Cheyenne City Council postpones decision on administrative inspection warrants

CHEYENNE — Members of the Cheyenne City Council voted unanimously Monday night to postpone a controversial decision on whether to allow certain city officials to 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 proposal has been controversial among members of the public since the ordinance was introduced at the council’s Public Services Committee meeting Jan. 5.

At the Jan. 12 full council meeting, more than 20 members of the public came forward to express their opposition to the ordinance, with some saying they oppose it as written and want to see it heavily amended.

Many comments on social media and through letters to the editor of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle over the past couple of weeks had the same concern: That administrative inspection warrants violate Fourth Amendment rights as stated in the Wyoming Constitution and the United States Constitution.

Monday night, 13 members of the public made comments, with many saying they support the Public Services Committee members’ recommendation to postpone the vote.

Cheyenne resident Patricia McCoy was one commenter who said she supports postponement, with the condition that council members work diligently to revise the ordinance.

“This time is necessary for the council to review a corrected version of the draft provided by an attorney and fellow citizen who is willing to help this body pass an ordinance that actually aligns with the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Supreme Court precedents,” McCoy told council members, “and allows the public time to review the amended draft prior to it being voted to pass.”

Another resident, Tamara Trujillo, had a different opinion than most, stating in the meeting that she wants to see the ordinance tabled, rather than postponed.

“You are voted in by the people, for the people, not for the government,” Trujillo said. “So tonight, your vote to postpone is a nice courtesy, but I would really ask for it to be tabled and just redone from the beginning.”

However, Councilman Mark Rinne told members of the public that the city government has a rule that ordinances cannot be tabled, because when they are, they “die.”

Instead, Rinne said city government officials can postpone a decision only until the next city council meeting, meaning two-week postponements.

This story was published on Jan. 28, 2026.