Colorado Police Body Camera Laws: Access & Mandate

Colorado requires every local police agency and the Colorado State Patrol to equip officers with body cameras, and requires unedited footage tied to a complaint of officer misconduct to be released within 21 days, extendable to 45, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-902.

This guide is part of our Police Bodycam Laws by State series.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Colorado state law governing police body-worn cameras: the statewide mandate, activation duties, and public release rules under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-902. It does not address a civilian's right to record law enforcement, which is covered separately in our guide to recording laws.

Does Colorado require police to wear body cameras?

Yes. Colorado is one of a small group of states, along with Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Carolina, that mandates body cameras statewide. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-902 required every local law enforcement agency in Colorado and the Colorado State Patrol to provide a body-worn camera to each peace officer who interacts with members of the public, with full compliance required by July 1, 2023, according to the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. The activation duty excludes a narrow set of roles: officers working undercover, jail peace officers and agency staff working in any part of a jail that has functioning video cameras, civilian and administrative staff, the Colorado State Patrol's executive detail, and peace officers working in a courtroom. The jail exclusion carries an important carve-back: it does not apply when a jail peace officer performs a task that requires an anticipated use of force, including cell extractions and restraint chairs, so the recording duty returns in exactly those encounters. The statute traces to Senate Bill 20-217, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act, which was introduced on June 3, 2020 in the 2020 regular session, a session that had recessed because of COVID-19 and reconvened in late May, and which Governor Jared Polis signed on June 19, 2020, according to the Colorado General Assembly's official bill page.

When must a Colorado officer's camera be recording?

Section 24-31-902 sets specific activation triggers rather than leaving it to agency discretion. An officer must wear and activate a body-worn or dash camera when responding to a call for service, when entering a premises to enforce the law or in response to a call for service, during a welfare check other than a simple motorist assist, and during any officer-initiated interaction with the public for the purpose of enforcing the law or investigating a possible violation, whether the interaction is consensual or not, according to Colorado's official statutes portal. The camera does not need to be running en route to a call, but officers should activate it shortly before arriving on scene. Officers may turn a camera off in limited situations, such as to avoid recording unrelated personal information, during an unrelated assignment, or during a long lull in an incident, but turning it off to avoid recording the incident itself is not a permitted use of that discretion.

How fast must Colorado release bodycam footage of a misconduct complaint?

Colorado's release timeline is one of the fastest and most public-facing in the country. When a person files a complaint alleging officer misconduct, the law enforcement agency must release all unedited video and audio recordings of the incident to the public within 21 days of the request. If releasing the recording would substantially interfere with an active or ongoing investigation, the agency may delay release, but the footage must still be released no later than 45 days from the date of the allegation of misconduct, according to Colorado's official statutes portal. Where criminal charges are filed against a party to the incident, the 21-day clock instead begins to run once defense counsel is appointed or enters an appearance, the person elects to proceed without counsel, or the agency receives the criminal complaint, whichever applies.

What gets redacted, and what can be withheld entirely?

Colorado leans toward release with redaction rather than outright denial. Recordings that depict nudity, a sexual assault, a medical emergency, private medical information, or a mental health crisis must generally be blurred to protect the substantial privacy interest involved, while still allowing the rest of the recording to be released. The statute is explicit that this blurring provision does not permit the removal of any portion of the video, and written authorization from the victim, or from the next of kin if the victim has died or is incapacitated, is what allows unblurred footage to be released. It is not a mechanism for holding footage back.

Where blurring is insufficient to protect the substantial privacy interest, the agency must still, on request, release the video to the victim or the victim's family within 20 days of receiving the misconduct complaint, and must notify the person whose privacy interest is implicated, where contact information is known, of the right to waive that interest. A witness, victim, or criminal defendant who waives the interest in writing removes the agency's ability to redact or withhold on that ground. The one route to keeping a recording from the public is an active or ongoing investigation, and even that is capped: the video must be released no later than 45 days from the date of the allegation, and the prosecuting attorney must prepare a written explanation of the interference that justified the delay and release it to the public when the video comes out. This structure reflects the Act's overall design: the presumption runs toward public release, and an agency bears the burden of justifying any delay or redaction rather than the requester having to justify disclosure.

What happens if an officer doesn't turn the camera on, or tampers with footage?

Colorado backs its activation and release rules with real consequences. Any failure to activate a camera as required, or any tampering with footage or the camera's operation, creates a permissive inference that the missing footage would have reflected the officer's misconduct. That inference is available in any investigation or legal proceeding, with a single carve-out for criminal proceedings against the peace officer, so it can be invoked in civil-rights litigation, in an internal-affairs review, and by a defendant in a criminal case, but not in a prosecution of the officer himself. If a court, an administrative law judge, a hearing officer, or a final internal-investigation decision finds that an officer intentionally failed to activate a body-worn or dash camera, or tampered with footage or the camera's operation, the officer's employer must impose discipline up to and including termination, according to the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. The Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Board must suspend the officer's certification for a minimum of one year where that intentional failure or tampering was done with the intent to conceal unlawful or inappropriate actions or obstruct justice, and must permanently revoke certification where the same conduct occurred in an incident resulting in a civilian's death or serious bodily injury. Separately, if an officer's statements or conduct related to an incident were not recorded because of a failure to activate or a tampering violation, those statements carry a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility if the prosecution later tries to introduce them.

The Kilyn Lewis case: the Act enforced in court

Colorado's release requirements are not just theoretical. In May 2024, an Aurora SWAT officer shot and killed Kilyn Lewis, who was unarmed, after the officer said he mistakenly believed Lewis was reaching for a gun. When Denver TV station KUSA-9NEWS sought the full, unedited body camera footage and the City of Aurora provided only select portions, the station sued. In June 2025, Arapahoe County District Judge Benjamin Todd Figa ruled that the Aurora Police Department had violated the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act by withholding the complete footage and ordered the department to release it, according to 9NEWS. The case is a real, on-the-record example of how Colorado's 21-day and 45-day release deadlines operate when an agency resists disclosure: the statute gives requesters, including news organizations, a direct path to court enforcement rather than leaving compliance to the agency's discretion.

Is a civilian allowed to record the police in Colorado?

That is a separate question from what this page addresses. Colorado generally recognizes a person's right to record an on-duty officer performing public duties in a public place. For a full explanation of that right and how it differs from the rules on police-generated bodycam footage discussed here, see Is It Illegal to Record Someone?

More Colorado Laws

• Colorado Data Privacy Laws
• Colorado Drone Laws
• Colorado Recording Laws