Mandatory Venue for CCJRA Show-Cause Hearings: Applications Must Be Filed Where the Records Reside, and Ancillary Jurisdiction Cannot Override a Specific Statutory Venue

Case: In re The People of the State of Colorado v. Adetayo Sotade, 2025 CO 38, 570 P.3d 491 (Colo. June 9, 2025)

Court: Colorado Supreme Court (en banc)

Author: Justice Hart

Procedural Posture: Original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 (Rule to Show Cause made absolute)

Introduction

This original proceeding addresses a previously unanswered question in Colorado law: where must a show-cause application under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA) be filed when a custodian denies access to criminal justice records? Specifically, the Court interprets section 24-72-305(7), C.R.S. (2024), which provides that a person “may apply to the district court of the district wherein the record is found” for an order directing the custodian to show cause why inspection should not be permitted.

The issue surfaced in a Douglas County criminal prosecution against Adetayo Sotade, arising from allegations of second degree kidnapping, sexual assault, and unlawful sexual contact. During that case, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) disclosed widespread misconduct by a DNA analyst, Yvonne “Missy” Woods, prompting broad CCJRA requests by the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) to CBI for records located at CBI headquarters in Jefferson County. When the Douglas County District Court asserted it could hear a show-cause application on those Jefferson County records—invoking “ancillary jurisdiction” tied to the criminal case—the CBI sought extraordinary relief in the Colorado Supreme Court.

The key questions were:

• Whether the word “may” in section 24-72-305(7) makes the specified forum permissive or mandatory; and
• Whether a district court can rely on ancillary jurisdiction to hear a CCJRA show-cause application even when a specific statutory venue provision applies.

Summary of the Opinion

The Colorado Supreme Court holds that:

• Section 24-72-305(7) mandates that a CCJRA show-cause application be filed in “the district court of the district wherein the record is found.” The statute’s use of “may” is permissive only as to the choice to apply; the forum specified is mandatory.
• The Douglas County District Court could not hear the show-cause application for CBI records located in Jefferson County. Section 305(7) is functionally a venue directive and must be followed.
• Ancillary jurisdiction is unavailable when a statute specifically governs the procedure and forum. Because section 305(7) squarely applies and sets venue, a court cannot invoke ancillary jurisdiction to relocate or expand that venue.
• Accordingly, the Supreme Court makes absolute the rule to show cause and remands for proceedings consistent with its opinion—meaning the show-cause hearing must occur in the district where the CBI records reside (Jefferson County).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

People v. Sprinkle, 2021 CO 60, 489 P.3d 1242

Sprinkle considered a distinct CCJRA provision on internal affairs files (section 24-72-303(4)(f)) that also uses “may” and requires filing in the county where records are located. The Court there held the “application” step was non-jurisdictional and could be waived by the custodian, allowing a show-cause hearing to proceed without the requester’s formal application when the custodian itself sought the hearing.

In Sotade, the Court distinguishes Sprinkle: although Sprinkle addresses “may” and the application requirement, it does not authorize show-cause proceedings outside the district where the records are located. In fact, Sprinkle proceeded in the county where the records were located (El Paso County). Thus, Sprinkle supports the procedural flexibility to commence a hearing without a formal application, but only in the proper venue designated by statute.

Woo v. El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, 2022 CO 56, 528 P.3d 899

Woo recognized that courts have ancillary jurisdiction to grant relief necessary to effectuate their jurisdiction where no statute or rule provides a viable mechanism—in that case, to enable post-sentencing motions for return of lawfully seized property (given the lack of a statutory remedy and the impracticality of civil suits under the CGIA barrier).

In Sotade, the Court emphasizes the limiting principle from Woo: ancillary jurisdiction is a supplement, not a substitute, and is inapplicable when a statute specifically addresses the procedure and forum. Because section 24-72-305(7) directly governs CCJRA show-cause proceedings and specifies venue, resort to ancillary jurisdiction is foreclosed.

Other supporting authorities on original jurisdiction and venue

• People v. Hernandez, 2021 CO 45; Accetta v. Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass’n, 2019 CO 11; Ortega v. Colo. Permanente Med. Grp., P.C., 265 P.3d 444 (Colo. 2011); People v. Tafoya, 2019 CO 13. These cases frame C.A.R. 21’s extraordinary relief as appropriate when appellate remedies are inadequate or irreparable harm looms, including pretrial orders that could eliminate meaningful review.
• Magill v. Ford Motor Co., 2016 CO 57; Hagan v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2015 CO 6. Venue determinations can justify C.A.R. 21 review to avoid the costs and disruption of erroneous proceedings in the wrong forum.
• Thomas v. People, 2021 CO 84; McCulley v. People, 2020 CO 40; Arvada Village Gardens LP v. Garate, 2023 CO 24. These decisions reinforce plain-meaning statutory interpretation and the objective to effectuate legislative intent.
• Marks v. Gessler, 2013 COA 115. Colorado district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Sotade leverages this to clarify the distinction between subject-matter jurisdiction and legislatively imposed venue constraints.
• People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010). Highlights that ordinary criminal discovery devices (e.g., subpoenas and protective orders) remain the appropriate vehicles within a criminal case; CCJRA is not a general discovery tool.
• People v. Hargrave, 179 P.3d 226 (Colo. App. 2007). Provides the four-part test for exercising ancillary jurisdiction cited and applied in Woo, which the Court declines to reach here because ancillary jurisdiction is categorically unavailable when a specific statute applies.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three primary steps:

1. Statutory text and structure:
   • The Court applies plain-meaning principles. Section 24-72-305(7) states that a person denied access “may apply to the district court of the district wherein the record is found.” The permissive “may” modifies the decision to apply at all; it does not render optional the statute’s explicit forum directive.
   • If “may” were treated as globally permissive of forum choice, the location phrase “of the district wherein the record is found” would be superfluous. The Court rejects readings that render statutory language meaningless.
   • Although the statute does not divest other district courts of subject-matter jurisdiction, it imposes a mandatory venue requirement. In the Court’s words, section 305(7) is more like a venue rule than a jurisdictional limit—but as a legislative venue directive, it must be heeded.
2. Practical considerations and the CCJRA’s role:
   • Allowing show-cause proceedings anywhere a related criminal case is pending would expose statewide custodians (like CBI) to duplicative hearings statewide, undermining efficiency and consistency.
   • The CCJRA is not a discovery device; defendants have traditional discovery tools (e.g., subpoenas duces tecum, protective orders) tailored to case-specific needs. The OSPD’s broad, statewide requests here underscore the need to adhere to CCJRA’s designated forum to manage systemic burdens and avoid end-runs around criminal discovery norms.
3. Ancillary jurisdiction is unavailable when a statute governs:
   • Ancillary jurisdiction promotes judicial efficiency when no statute or rule furnishes a mechanism for necessary relief. But where the legislature has provided a specific procedure and venue—as here—courts cannot invoke ancillary jurisdiction to circumvent that framework.
   • The concerns animating Woo (illusory remedies, CGIA barriers, lack of any direct mechanism) are absent. Section 305(7) furnishes a clear, viable pathway in a defined forum.

Impact

The decision has immediate and systemic effects on CCJRA practice, criminal litigation interfaces with public-records requests, and the scope of ancillary jurisdiction in Colorado courts.

• CCJRA venue clarity and uniformity:
  • Requesters must file show-cause applications in the district where the records are physically or administratively “found.” For centralized state custodians (CBI, State Patrol, DOC), this likely means consistent fora for all show-cause proceedings.
  • Forum shopping is curtailed; agencies gain predictability and reduced duplication.
• Separation between CCJRA and criminal discovery:
  • Defense counsel cannot bootstrap CCJRA disputes into the criminal case’s court if the records are held elsewhere. This preserves the integrity of criminal discovery processes and the custodian’s rights in the CCJRA regime.
  • Practitioners should bifurcate strategies: use CCJRA in the records’ home district for public-records access, and deploy subpoenas/motions within the criminal case for case-specific materials and protective-order management.
• Constrained ancillary jurisdiction:
  • Woo remains vital where no statute provides a remedy, but Sotade limits judicial resort to ancillary jurisdiction when a statute speaks. Courts should resist efficiency-based expansions of ancillary authority that collide with specific legislative directives (especially venue prescriptions).
• Anticipated future questions:
  • “Where is the record found?” in a digital age. The opinion presumes a locatable home for records (here, CBI headquarters in Jefferson County). Future disputes may test whether administrative “custody,” server locations, or decentralized storage define venue.
  • Multi-custodian or multi-location records. The opinion does not address fragmented datasets spanning multiple districts; practitioners may need to parse which custodian is responsible for which subset and file accordingly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• CCJRA show-cause application:
  When a custodian denies access to criminal justice records, a requester may ask a district court to order the custodian to “show cause” why access should not be granted. It is a statutorily created, streamlined challenge process specific to criminal justice records, separate from ordinary discovery in a criminal case.
• “May” in statutory text:
  “May” often signals discretion. Here, it means a requester can choose whether to apply at all. If the requester chooses to apply, the statute specifies where it must be filed. “May” does not authorize filing anywhere.
• Venue versus subject-matter jurisdiction:
  Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear a type of case; Colorado district courts have broad jurisdiction. Venue is the legislatively designated place a case should be filed. Section 305(7) functions as a mandatory venue rule: you must file where the records are found, even though many district courts have the general power to hear such cases.
• Ancillary jurisdiction:
  A court’s limited power to resolve matters closely tied to a primary case to protect its proceedings or judgments, usually when no statute or rule supplies a workable mechanism. It cannot be used to bypass a specific statutory procedure or venue.
• CCJRA versus criminal discovery:
  CCJRA governs public access to criminal justice records held by government custodians. Criminal discovery (e.g., subpoenas duces tecum) is case-specific and controlled by the criminal rules and protective orders. The Court underscores that CCJRA is not a backdoor discovery device.

Conclusion

People v. Sotade establishes a clear, administrable rule: CCJRA show-cause applications must be filed in the district where the records are found, and courts cannot deploy ancillary jurisdiction to relocate or consolidate those proceedings in another county—even for reasons of convenience or judicial economy tied to an underlying criminal case. The Court harmonizes statutory text, structural canons against surplusage, and practical administration, while confining Woo’s ancillary-jurisdiction framework to the gap-filling role for which it was designed.

Key takeaways:

• Section 24-72-305(7)’s venue directive is mandatory. The permissive “may” does not allow forum choice; it governs the threshold decision to apply.
• Ancillary jurisdiction cannot override a specific statute that supplies both a procedure and the forum.
• CCJRA remains a public-records mechanism distinct from criminal discovery. Defendants and defense agencies must use CCJRA in the records’ home district and rely on criminal rules for case-specific discovery.
• The decision promotes uniformity and predictability for statewide custodians and curtails forum shopping across Colorado’s districts.

By making the rule to show cause absolute, the Colorado Supreme Court provides definitive guidance on CCJRA venue and reaffirms the limits of judicially created doctrines when the legislature has spoken with specificity.