Denver Budget and Policy Committee Meeting – January 12, 2026

The Budget and Policy Committee of Denver City Council, chaired by Council President Amanda Sandoval, met on January 12, 2026, to discuss two major agenda items: a proposed ordinance to prohibit federal law enforcement from wearing masks while conducting operations in Denver, and an update on municipal sentencing parity following a Colorado Supreme Court ruling. The meeting included detailed presentations, legal analysis, and councilmember debate, with no public testimony or consent calendar items.

Discussion Items

Anti-Masking Ordinance

• Councilmember Alvidrez and Councilmember Torres presented the ordinance, arguing that concealed federal law enforcement undermines public trust, due process, and public safety. They cited a federal judge’s opinion comparing masked ICE agents to the Ku Klux Klan, and noted that the Cato Institute has also raised concerns.
• The proposed ordinance would prohibit law enforcement from wearing facial coverings while detaining, arresting, or restraining individuals, and inside city facilities. Exemptions include SWAT operations, Emergency Response Unit (ERU), medical masks, transparent face shields, protective eyewear, and tactical operations as agreed with Denver Police Chief and Sheriff.
• Deputy Legislative Counsel Jonathan Griffin noted that applying the ordinance to all law enforcement (not just federal) is legally safer, and that a similar California law is being challenged under the Supremacy Clause. The city attorney’s office added that enforcement by Denver Police could raise concerns about interfering with federal duties, but citations (rather than arrest) may be an option.
• Councilmember Sawyer questioned enforceability, noting that Denver Police may be prohibited from participating in immigration enforcement under the 2017 Public Safety Priorities Act. Councilmember Hines emphasized the importance of holding law enforcement to a higher standard and expressed concern about mutual aid partners from other jurisdictions.
• Councilmember Parity suggested adding badge and identification requirements, similar to the proposed federal “No Secret Police Act.” Councilmember Cashman asked for clearer language that masking is only allowed when necessary to preserve life and limb. Councilmember Watson supported the ordinance as a necessary stance against masked terror.
• Councilmember Torres raised concerns about how Denver Police would enforce the law if ICE agents claim an exemption (e.g., tactical operations). Griffin noted that the exemptions came from local law enforcement and mirror California’s law. Councilmember Sandoval recommended looking at DPD’s existing identification standards and ensuring the ordinance takes effect immediately upon passage, not January 1, 2027.
• No vote was taken; staff will continue discussions with DPD and Mayor’s Office through January and February, then the ordinance will go to a committee and two council readings.

Municipal Sentencing Parity (Update on Colorado Supreme Court Ruling)

• Councilmembers Lewis, Parity, and Flynn presented an update on the December 22, 2025, Colorado Supreme Court ruling in City of Westminster v. Camp and City of Aurora v. Simon. The court held that municipal sentences for conduct identical to state offenses cannot exceed state penalties.
• Chief Municipal Public Defender Colette Tevet and Senior Attorney Rachel Mercer explained that Denver’s current code—often 300 days jail and $999 fine for low-level offenses like trespass, theft, and shoplifting—now conflicts with state law (e.g., trespass max 10 days). They warned of chaos in municipal courts as judges and attorneys must interpret the ruling case by case.
• The proposed solution is to revise the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to align sentences with comparable state statutes, and to set a uniform 10-day maximum for petty offenses that have no state equivalent (e.g., park curfew violations). They also recommend clarifying the language of certain offenses (e.g., assault) to ensure they match state statutes that allow higher penalties.
• Deputy Legislative Counsel Jonathan Griffin noted that a catch-all provision would address rarely charged offenses. Councilmember Hines raised concerns about public perception of reduced penalties for drug-related crimes. Councilmember Romero-Cumbo asked about the scope of affected offenses; Tevet confirmed a comprehensive chart will be included in the draft ordinance.
• Councilmember Cashman requested a comparison to Boulder’s broad interim ordinance. Marlee Bordowski (city attorney) described Boulder’s approach but noted it still leaves uncertainty. Councilmember Lewis emphasized that the draft ordinance will provide clear guidance and avoid years of litigation.
• Next steps: staff will produce draft language by the end of January, schedule one-on-one briefings with councilmembers, and then bring the ordinance to committee and council for two readings.

Key Outcomes

• Anti-Masking Ordinance: No vote. Staff will continue stakeholder discussions with DPD, Sheriff, and the Mayor’s Office through January–February, then move to committee and council readings. Councilmembers recommended adding identification requirements and ensuring immediate effectiveness.
• Municipal Sentencing: No vote. The sponsors will work with OMPD and city attorney to draft an ordinance aligning municipal sentences with state maxima, including a catch-all for minor offenses. One-on-one briefings will be scheduled upon completion of the draft, followed by committee and council action.