Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys David Lane, and Eleanor Wedum, of KILLMER,
LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, and Kathryn Stimson of STIMSON GLOVER STANCIL LEEDY LLC ,
I. Introduction
Boulder Police Officer, shot and killed 22-year-old Samuel Forgy while Mr. Forgy was in the
middle of an acute, drug-induced psychosis. Officer Garretson claimed that he feared for his life
from the danger posed by Mr. Forgy, who was 55, weighed 128 pounds, and was completely
2. The Boulder police were called to an apartment after a psychotic Mr. Forgy had
seriously assaulted one of his roommates with a knife. Officer Garretson, along with phalanx of
officers in riot gear, assembled on an outdoor stairway landing below Mr. Forgy who was at the
1
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19
top of the stairway landing, approximately fifteen feet away from the officers. It was clear that
he was naked holding only a hammer in his hand. All of the officers were armed, at least one
wore a protective helmet, and several of them had their guns drawn and pointed at Mr. Forgy.
The officer at the front of the four-man formation had a Plexiglas riot shield. The one trained
SWAT officer on-scene fired a non-lethal Taser shot at Mr. Forgy. The other two officers never
fired their weapons. The Taser darts missed Mr. Forgy and almost simultaneously with the Taser
being fired, Officer Garretson shot Mr. Forgy four times in the head and chest killing him
instantly.
3. Officer Garretson was never in danger of serious bodily injury or death, and his
unnecessary and unjustifiable actions resulted in the death of a 22 year-old young man. Officer
Garretson fired on Mr. Forgy, who was naked and holding a hammer, from the protective cover
of a riot shield. The first bullet hit Mr. Forgy in the middle of his forehead.
4. That summer night, family and friends lost a beloved son, brother, and friend.
Boulders deficient policies and training coupled with Officer Garretsons conduct and
unnecessary use of deadly force on Mr. Forgy, needlessly resulted in his death, all in violation of
the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
5. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is
U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs claim for attorneys fees and costs is conferred
by 42 U.S.C. 1988.
2
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19
of the events and omissions alleged herein occurred within the state of Colorado. At the time of
the events and omissions giving rise to this litigation, all of the parties resided in Colorado.
III. Parties
7. The decedent, Samuel Forgy, was a citizen of the United States of America and a
8. Plaintiff Glen Forgy, personal representative of the estate of Samuel Forgy, is the
training, official policies, customs and actual practices of its agents, the City of Boulder Police
Department.
10. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Officer Dillon Garretson was a
citizen of the United States and a resident of Colorado, and was acting under the color of state
parents Glen Forgy and Michele England. He was known to his friends and family as Sam.
12. Mr. Forgy was Glen and Micheles only biological child. The Forgys adopted Mr.
Forgys younger sister, Alyssa. She is four years younger than Mr. Forgy.
13. Mr. Forgys friends and family knew him for his biting wit and keen sense of
humor.
3
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19
14. From a very early age, Mr. Forgy was a voracious learner. By the age of three, he
was memorizing and reciting books on tape for his parents, his favorite was Toy Story.
15. Mr. Forgy had always been creative. In middle school, he enjoyed imaginative
games such as Dungeons & Dragons. He also loved to play the videogame Guitar Hero, and
16. Unbeknownst to Mr. Forgy and his parents, Mr. Forgy was suffering from a
condition called non-verbal learning disorder. This neurological disorder led to difficulties for
Mr. Forgy.
17. Initially, Mr. Forgy had trouble socially and academically in school, often
struggling to read people well, and grappling with frustration which would sometimes erupt into
anger.
helped Mr. Forgy to better understand and cope with his feelings of frustration and anger. One of
these coping mechanisms was a designated escape route to the school guidance counselors
19. In an IEP meeting when Mr. Forgy started high school, a teacher definitively told
Mr. Forgys parents that he simply couldnt learn math, and would never be able to take
calculus. However, Glen and Michele knew better. They knew that their son was extremely
smart and could succeed if only he was given the right tools.
20. Michele and Glen decided to have Mr. Forgy tested by a psychiatrist, who
diagnosed Mr. Forgys nonverbal learning disorder, but concluded that Mr. Forgy had an
extraordinarily high IQ. This meant that, while Mr. Forgy might struggle to recognize nonverbal
4
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19
cues such as facial expressions or body language, he had superlative reasoning and problem-
solving skills.
21. Pursuant to this diagnosis, Mr. Forgy was prescribed Adderall, and once properly
medicated, he truly blossomed. He discovered what was to become his passion higher
22. Mr. Forgy graduated from City High School in Iowa City in 2010, finishing a year
early while taking Advanced Placement (AP) classes and college-level math.
23. During and immediately after high school, Mr. Forgy worked washing dishes, and
volunteered with United Action for Youth (UAY), a nonprofit organization in Iowa City that
offers programs and guidance for young people. He continued to play guitar, often jamming with
24. After graduating from high school, Mr. Forgy moved from Iowa City to Denver,
Zinaida Stilman, a faculty member in the Mathematics department who took particular interest in
Mr. Forgy after he took her calculus class. Mr. Forgy went on to work as Professor Stilmans
26. Mr. Forgy was eventually such a popular tutor that Professor Stilman asked for
special dispensation from the College to allow Mr. Forgy to work extra tutoring shifts.
27. In order to support himself during this time, Mr. Forgy was also working
sweeping a parking garage for four hours every morning before class.
5
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19
28. In April of 2014, Mr. Forgy was admitted to the Department of Applied
Mathematics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, one of the leading applied math programs
29. In the summer of 2015, Mr. Forgy was subletting a room in a four bedroom
roommate, Caleb Bailey, and three friends (Bennett Cosgrove, Razvan Breban, and Max
31. Later in the day, the four young men noted that Mr. Forgy was acting odd, but
nothing about his actions gave them any cause for alarm. Mr. Bailey and his friends believed that
Mr. Forgy had taken a hallucinogen or acid and that he just needed to wait for the drug to wear
off.
6
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19
32. Toxicology reports later revealed that he had taken Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
33. As the evening wore on, Mr. Forgy started to pace around the apartment,
muttering nonsensically and sweating profusely. He eventually vomited and returned to his
room.
34. Around 10 p.m., Mr. Forgy emerged from his room totally nude, and continued to
say nonsensical and largely incomprehensible things, including something about being the
messiah.
35. Feeling that his roommates were ignoring him, Mr. Forgy picked up a chair and
smashed it against the wall, startling Caleb and his friends, but not hurting anyone. Mr. Forgy
began to throw pieces of the chair at Mr. Bailey and his friends so they wrestled him to the floor
36. Eventually, Mr. Forgy seemed calm, and the other young men let him up off the
floor, but he got up and picked up a knife in the kitchen. Mr. Bailey and his friends again tried to
restrain Mr. Forgy by pinning his hand with the knife above his head. Mr. Forgy flailed around
with the knife in his hand and during the struggle cut Mr. Cosgrove on the forehead and chin.
37. At this point, all four young men exited the apartment. Two people ran across the
landing to an adjacent apartment, and two fled down the exterior stairs into the parking lot.
38. Mr. Forgy followed Mr. Bailey and Mr. Breban across the landing, knocking on
the door of apartment #7 (which was locked) before retreating back into his own apartment.
39. One of the young men then called 911, and alerted the dispatcher that Mr. Forgy
7
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19
The Excessive Force and Recklessness that Killed Mr. Forgy on July 27, 2015
40. Upon arrival at 1841 19th St, four officers assembled in a tactical formation on
the switchback landing between the ground and second floor of the apartment building, as seen
below.
41. The four officers took an offensive Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)
position outside Mr. Forgys apartment, with Officer Matt Smyth in front, carrying a shield,
followed by Officer David Zimmerman carrying a rifle and Officer Darren Fladung carrying a
42. Once in position, they ordered Mr. Forgy to come out with his hands up.
43. Mr. Forgy complied, exiting the apartment, still entirely naked, with a regular-
sized carpenters hammer in his hand. The officers immediately shouted for Mr. Forgy to drop
the weapon, and again, he complied immediately by placing the hammer on the ground and
sitting down on the landing. Despite initially complying with law enforcement directives, Mr.
8
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19
44. When Mr. Forgy stood up with the hammer in his hand, Officer Darren Fladung
(a SWAT team member) fired his non-lethal Taser at Mr. Forgy, striking him in the hip with one
Taser probe and missing Mr. Forgy with the other probe. A Taser only works when both probes
make contact with the body and in relatively close proximity to one another. Therefore, the Taser
had no effect on Mr. Forgy, but simply made the characteristic loud chattering sound.
45. Within less than a second of hearing the Taser sound, witnesses heard nearly
simultaneous gunshots.
46. At approximately 10:39 p.m., Defendant Garretson shot and killed Sam Forgy.
47. Defendant Garretson fired his weapon five times, striking Mr. Forgy with a total
of four bullets. Mr. Forgys naked body fell two flights of stairs, coming to rest nearly on the
48. Officer Garretson shot Mr. Forgy in the forehead, leaving a bullet to rest in his
brain, twice in the chest, tearing through his lungs and superior vena cava and once in the
49. Officer Zimmerman had a rifle pointed at Mr. Forgy. He did not fire his weapon.
Officer Smyth had a shield in one hand and a handgun in his other hand. He did not fire his
weapon. Officer Fladung was the only SWAT trained officer of the four and he was armed with
a handgun and a Taser. Officer Fladung fired his Taser. Officer Garretson was the only officer
who fired his gun at Mr. Forgy while standing behind the other three officers furthest away
50. Despite requiring that every officer take de-escalation training, official Boulder
Police Department policy does not require, or even advise, officers to use any kind of de-
escalation tactics when using force, up to an including deadly force. This deficiency in policy
9
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19
was instrumental in Mr. Forgys death because the officers, including Defendant Garretson,
51. Defendant City of Boulder was deliberately indifferent to the need to train and
supervise officers regarding the appropriate treatment of mental health calls, and to discipline
52. Upon information and belief, based upon Defendant Garretsons entirely
inappropriate use of deadly force, he has either received no de-escalation training or Boulder has
provided inadequate training to de-escalate police encounters with people in crisis or under
intense stress.
53. Mr. Forgy was pronounced dead at 10:43 p.m. by medical personnel on scene. His
54. According to the coroners report, Mr. Forgy died as a result of four bullets, the
first of which entered his mid-forehead, with the other three striking him in his chest and arms.
The first bullet penetrated the frontal lobe of his brain, the midbrain, the left cerebellar
hemisphere, left occipital skull, and the subcutaneous tissue of the left occipital scalp. The other
three struck him in the left shoulder, left forearm and chest, and the inferior left chest.
55. The coroner stated there was no evidence of close range or contact gunfire,
demonstrating that Mr. Forgy was still some distance from Defendant Garretson when he shot
Mr. Forgy.
56. Mr. Forgys death was part of a broader custom and culture of excessive force in
Boulder, and specifically within the Boulder Police Department, and is just one example of the
10
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19
57. Defendant City and County of Boulder has created, fostered, tolerated, and
perpetuated an environment and culture of law enforcement brutality and deliberate indifference
58. The culture and environment of brutality, and the lack of training, supervision,
and discipline of law enforcement officers is evinced by, among other things, the number of
59. On November 24, 2013, Micahel Habay was in the midst of a severe mental
health crisis when a neighbor called the Boulder Police Department. Calls for assistance to Mr.
Habays home based on his erratic behavior and outbursts were nothing new for the Boulder
Police Department, but, on November 24, 2013, the Boulder Police Department responded to Mr.
Habays behavior in a way they never had before: with deadly force. Using a battering ram to
burst through the front door into Mr. Habays living room, Boulder Police Officer Vincent
Gallerani shot and killed Mr. Habay as he tried to run away. This shooting was later found to be
justified and no officer was disciplined in conjunction with the use of force.
60. On May 20th, 2014, Coleman Stewart went out drinking with some friends to take
his mind off ongoing issues with his parents and girlfriend. After consuming a significant
amount of alcohol, Mr. Stewart took a taxi home from the bar and tried to exit the taxi without
paying. However, before he could get out of the cab, the taxi driver started driving again, and
indicated that he was going to take Mr. Stewart to the police station. Upon arriving at the police
station, Mr. Stewart, who was still very intoxicated, got out of the taxi and ran back to his
apartment. Several officers followed Mr. Stewart to his apartment and ordered him to come out.
Mr. Stewart responded by grabbing a BB gun, which the officers saw through the venetian blinds
of Mr. Stewarts apartment. Officers then shouted GUN! and Boulder Police Officers
11
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
Frankenreiter, Starks, and Vaporis fired a total of ten times into Mr. Stewarts apartment from
outside. SWAT team members eventually broke down the door, and contacted Mr. Stewart, who
was so drunk he did not remember anything after leaving the bar, and did not know he had been
shot. Although Mr. Stewart was fortunate enough to survive this encounter, it is yet another
incident of inappropriate use of force by the Boulder Police Department against an individual
who was not in his right mind. This shooting was later found to be justified and no officer was
61. On October 5, 2016, at around 9:00 a.m., the Boulder Police and CU Police
Dispatch Centers received 911 calls reporting that a white male (later identified as Brandon
Simmons) was on the CU campus and carrying what turned out to be a machete. One of the
callers reported that he had a confrontation with Mr. Simmons in a parking lot on campus where
Mr. Simmons had been writing in red sharpie on cars. Mr. Simmons had ordered the 911 caller
to roll up his window so he could write a commandment on it. Mr. Simmons then went into
the Champions Center on campus, and encountered several other people throughout the building
who called to report his erratic behavior. Boulder Police Officer Jason Connor and CU Police
Officer Clay Austin were ultimately dispatched to Mr. Simmons last reported location, which
was the stairwell on the fourth floor of the building. When Officers Austin and Connor reached
the fifth floor landing, they saw Mr. Simmons on the stairs above the landing. BPD Officer
Connor then realized Mr. Simmons was holding a machete in a horizontal manner with the tip
facing the officers. Officer Connor saw Mr. Simmons descending toward him and Officer
Austin, and when Mr. Simmons was about five steps away above them, he changed his direction
from walking straight down the stairs to walking toward the officers. Officer Connor then shot
and killed Brandon Simmons while Mr. Simmons was suffering from significant mental health
12
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
and chemical abuse issues. This shooting was later found to be justified and no officer was
62. On May 22, 2016, Boulder 911 received several calls that a man who was
described as looking not in his right mind had fired one shot into Boulder Creek, and was
continuing to cock and aim a handgun. Boulder Police Officers Ryan Austin and Ross Maynard
responded to the call, and immediately ordered the man, Bryson Fischer, to put down the
weapon. When he did not comply, the officers fired a total of sixty-two shots, hitting Mr. Fischer
eleven times. Mr. Fischer died at the hospital, where his autopsy revealed the presence of
methamphetamine, amphetamine, demoxipam, alprazolam, THC and morphine. His gun was
later discovered to be inoperable, due to the fact that it was not loaded correctly. This shooting
was later found to be justified and no officer was disciplined in conjunction with the use of force.
63. These cases provide representative examples of the rampant use of excessive
force by the Boulder Police Department against citizens in psychological crisis, and the lack of
adequate training or supervision on the part of the City of Boulder to prevent these dangerous
forth herein.
65. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant was acting under the color of state law in
13
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19
66. At the time when Mr. Forgy was shot and killed by Defendant Garretson, Mr.
Forgy had a clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person from unreasonable
67. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known of this
68. Defendant Garretson engaged in the use of force that was objectively
unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, violating Mr. Forgys
constitutional rights.
70. Defendant Garretson unreasonably used excessive force against Mr. Forgy,
71. The acts or omissions by Defendants were the moving force behind and proximate
72. The acts or omissions of Defendants were engaged in pursuant to the custom,
policy, and practice of the City of Boulder, which encourages, condones, tolerates, and ratifies
73. Boulder has a custom, practice and/or policy of failing to adequately train or
supervise its law enforcement officers in crisis intervention when dealing with people suffering
14
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19
74. The acts or omissions by Defendants caused Mr. Forgy damages in that he
suffered extreme physical and mental pain during the assault that resulted in his death.
fully herein.
76. At all times relevant to this claim, Defendant Garretson was acting under the color
77. The decedent, Mr. Forgy, had a clearly established constitutional right under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to not be deprived of his life without
78. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known of this
79. Defendants acted willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and with reckless disregard
80. Defendant Garretson engaged in the acts and omissions described herein pursuant
to the customs, policies, and practices of Boulder, which encourages, condones, tolerates, and
81. The acts or omissions of Defendant Boulder and Defendant Garretson, including
the unconstitutional policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices described herein, were the
legal and proximate cause of Mr. Forgys death and Plaintiffs damages.
15
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19
Plaintiffs suffered actual physical, emotional, and economic injuries in an amount to be proven at
trial.
fully herein.
85. At all times relevant to this claim, Boulder maintained longstanding policies,
customs, and practices, and failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers in a
manner amounting to deliberate indifference with respect to excessive force by police officers
generally, and including obviously recurring situations faced by police of contact with high-risk
86. Defendant Boulders longstanding policies, customs, and practices, and failure to
train, supervise, and discipline its officers included failure to train officers on avoiding the
87. Defendant Boulders longstanding policies, customs, and practices, and failure to
train, supervise, and discipline its officers included failure to train officers on avoiding the
16
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19
88. Defendant Boulders conduct with respect to these policies, customs, and
practices, and failure to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers was a driving force
89. Defendant Boulder failed to discipline, train, and supervise Officer Garretson
concerning the Fourth Amendment and the use of excessive force, including deadly force, in the
avoidance of the reckless and deliberate creation of the need to use force.
90. The constitutional violations against and harming of decedent Sam Forgy were a
91. Defendant City of Boulder was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights
of its citizens, knowing that its officers presented a danger to them, by failing to properly train,
monitor, supervise, and discipline its employees with respect to the use of excessive force,
including in the specific principles described above. Boulder could have and should have
pursued reasonable methods of training, monitoring, supervising, and disciplining its employees.
train and supervise its employees were the moving force and proximate cause of the violation to
93. The custom, policy, and practice of the City of Boulder of encouraging,
condoning, tolerating, and ratifying the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers in
The City, as described herein, were the moving force behind and proximate cause of the
94. The acts or omissions of Defendant City of Boulder caused Mr. Forgy damages in
that he suffered extreme physical and mental pain during the assault that resulted in his death.
17
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19
the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States
96. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth
fully herein.
97. Plaintiff Glen Forgy, and Michele England, as the parents of Sam Forgy, suffered
and continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages due to Defendants conduct toward
their son, including but not limited to damages for grief, loss of their sons companionship,
impairment in the quality of life, inconvenience, pain and suffering, and extreme emotional
stress.
wanton conduct, which Defendants must have realized was dangerous, or that was done
heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to the consequence to Mr. Forgy and his parents.
99. Defendants consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that they
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their
favor and against each of the Defendants, and award Plaintiffs all relief allowed by law,
humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of companionship and association with family
members, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be
determined at trial;
trial;
f) Attorneys fees and the costs associated with this action, including expert witness fees,
h) Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed
by law.
19