ReportWire

Tag: municipal court

  • A Colorado court sends poor people to jail without access to lawyers, advocates say. It doesn’t record the proceedings.

    [ad_1]

    Jennifer Jones was sitting in Montrose Municipal Court in early January when she noticed something that didn’t seem right.

    She witnessed a man in his 60s with multiple trespassing and camping charges receive a 10-day jail sentence. This individual, though, did not have an attorney — a right afforded under the Constitution to anyone facing jail time.

    If Jones, a volunteer court-watcher, hadn’t been observing proceedings that day, nobody outside of the people involved with the case would have known what happened.

    That’s because Montrose Municipal Court is not a “court of record” — meaning it keeps no written, audio or visual recording of court proceedings. The public, civil rights organizations and members of the media cannot watch court hearings virtually, or access video after the fact, and cannot request any transcripts or audio of the day’s docket.

    It’s not clear how many municipal courts in Colorado are not courts of record. But court watchers say they believe Montrose to be the only court in the state that sentences people to jail and isn’t a court of record.

    It’s examples like these that spurred Colorado lawmakers this month to introduce a bill that would bar municipal courts that are not courts of record from sending people to jail. House Bill 26-1134, titled “Fairness and Transparency in Municipal Court,” also clarifies that municipal court defendants have a right to counsel and that in-custody proceedings must be livestreamed for the public to view.

    The legislation marks a second stab at codifying protections for municipal defendants after Gov. Jared Polis vetoed a similar bill last year. The governor, though, took issue with the part of the bill that sought to address sentencing disparities between municipal and state courts. A Colorado Supreme Court ruling settled that issue in December, leading bill sponsors this year to focus on the transparency elements from last year’s legislation.

    “Justice dies in the dark,” said Rebecca Wallace, policy director for the Colorado Freedom Fund, an organization that helps people pay bail. “Montrose Municipal Court needs a light on it — this bill provides some of that light.”

    If municipal courts have the same power to put people in jail as state courts, they must provide the same due process protections, said Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Denver Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors.

    Access to counsel is already a right for municipal defendants facing jail time — but that doesn’t mean it always happens.

    In October 2024, The Denver Post reported that poor and unhoused individuals in custody in Grand Junction Municipal Court were frequently appearing in court without attorneys. This came to light because the Colorado Freedom Fund obtained hours of recordings of court proceedings. If Grand Junction hadn’t been a court of record, that would not have been possible.

    Alida Soileau, a defense attorney who practices in Montrose, said she’s never heard the municipal court say that someone’s case qualifies for court-appointed counsel. She said she’s witnessed one occasion in which a defendant facing jail did not have an attorney.

    “It’s the wild west,” she said in an interview.

    Without recordings or transcripts, Wallace said it’s impossible for watchdog organizations like hers — or members of the media — to confirm such accounts and investigate further.

    Chris Dowsey, Montrose’s city attorney, said the municipal court directs people to a written advisement on the right to an attorney when a case involves a possible jail sentence, and follows that up with an oral advisement.

    “For each case, the judge confirms that the defendant has received one of those advisements of rights,” he said in a statement. “If they have not received such an advisement, the judge would give another oral advisement to that individual.”

    Montrose city officials say they’re working on becoming a court of record.

    Municipal Judge Thomas LeClaire told the City Council during a January meeting that he recommended the court make the change. Councilmembers supported the idea, saying the pending state legislation made it a good time to get ahead of the curve. Officials estimated it could happen as soon as this spring.

    Montrose Municipal Court needs only minimal investment to make itself a court of record, including some staff time and equipment modifications, Dowsey said in a statement.

    As to why the city waited so long to make this happen?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How a Colorado Supreme Court ruling is reshaping the state’s municipal courts

    [ad_1]

    Across Colorado, in bustling municipal courtrooms and council chambers, in city attorneys’ offices and public defender headquarters, legal professionals and elected officials are scrambling to make sense of a new normal.

    The world of city courts was upended in late December, when the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled that municipalities cannot impose harsher punishments on lawbreakers than state statute would allow for the same offense.

    The 34-page ruling sought to rectify a disparity between municipal punishments and the state’s new sentencing scheme that dramatically reduced penalties for low-level offenses. As a result of the state’s changes, municipal courts became Colorado’s most punitive forum for minor crimes.

    Now, weeks after the court’s decision, cities are reexamining their local ordinances, judges are altering their courtroom advisements of defendants, and defense attorneys and prosecutors are negotiating plea agreements in an entirely different landscape.

    “These are uncharted waters,” said Colette Tvedt, Denver’s chief municipal public defender.

    Her office on Monday gave a presentation to the Denver City Council, outlining the implications of the state Supreme Court’s ruling while expressing urgency that the legislative body act quickly to bring the city’s code into compliance.

    “Without council action, applying this rule to our sentencing ordinances will lead to endless litigation, confusion and additional violations of Denverites’ constitutional rights,” the public defender’s office wrote in its presentation.

    Until Denver’s code is amended, Tvedt’s office argued, there are legal questions about whether the city’s criminal laws are enforceable because the sentences for many offenses are unclear. There is also a risk that defendants will receive illegal sentences because municipal court judges might come to conclusions that higher courts later overturn, the public defenders said, warning that the entire process could represent a “huge expense and uncertainty for years to come.”

    Councilmembers, for their part, have expressed their desire to change the city’s code so it aligns with state penalties. The question will be determining which offenses have comparable state counterparts.

    Sarah Parady, one of the councilwomen spearheading the changes, said she hoped to have language outlining proposed alterations by the end of the month.

    “This is cuckoo bananas if we don’t do our job,” she said.

    Other cities are also taking action.

    The Littleton City Council on Jan. 6 passed an emergency ordinance amending its general penalty provision in order to “comply with state law and to avoid confusion.” The updated language states that penalties for non-felony criminal violations where the prohibited conduct is identical to a corresponding state charge will be capped at the state law’s maximum sentence.

    Reid Betzing, the city attorney, acknowledged during the council meeting that the city is aware of what it needs to do to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, but that it upends 120 years of home-rule doctrine in Colorado.

    “We’re not necessarily super excited about it,” he said.

    The city councils in Westminster and Aurora on Monday held executive sessions with their attorneys to review the Supreme Court decision and how it impacts their cities’ codes.

    “Obviously, this decision bolsters the need to look at our sentencing practices,” Alison Coombs, an Aurora councilmember, said in an interview.

    Kevin Bommer, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, said his organization was “exceptionally disappointed” in the ruling, adding that it will mean “a complete revisiting of what we thought municipal courts were constitutionally allowed to do.”

    There are broader implications, he said. “It’s not a threat, it’s just facts: If municipal courts are essentially de facto arms of the state, why on earth would municipalities go through the time and expense of going through those cases?”

    ‘This will make our jobs a lot easier’

    Local judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, meanwhile, are already seeing the decision’s impact in municipal courtrooms around the state.

    Aurora Municipal Court Judge Brian Whitney issued an order last year pausing more than 300 cases in which attorneys challenged issues under the same pretenses as those before the Supreme Court. This month, Whitney ordered that those cases can now move forward, but must adhere to the new guidelines set by the high court.

    “Any sentence imposed… must not exceed the applicable state statutory maximum for the corresponding identical offense,” he wrote in a Jan. 2 order.

    Arvada Municipal Court Presiding Judge Kathryn Kurtz said the ruling doesn’t change too much in her courtroom, since she already generally stuck to state guidelines. There will be some small, technical updates, such as changing the advisement sheet that informs defendants about possible penalties for their infractions.

    “It’s good to have finality on it,” she said in an interview. “We now know this is the law and we can move forward. Judges work very well with rules. When you give us clarity, it provides guidance. When there’s gray, that gives us issues. This will make our jobs a lot easier.”

    Defense attorneys say they anticipate the ruling will also have a significant impact on plea negotiations with their clients.

    Consider Denver’s municipal code: Retail theft or trespassing are each punishable by up to 300 days in jail. In state court, those offenses carry up to 10 days in jail. In Aurora, those same offenses could mean up to 364 days in jail — more than 36 times the potential sentence in state court.

    If a defendant in Denver faced 300 days in jail and had multiple prior convictions, plea negotiations might start with 30 days and go up to 120 days, said Tvedt, the Denver municipal defender chief. But if the maximum penalty for a minor offense is just 10 days, their client might take a plea that would involve just a couple of days behind bars.

    Individuals might also be more willing to take their cases to trial, knowing that they don’t risk up to a year in jail, defense attorneys said.

    “This is really gonna be transformative to municipal courts,” Tvedt said.

    ‘Effects of this are wide and varied’

    Then there’s the question of what to do with people who have been sentenced since March 1, 2022, when the new state guidelines took effect. Multiple attorneys said they believed anyone with a sentence that conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling has a legal argument that it should be negated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Municipal courts can’t issue harsher punishment than state court for same offenses, Colorado Supreme Court rules

    [ad_1]

    The Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that cities cannot punish lawbreakers beyond what state courts would allow for the same offense, a decision that could set precedent for hundreds of municipal courts around the state.

    The justices ruled that when a municipal ordinance and a state statute prohibit identical conduct, the municipal penalties for such conduct “may not exceed the corresponding state penalties for that conduct.”

    By imposing more stringent penalties for the same crimes, these cities “materially impede the state’s interest in ensuring that maximum penalties for non-felony offenses are consistent and uniform across Colorado,” the opinion stated.

    In 2021, on the heels of nationwide protests for racial justice, Colorado lawmakers enacted sweeping state-level reforms that significantly lowered the potential penalties for misdemeanor and petty offenses in Colorado’s state courts. But those reforms didn’t impact municipal courts, which are not part of the state judicial system.

    As a result, the potential jail sentences for minor crimes in city courts now often far outpace the state’s limits, The Denver Post reported last year. The newspaper found defendants across 10 of Colorado’s largest cities served, on average, five times more jail time in municipal court — though the difference was just a matter of days.

    Officers have wide leeway to choose which box to check on their summons forms, The Post found. Police departments said they didn’t have specific policies outlining how arresting officers are supposed to decide between arresting someone on municipal or state charges.

    Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez delivered the opinion, and was joined by Justices Brian D. Boatright, William W. Hood III, Richard L. Gabriel, Carlos A. Samour Jr. and Maria E. Berkenkotter. Justice Melissa Hart, who announced her retirement last week after being on leave since October, did not participate.

    The ruling centered on two cases involving low-level prosecutions in Westminster and Aurora municipal courts in which the alleged offenders faced significantly more jail time after being charged in city court than they would have if charged in state court.

    In 2022, Aleah Camp was charged with stealing less than $300 worth of goods from a Westminster store. The officer, by checking a single box on a criminal summons, sent the case to municipal court — where Camp faced a potential jail sentence 36 times longer and a fine almost nine times higher — 364 days and $2,650 vs. 10 days and $300 — than what would be allowed under state law.

    In the other case, Danielle Simons was charged in 2023 with motor vehicle trespass in Aurora Municipal Court. As a result of the officer’s decision to pursue municipal rather than state charges, Simons similarly faced up to 364 days in jail and a $2,650 fine. If she had been charged with the same offense in state court, the maximum penalty would have been 120 days in jail and a $750 fine.

    Simons’ and Camp’s attorneys argued the significant sentencing discrepancies in their cases violated their clients’ rights of equal protection under the Colorado Constitution.

    The Supreme Court did not address the equal protection argument, instead ruling that the city ordinances are preempted by state law. The cities argued that, under home-rule provisions, they are allowed to create their own sentencing policies.

    But the justices wrote that the court has consistently held that the regulation of non-felony criminal offenses is a matter of mixed local and statewide concern.

    Municipalities can still punish offenders beyond the state’s sentencing caps when there is no identical state offense, the court ruled. However, when cities regulate conduct for which there exists an identical state offense, they cannot exceed the state’s cap.

    Ashley Cordero, Simons’ attorney, said her client “feels relieved” with Monday’s ruling.

    Rebecca Wallace, policy director at the Colorado Freedom Fund, an organization that helps people pay bail, called the decision a “victory for impoverished Coloradans.”

    “We have long said that it defies logic, fairness and the law that municipal courts can send people to jail for poverty offenses with 30 times longer sentences than they could get in state court,” she said. “Today, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously agreed.”

    Aurora’s city attorney, Pete Schulte, fired back in a statement Monday, saying the Supreme Court’s decision “begs the question of whether Colorado municipalities should continue to prosecute criminal offenses in their municipal courts when they become de facto extensions of state and county courts at a cost to municipal taxpayers without reimbursement.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judicial race reflects city’s broader fight over homelessness, public safety, accountability

    [ad_1]

    Sep. 1—A typically sleepy Spokane Municipal Court judge election has become a heated microcosm for the debate that has consumed city politics for years now: What should be done about downtown homelessness, and does the system provide enough “accountability” for those who commit low-level crimes?

    Judge Mary Logan, who oversees the city’s community court, is facing her first re-election challenger since she was appointed as a municipal court judge in 2009: former Spokane City Attorney Lynden Smithson, who continues to serve in the city’s prosecutor’s office.

    Community court, a niche court within the city’s broader municipal court system, has a narrow focus: nonviolent “quality of life” crimes that occur downtown, like graffiti, public urination and trespass. Many crimes that the court oversees are directly linked to homelessness, like sitting or lying down on sidewalks in the downtown retail zone, though many of these homelessness laws have recently been reformed in a way that some business groups find toothless.

    Logan is not just the face of the court; she spearheaded its creation in 2013, hoping to address the same individuals who cycled in and out of jail with little improvement in their lives and a high likelihood of reoffending.

    “It was from those feelings of ‘can we do something better to uphold public safety for the community and serve the individuals that come into the court system?’ ” Logan said in an interview.

    Many of the charges that bring defendants to community court will be dropped once they complete community service and connect with social service providers who are gathered only a few feet away in one of the library’s conference rooms. It’s meant to be a one-stop shop for problem-solving where people can find information about health insurance coverage, substance-abuse treatment, housing, getting new photo IDs and more.

    The people who pass through the court, many of whom are homeless, are all offered a free sack lunch provided by the congregation of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Cathedral. The court’s officers stress the importance of respect for defendants and recognition for progress; Logan teared up as she described handing people rocks painted with the words “Courage” or “Strength” or “Faith” to describe those who successfully complete the court’s programs.

    “(One man) just stopped dead in his tracks, and he said, no one has ever recognized that in me,” she said.

    Depending on the severity of their problems, people might spend anywhere from a couple of weeks to as long as three or six months in the court’s program.

    The court was created to make lasting changes in people’s lives, reduce recidivism and improve conditions downtown for residents and businesses.

    But Smithson and the downtown business owners who encouraged him to run argue the court is failing at its mission, lacks accountability, and does not subject itself to the kind of transparency necessary to evaluate its progress.

    “I think we need new ideas,” Smithson said. “I think we need to have a little bit more accountability, and I think we also owe it to the community to have accountability on the court for the public. … I still have no idea what the recidivism rate is in community court, I don’t know how many people have been lifted out of addiction and into housing. They won’t provide that information.”

    Smithson argues the court needs “compassionate accountability” for the people who pass through it, and while he argues this does not mean a return to sending people to jail as a first step, he also believes the consequences for failing to meet the court’s expectations are not sufficient.

    “I think (community court) is a great model,” Smithson said. “I just think the way it has been applied leaves room for improvement.”

    He also does not believe the court is open enough with data, arguing for regular presentations of the court’s caseload, recidivism and other statistics.

    Logan, meanwhile, argues the court already meets those goals. There is accountability for the initial charge through community service, but also regular check-ins at the downtown library and an expectation to keep engaging with service providers.

    She recalls a woman brought into court for sleeping on the streets, visibly under the influence, and whom Logan ordered into drug treatment. The woman initially refused, had her case kicked up to standard municipal court, but eventually returned on another charge and this time successfully treated her addiction.

    “Accountability is saying, ‘Yes, I was on the streets of Spokane, I have a drug problem, and I’m going to face it every single week because I either have to talk to Judge Logan about it or I have to talk to the prosecutor and defense about it,’ ” Logan said. “‘And if I’m not in compliance, then the next level might be inpatient treatment.’”

    For someone who refuses to engage, the consequence of getting their case sent to another court may well be jail time, Logan added, though she argued this often becomes the least productive outcome.

    Smithson, however, does not believe the consequences have historically been sufficient to convince someone to comply.

    “She says people will do jail time, but when I look at those files it’s someone that did five days of jail time at the end because they had a warrant,” Smithson said. “That’s like spanking your puppy for peeing on the carpet last week … if you can get the puppy and say you’re not supposed to pee on the carpet and they do, maybe not jail, but we’re sending them out to work … maybe that changes their behavior.”

    Many of Smithson’s supporters are frustrated by conditions downtown, pointing to data indicating chronic offenders remain on the streets. Last summer, the Spokane Police Department launched a program of emphasis patrols downtown that contacted 73 homeless people with more than 2,000 prior arrests between them.

    Logan acknowledges a number of chronic offenders live downtown but doesn’t agree that the blame lies with community court. She notes around 30 of the people brought into her court after that emphasis program had their cases dismissed by prosecutors because the cases were not adequately built, and points to others who are not competent to stand trial but don’t have the same pretrial stabilization resources that they would have access to if they had committed a violent felony.

    As the expansion of involuntary confinement becomes more frequently discussed, recently energized by a push from the administration of President Donald Trump, Logan cautiously agrees more avenues to intervene are necessary.

    “If it’s just a broad brush, then it would be an abuse of very basic fundamental rights … but I can certainly think of individuals that I wish there was a safe haven for them, because … the death toll for them is going to be high and grim,” Logan said.

    She also wishes there was more funding available for existing programs, noting the state slashed funding for Oxford-style housing that is supposed to be a transition for people who need a sober place to live while they get back on their feet.

    Smithson argues the court does not provide enough data for the public to adequately assess whether it’s succeeding.

    Logan and other court officials presented data about the court to the Spokane City Council in June. Smithson said he was unaware of this presentation but argued it was likely spurred by the election; Logan said her court used to provide quarterly updates but did not during the term of former Mayor Nadine Woodward because “that wasn’t welcomed.”

    It’s not clear, however, whether Woodward would have had any say in the court’s participation in committees controlled by the City Council.

    A 2019 study by Washington State University did show a marked decline in recidivism for those who participated in community court versus similar cases prior to the court’s existence or that went through another court; Logan noted the study cost $30,000, making it expensive to continually replicate, though she says she would if the court had the money.

    If elected, Smithson said , he would more regularly provide data to the public and further decrease recidivism. He also wants the court to have dedicated peer navigators to follow people through complying with the court’s orders, though he would have to find the funding to do so.

    Both candidates have significant legal experience.

    Logan began her legal career in 1988, specializing in medical malpractice and other civil claims. She then represented cities for 15 years, first in California and later in Spokane County. She was hired by the Spokane public defender’s office in 1997 and worked there until she was sworn in as a judge in 2009 following the creation of the court and her appointment by then-Mayor Mary Verner.

    Smithson has worked in various legal roles for the city of Spokane for 23 years including in the city prosecutor’s office and served as the city’s chief attorney under former Mayor Nadine Woodward. He also has prior experience in civil litigation and criminal defense.

    Logan’s endorsements are extensive: over a hundred judges, including Kristin O’Sullivan, presiding judge of Spokane Municipal Court, 11 of the 13 sitting Spokane County Superior Court judges, and state Supreme Court Justices Debra Stephans and Mary Yu. She is also endorsed by Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown, state Sen. Marcus Riccelli and other area politicians.

    Smithson lists endorsements from a handful of local attorneys, two sitting judges, one from Kittitas County and another from Mason County, as well as former Spokane Mayor Nadine Woodward, former Spokane police Chief Craig Meidl and various business owners and politically active residents who frequently criticize Spokane’s progressives.

    Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correctly attribute a quote starting with “She says people will do jail time…” to Smithson.

    [ad_2]

    Source link