Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keilon Hill v. City and County of Denver, Et Al.
Keilon Hill v. City and County of Denver, Et Al.
KEILON HILL;
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
though the Denver Police Department (“DPD”) were attempting to violate as many of
Plaintiff Keilon Hill’s constitutional rights as possible in a single encounter. By the end of
the encounter, DPD officers had (1) unlawfully searched Mr. Hill’s vehicle without a
warrant or probable cause; (2) unlawfully arrested Mr. Hill after he criticized the search;
(3) used significant force in carrying out the unlawful arrest; and (4) detained Mr. Hill
and fabricated charges in retaliation for Mr. Hill’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.
The unmistakable subtext throughout this encounter is that Mr. Hill would not have been
1
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 21
subjected to this treatment but for the color of his skin. Mr. Hill files this Complaint not
only to vindicate his own rights, but also to show the world that racial bias continues to
pervade even relatively mundane police encounters, and to demand that DPD do better.
II. JURISDICTION
1. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees
§ 1391(b). All the events and omissions alleged herein occurred within the State of
III. PARTIES
3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Keilon Hill was a citizen of the
United States of America and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado.
organized under Colorado law and is a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Denver Police Department (“DPD”) is a law enforcement agency that is part of the
5. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Denver was
responsible for the oversight, supervision, discipline, and training of the officers
Ludwig, and Gary Yampolsky were citizens of the United States and residents of
2
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 21
Colorado and were acting under color of state law in their capacity as law enforcement
8. At the time of the Incident, Mr. Hill was a remotely enrolled graduate
student at Louisiana State University (“LSU”); Mr. Hill has since graduated from LSU
9. At approximately 5 p.m. on April 27, 2020, Mr. Hill was driving home on
11. The Fire Department arrived on the scene just before 5:20 p.m.; shortly
thereafter, DPD Officer Thomas Ludwig arrived on the scene and activated his body-
worn camera.
12. Firefighters were speaking with Mr. Hill through the open driver-side door
13. Officer Ludwig glanced at Mr. Hill through Mr. Hill’s passenger window but
did not communicate with him. Instead, Officer Ludwig went to interview the driver and
14. The driver and the passenger of the other vehicle are both white.
15. The driver and passenger claimed that Mr. Hill had caused the accident
3
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 21
16. Immediately after interviewing the white driver and passenger, Officer
Ludwig stated to fellow DPD Officer Gary Yampolsky that Mr. Hill “tried to thread the
fucking needle between two lanes dude, and he fucking side swipes them, and he’s
being a dick.”
17. Officer Ludwig described the accident and Mr. Hill’s demeanor without
speaking to Mr. Hill or obtaining any information about the accident other than what the
18. Based only on his initial glance at Mr. Hill, Officer Ludwig told Officer
19. While Officer Ludwig interviewed the other individuals involved in the
accident, Mr. Hill was taken to the ambulance that had arrived at the scene.
20. As Mr. Hill was being checked for injuries in the ambulance, Officer
Ludwig proceeded to the driver’s door of Mr. Hill’s vehicle and looked in through the
open window.
21. Both the driver and passenger doors to Mr. Hill’s two door vehicle were
closed.
22. There was nothing in plain view that would suggest any indication of
criminal activity.
23. Officer Ludwig had no reason to suspect Mr. Hill of any crime and there
24. Nonetheless, Officer Ludwig opened the driver’s door of Mr. Hill’s vehicle
4
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 21
25. As Officer Ludwig began his unlawful search of Mr. Hill’s vehicle, Mr. Hill
walked out of the ambulance and saw Officer Ludwig rummaging through his car.
27. As Mr. Hill approached Officer Ludwig, Mr. Hill noticed a pad of paper in
Officer Ludwig’s hand. Mr. Hill stated: “Hey why are you in my car? That’s not a warrant
to search my car.”
29. Mr. Hill, while holding up his phone with one hand and pointing his finger
at Officer Ludwig, responded, “That’s not okay for you to search my car.”
Mr. Hill, pushed him against the hood of his car and handcuffed him.
31. During the encounter, Officer Ludwig made no attempt to create space
handcuff him.
33. Despite Mr. Hill’s compliance, the officers used substantial force when
34. Even after Mr. Hill was handcuffed, Officer Yampolsky held Mr. Hill in a
hyper-flexing wristlock.
5
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 21
(“Use of Force” Policy), wrist locks are a “type of hold intended to physically control the
movement of an individual.”
control techniques such as a hyper-flexing wrist lock should only be used against
38. The disproportionate degree of force used against Mr. Hill reflects Officer
Ludwig and Yampolsky’s anger that Mr. Hill had criticized Officer Ludwig’s unlawful
search.
39. Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky pressed Mr. Hill against the hood of his
car as Mr. Hill expressed his surprise at the unexpected arrest by exclaiming, “What?!
technique while Officer Ludwig angrily admonished Mr. Hill, stating: “What are you doing
41. Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky then escorted Mr. Hill to Officer
42. Mr. Hill asked the officers why he was being arrested and Officer
Yampolsky responded by asking Mr. Hill why he was “stepping to the cops” and told Mr.
43. Officer Ludwig directed Mr. Hill into the back of the patrol car.
44. To justify his warrantless search of Mr. Hill’s vehicle, Officer Ludwig
6
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 21
45. Officer Ludwig did not explain why he chose to search Mr. Hill’s vehicle
but did not ask Mr. Hill to perform a field sobriety test.
46. Mr. Hill had just been examined by medical staff in the ambulance and he
47. Officer Ludwig did not ask the medical staff whether there was any reason
48. When Mr. Hill asked Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky again why he was
being arrested, Officer Yampolsky told Mr. Hill: “We’ll let you know in a few here, okay?”
49. After Mr. Hill was placed in the back of his patrol car, despite the ongoing
nature of the encounter, Officer Yampolsky turned off his body-worn camera.
50. While he was being held in the back Officer Yampolsky’s patrol car, Mr.
Hill informed the officers that he was a university student and that he just wanted to go
51. The officers told Mr. Hill that they did not care what “cheap ass college”
52. The officers also admonished Mr. Hill for “spewing liberal bullshit” after Mr.
53. Corporal Stark arrived on the scene sometime after Officers Ludwig and
Yampolsky placed Mr. Hill in the back of Officer Yampolsky’s patrol car.
interrogating Mr. Hill about whether Officers Ludwig and Yampolksy injured him during
his arrest.
7
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 21
55. Mr. Hill told Corporal Stark that it was hard for him to determine if he was
56. Corporal Stark then offered Mr. Hill an unmistakable quid pro quo, telling
Mr. Hill: “If you say that you have injuries, I’m going to do something different, okay? If
you say that you don’t have any injuries, then that means that nothing has happened,
57. Corporal Stark did not articulate any legitimate, non-retaliatory reason why
Mr. Hill would be released only if he disavowed being injured by the arresting officers.
58. Mr. Hill repeated his same answer that he could not determine whether he
59. Mr. Hill repeated this statement at least six times during their interaction.
60. In retaliation for Mr. Hill’s refusal to state that he was not injured, Corporal
Stark punished Mr. Hill by continuing the unlawful detention and instructing his officers
to take Mr. Hill to the Denver County Jail to “do paperwork on him.”
61. When Corporal Stark returned Mr. Hill to the back of Officer Yampolsky’s
patrol car, Mr. Hill asked again why he was under arrest.
62. Mr. Hill told the officers, “I’m just trying to go home. Someone hit my car,
and you all are taking me to jail? This shit doesn’t even sound right.”
63. Corporal Stark ordered Mr. Hill to get fully inside the back of the patrol car
64. Instead, Corporal Stark closed the door without explaining to Mr. Hill the
8
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 21
65. After placing Mr. Hill back in the patrol car, Corporal Stark finally pulled
aside his other officers to discuss what had occurred and what injuries, if any, Mr. Hill
66. Before the officers could respond, Corporal Stark warned them that
67. Despite the fact Mr. Hill was never violent toward any of the officers,
Officer Ludwig informed Corporal Stark that he “would really like to not transport him in
[his] car,” that “he doesn’t have a cage” and that Mr. Hill “is gonna go crazy.”
68. Mr. Hill was eventually transported to the Denver City Jail, where he was
69. Mr. Hill was not examined for medical injuries by Denver personnel at any
70. Mr. Hill was charged with interference with police authority, a violation of
71. After Mr. Hill entered a not-guilty plea, the City Attorney moved to
voluntarily dismiss the charge, stating that it would be unable to prove the case beyond
a reasonable doubt.
73. Two days following his release from custody, Mr. Hill went to St. Joseph’s
74. Mr. Hill was diagnosed with a closed head injury, cervical strain, strain of
the thoracic region, a right shoulder injury, and paresthesia of his right upper limb.
9
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 21
at the hands of Denver Police Department personnel, Mr. Hill suffered significant
76. The Defendant officers’ retaliatory arrest and prosecution were conducted
detaining, and charging citizens who exercise their First Amendment Right to criticize
police conduct.
77. For instance, on September 23, 2018, Brian Loma was arrested for
shouting “fuck the police!” while protesting Denver Police Department’s treatment of
Denver’s homeless citizens. Upon witnessing his friend being arrested for exercising his
First Amendment right to free expression, Mikel Whitney began photographing the
unlawful arrest. Officers demanded to know whether Mr. Whitney had taken
photographs. When Mr. Whitney responded that he “did not take a fucking picture,”
Police Department officers arresting a naked man on the street. Ms. Greene began
filming the arrest with her smartphone from a safe distance. When she refused to
comply with officers’ unlawful commands that she cease filming, the officers arrested
her in retaliation for her exercise of her First Amendment right to photograph the police
on a public sidewalk. Ms. Greene’s First Amendment, First Amendment retaliation, and
Fourth Amendment excessive force claims against Denver and DPD officers were
10
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 21
settled in August 2019 for $50,000 along with required First Amendment training for
DPD officers.
79. On August 14, 2014, Levi Frasier witnessed Denver Police Department
officers repeatedly punch an unarmed civilian in the head and trip a pregnant woman,
causing her to fall to the ground. Believing the officers were committing illegal acts of
misconduct against the unarmed civilian and pregnant woman, Mr. Frasier began
exercising his First Amendment right by video recording the officers with his Samsung
tablet. Upon seeing Mr. Frasier recording, the officers surrounded Mr. Frasier,
demanded he turn over his tablet, and threatened him with arrest if he failed to comply.
After Mr. Frasier refused, the officers illegally seized Mr. Frasier’s tablet and searched it
in retaliation for his protected First Amendment activity and in violation of his Fourth
authorized, or executed by the City and County of Denver. They reflect an intentional
decision to choose from among various alternative courses of action and were a cause
81. No disciplinary action was taken against any of the Defendant officers for
their retaliation against Mr. Hill. The decision to refrain from any disciplinary action
Defendant officers for their unlawful actions, the City and County of Denver ratified
those actions. This ratification demonstrates the actions were taken pursuant to the
11
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 21
City’s training and policies, and that such conduct is standard practice within the Denver
Police Department.
82. The City and County of Denver’s failure to uphold its obligation to train its
officers is a root cause of its officers’ unconstitutional conduct. Because of the City and
County of Denver’s failure to train and discipline its officers, similar unconstitutional acts
83. On September 1, 2021, Mr. Hill, through his attorneys, filed a complaint
with the Office of the Independent Monitor and formally requested a full and thorough
investigation into the conduct of Corporal Stark and Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky to
determine whether its employees’ conduct was lawful and concordant with the City’s
policies.
84. Mr. Hill specifically complained to the Office of the Independent Monitor
that the Defendant officers had (1) unlawfully searched Mr. Hill’s vehicle; (2) arrested
Mr. Hill in retaliation for objecting to the unlawful search; and (3) Corporal Stark’s
retaliatory decision to detain and prosecute Mr. Hill because Mr. Hill would not disavow
85. Although the Office of the Independent Monitor informed Mr. Hill that the
complaint was being referred to the Denver Police Department Internal Affairs
Department, the DPD has not disciplined any of the three officers for their plainly
unconstitutional conduct.
12
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 21
87. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all relevant times hereto, were
acting under color of state law in their capacities as City and County of Denver law
enforcement officers.
88. At all relevant times of his arrest, Mr. Hill had a clearly established right
under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in his
89. Defendant Officer Ludwig entered Mr. Hill’s vehicle without Mr. Hill’s
consent.
90. Defendant Officer Ludwig had no warrant authorizing entry into Mr. Hill’s
vehicle.
91. No probable cause existed which would have permitted Defendant Officer
Ludwig to enter Mr. Hill’s vehicle, and there was no valid legal justification for Officer
92. Defendant Officer Ludwig’s search of Mr. Hill’s vehicle was objectively
belonging to Mr. Hill of which any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should
have known.
by malice and/or involved reckless or callous indifference to Mr. Hill’s federally protected
rights, and they engaged in these actions and omissions intentionally, willfully, and/or
13
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 21
wantonly, demonstrating deliberate indifference to, and a reckless disregard for, Mr.
95. The unlawful acts herein described were carried out pursuant to the
96. Defendant City and County of Denver has a custom, policy, and practice
97. Defendant City and County of Denver’s failure to adequately train and
supervise its officers with respect to warrantless entry exhibited deliberate indifference
custom, policy, and practices described herein, were a legal and proximate cause of
101. All the individual Defendants to this claim, at all relevant times hereto,
were acting under color of state law in their capacities as City and County of Denver law
enforcement officers.
14
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 21
102. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Hill had a clearly established right under the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person against
unreasonable seizures.
104. Defendant Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky arrested Mr. Hill in retaliation
for Mr. Hill’s objection to Officer Ludwig’s unconstitutional search of his vehicle.
105. Criticizing a police officer’s unlawful conduct does not itself create
106. As they seized Mr. Hill, Officer Ludwig commanded Mr. Hill to “back up”
and “get out of my face.” Officer Ludwig did not give Mr. Hill any opportunity to comply
107. When Mr. Hill questioned why he was being arrested, Officer Yampolsky
108. When Mr. Hill later asked why he was being arrested, Officer Yampolsky
109. Defendant officers’ inability to state any reason for Mr. Hill’s arrest
highlights the arbitrary nature of the arrest, and demonstrates that the subsequent
Interference charge was nothing more than an ex post rationalization for the officers’
unlawful actions.
Mr. Hill of which any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known.
15
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 21
and/or involved reckless or callous indifference to Mr. Hill’s federally protected rights,
and they engaged in these actions and omissions intentionally, willfully, and/wantonly,
demonstrating deliberate indifference to, and a reckless disregard for, Mr. Hill’s
custom, policy, and practices described herein, were a legal and proximate cause of
114. As a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful actions described here, Mr. Hill
suffered actual physical and emotional injuries leading up to and including his death.
117. Defendant Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky acted under color of state law,
and within the course and scope of their employment in their capacity as law
16
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 21
119. Defendant Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky retaliated against Mr. Hill for
120. Defendant Officers Ludwig and Yampolsky’s arrest of Mr. Hill would chill a
person of ordinary firmness from engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment.
121. By unlawfully arresting Mr. Hill, Defendants sought to punish him for
exercising his First Amendment rights, to silence him, and to deter him from criticizing
exercise of his First Amendment rights and the content and viewpoints expressed in his
speech.
123. At all relevant times, Mr. Hill had a clearly established right under the First
Amendment to be free from retaliation. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or
Hill’s constitutional rights, and is therefore liable to Mr. Hill for punitive damages.
125. Defendant City and County of Denver’s custom, policy, and/or practice of
permitting the arrest of citizens who criticize the police is not a reasonable regulation of
126. Defendant City and County of Denver failed to properly supervise and
train its officers with respect to the First Amendment, the rights of persons to exercise
17
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 21
damages, and losses, including but not limited to non-economic damages, economic
damages, the physical and mental pain and anguish Plaintiff suffered during and after
intentionally deprived Plaintiff of due process and of rights, privileges, liberties, and
131. Defendant Corporal Stark acted under color of state law, and within the
course and scope of his employment in their capacity as law enforcement officers of the
refused to follow Corporal Stark’s demands to falsely state he was not injured by
133. Defendant Corporal Stark retaliated against Mr. Hill for his First
Amendment protected activity by continuing Mr. Hill’s detention and ordering his officers
18
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 21
134. Defendant Corporal Stark’s decision to detain and book Mr. Hill would chill
Amendment.
135. By unlawfully arresting Mr. Hill, Defendants sought to punish him for
exercising his First Amendment rights, to silence him, and to deter him from criticizing
exercise of his First Amendment rights and the content and viewpoints expressed in his
speech.
137. At all relevant times, Mr. Hill had a clearly established right under the First
Amendment to be free from retaliation. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or
permitting the arrest, detention, and prosecution of citizens who criticize the police is not
140. Defendant City and County of Denver failed to properly supervise and
train its officers with respect to the First Amendment, the rights of persons to exercise
19
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 21
damages, and losses, including but not limited to non-economic damages, economic
damages, the physical and mental pain and anguish Plaintiff suffered during and after
intentionally deprived Plaintiff of due process and of rights, privileges, liberties, and
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor, and
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical bills, and other non-pecuniary losses;
determined at trial;
h. Such further relief as justice requires, and any other relief as this court
20
Case 1:22-cv-00313 Document 1 Filed 02/03/22 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 21
s/ Benjamin DeGolia
Benjamin DeGolia
Matthew Cron
Siddhartha H. Rathod
Crist Whitney
2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100
Denver, CO 80205
(303) 578-4400 (phone)
(303) 578-4401 (facsimile)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
21