Denver draft ordinance would limit some low-level traffic stops as council revises key language

A draft Denver ordinance would bar police from stopping drivers for certain low-level, non-safety-related traffic infractions unless officers can articulate additional suspicion of more serious wrongdoing. The proposal has not been formally introduced or voted on.

Councilmember Paul Kashmann presented the measure July 27 to the City Council’s Budget and Policy Committee. The committee agenda listed it as a briefing on a policy for low-level traffic stops.

Kashmann said the goal is to put Police Chief Thomas’ existing policy into city ordinance. The draft defines “low-level stops” as stops for minor violations that do not pose a public-safety threat. Examples discussed at the meeting included improperly displayed registration, an object hanging from a rearview mirror, heavily tinted windows and a cracked tail light.

Under the proposal as described at the meeting, officers could still make such a stop if they had articulable information creating greater suspicion that a more serious violation was occurring. Kashmann used a cracked tail light as an example: A driver traveling normally with that defect should not be stopped solely for it, he said, but behavior suggesting a more serious offense could justify a stop and would be documented in the report.

The draft would preserve enforcement for speeding and other moving violations. It also says moving violations that result in a crash or injury are not low-level stops. The chief or a designee could authorize planned, targeted enforcement of a low-level offense, such as expired plates or registrations or missing license plates.

The committee discussion included questions about whether the language could sweep too broadly into ordinary traffic enforcement. One member said the draft appeared to reach every Class A and Class B traffic infraction under the Denver Revised Municipal Code, raising questions about violations such as running a stop sign. Kashmann said the wording would be clarified and that speeding clearly would remain a safety-related stop.

Data remains difficult to retrieve

The discussion did not produce a comprehensive public breakdown of Denver traffic stops by reason or race. Officials said officers must document why they make stops, but the information is scattered across notes and other nonstandard fields rather than maintained as an easily reportable dataset.

Sponsors said the Department of Safety had provided stop counts and citation information, including stops that resulted in no citation, but not a clean reason-by-reason inventory. The proposal would require better data collection and reporting, but officials said they still needed to determine the resources and time needed to implement that requirement.

Supporters framed the ordinance as a response to racial-profiling concerns and argued that low-level stops consume officer, city attorney, public defender and court resources. Those were policy arguments presented at the meeting, not a city-published forecast of how the ordinance would change racial disparities, court caseloads, crash rates or department costs. A Denver Police traffic-enforcement page describes the department’s broader enforcement and data efforts but does not provide the comprehensive analysis discussed by council members.

No training plan was presented, and the meeting record contains no official estimate of effects on municipal-court filings or the work of prosecutors and public defenders. If the measure advances, officers would need guidance on the distinction between a prohibited low-level stop, an articulable-suspicion exception and chief-directed enforcement.

No formal introduction date set

The committee took no formal action July 27. Kashmann said the draft would be revised before introduction, including clarifying language that could be read to restrict moving-violation enforcement. The city attorney and Department of Safety were expected to remain involved, and the implementation date for new reporting requirements was left blank pending further discussion.

Denver had not posted a filed ordinance or set an introduction date in the records reviewed for this report. The final definition, exception list and reporting requirements therefore remain unresolved.