DENVER – The City of Colorado Springs has agreed, as part of a $103,000 settlement with the ACLU of Colorado, to stop converting impoverished defendants’ fines into jail time, to stop sentencing defendants to jail for non-jailable offenses, and to compensate dozens of individuals whose court fines were illegally converted to jail time when they could not afford to pay.

“Until last fall, the Colorado Springs Municipal Court was regularly sentencing poor and homeless defendants to jail because they were too poor to pay fines imposed for minor ordinance violations,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado Legal Director.  “We asked the City to stop this unconstitutional practice, to repeal the ordinance that arguably authorized it, and to set up a fund to compensate defendants who had been sentenced to jail for non-jailable offenses.  The City Attorney’s Office, to its credit, promptly agreed and worked collaboratively with the ACLU of Colorado to reach the finalized settlement agreement that we are proudly announcing today.”

A 2015 ACLU of Colorado investigation revealed hundreds of cases where the Colorado Springs Municipal Court imposed a fine for violation of a city ordinance and then, when the defendant could not pay, converted the fine into a jail sentence, which court documents labeled as a “pay or serve” sentence.  A “pay or serve” sentence ordered a defendant to either pay the amount due or serve time in jail at a rate of $50 a day.  In three-fourths of the “pay or serve” sentences, defendants were jailed for non-jailable offenses, meaning that they were punishable by a fine only.  In some cases, the Court imposed multiple consecutive jail sentences on defendants who had more than one citation for a non-jailable offense.

Shawn Hardman, an ACLU client, was sentenced on four occasions to a total of more than 90 days in jail for non-jailable panhandling tickets.  Like many other victims of the City’s debtor’s prison practices, Hardman was convicted for merely displaying a sign inviting charity -- conduct that the City acknowledges did not violate the panhandling ordinance.

“In the year preceding the ACLU’s investigation, this homeless man, who had not broken the law for which he was repeatedly cited, was sentenced to serve nearly three months in jail for a non-jailable offense, solely because he was poor,” said ACLU of Colorado Staff Attorney Rebecca T. Wallace.

“I was trapped in a cell that it seemed like I could never get out of. I was told over and over that I either had to pay or go back to jail.  I was homeless and jobless, so the cycle kept repeating,” said Hardman. “I am thankful for this settlement, because it will help me keep a roof over my head, something I have wanted for a long time.  Even more, I am proud that the settlement will protect other people living on the streets in Colorado Springs from going through what I went through – being jailed just because I was poor.”

Hardman and three other ACLU clients will receive payment within 14 days.  An additional 62 persons are eligible for compensation based on a rate of $125 per day for each day of incarceration solely for a non-jailable offense.  The City and the ACLU will work together to notify those individuals of their eligibility, and they will be able to claim compensation until December 30, 2016 or up to two years from the date of their incarceration, whichever is later.

Colorado Springs will also provide training on constitutional protections for indigent defendants, which will include presentations by ACLU attorneys, to all its municipal prosecutors and judges, as well as defense attorneys contracted to represent indigent defendants.  The City has already complied with its promise to repeal the ordinance that authorized judges to convert fines to jail time.

“We hope today’s settlement sends a loud and clear message to municipal courts throughout the state to stop using jail or the threat of jail to collect debts from persons who are too poor to pay,” Silverstein said.

In recent years, the ACLU of Colorado has called for greater scrutiny of municipal court practices, especially as they affect indigent defendants.   Two bills concerning the rights of impoverished defendants in municipal courts were passed by bipartisan majorities in the Colorado legislature this year and are now awaiting Governor Hickenlooper’s signature.  HB 15-1309 would ensure a public defender at first appearance for indigent defendants held in jail. HB 15- 1311 further updates a law passed in 2014 to stop courts from jailing poor defendants for failing to pay court-ordered fines. The ACLU of Colorado is calling on the Governor to sign both bills without delay.

more on this case

DENVER – The Colorado legislature passed two pieces of legislation in recent days to protect the rights of poor and vulnerable defendants in Colorado’s municipal courts.  Both bills await Governor Hickenlooper’s signature.

Nearly three-fourths of Colorado’s lawmakers supported HB16 – 1309 (fact sheet), a bill to safeguard the right to counsel in municipal court.  In state and county courts, an attorney is available at first appearance to advocate for the release of jailed defendants and to advise those defendants on pleas when jail is a possible sentence.  In almost all Colorado municipal courts, however, defendants must face the judge alone, must make arguments for release alone, and must decide how to plead alone.  HB16 – 1309 requires counsel be provided at first appearance to defendants who cannot afford to bond out of jail on a minor municipal offense and who face a possible jail sentence.

Earlier today, the Colorado Senate voted 23 to 12 in support of HB16 -1311 (fact sheet), a bill to finally end the practice of jailing people who cannot afford to pay fines and fees in Colorado. In 2014, the legislature passed HB-1061 with near-unanimous bipartisan support, acting to end debtors’ prisons in Colorado.  District and county courts followed that law, but municipal courts found a loophole to keep jailing people who are too poor to pay. HB16 - 1311 closes the loophole and finally ends debtors' prison practices in Colorado municipal courts.
 

ACLU of Colorado Public Policy Director Denise Maes issued the following statement:
“The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado commends the Colorado legislature for coming together to protect the rights and liberties of Colorado’s most vulnerable defendants in municipal court.

"Being poor is not a crime. The ACLU of Colorado has found overwhelming evidence that poor people are often punished, and even jailed, by Colorado’s municipal courts just for being poor.

“Impoverished municipal defendants routinely plead guilty without the advice of counsel just to get out of jail, even when they are innocent.  These same defendants often experience collateral consequences of their plea – including obstacles to employment, housing, and government benefits – that are never explained at court, due to the lack of counsel.

“Municipal courts continue to use jail and the threat of jail to collect debts from the poor, creating a two-tiered system of justice in which people who cannot afford to pay are imprisoned, while those with means simply pay their debt and move on with their lives.

“The steps taken by the legislature this session, if approved by the Governor, will reduce the number of innocent, unrepresented defendants who are wrongly jailed for crimes they did not commit and will finally put municipal courts in line with the well-established Constitutional principle that jail should never be used to collect payment from those who cannot pay.

“We strongly urge Governor Hickenlooper to sign both bills without delay, and we look forward to working with Colorado’s emerging coalition of reform-minded legislators on future improvements to make our courts and criminal justice system more fair, efficient, and consistent with Constitutional principles.”

RESOURCES:
ACLU fact sheet on HB16 – 1309, a bill to safeguard the right to counsel in Colorado municipal courts
ACLU fact sheet on HB16 – 1311, a bill to end debtors’ prisons in Colorado
 

DENVER – The Colorado State Supreme Court today decided to let stand an appellate court ruling that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law when it refused to sell a same-sex couple a cake for their wedding reception.

“The highest court in Colorado today affirmed that no one should be turned away from a public-facing business because of who they are or who they love,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT Project, who argued the case. “We all have a right to our personal beliefs, but we do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others and discriminate against them. We hope today’s win will serve as a lesson for others that equality and fairness should be our guiding principles and that discrimination has no place at the table, or the bakery as the case may be.”

In 2012, Colorado residents David Mullins and Charlie Craig, along with Charlie’s mother Deborah Munn, visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a wedding cake. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home. Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips informed the couple that, because of his religious beliefs, it was his standard business practice to refuse to provide cakes to customers for same-sex weddings. Phillips has turned away several other couples for the same reason.

Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits businesses, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors including race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Colorado filed suit on behalf of Mullins and Craig in 2013. In December 2013, an administrative judge ruled that the bakery had illegally discriminated against the couple.

In 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirmed that ruling. Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed. In a unanimous decision issued on August 15, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the bakery unlawfully discriminated against Mullins and Craig by refusing to sell them a cake for their wedding reception.

When businesses and other institutions that serve the public have sought exemptions to laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the courts have held that businesses are required to comply with anti-discrimination laws. The courts have ruled without regard to whether LGBT people could have obtained the goods or service elsewhere. Instead the courts have recognized the harm to equal opportunity if lesbian and gay people can be turned away from businesses otherwise open to the public because of who they are.

more on this case