Bill Summary
SB26-004 expands who can file an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) petition.
- Adds a health-care facility as a “community member” petitioner if it employs the treating licensed professional and provided care within the last six months.
- Adds a co-responder (who is not law enforcement) who responded to a behavioral health-related call involving the respondent as a “community member” petitioner.
- Creates a new “institutional petitioner” category, allowing certain entities to file ERPO petitions when they employ or contract with a qualifying community member.
- Specifically includes K-12 schools, institutions of higher education (including community colleges, local district colleges, and area technical colleges), hospitals and health-care facilities, and behavioral health or substance use disorder treatment facilities.
- Expands “respondent” to include a minor.
- Authorizes licensed health-care professionals, licensed mental health professionals, and institutional petitioners to disclose protected health information as necessary for ERPO proceedings, with “minimum necessary” limits and court sealing and destruction or return requirements.
Position: Oppose
Public safety matters. Due process matters. And constitutional rights are not paperwork that institutions should be able to take away more easily.
SB26-004 expands the list of ERPO petitioners to include large institutional actors. That moves Colorado further toward a system where rights can be restricted based on institutional risk avoidance, not clear and consistent standards.
Why I Am Taking This Position
1) This bill expands a serious power without adding serious guardrails. ERPOs can restrict a fundamental constitutional right. Expanding who can initiate that process should come with tighter due process protections, not a wider gate.
2) “Institutional petitioner” is a big category with incentives that do not always match individual rights. The bill would allow school systems, colleges, hospitals and health-care facilities, and behavioral health treatment facilities to petition. In the real world, institutions often act to reduce liability first. That is not the same thing as proving an imminent threat in a way that respects due process.
3) The bill further blurs the line between seeking help and triggering legal action. SB26-004 authorizes disclosure of protected health information by institutional petitioners for ERPO proceedings (with limits and sealing requirements). Those limits matter, but the bigger issue is trust. People in crisis need confidence that getting help will not automatically become a legal process unless it truly has to.
4) This explicitly reaches minors. The bill expands the definition of “respondent” to include a minor. Schools and institutions already have tools to address threats and safety concerns. Expanding ERPO filings to more institutional petitioners raises the risk of overreach in situations that demand careful, individualized judgment.
5) The co-responder expansion needs clearer boundaries. The bill adds certain co-responders as eligible petitioners. When the stakes include a constitutional right, definitions and standards need to be tight and consistent.
One dry truth: when you make it easier for more entities to file a petition, you should not be surprised when more petitions get filed.
Call to Action – What You Should Do!
Contact your state senator and state representative. Ask them to vote no on SB26-004 and focus on real public safety: enforce existing laws, improve access to mental health care people can trust, and protect due process like it actually matters.
