In re: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Regina M. SPRINKLE ( 2021 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-07">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:peoplevsprinkle,2021co60,489p3d1242" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">489 P.3d 1242</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party">In re: The <span class="ldml-name">PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Regina M. SPRINKLE</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court Case No. 21SA3 </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 28, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="168" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="168" data-sentence-id="168" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Office of the County</span>, Attorney of <span class="ldml-entity">El Paso County</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Chris Strider</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Assistant County Attorney</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Mary Ritchie</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Assistant County Attorney</span>, Colorado Springs, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="352" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="352" data-sentence-id="352" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Megan A. Ring</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Stephanie Lalonde</span></span>, Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span>, Colorado Springs, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="478" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="478" data-sentence-id="478" class="ldml-sentence">En banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="485" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (HOOD)"><span data-paragraph-id="485" data-sentence-id="485" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span><span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_533" data-val="1244" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="533" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="533" data-sentence-id="534" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_534"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> In this original proceeding, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s order requiring the <span class="ldml-entity">El Paso County Sheriff's Office</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"EPCSO"</span>)</span> to give <span class="ldml-entity">Regina M. Sprinkle</span> access to internal investigation files about two of its deputies.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="533" data-sentence-id="752" class="ldml-sentence">EPCSO asks <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to vacate the order and remand with instructions to quash the subpoena duces tecum <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"SDT"</span>)</span> that prompted this action.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="883" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="883" data-sentence-id="883" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_883"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> properly exercised its subject matter jurisdiction in resolving this controversy through a hearing to show cause, as provided under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"CCJRA"</span>)</span></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, and correctly interpreted the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_883"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> as requiring release of the records.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="883" data-sentence-id="1208" class="ldml-sentence">In reaching this conclusion, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> examine HB 19-1119, the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1208"><span class="ldml-cite">Peace Officer Internal Investigations Open Records Act</span></a></span>, now codified essentially as <span class="ldml-entity">an amendment</span> to the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1208"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1208"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">Amendment</span>"</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="883" data-sentence-id="1420" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> hold that a records custodian for a criminal justice agency may not deny a request to inspect internal investigation files, as described in <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>, simply because the requestor has not referenced a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specific, identifiable incident"</span> of alleged misconduct in the request.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="883" data-sentence-id="1700" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discharge the rule.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-confidences="very_high" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_1735" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="1" data-specifier="I" id="heading_1735" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History"><span data-paragraph-id="1735" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="1735" data-sentence-id="1735" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1735" data-sentence-id="1738" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="1766" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1766" data-sentence-id="1766" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1766"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> In early <span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>, the <span class="ldml-entity">El Paso County District Attorney</span> charged Sprinkle with several criminal offenses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1766" data-sentence-id="1870" class="ldml-sentence">The two EPCSO deputies whose files are at issue have been endorsed as witnesses, and Sprinkle claims their testimony is central to <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> against her.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2022" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2022" data-sentence-id="2022" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2022"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> In preparation for trial, a defense investigator submitted a request to EPCSO <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to inspect or obtain copies of Internal Affairs records that relate"</span> to the two deputies; specifically, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any complaints filed, investigation reports completed and disciplinary actions taken or disposition records related to these <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[deputies]</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2022" data-sentence-id="2347" class="ldml-sentence">EPCSO denied the request.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2022" data-sentence-id="2373" class="ldml-sentence">After quoting the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2373"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span>, the denial letter explained that <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"requests must include a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct involving the in-uniform and/or on-duty conduct of a peace officer and a member of the public.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Your request is vague and does not meet ... the language of the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_2605"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span>]</span>, therefore your request is denied."</span></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2712" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2712" data-sentence-id="2712" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2712"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> Sprinkle then subpoenaed the deputies' internal affairs records by filing an SDT.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2712" data-sentence-id="2797" class="ldml-sentence">EPCSO moved to quash the SDT, and <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> held a hearing on the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2888" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2888" data-sentence-id="2888" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2888"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> At the hearing, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> observed that the request for these records seemed to fall under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2888"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> and so the denial of that request entitled Sprinkle to a show cause hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2888" data-sentence-id="3069" class="ldml-sentence">It then asked the EPCSO attorney, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>hat is your position on that?"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2888" data-sentence-id="3138" class="ldml-sentence">The attorney responded, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> would ask, Judge, a show cause hearing be set."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2888" data-sentence-id="3214" class="ldml-sentence">Sprinkle agreed to the hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2888" data-sentence-id="3246" class="ldml-sentence">The EPCSO attorney asked for two weeks to prepare, and <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> gave him the time <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> requested.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3342" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3342" data-sentence-id="3342" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3342"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> Four days before the show cause hearing, however, EPCSO filed a motion claiming <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> lacked subject matter jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3342" data-sentence-id="3471" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> held the show cause hearing as scheduled but began with <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' arguments on the subject-matter-jurisdiction objection.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3342" data-sentence-id="3606" class="ldml-sentence">Based on the statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3606"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span> and <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">stipulation to the show cause hearing</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> concluded that it had jurisdiction to resolve the merits.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3342" data-sentence-id="3817" class="ldml-sentence">It then turned to interpretation of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3817"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> and ordered EPCSO to release the records to Sprinkle, subject only to the statutory exclusion of pending and ongoing investigations <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_3995" data-val="1245" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> and the required redactions of personal information.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4048" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4048" data-sentence-id="4048" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4048"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> EPCSO petitioned <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> for a rule to show cause, which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-value="II. Analysis" data-types="analysis" data-confidences="very_high" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_4138" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="2" data-specifier="II" id="heading_4138" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis"><span data-paragraph-id="4138" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="4138" data-sentence-id="4138" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4138" data-sentence-id="4142" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="4150" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4150" data-sentence-id="4150" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4150"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by discussing our jurisdiction to hear this matter and the applicable standard of review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4150" data-sentence-id="4252" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then analyze <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s subject matter jurisdiction to resolve <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' dispute under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4252"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4150" data-sentence-id="4366" class="ldml-sentence">After concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had subject matter jurisdiction, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review its order requiring EPCSO to release the requested records.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4150" data-sentence-id="4510" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> perceive no error.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-id="heading_4531" data-value="A. Original Jurisdiction and Standard of Review" data-ordinal_start="1" data-ordinal_end="1" data-specifier="A" id="heading_4531" data-content-heading-label="A. Original Jurisdiction and Standard of Review"><span data-paragraph-id="4531" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="4531" data-sentence-id="4531" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4531" data-sentence-id="4534" class="ldml-sentence">Original Jurisdiction and Standard of Review</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="4578" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4578" data-sentence-id="4579" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4579"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> Relief under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4579"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 21</span></a></span> is extraordinary and wholly within the discretion of <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4578" data-sentence-id="4669" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4579"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4578" data-sentence-id="4686" class="ldml-sentence">Such relief is appropriate <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"when an appellate remedy would be inadequate, when <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> may otherwise suffer irreparable harm, or when a petition raises <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘issues of significant public importance that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not yet considered.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4578" data-sentence-id="4915" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4686" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovrowellcaseno19sa180453p3d1156december9,2019"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Rowell</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 CO 104</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4686"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 9</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovrowellcaseno19sa180453p3d1156december9,2019"><span class="ldml-cite">453 P.3d 1156, 1159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrewespveversonnos01sa100,01sa9833p3d191october15,2001"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wesp v. Everson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">33 P.3d 191, 194</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5029" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5029" data-sentence-id="5030" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5030"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> choose to exercise our original jurisdiction here for two reasons.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5029" data-sentence-id="5104" class="ldml-sentence">First, EPCSO seeks relief from <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s order to release internal investigation records to Sprinkle, and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the damage that could result from disclosure would occur regardless of the ultimate outcome of an appeal from a final judgment"</span> in the underlying criminal case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5029" data-sentence-id="5383" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5104" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovkilgorecaseno19sa191455p3d746january13,2020"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Kilgore</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 6</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5104"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 11</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovkilgorecaseno19sa191455p3d746january13,2020"><span class="ldml-cite">455 P.3d 746, 749</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889772061" data-vids="889772061" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ortega v. Colo. Permanente Med. Grp., P.C.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">265 P.3d 444, 447</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5029" data-sentence-id="5524" class="ldml-sentence">Second, the petition raises an important issue of statewide concern that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not yet considered; namely, how to interpret a recent legislative change broadly affecting the public's access to certain criminal justice records.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5029" data-sentence-id="5753" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_5770,sentence_5524"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-301</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The General Assembly hereby finds and declares that the ... dissemination ... of criminal justice records <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[is a]</span> matter<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> of statewide concern ...."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="5029" data-sentence-id="5921" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5922" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5922" data-sentence-id="5923" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5923"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> The issues presented raise questions of jurisdiction and statutory interpretation, which are questions of law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5922" data-sentence-id="6038" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, our review is de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5922" data-sentence-id="6072" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6038" data-refglobal="case:inthematterofjct,176p3d726,733colo2007enbanc"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re J.C.T.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">176 P.3d 726, 729</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6038"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Thompson v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 72</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6038"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">471 P.3d 1045, 1051</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-id="heading_6177" data-value="B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction" data-ordinal_start="2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-specifier="B" id="heading_6177" data-content-heading-label="B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction"><span data-paragraph-id="6177" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="6177" data-sentence-id="6177" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6177" data-sentence-id="6180" class="ldml-sentence">Subject Matter Jurisdiction</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="6207" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6207" data-sentence-id="6208" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6208"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> EPCSO contends that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred by exercising its subject matter jurisdiction in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> because Sprinkle failed to file the required application for a hearing to show cause under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6208"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6207" data-sentence-id="6432" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> disagree.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6444" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6444" data-sentence-id="6445" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6445"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"A <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>'s <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘jurisdiction’</span> concerns its <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘power to entertain and to render a judgment on a particular claim’</span> "</span>; put simply, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"it is <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s power to decide."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6444" data-sentence-id="6608" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888001835" data-vids="888001835" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6445"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. C.O.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 CO 105</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6445"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888001835" data-vids="888001835" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">406 P.3d 853, 858</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893405011" data-vids="893405011" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re Estate of Ongaro</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">998 P.2d 1097, 1103</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6444" data-sentence-id="6730" class="ldml-sentence">Jurisdiction consists of two parts: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"jurisdiction over the subject matter of the issue to be decided <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(subject matter jurisdiction)</span>, and jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(personal jurisdiction)</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6444" data-sentence-id="6922" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888001835" data-vids="888001835" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6922"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6922"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888001835" data-vids="888001835" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6922"><span class="ldml-cite">406 P.3d at 858</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6444" data-sentence-id="6952" class="ldml-sentence">Only subject matter jurisdiction is at issue here.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7002" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7002" data-sentence-id="7003" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7003"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">" <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[S]</span>ubject matter jurisdiction’</span> concerns <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s authority</span> to deal with the <i class="ldml-italics">class</i> of <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> in which it renders judgment, not its authority to enter a particular judgment within that class."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7002" data-sentence-id="7203" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7203"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7203"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 24</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888001835" data-vids="888001835" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7203"><span class="ldml-cite">406 P.3d at 858</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7203"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wood v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">255 P.3d 1136, 1140</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> has subject matter jurisdiction where it has been empowered to entertain the type of case before it by the sovereign from which <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> derives its authority."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="7002" data-sentence-id="7460" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7461" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7461" data-sentence-id="7461" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7461"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> District courts</span> are <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> of general jurisdiction, meaning <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"have original jurisdiction in all civil, probate, and criminal <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7461" data-sentence-id="7602" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7461"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. VI, § 9 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7461" data-sentence-id="7633" class="ldml-sentence">The General Assembly has also specifically granted <span class="ldml-entity">district courts</span> subject matter jurisdiction over denials of requests for records of completed internal investigations:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_7802" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="7802" class="ldml-sentence">Any person who has been denied access to any information in a completed internal affairs investigation file may file an application in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> in the county <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_7970" data-val="1246" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> where the records are located for an order directing the custodian thereof to show cause why the withheld or redacted information should not be made available to the applicant.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="8147" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8147" data-sentence-id="8148" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8147" data-sentence-id="8167" class="ldml-sentence">Because this criminal case involving the denial of a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8167"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> request clearly falls within the class of <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> is authorized to hear, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had subject matter jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8147" data-sentence-id="8368" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888001835" data-vids="888001835" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8167"><span class="ldml-refname">C.O.</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8167"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888001835" data-vids="888001835" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">406 P.3d at 858-59</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8404" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8404" data-sentence-id="8405" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8405"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> However, <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i]</span>t is not sufficient that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> has, in the abstract, the authority to decide the particular class of case which is before it.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span>'s authority</span> must be invoked before it can act."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8404" data-sentence-id="8610" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8405" data-refglobal="case:inremarriageofstroud,631p2d168,170n5colo1981"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re Marriage of Stroud</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">631 P.2d 168, 171</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1981</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">accord</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8405" data-refglobal="case:peopleininterestofclinton,762p2d1381,1389-99colo1988"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People in Int. of Clinton</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">762 P.2d 1381, 1387</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1988</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8404" data-sentence-id="8738" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8738"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span> provides that <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> may file an application in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> for review of a denial of a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8738"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> request, so <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> must determine if the filing of an application is necessary to invoke <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s subject matter jurisdiction, or if it is simply a non-jurisdictional procedure.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8404" data-sentence-id="9050" class="ldml-sentence">That distinction matters because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or consented to by <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892020984" data-vids="892020984" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9050"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Mesa Cnty. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 51 v. Kelsey</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">8 P.3d 1200, 1206</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span>, but non-jurisdictional procedures can be, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity">People</span> in </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9050" data-refglobal="case:peopleininterestoflynch,783p2d848,851-52colo1989enbanc"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Int. of Lynch</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">783 P.2d 848, 852-53</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9340" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9340" data-sentence-id="9341" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9341"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that filing an application is a non-jurisdictional procedure.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9340" data-sentence-id="9419" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9419"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> provides that a person <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"may file an application."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9340" data-sentence-id="9479" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9419"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9340" data-sentence-id="9498" class="ldml-sentence">So, this application-filing provision is simply one way that <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> may invoke jurisdiction, not the only way.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9340" data-sentence-id="9610" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_9639,sentence_9498"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wood</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">255 P.3d at 1140</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Although <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has the power to limit <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span>' subject matter jurisdiction, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have held that such limitations must be explicit."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9340" data-sentence-id="9781" class="ldml-sentence">Nothing in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9781"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span> precludes <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span> from reviewing a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9781"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> denial when it does so as part of a proceeding over which <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> already has subject matter jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9340" data-sentence-id="9975" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, the application-filing provision is a non-jurisdictional procedure rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10097" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10097" data-sentence-id="10097" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10097"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> And a non-jurisdictional procedure is all that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> waived here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10097" data-sentence-id="10173" class="ldml-sentence">As part of the criminal case over which <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> exercised its general subject matter jurisdiction, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had subject matter jurisdiction over the SDT and the related <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash</span>, which implicated records encompassed by the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10173"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10097" data-sentence-id="10422" class="ldml-sentence">At the pretrial hearing to discuss the SDT and <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> agreed to the show cause hearing to resolve their lingering <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10422"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> dispute.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10097" data-sentence-id="10573" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">stipulation to a show cause hearing</span> waived the non-jurisdictional procedural requirement of filing an application.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10700" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10700" data-sentence-id="10700" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10700"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that Sprinkle's failure to file an <span class="ldml-entity">application for a show cause hearing</span> didn't divest <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> of subject matter jurisdiction in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10700" data-sentence-id="10879" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to the merits.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-id="heading_10912" data-value="C. The CCJRA Order" data-ordinal_start="3" data-ordinal_end="3" data-specifier="C" id="heading_10912" data-content-heading-label="C. The CCJRA Order"><span data-paragraph-id="10912" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="10912" data-sentence-id="10912" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10912" data-sentence-id="10915" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10915"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-opinionnote">Order</span></span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="10930" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10930" data-sentence-id="10931" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10931"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> EPCSO also contends that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred in its <span class="ldml-entity">interpretation of <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span></span> because, under EPCSO's interpretation, <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> requires the requesting <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> to itemize the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specific, identifiable incidents of official misconduct"</span> that the requestor seeks to inspect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10930" data-sentence-id="11217" class="ldml-sentence">Again, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> disagree.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11236" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11237" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11237"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> In interpreting <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> seek to ascertain and give effect to <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11333" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11237"><span class="ldml-refname">Thompson</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11237"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">471 P.3d at 1051</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11367" class="ldml-sentence">To do so, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> look first to the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span>, read <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> as a whole, and give its words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11523" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11367"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11527" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> read words and phrases in context and construe them according to the rules of grammar and common usage.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11634" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11527"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11638" class="ldml-sentence">If the language is clear, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply it as written.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11688" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11638"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11692" class="ldml-sentence">If it is ambiguous, meaning it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> may employ the traditional tools of statutory construction to aid our interpretation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11871" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11692"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11875" class="ldml-sentence">These tools include <span class="ldml-entity">analysis of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span></span>'s legislative history.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11942" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11875"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="11946" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span>tatements made before a legislative committee are not conclusive proof of <span class="ldml-entity">legislative intent</span>,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> do <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"provide guidance in interpreting <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="12110" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893349671" data-vids="893349671" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11946"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Rockwell</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">125 P.3d 410, 419</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11236" data-sentence-id="12162" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the testimony of <span class="ldml-entity">a bill</span>'s sponsor concerning its purpose and anticipated effect can be powerful evidence of <span class="ldml-entity">legislative intent</span>."</span></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_12296" data-val="1247" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12296" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12296" data-sentence-id="12297" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888925618" data-vids="888925618" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Vensor v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">151 P.3d 1274, 1279</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12348" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12348" data-sentence-id="12348" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12348"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">2019</span>, the General Assembly amended the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12348"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> to make certain internal affairs records more accessible to the public.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12348" data-sentence-id="12472" class="ldml-sentence">It enacted HB 19-1119, which provides:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_12510" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="12510" class="ldml-sentence">Upon completion of an internal investigation, including any appeals process, that examines the in-uniform or on-duty conduct of a peace officer ... <i class="ldml-italics">related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct</i> involving a member of the public, the entire investigation file, including the witness interviews, video and audio recordings, transcripts, documentary evidence, investigative notes, and final departmental decision is open for public inspection upon request; except that the custodian may first provide the requester with a summary of the investigation file and if, after reviewing the summary, the requester requests access to the investigation file, the custodian shall provide access to the entire investigation file subject to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the redaction provisions]</span> of <span class="ldml-entity">this section</span>.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="13299" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13299" data-sentence-id="13300" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13335" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13335" data-sentence-id="13335" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13335"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> submit that the main issue before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> is <i class="ldml-italics">who</i> must identify the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specific, identifiable incident."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13335" data-sentence-id="13448" class="ldml-sentence">EPCSO argues that the person seeking access to the files must do so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13335" data-sentence-id="13517" class="ldml-sentence">Sprinkle argues that the records custodian must identify the relevant files.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13335" data-sentence-id="13594" class="ldml-sentence">For the reasons explained below, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specific, identifiable incident,"</span> when read in context, refers to the types of incidents subject to investigation, not who must identify those incidents as part of a request to inspect investigation files.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13335" data-sentence-id="13862" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, the person requesting access to internal investigation files need not reference a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specific, identifiable incident"</span> of alleged misconduct in the request.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14026" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="14026" data-sentence-id="14026" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14026"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> This becomes apparent if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> more broadly examine the language and structure of <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>, rather than immediately zooming in on a few words.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-id="heading_14174" data-value="1. Plain Language" data-ordinal_start="1" data-ordinal_end="1" data-specifier="1" id="heading_14174" data-content-heading-label="1. Plain Language"><span data-paragraph-id="14174" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="14174" data-sentence-id="14174" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14174" data-sentence-id="14177" class="ldml-sentence">Plain Language</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="14191" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="14191" data-sentence-id="14191" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14191"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> Using a wide lens, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> first note that <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> begins by specifying the procedural status of files available for inspection: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[u]</span>pon completion of an internal investigation, including any appeals process."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14191" data-sentence-id="14406" class="ldml-sentence">A plain reading of this introductory phrase indicates that only files from completed investigations are available; thus, <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> does not provide for the release of files of ongoing or pending investigations.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14191" data-sentence-id="14619" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_14647,sentence_14406"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he custodian of an internal investigation file ... may deny inspection of the file if there is an ongoing criminal investigation or criminal case against a peace officer related to the subject of the internal investigation.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">The investigation file <i class="ldml-italics">must</i> be open for public inspection upon the dismissal of all charges or upon a sentence for a conviction."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15023" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15023" data-sentence-id="15023" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15023"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> The next phrase is set off in the sentence by commas and describes the subject matter of the investigation that was completed: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"that examines the in-uniform or on-duty conduct of a peace officer ... related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct involving a member of the public."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15023" data-sentence-id="15328" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15023"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15023" data-sentence-id="15347" class="ldml-sentence">Because a limiting phrase set off by commas modifies the words immediately preceding it, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15347" data-refglobal="case:huffmanvcitycntyofdenver,2020coa59"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Huffman v. City & Cnty. of Denver</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 COA 59</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15347"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886842378" data-vids="886842378" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15347"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d 108, 112</span></a></span>, this phrase necessarily modifies <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"investigation."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15023" data-sentence-id="15559" class="ldml-sentence">This means that the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> encompasses a completed internal investigation into a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct by a peace officer while that officer was in-uniform or on-duty and interacting with members of the public.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15023" data-sentence-id="15827" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> is part of a limiting phrase that identifies the type of internal investigation that is at issue.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15954" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15954" data-sentence-id="15954" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15954"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The legislature</span> did not define <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> in the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15954"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span>, so <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> assume that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> intended the word to have its common meaning.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15954" data-sentence-id="16098" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15954" data-refglobal="case:roalstadvcityoflafayette,2015coa146"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Roalstad v. City of Lafayette</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2015 COA 146</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15954"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 34</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887893176" data-vids="887893176" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">363 P.3d 790, 796</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15954" data-sentence-id="16173" class="ldml-sentence">The word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"capable of being identified."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15954" data-sentence-id="16234" class="ldml-sentence">Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/<i class="ldml-italics">identifiable;</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/PW6Q-Z2AQ]</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15954" data-sentence-id="16349" class="ldml-sentence">In this context, because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> is within the phrase modifying <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"investigation,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> read it as distinguishing an incident of alleged misconduct that is capable of being identified and investigated from one <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_16562" data-val="1248" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> that is not <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-signal">e.g.</span>, a vague allegation about an officer's general behavior on the job)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15954" data-sentence-id="16650" class="ldml-sentence">The term does not relate to the records request but, rather, to the investigation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15954" data-sentence-id="16733" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, when read as a whole, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> understand <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> as describing a specific incident of alleged misconduct that is identifiable by the investigating officer so that the investigation could occur.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="16934" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16934" data-sentence-id="16934" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16934"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The Amendment</span> then provides that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the entire investigation file ... is open for public inspection upon request."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16934" data-sentence-id="17051" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16934"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16934" data-sentence-id="17070" class="ldml-sentence">And although the custodian <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"may"</span> first provide a summary of the file, if the person seeking access reviews the summary and still requests access to the entire file, the custodian <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"shall"</span> provide it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16934" data-sentence-id="17269" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17070"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16934" data-sentence-id="17273" class="ldml-sentence">So release of the files becomes mandatory.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16934" data-sentence-id="17316" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889534957" data-vids="889534957" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_17427,sentence_17273"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">––– U.S. ––––</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">140 S. Ct. 1308, 1320</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">206 L.Ed.2d 764</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Unlike the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘may,’</span> which implies discretion, the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘shall’</span> usually connotes a requirement."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17273" data-refglobal="case:kingdomwaretechs,incvunitedstates,579us162,171,136sct1969,1977,195led2d3342016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">––– U.S. ––––</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">136 S. Ct. 1969, 1977</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">195 L.Ed.2d 334</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2016</span>)</span></a></span> )</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888690097" data-vids="888690097" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17273"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">A.S. v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2013 CO 63</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17273"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888690097" data-vids="888690097" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_17698"><span class="ldml-cite">312 P.3d 168, 174</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Where both mandatory and directory verbs are used in the same <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, ... it is a fair inference that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> realized the difference in meaning, and intended that the verbs should carry with them their ordinary meanings. ...</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">This is especially true where <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘shall’</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘may’</span> are used in close juxtaposition ...."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, 3 <i class="ldml-italics">Sutherland Statutory Construction</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 57:11 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(7th ed.)</span></span></a></span> )</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18126" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18126" data-sentence-id="18126" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18126"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> Thus, read in its entirety, the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> provides that any member of the public is entitled to inspect the entire file from any completed internal investigations into specific, identifiable instances of alleged officer misconduct while that officer was on-duty or in-uniform and interacting with the public.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18126" data-sentence-id="18461" class="ldml-sentence">It doesn't require that <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> seeking to inspect the files know of the specific, identifiable instances of misconduct or that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> include any such designation in their request.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18126" data-sentence-id="18640" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> may not add such a requirement to <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18126" data-sentence-id="18696" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18640" data-refglobal="case:oakwoodholdings,llcvmortgageinvestmentsenterprisesllc,2018co12"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Oakwood Holdings, LLC v. Mortg. Invs. Enters. EEC</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 12</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18640"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 12</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888430471" data-vids="888430471" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">410 P.3d 1249, 1252</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18790" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18790" data-sentence-id="18790" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18790"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> Based on <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>'s plain language, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that a records custodian for a criminal justice agency may not deny a request to inspect internal investigation files simply because the requesting <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> has not identified a specific incident of misconduct in their request.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19071" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19071" data-sentence-id="19071" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19071"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> But even if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> were to assume that the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> is ambiguous, our review of the legislative history yields the same conclusion.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-parsed="true" data-format="number" data-id="heading_19213" data-value="2. Legislative History" data-ordinal_start="2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-specifier="2" id="heading_19213" data-content-heading-label="2. Legislative History"><span data-paragraph-id="19213" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="19213" data-sentence-id="19213" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19213" data-sentence-id="19216" class="ldml-sentence">Legislative History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="19235" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19235" data-sentence-id="19235" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19235"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> The legislative history more fully illuminates the proponents' intent in passing <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="19334" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19334" data-sentence-id="19334" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19334"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> Before <span class="ldml-entity">this amendment</span>, records custodians presented with <span class="ldml-entity">requests to access</span> internal affairs records were expected <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to consider and balance the public and private interests relevant to the inspection request."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19334" data-sentence-id="19548" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889439856" data-vids="889439856" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19334"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Harris v. Denver Post Corp.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d 1166, 1174</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891987191" data-vids="891987191" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19334"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">196 P.3d 892, 898-99</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19334" data-sentence-id="19717" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> instructed custodians to consider multiple factors, including</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_19781" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="19781" class="ldml-sentence">the privacy interests of individuals who may be impacted by a decision to allow inspection; the agency's interest in keeping confidential information confidential; the agency's interest in pursuing ongoing investigations without compromising them; the public purpose to be served in allowing inspection; and any other pertinent consideration relevant to the circumstances of the particular request.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="20179" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20179" data-sentence-id="20180" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889439856" data-vids="889439856" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Harris</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d at 1175</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20205" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20205" data-sentence-id="20205" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20205"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> The sponsoring legislators' statements and the committee members' questioning of witnesses during hearings on <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> make it abundantly clear that <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>'s proponents sought to eliminate custodians' discretion to deny access to certain internal affairs records and to make it easier for the public to obtain such records without involving <span class="ldml-entity">the courts</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20205" data-sentence-id="20574" class="ldml-sentence">Hearing on <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">H.B. 1119</span></a></span> before the <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">H. Judiciary</span> <span class="ldml-cite">Comm., 72d Gen. Assemb., 1st Sess.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Feb. 19, 2019</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"H.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span>"</span></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statements of Rep. <span class="ldml-entity">James Coleman</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> sponsor; and <span class="ldml-entity">Rebecca <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_20754" data-val="1249" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> Wallace</span>, Policy <span class="ldml-entity">Counsel</span>, American Civil Liberties Union <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ACLU"</span>)</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20205" data-sentence-id="20822" class="ldml-sentence">Representative Coleman stated that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"this <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span> removes the public interest exception, which is a primary basis on which law enforcement agencies currently refuse to release <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[internal investigation]</span> files."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="20205" data-sentence-id="21032" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20822"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20822"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statement of <span class="ldml-entity">Donald Sissan</span>, General <span class="ldml-entity">Counsel</span>, Colorado Fraternal Order of Police)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(testifying against <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> but agreeing that it would remove the discretion previously given to records custodians)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21256" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21256" data-sentence-id="21256" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21256"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> During the committee hearings, several witnesses testified that custodians were not applying <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889439856" data-vids="889439856" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21256"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Harris</i></span></a></span> balancing test</span> as intended.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21256" data-sentence-id="21392" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> H. <span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statements of <span class="ldml-entity">Denise Maes</span>, Public Policy Director, ACLU; and <span class="ldml-entity">Rebecca Wallace</span>)</span>; Hearing on <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">H.B. 1119</span></a></span> before the <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">S. Judiciary</span> <span class="ldml-cite">Comm., 72d Gen. Assemb., 1st Sess.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Mar. 20, 2019</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"S.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span>"</span></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statement of <span class="ldml-entity">Margaret Kwoka</span>, Faculty, University of <span class="ldml-entity">Denver Sturm</span> College of Law)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21256" data-sentence-id="21697" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, custodians routinely denied <span class="ldml-entity">requests for access</span> with a blanket statement that it was not in the public interest to release the files.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21256" data-sentence-id="21840" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> H. <span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statements of <span class="ldml-entity">Denise Maes</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Rebecca Wallace</span>)</span>; S. <span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statement of <span class="ldml-entity">Margaret Kwoka</span>)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21961" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21961" data-sentence-id="21961" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21961"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> Several witnesses testified that Denver was the only county in <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> that allowed access to these types of records, but even that access had drastically declined over the decade preceding <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21961" data-sentence-id="22172" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> H. <span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statements of <span class="ldml-entity">Denise Maes</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Rebecca Wallace</span>)</span>; S. <span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statement of <span class="ldml-entity">Margaret Kwoka</span>)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22293" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22293" data-sentence-id="22293" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22293"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> Although some legislators and witnesses expressed concern that the proposed <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span> would threaten officer privacy rights and personal safety, <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>'s proponents maintained that it struck <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"a balanced compromise by protecting the sanctity of internal investigations while defending every Coloradan's right to public information about their public servants.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This bill</span> removes the ability to deny requests for a specific type of incident; however, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[it]</span> expands the ... redactions to protect officers' investigations and public safety."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22293" data-sentence-id="22842" class="ldml-sentence">H.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22293" data-sentence-id="22845" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statement of Rep. <span class="ldml-entity">James Coleman</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22293" data-sentence-id="22896" class="ldml-sentence">The proponents emphasized that their goal was to improve transparency, fairness, accountability, and the public's trust in law enforcement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22293" data-sentence-id="23036" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> S. <span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statement of Sen. <span class="ldml-entity">Mike Foote</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">bill</span> sponsor)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22293" data-sentence-id="23105" class="ldml-sentence">For example, Senator Foote described <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the top values of <span class="ldml-entity">this bill</span>"</span> by reading from a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"recent"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> case that said that <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"open access to internal affairs files enhances the effectiveness of internal affairs investigations rather than impairing them.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Knowing that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> will be scrutinized makes investigators do a better job and makes them and the department more accountable to the public.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Transparency also enhances public confidence in the police department ...."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22293" data-sentence-id="23570" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23105"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23573" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23573" data-sentence-id="23573" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23573"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> Thus, by passing <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>, the General Assembly abrogated the balancing test of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889439856" data-vids="889439856" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23573"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Harris</i></span></a></span> and <span class="ldml-entity">its progeny</span> in this context.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23573" data-sentence-id="23702" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, it eliminated the discretion previously granted to records custodians to deny <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23702"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> requests for certain internal investigation files.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23852" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="23852" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23852"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> The hearings also made clear that the proponents intended for <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> to grant access to anyone who asked for it, whether <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were involved in the underlying incidents or not.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24039" class="ldml-sentence">In support, individuals from several local media outlets explained how <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> use these records.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24134" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> H. <span class="ldml-entity">Judiciary Comm.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(statements of <span class="ldml-entity">Noelle Phillips</span>, News Editor, Denver Post; <span class="ldml-entity">Jill Farschman</span>, Chief Executive Officer, <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Press Association</span>; and <span class="ldml-entity">Chris Halsne</span>, Investigative Reporter, multiple news outlets)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24350" class="ldml-sentence">For example, Ms. Farschman described her regular requests to the Denver police department for <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"every disciplinary letter <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[it has]</span> issued this month."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24500" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24350"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24504" class="ldml-sentence">Based on the contents of the letters, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> would then decide whether to request additional documents or particular files.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24625" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24504"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24629" class="ldml-sentence">Mr. Halsne testified that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> often requested records to discover patterns of behavior within a department.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24736" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24629"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24740" class="ldml-sentence">And Ms. Phillips described her broad requests when <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was reporting on Denver's search for a new police chief several years ago.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24870" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24740"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24874" class="ldml-sentence">Because all the candidates were internal, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> all had internal affairs records that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> could request.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24978" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24874"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="24982" class="ldml-sentence">After obtaining the records, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> used the information in her reporting, which <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"contributed to the public discussion over who would <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_25113" data-val="1250" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> be the best choice to lead the department."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23852" data-sentence-id="25158" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24982"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25161" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25161" data-sentence-id="25161" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25161"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> In sum, these media witnesses' testimony indicates that their routine practice was to request officer files without knowing what <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> would uncover; that is, without necessarily knowing of a specific, identifiable incident <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> wished to investigate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25161" data-sentence-id="25416" class="ldml-sentence">And the legislators' questioning of these witnesses doesn't indicate that the legislators had any concern with members of the public making such broad requests.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25161" data-sentence-id="25577" class="ldml-sentence">Nothing in the legislative history suggests that a requester should have to identify a specific incident or that <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> makes such broad requests impermissible.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25744" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25744" data-sentence-id="25744" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25744"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span> Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span>'s legislative history reflects the General Assembly's intent to provide broad access to completed internal investigation files regarding specific types of incidents of alleged officer misconduct, regardless of whether the person requesting access to the files can identify the specific incident.</span></p></div></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-confidences="very_high" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_26063" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="3" data-specifier="III" id="heading_26063" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion"><span data-paragraph-id="26063" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="26063" data-sentence-id="26063" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26063" data-sentence-id="26068" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="26078" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="26078" data-sentence-id="26078" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26078"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> had subject matter jurisdiction, and the plain language and legislative history of <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> support <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s application of <span class="ldml-entity">the Amendment</span> here.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26078" data-sentence-id="26262" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> properly ordered EPCSO to release the requested records to Sprinkle.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26078" data-sentence-id="26350" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore discharge the rule.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="26382" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Dissenting Opinion (SAMOUR, SAMOUR)"><span data-paragraph-id="26382" data-sentence-id="26382" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissents</span></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">BOATRIGHT</span> joins in the dissent</span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26456" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="26456" data-sentence-id="26456" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">dissenting</span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26483" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="26483" data-sentence-id="26483" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26483"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span> The plain text of <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, makes clear that, in crafting that provision of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26483"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"CCJRA"</span>)</span></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> did not intend to sanction a criminal-justice-records version of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Go Fish."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26483" data-sentence-id="26738" class="ldml-sentence">Because that kind of guessing game is the inevitable result of the majority's decision today, I respectfully dissent.<a href="#note-fr_1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr_1">1</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="26856" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="26856" data-sentence-id="26856" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26856"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">2019</span>, the General Assembly amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26856"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> to make certain internal affairs records more accessible to the public.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26856" data-sentence-id="26976" class="ldml-sentence">In doing so, it provided:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_27001" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="27001" class="ldml-sentence">Upon completion of an internal investigation, including any appeals process, that examines the in-uniform or on-duty conduct of a peace officer ... <i class="ldml-italics">related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct involving a member of the public,</i> the entire investigation file, including the witness interviews, video and audio recordings, transcripts, documentary evidence, investigative notes, and final departmental decision is open for public inspection upon request; except that the custodian may first provide the requester with a summary of the investigation file and if, after reviewing the summary, the requester requests access to the investigation file, the custodian shall provide access to the entire investigation file subject to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the redaction provisions]</span> of <span class="ldml-entity">this section</span>.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="27790" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="27790" data-sentence-id="27791" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27826" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27826" data-sentence-id="27826" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27826"><span class="ldml-cite">¶46</span></a></span> The majority takes the untenable position that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s use of the phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specific, identifiable incident"</span> in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27826"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> refers not to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"who must identify those incidents as part of a request to inspect investigation files"</span> but, instead, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to the types of incidents subject to investigation."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27826" data-sentence-id="28138" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27826"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 24</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27826" data-sentence-id="28153" class="ldml-sentence">Using this misunderstanding as a foothold, the majority then posits that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> refers to being capable of being identified and investigated <i class="ldml-italics">by the investigating officer.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27826" data-sentence-id="28332" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28153"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 28</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27826" data-sentence-id="28345" class="ldml-sentence">Under the majority's view, this determination, in turn, yields the conclusion that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a records custodian for a criminal justice agency may not deny a request"</span> on the ground that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the requesting <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> has not identified a specific incident of misconduct."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27826" data-sentence-id="28599" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28345"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 31</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27826" data-sentence-id="28612" class="ldml-sentence">Because the majority's <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_28635" data-val="1251" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> legal edifice sits atop a stack of unwarranted inferences, it cannot help but topple under scrutiny.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28736" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="28736" data-sentence-id="28736" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28736"><span class="ldml-cite">¶47</span></a></span> The practical effect of today's decision is to allow access to <i class="ldml-italics">all</i> completed internal investigation files regarding any incidents of alleged misconduct by a peace officer involving a member of the public.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28736" data-sentence-id="28945" class="ldml-sentence">So long as a requester asks for all such files with respect to a named peace officer, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> will be entitled to access them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28736" data-sentence-id="29074" class="ldml-sentence">Nowhere does the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29074"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> reflect that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> intended to authorize this type of fishing expedition.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28736" data-sentence-id="29214" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, what the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> reveals is that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> meant to require automatic disclosure of the contents of <i class="ldml-italics">a responsive file</i> upon receipt of a request <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"related to <i class="ldml-italics">a specific, identifiable incident</i> of alleged misconduct"</span> by a peace officer <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"involving a member of the public."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="28736" data-sentence-id="29519" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29214"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="29554" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="29554" data-sentence-id="29554" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29554"><span class="ldml-cite">¶48</span></a></span> While the majority cites the tenet of statutory interpretation requiring that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"read words and phrases in context and construe them according to the rules of grammar and common usage,"</span> maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29554"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Thompson v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 72</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29554"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890504259" data-vids="890504259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29554"><span class="ldml-cite">471 P.3d 1045, 1051</span></a></span> )</span></span>, its construction is not faithful to that principle.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29554" data-sentence-id="29880" class="ldml-sentence">A commonsense reading of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29880"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> supports an altogether different interpretation: A records request pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29880"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> must <i class="ldml-italics">itself</i> be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29880"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29554" data-sentence-id="30112" class="ldml-sentence">And because the meaning of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30112"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> is discernible on its face, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not —and, in fact, may not —resort to tools of statutory construction to bolster an understanding unsupported by the text.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29554" data-sentence-id="30322" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"If the language is clear, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply it as written."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="29554" data-sentence-id="30393" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30394" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="30394" data-sentence-id="30394" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30394"><span class="ldml-cite">¶49</span></a></span> But in order to illustrate where the majority and I diverge, I must first explain where the majority and I align.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30394" data-sentence-id="30512" class="ldml-sentence">And, because a thorough parsing of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30512"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> entails multiple steps, each building upon the last, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> start at the very beginning.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30394" data-sentence-id="30656" class="ldml-sentence">After all, as noted by <i class="ldml-italics">The Sound of Music's</i> Maria, the beginning is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a very good place to start."</span><a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="30754" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="30754" data-sentence-id="30754" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30754"><span class="ldml-cite">¶50</span></a></span> The beginning of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30754"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> sets forth the following: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Upon completion of an internal investigation ... related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct involving a member of the public, the entire investigation file ... is open for public inspection upon request ...."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31052" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="31052" data-sentence-id="31052" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31052"><span class="ldml-cite">¶51</span></a></span> First, like the majority, I understand the introductory portion of this subsection to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specify<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> the procedural status"</span> of the type of file available for inspection —namely, any file documenting an internal investigation that has been completed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31052" data-sentence-id="31303" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31052"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 26</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31052" data-sentence-id="31318" class="ldml-sentence">And, unsurprisingly, I agree with the majority on the corollary point: <span class="ldml-entity">The statute</span> does not provide for the inspection of any file in an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ongoing or pending"</span> investigation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31052" data-sentence-id="31491" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31318"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31494" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31494" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31494"><span class="ldml-cite">¶52</span></a></span> Second, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"internal investigation"</span> referenced is modified by the adjectival phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct involving a member of the public."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31686" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31494"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31494" data-refglobal="case:huffmanvcitycntyofdenver,2020coa59"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Huffman v. City & Cnty. of Denver</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 COA 59</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31494"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886842378" data-vids="886842378" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_31784"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d 108, 112</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> that a limiting phrase set off by commas modifies the words immediately preceding the <span class="ldml-referencenote">phrase</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31890" class="ldml-sentence">On this point, too, the majority and I see eye to eye.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31494" data-sentence-id="31945" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31890"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. ¶ 27</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31959" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="31959" data-sentence-id="31959" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31959"><span class="ldml-cite">¶53</span></a></span> Third, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"investigation file"</span> referenced following the aforementioned qualification harkens back to the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"internal investigation"</span> described earlier in the sentence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31959" data-sentence-id="32129" class="ldml-sentence">Read in context, these words make plain that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"investigation file"</span> designated as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"open for public inspection"</span> is one that <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><i class="ldml-italics">"relate<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> to a specific</i> , <i class="ldml-italics">identifiable incident of alleged misconduct."</i></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31959" data-sentence-id="32327" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32129"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31959" data-sentence-id="32363" class="ldml-sentence">The majority and I agree on this as well.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31959" data-sentence-id="32405" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i> maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 27</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"This means that the plain language of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32424"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>]</span> encompasses a completed internal investigation into a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct by a peace officer while that officer was in-uniform or on-duty and interacting with members of the public."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="31959" data-sentence-id="32700" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="32701" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="32701" data-sentence-id="32701" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32701"><span class="ldml-cite">¶54</span></a></span> Given our agreement on these three analytical steps —each of which is supported by the plain language of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> — it is difficult to understand how the majority could land where it does.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32701" data-sentence-id="32897" class="ldml-sentence">Here is where the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_32915" data-val="1252" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> majority strays: After its sound analysis, it turns back to the above-mentioned adjectival phrase and unexpectedly concludes that the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifies the type of internal investigation that is at issue,"</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32897"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"describ<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[es]</span> a specific incident of alleged misconduct that is identifiable <i class="ldml-italics">by the investigating officer so that the investigation could occur</i> ,"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"distinguish<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[es]</span> an incident of alleged misconduct that is capable of being identified and investigated from one that is not <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-signal">e.g.</span>, a vague allegation about an officer's general behavior on the job)</span>,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32897"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 28</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="33521" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="33521" data-sentence-id="33521" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33521"><span class="ldml-cite">¶55</span></a></span> While I discuss the myriad issues with the majority's position below, it is worth noting at the outset that, even under its own constraints, the majority uses the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> in a way that engenders perplexing conclusions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33521" data-sentence-id="33756" class="ldml-sentence">For instance, is it <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> that an investigating officer cannot feasibly identify and investigate allegations regarding <i class="ldml-italics">general patterns</i> of behavior?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33521" data-sentence-id="33908" class="ldml-sentence">Under the majority's theory, which postulates that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> operates to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"distinguish<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> an incident of alleged misconduct that is capable of being identified and investigated from one that is not <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-signal">e.g.</span>, a vague allegation about an officer's general behavior on the job)</span>,"</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33908"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span>,</i> that would appear to be <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33521" data-sentence-id="34225" class="ldml-sentence">But logically, that can't be so —nothing prevents the investigation of allegations regarding general patterns of behavior that have been identified by complaints.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34387" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34387" data-sentence-id="34387" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34387"><span class="ldml-cite">¶56</span></a></span> Even overlooking this peculiar aspect of the majority's approach, <span class="ldml-entity">the interpretation of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34387"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span></span> endorsed today is problematic.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34387" data-sentence-id="34528" class="ldml-sentence">The majority understands <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34528"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> as follows:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_34588" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="34588" class="ldml-sentence">Upon completion of an internal investigation related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i.e., a specific incident of alleged misconduct capable of being identified and investigated by the investigating officer]</span> the entire investigation file is open for public inspection upon request.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="34897" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34897" data-sentence-id="34897" class="ldml-sentence">But the majority cites no authority for the supposition it applies here <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., its definition of the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span>)</span>, and none exists.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34897" data-sentence-id="35037" class="ldml-sentence">Yet, without this supposition, the resulting interpretation crumbles.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35106" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="35106" data-sentence-id="35106" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35106"><span class="ldml-cite">¶57</span></a></span> Indeed, if <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> use <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a wide lens"</span> and zoom out, as the majority invites <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to do, maj. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 26</span></a></span>, there are a number of textual clues that point to the conclusion that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> was never intended to describe incidents that an investigating officer can identify and investigate, but was instead intended to convey that the <i class="ldml-italics">requester</i> must always identify the incident to which the requested investigation file pertains.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35530" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="35530" data-sentence-id="35530" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35530"><span class="ldml-cite">¶58</span></a></span> To begin, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35530"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>'s overarching purpose is to describe any <i class="ldml-italics">investigation file</i> that must be <i class="ldml-italics">disclosed</i> in response to a records request, not to delineate what <i class="ldml-italics">incidents</i> are capable of being <i class="ldml-italics">identified</i> and <i class="ldml-italics">investigated.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35530" data-sentence-id="35761" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35530"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35530" data-sentence-id="35784" class="ldml-sentence">The main subject of the first half of <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35784"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">which, admittedly, is complex</span>)</span></span> is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the entire investigation file."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35530" data-sentence-id="35908" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35784"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35530" data-sentence-id="35912" class="ldml-sentence">The reference to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an internal investigation"</span> in that part of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35912"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> serves only to better define which <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"investigation file"</span> is publicly accessible <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"investigation file"</span> that documents a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"complet<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ed]</span>"</span> internal investigation pertaining to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct involving a member of the public"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35530" data-sentence-id="36262" class="ldml-sentence">Given this, the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> is best understood as qualifying the nature of the investigation file <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> has designated <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"open for public inspection,"</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36262"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span>,</i> rather than the kind of incident an investigating officer can feasibly identify and investigate, maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 28</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">determining that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> means <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable by the investigating officer so that the investigation could occur"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="36667" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36667" data-sentence-id="36667" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36667"><span class="ldml-cite">¶59</span></a></span> To hold otherwise, as the majority does, is to adopt a temporally tortured reading of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> that begs the question: Why would <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> seek to qualify <i class="ldml-italics">the nature of incidents that can feasibly be investigated</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a process that would have necessarily concluded at the time of a viable <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36667"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> records request)</span> in a subsection that outlines <i class="ldml-italics">the kinds of files that are available for public inspection</i> ?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36667" data-sentence-id="37099" class="ldml-sentence">Of course, the most plausible answer happens to be the simplest one —it wouldn't.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36667" data-sentence-id="37181" class="ldml-sentence">In light of the animating purpose of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37181"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>, it makes little sense to rule that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> qualifies the kind of incident <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_37324" data-val="1253" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> that can feasibly be investigated, rather than the type of file that must be disclosed.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="37412" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="37412" data-sentence-id="37412" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37412"><span class="ldml-cite">¶60</span></a></span> In fastening <i class="ldml-italics">the investigating officer</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(rather than <i class="ldml-italics">the requester of information)</i></span> to the word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable,"</span> maj. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">op. ¶ 28</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">stating</span> that the term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> relates not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to the records request but, rather, to the investigation"</span></span>)</span></span>, the majority skirts the natural reading of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37412"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> and fails to give effect to <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37412" data-sentence-id="37766" class="ldml-sentence">This has adverse consequences: Defining <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> as capable of being identified by <i class="ldml-italics">the investigating officer</i> , while simultaneously permitting a requester to submit a request not tied to a specific incident, will necessarily result in the records custodian having to identify any incidents of alleged misconduct in response to a broad request.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="38115" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="38115" data-sentence-id="38115" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38115"><span class="ldml-cite">¶61</span></a></span> Hence, despite the fact that the majority earlier suggests that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> refers to neither the requester nor the records custodian, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38115"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 24</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> that the phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"specific, identifiable incident"</span> does not refer to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"who must identify those incidents as part of a request to inspect investigation files"</span></span>)</span></span>, the inevitable result of its holding — that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a records custodian ... may not deny a request ... simply because the requesting <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> has not identified a specific incident of misconduct,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38115"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 31</span></a></span> — is that a records custodian will be required to identify any incidents of alleged misconduct in response to a broad request.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38115" data-sentence-id="38765" class="ldml-sentence">But, in my view, there is no textual support — grammatical or otherwise —for accepting an interpretation under which a custodian must take it upon himself or herself to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identif<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[y]</span>"</span> incidents of alleged misconduct at the outset.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38115" data-sentence-id="38994" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38765"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39016" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39016" data-sentence-id="39016" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39016"><span class="ldml-cite">¶62</span></a></span> In fact, the opposite is true.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39016" data-sentence-id="39051" class="ldml-sentence">A plain-text reading of the latter half of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39051"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> proves my point.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39016" data-sentence-id="39129" class="ldml-sentence">That half explains: The custodian, in response to a public records request, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"may first provide the requester with <i class="ldml-italics">a summary</i> of the investigation file and if, after reviewing the summary, the requester requests access to <i class="ldml-italics">the investigation file,</i> the custodian shall provide access."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39016" data-sentence-id="39410" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39129"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39016" data-sentence-id="39432" class="ldml-sentence">The least strained understanding of this part of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39432"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>, which is clearly focused on the file documenting a completed investigation, is that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"identifiable"</span> qualifies the investigation file being requested.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="39648" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="39648" data-sentence-id="39648" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39648"><span class="ldml-cite">¶63 A</span></a></span> context-driven construction of both halves of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39648"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>, then, yields the conclusion that the request <i class="ldml-italics">itself</i> must <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"relate<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39648" data-sentence-id="39848" class="ldml-sentence">In response to such a request, the custodian need only provide <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a summary,"</span> rather than <i class="ldml-italics">summaries,</i> and produce the corresponding <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"investigation file,"</span> rather than multiple corresponding <i class="ldml-italics">investigation files.</i></span><i class="ldml-italics"> <span data-paragraph-id="39648" data-sentence-id="40055" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></span></span></i> <span data-paragraph-id="39648" data-sentence-id="40063" class="ldml-sentence">Splicing and dicing the subsection cannot cloud <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s choice to describe <i class="ldml-italics">one</i> public records request, corresponding to <i class="ldml-italics">one</i> investigation, with respect to <i class="ldml-italics">one</i> incident of alleged misconduct, as to which <i class="ldml-italics">one</i> summary may initially be provided, potentially resulting in the disclosure of <i class="ldml-italics">one</i> investigation file.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="40381" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="40381" data-sentence-id="40381" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40381"><span class="ldml-cite">¶64</span></a></span> My understanding is further supported by the fact that <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> did not outline a process whereby a custodian must determine which incidents fall within a more general, all-encompassing records request —a process that the majority's interpretation implicitly demands —or a procedure for challenging a custodian's determination if the requester suspects that not <i class="ldml-italics">all</i> of the files relevant to a broad request have been disclosed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="40381" data-sentence-id="40820" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> contemplated only a situation where a requester <i class="ldml-italics">knows</i> that information has been withheld or redacted <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(because, at the outset, the request <i class="ldml-italics">itself</i> pertained to a <i class="ldml-italics">specific</i> , <i class="ldml-italics">identifiable incident of alleged misconduct involving a member of the public)</i></span>:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_41094" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="41094" class="ldml-sentence">Any person who has been denied access to any information in <i class="ldml-italics">a completed internal affairs investigation file</i> may file an application in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> in the county where the records are located for an order directing the custodian thereof to show cause why the withheld or redacted information should not be made available to the applicant.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="41438" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="41438" data-sentence-id="41439" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41438" data-sentence-id="41475" class="ldml-sentence">When <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> means to set out a process that could, in practice, involve <i class="ldml-italics">either</i> one file <i class="ldml-italics">or</i> multiple files, it knows how to say so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41438" data-sentence-id="41615" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_41655,sentence_41475"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 8-2-129<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">permitting an employee <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to inspect and obtain ... his or her own personnel <i class="ldml-italics">file or files"</i></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_41755" data-val="1254" data-rep="P.3d" data-vol="489"></span> added</span>)</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41438" data-sentence-id="41765" class="ldml-sentence">That it didn't opt to include similar language here speaks volumes about its intent.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="41849" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="41849" data-sentence-id="41849" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41849"><span class="ldml-cite">¶65</span></a></span> In sum, the plain meaning of the language in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41849"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> leads to the conclusion that a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41849"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span> records request must <i class="ldml-italics">itself</i> be <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><i class="ldml-italics">"related to a specific, identifiable incident of alleged misconduct</i> involving a member of the public."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="41849" data-sentence-id="42087" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41849"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41849" data-sentence-id="42127" class="ldml-sentence">The majority's more expansive interpretation will almost certainly promote unsupported fishing expeditions and inevitably result in a contentious and confusing process unsanctioned by a commonsense reading of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42127"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="41849" data-sentence-id="42361" class="ldml-sentence">And while I fully support increased transparency of and public access to criminal justice records, I cannot get behind the majority's far-reaching result.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="42515" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42515" data-sentence-id="42515" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42515"><span class="ldml-cite">¶66</span></a></span> For the reasons articulated in this opinion, I respectfully dissent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42515" data-sentence-id="42588" class="ldml-sentence">I fear that today's decision will have undesirable consequences <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span> neither considered nor intended.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="42700" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="42700" data-sentence-id="42700" class="ldml-sentence">I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT joins in this dissent.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="42776" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="42776" data-sentence-id="42777" class="ldml-sentence">EPCSO also asserts that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred for ordering disclosure of the requested records under the SDT because Sprinkle failed to demonstrate a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reasonable likelihood that documents existed and contained material evidence."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="42776" data-sentence-id="43010" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span>, like <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>, have resolved the matter under the <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43010"><span class="ldml-cite">CCJRA</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> therefore, any alleged error regarding the SDT is moot.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42776" data-sentence-id="43146" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43010" data-refglobal="case:peopleexrelreinvmeagher,2020co56"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People ex rel. Rein v. Meagher</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 56</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43010"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 14</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886015661" data-vids="886015661" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">465 P.3d 554, 558</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="43219" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr_1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr_1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="43219" data-sentence-id="43220" class="ldml-sentence">I don't address the subject matter jurisdiction issue because I see the application-filing provision, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43220"><span class="ldml-cite">section 24-72-303<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span>, as a non-jurisdictional procedural requirement that was waived here.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="43415" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="43415" data-sentence-id="43416" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">The Sound of Music</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(20th Century Fox <span class="ldml-entity">1965</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(from the well-loved classic <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Do Re Mi"</span>)</span>.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>