City Attorney’s Office
Reference: AMENDING SECTION 1-24-10 OF THE BRIGHTON MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO GENERAL PENALTIES AND ARTICLE 9 OF THE BRIGHTON MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
To: Mayor Gregory Mills and Members of City Council
Through: Michael P. Martinez, City Manager
Prepared By: James Gallagher and Michael Davis, Assistant City Attorneys
Date Prepared: February 19, 2026
PURPOSE
To amend the Brighton Municipal Code (“BMC”) general penalty section and clarify or remove sections of the BMC that no longer reflect current law or that are outdated or incorrect. The City Council will consider amending Section 1-24-10 and Article 9 of the BMC related to criminal offenses and penalties.
BACKGROUND
On December 22, 2025, In re People v. Camp, 2025 CO 64 (Colo. 2025), the Colorado Supreme Court held that while offenders may be prosecuted in municipal court for offenses that have comparable state offenses, municipalities may not impose penalties that exceed the maximum penalties authorized under state law for the comparable state offenses. The Court’s decision establishes a limitation on the exercise of home rule municipal authority.
The City has a general penalty for municipal crimes that allowed for incarceration up to 364 days and/or a fine of $2,650 dollars, BMC Section 1-24-10. For certain state crimes where the elements of the crime match the elements of the same crime in the Brighton Municipal Code, the City penalty exceeds what the same defendant for the same crime if charged in a State Court could receive. So, for example, a Defendant who commits a petty offense and is charged in County Court, they can receive a maximum sentence of 10 days in jail and/or a $300 dollar fine. The same person committing the same crime can be charged in Brighton Municipal Court under our general penalty and could be sentenced to 364 days in jail and fined up to $2,650 dollars. While the City Attorney’s Office would never seek 364 days of incarceration, the possibility exists under the BMC. The Colorado Supreme Court has now ruled that such differences in sentencing for the same crime are not permissible.
In light of the Colorado Supreme Court Decision, the City Attorney’s Office has prepared an ordinance for City Council consideration that changes the general penalty section and contains other updates to the BMC for clarification and removal of duplications. Every criminal offense has been compared to its similar state statute to compare the elements of the crime. The ordinance proposed amends the City’s general penalty section to reflect the recent change in the law. Now, every criminal municipal offense that has a comparable state offense will have a penalty that does not exceed the comparable state offense’s penalty. Because the state has different levels of penalty classifications, the new general penalty section will mimic the state penalty classifications: class 1 misdemeanors will have a maximum penalty of up to 364 days in jail, $1,000 fine, or both; class 2 misdemeanors will have a maximum penalty of up to 120 days in jail, $750 fine, or both; and petty offenses will have a maximum penalty of up to 10 days in jail, $300 fine, or both. For every criminal municipal offense that does not have a comparable state offense, the City’s general penalty of up to 364 days in jail, $2,650 fine, or both, will still apply or it will remain with the penalty found in that particular offense section.
The proposed ordinance will amend the City’s criminal code by making sure every criminal municipal offense that has a comparable state offense has a penalty classification of either class 1 misdemeanor, class 2 misdemeanor, or petty offense. There are certain criminal offenses where the penalty classification depends on the elements, and thereby maximum sentence, will vary depending on the circumstances. For example, theft is now classified as either a class 1 misdemeanor, a class 2 misdemeanor, or a petty offense depending on the value of the item stolen.
The proposed ordinance also removes various criminal violations that are either outdated or encompassed in other sections of the City’s criminal code. These violations include refusing to aid a police officer; defacing or damaging posted advertisement or bill; theft by rental property; theft of food or accommodations; intentional bodily injury (replaced by the charge of assault); and bodily injury/criminal negligence.
Finally, the proposed ordinance amends various criminal offenses to align more with state law or to tailor the charge to local concerns. These offenses included trespass, theft, harassment, assault, consumption prohibited, and firearms prohibited in or upon public facilities.
While the legislature made changes to the state criminal charges, the proponents of those bills told lobbyists for CML that it would not apply to municipal charges, the State Supreme Court has now decided differently. Unless and until there is a legislative change made at the State level, the City is obligated to comply with the Court’s decision.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Ordinance
Presentation