1] Family handcuffed at gunpoint by police sues Aurora, Colorado. Terrible images in the complaint. These cases are filed all the time. This time it's different: Colorado has a new law.

2] According to the complaint, APD relied on license plate scanner that indicated plt's license plate matched
that of a stolen vehicle. But it was a motorcycle with Montana plates, not an SUV with Colorado plates, which was what plt was driving.
3] This would be a challenge to win in Federal Court. Police "can rely on information obtained from a police computer database in order to establish probable cause." Hughes v. McWilliams, (SDNY 2009).
4] Police reliance on cpu information is "reasonable even if the information is incorrect, provided the police officer did not know or have reason to know that the information was false or unreliable." Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1995).
5] But it seems from the Complaint that the police knew that the vehicles didn't match and possibly that the states were wrong (and aren't motorcycle plates a different size?).
6] So this might have been a winnable case in federal court, even with "qualified immunity." But with the new law, probably no one will ever file in CO federal court again. They'll all file in CO state court. Here's why...
7] The CO law doesn't exactly "end" qualified immunity. It allows for claims against police who violate CO constitutional rts under CO law. It's a state version of the federal Section 1983, the main federal civil rights statute.
8] BUT, the CO law specifically says “qualified immunity is not a defense to liability.” So *only* in CO court, qualified immunity not a defense. In federal court, under Section 1983, it still is. So, if you're a plaintiff, there's little incentive to sue in fed ct.
9] This is a big deal b/c qualified immunity protects law enforcement from lots of claims. US Supreme Court created qualified immunity in 1982, which shields officers from any liability, unless they violated rights that were “clearly established.”

More from Law

This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:

Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”


Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:

“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”

This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”

Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”

Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.

She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“

Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”

Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...

You May Also Like