Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 18
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-427 (2026)

Drug paraphernalia - determination - considerations

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court, in its discretion, may consider, in addition to all other relevant factors, the following:

(a) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use;

(b) The proximity of the object to controlled substances;

(c) The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object;

(d) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the knowledge of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, or evidence that such person reasonably should know, that it will be delivered to persons who he knows or reasonably should know, could use the object to facilitate a violation of sections 18-18-425 to 18-18-430;

(e) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use;

(f) Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use;

(g) National or local advertising concerning its use;

(h) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale;

(i) Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a supplier of like or related items to the community for legal purposes, such as an authorized distributor or dealer of tobacco products;

(j) The existence and scope of legal uses for the object in the community;

(k) Expert testimony concerning its use.

(2) In the event a case brought pursuant to sections 18-18-425 to 18-18-430 is tried before a jury, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on issues raised pursuant to this section. Such hearing shall be conducted in camera.

Source: L. 92: Entire article R&RE, p. 377, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 12-22-503 as it existed prior to 1992.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2012 · leading case: People v. Nelson, 296 P.3d 177 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Nelson, 296 P.3d 177 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “We reject Nelson's arguments regarding the possible legal uses of the glass pipe, and further conclude that the court was not required to evaluate whether the pipe was drug paraphernalia under section 18-18-427, C.R.S. 2011. See Mendez v.”
State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001). “See Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 18-18-427 (West 1997); Conn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.