Three roommates who grew medical marijuana are suing two law enforcement agencies after their rural Conifer home was raided “military-style” with armored vehicles, machine guns and flash grenades.

A year after the raid, none of the three has been charged with a crime, and they have received minimal response from Denver police and Jefferson County sheriff’s officials about why they confiscated $70,000, 28 firearms and a pickup, their attorney said.

“We have heard pretty much silence from the authorities on our requests for further information,” said Rob Corry, an attorney with The Cannabis Law Firm. “Our clients are innocent of any criminal wrongdoing whatsoever. This is a significant amount of property and they’d like to get it back.”

Denver police spokeswoman Christine Downs said the criminal investigation is ongoing and that she could not comment on the lawsuit. Jefferson County sheriff’s officials did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Heavily armed SWAT officers knocked in doors and threw flash grenades during the Jan. 23, 2015, raid, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday. Officers “assaulted” dogs at the “peaceful mountain home” and destroyed more than 350 marijuana plants.

Derek Smith and Shannon Riley, who are engaged, and their roommate Eric Hepper grew medical marijuana and sold it to Vietnam War veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as well as cancer patients, their lawsuit says.

The Colorado constitution allows residents to grow medical marijuana for more than five patients when there is not a dispensary within a reasonable distance from their homes, according to the lawsuit. It also allows residents to grow as many plants as their patients’ doctors recommend.

In a search warrant affidavit, Denver police said they were working with a confidential informant before the raid.

“This is rural Colorado,” Corry said. “There is no law against cash and there is definitely no law against guns.”

Denver’s largest police union is filing a lawsuit against the city for its new body camera policy, saying that it was implemented without input from members of the force. The Denver Police Protective Association also said they support the program, but just didn’t like the process that led to its implementation.

The announcement came on Nov. 4, with the union filing the suit against the City of Denver on behalf of its roughly 1,300 members. They are seeking to stop the implementation of the full program, scheduled to begin after the beginning of the year, or at least fix what they deem as its flaws. There is a pilot program currently underway, but the department is saying they will continue as planned unless the courts tell them otherwise.

“There’s lawsuits all the time,” said Deputy Chief Matt Murray. “The courts have their job, and we will respect that process. And we also have things we have to do, and certainly we will react appropriately if the courts tell us to stop.”

The camera program comes in the wake of several high profile police abuse cases around the nation and the need to observe incidents, both for the protection of citizens and police. After all, if there is video evidence, the truth is much easier to obtain. However, video evidence is not a silver bullet by any stretch, as several recent cases have shown, because people will still have different interpretations of the events in question. Additionally, some civil rights advocates fear unintended consequences, such as the possibility ofillegally obtaining evidence.

The union alluded to the latter in their statement, citing broader privacy concerns for citizens in their filing. They also expressed concerns about officer safety and security, as well as possible mistrust among officers thanks to their lack of input.

Overall, the implementation of body cameras will likely be a good thing. It will have a few kinks to iron out at first, to be sure, but it’s hard to argue that having a second set of eyes on a possible altercation will do anything but aid the good cops while weeding out the bad ones.

By Bob Knudsen from The Examiner

Cities trying to limit panhandling in downtowns and tourist areas are facing a new legal hurdle because of a recent Supreme Court ruling that seemingly has nothing to do with asking for money.

Federal judges in at least three states have cited a June ruling by the high court on the size of church signs as a reason for overturning anti-panhandling laws or sending cases disputing those laws back to lower courts for review. One of those cases — in the western Colorado city of Grand Junction — has spurred Colorado communities including Denver and Boulder to suspend or change their laws restricting where and when people can panhandle.

The reason is something called content discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the town of Gilbert, Arizona, did not have the right to limit the size of signs put up to direct worshippers to services at a small church because the town didn’t set the same limits for real estate or political signs. The same issue has been raised in lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups challenging anti-panhandling laws.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello ruled on Sept. 30 that it was unconstitutional for Grand Junction to bar people from asking for money after dark and near bus stops and restaurant patios because they singled out a kind of speech — asking for money — for special treatment without a compelling reason.

Arguello had concluded earlier in the case brought by the state ACLU that the law was discriminatory but said the Supreme Court church signs ruling made it clear that laws that limit speech on broad topics, not just particular viewpoints, also amount to content discrimination. She let stand parts of the law that prohibit panhandlers from threatening people.

After the Grand Junction ruling, Boulder quickly got rid of panhandling restrictions along its pedestrian mall, Longmont suspended its enforcement of panhandling laws and the Denver City Council is considering removing its restrictions on when and where panhandlers can solicit money but plans to keeping its ban on threatening behavior. Colorado Springs also suspended portions of its law at the urging of the ACLU before the Grand Junction ruling.

Appeals courts also have sent challenges to anti-panhandling laws in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Springfield, Illinois, back to lower courts to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Decisions on both are still pending.

The debate over panhandling laws comes at a time when more cities have sought to restrict where people can ask for money. The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty says 76 percent of cities banned panhandling in some locations in 2014, a 20 percent increase since 2011. Many cities say the laws are meant not to discourage giving to people in need but to protect residents and help keep their communities safe.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado, thinks most panhandling laws nationally have been written so broadly that many of them also will have to be changed because of the ruling. His lawyers plan to tell cities in Colorado about the changes they think are needed.

“The government can’t pass a law to ban all speech that’s annoying or irritating,” he said.

Some constitutional experts think the sign ruling also could have implications beyond panhandling including government regulation of advertising, securities and communications.

While some see that as a good thing for free speech, others, like Yale Law School Dean Robert Post, see potential problems. He said the ruling was written so broadly that it applies to commercial speech and could be used, for example, to try to block the Federal Trade Commission’s sanctions against misleading advertisements.

In Worcester, city officials plan to fight to keep limits banning panhandling near bus stops and ATMs as well as standing in medians for any reasons.

“We see it (panhandling restrictions) as one important piece of the puzzle of dealing with the opioid crisis in the country,” city solicitor David Moore said.

Springfield also doesn’t plan to give up on its restrictions that bar going up to people and directly asking for money in the city’s historic downtown, where tourists flock to see Abraham Lincoln’s house. Panhandlers are still allowed to hold signs soliciting donations, city corporation counsel Jim Zerkle said. The city has filed arguments in favor of keeping the law.

In Denver, it’s not clear how much of a difference the proposed changes will make on the street. The city says it’s averaged about 300 panhandling citations a year since its law took effect in 2000 and roughly two-thirds of those violations involved aggressive behavior, rather than violating the time and place limits it’s considering scrapping.

On a recent day, William Jones, 69, was one of several panhandlers set up along the city’s 16th Street Pedestrian Mall not far from one of the parking meters the city installed to raise money for the homeless and discourage panhandling.

Jones, a Navy veteran who has worked breaking horses, as a restaurant cook and in construction, said he does not care for the aggressive style. He sat on his walker with a sign, saying good morning people and waved back at a passing bus driver and an outreach worker from a homeless shelter.

“I don’t make a lot of money, but I make a lot of friends,” he said.

Associated Press

The Denver City Council approved a $860,000 settlement Monday in a lawsuit filed by a disabled veteran who was beaten by a police officer frequently accused of excessive force.

James D. Moore had to be resuscitated after the 2008 incident, which stemmed from a noise complaint at apartments in the 2600 block of Blake Street.

“James Moore was beaten almost to death,” his attorney, David Lane, said. “(Officer) Shawn Miller is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the Denver Police Department.”

According to court records, the settlement was reached during a hearing before Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty last Wednesday. The tentative agreement must be approved by the City Council. The 2010 lawsuit named Miller, Officer John Robledo and the city as defendants.

The lawsuit named Denver Police Officers Shawn Miller, who had the history of complaints but had not faced discipline, and John Robledo. The encounter escalated to tackling Moore, hogtying him and striking him in the head.

Moore was arrested on assault charges. The district attorney’s office later dismissed the case.

The settlement was reached tentatively in January . In a 12-0 block vote, the council signed off on the city’s payment of $775,000 to Moore and $85,000 to the firm of attorney David Lane.

After Moore was resuscitated, the officers charged Moore with two felony assault counts. The Denver district attorney’s office later dismissed the charges.

Internal affairs officers have conducted 39 investigations against Miller, including 15 excessive-force complaints, Lane said.

“They won’t fire Shawn Miller, who is one of the most violent officers in Denver,” Lane said.

Murray said that since Miller joined the force in 2005, there have been 36 citizen complaints against him plus two complaints that were initiated internally and one that was “akin to him running through a red-light camera.”

Murray said there has been a third-party review of each of Miller’s cases through the Independent Monitor’s Office. He said only six of the cases resulted in discipline but none of the six were inappropriate-force cases.

After six years of legal appeals, the Civil Service Commission reversed itself Friday and agreed to fire Denver police officer Ricky Nixon for brutalizing several women outside the Denver Diner — and then lying about it.

Ultimately, the five-member commission ruled that surveillance camera video of the 2009 diner disturbance told the truth — and Nixon did not. [You can play the raw surveillance video by clicking above]

The video captured a chaotic scene on the night of July 12, 2009 as Nixon, who was providing off-duty security in uniform at the diner and on-duty officer Kevin Devine, manhandled several women dressed in miniskirts and high heels during a disturbance.

A federal lawsuit filed by four women said the officers punched, shoved, dragged, pepper-sprayed and threw the women to the ground outside the diner. The City Council agreed to pay the women a $360,000 settlement.

The video shows Devine, who had a cigar in his mouth, push a baton with both hands at a petite woman in an orange miniskirt. The woman holds up her hands as if to gesture for him to stop. Devine grabs her arm and pulls the woman to her knees.

The video also shows Nixon step up and pepper spray the kneeling woman in the face as Devine holds her left arm behind her. Then Nixon aims the pepper spray at someone in the diner doorway.

Then-Manager of Safety Charles Garcia fired Nixon and Devine for using excessive force and then lying about their misconduct.

Nixon appealed his termination to a panel of independent hearing officers, employed by the Civil Service Commission. The panel ordered Nixon reinstated, saying it believed the officer’s inaccurate reporting on what happened that night was “clearly a function of the chaotic scene and not an attempt to intentionally deceive.”

The safety manager appealed to the full commission, which upheld the hearing panel’s reinstatement of Nixon. Commissioners believed they were legally “bound to accept” to accept the hearing panel’s “findings of evidentiary facts,” according to the decision.

The city again appealed to Denver District Court, where a judge upheld the firing of both officers. Nixon also appealed, this time to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court on a legal technicality.

However, the appeals court also ruled that the commission should not have deferred to the hearing panel’s decision on whether or not the officers had lied.

The appeals court said the commissioner should decide on the “ultimate issue of whether the discrepancies in the officers’ statements were innocent or intentional,” the commissioner wrote in its Friday ruling.

In that decision, the commissioners finally and flatly said when they compared the surveillance video against what Nixon said happened, “there is no dispute that certain statements of the events offered by Officer Nixon were objectively false.”

The commission found:

–Nixon wrote in his police report that “he sprayed people with pepper spray because they were part of a crowd which was advancing on him and he feared he would be attacked by the crowd.” Yet the video “revealed there was no advancing crowd and that the few people who were near Officer Nixon were actually retreating from him. Officer Nixon approached them and engaged them by spraying them with his pepper spray.”

–Nixon reported that Officer Devine instructed him to arrest a woman, but she walked away from him. “The video, however, showed that this never happened.” Officer Devine denied telling Nixon to arrest the woman.

“While the video demonstrates that Officer Nixon employed unreasonable and excessive force on Denver Diner patrons, several significant uses of inappropriate force is conspicuously absent from Officer Nixon’s use of force report, the commission decision states.

“For example, the video shows a [woman], suffering from the effects of Nixon’s pepper spray, walking towards a police car, at which time Officer Nixon can be seen grabbing her by the throat and throwing her to the ground,” the ruling states.

When a friend of the of the woman objects to Nixon how treated her, “Officer Nixon offered up more of the same, grabbing the complaining patron by the throat and throwing her to the ground as well,” the ruling stated. The video also shows Nixon shoving a handcuffed woman “hard to the ground.”

During the police internal affairs investigation, Nixon denied grabbing and throwing anyone to the ground. “The video proved this denial to be false,” the ruling states.

“Officer Nixon also falsely reported that he had been attacked by one of these patrons when, in fact, she did not attack him and the video revealed that he was the attacker,” the ruling states.

“[Nixon’s] false statements were not minor or trivial. They were glaring. The chasm between the reality as reflected on the video, and the ‘reality’ as reported by Officer Nixon is too great to allow us to believe that his inaccurate reporting was the result of mistaken recollection, a ‘chaotic scene’ or any other ostensibly innocent excuse,” the commission wrote.

In deciding that Nixon will never get his Denver police job back, the commission wrote he committed “acts of gross misconduct” along with “numerous materially deceptive acts” to cover up his actions.

Officer Devine initially appealed his firing, but later resigned from the department.

The Denver Diner clash was not the first time Nixon was accused of police brutality.

Six months before the diner incident, Nixon and two other officers were accused of beating an African-American college student until he was unconscious following a traffic stop.

The federal lawsuit filed by the student, Alexander Landau, accused Nixon and the other officers of stopping the then-19-year-old student after midnight on Jan. 15, 2009, for making an illegal turn, then calling him the N-word and beating his face and head with their fists, a radio and a flashlight until he was unconscious.

The lawsuit contained photographs of Landau at the hospital with a blood-covered face and a swollen eye, wearing a neck brace. Landau suffered brain injuries.

The City Council paid Landau a $795,000 lawsuit settlement in 2011.

In total, Nixon was involved in two brutality cases that cost Denver taxpayers $1.15 million.

DENVER — A man has been charged with seven counts of jury tampering on Monday after prosecutors say he attempted to influence jurors by passing out literature about jury nullification.

Mark Iannicelli, 56, appeared outside Denver’s Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse with a small booth and a sign that said “Juror Info,” providing flyers to jury pool members, according to the District Attorney’s office.

Iannicelli did not appear to have personal interest in the trial at which he was handing out the fliers.

Jury nullification is the right jurors have in a trial to acquit a defendant, despite the conclusion by members of the jury that the defendant is “guilty” of the charges. It has historically been used as a safeguard against unjust laws, such as the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.

According to a report by Eric Verlo at Not My Tribe, Iannicelli is a soft-spoken Occupy Denver protester who was simply attempting to inform jurors of their rights. Verlo describes jury nullification as “an unpopular legal concept with a judicial system meant to crank out fines and jail sentences,”— a right which the US Supreme Court affirmed in 1969 with U.S. v Moylan.

“Iannicelli has been released from custody on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond,” the office said in a Thursday news release. He is due back in court on August 11.

As many as 100 people marched through the streets of Denver on Tuesday to protest the death of a mentally ill Native American man who was shot multiple times by police late Sunday.

A Denver police officer, whose name has not been released, shot Paul Castaway, 35, four times in the torso after officers said Castaway had gotten “dangerously close” with a knife, The Denver Post reported.

Castaway’s mother, Lynn Eagle Feather, who is Sicangu Lakota, told ICTMN that she had called the police on Sunday because her son, who suffered from schizophrenia, was experiencing an episode that evening, and that she sought help getting him back under control. Eagle Feather said she told the 9-1-1 operator that her son was mentally ill.

According to police, Castaway had charged at them with a long knife, but security video at nearby Capital City Mobile Home Park tells a different story.

Lynn Eagle Feather, center, weeps over the loss of her son, 35-year-old Paul Castaway, who was shot and killed by police on Sunday. A rally of as many as 100 people gathered outside Denver Police headquarters on Tuesday to protest his death. Photo courtesy Tessa McLean.

Eagle Feather said she was able to watch the video, which shows her son holding the knife to his neck when police opened fire. A Denver Fox News affiliate KDVR reporter also viewed the video and confirmed that Castaway did not charge police with the knife while aiming it at them.

Eagle Feather said she was on her porch across the street when she heard gun shots. “It was rapid fire – boom, boom, boom, boom. I didn’t hear no warning,” she said. Eagle Feather told KDVR that she regrets calling the police for help.

Tuesday’s march was preceded by a rally outside the Denver Police Department headquarters where members of the American Indian Movement Colorado chapter and supporters shouted, “Justice for Paul!” Supporters arrived wearing T-shirts reading, “What’s wrong with you guys?” – which, according to witnesses, were Castaway’s last dying words.

A man wears a T-shirt with what witnesses said were Paul Castaway’s last dying words: “What’s wrong with you guys?”

“There was no need to shoot my son four times at close range like that,” Eagle Feather said. She said she’s “very hopeful” that there will be justice for her son “because this isn’t right.”

“I want justice because my son didn’t need to be murdered. He had the knife to his own neck. I want justice for my son. I want those cops to be reprimanded. These Denver cops love to kill Natives. They love to kill people of color here,” Eagle Feather said.

A study released last August by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice reported that Native Americans are more likely to be killed by police than any other racial group.

Police also alleged that Castaway had stabbed his mother in the neck. Eagle Feather adamantly disputes this claim.

Castaway leaves behind a 3-year-old son who was asking for his father on Sunday, Eagle Feather said.

“He was a good person. He had a big heart. He had a lot of friends. He’s going to be missed dearly by his family and his son. That’s his only son,” Eagle Feather said, holding back tears.

There was a large police presence in Denver on Tuesday night as protesters rallied and marched against police brutality. Paul Castaway, a 35-year-old Native American man, was shot and killed by police on Sunday. Photo courtesy Tessa McLean.

The officer who shot and killed Castaway was placed on administrative leave per department protocol.

Reporter Noelle Phillips of The Denver Post reported that two people were arrested during Tuesday night’s march – one for disobeying a lawful order and the other for interference in a roadway.

Published by Simon Moya-Smith on indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com

This story featured on CBS4 in Denver.

DENVER – CBS4 has learned that an internal investigation is underway into the interim head of the Denver Sheriff Department, Elias Diggins, and the captain in charge of the Denver Sheriff’s Internal Affairs Bureau after an internal affairs investigator blew the whistle, saying he was ordered to destroy a videotape that showed an inmate being humiliated and degraded.

“This is the definition of corruption,” said Brent Miller, who believes the sheriffs department fired him earlier this month for refusing to destroy the tape. Miller worked for the Adams County Sheriff’s Office for nearly 26 years before retiring. He then agreed to go to work for the Denver Sheriff Department as a civilian internal affairs investigator, brought on to help clear up a backlog of internal affairs cases.

“It was a huge challenge. I loved it and looked forward to going to work every day,” said Miller.

Miller said he was assigned to investigate several complaints filed by jail inmate Christopher Colbruno. Earlier this month, he was assigned yet another case involving Colbruno. Sheriff’s deputies were transporting Colbruno to Denver Health Medical Center for medical attention, but at some point Colbruno defecated on himself and his jail clothing. Before entering the hospital, deputies removed Colbruno’s clothing and walked him through hospital hallways wearing only handcuffs, but no clothing.

Personnel at Denver Health Medical Center felt the inmate had been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment by being forced to walk nude through the hospital hallways so they filed a complaint with the Denver Sheriff Department. The complaint was assigned to Miller. On May 11, Miller and a second investigator traveled to Denver Health Medical Center to obtain a copy of hospital videotape showing Colbruno in the hospital.

When he returned to his office with the tape, Miller said he was approached by Captain Paul Ortega, who leads the Sheriff Department’s internal affairs bureau.

“He asked me if I had uploaded this video yet and I told him I had not and told me,’good, don’t do that because they’re making that go away, it’s not going to be a case anymore.'”

CBS4 asked Miller a second time to recount what he was told by Capt. Ortega, “He told me don’t upload it they’re making it go away. Who is they? He said the sheriff then told me to get rid of the video. Do not upload it get rid of the video and I immediately told him that’s not ethical to get rid of evidence in a case.”

Miller said Captain Ortega agreed with him but said, “That’s the way it is.”

Miller said he refused to destroy the tape and instead gave it to another investigator for safekeeping.

The next day, May 12, Miller was told to report to Ortega’s office.

“I was told I was being terminated by the Denver Sheriff Department because I was too opinionated and they wanted to go in a different direction,” said Miller.

The termination order obtained by CBS4 was signed by Sheriff Elias Diggins, who Ortega said had told him to have the tape destroyed.

Contacted by CBS4, Diggins declined to discuss the CBS4 report, “I cannot talk about any internal investigation.”
Captain Ortega did not respond to multiple inquiries from CBS4.

“I believe I was fired because I stood up to what I perceived to be unethical behavior and corruption by the Denver Sheriff’s Department and the Manager of Safety’s Office,” said Miller. “I expressed those opinions that what they were doing was unethical, improper and corrupt and I didn’t want to be a part of it. I cannot be part of losing evidence or getting rid of evidence or letting those collusions of corruption go on within the city. I don’t want to be a part of that.”

After CBS4 began making inquiries, Stephanie O’Malley, Denver Executive Director of Safety released this statement: “I have directed the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Denver Police Department to investigate allegations of misconduct by command officers in the Denver Sheriff Department,” wrote O’Malley. “This investigation was initiated immediately after I learned of the allegations and their nature.”

She declined to address specifics of the CBS4 Investigation but wrote that, “I am able to verify that Senior Investigator Miller did not pass his employment probation with the City of Denver due to performance issues unrelated to the allegations referenced above.”

Miller disputes that assessment saying he was always told his work was solid and there were no issues.
Miller has now hired an attorney who plans to file a federal lawsuit against the Denver Sheriff Department saying Miller was fired as retaliation for exercising his first amendment rights.

“We do believe there is evidence to corroborate what happened here,” said attorney Donald Sisson. “We think there is ample evidence that will prove Brent Miller’s case.”

Sisson said in his view, it’s no coincidence that Miller refused to destroy a videotape then was told the next day that he was being fired.

“I want the people to really know what’s going on,” Miller told CBS4. “I just want things to be honest and fair and that’s the way Denver needs to do business.”

The provocative revelations from Miller come a week after an independent consultant released an extensive report recommending sweeping changes at the Denver Sheriff Department.

This story originally reported by Brian Maass for CBS4 Denver.

On April 29, 2015 a peaceful protest organized by Denver activists was attacked for no apparent reason by heavily armed Denver PD cops dressed in military gear and using heavy-handed tactics.

We don’t know too much about who recorded this video and the identities of the people involved but the militarized tactics are on display.

Denver’s Baltimore Uprising Solidarity March Attacked by Police from Unicorn Riot on Vimeo.