Durango City Council has approved a short list of amendments to city code addressing municipal court fines and a loophole in the city’s ability to ticket speeders caught on automated traffic cameras.
City Council also repealed a section of the city’s noise ordinance because of ambiguity in the law. City Attorney Mark Morgan said councilors will be presented with a new ordinance clarifying the city’s laws regarding noise at a future meeting.
Morgan said his office found an inconsistency between city code and state statute that authorizes automated vehicle identification tickets ‒ traffic cameras that photograph vehicles speeding ‒ and the issuance of traffic tickets.
“We realized that if someone was going over 25 mph (of the posted speed limit), the state law prohibited a ticket being issued just based on the photo and then mailing the citation out,” Morgan said.
“We figured out there was a loophole to where you could actually accelerate and go faster than 25 mph, and you couldn’t get a ticket under the way the ordinance was written,” he said. “So this is a correction to that, that makes it so that if you get caught on one of those video cameras ‒ whether you’re going 25 or 10 or whatever over ‒ you can get cited.”
The amendment requires the city to issue a court summons to an individual found to have sped over 25 mph, he said. The individual would be required to appear in court and explain to the municipal judge why he or she was 25 mph over the limit. At that point, the judge can issue a fine.
“Any violation detected by an AVIS (automated vehicle identification system) for driving twenty-five (25) miles per hour or more in excess of the speed limit shall require a hearing before the Municipal Judge prior to the imposition of any penalty,” the amendment reads.
Penalties for speeding 25 mph or more over the speed limit include a fine of up to $200 and possibly community service and/or a driver education course, according to the amendment.
If an individual fails to appear in court following a summons, he or she could face a default judgment.
Two other code amendments passed by City Council addressed default judgments directly. Morgan said one amendment allows the municipal judge to issue a court fine in cases involving default judgments.
The municipal judge may impose a court fee of $25 in those cases, according to the city.
Another amendment imposes a separate court fee in cases where default judgments are entered in order to cover administrative costs, Morgan said.
City Council also passed an ordinance repealing part of the city’s noise ordinance, section 16-9. Specifically, the ordinance removes the text from the code that says it is unlawful to use loudspeakers or sound amplifying equipment without a written noise variance permit issued by the Durango police chief, except in cases of permitted commercial use in enclosed areas or outdoors.
“This does exactly like it sounds. It actually repeals a portion of our noise ordinance that was specific to amplification devices,” Morgan said. “There’s the Colorado Supreme Court case that said ordinances like ours are unconstitutionally vague, so we are cleaning up that ordinance so it’s no longer vague.”
He said a new ordinance will be presented to City Council for approval that will address specifics such as the police chief’s ability to issue permits for certain noise uses.
In February, Morgan told The Durango Herald the city was revisiting its noise ordinance after his office dismissed a noise citation against Enrique Orozco-Perez, co-director of Compañeros: Four Corners Immigrant Resource Center, who said the citation was an attempt to suppress his speech.
Orozco-Perez used loudspeakers at a special meeting in October where Police Chief Brice Current debriefed councilors on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity and a protest days prior.
Morgan said in February the city’s noise ordinance lists noise levels permitted in residential, industrial and commercial zones. Orozco-Perez was cited for a violation regarding loudspeakers, but the section pertaining to loudspeakers included no decibel level.
He said separate subsections of the noise ordinance did not clearly apply to one another, and so his office dismissed the citation against Orozco-Perez.