Excessive Force Cases in Colorado: Understanding Your Rights Under Federal and State Law
What Is an “Excessive Force” Claim?
When law enforcement officers use force in the course of their duties, the U.S. Constitution places limits on how much force is reasonable. “Excessive force” occurs when an officer’s actions go beyond what is necessary under the circumstances to make an arrest, stop a suspect, or protect public safety.
These cases are about accountability and constitutional balance. Police officers have a difficult job, but citizens also have a right to be free from unnecessary violence at the hands of the government. Both federal and Colorado law recognize that distinction and provide ways for victims to seek justice.
Federal Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Graham v. Connor
Most excessive-force lawsuits in federal court are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows individuals to sue government officials who violate their constitutional rights. In excessive-force cases, the right at issue arises under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures.
The leading Supreme Court case, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), established the framework courts still apply today. The central question is whether the officer’s use of force was “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
To decide that, courts look at factors such as:
- The severity of the alleged crime,
- Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others, and
- Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee.
This “objective reasonableness” standard is meant to reflect the fact that officers must often make split-second judgments in tense, uncertain situations. But it also makes excessive-force cases highly fact-specific. A shove might be reasonable during a violent struggle but unconstitutional when used against a handcuffed person posing no threat.
[Insert section about the use of deadly force, which follows both Graham and the standards in Estate of Larsen ex rel. Sturdivan v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2008).
The Role of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Cases
In federal court, officers often raise qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violated the constitution and the right violated was “clearly established”at the time of the violation. In practice, this can make federal excessive-force cases difficult to win because qualified immunity is a presumption against civil liability.
To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that the force used was unconstitutional, but also that existing case law made that violation clear at the time. This has led many civil-rights advocates and state legislatures to look for ways to ensure victims still have meaningful access to justice when their rights are violated.
Colorado’s Approach: C.R.S. § 13-21-131
In 2020, Colorado enacted C.R.S. § 13-21-131, creating a new cause of action under state law for individuals whose rights have been violated by peace officers. This statute was part of Colorado’s Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act (SB 20-217), and it marked a significant shift: it eliminated qualified immunity as a defense for state-law excessive-force claims.
Under this law, any person who has had their rights under the Colorado Constitution violated by a peace officer (including through excessive force) can file suit in state court. Plaintiffs can seek compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and, in some cases, punitive damages. Officers found liable can be personally responsible for a portion of the judgment if their employer determines they acted in bad faith.
In excessive force cases, if an officer is found liable they can lose their certification to be a police officer.
This statute makes Colorado one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country for victims of civil rights violations. It gives individuals a direct state-law remedy even if a federal § 1983 claim faces obstacles in federal court.
Colorado’s Approach: C.R.S. § 13-21-131 and the Woodall Decision
In 2020, Colorado passed C.R.S. § 13-21-131, creating a civil cause of action for anyone whose rights under the Colorado Constitution have been violated by a peace officer. This law was part of the state’s Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act, and it removed the defense of qualified immunity for state-law claims, a major difference from federal law.
Under the statute, a person can sue a peace officer who “subjects or causes to be subjected” another person to a deprivation of their constitutional rights, including the right to be free from excessive force under Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution.
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently clarified this standard in Woodall v. Godfrey, 2024COA42. In Woodall, a Castle Rock police officer fired a “less-lethal” shotgun round during a mental-health call without warning fellow officers. Another officer, mistaking the sound for gunfire, shot the plaintiff multiple times. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiff had stated a valid claim for excessive force under C.R.S. § 13-21-131.
The Woodall court made two important rulings that impact potential excessive force lawsuits:
- Colorado follows the same “objective reasonableness” test as the federal standard in Graham v. Connor. That means courts ask whether the officer’s use of force was reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances, without regard to intent or motivation.
- Officers can be liable even for indirectly causing excessive force. The court held that if an officer sets in motion a series of events that they know or reasonably should know will cause another officer to use excessive force, they can still be held responsible.
This “officer-induced force” standard expands accountability beyond the officer who physically uses force, recognizing that poor tactical decisions or failures in communication can also violate constitutional rights. In other words, if the conduct of the officers creates the need to use force they can be held liable.
In practical terms, Woodall confirms that Colorado’s excessive-force law is both broad and plaintiff-friendly. It allows victims to pursue claims in state court, even when federal qualified immunity might block a §1983 claim, and it clearly ties Colorado’s state standard to the well-established “objective reasonableness” framework from Graham v. Connor.
What an Excessive-Force Case Looks Like in Practice
Every excessive-force case turns on its facts. Working with an experienced civil rights attorney with experience handling excessive force cases is a must for anyone who believes they have a claim. Common scenarios include:
- Unnecessary force during an arrest — such as striking or tasing a suspect who is already restrained.
- Use of deadly force — including shootings during traffic stops or pursuits.
- Force against bystanders or mistaken identity situations.
- Failure to intervene — when another officer witnesses excessive force and does nothing to stop it.
Evidence is crucial in excessive force lawsuits: body-worn camera footage, eyewitness statements, medical records, and forensic reports all play key roles in reconstructing what happened. Because these cases often pit an individual’s word against law enforcement’s narrative, thorough investigation and legal experience are essential.
Why Victims Pursue Excessive Force Cases
Excessive-force cases are not just about financial recovery. Many clients seek justice to hold public officials accountable and to push for change in policing practices. A successful claim can lead to reforms in training, supervision, and department policies.
At Weatherly McConnell, we handle these cases with a focus on restoring dignity and accountability. With deep courtroom experience and a track record of civil-rights litigation, Luke McConnell represents clients throughout Colorado who have been harmed by law enforcement misconduct, whether at the federal or state level.
If you believe you or someone you love has been subjected to excessive force by a police officer, it’s critical to act quickly. Filing deadlines, evidence preservation, and government notice requirements can all affect your rights.
Our firm reviews each potential case individually to determine the best legal strategy—federal, state, or both—and to ensure that your story is told fully and fairly.