Email to Durango Police Chief Current
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 3:24 PM
Subject: Citizen's Initiative - No Secret Police in Durango
To: <brice.current@durangoco.gov>
Good Day, Chief Current!
As we discussed in our conversations from yesterday, I want to begin a dialogue that will be useful to both of us. I hope this is the beginning of sharing the fruit of diversity without division and unity without uniformity. Please know that none of this is secret. I’m not being paid. None of the petitioners are being paid.
Is murder by the federal government permitted? Is execution of Americans by the federal government permitted? I’m not trying to posture or grandstand here. The federal government says ‘Yes’. The federal government’s argument is that the supremacy clause exempts the federal government from the operation of the Constitution and those protections it gives you and me.
So, my constitutional rights are not enforceable!? Your constitution rights are not enforceable!?. What?! Why? Because the exercise of our constitutional rights is being unjustly equated with obstruction of a lawless and unaccountable federal police machine (the “federals”). I have no constitutional rights from the federals. No 2nd Amendment rights. No 4th Amendment rights. Nothing! Based on our conversations, I understand that the Durango Police’s right to protect me is canceled by threats from the federals. That is the position of the federal government. This is a tight spot for us.
This is a states rights question and the federal government has declared that the states have no rights when the federals so decide. The state legislature and state laws are just as powerless as municipal ordinances. That is not an acceptable position to take if we are to be safe in Durango.
So, I believe that the supremacy clause is not a ‘per se’ exemption from the Constitution. That means that state legislation and municipal ordinances are not worthless or a waste of time. That is the hill I will die on. If the Durango Police interpret state law and municipal ordinances as unenforceable because of an authoritarian reading of the supremacy clause, then we have no protection from the Durango Police and we must look elsewhere. That is the recipe for complete collapse of order and social trust.
I can’t and I don’t speak for anyone but me. The citizen’s initiative petition speaks for itself. The objective is to work together for Durango. For that I must learn more from you. The urgency here is because there has been a serious breach of the sense of protection the size of Minnesota. The price being exacted is the surrender of our constitutional rights and potentially our very lives.
My position is that the citizen’s ordinance conforms to the 4th Amendment and is enforceable. You have represented that the Durango Police are protecting our constitutional rights already, notwithstanding this proposed ordinance. That means that this ordinance simply amplifies that protection and is not a waste of time. It supports police and Keeps Policing Local.
Common goals for us are to raise awareness, contribute to an informed community, accent cooperation, Keep Policing Local, get more funding for Durango Police to meet the moment and joint acknowledgement of the threat of a lawless federal government. A true account must guide our actions. Murderous gangs of mercenaries recruited for their violent nature, lured by money, let loose upon us, with absolute immunity and no accountability, designed to act in secret – That is the true account in my mind.
If observation is obstruction then ‘secret’ is the right word to use. But, isn’t it meaningful protection and enforcement for the Durango Police to bear witness and gather evidence of conduct that violates constitutional laws and ordinances? We can both see that the unlawful conduct of the federals may not be effectively interrupted or stopped by Police vs. Police conflict at this point, but it is still in service to future prosecution within the applicable statute of limitations and will serve to inform future protection efforts. My unwavering position is that laws and ordinances that protect our constitutional rights without impairing lawful conduct of the federals is constitutional. As the proposed ordinance says, “[a]hering to the constitution does not impair policing unless the policing is intended to be unconstitutional.”
I look forward to hearing and learning from you.
Be Well!
Message (Mostly) Read to City Council at Public Comment
No Secret Police in Durango Responds to City Council’s Mischaracterization of Ordinance Draft
The No Secret Police in Durango Organizing Committee is issuing this statement in response to comments reported in the Durango Herald suggesting that petition organizers “ignored” a version of the ordinance drafted by the City Attorney.
The City Council has been in possession of its attorney’s alternative draft since before the citizen initiative began. If Council believes its version is superior or more “legally defensible,” nothing prevents them from introducing it immediately—well before they are required to consider the citizen‑initiated ordinance on April 7. We call on Council to release their draft to the public at once and explain why they declined to consider it for adoption five weeks ago, and why they continue to decline to do so now.
It is inaccurate to claim that petition organizers refused to incorporate the City Attorney’s input. In fact, the petition version does include language provided by the City Attorney, particularly in the exemptions section. Both versions are legally defensible; the question of which is “more” defensible is a matter of opinion, not fact.
There are two key differences between the drafts:
Findings:
The citizen initiative includes findings appropriate to a citizen‑driven ordinance. The City Attorney’s findings reflect legislative intent that City Council never adopted, because Council never took up his draft. Legislative findings cannot exist where no legislative action occurred.Severability:
The City Attorney removed the severability clause—an essential protection ensuring that if one section of the ordinance were struck down (for example, the no‑mask provision), other sections (such as visible identification requirements) would remain in force.
Our committee has consistently attempted to work with the City. We proposed that Council adopt this ordinance back in December. They declined. Before finalizing the petition version, we incorporated language as a result of meeting with the Chief of Police regarding the Police Department’s ethical code. The City Attorney removed that language from his version. Early in the petition drive, in our dialogue with a Council member it became clear to us that City Council would not consider any no mask/visible ID ordinance whether it was the City Attorney's version or the citizen's imitative version.
It is therefore disingenuous for anyone in city government to criticize petition organizers for not adopting a version of the ordinance that City Council itself refuses to consider.
Durango residents have responded enthusiastically to the petition, motivated by frustration with Council’s inaction on protecting constitutional rights and ensuring accountable, local policing. With both versions of the ordinance now clearly “legally defensible,” the path forward is simple:
Council should adopt one version or the other.
Durango residents have already shown they are ready.
It is now Council’s turn to sign off—either way.
Durango Herald Op-Ed
Durango petition demands ban on masked federal officers, requires visible identification
By Ted Wright and Mick Souder
Durango Herald, February 18, 2026
In the coming weeks, nearly 60 volunteers are fanning out all over the city of Durango in a citizens’ initiative petition for a Durango ordinance that prohibits masking of law enforcement officers, requires visible identification, keeps policing local, and returns constitutionality and trust to policing and the people. If this petition receives 1,500 signatures by March 6, it will bring the issue of our safety from “secret police” before the City Council, requiring their approval of the ordinance or forcing a special election.
Before matters get worse, we need to have a conversation about lawless federal police invading Durango. Let’s call that lawless mess of acronyms, DOJ/DHS/ICE/CBP, the “federals.” The best way to have that conversation is to start one that can’t be ignored. A successful petition drive does that. Something terrifying is taking place. We aren’t safe, and staying silent is not safe.
Why a citizen’s initiative? Because traditional legislation is stalled by the federal government’s command to “Shut up and stay out of the way.” Just “Be sweet, pray and obey.” History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
Unless we’re throwing out the Constitution, this ordinance is constitutional, and the Constitution is enforceable. We are not surrendering our constitutional rights. Surrender is the opposite of safety. This ordinance aims to keep policing local, the only place we can realistically look for protection. Durango Police adhere to core values of ethics, which are clearly defined and accountable. Police from outside our community have no ties to us, have no care for us and by their presence are a deadly threat to our safety.
Only a true account of this situation can guide our action. That true account is that federal agents are operating like paramilitary forces – lured by money, driven by quotas, masked and armed with military weaponry, busting doors down, ready for confrontation. This scene can unfold in your neighborhood at any moment. Masked agents recruited for aggressive enforcement, sporting the latest in tactical military gear, bearing no accountable identification, harassing at will. All designed to intimidate, create fear, inflict injury and remain secret. Remaining silent about this will cost us our constitutional rights.
What do we do when the true account of what’s happening is being denied, twisted and turned into propaganda and lies? We can’t stop the lying, but we sure don’t feel safer when we’re lied to. To feel safer, we need to fight back, and this ordinance does just that. It’s about protection from the federals more than it is about enforcement against the federals. It is enforceable because protection is a big part of enforcement. Ordinance violations are reportable to the Durango Police. Protecting people does not impede lawful policing and is our most immediate need.
Are We the People going to be sued for exercising our constitutional rights? That’s what federal overreach looks like, and it doesn’t stop until we fight back. We have the right to self-defense, the right to protect others, the right to speak out, the right to be secure in our persons and houses, and to be free from unreasonable seizures of our bodies. We are all struggling with how to protect these constitutional rights amid lawless policing by federal authorities. The federal government argues that exercising our constitutional rights obstructs its ability to deploy a secret police force against us. We cannot accept that argument.
This ordinance, along with other pushback efforts underway, helps protect us, moves the needle and inspires more action. This ordinance isn’t radical – it’s essential. It protects our community while respecting lawful policing.
Ted Wright and Mick Souder are among the organizers for the No Secret Police petition drive in Durango. For more information, visit NoSecretPoliceInDurango.org.
Letter to the Durango Telegraph
February 12, 2026
Sign petition to unmask ICE
The “No Secret Police in Durango” Petition Committee is collecting signatures of registered Durango Voters through March 6 for an ordinance that prohibits law-enforcement officers from masking their faces and concealing their identities. Policing has coexisted with our core constitutional values without resorting to secrecy throughout the history of the United States. That’s how our local police operate. Durango Police are fully accountable and adhere to a strong code of core values. Police from outside our community must do the same if we are to retain our constitutional rights. When the Constitution is enforced, this ordinance is enforceable.
The policy behind this ordinance is to keep policing local, strengthen constitutional protections and rebuild trust between law enforcement and the community. Signing this petition forces City Council to either adopt the ordinance or call for a special election.
More information is available at NoSecretPoliceInDurango.org.
– Ted Wright and Mick Souder, Durango
Certification of Sufficiency issued by Durango City Clerk Faye Harmer
PETITION SUMMARY FOR THE CITIZEN INITIATED ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITS MASKING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND REQUIRES VISIBLE IDENTIFICATION
This is a citizen's initiative for a Durango ordinance that prohibits masking of law enforcement officers and requires visible identification, keeps policing local and returns constitutionality and trust to policing and the People. Signing this petition sets the matter of our safety in first place before the City Council, requiring their approval or forcing a special election on the matter.
CERTIFICATION
In accordance with Article VII, Section 8, of the Durango City Charter, I, Faye Harmer, duly appointed Clerk of the City of Durango, La Plata County, Colorado, do hereby certify that I have examined petitions filed in my office by March 6, 2026, by a Petitioners' Committee of 43 registered electors of the City, seeking adoption of an ordinance prohibiting masking of law enforcement officers and requiring visible identification.
Pursuant to my review, I hereby certify the petitions to be sufficient based on procedures dictated by Article VII, Section 7a, of said City Charter. When compared to voter regist ration records of the La Plata County Clerk and Recorder, the petitions, as filed, contained the signatures of at least 1047 registered electors of the City of Durango.
Said petitions are available for public inspection and will be retained in the City's official records for a period of two years. In accordance with provisions of Article VII, Section 9, the petition will be presented to the Durango City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting on April 7, 2026, and the Council will have 30 days to either adopt the Ordinance or submit the measure to a vote of the City's electorate at a Special Election to be held on an eligible date within ninety but not less than thirty days after certification to the Council.
Note: State Code specifies that Special Elections cannot be held 90 days prior to the November 3, 2026, election (August 5th) or 32 days after the Primary election on June 30, 2026 (August 1st). Special Elections also cannot be held 32 days prior to a Primary Election (May 29th) . All Special
Elections must be held on a Tuesday.
In witness whereof I have set my hand and the seal of the City of Durango this 11th day of March, 2026.