DISTRICT COURT, LOGAN COUNTY, COLORADO

110 N Riverview Rd, Sterling, CO 80751

DATE FILED: October 7, 2022 9:14 AM
Plaintiff: FILING ID: 4B7574046B3A5
CASE NUMBER: 2022CV30052
CHRISTIAN WEITZEL

v.

Defendants:

PAUL MCDANIEL;
MATT WILLIAMS; and
ALTON MCGUFFIN.
^ COURT USE ONLY ^
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Case Number:

James P. Roberts, Esq. Court Room:

Atty. Reg. No.: 46582
Scott H. Palmer, P.C.
15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 540
Addison, Texas 75001
Phone: 214-987-4100
Email: [email protected]

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Christian Weitzel, through his attorney James P. Roberts, of

Scott H. Palmer, P.C., respectfully alleges for his Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:

SUMMARY

On October 9, 2020, Sterling Police Officer Paul McDaniel unlawfully pulled Christian

Weitzel from his apartment and slammed him to the ground. Then, with the assistance of Sterling

Police Officer Matt Williams and Logan County Sheriff’s Deputy Alton McGuffin, the three peace

officers hogtied Mr. Weitzel with his wrists handcuffed behind his back, his ankles strapped

together, and his ankles and wrists tied together behind his back, without any justification for doing

so, drug him to the patrol car, and left him in that position until he was finally released at the jail.

1
 I.
INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs bring this civil rights action pursuant to § 13-21-131, C.R.S. to include

compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, stemming from Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s

rights guaranteed by Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution.

2. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to § 13-21-131, C.R.S.,

§ 13-1-124(1)(b), C.R.S., because the acts giving rise to the claims were committed in the State of

Colorado.

3. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c)(5), venue is proper in this Court, which Plaintiff

designates as the place of trial for this action.

4. All of the events described herein occurred in the City of Sterling, County of Logan,

and the State of Colorado.

5. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees is conferred by § 13-21-

131(3).

II.
PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Christian Weitzel is a resident of the State of Colorado. He resides in

Sterling, Logan County, Colorado presently and at all times relevant to this Complaint.

7. Defendant Paul McDaniel is a Sterling Police Officer who was at all times relevant

to this complaint duly appointed and sworn as a police officer working for the City of Sterling

Police Department. Defendant McDaniel is being sued in his individual capacity.

8. Defendant Matt Williams is a Sterling Police Officer who was at all times relevant

to this complaint duly appointed and sworn as a police officer working for the City of Sterling

Police Department. Defendant Williams is being sued in his individual capacity.

2
 9. Defendant Alton McGuffin is a Logan County Deputy who was at all times relevant

to this complaint duly appointed and sworn as a Deputy working for the Logan County Sheriff’s

Office. Defendant McGuffin is being sued in his individual capacity.

III.
FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

10. On October 9, 2020, Defendant Sterling Police Officer Paul McDaniel, Defendant

Sterling Police Officer Matt Williams, and Defendant Logan County Deputy Alton McGuffin

approached Plaintiff Christian Weitzel’s apartment, which was located in Sterling, Colorado.

11. The officers were responding to a call from a neighbor of a possible domestic

dispute due to hearing loud voices.

12. While there was a verbal argument between Mr. Weitzel and his wife, Brittany

Weitzel, there was no physical altercation and Mr. Weitzel was not arrested or charged with any

criminal offenses related to a domestic dispute.

13. Defendant McDaniel knocked on Mr. Weitzel’s apartment door.

14. Defendants Williams and McGuffin were back behind Defendant McDaniel.

15. When the Defendants approached the apartment, they could not hear anyone yelling

inside of the apartment as there was no yelling occurring.

16. Brittany Weitzel answered the door.

17. She stepped out onto the porch.

18. Defendant McDaniel asked her what was going on and she stated, “just an

argument.”

19. Defendant McDaniel repeated back to her, “an argument, ok” indicating he heard

what she had said.

20. Defendant McDaniel could see that Mrs. Weitzel did not have any apparent injuries.

3
 21. Mr. Weitzel then walked up to the open doorway from inside of the apartment.

22. Mr. Weitzel did not step out of the apartment onto the porch but remained inside

the threshold of his apartment.

23. Mr. Weitzel asked, “what’s up man?” in a calm, nonthreatening, and nonaggressive

manner.

24. Defendant McDaniel asked Mr. Weitzel to “come here and talk to me man.”

25. Mr. Weitzel, in a calm, nonthreatening, and nonaggressive manner, stated, “I’m

cool” indicating he was going to remain standing inside of his apartment in the open doorway.

26. Mr. Weitzel did not make any movements as if he was going to run.

27. Mr. Weitzel did not grab the door to close it or make any movements as if he was

going to close the door.

28. Mr. Weitzel was wearing athletic shorts with no shirt.

29. Defendant McDaniel could see that Mr. Weitzel did not have a weapon in his hands.

30. Defendant McDaniel could see that Mr. Weitzel did not have a weapon in the

waistband of his shorts.

31. Defendant McDaniel could see that there were no bulges in the pockets of the

athletic shorts which would indicate there was on object inside of them.

32. Defendant McDaniel could see that the athletic shorts were not being pulled down

or weighed down as would be expected if someone had a weapon or gun inside of them.

33. At no point did Mr. Weitzel reach toward his waistband or toward a pocket that

may have held a weapon or commit any other act to give Defendant McDaniel reason to believe

Mr. Weitzel was reaching for a weapon.

34. Defendant McDaniel then repeated, “come out here and talk to me.”

4
 35. Again, Mr. Weitzel, in a calm, nonthreatening, and nonaggressive manner, stated,

“I’m cool” indicating he was going to remain standing inside of his apartment in the open doorway.

36. Mr. Weitzel continued to stand stationary with his hands visible and hanging at his

sides, inside of his apartment doorway in a nonthreatening manner.

37. Defendant McDaniel did not have probable cause that any crime had been

committed.

38. To the contrary, Mrs. Weitzel had just told Defendant McDaniel, who heard and

acknowledged her response, that there had simply been an argument and Defendant McDaniel

could not see any injuries on her as she had none; therefore, none of the Defendants, including

Defendant McDaniel, possessed any information giving rise that there was probable cause or even

reasonable suspicion that any crime had been committed.

39. Defendant McDaniel then repeated for Mr. Weitzel to come out onto the porch to

talk to him.

40. Mr. Weitzel, continuing to stand stationary in his doorway, with no weapon in his

hands, and with his hands at his sides, stated in a calm, nonthreatening, and nonaggressive manner,

“I’m cool,” once again indicating he would remain in his doorway but gave no indication he would

not speak to Defendant McDaniel.

41. Then, Defendant McDaniel, without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion

that a crime had been or was being committed, unreasonably escalated the situation by walking

toward Mr. Weitzel, extending his arm across the plane of Mr. Weitzel’s apartment, and grabbing

Mr. Weitzel’s arm while Mr. Weitzel was standing stationary inside the threshold of his apartment.

42. Mr. Weitzel moved his arm back and told Defendant McDaniel, “don’t touch me.”

5
 43. Defendant McDaniel stated, “do not pull away from me,” grabbed Mr. Weitzel by

the left arm with both of Defendant McDaniel’s hands, and swung Mr. Weitzel out of his

apartment.

44. Defendant McDaniel grabbed Mr. Weitzel with one hand on Mr. Weitzel’s wrist

and another hand on the back of his bicep preparing to do an arm bar take down, despite the fact

that he possessed no information giving rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Mr.

Weitzel had committed a crime or that Mr. Weitzel was presenting a threat of harm to anyone.

45. Defendant McDaniel then pushed and tackled Mr. Weitzel off of his porch and onto

the ground where Mr. Weitzel landed face down with Defendant McDaniel still holding onto his

left arm.

46. Mr. Weitzel exclaimed that he was not resisting.

47. Defendant McDaniel responded that he was resisting – even though Mr. Weitzel

was not resisting.

48. At this point, Defendants Williams and McGuffin got on top of Mr. Weitzel to assist

Defendant McDaniel as he placed Mr. Weitzel in handcuffs.

49. Defendant McDaniel yelled at Mr. Weitzel to stop resisting and delivered a knee

strike to Mr. Weitzel’s ribs.

50. Mr. Weitzel responded by yelling that he was not resisting.

51. Mr. Weitzel was in fact not resisting when Defendant McDaniel yelled for him to

stop resisting and when Defendant McDaniel delivered a knee strike to Mr. Weitzel’s ribs, as Mr.

Weitzel was simply laying on the ground after being tackled by Defendant McDaniel.

52. Defendant McDaniel placed Mr. Weitzel in handcuffs with both of his arms behind

his back.

6
 53. After Defendant McDaniel placed Mr. Weitzel in handcuffs, Defendant Williams

searched Mr. Weitzel’s pockets finding nothing.

54. After Mr. Weitzel was placed in handcuffs with his arms behind his back, he

remained still as he lay on his stomach with Defendants McGuffin, Williams, and McDaniel

surrounding him on the ground.

55. Defendant McDaniel asked if Mr. Weitzel was going to be cool.

56. Mr. Weitzel gave no indication he was going to do anything but lie on the ground

as he was already doing in handcuffs.

57. Mr. Weitzel then asked if anyone had recorded what just happened on video.

58. In response to this question, Defendant McDaniel pulled out a black strap just like

the one pictured below and proceeded to tie Mr. Weitzel’s ankles together and then connect them

to his wrists behind his back in a hogtie position like the drawing below.

59. Defendant McGuffin held Mr. Weitzel down to assist Defendant McDaniel in

restraining Mr. Weitzel in the hogtie position.

60. Defendant Williams held Mr. Weitzel down and bent Mr. Weitzel’s legs backward

so that Defendant McDaniel could restrain Mr. Weitzel in the hogtie position.

61. In order to restrain Mr. Weitzel in the hogtie position, Defendant McDaniel pushed

up on Mr. Weitzel’s handcuffed wrists causing Mr. Weitzel to groan in pain.

7
 62. Mr. Weitzel had done absolutely nothing to warrant being restrained in a hogtie

position.

63. There was not even probable cause that Mr. Weitzel had committed a crime.

64. Defendant McDaniel then went to move his patrol car closer while Defendants

McGuffin and Williams remained with Mr. Weitzel on the ground.

65. When Defendant McDaniel returned, Defendants McDaniel, McGuffin, and

Williams all drug Mr. Weitzel to the Defendant McDaniel’s patrol car since Mr. Weitzel could not

walk due to being restrained with his ankles tied to his handcuffed wrists behind his back in the

hogtie position.

66. As Defendants McDaniel, McGuffin, and Williams drug the hogtied Mr. Weitzel

to the patrol car, he told them he was not resisting and asked to be able to walk.

67. Defendants McDaniel, McGuffin, and Williams ignored his request and continued

dragging him.

68. As Defendants McDaniel, McGuffin, and Williams placed the hogtied Mr. Weitzel

into the passenger side of the backseat of Defendant McDaniel’s patrol car, Mr. Weitzel groaned

in pain and told them, “You’re hurting me.”

69. Defendant McGuffin then opened the driver’s side of the backseat of Defendant

McDaniel’s patrol car and began pulling Mr. Weitzel by his arms which were tied to his ankles

behind his back.

70. Defendant McDaniel yelled at Mr. Weitzel to slide across the backseat of the patrol

car, as if it was Mr. Weitzel’s fault he was not moving.

71. The reason Mr. Weitzel was not moving was because he was hogtied with his arms

restrained in handcuffs behind his back and tied to his ankles pulling his arms and legs behind him.

8
 72. Defendant McDaniel pushed Mr. Weitzel while Defendant McGuffin pulled Mr.

Weitzel causing Mr. Weitzel to cry out in pain until Defendants McDaniel and McGuffin were

satisfied with where he was lying in the backseat.

73. Defendant McDaniel then drove Mr. Weitzel to the Logan County Jail.

74. While on the way to the jail, Mr. Weitzel asked Defendant McDaniel if he could

untie him.

75. Mr. Weitzel told Defendant McDaniel, “this hurts.”

76. Mr. Weitzel called out, “hello!?”

77. Defendant McDaniel responded “just a minute” indicating he could hear what Mr.

Weitzel was saying in the backseat.

78. Mr. Weitzel told Defendant McDaniel that he could not feel his wrist.

79. Defendant McDaniel responded that he would check it when they got to the jail,

indicating that Defendant McDaniel heard Mr. Weitzel complaining he was in pain.

80. Mr. Weitzel told Defendant McDaniel that this was police brutality.

81. Mr. Weitzel told Defendant McDaniel that his hand really hurt.

82. Mr. Weitzel continued to make noises indicating he was in pain.

83. Mr. Weitzel again told Defendant McDaniel that he was in pain.

84. Mr. Weitzel again asked for Defendant McDaniel to remove the hogtie restraint.

85. Mr. Weitzel made audible sounds indicating he was in pain such as saying “ow.”

86. Mr. Weitzel stated to Defendant McDaniel that he was in pain.

87. Mr. Weitzel then again asked for Defendant McDaniel to take the hogtie restraint

off of him.

88. Mr. Weitzel even told Defendant McDaniel, “this is against my Colorado rights.”

9
 89. Mr. Weitzel asked Defendant McDaniel for his name.

90. Defendant McDaniel responded that he would give him that information at the jail,

again indicating that he could hear what Mr. Weitzel was saying in the backseat.

91. Mr. Weitzel then again stated that his arm hurt.

92. Mr. Weitzel told Defendant McDaniel, “you’re hurting me.”

93. Defendant McDaniel’s patrol car hit some bumps causing the car to shake and Mr.

Weitzel groaned in audible pain due to being restrained in a hogtie position and being shaken in

the patrol car.

94. Once at the jail, Defendant McDaniel spoke with the jailers who greeted him in the

sallyport.

95. Defendant McDaniel finally undid the hogtie restraint in the sallyport.

96. Mr. Weitzel had been hogtied and in pain from that manner of restraint for just

under sixteen minutes, despite there being absolutely no need to restrain him in that manner.

97. Defendant McDaniel then received a call from Defendant Williams who was still

back at Mr. Weitzel’s apartment.

98. Defendant Williams told Defendant McDaniel that there were no charges stemming

from the initial call – meaning that there was no probable cause that Mr. Weitzel had committed

any crime inside of the apartment for which the Defendants had been called to investigate.

99. Defendant McDaniel wrote an incident report regarding Mr. Weitzel’s arrest.

100. Defendant McDaniel stated the criminal offenses which Mr. Weitzel was arrested

for were: Disorderly Conduct for fighting with officers in a public place, Resisting Arrest for

preventing a peace officer from effecting an arrest, and Obstructing a Peace Officer for using force

10
and physical interference to obstruct law enforcement from properly investigating a domestic

disturbance.

101. All of these were lies.

102. Mr. Weitzel did not fight the officers but was simply standing stationary in his

doorway when he was grabbed, swung outside, and tackled to the ground by Defendant McDaniel

and then hogtied by Defendants McDaniel, McGuffin, and Williams.

103. Mr. Weitzel did not prevent any of the officers from effecting an arrest, despite the

fact that there was not even probable cause to arrest him.

104. Mr. Weitzel did not use force or physical interference to obstruct the officers from

properly investigating a domestic disturbance as he simply stood stationary in his doorway

prepared to talk to the officers and never indicated he would refuse to do so.

105. On February 26, 2021, the district attorney filed a motion to dismiss each of these

charges.

106. On March 1, 2021, Logan County Court Judge Ray Ann Brammer granted the

motion and dismissed all the charges against Mr. Weitzel.

107. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendants McDaniel, McGuffin, and Williams

were acting under color of state law as on duty peace officers with the Sterling Police Department

and Logan County Sheriff’s Office.

11
 IV.
CAUSE OF ACTION

Count One

Unreasonable Seizure – Excessive Force

Violation of Colo. Const. Art. II, Sections 7 and 25
Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131
Against Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin

108. Mr. Weitzel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the above

paragraphs as if fully repeated herein.

109. Acting under the color of law, Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin

deprived Mr. Weitzel of the rights and privileges secured to him by Colo. Const. Art. II, Sections

7 and 25 to be free from illegal and unreasonable seizures by the use of force and to have his liberty

deprived without due process of law.

110. Mr. Weitzel brings this cause of action pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131.

111. Each of the Defendants acted under color of state law and within the course and

scope of their employment as law enforcement officers at all times relevant to the allegations in

this Complaint.

112. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants were “peace officers” under Colo Rev.

Stat. § 24-31-901(3) and were employed by a local government.

113. Defendant McDaniel was a police officer employed by, and acting pursuant to his

employment with, the Sterling Police Department.

114. Defendant Williams was a police officer employed by, and acting pursuant to his

employment with, the Sterling Police Department.

115. Defendant McGuffin was a deputy employed by, and acting pursuant to his

employment with, the Logan County Sheriff’s Office.

12
 116. Plaintiff Mr. Weitzel had a protected interest under the Colorado Constitution,

article II, § 7 in being secure in his person and property from unreasonable seizures by law

enforcement personnel.

117. Plaintiff Mr. Weitzel had a protected interest under the Colorado Constitution,

article II, § 25 in being free from having his liberty deprived without due process of law.

Defendant McDaniel

118. Defendant McDaniel unreasonably seized Mr. Weitzel and utilized excessive force

against Mr. Weitzel by (1) grabbing Mr. Weitzel and swinging in out of his apartment doorway,

(2) shoving and tackling Mr. Weitzel off of his porch and onto the ground, (3) delivering a knee

strike to Mr. Weitzel’s ribs while Mr. Weitzel was lying on the ground after being tackled, (4)

hogtying Mr. Weitzel with his ankles tied together and connected to his wrists which were

handcuffed all behind his back, (5) dragging Mr. Weitzel to the patrol car while he was restrained

in the hogtie position, (6) pushing Mr. Weitzel in the backseat of the patrol car while he was in the

hogtie position, and (7) leaving Mr. Weitzel in the hogtie position in the backseat of the patrol car

while he expressed the pain it was causing him on the way to the Logan County Jail.

119. The amount of force used by Defendant McDaniel against Mr. Weitzel as described

above, without warning or justification despite Mr. Weitzel being defenseless, nonthreatening,

non-resistant, and not attempting to flee, was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances

and inflicted unnecessary injury, pain and suffering upon Mr. Weitzel.

120. Defendant McDaniel knowingly and intentionally violated Mr. Weitzel’s state

constitutional rights secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado Constitution by engaging in an

unlawful seizure of Mr. Weitzel that was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and

circumstances confronting him before, during and after his encounter with Mr. Weitzel.

13
 121. Defendant McDaniel did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that his

actions were lawful.

122. The acts or omissions of Defendant McDaniel were the moving force behind, and

the proximate cause of, injuries sustained by Mr. Weitzel.

Defendant Williams

123. Defendant Williams unreasonably seized Mr. Weitzel and utilized excessive force

against Mr. Weitzel by (1) assisting Defendant McDaniel in hogtying Mr. Weitzel by holding Mr.

Weitzel down while Defendant McDaniel restrained Mr. Weitzel with his ankles tied together and

connected to his wrists which were handcuffed all behind his back, (2) bending Mr. Weitzel’s legs

behind him so that he could be restrained in the hogtie position, and (3) dragging Mr. Weitzel to

the patrol car while he was restrained in the hogtie position.

124. The amount of force used by Defendant Williams against Mr. Weitzel as described

above, without warning or justification despite Mr. Weitzel being defenseless, nonthreatening,

non-resistant, and not attempting to flee, was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances

and inflicted unnecessary injury, pain and suffering upon Mr. Weitzel.

125. Defendant Williams knowingly and intentionally violated Mr. Weitzel’s state

constitutional rights secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado Constitution by engaging in an

unlawful seizure of Mr. Weitzel that was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and

circumstances confronting him before, during and after his encounter with Mr. Weitzel.

126. Defendant Williams did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that his

actions were lawful.

127. The acts or omissions of Defendant Williams were the moving force behind, and

the proximate cause of, injuries sustained by Mr. Weitzel.

14
 Defendant McGuffin

128. Defendant McGuffin unreasonably seized Mr. Weitzel and utilized excessive force

against Mr. Weitzel by (1) assisting Defendant McDaniel in hogtying Mr. Weitzel by holding Mr.

Weitzel down while Defendant McDaniel restrained Mr. Weitzel with his ankles tied together and

connected to his wrists which were handcuffed all behind his back, (2) dragging Mr. Weitzel to

the patrol car while he was restrained in the hogtie position, and (3) pulling Mr. Weitzel in the

backseat of the patrol car while he was in the hogtie position.

129. The amount of force used by Defendant McGuffin against Mr. Weitzel as described

above, without warning or justification despite Mr. Weitzel being defenseless, nonthreatening,

non-resistant, and not attempting to flee, was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances

and inflicted unnecessary injury, pain and suffering upon Mr. Weitzel.

130. Defendant McGuffin knowingly and intentionally violated Mr. Weitzel’s state

constitutional rights secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado Constitution by engaging in an

unlawful seizure of Mr. Weitzel that was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and

circumstances confronting him before, during and after his encounter with Mr. Weitzel.

131. Defendant McGuffin did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that his

actions were lawful.

132. The acts or omissions of Defendant McGuffin were the moving force behind, and

the proximate cause of, injuries sustained by Mr. Weitzel.

Injuries

133. As a direct result of the force used against him by Defendants McDaniel, Williams,

and McGuffin, Mr. Weitzel has suffered physical injury, pain, and mental anguish for which he

sues herein.

15
 134. Mr. Weitzel’s ribs were sore, his wrists and shoulder were bruised and sore, and his

body ached from the pain he suffered when he was grabbed, swung outside, slammed onto the

ground, kneed in the ribs, had his wrist and legs bent while being restrained, was hogtied and left

in that position for almost sixteen minutes, was dragged to the patrol car while hogtied, and was

pushed and pulled inside of the backseat of the patrol car while hogtied.

135. These injuries were not caused by any other means.

Count Two

Unreasonable Seizure – Wrongful Arrest

Violation of Colo. Const. Art. II, Sections 7 and 25
Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131
Against Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin

136. Mr. Weitzel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the above

paragraphs as if fully repeated herein.

137. Acting under the color of law, Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin

deprived Mr. Weitzel of the rights and privileges secured to him by Colo. Const. Art. II, Sections

7 and 25 to be free from illegal and unreasonable seizures by the use of force and to have his liberty

deprived without due process of law.

138. Mr. Weitzel brings this cause of action pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131.

139. Each of the Defendants acted under color of state law and within the course and

scope of their employment as law enforcement officers at all times relevant to the allegations in

this Complaint.

140. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants were “peace officers” under Colo Rev.

Stat. § 24-31-901(3) and were employed by a local government.

141. Defendant McDaniel was a police officer employed by, and acting pursuant to his

employment with, the Sterling Police Department.

16
 142. Defendant Williams was a police officer employed by, and acting pursuant to his

employment with, the Sterling Police Department.

143. Defendant McGuffin was a deputy employed by, and acting pursuant to his

employment with, the Logan County Sheriff’s Office.

144. Plaintiff Mr. Weitzel had a protected interest under the Colorado Constitution,

article II, § 7 in being secure in his person and property from unreasonable seizures by law

enforcement personnel.

145. Each of Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin unreasonably seized Mr.

Weitzel when they arrested him by restraining him in handcuffs and a hogtie and then charged him

with crimes he did not commit.

146. Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin did not at any time in their

encounter with Mr. Weitzel have probable cause to believe that Mr. Weitzel had committed a crime

as they did not see Mr. Weitzel commit a crime, were told by Mrs. Weitzel that there was only an

argument, could see that Mrs. Weitzel did not have any apparent injuries, and saw that Mr. Weitzel

did not fight any of the Defendants or attempt to flee from any of the Defendants as the only thing

he had done was refuse to step out of his apartment and onto his porch in a nonaggressive and

nonthreatening manner.

147. Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin did not at any time have a warrant

authorizing the seizure of Mr. Weitzel.

148. Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin each knowingly and intentionally

violated Mr. Weitzel’s state constitutional rights secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado

Constitution by engaging in an unlawful seizure by way of wrongful arrest of Mr. Weitzel that was

17
objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him before, during

and after his encounter with Mr. Weitzel.

149. Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin each failed to act upon a good faith

and reasonable belief that their actions in arresting Mr. Weitzel were lawful.

150. The acts or omissions of Defendants McDaniel, Williams, and McGuffin were the

moving force behind, and the proximate cause of, injuries sustained by Mr. Weitzel when his

liberty was deprived without due process of law and he was unreasonably seized during this

wrongful arrest.

151. Due to his wrongful arrest, Mr. Weitzel suffered lost wages from missing work and

was forced to remain in jail for at least three days before bonding out of jail.

152. These injuries were not caused by any other means.

V.
JURY DEMAND

153. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in his favor and

against Defendants, and award him all relief as allowed by law and equity, including but not limited

to:

a. Actual economic damages as established at trial;

b. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to those for past and future

pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages, physical and mental

pain, trauma, fear, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of liberty, loss of sense of security, and

other nonpecuniary losses;

18
 c. Punitive or exemplary damages for all claims as allowed by law in an amount to be

determined at trial;

d. Issuance of an Order mandating appropriate equitable relief,

e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;

f. Attorney’s fees and costs; and

g. Such further relief as justice requires.

Dated this 7th day of October, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James P. Roberts

JAMES P. ROBERTS, #46582

SCOTT H. PALMER, P.C.

15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 540
Addison, Texas 75001
Telephone: 214.987.4100
Facsimile: 214.922.9900
[email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

19