The Colorado Supreme Court issued a nuanced ruling Tuesday in *The People of the State of Colorado v. Amanda Ann Soron* (2026 CO 3), addressing the complex intersection of medical privacy rights and criminal investigations in cases involving suspected child abuse.
The case arose from an interlocutory appeal by the state challenging a trial court's decision to suppress both Soron's hospital records and body-worn camera footage from a police officer who accompanied Soron during ambulance transport and hospital treatment. The incident began when police discovered Soron and her deceased newborn child behind a commercial store, leading to her hospitalization and subsequent criminal charges.
Justice Gabriel, writing for a unanimous court that included Chief Justice Marquez, Justice Boatright, Justice Hood, and Justice Berkenkotter, delivered a decision that partially affirmed and partially reversed the Arapahoe County District Court's suppression order. The Supreme Court's analysis focused on two distinct categories of evidence: medical records and police body-camera footage obtained during Soron's hospital stay.
Regarding the medical records, the court held that the trial court correctly determined these documents remain protected under Colorado's physician-patient privilege. The state had argued that the child abuse exception to this privilege should allow admission of the hospital records. However, the Supreme Court clarified a critical distinction in Colorado law: the child abuse exception applies only to testimony, not to documentary evidence.
"We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that Soron's medical records are protected by the physician-patient privilege and that the child abuse exception to that privilege does not apply because that exception relates only to testimony, not to documents," Justice Gabriel wrote in the opinion.
This ruling establishes important precedent for how Colorado courts must interpret the scope of medical privacy protections in criminal cases. The decision reinforces that even when child abuse is suspected, patients retain certain privacy rights regarding their medical records, and prosecutors cannot automatically invoke the child abuse exception to obtain documentary evidence.
However, the court reached a different conclusion regarding the body-worn camera evidence. The justices determined that the lower court's analysis was incomplete and remanded this portion of the case for additional factual findings. The Supreme Court indicated that more information is needed to properly evaluate whether the police officer's presence and recording during Soron's medical treatment violated her rights or whether the evidence should be admissible.
The case originated in the Arapahoe County District Court under Case No. 23CR609, with Judge Natalie Girard Stricklin presiding. The prosecution was handled by District Attorney Amy L. Padden of the Eighteenth Judicial District, along with Senior Deputy District Attorney L. Andrew Cooper. Soron's defense team included Public Defender Megan A. Ring and Deputy Public Defenders Gracen W. Short and Erin Domaracki.
The timing of this decision is particularly significant, as it comes during a period of heightened attention to privacy rights in medical settings and the extent of police authority during medical emergencies. The ruling provides guidance for law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and defense attorneys navigating similar cases where criminal investigations intersect with medical treatment.
For medical professionals, the decision reinforces the continued viability of physician-patient privilege protections, even in cases involving serious criminal allegations. Healthcare providers can rely on this ruling when considering requests for patient records in criminal investigations, knowing that documentary evidence remains protected even when testimony might be compelled under certain exceptions.
The distinction between testimonial and documentary evidence highlighted in this case may influence how prosecutors approach similar cases in the future. Rather than seeking medical records directly, the state may need to focus on compelling testimony from healthcare providers, subject to the various exceptions and limitations outlined in Colorado's evidence rules.
The partial remand regarding body-camera evidence suggests that courts must conduct individualized analyses of police conduct during medical treatment. Factors likely to be considered on remand include the necessity of the officer's presence, whether alternative investigative methods were available, and the extent to which the recording interfered with or captured privileged medical communications.
The case will now return to the trial court for additional proceedings to determine the admissibility of the body-camera evidence. The outcome of these proceedings could further refine the boundaries between legitimate police investigation and patient privacy rights in medical settings.
This decision reflects the Colorado Supreme Court's careful balancing of competing interests: the state's need to investigate serious crimes against children and individuals' fundamental right to medical privacy. The ruling demonstrates that even in cases involving deceased children and suspected criminal conduct, certain privacy protections remain intact, though the boundaries continue to evolve through judicial interpretation.