Committee moves to bar municipal criminal ordinances for failure to appear

The House Judiciary Committee voted to send Senate Bill 62 to the Committee of the Whole after a multi-hour hearing that pitted municipal officials and prosecutors against civil-rights and defense advocates.

Supporters said the bill would stop some cities from criminalizing poverty by making a missed court date its own criminal offense. "This bill would bring the muni courts in alignment with state courts on this issue," Vice Chair Carter said, adding it "disallows failure to appear and contempt of court premised on that failure to appear from forming the basis of a criminal charge."

The nut graf: proponents, including the ACLU of Colorado, the Colorado Freedom Fund and the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel, said municipal ordinances in a handful of jurisdictions resulted in lengthy jail exposure for people who missed appearances often for reasons tied to poverty, disability or housing instability. Opponents — city attorneys and municipal court judges — said repeated, willful failures to appear disrupt case resolution, harm victims and that removing the local tool would hinder municipal court administration.

In committee testimony, Carla Sykes, city attorney for Pueblo, described local practice and statistics: "Pueblo municipal court handles approximately 21,000 charges annually. About 14,000 of those charges are for which warrants may be issued. The current overall failure to appear rate is 40%." Sykes said Pueblo used contempt and related ordinances to deter repeated nonappearance but that the process described in media reports had been changed after court challenges.

Advocates called the municipal practice punitive and constitutionally fraught. Anaya Robinson of the ACLU of Colorado said, "Prosecuting failure to appear as a crime is extremely challenging constitutionally," and that the Pueblo practice led to successful habeas litigation. Dana Steiner of the Colorado Freedom Fund pointed to alternatives: text reminders, virtual appearances and warrant-forgiveness days. "Text reminders for state appearances have 36% fewer FTAs," Steiner said.

Municipal leaders, including Jeremy Schubach of the Colorado Municipal League and Aurora City Attorney Pete Schulte, urged caution. Schulte said Aurora uses an ordinance-based failure-to-appear charge only for trial dates to prevent gamesmanship that wastes jurors, victims and police: "We are not filing these additional charges absent the day of trial." Judge Day, testifying for Aurora municipal court, said the substantive failure-to-appear charge allows the city to provide the full procedural protections attached to a separate offense and argued the charge is an important tool to keep dockets moving.

Witnesses recounted cases advocates said showed the human cost. An ACLU paralegal recounted one person who served roughly 600 days in county jail, much of it attributable to contempt convictions tied to missed municipal court dates; another witness described a pregnant woman jailed after contempt sentences were imposed for probation noncompliance.

Committee members questioned how the state statute cited by some witnesses — the statute addressing violation of bond conditions — relates to municipal petty offenses. Judge Day noted the state statute (18-8-212) targets some misdemeanors and felonies and contains a specific mens rea requirement that does not map directly onto many municipal petty offenses.

At the bill's close, supporters and opponents reiterated two themes: the need to prevent the criminalization of poverty, and the need to preserve municipal courts' ability to resolve cases and protect victims. The bill's language explicitly preserves a municipal judge's inherent contempt power and authority to issue bench warrants and consider a person's prior failures to appear when setting bond.

Votes and next steps: Vice Chair Carter moved Senate Bill 62 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the motion was seconded by Rep. Amal Bacon and the measure was approved and sent on.

Ending: The committee hearing produced extensive record testimony from municipal officials, judges, defense advocates and civil-rights organizations. Supporters argued the bill removes a constitutionally risky practice used in a few jurisdictions; opponents urged caution and underscored operational burdens on courts and victims when defendants repeatedly fail to appear.