The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has halted undercover probes by its in-house investigators amid questions about an attorney ethics rule that have sent shockwaves through the law enforcement community.

The debate, posed in a petition to the Colorado Supreme Court, centers on mandates that the state’s lawyers can’t engage in dishonest conduct, but which has been interpreted to mean neither they nor their staffs can participate in investigations where there is subterfuge or officers taking on pretextual identities.

That includes cases where officers seeking out child sex predators pretend to be a teenage girl or investigators purport to be searching for a new home in order to root out discrimination.

“It’s critically important to have some clarity,” said Jefferson County District Attorney Peter Weir, who felt forced to shutter a pedophile investigation unit with more than 900 convictions because of the discrepancy. “The relationship between prosecutors and law enforcement individuals acting in undercover activities is just a very, very important aspect of our job.”

Under Colorado law, deputies and officers can lie during investigative work. Lawyers and their staff, however, cannot.

Questions over prosecutors’ participation in undercover operations began in December 2016 after the Child Sex Offender Internet Investigations Unit — in Weir’s office and known as “CHEEZO” — was shut down following a grievance filed by the defense lawyer of a man convicted after a probe by the team.

Related Articles December 16, 2016 Rules complaint leads JeffCo DA to disband child sex offender internet unit

Attorney Phil Cherner — after his client’s appeals were denied — made the complaint to the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, saying the undercover investigations conducted by CHEEZO were unethical and prohibited by the state’s ethics rules. The counsel, which oversees and supervises lawyers in Colorado, in turn decided the allegations were enough to warrant a formal investigation.

Weir opted instead to shut the unit down amid the uncertainty. The counsel then dismissed the complaint, but not before finding a lawyer’s supervision of an undercover investigation fell under the category of rules barring attorneys from dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

The impact filtered out of Jefferson County, said Colorado Solicitor General Fred Yarger, and drew the attention of prosecutors and law enforcement agencies statewide, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

“It’s clear, at least to us, that what the rules are talking about is bad behavior on the part of lawyers,” said Yarger, who is a senior staff member for Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman. “What we don’t think the rules cover is the kind of good conduct that we’re talking about — meaning supervision of undercover investigations to make sure they are lawful and effective and respect individual rights.”

Earlier this month, Coffman’s office asked the Colorado Supreme Court to consider the issue and clear up how the rules are interpreted. Attempts to clarify the issue years ago weren’t fruitful.

“It’s been an issue that has been simmering in the background for a while,” said John Walsh, who served as Colorado’s U.S. Attorney from from 2010 to 2016. “So the CHEEZO case kind of brought it to the forefront at the state level. It is very common for prosecutors around the country to supervise investigators.”

Walsh said the U.S. Department of Justice actually has mandates for prosecutors to participate in undercover probes. He pointed to the infamous Operation Fast and Furious by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — in which the agency lost track of weapons they were trying to trace after being sold to traffickers — as an example of why such oversight is needed. The botched investigation led to further directives for attorneys’ involvement.

“You want to have the lawyers involved supervising these things,” Walsh said. “It’s kind of crazy we are going to allow undercover operations, as the U.S. Supreme Court says they are allowed, but we are going to leave (law enforcement) alone to make sure they are complying with the law. Why would we prohibit prosecutors giving legal advice and counsel in one of the most sensitive sorts of law enforcement operations?”

But defense attorneys disagree.

“We’re very clear that prosecutors are just like every other lawyer and should never lie. Period,” said Darren Cantor, president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. “And we’re very clear that, on top of that, they can’t have anyone else lie for them. For example, I can’t have my investigator call someone up and pretend to be somebody they’re not.”

Cantor said officers and investigators, in cases that don’t involve undercover work, don’t always have a lawyer with them and that they are expected to already know the law. He pointed to everyday arrests when law enforcement acts on its own.

“What’s so different about the intervention of a lawyer (during an undercover operation) that puts them in a position where they are allowed to lie?” Cantor asked. “Where is the line? This is a huge issue. As soon as we start letting prosecutors lie, that really changes the law and not for the better.”

Yarger said it could be weeks before the Colorado Supreme Court decides whether to take the case. Authorities are pressing for a fast resolution because of the high stakes at play.

“Right now, there are no exceptions for law firms or public service lawyers to have staff who engage in dishonest conduct,” said Jim Coyle, who leads the Attorney Regulation Counsel. “We’ll see what the court does, whether the court accepts it or not.”

Authorities say while undercover probes aren’t used every day, when they are it is to combat serious public safety threats such as drugs and human trafficking. They claim it’s imperative prosecutors help guide undercover investigators operate within the boundaries of the law.

Weir’s office along has about 30 in-house investigators, as does Coffman’s.

More than 25 district attorney’s offices, law enforcement agencies and law enforcement groups filed letters to the Colorado Supreme Court outlining their stake. Among their arguments are that such issues do not arise in other states.

“There is no justifiable basis for subjecting government attorneys, acting in good faith to ensure lawful and effective covert investigations, to potential discipline under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct,” wrote acting U.S. Attorney Bob Troyer. “Allowing government attorneys to provide guidance or advice about lawful investigations is not the same thing as saying that attorneys themselves ‘may deceive or lie or misrepresent.’ ”

Rich Orman, chief deputy district attorney for Arapahoe and Douglas counties, wrote in a court filing that the Attorney Regulation Counsel “effectively prohibited DA investigators across the state from participating in legitimate undercover investigations and similar techniques.” He said the counsel’s actions are legally erroneous.

“Moreover,” Orman wrote, “ARC’s actions have prevented prosecutors from providing advice to police agencies relating to undercover investigations.”

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office says the state’s ethics rules should fall into line with the rest of the country when it comes to undercover investigations. It said there were no known cases of attorneys being disciplined in the U.S. solely for overseeing undercover probes.

The CHEEZO unit has since been moved to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office.

Yarger, the Colorado Solicitor General, said ultimately, even if the Colorado Supreme Court decides that prosecutors participating or overseeing in undercover investigations is against the rules, the covert probes won’t halt.

“The reality is undercover investigations are not going to stop,” he said. “They are necessary to uncover some of the biggest lawbreakers. What would happen is these investigations wouldn’t cease, it’s just that lawyers wouldn’t be involved in them.”