Health and Safety Committee Meeting on Law Enforcement Identification Ordinance – February 11, 2026

The Denver City Council Health and Safety Committee met on February 11, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. (MST) to consider action item 26-0125, the Safety and Transparency and Public Authority Act (also referred to as the Law Enforcement Identification Ordinance). The ordinance aims to prohibit law enforcement personnel from wearing facial coverings during enforcement actions and require visible identification from at least 25 feet. After a presentation by sponsors Councilmembers Lewis and Alvidrez, public testimony, and deliberation, the committee voted to advance the ordinance to the full City Council.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mariah Petty (Ward 7 constituent): Expressed support for the ordinance, citing erosion of trust in law enforcement and the need for accountability. Suggested Denver consider banning ICE from staging on city property, following St. Paul and Philadelphia.
• Brian Bascalco (President, Denver Police Protective Association): Raised concerns about enforcement mechanics – what happens if DPD officers take action against a federal agent and that agent tries to arrest the officer for impeding operations. Urged clarity on officer protections and potential loss of partnerships with FBI, ATF, DEA.
• Uriel Espinosa: Urged adoption, stating that public safety begins with trust and that concealed identity increases fear. Quoted President Kennedy on immigration.
• Lidien Sofner: Criticized the 15-minute public comment window as insufficient. Urged council to act, saying “history is not kind to the bystander.”
• Veronica Seaburn (mother of Jalen Seaburn): Supported the ordinance, linking police violence and immigration enforcement as intersecting issues of accountability. Said “true public safety is framed in transparency, humanity, and accountability for everyone.”
• Kenneth Crowley II (Program Director, Coley Foundation): Supported the ordinance, noting his organization teaches young Black men how to navigate police encounters. Said federal officers operating masked undermines trust.
• Keiloni Fennery (Jalen Seaburn’s partner): Supported the ordinance, emphasizing that transparency in enforcement is necessary for community safety.
• Dr. Aset Ali: Urged courage and said supporting the bill is about agency and asserting local autonomy. Quoted concerns about withholding federal funds.
• Scott Esserman (former DPS board member): Described masked ICE agents menacing students near a Denver high school. Cited biblical commandment to love the stranger. Urged council to act proactively.
• Nate Stone (volunteer, Colorado Rapid Response Network): Described ICE abuses in Minnesota (facial recognition, intimidation of community watch volunteers). Said the ordinance is a minimal ask for accountability.
• Katie Song (nurse, District 8 constituent): Compared her profession’s requirement for visible identification to law enforcement. Argued anonymity escalates power imbalances and danger.
• Dana Miller (co-lead, Denver’s Immigrant Partnership Team): Thanked council for considering the ordinance and said it would support community defense work.
• Helen Shreves (District 5 constituent): Recited Pastor Niemöller’s poem to urge passage.

Discussion Items

• Presentation by Councilmembers Lewis and Alvidrez:
  • The ordinance has two components: (1) prohibition on face coverings during detention/arrest/search, with exemptions for undercover, SWAT, tactical, medical, religious accommodations; (2) requirement that identification be clearly visible from 25 feet for all law enforcement (local, state, federal).
  • Enforcement: violations subject to general penalty ($999 fine or 300 days jail). Failure to provide ID creates a presumption of impersonating an officer, which can be rebutted in court by providing ID.
  • The bill was drafted in consultation with Sheriff Diggins, Chief Thomas, Director Gardner, and the City Attorney’s office. It is intended to apply uniformly to all law enforcement to avoid Supremacy Clause issues.
  • Litigation update: A California federal judge enjoined that state’s anti-masking law (No Secret Police Act) because it treated federal officers differently, but upheld the identification law (No Vigilantes Act). Denver’s ordinance treats all law enforcement equally.
• Councilmember Sawyer’s concerns:
  • Asked about application to civil enforcement officers (DOTI, Parks and Rec, DDPHE) and whether they are covered. City Attorney Miko Brown said the answer involves privileged legal advice and offered to discuss privately.
  • Concern about operational feasibility, e.g., park rangers in cold weather needing face coverings. Exemption for occupational health and safety was noted.
• Councilmember Torres’s questions:
  • Questioned the 25-foot visibility requirement as impractical (e.g., requiring tape measures). City Attorney Brown suggested mirroring California’s identification language (e.g., “provide name and badge number upon request”) as more enforceable.
  • Also questioned the penalty section that presumes impersonation of an officer. Councilmember Flynn echoed concern that this could be a legal vulnerability.
• Councilmember Flynn:
  • Expressed concern that the impersonation penalty (a class 4 felony under state law linked to DRMC 38-33) is disproportionate for a failure to identify. Recommended removing or clarifying to apply only a general penalty.
• Council President Sandoval:
  • Urged sponsors to accept suggested edits (from Torres and Flynn) before the floor vote. Sponsors agreed to work on language, noting they had not received specific proposed text from the administration.
• PPA President Brian Bascalco:
  • Reiterated concern about damaging relationships with federal task force partners. Council President Sandoval shared a personal experience where ATF helped her family and emphasized that trust is already eroded; she asked PPA to help operationalize the bill.
• Councilmember Paridy:
  • Defended the bill as legally sound and criticized the administration for raising issues at the last minute. Stated the 25-foot requirement is measurable via badge specifications and that the impersonation presumption is appropriate.
• Councilmember Sawyer (final remarks):
  • Expressed support but was torn because the impact on other city agencies was not clarified before the meeting. After sponsors and Wendy Shea (Special Counsel) offered to provide language by end of week, Sawyer indicated she would vote to move forward.

Key Outcomes

• The committee voted to move the ordinance to the full City Council for consideration. Motion by Council President Sandoval, seconded by Councilmember Paridy. The vote was taken by thumbs up; no dissenting votes were noted.
• Sponsors committed to working with the City Attorney’s office, Department of Public Safety, and other stakeholders to refine the identification section (e.g., replacing the 25-foot requirement with a more enforceable standard) and clarify the scope of covered personnel (ensuring civil enforcement officers are either exempt or clearly included).
• Language revisions are expected to be presented before the ordinance is heard at Mayor-Council on Tuesday, February 18, 2026, with a potential floor vote the following Tuesday.