On October 2, KHOW-AM radio host Peter Boyles repeated the myth that Denver is a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. This time, as evidence for Denver's supposed “sanctuary policies” Boyles cited reports that as Denver district attorney, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter had allowed legal and illegal immigrants to plead guilty to felony agricultural trespassing charges that did not result in deportation. Accusing Ritter of using “Clintonesque” language to deny that Denver is a sanctuary city, Boyles said, “I don't know what name we can give this policy that was created in this city and exists in this city without calling it 'sanctuary.' ... Would you have given a U.S. citizen down for the second time on narcotics possession, would you have given that person trespass on agricultural land?” However, an October 1 Denver Post article that Boyles repeatedly cited during his broadcast reported that Denver immigration attorney Jeff Joseph “said the 'designer plea' of agricultural trespass is not bending the law in favor of immigrants. In drug cases, for instance, American citizens often have the ability to plead to a lesser charge such as a misdemeanor or receive a deferred judgment.”

Boyles made other distortions on his October 2 show, including incorrectly telling a caller that he did not “think” the agricultural trespass plea bargains resulted in felony convictions, even though they did. In addition, Boyles doctored the opening line of the October 1 Post report to omit the fact that Ritter's office had used the agricultural-trespass charge not only for illegal immigrants, but also for legal immigrants.

A statement released by Beauprez on September 30 charged Ritter with having “put alien felons back on the streets -- criminals who should have been deported.” The Rocky Mountain News reported September 30 that the Beauprez campaign also launched a television ad on September 29 accusing Ritter of “giving five Hispanic immigrants who committed felonies plea bargains that helped them avoid deportation.” The News reported “Ritter said that there were circumstances in each of the cases that led to the plea bargains, including the involvement of one police detective who was under investigation for criminal wrongdoing.”

The Post reported October 1 that Ritter indeed had “approved plea bargains that prevented the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants charged with drug, assault and other crimes.” The Post added, “The [District Attorney's] office allowed defendants to plead guilty to trespassing on agricultural land instead of the crimes they actually were accused of 152 times from 1998 through 2004.”

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, a Colorado statute enacted May 1 prohibits so-called “sanctuary” policies, which it defines as local “ordinances or policies that prohibit local officials, including peace officers, from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within the state.” A 2004 report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service -- the non-partisan research and analysis arm of Congress -- identified “sanctuary cities” as those that have adopted “a 'don't ask-don't tell' policy where they don't require their employees, including law enforcement officers, to report to federal officials aliens who may be illegally present in the country.” Denver was not on that list. In June, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced an amendment that barred sanctuary cities from receiving federal homeland security funding. According to King, sanctuary laws “prohibit law enforcement officials from reporting to the Department of Homeland Security illegal aliens when they are discovered through the normal course of law enforcement practice.”

Colorado Media Matters has pointed out that in a June 11 article, the Rocky Mountain News quoted Carl Rusnok, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesman for Colorado, saying: “There aren't any cities in Colorado that refuse to call us. ... I know of no Colorado city that has a policy against calling ICE.” The News article also reported that its investigation “found that some local law-enforcement officials indeed fail to turn in immigrants, including some criminals they know are here illegally. But it has nothing to do with any sanctuary policy.” The News added that local law-enforcement officials in Colorado “say they know ICE lacks the people or places to deal with them, a message ICE officials have delivered personally. And local jails are too full to hold them while deportation orders are processed.”

Nevertheless, for the first time on his show, Boyles endorsed Beauprez for governor, announcing, “My mind was made up this weekend, when some excellent investigative work was done on Bill Ritter as D.A. and releasing people. Now this is very much a part of sanctuary.” Boyles later said that Ritter, in a September interview with Boyles, denied Denver's sanctuary policies by defining “sanctuary” in “Clintonesque” language:

BOYLES: I don't know what name we can give this policy that was created in this city and exists in this city without calling it “sanctuary.” And I think what Ritter is able to do is make it very Clintonesque: “I did not have sex with that woman,” even though she was performing oral sex. I think that Ritter can take the medieval church and apply it to sanctuary and say we don't have that. We have that. And I think these prosecutions, or lack of prosecutions, when you apply them and say, “Would you have given a U.S. citizen down for the second time on narcotics possession, would you have given that person trespass on agricultural land?”

But in posing this question, Boyles apparently disregarded the quote of immigration attorney Joseph in the Post that “the 'designer plea' of agricultural trespass is not bending the law in favor of immigrants. In drug cases, for instance, American citizens often have the ability to plead to a lesser charge such as a misdemeanor or receive a deferred judgment.” Similarly, an October 3 News article -- published one day after Boyles's comments -- quoted a Republican and a Democratic district attorney who agreed that, in the News' words, “it isn't unusual for prosecutors to agree to let defendants plead guilty to charges that are unrelated to their actual crimes:

District attorneys interviewed around the state said that they hadn't used the ”agriculture trespass" statute often but that it isn't unusual for prosecutors to agree to let defendants plead guilty to charges unrelated to their actual crimes.

“I get suspicious when I see people making carte blanche statements that something sinister or evil is going on,” said Larry Abrahamson, the Republican district attorney in Larimer County. “Every jurisdiction finds some statute that carries the level of punishment they think is appropriate. It's not factually based, but (it) allows the parties to arrive at what they consider a fair result.”

Abrahamson said it's common for people who get cited for speeding to agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge, such as driving a defective vehicle. Such trading often becomes a part of plea bargaining for more serious offenses as well.

“It's been approved by the courts,” Abrahamson said. “It's not illegal or inappropriate.”

His counterpart in Adams County, District Attorney Don Quick, agreed.

“Pleading to something that doesn't fit the facts happens all the time,” said Quick, a Democrat.

During the October 2 broadcast in which Boyles insisted that the agricultural-trespass plea bargains were part of Denver's supposed sanctuary policy, Boyles read all 13 of the plea-bargain cases reported by the News and Post articles. The articles described the cases of five illegal immigrants, five legal immigrants, and three whose immigration status remained unclear. As the Post reported, regarding its examination of four of the illegal-immigrant case files and the three unknown status case files, “Sometimes, police reports included the notation 'refer to immigration'; in others, 'immigration consequences' are noted by the court,” suggesting that Denver police and municipal courts were referring immigrants with questionable immigration status to federal authorities. As the Post noted, in two of the cases “immigration consequences,” for whatever reason, apparently did not occur.

During a call on his October 2 show with Denver attorney Manuel Solano, whose wife is State House District 31 Representative Judy Solano (D-Brighton), Boyles also revealed his erroneous assumption that the charge of agricultural trespass is not a felony:

SOLANO: Well, my opinion is that we have to look at the charges of -- all of the individuals pled guilty to a felony. Is that correct?

BOYLES: What, trespass on agricultural land when you got -- wait a minute, Manuel -- 2000 grams of meth --

SOLANO: Is it a felony?

BOYLES: I don't think it is.

But as Colorado Media Matters has noted, the Post and the News articles that Boyles read on the air explicitly stated that agricultural trespass with the intent to commit a felony (the plea in every case mentioned by the papers) is a felony charge. The Post wrote that “even a misdemeanor drug charge subjects immigrants to deportation and hurts them if they later try to legally immigrate. Many immigrants would rather plead guilty to the felony agricultural trespass charge,” because it is not a deportable offense for legal immigrants. And the News reported that the immigrant felons listed in the Beauprez ad “all pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of trespass of farmland with intent to commit a felony -- a Class 5 felony.” In addition, the News article quoted Ritter as saying, “We would do things to ensure they [immigrants] had a felony conviction even when there were serious evidentiary problems. ... They were still pleading to felonies -- they're not misdemeanors.”

Also, while reading the Post article, Boyles omitted the mention of “legal immigrants” in the opening paragraph, which read: “Bill Ritter approved plea bargains that prevented the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants charged with drug, assault and other crimes.” Instead, Boyles read:

The Denver district attorney's office under gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter approved plea bargains that prevented the deportation of illegals -- uh -- charged with drug, assault and other crimes.

Later in the show, when a caller demanded to know "[w]hy is it they're giving special treatment to Hispanics," Boyles interjected, “no, no, wait a minute. It's not Hispanics. ... It's illegals. And that's what sanctuary is about.” Boyles thus obscured the fact that the News and the Post articles included descriptions of plea-bargain cases for legal as well as for illegal immigrants.

From the October 2 broadcast of The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: Well, another immigration rally, and those words were spoken: the -- what is it? -- “unjust” part of having you be a citizen the right way in this country -- good morning -- and live here. Six after the hour of five. 5:06. 630 KHOW. I'm Peter Boyles. Good morning. We are Denver's talk station. I think this could be a very important morning, but we will see in terms of who returns phone calls and who, in fact, comes on the radio show this morning. I'd like to take -- There's a couple of things I think to lead this with. But certainly we have all been debating on what we should do, about who we should vote for. At least I can only speak for myself -- who I should vote for when it comes down to the governor. The next governor of the state of Colorado. My mind was made up this weekend, when some excellent investigative work was done on Bill Ritter as D.A. and releasing people. Now, this is very much a part of sanctuary. As you know, Bill Ritter was the D.A. during all the [Wellington] Webb administration and the first part of the administration of John Hickenlooper. And now these cases that have been raised of how Bill Ritter treated illegal immigrants, and it is just -- it makes up -- certainly I can only speak for myself, but it makes up my mind for me that I will vote for Bob Beauprez. Let's take a look at some of these cases.

[...]

It just goes on. It just goes on. Does anybody -- has anybody had their mind changed? These are deals extended by Bill Ritter's office to illegals over the last six years. Look at them. Read it, em they said, and weep. Unless Bill Ritter has some very interesting responses to this, I don't know about you, but I think my mind was made up. A hundred and fifty-two trespassing pleas.

The Denver Post yesterday morning:

The Denver district attorney's office under gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter approved plea bargains that prevented the deportation of illegals -- uh -- charged with drug, assault and other crimes.

The office allowed defendants to plead guilty to trespassing on agricultural land instead of crimes they actually were accused of 152 times from 1998 [to] 2004.

[...]

BOYLES: This is [Caller]. This is [Caller] in Denver. [Caller], good morning, you're on 630 KHOW.

CALLER: Hi, Peter. I just wanted to give you one more reason --

BOYLES: All right.

CALLER: -- to vote for Beauprez. As if everything that you just read was not enough. And that is, that even though there is a lot of Republicans that are not good on immigration, the great majority of Democrats are terrible.

BOYLES: You're right. You're absolutely right.

CALLER: And, they will probably have a majority in the legislature, and if you do not have a Republican to veto some of the stuff that Democrats want --

BOYLES: Um, hmm.

CALLER: -- Ritter will rubber-stamp everything.

BOYLES: Yep.

CALLER: They will be in control of Colorado, and you're not going to see anything on immigration.

BOYLES: Well, I gotta tell you what: We can play those cuts where the district attorney then, gubernatorial hopeful now, was saying that there was no such thing as sanctuary. Well, if this isn't sanctuary then, I guess, as someone once said, “My uncle is a monkey.” But, and what's even better is both newspapers endorsed Ritter.

CALLER: Yeah, I know, I saw that.

BOYLES: So, I don't even know how you can deal with this at this point, but --

[...]

CALLER: Yeah, this is Ritter doing it.

BOYLES: Yep.

CALLER: This man is a nut job.

BOYLES: Well, I don't know if he's a nut job or he's more of a -- once again, it's like talking to -- and we've talked to them -- John Hickenlooper, Andrew Romanoff, the D.A., you go down a list of people, you ask them about sanctuary, they have no idea what you're talking about. And I come back to that. It's like Bill Clinton, “What is 'is'?” Or “I did not have sex with that woman,” or the rest of that stuff.

CALLER: Yeah, yeah. Well, is Ritter part of Bush's camp?

BOYLES: No, no. That's the beauty of this, is that he said to us here on 630 KHOW, and I think it was the dead giveaway -- we'll play it -- when he said, “No, I support President Bush and immigration.”

[...]

BOYLES: Anybody get their mind made up? Good morning, 630 KHOW, Denver's talk station. [Caller] on the cell. Hey, [Caller], you're on 630 KHOW. Good morning.

CALLER: Good morning, Pete. Hey, I think the form of plea is in itself is proof positive of sanctuary.

BOYLES: Of course.

[...]

BOYLES: Apparently, there's a guy coming up here who says he's the best. Let's take his call. Let's go to Manuel in Denver, who says Bill Ritter is the best. Good morning.

SOLANO: Good morning.

BOYLES: Manuel, tell the audience who you are.

SOLANO: I'm an attorney, and --

BOYLES: And who's your --

SOLANO: practice law --

BOYLES: And who are you married to?

SOLANO: -- in Colorado.

BOYLES: And you're married to whom?

SOLANO: A state representative by the name of Judy Solano.

BOYLES: OK, so now we know you have a political stake in this.

SOLANO: Actually --

BOYLES: Don't lie to me. I know you do, but go ahead.

SOLANO: Well, my opinion is that you have to look at the charges of -- all of the individuals pled guilty to a felony. Is that correct?

BOYLES: What, trespass on agricultural land when you got -- wait a minute -

SOLANO: Is it a felony? --

BOYLES: Manuel -- 2000 grams of meth --

SOLANO: Is it a felony?

BOYLES: I don't think it is.

SOLANO: Well, why don't you see? The second thing is, it's apparent to me that these individuals weren't illegals. They were resident aliens.

[...]

BOYLES: OK, then how does it end up with agricultural trespass?

CALLER: Because that is the only subsection of the criminal code that would allow her to stay here legally. And here's why that was important.

BOYLES: That's the point of sanctuary, isn't it?

CALLER: Peter, I don't know if this is a sanctuary issue; it was a human issue. It would have broken up this family.

BOYLES: You know what. Why is that -- why is that -- as [former Minnesota Gov.] Jesse Ventura said -- why is that the city of Denver's problem?

[...]

CALLER: Well, listen, Peter, I'm going to say it flat out. If somebody goes into that court -- if I go into that court right now with four ounces of cocaine --

BOYLES: You're done.

CALLER: I'm going to prison. Why is it they're giving special treatment to Hispanics?

BOYLES: Because I think the -- no, no, wait a minute. It's not Hispanics, [caller]. Or, I mean, excuse me, [caller]. It's illegals. And that's what sanctuary is about.

[...]

BOYLES: This is what they deny actually exists: sanctuary. Now, I think -- I don't know what name we can give this policy that was created in this city and exists in this city without calling it “sanctuary.” And I think what Ritter is able to do is make it very Clintonesque: “I did not have sex with that woman,” even though she was performing oral sex. I think that Ritter can take the medieval church and apply it to sanctuary and say we don't have that. We have that. And I think that these prosecutions, or lack of prosecutions, when you apply them and say, “Would you have given a U.S. citizen down for the second time on narcotics possession, would you have given that person trespass on agricultural land?”