Wilk Family vs. St. Vrain Valley School District, Erie Police Department, Et Al

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 62
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. ________________________
ERIK WILK, DEREK WILK, and

JAMI WILK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
JOHN CREIGHTON, JOIE SIEGRIST, BOB SMITH, DEBBIE LAMMERS, JOHN
AHRENS, PAULA PEAIRS, and MIKE SCHIERS, members of the Districts Board, in
their individual and official capacities,
DON HADDAD, Superintendent of Schools, in his individual and official capacity,
GREG WINGER, Expulsion Officer of the District, in his individual capacity,
MATTHEW BUCHLER, Principal of Erie High School, in his individual capacity,
TOWN OF ERIE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
MARC VASQUEZ, Erie Police Department, in his individual and official capacity,
DAN NIEMOTH, Erie Police Department, in his individual capacity, and
AARON HADDOX, Erie Police Department, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
For their Complaint, Plaintiffs Erik Wilk, Derek Wilk, and Jami Wilk allege as
follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
This case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the wrongful expulsion
of Erik Wilk from Erie High School, the wrongful arrest of Erik Wilk, and the wrongful
searches of the Wilk residence in violation of Plaintiffs rights under the First, Fourth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
II.
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs.
1.
Erik Wilk resides at 1325 Banner Circle, Erie, Boulder County, Colorado
80516.
2.
Derek Wilk resides at 1325 Banner Circle, Erie, Boulder, County, Colorado
80516 and is Eriks father.
3.
Jami Wilk resides at 1325 Banner Circle, Erie, Boulder, County, Colorado
80516 and is Eriks mother.
B. Defendants.
4.
Defendant St. Vrain Valley School District (the District) is a school district
organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, with principal offices
located at 395 South Pratt Parkway, Longmont, Colorado 80501. The District
operates under the supervision and control of its Board of Education (the
Board).
5.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendants John Creighton, Joie

Siegrist, Bob Smith, Debbie Lammers, John Ahrens, Paula Peairs, and Mike
Schiers were members of the Districts Board.
6.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Don Haddad (Haddad)

was the Districts Superintendent of Schools.
7.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Greg Winger (Winger) was the
Districts Expulsion Officer.
8.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Matthew Buchler (Buchler)

was the Principal of Erie High School, a District school.
9.
Defendant Erie Police Department (Erie PD) is a department of the Town of

Erie, Colorado government.
10.
At all times material to the Complaint, Defendant Marc Vasquez was the Chief
of Police for the Erie Police Department.
11.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Dan Niemoth was a peace
officer with the Erie Police Department.
12.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Aaron Haddox was a peace
officer with the Erie Police Department.
13.
In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants were acting under color
of state law.
14.
In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
15.
In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants acted with reckless or

callous indifference to Plaintiffs federally-protected rights or were motivated
by evil motive or intent.
III.
16.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiffs claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Court has
jurisdiction of the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and
1343(a)(3) and (4).
17.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1)

and (2).
IV.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18.
The Town of Erie (Erie) is a Colorado statutory town with principal offices
located at 645 Holbrook St., Erie, Colorado 80516 and a population of
approximately 22,000.
19.
Erie High School (Erie HS) is a District school located at 3180 Weld County
Rd 5, Erie, Colorado and has an enrollment of approximately 750 students.
20.
Plaintiffs have lived in Erie, Colorado for approximately fifteen years.
21.
Derek and Jami Wilk have been married for approximately twenty-three years
and have three sons and one daughter, ranging in age from four to eighteen
years. Erik is the Wilks oldest son.
22.
Erik grew up in Erie and, until the events described below, attended Erie
public schools, including Erie Elementary School, Erie Middle School, and
Erie HS.
23.
At Erie HS, in addition to his academic pursuits, Erik participated in the

marching, pep, and symphonic bands. Band involvement was year-round,
including summer practices.
24.
Outside of school, Erik has been actively involved in the Boy Scouts since the
first grade. In May 2015, he earned the rank of Eagle Scout, scoutings
highest honor. He also is a member of the Order of the Arrow, scoutings
honor society, and has earned the National Outdoor Award for camping.
25.
Erik has been active in his church, both in youth group and as a confirmation
group leader.
26.
Erik is interested in military history and, as a hobby, has been involved with
the Colorado Military Historical Group (CMHG) since 2010. The CHMG is
dedicated to preserving history and educating the public about World War II.
Its membership includes people of various ages and from many walks of life.
Among other things, members of the CHMG participate in reenactments of
military battles, using adapted period rifles. In addition, Erik has volunteered
at the Broomfield Veterans Museum to teach flag etiquette and history.
27.
During the school year 2013- 2014, Erik was in his junior year at Erie HS.
28.
On the morning of Friday, February 28, 2014, Principal Buchler called the Erie
PD to report a possible threat against Erie HS. Officer Haddox of the Erie
PD took Buchlers call.
29.
Buchler told Haddox that an Erie HS teacher had reported to him that two
female students, S.G. and V.T., had reported to the teacher that a male
student, S.M., said that Erik may have a plan to shoot up the school.
30.
S.G. and V.T. were cheerleaders at Erie HS and had spoken with S.M the
previous afternoon at the school gym prior to a cheerleading practice. S.M.
was at the gym cleaning up while serving a disciplinary detention.
31.
Erik was not present when S.M. made the alleged comment to the two female
students.
32.
Erik himself never made a comment about planning to shoot up the school.
33.
Prior to this encounter, S.G. and V.T. did not know either S.M. or Erik.
34.
February 28, 2014 was a non-student contact day at Erie HS, and students
were not in attendance at the school that day.
35.
Prior to calling the Erie PD, Buchler did not speak to S.M., S.G., V.T. or Erik
or his parents.
36.
Haddox asked Buchler to come to the Erie PD to brief the information further.
37.
Buchler e-mailed school information about Erik to Haddox and screen shots
from Eriks Facebook page showing photographs of a zombie in a Nazi
soldier, photographs of Erik holding a rifle and dressed in a military uniform,
and reference to Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. The reference to Johnny the
Homicidal Maniac was one of approximately 50 likes that also included
Cookie Monster and Star Wars.
38.
Upon further investigation, Haddox found that the photograph of the Nazi
soldier was related to a movie, the photographs of Erik in uniform with a rifle
were related to his participation in WWI reenactments, and Johnny the
Homicidal Maniac was found to be a comic book. Eriks Facebook page
contained no mention of any threats against Erie HS.
39.
At approximately 11:45 a.m. that morning, after receiving Buchlers call,

Officers Haddox and Niemoth were standing outside the Erie PD station when
Erik and S.M. happened to be skateboarding past the building.
40.
Haddox formerly had served as an Erie HS School Resource Officer and was
familiar with many of the schools students. He recognized Erik and S.M. and
called them over. Haddox told the boys he wanted to speak with them and
asked if they would come into the station. They agreed to do so.
41.
Haddox told Erik and S.M. he needed to contact their parents before he could
talk with them. Haddox attempted unsuccessfully to reach S.M.s father.
Haddox reached Eriks mother at home, and she agreed to come to the
station.
42.
The Erie PD investigation and finding of no credible threat. Although he

had not been able to reach S.M.s father, Haddox proceeded to question S.M.
Haddox permitted Buchler to attend the session and to question S.M. as well.
43.
S.M. told Haddox and Buchler that S.G. and V.T. had engaged him in
conversation while waiting for cheerleading practice to start. According to
S.M., the cheerleaders asked him a bunch of questions, including, among
other things, whether he had a girlfriend, whether he was able to fall in love,
whether he was a psychopath, whether he ever had brought a knife to school,
and whether he was going to shoot up the school. During this conversation,
S.M. told S.G. and V.T. he was not going to shoot up the school.
44.
Buchler told S.M. about S.G. and V.T. reporting that S.M. said Erik was going
to shoot up the school. S.M. denied saying that. S.M. said that, when S.G.
and V.T. asked him about shooting up the school, he told them that Erik hates
the school more than he does and that if someone was going to shoot up the
school, it would not be him it would more likely be Erik. S.M. told Haddox
that his statement to the cheerleaders was more like a joke.
45.
Haddox asked S.M. if he had ever talked with Erik about doing anything to the
school, and S.M. stated that he had not.
46.
Haddox asked S.M. if he and Erik had a plan to do anything at the school,
and S.M stated that they did not.
47.
Haddox asked S.M. if Erik had ever thought of a plan on his own, and S. M.
said he had not.
48.
Haddox asked S.M. if Erik had access to weapons, and S.M. said he did not.
49.
Haddox asked S.M. if Erik had firearms in his residence, and S.M. said he did
not.
50.
Buchler asked S.M. if Erik had access to weapons, and S.M. said he did not.
51.
S.M. told Haddox that there is a gun safe in S.M.s home but that the key is
with his mother in Colorado Springs. The next day, Haddox confirmed that
information with S.M.s mother. She told Haddox that she lives in Colorado
Springs and possesses the only two keys to the gun safe in the home in Erie.
52.
The questioning of S.M. lasted about twenty minutes and concluded at

approximately 12:18 p.m.
53.
After questioning S.M., Haddox proceeded to question Erik. Haddox allowed

Buchler to be present for this session as well. Jami Wilk was present in
person, and Derek Wilk attended the session by telephone.
54.
During the questioning, Haddox asked Erik if he had any plans to attack Erie
HS, and Erik said he did not.
55.
Haddox asked Erik if he had any access to weapons, and Erik said he did not
and that his family does not own guns.
56.
Haddox asked Erik about the rifles he was holding in the Facebook page
photographs. Erik told Haddox that they are adapted rifles used as part of his
WWII reenactment hobby and are not capable of firing bullets.
57.
Haddox asked Jami Wilk whether Erik had access to or possessed firearms.
Jami told Haddox that Erik did not possess or have access to firearms and
that the Wilk family does not own firearms.
58.
Haddox asked Erik if he had ever, in a joking or fantasizing manner, talked

about a plan to attack Erie HS, and Erik stated that he had not.
59.
Haddox asked Erik again if he had ever talked about shooting up the school,
killing a student at the school, or hurting a student at the school, and Erik
stated that he had not.
60.
Haddox asked Erik whether Haddox would find anything in Eriks bedroom
that indicated a plan to attack the school, and Erik said he would not.
61.
The questioning of Erik lasted approximately forty-five minutes and concluded

at approximately 1:03 p.m.
62.
After questioning Erik, Haddox informed the Wilks that he wanted to search
Eriks bedroom, and the Wilks consented to the search.
63.
Shortly after receiving the consent, Haddox, Niemoth, Jami Wilk, and Erik
proceeded to the Wilk residence. Derek Wilk arrived at the residence a short
time later.
64.
Beginning at approximately 1:14 p.m., Haddox and Niemoth conducted a

search of Eriks bedroom for weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings,
maps, plans, and any other items possibly related to an attack on Erie High
School. They found no such items.
65.
Haddox reported that he found WWII memorabilia, uniforms, and equipment

in the bedroom related to Eriks WWII reenactment hobby.
66.
Haddox also reported that he located no other suspicious items or documents

during the search.
67.
The search of Eriks bedroom lasted approximately forty-five minutes and

concluded at approximately 1:56 p.m.
68.
Following the search, Haddox told Erik, in the presence of his parents, that he
had looked at Eriks Facebook page and did not find it disturbing and that he
believed that Erik had gotten a bum rap.
69.
The Erie PD also obtained consent to search S.M.s bedroom. At

approximately 2:18 p.m., Haddox and Niemoth proceeded to S.M.s residence
and searched his bedroom for weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings,
maps, plans, and any other items possibly related to an attack on Erie HS.
They found no such items.
70.
The search of S.M.s bedroom lasted approximately thirty minutes and

concluded at approximately 2:48 p.m.
71.
During this search, Haddox further questioned S.M. about his alleged
comment to the two cheerleaders. Haddox reported that S.M. remained
adamant that the statements made to the cheerleaders were a joke and that
he had no knowledge that Erik was planning an attack on Erie HS.
72.
On Saturday, March 1, 2014, Haddox continued the investigation by

questioning S.G. and V.T. at the Erie PD station.
73.
Haddox questioned S.G. first, and her father attended the session.
74.
According to S.G., she and V.T. had conversed with S.M. the previous
Thursday evening when they went to Erie HS for cheerleading practice.
75.
According to S.G., at one point during the conversation, she and V.T. asked
S.M. if he was a psychopath. After S.M. said he did not know but maybe he
10
was, they asked him if he was going to shoot up the school. According to
S.G., S.M. said: I dont think so, but my friend is planning on it.
76.
According to S.G., they then asked S.M. who his friend was, and S.M. said it
was Erik Wilk.
77.
S.G. also told Haddox she subsequently had searched Erik on Facebook and
saw photographs of him with a rifle. The photographs S.G. saw on Eriks
Facebook page were from his WWII reenactment hobby and scouting and
were the same photographs Haddox already had seen.
78.
S.G. told Haddox that she and V.T. subsequently reported the conversation
with S.M. to their teacher.
79.
At the conclusion of S.G.s interview, Haddox explained to S.G. and her father
the investigative actions that had been taken and provided them with
information about obtaining a protective order if they felt they needed one.
S.G. did not seek a protective order.
80.
After questioning S.G., Haddox questioned V.T. Neither of V.T.s parents was
present, but, with the permission of V.T.s mother, S.G.s father attended
V.T.s questioning.
81.
V.T. told Haddox that she and S.G. had arrived early to cheerleading practice
on Thursday, February 27, 2014. V.T said they knocked on the locked gym
doors, and S.M. opened the doors for them. They learned that he was at the
gym cleaning up while serving a detention.
82.
V.T. told Haddox that she and S.G. were talking with S.M. about life in
general and that, at one point during the conversation, they asked S.M. if he
11
was a psychopath. V.T. said they then asked S.M. if he would shoot up the
school. According to V.T., S.M. said: No, but my friends planning on it. V.T.
asked S.M. who his friend was, and S.M. said Erik Wilk.
83.
At the conclusion of the questioning, Haddox explained to V.T. the

investigative actions that had been taken and gave her information on
obtaining a protective order if she felt she needed one. V.T. did not seek a
protective order.
84.
Based upon his investigation, Haddox determined that there was no evidence
of a credible threat against Erie HS or of any steps taken to act on such a
threat.
85.
Haddox concluded his report of the investigation with the following finding:
No evidence has been produced to determine that this particular threat
was credible or that specific steps were taken to act on any threats. This
case will be cleared as unfounded.
86.
Later that day, Haddox contacted Buchler to inform him of the results of the
investigation. Buchler advised Haddox that, notwithstanding the results of the
investigation, action would be taken against both S.M. and Erik.
87.
On Monday, March 3, 2014, Buchler required Erik to undergo a threat

assessment screening before being allowed to return to school. The
screening consisted of a meeting between Buchler, Stacy Davis, District
Safety and Security Manager, Erik, and his father. After conducting the
screening, Buchler permitted Erik to return to school that day.
88.
On March 3, 2014, S.M. gave Buchler a written statement regarding what he

had said to S.G. and V.T. the previous Thursday. In his written statement,
12
S.M. said he had been asked a bunch of random questions by two

cheerleaders, including, among other things, whether he was going to shoot
up the school and that he jokingly said: I wont but my friend Erik hates the
school more than I do. In his statement, S.M. did not say that he told S.G.
and V.T. that Erik was planning to shoot up the school, and S.M.s written
statement differs from what S.G. and V.T. reported. In his statement, S.M.
also stated: They thought I was threatening the school, and they dragged
Erik into this whole thing. In his statement, S.M. also said:
I spoke without thinking and I made an inappropriate joke to two girls I didnt
know. Thats why it was taken wrong. I understand that they were scared,
but it was not my intention to do that to them.
89.
On Monday evening, March 3, 2014, notwithstanding that the Erie PD had

cleared the report as unfounded, that Erik had been cleared to attend school
that day, and the content of S.M.s written statement, Buchler called Derek
Wilk and told him Erik would not be permitted to attend school the next day.
Buchler said that new evidence had surfaced and that a full team threat
assessment would be conducted the next day.
90.
Derek Wilk asked Buchler to send him the alleged new evidence. At 5:26
p.m., Buchler sent Derek an e-mail referencing seven items from Eriks
Changes class notebook. None of these excerpts referenced a plan to
attack Erie HS.
91.
Buchlers e-mail and the items from Eriks Changes class notebook.
During the 2013-14 school year, Erik was taking a class called Changes.
The Changes class covered science and English and was co-taught by two
13
teachers. The teachers pushed the students to be provocative, and it was not
unusual for student responses to class assignments to discuss controversial
topics.
92.
Buchlers e-mail said that Erik had the right to submit a statement regarding in
response to his e-mail. Erik had been suspended from school and did not
have access to his class notebooks, which had been turned in to his teacher.
Working from memory, Erik prepared a written statement responding as best
he could to the seven items referenced in Buchlers e-mail. Derek Wilk emailed Eriks statement to Buchler later that night.
93.
The first item referenced in Buchlers e-mail was that the cover of one of
Eriks notebooks had a marking of a swastika and the letters SS. The cover
of the notebook and the markings were faded from age, and, in his response
to Buchler, Erik explained that this was an older notebook from middle school,
that it was used only occasionally, and, when used, was used mainly for
drawings and writings. No other student had ever expressed fear or
apprehension about the cover of the notebook, and, at all times material to
this Complaint, the swastika symbol appeared in a poster on an Erie HS
classroom wall. The teacher had not expressed fear or apprehension about
the cover of the notebook, counseled Erik about it, or brought it to his parents
attention. No administrator previously had expressed fear or apprehension
about the cover of the notebook or raised the matter with Erik or his parents.
94.
The second item referenced in Buchlers e-mail was a sentence Erik had
written in response to a Changes class assignment back in August or
14
September of 2013, near the start of the 2013-14 school year. The sentence
read: I use dominance to my advantage creating a hiararchy (sic) and
instilling fear in others. For this assignment, the students had been instructed
to use the vocabulary words dominance and hierarchy together in a single
sentence to explain how they would gain the upper hand or show control in a
situation. No student had expressed fear or apprehension about Eriks
response to this assignment. The teacher had not expressed fear or
apprehension about Eriks response, counseled Erik, or brought the response
to the attention of his parents. To the contrary, Erik received a perfect score
on this assignment. No administrator previously had expressed fear or
apprehension about Eriks response or raised the matter with Erik or his
parents.
95.
The third item referenced in Buchlers e-mail was a drawing of a skeleton with
a Nazi helmet and a Nazi flag. Erik explained to Buchler that this was an old
sketch possibly from freshman year (i.e., two years earlier). As previously
alleged, Erik is interested in World War II history, and, in his response to
Buchlers email, Erik explained that, if this was the drawing he was thinking
of, at the bottom of the drawing was the Battle of Stalingrad with Soviet troops
charging German machine gun nests. No other student had expressed fear or
apprehension about this drawing, if they had even seen it. No teacher had
expressed fear or apprehension about this drawing, counseled Erik about it,
or brought it to the attention of his parents. No administrator previously had
15
expressed fear or apprehension about this drawing or raised the matter with
Erik or his parents.
96.
The fourth item referenced in Buchlers e-mail was a portion of Eriks answer
to another Changes class assignment from November 2013. In this
assignment, students were instructed to provide reactive and proactive
choices in response to various hypothetical scenarios. In answer to one of the
scenarios, for reactive choices, Erik wrote: 1. Kill him, 2. Leave him in a
dumpster, 3. Put a plastic bag over his head beat him with a pipe. In the
same answer, for proactive choices, Erik wrote: Quit, Adress (sic) the
manager, let it go. Buchler made no mention of the proactive choices Erik
gave. No other student had expressed fear or apprehension about Eriks
answer, and other students in the class also had provided answers containing
violent references. For example, in response to another assignment, another
student had created a pamphlet on how to be a serial killer and where to bury
the bodies. The teacher had not counseled Erik regarding his response to the
assignment or brought it to the attention of his parents. To the contrary, Erik
received a score of 30/30 on this assignment. No administrator previously had
expressed fear or apprehension about Eriks response or raised the matter
with Erik or his parents.
97.
The fifth item referenced in Buchlers e-mail was a portion of Eriks response
to another Changes class assignment from November 2013. For this
assignment, the students were required to respond to several questions. One
of the questions was: Everyone has one or more talents. Which of the ones
16
above are you good at? Or write down ones not listed. A list of talents was
provided. In response to the list of talents he was good at, Erik circled: good
with words, creative thinking, making things happen, artistic, decision
making, building things, accepting others, listening, humorous, and
music. Among talents not listed, Erik wrote: shooting, video games, and
history. Buchlers e-mail focused solely on Eriks reference to shooting. In
his response to Buchlers e-mail, Erik explained why he had listed shooting
as a talent:
Shooting and guns are something Im good at. In Scouts, Ive earned the
rifle and shotgun merit badges. With both Scouts and the Colorado Military
Historical Group, gun safety is extremely important. We are encouraged to
pay attention, know what youre doing and follow instructions.
No other student had expressed fear or apprehension about Eriks response
to this assignment. The teacher had not counseled Erik regarding his
response or brought it to the attention of his parents. To the contrary, the
teacher wrote on Eriks paper: Erik, you are fascinating. No administrator
previously had expressed concern about Eriks answers to this assignment or
raised the matter with Erik or his parents.
98.
The sixth item referenced in Buchlers e-mail was a portion of Eriks response
to another Changes class assignment from December 2013. In this
assignment, students were instructed to do a brain dump and write down
whatever happened to be on their minds at the time. Buchlers e-mail noted
that Erik had written down guns and weed. In the same answer, Erik had
written down fifteen other words including: music, love, caring, having
fun, skateboarding, laughing, creative thinking, doing good, listening,
17
respecting, learning, being myself, Freedom, and Art. Buchlers e-mail

did not mention any of those other words. In his response to Buchlers e-mail,
Erik explained:
When I sit and think about guns, its a quiz to me to test my knowledge and
memory about them from size, make, model, caliber, disassembly and reassembly of them and the differences between them. It has been something
I have been doing since 8th grade when I took my first gun safety course
with my Assistant Scoutmaster, Lew Ladwig. Weed was on my mind to an
extent. I have no past history with drugs, but I had to go to a class called
iTHRIVE and every participant in that class was attending because of
marijuana type offenses. I was curious about it at the time.
No other student had expressed fear or apprehension about Eriks response
to this assignment. The teacher had not expressed fear or apprehension or
counseled Erik regarding his response to the assignment or brought it to the
attention of Eriks parents. To the contrary, Erik received a score of 20/20 on
this assignment. No administrator previously had expressed fear or
apprehension about Eriks response or raised the matter with Erik or his
parents.
99.
The seventh item referenced in Buchlers e-mail was a class project from the
Changes class back in October 2013. For this project, Erik had chosen to
explore the question: What levels of radiation are needed to change things?
Buchler noted that Erik had written: Radiation kills and How can I create it?
This was part of an assignment to choose a science project. After discussing
several possible projects with his teachers, Erik had approached his teachers
about studying how radiation affects living things. The teachers had agreed to
allow Erik to study the effects of UV radiation and microwave radiation on
plants. One of the teachers suggested that, if his project were well-organized,
18
they might be able to collaborate with some local scientists to test Eriks idea
under the teachers supervision. No other student had expressed fear or
apprehension about this project. Eriks teachers had not expressed fear or
apprehension about the project, and they had helped Erik select and design
the project. No administrator previously had expressed fear or apprehension
about the project or raised the matter with Erik or his parents.
100.
In addition to referencing the seven excerpts from Eriks Changes notebook,

Buchlers e-mail said that Erik could not return to school Tuesday because he
allegedly had been bragging about getting arrested. In response to this
allegation, Erik explained that he had not been arrested and had not been
bragging about being arrested. Erik told Buchler that he had been walking
through the hallway of the school with several of his friends on the way to
intermediate algebra, and they had asked him why he had not been there in
the morning. Erik told them about what had happened the previous Friday
when Haddox had asked to speak with S.M. and him and that he had missed
chemistry class that morning because he had been in a threat assessment
evaluation. Erik explained to Buchler that he was talking in a normal tone of
voice to his friends, that he was not bragging, and that he did not use the
word arrested.
101.
Buchlers e-mail also said that Erik had caused a disturbance in

intermediate algebra class by talking about last Fridays events and that his
teacher had taken a worksheet away from him as he was doodling a figure
shooting a machine gun and tossing a hand grenade. In his response to
19
Buchlers e-mail, Erik denied that he had caused a disturbance, had doodled
a figure shooting a machine gun, and that his teacher had taken the
worksheet away from him. Erik explained that the worksheet had been turned
in along with the rest of his assignments that day and that it contained a
doodle of a dinosaur with a flame thrower and a hand grenade. Erik also
explained that the doodle was a couple of days old and he thought it had
been seen by the teacher at the time he drew it. No other student had
expressed fear or apprehension about the doodle, if they had even seen it,
and the teacher had not counseled Erik about the doodle or reported it to
Eriks parents. No administrator previously had expressed fear or
apprehension about the doodle or raised the matter with Erik or his parents.
102.
Buchlers threat assessment process and results. Notwithstanding Eriks

response to his e-mail, Buchler did not allow Erik to return to school on
Tuesday, March 4, 2014. Rather, on the morning of March 4, 2014, Buchler
convened a full-team threat assessment under a District threat assessment
protocol.
103.
A the time Buchler convened the full-team threat assessment, the Board had
not adopted a formal policy on threat assessments and had not informed
students or parents of the circumstances under which threat assessments
would be performed, the procedures for performing threat assessments, or
the potential consequences to students of performing threat assessments.
20
104.
Upon information and belief, in August 2013, the District had selected a threat
assessment protocol adopted by the Adams 12 Five Star School District, as a
model for conducting the Districts own threat assessments.
105.
In November 2013, Buchler, Davis, and Assistant Principal Kudrna attended a

training session on the Districts newly-adopted threat assessment protocol.
Erie HS school counselors Pohlman and Schroeder also attended the threat
assessment training, but they were not included in Buchlers threat
assessment team.
106.
The full-team threat assessment convened by Buchler on March 4, 2014 was

one of the steps required under the Districts threat assessment protocol in
order to determine whether a threat exists.
107.
Buchlers threat assessment team consisted of Buchler; Assistant Principal

Douglas Kudrna; Stacy R. Davis, District Director of Security and Emergency
Management; the Changes class teachers, Stacey Wallace and Julie Todd;
and Bryan Parker, an Erie PD Officer temporarily filling in as Erie HS School
Resource Officer.
108.
Buchlers team conducted Eriks threat assessment by reviewing the

interviews of Erik and Derek Wilk conducted during the screening the day
before, reviewing Eriks student discipline records, school papers, and
Facebook page, and meeting for an hour and a half. At the conclusion of that
meeting, the team concluded that Erik posed a High Level threat of violence
to Erie HS.
21
109.
In conducting Eriks threat assessment, the threat assessment team failed to

follow the District threat assessment protocol in numerous respects, including,
among others, the following:
a.
The team did not include a school psychologist/social worker,
counselor, or mental health representative.

b.
The team did not include, or obtain information from, other
teachers who knew Erik better than those selected for the team and who
would have provided positive information about Erik.
c.
The team relied upon multiple levels of hearsay, speculation,
rumor, and incorrect information.

d.
The team relied upon characteristics or traits rather than facts,
contrary to the Districts protocol and the Secret Services guidelines for
conducting threat assessments, when Officer Parker, a member of the threat
assessment team, reported that Erik and S.M. were observed walking in Old
Town dressed in military fatigues (which, if true, is First Amendment-protected
conduct) and expressed the opinion that they were displaying traits of
persons associated with the sovereign citizen movement. Moreover, Erik
has never been associated with any group known as the sovereign citizen
movement.
e.
The protocol requires that an individualized assessment be
made, but the team conducted threat assessments of S.M. and Erik
concurrently, thereby confusing the facts as between S.M. and Erik and
making erroneous factual findings as to Erik.
22
f.
The threat assessment document was not completely filled out
and contained unanswered questions.

g.
The threat assessment document contained factually incorrect
answers.
h.
The threat assessment document contained factual assertions
for which no supporting evidence was cited.

i.
The threat assessment document did not identify a motive for
communicating the alleged threat.

j.
The question Has any part of the threat been resolved? was
answered No, when the Erie PD had concluded an investigation of the

alleged threat and determined that there was no evidence of a credible threat.
k.
The team did not develop a Response, Management, and
Support Plan (RMS Plan), as required, the purpose of which is to respond,

manage, and support the student, protect potential victims, and address the
students educational, social, and emotional needs.
l.
The team did not conduct a manifestation hearing as required
where, as in this case, suspension or expulsion are recommended.

110.
Under the Districts guidelines, the threat assessment team is required to

conclude the assessment by selecting an overall level of concern from one
of three categories:
Low Level: A threat which poses a minimal risk to the victim and to
public safety.
23
Medium Level: A threat which could be carried out, although it may

not appear entirely realistic. The team has moderate, ongoing
concerns about the students motivation to carry out the threat
warranting district consultation and/or request for external support
resources in addition to school-based interventions.
High Level: A threat that appears to pose an imminent and serious
danger to the safety of others and requires a district directed response
in cooperation with building administration.
111.
Buchlers team identified the threat as High Level, i.e. the highest possible
level of concern.
112.
The conclusion that Erik posed a High Level threat was flawed in numerous
respects, including, among others, the following:
a.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when, three days
earlier, the Erie PD had investigated and determined that there was no
evidence of a credible threat or specific steps taken to act on any threat.
b.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when the search of
Eriks bedroom had produced no weapons, documents, notes, letters,

writings, maps, plans, or other items related to an attack on Erie HS.
c.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when the search of
S.M.s bedroom had produced no weapons, documents, notes, letters,

writings, maps, plans, or other items related to an attack on Erie HS.
24
d.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when Erik had not
communicated a threat and when the threat assessment document states that
Erik didnt communicate a threat.
e.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when the alleged
threat was in the form of a disputed comment made by another student, not
Erik, and when the comment had been deemed not credible by the Erie PD.
f.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when the teams
conclusion was based upon multiple, conflicting levels of hearsay.

g.
The team misidentified a High-Level threat when the threat
assessment document only vaguely describes the alleged threat as: Eriks
best friend told 2 girls that Erik has been planning to shoot up the school
since middle school.
h.
The team misidentified a High-Level threat when there was no
documentation of a plan to attack Erie High School.

i.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when the threat
assessment document stated Unknown in answer to the question: Does the

student have an attack plan?
j.
The team misidentified a High Level threat, i.e. an imminent
danger, when there was no evidence of a plan or steps taken to implement a

plan to attack Erie HS;
k.
The team misidentified a High Level threat, i.e. an imminent
danger, when the team was relying upon responses to class assignments
provided months earlier and not considered a threat when made;
25
l.
assessment document did not identify any verbal or written statement of a

threat by Erik.
m.
The team misidentified a High Level threat on the ground that
Erik had communicated an intent to attack Erie HS in electronic media when

he had not done so.
n.
Erik had communicated an intent to attack Erie HS in writing when he had not
done so.
o.
assessment document states that Erik did not verbalize a threat to attack Erie
HS.
p.
Erik had used or practiced with weapons when that finding was based on
Eriks involvement in the CHMG and scouting
q.
The team misidentified a High Level threat on the basis of
Eriks involvement with the CHMG when such involvement had been known
to Erie HS teaching staff and administration since at least August of 2012 and
had not been raised as a concern to Erik or his parents;
r.
The team misidentified a High Level threat on the basis of
Eriks involvement with the CHMG when Paul Stecina, Erie HS Dean of
Students, notified Buchler and Kudrna, both members of the threat
assessment team, that Eriks World Languages teacher had informed Erie HS
26
administration that Eriks involvement in the CHMG was NOT a threat, that
Erik is a very nice student who has a reenacting hobby that he might be
sharing in a class, and that I want to make sure it does not get him expelled
and arrested.
s.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when there was no
evidence that Erik or his parents owned or possessed guns.

t.
Erik allegedly had access to weapons through S.M. when there was no
evidence that S.M. ever had provided weapons to Erik and when the gun
case located in the S.M. family residence was locked and the keys were in
the possession of S.M.s mother in Colorado Springs.
u.
The team misidentified a High Level threat on the basis of an
erroneous factual finding that Eriks parents are not able to supervise him
and he has a lot of unstructured free time, walks around a lot, when Eriks
dad frequently drove him to and from school, when Erik went home after
school to a stay-at-home mom, and when Erik was heavily involved in band
and scouting, both of which occupied much supervised time.
v.
Erik had an antisocial attitude when Erik was heavily involved in band and
scouting and when he had been recommended for Leadership (an Erie HS
mentoring program), had attended the introductory meetings, and his
intermediate algebra teacher had informed Erie HS administration that Erik
seemed excited about it.
27
w.
The team misidentified a High Level threat on the basis of an
erroneous factual finding of substance abuse by Erik. This erroneous factual

finding was based upon a false e-mail from Officer Haddox to Stacy Davis in
November 2013 accusing Erik of getting caught with marijuana and wanting
to get Dean of Students Stecina when, in fact, it was another student, not
Erik, who was caught with marijuana and made the comment about Stecina.
Officer Haddox and the Erie PD have failed and refused to retract this false email despite repeated requests by the Wilks.
x.
The team misidentified a High Level threat when the team
answered No to the question whether the student had experience with

homicidal ideation.
y.
answered No to the question whether Erik was a victim, perpetrator, or

witness of violent behavior.
z.
answered No to the question: Does the student see violence as an

acceptable or desirable way to solve problems?.
aa.
determined that the students experience with violence elicits a Low degree
of concern.
bb.
answered No to the question: Are those who know the student concerned
about a specific target?.
28
cc.
The team misidentified a High-Level threat when the team
answered No to the question: Is there evidence that this student has a

history of fabrication? and stated: he doesnt say something to shock
people, he is speaking the truth.
113.
On March 5, 2014, the day after conducting the threat assessment, Buchler
hand-delivered a letter to Derek and Jami Wilk stating that he was forwarding
a recommendation that Erik be expelled from the St. Vrain Valley School
District for detrimental behavior (the March 5th Letter). As the basis for the
recommendation, the March 5th letter referred to S.M.s alleged comment to
S.G. and V.T. and the threat assessment teams conclusion that the threat
level is high for Erik.
114.
The March 5th Letter stated that Erik was suspended from Erie HS from this
point forward. In addition, the March 5th Letter stated that a hearing on
expulsion would be conducted sometime within the next ten business days.
115.
The March 5th Letter did not state a specific length of time for Eriks
suspension.
116.
Buchlers action in suspending Erik for an indeterminate period of time

violated Colorado law and District policy, under which a school principal is
delegated authority to suspend a student for detrimental behavior for only five
school days.
117.
On March 5, 2014, Buchler, who is not a psychologist and who had not
included the school psychologist on the threat assessment team, also told
Eriks parents that Erik was in need of a psychological evaluation.
29
118.
On March 7, 2014, notwithstanding that Haddox already had investigated and

concluded that there was no credible threat, Buchler informed Erie PD Chief
Vasquez by letter that Erik and S.M. had been suspended from Erie High
School and recommended for expulsion and provided Chief Vasquez with a
copy of the threat assessment document on Erik.
119.
On March 7, 2014, Buchler and Mark Mills, Area 2 Assistant Superintendent,

also met with Commander Lee Mathis and Commander Kim Stewart of the
Erie PD. Following the meeting with Buchler and Mills, Commander Stewart
directed department personnel to contact the Weld County District Attorneys
Office about pursuing criminal charges against Erik and S.M.
120.
On the afternoon of March 7, 2014, Haddox contacted the Weld County

District Attorneys Office. The District Attorneys Office responded that no
charges would be accepted for either Erik or S.M.
121.
On the afternoon of March 7, 2014, Haddox also contacted the Erie municipal
prosecutor and was told that Eriks and S.M.s actions did not violate any
municipal ordinances.
122.
The District expulsion proceedings. On March 7, 2014, District Expulsion

Officer Greg Winger (Winger) sent Derek and Jami Wilk a letter stating, in
pertinent part, that Principal Matt Buchler suspended Erik from Erie High
School for five school days beginning March 5, 2014 and that an expulsion
hearing would be held on March 13, 2014.
123.
Wingers statement that Erik had been suspended for five school days was
untrue. Buchler had suspended Erik for an indeterminate period of time.
30
124.
Wingers March 7, 2014 letter also stated that Eriks suspension has been
extended for an additional ten school days through March 25, 2014.
125.
Under Colorado law and District policy, the Superintendent of the District is
delegated authority to suspend a student for an additional ten school days.
When Winger sent the March 7th letter, Superintendent Haddad had not
notified the Wilks that Eriks suspension had been extended for an additional
ten school days.
126.
On March 11, 2014, Buchler, with Superintendent Haddads knowledge, sent

an e-mail to all principals in the Erie K-12 system reporting that a threat
assessment had been conducted on two students the previous week.
Buchlers e-mail used Eriks full name and reported that the results of the
threat assessment showed a high risk of violence for both boys. Buchler did
not inform the Wilks of this notification. The Wilks had other children in the
District at the time, and they experienced harassing behavior, including,
among other things, being subjected to monitoring, as a result of Buchlers email.
127.
When notified of Buchlers recommendation that Erik be expelled, Derek Wilk

requested a meeting to review the threat assessment document on Erik. The
threat assessment document is eight pages long and contains numerous
sections and subsections. Buchler agreed to meet with Derek for thirty
minutes at 6:30 a.m. on March 12, 2014 to allow him to review the threat
assessment document but refused to provide a copy of the document to
Derek.
31
128.
Eriks expulsion hearing was conducted the next day, Thursday, March 13,
2014. Winger presided, and Jeffrey Fredman, Assistant Expulsion Officer,
Buchler, and the Districts counsel attended from the District. Erik, his
parents, and their counsel attended for Erik. Superintendent Haddad was not
present.
129.
Buchler called no witnesses at the expulsion hearing. His presentation

consisted of offering hearsay statements gathered from third parties and
seven written exhibits, including, among other things, further excerpts from
Eriks Changes class notebook. Buchlers presentation contained no evidence
of a plan by Erik to attack Erie HS.
130.
Buchler did not limit his presentation to the items previously identified in his
March 3rd e-mail to the Wilks but included other materials of which the Wilks
had no prior notice.
131.
In addition, Buchler relied upon the threat assessments conclusion of a High

Level threat. However, the threat assessment document itself was not
produced at the hearing, and Expulsion Officer Winger did not review the
threat assessment document.
132.
Under District policy, if the expulsion hearing is conducted by a delegee of the

Superintendent, as in this case, the delegee is required to make a
recommendation to the Superintendent regarding the proposed expulsion.
133.
On Friday, March 14, 2014, the day after the expulsion hearing, Winger sent
a recommendation to Haddad that Erik be expelled from District schools for
one full calendar year.
32
134.
Wingers recommendation referenced Board policy and Colorado law stating

that behavior detrimental to the welfare or safety of other students or staff is
grounds for expulsion. In his recommendation, Winger stated: Eriks
behavior, creating a credible threat to engage in violence at school, meets
this requirement.
135.
Winger made this recommendation without having reviewed the threat

assessment document.
136.
When Winger sent this recommendation, Erik had not engaged in behavior
creating a credible threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.
137.
When Winger sent this recommendation, the alleged statement of a possible

threat against Erie HS had been made by S.M., not by Erik.
138.
When Winger sent this recommendation, the Erie PD had concluded its
investigation, had searched Eriks and S.M.s bedrooms, had found no
evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS, and had determined that there was no
evidence of a credible threat or steps taken to act on a threat to attack Erie
HS.
139.
On Monday morning, March 17, 2014, Derek Wilk delivered to Superintendent

Haddads office a written rebuttal to Buchlers presentation at the expulsion
hearing.
140.
Haddad did not acknowledge receipt of the Wilks rebuttal. However, that
same day, Haddad prepared a letter, mailed to the Wilks on March 18, 2014,
notifying them that Erik had been expelled from the District schools for one
33
full calendar year, for the period from March 13, 2014 through March 12, 2015
(the March 18th Expulsion Letter).
141.
As grounds for expulsion, the March 18th Expulsion Letter cited Board Policy
JKD/JKE-E and Colorado law C.R.S. 22-33-106(1)(c) prohibiting behavior
on or off school property which is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other
pupils or of school personnel. The March 18th Expulsion Letter stated: Eriks
behavior, creating a threat to engage in violence at school, meets this
requirement.
142.
The March 18th Expulsion letter did not refer to a credible threat, as Wingers
recommendation had, but just to a threat.
143.
When Haddad issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter, Erik had not engaged
in behavior creating a threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.
144.
When Haddad issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter, the alleged statement
regarding a possible threat against Erie HS had been made by S.M., not by
Erik.
145.
When Haddad issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter, the Erie PD had
concluded its investigation, had searched Eriks and S.M.s bedrooms, had
found no evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS, and had determined that there
was no evidence of a credible threat or steps taken to act on a threat to attack
Erie HS.
146.
On or about March 19, 2014, Haddad verbally notified Jami Wilk to

disregard the March 18th Expulsion Letter. However, Haddad did not issue a
written retraction of the March 18th Expulsion Letter, and, six days later, he
34
issued a second expulsion letter citing the same grounds for expulsion, as
further alleged below.
147.
The Niemoth arrest warrant affidavit. On March 17, 2014, Officer Niemoth
swore out an affidavit seeking a warrant for Eriks arrest on one count of
interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational institutions contrary
to C.R.S. 18-9-109(6)(a) (the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit).
148.
C.R.S. 18-9-109(6)(a) proscribes the making of a credible threat to cause

death or to cause bodily injury with a deadly weapon against students,
school officials, or employees of an educational institution.
149.
As further alleged below in the Fourth Claim for Relief, Niemoth did not act
reasonably in swearing out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit and did not
have probable cause to seek a warrant for Eriks arrest.
150.
Based upon the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, a warrant was issued for
Eriks arrest.
151.
The Haddox search warrant affidavit. Notwithstanding that he already had

searched Eriks bedroom and found no evidence of a credible threat or steps
taken to carry out a plan to attack Erie HS, Officer Haddox swore out an
affidavit on March 17, 2014 seeking a search warrant for the entire Wilk
residence (the Haddox Affidavit).
152.
As further alleged below in the Fifth Claim for Relief, Haddox did not act
reasonably in swearing out the Haddox Affidavit and did not have probable
cause to seek a warrant for a search of the Wilk residence.
35
153.
Based upon the Haddox Affidavit, a search warrant was issued for the Wilk
residence including, among other things, plans, diagrams, maps, notes,
writings, photographs, hit lists, or receipts of items purchased to carry out an
attack and weapons to include firearms and knives.
154.
The second search of the Wilk residence and Eriks arrest. On March 18,
2014, the Erie PD executed a second search at the Wilk residence. This
search, like the earlier search of Eriks bedroom, failed to produce any
weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings, maps, plans, or other items
related to an attack on Erie HS.
155.
Despite the failed second search, Erik was arrested on March 18, 2014
pursuant to the arrest warrant previously obtained based on the Niemoth
Arrest Warrant Affidavit. Following his arrest, Erik was transported to the
Platte Valley Juvenile Detention Facility in Greeley and confined therein.
156.
During the second search of the Wilk residence, the Erie PD confiscated, over
protest, electronic equipment and media belonging to Eriks parents including,
without limitation, Jami Wilks personal computer and numerous memory
cards containing years of family photographs. The Erie PD subsequently lost
one of the confiscated memory cards, causing the irreplaceable loss of
numerous Wilk family photographs.
157.
On March 18, 2014, the Erie PD issued a press release publicizing the
execution of arrest and search warrants at the 1300 Block of Banner Circle
and the 600 Block of High Street. The press release stated that two juvenile
males, both students at Erie High School, were arrested without incident. At
36
the time, Erik was the only juvenile male student of Erie HS who lived in the
1300 Block of Banner Circle.
158.
On March 19, 2014, Buchler sent an e-mail to Erie HS parents, teachers, and
staff announcing the boys arrests.
159.
On March 19, 2014, Erik appeared in court before the Weld County District
Court, and the court ordered that he remain in detention until an ankle monitor
was available.
160.
The Niemoth search warrant affidavit and third search of the Wilk
residence. On March 18, 2014, the day that Erik and S.M. were arrested,
Niemoth interviewed S.M., and his father, at the Platte Valley Juvenile
Detention Center, where S.M. had been confined following his arrest.
161.
Based upon that interview, in which S.M. allegedly made further statements
about the alleged plan to attack Erie HS, on March 19, 2014, Niemoth swore
out an affidavit for yet another search of the Wilk residence (the Niemoth
Search Warrant Affidavit). This affidavit described the property to be
searched for as any and all military style equipment and apparel.
162.
The property described in the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit (with the
exception of bandoleers, as more particularly alleged below) had been
observed and photographed by the Erie PD during the second search of the
residence the day before. According to the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit,
the property had not been seized due to the fact that Wilks parents told
Deputies these items were used by Wilk for World War II re-enactments.
37
163.
On March 19, 2014, a search warrant was issued based upon the Niemoth
Search Warrant Affidavit.
164.
On March 19, 2014, Niemoth and another Erie HS officer executed the search
and seized the military apparel and equipment which already had been
observed during the second search. Most of the items confiscated belonged
to Derek Wilk and had been issued to him when he joined the Army in 1984.
Niemoth also seized spats from 1942, which Erik had purchased for his
WWII re-enacting uniform.
165.
Contrary to the property described in the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit,

no bandoleers were located in the Wilk residence, and no bandoleers were
seized as a result of the third search.
166.
When he swore out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knew
there were no bandoleers in the Wilk residence because the property in the
Wilk residence had been observed and photographed by the Erie PD the day
before.
167.
The search of the Wilk residence pursuant to the Niemoth Search Warrant
Affidavit was the second search of the Wilk residence in two days and the
third such search in nineteen days.
168.
On March 21, 2014, an ankle monitor became available, and Erik was
released from the Platte Valley Juvenile Detention Facility to the custody of
his parents. At the time of his release, Erik had been detained in the Platte
Valley Juvenile Detention Facility for three days.
38
169.
The continued expulsion proceeding. On March 19, 2014, despite the fact
that Haddad already had issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter expelling Erik
from the District schools, Winger sent a letter to the Wilks stating that
expulsion is being considered. Wingers letter scheduled a continuation of
the expulsion hearing for 1:00 p.m. on March 21, 2014.
170.
On Friday afternoon, March 21, 2014, the expulsion hearing was reconvened.
Haddad did not attend the reconvened hearing, and the District presented no
further evidence in support of Eriks expulsion. The Wilks presented further
objection to the proposed expulsion disputing every point of Buchlers
presentation.
171.
The following Monday, March 24, 2014, without receiving a further

recommendation from Winger, Haddad sent the Wilks a second letter
informing them that Erik had been expelled from the District for one calendar
year, this time from March 21, 2014 through March 20, 2015 (the March 24th
Expulsion Letter).
172.
The March 24th Expulsion Letter stated the same ground for expulsion as the
March 18th Expulsion letter, i.e. that Erik had engaged in behavior creating a
threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.
173.
When Haddad issued the March 24th Expulsion Letter, Erik had not engaged
in behavior creating a threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.
174.
When Haddad issued the March 24th Expulsion Letter, the alleged statement
about possibly attacking Erie HS had been made by S.M., not by Erik.
39
175.
When Haddad issued the March 24th Expulsion Letter, the Erie PD had
completed a second search of the Wilk residence and had found no evidence
of a plan to attack Erie HS.
176.
On March 24, 2014, despite the fact that it earlier said that charges would not
be accepted against Erik, the Weld County District Attorneys office filed a
petition in delinquency with the Weld County District Court charging Erik with
one count of interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational
institutions under C.R.S. 18-9-109(6).
177.
On March 28, 2014, Buchler sent an e-mail to Greg Sadar, Agent-in-Charge

of the CBI, soliciting a letter substantiating concerns about the alleged threat
to Erie HS. In this e-mail, Buchler represented to Sadar that: We are holding
an expulsion hearing and that would be the limit of the letter.
178.
Buchlers representation that the District was holding an expulsion hearing

was false. When Buchler sent the March 28th e-mail to Sadar, the District
already had completed Eriks expulsion hearings, and Haddad already had
issued the two letters of expulsion to Erik.
179.
Sadar refused to provide the letter solicited by Buchler.
180.
The Board appeal. On March 31, 2014, Erik appealed his expulsion to the
Board.
181.
On April 16, 2014, the Board held a meeting to consider Eriks appeal.
Haddad attended the meeting and was permitted to introduce additional
evidence not previously brought up during the expulsion hearings. Haddad
also was permitted to refer to the results of the threat assessment on Erik.
40
However, the threat assessment document was not presented to the Board,
and the Board did not review the threat assessment document. At the
conclusion of the meeting, the Board affirmed the expulsion.
182.
On April 18, 2014, as permitted under Board policy and Colorado law, Derek
Wilk requested that the Board reduce its decision to writing.
183.
On April 23, 2014, the Board sent Derek Wilk a letter containing its written
decision affirming the expulsion (the Board Decision).
184.
The Board Decision stated, among other things, that District procedures had
been followed and that any minor procedural irregularities were not of
sufficient magnitude to require remand for another hearing.
185.
As more particularly alleged herein, the District did not follow Colorado law
and District procedures during the suspension and expulsion proceedings,
and significant procedural and substantive irregularities occurred during the
course of the proceedings in violation of due process and fundamental
fairness.
186.
The Board Decision stated that the Board had a sufficient factual basis to
support Superintendent Haddads determination that Eriks behaviors were
detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or school personnel. The
Board Decision also stated that Superintendent Haddads determination was
not unreasonable based upon the factual findings from the expulsion hearing.
187.
The Board did not have a sufficient factual basis to support Haddads
determination that Eriks behaviors were detrimental to the welfare or safety
of other pupils or school personnel.
41
188.
Haddads determination was based upon the flawed threat assessment and
unsubstantiated and incorrect factual findings contained therein and in other
documents used by Haddad as a basis for the expulsion. The Board affirmed
the expulsion without reviewing the threat assessment document upon which
Haddads expulsion was based.
189.
The Board Decision stated: Students of Eriks age/grade must realize that
statements and writings, that were intended to be heard and read by others at
the high school, simply cannot reference killings, shootings, dominance, and
instilling fear in others without causing fear and apprehension after our state
and nation have experienced repeated tragedies.
190.
Erik did not make any statements and writings referencing killings, shootings,
dominance, or instilling fear in others with the intent or effect of causing fear
and apprehension in others or which had such effect. Eriks sentence about
instilling fear came from a class assignment requiring the use of the words
dominance and hierarchy.
191.
In suspending and expelling Erik, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board
members improperly relied upon statements made by S.M., not by Erik.
192.
In suspending and expelling Erik, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board
members impermissibly infringed Eriks First Amendment rights by using as a
basis for expulsion his responses to class assignments and his private
drawings, which were not seen by others or, if seen, did not cause fear or
apprehension in them.
42
193.
Under District policy JK, disciplinary interventions and consequences are

required to be proportionate.
194.
Under District policy JKG, expulsion is regarded as a punishment of last

resort, and the District, working with the students parents, is required to
provide students with the necessary support services to help them avoid
expulsion.
195.
District policy provides for a range of alternative responses to student

discipline short of expulsion, including in-school suspension, keeping students
engaged in learning, and plans for use of prevention, intervention, restorative
justice, peer mediation, counseling, and other approaches to address student
misconduct.
196.
Prior to his suspension and expulsion, Erik was not referred to an Erie HS
school counselor or given any other alternative intervention or consequence
regarding the alleged and unsubstantiated threatening behavior used as the
basis for expulsion.
197.
Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board members failed to follow District
policy and violated Eriks constitutional right to due process and fundamental
fairness in expelling Erik without applying proportionate discipline or using
other available, disciplinary interventions and consequences.
198.
On April 29, 2014, the Weld County District Court approved the removal of
Eriks ankle monitor because he had remained in full compliance with the
terms of his release, had received a complimentary letter from the person in
charge of the monitoring, and the monitor was a hindrance to family activities.
43
By that time, Erik had been required to wear the ankle monitor for thirty-five
days.
199.
On May 20, 2014, Derek Wilk sent a letter to Mark Mills, District Area 2
Assistant Superintendent, lodging a formal complaint against Principal
Buchler for violating Staff Code of Conduct Policy GBEA-2(2) in his handling
of Eriks expulsion (the Suppression/Distortion Complaint).
200.
Policy GBEA-2(2) prohibits a staff member from deliberately suppressing or

distorting subject matter for which he or she bears responsibility.
201.
Mr. Wilks complaint alleged that Buchler had violated Policy GBEA-2(2) by
deliberately suppressing and distorting information during the expulsion
proceedings and requested that the expulsion be rescinded and that all
documents related to the expulsion be expunged.
202.
On May 30, 2014, the District denied the Suppression/Distortion Complaint in

its entirety.
203.
On June 6, 2014, Derek Wilk filed a second complaint against Buchler for
violating Staff Code of Conduct Policy GBEA-2(4), the federal Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), other District policies, and the
Wilks privacy rights (the Privacy Complaint).
204.
Policy GBEA-2(4) provides that staff shall conduct professional business in

such a way that they do not expose the student to unnecessary
embarrassment or disparagement.
205.
The Privacy Complaint alleged that dissemination of Eriks name and the
result of the threat assessment violated Policy GBEA-2.
44
206.
When Buchler sent the March 11, 2014 e-mail to the other principals,
identifying Erik and disclosing the results of the threat assessment, the Wilk
family had two younger children attending Erie public schools. Following
Buchlers e-mail, they were subjected to harassing behavior by school staff .
207.
On June 16, 2014, District Area 2 Assistant Superintendent Mills sent Derek
Wilk a letter denying the Privacy Complaint in its entirety. However, in the
letter, Mills acknowledged that the District had no formal Board policies
governing the threat assessment process.
208.
On June 20, 2014, Derek Wilk sent a letter to the Board requesting review of
the denial of the Suppression/Distortion Complaint against Buchler.
209.
On July 3, 2014, Derek Wilk sent a letter to the Board requesting review of
the denial of the Privacy Complaint against Buchler.
210.
During the pendency of the expulsion proceedings against Erik, the Wilks
engaged a licensed Colorado psychologist to perform a full psychological
evaluation of Erik. After extensive interviews and multiple risk assessments,
the psychologist concluded, on every assessment performed, that Eriks risk
for violence was low, the lowest possible level for the assessments
performed.
211.
In his July 3, 2014 letter to the Board, Mr. Wilk advised the Board of the
results of Eriks comprehensive psychological evaluation.
212.
On August 13, 2014, the Board met to review the denial of the Wilks
complaints against Buchler. The Board did not reconsider the expulsion or the
results of the threat assessment in light of Eriks private psychological
45
evaluation, and, orally and without stating a reason, denied all relief
requested by the Wilks.
213.
Eriks trial and acquittal. On September 25, 2014, Erik Wilk went to trial
before a judge of the Weld County, Colorado District Court on the charge of
interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational institutions, Section
18-9-109(6), C.R.S.
214.
The trial included testimony from S.M., S.G., V.T., several other Erie HS
students, and Erie PD officers Haddox and Niemoth.
215.
During the trial, Niemoth admitted that the Erie PD had searched the Wilk
residence on March 18, 2014 and seized thirty-nine pieces of digital media
including, without limitation, an iPod and Kindle from Eriks bedroom,
numerous memory cards, a Dell laptop computer, and numerous flash drives.
Niemoth also admitted that the search of the Wilk residence found nothing of
evidentiary value regarding a plan to attack Erie HS, and no pipe bombs, nail
bombs, supplies to make bombs, tear gas, hand grenades, guns, or other
means of implementing an attack on Erie HS.
216.
At the conclusion of the trial, the judge acquitted Erik of the charge against
him.
217.
Upon information and belief, another judge of the Weld County District Court
also subsequently acquitted S.M. of the charge against him.
218.
Consequences of the suspension, expulsion, detention, and criminal

proceedings. Eriks suspension and expulsion occurred in the middle of the
spring semester of his junior year and precluded him from attending classes
46
or participating in any school functions or extracurricular activities either on or

off District property.
219.
Eriks suspension and expulsion prevented him from completing his junior and
senior years at Erie HS and deprived him of the opportunity to participate in
numerous activities including, without limitation, attending junior and senior
proms, earning his letter with the Erie HS band, assuming a mentoring
leadership role for which he had had been recommended by a fellow student,
graduating with the class of students and friends with whom he had been in
school since kindergarten, and assisting with scouting activities that took
place on District property, i.e. his youngest brothers crossover from Cub
Scouts to Boy Scouts.
220.
Following the expulsion, Erik applied for and was accepted at Boulder Prep,
where he completed his junior and senior years. He graduated in 2015 and
earned a scholarship for college.
221.
As a result of the wrongful arrest, Erik suffered three days of detention in a

juvenile facility and thirty-five days of ankle monitoring.
222.
As a result of the Erie PD officers conduct, the Wilks were subjected to two
unwarranted searches of their residence in two days and three unwarranted
searches in the span of nineteen days, none of which produced evidence of a
plan to attack Erie HS.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(First/Fourteenth Amendments)
223.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding allegations of this Complaint.
47
224.
In doing the things alleged above, including, without limitation, doodling on

the cover and inside his class notebooks, providing responses to class
assignments, and discussing the fact that he was subjected to a threat
assessment by Buchler, Erik engaged in constitutionally-protected activity
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
225.
Buchler impermissibly suspended Erik and recommended him for expulsion

based upon his constitutionally-protected activity.
226.
Winger impermissible recommended Erik for expulsion based upon his

constitutionally-protected activity.
227.
Haddad impermissibly expelled Erik based upon his constitutionally-protected

activity.
228.
The Board members impermissibly affirmed Eriks expulsion based upon his
229.
In doing the things alleged herein, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board
members (the School Defendants) caused Erik to suffer an injury that would
chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in
230.
The School Defendants adverse actions were unreasonable and substantially

motivated in response to Eriks exercise of constitutionally-protected conduct.
231.
Reasonable school officials in the School Defendants position would have

known that their actions violated clearly established law.
232.
The School Defendants deprived Erik of his rights under the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth
48
Amendment) and caused economic and non-economic injuries to him and his
family.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process)
233.
234.
Erik Wilk was a public school student.
235.
As a public school student, Erik had a constitutionally-protected property

interest in public education.
236.
In doing the things alleged herein, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board
members deprived Erik of his protected property interest in public education
in violation of procedural due process and fundamental fairness, including,
without limitation, in the following respects:
a.
Buchler suspended Erik for an indeterminate period of time in
violation of Colorado law and District policy.

b.
In conducting Eriks threat assessment, the threat assessment
team failed to follow its own protocol for conducting threat assessments.
c.
In conducting Eriks threat assessment, the threat assessment
team relied upon hearsay, inaccurate, and incomplete information and

reached an erroneous and unsubstantiated conclusion that Erik posed a
High Level threat of violence to Erie HS.
d.
Buchler relied upon the flawed threat assessment in
suspending Erik and recommending his expulsion.
49
e.
Buchler recommended Eriks expulsion without providing Erik
and his parents with a copy of the threat assessment document and without
affording them a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.
f.
Buchler recommended Eriks expulsion, the harshest form of
discipline available under District policies, without complying with District

policies requiring proportionate discipline and consideration of lesser,
alternative forms of discipline.
g.
In conducting the expulsion hearing, Winger permitted Buchler
to present information not previously provided to Erik and his family.

h.
In recommending Eriks expulsion, Winger relied upon the
results of the flawed threat assessment without having reviewed the threat
assessment document.
i.
Winger recommended Eriks expulsion without providing Erik
and his parents with a copy of the threat assessment document and without
affording them a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.
j.
Winger recommended Eriks expulsion, the harshest form of
discipline available under District policies, without complying with District

k.
Haddad acted prematurely by issuing the March 18th Expulsion
Letter without considering the Wilks rebuttal of Buchlers presentation;
50
l.
Haddad prejudged the outcome of the expulsion process by
issuing the March 18th Expulsion Letter before the conclusion of the expulsion
hearings.
m.
Haddad relied upon the flawed threat assessment in expelling
Erik.
n.
Haddad expelled Erik without providing Erik and his parents
with a copy of the threat assessment document and affording them a

reasonable opportunity to respond to it.
o.
Haddad expelled Erik, applying the harshest form of discipline
available under District policies, without complying with District policies

requiring proportionate discipline and consideration of lesser, alternative
forms of discipline.
p.
Haddad expelled Erik without receiving a further
recommendation from Winger, as required by District policy and Colorado

law, after the reconvened expulsion hearing.
q.
During the expulsion appeal, the Board did not limit its review to
the record previously created during the expulsion hearing and permitted
Haddad to present additional information not previously provided to Erik and
his parents, including, among other things, over the Wilks objection, the email from Haddox falsely accusing Erik of getting caught with marijuana.
r.
The Board affirmed Eriks expulsion based upon the results of
the flawed threat assessment
51
s.
The Board affirmed Eriks expulsion without providing Erik and
his parents a copy of the threat assessment document and affording them a
reasonable opportunity to respond to it.
t.
The Board affirmed Eriks expulsion without reviewing the
threat assessment document upon which Haddad relied in expelling Erik.

u.
The Board affirmed Eriks expulsion, applying the harshest form
of discipline available under District policies, without complying with District

237.
Reasonable school officials in the School Defendants position would have

238.
In doing the things alleged herein, the School Defendants deprived Erik of his
rights to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and caused economic and non-economic injuries
to him and his family.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process)
239.
240.
In doing the things alleged herein, Defendants acted arbitrarily and in

conscious and unreasonable disregard of Eriks rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
52
241.
In doing the things alleged herein, the Defendants intentionally or recklessly

deprived Erik and his family of liberty and property rights by misusing or
abusing their power or employing it as an instrument of oppression.
242.
Reasonable officials and officers in the Defendants positions would have

243.
In doing the things alleged herein, the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their
substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and caused them economic and non-economic
injuries as further alleged herein.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment v. Niemoth)
244.
245.
When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth did not
have probable cause to believe that Erik had made a credible threat to cause
death or bodily injury with a deadly weapon against any student, school
official, or employee of an educational institution.
246.
When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knew that
his fellow officer Haddox had concluded, after investigation, that there was no
evidence of a credible threat or specific steps taken to act on a threat by Erik
to attack Erie HS.
247.
When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth personally
had participated in the searches of Eriks and S.M.s bedrooms and knew that
53
those searches had produced no evidence of a threat to attack Erie HS or

steps taken to act on such a threat.
248.
When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth was relying
upon information from persons who did not have personal knowledge of a
plan to attack Erie HS and who were reporting statements made by S.M., who
had denied, and given conflicting statements, about an alleged plan for an
attack on Erie HS.
249.
False information in the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit. In preparing

the affidavit for Eriks arrest, Niemoth knowingly and intentionally, or with
reckless disregard for the truth, included false information in the affidavit,
including, without limitation, the following:
a.
That there was a high degree of concern for Eriks capacity to
carry out an act of targeted violence based on a finding that he had access to
weapons, which was not true;
b.
carry out an act of targeted violence because Erik had a lack of parental
supervision, which was not true;
c.
carry out an act of targeted violence, when the threat assessment document
answered No to the question: Are those who know the student concerned
about a specific target?;
54
d.
That there was credible evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS,
when Niemoth and Haddox already had searched Eriks and S.M.s bedrooms
and found no evidence of such a plan;
e.
when Niemoth knew that the persons reporting such a plan had no first-hand
knowledge of a plan and were relying upon a rumor started by S.M;
f.
when S.M. had denied that Erik had a plan to attack Erie HS;
g.
when S.M. had given numerous, conflicting statements about an alleged plan
to attack Erie HS.
h.
That Wilk had talked to the cheerleaders about an alleged plan
to attack when Niemoth knew that it was S.M., not Erik, who had talked to
them and that Erik was not present when S.M. spoke with them.
i.
That Niemoth had confused S.M. with Erik and erroneously
identified Eriks parents as Derek and Jami M.

250.
The false information included in the affidavit for Eriks arrest, if omitted,
would have vitiated probable cause to arrest Erik for the crime alleged and
should have been made known to the judicial officer to whom the application
for the warrant was presented.
251.
Material information omitted from the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit.

In preparing the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knowingly and
intentionally condensed Haddoxs 14-page incident report, concluding that the
55
threat was not credible, down to a 3-page affidavit that was false and
misleading.
252.
The Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit contained factual errors, selective

presented information, and omitted material exculpatory information which, if
included, would have vitiated probable cause to arrest Erik for the crime
charged and which should have been made known to the judicial officer to
whom the application was presented, including, without limitation, as follows:
a.
The affidavit omitted reference to Officer Haddoxs conclusion,
after investigation, that there was no credible threat to attack Erie HS and that
no steps had been taken to act on any such threat.
b.
The affidavit relied upon hearsay statements from the Erie HS
expulsion proceedings and the flawed threat assessment document, which

Niemoth knew were inaccurate and which he had not independently
corroborated.
c.
The affidavit stated, in pertinent part, that Erik denied making
any statements to S.G. and V.T. regarding plans to shoot up Erie HS, when
Niemoth knew that Erik had not to either S.G. or V.T., that it was only S.M.
who had spoken to them, and that Erik was not present when the statements
were made by S.M.
d.
The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that there were
numerous and conflicting accounts regarding what S.M. had said to S.G.,
V.T., and others about an alleged plan to attack Erie HS.
56
e.
The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that S.M. denied that
there was a plan to attack Erie HS.

f.
The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that S.M. said that
Erik did not have a plan to attack Erie HS.

g.
The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that Erik denied a
plan to attack Erie HS.

h.
The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that the Erie PD had
found no evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS, including, among other things,
no plan document or steps taken to implement such a plan.
253.
False information contained in the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit. In

swearing out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knowingly and
intentionally included false information, i.e. that there were bandoleers in the
Wilk residence.
254.
In swearing out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knowingly and
intentionally relied upon uncorroborated and unreliable information from S.M.
regarding items to be found in the Wilk residence.
255.
In swearing out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth caused an

unwarranted and unnecessary search of the Wilks residence for property
which already was known to him at the time of the second search and could
and would have been seized at that time if there was probable cause to
believe that it was evidence of a crime, which it was not.
256.
A reasonable officer in Niemoths position would have known that his actions
violated clearly established law.
57
257.
In doing the things alleged herein, Niemoth violated Eriks rights to be free
from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment (as applied through
the Fourteenth Amendment) to the United States Constitution.
258.
In doing the things alleged herein, Niemoth caused injuries to Erik and his
family, including, without limitation, causing Eriks arrest and confinement,
severe emotional distress, and the time and expense of defending an
unjustified criminal charge.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment v. Haddox)
259.
260.
When he prepared the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox already had searched Eriks
bedroom and found no weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings, maps,
plans, or other items related to an attack on Erie HS.
261.
When he prepared the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox had no evidence that

weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings, maps, plans, or other items
related to an attack on Erie HS would be found in the Wilk residence.
262.
When he prepared the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox willfully and intentionally

omitted significant, exculpatory information that had been included in his
earlier incident report, including, without limitation, his own previous
conclusion that there was no evidence of a credible threat against Erie HS or
steps taken to act on such a threat.
263.
In swearing out the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox relied upon representations

from Niemoth that more information had been developed regarding the
58
investigation due to additional witnesses coming forward with further

information.
264.
Niemoth reported to Haddox that these additional witnesses had heard

rumors about an alleged plan to attack Erie HS.
265.
The information upon which these witnesses based their statements came
from S.M., not Erik.
266.
None of these additional witnesses provided information regarding any

evidence potentially located at the Wilk residence regarding a plan to attack
Erie HS.
267.
Before swearing out the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox did not interview the
additional witnesses and did not independently verify the alleged further
information provided by Niemoth, despite Haddoxs own prior knowledge and
conclusion of no credible threat, participation in a search of Eriks bedroom
that yielded no evidence related to an attack on Erie HS, and the numerous,
conflicting statements regarding an alleged plan to attack Erie HS.
268.
The information omitted from the Haddox Affidavit, if included, would have
vitiated probable cause to search the Wilk residence for evidence of the crime
alleged, and should have been presented to the judicial officer to whom the
application for the warrant was presented.
269.
When Haddox swore out the Haddox Affidavit, he did not act reasonably and
did not have probable cause to believe that evidence of a violation of C.R.S.
18-9-109(6)(a) would be found at the Wilk residence.
59
270.
In swearing out the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox caused a search warrant to be

issued and a search to be conducted of the Wilk residence in violation of
Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth Amendment (as applied through the
Fourteenth Amendment) to the United States Constitution to be free from
unreasonable search.
271.
A reasonable officer in Haddox position would have known that their actions
violated clearly established law.
272.
The search of the Wilk residence caused economic and non-economic

injuries to Plaintiffs including, without limitation, invasion of their residence
and personal dignity, seizure of their personal property, the irreplaceable loss
of family photographs, and emotional distress.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against
Defendants for relief on the above claims as follows:

a.
Injunctive relief ordering the District to expunge Eriks suspension and
expulsion from all District records;

b.
Injunctive relief ordering the District to issue a statement to all persons to
whom the District communicated the results of the threat assessment that Erik that the
threat assessment has been retracted and that Erik did not pose a threat to Erie High
School;
c.
Injunctive relief ordering the Erie Police Department to expunge all records
relating to the Eriks arrest and the searches of the Wilks residence.
60
d.
Injunctive relief ordering the Erie Police Department to expunge the false
Haddox e-mail of November 13, 2013 and to issue a statement to all persons to whom
the e-mail was communicated that it has been retracted.
e.
Actual damages for pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses including,
without limitation, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, in an amount to be determined at
trial;
f.
Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;
g.
Nominal damages, to the extent they may be applicable;
h.
Attorney fees and costs incurred in this action;
i.
Prejudgment interest, to the extent allowable by law; and
j.
Such other and further relief to which they are entitled at law or in equity.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues
so triable.
Dated this 4th day of September, 2015.
Joel W. Cantrick, P.C.
/s Joel W. Cantrick
900 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 101
Boulder, CO 80302
303-800-2820
jwc@joelcantrick.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
61
Plaintiffs Address:
1325 Banner Circle, Erie, CO 80516
62

Wilk Family vs. St. Vrain Valley School District, Erie Police Department, Et Al

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Wilk Family vs. St. Vrain Valley School District, Erie Police Department, Et Al

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. ________________________

ERIK WILK, DEREK WILK, and

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 62

At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendants John Creighton, Joie

At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Don Haddad (Haddad)

At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Matthew Buchler (Buchler)

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 62

Defendant Erie Police Department (Erie PD) is a department of the Town of

In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of

In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants acted with reckless or

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1)

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 62

Plaintiffs have lived in Erie, Colorado for approximately fifteen years.

At Erie HS, in addition to his academic pursuits, Erik participated in the

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 62

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 62

At approximately 11:45 a.m. that morning, after receiving Buchlers call,

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 62

The Erie PD investigation and finding of no credible threat. Although he

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 62

The questioning of S.M. lasted about twenty minutes and concluded at

After questioning S.M., Haddox proceeded to question Erik. Haddox allowed

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 62

Haddox asked Erik if he had ever, in a joking or fantasizing manner, talked

The questioning of Erik lasted approximately forty-five minutes and concluded

Beginning at approximately 1:14 p.m., Haddox and Niemoth conducted a

Haddox reported that he found WWII memorabilia, uniforms, and equipment

Haddox also reported that he located no other suspicious items or documents

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 62

The search of Eriks bedroom lasted approximately forty-five minutes and

The Erie PD also obtained consent to search S.M.s bedroom. At

The search of S.M.s bedroom lasted approximately thirty minutes and

On Saturday, March 1, 2014, Haddox continued the investigation by

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 62

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 62

At the conclusion of the questioning, Haddox explained to V.T. the

On Monday, March 3, 2014, Buchler required Erik to undergo a threat

On March 3, 2014, S.M. gave Buchler a written statement regarding what he

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 62

S.M. said he had been asked a bunch of random questions by two

On Monday evening, March 3, 2014, notwithstanding that the Erie PD had

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 62

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 62

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 62

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 62

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 62

respecting, learning, being myself, Freedom, and Art. Buchlers e-mail

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 62

In addition to referencing the seven excerpts from Eriks Changes notebook,

Buchlers e-mail also said that Erik had caused a disturbance in

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 62

Buchlers threat assessment process and results. Notwithstanding Eriks

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 62

In November 2013, Buchler, Davis, and Assistant Principal Kudrna attended a

The full-team threat assessment convened by Buchler on March 4, 2014 was

Buchlers threat assessment team consisted of Buchler; Assistant Principal

Buchlers team conducted Eriks threat assessment by reviewing the

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 62

In conducting Eriks threat assessment, the threat assessment team failed to