CHEYENNE — A proposal to allow the city’s Fire Department and top building official to get administrative warrants to enter people’s homes and businesses for safety inspections may have good intentions behind it, but that doesn’t make them anything shy of government overreach, nearly two dozen residents told Cheyenne City Council on Monday.
The council got an earful for about two hours from locals against the warrants, saying they’re unconstitutional, unwelcome and, in a stand-your-ground state like Wyoming, downright dangerous.
“We can twist the law, twist these things up (to make them legal), but at the end of the day, this is textbook government overreach,” said resident Exie Brown. “Good intentions do not make good policy.”
It’s the give-an-inch, take-a-mile style of governing, Brown said. If some officials are given the ability to get warrants to enter people’s homes, where does it stop?
“Do we have selective enforcement under the guise of safety?” Brown asked rhetorically. “This policy is stuff you see in San Francisco, Seattle, Boulder, Fort Collins, and with that new Communist mayor out of New York. We are not that.
“We need to stop trying to Colorado or California our Wyoming.”
The council ultimately voted 6-3 in favor of the ordinance’s second reading Monday, but many members said they’ve heard the uproar from residents and that they want the proposed ordinance to be more specific.
“I really believe if this is something that is really felt to be needed … that it probably needs to have some amendments made and to be reworked,” said Councilwoman Dr. Michelle Aldrich.
She said the ordinance was crafted with “good intentions,” but she also acknowledges that it needs to be more specific to alleviate fears that officials will misuse the warrants to conduct illegal searches of people’s homes.
In Wyoming, that’s asking for trouble, she said.
“I think we may be putting our employees at risk with the stand-your-ground law,” she said, “if they approach a door and try to enter a property with an administrative warrant.
She’ll support the ordinance if it’s “amended significantly.”
Residents All Against It
That was the tone from most of the 21 people who spoke to the council about the ordinance — all against.
Gary Pugh said he spent 20 years in the U.S. Air Force defending the Constitution and that he can’t defend this proposal.
“When government can enter your home simply because it wants to check on you, you don’t really own that home,” he said. “You are just borrowing it.”
That view was echoed by Kathy Scigliano, who said approving the expansion of administrative warrants sets a dangerous precedent.
“Once government power is expanded, it is rarely rolled back,” she said. “Calling these warrants ‘non-criminal’ does not change what they are — government permission to enter private property without consent, and in some cases without notice.”
Cheyenne resident John Frank wondered if there are other motives behind the ordinance.
Because the law already addresses safety concerns in the community, “it makes me wonder as to the real motivation behind this proposed ordinance,” he said.
Clarence Fisher took that hypothetical further, wondering what happens if officials gain entry into a home to deal with a specific concern, but then see something else.
They go in, “but then see something else or they don’t like something else that’s going on in that residence,” Fisher said. “Or, they don’t like that person.”
DG Reardon brought up a common theme, that he would be OK with expanding the warrants if they were specifically to address abandoned buildings in the city.
Erin Edwards questioned whether there’s enough of a problem accessing unsafe buildings to warrant a city ordinance.
“If you’re talking one out of every thousand, it’s probably not warranted,” she said. “But if you’re talking, maybe, 10 out of 10 requests are denied, then there’s an issue. Maybe there’s consideration for a conversation at that point.”
She also wondered about the threshold of “reasonableness” as outlined in the proposal — what is “reasonable?”
Also, if people aren’t home, will the government force its way into a person’s home or business?
“If they’re at work, how are they going to be there to advocate for themselves?” Edwards asked.
Then there’s other concerning language in the ordinance like “reasonably necessary to determine, discover, or verify the condition of the property.”
“Well, the words ‘discover’ and ‘determine’ imply that you don’t have any proof of issues,” she said. “It implies that there’s a fishing expedition to try to find reason to gain entry to the property.”
Councilman Wolfe
The temperature in the council chamber rose about halfway through public comment when Councilman Lawrence Wolfe tried to call out a local attorney — Caleb Wilkins — who advocated against the ordinance.
“Mr. Wilkins, nice to see you,” Wolfe said. “You’re, in fact, suing the state of the city of Cheyenne, aren’t you? On behalf of …”
That’s when Councilman Mark Moody sitting to Wolfe’s left broke in, saying Wolfe was out of order to try and question Wilkins on another issue.
“Point of order, Mr. Mayor,” Moody said, addressing Mayor Patrick Collins. “This has nothing to do with this ordinance and public hearing.”
“I would agree,” the mayor said.
Wilkins then said that as an attorney, he’s bound by rules that would prohibit him from answering Wolfe’s questions about specific litigation in a public forum like a council meeting.
“No, they would not,” pressed Wolfe, who’s also an attorney.
“Point of order, Mr. Mayor,” Moody again interjected.
The mayor again admonished Wolfe: “Mr. Wolfe, it has nothing to do with the business at hand. Thank you.”
“Mr. Mayor, it has everything to do with this gentleman’s credibility in front of us,” Wolfe countered.
Earlier in the meeting, Wolfe interrupted resident Steve Melia’s testimony, asking the mayor to “please ask the witness to remove his hat.”
Melia gave Wolfe a disapproving frown as he removed his camouflage baseball cap with an American flag on the front.
“Government overreach?” he commented.
Wolfe’s conduct at the meeting also drew the attention of state Rep. Ann Lucas, a Laramie County Republican.
Although she no longer lives in Cheyenne city limits, she posted to her Facebook page that she’s “appalled at the egregious lack of decorum and civility on the part of Councilman Wolfe.”
She later told Cowboy State Daily that it’s not a good look, and that people who hold public offices need to keep their focus on working for the people, not the other way around.
“He was kind-of badmouthing citizens from his seat,” she said.
What The Council Said
Before voting on the proposed ordinance, the council discussed the concerns they heard Monday and for the past week leading up to the meeting.
Councilman Ken Esquibel admitted the ordinance needs work and that the concerns residents have are valid.
But it’s also true that the Cheyenne Fire Department and building official need these warrants for the legitimate safety of city residents, he said.
He told an emotional story involving his brother, a Vietnam veteran, who has a fireplace that’s detached from his house.
Esquibel had to have the city go to the home and red-tag the fireplace to protect his brother and the neighbors.
If the embers from that fireplace sparked a fire that burned down someone else’s house and the city could’ve done something about it, “I think you’d be a lot more pissed off than you are now,” he said.
“I have real-life experience on how this can actually save people’s lives,” he said.
Wolfe said people may complain about government overreach now, but they sing a different tune if they have a problem neighbor.
“If you have a house next door to you and your neighbor is not taking care of it, what are you going to do?” he asked. “You’re going to call the city, and you’re going to ask the city to go and fix it.”
He also said that courts around the United States have already found administrative warrants like Cheyenne is considering legal, and that “there’s a lot of misunderstanding about this.”
“We don’t need to hear more discussion about how this is government overreach,” Wolfe added. “That tells us nothing. We know all that. Come in and tell us exactly what you would like to see done.”
How They Voted
The council finally voted to advance the ordinance on second reading, with most members saying they want to see some changes to the language when it comes back in two weeks for a third and final reading.
A majority vote in favor of the third reading will make the proposal law in Cheyenne.
Those voting for the ordinance were: Pete Laybourn, Jeff White, Lawrence Wolfe, Tom Segrave, Dr. Kathy Emmons, and Ken Esquibel.
Those voting no were: Dr. Michelle Aldrich, Mark Moody, and Dr. Mark Rinne.
Greg Johnson can be reached at greg@cowboystatedaily.com.
