Cheyenne City Council faces heavy opposition to proposed administrative inspection warrants ordinance
CHEYENNE — Members of the Cheyenne City Council took almost two hours of heat during their regular meeting Monday night over a proposed ordinance that would let certain city officials apply for administrative inspection warrants.
Administrative inspection warrants are non-criminal warrants that allow city officials to enter a property for safety or code-enforcement inspections when they are unable to get the property owner’s permission.
The ordinance would create Chapter 1.28, establishing the process by which a city official or employee could obtain an administrative inspection warrant, and a new section under Title 2, allowing the Cheyenne Fire Rescue chief, or an authorized designee, the ability to request an administrative inspection warrant.
The ordinance came before the council on second reading.
During the public comment period, 21 members of the community came forward to express their heavy opposition either to the ordinance as written, or to the idea of the warrants as a whole.
Many who came forward gave the same sentiment: The ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Wyoming Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
In the Wyoming Constitution, Article 1, Section 4 reads almost identically: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.”
Exie Brown was the first of the public commenters to bring up these rights, stating the ordinance should not include unabandoned homes.
“While this ordinance may have some good intentions, good intentions do not make good policy,” Brown said at the meeting. “... We don’t have to do blanket coverage for an entire ordinance for an entire city that puts 61,000 people at risk of having their Fourth Amendment rights violated.”
Many other commenters expressed that the warrants are “government overreach,” and if passed, would only expand to allow for more overreach.
Kathy Scigliano, a local Realtor, brought up that, as written, the ordinance is “vague and dangerously broad.”
Scigliano said phrases and words in the ordinance such as “permission,” “unobtainable” or allowing notice of property entry to be skipped if it might interfere with the inspection give unelected officials “far too much discretion.”
Cheyenne resident Patricia McCoy was one of many to say that although she opposes the ordinance as written, she would be willing to see it come back to the council with several changes made.
These changes, proposed by several different commenters, mainly include rewriting the ordinance to solely address abandoned buildings, or to further explain and define vague terms.
“We should not be giving the government a skeleton key to our private residences,” McCoy said. “And as (Benjamin) Franklin warned, if we trade our core liberties for this kind of administrative safety, we will eventually find that we have lost both. … Let’s keep the government out of the living rooms of law-abiding citizens.”
Once it came time to close the public comment period and hold the discussion among the council, council members seemed to be split between three options: moving the ordinance forward with the goal of amending it, voting it down to start from scratch or moving it forward as written.
Council members Michelle Aldrich, Kathy Emmons, Ken Esquibel, Tom Segrave and Jeff White all stated they support the idea of the ordinance but want to work on amending it to be more specific.
“I share some of your concerns,” Aldrich said, addressing the public. “I also know that while this council and our building officials and our fire departments have good intentions, sometimes we don’t think about the unintended consequences.”
Aldrich said the only way she would be able to support the ordinance is if it were “amended significantly for abandoned properties” and require more documentation of proof that a warrant is needed.
Councilman Mark Moody voiced his sole opposition and stated he would like to “scrap it and start from scratch.”
“If it needs to be heavily amended, then it is a poorly written ordinance,” Moody said.
Councilmen Larry Wolfe and Pete Laybourn came at the issue with a different opinion. Both said they think the ordinance is necessary and did not address the prospect of amending it.
Wolfe sparked some negative reactions a few times during the meeting, with the most relevant one being when he asserted the community members in the room are “afraid of the government.” He later stated that fear is “exaggerated and unwarranted.”
“I see a lot of fear in this room,” Wolfe said. “You’re afraid of the government; you’re afraid of each other; you’re afraid of us; you’re afraid of the future. You’re telling us that, ‘Gosh, what might happen with some elected official in the future?’ Well, guess what? We don’t know. … All we know is what we should do.”
Wolfe said the ordinance also helps to keep neighbors safe — that if an individual’s house caught fire and that individual is not taking care of the aftermath, their neighbor would then call city officials to fix it.
Wolfe asked those attending the meeting if they were to call a city official in this situation, what answer they would want to hear.
He said there are two options: Either the official tells the neighbor that they are aware of the problem and are able to fix it with the ability to obtain an administrative inspection warrant, or the official could say he is aware of the problem but cannot fix it because he does not have permission to enter the damaged home.
Wolfe was interrupted by disapproval when he quoted what an official may say in the event they cannot inspect a property: “‘We don’t have the authority to do that. So I’m sorry, but if that house catches on fire and burns yours down at the same time, don’t call the city to complain about that.’”
Ultimately, Emmons, Esquibel, Segrave and White voted in favor of the ordinance with the idea that the council would use next week’s Public Services Committee meeting and the next city council meeting to propose amendments.
Wolfe and Laybourn voted in favor of the ordinance without addressing the possibility of amendments, and Aldrich, Moody and Councilman Mark Rinne voted against moving the ordinance forward entirely — leaning in favor of rewriting the ordinance from scratch.
With all of the opinions, the ordinance was approved on second reading, and council members will begin proposing amendments before it is voted on for the final time at the Jan. 26 city council meeting.
This story was published on Jan. 14, 2026.