose from three programs selected by their probation or parole officer. The bill itself would extend the life of the Sex Offender Management Board for another five years.

Taking aim at THE
Foster took aim at the Teaching Humane Existence Program (THE), criticizing the program for allegedly threatening clients with prison time for not meeting obligations of the program. She said she received “hundreds” of complaints about the program, according to Denver Post reporter Tim Hoover.
Foster originally answered “no” when asked by the Post whether her brother-in-law had gone through the THE program. But on Monday she admitted that Newman had gone through the program.
Critics of allowing sex offenders to choose their treatment program are asking Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat and former district attorney, to veto the legislation. They feel they have been bolstered by Foster’s admission.
“The only responsible thing that she should have done if she was hearing negative things about THE, or any treatment program É she should be calling up the treatment program, maybe even the probation officer, and saying, ‘I’m getting this disturbing information,’ and find out whether or not in fact the information from her sex-offender relative is accurate or some kind of splitting going on,” said Greig Veeder, executive director of THE.
Veeder explains “splitting” as behavior in which clients split family members from the “people and the messages and the lessons that are involved in the treatment and probation.”
“Splitting is almost as frequent as breathing,” he said.

No decision yet from Ritter
A spokesman for Ritter said the governor has not made a decision yet on what he is going to do with HB 1364.
“The governor has more than 200 bills to consider between now and the June 11 deadline to take action on legislation from the session that ended last week,” said Evan Dreyer, Ritter’s spokesman. “He understands the concerns around the amendment. He is listening to all sides and giving the bill a careful review.”
Veeder and other critics of the legislation point out that Foster’s amendment was introduced on the floor without consideration in committee, meaning it received no public comment. In addition to the controversy surrounding Foster’s involvement with the legislation, critics believe the measure would encourage sex offenders to choose the most lenient program.
Foster did not return multiple requests yesterday by the Denver Daily News seeking comment. Calls to her home office and e-mails were not returned. The Legislature is adjourned for the year.
Luis Toro, director of Colorado Ethics Watch, said Foster won’t face any legal repercussions due to her action, noting that a conflict of interest in Colorado is only illegal when business interests are at stake, such as if a lawmaker’s business might be financially impacted by legislation.
Toro said it could almost be construed that Foster was bringing in her “wisdom and knowledge” from life experience in introducing the amendment. He says Foster is likely already paying a price by having personal information brought into the public light.
“If it were up to me, our conflict of interest rules would definitely be stronger, but it’s hard for me to come up with a rule that would address this situation,” said Toro. “I think this is more of a common-sense situation where she has already paid the price because this kind of embarrassing information has come out.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The General Assembly yesterday fired off a bill that would allow the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to continue conducting firearm background checks, known as Insta-Check, to Gov. Bill Ritter’s desk for a signature.
The Senate passed House Bill 1391, which would extend the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s Insta-Check program indefinitely, on third reading. Gun rights enthusiasts have blasted Insta-Check as being unnecessary and costly, while gun control activists praise the state background check as a way to prevent gun-related tragedies in Colorado.
“I don’t think we can afford to wait until another violent act to protect citizens and victims of domestic violence from preventable crimes,” said a statement earlier this month from bill sponsor Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton. “This bill strikes a balance between protecting public safety and protecting the rights of gun buyers.”
The Insta-Check program scans more than six local and federal databases for background information on prospective gun buyers. The state annually spends about $1.7 million implementing the program.
The opposition to Insta-Check, like Jon Caldera of the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank, believe the state should save that $1.7 million by handing over background check duties to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
“I think that it’s something that given the tight economic times we should think about,” he said earlier this month.
However, gun control groups believe $1.7 million is a small price to pay for making Colorado a safer state.
Supporters of Insta-Check believe the program is more thorough than the FBI’s background check. For instance, the Insta-Check program forbids people with protective orders filed against them and certain defendants going through Colorado’s judicial system from purchasing a firearm, while the FBI’s background check does not. Statistical data indicates that approximately 30 percent of denials that CBI has made using Insta-Check would have been missed by the FBI, according to a press release issued by the Colorado Senate Democrat office.
But gun rights activists believe the program “adds one more level of bureaucracy and puts the government in front of citizens.” Dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners believes that citizens should not be presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
“Gun control proponents want to require background checks prior to purchase, it should be their job to find reasons to deny and prove that the citizen is ineligible, and not vice versa,” he said earlier this month.
Colorado handed over background check duties to the FBI in early 1999. A few months later, the FBI approved Simon Gonzales for a firearms purchase, even though a Colorado court had issued a domestic violence restraining order against him. Gonzales in turn used the gun to kill his three daughters in Castle Rock.
Then Republican Gov. Bill Owens and the Legislature proceeded to reinstate the Colorado Bureau of Investigation as the “Point of Contact” for the FBI background checks.
Ritter is expected to sign the bill into law.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Flexibility was added Friday to a bill that originally called for the closure of one state prison, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

An amendment in the Senate Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs calls for the elimination of 300 prison slots. Those could come through scaling back placements in private prisons or state prisons, or through closure of a prison.

The committee passed the bill on to the full Senate by a vote of 4-1. It already has passed in the House, but would return there for approval of changes made in the Senate.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

A measure prohibiting shackles on incarcerated pregnant women during labor received final approval in the Senate Wednesday, and is on its way to the House for consideration. The measure had full bipartisan support by lawmakers, but some GOP lawmakers wanted an amendment acknowledging the ways the bill would benefit the baby as well as the mother.

Senate Bill 193 dictates that the least restrictive shackles will be used during pregnancy while a woman is incarcerated, and further mandates that no restraints will be used during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery.   Bill sponsor Sen.Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, said that Colorado needs to adopt a policy similar to the federal government and other states where courts have found that the use of restraints on pregnant women amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

When the measure was debated on Monday, GOP senator Keith King of Colorado Springs said he was shocked to learn of instances when women have been shackled around their waist and handcuffed behind their back, jeopardizing the delivery of a healthy baby to prevent the mother from escaping.

“How many people are going to be fleeing in childbirth? I mean they’re giving birth to a baby. They’re in labor. They’re not going to be going anywhere,” said King.

King wanted the measure to include a legislative declaration—a statement preceding the proposed law that clarifies the reasoning behind enactment—that stated that the policy is necessary to protect both the mother and the baby during childbirth.   For King, the declaration was intended to reflect what he felt was the reality of the situation when a mother is in the process of giving birth.

“I see no reason for this [declaration] to be controversial,” said King. “These are mothers who want to give birth to their babies. They want to give birth to a healthy baby…..why can’t we say we care about them both?”

Sen. Bettie Boyd, D-Lakewood, opposed the declaration, alluding to the distinction between an unborn child and a born child and said that the declaration was treading on controversial territory.

“I do have some issue with the part related to fetal pain,” said Boyd.  “I like the fact that it talks about a born baby…but prior to the actual birth I object to some of the language.”

Although the legislative declaration was eventually scrapped, the measure passed handily today, with King becoming a co-sponsor of the bill.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Following a debate that veered from abortion to Harry Potter, Senate lawmakers Tuesday gave initial approval a bill that would prevent jailers and prison guards from shackling pregnant inmates during labor, The Denver Post reports.

Senate Bill 193 would require the least restrictive restraints necessary for women later in their pregnancies and would bar overseers from shackling an inmate in labor unless necessary for medical or safety reasons.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation would continue conducting firearm background checks, known as Insta-Check, under a bill that passed out of the House yesterday.
Gun rights enthusiasts have blasted Insta-Check as being unnecessary and costly, while gun control activists praise the state background check as a way to prevent gun-related tragedies in Colorado.
House Bill 1391 would extend the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s Insta-Check program indefinitely.
The measure now moves to the Senate after passing out of the House by a vote of 41-23.
“I don’t think we can afford to wait until another violent act to protect citizens and victims of domestic violence from preventable crimes,” said a statement from bill sponsor Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton. “This bill strikes a balance between protecting public safety and protecting the rights of gun buyers.”
The Insta-Check program scans more than six local and federal databases for background information on prospective gun buyers. The state annually spends about $1.7 million implementing the program.
Opposers of Insta-Check, like Jon Caldera of the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank, believe the state should save that $1.7 million by handing over background check duties to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
“I think that it’s something that given the tight economic times we should think about,” he said.
However, gun control groups believe $1.7 million is a small price to pay for making Colorado a safer state.
Supporters of Insta-Check believe the program is more thorough than the FBI’s background check. For instance, the Insta-Check program forbids people with protective orders filed against them and certain defendants going through Colorado’s judicial system from purchasing a firearm, while the FBI’s background check does not. Statistical data indicates that approximately 30 percent of denials that CBI has made using Insta-Check would have been missed by the FBI, according to a press release issued by the Colorado Senate Democrat office.
But gun rights activists believe the program “adds one more level of bureaucracy and puts the government in front of citizens.” Dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners believes that citizens should not be presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
“Gun control proponents want to require background checks prior to purchase, it should be their job to find reasons to deny and prove that the citizen is ineligible, and not vice versa,” he said.
Colorado handed over background check duties to the FBI in early 1999. A few months later, the FBI approved Simon Gonzales for a firearms purchase, even though a Colorado court had issued a domestic violence restraining order against him. Gonzales in turn used the gun to kill his three daughters in Castle Rock.
Then Republican Gov. Bill Owens and the Legislature proceeded to reinstate the Colorado Bureau of Investigation as the “Point of Contact” for the FBI background checks.
“I applaud the Legislature for adopting this bill which will help in preventing individuals who are prohibited by law from obtaining firearms,” said Owens at the time.
But Brown disagrees that Insta-Check makes Colorado safer. He argued that people who want to buy a gun could still easily obtain one on the black market, and that all the state is doing is reducing freedoms for its citizens.
Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, is sponsoring the bill in the Senate. Both gun control advocates and gun rights proponents expect the measure to pass through the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

The House passed a bill Monday that would close one state prison. By a vote of 57-6, HB1421 advanced, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

Southern Colorado lawmakers were divided. Reps. Buffie McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, voted in favor of the bill. Reps. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, and Ed Vigil, D-Fort Garland, opposed it.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Gene Davis, DENVER DAILY NEWS
A Senate committee is scheduled today to consider a bill that would dramatically reform drug-sentencing laws in Colorado.
House Bill 1352 would place an emphasis on providing drug users with community-based counseling rather than sending them to prison for long sentences. The bill argues that well-prepared therapy and treatment plans can serve as a better alternative to jail in many cases and should be used accordingly.
Dan Murphy, CEO of Arapahoe House, which provides substance abuse treatment programs, pointed out that approximately 75 percent of people in Colorado’s prison system are serving time for using drugs. He fully supports the bill and believes it could be a more effective way to deal with some drug users.
“I don’t see it as saving the state money so much as spending the money in a smarter way,” he said on Friday.
Despite the bill passing out of the House on broad bipartisan support, not everyone is in favor of the legislation. Beverly Kinard, founder of Guarding Our Children Against Marijuana, objected strongly to the $100 fine for petty possession of marijuana, arguing that the fine should be as high as $1,000 to deter children from using pot. She believes that a $1,000 fine would encourage parents to intervene.
“This bill gets the message out to young people that marijuana is OK,” Kinard told lawmakers in the House committee hearing last month.
But lawmakers are looking at both fiscal and social savings to the bill, noting that the measure could potentially lower simple possession sentences for those who are sent to prison from as many as six years in prison to 18 months.
The bill would also stiffen mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers who sell drugs to children.
The legislation stems from recommendations made by the Colorado Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice. Unlike sentencing reform bills of years past, HB 1352 has a broad spectrum of support, including the attorney general, prosecutors, defense attorneys, Republicans and Democrats.
“It does take a leap of faith, and it is in so many ways a paradigm shift that we’re asking people to understand in that a way to deal with these possession-type offenses is with an eye toward more good, meaningful evaluations and ongoing meaningful treatment so that you keep them out of the jails and out of the prisons and productive members of society and hopefully break the addiction cycle,” said Tom Raynes, deputy attorney general for the Attorney General’s Office.
Paul Thompson, a former heroin addict who spent time in prison for drug-related crimes but later became a counselor for Peer 1, said it is amazing for him to see lawmakers and prosecutors shift their priorities from sentencing to counseling.
“I believe this bill is historic,” said Thompson last month. “For someone like myself, it’s like watching man land on the moon to watch district attorneys and public defenders working together to help an addict. It’s an incredible thing.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >