HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-cv-1343 - Elias v. City of Fort Collins, et al. - 001 - Notice Of RemovalIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-1343
Harris Elias,
Plaintiff.
v.
City of Fort Collins;
Jason Haferman;
Sergeant Allen Heaton; and
Corporal Redacted.
Defendants.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants City of Fort Collins and Sergeant Allen Heaton, by and through their
undersigned counsel, Hall & Evans, LLC, hereby submits the following Notice of Removal
of the above-captioned action from Larimer County District Court, State of Colorado to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1441, and 1446, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c), stating as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Harris Elias (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit on May 3, 2023, against
the Defendants, in the Larimer County District Court, State of Colorado, captioned Harris
Elias v. City of Fort Collins, Jason Haferman, Sergeant Allen Heaton, and Corporal
Redacted, Civil Action No. 2023CV30350, which is now pending in that court (the “State
Action”). See Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Jury Demand.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 5
2
2. Plaintiff alleges Jason Haferman wrongfully arrested him for a DUI, on
December 3, 2021. Ex. ¶ ¶ 57-159. Plaintiff further alleges Sergeant Heaton and the City
of Fort Collins failed to supervise and train Jason Haferman. Id. at ¶¶ 236-241 and 247-
255, respectively.
3. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following claims: against Defendant
Haferman: violation of C.R.S. § 13-21-131 – Arrest without Probable Cause. Id. at ¶¶ 217-
228;violation of C.R.S. § 13-21-131 – Violation of Due Process Malicious Prosecution. Id.
at ¶¶ 256-264;violation of 42.U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution. Id. at ¶¶ 265-270;
against all Defendants: violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Unlawful Arrest without Probable
Cause – Individual, Failure-to- Supervise/Train, Unconstitutional Pattern/Practice under
Monell, Violation of Fourth Amendment Due Process against all Defendants Id. at ¶¶ 229-
255.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES
4. All procedural requirements related to the removal of this action have been
satisfied.
5. Defendants City of Fort Collins and Sergeant Allen Heaton waived service
on May 12, 2023. See Exhibit D, Acceptance of Service.
6. This Notice of Removal is filed within thirty (30) days of service of the
Plaintiff’s Complaint and Summons on Defendant and is timely under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441
and 1446(b).
7. A copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the State Action and
served upon Plaintiff’s counsel.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 5
3
8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and D.C.Colo.LCiv.R. 81.1(b), copies of
the following process, pleadings, and orders that were served upon Defendants or filed
in the State Action are attached as follows:
Exhibit A Complaint
Exhibit B Civil Cover Sheet
Exhibit C Notice Judicial Civil Case Management
Exhibit D Affidavit of Service (Fort Collins & Sergeant Allen Heaton)
9. Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 81.1, Defendants state that no hearings are
pending, nor has any trial been set in the State Action.
10. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(c), Defendants will present their defenses by
pleading at the time prescribed herein, and specifically reserves their rights to assert all
defenses, including those defenses under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).
11. Defendants have complied with all of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446
and D.C.Colo.LCivR. 81.1.
12. The remaining Defendants – Jason Haferman and Corporal Redacted –
have not been served with Plaintiff’s Complaint. As a result, their consent to this removal
is not yet required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Tate v. SNH CO Tenant LLC, 22-cv-
00827-MEH, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126042 at *5-6 (D. Colo. July 15, 2022).
III. FEDERAL QUESTION
13. This case is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1)(A) because
Plaintiff’s Complaint attempts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 5
4
WHEREFORE, Defendants City of Fort Collins and Sergeant Allen Heaton,
respectfully requests that the action now pending in the Larimer County District Court,
Case No. 2023CV30350, be removed therefrom to this Court and that all further
proceedings be heard in this Court.
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of May 2023.
s/ Mark S. Ratner
Mark S. Ratner, Esq.
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202
303-628-3300 /Fax: 303-628-3368
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 5
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)
I hereby certify that on the 26th day of May 2023, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing NOTICE OF REMOVAL was filed with the Court via CM/ECF and served on
the below-listed party by email:
Sarah Schielke, Esq.
sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com
s/ Sarah Stefanick
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 5
1
LARIMER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF COLORADO
201 LaPorte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
HARRIS ELIAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
JASON HAFERMAN,
SERGEANT ALLEN HEATON, and
CORPORAL REDACTED,
Defendants.
Case Number:
2023CV
Division:
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Sarah Schielke, #42077 P: (970) 493-1980
The Life & Liberty Law Office F: (970) 797-4008
1209 Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Harris Elias, by and through the undersigned counsel, with
this Complaint and Jury Demand and in support of the same, respectfully submits as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to § 13-21-131, C.R.S. and 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and 1988 for various forms of relief, to include compensatory damages and
attorney’s fees, stemming from Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and
Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to § 13-21-131, C.R.S., § 13-1-
124(1)(b), C.R.S., because the acts giving rise to the claims were committed in the State
of Colorado, and pursuant to state court supplemental jurisdiction over the federal claims
arising out of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c)(5), venue is proper in this Court, which Plaintiff designates as
the place of trial for this action.
DATE FILED: May 3, 2023 2:08 PM
FILING ID: F5D40DDCA07F7
CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30350
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of
51
2
4. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees is conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1988
and § 13-21-131(3).
5. All of the event described herein occurred in the Town of Fort Collins and the State of
Colorado.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Harris Elias is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint has been, a resident of
the State of Colorado. He currently resides in Fort Collins, Colorado.
7. Defendant (former) Fort Collins Police Officer Jason Haferman (“Officer Haferman”) was
at all times relevant to this complaint duly appointed and sworn as a police officer working
for Fort Collins Police Services. Upon information and belief, Defendant Haferman has
resigned from FCPS but has retained his P.O.S.T. certification in Colorado and continues
to work in law enforcement. Haferman is a named Defendant in his individual capacity.
8. Defendant City of Fort Collins is a governmental entity and municipality incorporated
under the laws of the State of Colorado for purposes of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the Fort Collins Police Services is a department of City of Fort Collins. Defendant City
of Fort Collins enforces local and state law through its law enforcement agency, the Fort
Collins Police Department (“FCPS”).
9. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Fort Collins employed and was
responsible for the oversight, supervision, discipline and training of FCPS personnel,
including Officer Haferman, Sergeant Heaton, and Corporal Redacted.
10. Defendant City of Fort Collins was also, at all times relevant to this Complaint, the body
responsible for FCPS’s official policies and practices as well as FCPS’s unofficial customs
and practices with respect to DUI arrests and probable cause.
11. Defendant Sergeant Allen Heaton was responsible for supervising Officer Haferman over
the period that he made the repeated wrongful DUI arrests at issue in this Complaint,
personally participated in or otherwise observed several of the wrongful DUI arrests
preceding Plaintiff’s arrest, and was also personally involved in Plaintiff’s Mr. Elias’s
wrongful DUI arrest by arriving on scene to personally approve of and condone the
ongoing constitutional violations and misconduct. For his personal involvement,
Defendant Heaton is sued in his individual capacity.
12. Defendant , whose true name is currently unknown, is a Corporal
at FCPS who at all times relevant to this complaint was duly appointed and sworn as a
police officer working for Fort Collins Police Services. FCPS has claimed in documents
such as the 68-page internal investigation report regarding Officer Haferman that this
Corporal was responsible for supervising Officer Haferman during the period of
Haferman’s repeated wrongful DUI arrests. It is unclear why FCPS has redacted
Haferman’s supervising Corporal’s name from publicly released documents regarding
Officer Haferman. Upon information and belief, Corporal Redacted’s name will be easily
identified in the discovery process and so this Corporal will simply be referred to as
“Corporal Redacted” until that time. Corporal Redacted is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of
51
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
13. Officer Haferman began working at FCPS in 2017 as a patrol officer.
14. Even as a normal patrol officer, Officer Haferman immediately established himself as a
prolific arrester for DUI offenses.1 In fact, he accumulated so many DUI arrests in his first
two years working at FCPS as a regular patrol officer that in 2020, FCPS decided to
promote him to their “DUI Officer,” which meant his primary daily objective every time he
worked was to ignore all other regular calls for service and instead spend his shift seeking
out and charging as many drivers as possible with DUIs.
15. FCPS, like most other Colorado law enforcement agencies, had great incentive to create
positions like “DUI officers” and fill those roles with individuals like Haferman because
grant funding at both the state and federal levels was allotted to agencies through
reasoning that takes into account the quantity of DUI arrests that agency had made in
preceding years. The more DUI arrests an agency made each year, the more the agency
would profess DUI drivers to be a huge “problem” in their jurisdiction, and then the more
grant funding they would receive to do DUI enforcement next year. The additional funding
provided by these grants would typically pay for all of the hours worked by the agency’s
“DUI officer” (often at an elevated overtime hourly rate) and would also go to fund more
equipment and officers for the agency itself, in effect, enabling the department to increase
its annual budget on its own. Various agencies like MADD (Mothers Against Drunk
Driving) would also give awards and extensive positive publicity to agencies that had
officers making abundant DUI arrests, which was of course quite also desirable to both
agency and officer for enhancing their respective images in the eyes of the public.
16. Due to the foregoing, FCPS was eager to put its most prolific DUI charging officer in the
role of “DUI Officer” whenever possible. Haferman applied for this position and because
he had already shown such promise in making so many DUI arrests in his normal patrol
shift, in May of 2020, FCPS gave him the job.
17. At the same time, the coronavirus pandemic had just struck. Bars and restaurants all
closed and other recreational events like concerts and festivals were all cancelled. This
brought DUI enforcement (and much of the public’s driving generally) to a near standstill
for several months, as there were concerns about the safety of breath testing or housing
DUI offenders in jails due to the virus’s known propensity for spreading in respiratory
droplets in poorly ventilated spaces.
18. A vaccine was developed and began to be distributed to the public at the end of 2020.
Much of the economy began to reopen and people began resumption of more normal
commuting and public gatherings. Law enforcement agencies like FCPS directed their
officers to return to normal practices for DUI enforcement.
19. Officer Haferman was eager to show his superiors at FCPS that he was going to be the
most prolific DUI officer they had ever had since the position was created. Upon
1 Colorado has several DUI-type offenses (DUI, DWAI, DUI per se, and DUI-Drugs). The impact
and import of a citizen being charged with any of those DUI-type offenses is nearly identical and
so for ease of reference the term “DUIs” as used herein is meant to encompass all such offenses
unless otherwise specified.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of
51
4
information and belief, only some of which is detailed herein, he began regularly stopping
cars without reasonable suspicion and making arrests without probable cause very early
on in his stint as FCPS’s DUI officer.
20. On one such occasion, on November 27, 2020, Officer Haferman stopped and harassed
the occupants of a vehicle merely because he believed the driver had had prior law
enforcement contacts. He detained the driver and its occupants with no legal basis for an
extended period of time, forcing them unlawfully to wait for a K9 unit to arrive to search
their vehicle. The driver, Jacob Larkin, later filed a motion to suppress the stop due to this
illegal detention. At the suppression hearing, Officer Haferman admitted he was not a
trained DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) but he claimed to be able to diagnose Mr. Larkin
as “being under the influence of narcotics” because he looked tired. The Larimer County
District Court, in finding that Haferman’s detention of Mr. Larkin was in fact unlawful and
a violation of the Fourth Amendment, noted that “not even a DRE, 12-step protocol, based
on mere observations of the subject in a few minutes, in the dark, while engaging in a
conversation with another individual [as Haferman testified] could reach such a
conclusion.” The Court also stated in its written ruling that in Mr. Larkin’s case “there are
multiple obvious and logical reasons that were not explored [by Haferman] in any manner,”
all of which “negate[d] any reasonable assumption that a crime has or is about to occur.”
21. The Judge also ruled in the Larkin case that Haferman was unreasonable in characterizing
so many various aspects of very normal human behavior like “being on edge about being
contacted by police” as grounds to continue seizing the person in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. Most importantly, the Court, after hearing Haferman’s testimony, openly
questioned the veracity of Haferman’s testimony. As the Court wrote: “Officer Haferman
testified he was certain it was multiple [prior law enforcement] contacts [in defendant’s
history]; however, the Court questions the accuracy of such when the rest of [Haferman’s]
testimony regarding this point was incredibly non-specific and couldn’t distinguish the
research regarding Mr. Larkin versus [the passenger].” The Court held that Haferman’s
continued detention of Mr. Larkin was thus “unquestionably unconstitutional” and all the
evidence in the case was suppressed.
22. Thus by early 2021,2 at basically the inception of his tenure as “DUI Officer,” FCPS had
notice that Haferman was engaging in wrongful searches and seizures of citizens. But
FCPS did nothing.
23. Haferman received the same training as any other officer with respect to the
administration of SFSTs (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests). Yet, immediately, Haferman
began administering SFSTs to subjects in a manner that was entirely inconsistent with his
training and designed to create a false impression of the subject’s intoxication when
described by him in his reports.
2 Upon information and belief, Haferman had several wrongful DUI arrests prior to 2021 however
Fort Collins has endeavored not to answer questions or provide in any timely fashion records in
response to requests from defense counsel or the media related to those arrests. The various
wrongful DUI arrests set forth in this Complaint are thus based on very incomplete records and
not meant to be a comprehensive accounting of all the notice attributable to FCPS regarding
Haferman’s wrongful and unconstitutional arrest decisions.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of
51
5
24. Most critically, all of the defects in Haferman’s administrations of roadside tests were
abundantly observable on video. They included, and are not limited to:
a. Haferman regularly interpreted normal human behaviors as “cues” or “clues” of
impairment when his training instructed the opposite.
b. Haferman regularly claimed that his training supported his claims of other
innocuous human behaviors being indications of impairment when no such training
or scientifically-backed validation data existed.
c. Haferman also regularly administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystgamus (HGN) test
to people completely wrong, and would then falsely claim that what he observed
in his HGN administration on the subject supported his arrest decision.
25. Haferman also by early 2021 was regularly writing reports containing lies and
exaggerations regarding the claimed observed indications of impairment, regularly
controverted by his or his cover officers’ own videos.
26. Haferman also by early 2021 was regularly muting and deactivating his bodyworn camera
during his citizen contacts and arrests, in violation of FCPS policy and Colorado law.
27. All of the issues described in the three preceding paragraphs were observable on video.
In other words, if anyone at FCPS were supervising Haferman during this time and had
watched just one of his (or his cover officer’s) videos of his SFST administration, or
compared one of his videos to his written reports, they would have immediately identified
all of the foregoing problems. They were plain and obvious.
28. Either no one was supervising Haferman at FCPS, or, someone was, and they just did
not care to intervene.
29. Upon information and belief, at least one of the individuals personally responsible for
supervising Haferman during this period was Corporal Redacted.
30. Corporal Redacted has admitted in an IA investigation into Haferman that early on in his
period of having the duties of supervising Haferman and reviewing his work (January 2021
through May 2022), he noticed that Haferman was counting as a clue of impairment on
one of the standardized roadside tests something that was not a clue of impairment at all.
Specifically, Haferman was claiming subjects to show impairment on this maneuver if they
didn’t count to 30 during the 30-second-timed one-leg stand maneuver.
a. It is expressly included as part of the standardized field sobriety training provided
by NHTSA on how to administer roadsides the admonition that what the subject
counts to while being timed holding their leg up for 30 seconds is irrelevant.
Particularly since they are instructed to count in “one-one-thousand, two-one-
thousand” fashion which is almost always considerably slower than the rate that
seconds elapse in real time.
b. Corporal Redacted saw that Haferman was repeatedly stating subjects were failing
and/or showing impairment clues on the one-leg stand test because of this clue
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of
51
6
that he had not just made up, but which the NHTSA manual in fact told him
expressly not to consider a clue.
c. Corporal Redacted, noticing this, confronted Haferman about his repeated
misrepresentation of impairment evidence against people he had arrested in his
DUI reports. He told him it was not an impairment indicator and he needed to stop
using it as one.
d. Haferman did not respond by acknowledging this as a mistake, however. Instead,
Haferman told Corporal Redacted, his superior, that this was “an advanced
technique to indicate impairment.” Corporal Redacted asked where such
advanced training would have come from. Officer Haferman refused to say.
e. This was the first of many red flag s to Corporal Redacted and FCPS about Officer
Haferman.
f. Any reasonable supervising officer knows that police officers making DUI arrests
compile most, if not all, of their “evidence” of the driver’s impairment by having
them do roadside tests which are supposed to be standardized and done
according to training. Any reasonable supervising officer would recognize that if a
subordinate police officer was making up his own “advanced” impairment detection
clues on these tests and then making arrest decisions based on such nonsense
(and having the audacity to tell his corporal that he wasn’t violating the NHTSA
training manual, he was just doing something “advanced”), that this would create
an unacceptably high probability of that officer wrongfully arresting innocent people
and almost certainly disregarding other critical components of police work.
g. Any reasonable supervising officer in this situation, after hearing Haferman’s
completely absurd claim that the impairment clues he used in violation of his
training saying otherwise were simply “advanced” impairment clues, would have
at a minimum taken an hour or two to review Haferman’s DUI arrest videos
(particularly in any one of the many “none detected” or extremely low BAC DUI
arrest cases that Haferman had had up to that point) and see if Haferman was
doing other roadsides correctly and if he was reporting the facts accurately in his
reports.
h. Any reasonable supervising officer in this situation also would have recognized
that Haferman treating this non-clue a s an impairment clue could have contributed
to prosecutors prosecuting DUI cases they would not have otherwise prosecuted
or citizens pleading to crimes they did not commit, due to the false claims in
Haferman’s report on this maneuver. Any reasonable supervising officer in this
situation would have at least generated a supplemental report in all the cases
where Haferman listed this non-clue as evidence of impairment, correcting that
misimpression, so that those individuals affected by it could be notified and make
important decisions in their cases in light of it accordingly. Particularly since
Haferman’s inclusion of this non-clue as a clue also had considerable bearing and
impact on his credibility and reliability as a DUI investigator.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of
51
7
i. Corporal Redacted did none of these things. He just told Haferman to stop using
the non-clue as a clue and until Haferman went under investigation for multiple,
repeated wrongful DUI arrests a year later, he never even spoke to anyone of it
again.
31. On January 21, 2021, Officer Haferman made his next wrongful arrest, this time of C.B.3
Like he did in all his DUI arrest reports (see infra), he included false and exaggerated
claims of the driver having “overall slow behavior,” “droopy eyes,” and failed roadside
maneuvers. C.B. even blew into a PBT on scene (Portable Breath Test) and the result
was triple zeroes (0.000 BAC). But Haferman arrested her anyway and charged her with
DUI.
a. Review of the bodyworn camera (BWC) videos from C.B.’s arrest reveals multiple
discrepancies between what actually occurred and what Officer Haferman alleged
about her in his report.
b. Haferman listed C.B. having “droopy eyes” as an indication of impairment even
though she literally explained to him she had a medical condition (blepharoptosis)
that caused her to have droopy eyes.
c. Review of the BWC video from C.B.’s arrest reveals yet another occasion on which
Haferman muted his BWC for nearly the entirety of his contact, in violation of FCPS
policy and Colorado law. It is obvious from his video that this tampering was
deliberate, as Haferman reactivates his audio for brief a 13-minute period in the
middle of the 90+ minute video before muting it again.
d. It is obvious from the videos in C.B.’s arrest that Haferman is administering the
HGN to C.B. incorrectly and claiming in his report HGN “clues” that did not exist.
e. On March 19, 2021, C.B.’s blood test results came back negative for alcohol and
negative for all drugs of abuse.
f. On March 20, 2021, Haferman reviewed the blood test results and entered them
into C.B.’s case.
g. That same day, at least one of Haferman’s supervising officers, Defendant
Sergeant Allen Heaton, claims to have reviewed Haferman’s arrest and the
negative blood test results and approved of both.
3 To protect the privacy of individuals who have been victims of Officer Haferman’s wrongful
arrests but who have not yet chosen to come forward publicly, initials are being used in lieu of
their full names.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of
51
8
32. Thus, as of March 20, 2021, FCPS as an entity and supervising officers Sergeant Heaton
and Corporal Redacted personally, again had notice that Haferman was wrongfully
arresting innocent people. This time, not only did they do nothing to stop it; but at least
one of them expressly approved of the behavior.
33. It should also be noted that by FCPS’s own admission in response to a media inquiry
about Haferman’s DUI arrests a year later (in May 2022), they stated through their press
relations officer that they “always conduct an internal review of any DUI arrest made
by one of its officers that has chemical test results come back negative for
drugs/alcohol.”
34. Thus, according to FCPS’s own claims, multiple superior officers at FCPS would have
had to have reviewed Haferman’s wrongful DUI arrest of C.B. in March 2021, and
therefore seen: the issues with his roadside administration, discrepancies between the
video and his report, and his violation of policy and law by muting his BWC through most
of the contact, and not only done nothing to intervene, but actually approved of it.
35. Interestingly, however, despite the claims FCPS made to the press purporting to be
supervising and reviewing Haferman’s negative blood test DUI arrests during this time,
the Axon Evidence Audit Trail for Haferman’s BWC video from the C.B. arrest reveals
that no one at FCPS ever looked at Haferman’s video until more than a year later
(on May 29, 2022) when FCPS was already under fire and public scrutiny for having
permitted Haferman to make so many wrongful DUI arrests for so long without any
supervision or intervention.
36. In any event, no remedial action, discipline, or any other form of verbal counseling was
given to Haferman by FCPS supervisory personnel regarding the wrongful arrest of C.B.
And so, he carried on.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of
51
9
37. On February 18, 2021, Officer Haferman made his next wrongful DUI arrest, this time of
the disabled veteran Harley Padilla. At the time Haferman stopped Mr. Padilla, Mr. Padilla
required a wheelchair to safely walk and had to speak through a tracheotomy tube in his
throat. Mr. Padilla had just recently survived a terrible motorcycle accident. It is extremely
difficult to watch the video of Haferman’s mistreatment of Mr. Padilla. In addition to
insulting and denigrating Mr. Padilla both during the stop and throughout the arrest report
he wrote about him later, Haferman also made an extraordinary number of false claims
about Mr. Padilla in his report that were observably contradicted by his BWC video. For
example:
a. Haferman claimed that Mr. Padilla weaved once over the center line to a significant
degree. Haferman’s video revealed this to be false. A Larimer County Judge later
ruled that this claim was observably false.
b. Haferman claimed that Mr. Padilla was “slow to react” and didn’t respond to the
overhead red and blue lights “as a sober person would.” Haferman’s video
revealed this to be false. A Larimer County Judge later ruled that this claim was
observably false.
c. Haferman claimed that Mr. Padilla’s verbal responses were slurred and
nonsensical, and indicative of impairment. Haferman’s video revealed this to be
false. A Larimer County Judge later ruled that this claim was observably false. Also
- Mr. Padilla did not have a larynx and it is worth reiterating that he had to speak
through a trach tube hole in his throat. Even this reality did not make Haferman
think twice about making his absurd typical false claims in his DUI arrest report of
Mr. Padilla regarding “slurred speech” and “slow responses.”
d. Haferman claimed that Mr. Padilla was “rambling on” about “nonsensical” things
and requesting an ambulance without explaining what injury or ailment he had.
The video revealed none of this to be true. Mr. Padilla was coherent and responded
appropriately to all questions. Mr. Padilla’s request for an ambulance was made in
response to Haferman repeatedly ordering Mr. Padilla to get out of his car after Mr.
Padilla had already told him he needed a wheelchair first to do so.
e. Mr. Padilla told Haferman several times he was missing a hip and would need a
wheelchair to ambulate outside of his vehicle. Haferman can be heard on video
telling Mr. Padilla that he “don’t have a wheelchair on demand” and that Mr. Padilla
should just get out and let Haferman assist him.
f. Haferman is then heard on video trying to get the utterly disabled Mr. Padilla to
agree to participate in literal physical roadside maneuvers. Mr. Padilla,
incredulous, said “no” and then repeated that he required a wheelchair to ambulate
outside of his car. Haferman left all of this out of his arrest report of Mr. Padilla. Mr.
Padilla requested a wheelchair more than 7 times in the first 15 minutes of the
stop. Yet there is literally no reference to Mr. Padilla’s requests for a wheelchair
anywhere in Haferman’s report.
g. Haferman also claimed (like he always did in his DUI arrest reports) that Mr. Padilla
had “glassy” and “droopy” eyes. The video revealed this to be a deliberately false
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of
51
10
mischaracterization of Mr. Padilla’s existing physical deformities as instead being
claimed impairment indicators. The video shows that Mr. Padilla’s body, face, and
parts of his eyelids were covered in burn scars. Observable burn scars on one’s
eyelids would naturally cause one’s eyes to appear “glassy” or “droopy” at all times,
and thus would also make the idea of listing these permanent physical features as
instead indicators of impairment supporting a DUI arrest entirely ludicrous.
h. Haferman informed Mr. Padilla he could smell marijuana and Mr. Padilla explained
that he had a medical card for use of medical marijuana to treat pain from the
catastrophic injuries he sustained to his body in a motorcycling accident.
Haferman, knowing that anyone who uses marijuana on any regular basis will
always have some trace amount of THC in their blood, happily arrested Mr. Padilla
despite the absence of any impairment indicators.
i. Mr. Padilla requested that Haferman call an ambulance. Haferman asked him why.
Mr. Padilla said because Haferman was harassing him, ordering him to get out of
his car which was dangerous, and that he wanted to just go get a blood test now
to prove his innocence and knew he could not be safely transported to the hospital
in the back of Haferman’s patrol car. Haferman included none of this in his report
and instead wrote that Mr. Padilla kept asking for an ambulance “but was unable
to explain what injury or ailment he had.”
j. Finally, after some supervising officers showed up4 and Haferman proceeded to
insult and humiliate Mr. Padilla in front of them some more, an ambulance arrived
to transport Mr. Padilla to the hospital for a blood test. Then Haferman took Mr.
Padilla to jail. Because Mr. Padilla had several DUIs from over ten years prior, the
DUI that Haferman charged him with was a felony.
k. Mr. Padilla could not afford to post the bond set on this class 4 felony DUI. As a
result, and because he was unwilling to plead guilty to an offense he knew he had
not committed, he sat in jail awaiting trial for over a year.
l. Mr. Padilla’s blood test came back on April 21, 2021, showing trace amounts of
THC presumed to be unimpairing under Colorado law. At the time those results
came back, it also was (and remains) well known and accepted in all scientific
communities that there is no correlation between such trace amounts of THC and
impairment in any medical marijuana user.
m. Finally, on March 3, 2022, Mr. Padilla’s case was heard by a judge in a bench trial.
The state presented as expert witness a forensic toxicologist from CBI who testified
that Mr. Padilla’s blood results offered nothing to support the claim that he was
impaired:
4 If Corporal Redacted or Sergeant Heaton were in this group of officers, this constitutes even
more specific notice to them regarding Haferman’s ongoing disregard for the rights of citizens.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of
51
11
n. Larimer County District Court Judge Cure acquitted Mr. Padilla of DUI, DWAI, and
Careless Driving. In doing so, the Court further ruled that “based on the totality of
the circumstances and the evidence presented, the Court finds that Officer
Haferman lacks credibility.” The Court ruled that “his testimony was inconsistent”
and “changed course on several of the key facts.” The Court further ruled that
“[s]ome of [Haferman’s] testimony is not supported by the evidence,” while “some
of it was contrary to the evidence.” The Court also made the finding that “Officer
Haferman’s testimony exaggerated the bad driving in this case, not only with his
testimony today, but as found on the point of view [video] on February 18 of 2021,
when relaying that [information about driving] to dispatch.”
o. Even the most cursory review of the claims and descriptions of impairment
indications in Haferman’s report, when compared to his BWC video, reveals the
Larimer County District Court Judge’s findings to be true.
p. In other words, if any supervisor at all at FCPS had ever bothered to supervise
Haferman, or to otherwise even simply review Haferman’s video after Mr. Padilla’s
blood results came back on April 21, 2021 showing no evidence of impairment,
they would have seen that yet again Haferman was lying and exaggerating in his
reports about impairment indicators in order to continue his reign as the
department’s most prolific DUI officer, by repeatedly wrongfully arresting
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 11 of
51
12
observably innocent people and charging them with DUI/DWAI offenses they did
not commit.
38. Of course, no one at FCPS was supervising Haferman or reviewing his videos.
39. The reality stated in the paragraph above continued despite the fact that the DUI arrest
numbers Haferman was putting up just 6 months into his post-pandemic-lockdown term
as DUI Officer (in the November 2020 – May 2021 timeframe) were significantly higher
than any other DUI officer to precede him in the history of the department.
40. The sheer quantity of DUI arrests being made by Haferman by this point (over 100), in
addition to the negative blood test results now repeatedly coming back on those arrests,
should have alerted any reasonable supervising officer of the need to check Haferman’s
work and ensure he was not violating the constitutional rights of innocent citizens like
Plaintiff.
41. If any reasonable supervising officer had looked at any of the videos from Haferman’s DUI
arrests involving negative or near-negative blood test results at this time, they would have
seen exactly what the Larimer County District Court Judge saw in the Larkin and Padilla
cases, and which of course was also something that any lay person could have easily
seen after spending just 10 minutes comparing Haferman’s arrest reports with his BWC
videos: That is, that:
a. Officer Haferman was regularly arresting and charging with DUI individuals who
appeared quite observably unimpaired on video and that he was systematically
lying and exaggerating in his arrest reports regarding evidence of impairment for
those cases; and
b. Officer Haferman was not administering the SFSTs as trained and was claiming
all kinds of normal features of normal human behavior to constitute scientifically
validated clues of impairment; and
c. That Haferman was also regularly targeting and exploiting drivers with disabilities,
claiming that all the symptoms of their known medical conditions were instead
proof of alcohol/drug impairment.
42. But, because no one was actually supervising Haferman, and because his supervisors
were instead approving and lauding his DUI arrest numbers despite the increasing
number of blood test results coming back in his cases proving that he had in fact also
been arresting innocent people, Haferman happily continued with the unconstitutional
conduct and – in the latter half of 2021, really even picked it up a notch.
43. On May 15, 2021, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of G.C.
He again included the same false statements and exaggerations of impairment indicators
in his report for G.C. He again failed to administer the roadside tests to G.C. in the
standardized manner he was trained. He again claimed all the clues of HGN present when
they were not, and he again administered the HGN test incorrectly. He also made G.C.
go through all the roadside tests despite her being 65 years old and having several
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 12 of
51
13
medical conditions contraindicating their use. There were again multiple discrepancies
between his BWC videos and what he claimed occurred in his report.
a. Haferman arrested G.C. and she did a breath test at the police station, which
produced a result of .035% BAC, well under the limit for DUI or DWAI, and, by
Colorado law, presumed to be an unimpairing BAC.
b. Haferman charged G.C. with DWAI and Careless Driving anyway.
c. The district attorney promptly dismissed the DWAI charge. However, due to the
Careless Driving charge, the wrongfully charged DWAI was unable to be sealed
from G.C.’s record.
d. FCPS officer Jason Bogosian (possibly Corporal Redacted) claimed to have
reviewed this arrest and approved of it.
e. No remedial action, discipline, or any other form of verbal counseling was given to
Haferman by FCPS supervisory personnel regarding the wrongful arrest of G.C.
44. On June 10, 2021, Officer Haferman made his next wrongful DUI arrest, this time of R.B.
When he stopped R.B., R.B. was clearly having a mental health episode and in need of
medical attention. He told Haferman this, many times. Yet Haferman did not get R.B.
medical attention. Instead, he listed all of R.B.’s mental health behaviors as indications of
impairment, and then arrested him for DUI.
a. On August 29, 2021, Haferman received R.B.’s blood results. They were negative
for alcohol and all impairing drugs.
b. Haferman’s supervising officer Defendant Sergeant Heaton (and possibly Corporal
Redacted) again claimed to have approved of Haferman’s report and arrest.
c. The district attorney promptly dismissed the DUI charge against R.B.
d. No remedial action, discipline, or any other form of verbal counseling was given to
Haferman by FCPS supervisory personnel regarding the wrongful arrest of R.B.
45. On June 11, 2021, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of Cody
Erbacher. Mr. Erbacher admitted to having had one beer several hours earlier in the day,
however, and to Haferman, any admission to any drinking at any prior time become
sufficient grounds in his mind – despite the absence of any actual indications of
impairment – to make a DUI arrest. He again included the false statements and
exaggerations of impairment indicators in his report for Mr. Erbacher. He again failed to
administer the roadside tests in the standardized manner he was trained. He lied about
Mr. Erbacher showing clues/signs of impairment when there were none. There were again
multiple additional discrepancies between BWC videos and what Haferman claimed
occurred in his report.
a. On November 10, 2021, Haferman received Mr. Erbacher’s blood results. They
were negative for alcohol and all drugs.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 13 of
51
14
b. It appears from the reports in Mr. Erbacher’s case that Haferman now no longer
even had a supervising or approving officer pretending to review his arrests.
c. Despite FCPS claiming that all negative blood test results received by their agency
were subjected to an “internal review,” the documents in Mr. Erbacher’s case
indicate that absolutely no one at FCPS, internal or otherwise, was reviewing or
claiming to review anything in this Haferman wrongful arrest with “none detected”
results nor in any other Haferman wrongful arrest.
d. Upon receipt of the blood results, the district attorney promptly dismissed the DUI
charge against Mr. Erbacher.
e. Until Haferman’s pattern of constitutional violations was brought to the attention of
the local and national news media in April 2022, absolutely no remedial action,
discipline, or any other form of verbal counseling was ever given to Haferman by
FCPS supervisory personnel regarding the wrongful arrest of Mr. Erbacher.
46. On July 23, 2021, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of Carl
Sever. Mr. Sever was 74 years old at the time Haferman arrested him. He was driving
home from the gym. Haferman claimed to pull him over because Mr. Sever was “going 10
mph under the speed limit.” Going 10 mph under the speed limit is not unlawful.
a. Haferman falsely claimed in his report that there was an odor of alcohol coming
from Mr. Sever’s vehicle and from “his breath.” Mr. Sever had not drank alcohol in
more than 10 years. He told Haferman this.
b. Haferman again made false claims in his report (controverted by the BWC video)
that Mr. Sever had “slow speech” and nonsensical claims that his “body behavior
was slow.” It is difficult to imagine what speed of movement Haferman was
expecting out of this, or any other, 74-year-old, in order to not be declared drunk.
c. With Mr. Sever, Haferman again muted his BWC when a cover officer arrived and
kept it muted for the rest of his roadside test administration with Mr. Sever.
d. Haferman again failed to administer the roadside tests in the standardized manner
he was trained. Haferman again counted as clues of “impairment” against Mr.
Sever various features of normal human behavior that were not, by any training or
manual, actual clues of impairment.
e. Mr. Sever advised Haferman that he had a TBI from a car accident. Haferman
deliberately omitted this from his report.
f. Haferman arrested Mr. Sever for DUI and took him for a blood draw. Then he took
Mr. Sever to jail. When Mr. Sever was released the next day, he did not have his
phone, wallet, or car, and did not know the number for anyone he could call to pick
him up. As a result, he had to walk 4.5 miles home.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 14 of
51
15
g. More than 3 months later, on November 9, 2021, Mr. Sever’s blood test results
came back. They were negative for alcohol and impairing drugs. There was merely
some trace THC (1.4 ng) at a level presumed by Colorado law to be unimpairing
and a trace amount of Mr. Sever’s anti-seizure medication which he had been
prescribed for over 15 years.
h. The Larimer DA’s Office dismissed the charges against Mr. Sever.
47. On July 29, 2021, Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of Jesse
Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham is a disabled veteran and the Vice President of a veteran
nonprofit organization in Nebraska dedicated to helping veterans reintegrate into their
communities after leaving the military and fighting to prevent veteran suicide. He had
come to Colorado for the week with his wife and two daughters on family vacation. His
day had started off tragically – receiving the news that a close family friend of his had
died. Not wanting to ruin the whitewater rafting trip the family had planned together for the
rest of the day, he tried to put it out of his mind and went along. After the rafting trip, he
attempted to get money out of a nearby ATM to tip the rafting instructor. The ATM claimed
to be dispensing money but nothing came out. This left Mr. Cunningham and his family
with no choice but to wait around for nearly two hours waiting for the ATM operator to
refund the cash the machine had deducted. While waiting, he had two 3.2% alcohol (PBR)
beers. After the ATM owner arrived and fixed the mistake, he and his family went to
McDonald’s to get some food before making the drive back to where they were staying in
Estes Park. After eating, at 8:15 pm, they started their drive there. Just minutes in, at 8:18
pm, they witnessed a horrific motorcycle accident caused by a Mazda RX-7 driver pulling
out in front of 3 motorcyclists at an intersection, causing them all to crash. One of the
motorcyclists impacted the Mazda and went cartwheeling through the air and landing in
critical condition in a ditch.
a. Mr. Cunningham is a combat veteran with 32 months of combat experience and
combat lifesaving training. He immediately pulled over, had his wife call 911, and
ran to provide aid. The motorcyclist’s leg was nearly severed from the knee down
and his femur bone was sticking out of his skin by about 8”. The rider’s femur had
been “desleeved” which means that the force of the impact was so great that it had
removed all the tissue, tendons, and blood off the bone.
b. Mr. Cunningham, understanding the severity of the rider’s injuries and the need for
prompt lifesaving measures, immediately began stabilizing the rider, using the T-
shirt of a bystander to control the bleeding. As he did this, he assessed the rest of
the rider’s injuries while also triaging the other two injured motorcyclists.
c. The scene was utterly chaotic with multiple injured riders in need of help and
dozens of bystanders getting out of their cars to come and watch or ask to assist.
While he worked to stem the bleeding from the rider’s desleeved femur, Mr.
Cunningham also managed to take control of the scene, quickly giving directions
to people on where to go, who to call, and what to do to assist him.
d. When paramedics finally arrived on scene, Mr. Cunningham filled them in on the
list of all injuries he had triaged and brought them up to speed on the life- and leg-
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 15 of
51
16
saving measures he had taken so far with respect to the most injured rider so they
could take over.
e. Since Mr. Cunningham and his family were the main witnesses to this accident,
FCPS officers asked them to remain on scene and fill out witness statements
describing what they saw. They did so. The officers then asked if they would
remain on scene to answer any questions that the accident reconstruction officers
would have. They were all exhausted, both physically and mentally, Mr.
Cunningham in particular. Even still, they all said they would continue to stay there
to do whatever was needed to assist.
f. While waiting for the accident reconstruction team to arrive, Mr. Cunningham
received a phone call from a friend back home with horrible news. His friend told
him that their mutual friend that had died that morning had in fact died by suicide.
Mr. Cunningham had dedicated his life to preventing such an event and was
completely gutted by this news. It took everything that he had left in him to try and
keep it together and not break down in front of his wife and daughters.
g. And then - Officer Haferman arrived.
h. Haferman marched up to Mr. Cunningham. He informed Mr. Cunningham that
someone thought they had smelled the odor of alcohol on him earlier.
i. Mr. Cunningham is former military police. He worked for Homeland Security. He
grew up and lived surrounded by friends and family all in law enforcement. As a
result, at the foundation of his soul was nothing but complete trust and respect for
all those in law enforcement and a core belief that others in his field, like him, held
values like integrity and fairness in their work most dear.
j. For this reason, Mr. Cunningham heard this allegation of alcohol odor from
Haferman and truly thought nothing of it. Without hesitation or worry, he explained
to Haferman how he had had two light beers nearly four hours ago, so if someone
had in fact smelled it, that would be the cause.
k. Throughout this encounter, Mr. Cunningham can be seen on video appearing
completely sober, unimpaired, coherent, and normal. Ignoring this presentation
and ignoring all that Mr. Cunningham had just done to save the lives of multiple
people in a horrific accident, Haferman informed Mr. Cunningham that he needed
him to do roadside tests to prove he was safe to drive.
l. Mr. Cunningham explained he was completely exhausted from all the events of
that day, both mentally and physically, and asked if he could instead just do a
breath test to prove that he was unimpaired.
m. Haferman had a portable breath test on hand and available. But he told Mr.
Cunningham no, that the PBT result “wasn’t admissible in court,” and so instead
insisted that he complete the more physical roadside tests. Mr. Cunningham
attempted to cooperate, complaining the whole time that his shoes were filled with
water and his legs felt like Jell -O.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 16 of
51
17
n. Mr. Cunningham did not know any of this about Haferman. And so, despite his
catastrophic day filled with physical exertion, devastating emotional loss, and
extraordinary mental stress, Mr. Cunningham attempted to cooperate with
Haferman’s balancing tests, complaining the whole time that his shoes were filled
with water from rafting (you can hear them squishing on the video) and that his
legs felt like Jell-O.
o. Haferman again did not administer the tests in the standardized manner he was
trained and Haferman again included multiple lies in his report regarding Mr.
Cunningham’s performance on the tests that were obviously contradicted by his
BWC video.
p. It is obvious from the videos that Mr. Cunningham was both totally exhausted and
completely sober and unimpaired.
q. Haferman arrested Mr. Cunningham for DUI anyway. He also charged him with
two counts of Child Abuse due to having his daughters with him in the car. Mr.
Cunningham was horrified. He again begged Haferman to give him a breath test
on scene to prove his innocence. Haferman again refused him a breath test.
r. Haferman put Mr. Cunningham into handcuffs and told him he would need to
complete a chemical test. Mr. Cunningham again implored Haferman to let him do
a breath test.
s. Haferman told Mr. Cunningham he would have to take a blood test because he
had admitted earlier that he had a prescription for Adderall for his ADHD. Notable
here is the fact that Mr. Cunningham told Haferman that he was prescribed this
medication, but when asked when he had last taken it, he told Haferman that it had
been several days, and that he didn’t even have it with him because he had left it
at home in Nebraska as he didn’t need to take his ADHD medication while he was
on vacation.
t. Mr. Cunningham then spent the night in jail. He spent thousands of dollars hiring
legal counsel. His family, utterly traumatized, picked him up and they drove home
to Nebraska to prepare for the funeral of their close family friend.
u. Of course, Haferman was not done with Mr. Cunningham yet.
v. On Tuesday morning, while getting dressed for his friend’s funeral in Nebraska,
Child Protective Services showed up at Mr. Cunningham’s house to interview his
children. Haferman had called in a referral to Nebraska CPS to investigate Mr.
Cunningham for child abuse.
w. Weeks later, the injured motorcyclist who Mr. Cunningham had worked to save
and Mr. Cunningham were able to connect to each other. The motorcyclist (Max)
told Mr. Cunningham that it was only thanks to him and the measures he took on
scene that his leg was able to be saved rather than having to be amputated.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 17 of
51
18
x. Months later, on October 20, 2021, Mr. Cunningham’s blood results finally came
back. “None detected” for alcohol and all impairing drugs.
y. The Larimer DA dismissed the charges against Mr. Cunningham.
z. Despite FCPS claiming that all negative blood test results received by their agency
were subjected to an “internal review,” the documents in Mr. Cunningham’s case
indicate that absolutely no one at FCPS, internal or otherwise, was reviewing or
claiming to review this Haferman wrongful arrest.
aa. Upon information and belief, until Haferman’s pattern of constitutional violations
was brought to the attention of the public by local and national news media in April
2022, absolutely no one at FCPS ever looked at this or any other wrongful
Haferman DUI arrest involving “none detected” blood results.
48. On August 8, 2021, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of B.C.
B.C. was another disabled veteran. Haferman came into Krazy Karl’s while on duty to pick
up food he had ordered. While there, he saw B.C. drink one beer. He decided he would
wait for B.C. to leave and arrest him for DUI. Haferman went out to his car and waited.
a. B.C. wasn’t even planning to drive. He had called his mom to pick him up.
b. As soon as his mom told him she was nearby, B.C. went to move his car to a legal
parking space to be left overnight. He drove his car about 10 feet. Haferman
immediately activated his red and blue lights and ordered B.C. out of the car.
c. Haferman later claimed in his report from this arrest that he activated his BWC
during the encounter, but the video “got lost in Evidence.com” and could not be
recovered.
d. Haferman falsely claimed in his report that numerous admissions were made by
B.C. during the periods in which he “lost” his BWC video.
e. Some of the roadside tests Haferman did with B.C. were recorded by his cover
officer’s (Young’s) BWC video. Comparing that video to Haferman’s report again
reveals multiple lies, exaggerations, and discrepancies between what actually
occurred and what Haferman put in his report. The video also, again, shows
Haferman not administering the tests to B.C. correctly.
f. For example, B.C. did the one-leg stand maneuver perfectly and for ten seconds
longer than anyone is supposed to be able to do it. Despite this, Haferman claimed
in his report that B.C. failed it.
g. While arresting B.C., B.C.’s mother arrived on scene within minutes and
corroborated the fact that she was picking B.C. up. Haferman arrested B.C. for DUI
anyway.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 18 of
51
19
h. B.C. requested a breath test. His breath test results were .04 BAC which is under
the limit for both DUI and DWAI, and by Colorado law, presumed to be an
unimpairing amount of alcohol.
i. Haferman charged B.C. anyway and booked him into the jail. Then he went to write
his report in which he claimed B.C. made all kinds of admissions and exhibited all
kinds of signs of impairment indicators. He then, as mentioned previously,
conveniently, and once again, claimed that his BWC footage of the incident
mysteriously had disappeared.
j. The district attorney’s office completely dismissed the case against B.C.
k. According to FCPS’s reports and records for B.C.’s case, again, no supervising
officer ever reviewed or looked at Haferman’s wrongful arrest of B.C. (nor his
mysterious repeated loss of BWC video footage).
l. Upon information and belief, prior to the media attention on Haferman’s wrongful
arrests in April 2022, no remedial action, discipline, or any other form of verbal
counseling was ever given to Haferman by FCPS supervisory personnel regarding
the wrongful arrest of B.C. or Haferman’s (now) repetitive destruction of his BWC
videos.
49. On September 4, 2021, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of
K.S. K.S. swerved to avoid a deer in the road and hit a tree. Haferman ignored this very
normal explanation for the car leaving the road and decided to instead use it to arrest her
for DUI. He again included the false statements and exaggerations of impairment
indicators in his report for K.S. He failed to administer the roadside tests to K.S. in the
standardized manner he was trained. He lied about K.S. showing clues or signs of
impairment. There were multiple additional discrepancies between BWC videos and what
he claimed occurred in his report.
a. On December 15, 2021, Haferman received K.S.’s blood results. They were
negative for alcohol and all drugs.
b. It appears from the reports in K.S.’s case that by this time, Haferman continued to
have no supervising or approving officer reviewing his work.
c. Despite FCPS claiming that all negative blood test results received by their agency
were subjected to an “internal review,” the documents in K.S.’s case indicate that
absolutely no one at FCPS, internal or otherwise, was reviewing this Haferman
wrongful arrest of K.S., or any other Haferman wrongful arrest.
d. Upon receipt of the blood results, the district attorney promptly dismissed the DUI
charge against K.S.
e. Upon information and belief, until Haferman’s pattern of constitutional violations
was brought to the attention of the public by local and national news media in April
2022, absolutely no one at FCPS ever looked at this or any other wrongful
Haferman DUI arrest involving “none detected” blood results.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 19 of
51
20
f. Upon information and belief, prior to the media attention on Haferman’s wrongful
arrests in April 2022, no remedial action, discipline, or any other form of verbal
counseling was ever given to Haferman by FCPS supervisory personnel regarding
the wrongful arrest of K.S.
50. On October 8, 2021, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of D.A.
He again included the same false statements and exaggerations of impairment indicators
in his report for D.A. He failed to administer the roadside tests to D.A. in the standardized
manner he was trained. There were multiple discrepancies between his BWC videos and
what he claimed occurred in his report.
a. After getting his blood, Haferman booked D.A. into the jail. Upon D.A.’s release,
he was subjected to mandatory bond conditions which required him to submit to
sobriety monitoring and drug/alcohol testing for over 3 months.
b. On January 10, 2022, Haferman received D.A.’s blood results which showed a
result of .036% BAC, well under the limit for DUI or DWAI, and, by Colorado law,
presumed to be unimpairing.
c. It appears from the reports in D.A.’s case that by this time, Haferman continued to
have no supervising or approving officer reviewing his work.
d. Another officer who was on scene (Kevin Alexander) to witness Haferman
administer roadsides to D.A., aware of Haferman’s failure to administer them
correctly and propensity for reporting impairment indicators in sober people that
would later be absent from any BWC video, actually went out of his way to state in
his own report that while on scene with Haferman he did not at any time “take note
of [D.A.]’s performance” on the roadsides. Officer Alexander did not corroborate
any of the claimed impairment indicators that Haferman alleged in his report.
e. Upon receiving D.A.’s blood results, the Larimer County district attorney once
again promptly dismissed the wrongful DUI arrest Haferman had filed against D.A.
f. No remedial action, discipline, or any other form of verbal counseling was given to
Haferman by FCPS supervisory personnel regarding the wrongful arrest of D.A.
51. Again on October 8, 2021 (yes, he had two in one day), Haferman made his next wrongful
DUI arrest, this time of G.E. G.E. was visiting Colorado from Idaho and driving a rental
car. Haferman pulled him over for the headlights not being fully activated. He learned as
soon as he pulled him over that this was because it was a rental car that G.E. was not
familiar with. Undeterred, Haferman ordered G.E. out of the car to perform roadside tests.
a. He again included the false statements and exaggerations of impairment indicators
in his report for G.E. He failed to administer the roadside tests to G.E. in the
standardized manner he was trained. He lied about G.E. showing clues/signs of
impairment that were not present. There were multiple additional discrepancies
between BWC videos and what he claimed occurred in his report.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 20 of
51
21
b. Despite performing the HGN test on G.E. incorrectly, it was still obvious from
Haferman’s BWC that G.E. had zero clues on the HGN. Haferman lied and claimed
G.E. had all 6 clues of impairment on the HGN test in his report.
c. Haferman then arrested G.E. for DUI and took him to the jail for a breath test. G.E.
blew a .016% on the breath test, which is scored as a “none detected” result on
the machine due to its range of error. G.E. was, thus, provably observed to be
innocent to Haferman that very night.
d. So did Haferman apologize and let G.E. go? Of course not. He charged him with
DWAI and booked him into the jail.
e. It appears from the reports in G.E.’s case that Haferman continued to no longer
have any supervising or approving officer pretending to review his arrests.
f. Because of the lies and exaggerations Haferman included in his report about G.E.,
it still took more than two months for the District Attorney to dismiss the DWAI
charge he had filed against him.
g. Upon information and belief, until Haferman’s pattern of constitutional violations
was brought to the attention of the local and national news media in April 2022,
absolutely no one at FCPS ever looked at this or any other wrongful Haferman DUI
arrest involving negative chemical test results.
52. On November 19, 2021, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of
S.J. He again included the false statements and exaggerations of impairment indicators
in his report for S.J. He failed to administer the roadside tests to S.J. in the standardized
manner he was trained. He lied about S.J. showing clues or signs of impairment when
there were none. There were multiple additional discrepancies between BWC videos and
what he claimed occurred in his report.
a. S.J. denied alcohol consumption and blew triple zeroes into a PBT on scene
showing negative for alcohol. Haferman arrested her for DUI and forced a blood
draw anyway.
b. On February 23, 2022, Haferman received S.J.’s blood results. They were negative
for alcohol and all drugs.
c. It appears from the reports in S.J.’s case that by this time, Haferman continued to
have no supervising or approving officer reviewing his work.
d. Despite FCPS claiming that all negative blood test results received by their agency
were subjected to an “internal review,” the documents in S.J.’s case indicate that
absolutely no one at FCPS, internal or otherwise, was reviewing this Haferman
wrongful arrest of S.J. or any other Haferman wrongful arrest.
e. Upon receipt of the blood results, the district attorney promptly dismissed the DUI
charge against S.J.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 21 of
51
22
f. Until Haferman’s pattern of constitutional violations was brought to the attention of
the local and national news media in April 2022, absolutely no remedial action,
discipline, or any other form of verbal counseling was ever given to Haferman by
FCPS supervisory personnel regarding the wrongful arrest of S.J.
53. Thus, prior to encountering Plaintiff Mr. Elias in December 2021, Haferman had effected
at least 14 wrongful DUI arrests of innocent people without intervention, comment, or
reprimand from anyone at FCPS.
54. Upon information and belief, the only feedback Haferman had received from FCPS
supervisory personnel (including Sergeant Heaton and Corporal Redacted) about his DUI
arrests by this time was positive and blind reinforcement to continue whatever he was
doing, as it was producing DUI arrest statistics that FCPS benefitted from greatly in the
eyes of the public when posted about on social media, seeking additional agency funding,
and when shared with MADD.
55. Upon information and belief, no one at FCPS knew about the inordinately high number of
innocent people Haferman was arresting because no one was supervising him or
reviewing his work. In the alternative, if anyone at FCPS was aware of all the innocent
people Haferman was arresting, they simply didn’t care and so did nothing to try and
prevent Haferman from doing it again.
56. It was therefore by December 2021 not just reasonably foreseeable from Haferman’s
pattern of misconduct but in fact utterly inevitable that he would violate the constitutional
rights of more citizens in the very near future with more wrongful DUI arrests.
HAFERMAN’S WRONGFUL ARREST OF PLAINTIFF HARRIS ELIAS
57. And indeed, he did. On December 3, 2021, just two weeks after his wrongful arrest of S.J.,
Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of Plaintiff Harris Elias.
58. Mr. Elias, a pilot and general contractor, and single father to three teenagers, had just
enjoyed dinner with his 15-year-old son at DGT, a small taco restaurant in downtown Fort
Collins.
59. Mr. Elias and his son then got in Mr. Elias’s SUV and pulled out of the small parking lot
next to the restaurant. They began driving home. They waited at the stop light at Laurel
and College. When the light turned green, Mr. Elias turned right. Unbeknownst to Mr.
Elias, a pedestrian and dark clothing had begun walking into the road. Mr. Elias noticed
the pedestrian step out into the road area lit by street lights immediately and simply
adjusted his turn to go a bit wider so there would be ample space between himself and
the pedestrian.
60. Officer Haferman witnessed this and decided to pull Mr. Elias over and charge him with a
DUI. He activated his red and blue lights.
61. Mr. Elias pulled over promptly, smoothly, and normally.
62. Officer Haferman went to Mr. Elias’s window and accused Mr. Elias of several things he
knew he had not done. Namely, Haferman accused him of “crossing the pedestrians up
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 22 of
51
23
at that last light and then “cut[ting] into multiple lanes of traffic” and told Mr. Elias he had
“been weaving since right before [Haferman] turned on his lights.”
63. Haferman then told Mr. Elias he needed to “make sure everything’s ok tonight.” Mr. Elias
told Haferman that everything was ok.
64. Haferman next asked Mr. Elias where he was coming from. This was none of his business
and Mr. Elias told him so, by responding that he was not going to be answering any more
questions.
65. Haferman then asked Mr. Elias for his license, insurance, and registration. Mr. Elias
provided all of these documents to Officer Haferman promptly, without issue, and while
demonstrating perfectly normal manual dexterity and comprehension in the process.
66. Mr. Elias told Haferman his insurance was in the glove box. Before reaching into it,
however, he had the wherewithal to recognize that could be perceived as a threat to a
police officer and so asked for permission to retrieve it from his glove box.
67. Haferman asked Mr. Elias if there were any weapons in the glove box. Mr. Elias told him
no, and then opened it and leaned back so that Haferman could inspect it himself.
Haferman did so inspect it and then gave Mr. Elias permission to get his insurance out of
it. Mr. Elias did so.
68. While Mr. Elias retrieved his insurance, Haferman walked around his car shining his
flashlight inside looking for evidence of alcohol consumption. He found none. He went
back to Mr. Elias’s driver window.
69. Officer Haferman asked Mr. Elias how much alcohol he had had tonight. Mr. Elias
reminded Haferman that he was not going to be answering his questions.
70. Officer Haferman responded to this by asking Mr. Elias another question (“Is there a
reason you don’t answer questions?”). Mr. Elias reminded Haferman yet again that he
was not going to answer questions.
71. Mr. Elias determined that he did not have current proof of insurance in his car and so
informed Haferman he would pull up his insurance on his phone. He began doing so –
normally, soberly, and without indication of impairment.
72. While Mr. Elias pulled up his insurance on his phone, Officer Haferman asked him yet
another question (“Is this your son?”). For the fourth time, Mr. Elias had to remind
Haferman that he was not answering questions.
73. Haferman then turned his attention to Mr. Elias’s 15-year-old son in the passenger seat.
Mr. Elias’s son had what was obviously a bottle of Coca-Cola in his lap. Officer Haferman
shamelessly demanded that the son hold up the coke bottle so he could see if it was an
alcoholic drink. Mr. Elias’s son did so.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 23 of
51
24
74. Mr. Elias logged into his insurance company’s website and account and pulled up his
current proof of insurance on the phone. He did so without indication of impairment to
even the slightest degree. He showed it to Officer Haferman.
75. Officer Haferman told Mr. Elias that he needed him to identify the VIN number of the
vehicle covered on the policy and then also show him where the VIN was on the vehicle
he was driving so he could confirm that this particular car was covered.
a. It should be noted that prior to Mr. Elias, people had regularly pulled up their
insurance on their phones during traffic stops with Haferman, and never had he
demanded that the driver also perform this bizarre VIN location-and-comparison
task that Haferman was now demanding of Mr. Elias.
b. This was a higher difficulty task, no doubt, but being completely sober and
unimpaired, Mr. Elias had no problem completing it.
76. Officer Haferman then took Mr. Elias’s license and registration, walked away from the car,
and then muted the microphone on his BWC. He apparently used this time to call for cover
officers. Two cover officers arrived, one was FCPS Officer Sean Gavin. The other was
CSU Officer Christian Cardenas.
77. The three officers surrounded Mr. Elias’s vehicle as Haferman went back to his window
to order him out of the car. Mr. Harris rolled his window up, unbuckled his seat belt, and
complied with the order to exit his car.
78. Officer Haferman directed Mr. Elias to a patch of grass next to the roadway. Mr. Elias
walked where directed. Once at the spot, Haferman attempted yet again to begin
questioning Mr. Elias. Mr. Elias again informed Officer Haferman that he was not going to
answer questions. He said “I don’t answer questions” and “I won’t participate in your trials
and I’d like to be free to go.”
79. Mr. Elias’s walk was normal and without indication of impairment. Mr. Elias’s speech was
normal and without indication of impairment. Mr. Elias’s standing was normal and without
indication of impairment.
80. Officer Haferman demanded that Mr. Elias explain his “driving behavior” and told him it
was “extremely poor.” Mr. Elias replied: “Ok, write me a ticket and let me go please.”
81. Officer Haferman then said “Well, I’m trying to determine whether you’re under the
influence of anything.” Mr. Elias replied: “Ok, fair enough, let me know when I’m free to
go.”
82. Officer Haferman became indignant. Raising his volume at Mr. Elias, he responded, “Uh,
I’ll let you know when you’re free to go, and you’re being detained right now so I can
investigate this further on why you were driving so poorly.”
83. “Okay,” Mr. Elias responded.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 24 of
51
25
84. “Okay??” Haferman replied, now visibly upset and growing embarrassed, “Okay, so did
you have any alcohol tonight?”
85. Mr. Elias politely reminded Officer Haferman for the sixth time that he was not going to
answer questions.
86. Furious, Officer Haferman responded to this with yet another question. “Ok, well, how am
I supposed to determine whether you’re under the influence of something??” He said.
87. Mr. Elias replied: “You can contact my attorney.”
88. Officer Haferman reacted to this by going on a long rant to Mr. Elias. It is not worth
recapping here. In summary, Haferman again rehashed his false account of Mr. Elias’s
driving while stuttering repeatedly and then added to this account several false claims of
components of Mr. Elias’s physical demeanor (like “constricted pupils”) which were either
untrue or irrelevant, to try and bait Mr. Elias into attempting to prove his innocence.
89. Mr. Elias did not take the bait. He said “fair enough” and stood there quietly awaiting
Haferman’s next instruction.
90. This rant was the first time Haferman mentioned an odor of alcohol. Specifically, he
accused Mr. Elias of having “a faint odor of alcohol coming from his breath” and his “uh –
person.”
91. CSU Officer Cardenas, moments after this comment, assisted Haferman in putting Mr.
Elias into handcuffs, which required him to get very close to Mr. Elias’s person.
92. Officer Cardenas has since admitted that he did not smell any odor of alcohol – faint or
otherwise – on Mr. Elias.
93. Mr. Elias in fact did not have any odor of alcohol about his breath or his person.
94. Officer Haferman then next endeavored to get Mr. Elias to agree to roadside maneuvers.
Mr. Elias politely reminded him: “I already said no.”
95. Officer Haferman replied: “Alright, you’re under arrest for driving under the influence.” He
directed Mr. Elias to put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed.
96. Mr. Elias put his hands behind his back in the manner he was instructed. Haferman,
exasperated and embarrassed, closed the space between himself and Mr. Elias and
began twisting Mr. Elias’s hands at the wrist to try and bait him into becoming angry or
noncompliant from the sudden infliction of pain.
97. Mr. Elias cried out in pain and implored Officer Haferman to settle down and stop hurting
him.
98. CSU Officer Cardenas intervened to complete the handcuffing process and stop
Haferman from his needless escalation and misuse of force upon Mr. Elias.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 25 of
51
26
99. Handcuffed at the patrol vehicle, Haferman demanded Mr. Elias tell him how old his son
was. Mr. Elias again for the eighth time reminded Haferman that he did not answer
questions.
100. Officer Haferman read Express Consent law to Mr. Elias and asked him to pick a
breath or blood test. Mr. Elias elected a breath test.
101. Officer Haferman responded, “Ok” and then deliberately slammed his patrol car door
shut on Mr. Elias’s leg while it was still observably located in the door jamb. Mr. Elias
screamed out in pain.
102. Officer Haferman went “ooop” and then slammed the door shut again.
103. Haferman took Mr. Elias to the jail for a breath test. While there, Mr. Elias continued
interacting normally and without any indication of impairment to even the slightest degree.
104. While waiting for the twenty-minute deprivation period to pass prior to administering
the breath test, Officer Haferman began to wonder if doing a breath test was really the
best idea. In a panic, he called his supervising Sergeant Allen Heaton and asked if he
could force Mr. Elias to do a blood draw instead (far better for the fishing expedition
Haferman was on) by claiming Mr. Elias urgently needed medical care for his knee.
105. Mr. Elias had literally just completed the 20-minute deprivation period for the breath
test and the breath test machine was on the table right next to him ready to be used. He
could have completed the breath test he had chosen right there, proven his innocence,
and then be taken to the hospital.
106. But Haferman was not going to let that happen. Instead, he told Mr. Elias they needed
to abandon the breath test and go to the hospital for medical treatment. He told Mr. Elias
(knowingly lying to him) that they would then come back and do the breath test after. Mr.
Elias complied.
107. Back at the scene of Mr. Elias’s vehicle, Officer Gavin waited for Mr. Elias’s girlfriend
to arrive to pick up Mr. Elias’s son and drive Mr. Elias’s vehicle home. Mr. Elias’s girlfriend
arrived and asked what in the world had happened.
108. Officer Gavin informed her that Mr. Elias would have to stay at the jail for at least a
couple hours depending on how impaired he was.
109. Mr. Elias’s girlfriend shook her head at Officer Gavin, utterly incredulous. “He hasn’t
been drinking!” She told him without hesitation. “He’s been doing electrical in my
basement the whole day!”
110. Officer Gavin shrugged and said he was just the back-up officer.
111. Mr. Elias’s girlfriend’s statement was plainly material to Mr. Elias’s guilt/innocence and
an extremely exculpatory piece of evidence at that. Officer Gavin elected not to share or
document Mr. Elias’s girlfriend’s exculpatory comments in any report, in violation of FCPS
policy.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 26 of
51
27
112. At the hospital, Mr. Elias asked to see Haferman’s supervising sergeant so that he
could make a complaint.
113. Defendant Sergeant Heaton arrived at the hospital. He chose not to activate his BWC
video while Mr. Elias made his complaint of excessive force, misconduct, and wrongful
arrest against Officer Haferman. This was in violation of FCPS policy and Colorado law.
114. Upon information and belief, Sergeant Heaton failed to create a report or any record
of any kind documenting Mr. Elias’s complaint against Officer Haferman, in direct violation
of FCPS policy 1020. He did not follow up on Mr. Elias’s complaint as required by FCPS
policy 1020 and he did not enter Mr. Elias’s complaint into IACMS for follow -up and
investigation as required by FCPS policy 1020.
115. While Defendant Sergeant Heaton took Mr. Elias’s complaint, he personally observed
that Mr. Elias was sober, coherent, articulate, and showing no indication of impairment
whatsoever, not even to the slightest degree. Despite recognizing that this was clearly yet
another wrongful DUI arrest in a long line of wrongful Haferman DUI arrests, he did
nothing to intervene or stop it, despite having the opportunity and ability to do so.
116. Rather than intervene, Defendants Sergeant Heaton and Haferman both muted their
BWC cameras and discussed how they would get a blood test from Mr. Elias and send it
out to be tested for every prescription and over-the-counter drug that existed to increase
the chances of having something be detected in Mr. Elias’s blood that they could claim
justified the DUI arrest.
117. After having his knee examined by medical personnel, Haferman informed Mr. Elias
that he could not do the breath test he had requested due to the passage of time and
instead would have to do a blood test. Mr. Elias did not want to be poked with a needle
and voiced his opposition to having his original choice of chemical test not be honored.
118. Haferman told Mr. Elias that he no longer had a choice of test and that he would have
to submit to a blood test or he would be deemed a refusal which would cause an automatic
revocation of his driver’s license for one year. Any revocation of Mr. Elias’s driver’s license
would result in a lifetime revocation of his pilot’s license with the FAA. Mr. Elias, terrified
and having no choice, agreed to the blood test.
119. While reviewing the CBI lab testing and consent paperwork for the blood draw with
Officer Haferman, Mr. Elias inquired as to what the box “DRE was conducted” meant.
120. Officer Haferman responded: “A drug recognition expert, um, in this case, I’m not
suspecting drugs are in play. So I will only be checking the box that says [to test for]
alcohol. These are a list of different drugs that the lab can test for but, um, I’m just going
to check to have your blood tested for alcohol because I believe alcohol is suspected.”
121. This was a lie Haferman told Mr. Elias to get him to agree to provide his blood.
Haferman knew that CBI tested all blood kits for 14 categories of drugs and he further
knew that if that drug panel came back negative for those 14 categories, he and Defendant
Sergeant Heaton still could and would ask CBI to send Mr. Elias’s blood out for more
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 27 of
51
28
comprehensive testing for all the various prescription and over the counter drugs that
existed.
122. Officer Haferman in fact did do just that with Mr. Elias’s blood. In fact, here is a list of
all the drugs Haferman and FCPS ultimately directed CBI to have Mr. Elias’s blood tested
for:
• Ethanol
• Volatiles
• Barbituates
• Benzoylecgonine (Cocaine)
• Benzodiazepines
• Buprenorphine
• Cannabinoids
• Carisoprodol
• Meprobamate
• Fentanyl
• Methadone
• Methamphetamine
• Amphetamine
• MDMA
• MDA
• Codeine
• Morphine
• Hydrocodone
• Hydromorphone
• Oxycodone
• Oxymorphone
• Tramadol
• Zolpidem
• Antihistamines (Benadryl or allergy medication)
• Antidepressants (any depression medication)
• Antitussives (any cold medicine)
• Antiseizure medications
• Antipsychotic medications
• Pain medication (including even Aleve or Advil)
• Muscle relaxants
• Hallucinogens (LCD, psilocybin)
• Hypnosedatives
• Gabapentin
• Countless untold other “over-the-counter medications”
123. After his knee was x-rayed, the hospital released Mr. Elias to Officer Haferman. Officer
Haferman took Mr. Elias to jail.
124. At 10:48 pm, Officer Haferman arrived at the Larimer County jail to book in Mr. Elias
who he knew would have to spend the entire weekend there, in a jump suit, in a cell,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 28 of
51
29
awaiting a bond setting by a judge on Monday, due to the Child Abuse charge that he had
added.
125. At 11:18 pm, Officer Haferman left Mr. Elias at the jail and drove back to his desk at
Fort Collins Police Services.
126. At 11:58 pm, Officer Haferman called Child Protective Services and made a
report that Mr. Elias had committed child abuse. Haferman made this report of alleged
child abuse by Mr. Elias:
a. After having spent 2 hours with Mr. Elias and observed no indications of
impairment;
b. After claiming that “only alcohol” was suspected in Mr. Elias, while yet refusing to
give Mr. Elias the breath test for alcohol that he had repeatedly requested; and
c. Without knowing the results of any blood testing.
127. Haferman also knew this particular arrest, being devoid of any roadside tests he could
exploit to support it, would require a report filled with particularly flamboyant lies and
exaggerations of impairment cues. And indeed it did. Haferman then proceeded to write
a report narrative for his arrest of Mr. Elias and filled it, as usual, with lies and
exaggerations in order to ensure Mr. Elias’s criminal prosecution for DUI and Child Abuse
went on as long as possible.
128. Mr. Elias’s life was completely upended and devastated by Haferman’s wrongful
arrest. First, he spent 3 days in jail.
129. Mr. Elias appeared in court on Monday virtually, from the jail, wearing an orange
jumpsuit. He then listened as the appointed public defender pleaded with the judge on Mr.
Elias’s behalf to not enter the mandatory protection order that would have prohibited Mr.
Elias from having contact with his child. He listened as the district attorney argued that he
shouldn’t be allowed to have contact with his son. He was overcome with debilitating, sick
grief and anxiety. He was a single father. Who would care for his child? Would he have to
go to foster care? How would he explain this to his kids? His family? His friends?
130. After hearing argument from defense and prosecutor that seemed to go on for a
lifetime, Mr. Harris then listened as, in front of a courtroom full of people and a jail room
full of other inmates, Magistrate Judge Cara Boxberger shamed Mr. Elias for putting his
child in danger, for not being a responsible parent, and for representing a threat to the
safety of the community. She pondered aloud about how “difficult” it was for her to decide
whether she should issue the standard protection order she usually issued which would
prohibit Mr. Elias from contact with his child altogether, or to do something else. In the
end, she decided to enter a protection order that permitted the innocent Mr. Elias contact
with his son, but which prohibited him from driving anyone under age 18, including his
own children, in any car unless the car had ignition interlock (breathalyzer) installed in it.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 29 of
51
30
131. Magistrate Boxberger was not done yet. She also entered an order requiring as a bond
condition that Mr. Elias submit to regular drug and alcohol urine testing to monitor his
sobriety.
132. There are no words to describe the degree to which this dehumanizing and utterly
humiliating event traumatized Mr. Elias.
133. As the sole parent and caretaker to his son, the protection order prohibiting Mr. Elias
from driving anyone under the age of 18 completely upended both of their lives. Mr. Elias
normally drove his son to and from school and now no longer could. He had to ask his
girlfriend (who had her own young children to care for) for help and he had to hire Ubers
to get him and his son to school, to activities, or even just to the grocery store.
134. During this time Mr. Elias would regularly become overcome with anxiety and stress
regarding how he would be able to take care of his son or drive him somewhere in case
of an emergency without violating the conditions of the protection order and/or subjecting
himself to extraordinary embarrassment.
135. Mr. Elias’s son and his friends often did activities together which Mr. Elias had become
accustomed to chauffeuring. Now, not only could he not transport any of them anywhere,
but he or his son would have to explain to them that he was no longer available to drive
them because he was currently being criminally prosecuted for DUI and Child Abuse and
had been prohibited from driving minors anywhere during the pendency of the case.
136. All the while, Mr. Elias was having to wake up and call an automated line to see if he
would be required to drive to a drug testing facility and provide a urine sample to comply
with the sobriety monitoring condition of his bond. When he was called to test, he would
have to find a facility and walk in amongst probationers, parolees, and others convicted
of crimes to go to a room where a lab employee would watch him pee to ensure that he
gave an untampered with urine sample. The urine tests were expensive and humiliating.
137. At one point, Mr. Elias got a bad cold. He went to take cold medication to help him be
able to breathe and sleep. He then stopped, in a fright, wondering if cold medication would
cause some kind of positive test result on these drug tests. He decided not to risk it. He
suffered through the rest of his illness with no medication.
138. Living with this case pending was the lowest, sickest feeling Mr. Elias had ever felt in
his life.
139. Mr. Elias had to pay attorneys fees to hire counsel for the baseless charges. He
missed work due to the stress from the baseless charges. He lost sleep worrying that
Haferman would find a way to tamper with or alter his blood test results. Mr. Elias knew
that if Haferman succeeded in doing so, that would be the end of his career, his
relationship, his respect as a parent, his pilot’s license, and his livelihood.
140. After being informed that the state’s blood testing could take more than 4 months, Mr.
Elias, through his attorney, paid to have his blood tested by a private lab. For nearly a
month still, the harrowing wait for the results, with the concomitant extreme burden and
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 30 of
51
31
stress of having to keep up with regular drug testing while not being able to transport his
son, went on.
141. Finally, on December 20, 2021, the private lab’s results came back to Mr. Elias’s
defense attorney. There were no surprises here: No alcohol was detected.
142. Mr. Elias’s defense counsel immediately sent the results to the district attorney,
demanding that the case be dismissed and the protection order lifted.
143. No one at the DA’s office responded to this email for over a week. Defense counsel
emailed the DA again requesting dismissal given the blood results.
144. Larimer Deputy District Attorney Jessica Hitchings finally responded to defense
counsel by saying that the blood might still have drugs in it, so she would have to consult
with a supervisor, as she was not comfortable dismissing the case until the state’s blood
test results came back or until a supervisor gave her approval to dismiss.
145. Mr. Elias’s defense counsel reminded the DA that Haferman had expressly stated on
his video he “only suspected alcohol,” which was not present, and, if the state’s blood
results for some reason came back showing drugs, they could always refile the charges.
Defense counsel implored DDA Hitchings to recognize the damage that this baseless
case had already inflicted on Mr. Elias’s life and do the right thing when faced with such
clear evidence of this man’s innocence.
146. DDA Hitchings told defense counsel she couldn’t do anything without supervisor
approval.
147. Days later, DDA Hitchings told defense counsel she had received supervisor approval
to dismiss the case without prejudice (meaning they could refile if their own blood test
results came back showing any drugs) but that since it was a Victims Rights Act (VRA)
case, they would first have to talk to Mr. Elias’s son’s mother and get her position on the
case dismissal before doing so.
148. Mr. Elias’s son’s mother resides in Iowa and has no involvement in her son’s life. The
prospect of having to wait for the district attorney’s office to both locate and obtain the
position of Mr. Elias’s long-lost ex-girlfriend prior to releasing him from the hell he was
living in was additionally terrible, humiliating, and devastating for Mr. Elias.
149. Mr. Elias’s defense counsel worked to assist the DA’s office in getting in touch with
Mr. Elias’s son’s mother by email to speed up the process of getting his case dismissed.
150. Even with defense counsel’s help, it took two weeks to facilitate this contact and to get
the DA to file the motion to dismiss the case.
151. On January 10, 2021, the DA’s office finally filed a motion to dismiss the case against
Mr. Elias. The Court granted the motion the following day on January 11, 2021.
152. While this event reduced considerably the amount of stress and difficulties being
imposed in Mr. Elias’s day-to-day life, it was not the end of his anxiety and worry. He could
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 31 of
51
32
only afford to have his blood tested at a private lab for alcohol. So if Haferman had
tampered with his blood to add any kind of drug to it, he would not know until the state’s
results came back.
153. And Mr. Elias knew that if his blood came back positive for any drug, the state would
refile the DUI and Child Abuse charges against him and his life would be thrown into
embarrassment, fear, uncertainty, and oppressive disruption yet again.
154. Haferman and FCPS did in fact request that Mr. Elias’s blood be tested for all the
drugs that could be tested for, including hundreds of various drugs outside the standard
14-drug category ELISA panel. CBI obliged FCPS’s request for this additional extensive
drug testing (for free) and sent the blood to a lab in Pennsylvania to have it completed.
155. The additional panoply of testing that FCPS requested to be conducted on Mr. Elias’s
blood caused it to take an additional 1-2 months for the results to come back,
compounding Mr. Elias’s anxiety and suffering.
156. On March 4, 2022, five months after his arrest, Mr. Elias’s blood results from CBI finally
came back. They were negative for everything.
157. A copy of Mr. Elias’s “none detected” blood results was sent directly to Officer
Haferman. On March 9, 2022, Haferman completed a supplemental report into the case
acknowledging the blood results.
158. Despite FCPS claiming that all negative blood test results received by their agency
were subjected to an “internal review,” this report indicates that absolutely no one at
FCPS, internal or otherwise, was reviewing this wrongful arrest of Mr. Elias or any other
Haferman wrongful arrest.
159. Until Haferman’s pattern of constitutional violations was brought to the attention of the
local and national news media in April 2022, absolutely no remedial action, discipline, or
any other form of verbal counseling was ever given to Haferman by FCPS supervisory
personnel regarding the wrongful arrest of Mr. Elias.
HAFERMAN CARRIES ON
160. While Mr. Elias was suffering from the weight and burden of being wrongfully charged
with DUI and Child Abuse and anxiously awaiting his CBI blood results, Officer Haferman
was of course carrying on with his wrongful arrests of other innocent citizens.
161. On December 19, 2021, he made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of L.M.
Haferman claimed that L.M. stopped at an intersection for longer than he thought should
be normal. He also claimed she failed to signal when turning. He did not record any of
these claimed driving behaviors. He ordered L.M. out of her car and began his DUI fishing
expedition. It did not go well. L.M. appeared normal and unimpaired. She told him that
she had had 2 glasses of wine hours earlier and was now completely sober. He arrested
her anyway.
a. L.M. requested a breath test. Her breath test results were under the limit for both
DUI and DWAI, and by Colorado law, presumed to not be impairing.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 32 of
51
33
b. Haferman arrested and charged L.M. anyway and booked her into the jail. Then
he went to write his report in which he claimed L.M. made all kinds of admissions
and exhibited all kinds of signs of impairment indicators during the roadsides. He
then, conveniently, and once again, claimed that most of these indicators would
not be observable on his BWC footage because the audio had yet again
mysteriously “malfunctioned.”
c. The district attorney’s office dismissed the DUI charge against L.M.
d. According to FCPS’s reports and records for L.M.’s case, again, no supervising
officer ever reviewed or looked at Haferman’s wrongful arrest of L.M. (nor his
mysterious repeated propensity for lost, damaged, or malfunctioning BWC
footage).
e. No remedial action, discipline, or any other form of verbal counseling was ever
given to Haferman by FCPS supervisory personnel regarding the wrongful arrest
of L.M. or Haferman’s repetitive tampering/destroying of his BWC content.
162. On March 26, 2022, Officer Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of
Carly Zimmerman. Haferman stopped Ms. Zimmerman because he felt she went too
quickly past him while he was on another traffic stop. She had been crying for three hours
and told him so. He ignored this and instead pressed her to admit to drinking alcohol. She
told him she had not. He arrested her for DUI and demanded a chemical test. She agreed
to a blood test. Haferman then inexplicably muted his BWC for the rest of the encounter
with Ms. Zimmerman.
a. Haferman likely realized it was extremely probable that Ms. Zimmerman’s blood
would reveal that he had made another wrongful DUI arrest. He elected to remedy
this problem by muting his BWC and then later falsely claiming under oath that Ms.
Zimmerman had during the 30 minutes spent at the hospital refused to complete
the blood test.
b. Police practices experts later reviewed the BWC from Haferman’s arrest of Ms.
Zimmerman (see infra) and voiced shock and condemnation that he had arrested
someone who presented as she did, with zero indications of drug or alcohol
impairment whatsoever.
c. Haferman falsely claimed in his report for Ms. Zimmerman’s arrest that she was
slurring her speech. The portion of the BWC that did have audio (the first 17
minutes) revealed this to be a categorical lie.
d. Haferman falsely claimed in his report for Ms. Zimmerman’s arrest that she failed
various roadside maneuvers. The BWC revealed this to also be a categorical lie.
e. The DA’s office later dismissed the criminal case against Ms. Zimmerman.
163. On April 7, 2022, Haferman made another wrongful DUI arrest, this time of Derrick
Groves. Mr. Groves had gotten into a single vehicle accident due to his Tesla
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 33 of
51
34
malfunctioning. He told officers he was on probation and so definitely had not consumed
any alcohol or drugs. Mr. Groves appears normal and unimpaired on video. Haferman
charged him with DUI anyway, offering him only a blood test. Mr. Groves’s blood test
results later come back tested for alcohol and all drugs possible, yet again showing “none
detected.” The DA’s office immediately dismissed the case against Mr. Groves.
164. By May 26, 2022, Haferman’s understanding of his own impunity was reaching
extraordinary heights. By way of example, at the DOR (DMV) hearing regarding the
revocation of Ms. Zimmerman’s license for allegedly refusing a blood test that Haferman
had destroyed the video evidence of, Haferman testified that he was not going to answer
questions about Ms. Zimmerman’s performance on the roadside tests because he
couldn’t remember it and he didn’t believe he had to.
a. Throughout the DOR hearing, Haferman can be heard literally making his own
objections, as the testifying witness, to defense counsel’s questions about the
roadsides.
b. Eventually the DOR hearing officer had to instruct Haferman to stop making
objections and instead respond to the very relevant questions being asked. Rather
than comply, Haferman got confrontational with the hearing officer and demanded
that he (yes, the DOR hearing officer presiding over the hearing) supply him with
legal authority for why he should have to testify about the specifics of the roadside
maneuvers.
c. Haferman then threatened the hearing officer that if he forced him to answer
questions about the specific roadside tests, then he would be setting some kind of
unlawful precedent going forward.
d. At this same DOR hearing, Haferman initially testified under oath that the Larimer
County District Court Judge did not make findings about his credibility in the Padilla
case. When confronted with the transcript showing this had in fact occurred, he
then proceeded to declare her finding incorrect, stating that he above all others
knew what was true due to his “training and experience.”
THE ACCESSIBLE DATA IS INCOMPLETE
165. In 2021, FCPS (as an entire agency) made 504 DUI arrests. Officer Haferman was
involved in 191, or nearly 40%, of them. Notably, FCPS has not released the number of
DUI arrest cases where Haferman was the officer that made the arrest decision.
166. Upon information and belief, there are more innocent citizens who have been arrested
and wrongfully charged with DUI/DWAI by Officer Haferman. Plaintiff simply cannot
access records to identify those individuals and detail their wrongful arrests here due to
Colorado’s sealing laws.
a. Under Colorado law (until 2022), if a defendant’s criminal case was di smissed, the
defendant could file a petition to seal the case which then causes all records
related to it to be destroyed.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 34 of
51
35
b. As a result, when people are wrongfully charged with DUI and their blood results
come back showing they were so wrongfully charged and the DA’s office dismisses
the case, the vast majority of those people then (desperate to try and reduce the
damage inflicted upon their lives by the wrongful arrest) file petitions to seal which
results in the destruction of those records at FCPS.
c. The only wrongful arrest records accessible to Plaintiff’s counsel through CORA
requests, then, are those individuals whose cases were dismissed and who also
did not know that they could seal their case. This is necessarily a small number of
people because Larimer County judges as a matter of policy expressly advise
defendants whose cases are dismissed that they can seal.
d. Making the identification of other wrongful DUI arrest victims even more difficult,
Colorado’s sealings law recently changed, and effective January 1, 2022,
dismissed criminal cases are now automatically sealed.
e. It is now nearly impossible to obtain through open records requests any of the
records related to wrongful arrests. The only remaining avenue to access such
materials is through the civil discovery process after filing a civil lawsuit.
167. Even under these difficult-information-gathering conditions, however, Haferman’s
wrongful DUI arrest activity became sufficiently alarming for the local press to begin asking
questions in April 2022 – notably, critically, and quite provably, well before any supervisors
at FCPS ever began asking any questions.
MEDIA COVERAGE PROMPTS FCPS TO LIE, SCRAMBLE,
AND GAS-LIGHT THE PUBLIC
168. On April 8, 2022, Fox 31 Denver (KDVR) Investigative Reporter Rob Low received a
tip about Haferman and began investigating Haferman’s pattern of wrongful DUI arrests,
starting with that of Mr. Elias. On that day (April 8), Mr. Low sent a records request to
FCPS requesting the videos and reports from Mr. Elias’s arrest.
169. FCPS’s records custodian took 3 weeks to do it, but eventually, FCPS provided
reporter Mr. Low with the Elias videos. Business at FCPS and with Haferman’s DUI arrest
work continued as usual.
170. Months later, when public pressure forced FCPS to terminate Haferman, FCPS made
repetitive assertions to the press and in their own reports that they had spontaneously
opened an internal investigation into Haferman of their own initiative on April 13 and, they
doth protested quite too much, “not in response” to any media inquiries.
171. However, there exist no records corroborating this fanciful claim beyond FCPS’s own
self-serving statements that this is the date they began their self-initiated internal
investigation.
172. Notably, if FCPS had opened an internal affairs investigation into Haferman on April
13, it certainly didn’t involve telling Haferman about it, and it certainly didn’t involve telling
Haferman to change anything he was doing.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 35 of
51
36
173. Because on April 15, 2022, Haferman was still working as DUI Officer for FCPS and
that very day himself made two more DUI arrests. During one of the arrests, he mentioned
to the arrestee that his 2-year-term as DUI Officer was ending soon and he’d be rotating
back to patrol. Haferman during this conversation gave no impression whatsoever that he
was under investigation for anything or that would otherwise suggest he was being forced
to rotate out of the role (and, the end of April 2022 would have in fact marked Haferman
having served the full 2 years of every FCPS DUI Officer’s 2-year term, as scheduled).
174. And whatever claimed “internal investigation” FCPS was doing also didn’t affect
Haferman on May 14, 2022, when he again wrongfully arrested someone for DUI, this
time 75-year-old Chuck Matta, despite no indications of impairment. After being put into
handcuffs and taken to jail, Mr. Matta requested (repeatedly) that he be allowed to do a
breath test. Haferman finally relented at the station, where Mr. Matta blew triple zeroes.
175. The day that FCPS finally released Mr. Elias’s videos to reporter Low, on April 29,
2022, they also apparently sent Defendant Sergeant Heaton a heads up about it, probably
because he was the supervising sergeant involved on scene and also had elected not to
create a BWC video of his involvement (or the formal complaints made to him by Mr. Elias)
in violation of Colorado law and FCPS policy.
176. Defendant Heaton decided it might be a good time to watch what was recorded in the
other officers’ BWC videos regarding his involvement. He knew he (deliberately) hadn’t
recorded anything of Mr. Elias’s case himself but worried if the other officers present there
with him had made sure to at least mute their mics to ensure his comments and approval
of Haferman’s actions weren’t recorded. So, for the first time, on April 29, 2022, Sergeant
Heaton watched Haferman’s video from the Elias arrest.
a. This entire sequence of events (a citizen witnessing police officer misconduct,
requesting their supervising sergeant to make a complaint, the sergeant
responding and “taking the complaint” and then eradicating evidence, video or
otherwise, of said complaint) is eerily and grotesquely similar to that of (now
former) Sergeant Metzler’s infamous conduct in the case of Karen Ga rner v. City
of Loveland, et al. When Metzler’s misconduct was exposed to the public by Ms.
Garner’s counsel, Metzler lost his job for it.
b. FCPS is aware of Sergeant Heaton doing that here (indeed they did an extensive
internal investigation into Mr. Elias’s case which included multiple supervisors
reviewing all the videos) and FCPS did nothing.
177. Throughout the month of May 2022, KDVR reporter Rob Low continued requesting
records and asking questions about the Harris Elias arrest. In response, FCPS’s public
relations officer would promise answers and then after 7-10 days, would supply responses
to only some of the questions reporter Low had asked.
178. Reporter Low told FCPS he was going to run a story on the Elias arrest and asked if
Chief Swoboda wanted to be interviewed or provide any comment. Chief Swoboda
enthusiastically agreed to an on-camera interview on May 25. In that interview, he
defended Haferman’s arrest decision and made knowingly defamatory statements
towards Mr. Elias, like: “It’s concerning that later it came back that he [Elias] didn’t
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 36 of
51
37
consume any, but that doesn’t mean the officer didn’t smell alcohol inside the car or on
his breath or on his person.”
179. FCPS Chief Swoboda also claimed that FCPS had initiated their own internal review
of the Elias arrest specifically “before” his interview on May 25 because they “always” do
that in a case with “none detected” blood results.
180. Yet the audit trail for Haferman’s BWC video of the Elias video reveals that Kim
Cochran, the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) officer at FCPS who would have done
such a review, did not look at Haferman’s Elias arrest video for the first time until 4 days
later, on May 29, 2022.
181. While investigating and asking questions for his story on Mr. Elias’s wrongful arrest,
reporter Rob Low began to see that this was not a one-off type of wrongful arrest, but that
Officer Haferman instead appeared to have a pattern of making many wrongful DUI
arrests of citizens. There were many more victims. He and other news outlets began
digging in, demanding answers, explanations, and accountability from FCPS.
182. In response to this additional media scrutiny, FCPS PR Manager Kimble again
reiterated to Rob Low of KDVR in a June 14, 2022 email that “FCPS reviews all cases
where DUI blood tests come back with no drugs detected.”
183. On June 16, 2022, Fox 31 Denver ran its first piece about Haferman pattern of
wrongful DUI arrests. It gave FCPS Chief Swoboda opportunity to be interviewed and
comment on the story before it was published and this time, he refused to be interviewed.
184. Instead, knowing this story was coming out, Chief Swoboda worked to get ahead of it,
releasing the day before, on June 15, 2022, a statement to the public through a video post
on FCPS’s Facebook page.
185. In this statement, Swoboda defended Haferman’s conduct, insulted and defamed the
victims of Haferman’s wrongful arrests, and made multiple other false claims suggesting
that FCPS had always been reviewing Haferman’s arrests and ensuring they were lawful.
He also went even further than that, stating:
186. By FCPS’s Chief’s own admission, then, either multiple FCPS supervisors were
reviewing Haferman’s ND cases and approving of it and finding no training issues and
finding no discrepancies between his reports and his videos and finding no problem with
his repeated destruction of video evidence by failing to activate it or muting it during some
of his most questionable arrests…. Or, he was simply lying about there having been any
supervisory review of any of Haferman’s wrongful arrests. The latter possibility is better
corroborated by the evidence and logically considerably more likely, but regardless, either
option establishes Monell liability against Defendant FCPS.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 37 of
51
38
187. FCPS Chief Swoboda, in the same public statements, also went even further to defend
Haferman’s wrongful arrests – claiming that Haferman always had probable cause to
arrest the individuals and that if nothing impairing was found in their blood, that was simply
the result of limitations on what drugs CBI could test for.
a. For example, Swoboda wrote on FCPS’s Facebook page in the 6/15/22 statement:
b. This paragraph openly insinuates that “nothing detected” blood test results for
individuals charged with DUI by officer Haferman proves not that these people are
innocent, but instead that Officer Haferman was so special and so highly trained
that he was able to detect in them impairment from obscure and unknown types of
street drugs for which science hasn’t yet even figured out how to test.
c. Not one single “none detected” wrongful DUI arrest made by Officer Haferman up
to that point ever included any allegation, insinuation, or shred of evidence
supporting the idea that the individuals were impaired by a synthetic street drug or
impairing aerosol inhalant.
d. FCPS Chief Swoboda’s allegation that the innocent people wrongfully arrested by
Haferman like Plaintiff Mr. Elias, who had been previously vindicated through their
blood tests, were not innocent but instead just on drugs that CBI could not test for
was defamatory and served to compound their damages. Chief Swoboda making
these comments both online, in print, and in in-person interviews with the media
caused Mr. Elias more suffering, trauma, and emotional distress.
188. FCPS Chief Swoboda’s claims to the public about FCPS’s drug testing capabilities
were also knowingly untrue at the time they were made. Here’s the rest of the statement
he made about FCPS’s drug testing capabilities:
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 38 of
51
39
189. Also provably untrue from Chief Swoboda’s public statements:
a. CBI is not limited to a “standard ELISA panel to test for 14 categories of drugs.” In
fact, CBI can test for every kind of drug for which a test exists.
b. For example, in Harley Padilla’s case, FCPS asked CBI to test for a whole slew of
additional prescription medications outside of the standard ELISA 14-drug panel,
and CBI did so.
c. This “specialized testing” was done at CBI, not CSU, and this “specialized testing”
did not cost FCPS anything additional to have completed.
d. Similarly, in Plaintiff Mr. Elias’s own case, FCPS asked CBI to test for apparently
every single drug or medication that can be tested for on earth:
190. Swoboda made his false claim that FCPS could only test for the 14-panel of drugs
provided in an ELISA panel on June 15, 2022. Mr. Elias’s blood test result showing that
FCPS can, could, and did test for every other type of drug under the sun was provided to
FCPS on March 4, 2022, and was part of the Elias arrest records in FCPS’s possession.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 39 of
51
40
191. Swoboda also falsely claimed in his public statement on behalf of FCPS that CBI could
not or would not test blood for synthetic street drugs. This was categorically untrue. From
CBI Toxicology’s own website:
192. Swoboda’s claim that CBI could or would not test blood for “aerosol inhalants” was
also a provable lie. CBI states clearly on their website that they test for commonly abused
inhalants:
193. CBI’s website also confirms that they do “specialized testing” for law enforcement in
DUI/DUID cases upon request, at no cost, for all the synthetic street drugs that the
standard ELISA panel does not detect. The list of drugs that CBI can test for law
enforcement in DUI cases upon request, for free, is so long that it would not be productive
to copy and paste here, however it is worth pointing out that this list of hundreds of types
of drugs5 includes:
1. All synthetic fentanyl drugs; and
2. All synthetic bath salt type of drugs.
b. In other words, if law enforcement suspects there is some other type of drug on
board not likely to be detected in a standard 14-panel ELISA screen, they are
expressly informed by CBI that specialty testing can be done to detect any other
drug that science has been developed to test for, including synthetic street drugs,
upon request and free of charge.
5 The list is currently viewable (as of March 28, 2023) online at:
https://cbi.colorado.gov/sections/forensic-services/toxicology-services/toxicology-testing
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 40 of
51
41
194. This information is also provided directly to individual law enforcement officers in CBI’s
toxicology testing form. This document is part of every blood testing kit and is filled out by
the officers themselves in every single DUI blood test case.
a. Swoboda’s claim that only CSU could conduct such specialized testing was
therefore knowingly false when uttered.
b. Swoboda’s claim that such testing was expensive and only could be pursued in
“serious cases like vehicular assault and vehicular homicide” was therefore also
knowingly false when uttered.
195. Chief Swoboda made these knowingly false claims in order to ratify and defend
Haferman’s constitutional violations, and at the time he made such false statements to
the public and press, he knew or reasonably should have known that spreading such lies
would cause Plaintiffs like Mr. Elias further harm, suffering, and distress.
196. All CBI drug testing is free. Swoboda’s claim in his June 2022 public statements that
in order to do “specialized testing” for other drugs outside the ELISA panel, it would have
cost FCPS “more than a quarter of a million dollars in testing fees” for its past year of 504
DUI arrests was also knowingly and provably false when uttered. CBI states on their
website and on the drug test request forms in every blood kit that it has been completing
specialized drug testing for law enforcement in DUI/DUID cases for free since July 2019:
197. Swoboda made these false claims in the same public statement that accused the
innocent people who had come forward about their wrongful DUI arrests at the hands of
Haferman of doing a “quick hit news story” that was misleading and he urged everyone to
“not fall for the salacious headlines.” In fact, it was only Chief Swoboda who undertook to
deliberately report to the public misleading and false facts.
198. In a video address to the public accompanying this public statement on June 15, 2022,
Chief Swoboda made this statement:
“In some of these [DUI] blood tests, they are coming back that no drugs were
detected. We look at each and every one of these cases to make sure that we
are out there operating appropriately. Is there training issues? Is there
equipment issues? What’s happening? So please, don’t fall for the salacious
headlines. Don’t think that when those reports come back or you see that in
the media, that somehow it means it was bad policing. Our officers are
routinely interacting with people that are on drugs or misusing drugs that don’t
show up in those panels. Things like inhalants, having people huffing and then
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 41 of
51
42
driving a vehicle. Those don’t show up in those panels. We also don’t have
over the counter drugs that show up. Or some prescription drugs that show
up. And lastly and most importantly, synthetic drugs. That’s a market that is
changing daily and the testing isn’t keeping up. So I just wanted all of you to
know that when you see reports about zero drugs coming back in someone’s
blood after arrest, please ask questions if you have them but don’t make the
leap that it’s somehow bad policing.”
199. Chief Swoboda knowingly lied in his video statement to the public. CBI does test for
the inhalants used in huffing. It does this testing upon request in DUI/DUID cases and for
free. FCPS was not “looking at each and every one of th[o]se cases to make sure that
[they] are out there operating appropriately.” Swoboda made the above statement despite
knowing that he and FCPS had literally zero evidence or support for the idea that the
“none detected” blood test DUI cases involved drugs that CBI was unwilling to test for,
that were too expensive to test for, or that forensic science was not yet capable of testing
for.
200. It should also be noted that if any FCPS officer or supervisor believed that a “none
detected” blood test result was due to other impairing drugs not checked in the 14-panel
screen (rather than being due to the person’s actual innocence), the blood could be
retested or subjected to specialized testing for any and all other drugs at any time
for a year or more after the date of the arrest. This is because CBI by rule maintains
the blood samples from DUI arrests for at least one year and longer if needed or
requested.
a. At the time that Chief Swoboda made these deliberately false and misleading
statements to the public claiming that all “none detected” blood test cases were
due to drug testing limitations and not driver innocence, nearly all of those
drivers’ blood samples were thus still in refrigeration at CBI, perfectly
preserved, and available for any manner of free specialized drug testing.
b. Rather than request the testing, Chief Swoboda elected to lie to the public about
nonexistent drug testing limitations and nonexistent drug testing costs instead.
201. Further cementing Plaintiff’s failure to supervise Monell claims, in the internal affairs
investigation FCPS eventually did open into him, Haferman openly admitted that no one
was supervising him at FCPS for the entirety of his tenure there.
a. For example: it is FCPS written policy that all arrest reports including all important
information needed to be completed by officers by the end of their shifts.
i. Haferman did not comply with this written policy. He was completing his
reports sometimes days or even weeks later.
ii. When interviewed by FCPS’s “Professional Standards Unit” (PSU) for the
internal affairs investigation into his wrongful DUI arrests, Haferman was
questioned about his failure to comply with this written policy. Haferman
told investigator Kim Cochran that reports did not need to be completed by
end of shift at FCPS and in fact in his “entire career at FCPS,” it was “never
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 42 of
51
43
mentioned by any supervisor that he needed to complete reports by the end
of shift.” He went on and on about this written policy not being actual policy
followed by anyone at FCPS and he informed Cochran that he “has never
had a supervisor speak to him about getting reports done in a timely
manner.”
b. Also throughout this interview with his own employer, Haferman would repeatedly
claim that he had a great memory while in nearly the same breath refusing to
acknowledge certain basic facts of his cases by claiming he could “not recall.” He
bragged that over the past two years as DUI Officer he took no notes during
roadsides or any other part of the investigation and instead “most everything was
done by memory.” He stated this as a point of pride, reminding the investigator
Cochran that no supervisor of his at FCPS had ever found any problem with that.
c. Haferman was questioned by investigator Cochran about his failure to activate his
BWC and whether there had been prior instances of him doing so. To her face,
Haferman lied and said he could recall no prior instances of him having to
document that he had muted his camera or forgot to turn on his camera (in fact
there were more than 6 such instances in just the previous year).
d. For all the instances in which Haferman quite confidently informed the FCPS
investigator that he had never received any kind of supervisory direction
suggesting he needed to do things differently, and conveniently, only for those
instances, FCPS investigator Cochran found Haferman’s statements to be “highly
unlikely and inaccurate.” For everything else, she presumed that Haferman was
merely mistaken and not “intentionally lying.”
e. Investigator Cochran then acknowledged just a few paragraphs later in her 68-
page report on Haferman that there were “issues with Haferman’s ability to give
accurate testimony.”
202. In the separate report produced as a result of the investigation into Haferman’s
conduct and testimony in Ms. Zimmerman’s DOR hearing, the FCPS investigator (really
having no choice at this point) had to make the finding that Haferman’s arrest report did
include false statements that were belied by his own videos. She reluctantly
acknowledged that Haferman appeared to have “a disregard for accurate reporting and
poor attention to detail.”
203. These are catastrophically dangerous traits for any police officer to have and both
realities of which any supervising officer at FCPS would have discovered to be true about
Haferman if they had been supervising anything he was doing starting in November 2020.
204. An officer who has “a disregard for accurate reporting and poor attention to detail” is
almost certain to also be an officer who makes wrongful arrests of innocent people.
Particularly if that officer is given a job exclusively focused on making arrests for only one
type of crime (DUI) where that one type of crime (unlike nearly every other type of offense
in the Criminal Code) is also able to be charged based solely on the subjective opinion
and claimed observations of the arresting officer.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 43 of
51
44
205. When interviewed by FCPS’s Professional Standards Unit in the summer of 2022,
Haferman further solidified Plaintiff’s Monell claims, when he stated that throughout his
tenure as the DUI Officer, he “believed he was doing good work ” and “didn’t have any
reason to believe he wasn’t doing good work based on no supervisors or experts in the
field saying otherwise.”
206. In the course of FCPS’s investigation into Haferman’s misconduct, multiple FCPS
officers admitted that Haferman’s failure to administer the roadsides to drivers correctly
was obvious and apparent on his videos.
207. When interviewed by FCPS’s Professional Standards Unit in the summer of 2022,
Haferman openly stated that he treated a driver’s invocation of the right to remain
silent as an indication of impairment because it “showed poor judgment in how to
interact with police.” He said this was also consistent with his training and experienced
received at FCPS.
208. In public statements to the press throughout the summer (as more Haferman victims
came forward to various news outlets and additional stories about Haferman and FCPS’s
pattern of wrongful DUI arrests continued to run), both Chief Swoboda and FCPS’s public
relations officer continued to make knowingly false and defamatory statements insisting
that Haferman had probable cause to make all of his arrests and insinuating that the
drivers whose blood results came back with nothing detected were simply impaired by
some other substance.
209. These continued defamatory statements made by FCPS suggesting his arrest was
lawful and that he had simply been on some kind of synthetic street drug or inhalant
caused Mr. Elias – a father, business owner, and pilot – to suffer additional emotional
distress and further compounded his damages.
210. On September 1, 2022, the Larimer County District Attorney sent a letter to Chief
Swoboda referencing the fact that they had had several “previous discussions” concerning
Haferman’s integrity, judgment, and reliability, and now despite those “previous
discussions,” felt forced to conclude that Haferman “at minimum, has demonstrated a
significant disregard for the integrity of his investigations and does not have a firm grasp
of the impact of depriving our citizens of their liberty.”
211. On September 2, 2022, FCPS announced that they were putting Haferman on
administrative leave.
212. In December of 2022, Chief Swoboda made a public statement on FCPS’s Facebook
page again, this time to announce that Haferman had resigned. He then explained that
when FCPS had actually reviewed his work (after being forced to by media inquiries in
May), FCPS had realized Haferman was lying in his reports, doing roadsides incorrectly,
and arresting people without probable cause.
213. No one at FCPS ever interviewed any of the victims of Haferman’s wrongful DUI
arrests as part of their several-month s long investigation resulting in a 68-page report.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 44 of
51
45
214. A reporter offered Chief Swoboda the opportunity to apologize to victims of
Haferman’s wrongful arrests, including Mr. Elias in particular. Chief Swoboda refused to
issue any apology.
215. To date, no one at FCPS has offered any apology to Mr. Elias or any other victims of
Haferman’s and its repeated wrongful DUI arrests.
216. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of his constitutional rights under both the U.S.
and Colorado Constitutions, Plaintiff Mr. Elias has suffered damages, trauma, depression,
upset, loss of sleep, loss of work, loss of happiness, embarrassment, disruption of family
relationships, emotional distress, and a catastrophic loss of ability to feel safe, to trust law
enforcement, and to drive anywhere without risking again his loss of liberty.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Section 13-21-131, C.R.S. – Arrest Without Probable Cause
Violation of Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 7
(against Defendant Haferman)
217. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
218. Section 13-21-131 of the Colorado Revised Statutes directs that any peace officer who
“subjects or causes to be subjected, including failure to intervene, any other person to the
deprivation of any individual rights … secured by the bill of rights, article II of the state
constitution is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate
relief.”
219. Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorneys fees
do not apply to claims brought pursuant to § 13-21-131.
220. Defendant Haferman was a police officer under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-901(3),
employed by the City of Fort Collins and its Police Department at the time he wrongfully
seized, arrested and maliciously prosecuted Mr. Elias.
221. Officer Haferman did not at any time during his encounter with Mr. Elias have probable
cause or reasonable suspicion or any other legally valid basis to believe that Mr. Elias had
committed, was committing, or was about to commit any crime.
222. Defendant Officer Haferman unreasonably seized and arrested Mr. Elias, in violation
of his rights under the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
223. Officer Haferman did not at any time have a warrant authorizing his seizure or arrest
of Mr. Elias.
224. Officer Haferman violated Mr. Elias state constitutional rights by engaging in an
unlawful seizure of Mr. Elias that was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting them before, during and after his encounter with Mr. Elias.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 45 of
51
46
225. Defendant Haferman knowingly violated Mr. Elias individual rights as secured by the
bill of rights of the Colorado Constitution.
226. Defendant Haferman did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that his
actions in seizing Plaintiff without probable cause or reasonable suspicion was lawful.
227. The acts or omissions of the Defendant Haferman were the moving force behind, and
the proximate cause of, injuries sustained by Mr. Elias.
228. Defendant Haferman’s wrongful arrest and humiliation of Mr. Elias caused him to
experience extraordinary stress, expense, depression, terror and anxiety. The experience
of this event caused and continues to cause Mr. Elias trauma and emotional distress, loss
of any feeling of safety or security, along with all the other damages and injuries described
herein.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Unlawful Arrest Without Probable Cause – Individual, Failure-to-
Supervise/Train, Unconstitutional Pattern/Practice under Monell
Violation of Fourth Amendment, Due Process
(against Defendants Haferman , Sergeant Heaton, Corporal Redacted, and Fort Collins)
HAFERMAN
229. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if set
forth fully herein.
230. The actions of Defendant Officer Haferman as described herein, while acting under
color of state law, intentionally deprived Mr. Elias of the securities, rights, privileges,
liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America,
including his right to be free from unlawful seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in
that Mr. Elias was arrested without a warrant and without probable cause to believe he
had committed any offense.
231. Defendant Officer Haferman knew that Mr. Elias was unimpaired and that he had no
probable cause to arrest him and he did so anyway, with deliberate indifference to Mr.
Elias’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
232. Officer Haferman’s arrest of Mr. Elias was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts
and circumstances confronting him before, during and after this encounter.
233. Officer Haferman’s conduct described herein was attended by circumstances of
malice, or willful and wanton conduct, which he must have realized was dangerous, or
that was done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to the consequences or the rights
of others, particularly Plaintiff.
234. Defendant Officer Haferman falsified his report regarding evidence of impairment to
ensure that Plaintiff would be prosecuted for the DUI offense he had not committed.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 46 of
51
47
235. Defendant Officer Haferman caused Plaintiff to be arrested without probable cause or
a warrant, and the false statements in his reports caused Plaintiff to be wrongly subjected
to criminal prosecution. Defendant Haferman’s actions were done with malice and caused
Plaintiff damages.
SERGEANT HEATON
236. Defendant Sergeant Heaton was responsible for supervising Defendant Haferman.
237. Defendant Sergeant Heaton was also personally involved in several of Haferman’s
wrongful DUI arrests.
238. Defendant Sergeant Heaton was able to observe that Haferman was wrongfully
arresting people and charging them with DUI and instead of doing anything to intervene
and stop the behavior, he instead expressly approved of it and at times even took
measures to help Haferman in covering it up.
239. If Defendant Sergeant Heaton had been fulfilling his duty to even intermittently review
Haferman’s work (particularly his repeated DUI arrests coming back with “none detected”
blood results), he would have seen that Haferman was lying in his reports, falsifying
impairment indicators, administering roadsides incorrectly, and regularly tampering with
or otherwise muting/disabling his bodyworn camera in violation of FCPS policy and
Colorado law.
240. If Defendant Sergeant Heaton had been fulfilling his duty to even intermittently review
Haferman’s work, he would have noticed the dozens of red flags indicating that his
intervention, supervision, and more was required to stop Haferman from his pattern and
practice of arresting innocent people for DUI.
241. Any reasonable supervisor in Sergeant Heaton’s position would have recognized that
Haferman was wrongfully arresting innocent people and regularly violating the
constitutional rights of citizens several months before Haferman encountered Plaintiff Mr.
Elias and subjected him to the same.
CORPORAL REDACTED
242. Defendant Corporal Redacted was also responsible for supervising Defendant
Haferman.
243. Defendant Corporal Redacted did nothing to actually supervise or monitor the work
being done by Officer Haferman.
244. If Defendant Corporal Redacted had been fulfilling his duty to even intermittently
review Haferman’s work (particularly his repeated DUI arrests coming back with “none
detected” blood results), he would have seen that Haferman was lying in his reports,
falsifying impairment indicators, administering roadsides incorrectly, and regularly
tampering with or otherwise muting/disabling his bodyworn camera in violation of FCPS
policy and Colorado law.
245. If Defendant Corporal Redacted had been fulfilling his duty to even intermittently
review Haferman’s work, he would have noticed the dozens of red flags indicating that his
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 47 of
51
48
intervention, supervision, and more was required to stop Haferman from his pattern and
practice of arresting innocent people for DUI.
246. Any reasonable supervisor in Corporal Redacted’s position would have recognized
that Haferman was wrongfully arresting innocent people and regularly violating the
constitutional rights of citizens several months before Haferman encountered Plaintiff Mr.
Elias and subjected him to the same.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
247. Defendant City of Fort Collins is a governmental entity and municipality incorporated
under the laws of the State of Colorado for purposes of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the Fort Collins Police Services is a department of the City of Fort Collins. Defendant
City of Fort Collins enforces local and state law through its law enforcement agency, the
Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”).
248. Defendant Fort Collins had a duty to train and supervise Defendant Haferman.
249. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Fort Collins employed and
was responsible for the promulgation of policies, customs, practices and training of
FCPS personnel, including Officers Haferman.
250. Defendant Fort Collins was aware Defendant Haferman’s propensity for wrongfully
arresting citizens to increase his DUI arrest numbers, falsifying his reports, and had
evidence of the same, and it chose to not just fail to remedy it, but to instead reward it,
ensuring it would continue to occur.
251. Both Fort Collins’s failure to supervise and train Haferman, as well as its
aforementioned unconstitutional customs/practices, were the moving force behind Mr.
Elias’s wrongful arrest.
252. Defendant Fort Collins’ actions and omissions violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional
rights, and were a substantial and significant contributing cause and proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s damages.
253. Defendant Fort Collins did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that their
actions and omissions in failing to adequately train and supervise FCPS officers in this
area was lawful.
254. Defendant Fort Collins, through its Chief and policymaker Jeffrey Swoboda, made
knowingly false and defamatory statements to the public in the aftermath of its wrongful
arrest of Mr. Elias which exacerbated Mr. Elias’s emotional distress, suffering, and
damages by insinuating that he had been on some other kind of drug they couldn’t test
for and falsely suggesting that testing for those other drugs was too expensive for the
agency (when the testing was free).
255. These Defendants’ conduct were the proximately cause of the injuries, damages, and
losses to Mr. Elias described herein.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 48 of
51
49
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Section 13-21-131, C.R.S. – Violation of Due Process
Malicious Prosecution
Violation of Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 25
(against Defendant Haferman)
256. Plaintiff Mr. Elias incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint
as if set forth fully herein.
257. Defendant Haferman was a police officer under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-901(3),
employed by the City of Fort Collins at the time he wrongfully seized, arrested and
maliciously prosecuted Mr. Elias.
258. Section 25 of Article II of the Colorado state constitution guarantees to Mr. Elias the
right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
259. Defendant Haferman caused the criminal prosecution against Mr. Elias by falsifying
and deliberately exaggerating the facts in his report and his Affidavit for Warrantless
Arrest, in an effort to make it more likely to appear there had been probable cause for Mr.
Elias’s arrest, and providing those documents to the District Attorney.
260. Defendant Officer Haferman’s false allegations were the sole moving force behind the
criminal prosecution against Mr. Elias, which included Mr. Elias being subjected to
extremely oppressive and humiliating bond conditions as already detailed herein.
261. Defendant Haferman’s actions were done with malice.
262. No probable cause supported the criminal charges Haferman brought against Mr.
Elias.
263. The criminal prosecution against Mr. Elias resolved in his favor when the Larimer
County Court dismissed the case against him on January 11, 2022.
264. Defendant Haferman’s malicious and false prosecution of Mr. Elias caused him to
suffer further trauma, damages, lost wages, suffering, depression, and despair.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42. U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution
Fourth Amendment, Due Process Violations
(against Defendant Haferman)
265. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if set
forth fully herein.
266. Defendant Haferman caused the criminal prosecution against Mr. Elias by falsifying
and deliberately exaggerating the facts in his report in an effort to make it more likely to
appear there had been probable cause for Mr. Elias’s arrest, and providing those
documents to the District Attorney.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 49 of
51
50
267. Defendant Officer Haferman’s false allegations were the sole moving force behind the
criminal prosecution against Mr. Elias.
268. Defendant Haferman’s actions were done with malice.
269. No probable cause supported the criminal charges Haferman brought against Mr.
Elias.
270. Defendant Haferman’s malicious and false prosecution of Mr. Elias caused him to
suffer further trauma, damages, lost wages, suffering, depression, and despair.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in his favor and
against Defendants, and award him all relief as allowed by law and equity, including but not
limited to:
a. Declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as appropriate;
b. Actual economic damages as established at trial;
c. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to those for past and future
pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, physical and mental pain, trauma, fear, anxiety,
loss of enjoyment of life, loss of liberty, loss of sense of security, and other non-
pecuniary losses;
d. Punitive or exemplary damages for all claims as allowed by law in an amount to be
determined at trial;
e. Issuance of an Order mandating appropriate equitable relief, including but not limited
to:
i. Issuance of a formal written apology from each Defendant to Plaintiff;
ii. The imposition of appropriate policy changes designed to avoid future similar
misconduct by Defendants;
iii. Mandatory training designed to avoid and prevent future similar misconduct by
Defendants;
iv. Imposition of disciplinary action against appropriate employees of Fort Collins;
f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
g. Attorney’s fees and costs; and
h. Such further relief as justice requires.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 50 of
51
51
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of May, 2023.
THE LIFE & LIBERTY LAW OFFICE
s/ Sarah Schielke
Sarah Schielke, #42077
Counsel for Plaintiff
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-1 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 51 of
51
LAR!MER COUNTY D!STR!C٢ COURT
S T A T E O F C O L O R A D O
201 LaPorte Ave
F٥rtC٥!!lns, CO 80521
HARRIS ELIAS,
Plaintiff,
C O U R T U S E O N L Y A
Case Number:
V'
2023CV
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
,ASON HAFERMANل
SERGEANT ALLEN HEATON, and
CORPORAL REDACTED,
Defendants.
Attorney for p١a؛nt١ff'.
Sarah Schielke, #42077
The life &Liberty law Offi ce
1209 Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com
p: (970)'493-1980
F:(970) 797-4008 Division:
DISTRICT COURT CIVIL (cv) CASE COVER SHEET FOR INITIAL PLEADING OF
COMPLAINT, COUNTERCLAIM, CROSS-CLAIM OR THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND
dURY DEMAND
1. This cover sheet shall be filed with the initial pleading, of acomplaint, counterclaim,
cross-claim or third party complaint in every district court civil (cv) case. It shall not
be filed in Domestic Relations (DR), Probate (PR), Water (CW), Juvenile (JA, JR, JD,
JV), or Mental Health (MH) cases. Failure to file this cover sheet is not ajurisdictional
defect in the pleading but may result in aclerk's show cause order reguiring filing.
2. Simplified Procedure under C.R.C.P. 16.1 applies to this case unless (check one box
below if this party asserts C.R.C.P. 16.1 does not apply):
□This is aclass action, forcible entry and detainer. Rule 196, Rule 120, or other
similar expedited proceeding, or
^his party is seeking monetary judgment against another party for more than
$100,000.00, including any penalties or punitive damages, but excluding attorney
fees, interest and costs, as supported by the following certification;
DATE FILED: May 3, 2023 2:08 PM
FILING ID: F5D40DDCA07F7
CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30350
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-2 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
By ту signature be!٥w and in c٥mp!!ance with C.R.C.P. 11, based upon
!nformat!on reasonab!y a٧al!ab!e to me at th!s t!me, !certify that the value of
this party's claims against one of the other parties is reasonably believe to
exceed $1٥0,000.
٠٢
□Another party has previously filed acover sheet that C.R.C.P. 16.1 does not apply
to this case.
3iy this party makes aJury Demand at this time and pays the reguisite fee. SeeC.R.C p., 38. (Checking this box is optional؛')
ب !أ)3Date^
-
N.TICE:
this cover slieet must be served on all other parties along with the initial pleading of a
complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party complaint.
9
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-2 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
Revised 12/20/19
District Court, Larimer County, Colorado
201 LaPorte Avenue, Suite 100
Ft Collins, CO 80521-2761
Plaintiff(s): HARRIS ELIAS
v.
Defendant(s): CITY OF FORT COLLINS, JASON
HAFERMAN, SERGEANT ALLEN HEATON, and
CORPORAL REDACTED
Case Number: 2023CV30350
Courtroom: 4A
NOTICE JUDICIAL CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT
All civil cases are subject to judicial screening and case manag ement. This case
is assigned to Judge MICHELLE BRINEGAR-4A. Trial will not be set until the Court
determines that a trial setting is appropriate. Within 30-40 days of filing, your case will
be reviewed and appropriate orders sent to counsel and pro se parties
It is imperative that all returns of service be f iled promptly with the Court, so that
the Court, when reviewing the case, can accurately assess its status.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide a copy of this notice to all counsel (or pro se
parties) who enter appearances.
The Civil Case Cover Sheet (JDF 601) required pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16.1 was
to be included with your initial pleading. If it was not included, it must be filed within
14 days from the date of this notice.
Dated May 3, 2023.
________________________________
Chief Judge Susan Blanco
Copies sent to: ATP via JPOD
COURT USE ONLY
DATE FILED: May 3, 2023 2:49 PM
CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30350
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-3 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
DATE FILED: May 12, 2023 2:49 PM
FILING ID: 741F8EF053EF5
CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30350
Case No. 1:23-cv-01343-GPG-KLM Document 1-4 filed 05/26/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1