(1) A person commits cybercrime if the person knowingly:
(a) Accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof without authorization; exceeds authorized access to a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof; or uses a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof without authorization or in excess of authorized access; or
(b) Accesses any computer, computer network, or computer system, or any part thereof for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud; or
(c) Accesses any computer, computer network, or computer system, or any part thereof to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money; property; services; passwords or similar information through which a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof may be accessed; or other thing of value; or
(d) Accesses any computer, computer network, or computer system, or any part thereof to commit theft; or
(e) Without authorization or in excess of authorized access alters, damages, interrupts, or causes the interruption or impairment of the proper functioning of, or causes any damage to, any computer, computer network, computer system, computer software, program, application, documentation, or data contained in such computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof; or
(f) Causes the transmission of a computer program, software, information, code, data, or command by means of a computer, computer network, or computer system or any part thereof with the intent to cause damage to or to cause the interruption or impairment of the proper functioning of or that actually causes damage to or the interruption or impairment of the proper functioning of any computer, computer network, computer system, or part thereof; or
(g) Uses or causes to be used a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet to access a computer, computer network, or computer system, or any part thereof, that circumvents or disables any electronic queues, waiting periods, or other technological measure intended by the seller to limit the number of event tickets that may be purchased by any single person in an online event ticket sale as defined in section 6-1-720, C.R.S.; or
(h) Solicits or offers to arrange a situation in which a minor may engage in prostitution, by means of using a computer, computer network, computer system, or any part thereof; or
(i) Directly or indirectly uses a scanning device to access, read, obtain, memorize, or store, temporarily or permanently, information encoded on the payment card without the permission of the authorized user of the payment card, and with the intent to defraud the authorized user, the issuer of the authorized user's payment card, or a merchant; or
(j) Directly or indirectly uses an encoding machine to place information encoded on the payment card onto a different payment card without the permission of the authorized user of the payment card from which the information being reencoded was obtained, and with the intent to defraud the authorized user, the issuer of the authorized user's payment card, or a merchant.
(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 695, § 8, effective July 1, 2000.)
(3) (a) Except as provided in subsections (3)(b), (3)(b.5), and (3)(c) of this section, if the loss, damage, value of services, or thing of value taken, or cost of restoration or repair caused by a violation of this section is:
(I) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2018.)
(II) Less than three hundred dollars, cybercrime is a petty offense;
(III) Three hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars, cybercrime is a class 2 misdemeanor;
(IV) One thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars, cybercrime is a class 1 misdemeanor;
(V) Two thousand dollars or more but less than five thousand dollars, cybercrime is a class 6 felony;
(VI) Five thousand dollars or more but less than twenty thousand dollars, cybercrime is a class 5 felony;
(VII) Twenty thousand dollars or more but less than one hundred thousand dollars, cybercrime is a class 4 felony;
(VIII) One hundred thousand dollars or more but less than one million dollars, cybercrime is a class 3 felony; and
(IX) One million dollars or more, cybercrime is a class 2 felony.
(b) Cybercrime committed in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor. (b.5) Cybercrime committed in violation of subsection (1)(h), (1)(i), or (1)(j) of this section is a class 5 felony.
(c) (I) Cybercrime committed in violation of subsection (1)(g) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.
(II) If cybercrime is committed to obtain event tickets, each ticket purchased shall constitute a separate offense.
(III) Subsection (1)(g) of this section shall not prohibit the resale of tickets in a secondary market by a person other than the event sponsor or promoter.
(d) Consistent with section 18-1-202, a prosecution for a violation of subsection (1)(g) of this section may be tried in the county where the event has been, or will be, held.
(4) Nothing in this section precludes punishment pursuant to any other section of law.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an individual may authorize an agent to access and process, on that individual's behalf, that individual's personal data or other information held on a computer, computer network, or computer system and that is otherwise accessible to the individual. An authorized agent remains liable for any unauthorized activity on a system under applicable unfair competition laws; the federal "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act", 18 U.S.C. sec. 1030 et seq., as amended; and other provisions of this section.
Source: L. 79: Entire article added, p. 728, § 7, effective July 1. L. 83: (1) amended, p. 705, § 3, effective July 1. L. 84: (3) amended, p. 538, § 14, effective July 1, 1985. L. 89: (3) amended, p. 839, § 75, effective July 1. L. 92: (3) amended, p. 437, § 9, effective April 10. L. 98: (3) amended, p. 1440, § 18, effective July 1; (3) amended, p. 797, § 12, effective July 1. L. 2000: Entire section amended, p. 695, § 8, effective July 1. L. 2007: (3)(a) amended, p. 1696, § 14, effective July 1. L. 2008: (1)(g), (3)(c), and (3)(d) added and (3)(a) amended, p. 2230, §§ 3, 4, effective July 1. L. 2014: (3)(a) amended, (HB 14-1266), ch. 155, p. 539, § 5, effective August 6. L. 2018: IP(1) and (3) amended and (1)(h), (1)(i), (1)(j), and (4) added, (HB 18-1200), ch. 379, p. 2290, § 2, effective August 8. L. 2021: (3)(a)(II), (3)(a)(III), (3)(a)(IV), and (3)(c)(I) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3191, § 256, effective March 1, 2022. L. 2022: (5) added, (SB 22-113), ch. 463, p. 3294, § 7, effective August 10. L. 2023: (3)(b) amended, (HB 23-1293), ch. 298, p. 1787, § 24, effective October 1.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2007 act amending subsection (3)(a), see section 1 of chapter 384, Session Laws of Colorado 2007.
ARTICLE 6 Offenses Involving the Family Relations Editor's note: This title was repealed and reenacted in 1971. For historical information concerning the repeal and reenactment, see the editor's note following the title heading.
PART 1 ABORTION 18-6-101 to 18-6-105. (Repealed) Source: L. 2013: Entire part repealed, (HB 13-1154), ch. 372, p. 2192, § 3, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This article was numbered as article 6 of chapter 40, C.R.S. 1963. For amendments to this part 1 prior to its repeal in 2013, consult the 2012 Colorado Revised Statutes, the Colorado statutory research explanatory note beginning on page vii in the front of this volume, and the editor's note following the article heading.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration in the 2013 act repealing this part 1, see section 1 of chapter 372, Session Laws of Colorado 2013.
PART 2
BIGAMY
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case:
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 51× “§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Rice, 198 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 18× “The prosecution charged defendant with computer crime pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of section 18-5.5-102(1). Under those subsections, A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly: j ' [[Image here]] .”
People v. Schupper, 353 P.3d 880 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “5); and computer crime, § 18-5.5-102(1), C.R.S.2013. Several of these charges are addressed in separate opinions of this court.”
People v. Randell, 297 P.3d 989 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “Consequently, the prosecution had to prove that defendant accessed a computer for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme to defraud, see § 18-5.5-102(1)®b), or accessed a computer to commit theft, see § 18-5.”
People v. Galang, 382 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 17× “,”); § 18-5.5-102(1)®, ("A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly .”
People v. Robb, 215 P.3d 1253 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “A division of this court interpreted the current version of the computer crime statute, section 18-5.5-102, C.R.S.2008, which replaced the word "use" with the word "access" as the operative verb in the sections describing the elements of the crime.”
People v. Pahl, 169 P.3d 169 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “202, § 18-5.5-102(1) at 705-06. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 51× “§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Galang, 2016 COA 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 22× “5-102(1)(b), and for that matter sections 18-5.5-102(1)(a) and 18-5.5-102(1)(f), 6 is to preserve the use of computers for legitimate ends.”
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019).
· cites it 2× “(2019); § 18-5.5-102, C.R.S. (2019); § 35-37-121, C.”
People v. Ragusa, 220 P.3d 1002 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “2008, and fifty-one counts of computer crime and attempted computer crime in violation of section 18-5.5-102(1)(b), C.R.S.2008, for stealing and attempting to steal approximately $1.”
People v. Stotz, 381 P.3d 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 41× “§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶ 30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1) — 9 cases
People v. Rice, 198 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The prosecution charged defendant with computer crime pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of section 18-5.5-102(1). Under those subsections, A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly: j ' [[Image here]] .”
People v. Schupper, 353 P.3d 880 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
“5); and computer crime, § 18-5.5-102(1), C.R.S.2013. Several of these charges are addressed in separate opinions of this court.”
People v. Pahl, 169 P.3d 169 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“202, § 18-5.5-102(1) at 705-06. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.”
People v. Robb, 215 P.3d 1253 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“A division of this court interpreted the current version of the computer crime statute, section 18-5.5-102, C.R.S.2008, which replaced the word "use" with the word "access" as the operative verb in the sections describing the elements of the crime.”
People v. Randell, 297 P.3d 989 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“Consequently, the prosecution had to prove that defendant accessed a computer for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme to defraud, see § 18-5.5-102(1)®b), or accessed a computer to commit theft, see § 18-5.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1)(2) — 2 cases
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1)(a) — 2 cases
People v. Galang, 2016 COA 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“5-102(1)(b), and for that matter sections 18-5.5-102(1)(a) and 18-5.5-102(1)(f), 6 is to preserve the use of computers for legitimate ends.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1)(b) — 4 cases
People v. Randell, 297 P.3d 989 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“Consequently, the prosecution had to prove that defendant accessed a computer for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme to defraud, see § 18-5.5-102(1)®b), or accessed a computer to commit theft, see § 18-5.”
People v. Ragusa, 220 P.3d 1002 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“2008, and fifty-one counts of computer crime and attempted computer crime in violation of section 18-5.5-102(1)(b), C.R.S.2008, for stealing and attempting to steal approximately $1.”
People v. Galang, 2016 COA 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“5-102(1)(b), and for that matter sections 18-5.5-102(1)(a) and 18-5.5-102(1)(f), 6 is to preserve the use of computers for legitimate ends.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1)(c) — 3 cases
People v. Rice, 198 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The prosecution charged defendant with computer crime pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of section 18-5.5-102(1). Under those subsections, A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly: j ' [[Image here]] .”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1)(d) — 1 case
People v. Randell, 297 P.3d 989 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“Consequently, the prosecution had to prove that defendant accessed a computer for the purpose of devising or executing a scheme to defraud, see § 18-5.5-102(1)®b), or accessed a computer to commit theft, see § 18-5.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1)(e) — 2 cases
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(1)(f) — 1 case
People v. Galang, 2016 COA 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“5-102(1)(b), and for that matter sections 18-5.5-102(1)(a) and 18-5.5-102(1)(f), 6 is to preserve the use of computers for legitimate ends.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(3)(a) — 5 cases
People v. Galang, 382 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“,”); § 18-5.5-102(1)®, ("A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly .”
People v. Galang, 2016 COA 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“5-102(1)(b), and for that matter sections 18-5.5-102(1)(a) and 18-5.5-102(1)(f), 6 is to preserve the use of computers for legitimate ends.”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Stotz, 381 P.3d 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶ 30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(3)(a)(I) — 1 case
People v. Galang, 2016 COA 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“5-102(1)(b), and for that matter sections 18-5.5-102(1)(a) and 18-5.5-102(1)(f), 6 is to preserve the use of computers for legitimate ends.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(3)(a)(IV) — 3 cases
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Stotz, 2016 COA 16 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
People v. Stotz, 381 P.3d 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶ 30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(e) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Galang, 382 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“,”); § 18-5.5-102(1)®, ("A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(l)(b) — 1 case
People v. Galang, 382 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“,”); § 18-5.5-102(1)®, ("A person commits computer crime if the person knowingly .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(l)(c) — 1 case
People v. Stotz, 381 P.3d 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶ 30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5.5-102(l)(e) — 1 case
People v. Stotz, 381 P.3d 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 18-5.5-102(1). ¶ 30 The terms “authorization,” “in excess of authorized access,” and “damage” are defined by statute: (1) “Authorization” means the express consent of a person which may include an employee’s job description to use said person’s computer, computer network,…”
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.