Failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer in Colorado

Failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer charges commonly arise in the context of protests or demonstrations. They also arise when a police officer tells someone to leave a certain area and someone fails to do so or refuses. While members of the public generally have the right to participate in public assemblies and be in public spaces, the law prohibits a person refusing to leave a premises or property after a police officer orders a person to leave.

In Colorado, failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer can be charged as a misdemeanor offense or felony offense. The seriousness of the charges depends on a variety of factors.

C.R.S. Section 18-9-119 Colorado’s failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer statute

Failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer is defined in C.R.S. 18-9-119 which provides:

(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that any individual who violates any provision of this section presents a significant threat to life and property in this state; that such violations require the use of highly trained personnel and sophisticated equipment; and that any such individual, if guilty, shall be convicted of committing a crime and be required to pay for any extraordinary expenses which are a result of said violation.

(2) Any person who barricades or refuses police entry to any premises or property through use of or threatened use of force and who knowingly refuses or fails to leave any premises or property upon being requested to do so by a peace officer who has probable cause to believe a crime is occurring and that such person constitutes a danger to himself or herself or others commits a class 2 misdemeanor.

(3) Any person who violates subsection (2) of this section and who, in the same criminal episode, knowingly holds another person hostage or who confines or detains such other person without that person’s consent, without proper legal authority, and without the use of a deadly weapon commits a class 1 misdemeanor.

(4) Any person who violates subsection (2) or (3) of this section and who, in the same criminal episode, recklessly or knowingly causes a peace officer to believe that he possesses a deadly weapon commits a class 1 misdemeanor.

(5) Any person who violates subsection (2) of this section and who, in the same criminal episode, knowingly holds another person hostage or who confines or detains such other person through the possession, use, or threatened use of a deadly weapon, without the other person’s consent, and without proper legal authority commits a class 3 felony.

(6)(a)Any person convicted of a violation of this section or any person who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a violation of this section or is placed on deferred judgment and sentence for a violation of this section shall be responsible for the payment of up to a maximum of two thousand dollars for any extraordinary expenses incurred by a law enforcement agency as a result of such violation.

(b)As used in paragraph (a) of this subsection (6), “extraordinary expenses” means any cost relating to a violation of the provisions of this section, including, but not limited to, overtime wages for officers and operating expenses of any equipment utilized as a result of such violation or any damage to property occurring as a result of any violation of this section.

(7) Any person who violates subsection (2) of this section and who, in the same criminal episode, knowingly holds another person hostage or confines or detains such other person by knowingly causing such other person to reasonably believe that the person possesses a deadly weapon commits a class 4 felony.

(8) As used in this section, to “hold hostage” means to seize, imprison, entice, detain, confine, or persuade another person to remain in any premises or on any property during a violation of any provision of this section in order to seek concessions from law enforcement personnel or their representatives, or to prevent their entry to property or premises. The term includes imprisoning, enticing, detaining, confining, or persuading any child to remain in said premises or on said property in an attempt to secure said concessions.

Possible Penalties Failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer in Colorado

Regardless of the whether the failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer is charged as a misdemeanor or felony offense, the possible penalties for a conviction include fines, restitution, probation, jail, or prison if charged as a felony. Additionally, a failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer conviction can result in serious collateral consequences including employment consequences, child custody consequences, housing consequences, immigration consequences, and many other civil consequences that can flow from a failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer conviction.

Rights & Liberties Law Firm has assembled a possible penalties chart to help you better understand the possible penalties a person charged with arson in Colorado will face.

Degree of failure or refusal to leave premises offense

Possible Penalties

Class 2 Misdemeanor

Up to 120 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$750 fine;
Restitution

Class 1 Misdemeanor

364 days jail; or
Probation;
And up to a $1,000 fine;
Restitution

Class 4 Felony

2-6 years in Colorado State Prison or Community Corrections followed by 3 years of mandatory parole; or
Probation; and/or
$2,000 – $500,000 fine;
Restitution

Class 3 Felony

4-12 years in Colorado State Prison followed by 3 years of mandatory parole; or
Probation; and/or
$3,000 – $750,000 fine;
Restitution

Degree of failure or refusal to leave premises offense

(Click Links Below To See Penalties)

Possible Penalties

Class 2 Misdemeanor

Up to 120 days in jail; or
Probation; and/or
$750 fine;
Restitution

Class 1 Misdemeanor

364 days jail; or
Probation;
And up to a $1,000 fine;
Restitution

Class 4 Felony

2-6 years in Colorado State Prison or Community Corrections followed by 3 years of mandatory parole; or
Probation; and/or
$2,000 – $500,000 fine;
Restitution

Class 3 Felony

4-12 years in Colorado State Prison followed by 3 years of mandatory parole; or
Probation; and/or
$3,000 – $750,000 fine;
Restitution

Defenses to failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer in Colorado

Facing charges under C.R.S. 18-9-119 can be daunting, but there are several defenses that may be available to you. Understanding these defenses is crucial for building a strong case. Here are some common defenses to this charge:

General Denial

The accused will be acquitted if the prosecution cannot prove every element of the arson offense beyond a reasonable doubt. When the accused raises a general denial defense, the accused denies that the criminal elements of the arson exist. General denial is related to the failure of proof defense. The failure of proof defense arises when the accused pokes holes in the prosecution’s case and argues that the prosecution failed to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lack of Probable Cause

One of the primary defenses is that the peace officer did not have probable cause to request that you leave the premises. Probable cause means that the officer had a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed. If it can be shown that the officer lacked probable cause, the charges may be dismissed.

No Clear Request to Leave

For a charge under C.R.S. 18-9-119 to hold, the peace officer must have clearly communicated the request for you to leave the premises. If the request was ambiguous or not properly conveyed, this can be a strong defense.

Lawful Presence

If you had a legal right to be on the premises, such as being a tenant or having permission from the property owner, this can serve as a defense. The prosecution must prove that you were unlawfully on the property.

Lack of Knowledge

The lack of knowledge defense to failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer is a general denial defense that attacks the mental state element of the offense, the knowingly element of failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer charge. The accused can raise this defense to argue that although the accused may have been at the assembly and may have engaged in conduct that gave rise to the alleged disruption, the accused did not have knowingly refuse or fail to leave premises.

First Amendment – Free Speech, Right to Assemble, and Protest Defense to Failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. II. Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution protects an individual’s right to freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. These rights are instrumental in allowing citizens to express their views and to protest without fear of government interference.

The right to peaceful protest is closely tied to the freedom of speech. This means that individuals have the right to express their views, even if they are controversial or unpopular, without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to assemble peaceably is also protected, allowing people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas.

In the context of failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer, the accused can raise a free speech, right to assemble and protest defense. This would involve arguing that the actions taken were a form of protected speech or assembly. This defense involves a complex fact specific inquiry the depends heavily on the details of the case, including the nature of the disruption, the intent of the individual, and the impact on the assembly. In certain circumstances, the First Amendment can be a powerful defense to failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer charges.

Mistaken Identity

Mistaken identity is a general denial defense that attacks the element of who committed the alleged offense. As the prosecution is required not only to prove that the offense happened, but that the person charged committed the offense, the mistaken identity defense can be an effective way to challenge the prosecution on the element of who committed the crime. In the context of a failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer case, mistaken identify defenses usually arise when the accused is arrested and charged with disobedience to public safety orders in riot conditions after the alleged offense happened or when the accused is identified after a chaotic situation where eyewitness accounts are not trustworthy. Mistaken identity cases often involve witness misidentification issues, poor witness perception issues, inaccurate, improper, or biased police identification procedures, grainy surveillance videos, and mistaken eyewitness accounts.

Alternate Suspect

The alternate suspect defense occasionally arises in failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer cases. When the accused raises the alternate suspect defense, he or she does so to cast doubt on the identity element of the offense. In other words, the alternate suspect defense is used to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence that the accused committed the crime. By raising the alternate suspect defense, the accused casts doubt on the identity element of offense by raising the possibility that another person committed the offense rather than the accused. In Colorado failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer trials the admissibility of alternate suspect evidence will depend on “the strength of the connection between the alternate suspect and the charged crime. If there is a non-speculative connection or nexus between the alternate suspect and the crime charged, the evidence will be admissible.”

If the defense introduces “alternate suspect” evidence, the judge must “look to whether all the similar acts and circumstances, taken together, support a finding that the same person was probably involved in both the other act and the charged crime.” If the judge finds that the accused has presented evidence sufficient to support a finding that an alternate suspect committed the crime, the accused can have the jury consider this evidence in their deliberations. While the alternate suspect defense is seldom used in failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer cases, certain circumstances will give rise to the availability of this defense.

Duress

Under Colorado’s duress statute C.R.S. 18-1-708, a person may not be convicted of an offense, other than a class 1 felony, based upon conduct in which he engaged at the direction of another person because of the use or threatened use of unlawful force upon him or upon another person, which force or threatened use thereof a reasonable person in his situation would have been unable to resist. This defense is not available when a person intentionally or recklessly places himself in a situation in which it is foreseeable that he will be subjected to such force or threatened use thereof. The choice of evils defense, provided in section 18-1-702, shall not be available to a defendant in addition to the defense of duress provided under this section unless separate facts exist which warrant its application.

Choice of Evils

Under Colorado’s choice of evils statute, C.R.S. 18-1-702 (1) conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. If the defense introduces “alternate suspect” evidence, the judge must “look to whether all the similar acts and circumstances, taken together, support a finding that the same person was probably involved in both the other act and the charged crime.” If the judge finds that the accused has presented evidence sufficient to support a finding that an alternate suspect committed the crime, the accused can have the jury consider this evidence in their deliberations. While the alternate suspect defense is seldom used in failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer cases, certain circumstances will give rise to the availability of this defense.

(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. When evidence relating to the defense of justification under this section is offered by the defendant, before it is submitted for the consideration of the jury, the court shall first rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification.

Statute of Limitations for failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer in Colorado

In Colorado the statute of limitations for commencing criminal charges against a person is governed by C.R.S. Section 16-5-401. The statute of limitations for commencing criminal charges for Colorado arson crimes is as follows:

Felony failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer charges must be filed within 3 years. C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a.5)
Misdemeanor failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer charges must be filed with 18 months. C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a.5)
Petty failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer charges must be filed within 6 months. C.R.S. 16-5-401(1)(a.5)

Contact the experienced attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm to Fight for You Today

If you’ve been charged with a failure or refusal to leave premises or property upon request of a peace officer contact the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm to vindicate your rights and protect your liberties. If you’re facing criminal charges or fear you may be charged time is of the essence. Start Your Free Criminal Defense Case Quote. By retaining Rights & Liberties Law Firm you can rest assured that:

The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will use experienced investigators and experts to look into the case to get ahead of the police and prosecutors, whether there has already been an arrest or an investigation is on-going;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will advocate for you during your bond hearing to get you released from custody on the lowest possible amount of bail or on a personal recognizance bond;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm will litigate all constitutional violations and fight to suppress any evidence illegally seized or obtained by police and investigators in violation of your rights;
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm are trial dogs. If you’re prepared to go all the way, so are we. We’ll take your case to the jury and fight with everything we’ve got to secure your acquittal.
The attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm are skilled negotiators. If you’ve made a mistake we will leave no stone unturned in presenting mitigation to contextualize your circumstances. We will obtain information and prepare a mitigation presentation or report to the prosecutor to present you in your best light and show the state and the judge that despite your mistakes you’re a dignified human being worthy of leniency and redemption. We will protect you from the overly punitive instincts of the criminal legal system and obtain the best plea bargain possible.
If you’re up against the wall facing serious charges, jail, or prison time the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm have your back. From drug distribution and barfights to sex assaults and homicides the attorneys at Rights & Liberties Law Firm know that life gets wild and things fall apart. We’ll fight to keep your life together and advocate to ensure that you receive a non-prison sentence, or one which results in the lowest amount of prison time possible.
If you’re wondering why we do this work, we’re in it because we care. At Rights & Liberties Law Firm we believe that no individual’s crime holds a candle to the injustices meted out by our unusually cruel overly punitive criminal legal system. At Rights & Liberties Law Firm we fight for people whose talents, dreams, and lives have been put on hold by a criminal accusation. Let us fight for you.