Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Courts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill to bar municipal criminal charges for failure to appear, amid contested testimony
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee endorsed Senate Bill 62 by a 7-4 vote to prohibit municipalities from criminalizing failure to appear; supporters said the policy prevents criminalizing poverty, while municipal officials warned it would hamper local courts’ ability to manage repeated no-shows.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 to send Senate Bill 62 to the Committee of the Whole after hours of testimony that split lawmakers and witnesses on how municipalities handle failures to appear.
Supporters, including Vice Chair Representative Carter and Representative Gilchrist, described SB 62 as a narrow bill that would bar municipal ordinances from turning failures to appear into freestanding criminal charges. Carter said the bill “is trying to do is prohibit the criminalization of that failure to appear process, in the municipal codes.” Gilchrist said many missed appearances stem from barriers such as lack of transportation, housing instability or health emergencies, and urged a yes vote.
The bill’s backers — including the ACLU of Colorado, Colorado Freedom Fund, the statewide Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel and disability advocates — argued municipal use of standalone failure-to-appear ordinances disproportionately punishes people experiencing poverty, homelessness or disability and can coerce guilty pleas by inflating exposure to jail time.
Opponents, led by municipal officials and judges from jurisdictions that have used an ordinance approach, urged caution. Carla Sykes, city attorney for Pueblo (testifying in opposition), said Pueblo handles roughly 21,000 municipal charges annually with an overall failure-to-appear rate of about 40 percent and that the city’s process evolved from repeated FTAs; she urged the committee to support an alternative municipal bill (House Bill 1276 was mentioned) rather than SB 62. Aurora city officials and a presiding municipal judge said Aurora limits its use of a substantive failure-to-appear charge to trial days when jurors, victims and witnesses are present and said the charge can be an effective tool to prevent repeated scheduling abuse.
Witnesses disputed how often municipal courts use arrest-and-hold practices. Supporters said many municipalities do not use all noncriminal tools available — text reminders, virtual appearances, flexible hours, PR-bond workflows and warrant-forgiveness days — and that criminal ordinances often lead to unconstitutional processes because the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney may all be witnesses to the alleged crime, requiring recusal and replacement to preserve constitutional protections. The ACLU noted Pueblo cases that drew district-court scrutiny.
Lawmakers pressed witnesses about whether state statute 18-8-212 (violation of bail bond condition) provides an equivalent remedy in state courts and whether that provision applies to petty municipal offenses. Witnesses and members agreed the state statute is narrower and typically applies where a person is released on bond; opponents argued municipalities created local ordinances to address repeated FTAs in cases not covered by state statute.
Representative Carter moved SB 62 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; Representative Bacon seconded. Clerk roll call recorded 7 yeas and 4 nays, and the committee chair announced the bill will proceed.
Key vote: On a vote of 7 to 4, Senate Bill 62 was advanced to the Committee of the Whole.
