18-11-204. Mutilation - contempt of flag - penalty.
Statute text
(1) It is unlawful for any person to mutilate, deface, defile, trample upon, burn, cut, or tear any flag in public:
(a) With intent to cast contempt or ridicule upon the flag; or
(b) With intent to outrage the sensibilities of persons liable to observe or discover the action or its results; or
(c) With intent to cause a breach of the peace or incitement to riot; or
(d) Under such circumstances that it may cause a breach of the peace or incitement to riot.
(2) "Flag", as used in this section, means any flag, ensign, banner, standard, colors, or replica or representation thereof which is an official or commonly recognized symbol of the United States of America or the state of Colorado.
(3) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a petty offense.
History
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 480, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 40-11-204. L. 2021: (3) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3208, 342, effective March 1, 2022.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Law reviews. For note, "Comment: Constitutional Law -- Symbolic Speech -- Colorado Flag Desecration Statute", see 48 Den. L. J. 451 (1971). For article, "The Flag-Burning Episode: An Essay on the Constitution", see 61 U. Colo. L. Rev. 39 (1990).
Subsection (1)(a) unconstitutional. Provision of this section making it unlawful to mutilate, deface, and defile a flag of the United States with intent to cast contempt thereupon is unconstitutional upon its face because the interests it seeks to promote are contrary to the fundamental values protected by the first amendment. People v. Vaughan, 183 Colo. 40, 514 P.2d 1318 (1973).
Statute was not designed to proscribe mutilating or misusing flag per se. People v. Vaughan, 183 Colo. 40, 514 P.2d 1318 (1973).
Specific intent required. A violation of this section occurs only when the surrounding circumstances manifest the exercise of the intellect in such a manner that inferences may be drawn therefrom that the acts or conduct were done with the specific intent of casting contempt on the flag. There is no violation of this section where the proscribed acts are the result of thoughtlessness, inadvertence, accident, or the like. People v. Vaughan, 183 Colo. 40, 514 P.2d 1318 (1973).
Symbolic speech protected. Conduct, which consisted of wearing a pair of blue jeans on the seat of which a portion of the American flag had been sewn, manifested an expressive intent and a communicative content such as to be considered "symbolic speech" and consequently was protected "speech" under the first amendment. People v. Vaughan, 183 Colo. 40, 514 P.2d 1318 (1973).