Skip to Content
News

Proposed ordinance would allow Colorado Springs Police to seize cars used in Street races

022321 STREET RACING PIC

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KRDO) -- It's a frustrating issue in Colorado Springs not only for police but for neighbors who have to hear it night after night.

Street racing continues to be an ongoing problem for Colorado Springs Police. In November, KRDO Newschannel 13 brought you a special report on this issue. Three months later, the police department is asking City Council to create an ordinance to address the problem.

If the ordinance is approved, it would allow officers to seize cars used in street races. Commander David Edmondson presented the proposal to the council on Monday saying in 2020, there were more than 1,500 reports of street racing where officers tried to stop the vehicle but couldn't.

“The overarching issue here is public safety," Edmondson said during the work session, "we have seen over the years the devastating effect of chasing someone for running a red light that ultimately killed a family in a mini-van.”

Which is one of the reasons this ordinance was presented. The cars wouldn't be taken the moment the driver is busted. A judge would have to sign an order and the owner of the vehicle could challenge it. However, if it stands, CSPD could hold the vehicle for anywhere from 30 days to a year with the owner having to pay all towing fees.

A similar ordinance is already in the Steel City and sergeant Frank Ortega with the Pueblo Police Department says it's working.

"Once we confiscate one or two vehicles, the word gets around," Ortega says. Their ordinance follows the same guidelines but for Pueblo, they can hold the vehicle for six months.

"Six months of storage is a lot," Ortega says, "so it will add up." Not to mention the other charges an owner could face for being involved in street races. "Depending on what kind of speeds we are talking about it could be where you don't have a license anymore," Ortega says.

The ordinance isn't just for street races but other crimes committed where a car is used. Commander Edmondson gave examples of gang activity and prostitution. Sergeant Ortega said in Pueblo, cars involved in drive-by shootings can also be seized.

The Colorado Springs City Council is expected to vote on this proposal in the next two weeks.

Colorado Springs / Crime / Pueblo

Chase Golightly

Chase is a reporter and an anchor for our weekend evening newscasts. Learn more about Chase here.

Comments

19 Comments

  1. Another effective method of getting these dumb kids off the streets is to finalize vehicle emissions testing and vehicle safety inspections.

  2. Neo Nazis republicants at it again, always trying to steal or take property for the dumbest reasons….. Funny how the anti federal governmet terrorist sure love state government tyranny 🙄🙄🙄🙄🇮🇱👀🇷🇺👀🤔

    1. What a dumbass comment. So you would rather these punk ass kids fly up and down the roads with the potential of killing someone because they are moving too fast to react? What a great idea.

  3. Wow! Now cops are just gonna take your car. That’s insane! Who decided what constitutes “street racing”. This has all the ingredients of government overreach! And anybody consider unintended consequences??? Well sure TF they’re not gonna stop for a ticket now. Talk about some incoming high speed pursuits!

  4. Ha! You fool! didn’t you read? The judge determines if you’re racing or not and you’ll be towed at a later date, obviously. The idea is to NOT chase you down til you crash and die. Just take it to the track in Pueblo when it opens. It’s fun and safer. It’s not like these kids have a V8 with a big camshaft, 5000 stall converter, 4.55 gears, and no overdrive, unable to go 70 mph to Pueblo without revving to 4000 rpm. Now, that’s a real problem.

      1. All this attempt is is another City council money grab, and an ineffective one to boot. The City doesn’t want the money going to the county’s general fund or state’s general fund and additionally wants the ability to increase the fines and fees once it would become an ordinance, they would be able to do so…
        If they approve it, and if they enforce it, and if they have the space to impound vehicles. Currently 2 of those 3 “if’s” are currently being proven they cannot / will not do so far. So again why would adding a unneeded and frivolous ordinance be a better alternative than enforcing the laws that are already in the state’s MTC.

  5. Again, why? Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42. Vehicles and Traffic § 42-4-1105. Speed contests–speed exhibitions–aiding and facilitating– immobilization of motor vehicle–definitions
    (5)(a) In addition to a sentence imposed pursuant to this section or pursuant to any other provision of law:

    (I) Upon the second conviction for an offense specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, or any other crime, the underlying factual basis of which has been found by the court to include an act of operating a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the court may, in its discretion, order the primary law enforcement agency involved with the case to place an immobilization device on the motor vehicle or motor vehicles so operated for a period of up to fourteen days.

    (II) Upon the third or subsequent conviction for an offense specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, or any other crime, the underlying factual basis of which has been found by the court to include an act of operating a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the court may, in its discretion, order the primary law enforcement agency involved with the case to place an immobilization device on the motor vehicle or motor vehicles so operated for a period of up to thirty days but more than fourteen days.

    (b) The period during which a motor vehicle may be fitted with an immobilization device pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (5) shall be in addition to any period during which the motor vehicle was impounded prior to sentencing.

    Its already a MTC!

    And LE would still have to pull them over to issue this citation. Which based upon the article, “Fine for illegal pet store sales, nuisance vehicle enforcement discussed by Colorado Springs City Council” done 2 days ago, identified that was their largest problem.
    “In the morning half of the work session, the council heard a presentation from police about a proposed ordinance to enforce so-called “nuisance vehicles” — primarily involving street racing and drivers who fail to pull over for officers.”
    Again, if you can’t enforce the more severe charge that is already on the books, why could you all of a sudden be able to with a new city ordinance on the books.
    If you can pull them over and issue the summons for drag racing, what is the purpose for adding this lesser offense except putting the revenue into the city’s general fund instead of the county’s or the States general funds.
    I hope that our city council understands that these are just more frivolous attempts and will not have the desired effects they want.
    Stop trying to create new laws that are already on the books, instead simply enforce the laws that are already written.
    Oh and where are is the city going to impound these vehicles… They will not pick up all of the abandoned vehicles left along I-25 and other streets now, let alone enforce the 72-hour tagging of abandoned vehicles because there is no room in the impound lot currently. How will adding this Ordinance change this already existing problem of not having enough room in the impound lot to enforce the other laws they are have to ignore because there is no room in the impound lot?
    City administrators putting the cart before the horse as usual.

    1. The answer here is that “street racers” have more money than a trashed abandoned vehicle sitting in an impound lot that no one wants to claim or can afford to claim. With an easier impound law, it will accomplish a couple things, just like the article says. 1) word will spread and street racing will go down. 2) LE doesn’t want to engage in a high speed pursuit for public safety. You’ll eventually go to sleep and LE has your plate #. They’ll come find you another day and take your stupid ricer and your money.

      1. Sure. Why can’t they do that with the already existing MTC law that deals with this problem? Why does a new city ordinance need to be written to accomplish this? This isn’t an impound law, this is a ordinance that mirrors the State’s MTC Exhibition of speed that already exists. The city is attempting to state they can’t do anything without this ordinance passed. If law enforcement won’t engage in a failure to stop for public safety for a State charge, what will change when this becomes an ordinance? If law enforcement could get the plate #, yes they could come to the residence of the listed address and attempt to serve at a later date. Why can’t they do that now with the already existing state MTC law?
        I understand the frustration of nothing being done by CSPD, but passing a new ordinance that will only allow them to place the finances in the City’s general fund, if they do get the opportunity to write the citations, will not fix the problems already mentioned. Which is again why this will not have the desired outcome everyone is hoping to see. We need 1) enough LEO’s to enforce and respond to all calls for service in an appropriate response time. and 2) enough LEO’s to enforce the already existing laws that already exist before we attempt to add additional laws to a list that they are already failing at meeting.

        1. The purpose of why I brought up the impound lot was because of a very simple metaphor, “How can you fill a cup that is already full?”
          The lots are already full now. The city will not tow vehicles now when they should as mentioned above. If they add this ordinance, where do you suppose they will place these vehicles when they don’t have the room to store them now? If they start prioritizing what vehicles they impound by any rationale that means some of the vehicles that are to be towed will simply not be towed away and left abandoned on the city’s streets. Look at how effective the city has done in enforcing the RV violators, what impound lot do they tow those vehicles too…

    2. good post. good points.
      just another “fee grab” for the city.
      and yea where are they gonna stash all those vehicles?

  6. So lets get this straight, you will need to wait upto a year with your car impounded until a judge hears your case, you will pay the towing, impound fees, and daily fee. This amounts to over $9,000. If you are found not guilty or a judge decides not to steal your vehicle you still pay?

    I hate street racing just as much as anyone else but this seems to go a bit too far. All fees should be waived if you are found not guilty or a judge declines to seize your car.

    I also question the constitutionality of this…

    1. Which is why the State’s MTC charge has a cap of only 14 days for their first and second offenses, third and more can be increased to up to 30 days. This is also intentionally because after 3 one can be classified as a Habitual offender if the courts deem it appropriate and that is when prison time can be introduced as additional options.

      1. Additionally, the verbiage of the state’s MTC advises this is to be done after the sentencing, so what your concerns relating to the constitutionality of the charge follows proper flow of conviction. E.G. the defendant is not punished before they have been convicted. Also, the MTC does not require impounding the vehicle but immobilizing the vehicle. Which can be done with vehicle boots. This is more advantageous for all as well because it doesn’t require the vehicle to be impounded, it can be done in front of their residence or wherever their vehicle is parked. Ironically enough, this is more than likely an additional causality as to why CSPD doesn’t want to enforce this MTC because vehicle boots are expensive to purchase and maintain.
        The city’s proposed Ordinance does not reflect these principals and is far more harsh and questionably unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content