(1) No person shall, on or near the premises or facilities of any educational institution, willfully deny to students, school officials, employees, and invitees:
(a) Lawful freedom of movement on the premises;
(b) Lawful use of the property or facilities of the institution;
(c) The right of lawful ingress and egress to the institution's physical facilities.
(2) No person shall, on the premises of any educational institution or at or in any building or other facility being used by any educational institution, willfully impede the staff or faculty of such institution in the lawful performance of their duties or willfully impede a student of the institution in the lawful pursuit of his educational activities through the use of restraint, abduction, coercion, or intimidation or when force and violence are present or threatened.
(3) No person shall willfully refuse or fail to leave the property of or any building or other facility used by any educational institution upon being requested to do so by the chief administrative officer, his designee charged with maintaining order on the school premises and in its facilities, or a dean of such educational institution, if such person is committing, threatens to commit, or incites others to commit any act which would disrupt, impair, interfere with, or obstruct the lawful missions, processes, procedures, or functions of the institution.
(4) It shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was exercising his right to lawful assembly and peaceful and orderly petition for the redress of grievances, including any labor dispute between an educational institution and its employees, any contractor or subcontractor, or any employee thereof.
(5) (a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section, except subsection (1) or (6) of this section, commits a class 2 misdemeanor.
(b) A person who violates subsection (1) of this section commits a petty offense.
(6) (a) A person shall not knowingly make or convey to another person a credible threat to cause death or to cause bodily injury with a deadly weapon against:
(I) A person the actor knows or believes to be a student, school official, or employee of an educational institution; or
(II) An invitee who is on the premises of an educational institution.
(b) For purposes of this subsection (6), "credible threat" means a threat or physical action that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of bodily injury with a deadly weapon or death.
(c) A person who violates this subsection (6) commits a class 1 misdemeanor.
(7) For purposes of this section, the premises, facilities, and buildings of an educational institution do not include the private residence of a student who is participating in online instruction, as defined in section 22-1-131 (2).
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 468, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-9-109. L. 73: p. 539, § 8. L. 2005:
(5) amended and (6) added, p. 1499, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2021: (7) added, (HB 21-1059), ch. 200, p. 1061, § 3, effective May 28; (5) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3202, § 312, effective March 1, 2022.
Cross references: For affirmative defenses generally, see §§ 18-1-407, 18-1-710, and 18-1-805.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case:
Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72 (Colo. 2019).
Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72 (Colo. 2019).
· cites it 5× “At the close of the evidence, Rediger's attorney informed the court that he was "satisfied" with the prosecution's proposed jury instructions, even though one of the elemental instructions incorrectly tracked section 18-9-109(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), instead of the subsection…”
People v. Rediger, 411 P.3d 907 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 14× “Within his deadline, the prosecutor tendered proposed instructions, which included an elemental instruction under section 18-9-109(1)(b) rather than under section 18-9-109(2), as charged in the information.”
A.M. Ex Rel. F.M. v. Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “contends that judicial decisions from three other states—Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina—interpreting similar laws 14 should have apprised a reasonable officer in Officer Acosta’s shoes that he lacked 14 See Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-9-109 (2); Fla.”
Uberoi v. Univ. of Colorado, 713 P.2d 894 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The defendants Roy, Arai, McInerny, and Holloway conspired, maliciously and without probable cause, to cite Uberoi for violating section 18-9-109, 8 C.R.S. (1978), intentional interference with university activities.”
People ex rel. C.A.J., 148 P.3d 436 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 15× “filed a motion to dismiss the first count of the petition on the ground that application of § 18-9-109, C.R.S.2006, as interpreted by the magistrate, was unconstitutional.”
People ex rel. K.W., 317 P.3d 1237 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Facts 12 On April 1, 2009 the People charged the juvenile with one count of interfering with staff or students, a class 3 misdemeanor under section 18-9-109, C.R.S.2011. This charge was based on an incident at the juvenile's high school involving two other students and a…”
People ex rel. J.P.L., 49 P.3d 1209 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “, a juvenile, appeals from the trial court's judgment adjudicating him delinquent based on a finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the offense of interference with staff, faculty, or students of an educational institution, a class three…”
People ex rel. J.P.L., 214 P.3d 1072 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, for interference with staff, faculty, or students of an educational institution, a class three misdemeanor, § 18-9-109(2), C.R.S. 2008, and sentenced to one year probation and anger management classes.”
People Ex Rel. Jpl, 49 P.3d 1209 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “, a juvenile, appeals from the trial court's judgment adjudicating him delinquent based on a finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the offense of interference with staff, faculty, or students of an educational institution, a class three…”
Jared P. v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1 (D. Colo. 2023).
· cites it 13× “8 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-109 (2). The Colorado Court of Appeals has held that, in order to prove that a defendant acted “willfully” under this statute, the prosecution must “prove that the defendant knew his conduct was practically certain to impede students from pursuing their…”
People ex rel. C.F., 279 P.3d 1231 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 18× “¶ 6 Two other charges alleged violations of subsection (2) of section 18-9-109. Because the entire text of section 18-9-109 is relevant to our interpretation of subsection (2), we recite all of that section.”
In the Matter of Jpl, 214 P.3d 1072 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, for interference with staff, faculty, or students of an educational institution, a class three misdemeanor, § 18-9-109(2), C.R.S. 2008, and sentenced to one year probation and anger management classes.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-109(1)(b) — 2 cases
Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72 (Colo. 2019).
“At the close of the evidence, Rediger's attorney informed the court that he was "satisfied" with the prosecution's proposed jury instructions, even though one of the elemental instructions incorrectly tracked section 18-9-109(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), instead of the subsection…”
People v. Rediger, 411 P.3d 907 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“Within his deadline, the prosecutor tendered proposed instructions, which included an elemental instruction under section 18-9-109(1)(b) rather than under section 18-9-109(2), as charged in the information.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-109(2) — 9 cases
Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72 (Colo. 2019).
“At the close of the evidence, Rediger's attorney informed the court that he was "satisfied" with the prosecution's proposed jury instructions, even though one of the elemental instructions incorrectly tracked section 18-9-109(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), instead of the subsection…”
People v. Rediger, 411 P.3d 907 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“Within his deadline, the prosecutor tendered proposed instructions, which included an elemental instruction under section 18-9-109(1)(b) rather than under section 18-9-109(2), as charged in the information.”
People ex rel. C.A.J., 148 P.3d 436 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“filed a motion to dismiss the first count of the petition on the ground that application of § 18-9-109, C.R.S.2006, as interpreted by the magistrate, was unconstitutional.”
People ex rel. J.P.L., 49 P.3d 1209 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“, a juvenile, appeals from the trial court's judgment adjudicating him delinquent based on a finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the offense of interference with staff, faculty, or students of an educational institution, a class three…”
People ex rel. J.P.L., 214 P.3d 1072 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“The juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, for interference with staff, faculty, or students of an educational institution, a class three misdemeanor, § 18-9-109(2), C.R.S. 2008, and sentenced to one year probation and anger management classes.”
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.