Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster attorneys outline broad municipal code rewrite after People v. Camp
Summary
City attorneys told council they are revising Title 6 (municipal criminal code) to align with the Colorado Supreme Court's People v. Camp decision, prioritizing commonly used ordinances and seeking defense‑counsel review; council asked staff for data on municipal‑only offenses to inform penalty choices.
City attorneys told the Westminster City Council on April 27 that they are undertaking a systematic revision of the city’s municipal code after the Colorado Supreme Court’s People v. Camp decision required closer alignment between municipal and state sentencing for identical conduct.
Mark Hoff and Brian Fuseley of the city attorney’s office said their team has been reviewing Title 6, the municipal criminal code, which contains roughly 117 unique ordinances. Hoff said the office has amended 30 sections so far and “sent the first 12 to our alternative defense counsel” for review as part of a deliberate, time‑consuming process to prioritize commonly used charges.
Why it matters: the Camp decision means that, when municipal and state laws describe identical conduct, a municipality’s sentencing must track state sentencing. Councilors and staff said that mismatch has created situations where relatively minor municipal offenses could carry penalties that now exceed similar state offenses.
Councilor Johnson asked staff to compile data on municipal‑only offenses — those without identical state counterparts — to show how often the city actually prosecutes those charges and what sentences have been imposed since 2022. Johnson said that information — case numbers, charges, citations, any jail time and dates — will help the council decide whether some violations should remain criminal or be converted to civil penalties.
Hoff and Fuseley urged patience: portions of the data Johnson requested may not be possible to produce until staff complete more of the code review, because administrators need definitive code‑section lists before the court administrator can pull comprehensive historic charge and sentencing data. Hoff said the office is intentionally prioritizing the 30 most widely used ordinances (which cover about 81% of municipal court filings in 2025) so that revisions benefit the largest share of cases first.
Next steps: staff will continue the staged code review, coordinate with defense counsel and the court administrator as needed, and return to council with proposed ordinance amendments and, when feasible, the requested municipal‑only offense data to inform sentencing policy choices.
