Proponents argue arestees have a right to privacy until adjudicated

An Aurora City Council decision to alter social media policies for the police department has raised concerns from press freedom and public safety advocates, who worry that limiting what police can release to the public will impact safety and limit media professionals’ ability to access crime information.

City Council members and local activists who support the policy changes, however, say they are not intended to limit information sharing, but rather to protect due process and limit what they describe as “harmful editorializing” in police communications.

The resolution, which passed Monday with four “no” votes from the city’s conservative lawmakers, would bar Aurora Police Department officials from posting jail booking photographs, often referred to as mug shots, and suspect names on social media and in press releases until a suspect is convicted or pleads guilty. That can often take months, or years.

It aligns the APD’s communication policies and procedures with those of every other city department, meaning all communications are required to go through the city manager’s office before being made public, according to the ordinance language.

Exceptions will be made for certain emergency situations to be outlined in the policies, City Attorney Pete Schulte said Monday.

Such situations could include police looking for a wanted person, an arrest in which police are looking for further victims, or a situation in which there is an imminent public threat, he said.

Those in support of the resolution, including Schulte and the city’s progressive councilmembers, said the police department often editorializes social media posts in ways that pose legal challenges.

Posting mug shots and names of suspects who have not had due process can label people criminals for life, even if their charges get dropped, supporters of the resolution said.

“(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.

Those in opposition to the resolution, 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, worry that limiting what police can share with the public will lead to safety issues, misinformation and confusion.

Press freedom

Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition’s Executive Director Jeff Roberts said added restrictions to department communications will make it harder 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.”

City Manager Jason Batchelor said mug shots and suspect names are still subject to the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act and would therefore be given to members of the media or others who make requests.

However, if members of the media don’t know about the crimes that are happening, they won’t know to make those requests, Roberts said.

“We don’t need any more limitations for what information can be put out there to the press and public when crime happens,” he said.

The Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act specifies that “an individual’s criminal history arrest record” are public records.  

It 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. County jails, for example, typically release adult booking photos upon request.

The direction given is not for the department to stop posting about crime, however, Schulte said. In fact, they can post about crime the way they post about crime involving minors currently, which requires withholding the identity of the minor, he added.

In emergency situations, the department will still post photos and suspect names, Schulte said.

Police push back

The resolution “stifles the speech of our police chief,” Councilmember Francoise Bergan said.

“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 will comply with the new policies, he said in a Monday statement, but does not agree with them.

“My department has been nothing but professional and to suggest otherwise by silencing us all should gravely concern Aurora residents,” Chamberlain wrote in the statement. “The community deserves timely facts and direct communication from the professionals closest to these incidents and operational realities.”

Councilmember Angela Lawson said her constituents worry about the public safety implications of the resolution.

“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.”

Aurora Police Association President David Exstrom wrote a letter to the council Monday sharing “concerns” about the resolution.

“We rely on the local media to amplify our messaging to help keep our community safe and informed,” Exstrom wrote in the letter. “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 opposed the resolution as well, saying in a statement Monday that it risks “delay, confusion and reduced transparency” in public safety communications, “the very opposite of what communities deserve.”

“Police chiefs have a responsibility to support thorough investigations while also keeping their communities informed during critical incidents and evolving public safety situations,” the statement said. “Clear communication helps prevent misinformation, reduce unnecessary community tension and provide important context.”

Police transparency

The resolution comes at a tumultuous time in Aurora, as the city’s consent decree with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office enters its final year. The decree was intended to implement sweeping changes to policing, notably in the use of force and transparency.

In recent years, protestors have pushed for more transparency, particularly when it comes to officers’ use of force and the release of body camera footage from such incidents.

Many of those same protesters attended Monday’s council meeting to speak in support of the resolution, saying it would help protect suspects who have not had due process.

Aurora councilmembers who have supported efforts to improve transparency from the police department are also the ones who proposed the resolution.

Councilmember Gianina Horton, who is leading efforts to create a police oversight office and co-sponsored the resolution, said the point of it is to protect due process and promote clear communication from the police.

She worries about the misinformation that has spread about the resolution’s purpose, which is not to chip away at transparency or the department’s ability to share public safety information, but rather to protect people from being labeled as criminals before they are found guilty of their crimes, she said.

Protecting due process

Former Denver Public Schools board member Auon’tai Anderson, who has spoken at every City Council meeting since an APD officer shot and killed Kilyn Lewis in 2024, supported the resolution Monday night, citing due process.

“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 said. “Once the government posts your face online and labels you as a criminal, the damage is already done even if the charges disappear.”

City Attorney Schulte said legal challenges in court have arisen from “editorializing” done in APD social media posts.

He pointed to a specific post that called a suspect’s criminal history “extensive … the largest I’ve ever seen.”

“That is the issue we’re talking about here,” Schulte said. “None of the conversations I’ve had with the city manager or councilmembers has been about stopping APD from doing their good work or putting out factual information, we just don’t need the added editorializing.”

Mayor Pro Tem Alison Coombs said APD posts 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.”

City Manager Batchelor is working on the new policies and Schulte said he is taking concerns from the public and police into account.

It is not immediately clear when those policies will be implemented.