The ACLU of Colorado has joined the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance, the Denver Branch NAACP, members of the family of Marvin L. Booker, and their attorneys, to call for the Department of Justice to investigate the use of force and a pattern of civil rights violations by Denver law enforcement.

“The Denver Safety Manger’s finding that no policy violations occurred in relation to Marvin Booker’s death by restraint at the hands of five deputies, are an admission that sheriff’s department policies sanction homicide and highlights the need for an independent investigation into a pattern or practice of civil rights violations by law enforcement in Denver,” said ACLU Legal Director Mark Silverstein.

The Department of Justice has the authority and the tools to investigate troubling incidents, including the homicide of Mr. Booker, and to evaluate the city’s law enforcement and its policies, practices, training and supervision.

Silverstein said legal efforts to call for the federal investigation will begin immediately with a letter to the Department of Justice.

Establishing a pattern of police misconduct and abuse of power, ACLU Executive Director C. Ray Drew said, is as simple as watching the news.

   -- Marvin L. Booker, a street preacher who was homeless, died July 9, 2010 at age 56 in the new Denver City Jail after sheriff’s deputies used a “sleeper” hold on him, piled on top of him and Tased him. The coroner ruled his death a homicide but the Denver Safety Manager decided deputies violated no policy in causing his death. His family has filed a civil suit.

   -- In 2009, Alex Landau, a 19-year-old college student, was pulled over by police for failing to signal. Police officers demanded that Landau open the truck of his car. Landau responded, with his hands up, and said, “Don’t you need a warrant?” For that question about his constitutional rights, he was badly beaten and suffered permanent injuries. Officers lied and engaged in a cover-up to frame Mr. Landau and avoid liability for their illegal and violent acts. The Internal Affairs Bureau conducted only a cursory investigation. The city settled for more than $800,000.
   -- On June 30, 2009, Michael DeHerrera filed a lawsuit after he was beaten when using his cell phone to inform his father, a Pueblo police officer, that Denver police officers were assaulting his friend. His injuries included head trauma and facial contusions. But officers were only very lightly disciplined. Publicity and public protest convinced the department to reopen the case. It was settled for $17,500.

   -- In January 2009, Denver paid $100,000 to Trudy Trout to settle an excessive force lawsuit. An officer shoved Ms. Trout to the ground, causing her to break her wrist then lied on his report, saying she tripped over her own shoes. The officer was not disciplined for the use of force or for lying on his report.
   -- In 2008, Denver paid $885,000 to settle a lawsuit brought against Denver police officers who used excessive force against Juan Vasquez, a 16 year-old boy. Mr. Vasquez was severely injured after one of the officers used a fence as leverage to jump up and down on his back while he lay prone on the pavement.
   -- In 2007, Denver paid $900,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the estate of Frank Lobato. He was killed when officers looking for a suspect, entered his home without a warrant and shot and killed him while he lay in bed.

    -- In 2004, the City paid the family of Paul Childs $1.32 million to settle a lawsuit brought after Childs, a developmentally disabled 15 year old boy, was fatally shot by a Denver police officer.

 “Law enforcement exists to serve and protect the public, yet the people of Denver, especially people of color, fear the police”, said Drew. “Police departments across the nation have had to clean up their forces and create a new culture of honesty and service. Why aren’t we doing that in Denver?”

Drew continued, “The majority of law enforcement officers are good, honest officers who are trying to do the right thing. But a police department that can’t rid itself of rogue cops is by its own definition, a bad police force.”

Rev. Leon Emerson is President of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance. Superintendent Rev. Patrick Demmer is Political Action Chair of the GMDMA. Sandra Mann is GMDMA Executive Director. Marcus Farmer is President of the Denver Branch NAACP. Dr. Timothy Tyler is Pastor of Shorter Community AME Church. The family of Marvin Booker is represented by Killmer Lane & Newman.

In legal papers filed today, the ACLU of Colorado asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review Boulder’s controversial “no camping” ordinance, which targets homeless residents who are forced to sleep outside at night.

“When homeless persons are turned away from shelters, they have no choice but to sleep outdoors,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director. “Boulder’s ordinance unfairly and unconstitutionally turns them into criminals for this involuntary act. We are asking the court to overturn our client’s conviction.”

Boulder’s no-camping ordinance prohibits sleeping outside with "shelter," which Boulder defines to include any protection from the elements other than clothing. Under the ordinance, merely sleeping outside at night is not "camping," but sleeping while using a blanket or sleeping bag is a crime.

The ACLU’s client, David Madison, a person who is homeless, was charged with violating the camping ordinance in November, 2009, when he slept outside in a sleeping bag during a night when the temperature dropped to 11 degrees. Mr. Madison had sought refuge at the homeless shelter, but there was no space for him. He was found guilty of “camping” in Boulder Municipal Court, based on the court’s ruling that the sleeping bag constituted “shelter” and therefore violated the camping ban.

“Mr. Madison’s case highlights both the absurdity and the cruelty of Boulder’s ordinance,” Silverstein continued. “Because the frost-covered sleeping bag was deemed to be ‘shelter,” the ordinance makes our client a criminal. If our client had just slept in his clothes, he might have gotten frostbite or hypothermia, but he would have been found not guilty.”

On April 20, the Boulder District Court rejected the ACLU’s appeal of Mr. Madison’s conviction, prompting today’s petition for review in the state supreme court. “We have asked the Supreme Court to review this case, not only because of Mr. Madison’s conviction is so obviously unjust,” said Mr. Silverstein, “but also because it is still an open question in Colorado whether or not cities such as Boulder, in what appears to be nothing more than an effort to rid the city of its homeless population, are permitted to criminalize activities that the homeless have no choice but to do, such as sleeping outdoors. We hope that the Supreme Court will say with clarity that homelessness is not a crime.”

If the Supreme Court accepts the case, the ACLU, through cooperating attorneys Mark Walta and David Harrison, will argue that persons who are forced to sleep outdoors have a right to protect themselves from the elements when doing so causes no one any harm. Further, Mr. Walta explains: “Mr. Madison’s conviction constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because it criminalizes one of the essential attributes of homelessness – that the basic activities of daily life, including sleeping, often must be conducted outdoors. The ordinance puts individuals who are homeless in an impossible position – they can either break the law by harmlessly satisfying their need for warmth and shelter against the elements, or they can risk their own health and safety by forsaking these basic needs in order to comply with the letter of the law. This is not justice.”

In the past five years, Boulder has energetically enforced the “no camping” ordinance against the city’s homeless population, prosecuting almost 2000 cases. Yet, Boulder’s primary homeless shelter accommodates only 160 persons, less than a quarter of the city’s estimated homeless population. In 2009, advocates for the homeless, including the Boulder County Chapter of the ACLU, urged the City Council to stop enforcing the ordinance. In January 2010, the council instructed its staff to draft an ordinance declaring a moratorium. A month later the council reversed course and continued enforcing the controversial camping ban.

More on this case

Case continues against Jeffco sheriff for illegally imprisoning Colorado resident suspected of immigration violations

As partial settlement of a federal-court lawsuit filed last year, the United States will pay $50,000 to ACLU client Luis Quezada, who spent 47 days illegally imprisoned in the Jefferson County Jail in 2009 simply because federal immigration authorities wanted to investigate whether he was violating immigration laws. Mr. Quezada’s claims against Jefferson County Sheriff Ted Mink are still pending.

“This settlement is a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director. “It sends a clear message that law enforcement officers must follow the law while enforcing the law. All persons in this country — including persons suspected or accused of immigration violations – have the right to due process of law and the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and arbitrary imprisonment.”

The lawsuit asserts that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent an Immigration Detainer to the Jefferson County Jail while Mr. Quezada was held on a traffic charge. The detainer asked the jail to hold Mr. Quezada an additional 48 hours after his traffic charge was resolved, so that ICE could determine whether to take him into custody and file an immigration charge seeking to remove him from the country.

ICE did not collect Mr. Quezada from the jail within 48 hours, and the jail did not release him at the end of that period. Instead, the ACLU’s client languished in the Jefferson County jail for an additional 47 days. During that time, there were no immigration charges or any other charges pending against Mr. Quezada, nor was there a warrant or any other legal authority authorizing Mr. Quezada’s imprisonment, or any hearing to determine whether his imprisonment was lawful.

After 47 days, ICE finally took action. ICE issued an immigration arrest warrant, picked Mr. Quezada up from the jail, and issued a notice that formally began an immigration proceeding. On the same day ICE picked him up from the jail, ICE released Mr. Quezada on bond, confirming that ICE does not regard him as a flight risk or a danger to the community. Mr. Quezada remains free on bond while he is defends himself in immigration court.

The ACLU’s lawsuit, filed in April 2010, originally named only Sheriff Mink as a defendant. In response, Mink pointed the finger at ICE, arguing that he held Mr. Quezada at the request of the federal government. ACLU lawyers then brought the United States into the lawsuit by filing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The settlement announced today resolves only that portion of the lawsuit.

“While the United States has agreed to a settlement, we continue to press the case against Sheriff Mink and the Jefferson County Jail,” said Dan Williams, of Faegre & Benson, who is litigating the case as an ACLU Cooperating Attorney. “Our position, and the position of the United States in this case, is that Sheriff Mink was obligated to release Mr. Quezada no later than the date when the 48-hour detainer expired. Sheriff Mink cannot escape responsibility for imprisoning our client for 47 days without legal authority.”

The Quezada suit is one of a growing number of cases against local, state, and federal agencies involving immigration detainers. “Immigration detainer procedures disregard fundamental principles and requirements that protect everyone – citizens and noncitizens alike – from being jailed without sufficient justification,” said Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, who is co-counseling the case. “This settlement is an important step towards forcing ICE to re-examine its detainer practices and is a reminder to state and local police to approach ICE programs like Secure Communities, which rely on detainers, with the utmost caution.”

More on this case