State lawmakers take on Aurora, other cities meting out tough jail sentences

AURORA | The standing question in legislation this season is whether cities like Aurora have the legal right to impose harsher penalties than those set by the state for crimes like shoplifting and trespassing.

Municipal proponents adamantly insist they should, and some cities, like Aurora and Pueblo, already do.

Some state lawmakers and critics of Aurora and Pueblo enhance jail sentencing measures say, absolutely not, and the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids it under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  

After hours of testimony in both House and Senate committee hearings, House Bill 1147 passed narrowly out of the House Judiciary Committee, then it was approved mostly on party line 37-27 on the House floor and  24-10 on the Senate floor April 4. Republicans have opposed the bill, and some Democrats.

The bill now goes to Gov. Jared Polis for consideration.  

At issue is whether cities and counties should have the ability to impose jail sentences for crimes like shoplifting, car theft or trespassing that are more harsh than sentences under state law.

Aurora over the past two years has imposed mandatory minimum jail sentences for anyone convicted of shoplifting $100 or more. State law has no such minimum sentence. Proponents of HB 1147 say the harsher sentence in Aurora for the same crime committed anywhere else in Colorado triggers 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause conflicts. Critics of the House bill say it usurps local control of a home-rule city and the ability of local lawmakers to create anti-crime measures they deem necessary.

A regular feature among arguments in both the House and Senate judiciary committee hearings focused on disparate criminal sentences imposed by committing the same time on different sides of a Colorado road. 

“I also absolutely cannot bring myself to support a resolution with the question that I have now asked multiple people: What is the difference in the crime on one side of Arapahoe Road versus the other?” said Rep. Chad Clifford, D-Centennial, Feb. 26 during the House judicial hearing. 

Walking out on a $15 restaurant tab on the Aurora side of Arapahoe Road can get convicts mandatory jail time. On the unincorporated side of Arapahoe Road, it’s a different story. There is no mandatory jail sentence for the crime outside of Aurora.

The City of Pueblo, which is also opposing the bill, has also created enhanced sentencing for crimes outside of state parameters.

The measure is being fiercely fought by officials from both cities.

“Home rule municipalities, by the essence of Article 20 of the (State) Constitution, along with their elected city councils, have the authority to address the specific needs of their communities,” Aurora City Attorney Pete Schulte told the House committee in February. “That is why we strongly oppose this bill. It infringes on our home rule authority.”

The Colorado Constitution enumerates the power of cities to set up home rule. It does not directly address the ability to supersede criminal sentences for crimes delineated in statute, the bill’s proponents say.

House Bill 1147 proposes to restrict municipal court sentences at state limits, and it requires specific standards for public defenders. This measure would directly challenge Aurora’s harsher sentencing practices.

The bill is part of a broader push to reform Colorado’s municipal court systems and would address sentencing disparities and potential constitutional violations that critics say disproportionately impact vulnerable and minority populations.

“It’s critical that we recognize that we have two distinct systems of justice happening side by side,” Rep. Javier Mabrey, D-Denver, said. “People who are in the same county, charged with the same conduct, housed in the same jail, can face vastly different sentences and receive different protections.”

By aligning municipal court sentencing with state standards, the legislation would aim to ensure 14th Amendment-guaranteed equal protection for all defendants, regardless of where they are charged, proponents say.

Schulte said all convicts are already treated equally in Aurora, and that, he says, was the intention of the framers of the state Constitution.

“If you want to choose to commit a crime in a municipality and you get caught, you’re going to be subject to the laws of that particular city,” Schulte said.

Critics point out no state law or amendment can run contrary to the U.S. Constitution, which mandates equal protection — and equal prosecution — inside a state.

Schulte said Aurora is prepared to litigate if the measure is signed into law.

Equal for whom?

Under HB 1147, municipal court sentences would be capped at the maximum state law sentence for the same offenses. If there is no state-level comparable offense, the maximum period of incarceration is capped at the maximum for a state-level petty offense, generally about one year.

State law currently allows for up to a year in jail for shoplifting convictions for stealing up to $1,000. Aurora lawmakers, during the last few years, have imposed minimum sentences, requiring at least three days in jail for a conviction of stealing $100 or more in merchandise.

If HB 1147 were to become law, mandatory minimums and increased penalties for prior convictions would be prohibited if the penalty is more harsh than that imposed by state law.

The bill also requires cities to provide “in-custody defendants” immediate public defense, and those public defenders cannot be “flat-fee” contract attorneys.

Aurora became the target of state legislation last year after trying to shutter the city’s public defender unit and put the services out for a contract to the highest bidder. The city received no bids after issuing a request for proposals. Instead, Aurora lawmakers agreed to close the city’s domestic violence program in municipal court and send cases to Arapahoe or Adams county courts.

The bill also requires that all municipal court proceedings be open to the public and requires virtual access for in-custody hearings.

Two amendments added to the bill this week were offered by state Sen. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora. The first, which he called the “Steamboat Amendment,”  would allow local governments to continue to impose monetary fines that would exceed the $300 petty threshold for municipal offenses defined not to have any jail time.

“We are happy to preserve the zone of some sort of local discretion for offenses of a purely monetary nature,” Weissman said. 

The second amendment was the “Denver Amendment,” which postponed the effectiveness of the change to domestic violence cases until April 1, 2026, Weissman said. This would give Denver time needed for research, drafting and a local legislative process.

Sentencing disparities

Lawmakers and legal advocates mentioned various cases in court sentencing disparities between local municipalities and state sentencing maximums.

In Rifle, a couple, Jeremiah and Michelle Mobley, were sentenced to 30 days in jail for stealing two t-shirts priced at $30, according to Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs. The sentence was far longer than the sentence for the same crime if tried in county court, rather than Rifle’s city court.

In Longmont, a woman received a 30-day jail sentence for a probation violation and trespassing charge, which was three times longer than the maximum sentence allowed in state court, according to Mabrey.

In Aurora, a man was charged with a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail for trespassing when state law would have capped the sentence at 10 days, Mabrey said. 

There were more examples given during committee testimony of harsher sentences in local municipalities, including Pueblo, Westminster and Denver.

“If somebody commits a crime on one side of Sheridan (Boulevard) or the other,” Mabrey said. “The Constitution mandates that they should be treated in the same way. That’s what we are talking about here.”

Aurora shoplifting laws include a “dine and dash” penalty with a mandatory three days in jail for walking out on a $15 bill or higher. Dine and dash is a term for when people leave without paying for their meal after eating at a restaurant. 

The law also includes a mandatory three days in jail for retail theft of $100 or more on the first offense; a mandatory 90 days in jail on the second offense; and a mandatory 180 days on the third offense. 

Colorado state law considers a retail theft of less than $300 a petty offense, which could receive as much as 10 days in jail but has no mandatory minimum, according to statute. 

Aurora also allows up to 364 days in jail for a trespass offense, which would be capped at 10 days in state court. 

“This risk is compounded by the fact that those accused people tend to be society’s most vulnerable: the unhoused, the mentally ill, the extremely poor, and the disabled,” Mabrey said.

“Even for the most minor municipal offenses, people can be jailed, and they can lose their jobs, their housing, their driver’s license, their immigration status or their gun rights. Even short stays in jail have grave consequences.”

Aurora’s defense for local law

Aurora lawmakers have for the past few years pushed for harsher sentences for a variety of crimes, reacting to what they said was a uniquely local increase in theft and shoplifting.

State records show that crime in Aurora closely mirrors that of municipalities across the entire metro area. Most types of crime spiked during the pandemic, a phenomenon that also occurred across the nation.

For the last two years, violent and non-violent crimes have been ebbing in Aurora and across the metro region.

Aurora’s overall crime rate in 2024 declined to below 2020 levels after a spike in 2022. Theft climbed from about 7,500 incidents in 2020 to 8,100 incidents in 2022 and has now gone back down to 7,300 incidents in 2024. 

Year-to-date, year-over-year, city crime statistics for the beginning of 2025 showed an increase in shoplifting each week through January and February, and only started to show a slight decrease during the last three weeks, compared to last year, according to Aurora Crime statistics. 

Some Aurora lawmakers say the increase in sentencing has helped drive down theft. The city has not made public any analysis of theft metrics, and the city’s theft and car theft cases closely mirror the same rates of communities across the metro region.

Critics of the “harsh on crime” philosophy said the metrowide metrics and numerous national studies show that tough sentencing laws do nothing to prevent crime and, instead, saddle taxpayers for bigger jail and court costs.

Aurora proponents maintain, however, that sentencing for local crimes is a local matter.

Schulte insisted that state law not only allows for local control, but that such control is responsive to and reflective of local communities’ needs.

“If citizens don’t like it, all the city councils are elected,” Schulte said. “Just like all the representatives in the assembly, if someone doesn’t like what the city council is doing, there are remedies at the ballot box, and that is, again, why we are so firm against this because it is approaching our home rule authority.”

Jeremy Schupbach, Colorado Municipal League legislative and policy advocate, also sent out a statement of position for the coop of Colorado towns and cities, saying that municipalities require flexibility to respond appropriately to the needs of their communities. 

Although this may differ from the needs of the state, municipalities should be able to impose harsher sentences to reflect their individual communities, according to the CML statement.

He said, at best, the measure is premature as courts are already scrutinizing some critical cases.

“The Colorado Supreme Court is reviewing cases challenging this very issue, making legislative action premature,” Schupbach said in the statement. “Deferring action on sentencing until the Court issues a ruling may avoid costly litigation and ensure judicial decisions inform future legislative decisions.”

He pointed to a bevy of cases before the state’s Supreme Court exploring the issue of potentially excessive sentencing by Colorado municipalities

Bruce Eisenhower, legislative liaison for the Department of Local Affairs, also testified in opposition to the bill, agreeing with Schulte’s arguments for Home Rule Authority. 

The argument of 14th Amendment rights

Broomfield lawyer Amy Trenary testified that the state Constitution does spell out special powers for “home rule” cities, but that it does not provide municipalities with unrestricted power, especially over the U.S. Constitution.

“Home Rule Authority is much more tightly constricted than many believe,” Trenary said. “Municipal ordinances cannot conflict with state laws, and when a state law exists, municipal regulation is only permissible to the extent that it does not contradict statewide statutes.”

Trenary said that the home rule language is also deciphered by the charter of the local municipality. 

La Plata Sheriff Sean Smith said city overreach on sentencing in his county has had a real negative impact on the Durango community and La Plata County jail. He said harsher sentences have created jail crowding and big expenses for county residents who are affected only by those who live in the cities.

Sentencing disparity affects more than just taxpayers, other critics told state lawmakers.

Aurora Chief Public Defender Elizabeth Cadiz said the numbers behind those receiving the harsher Aurora sentences are important. 

“Through efforts to reform low-level sentencing, we identified 47 offenses that are identical in our municipal code to state statutes but carry a potential 364 days versus caps of 10 or 120 days under the state law,” Cadiz said. “In a sample of 150 cases involving only these kinds of comparable charges, 42% were theft, 19% were trespass, 4% were prostitution and 9% were police charges, meaning resisting or obstruction.

Of those receiving the harsher Aurora sentences, “the demographic data showed that 1.31% were Asian, 27.45% were white, 26.14% were Hispanic or Latino, and 45.1% were Black or African American.”

She said the numbers made clear that minorities were being impacted by the sentences far greater than their white counterparts in Aurora.

Cadiz told the committee she was testifying separately from the City of Aurora, and she said approving the bill would help end what she called unconstitutional practices in municipal courts.

“This bill doesn’t say you can’t prosecute thefts if you’re a municipality or enforce identical criminal laws,” Cadiz said. “It doesn’t say you can’t put people in jail and max them or run your own court and run your own docket and your police department and direct where your resources can go. It just sets a precedent and guarantees fairness.”

Aurora lawyer Anne Moorhead said that the bill would also enshrine the full right to counsel, which she said Aurora denies some people in court. 

“Aurora Municipal Court treats weekend and holiday courts differently than other in-custody dockets run Monday through Friday,” she said. “By prohibiting in-person access to clients, expressly prohibiting the entry of a plea, expressly prohibiting plea negotiations, prohibiting appointment of counsel for future hearings, substantially limiting communication with the client prior to the hearing in automatic PR bond cases, and only allowing conditional appointment of counsel for clients held on bond, unnecessarily delaying the case just to reset the arraignment several weeks out to then allow full appointment of counsel.”

Some critics of the bill said during the hearings that the statewide change could push tens of thousands of city-court cases into the county courts, putting additional strain on the counties.

Schulte said he would consider sending all criminal cases to the county if the bill passed.  

His threat held enough weight for the 18th Judicial District Attorney, Amy Padden and Arapahoe County Commissioners Rhonda Fields and Jessica Campbell, to testify for new amendments to the bill. Padden said her judicial district system cannot take the additional case loads from Aurora’s municipal courts.

The state did not grant the 18th Judicial District additional funding to take on domestic violence cases from Aurora, which the Aurora City Council already voted in 2024 to move to district court to save money on court funding. The court requested additional funding for a judge, probation, pretrial and public defender resources, which they did not receive.

Aurora officials estimated up to 1,300 cases will be brought to the Arapahoe County courts for domestic violence cases starting July 1. In the hearing, Padden said that taking on all of Aurora’s municipal cases would add an additional 5,000 cases to the court. 

“We simply can’t absorb those additional cases right now,” she said. “We are going to have cases that are pending, that are delayed, that could potentially be dismissed for speedy trial issues, and it’s going to put an extreme burden on our court system.”

Fields requested the bill sponsors to “address the financial impact of this unfunded mandate,” and to roll out more time for them to put all of the standards, qualifications and processes in place to ensure they “can do it right.”

“This is a political threat aimed at holding this body and other stakeholders hostage for fear of potential costs,” Councilmember Alison Coombs said. “Nothing in this bill requires Aurora to stop prosecutions. This would be a choice made by Aurora City Council with full knowledge that the district courts have inadequate resources, and they should be held responsible for choosing a petulant and craven reaction to being told that they have to uphold an equal system of justice.”

Weissman referred to a 2024 Denver Post report in which Marc Sears, president of the Aurora Fraternal Order of Police, said that officers in Aurora are encouraged to write tickets to municipal courts instead of county court to bring the money directly back to the municipality.

The article claims that Aurora receives a lot of necessary funding from their municipal court system, but Schulte said that is not the whole truth.

“90% of all revenue generated in Aurora’s municipal court is from the prosecution of traffic citations,” Schulte told the Sentinel. “We actually lose money on many criminal cases prosecuted in municipal court. It doesn’t generate enough fines in court costs to come anywhere close to covering the city’s expenses on the money we spend to prosecute those cases.”

He said that municipal court cases are not designed to make money, especially domestic violence cases. They are a service the city provides, and even traffic cases aren’t designed to make money. Traffic cases just require far fewer resources. 

Critics also argue that Colorado’s municipal courts operate with minimal oversight, allowing for unchecked sentencing disparities and no assurance of Constitutionally guaranteed defense counsel. Municipal courts are structured, funded and supervised by the same cities that bring charges. 

Aurora has its own judicial review system, and the courts are overseen by an administrator who reports to the city council, not the city attorney’s office. 

There has been some talk of the governor planning to veto the bill even though Weissman said he had not heard anything from the governor’s staff so far.

“I had a conversation with the Governor yesterday,” Mayor Mike Coffman said. “I believe that he has publicly stated, as he did in the call, that he will veto HB 1147 when it gets to his desk.”

Different members of staff and city council have stated in Federal, State and Intergovernmental Relations that the governor will veto the bill.

A spokesperson for Polis did not commit to a likely veto.

“The Governor is focused on making Colorado one of the top ten safest states,” Ally Sullivan, spokesperson for Polis, said in an email. “And while he is skeptical of actions that may limit local governments’ ability to keep Coloradans safe, he will carefully review any bill that reaches his desk”