Bizarre, Criminal law

Denver Police Department Fights Efforts to Fire Officer Who Is Shown Attacking Man Speaking on a Cell Phone

There is a controversy in Denver over the handling of a police camera and the appropriate punishment of an officer shown beating two men. The incident was caught on Denver’s High Activity Location Observation video surveillance (H.A.L.O) system.

Denver’s Independent Monitor Richard Rosenthal has clashed with the Denver Police over whether the officer should be fired. The Denver Police insist that an officer simply had a clumsy “arm bar take down” and that, when the camera inexplicably pans away at the critical point in the confrontation, there was no effort to cover up the abuse of the suspect. Michael DeHerrera, 24, who is shown talking on his phone with his father (a sheriff’s deputy in Pueblo), is suddenly thrown to the ground by the officer. His friend, Shawn Johnson, 25, was already being arrested when the camera then shows Officer Devin Sparks suddenly grab DeHerrera and throw him to the ground — that is when the camera suddenly pans away. When the camera pans back, you can see officers hitting DeHerrera.

The city settled with DeHerrera and Johnson for a surprisingly small amount: $15,500,

After the incident, the officer piled on a long list of charges against Johnson and DeHerrera — all of which were later dropped.

Officer Randy Murr was suspended for three days without pay for violating a provision requiring truthful and accurate information in police reports, and Sparks fined 24 hours for the same violation. Once again, I am surprised by the light punishment given for failing to provide truthful information on a police report — entirely separate from the issue of the beating.

Reviewing the tape, I fail to see the arguable defense for the officer. The department says that the suspect shoved officers and they may have been afraid that he might shove them again. That hardly justifies this level of force, in my view.

To watch the video, click here.

Previously, Denver officers were acquitted by a jury in a case with an equally disturbing video, here.

Source: Denver Channel

50 thoughts on “Denver Police Department Fights Efforts to Fire Officer Who Is Shown Attacking Man Speaking on a Cell Phone”

  2. Prof.,

    When you wrote “…suddenly pans away…” I was expecting some sort of automated camera that was programed to move at intervals. When I watched the video I swear I could hear the police operator of the camera saying, “Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit!!!” as he tried to cover for the blue boy who decided to beat up the guy on the phone. I can’t believe the attorney on this thing didn’t want that in front of a jury. Peanuts for the settlement.

  3. To whom it may concern:

    The City of Denver is, like all large municipalities, essentially a continuing RICO violation. The politicians who run it dare not run afoul of the Police and Firefighter Unions, and so invariably do all they can to protect their members, unless, as in the case of my client, the union is out to get a certain member.

    Ms. Sieverding did not accurately state the facts with respect to my successful ADEA case against the City of Denver on behalf of 27-year Denver Firefighter Billy Cadorna.

    I am a Stanford Law School grad with 25 years of experience in labor and employment law. I am not Clarence Darrow incarnate, but I am a pretty good trial lawyer.

    I won a $1.22 million ADEA jury verdict against the City and County of Denver in June, 2006. I won an $850,000 settlement for Cadorna in December, 2008.

    Cadorna schemed behind my back with US Magistrate Craig Shaffer to deprive me of my statutory lien in the settlement without due process. Without my permission, and over my objection, Shaffer ordered at the close of the settlement conference that the settlement be paid directly to Cadorna.

    Hence, Cadorna was able to withhold $100,000 of the $150,000 he owed me at the time of settlement, and has not paid me since. No good deed goes unpunished. I proved that Cadorna was not a thief, and he repaid me by proving that he is much less trustworthy than even the City alleged. I did not sue to collect, because I would not give the City the satisfaction of seeing us at each other’s throats.

    Yet, I am pleased that I was able to prove that the City of Denver will stop at nothing, including subornation of perjury, malicious prosecution, and obstruction of justice, to achieve its goals.

    The City knew that Cadorna had not shoplifted a cookbook from Safeway, yet terminated and maliciously prosecuted him on the pretext that he did.

    Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer John Criswell agreed after several days of hearing that Cadorna did not shoplift the cookbook, yet refused to reinstate Cadorna or grant him back pay in lieu of reinstatement in express reliance upon the fact Cadorna was over age 50 (despite his certain knowledge this violated the ADEA).

    I sued Safeway and obtained a substantial settlement from Safeway.

    The City never made a serious offer of settlement. During two weeks of trial, I proved that the City knew at the time it terminated Cadorna that he did not shoplift the cookbook, suborned a fraudulent criminal complaint against him from Safeway’s store manager, suborned perjurious testimony by the store manager in seeking to convict Cadorna of shoplifting after his termination, and explicitly relied on Cadorna’s age to justify refusing to reinstate him or grant him back pay in lieu of reinstatement.

    I conducted myself professionally at trial, and presented my client’s case well. The City never moved for a mistrial in reliance on any allegation to the contrary, and thereby waived a motion for new trial.

    Yet, 15 months after trial, Judge Robert E. Blackburn mysteriously granted a new trial on the basis of alleged misconduct by me. This was contrary to the facts and the law, and a violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe he did it in return for a big favor by the City to one of his political allies, or him.

    Immediately after Blackburn ordered a new trial, the City’s Democratic allies on the Colorado Supreme Court demanded that I be investigated for “interference with the administration of justice” by winning my client’s case through good lawyering.

    The prosecuting attorney recommended dismissal of the charges against me after the jurors all told him the judge’s description of my conduct was false, and that I conducted myself professionally or that, even (in the case of one juror) if I got under the skin of the jurors, my actions did not influence them to rule in favor of my client.

    All jurors stated that they followed the instructions, and that they all agreed quickly that the City was guilty of willful age discrimination. Four jurors said I did my job very well, and that, if they ever need a lawyer, they will hire me.

    The Colorado Supreme Court nevertheless insisted that the prosecuting attorney withhold this exculpatory information from the Atty Regulation Committee. He thereby succeeded in fraudulently securing permission to prosecute me in retaliation for vindicating my client’s federally protected rights.

    In a three-day show trial, I was not permitted to confront my principal accuser, Judge Blackburn, and was foreclosed by the federal court from subpoenaing the jurors to testify for me.

    The incompetent or dishonest Disciplinary Judge (and the kangaroo panel that included City Attorney David Fine’s long-time mentor and partner, Ed Kahn) ignored the jury foreperson’s voluntary video deposition testimony that Judge Blackburn could not have been more mistaken in attributing our victory to any misconduct by me, and convicted me on the basis of the judge’s hearsay new trial order and the testimony of the Asst. City Attorneys whose asses I kicked at trial.

    Prior to this witch hunt, I had a clean disciplinary record. They suspended me for a year and a day for winning my client’s case. This is severe punishment normally reserved for criminal conduct. Thus has my good deed been further punished, in violation of my Constitutional rights.

    I more likely than not have no remedy, because of the practically insuperable Catch-22 of Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention, and the failure of anti-discrimination statutes to protect attorneys against retaliation by insider-dominated and politically corrupt bar committees and courts.

    In short, as an attorney whose only sin was to win a big victory against a politically powerfully and immensely corrupt municipality, I have no Constitutional rights, whereas the lowliest criminal has the full protection of the due process, equal protection, and confrontation clauses.

    Aland Prendergast of Westword (local Village Voice) wrote an excellent article on the case:

    http://www.westword.com/2007-12-13/news/blackburned/

  4. Officer Devin Sparks should have been fired *and* charged with criminal assault. I wonder why DeHerrera’s counsel did not pursue this case.

  7. Most law enforcement encounters are during non-violent, routine contacts. But at times, these contacts turn hostile because of an officer’s poor communication skills. This can result in possible injury, liability for the officer and/or police department,….,

    we have worked diligently to build net assets for our pools …“Over the past several years, as you know, we have increased net assets in preparation for the possibilities of a more diffi cult marketplace or a greater need for larger self-insured retentions,” said Tim Greer, Executive Director.
    “As a result, we are positioned as well as can be hoped.” …our Board retreat next month will partially focus on discussing investment and coverage strategies to carry us through this recession and on into the future.”
    If you have any questions or concerns about your equity account or CIRSA’s plans, please contact us at 303.757.5475 or 800.228.7136.
    [PDF] HOW THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN IS AFFECTING CIRSA

  8. Use the following search fields to help locate a particular insurance company approved in the state of Colorado. Note: All fields provided below are optional, use as many as you need to find the insurance company you are looking for.
    Company Name
    Company Type
    Type of Insurance Authorized to Sell

    Notes on entering search criteria:
    Searches are not case sensitive.

    Use either a full or partial company name to search on.
    http://cdilookup.asisvcs.com/CompanySearch.aspx

    http://cdilookup.asisvcs.com/

    The Colorado Division of Insurance is your best source for information on company and producer and agency licensing.

    The Division licenses all producers and agencies and regulates all insurance entities. Producers must meet educational requirements to be licensed to sell insurance products. Companies are required to be licensed to have their products sold in Colorado.

    Clicking on the search buttons below will allow consumers to verify that the producer/agency who they are working with is properly licensed in Colorado and that the insurance company has met all necessary financial requirements to operate legally in the state.

  9. “Violating a provision requiring truthful and accurate information in police reports” should be immediate dismissal and possible criminal charges. How on earth can an honest police department ever trust an officer who they’ve caught lying? Ridiculously light punishment is a tacit acknowledgment that the practice is widespread.

    Also, the DA’s office should have to take the form suspending those officers, stamp “BRADY MATERIAL” in huge red letters on top of it and nail it to the courthouse doors.

  10. http://www.cirsa.org/

    We represent the combined interests of well over 200 Colorado municipalities and affiliated public entities. Our members formed CIRSA over 25 years ago as a pooled solution for their Property/Casualty and Workers’ Compensation coverage needs.

    We are more than 40 dedicated professionals who work tirelessly to bring innovative risk management solutions to our members.

    We help our members leverage their expertise so they can more effectively serve their constituencies.

    Discover what CIRSA can do for you…

    We’ve supported members with claims processing, risk assessment and management, loss control and prevention, and successfully followed through with issues all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court…

    Our member ownership directs our day-to-day operations. Members adopt and amend CIRSA’s organizational bylaws, elect our seven-member representative Board of Directors, and appoint CIRSA’s Executive Director, who oversees day-to-day operations….

    The nuts and bolts of our work is to help members effectively manage risk through….Proactive claims management..

    where the rubber meets the road, we’re a powerful advocate for our members. We champion the needs and interests of public entities before the state legislature, in state and national judicial systems, and among insurers and peer insurance pools.

  11. colorado revised statutes
    http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

    24-10-115.5. Authority for public entities to pool insurance coverage.

    (1) Public entities may cooperate with one another to form a self-insurance pool to provide all or part of the insurance coverage authorized by this article or by section 29-5-111, C.R.S., for the cooperating public entities. Any such self-insurance pool may provide such coverage by the methods authorized in sections 24-10-115 (2) and 24-10-116 (2), by any different methods if approved by the commissioner of insurance, or by any combination thereof. Any such insurance pool shall be formed pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of article 1 of title 29, C.R.S. The provisions of articles 10.5 and 47 of title 11, C.R.S., shall apply to moneys of such self-insurance pool.

    (2) Any self-insurance pool authorized by subsection (1) of this section shall not be construed to be an insurance company nor otherwise subject to the provisions of the laws of this state regulating insurance or insurance companies; except that the pool shall comply with the applicable provisions of sections 10-1-203 and 10-1-204 (1) to (5) and (10), C.R.S.

    (3) Prior to the formation of a self-insurance pool, there shall be submitted to the commissioner of insurance a complete written proposal of the pool’s operation, including, but not limited to, the administration, claims adjusting, membership, and capitalization of the pool. The commissioner shall review the proposal within thirty days after receipt to assure that proper insurance techniques and procedures are included in the proposal. After such review, the commissioner shall have the right to approve or disapprove the proposal. If the commissioner approves the proposal, he shall issue a certificate of authority. The costs of such review shall be paid by the public entities desiring to form such a pool. Any such payment received by the commissioner is hereby appropriated to the division of insurance in addition to any other funds appropriated for its normal operation.

    (4) Each self-insurance pool for public entities created in this state shall file, with the commissioner of insurance on or before March 30 of each year, a written report in a form prescribed by the commissioner, signed and verified by its chief executive officer as to its condition. Such report shall include a detailed statement of assets and liabilities, the amount and character of the business transacted, and the moneys reserved and expended during the year.

    (5) The commissioner of insurance, or any person authorized by him, shall conduct an insurance examination at least once a year to determine that proper underwriting techniques and sound funding, loss reserves, and claims procedures are being followed. This examination shall be paid for by the self-insurance pool out of its funds at the same rate as provided for foreign insurance companies under section 10-1-204 (9), C.R.S.

    (6) (a) The certificate of authority issued to a public entity under this section may be revoked or suspended by the commissioner of insurance for any of the following reasons:

    (I) Insolvency or impairment;

    (II) Refusal or failure to submit an annual report as required by subsection (4) of this section;

    (III) Failure to comply with the provisions of its own ordinances, resolutions, contracts, or other conditions relating to the self-insurance pool;

    (IV) Failure to submit to examination or any legal obligation relative thereto;

    (V) Refusal to pay the cost of examination as required by subsection (5) of this section;

    (VI) Use of methods which, although not otherwise specifically proscribed by law, nevertheless render the operation of the self-insurance pool hazardous, or its condition unsound, to the public;

    (VII) Failure to otherwise comply with the law of this state, if such failure renders the operation of the self-insurance pool hazardous to the public.

    (b) If the commissioner of insurance finds upon examination, hearing, or other evidence that any participating public entity has committed any of the acts specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection (6) or any act otherwise prohibited in this section, the commissioner may suspend or revoke such certificate of authority if he deems it in the best interest of the public. Notice of any revocation shall be published in one or more daily newspapers in Denver which have a general state circulation. Before suspending or revoking any certificate of authority of a public entity, the commissioner shall grant the public entity fifteen days in which to show cause why such action should not be taken.

    (7) Any public entity pool formed under this article and under article 13 of title 29, C.R.S., and the members thereof, may combine and commingle all funds appropriated by the members and received by the pool for liability or property insurance or self-insurance or for other purposes of the pool.

  12. a) By the State. No criminal case pending in any court shall be dismissed or a nolle prosequi therein entered by any prosecuting attorney or his deputy, unless upon a motion in open court, and with the court’s consent and approval. Such a motion shall be supported or accompanied by a written statement concisely stating the reasons for the action. The statement shall be filed with the record of the particular case and be open to public inspection. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the defendant’s consent. Rule 48. Dismissal
    Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure
    http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

    The article doesn’t mention the paperwork or hearing associated with the dropping of the criminal charges. Did the police offer an explanation of why the criminal charges were dropped other than a connection to the very low settlement of the excessive force charges?

  13. Tim in SF:

    I couldn’t agree more. Well said. Roll those cameras and hold the truly guilty parties accountable.

  15. A firefighter won a successful jury trial in federal court against the Denver Fire Department for age discrimination. Then his attorney Mark Brennan was suspended
    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13673023?source=bb

    So what ended up happening is the Denver fire fighter settled with the client for less money and, as I understand it, the attorney didn’t get paid. Mark Brennan has his own blog and there is a lot of reporting of this on Knowyourcourts.com and westword.com

  16. You mention that the victim of excessive force was criminally charged but then the charges were dismissed when the man settled his civil claim for a very small sum.

    Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller 820 F.2d 1245 is an opinion by the Circuit of the District of Columbia that upheld a claim that the disposition of criminal charges was tied to the status of civil claims. Basically extortion under color of law. Threats of violence in order to stop a civil lawsuit or get it settled for peanuts.

    Josiah Haynesworth was a court clerk who knew his rights and stuck up for them leaving case law to benefit others.

  17. “The department says that the suspect shoved officers”

    The only reason they are making that claim is because there was no camera on them at that moment.

    It’s absolutely necessary that officers videotape every single interaction with the public. If I had my way, officers would be videotaped during every moment of their shift. They have demonstrated countless times that some of them abuse the authority with which they are entrusted.

  18. My, my, three days without pay.. reminds me of the punishment Goldman Sachs gave it’s analyst, Fabrice Tourre, for the Abacus fraud…

    Windowdressing…

  19. I am amazed…and still steaming…why can’t this officer be charged with Utter and Publishing. He has already been given time off for it. He has committed a contemptible act. I wonder if his ethnic sounding name had anything in the slightest to do with it?

  20. “Officer Randy Murr was suspended for three days without pay for violating a provision requiring truthful and accurate information in police reports, and Sparks fined 24 hours for the same violation.”

    Keep em going Dano, the odds of a payoff appear to be greater than Vegas.

    HALO, GOD must be watching….

Comments are closed.