Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/colorado-code-of-judicial-conduct/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:13:31+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Chapter 20 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 251.4 – Duty of Judge to Report Misconduct or Disability. The minor change updates a reference to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. The updated rule now references RULE 2.15 instead of Canon 3(B)(3).
This amendment was adopted on April 12, 2012 and is effective immediately.
Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 251.4, outlined as Rule Change 2012(04).
On January 11, 2012, Rep. Balmer introduced HB 12-1016 – Concerning limiting ex parte communications by commissioners of the public utilities commission. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
The bill allows a party to a proceeding before the public utilities commission (PUC) to file a motion seeking the disqualification of a public utilities commissioner or an administrative law judge for failure to be impartial. A district court may stay or suspend the proceedings of the PUC if the PUC fails to disqualify a commissioner from the proceedings. If the disqualification of a commissioner results in the loss of a quorum, the decision rendered by a commissioner designated as a hearing officer or by an administrative law judge is the final decision of the PUC. The rule of necessity, which states that under some circumstances an adjudicator must hear a case even if the adjudicator has an interest in the case, does not apply.
The bill specifies that the standards contained in the Colorado code of judicial conduct apply to commissioners and PUC administrative law judges. The bill requires the director to post memoranda regarding ex parte communications by commissioners and administrative law judges on the PUC’s web site within five business days. Discussions by commissioners or administrative law judges on pending legislative proposals will no longer be exempted from disclosure as an “adjudicatory proceeding”.
On Friday, July 22, 2011, Governor John Hickenlooper announced his appointments to several more Boards and Commissions. The appointments were made to the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors, the Emergency Planning Commission, and the Securities Board.
Albus Brooks, of Denver, to serve as a non-attorney.
Judy P. Weaver, of Pueblo, to serve as a non-attorney.
David Kenney, of Denver, reappointed to serve as a non-attorney.
Federico C. Alvarez, of Denver, reappointed to serve as an attorney.
Lawrence T. Connolly, of Durango, reappointed to serve as a professional land surveyor.
Earl Fletcher Henderson, of Boulder, to serve as a professional land surveyor.
Daniel Joseph Swallow, of Greeley, to serve as a member of the public.
Rosemary Margaret Lynch, of Cherry Hills Village, to serve as a representative of a public interest group/community group.
The Honorable Wallace L. White, of Durango, reappointed to serve as a representative of local government.
Donald F. Sherman, of Golden, reappointed to serve as a representative of the affected industry.
Roy V. Rudisill of Greeley, to serve, as a representative of a local emergency planning committee.
Stephen D. Riner, of Pueblo, to serve as a representative of the affected industry.
Patricia Gail Williams, of Castle Rock, to serve as a representative of a community group.
The Honorable Steven A. Boand, of Castle Rock, reappointed to serve as a representative of local government.
Paul E. Washington, of Boulder, reappointed as a member of the public at large.
Mashenka Lundberg, of Golden, as a member who is licensed by the state Supreme Court to practice law in Colorado and who is conversant in securities law.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Gallegos; People v. Lopez; People v. Gallegos; People v. Santistevan; People v. Perez on April 11, 2011.
Fourth Amendment—Neutral and Detached Magistrate—Wiretapping.
The Supreme Court consolidated five interlocutory appeals by the People, each concerning the suppression of evidence obtained through wiretap surveillance. The five defendant-appellees joined in a motion to suppress evidence derived from illegal wiretaps, claiming that the orders authorizing wiretap surveillance were invalid because the judge who issued the orders did so while his son worked for the District Attorney’s Office. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, citing statutory and ethical rules of judicial conduct for its determination that the wiretap orders were void for lack of a detached and neutral magistrate. The trial court also found a number of violations of the wiretap statute and wiretap orders.
Because the suppression of evidence is governed foremost by constitutional principles, the Supreme Court held that the proper inquiry in a motion to suppress is not whether a magistrate should have recused himself or herself under rules of judicial conduct, but whether a magistrate manifested the neutrality and detachment demanded by the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, if a warrant or wiretap application is supported by probable cause, evidence should not be suppressed without proof of actual bias by the issuing magistrate. Actual bias is more than an appearance of impropriety; it is an actual conflict so substantial that the magistrate cannot be considered neutral and detached. Because the wiretap orders in this case were supported by probable cause, and because there was no evidence that the judge who issued the orders had an actual conflict, the Court held that the judge who issued the wiretap orders was a neutral and detached magistrate. Furthermore, the violations of the wiretap statute were not sufficient to warrant suppression. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the trial court.
The Colorado Supreme Court adopted a Code of Judicial Conduct rule change concerning media coverage of court proceedings, effective July 1.
This amended Rule 2, “Media Coverage of Court Proceedings,” is in addition to other amendments adopted by the court earlier this summer.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.