AURORA, CO - Call the timing of this new Aurora city council policy regarding police public information releases somewhat... suspicious.
Just over a year since we learned that a criminal Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, had taken over at least one apartment building in Aurora, we now have the city council altering social media policies for the police department, limiting what information the department is allowed to release to the public, the Denver Gazette reports.
Left-wing city council members and local activists claim that the new policies are not designed to limit information, but rather are to “protect due process” and limit what they refer to as “harmful editorializing" in police communications.
In a resolution passed Monday with four conservative council members voting against, the police department will be banned from posting jail booking photos (mug shots) and suspect names on social media and in press releases until the bad guy is convicted or pleads guilty, a process that often takes months if not years.
The resolution also requires all police department communications to be filtered through the city manager’s office before being publicized. City Attorney Pete Schulte said that exceptions will be made for “certain” emergency situations, which will be outlined in the policies.
He said such situations could include police looking for a wanted person, an arrest in which police are seeking further victims, or a situation where there is an imminent public threat, Schulte added.
According to Schulte, who supports the new policy, as well as “progressive” city council members, the police department often “editorializes” social media posts, leading to possible legal challenges. Wouldn’t want to insult criminals now, would we?
The resolution claims that putting mug shots and names of suspects who have not had due process can label them “criminals for life,” even if their charges are eventually dropped. A simple solution would be a disclaimer such as that seen on “COPS” where it says that all suspects are believed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course, progressives love them some criminals so it’s understandable why they would risk public safety to protect criminals.
“(APD) can still showcase what they’re doing, except it doesn’t have that impact on a person’s life because they could be acquitted later,” Schulte said.
The resolution has its fair share of opponents, including Aurora’s police chief, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, the Aurora Police Association, and the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition’s executive director, who worry that limiting what police can share with the public will lead to safety issues, misinformation, and confusion, the Gazette reported.
Jeff Roberts, Executive Director for the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, complained that added restrictions to accessing police department communications will make it more difficult for the media to access crime information.
“It used to be that reporters could listen to police scanners and find out in real time what was happening and use it to ask questions,” Roberts said. “It’s gotten a lot harder for the news media to find out about crime unless the police tell them about it because they’ve encrypted things.”
Roberts was referring to the fact that a lot of public safety agencies now operate on encrypted frequencies, blocking the public from being able to access police communications on scanners.
Aurora City Manager Jason Batchelor said mug shots and/or suspect names would still be available, subject to the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, and would be able to be obtained by members of the media or others. Any such requests, however, take time to process and could cause delays in putting out important information to the public. That act specifies that “an individual’s criminal history arrest record” is a public record. The Aurora resolution adds another roadblock to obtaining such information easily and expeditiously.
The Act also specifies that “booking photos and mug shots are generally considered public records. However there are strict access rules, anti-extortion protections, and specific procedures” for releasing them, the Gazette reported.
Schulte said that all crime would be reported the way crimes involving minors are currently reported, which requires withholding the name of the minor suspect. He reiterated that in emergency situations, the department can still post photos and suspect names. The difference of course is all those communications must filter through the city manager’s office, which is not a 24/7/365 operation.
One council member opposed to the resolution is Councilmember Francoise Bergan, who said it “stifles the speech of our police chief.”
“I think getting information out to residents right away is transparency and often is in the interest of safety,” she said. “I believe our chief and our commanders are individually qualified to speak about crime.”
Aurora Police Chief Todd Chamberlain begrudgingly said he will abide by the policies despite disagreeing with them.
“My department has been nothing but professional, and to suggest otherwise by silencing us all should gravely concern Aurora residents,” the chief wrote in a statement. “The community deserves timely facts and direct communication from the professionals closest to these incidents and operational realities.”
Another council member, Angela Lawson, complained that her constituents worry about the public safety aspect of the new process.
“In my neighborhood, if something’s going on and we can’t have information about the person who allegedly committed the crime, we’re putting our neighborhood into a situation where it could be my next-door neighbor,” she said. “Without putting out any kind of mug shots, I think that’s a disservice to our neighborhoods and public safety.”
David Exstrom, president of the Aurora Police Association, wrote the council a letter expressing “concerns” about the resolution.
“We rely on the local media to amplify our messaging to help keep our community safe and informed," Exstrom wrote. “If we are restricted by what we can share with our community, our local media will similarly be left in the dark.”
The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police also blasted the resolution, accusing it of causing “delay, confusion, and reduced transparency,” noting it was “the very opposite of what communities deserve.”
They emphasized that it is the responsibility of police chiefs to “keep their communities informed during critical incidents and evolving public safety situations,” noting that “clear communication helps prevent misinformation, reduce[s] unnecessary community tension, and provide[s] important context.”
The Aurora PD has been operating under a consent decree with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, which is now entering its final year. Agitators have been pushing for more transparency, including officers’ use of force and the release of body camera footage from such incidents.
Some of those agitators attended Monday’s council meeting to speak in support of the resolution, which will tie the hands of police while benefiting criminals, although they claim it will protect suspects who have not yet enjoyed due process.
One such agitator is former Denver Public Schools school board member Auon’tai Anderson, who is still mourning over a 2024 shooting of an unarmed man whom an Aurora police officer believed was holding a firearm. That officer, Michael Dieck, was eventually cleared in the shooting with the Arapahoe County DA and a grand jury declining to seek criminal charges. An internal investigation also cleared Dieck.
“Nobody elected APD to publicly try people before they ever see a courtroom, but for years that’s exactly what has happened, mug shots posted before convictions, names blasted across social media before due process,” Anderson wailed. “Once the government posts your face online and labels you as a criminal, the damage is already done even if the charges disappear.”
Aurora Mayor Pro Tem Alison Combs accused the Aurora PD of postings that have a “tone of innuendo, of opinion, of personal bias…that undermines public trust and absolutely torches any credibility that we may have had over the incredible amount of work that members of our department and city staff have put into the consent decree.”
Cry me a river.
Comments