Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Section 25. Due process of law.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 32.

Cross references: For inalienable rights, see § 3 of this article; for equality of justice, see § 6 of this article; for rights reserved to the people, see § 28 of this article and § 1 of article V of this constitution; for taking of property by eminent domain proceedings, see articles 1 to 7 of title 38; for searches and seizures, see § 7 of this article; for rights of defendant in criminal prosecutions, see § 16 of this article; for self-incrimination and jeopardy, see § 18 of this article; for the admissibility of laboratory test results, see § 16-3-309.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Definitions.

III. Due Process.

A. Generally.

1. Standards for Determining Due Process.

2. Application of General Due Process Standard.

B. Jurisdiction.

C. Procedural Due Process - Notice and Hearing Requirements.

1. Requirements for Notice.

2. Elements for Hearing.

3. Application of Notice and Hearing Requirements.

D. Statutory Notice of Proscribed Conduct.

1. Standards for Vagueness.

2. Application of Vagueness Standards.

IV. Equal Protection.

A. Generally.

B. Fundamental Rights/Interests/Liberties.

C. Standard for Review of Equal Protection Claims.

D. Application of Equal Protection Standards.

1. Driving Privileges.

2. Juvenile Cases.

3. Criminal Statutes - Sentencing.

4. Jury Selection.

5. Elections.

6. Miscellaneous.

V. Police Power.

A. Generally.

B. Business.

C. Right to Public Trial.

1. Open Proceedings.

2. Publicity.

D. Timing of Trial.

E. Right to Counsel.

F. Pleas.

1. General.

2. Reliance on Promises.

G. Jury.

H. Insanity Defense.

I. Defendant's Rights at Trial.

1. To Be Present.

2. To Testify.

J. Evidence.

1. Duty to Preserve and Provide Access to Evidence.

2. Admissibility of Evidence.

3. Witnesses.

K. Pre-trial and In-court Identification.

L. Prosecutorial Misconduct.

M. Standards and Burden of Proof.

N. Sentencing.

O. Appeal.

P. Postconviction Treatment.

Q. Juvenile Delinquency.

VII. Criminal Statutes.

VIII. Noncriminal Proceedings.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For article, "Martial Law in Colorado", see 5 Den. B. Ass'n Rec. 4 (Feb. 1928). For article, "Legality of the Denver Housing Authority", see 12 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 30 (1939). For article, "Why Legal Advertising", see 17 Dicta 197 (1940). For article, "An Analysis of the Colorado Labor Peace Act", see 19 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 359 (1947). For note, "A Non-Judicial Dissent to Amendment of Canon 35", see 34 Dicta 55 (1957). For article, "A Review of the 1959 Constitutional and Administrative Law Decisions", see 37 Dicta 81 (1960). For note, "Colorado's Maximum Recovery for Wrongful Death v. the Constitution", see 38 Dicta 237 (1961). For article, "One Year Review of Constitutional and Administrative Law", see 38 Dicta 154 (1961). For comment on Toland v. Strohl, appearing below, see 34 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 392 (1962). For article, "One Year Review of Torts", see 40 Den. L. Ctr. J. 160 (1963). For article, "Fair Housing in Colorado", see 42 Den. L. Ctr. J. 1 (1965). For comment on City of Colorado Springs v. Kitty Hawk Dev. Co., appearing below, see 37 U. Colo. L. Rev. 303 (1965). For comment on White v. Davis, appearing below, see 40 U. Colo. L. Rev. 151 (1967). For article, "A Review of Recent Activity in Colorado Water Law", see 47 Den. L. J. 181 (1970). For comment, "Bastardizing the Legitimate Child: The Colorado Supreme Court Invalidates the Uniform Parentage Act Presumption of Legitimacy in R. McG. v. J.W.", see 59 Den. L.J. 157 (1981). For article, "Liberty vs. Equality: Congressional Enforcement Power Under the Fourteenth Amendment", see 59 Den. L.J. 417 (1982). For article, "Governmental Loss or Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence: A Due Process Violation", see 12 Colo. Law. 77 (1983). For article, "Asserting Vested Rights in Colorado", see 12 Colo. Law. 1199 (1983). For casenote, "People v. Quintana: How 'Probative' Is This Colorado Decision Excluding Evidence of Post-Arrest Silence?", see 56 U. Colo. L. Rev. 157 (1984). For article, "Civil Rights", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with due process, see 62 Den. U.L. Rev. 62 (1985). For comment, "Setting Boundaries for Student Due Process: Rustad v. United States Air Force and the Right to Counsel in Disciplinary Dismissal Proceedings", see 62 Den. U.L. Rev. 109 (1985). For comment, "Twenty Questions does not Yield Due Process: Chaney v. Brown and the Continued Need to Open Prosecutor's Files in Criminal Proceedings", see 62 Den. U.L. Rev. 193 (1985). For article, "The Federal Due Process and Equal Protection Rights of Non-Indian Civil Litigants in Tribal Courts After Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez", see 62 Den. U.L. Rev. 761 (1985). For article, "Austin v. Litvak, Colorado's Statute of Repose for Medical Malpractice Claims: An Uneasy Sleep", see 62 Den. U.L. Rev. 825 (1985). For article, "Economic Analysis of Liberty and Property: A Critique", see 57 U. Colo. L. Rev. 747 (1986). For comment, "Bee v. Greaves: A Pretrial Detainee's Constitutional Right to Refuse Antipsychotic Drugs Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments", see 63 Den. U. L. Rev. 273 (1986). For article, "Constitutional Law", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with due process, see 63 Den. U. L. Rev. 247 (1986). For comment, "The Failure of the Due Process Defense in United States v. Gamble", see 63 Den. U. L. Rev.327 (1986). For article, "Constitutional Law", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with due process, see 64 Den. U.L. Rev. 202 (1987). For article, "Constitutional Law", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with due process, see 65 Den. U. L. Rev. 519 (1988). For a discussion of Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with criminal procedure, see 66 Den. U. L. Rev. 739 (1989). For articles, "Civil Rights", "Constitutional Law", and "Criminal Procedure", which discuss Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with due process, see 67 Den. U. L. Rev. 639, 653, and 701 (1990). For article, "Defects, Due Process, and Protective Proceedings", see 27 Colo. Law. 39 (April 1998).

Section deemed guaranty against exercise of arbitrary power. The exercise of arbitrary power by any department of government, or agency thereof, is inconsistent with democracy. The guaranties against the exercise of such arbitrary power are found in this section and section 10 of this article. People v. Harris, 104 Colo. 386, 91 P.2d 989 (1939).

Levying of special assessment on property that receives no benefit is a taking without due process. When a special district levies a special assessment on property to generate revenue for a project that does not provide any direct, indirect, or special benefit to the property, it engages in an act of confiscation that violates the due process rights of the property owners. Landmark Towers Ass'n v. UMB Bank, 2018 COA 100, ___ P.3d ___.

The fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, § 25, of the Colorado Constitution protect individuals from arbitrary governmental restrictions on property and liberty interests. Watso v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 841 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1992).

Due process of law is summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which are so rooted in the traditions and conscience of the people as to be ranked as fundamental, or are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Toland v. Strohl, 147 Colo. 577, 364 P.2d 588 (1961).

Minimum guarantees. The due process clause of this section requires at a minimum the same guarantees as those protected by the due process clause of the federal constitution. Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. W. Alfalfa Corp., 191 Colo. 455, 553 P.2d 811 (1976); City and County of Denver v. Eggert, 647 P.2d 216 (Colo. 1982).

Constitutional guarantees are not always absolute and full exercise thereof is not always possible. Stapleton v. District Court, 179 Colo. 187, 499 P.2d 310 (1972).

State may enlarge, but not abridge, federal concept of due process. Under the United States Constitution the state cannot deny a right or impose a liability which is contrary to the federal concept of due process of law; it does not say that a state has no right, under the state due process clause, to create protections for its citizens which might not be required under the federal concept. People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).

And federal power will not nullify state's concept of due process. So long as state action does not deny a right protected under the federal concept of due process, or impose a liability prohibited thereby, the federal power will not nullify the rights and protections which, within the state, are recognized as part and parcel of due process under the state constitution. People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).

Due process takes precedence over legislation. The requirements of due process of law under both the United States and Colorado Constitutions take precedence over statutory enactments of the general assembly. White v. Davis, 163 Colo. 122, 428 P.2d 909 (1967).

The hand of the general assembly is restrained by the due process clause of the state constitution from overturning established principles of private rights and distributive justice. People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).

The general assembly may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of a property interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards. Weston v. Cassata, 37 P.3d 469 (Colo. App. 2001).

Conformity to due process does not require ideal system, nor does it demand of an act that it provide against every possible hardship that may befall. People ex rel. Dunbar v. First Nat'l Bank, 144 Colo. 412, 356 P.2d 967 (1960).

This section is applicable to rights, not to remedies. White v. Ainsworth, 62...