Colorado’s second-highest court clarified this month that a person commits the offense of impersonating a peace officer if they engage in “any conduct” while pretending to be law enforcement.

In a case out of El Paso County, Richard James Coulier II and a neighbor negotiated the sale of an inoperable vehicle in the neighbor’s front yard. Coulier would work on the car and make it operable, after which he would pay $200 and receive the title.

After he got the engine running, Coulier moved the car down the street to his home. The neighbor, unaware of what had happened, called the police to report it as stolen. Days later, police stopped Coulier’s son while he was driving the vehicle, and he referred officers to his father.

The next day, Coulier went to the neighbor’s house multiple times and knocked on the door. The neighbor did not answer because she found his knocking “aggressive.”

Coulier then looked up the neighbor’s phone number and called her, identifying himself as “Detective Rich of the Colorado Springs Police Department.” The “detective” asked the neighbor to speak with Coulier about the misunderstanding regarding the vehicle.

The neighbor hung up, then called the number back to ask for the “detective’s” badge number. Coulier refused and the neighbor told Coulier to stop contacting her. After police spoke to Coulier, he admitted to identifying himself as a detective.

After a trial, jurors acquitted Coulier of motor vehicle theft but convicted him of impersonating a peace officer. Under Colorado law, someone commits the impersonation offense by falsely pretending to be a law enforcement officer and performing “an act in that pretended capacity.” Although jurors asked the trial judge to clarify what it means to perform an act, the judge provided no further definition.

On appeal, Coulier argued prosecutors had not proven that he performed an act, as he “simply spoke” with the victim over the phone.

“Importantly, Mr. Coulier never performed any additional overt act with respect to (the victim) associated with him identifying himself as ‘Detective Rich’,” wrote defense attorney Jeffrey C. Parsons.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office responded that Coulier’s “act” was his attempt to convince the victim to meet with him about the stolen vehicle report.

“To preclude speech as ‘an act’,” wrote Trina K. Kissel, “would mean that an impersonator who makes instructions or demands of others would not be subject to prosecution. Such a result would be illogical and absurd because peace officers frequently give instructions or demands of civilians.”

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel, interpreting the meaning of “an act” for the first time, concluded in a June 4 opinion that the term encompasses “any conduct that is done while in that pretended capacity” as a law enforcement officer.

Under that standard, Coulier’s attempt to get the victim to meet with him was sufficient proof of the crime.

“And while we agree with Coulier that simply pretending to be an officer, without more, would be insufficient to sustain a conviction, we conclude that any act done in the pretended capacity, whether verbal, as is the case here … or more physical,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre, “satisfies the statutory element of ‘an act.'”

The case is People v. Coulier.