Immigrant Rights
Colorado FAQ

Colorado has enacted several laws to limit the involvement of state and local law enforcement in federal civil immigration enforcement. House Bill 19-1124, passed in 2019, explicitly states that federal civil immigration detainers are not warrants under Colorado law and prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining individuals solely based on such detainers. It emphasizes that continued detention under a federal civil immigration detainer constitutes a warrantless arrest, which is unconstitutional. This bill also restricts probation officers from providing personal information about individuals to federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 25-276, passed in 2025, further expands these protections. It prohibits jail custodians from delaying a defendant's release for immigration enforcement operations and extends the prohibition against civil immigration detainer arrests to all peace officers designated by the state. The bill also broadens the restrictions on providing personal information to include pretrial officers and prevents detention facility staff from allowing federal immigration authorities access to non-public areas unless compelled by a federal warrant for transfer. Additionally, it removes conditions for certain governmental entities contracting to detain individuals for federal civil immigration purposes, effectively making it harder to contract for such services. The law also strengthens data privacy protections for personal identifying information held by state agencies and political subdivisions, preventing its disclosure for federal immigration enforcement unless legally required by a judge-issued warrant or subpoena.

Colorado's laws aim to protect due process and civil liberties by affirming that all persons in the state are entitled to the protections of both the U.S. and Colorado constitutions, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The legislative declarations for these bills cite constitutional rights to due process, protection against unlawful detainment and seizures, and the right to access justice.

Specifically:

• Prohibition on Civil Immigration Detainers: By forbidding state and local law enforcement from arresting or detaining individuals based solely on civil immigration detainers (which are not judicial warrants), the laws uphold protection against unconstitutional warrantless arrests.

• Limitations on Information Sharing: Restricting state and local agencies, including probation and pretrial offices, from sharing personal identifying information with federal immigration authorities helps safeguard privacy and prevents profiling.

• Protection in Sensitive Locations: The state explicitly states that requiring public safety agencies to enforce federal civil immigration laws can undermine public trust. Senate Bill 25-276 mandates policies for public child care centers, schools, higher education institutions, health-care facilities, and libraries to limit collection and disclosure of immigration status information, and to restrict federal immigration authorities' access to non-public areas without a judicial warrant. This is reinforced by Chief Judge Directive 18-04 in the 11th Judicial District, which prohibits non-criminal or administrative arrests within courthouses.

• Right to Legal Counsel for Immigration Consequences: Senate Bill 25-276 expands the ability for criminal defendants to challenge guilty pleas if they were not adequately advised of adverse immigration consequences, reinforcing the right to informed legal counsel.

• Creating a Trusting Environment: The legislative declarations emphasize that requiring public safety agencies to enforce federal civil immigration laws undermines public trust, especially for vulnerable populations such as crime victims, witnesses, and limited English speakers who need to feel safe seeking justice in Colorado courts.

A "civil immigration detainer" is a written request issued by federal immigration enforcement authorities (like ICE) to law enforcement officers, asking them to maintain custody of an individual beyond the time they would normally be eligible for release. This includes requests for extended detention, warrants for arrest of an alien, orders to detain or release, or warrants of removal/deportation.

Colorado law, specifically House Bill 19-1124, distinguishes these detainers from criminal warrants. The General Assembly declared that civil immigration detainers are not warrants under Colorado law because they are not reviewed, approved, or signed by a judge as required for warrants to be valid. The state considers continued detention based on a civil immigration detainer, after an individual is otherwise eligible for release, to be a warrantless arrest, which is deemed unconstitutional under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Colorado case law (e.g., People v. Burns, 615 P.2d 686, 688 (Colo. 1980)).

In August and September 2025, Chaffee County experienced several incidents involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, leading to multiple detentions. The most prominent case involved Carolina Suarez Estrada and her partner, Darwin Arriche-Sierra, who were detained at the Chaffee County court complex, followed by the detention of Suarez's 7-year-old son, Luciano.

Local Law Enforcement Reaction:

• Chaffee County Sheriff Andy Rohrich stated that ICE does not notify his office in advance of operations and that his deputies would not assist ICE in immigration enforcement, adhering to Colorado state law. However, in the Suarez-Estrada case, body camera footage shows deputies encouraging Suarez and Arriche-Sierra to leave the probation office where they were hiding, and suggesting to ICE agents how to position themselves outside to "grab" or "snatch" the individuals upon exit. Rohrich later clarified that his officers were responding to a perceived "barricade situation" and committed criminal acts of eluding and obstructing by fleeing ICE. He emphasized that he could not obstruct federal authorities without facing federal obstruction charges and potential loss of certification. He maintained that his office did not "help ICE" but rather aimed for a peaceful resolution to the barricade situation. The Sheriff's office states they routinely deny ICE requests for civil detainers.

• Salida Police Chief Russ Johnson confirmed that local agencies no longer receive advance communication from ICE due to Colorado state law changes. He expressed concern that this lack of communication "hinders our ability to be preplanned for something that could go off that we would not know about it until it happens," potentially impacting public safety.

• Buena Vista Police Chief Dean Morgan echoed that his department abides by Colorado laws prohibiting them from asking about immigration status, contacting ICE, or reporting suspected noncitizens. He warned that obstructing ICE agents, despite local laws, could still lead to federal arrest.

Community Reaction:

• The community expressed "anger, anxiety," and "outrage" over the ICE actions, particularly regarding the separation of Suarez and Luciano.

• Residents, including a youth social worker and public library employee, spoke at a County Commissioner meeting, criticizing the Sheriff's office for "aiding and abetting ICE" and demanding stronger county-wide policies to protect immigrants from enforcement in county buildings, including requiring judicial warrants for arrests and posting clear signage about county policies.

• Many emphasized the "lifelong trauma" Luciano would experience and called for rebuilding trust between law enforcement and the immigrant community.

• U.S. Representative Brittany Pettersen formally demanded answers and accountability from DHS and ICE, highlighting concerns about masked agents, unmarked vehicles, lack of transparency, and the devastating impact on families and community trust. She cited reports of ICE activity increasing the targeting of Hispanic people for crime and making victims less likely to contact police.

• Some community members, including a family friend, drove Luciano to the ICE facility in Alamosa, then to a family detention facility in Texas, demonstrating support and solidarity.

Colorado law places specific limitations on peace officers when interacting with federal immigration authorities:

• No Arrest or Detainment on Civil Immigration Detainers: Peace officers are explicitly prohibited from arresting or detaining an individual based solely on a "civil immigration detainer request" (HB 19-1124, SB 25-276). This means they cannot hold someone beyond their eligible release time solely because of an ICE detainer.

• No Commanding Private Citizens: A law enforcement officer shall not command or request a private citizen to assist in the arrest or detainment of an individual based on a civil immigration detainer (SB 25-276).

• Limitations on Personal Information Sharing: Probation officers, probation department employees, pretrial officers, and pretrial services office employees are prohibited from providing "personal information" (such as contact, family, or sensitive schedule details) about an individual to federal immigration authorities (HB 19-1124, SB 25-276). State agencies and political subdivisions are also restricted from disclosing personal identifying information for federal immigration enforcement purposes unless required by federal or state law, or a court-issued subpoena, warrant, or order (SB 25-276).

• Restricted Access to Detention Facilities: Peace officers or detention facility employees/agents are prohibited from allowing federal immigration authorities access to non-public areas of a detention facility unless mandated by a federal warrant or writ for prisoner transfer (SB 25-276).

• Cooperation with Warrants and Criminal Investigations: These limitations do not prevent law enforcement from cooperating or assisting federal immigration enforcement authorities in the execution of a warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate, honoring any writ from a state or federal judge concerning prisoner transfer, or investigating/enforcing any criminal law, including participating in coordinated actions for criminal laws (HB 19-1124, SB 25-276).

• Courthouse Protections: A person is not subject to civil arrest while present at a courthouse or on its environs, or while going to, attending, or coming from a court proceeding (C.R.S. Section 13-1-403). This protection also extends to individuals receiving treatment in a "related facility." Chief judges can issue orders to ensure compliance.

Colorado has implemented significant accountability measures for peace officers and law enforcement agencies. Senate Bill 20-217, known as the "Law Enforcement Integrity" bill, introduced several key provisions:

• Body-Worn Cameras: By July 1, 2023, all local law enforcement agencies and the Colorado State Patrol must provide body-worn cameras for officers interacting with the public. Failure to activate or tampering with footage creates a permissive inference of misconduct in investigations (excluding criminal proceedings against the officer) and a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility for unrecorded statements in prosecutions. Intentional failure or tampering can lead to discipline up to termination by the employer and suspension or permanent revocation of certification by the P.O.S.T. Board, especially in cases intending to conceal unlawful actions or obstruct justice, or resulting in civilian death.

• Use of Force and Duty to Intervene: Officers are required to use nonviolent means when possible, apply minimal force, and render medical aid. Chokeholds are prohibited. Officers have a duty to intervene to prevent or stop another officer from using excessive force and must report such interventions. Failure to intervene is a Class 1 misdemeanor and can lead to discipline up to termination and permanent decertification by the P.O.S.T. Board in cases of serious bodily injury or death.

• Data Collection and Public Reporting: Law enforcement agencies must report data on all uses of force resulting in death or serious bodily injury, officer resignations under investigation, demographic information of contacts, and instances of unannounced entry. This data is aggregated by the Division of Criminal Justice and made publicly available in a searchable database. Agencies failing to meet reporting requirements face funding suspension.

• Revocation of Certification: The P.O.S.T. Board must permanently revoke certification for officers convicted of, or pleading guilty/nolo contendere to, crimes involving unlawful use of force, failure to intervene in unlawful force, or found civilly liable for such actions. A database of decertified officers is maintained.

• Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights: A new civil action allows individuals to sue peace officers employed by local governments for deprivation of constitutional rights. Qualified immunity is not a defense, and successful plaintiffs are awarded reasonable attorney fees. Employers must indemnify officers for judgments unless the officer acted without a good faith and reasonable belief that their action was lawful, in which case the officer is personally liable for a portion (up to $25,000 or 5%).

• Attorney General Oversight: The Attorney General can bring civil actions to enforce patterns or practices of conduct by peace officers or governmental employees that deprive persons of rights, with a requirement to notify the governmental authority and allow a 60-day period to rectify the issue before filing suit.

Limited Disclosure and Collection: State agencies and political subdivisions (including counties, municipalities, boards, and commissions) and their employees are generally prohibited from disclosing or making accessible personal identifying information that is not publicly available for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement (SB 25-276). They also cannot inquire into or request information about a person's immigration status to determine compliance with federal immigration laws, unless required by state or federal law or necessary for state/local duties (SB 25-276).

Scope of "Personal Information": "Personal information" is broadly defined to include confidential identifying information such as home/work contact details, family/emergency contacts, and meeting schedules for probation or court-ordered classes (HB 19-1124).

"Sensitive Data" Definition Expansion: Senate Bill 25-276 expands the definition of "sensitive data" to include "precise geolocation data" – information that accurately identifies a device's present or past location within 1,850 feet. Controllers (entities determining how personal data is processed) are prohibited from processing or selling a consumer's sensitive data without consent.

Mandatory Policies for Sensitive Locations: Public child care centers, schools, higher education institutions, public health-care facilities, and publicly supported libraries must adopt policies by September 1, 2025, that limit the collection of place of birth, immigration/citizenship status, and certain document information (passports, resident cards) unless legally required or necessary for duties/eligibility for government programs. These policies must also outline procedures for providing information only under specific legal conditions (e.g., federal judge-issued subpoena or warrant) and for notifying the individual concerned (SB 25-276).

Civil Penalties for Violations: Intentional violations of these privacy provisions by state agency or political subdivision employees can result in an injunction and a civil penalty of up to fifty thousand dollars per violation. These civil penalties, if immigration-related, are credited to the Immigration Legal Defense Fund (SB 25-276).

Confidentiality for In-State Tuition/ID Documents: Information provided for in-state tuition classification or identification documents for individuals without lawful immigration status is confidential unless explicitly required by law, and affidavits are treated as educational records under FERPA (SB 25-276).

These state-federal conflicts create a complex and often challenging environment for communities and law enforcement in Colorado:

Impact on Communities:

• Fear and Insecurity: The presence of ICE agents, particularly those operating in unmarked vehicles and masks, generates "widespread terror" and "anxiety" within immigrant communities. This fear can deter individuals from seeking essential services like education, healthcare, or reporting crimes, even if they have legal status, out of concern for immigration enforcement (Pettersen letter, Ark Valley Voice articles).

• Erosion of Trust: When local law enforcement is perceived to be cooperating with ICE, or when immigrants with work permits or asylum claims are targeted, it "undermines public trust" in all governmental entities, including schools, courts, and police departments (HB 19-1124, Pettersen letter).

• Family Trauma: Mass deportations and detentions, especially involving parents, lead to "profound effects on a child’s health," including mental health issues, behavioral problems, and increased poverty (Colorado Sun article, Pettersen letter). The case of Carolina Suarez Estrada and her son Luciano highlights the immediate and long-lasting trauma experienced by families.

• Economic Impact: Concerns exist that ICE operations can negatively impact local businesses, as seen in previous raids (Pettersen letter, Colorado Sun).

• Increased Community Activism: These events galvanize community members and advocates to demand greater protections and accountability from local and state officials.

Impact on Law Enforcement:

• "Rock and a Hard Place" Situations: Local law enforcement agencies, like the Chaffee County Sheriff's Office, find themselves "stuck in the middle" of conflicting state and federal laws. They are sworn to uphold state laws that limit their cooperation with ICE, but obstructing federal agents can lead to federal charges, imprisonment, and loss of certification (Sheriff Rohrich comments).

• Operational Challenges: The lack of communication from ICE, due to state laws, hinders local agencies' ability to "be preplanned" for potential incidents, which Chief Johnson argues "is not best for public safety" and can create dangerous, uncoordinated situations.

• Public Scrutiny and Criticism: Local law enforcement faces intense public scrutiny and criticism from both sides—those who believe they aided ICE too much, and those who believe they should fully cooperate with federal authorities. This can damage relationships with the communities they serve.

• Ethical and Moral Dilemmas: Officers may grapple with the human cost of immigration enforcement actions, as evidenced by deputies' concern for Luciano in the Suarez-Estrada case, while still being bound by legal obligations.