Opinion ID: 2634802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sheriff's Public Capacity and Function

Text: Under Colorado law, a sheriff is an officer of the county, the head of a law enforcement agency, and a peace officer. §§ 30-10-501 to -523, 16-2.5-103, C.R.S. (2005). A fundamental function of a peace officer and his or her criminal law enforcement agency is to investigate crimes. Consequently, a peace officer may obtain a search warrant from a court upon proper application, execution, and return. Id. §§ 16-3-301 to -305. Once a peace officer obtains a search warrant, he or she is authorized, in fact commanded, to search the person, premises, place, property, or thing described in the search warrant and to seize property described or identified therein. Id. § 16-1-104(16). A sheriff's department is a criminal justice agency under the CCJRA. Id. § 24-72-302(3) (including within the definition of a criminal justice agency any law enforcement authority which performs any activity directly relating to the detection or investigation of crime). A sheriff's department is the official custodian of criminal justice records, § 24-72-302(8), C.R.S. (2005), that are made, maintained, or kept . . . for use in the exercise of functions required or authorized by law or administrative rule, id. § 24-72-302(4); see Johnson v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 972 P.2d 692, 694 (Colo.App.1998). In the case before us, seizure of the recordings was demonstrably within the Sheriff's public capacity and function to investigate crimes connected to the Columbine killings and the content of the recordings was relevant to that investigation as evidence of how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold planned and carried out their crimes and whether they were assisted by other persons. [2] Instead of focusing on whether the Sheriff (a) was using the recordings in its public capacity in the performance of a public function, and (b) had the authority to allow or deny public access to them under the provisions of the CCJRA, the district court assumed that subjecting seized private records to the CCJRA would require all seized private records to be made public on request, despite privacy interests involved. But, the CCJRA is not nearly so preemptive of property and privacy interests. Had the trial court or any other court of law ruled that the recordings seized through the search warrant were obtained illegally and ordered their return to the owner with no public inspection being allowed, they would not be criminal justice records that the Sheriff had the discretion to disclose under section 24-72-305(1). Such a circumstance would trigger the exception stated in section 24-72-305(1)(b), which prohibits inspection when by order of any court. Here, Harris and Klebold simply contend that private records seized by a search warrant are not criminal justice records. Absent a court determination that the search warrant was improperly issued, [3] such a position is patently contrary to law that allows the government to intrude upon a person's privacy and validly seize evidence of a crime, though it be private property, for investigation and/or prosecutorial purposes. See, e.g., People v. D.F., 933 P.2d 9, 16 (Colo.1997). As the Denver Publishing case instructs, at 196, we must determine whether the custodian was keeping the records for use in the exercise of functions required or authorized by law or administrative rule. Despite arguments to us that the Sheriff was merely possessing the recordings pending their return, the record in this case reveals that the Sheriff used the content of the recordings in investigating the murders, bringing charges against an individual who helped Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold obtain the weapons they used in the crimes, and making its report to the public concerning the crimes.