City denounces use of police car picture in campaign

LAKEWOOD – City Hall is bristling over the “unauthorized use” of a photo of a Lakewood Police patrol car by advocates of a proposed citizen-initiated ordinance on November’s ballot that would require police to seize autos operated by unlicensed drivers.

In a strongly worded statement released late last week, a city spokeswoman said the City is investigating “whether the mailing of the misleading and potentially fraudulent postcard violated any state elections law.”

And City attorney Tim Cox told the measure’s author, Daniel Hayes of Arvada, to stop mail the campaign postcard and to take action to inform voters that the use of the photo was unauthorized. The spokeswoman said Cox’s demand came after city residents began calling “to ask whether the City paid for or prepared the mailing or whether the photograph reflects the City’s endorsement of the ballot measure.”

“Lakewood had no role in the production or delivery of the campaign literature, has not taken a position on the ballot question, and did not authorize the use of the photograph of the police cruiser in any campaign literature,” according to the statement from City Hall.

Hayes said Tuesday he contacted the print shop that is handling the postcards, but was told all of them already had been delivered to the Post Office.

The campaign mailing in question is a postcard that clearly shows it was distributed by “Lakewood Safe Streets CMTE Dan Hayes.”

Hayes said he never expected the picture used as a backdrop on the postcard would cause such a dust-up.

“It’s kind of like the American flag, certain free-speech protections apply,” Hayes said. “I don’t know why a police car would have been protected under all these laws. If I committed a crime, they probably would have charged me with it.”

Hayes also said he doesn’t believe the picture would cause anyone to believe the city supports his initiative.

Nearly two years ago, Hayes began circulating petitions calling for the city to enact the ordinance, enlisting two Lakewood residents to be the “Petitioner’s Committee” in order to get the issue on the city’s ballot. Because he is not a Lakewood voter, Hayes could not circulate the petitions on his own. The Lakewood initiative is one of three impound initiative efforts Hayes organized. The other two were in Aurora and Denver.

The measure never made it to the ballot in Aurora and was rejected by Denver voters.

Hayes wants to require police to seize and impound the vehicle of any unlicensed driver they stop. If approved by voters, the measure also would require the owner of the vehicle to post a $2,500 bond that would be surrendered if the same vehicle seized for the same reason within a year. It also would impose a $200 impoundment fee, and impound bonds could cost as much as $400 a year.

The initiative will go before Lakewood voters as Ballot Question 300 on November’s ballot.

Some opponents believe Hayes’ proposal targets illegal aliens, primarily Hispanics. Others are concerned the measure would eliminate the discretion now afforded to police in such cases and could severely punish drivers who simply forgot their license. They also say it would be too costly for many police agencies and could divert officers from more pressing duties.

Although City Council, which referred the measure to the November ballot last month, has taken no stand on the initiative, the city issued a stern response to Haye’s postcard.

“We are quite upset with this attempt to confuse and mislead the voters into believing that the City Council or the Police Department has endorsed the measure when neither is true,” said Mayor Bob Murphy.

The statement issued by the city suggests Haye’s mailing could constitute a violation of Colorado’s Fair Campaign Practices Act.

“This attempt to convince voters that the City has endorsed the measure is troubling because any person or organization misinformed about the author and origin of the campaign literature could file a complaint with the state accusing the City of a violation,” according to the statement.

In order to prove the city violated state campaign laws, any complaint would have to show the city spent public funds to promote a political candidate or issue, according to rulings in previous cases. Since the city did not print or mail the postcards and because the police car was not purchased or delivered for use in the campaign literature, it is unlikely any such complaint would be successful.

The postcard includes statistics purportedly showing “unlicensed drivers kill 5-7 Lakewood drivers annually; (and) cause 6,900 accidents.” No source is cited.

Lakewood police question those figures and has contacted Hayes to find out how they were compiled and “to determine whether any of them are accurate,” according to the city’s e-mail statement.

Hayes told the Edge he used deduction, taking statewide figures then applying the city’s total population to calculate the figures he used on the postcard. “Nothing was put on there that I didn’t think was true,” he said.

City Council Monday will consider whether it should take a position on the ballot measure after a Police Department presentation on the potential impact of a mandatory impound ordinance.

Lakewood police officers, represented by Police Local 303, approved a resolution opposing approval of the initiative, saying they believe “it is unsafe and bad public policy to force law enforcement to wait for tow trucks, fill out paperwork, inventory the vehicle and its contents, and potentially neglect other responsibilities which may be more important in protecting the public.”

The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police also opposes the proposal. A number of local business groups also oppose the initiative, including the West Chamber of Commerce that serves Jefferson County and the Alameda Gateway Community Association.

Hayes defends his initiative, saying the Lakewood proposal includes safeguards for folks who have a license, but forgot or misplaced it.

“Getting unlicensed drivers off the road is a big deal because if one hits you, you have to have enough insurance to cover any injuries to your car, because they’re not going to have any,” he said.