AURORA | A years-long dispute is still roiling in the courts between Aurora and Denver over who’s responsible for excessive force claims against police from both departments when they turned out to quell 2020 George Floyd protests at the state Capitol.
Aurora is asking a court to decide whether it or Denver must pay $2.6 million in legal fees and settlements tied to the protests. Aurora is arguing that Denver should pay for legal settlements linked to Aurora police officers after they sent them to the Capitol at Denver’s request.
“Aurora has repeatedly asked Denver to confirm that it will indemnify Aurora or otherwise assume responsibility for these claims as required by state law and the parties’ longstanding practice and agreement,” the lawsuit states. “Denver has refused, and so Aurora now seeks a declaration establishing that Denver does in fact have that obligation.”
During the large and raucous George Floyd protests, the City of Denver requested backup from Aurora as part of a standard mutual aid agreement between the cities.
When dozens of protesters and others, such as journalists and local lawmakers, later filed lawsuits against Denver for injuries and civil rights violations, alleging excessive force by police using tear gas, pepper balls, flash-bang grenades and rubber bullets, some claimed it was Aurora officers who specifically caused their injuries.
Denver has dealt with its own lawsuits linked to the protests, costing the city more than $14 million.
The additional allegations directed at Aurora led to six separate lawsuits specifically naming Aurora. According to City Attorney Pete Schulte, five of those lawsuits were settled for $1.42 million, while one was dismissed. The total cost to Aurora, including legal fees and related expenses, amounted to $2,667,107, all of which were paid out of the city’s risk fund.
Since Aurora was brought into Denver through a mutual aid agreement, Aurora officials said they were under the impression that Denver would pay back or indemnify the officer’s liability while under Denver’s command.
Former Denver Mayor Mike Hancock disagreed and refused to pay back Aurora, claiming the Aurora officers acted on their own.
“Denver’s decision not to indemnify the Aurora officers who responded to Denver’s calls for mutual aid during the 2020 protests occurred under Mayor Hancock,” Aurora spokesperson Ryan Luby said in an email. “When Mayor Johnston was elected, (Aurora Mayor Mike) Coffman reached out to him to see if he would reverse Denver’s position and indemnify Aurora’s officers, but Johnston and his team declined.”
The legal battle has been going on for years, to the point where, in July 2023, the Aurora City Council voted to suspend its mutual aid agreement with Denver. The vote by Aurora City Council to suspend mutual aid is still in place, with Aurora officials saying it will not be reinstated until the lawsuit is resolved.
“Coffman put forward the 2023 resolution as a result, and litigation is still pending to force Denver, under state law, to indemnify Aurora’s officers and cover all of Aurora’s related legal expenses to date,” Luby said in an email.
While the two cities remain at odds in court, Schulte said Denver has not requested any mutual aid from Aurora since the resolution, instead turning to other municipalities and counties for help.
The mutual aid resolution between Aurora and Denver only applies to planned civil disturbances and not to police departments working together to combat criminal behavior on the borders of the cities, Luby said.
Although the lawsuit centers on $2.7 million in costs Aurora wants Denver to pay, Schulte said the real issue is about how mutual aid agreements are interpreted under state law and what kind of precedent the case might set.
“Mutual aids are just strictly contractual agreements,” said Terrence P. Dwyer, a retired New York State Police trooper and investigator, and current tenured professor of legal studies at Western Connecticut State University.
Dwyer said that under the “borrowed servant” rule, the borrowing city, being Denver, is generally responsible for injuries to officers acting under its command. But liability shifts when civil rights violations are alleged.
“If you go into the civil rights lawsuit and it becomes a civil action, in that regard,” he said. “It’s the lending municipality; Aurora can be liable for the actions of their officers. So if on mutual aid, the Aurora police officers went in to say, for argument’s sake, and they committed police brutality, but they’re assisting Denver, Aurora can still be on the hook for that.”
Dwyer also said that Colorado law and the specific mutual aid agreement between the two cities could have language that changes how liability is handled in mutual aid agreements.
The lawsuit between the two cities is currently in discovery, but the most recent motion filed July 31 was a continuance by the City and County of Denver, which could hold off the next court date for as long as a year, according to Schulte.
The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial, and both cities are paying third-party law firms to handle the cases. Holland and Hart represent Aurora, and Garnett, Powell, Maximon, Barlow and Farbes represent Denver.
It sounds like Aurora knew it’s officers would commit civil rights violations and wants cover.
What a silly statement, T Mack. No policeman or bureaucracy ever since Chicago, 1968 goes to protect citizens in a big protest and expects, their” officers would commit civil rights violations” This is just a city to city legal contract situation.