Estate of Timmy Henley v. City of Westminster, Et Al.

Case 1:20-cv-00028 Document 1 Filed 01/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 34
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
ESTATE OF TIMMY HENLEY, by and through its personal representative, Sabrina Courtroul,
Plaintiff.
v.
CITY OF WESTMINSTER, COLORADO;

LOUIS ENGLEBERG; and
CHRIS HEMPELMANN,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

_____________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, the Estate of Timmy Henley, through its attorneys, Raymond K. Bryant, of the
Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC, and Luke W. McConnell, of Mulligan Breit McConnell,
LLC, hereby submits this Complaint and Jury Demand and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an excessive force action, seeking justice for the conduct of two
Westminster Police Officers and the City of Westminster for the unnecessary shooting death of
Timmy Henley – a man who was unarmed, non-threatening, and scared, in the midst of an
emotional disturbance, when the Defendant officers shot and killed him outside an apartment
complex from 30-feet away. Officers claimed that Mr. Henley was armed and charging them with
a knife held above his head at the time of the shooting, but the physical evidence demonstrates that
the officers’ account is impossible and incredible. The only knife on scene was behind a closed
apartment door for the entire interaction between Mr. Henley and the officers.
1
2. At the time of the shooting, the Defendant officers would have known that Mr.
Henley was non-threatening and in the midst of a mental health episode because the primary
shooting officer, Louis Engleberg, had been called to the same area earlier in the day to assess Mr.
Henley after Mr. Henley climbed on top of a stranger’s vehicle and complained that dogs were
chasing after him. There were no dogs and Mr. Henley was hallucinating their presence. The
officer’s supervisor talked Mr. Henley down from the top of the vehicle and released him.
Approximately two hours later, when reports came in that a man with the same physical description
was fleeing into multiple homes and telling occupants that someone was chasing after him,
dispatchers recognized that Mr. Henley was likely the same person and broadcast the information
to officers nearing the scene. However, instead of approaching Mr. Henley in a non-threatening
manner and utilizing de-escalation techniques and/or less-lethal means of control for everyone’s
safety, Defendant Engleberg immediately raised his firearm toward Mr. Henley – terrifying an
already scared man into a flight response – and then opened fire at least nine times; his partner,
Chris Hempelmann, fired in response to his colleague’s fire at least four times. Together, they
struck Mr. Henley 11 times.
3. But for one eyewitness and the undisturbed physical evidence of the scene, the truth
of what actually occurred would likely have never become known. The multi-jurisdictional Adams
County Critical Incident Team (CIT) who conducted the post-killing investigation, and the
subsequent review by the 17th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, adopted and bolstered the false
account provided by the Defendant officers, despite clearly contradicting evidence. This
unfounded narrative was also adopted by additional entities, such as the City of Westminster, who
relied upon and/or advanced the false narrative provided by the Defendant officers. Westminster
2
issued a false press release on the date of the incident that grossly misrepresented what occurred
on September 4, 2018. Despite the fact that the physical and eyewitness evidence clearly
contradicted the officers’ account, their false version was never challenged, updated, or revised.
4. This incident is part of an ongoing pattern of excessive force used by Westminster
Police officers, including Defendant Engleberg, who have unnecessarily escalated police incidents
to violence for the purpose of controlling non-threatening and/or emotionally disturbed persons,
instead of utilizing standard de-escalation techniques designed to put persons at ease so that
situations can be handled calmly and peacefully. Moreover, Westminster has condoned a pattern
of excessive force by its officers as well as those officer’s misrepresentations regarding the need
for such force by failing to supervise, discipline, and/or re-train its officers to properly assess and
report force-related incidents. The City’s policies, practices, and lack of oversight has resulted in
many circumstances where unnecessary force has been used and/or Westminster officers have
been allowed to misrepresent the truth of an encounter in order to illusorily justify their force
without consequence. Instead of critically reviewing and supervising the conduct of their officers,
the City of Westminster has routinely adopted the accounts of its officers even when there is
contradicting physical evidence and/or witness accounts. This practice has further emboldened the
City’s officers to use force prematurely, unnecessarily, and in excess of what would ordinarily be
required by reasonable police officers. This practice has also allowed officers to escape appropriate
sanction for their unconstitutional conduct, which has the effect of precipitating more unnecessary
violence.
5. Westminster is also one of few municipalities in the Denver metro area that refuses
to outfit its officers with body worn cameras. This is despite the availability of state, federal, and
3
organizational funding that has incentivized and subsidized the purchase of cameras, nationwide
research studies finding that cameras decrease the number of civil rights complaints and violations
by officers, and the obvious oversight function that body worn cameras serve. It is clear that in
many situations, such as this case, body camera footage would demonstrate the objective truth of
police-citizen interactions, curb false claims of those who wish to distort it, and prevent municipal
decision-makers from adopting false versions of police violence, in deliberate indifference to the
truth.
6. These patterns and practices must change. Timmy Henley’s death requires justice.
The public deserves accountability for the unnecessary use of deadly force and the pattern of
officer misconduct that has contributed to its growth. Police officers should not be permitted to
misrepresent what happened so easily and face no discipline or even challenge from police
departments that are supposed to serve, instead of harm, the citizens.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Plaintiff’s claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Constitution and
laws of the United States.
8. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.
9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because all
the events alleged herein occurred in the State of Colorado.
10. Jurisdiction supporting the Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs is
conferred by 42 U.S.C. §1988.
4
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
set forth herein.
12. Timmy Henley, at all times relevant to this Complaint, was a resident of the State
of Colorado. He is survived by his natural born mother, Sabrina Courtroul, and his father, Joey
Henley. Sabrina Courtroul, is the appointed personal representative of the Estate of Timmy
Henley.
13. Defendant Louis Engleberg was at all times relevant to this Complaint employed
as a veteran police officer with over 20-years of experience working for Defendant City of
Westminster, located in the State of Colorado. Defendant Engleberg was acting under color of law
in his capacity as a police officer. Plaintiff seeks relief from Defendant Engleberg in his individual
capacity.
14. Defendant Chris Hempelmann was at all times relevant to this Complaint employed
as a police officer for Defendant City of Westminster, located in the State of Colorado. Defendant
Hempelmann was acting under color of law in his capacity as a police officer. Plaintiff seeks relief
from Defendant Hempelmann in his individual capacity.
15. Defendant City of Westminster is a Colorado municipality. Defendant City of
Westminster is responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, training, and final decision-
making of the Westminster Police Department and its officers. Defendant City of Westminster was
at all times relevant to this Complaint the employer of Defendant Officers Louis Engleberg and
Chris Hempelmann and in control of supervision and oversight of the officers during their tenure.
5
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
set forth herein.
A. September 4, 2018, 10:20 a.m.: Officer Engleberg’s First Contact With Mr. Henley
17. On September 4, 2018, a call to 911 was made at 10:17 a.m. by one of Mr. Henley’s
neighbors, who reported that Mr. Henley was standing on top of his truck and refusing to get down.
18. Mr. Henley appeared genuinely afraid. He wore a black pair of shorts and a black
shirt.
19. Mr. Henley told the owner of the truck that he climbed on top of the vehicle because
dogs were chasing him and had surrounded him beneath the truck.
20. There were not dogs present or chasing Mr. Henley.
21. Several officers responded to the call, including Defendant Engleberg.
22. Officer Engleberg briefly spoke to Mr. Henley while Mr. Henley stood on top of
the truck. He told Mr. Henley that he had to come down immediately.
23. However, Engleberg was unable to immediately convince Mr. Henley that
conditions were safe to step down.
24. Within moments, Officer Engleberg was joined by a supervisor, Sgt. Deherrera.
25. Sgt. DeHerrera established a non-threatening rapport with Mr. Henley by asking
questions about why he was on the truck, what he was worried about, by convincing Mr. Henley
that there were no dogs underneath or around the vehicle, and that there was nothing to fear.
26. Based on the conversation with Sgt. DeHerrera, Mr. Henley communicated that he
was glad to receive assistance from the officers and he came down from the truck.
6
27. Mr. Henley stated that he had taken some cocaine which he felt may have been
laced, and that he must have been hallucinating.
28. After being checked by medics and patted down, the officers, including Defendant
Engleberg, and the EMTs, elected to release Mr. Henley; they did not arrest Mr. Henley, seek to
place him on a mental health hold, or take him to the hospital for medical attention.
29. Defendant Engleberg was on scene with Mr. Henley for approximately 25 minutes,
which incident ended approximately two hours before Officer Engleberg was, again, called to
address Mr. Henley.
B. September 4, 2018, 1:04 p.m.: Mr. Henley is killed by the Defendant Officers
30. At approximately 1:00 p.m., two separate residents at the Environs apartment
complex called 911 to report a person entering apartments at the complex.
31. Andrew Lopez called 911 first, and reported to dispatch that when he came home
to his apartment just before 1:00 p.m., it appeared as if someone might have broken in. There was
damage to his door trim and window coverings seemed out of place. While checking things out,
he heard what sounded like breathing coming from inside his home and he immediately left the
apartment. Mr. Lopez went to the landing outside his apartment.
32. While on the landing, Mr. Lopez saw a man, later determined to be Timmy Henley,
walk out of Mr. Lopez’s apartment holding what looked like a towel-rod.
33. Mr. Henley was wearing the same clothes he had been wearing earlier during the
10:20 a.m. incident with Defendant Engleberg. He was dressed in a black pair of shorts and a black
shirt, and wore no shoes. Mr. Henley appeared dazed, afraid, and was sweating profusely.
7
34. Within feet of Mr. Henley, Mr. Lopez said to Mr. Henley, “can I help you man?”
Mr. Henley said nothing to Mr. Lopez and behaved as if Mr. Lopez wasn’t even there. He was
obviously consumed by something else in his head and went back into Mr. Lopez’s apartment and
shut the door without saying a word.
35. Mr. Henley did not act aggressively or threaten Mr. Lopez.
36. Confused, Mr. Lopez left the shared landing outside his second-floor unit and went
to his truck, which is where he called 911.
37. Mr. Lopez reported to 911 what he had seen and heard. Mr. Lopez did not report to
dispatch that Mr. Henley acted aggressively or otherwise threateningly toward him.
38. Ethan Tacket, the second 911 caller and Mr. Lopez’s next-door neighbor on the
second floor, was in his living room when Mr. Henley came through the front door unannounced.
39. Mr. Tacket yelled at Mr. Henley. In response, Mr. Henley told Mr. Tacket that
people were trying to kill him.
40. Mr. Henley had a knife in his hand at the time, seemingly prepared to defend
himself from those he perceived to be after him.
41. However, Mr. Henley did not threaten Mr. Tacket in any way.
42. Mr. Henley then ran up a set of stairs in Mr. Tacket’s house away from Mr. Tacket.
Mr. Tacket went to his bedroom, closed the door, and called 911.
43. Mr. Tacket relayed to the 911 dispatcher that he thought Mr. Henley was holding a
large knife. However, Mr. Tacket did not tell dispatch that he was threatened by Mr. Henley when
he entered Mr. Tacket’s apartment.
8
44. In fact, it would have been conspicuously clear to Mr. Tacket, dispatch, and to the
Defendant officers who were relayed this information, that Mr. Henley did not threaten Mr. Tacket
or anyone around him, but was, instead, scared and was trying to get away from someone Mr.
Henley perceived to be after him.
45. Mr. Tacket eventually locked himself in his bathroom as he stayed on the phone
with 911. He never saw Mr. Henley again inside his apartment after their brief initial conversation.
46. Apart from having a stranger enter his house, Mr. Tacket never reported to dispatch
that Mr. Henley threatened him.
47. Dispatchers recognized the description of Mr. Henley and his behavior during the
911 call from the earlier incident and believed the same person was involved.
48. Dispatch relayed the information they gathered to the officers who were being
dispatched to the scene, including the Defendant Officers.
49. The officers knew that Mr. Henley did not threaten or harm any person.
50. The officers knew that Mr. Henley was likely the same person who was fleeing
from hallucinated dogs earlier and, as such, was likely hallucinating about the need to defend
himself again.
51. The officers knew that Mr. Henley had told other 911 callers that he was scared
and/or fleeing from persons he believed were chasing after him.
52. In such situations involving Emotionally Disturbed Persons (“EDPs”), or persons
experiencing a mental health crisis, reasonable law enforcement officers are informed to be on the
lookout for similar symptoms and should approach more cautiously because the EDP may not
respond as a normal person would. Officers should, among other things:
9
a. request a backup officer;
b. take steps to calm the situation;
c. create increased distance;
d. utilize environmental controls, such as barriers, to help manage the volatility of

situations;
e. ask the individual’s name;
f. communicate with the individual in an attempt to determine what is bothering them.1
53. When the defendant Officers arrived, they did not plan for or attempt such
cautionary de-escalation techniques, they walked straight toward the location last reported to
dispatch, rounding the southwest corner of building 3357, prepared to use their firearms.
54. While the officers walked toward the apartment building, Mr. Henley came out of
unit 19 on the first floor, onto a large deck/landing area.
55. Mr. Henley shut the door to unit 19 as he exited, turned to make sure the door closed
behind him, and began to move a couple of steps away from unit 19, with his head down.
56. When Mr. Henley came out of unit 19, he was not armed with any type weapon and
had his hands down at his sides.
57. Within seconds, Mr. Henley and the Defendant officers saw each other at the same
time, approximately 30 feet away from each other.
58. Mr. Henley and the officers expressed immediate surprise at seeing each other.

See, e.g. International Association of Chiefs of Police: Law Enforcement Policy Center,
1
Model Policy: Responding to Persons Experiencing a Mental Health Crisis, Section IV

(August 2018).
10
59. Defendant Engleberg saw Mr. Henley’s familiar face, his familiar clothing, and his
expression of surprise, and knew that Mr. Henley was the emotionally disturbed person from the
earlier incident at 10:20 a.m. two hours earlier.
60. However, the officer did not attempt de-escalation techniques, conversation, or
non-threatening movements at that time either.
61. Neither of the officers identified themselves as police.
62. Neither of the officers provided warnings that they might use deadly force.
63. Neither of the officers made reasonable attempts to use less lethal means to control
Mr. Henley.
64. Engleberg yelled “stop” while raising his firearm toward Mr. Henley.
65. Mr. Henley stopped momentarily, but expressed a terrified look on his face when
he saw weapons pointed at him.
66. Mr. Henley turned his head sideways, away from the officers, toward the only path
of escape.
67. Mr. Henley moved in the direction he looked, down the stairs to exit the landing,
and toward the street, on a path perpendicular to the officers’ path – while appearing scared,
disoriented, and scrambling to avoid those aiming firearms at him.
68. Mr. Henley’s appearance could not reasonably be mistaken for someone intent on
charging or otherwise attempting to harm the officers.
69. Defendant Officer Engleberg immediately fired at Mr. Henley as Mr. Henley began
moving along this perpendicular path away from the officers, and toward the parking lot.
11
70. Defendant Officer Hempelmann opened fire after Engleberg fired because his
partner had, and both continued shooting at Mr. Henley.
71. After both instances of officer fire were completed, Mr. Henley had been shot at
least 11 times.
72. Mr. Henley fell dead in the parking lot – still 30 feet or more from the officers.
73. Mr. Henley had not at any time threatened the Defendant Officers.
74. Mr. Henley had not at any time charged at the Defendant Officers.
75. Mr. Henley had not at any time charged at the Defendant Officers with a knife held
above his head.
76. Mr. Henley did not have possession of any knife or weapon during his interaction
with the officers.
77. At the time of the shooting, Mr. Henley had not posed an imminent threat of death
or serious bodily injury to the Defendant officers or to anyone else.
78. The events that occurred that day were not recorded on any body cameras because
the City of Westminster has chosen not to supply their officers with body cameras.
79. Timmy Henley died on September 4, 2018 from the gunshot wounds fired by the
Defendant officers.
C. The Faulty Review of the Incident After Mr. Henley was killed
80. Mr. Henley died at the scene, lying bleeding on the pavement, while the Defendant
Officers held him at gunpoint.
81. Once other officers arrived, both Defendant officers were whisked away from the
scene and taken directly to their attorneys.
12
82. Neither wrote police reports about what happened.
83. The only written record that exists of the Defendant officers’ account of what
happened are brief, open ended interviews conducted by the CIT investigators.
84. Both Defendant Officers met with their attorneys before they were interviewed by
CIT investigators and attorneys were present for these interviews.
85. In his interview, Chris Hempelmann claimed to have seen Mr. Henley standing in
the doorway to apartment 19 with a knife in his hand. He also claimed that Mr. Henley charged
directly at officers right from the doorway and that it was clear his intent was to harm, if not kill,
officers.
86. In his interview, Officer Engleberg took it one step further: he claimed that Mr.
Henley ran at both officers with a large knife held above his head. He claimed that he shot Mr.
Henley one time, which caused Mr. Henley to fall down, but that Mr. Henley got back up and
continued to charge at officers two more times with the knife.
87. Chris Hempelmann never described seeing Mr. Henley hold a knife above his head.
88. On scene witnesses described that they did not see a weapon at all, and did not see
Mr. Henley raise anything above his head before shots were fired.
89. Witnesses also never describe seeing Mr. Henley charge directly at the officers.
90. Neither Defendant officer disputes the fact that there was no knife, or any other
weapon, found in possession of Mr. Henley or near Mr. Henley’s body after Mr. Henley was shot.
91. The only knife found on scene was on the floor inside apartment 19, near the closed
front door.
13
92. However, Mr. Henley closed the door to apartment 19 when he exited the apartment
at the beginning of the police encounter, before officers saw him, and was never within proximity
of a weapon afterward.
93. Thus, the physical evidence and the witness testimony directly contradicted the
account given by the Defendant officers. Yet, the officers were never challenged in any way about
the falsity of their account by the CIT investigators or the City of Westminster. Instead, the
interviews and investigation by the CIT team were conducted in a manner meant to bolster a claim
of a justified shooting in deliberate indifference to the truth.
94. The Defendant officers’ false narrative was adopted by the Westminster Police
Department, the CIT investigators, and the 17th Judicial District Attorney, despite the obvious
contradictory evidence.
95. Westminster proudly announced via press release that:
“Officers arrived at the home and observed one apartment with the door forced
open. A second door was slightly open and as officers began to check this apartment
a male, armed with a knife, charged at the officers. Two officers fired their
weapons, striking the suspect.”2
This press release was never updated to include the truth regarding the lack of knife on scene or
the witness accounts, despite the obvious and clear evidentiary contradictions.
D. The City of Westminster Condoned the Unconstitutional Actions of Both Defendant

Officers, Without Criticism, Just Like They Have Done in Other Cases Where
Westminster Officers Have Used Excessive Force.
96. Fatally shooting an unarmed person who poses no threat of death or serious bodily
injury to officers or anyone else violates the constitution. What the officers say happened in this

2
https://www.cityofwestminster.us/News/9418-burglary-in-progress-officer-involved-shooting
14
case did not happen. Yet, neither officer was disciplined for their role in killing Mr. Henley or
reporting wrongly. It does not appear they were even challenged in any way despite the
contradicting evidence.
97. The only interviews done with the Defendant Officers were the CIT interviews.
98. Consistent with Westminster police practices, Westminster opened an internal
affairs investigation, but it relied on the officers’ false accounts. It did not criticize, challenge, or
meaningfully review the conduct or reports concerning the incident.
99. Consistent with Westminster policy and/or practice, the officers were not required
to write up reports, or to account for conflicting evidence and/or conflicting witness accounts
pertaining to the application of deadly force.
100. Consistent with Westminster policy and/or practice, the officers were permitted to
confer with each other and with counsel before describing what happened during the incident.
101. Consistent with Westminster practice, Westminster formally adopted its officers’
accounts of the incident in press releases and communications with the public.
102. Consistent with Westminster practices, Westminster PD did not discipline, retrain,
or otherwise supervise the Defendant officers to utilize more reasonable, less-lethal force (as
opposed to deadly force), to utilize de-escalation techniques, to approach emotionally disturbed
persons differently, or to curb the false justification for force provided by its officers.
103. This treatment is similar to the way Westminster has treated other instances of
unconstitutional excessive force used by its officers. For example:
104. On August 18, 2010, Westminster officers used unnecessary force on Trenton Lane,
an eleven-year-old boy with autism syndrome. The boy was taken by his parents to be treated by
15
mental health professionals at Hidden Lake Mental Health Office (HLMHO) in Arvada, Colorado.
Before entering, the boy had become fearful and uncooperative; he threw a tantrum and refused to
go into the office. As a result, staff at HLMHO called for an ambulance to provide assistance for
the boy to be brought into the facility and alleviate his fear. An ambulance and Westminster Police
arrived, including Defendant Officer Louis Engleberg. By that time, Lane was calm and was
crawling around on the lawn, while under the supervision of his mother and grandmother. Officer
Engleberg yelled at the boy to stop crawling on the grass. The boy did not respond. Even though
the boy had committed no crime, and had threatened no one, the officer forcefully seized him by
lifting the boy into the air by his neck and t-shirt, and struck him in the back. The boy’s mother
pleaded with Defendant Engleberg that the boy was having medical and mental health issues, but
the officer continued to use force, including application of a jugular notch nerve pressure point,
intended to cause pain. The officer, along with three other Westminster officers, then placed
handcuffs on the boy. When the mother sought to make a complaint with a supervisor, Officer
Engleberg retaliated by filing false criminal charges. A third-party physician witness provided
affidavit testimony making clear that he observed the officer retaliate with the false charges and
false account.
105. As a result of the Lane incident, Officer Engleberg and the other officers were sued
for using excessive force and First Amendment retaliation.3 The City of Westminster adopted the
officers’ version of events and asserted the conduct was justified and within policy. It did not
discipline or re-train the officer to de-escalate the possible need for force, to use less-violent means
of contact with emotionally disturbed persons to whom the officers may come into contact, or to

3
Federal Civil Rights Case No. 12-cv-2196-MSK-KLM.
16
curb the assertion of false charges. As a result, Officer Engleberg learned that the City of
Westminster would assume his account of violence was justifiable, despite evidence to the
contrary, and protect him.
106. On July 27, 2016, Westminster police used unnecessary force on a sixteen-year-old
boy who was suffering an emotional episode after the Department of Human Services (DHS)
sought to remove him from his family. Emiliano Archuleta was contacted by DHS in his home and
officers from the Westminster Police Department, including Defendant Officer Louis Engleberg
accompanied them. After DHS informed the mother that the children were to be removed, officers
sought to “clear the area.” Mr. Archuleta became verbally non-responsive as he put his head down
and became quiet in the kitchen. Instead of being sensitive to the juvenile’s concerns and
emotionally distressing situation, three Westminster officers, including Defendant Officer Louis
Engleberg, grabbed Mr. Archuleta, violently threw him to the ground, and repeatedly struck Mr.
Archuleta in the head and back. Engleberg asserted that the force was necessary because the child
obstructed the police officers. Mr. Archuleta suffered injuries to his arm and face, but officer
Engleberg claimed he only harmlessly struck Mr. Archuleta in the shoulder to gain compliance.
Mr. Archuleta was charged with obstructing police officers, but the charges were later dismissed.
107. As a result of the Archuleta incident, officer Engleberg and the other officers were
sued for using excessive force and malicious prosecution.4 Again, the City of Westminster adopted
the story told by Engleberg and asserted the conduct was within policy. It hired private attorneys
to defend the action, and did not discipline or re-train the officers to implement de-escalation
techniques instead of force, to be more conscious of the sensitive emotional state of the boy or

4
Federal Civil Rights Case, No. 18-cv-01890-DDD-MEH
17
persons to whom the officers may come into contact, or to curb the false allegations of the officers.
As a result, the City of Westminster reinforced for Officer Engleberg and its other officers that the
City would fully back their account of incident, and accept the premature and unnecessary
violence, despite evidence to the contrary, to protect him.
108. On January 14, 2014, two Westminster officers unnecessarily used force on an
unarmed and non-threatening, cooperative woman, multiple times, in one encounter. The officers
arranged to arrest Jennifer Dees, who had been accused of violating a protective order by sending
an email. Ms. Dees had recently been through gastric surgery and had a G-tube protruding from
her stomach. While she waited for the Westminster officers to arrive, other officers from a
neighboring jurisdiction were already in her home. The Westminster officers arrived and ordered
her to turn around. As she began to do so slowly (due to her condition), the primary Westminster
officer in charge grew impatient and whipped her around the opposite direction she was turning
her body, which displaced the gastric tube and caused whiplash-type injury to her shoulder.
Officers placed handcuffs on Ms. Dees in an extremely tight manner that caused her wrists to
bleed, and then pushed her into the police vehicle backwards in a manner that caused her to hit the
back of her neck on the squad car, leaving a clear bleeding wound where her neck was struck.
Despite the clear evidence to the contrary, the officers claimed that they did not use any force on
Ms. Dees and did not do anything that could have harmed her.
109. As a result of the Dees incident, the Westminster officers were sued for using
excessive force.5 Despite medical evidence, photographs, and the obvious injuries/illness to Ms.
Dees’, the City of Westminster adopted the story told by the officers and asserted the conduct was

5
Civil Action 16-cv-00021-WYD
18
justified and within policy. It hired private attorneys to defend the action, and did not discipline or
re-train the officers to implement de-escalation techniques, to be more conscious of the sensitive
physical or emotional state of those to whom the officers may come into contact, or to otherwise
curb the use of premature force or the false allegations of the officers. As a result, the City of
Westminster communicated to its officers that the City would assume its officers’ account of
incident to be correct, despite evidence to the contrary, without forcing its officers to account.
110. On August 10, 2016, two Westminster officers used premature, unjustified force,
on an unarmed and non-threatening man, David Martinez. Westminster sought to arrest the man
outside of his tattoo shop in Thornton, Colorado. The officers waited for Mr. Martinez to walk
outside, light up a cigarette, and turn his attention away, before rapidly running up behind Mr.
Martinez for a surprise assault. Without communicating that the men were police, and without
provocation, the officers stiff-armed Mr. Martinez in the throat, knocked him back onto a nearby
railing, and viciously pummeled Mr. Martinez in the face and head with a beating so severe that
Mr. Martinez required surgery. The officers falsely asserted afterward that the conduct was
necessitated by Mr. Martinez’ resistance. However, Mr. Martinez had a security camera that
captured the entire assault and which completely refuted the false account given by the officers.
111. As a result of the Martinez incident, the officers were sued for using excessive
force.6 Martinez demonstrated through his security video from the tattoo shop that the officers
used force against an unarmed and non-threatening man, which contradicted the officers’

6
Federal Civil Rights Case, No. 18-cv-00265-STV
19
accounts.7 But the City of Westminster adopted the officers’ account of the incident and asserted
the conduct to be within policy. It hired private attorneys to defend the action, and did not
discipline or re-train the officers to refrain from using force unnecessarily, or to curb the false
allegations of the officers. Neither officer was disciplined for the unnecessary assault or for the
false account they gave about it afterward. As a result, the City of Westminster reinforced for its
officers’ that the City would assume false accounts by its officers to be correct, despite contrary
evidence, and will act to protect them without forcing them to account.
112. On September 20, 2016, a Westminster Police Officer shot and killed Thomas
Tucker in the back as he ran away from officers. Westminster and several other neighboring law
enforcement agencies pursued Tucker, whom they believed was involved in a robbery in the City
of Westminster. Officers described a tense car chase that led to a foot chase, and which finally
resulted in a confrontation during which Tucker pulled out a knife and positioned himself in a
fighting stance within 10-15 feet of an officer. Westminster officer Stroup fired four shots, killing
Tucker. However, at least two witnesses reported that Tucker was shot while running away from
the officers, not toward them. The autopsy analysis demonstrated that Tucker suffered several
gunshot wounds in his back. This evidence was inconsistent with the officers’ accounts, but like
the other cases, Westminster did not discipline its officers for the faulty accounts.
113. On November 11, 2017, Westminster Police Officers used force on an unarmed,
handcuffed man. Officers arrested Dominic Casement for fleeing a car believed to have run a red
light. While Mr. Casement was seated on the ground with his hands cuffed behind him, a

7
See video here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ettlu6akl08dflq/August%208%2C%202016%20Officers%20Steve%
20Holton%20and%20Ben%20Russell%20Brutalize%20David%20Martinez.asf
20
Westminster officer struck Mr. Casement with a pistol across the back of Mr. Casement’s head
and across Mr. Casement’s chin, causing severe bloody wounds. In this unusual case, the officer
was prosecuted for the assault by the 17th Judicial District Attorney – but only after another officer
came forward and complained about his fellow officers’ conduct. It is believed that Westminster
did not discipline the officer who perpetrated the assault. When pressed by the media, the City
would not answer questions about whether the officer was permitted to resign, instead of or in
addition to disciplining him, which suggests the City permitted him to leave the department
voluntarily without discipline. Media outlets reported that the State of Colorado had to revoke the
officer’s certification to ensure that the officer would not be hired again.8 By not taking action to
remove the officer, the City of Westminster reinforced for its officers’ that the City would act to
protect them without forcing them to account.
114. On June 26, 2018, Westminster officers shot unarmed driver, Ronald Romero.
Officers followed Romero after receiving a report of a burglary in the area. The officers
coordinated with each other to cut him off. Officers claimed that Romero appeared to swing wide
with his vehicle, cross over a double yellow lane, and drive directly toward an officer on a
motorcycle before the officer fired three shots at Romero, striking him once in the head. Officers
claimed that the force was necessary to prevent Romero from ramming an officer, despite the fact
that they did not attempt to pull over the vehicle, and the vehicle was traveling only 35mph. Most
troubling, the forensic evidence demonstrated that Romero was shot in the back of the head, with

8
See https://kdvr.com/2019/12/03/man-with-fractured-jaw-sues-westminster-police-for-
excessive-force/
21
a bullet trajectory going back to front, instead of front to back, as would be suggested by the
officers’ accounts.9
115. Consistent with other cases, the City of Westminster did not discipline the officers
for using excessive force, failing to use less-lethal force, or for providing false/erroneous accounts.
The City of Westminster ignored physical evidence that contradicted the officers accounts and
accepted the officers’ word that the force was necessary. In this case too, the City of Westminster
issued a press release that misrepresented what actually happened.10 Again, this sends the signal
to Westminster officers that they will be backed up by the City regardless of the truth.
116. Lastly,on August 25, 2018, just ten days before Mr. Henley was killed, a
Westminster officer shot and killed an unarmed man in mental distress. Birenda Thakuri had a
mental health crisis, where he believed he had been poisoned and began hearing things. He paced
around holding his head in his hands as he moved in and out of traffic on Federal Boulevard as his
brother, who was with him, tried to get him under control. Mr. Thakuri became upset and yelled
at his brother before kneeling in a patch of grass beyond the sidewalk, ripping at the grass and
putting grass into his mouth. A Westminster officer arrived alone, and observed Thakuri flail his
arms, slap his head, and scream unintelligibly in a manner that made him believe that Thakuri was
suffering a mental health crisis. However, when Thakuri approached the officer – animated and
screaming, but unarmed – the officer failed to attempt to de-escalate the excitement, failed to take
into account the obvious mental health concerns exhibited by Thakuri, failed to use non-lethal

9
See DA decision letter, here: https://www.jeffco.us/DocumentCenter/View/15550/18-001-
WETAdams-Decision-Letter-Officer-Involved-Shooting-06
10
https://www.cityofwestminster.us/News/06262018-officer-involved-shooting
22
force such as OC spray or Taser to control the situation, did not call for back-up, did not move
away from Mr. Thakuri, but instead, shot Thakuri in the chest from about 10 feet away.
117. The officer and Westminster were sued.11 Relying on the narrative given by the
officer involved, the City of Westminster publicly stated that their officer had acted within policy
and the officer was not disciplined or retrained to use less lethal means of control, to implement
special precautions for EDP persons, to de-escalate, or otherwise for using deadly force on a person
who did not represent an imminent deadly threat. Like many other cases, the City of Westminster
issued a public press release12 grossly misstating the facts of what happened; a press release that
was never corrected or modified upon further investigation.
118. These are but a few examples of publicly-known circumstances where Westminster
officers have used excessive force (against EDPs and otherwise), without a proportional imminent
threat of force facing the officers,13 without attempting to de-escalate the encounter to minimize
the need for violence, without taking into account the special mental/physical health needs of
sensitive persons, and where some officers have misrepresented the circumstances, threats, and/or
the justification for the force required. In the face of these circumstances, Westminster has
consistently adopted the officer accounts, privately and publicly, despite clear contradicting
evidence, and has consistently failed to discipline, re-train, and/or otherwise supervise in a manner
necessary to bring these officers in line with constitutionally-required standards of reasonableness.

11
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02412-DDD-KLM
12
https://www.cityofwestminster.us/News/082618-officer-involved-shootingfederal-bl
13
This is the most important variable in a legal excessive force analysis, pursuant to Graham v.
Connor and its progeny.
23
119. When officers have been sued, the City of Westminster has often paid settlements
and required that settlement agreements contain confidentiality clauses despite the fact that
settlement agreements with the City are supposed to remain available for inspection by the public.
This makes such circumstances difficult to track and collect for the public, watchdog groups, and
for lawyers because the victims cannot speak out without losing settlement funds they have
compromised to obtain. This practice also represents another way that the City of Westminster
appears motivated to hide the truth about cases to insulate the City and their officers from liability.
120. Westminster fails to properly supervise their officers by not disciplining them when
discipline is warranted, by failing to re-train when its officers exercise poor judgment or improper
application of policy, and by allowing officers to control the narrative regardless of its truth.
121. The City’s indifference to the truth and lack of corrective supervision advance a
culture that permits its officers to act with impunity, without regard for the constitutional
constraints on their actions, because they know there will be no ramifications.
122. This culture permits Westminster officers to presume they can violate the
constitution and misrepresent what happened with the expectation that the City of Westminster
will back them up.
123. This culture permits Westminster officers to believe that Westminster will issue
misleading press releases, like the one in this case and others, which serve to further obfuscate the
truth and insulate the officers and the town from potential liability.
124. Officers know they will be fed easy questions in their CIT interviews, will have a
chance to consult with lawyers, and that the investigation will be concerned with supporting the
most officer-friendly narrative and not the truth.
24
125. Westminster officers know that the City is unlikely to conduct a critical review of
their actions, particularly in deadly force situations.
126. Despite all of these incidents as described above, from 2012 to 2017 not a single
Westminster officer was disciplined by the City for the excessive use of force.
127. This type of excessive force among Westminster officers is growing more prevalent
as a result of the culture created by the City of Westminster. Between 2010 and 2017, Westminster
reported only 12 officer-involved shootings.14 From 2016 to 2018, Westminster officers shot 10
civilians. 15
128. During the most relevant six-month period in summer/fall 2018, when Mr. Henley
was killed, Westminster Police Officers’ rate of shooting civilians rose dramatically. From April
to September 2018, Westminster police officers shot and killed 4 civilians (including Mr. Henley).
That is 14.7 times the national rate for fatal shootings of civilians by law-enforcement officers. Id.
In 2018, the rate by which officers of the WPD fatally shot civilians in Westminster was
approximately 5 times as high as the rate by which officers of the Denver Police Department fatally
shot civilians in Denver. Id.
E. Westminster Avoids the use of Police Body-Worn Cameras
129. Westminster officers are also emboldened with the knowledge that their employer
has not required them to wear body cameras to ascertain the truth of police encounters, which,
coupled with Westminster’s indifference to the truth, blind acceptance of its officers’ accounts,

14
See https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/06/man-killed-by-westminster-police-identified/
15
See Doc. #1, Case no. 19-cv-02412.
25
and failure to review, investigate, discipline, or retrain, has contributed to a pattern of excessive
force without accountability.
130. The City of Westminster has persisted in its decision to not use body cameras
despite numerous examples of cases where the officer’s narrative is plainly contradicted by other
evidence, where body cameras would likely help to demonstrate the truth of police incidents
involving its officers, and where such video would not just permit – but would ultimately compel
– the City to more properly supervise, discipline, and retrain its officers to conform to
constitutional standards regarding the use of force and the reporting of use of force.
131. According to research by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, In-Car
Camera Project, done in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented
Policing Services, “an overwhelming majority” of officers interviewed with in-car cameras said
they review the footage for self-critique and learning. 16 Obviously, supervisors could use the
footage for the same purposes.
132. Other research from the National Institute of Justice found that officers equipped
with body cameras report reduced civilian complaints and use-of-force reports relative to officers
who were not equipped with body cameras.17 The report concluded that “[t]hese results support the

See International Association of Chiefs of Police, The Impact of Video Evidence on Modern
16
Policing: Research and Best Practices from the IACP Study on In-Car Cameras, 2003, p. 13.
Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251416.pdf (last accessed on August
21, 2019).

17
See Anthony Braga, et al., The Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras: New Findings from a
Randomized Controlled Trial at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Final report
to the National Institute of Justice, 2013-IJ-CX-0016, September 2017, pp. 10-11.Available
at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251416.pdf

26
position that [body-worn cameras] may de-escalate aggression or have a ‘civilizing’ effect on the
nature of police-citizen encounters.” Moreover, the report described “[t]he complaint and use of
force reductions associated with placing [body-worn cameras] on police officers may be
particularly important for improving police-community relations in impoverished minority
neighborhoods.” Id. The report also found substantial net annual savings to the police department
surveyed due to the decrease in complaints. Id.
133. Legislators for the State of Colorado have also recognized the importance of body
cameras by establishing a fund and a grant program within the state in 2015. The program allows
law-enforcement agencies to access federal and other nongovernmental sources of funding to
increase their ability to purchase body worn cameras for more law-enforcement officers. See HB
15-1285. The Colorado General Assembly found that “the use of body-worn cameras can...
strengthen individual officer performance and accountability, enhance the overall transparency of
a law enforcement agency, and document encounters between the police and the public to assist in
investigation and resolution of complaints and officer-involved incidents.” Id.
134. Recognizing the increase in police violence, citizens of the City of Westminster
initiated a Change.org petition to the City of Westminster demanding that Westminster officers be
equipped with body cameras and dashboard cameras.18
135. Body cameras and dashboard cameras are technologies readily available and
commonly used by law-enforcement agencies across the Front Range and the country. There is
enormous support for body-camera use, both political and financial, as a method of ensuring

See https://www.change.org/p/city-of-westminster-colorado-police-dash-cams-and-body-
18
cams-in-westminster-colorado
27
accountability and decreasing costs to municipalities and taxpayers. Subsidies from the state, the
federal government, and non-profit groups, as well as cost-savings related to decreases in excessive
force complaints, make them affordable, practical, and viable options for municipalities and police
agencies that are genuinely interested in transparency and oversight.
136. By contrast, the failure to implement such standardized technology, particularly in
the face of a pattern of cases involving excessive force, misrepresentations and lack of proper
oversight, strongly suggests that Westminster prefers to remain indifferent in the face of the
continuing practice of malfeasance by its officers.
137. By persistently failing to adequately investigate, review, criticize, discipline,
retrain, and/or otherwise supervise officers who violate the constitution, and by refusing to institute
officer body-worn cameras in the face of a pattern of officer misconduct, the City of Westminster
has and continues to act with deliberate indifference to those citizens who end up killed or hurt by
its officers.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. §1983 – Excessive Force – Deadly Force
(Against Defendants Louis Engleberg and Chris Hempelmann)
set forth herein.
139. On September 4, 2018, Louis Engleberg and Chris Hempelmann were employed as
police officers with the Westminster Police Department and were acting under color of state law.
140. On that same date, Louis Engleberg and Chris Hempelmann intentionally and
knowingly applied deadly force against Timmy Henley, by shooting and killing him, before Mr.
Henley collapsed dead in the parking lot.
28
141. At both times the Defendant officers fired their weapons, Timmy Henley was
unarmed and did not pose a threat of death or serious bodily harm to either Defendant officer, or
to anyone else.
142. At the time of both shootings, the officers failed to identify themselves as police
officers, failed to provide warnings that they might use deadly force, and failed to utilize less-lethal
means of controlling the situation, despite having an opportunity to do so.
143. At the time of both shootings, Defendant Engleberg knew or should have
reasonably known that Mr. Henley was the same emotionally disturbed person he had contacted
earlier the same day, whom Mr. Henley and dispatch had communicated was hallucinating a belief
that someone was trying to harm him. As such, Engleberg knew or reasonably should have known
that he had an obligation to attempt non-lethal, non-confrontational de-escalation techniques
instead of aiming his weapon and frightening Mr. Henley into flight, which contributed to any
subjective, perceived need for force.
144. Even if the officers were justified in using some level of force, the quantum of
deadly force used under the circumstances went beyond that which could be considered reasonably
justifiable under the circumstances.
145. As such, the use of deadly force by the Defendant Officers under these
circumstances was objectively unreasonable.
146. Defendant Engleberg demonstrated his own knowledge that he used excessive force
after the incident when he falsely reported that he fired upon Mr. Henley as a result of Mr. Henley
raising a knife above his head and charged at the officers. Given that the physical evidence and
witness statements do not support that Mr. Henley had a knife at the time of the shooting, it can be
29
inferred that even officer Engleberg felt he needed to manufacture additional justification for the
shooting to survive public scrutiny—additional justification that he believed Westminster would
echo and support, despite contradictory physical evidence.
147. The actions as described herein of the Defendant Officers, while acting under color
of state law, deprived Decedent Henley of the rights, privileges and liberties secured by the
Constitution of the United States of America, including the right to freedom from unreasonable
seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America, made actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
148. Mr. Henley, through his estate, has suffered damages stemming from his death, the
proximate cause of which, were the actions of the Defendant Officers.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. §1983 – Municipal Policy, Custom, and/or Failure to Train/Supervise
(Against City of Westminster)
set forth herein.
150. Defendant Engleberg has been involved in multiple police incidents where he has
used force on emotionally sensitive and/or disturbed persons, for which alternatives to the use of
force should have reasonably been implemented, including taking steps to calm the situation,
creating distance, utilizing environmental controls and barriers to help manage any volatility, and
communicating in a non-threatening manner.
151. In each of the above-described incidents involving Defendant Engleberg, including
that involving Decedent Henley, alternatives to force should have been used first and/or in place
30
of force to help control the situation. However, in each situation, Defendant Engleberg has elected
to use force as if it was the only method of contact/control available.
152. As such, Defendant Engleberg has exhibited a pattern and practice of escalating
police incidents, using force where there is no imminent threat facing him or others, when
situations reasonably call for de-escalation, and/or where other precautions or less-violent forms
of contact should be used.
153. Defendant Engleberg has also exhibited a corresponding pattern of
misrepresentation when it comes to justification for force and/or criminal charges, of which this
case is a prime example.
154. Westminster has been put on notice of this pattern of conduct through several
lawsuits. Despite this, the City has failed to appropriately discipline, retrain, and/or otherwise
supervise Engleberg to use force only when objectively reasonable and/or within constitutional
limits. Westminster has tacitly acquiesced in Engleberg’s practice by adopting his and his
colleagues’ accounts of incidents – even in spite of contradicting evidence – by failing to
discipline, retrain, and/or otherwise supervise Engleberg, and by placing Engleberg back into the
field so that members of the public continue to be exposed to him.
155. However, Westminster’s lack of oversight of its officers is not limited to Officer
Engleberg. Westminster, through its officers, are repeat offenders when it comes to the violation
of constitutional rights. Time after time, Westminster has been put on notice about officer
misconduct through excessive force lawsuits, evidence that conflicts with officer accounts, and
witness and media reports that should cast doubt on officer justifications regarding the use of force.
31
156. Time after time, Westminster has failed to appropriately investigate, review,
discipline, retrain, and/or otherwise supervise its officers to use force within constitutional limits.
157. Time after time, Westminster has failed to appropriately investigate, review,
discipline, retrain and/or otherwise supervise its officers to curb erroneous accounts and/or
intentional misrepresentations regarding officer-involved incidents.
158. Instead, Westminster has instituted its own policies, customs, and practices that
appear calculated to protect officers and tacitly support its officer employees, regardless of their
misconduct, including but not limited to: (a) not requiring officers to write reports involving the
use of deadly force, (b) permitting officers to provide only one story to CIT or neighboring
jurisdictions that investigate, instead of requiring multiple written statements and/or interviews to
check the veracity of their assertions, (c) not requiring officers to account for conflicting evidence
and/or conflicting witness statements pertaining to their application of force, (d) permitting – and
even facilitating – officer conferral with other involved officers and/or with counsel before
requiring a description of what happened during a use of force incident, (e) publicly adopting
officer versions of incidents before taking time to investigate and/or in spite of knowledge of
conflicting evidence, (f) issuing misleading press statements that obfuscate and/or mislead the
public into believing force is justified, (g) requiring civil rights claimants who settle claims of
excessive force to keep the facts of such incidents – and the settlements they enter into –
confidential, (h) failing to adopt standardized body cameras, and (i) failing to critically review,
investigate, discipline, retrain, and/or otherwise supervise in a manner that compels its officers to
use and report force within limits that clearly meet appropriate accountability standards.
32
159. The City’s acquiescence has helped promote a culture in which officers are
emboldened to use force faster than appropriate, to overlook alternatives to the use of force, to
ignore obvious indicators of emotional disturbance that should prompt different approaches, and
to misrepresent the facts and justification for force used in the field – whether deadly or not.
160. By persistently failing to adequately criticize, discipline, retrain, and/or otherwise
supervise officers who violate the constitution, and by refusing to institute officer body-worn
cameras in the face of a pattern of officer misconduct, the City of Westminster has and continues
to encourage its officers to misuse their authority. The City of Westminster has and continues to
act with deliberate indifference to those citizens who have and/or continue to be hurt or killed by
its officers.
161. This action and inaction of the City of Westminster, as articulated above, has been
and continues to be a moving force behind the constitutional injuries suffered by those in Mr.
Henley’s shoes, and others whom may be unlucky enough to come into contact with Westminster
officers on a daily basis.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
the Estate of Timmy Henley, against the Defendants, and award the following:
a. Compensatory damages for the loss of life, lost enjoyment of life, lost companionship,
pain and suffering, emotional distress, and wrongful death; funeral and burial expenses,
inconvenience, and other compensable damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
b. Punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be determined at
trial;
33
c. Pre and post-judgment interest, costs and expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees
by statute and as allowed by law, and
d. Any other such other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of January, 2020.
/s/ Raymond K. Bryant

Raymond K. Bryant, #42586
Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 720-515-6165
Fax: 720-465-1975
Email:
raymond@rightslitigation.com
/s/ Luke W. McConnell

Luke W. McConnell, #40414
Mulligan Breit McConnell, LLC
475 W. 12th Ave, Suite D
Denver, CO 80204
Phone: (303) 295-1500
Email: luke@mulliganbreit.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s Address: c/o counsel
34

Estate of Timmy Henley v. City of Westminster, Et Al.

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Estate of Timmy Henley v. City of Westminster, Et Al.

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:20-cv-00028 Document 1 Filed 01/06/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 34

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER, COLORADO;

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

struck Mr. Henley 11 times.

4. This incident is part of an ongoing pattern of excessive force used by Westminster

departments that are supposed to serve, instead of harm, the citizens.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

laws of the United States.

the events alleged herein occurred in the State of Colorado.

conferred by 42 U.S.C. §1988.

set forth herein.

from Defendant Hempelmann in his individual capacity.

15. Defendant City of Westminster is a Colorado municipality. Defendant City of

set forth herein.

20. There were not dogs present or chasing Mr. Henley.

21. Several officers responded to the call, including Defendant Engleberg.

conditions were safe to step down.

laced, and that he must have been hallucinating.

address Mr. Henley.

complex called 911 to report a person entering apartments at the complex.

apartment. Mr. Lopez went to the landing outside his apartment.

shut the door without saying a word.

to his truck, which is where he called 911.

people were trying to kill him.

himself from those he perceived to be after him.

he entered Mr. Tacket’s apartment.

Henley perceived to be after him.

that Mr. Henley threatened him.

dispatched to the scene, including the Defendant Officers.

and/or fleeing from persons he believed were chasing after him.

52. In such situations involving Emotionally Disturbed Persons (“EDPs”), or persons

respond as a normal person would. Officers should, among other things:

a. request a backup officer;

b. take steps to calm the situation;

c. create increased distance;

d. utilize environmental controls, such as barriers, to help manage the volatility of

e. ask the individual’s name;

f. communicate with the individual in an attempt to determine what is bothering them.1

unit 19 on the first floor, onto a large deck/landing area.

had his hands down at his sides.

time, approximately 30 feet away from each other.

Model Policy: Responding to Persons Experiencing a Mental Health Crisis, Section IV

earlier incident at 10:20 a.m. two hours earlier.

non-threatening movements at that time either.

61. Neither of the officers identified themselves as police.

he saw weapons pointed at him.

disoriented, and scrambling to avoid those aiming firearms at him.

charging or otherwise attempting to harm the officers.

partner had, and both continued shooting at Mr. Henley.

above his head.

with the officers.

or serious bodily injury to the Defendant officers or to anyone else.

Officers held him at gunpoint.

scene and taken directly to their attorneys.

82. Neither wrote police reports about what happened.

CIT investigators and attorneys were present for these interviews.

continued to charge at officers two more times with the knife.

of a justified shooting in deliberate indifference to the truth.

95. Westminster proudly announced via press release that:

D. The City of Westminster Condoned the Unconstitutional Actions of Both Defendant

98. Consistent with Westminster police practices, Westminster opened an internal