WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 25-062

Failure to Appear Charges in Municipal Court

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Judy Amabile and 24 co-sponsors

Cannot base municipal criminal charges on a person’s failure to appear; FTA cannot be used to convict, while remedies like warrants or contempt remain.

Governor Signed
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 25-062

SB 25-062 — Failure to Appear Charges in Municipal Court (Governor Signed)

Status: Governor signed (04/17/2025)
Introduced: 01/21/2025
Main sponsors: Sen. Nick Hinrichsen; Rep. Michael Carter; plus multiple cosponsors
Statutory changes: Adds section 13-10-127 and amends 13-10-103, Colorado Revised Statutes

Purpose / Intent

The bill prevents a person's failure to appear for a municipal court summons (in person or by counsel) from being the basis of a municipal criminal charge. It also clarifies that municipal ordinances that criminalize “failure to appear,” “contempt for failure to appear,” or similarly named offenses cannot be used to pursue a municipal criminal prosecution. The goal is to limit criminalization of missed municipal court appearances while preserving courts’ ability to enforce process through traditional judicial tools.

Key provisions

  • Adds new section 13-10-127 (Failure to appear):
    • A person’s failure to appear at the time/place listed in a summons (or on any subsequently served date) "must not form the basis of a municipal criminal charge against the person."
    • The prohibition applies to any municipal ordinance premised on a failure-to-appear theory, regardless of label (failure to appear, contempt for failure to appear, etc.).
    • The section explicitly preserves a municipal court’s inherent judicial contempt power and does not prohibit a judge from issuing a bench warrant for failure to appear or from considering failure to appear when setting bond at a later bond hearing.
  • Amends 13-10-103 to add the failure-to-appear prohibition to the list of state-level provisions that cannot be superseded by a home rule city charter or municipal ordinance.

Who is affected

  • Defendants and respondents in municipal courts statewide (cities and towns).
  • Municipalities that previously used municipal ordinances to criminalize failures to appear (e.g., by issuing municipal tickets, fines, or short jail sentences for FTA).
  • Municipal courts and judges (procedures for enforcement and remedies may change).
  • Law enforcement and municipal prosecutors (charging practices).

Practical impact and considerations

  • Municipalities may no longer bring municipal criminal charges that are solely premised on a missed court appearance; those charges cannot form the legal basis for conviction.
  • The statute leaves intact bench warrants, bond adjustments, and inherent contempt powers — courts retain enforcement tools, though the specific use and limits of contempt are not changed by this statute.
  • Potential effects include reduced criminal records and criminal penalties for individuals who miss municipal court dates, and possible reduction in revenue or charge volume previously tied to FTA ordinances.
  • Municipalities should review and revise ordinances and charging practices to conform to the change; municipal prosecutors may rely more on bench warrants, contempt hearings, or alternative civil enforcement mechanisms where appropriate.

Procedural timeline

  • Introduced in Senate: 01/21/2025
  • Passed both chambers (Senate and House) with committee and floor actions in Feb–Apr 2025
  • Sent to Governor: 04/07/2025
  • Governor signed: 04/17/2025 (enacted)

Notes / Limits

  • The statute does not define or limit how inherent contempt power may be exercised; legal disputes could arise over what sanctions are permissible under that power where an FTA is involved.
  • The law applies statewide and is explicitly protected from preemption by home rule charters/ordinances.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.