Hello. My name is XXXXX XXXXX I'd like to help you. I'm a little confused by your question. Are you sure you are reading the current version of C.R.S 18-9-111? The current version indicates that subsection (4) was repealed effective August 11, 2010. Further, the cases you cite are no longer contained in the Comments section of the statute. Please review this link to the statute: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
Can you provide me a link to the statute you are reading, so I can review it?
Please stand by while I review the link you provided.
The version of the statute you are reading is dated 2004. The statute has been amended several times since then. The current version can be found at the link I provided you. I'll attempt to post the statute here, but I'm not sure if the format will be maintained.
Actually I had been involved in a Colorado felony stalking arrest in 2010. The arrest was made in July, 2010. The basis for the arrest on the police report was CRS 18-9-111(6)(b)(iii). In October 2010 the DA presented to the judge with this reference as well.
Oh, i'm sorry it was (4)(b)(iii) on the police report.
Currently I am involved in a civil rights lawsuit in regards XXXXX XXXXX arrest...so the violations would have to be in regards XXXXX XXXXX statutes, correct, not the new ones?
It would involve the version of the statute at the time of the events.
If the laws were changed in August 2010 would that have altered the original arrest warrant? Should not changes have been made by the DA to the affidavit?
No. You would have been charged based on the version of the at the time of the offense.
Let me review the version you sent me. Please stand by.
Okay. That makes sense.
Actually here is a 2007 version. Wow. Lots of revisions.
Now I'm confused...
Here is a version which says the new stalking law came into effect in April, 2010:
All I know is that on the police report affidavit issued July 9, 2010 the charge was stalking 18-9-111(4)(b)(iii)
Legislators have to justify their existence, so statutes are revised almost continually. We need to identify the version of the statute in effect when the events occurred.
Let me look at the last cite you provided. Please stand by.
The events occurred over the spring of 2010 but the actual arrest was that July.
Ok. So it appears that 18-9-111(4)(b)(iii) was revised, or more accurately, moved to 18-3-602(c) in April 2010.
Maybe the detective who made the arrest wasn't aware of the law change. Does that even make sense?
The police officer who made the arrest/complaint against you was citing the substance of the statute he felt you violated, by was not aware the the citation had changed.
Wow. That's strange.
Is that legal?
A DA and a judge signed off also on that affidavit. Maybe they weren't aware too...?
It's not unusual. Sometimes legislative revisions are made, and the police do not learn of the changes immediately.
The District Attorney in my case held onto this statute for arrest even until an evidentiary hearing held in late October of that year. Shouldn't that have been something for her to notice, and change?
Prosecutors are like anyone else; they look for away to make their jobs easier. So, they use forms and check the box. The form the prosecutor used probably had the old citation.
Is that just carelessness, or could possibly it be prosecutorial misconduct. That just seems very irresponsible.
I would think that your defense attorney would have noted the revision in the statute, and brought it to the court's attention.
How could all those people not notice. Also there were 5 DA investigators who signed off on that affidavit. Wow.
It would not be misconduct. The prosecutor was making a charge under a current version of the statute, but mistakenly providing the wrong citation.
That's a big mistake though. Maybe Colorado should provide a better means to alert govt. personal of law changes.
Were you ultimately convicted?
There were numerous civil rights violations in that affidavit, failings of common sense all over the place, and other instances of blatant prosecutorial misconduct and police abuse. My lawyer was alerted to the changes and his response was that it happens sometimes, and that the alleged victim also would be allowed to lie. The DA offered an extremely light plea offer which finally I accepted as a deferred sentence. Later I would write a letter to the head DA with mention of all the errors and oversights and he filed a motion for withdrawal of plea and dismissal of case. At present my lawyer and I are filing a lawsuit for 1983 violations by the police and 1985 conspiracy against the DA's office. He says I have a "good case".
conspiracy BY the DA's office...sorry
My case was replete with govt people looking the other way at blatant errors and fraud. And now this...
There were actual washouts of words in the affidavit...of the evidence, that is
So, what exactly is it that you are trying to learn here, since you have an attorney handling the case?
Just to get some things clarified. I had sent in all the info I had to my lawyer to look over. We're actually doing a limited scope representation as he had in the meantime (after I signed the contract) lost his federal employ who does the 1983 cases. What this means is that now I file the lawsuit pro se though with "help" all along from my lawyer, then when the authorities file their "motion for summary judgment" he comes in and represents me. We're all the while under contract.
Anyway I believe he helped me out a lot here. I'll have to look all this over then maybe come back later with some follow-up question. Thank you very much for your time. Unless there is something else you would like to add...personally, I just think that, all with everything else, the whole department not knowing about the new law is at least somewhat suspicious...
Judges and DA's should know about revisions to the statute of the cases they are working on six months after the fact; that just seems reasonable
The failure of the police department to be aware of the current version of the statute at the time of the arrest could form the basis for a civil rights claim, if you can establish a pattern of past similar conduct or a policy to ignore such changes in the law when it is convenient to the department.
Right. But finding those other cases is the whole trick.
It would be difficult to make such a claim against the prosecutor and the judge personally, because they have immunity for their actions. You would need to sue the entities that employ them, i.e. the city or county.
Exactly, that's why those cases are so difficult to win.
The police only have qualified immunity, so you can go after them personally, if you can show a pattern of conduct.
Right. I know about immunity. We will attempt to sue the entire DA's office on 1985 "conspiracy" grounds. We actually have quite a bit of evidence, and this only adds to things. But again the challenge will be to prove a "pattern"...
Yes, the PD will be easier
Anyway thank you very much for all your help.
I hope this answers you questions. If I can help further, please request me.
Please press the GREEN "ACCEPT" button so proper credit is provided for your Answer. Thank you and have a good day. This answer is made available by the lawyer for educational purposes only. It is also to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. This website is not intended to give you specific legal advice. By using or participating in this site you understand that there is no attorney client privilege between you and the attorney responding. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. We attempt to provide quality information, but the law changes frequently and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The information and materials provided are general in nature, and may not apply to a specific factual or legal circumstance.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).