Background
EWU Media requested records concerning the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office’s investigation into the October 2024 death of an elderly man on the Conundrum Creek Trail. The sheriff’s records custodian denied the request, concluding that the records were confidential reports of an at-risk adult’s self-neglect under Colorado’s at-risk adult reporting statute.
At a district court hearing under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, testimony showed that the seventy-seven- or seventy-eight-year-old hiker had dementia symptoms, lacked the physical stamina required for the hike, and set out without water or adequate clothing. The district court upheld the denial, finding that the evidence supported treating the hiker as an at-risk adult who had engaged in self-neglect.
The Court’s Holding
In a 2-1 decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The majority held that the custodian did not abuse his discretion by determining that the hiker lacked sufficient capacity to make responsible decisions and substantially endangered himself by undertaking a strenuous October hike without water or adequate clothing.
The majority construed “services necessary to meet essential human needs” broadly to include acts that secure necessities such as food, water, and clothing, whether performed by the individual or a third party. Because disclosure would violate the statute making reports of an at-risk adult’s self-neglect confidential, the custodian was required to deny inspection under the CCJRA. The court also denied EWU Media’s request for costs and attorney fees.
Judge J. Jones dissented, reasoning that water and clothing are goods, not “services,” and that the custodian had conceded there was no evidence the hiker failed to seek help or care. The dissent would have reversed, ordered disclosure, and awarded EWU Media its reasonable costs and attorney fees.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal-justice records custodian must deny inspection when disclosure would contravene Colorado’s statute protecting reports of an at-risk adult’s self-neglect.
- The majority interpreted “services” to encompass acts securing essential necessities, including obtaining water and adequate clothing for oneself.
- The decision was divided and unpublished, with the dissent arguing that the majority expanded “services” beyond the term’s ordinary meaning.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the at-risk adult confidentiality statute beyond conventional reports involving failures to obtain outside care or assistance. Under the majority’s interpretation, law enforcement records may be withheld when evidence supports finding that an impaired adult failed to secure basic necessities personally needed for safety.
The dissent highlights a potentially significant textual dispute over whether self-provision of goods can qualify as obtaining “services.” Because the opinion is unpublished under Colorado Appellate Rule 35(e), its precedential use is limited.