Aurora has approved what may be the strictest penalties in the state for car theft.

The new, stiffer penalties were approved by a 7-4 vote on Monday night after a tense debate. 

Introduced by At-Large Councilmember Dustin Zvonek amid concern over rising auto thefts and criticism by some policymakers and law enforcement leaders that state penalties are too lenient, the new penalties include a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 60 days, going up to 120 days for repeat offenses.

Penalties also include 10 days in jail for failing to appear on a charge, but this would be charged as a separate offense and applies to failures to appear for other municipal offenses except traffic infractions, not only car thefts.

The ordinance changes also include tougher penalties for stealing essential vehicle parts, including catalytic converters — up to 364 days in jail and a maximum $2,650 fine.

State law caps jail sentence for violating municipal ordinances at 364 days.

Colorado State Patrol: Car thefts in 2022 on pace to exceed 2021 numbers

The changes would sunset in 2024, when City Council will reexamine them.

“When someone’s car is stolen, that’s their livelihood. This isn’t a typical property crime,” Zvonek said.

City Council passed the new penalties with seven “yes” votes and four “no votes” from Councilmembers Ruben Medina, Juan Marcano, Alison Coombs and Crystal Murillo.

The changes passed after a failed attempt by Ward Five Councilmember Alison Coombs to postpone any decision until the next meeting so a fiscal analysis can be done on how the new penalties will likely affect costs for prosecutors, the municipal public defender’s office, the court system and the county jails.

Coombs pointed to staffing shortages among city prosecutors, public defenders and the court.

Ward Four Councilmember Juan Marcano proposed an unsuccessful amendment requiring that intent be part of the failure to appear offense and to restrict that offense to car theft charges.

He said he believes the penalty’s broad sweep as it’s written lacks enough research and may bring unintended consequences for the city, such as lawsuits.

“This just seems, frankly, a little sadistic.”

The council left the failure to appear penalty as is also over the objection of Doug Wilson, Aurora’s municipal public defender. He said he believes it has to have language specifying a culpable mental state – essentially the intention to commit a crime or knowledge that an action would lead to a crime being committed – to be constitutional.

“You cannot have an offense that just says, ‘If you do X, you go to jail,” he said.

“You can have a crime that says X and you meant to do it, or you did it knowingly and you are convicted, but that’s not what you’re writing right now.”

Wilson said the mandatory penalties as written would apply to others in a case under a subpoena, including victims and police officers. But Pete Schulte, an attorney for the city, dismissed his concerns, saying the intention is for prosecutors to file charges under the failure to appear provision when cases get to a stage that a person not showing up to court causes great disruption, such as when a trial has already been set.

A legitimate reason for not making a court appearance “would be a defense to that case, but somehow they’re making a conscious decision not to appear in court that day. And that is what satisfies the failure to appear element of that offense.”

Simmering tension between council members during the debate spilled over near the end, when they rejected by another 7 to 4 vote Coombs’ proposal to postpone voting on the penalties.

“I would just like to ask why my colleagues are afraid of discussing the merits of this idea?” Marcano said.

“I’m not afraid of discussing the merits of an idea that is beneficial for the city,” said At-Large Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky, her voice rising slightly. “What you want to discuss is all criminal-friendly, and it’s not up for discussion. I’ll continue to call for the question.”