October 21, 2015

DENVER – As Mayor Michael Hancock prepares to present his 2016 city budget, several of Denver’s leading criminal justice reform organizations submitted a joint letter to City Council questioning the$24 million increase in the Denver Sheriff Department’s budget.
The coalition includes ACLU of Colorado, Colorado Latino Forum, Drug Policy Alliance, Criminal Defense Institute, Colorado Justice Reform Coalition and Colorado Defense Bar.
The letter outlines several concerns:

• In 2005, Denver voters were asked to support a massive bond measure to expand the jails. Voters were told that no new staff at the Sheriff’s Department would be needed due to greater efficiency.
• It is unclear whether the $24million increase reflects the total cost of the consultant’s recommendations.
• There has been no concerted effort in Denver to reduce the jail population either before or simultaneously to this budget increase, nor does the budget address the issue of overrepresentation of people of color in jail.
• Over 50% of people are incarcerated because they do not have the money to post bond. This is despite a US Dept. of Justice opinion that says that the overreliance of money bonds without consideration of indigence violates the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
• There is also no consideration in the Sheriff’s budget request to improve and expand access to programs and services for people in jail or policies that expand pre-arrest diversion for low-level offenses to prevent jail at the onset.

The coalition notes that this week, over 100 police chiefs and government prosecutors are meeting at the White House to address ways to reduce incarceration rates. We think Denver’s city leaders should also work to reverse mass incarceration and repair the harm caused, particularly in communities of color.  We ask Denver to follow the example of other government entities in Colorado who have used the “power of the purse” to chart a new course.
“A public budget is a moral document that is supposed to reflect the values and priorities of the community.  For the undersigned organizations, this proposed $24 million budget increase neither aligns with our values or our priorities,” said Denise Maes, Public Policy Director for the ACLU of Colorado.
The reform organizations urge the Council not to approve this $24 million increase without the following caveats:
1) the Denver Sheriff’s Department will provide City Council and the public its projections for future costs beyond the $24 million currently requested to implement the consultant’s recommendations
2) the Council should immediately create a committee that includes community representatives with experience in criminal justice reform that is tasked with making recommendations on how to reduce the jail population and strengthen inmate programs.
The Denver City Council will hold a public hearing on the 2016 Budget on Monday, October 26^th.   Representatives from several of the signatory organizations will present testimony.
The joint letter to City Council is available here.

DENVER - One day after a federal district court in Colorado ruled that Grand Junction’s panhandling ordinance violates the First Amendment, Denver Police Chief Robert White ordered his officers to suspend enforcement of Denver’s panhandling ordinance.
“We commend Denver for taking prompt action to suspend enforcement of a panhandling ordinance that violates the First Amendment rights of persons who peacefully ask for charity in public places,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado Legal Director. “We will be asking city attorneys throughout Colorado to review their panhandling ordinances in light of the federal court’s decision. Most of those ordinances will need to be repealed or dramatically revised.”
 
Read the DPD bulletin here.
 
 
 

DENVER - Federal District Court Judge Christine Arguello issued a 39-page decision yesterday striking down Grand Junction’s panhandling ordinance, ruling that it violates the First Amendment rights of persons who wish to solicit charity in public places.

Wednesday’s ruling expands on an earlier order in the case, issued in June, which held that the ordinance regulated speech on the basis of its content. That ruling required Grand Junction to meet the strictest standard of judicial scrutiny. In Wednesday’s decision, the Court explained that Grand Junction had failed to justify its regulation of expression.

“The ruling striking down Grand Junction’s panhandling ordinance will have ramifications throughout Colorado,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado Legal Director. “The reasoning of this decision, along with Supreme Court rulings earlier in the summer, signify that almost every panhandling ordinance in Colorado must be repealed or seriously amended.”

The ACLU of Colorado has initiated discussions with city attorneys in Denver and Colorado Springs about the need for repeal or for major revisions of their panhandling regulations. Police in Colorado Springs were recently ordered to stop enforcing most provisions of the city’s two panhandling ordinances.

Grand Junction adopted its ordinance in the spring of 2014, and the ACLU of Colorado filed its legal challenge before the ordinance went into effect. The challenged provisions made it a crime to ask for charity after sunset or within 20 feet of an ATM or a bus stop. Other challenged provisions prohibited asking for donations from people standing in line or seated at an outdoor café. The Court ruled that Grand Junction had failed to support its contention that the regulations were necessary to protect public safety.

Dozens of Colorado cities enforce similar regulations that prohibit asking for charity in certain public locations, at certain times, or in specified situations. The ACLU of Colorado encourages all Colorado city attorneys to immediately review the Grand Junction ruling and consider whether their panhandling ordinances must be repealed or amended.

“The ACLU does not object to carefully tailored regulations that target coercive, threatening, or menacing solicitations that actually invade the rights of others,” Silverstein said. “But we oppose, and the First Amendment prohibits, broad regulations that outlaw peaceful, polite, and nonthreatening requests for assistance.”

Along with Silverstein, clients in the case were represented by ACLU of Colorado staff attorneys Rebecca T. Wallace and Sara Neel.

• more on this case