Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Estate of De'Von Bailey v. City of Colorado Springs, Et Al.
Estate of De'Von Bailey v. City of Colorado Springs, Et Al.
ESTATE OF DE’VON BAILEY, by and through its personal representatives Delisha Searcy and
Greg Bailey,
R.B., a minor, by and through their legal guardian Laquana Gardner.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Land and Officer Blake Evenson shot Mr. De’Von Bailey in the back as he ran away from them,
killing him.
1
Patterson Hood, “What It Means,” Drive-By Truckers, American Band, 2016. The song and its lyrics can be found
here: https://youtu.be/mY0qOCUy27Q.
1
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 30
2. The officers contacted Mr. Bailey after receiving a false report that Mr. Bailey
had been involved in an armed robbery. They killed him before the Colorado Springs Police
Department conducted even the most basic of investigations into the robbery claim—and when
the department did investigate, it discovered that no robbery had occurred at all.
3. Mr. Bailey did not threaten any police officer or citizen in any way prior to
Sergeant Van’t Land and Officer Evenson’s decision to shoot him. He simply ran away, fast.
4. Nearly thirty-five years before Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson killed Mr.
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the
circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony
suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to
the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend
him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate
when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little
late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect.
5. The officers killed De’Von Bailey at the age of 19. His community lost yet
another young black man to police violence. His parents were forced to bury their son just as he
bloomed into adulthood. His child, born only months after his death, will never meet their father.
6. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is
brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is also brought under Colorado state law, including
the wrongful death act, C.R.S. § 13-21-201 et seq. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees and costs
2
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 30
8. Timely Notice of Claim under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act was
given by Plaintiffs to Defendants regarding Defendant Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s willful and
wanton wrongful killing of De’Von Bailey, in violation of Colorado’s wrongful death statute.
PARTIES
9. At all times pertinent to the subject matter of this litigation, the decedent De’Von
Bailey was a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of and domiciled in the State
of Colorado. Delisha Searcy and Greg Bailey are his parents and serve as the co-personal
10. Plaintiff R.B. is a minor child of Mr. Bailey. R.B. brings this action by and
through their legal guardian and mother, Laquana Gardner. R.B. is a citizen and resident of
Colorado.
the laws of the State of Colorado and is a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Colorado Springs Police Department (“CSPD”) is a law enforcement agency that is part of the
City of Colorado Springs. Defendant City of Colorado Springs is responsible for the oversight,
supervision, discipline, and training of CSPD officers including Defendants Alan Van’t Land and
Blake Evenson.
12. At all relevant times, Defendant Alan Van’t Land was a citizen of the United
States and a resident of and domiciled in Colorado. At all times pertinent, Defendant Van’t Land
was acting within the scope of his official duties and employment and under color of state law in
his capacity as a law enforcement officer and Sergeant employed by the Colorado Springs Police
Department.
3
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 30
13. At all relevant times, Defendant Blake Evenson was a citizen of the United States
and a resident of and domiciled in Colorado. At all times pertinent, Defendant Evenson was
acting within the scope of his official duties and employment and under color of state law in his
capacity as a law enforcement officer employed by the Colorado Springs Police Department.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14. De’Von Bailey spent the afternoon of August 3, 2019 hanging out with his
girlfriend, Laquana Gardner, his cousin and close friend, Lawrence Stoker, and a gaggle of other
teenaged friends and relatives. It was a relaxed late-summer gathering in Colorado Springs, in
the neighborhood where Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker had grown up. Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker
discussed their excitement about how each of them would soon become a father—both Mr.
15. At some point during the afternoon, 19-year-old Anthony Love, who had known
Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker from when they had attended the same school years earlier,
approached Mr. Bailey, Mr. Stoker, Ms. Gardner, and a couple of other friends who were
standing and talking in the parking lot outside the Rosewood Apartments, where Mr. Bailey
lived.
16. Mr. Love initially approached the group in a heavily intoxicated state, and he
continued to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana while he spoke with them.
17. At some point in the conversation, Mr. Love began to make inappropriate
comments towards Ms. Gardner, which she repeatedly rebuffed. Though Ms. Gardner asked Mr.
Love to back away from her and to leave her alone, Mr. Love refused to stop.
18. Seeing that Mr. Love was not going to respect Ms. Gardner’s requests to leave her
4
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 30
alone, Mr. Stoker also asked Mr. Love to step away. After a brief argument, Mr. Love angrily
threw a punch at him. Mr. Stoker defended himself, and a brief fight broke out where Mr. Stoker
hit Mr. Love in the right eye, they both fell down and rolled around for a very short period of
19. Mr. Bailey was the one who broke up the “fight”. Mr. Bailey took no violent
20. Furious, embarrassed, humiliated, and still heavily intoxicated, Mr. Love
eventually left the gathering, shouting violent threats at Mr. Stoker and Mr. Bailey. He went to
the nearby home of Anthony Rivera, another attendee of the gathering whom he had visited
earlier, to pick up his backpack. He was quickly asked to leave that residence as well, due to his
21. Seeking revenge against Mr. Stoker and Mr. Bailey, Mr. Love called 9-1-1 from a
nearby elder care facility and falsely reported that he had been the victim of an armed robbery
22. Mr. Love falsely claimed in the 9-1-1 call that Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker had
approached him on the street, beaten him, menaced him with a gun, and stolen his wallet.
Though more than an hour had passed since Mr. Love had initiated and lost his fight with Mr.
Stoker, he told the 9-1-1 operator that the robbery had only just occurred.
23. Such false reporting through the 9-1-1 system is known as “swatting.” Mr. Love
is known in his community for settling personal grudges by contacting police and making false
reports of crimes, thereby causing police officers to contact those people under the false
impression that they are involved in criminal activity. Mr. Love’s August 3, 2019 9-1-1 call was
an apparent effort to cause law enforcement to contact Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker under the false
5
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 30
impression that they had just committed a violent crime, and that one or both of them was armed.
At the Stoker trial discussed below, it came to light Mr. Love has claimed to be a victim of at
24. Mr. Stoker was nevertheless prosecuted but was acquitted of all charges in the
alleged assault, having in fact acted in self-defense after Mr. Love threw a punch at him. Mr.
Stoker was never so much as charged with a robbery (as reported by Mr. Love in his swatting
call), because Mr. Love’s lie fell apart under the slightest police investigation after Mr. Stoker
was arrested. The jury was out for approximately 10 minutes before acquitting him, and jurors
later apologized to Mr. Stoker for having to go through with this charade.
25. Mr. Bailey, however, would never have the opportunity to have his name cleared
of Mr. Love’s outrageous lie; tragically, Defendant Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD)
officers shot and killed Mr. Bailey before conducting any substantive investigation into Mr.
Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson shot Mr. Bailey in the back, killing him and
violating his clearly established constitutional rights.
26. Sometime after the fight between Mr. Stoker and Mr. Love, Mr. Bailey and Mr.
Stoker were walking on Preuss Road in the same quiet, residential area of Colorado Springs
when Defendant Van’t Land stopped his police SUV in the middle of the street and approached
them. A few seconds later, Defendant Evenson and CSPD Officer Richard Gonzalez parked their
27. Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker were both black men.
28. Defendant Van’t Land exited his vehicle first, and Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker
calmly walked toward him when he gestured for them to do so, wholly compliant with his
commands. Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker stood a few feet apart, about ten feet from Defendant
6
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 30
29. Defendant Van’t Land asked for the two men’s names, and Mr. Stoker asked
30. As Mr. Stoker spoke with Defendant Van’t Land, Defendant Van’t Land asked
Mr. Bailey to keep his hands out of his pockets. Mr. Bailey immediately complied, apologizing
to Defendant Van’t Land and moving his arms and stretching them out perpendicular to his torso
to demonstrate that he would not touch his pockets any further. He did not reach for his pockets
again at any point through the rest of the interaction with the CSPD officers.
31. Defendant Van’t Land again asked Mr. Bailey his name; he responded,
“De’Von.” Defendant Van’t Land asked what name Mr. Bailey went by, and Mr. Bailey said that
32. By this time, Officer Richard Gonzalez and Defendant Evenson had taken up
positions a few feet away, to the right of Defendant Van’t Land and to the left of Mr. Stoker.
33. Defendant Van’t Land ordered Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker to put their hands in the
34. Defendant Evenson later told investigators that Mr. Bailey and Mr. Stoker were
cooperative with Defendant Van’t Land and that the situation appeared to be calm; other
witnesses described the interaction as a calm, civil conversation. Nonetheless, Defendant Van’t
Land threateningly rested his hand on his gun as he continued to converse with Mr. Bailey and
Mr. Stoker.
35. The officers then began to close in on Mr. Stoker and Mr. Bailey. Officer
Gonzalez approached Mr. Stoker from the side, and Defendant Evenson approached Mr. Bailey
from behind.
7
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 30
36. As Defendant Evenson approached Mr. Bailey, Mr. Bailey turned and sprinted up
the street, directly away from the officers and Mr. Stoker.
37. Mr. Bailey was running away as fast as possible to escape from the officers.
38. Defendant Van’t Land immediately drew his weapon to shoot Mr. Bailey.
39. Defendant Van’t Land shouted three times in rapid succession: “Hands up, hands
up, hands up!” He gave no other commands, and no warnings that he was going to shoot his
40. Defendant Van’t Land began issuing his first “hands up” command approximately
one second after Mr. Bailey began running. Defendant Van’t Land issued all three “hands up”
41. Defendant Van’t Land did not wait to see if Mr. Bailey would obey his commands
to put his hands up; he had already decided to shoot Mr. Bailey in the back. Before he had even
finished saying the word “up” for the final time, Defendant Van’t Land fired his gun at Mr.
Bailey.
42. Neither Defendant Van’t Land nor Defendant Evenson ever, at any point, warned
Mr. Bailey that they would use deadly force if Mr. Bailey continued to run.
43. Immediately after Van’t Land began shooting at the fleeing Bailey, Defendant
44. Defendant Van’t Land and Defendant Evenson fired their guns a total of eight
times over the course of less than two seconds. Defendant Van’t Land fired six times, while
45. Three bullets struck Mr. Bailey in the back as he was desperately trying to run
8
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 30
away, and one additional bullet grazed his elbow. He collapsed in the street, bleeding profusely
46. Apparently, the other four shots the officers fired were wild, and missed Bailey
entirely.
47. As Defendant Van’t Land and Defendant Evenson approached the fallen Mr.
Bailey, they again ordered him to put his hands up. Given the last opportunity to comply with the
command, Mr. Bailey summoned the energy to put his right hand in the air, even as he lay dying
with three CSPD bullets lodged in his back. This signal of compliance would be Mr. Bailey’s
48. At that point, the officers searched Mr. Bailey and handcuffed him, and found a
gun deep within the pockets of his shorts. The gun was so deep within his shorts that the officers
were required to cut Mr. Bailey’s shorts to remove the gun because it was so difficult to retrieve
49. At no time did Mr. Bailey display (or even touch) the gun when in the presence of
the officers.
50. An ambulance arrived on scene minutes later and rushed Mr. Bailey to Memorial
Central Hospital in Colorado Springs, but he could not be saved. He was pronounced dead
51. Multiple witnesses to the shooting of Mr. Bailey reported that Defendants Van’t
Land and Evenson made little effort to pursue Mr. Bailey at all, and stopped running after they
saw that Mr. Bailey was getting away, to take up shooting stances after taking only a few steps in
pursuit.
52. Defendant police officers determined that the only way to prevent Mr. Bailey
9
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 30
from getting away was to shoot him in the back. So they did.
53. Multiple witnesses to the shooting confirm that Mr. Bailey never looked back
towards the officers as he ran, and never made any threatening gesture or motion that suggested
he was going to turn towards them. It was clear that Mr. Bailey was simply running away, to
54. At no point before Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson searched Mr. Bailey did
they see that Mr. Bailey possessed a gun. Before they shot Mr. Bailey multiple times in the back,
Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson never saw that Mr. Bailey had a gun, Mr. Bailey made no
statements indicating he had a gun, and Mr. Bailey never displayed the gun.
55. Defendants’ unconstitutional killing of Mr. Bailey has deprived his parents of a
56. It has long been the custom and actual practice of CSPD to engage in, encourage,
and condone the use of excessive force by CSPD officers, particularly against African
Americans.
57. Colorado Springs did not terminate or discipline either Defendant Van’t Land or
Evenson (“the Individual Defendants”) or even counsel them for their actions. Further, CSPD
provided no additional training to either Individual Defendant, or other CSPD officers, related to
58. Colorado Springs’ and the CSPD’s official position on the events regarding the
shooting death of De’Von Bailey is that the officers’ conduct was appropriate, consistent with
and engaged in pursuant to all approved police policies, practices and training of the City of
10
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 30
59. This ratification of the conduct that caused Mr. Bailey’s death is not alleged as
proof that this ratification itself “caused” his death. Rather, it evidences that the conduct was
engaged in pursuant to policy, custom, and practice of the Colorado Springs; had it been outside
60. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson acted intentionally, knowingly, willfully,
wantonly, maliciously and/or recklessly in disregard to Mr. Bailey’s federally protected rights,
and acted under the preexisting and ongoing deliberately indifferent custom, policy, practice,
training, and supervision of Defendant Colorado Springs acting under color of state law.
Corey Barnes
62. On May 15, 2018, CSPD officers illegally detained, handcuffed, and searched by
Corey Barnes after unjustifiably and inexplicably misidentifying him as a passenger in a stolen
vehicle for whom CSPD had been searching. CSPD repeatedly made clear through radio
communications that officers were looking for an African American male who was around 15-
years-old, had a long light brown afro haircut, was wearing a zippered hoodie and blue jeans, and
had run into a specific apartment in a specific building of a building complex. CSPD officers
stopped and handcuffed Mr. Barnes in a parking lot even though Mr. Barnes had very short hair,
not a long afro; he was almost double the age of the suspect (he was 29, not 15); and he was
wearing a t-shirt and shorts, rather than a zippered hoodie and jeans. In fact, another officer on
the scene immediately told the three officers involved in detaining Mr. Barnes was not the
suspect, yet they continued to detain Mr. Barnes without justification. The officers then illegally
searched Mr. Barnes’ pockets and wallet without his consent. Then, when another officer radioed
11
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 30
that Mr. Barnes came out of a different building than the suspect had entered, and when the
officers were told for a second time, by dispatch, that Mr. Barnes was not the suspect, they still
did not immediately release him. Instead, an officer twice asked Mr. Barnes if he knew the
suspect, to which Mr. Barnes did not respond. One of the officers instructed the other officers to
take a picture of Mr. Barnes’s ID so that she could “add him to the call screen,” which they did
by removing his ID, again, from his wallet. Only then did they remove the handcuffs.
Throughout the entire interaction, Mr. Barnes did not physically resist the officers, nor make any
threatening statements or movements. The CSPD officers lacked probable cause, reasonable
suspicion, or any other legal basis to believe that Mr. Barnes had engaged in any criminal
activity or posed any threat to them or anyone else. Instead, the detention, handcuffing, and
search of Mr. Barnes was illegally motivated wholly or in part by racial bias.
63. Mr. Barnes filed a complaint with CSPD Internal Affairs (“IA”) department,
which determined that the vast majority of the officers’ conduct—the detention and search—was
consistent with CSPD policy, with the only exception being the retrieval of Mr. Barnes’ wallet
from his pocket. The finding that this action violated policy resulted in unspecified “appropriate
administrative action.” The ratification and endorsement of the majority of the officers’ actions
were part and parcel of, and consistent with, the Colorado Springs’ customs, practices, and
policies of engaging in and tolerating racially-biased policing and failing to discipline CSPD
officers for misconduct. A lawsuit based on the officers’ unlawful conduct against Mr. Barnes
Jeffrey Melvin
64. On April 26, 2018, CSPD officers responded to a noise violation at an apartment
complex in Colorado Springs. After the officers had determined that no crime had been
12
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 30
committed, there was no ongoing crime, and those present did not have outstanding warrants,
they encountered Jeffrey Melvin, Jr., a young black man arriving at the apartment. The officers
had no reason to believe that Mr. Melvin had been or was about to be engaged in any criminal
activity. The two officers nevertheless attempted to arrest Mr. Melvin. While attempting to
unlawfully arrest Mr. Melvin—without probable cause to believe that he had committed any
crime—these officers used overwhelming force against him. The officers aggressively
manhandled Mr. Melvin, threw him to the ground, and repeatedly tased him. Mr. Melvin briefly
escaped the officers’ wholly unconstitutional assault, only to collapse from the extreme trauma
the officers had inflicted on him. He was rushed to the hospital, where he was immediately
declared a full trauma. Mr. Melvin never regained consciousness and died from his injuries days
later, at the age of 27. This excessive force is the subject of the federal civil rights action
captioned Estate of Jeffrey Melvin, Jr. v. Colorado Springs, et al., Case no. 20-cv-00991-CMA-
65. On March 25, 2015, brothers Ryan and Joey Brown were pulled over by CSPD
officers. The brothers were young black men who were driving to their home, which was in a
predominantly white neighborhood. CSPD officers had no grounds on which to pull them over,
and officers would not tell the Brown brothers why they had been pulled over. Instead, the
officers held them at taser- and gunpoint. Though the brothers had done nothing wrong, the
officers ordered them out of their car at gunpoint, frisked them, threw Ryan to the ground and
threw his phone away to stop him from recording the interaction. The officers wrongfully
arrested both brothers, and CSPD responded to the brothers’ complaint about their mistreatment
13
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 30
by determining that the officers conduct was within official policy and justified. Colorado
Springs paid $212,000 and made substantial policy changes to settle the Brown brothers’ claims.
Grant Bloomquist
66. In 2013, CSPD officers arrested Grant Bloomquist without probable cause after
he verbally protested two CSPD officers’ beating of another man outside of a nightclub. Mr.
Bloomquist was outside Cowboys Night Club in Colorado Springs and saw officers brutally
beating an African American man, so he stepped to about 7 feet away and said, “get the fuck off
him.” At that point, he was blindsided and struck by an officer, who hit him in the face. Multiple
CSPD officers struck Mr. Bloomquist repeatedly in the groin area with knee strikes and pinned
him against a police vehicle. The officers then threw him in the police car and arrested him.
Colorado Springs settled a lawsuit based on CSPD officers’ conduct against Mr. Bloomquist in
2016.
John Sturgis
67. On January 26, 2012, CSPD officers arrested John Sturgis, an African American
man, without probable cause and subjected him to excessive force while investigating Mr.
Sturgis as a homicide suspect. Mr. Sturgis was not the perpetrator of any crime. A witness had
allegedly told CSPD officers he had seen a man at a gas station—Mr. Sturgis—who he claimed
resembled a homicide suspect. Mr. Sturgis in fact was twice the age of the suspect (40 vs 20),
was bald when the suspect had hair, and exhibited many other physical dissimilarities with the
suspect. Despite these obvious differences, officers followed Mr. Sturgis and arrested him. Mr.
Sturgis surrendered peacefully and asked the officers not to handcuff him behind his back
because he had recently had surgery on his shoulder; he even offered to show the officers MRI
images of his injured shoulder that were sitting on the front seat of his car as proof. The officers
14
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 30
ignored Mr. Sturgis’s pleas, and excessively forcefully handcuffed him behind the back despite
his pleas not to do so, causing Mr. Sturgis to significantly reinjure his shoulder and require
further surgery. Several officers falsified their reports about the incident to invent probable cause
to arrest Mr. Sturgis. Colorado Springs determined that the officers’ conduct was within policy,
Douglas Sellier
68. On June 2, 2009, CSPD officers, including Defendant Van’t Land, came to
Douglas Sellier’s home to retrieve Mr. Sellier’s grandson. When Mr. Sellier insisted that the man
to whom the officers were bringing the child was a sex offender, the officers told Mr. Sellier he
was under arrest. Defendant Van’t Land and another officer grabbed Mr. Sellier. He lost
consciousness and came to while pinned on the ground by Defendant Van’t Land and another
officer. While Mr. Sellier was pinned to the ground, Defendant Van’t Land punched him three
times in the shoulder and another officer deployed his taser on Mr. Sellier twice. Mr. Sellier filed
suit, arguing that Van’t Land and the other officers had used excessive force against him. After a
federal judge denied the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Colorado Springs settled
Mr. Sellier’s clams for $50,000. Colorado Springs argued that the police officers conduct was
within police department policy and appropriate. Colorado Springs never disciplined or
counseled Defendant Van’t Land for his unlawful conduct toward Mr. Sellier, nor did CSPD
institute additional training requirements for Defendant Van’t Land based on the incident.
substantial monetary sums to settle police misconduct claims, yet the facts surrounding Mr.
Bailey’s case make clear that the Colorado Springs Police Department has yet to adequately train
15
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 30
and supervise its officers regarding the appropriate and legal use of force or otherwise ensure
that the clear ongoing custom and practice of police misconduct as occurred here ceases.
70. Defendant Colorado Springs knew, based on its long history and widespread
practice of its officers using excessive force and taking racially biased actions against African
Americans and its condoning of those actions, that its officers would likely be influenced by
racial bias when contacting African Americans, and that such bias could cause the CSPD officers
to use excessive and unnecessary force against African Americans like Mr. Bailey.
71. Knowing this, Defendant Colorado Springs could have and should have pursued
reasonable methods for training and supervising CSPD officers, including the individual
Defendants, in recognizing and guarding against implicit or explicit racial bias in interacting with
African Americans and not using excessive force against African Americans, but it failed to do
so.
72. Defendant Colorado Springs has a policy that trains and tolerates its officers who
use deadly force based upon the officer’s belief that the officer has probable cause to believe that
the subject of an officer’s shooting previously used a gun in the commission of a felony, even
under circumstances where the officer or a third party is not at the time of the officer shooting in
73. In fact, Defendant Van’t Land, in 2012, previously shot and killed another
individual while on duty on December 4, 2012, Robert Kresky. CSPD determined that Defendant
Van’t Land had acted within CSPD policy and training in killing Mr. Kresky; however, CSPD
did not perform an independent investigation into whether any internal policies had been
violated, but rather solely relied on the DA’s investigation and exoneration (from criminal
charges) decision, reasoning that if Defendant Van’t Land had not violated criminal laws, he
16
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 30
must not have violated any CSPD policies either. CSPD’s appears to apply this procedure for all
officer-involved shootings: instead of performing its own internal and independent investigation
after the DA’s investigation concludes, CSPD merely relies on the DA’s decisions.
74. Because Defendant Colorado Springs created and tolerated a custom of deliberate
indifference and failed to adequately train and supervise CSPD officers in the constitutional use
of deadly force, individuals, especially African Americans like Mr. Bailey, have repeatedly been
knowledge that CSPD officers were frequently violating specific constitutional rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which is the functional
practices in failing to properly train and supervise its employees were a moving force and
77. CSPD has persistently failed to investigate and counsel or discipline CSPD
officers for their similar uses of excessive force against African Americans. Colorado Springs’s
failure to find wrongdoing and failure to counsel or discipline officers in this case, the cases
described above, and others reflects a custom, policy, or practice of encouraging, tolerating and
ratifying blatantly illegal conduct. These encouragements, toleration of, and ratifications show
that CSPD officers carry out such police misconduct under the policies of and regimen of
training provided by Colorado Springs, and that such conduct is customary within CSPD.
78. Indeed, CSPD’s Use of Force analyses from 2014-2017 show racially biased uses
of force. Colorado Springs’ population is approximately 6.5% African American. Even so, in
17
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 30
2014 and 2015, approximately 20% of the people against whom CSPD used force were African
American. In 2016 and 2017, that figure jumped to 26% and 25%, respectively.
79. In 2017, CSPD officers used force against 21% of the total number of African
American males who were arrested. In the same year, CSPD officers used force against only
80. Similarly, statistical data shows that CSPD has a history of racially disparate
traffic stops and arrests, and a history of consistently treating African American individuals
worse than white individuals. For instance, in October 2016, CSPD data showed that CSPD
stopped African American males while driving by 97% more often than would be expected based
on their proportion in the population in Colorado Springs as of the 2010 census. When looking at
driving age population in Colorado Springs, CSPD stopped African American males 120% more
often than would be expected. Caucasian males, on the other hand, were consistently stopped by
CSPD at rates consistent with the relative size of their population in the City,
81. Additional data shows that CSPD officers disproportionately arrest African
Americans. African Americans comprise only 6.2% of the city’s population. Nevertheless, in
2017, they made up 17.6% of the persons CSPD arrested for what the agency’s annual report
refers to as “arrests at the highest charge.” In 2018, 18.1% of individuals that the CSPD arrested
82. These figures make clear that CSPD officers are disproportionately more likely to
use force against African American men, like Mr. Bailey, than against similarly situated white
suspects.
83. Despite being on notice from prior lawsuits, press, settlements, and statistical data
that continued tolerance of racially-biased policing and violations of constitutional rights was
18
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 30
substantially certain to result in a constitutional injury like that suffered here, Colorado Springs
has consciously chosen not to remedy its deficient customs and to instead ignore the risk of harm
84. CSPD’s approval and defense of the use of racially-biased policing and excessive
force by CSPD employees sends a clear and unequivocal message to those employees—such
approval and failure to appropriate respond actually trains CSPD law enforcement officers—that
such use of excessive force is acceptable, consistent with policy, and is approved practice,
causing the use of such excessive force to be likely or even inevitable in the future.
85. Colorado Springs is responsible for training its officers to ensure they perform
their duties consistent with the law and to discipline their improper conduct, so officers can learn
from their experiences and be deterred from engaging in future misconduct that violates the
constitutional rights of people with whom the police interact. Colorado Springs’s failure to do so
has communicated to, and trained, CSPD officers, including Defendants Van’t Land and
Evenson, that excessive force against African Americans is authorized and tacitly (or explicitly)
encouraged. The failure to counsel or discipline misconduct constitutes training which causes
conduct thus caused and was the moving force behind the Individual Defendants’ use of
excessive force against Mr. Bailey, and Colorado Springs’ failure to discipline the Individual
Defendants for this illegal use of force will lead to more unconstitutional conduct.
87. Defendant Colorado Springs’ acts or omissions caused Mr. Bailey damages
because he suffered physical and mental pain, humiliation, fear, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of
19
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 30
life, loss of liberty, privacy, and sense of security and individual dignity, and death, among other
88. Defendant Colorado Springs’ actions, as described, deprived Mr. Bailey of the
rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of
89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
90. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson acted under color of state law, and within
the course and scope of their employment, in their capacities as officers of the Colorado Springs
91. Defendants are “persons” within the meaning of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
92. Under the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the
secure in his person against unreasonable seizures through the use of excessive force. It is
clearly established that excessive force violates the Constitution. Specifically, it has been clearly
established since 1985 that it is unconstitutional to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon when
the officer does not have probable cause to believe the suspect posed a significant threat to a
93. Under the application of the specific facts and totality of circumstances as
described herein, Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson violated the clearly established
20
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 30
94. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known of this
95. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson did not have a legally valid basis to seize
Mr. Bailey in the manner and with the level of force used under the circumstances present.
96. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson seized Mr. Bailey by means of objectively
unreasonable and excessive deadly force when they shot him to death without having even a
reasonable belief Mr. Bailey posed a significant threat to any officer or any other person if not
immediately apprehended.
97. Defendants had no basis to believe that they or any other person was at imminent
risk of death or serious bodily injury such as to justify deploying deadly force rather than other
98. The decision to employ deadly force by shooting Mr. Bailey in the back multiple
times and killing him, when other less-than-lethal force was readily available, was excessive
99. Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s actions, as described herein, were
objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. Any
reasonable officer in their position would have known that it was unreasonable to use deadly
force under the totality of the circumstances and that to do so would violate Mr. Bailey’s clearly
100. Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s actions, as described herein, were
motivated by malice and/or involved reckless or callous indifference to Mr. Bailey’s federally
protected rights, and they engaged in these actions and omissions intentionally, willfully, and/or
21
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 30
wantonly, demonstrating deliberate indifference to, and a reckless disregard for, Mr. Bailey’s
101. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson acted as they did pursuant to and because of
102. The Individual Defendants’ actions were the direct result of Defendant Colorado
practices that failed to provide that CSPD officers, including the Individual Defendants, could
use deadly force against fleeing felons only when constitutional requirements for such force was
met and/or (2) deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various alternatives
available to these Defendants of not adequately training or supervising CSPD officers including
the Individual Defendants regarding the constitutional use of deadly force, given that the need
for such training and supervision was so obvious, and the inadequacy of training and/or
supervision was so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights such as those described
herein.
103. Defendant Colorado Springs knew to a moral certainty that CSPD officers would
be required to arrest fleeing felons in the execution of their official law enforcement duties. The
City armed its officers with firearms, in part to allow them to accomplish this task. Thus, in light
of the duties and responsibilities of CSPD officers who are inevitably called on to arrest fleeing
suspected felons, the need to train CSPD officers in the constitutional limitations on the use of
deadly force was so obvious that Defendant Colorado Springs’s failure to do so constituted
104. Defendant Colorado Springs adheres to a policy and practice of permitting the use
of deadly force on a felony suspect where there is probable cause to believe the suspect had
22
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 30
earlier committed a crime with a gun, even when there is no immediate risk of death or serious
bodily injury later when the officer uses deadly force. Adherence to such a policy makes
permissible under official city policy the unconstitutional use of deadly force.
105. Defendant Colorado Springs knew or should have known that its acts or
omissions were substantially certain to cause CSPD officers including the Individual Defendants
to violate individuals’ constitutional rights to be free from excessive deadly force, and they
consciously or deliberately chose to disregard this risk of harm in adhering to their policy,
custody, or practice of failing to provide that CSPD officers use deadly force against fleeing
felons only within constitutional limits, and/or in deliberately choosing not to provide adequate
106. Therefore, Defendant Colorado Springs set in motion a series of events that it
knew would cause an individual in a similar situation as Mr. Bailey to be deprived of the
constitutional right to be free from excessive force at the hands of law enforcement. But for the
above acts or omissions of Defendant Colorado Springs, Mr. Bailey would not have been
subjected to a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and such a deprivation was a proximate
cause and a natural and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions.
acts and omissions, described above, Plaintiff Estate suffered injuries, damages, and losses.
108. The herein described acts or omissions of Defendants are the moving force and
the legal, direct, and proximate cause of Plaintiff Estate’s injuries and losses, including but not
limited to Mr. Bailey’s death, the physical and mental pain and anguish Mr. Bailey suffered
before and during his shooting death, the loss of Mr. Bailey’s relationships with his family,
girlfriend, and child, life, and other compensatory and special damages including but not limited
23
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 30
intentionally deprived Mr. Bailey of due process and of rights, privileges, liberties, and
110. Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth herein.
111. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson were acting under color of state law in their
112. At the time of the complained of events, Mr. Bailey had the clearly established
constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination in law enforcement by police officers
113. Mr. Bailey’s race was a motivating factor in the Defendants Van’t Land’s and
Evenson’s decision to use excessive deadly force against him under the circumstances.
Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson acted with the purpose of depriving Mr. Bailey of the equal
protection and benefits of the law, and equal privileges and immunities under the law, in
114. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson’s reactions to the circumstances confronting
them as described herein were adversely influenced by assumptions and stereotypes arising out
of Mr. Bailey’s and Mr. Stoker’s race. These assumptions and stereotypes caused, wholly or in
part, the immediate escalation of the situation to the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing
suspect, a decision that more probably than not would not have been made with a non-African
American suspect.
24
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 30
115. Defendants racially profiled Mr. Bailey and assumed at least partly because of his
race that he presented an enhanced threat to their safety. Their conduct in their interactions with
Mr. Bailey, including their decision to shoot him in the back while he was fleeing, were infected
by and motivated by implicit or explicit bias leading them to believe that he was more dangerous
than he would have been had he been a white suspect under the same circumstances.
116. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson treated Mr. Bailey less favorably—and with
much more unreasonable force—than his similarly situated White counterparts, wholly or in part
117. Race is a suspect class, and differential treatment holly or in part based upon a
justifying the use of deadly force on Mr. Bailey when such force more probably than not would
118. There was not even a rational basis for Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s
discriminatory actions, let alone a purpose narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental
interest.
119. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson used excessive force against Mr. Bailey
without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Mr. Bailey posed a threat of harm
to any other person that would legally justify the deadly force used.
120. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson intentionally, willfully, unreasonably and
wantonly seized Mr. Bailey by using excessive force against him, wholly or in part because of
his race.
121. Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s actions were objectively unreasonable
25
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 30
122. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson engaged in these actions intentionally,
willfully, maliciously, and wantonly, showing deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of
123. Defendant Colorado Springs failed to properly train, supervise, and/or discipline
its employees regarding the constitutional requirement not to engage in racially biased policing,
resulting in the Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s unlawful racially biased use of
excessive force.
from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various
Springs—who must police and interact with African Americans regularly— and the frequency
with which such law enforcement personnel will confront African Americans while discharging
their duties as law enforcement officers as described herein, the need for specialized training,
supervision and discipline regarding such decisions is so obvious, and the inadequacy of training
described herein, that Defendant Colorado Springs is liable for its failure to properly train,
126. Such failure to properly train, supervise, and/or discipline was a moving force
behind and proximate cause of Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s racially biased treatment
of Mr. Bailey, and makes up an unconstitutional policy, procedure, custom, and/or practice.
127. CSPD exonerated Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson for their racially biased
conduct under Colorado Springs’s municipal customs, policies and/or actual practices described
26
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 30
herein. Such decision to exonerate racially discriminatory conduct was made deliberately and
pursuant to Colorado Springs’s longstanding customs and practices. The decision clearly
evidences that Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson acted pursuant to the customs, practices, and
128. Defendant Colorado Springs’s failure to train and/or supervise, as well as the
unconstitutional conduct, as described herein, was a legal and proximate cause of the Mr.
Bailey’s death.
129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Bailey’s lost his life
and his family has been and continues to be damaged by Defendants Van’t Land’s and
130. Mr. Bailey endured physical and mental pain, humiliation, fear, anxiety, loss of
enjoyment of life, loss of liberty, privacy, loss of consortium with his family and friends, and
sense of security and individual dignity, and tragically the loss of his life at the age of 19.
131. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
employees like Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson are not immune under the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) for acts or omissions that are willful and wanton.
133. Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-109, Plaintiffs provided Defendant Colorado
27
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 30
134. Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson intentionally shot Mr. Bailey in the back
with the intent to inflict harmful contact on Mr. Bailey, and which such contact caused injury to
135. As described in detail in above, Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s shooting
of Mr. Bailey did not constitute the use of reasonable force because the shooting was in excess of
the amount of force that an officer in their position would have reasonably believed necessary to
136. Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s intentional infliction of physical harm
upon Mr. Bailey, causing his death, was without legal authorization, privilege, or consent.
137. In shooting Mr. Bailey, Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson consciously
disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of danger of death or serious bodily injury to Mr.
Bailey.
138. Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s willful and wanton conduct caused Mr.
139. Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s conduct was attended by circumstances
of malice, or willful and wanton conduct, which they must have realized was dangerous, or that
was done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to the consequences to Mr. Bailey or his
140. Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s conduct also constituted a felonious
killing under C.R.S. §§ 13-21-203 and 15-11-803, in that his conduct caused the death of Mr.
Bailey and that Defendants Van’t Land and Evenson (1) consciously disregarded (2) a
substantial and (3) unjustifiable risk that they knew would (4) cause the death of another,
28
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 30
141. Plaintiff R.B., as the child of Mr. Bailey, suffered and continues to suffer
economic and non-economic damages due to Defendants Van’t Land’s and Evenson’s conduct,
including but not limited to extreme emotional stress, grief, loss of companionship, impairment
of quality of life, inconvenience, pain and suffering, funeral expenses, and financial losses due to
the financial benefits they may have reasonably expected to receive from their father had he
lived, and all other damages as allowed under the Colorado Wrongful Death Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their
favor and against each of the Defendants, and grant them all relief as allowed by law and equity,
trial;
(c) Compensatory and consequential damages, including, but not limited to, damages
for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and
(d) Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined
at trial;
(e) Attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action, including expert witness
29
Case 1:20-cv-01600 Document 1 Filed 06/04/20 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 30
(g) Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief as
allowed by law.
s/ Darold W. Killmer
___________________________
Darold W. Killmer
Mari Newman
Liana Orshan
Reid Allison
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: (303) 571-1000
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Daniel Kay
318 Pikes Peak Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Phone: (719) 635-3611
[email protected]
2
Patterson Hood, “What It Means,” Drive-By Truckers, American Band, 2016 (modified lyric changing “Missouri”
to “Minnesota” and “Ruth Street” to “Preuss Street,” emphasizing the point of the lyric). See also footnote 1, supra.
30