IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.
ESTATE OF JOSEPH VALVERDE, by and through ISABEL PADILLA, as
representative and next of kin of the decedent.
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN DODGE, and
The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Isabel Padilla, as acting representative of the estate of Joseph

Valverede, and next of kin of the decedent, by and through her attorney, Raymond K.
Bryant of the Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC, hereby states and alleges for her
complaint and jury demand, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This is a civil rights, Section 1983, action seeking justice for the

unnecessary use of deadly force used by Denver Police Officer Justin Dodge, when
Defendant Dodge one of at least four SWAT team members immediately surrounding
Mr. Valverede concluded an undercover drug bust operation by firing five lethal shots
from his police-issue firearm into a man who was trying to surrender to the officers and
who presented no imminent threat.
2.

This case represents just one of a string of Denver Police incidents

1

reflective of a shoot first deadly force practice, utilized by DPD officers and ratified
by the Denver Police Department, in which officers routinely fail to issue reasonable
commands and reasonable warnings, and provide no reasonable opportunity for targets
to respond or surrender themselves, before discharging their weapons during police
seizures.
3.

Instead of recognizing that a fatal mistake was made by one of its

officers, Defendant Denver made false public statements and heralded Defendant
Dodge as a hero. Denver must recognize that this case is an example of precisely what
not to do during a police encounter, and implement new policies, training, and
disciplinary efforts so that officers do not repeat the same mistakes by jumping the
gun and using premature, unnecessary, and excessive use of deadly force in
circumstances where restraint is most reasonable. Denver and its officers must make a
fundamental shift in its culture of policing in favor of decisions that genuinely
recognize the value human life of those to whom they come into contact.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States,

42 U.S.C. 1983.
5.

Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

6.

Venue is proper because the incidents and resultant injuries to the

Plaintiff giving rise to this action occurred in the City and County of Denver, Colorado.
PARTIES
7.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each

and every allegation contained in the preceding Paragraphs of this Complaint.

8.

Plaintiff Isabel Padilla, acting as personal representative and next of kin

of the decedent, Joseph Valverde, was the mother of Mr. Valverde, and acts in his stead
as personal representative of Mr. Valverde and his estate. At all times relevant to this
Complaint, both Plaintiff Padilla and decedent Valverde were United States citizens
and residents of the State of Colorado.
9.

Defendant Officer Justin Dodge was, at all times relevant to this

Complaint, employed as a law enforcement officer by the City and County of Denver,
and acting under color of law. He is identified in his personal capacity.
10.

Defendant City and County of Denver, Colorado, is a municipality

established under the laws of Colorado, and is responsible for the policies, practices,
training, supervision, ratification, and final decision-making of the police department
and its officers.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each

and every allegation contained in the preceding Paragraphs of this Complaint.

12.

On July 2, 2014, Defendant Justin Dodge and numerous Denver Police

Department officers arranged an undercover reverse buy/bust drug operation

(Operation) involving the decedent, Joseph Valverde. Police planned to sell Valverde
cocaine at Overland Public Park, located at 1075 West Florida Ave., in Denver,
Colorado, and to arrest him.
13.

Before the Operation, Denver police officers, including Defendant

3

Dodge, had conducted lengthy surveillance on Decedent Valverde. The officers, acting
under cover, befriended Mr. Valverde and arranged various illegal buys with and
involving him. On information and belief, all officers involved in the Operation had
been informed during briefings about the knowledge acquired during this prior contact,
including that Mr. Valverde was likely armed with a weapon for his own protection, but
had never (to their knowledge) threatened any of the officers or anyone else during any
of his dealings, and that Mr. Valverde was likely to try to get rid of possessions
associated with buying and/or selling drugs, if police attempted to arrest him.
14.

Police and the undercover officers arrived at the park before Decedent

Valverde, and prepared for the Operation by setting the scene, including positioning
several SWAT officers who would surround Mr. Valverede to make the arrest,
arranging for a helicopter to film from the air, organizing ground and aerial
surveillance, and preparing numerous other backup officers who would be present
around the perimeter of the scene.
15.

After placement of active personnel and equipment, the undercover

officer called Mr. Valverde to conduct the Operation. Decedent Valvarde arrived
minutes later in a vehicle containing his girlfriend, Patricia Milnes.
16.

Decedent Valverde and the undercover officer recognized each other and

moved to the sidewalk in front of the undercover officers car to discuss the deal.
17.

After Decedent Valverde showed the officer that he had the money for

the deal, the officer telephoned SWAT to make the arrest, under pretext of calling for
someone to deliver the pre-arranged drugs.

18.

The undercover officer and Decedent Valverde saw a white SUV rush

into the parking lot, at which time, Mr. Valverde asked the undercover officer if these
guys are with you or what? The officer replied, no, I dont know who they are. Then
the vehicle stopped in front of Decedent Valverdes vehicle, opened the doors, and four
members of the SWAT teamed poured out and surrounded Mr. Valverde.
19.

While the officers surrounded Mr. Valverde, it became evident that Mr.

Valverde desired to disarm himself of the weapon he had. He pulled the gun from his
pocket with his right hand and extended it downward, slightly backward, and outward,
to his side, in a manner clearly designed to drop the weapon, while raising his left hand
in a position of surrender.
20.

After he dropped the weapon, he then raised his right hand in the same

manner as his left, consistent with a clear intent and obvious position of surrender.
21.

Mr. Valverde did not, at any time, brandish, raise, or point the weapon at

any person.
22.

None of the officers ordered Mr. Valverde to drop the weapon, put his

hands up, or otherwise permitted him an opportunity to voluntarily surrender himself or

the weapon, before firing, despite Mr. Valverdes manifest intention to disarm himself
of his weapon and to surrender.
23.

After Mr. Valverde had dropped the weapon, and raised both empty

hands, Defendant Dodge fired five shots into Mr. Valverdes chest, killing him.
24.

Defendant Officer Dodge saw Mr. Valverde pull the gun out of his

pocket; and that Mr. Valverde did not brandish, raise, or point the weapon at anyone;

but fired the shots anyway, while Mr. Valverde was in a position of surrender, with his
hands up.
25.

Afterwards, Defendant Dodge falsely reported to investigating officers

and other personnel that he fired his weapon after he saw Mr. Valverde raise the gun
toward him, and that the weapon popped out of Mr. Valverdes hands after the shots
were fired.
26.

After the incident, the Denver Police Department conducted a lengthy

investigation and reviewed video evidence of the encounter from various vantage points
and with the perspective of various witnesses.
27.

Denver and its agents and employees knew that Mr. Valverde had not

made any threatening motions with the weapon; knew that the officers did not issue
appropriate orders, commands, or warnings to de-escalate any possible perceived
threat; did not provide Mr. Valverde an opportunity to disarm himself and/or to
surrender before shooting; and that Mr. Valverde was shot while attempting to
surrender, while his empty hands were in the air. Yet, Denver issued public statements
designed to cover up and conceal the use of unnecessary and excessive force.
28.

Defendant made false public statements designed to superficially justify

the use of force to the public, including that:

Sergeant Dodge and other members of the SWAT unit were assisting with the
arrest of a narcotics dealer when the suspect began advancing on Sergeant
Dodges fellow officers with a weapon. After the suspect refused to comply
with an order to drop his weapon, he continued toward officers with a raised

gun. Fearing for the safety of officers under his supervision, Sergeant Dodge
was forced to neutralize the threat.1
29.

Denver ratified the officers conduct, asserting after the incident, that the

officers conduct was in conformity with police policies and procedures, and that the
shooting was justified.
30.

Instead of correcting, disciplining, training, or retraining Defendant

Dodge regarding appropriate use of force, and candidly admitting to the public that an
officer had inappropriately used excessive force, Denver issued Defendant Dodge an
award for his conduct during the incident; Denver called him a hero for shooting
Valverde.
31.

On information and belief, Denver issued such public statements,

decisions of ratification, awards, and efforts to cover up and conceal the truth of the
shooting because Denver knew it could be found responsible, and because Denver
police officers have engaged in a string of unjustified shootings before and after this
incident which would likely implicate Denver as a financially responsible entity.
32.

Denver has received an enormous amount of bad press regarding the

frequent use of excessive force by its police officers during the preceding years, which
has caused Denver to be concerned for its public image. Denver is and has been under
enormous pressure to communicate to the public citizenry and taxpayers that it has
cleaned up its misconduct problems, even though it has not.
33.

This case is but one example of a string of cases demonstrating that

See Denver Police Department Facebook article titled Award Week: Sgt. Justin Dodge
https://www.facebook.com/denverpolice/photos/a.216526168452374.39921.175202779
251380/672325199539133/?type=1&theater
7

Denver has cultivated a culture where officers are trained and encouraged to engage in
activity indicative of an unjustifiable shoot first (ask questions later) deadly force
practice, in which officers issue no reasonable commands and no reasonable warnings,
and provide no reasonable opportunity for targets to respond or surrender themselves
before using deadly force, during the course of routine arrests and seizures.
34.

For example, within the past two years, Denver has also used

inappropriate deadly force in the following circumstances:

On the same day that Mr. Valverde was killed, July 2, 2014, Ryan Ronquillo
was shot to death at a parking lot in a funeral home as he was attempting to
attend a friends funeral. Mr. Ronquillo was unarmed and in his vehicle when
DPD officers failed to identify themselves as law enforcement officers, failed to
provide Ronquillo an opportunity to leave the vehicle or otherwise surrender,
and instead struck him several times through the driver side window with closed
fists, before finally shooting him dead.2 The city then attempted to cover up and
conceal the excessive force by falsely asserting that the officers provided lawful
commands and opportunities to surrender. Upon information and belief, the
officers were cleared and were not disciplined or retrained by Denver.

On January 1, 2015, DPD officers shot and killed unarmed, 17-year-old, Jessica
Hernandez, in a vehicle that was purportedly reported stolen. The young
teenager was with a group of teenaged friends in the vehicle, stopped in an
alley, when DPD officers surrounded the vehicle and fired into drivers-side

See Civil Action No. 16-cv-1664-KMT

8

door, without giving commands or warnings. Officers and the city then issued
public statements designed to justify and/or cover up for the excessive use of
force by intimating that Mr. Hernandez ran into and fractured an officers leg
just before the shots were fired.3 Upon information and belief, the officers were
cleared and were not disciplined or retrained by Denver.

On April 26, 2016, DPD officers shot and killed Dion Damon, in his parked car
near the Denver Art Museum, at the intersection of 14th and Bannock. He was
there to pay a parking ticket. DPD officers followed the man in attempt to serve
a warrant, when an officer claimed he thought he saw the man make a
threatening-type maneuver through the dark tinted windows of the vehicle.
Without any indication that the officer issued warnings that he might use deadly
force or issue commands for the decedent to stop the threatening maneuver,
he fired seven shots into the windshield of the car, killing Damon. Later,
officers found that there was no weapon. There had been no real threat.4 The
case is still under investigation by Denver.
35.

These are just a few representative examples in an otherwise lengthy list

of inappropriate and unnecessary deadly force cases. Without reprinting the laundry
lists of prior cases, for example, those identified in Booker v. Denver, Civil Action No.

See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-killed-by-denver-police-cited-for-resistingarrest-3-weeks-ago/
4
See Denver Post article titled: Questions Raised After Unarmed Man Killed
Downtown. http://www.denverpost.com/2016/04/13/questions-raised-after-denverpolice-shoot-kill-unarmed-man-downtown/
9

11-cv-000645-WYD-KMT5, and Ronquillo v. Denver, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1664KMT6, it is likely sufficient to recognize that in December 2014, North Denver News
examined the list of hundreds of cases within the last decade and found that Denver
has the second highest, per capita, rate of death caused by law enforcement in the
country.7
36.

A common thread among many of these cases is not only that DPD

officers failed to provide reasonable commands, warnings, or opportunities for their

targets to avoid being shot and killed, but also that the officers appear to have had
difficulty discerning when a threat is truly imminent before using deadly force. This
likely results from Denvers poor police polices and training governing the use of
deadly force and Denvers consistent failure to discipline and retrain when officers are
accused of using excessive force.
37.

For example, DPDs deadly force, firearms discharge policy (Operations

Manual 105.05), at the time of the incident, defined such important terms as
reasonable belief, deadly physical force, and serious bodily injury, but,
surprisingly, did not define imminent or imminent threat for officers. Furthermore,
while one section of the policy notes that warnings should be given before officers
engage in the use of deadly force, it qualifies the need for such warnings to those
occasions when feasible (in quotes), which language inherently connotes that the

See Doc. 36 at 73-128.

See Doc. 1 at 189-198.
7
See North Denver News article titled: Denver has the second highest rate of death
from law enforcement in the country. https://northdenvernews.com/denver-secondhighest-rate-death-law-enforcement-country/
6

10

warnings are not imperative. Finally, the policy provides no guidance to its officers
about the necessity of providing suspects a reasonable opportunity to surrender
themselves or comply with requests before using deadly force.
38.

Because Denvers firearms discharge policy is deficient in the above-

noted ways, it is also reasonable to conclude that its training (which depends on such
polices) are similarly deficient. Training failures regarding key issues such as the
imminence of harm and the common-sense need to provide suspects with reasonable
commands, warnings, and opportunities to surrender and/or comply are necessary for
officers to predictably conform to the reasonableness standards set out by the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution; and conversely the failure to adequately train in these
areas is likely to cause officers to fail in their constitutional responsibilities, as
evidenced by the above-cited pattern and practices of officers.
39.

Moreover, the training provided to Denvers police officers predictably

disposes those officers to itchy trigger fingers by over-emphasizing the dangers an

officer may face in the line of duty, and de-emphasizing the rights and safety of
suspects and the public. The time Denver spends in academy, role-call, seminars, and
other training efforts to instill self-preservation instincts regarding circumstances or
persons that could possibly cause officer harm far eclipses the amount of training time
officers receive regarding how their conduct could harm those with whom the officers
come into contact. This likely suggests that an aggressive, us vs. them mentality is
acceptable; and promotes the commonly held belief among officers that prematurely
shooting someone to defeat a possible threat that lacks imminence may be reasonable.

11

40.

Finally, Denver has contributed to the shoot first deadly force

practices of the department by failing to adequately supervise its officers. Historically,

when DPD officers have been involved in excessive force incidents, the department
has routinely condoned the behavior of its officers by failing to recognize excessive
force to the public and failing to adequately discipline and/or retrain those who engage
in such misconduct whether the force at issue was deadly or not. Not only has the
city regularly attempted to cover up and conceal evidence that force in many
circumstances was excessive (as identified in the above-noted examples and in this
case), but the department has routinely cleared officers of any wrongdoing despite
being forced to pay huge settlements and/or judgments to victims of such misconduct.
41.

Ms. Padilla, on behalf of the decedent Mr. Valverde, seeks an end to this

shoot first deadly force culture of the police department; adequate and effective
polices, procedures, and training so that officers are compelled to be more cautious
with the lives of the public; transparency and accountability regarding Denvers
oversight of its officers; and compensation for the physical injuries, loss of liberty,
pain and suffering, emotional distress, dignitary injuries, loss of life, and economic
damages caused by the Defendants reckless and wrongful acts.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth Amendment Violation Excessive Force
(Against Defendant Dodge)
42.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each

and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

43.

Defendant Officer Dodge intentionally and knowingly applied

12

premature, unnecessary, unreasonable, and excessive force to decedent Valverde by

shooting him five times, as Mr. Valverde had his hands in the air, in a submissive
position of surrender, after Mr. Valverde had disarmed himself, and after failing to
provide Mr. Valverde reasonable commands or reasonable opportunity to surrender
himself or his weapon before firing.
44.

At the time Mr. Valverde was shot by Defendant Dodge, he had not

made any threatening motions with the weapon; had not brandished, raised, or pointed
the weapon at any person; and was engaged in conduct that would have put any
reasonable officer on notice that he manifestly intended to submit to the officers.
45.

To the extent that Defendant Dodge may have perceived a threat before

the shooting, as a result of Mr. Valverde possessing a weapon, Defendant Dodge knew
or should have known that such threat was not imminent and did not present a
reasonable justification to use deadly force. All movements made by Mr. Valverde in
connection with the weapon were made in effort to disarm himself of the weapon
exactly as an officer giving a command to drop the weapon would reasonably expect.
46.

Defendant Dodge demonstrated his own knowledge that he used

excessive force after the incident when he falsely reported that that he purportedly fired
at Mr. Valverde after Mr. Valverde raised the weapon toward him and that Mr.

13

Valverdes weapon popped out of Mr. Valverdes hands after the shots were fired.
47.

The actions as described herein of Defendant Officer, while acting under

color of state law, deprived Plaintiff Valverde of the rights, privileges, liberties, and
immunities 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.
48.

The conduct of the Defendant Officer was the motivating and proximate

cause of Plaintiffs injuries, including physical, emotional, and dignitary harms.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Faulty Practices, Policies & Failure to Train/Supervise Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Against City and County of Denver)
49.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth

herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint.
50.

Defendant Denver has caused to flourish a brutal culture of a shoot

first deadly force practice, utilized by DPD officers and ratified by the Denver Police
Department, in which officers fail to issue reasonable commands or reasonable
warnings, and do not regularly provide reasonable opportunities for targets to respond
or surrender themselves before officers use deadly force, while they attempt regularly
reoccurring arrests and seizures.

14

51.

DPD officers have repeatedly failed to provide reasonable commands,

warnings, or opportunities for their targets to avoid being shot and killed, in a string of
excessive, deadly force incidents within the last several years, and a decade of
excessive force preceding those incidents.
52.

This culture and environment of brutality is evidenced by, among other

things, the sheer volume of lawsuits filed against and/or legal settlements with Denver
law enforcement alleging excessive force, the involvement of dozens of different law
enforcement officials in those lawsuits, and similarity of circumstances, where shots are
fired first and questions should be asked by the department later, but where DPD issues
public statements condoning and rewarding officer misconduct instead of disciplining
and retraining to prevent it.
53.

The culture has likely developed as a result of Denvers poor police

polices and procedures, and faulty training governing the use of deadly force, as well as
Denvers consistent failure to properly supervise officers accused of using excessive
force.
54.

Denver has exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of its citizens

by covering up for officer misconduct, presenting false statements and information

through public statements, failing to recognize excessive force by officers (despite
paying huge settlements to victims of misconduct), and failing to adequately discipline,
retrain, or otherwise properly supervise its officers, which conduct implicitly condones
officer misconduct and communicates to its officers that they will be protected rather
than criticized for misconduct.

15

55.

This action and inaction of the City and County of Denver, as articulated

above, has been and continues to be a moving force behind the constitutional injuries
suffered by those in Mr. Valverdes shoes, and those DPD officers continue to come
into contact with on a daily basis.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment in

her favor and against all Defendants for compensatory damages, as referenced above,
for punitive damages with respect to the claims against the individual defendant, for
interest as allowed by law including pre-judgment interest from the date of the incident
and post-judgment interest, for costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees
as allowed by statute or as otherwise allowed by law, and for any other and further
relief that this Court shall deem just and proper.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL TO

A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of July, 2016.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
s/ __Raymond K. Bryant________
Raymond K. Bryant
Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC
1391 Speer Blvd., Suite 705
Denver, CO 80204
P: 720-515-6165
F: 303-416-4246
Raymond@rightslitigation.com

16