File photo by Gabriel Christus/Aurora Sentinel
AURORA | A proposal to end sending any criminal cases to Aurora’s municipal courts, comes as a rebuke to a recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling that prohibits local penalties for criminal charges from being more harsh than those imposed by the state, according to both proponents and supporters of the proposition.
The measure drew swift criticism from at least one district attorney serving Aurora.
“Not only do we need more resources in my office to do those cases, but the courts system needs additional resources,” 18th Judicial District Attorney Amy Padden said in an interview with the Sentinel. “The courts don’t have additional courtrooms or county court judges, where those already exist in Aurora.”
Councilmember Françoise Bergan introduced the measure Monday at a city council study session. It seeks to discontinue filing criminal charges in municipal court starting next year. City lawmakers postponed discussion of the measure until a May 9 city council workshop.
The resolution follows last year’s decision to stop prosecuting domestic violence at the municipal level, instead sending the cases to the appropriate district attorneys offices in Aurora’s three counties.
If the proposed resolution passes, criminal charges now handled at the city level, such as misdemeanor theft or trespassing, would be prosecuted by the district attorney’s office. Felony charges can only be heard by state district courts.
The resolution says the Colorado Supreme Court’s December ruling in People vs. Simons (Camp) limits policy control and sentencing at a local level, “which diminishes the benefit of local municipal criminal prosecution.”
The ruling stems in part from an Aurora case, where Danielle Simons faced up to a year in jail and up to $2,650 in fines under city code for trespassing and motor vehicle trespass, while state penalties were much lower. Her case, and another similar case from Westminster, led the Supreme Court to unanimously decide that cities can’t enforce harsher penalties than the state for the same crime.
The resolution also points to an estimated annual cost savings of $7 million for discontinuing criminal cases at the municipal level, based on cutting public defenders and probation officers, as well as a reduction in prosecution case levels and court resources.
City Attorney Pete Schulte said the municipal courts prosecute around 1,900 criminal cases per year.
Municipal courts would continue to prosecute animal, traffic and zoning violations under the resolution, as well as hear all criminal cases filed before May 1, 2027 to completion, according to the proposal.
During Monday’s discussion, Bergan echoed the sentiments in the resolution, saying it’s a responsible financial decision to end municipal prosecution since the city no longer has the authority to impose harsher penalties.
“If we don’t have control over our penalties or sentences, then I think let’s just go ahead and not prosecute those cases,” Bergan said.
Other council members had numerous questions about how the resolution would be implemented and the potential impacts of the change to victims of crime and the district attorneys offices.
“As I think about victims, this creates a barrier for them, potentially, to seek resources and show up at court,” Councilmember Amy Wiles said, noting people would have to travel to the Arapahoe County or Littleton courts if the resolution passes.
Councilmember Allison Coombs sought more details about the potential financial impact and what resources the district attorneys offices would need to accommodate the change. She also posed the idea of completely repealing the city’s municipal criminal code.
Padden also said her office would need more resources to take on the cases from the municipal courts. To take on the domestic violence cases from Aurora, Padden said her office had to add 18 full-time employees, which Arapahoe County funded.
Padden said she would prefer the municipal courts continue to prosecute crimes.
In an emailed statement to the Sentinel, Elizabeth Cadiz, Aurora’s chief public defender, said she supports the reduction of policing and prosecution, but raised concerns that the decision could have negative consequences without proper planning. She also questioned the lack of specifics with regards to the $7 million projected savings.
“I fully support the end of policing and prosecuting my clients,” Cadiz said. “However, I do fear that the organizational and practical impact of such a substantial change without careful planning and consideration will bring about further burden that could actually have a negative impact on efficient and effective operation short term.”
Cadiz said the resolution seemed to misunderstand the Supreme Court decision as a “personal and targeted attack on municipal power,” noting that other cities have already aligned their codes with state penalties without abandoning prosecution at the municipal level.
Ultimately, Cadiz urged the city to take further action to repeal ordinances related to “discretionary, poverty related crimes” and end what she views as the over-policing and over-prosecution of her clients.
“My hope is that to the extent that the city intends to continue the filing and prosecuting of any adult for any violation under the code, it makes the required reforms, considers swift and warranted repeal of some sections, and also engages in a robust and informed discussion when appropriate regarding public safety spending overall,” she said.