MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS OFTEN LANGUISH IN JAIL ON BONDS THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD

Statewide, the difference is striking—municipal defendants languish for weeks in jail on minor charges, while state and county defendants charged with serious offenses are brought promptly before a judge.

• Municipal defendants sometimes wait a week or more in jail to see a judge, even though most municipal inmates are incarcerated for low-level offenses, like littering, panhandling or dog-off-leash.
• In comparison, state and county court defendants usually appear before a judge within 24-48 hours of being incarcerated, even for serious offenses such as DUI or felony assault.
• Because most municipal warrants are for low-level offenses, defendants often end up spending more time in jail waiting to see a judge than they would ever receive as a sentence.

Infrequent municipal court schedules unfairly cause long jail stays. Some municipal courts choose to see municipal inmates only once per week or even once per month, causing lengthy jail waits.

Only impoverished defendants are forced to endure long pre-trial detention. People who can pay their bonds walk free until their next court date, while those who are poor must wait in jail to see a judge.

Lengthy pre-trial jail stays are costly to the tax payer with no benefit to public safety. Jail is expensive and should be reserved only for people who pose a threat to public safety, not minor municipal violators who are simply too poor to buy their freedom while waiting for a municipal court to meet.

WHAT WILL HB17-1338 ACCOMPLISH?

A prompt court appearance: HB17-1338 will ensure that in-custody municipal defendants appear in court within two days after court notification—excluding Sundays and federal holidays. This window extends to four days if the person is held out-of-county and has failed to appear at least twice. If a defendant does not appear before the court within these time frames, they are to be released on a personal recognizance bond, returnable to the municipal court.

WHY IS HB17-1338 THE SOLUTION?

It safeguards defendants against unfair and lengthy jail stays. For municipal inmates unable to buy their freedom who are forced to wait in jail, this bill guarantees prompt appearance before a judge.

It brings municipal courts in line with state and county courts. In practice, state and county courts in Colorado generally have systems in place to bring in-custody defendants to court promptly. However, many municipal courts have no systems in place to avoid lengthy pre-trial jail stays.

It safely decreases jail overcrowding. By requiring courts to hold a hearing within a certain time after arrest, the bill curbs overcrowding of local jails and reserves jail beds for those who pose a safety threat.

It prevents collateral consequences. The bill helps prevent consequences associated with prolonged pre-trial detention – wrongful conviction, lost housing, unemployment, interrupted medical care, and broken families.

EXAMPLES OF LENGTHY DELAY WHEN HELD SOLELY ON A MUNICIPAL WARRANT

Metro region – city population approx. 400,000 – 18 day wait to see judge

B.M. was issued a summons for panhandling. She missed her first court appearance, and a warrant issued. She was arrested on that warrant in December 2014. Over the next two weeks, B.M. filed kites requesting to be brought before the court. B.M. was told that the demanding city would come get her when she was scheduled in court, but she never actually appeared before a judge. Finally, after 18 days in jail, the city court dismissed the charges against B.M. and jail released her.

Metro region – city population approx. 50,000 – 14 day wait to see judge

In June 2016, N.A. was picked up on two municipal court warrants (for failing to appear in “Trespass” and “Possession of Marijuana” cases) and held in an out-of-county jail. Total bond for release was $300, but N.A. could not afford to pay. He waited in jail to see a judge. N.A. was not transferred to the in-county jail until 7 days after he was arrested. Then, he was not brought before the municipal court for an additional 7 days. In total, N.A. waited in jail 14 days on two minor municipal holds before seeing a judge.

San Luis Valley region – city population approx. 3,500 – 22 day wait to see judge

R.A. had failed to appear for trial [underlying charge unknown at this time] in November 2016 because she was in labor. The court issued a warrant for her arrest. She was arrested that same month on the failure to appear warrant. She waited 22 days before coming before a judge. When she finally appeared before the judge in December 2016, she explained that she missed her court date only because she was in labor.

Central mountain region – town population approx. 3,000 – 23 day wait to see judge

M.B., who suffers from a debilitating disease, was cited for “Disorderly Conduct” when he urinated outside of a trailer that lacked plumbing. He was arrested for failure to appear in July 2015. Bond was set at $500, but he was too poor to pay it. His next court date was scheduled nearly a month later. After 12 days in custody, M.B. wrote a letter to the court saying that he was sorry and that he couldn’t find anyone with money to bail him out. Eleven days later, after M.B. had spent 23 days in jail waiting to see a judge, the municipal court sent M.B. a plea by fax to the jail. M.B. pleaded guilty by fax and was released that day with credit for time served for the 23 days spent in jail waiting to see a judge, having spent far longer in jail waiting to see a judge than he would have ever received as a jail sentence for a urinating in his back yard.

San Luis Valley region – city population approx. 10,000 –14 day wait to see judge

A.M. had two shoplifting cases—the first for $37.94 of merchandise (two tide pods and fireworks), and the second for $69.00 of merchandise (female razors, two bras, and a heating blanket). The court received several letters from A.M.’s family that she struggled with a heroin addiction; they were trying to get help but Medicaid didn’t cover the services. After conviction, A.M. was sentenced to fines and fees. A warrant issued when A.M. was unable to pay. She was arrested in June 2016—but was not brought before a judge until 14 days after booking.

San Luis Valley region – city population approx. 3,500 – jailed when late for trial, 7 day wait

R.M. was charged with “Obstruction” and “False Reporting,” and pled not guilty. She arrived to court late for trial in December 2016, and the judge had her taken into custody for failure to appear on time that day. R.M. waited in custody for 7 days until the next session of court before appearing in front of the judge.

Click here for the Fact Sheet PDF.

It is evident that the Trump administration is about to embark on a nationwide voter suppression campaign to disenfranchise thousands or even millions of voters. This campaign will be based on lies and myths about voter fraud, and it will be carried out under the name of “election integrity.” It is beginning with a mind-boggling demand for Secretaries of State to turn over detailed profiles of all registered voters in every state. It is essential that Colorado, a state that prides itself on voter participation and access, not be complicit in federal efforts to suppress the vote.
In order to soothe his ego after losing the popular vote in the 2016 election, President Trump made completely false and imaginary claims that he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal voters. In reality, voter fraud (defined as an ineligible person voting, someone voting in the name of another person, or someone voting multiple times in an election) is extremely rare. Very few people are willing to commit a felony for the sake of one vote, and very few do. (And it is worth noting that most of the very few known cases in 2016 were Trump voters.)
What is not rare is voter suppression, through voter roll purges, misinformation, felon disenfranchisement, voter ID laws that block many citizens from voting, a wide variety of other obstacles to registration and voting, and gerrymandering to manipulate outcomes and make the votes of many citizens less meaningful. Voter suppression can affect hundreds of thousands of votes at a time, and can alter the outcome of elections, which isolated voter fraud never does. Yet stopping voter fraud is often the excuse that is used for massive voter suppression.
This newest attack on our democracy is being deceptively framed as an effort for “election integrity.” Mike Pence and Kris Kobach (one of the worst voter suppression perpetrators in the nation) have demanded that Secretaries of State in every state turn over extensive personal information about every registered voter by July 14 to a centralized “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity” under their control. They want names, addresses, birthdates, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, voting histories, military status, felony information, and much more. Who knows how this enormous database could be abused by this administration? Undoubtedly they will use any inconsistencies they find to justify huge selective voter purges and policies that will block many legitimate voters from voting. Relatively common errors or duplications in registration records will be falsely claimed to be evidence of widespread voter fraud. Don’t be fooled—registration is not the same as voting, and actual voter fraud is almost nonexistent.
Several Secretaries of State, including in Kentucky, California, Rhode Island and Virginia, have already stated that they will not participate in this data-gathering scheme. In Colorado, Secretary of State Wayne Williams has indicated that he will provide any data that is publicly accessible. Williams should refuse to cooperate in every way possible, providing nothing that is not required by law, objecting to the purpose of this request, and making it no easier than necessary for Pence and Kobach to assemble their database. Anything less would be complicit in voter suppression. Williams should protect Colorado voters and elections, not expose Colorado to a politicized national scheme to depress voting.
Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives has sought to strip funding from the Election Assistance Commission, a small federal agency charged with helping states improve and protect their voting systems. At a time of known efforts by hostile foreign powers to hack American elections, this proof of disregard for real election integrity is staggering.
Be ready for an onslaught of voter suppression tactics justified by baseless claims of rampant voter fraud. It is the responsibility of every American to fight vigorously against voter suppression schemes that disenfranchise millions of voters and distort our elections. Nothing less than our democracy is at stake.

By James Esseks, Director, LGBT & HIV Project

The United States Supreme Court just agreed to decide a case about whether a business can refuse to sell commercial goods to a gay couple because of the business owner’s religious beliefs.  A win for the business could gut the nation’s civil rights laws, licensing discrimination not just against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, but against anyone protected by our non-discrimination rules.
In July 2012, Debbie Munn accompanied her son, Charlie Craig, and his fiancé, Dave Mullins, to the Masterpiece Cakeshop just outside of Denver to pick out a cake for their wedding reception.  When the bakery’s owner heard that the cake was for two men, he said he wouldn’t sell them a cake because of his religious beliefs.
Debbie was stunned and humiliated for Charlie and Dave.  As she has  said, “It was never about the cake.”  She couldn’t believe that a business would be allowed to turn people away because of who they are or whom they love.  They might as well have posted a sign in the shop saying “No cakes for gays.”
The Colorado courts agreed with Debbie and ruled that the bakery’s refusal was unlawful and rejected the bakery’s request for a religious exemption from the state’s longstanding non-discrimination law.
By granting review in Charlie and Dave’s case, the Supreme Court has placed a spotlight on supposed tensions between equality and religious liberty.  But the country has already found the right balance between these two important constitutional interests.
Under the Constitution, we each have the right to our own religious beliefs.  We are empowered to act on those beliefs --  but not when our actions would harm others.  That’s because religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against or harm other people.
When businesses open their doors to the public, they must open them to everyone on the same terms, regardless of race, color, national origin, disability, or – under many state laws – sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Even when a business owner’s religious beliefs may motivate her to discriminate, that doesn’t justify an exemption from our civil rights laws.  Providing commercial services, like selling cakes, doesn’t mean a business owner is endorsing anyone’s marriage.  It simply means they are following the rules that apply to us all.
Demands for religious exemptions from civil rights laws are not new.  In the past, businesses have repeatedly sought to pay women less than men because of a religious belief that men are “heads of household” and women should not work outside the home.  Other businesses have refused service to people living with HIV because of a belief that they are sinful.  Still others turned people away from restaurants because of their belief that they should not interact with people of a different race.  The courts rightly rejected all of these claims for religious exemptions, despite the fact that they were based on deeply held beliefs.
There’s no reason that religious exemptions should be any more acceptable when it comes to turning people away because of religious beliefs about sexual orientation or gender identity.  Courts across the country have agreed, including a decision from the Washington State Supreme Court in February.
The religious exemptions issue has gained prominence recently as civil rights protections for gay and transgender people have become more widespread.  States have proposed laws that would license discrimination by businesses, government workers, adoption agencies, and counselors.  Congress has considered similar measures. And President Trump has signed an executive order that signaled his intent to use religious exemptions to advance discrimination. But polling shows that both the American public and business owners themselves reject these overbroad exemptions and recognize them as discrimination.
Charlie’s mom was right:  It’s not about the cake. Or the flowers. It’s about not being turned away from a business because of who you are.  Religious freedom must be protected in America, but what’s going on here is pure discrimination.
This post originally appeared on ACLU National's Speak Freely blog: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/can-businesses-turn-lgbt-people-away-because-who-they-are-thats-supreme-court-now