DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO
.Denver City & County Building 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202

02 MAR 28 AM 9: 18

Plaintiffs:

... COURT USE ONLY'"

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, a Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation; ANTONIA ANTHONY; END THE POLITICS OF CRUELTY, an unincorporated association; .,
. CHIAPAS COALITION, an Unincorporated association; STEPHEN NASH; and VICKI NASH

Case No.
2. Courtro°ttl2 CV 993

v..

Defendant:

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER

Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlo", #13339 Gregory W. Johnson, #29478 Sandra B. Wick, #31972 McKENNA & CUNEO, L.L.P. 370 17th Street, Suite 4800 Denver, Colorado 8()202 Telephone: (303) 634-4000 Fax: (303) 634-4400 Email: lino_lipinsky@mckennacuneo.com (fu cooperation with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation ofColorado)
Mark Silverstein, #26979 AMERICAN Crvn... LffiERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 400 Corona St. Denver, Colorado 80218 Telephone: (303) 777-5482 Fax: (303)777-1773

ATTORNEYSFORPLAlNT~S

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, American Friends Service Committee ("APSC''); Antonia Anthony; End the Politics of Cruelty; Chiapas Coalition; Stephen Nash; and Vicki Nash complain against defendant, City and County ofDenver (the "City''), as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action challenges a custom and practice of the Denver Police Department (the "Department") of monitoring the peaceful protest activities of Denver-area residents; maintaining files (the "Spy Files") on the expressive activities oflaw-abiding individuals and advocacy organizations, many ofwhich the Department has falsely branded with the label of "criminal extremist"; and providing copies of certain Spy Files to third parties.

2. In violation of federal law and the City's written policy, the Department has

systematically compiled and maintained informatIon about the political opinions, political

associations, and peaceful expressive activities of as many as 3,200 individuals and 208

organizations.

'

3. Examples from the few pages of the Spy Files that have, been publicly released , demonstrate that the Department has recorded the 'following kinds of information about specific individuals:

(a) membership in the AFSC;

(b) organizing and speaking at events sponsored by Amnesty International;

(c) attendance in 2000 at demonstrations sponsored by the Justice for Mena Committee, which sought to hold Denver police accountable for the killing of Ismael Mena in a botched no-mock raid in 1999;

(d) membership in End the Politics of Cruelty, a Denver human rights group that focuses on issues ofpolice accountability;

(e) participation in protests against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington, D.C.;

2

(f) membership in or association with the Chiapas Coalition, a Denver group that supports the rights of indigenous persons in Mexico's poorest state;

(g) the purported opinion of a member of the Chiapas Coalition that "global financial policies are responsible for the uprisings in Chiapas, Mexico";

(h) being "seen" at.a demonstration in 2000 protesting the celebration of Columbus Day;

(i) license numbers and descriptions of vehicles used by individuals identified as participants in peaceful protest activities;

G) home addresses and personal descriptions of individuals engaged in lawful expressive activity; and
an (k) the address of a private·residence that individual reportedly "frequents."

4. The Plaintiffs, targets of this program ofpolice surveillance, file this case as a class action to seek relief from the past, present, continuing; and future adverse effects ofthe. Department's illegal spying, monitoring, and infonnation-sharing.

A.

Plaintiffs

PARTIES

5. AFSC is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. AFSC maintains an office in Denver at 901 West 14th Avenue. AFSe is a Quaker organization supported by individuals of different faiths who care about· social justice, humanitarian service, and peace. Its work is based on a Quaker beliefin the dignity and worth of every person and a faith in the power oflove and nonviolence to bring about change.

6. Sister Antonia Anthony has been a professed member of the Sisters of Saint Francis of Penance and Christian Charity since 1956. She has spent twenty-five years working in ministry with indigenous persons in the United States and Mexico, including three years living and working in Chiapas, Mexico's poorest state. She is currently engaged in a peace andjustice ministry with the Marycrest community in Denver, Colorado. She is active with the Chiapas Coalition in Denver.

7. Chiapas Coalition is a Denver-based organization that conducts education and advocacy activities in support ofthe human rights struggle,ofindigenous persons in the Mexican state of Chiapas. It is an unincorporated association that sues to enforce substantive rights.

8. End the Politics of Cruelty is a Denver-based human rights organization that conducts rallies, educational programs, demonstrations, and other activities to promote its views. ill recent years it has focused on issues ofpolice accountability in Denver. It is an

3

unincorporated association that sues to enforce substantive rights.

9. Stephen Nash and Vicki Nash are Denver residents who have been married for 26 years. They frequently participate in peaceful educational and advocacy activities to express their views on political and social issues.

B.

Defendant

10. Defendant City and County of Denver (the "City") is a municipal corporation incorporated in the State of Colorado. It carries out law enforcement functions through the Department. All actions and omissions of Denver police officers and the Department alieged herein are carried out under color of State law and pursuant to a custom, practice, or policy of the City.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Disclosure of the Spy Files

11. On March 11, 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado ("ACLU") publicly disclosed recently-discovered documents demonstrating that the Department has been monitoring and recording the peaceful protest activities of Denver-area residents and keeping files on the expressive activities oflaw-abiding advocacy organizations. Copies of the documents disclosed by the ACLU are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

12. In a letter dated March 11,2002 to Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, the ACLU asked the Mayor to take immediate steps to stop the Department's practice ofkeeping files on peaceful protest activities. A copy of the March 11 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

13. In the March 11 letter, the ACLU also asked the Mayor to take four additional actions: prohibit the police from sharing their Spy File information with other law enforcement agencies; order a full public accounting about the Spy Files that would answer a number of questions; notify individuals named in the Spy Files and permit them to review the information - about them in the Spy Files; and preserve the Spy Files, because they might be evidence in any forthcoming lawsuits.

14. On March 13,2002, Mayor Webb called a news conference to address issues raised by the existence of the Department's Spy Files. Mayor Webb stated that the City's written policy on intelligence gathering was a good one, and he made copies of that policy available to the press. A copy of that written policy (the '~City's Written Policy") is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

15. At a news conference, the Mayor Webb further stated as follows:

After a preliminary review ofthe policy and reviewing a sampling of the files that have been kept on individuals and organizations, it

4

is our conclusion that there was an overly-broad interpretation of the policy that resulted in cases where it may not have been justifiable to include certain individuals or organizations in our intelligence gathering activities.
A copy of the Mayor's press statement is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
16. Contrary to the Mayor's characterization, the Spy Files did not result from a mere misinterpretation of the City's Written Policy. On.the contrary, the Department created and maintained the Spy Files in direct violation of the clear directives of the City's Written Policy.
17. The Department's surveillance of, and collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information on, parties engaged in peaceful advocacy activities was not grounded in any legitimate basis for law enforcement-related background or surveillance activities. There is no constitutional, statutory, city ordinance, or other legal authorization for such activities.
18. Mayor Webb stated the City intends to appoint independent auditors to review the Spy Files. Mayor Webb subsequently appointed three such auditors. According to the announced plan, the independent auditors will determine which of the Spy Files are legitimatelymaintained criminal intelligence files and which are not. The latter will be purged, according to the City's plan..
19. As of the date of this complaint, the City has not agreed to permit the targets of the Department's surveillance to review the portions of the Spy Files that pertain to them.
Information About the Named Plaintiffs in the Spy Files
20. The few pages of Spy File documents cUrrently available to Plaintiffs reveal the following:
(a) APSC is falsely labeled in the Spy Files as "Criminal Extremist." To the contrary, the APSe is neither criminal nor extremist. It is an 85-year-old pacifist Quaker organization that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for its advocacy of nonviolent social change.
(b) Sister Antonia Anthony is listed in the Spy Files as "[a]ctive protestor with Chiapas Coalition." The Spy Files further state that Sister Antonia "demonstrated in Washington D.C. during protests against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings" and that she purportedly ''blames the global financial policies are responsible [sic] for the uprisings in Chiapas, Mexico."
(c) The Spy Files falsely label the Chiapas Coalition as "Criminal Extremist." It is neither criminal nor extremist. The Spy Files state, erroneously, that the group is "dedicated to overthrow of Mexican government" The Spy Files also state that
5

the grolip had conducted demonstrations in Denver "at the Mexican Embassy."

There is no Mexican Embassy in Denver.

-

Cd) The Spy Files contain separate files on Stephen and Vickie Nash. Stephen Nash's Spy File reports that he was "observed at Justice for Mena Committee demonstration on 3/29/2000." It states that he was "seen" at a demonstration protesting a parade to honor Christopher Columbus. It reports that he is a "member and spokesperson" for the AFSC and a member of End the Politics of Cruelty, both of which are falsely labeled as "criminal extremist" in Stephen Nash's Spy File. It further states that he served ~s a spokesperson for the Justice for Mena Committee at a demonstration. Another entry states that Stephen Nash was a speaker and event organizer for an Amnesty International event. The file contains the description and license number of cars the police linked to Stephen Nash, his driver's license number, and his height, weight, ey~ color, and hair color. In a box titled, "associated subjects," it lists his wife of26 years, Vickie Nash.

(e) The file on Vickie Nash lists-her as a member of AFSC and End the Politics of Cruelty, both of which the file falsely labels as "criminal extremist." It documents her marriage to Stephen Nash, her address, and a description and license number of her car.

21. All of the foregoing Spy Files are marked as "pennanent" files.

22. The pages in which the foregoing entries appear contain nothing but identifying
infonnation and facts that show that the targets of the surveillance are engaged in peaceful and legitimate educational activities, political expression, petitioning the go~emment, and political
association. The pages contain no facts that suggest that any of the named plaintiffs are involved in criminal activity.

23. The Department has recorded false and derogatory infonnation about the Plaintiffs. It has mischaracterized the goals and purposes ofthe Plaintiffs' expressive activity and smeared their personal, political, and professional reputations.

24. The Department has recorded this false and derogatory infonnation without providing Plaintiffs with notice or an opportunity to be heard. Plaintiffs have had no opportunity to rebut, deny, explain, correct, or expunge the false and derogatory infonnation that the Department has placed in the Spy Files.
-
25. The Department has dissemi~ated the infonnation in the Spy Files to third parties.

26. There is no legitimate law enforcement rationale and no legitimate government interest in maintaining or disseminating pennanent records containing false derogatory infonnation about Plaintiffs.

6

27. Even when the information recorded is accurate, and often it is not,there is no legitimate law enforcement rationale for maintaining dossiers on the expressive activities of the Plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff class. '
The Department's Custom and Practice ofIllegal Surveillance
28. On information and belief, the City and County of Denver received grant money from the federal government pursuant to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The grant money includes funds for intelligence activities, including the creation or maintenance of a criminal intelligence database. On information and belief, the Department used some of the federal grant money to set up the computerized database in which at least some portions of the Spy Files data are maintained.
29. The Department's criminal intelligence database, including the paper and computer records that make up the Spy Files, is governed by 28 C.F.R. Part 23. The purpose of this federal regulation is to ensure that all crimInal intelligence systems operating with federal money'are utilized in conformance with the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals. 28 C.F.R. § 23.1.
30. The regulation recognizes that the collection and exchange oflaw enforcement intelligence data "may represent potential threats to the privacy of individuals to whom such data relates." 28 C.F.R. § 23.2.
31. Accordingly, the regulation requires that files can contain information about an individual "only if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity." 28 C.F.R. § 23.20(a).
32. The regulation expressly forbids the collection of information about political views and associations unless the information "directly relates" to criminal conduct and there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in that criminal conduct:
A project shall not collect or maintain criminal intelligence information about the political, religious or social views, associations, or activities of any individual or any group, association, corporation, business, partnership, or other organization unless such information directly relates to criminal conduct or activity and there is reasonable suspicion that the subject of the information is o!-, may be involved in criminal conduct or activity.
28 C.F.R. § 23.20. The City's Written Policy incorporates the standard of the foregoing paragraph. (See Exhibit C.)
7

33. Despite the clear directive of the federal regulation and the City's Written Pplicy, it is the informal custom and practice of the Department to collect and to maintain information on po~itical views and expressive activity even in the absence of any connection to criminal activity.
34. The collection and maintenance of such information, including the information referring to the named plaintiffs, serves no legitImate law enforcement purpose. It violates the clear directive of28 C.F.R. Part 23, as well as the City's Written Policy.
35. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 23, information may be maintained in a criminal intelligence database for a maximum period of five years. The records from the Department's· Spy Files, however, state that they are "permanent."
False and Defamatory Information
36. It is the custom and practice of the Department to record false and derogatory information in the Spy Files, to falsely label law-abiding activist groups as "criminal extremist," and to distort, misstate, and mischaracterize their goals and purposes.
37. Pursuant to this custom and practice, the Department has relied on false information or mere incidental association to label individuals as "members" of groups when, in fact, they are not members.
38. The Department smears the political, personal, and professional reputations of individuals by listing them as members of groups that are falsely labeled as "criminal extremist."
39. Pursuant to the custom and practice of the Department, individuals who are the subjects of the Spy Files have no notice and no opportunity to be heard to rebut, deny, explain, correct, or expunge the false, derogatory, or misleading information that the Department records in the Spy Files.
Sharing and Dissemination of Information
40. It is the custom and practice of the Department to share copies of the Spy Files or information contained therein with other law enforcement and governmental agencies. The Department maintains the Spy Files, in part, for the purpose of disseminating that information to additional third parties in the future
41. On information and belief, the Department has kept a record of each time that it has shared information from the Spy Files, or the fact that a file exists, with other law enforcement agencies.
42. The Department has also shared with individuals outside law enforcement the existence of a Spy File on a particular individual or group.
8

43. On infonnation and belief, the Department has also shared infonnation from the Spy Files with individuals outside law enforcement.
44. On infonnation and belief, the Department shares infonnation from the Spy Files with other law enforcement agencies without ensuring that they have safeguards in place that will shield the information from further disclosure.
45. The Plaintiffs have no opportunity to find out when the Department has shared or intends to share infonnation from the Spy Files with third parties. Nor is there any opportunity for Plaintiffs to learn the identity of third parties with whom the Department has shared infonnation. As a result, Plaintiffs are denied notice of the dissemination and denied any opportunity to contact the third party to rebut, deny, explain, correct, or expunge the often false and derogatory infonnation provided from the Spy. Files.
Effect on Plaintiffs
46. The Department singled out and selected the Plaintiffs and the plaintiff class for surveillance and monitoring based upon their advocacy of controversial or unpopular political positions and opinions.
47. It is the custom and practice of the Department to gather infonnation for the Spy Files using methods that have the objective effect of chilling or deterring reasonable persons from the exercise oftheir rights of expression and association.
48. For example, it is the custom and practice of the Department to use undercover or plainclothes operatives to videotape or to photograph individuals who appear at or participate.in lawful demonstrations.
49. Individuals are less likely to join a rally or to participate in other expressive activities when they reasonably fear that they will be photographed by police or that their names will appear in police "criminal intelligence" files. This is especially true when they reasonably fear being listed as associates or members of an organization labeled by police, although falsely, as "criminal extremist."·
50. The custom and practice of the City has injured and threatens to continue injuring Plaintiffs in their ability to attract others to join them in rallies, protests, petitions, and other expressive activities.
51. The customs and practices of the City have chilled and threaten to continue chilling the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights of expression and association.
52. The customs and practices described herein, including the creation, maintenance, and dissemination ofthe Spy Files, have caused and threaten to continue causing injury to the personal, political, and professional reputations ofthe Plaintiffs.
9

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
53. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
54. Plaintiffs represent a class ofpersons defined as (a) all organizations and all past, current, and future Denver residents and visitors who engage in or have engaged in peaceful politiqal, religious, educational, social or expressive activities, and who, as a result of these activities, have been, are now, or will become, targets of sutveillance by the Department or the subjects of the Department's Spy Files.
55. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The proposed class consists of as many as 3,200 individuals and 208 organizations.
56. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the plaintiff class.
57. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the class.
58. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests of the class. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys employed by and working in cooperation with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado, which has extensive experience in . litigating class actions raising issues of constitutional rights and civil liberties.
59. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive and declaratory reliefto the class as a whole.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. § 1983; First and Fourteenth Amendments)
60. The allegations ofparagraphs 1-59 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
61. The Department's surveillance program and the creation, maintenance, and dissemination ofthe Spy Files pose an imminent threat ofinfringing, interfering with,and diminishing Plaintiffs' ability to enjoy and exercise fully and freely their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and· freedom to petition their government for redress of grievances, as well as their freedom to travel, their rights to privacy, due process, and the equal protection of the laws, all ofwhich are protected by the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
62. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, including expungement ofthe Spy Files following the conclusion ofthis litigation and such other
10

relief as the Court deems just.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Colorado, Constitution)

63. The allegations ofparagraphs 1-62 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

64. The Department's surveillance program and the creation, maintenance, and dissemination of the Spy Files pose an imminent threat of infringing, interfering with and diminishing Plaintiffs' ability to enjoy and to exercise fully and freely their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of assoCiation, and freedom to petition their government for a redress of grievances, as well as their freedom to travel, and their rights to privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws, all of which are protected by Colorado Constitution, including Article II, Sections 3, 7, 10,24, and 25.

65. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and such other relief as the Court deems just.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. §1983; 28 C.F.R. Part 23)

66. The allegations of paragraphs 1-65 are incorporated by reference as though fully

set forth herein.

..

.

67. The Department's surveill~ce program and the creation, maini~riance, and

dissemination of the Spy Files violate and threaten to continue violating the requirements

specified in 28 C.F.R. Part 23.

68. The violations and threatened violations of the City's Written Policy pose an imminent threat of infringing, interfering with, and diminishing Plaintiffs' ability to enjoy and to exercise fully and freely their constitutional rights and their privacy.

69. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and such other relief as the Court deems just.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Enforcement of the City's Written Policy)

70. The allegations ofparagraphs 1-69 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

71. The Department's surveillance program and the creation, maintenance, and

11

dissemination of the Spy Files violate and threaten to continue violating the requirements of the City's ,Written Policy.
72. The violations and threatened violations of28 C.F.R. Part 23'pose an imminent threat of infringing, interfering with, and diminishing Plaintiffs' ability to enjoy and to exercise fully and freely their constitutional rights and their privacy.
73. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and such other relief as the Court deems just. Dated: March 28, 2002·
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Silverstein, #26979 AMERICAN CIVIL LmERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 400 Corona Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 777-5482 ATTORNEYS FORPLAThITIFFS AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, ANTONIA ANTHONY; END THE POLITICS OF CRUELTY; CHIAPAS COALITION
12

 </s> SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
1.0 Parties and Controversy.
1.1 The Parties to this Settlement Agreement and Release (“this Agreement”) are as follows:
A. (i) American Friends Services Committee, a Pennsylvnia not-for-profit corporation, (ii) Sister Antonia Anthony, (iii) End the Politics of Cruelty, an unincorporated association, (iv) Chiapas Coalition, an unincorporated association, (v) Stephen Nash, and (vi) Vicki Nash (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”); and
B. The City and County of Denver (the “City”).
1.2 The case or controversy giving rise to this Agreement are the claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the City in the lawsuit entitled American Friends Service Committee, et al. v. City and County of Denver, United States District Court, District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 02-N-0740 (CBS) (the “Lawsuit”).
2.0 Effective Date.
2.1 The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date on which the United States District Court for the District of Colorado gives approval to the settlement reflected in this Agreement in accordance with paragraph 9.1 below.
3.0 Policy.
3.1 On or before the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall adopt and implement revised Policy 118.03, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1, by adding it to the Denver Police Department Operations Manual.
3.2 If, at any time within two years of the effective date of this Agreement, the City determines to make any changes to, or to repeal, revised Policy 118.03, or any successor policy thereto, then the City shall so notify Plaintiffs, in writing, through their agents identified at paragraph 11.1, below, at least 21 days prior to the effective date of the proposed changes or repeal, and allow Plaintiffs to comment regarding those proposed changes or the proposed repeal. In order to be considered, Plaintiffs must notify the City of their comments in writing through its agent identified at paragraph 11.2 below, within 14 days of the date of the City’s notification of proposed changes or repeal. The City shall in good faith review and consider Plaintiffs’ comments. It is expressly understood between Plaintiffs and the City that Plaintiffs shall have the right to comment only and that such comments are not binding upon the City.
3.3 If the City determines to make any changes to, or to repeal, revised Policy 118.03, or any successor policy thereto, then the City shall so notify the Public Safety Review Commission, or any successor body thereto, of those proposed changes or proposed repeal, in
__________ __________
(Initials)

writing, no less than 21 days prior to the effective date of the proposed changes or proposed repeal.

3.4 For five years following the effective date of this Agreement, the City will not change revised Policy 118.03, or any successor policy thereto, in any of the following respects, absent a change in law that abrogates or supersedes the provisions, as drafted:

(a) The definition of “reasonable suspicion,” as set forth at paragraph 5(f) of revised Policy 118.03;

(b) Paragraph 11 of revised Policy 118.03, entitled “Independent Oversight”;

Entry”;

(c) Paragraph 6(a) of revised Policy 118.03, entitled “Supervision of Data

(d) Paragraph 6(b) of revised Policy 118.03, entitled “Information Submission Criteria”; and

(e) The exclusions set forth at paragraph 6(c) of revised Policy 118.03.

4.0 Purge/Review/Disposition of Files.

4.1 Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall purge all of its existing criminal intelligence files to comply with revised Policy 118.03. Upon completion of the further review period described in paragraph 4.2, below, all purged files, whether hard copy or computer data stored on disk or other electronic storage device, shall be transferred to the custody of the undersigned attorney for the City, pending final disposition as referenced at paragraph 4.3, below.

4.2 For 90 days following the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall permit any person or organization to request copies of criminal intelligence files relating to that person or organization that have been purged in accordance with paragraph 4.1, above, and the City shall have 30 days within which to respond to such requests by providing the requesting individuals or organizations with copies of the documents in the criminal intelligence files that refer to such individuals or organizations, if any, without charge to the requesting individual or organization, consistent with the City’s November 19, 2002 procedures for “Purged Intelligence File Review,” except as noted in this paragraph. In searching for files in response to such requests, the City shall use best efforts to locate and to produce all documents from purged files that pertain to the requesting person or organization. Upon completion of this request process, the City will have no obligation to undertake any further similar request process.

4.3 Upon dismissal of the Lawsuit, pursuant to paragraph 9.4, below, the City shall determine in its sole and exclusive discretion the ultimate disposition of the criminal intelligence files purged in accordance with paragraph 4.1 above. Neither this paragraph nor any other provision of this Agreement shall be construed to constitute Plaintiffs’ express or implied
2 ________ ________
(Initials)

agreement, consent, acknowledgement, or endorsement of the City’s decision regarding the ultimate disposition of the criminal intelligence files.
4.4 For 180 days following the effective date of this Agreement, Plaintiffs may submit to the City documentary evidence (a “Release”) that subjects of criminal intelligence files previously designated as confidential pursuant to the Stipulation and Protective Order entered in this action on July 10, 2002 (the “Protective Order”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, desire that the documents in the criminal intelligence files that refer to them be released from the scope of the Protective Order. Upon the City’s receipt of such signed Releases, the documents in the criminal intelligence files that refer to such subjects shall be released from the scope of the Protective Order. If any of the documents refers to more than one person or organization, then those documents shall be released from the scope of the Protective Order, in redacted form, when redactions are necessary to protect individual privacy or to prevent substantial harm to the public interest pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Protective Order. Names of individuals shall not be redacted when Plaintiffs have furnished the City with an appropriate release, as described above. The terms and provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Protective Order shall govern any and all objections to confidentiality designations and the process for resolving any disagreements regarding any such objections. Upon expiration of such 180-day period, Plaintiffs shall make no further requests that “confidential” designations be withdrawn. Plaintiffs shall make no other requests pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Protective Order to release documents from the scope of the Protective Order except as set forth above in this paragraph.
4.5 Upon dismissal of the Lawsuit, the parties shall comply with paragraph 15 of the Protective Order.
4.6 Within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall furnish (a) Plaintiffs, (b) any person or organization that made written request for their criminal intelligence files (including requests made pursuant to paragraph 4.2 above), and (c) any other person or organization referenced in any purged criminal intelligence files whose address can readily be obtained by the City, each separately and individually, with a letter signed by the City’s Chief of Police indicating that the City has purged its criminal intelligence file(s) on the specific person or organization, that the City currently does not have information to cause it to maintain an intelligence file on the person or organization, and that the City maintains no criminal intelligence information concerning the specific person or organization.
3 ________ ________
(Initials)

5.0 Notification of Other Agencies.
5.1 Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall notify other law enforcement agencies through The National Law Enforcement Teletype System and the Mexican Consulate by letter that the City has, within the last 30 days, completed a review of its criminal intelligence files, which has resulted in the purge of a substantial number of those files and, further, that the other law enforcement agencies may contact the Intelligence Bureau of the City’s Police Department to inquire whether or not any intelligence information previously supplied to such other law enforcement agencies was included in the purge.
5.2 To the extent that the City can determine that any information from any criminal intelligence file purged in accordance with paragraph 4.1, above, was supplied to a specific law enforcement agency, then the City shall notify such other specific law enforcement agency through correspondence signed by the City’s Chief of Police advising as to the purge of those specific file materials or information. The City shall provide Plaintiffs with copies of all letters sent pursuant to this paragraph.
6.0 Audits.
6.1 The City shall conduct audits of its criminal intelligence files in accordance with paragraph 11 of revised Policy 118.03. For any audit conducted within two years of the effective date of this agreement, Plaintiffs shall have the right to participate in the selection of the auditor in accordance with paragraph 6.2, below. Thereafter, Plaintiffs shall have no right to participate in the selection of the auditor.
6.2 For any audit for which Plaintiffs have the right to participate in the selection of the auditor, the selection shall occur as follows:
(A) Plaintiffs shall identify three (3) names of recommended auditors by notifying the City through its agent as specified at paragraph 11.2, below. Upon receipt of the names of those recommended auditors, the City shall have the right to peremptorily strike two of the three names.
(B) The City shall identify three (3) names of recommended auditors by notifying Plaintiffs through their agents as specified at paragraph 11.1, below. Upon receipt of the names of those recommended auditors, Plaintiffs shall have the right to peremptorily strike two of the three names.
(C) Upon completion of the identification and striking set forth at subparagraphs (A) and (B), above, the Mayor of the City shall then have the exclusive right to select the auditor from the two remaining names.
The City shall take all steps reasonable and appropriate to ensure that the auditor for the first audit has been selected no later than 30 days from the effective date of this Agreement.
4 ________ ________
(Initials)

7.0 Release and No Admission.
7.1 Plaintiffs hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge the City, as well as all related persons and entities, both past and present, including, but not limited to, the City’s departments, divisions, principals, attorneys, agents, insurers, employees, successors, servants, elected officials, officers, and directors of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, rights, controversies, agreements, damages, actions, causes of action, expenses, attorneys’ fees, interest, compensation, judgments, and all consequential and punitive damages, of whatsoever kind or nature, either in law or equity, which might exist with regard to any and all claims in any way related to or arising from the matters that are the subject matter of the Lawsuit, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.
7.2 The City hereby releases, acquits, and forever discharges each of the Plaintiffs, as well as all related persons and entities, both past and present, including, but not limited to, the Plaintiffs’ respective principals, attorneys, agents, insurers, employees, successors, servants, members, constituents, officers, and directors of and from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, rights, controversies, agreements, damages, actions, causes of action, expenses, attorneys’ fees, interest, compensation, judgments, and all consequential and punitive damages, of whatsoever kind or nature, either in law or equity, which might exist with regard to any and all claims in any way related to or arising from the matters that are the subject matter of the Lawsuit except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.
7.3 By entering into this Agreement, the City neither admits any fault or liability to Plaintiffs, nor any violation of law.
8.0 Attorney Fees and Costs.
8.1 Plaintiffs shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the Lawsuit. Within ten business days following the effective date of this Agreement, Plaintiffs and the City shall submit the reasonableness of attorney fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs for a determination by the Court in the Lawsuit. Such determination shall be limited to the reasonableness of attorney fees and costs incurred as of the effective date of this Agreement, except for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs reasonably expended in litigating the motion for recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.
8.2 The determination of reasonableness of attorney fees and costs shall be submitted to the Court for determination via stipulation, which shall provide as follows:
(A) That Plaintiffs shall promptly submit their request for attorney fees and costs via motion with supporting documentation; within 30 days of the service of that motion, the City may serve a response with supporting documentation; and within 15 days of the service of the response, Plaintiffs may serve a reply; and
(B) That the City shall pay to Plaintiffs those attorney fees and costs that the Court determines to be reasonable in accordance with paragraph 8.1, above, within 60 days of
5 ________ ________
(Initials)

the entry of the Court’s judgment on those attorney fees and costs, if there is no appeal of such determination. In the event of an appeal of the Court’s determination regarding those attorney fees and costs, then the City shall pay the attorney fees and costs within 60 days of the date the decision on the attorney fees and costs becomes final and nonappealable.
8.3 The City does not agree to pay any attorney fees and costs incurred subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement, except for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs reasonably expended in litigating the motion for recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.
9.0 Administrative Closure and Dismissal.
9.1 No later than 30 days from the execution date of this Agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for an Order (a) approving this Agreement, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and (b) for administrative closure of the Lawsuit. Said joint motion shall be in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit 3. This Agreement shall be null and void in its entirety if the Court does not grant such joint motion in its entirety.
9.2 The Lawsuit will remain administratively closed and shall not be reopened absent a showing of good cause upon motion from either Plaintiffs or the City. Such motion shall not be considered by the Court absent good faith compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1.
9.3 After the Lawsuit has been administratively closed for 12 months, and absent a motion to reopen from either Plaintiffs or the City, then the Court shall proceed to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice sua sponte and without further action from either Plaintiffs or the City.
10.0 Changes to Police Department Operations Manual
10.1 No later than 30 days from the effective date of this Agreement, the Denver Police Department shall add to its Operations Manual language providing that, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the City shall not engage in any undercover operation unless a lieutenant, acting lieutenant, or other commanding officer has reviewed and approved the request for such undercover operation, in writing, prior to the initiation of the undercover operation.
10.2 No later than 30 days from the date of this Agreement, the Denver Police Department shall add the following language to its Operations Manual:
Photographs taken at the scene of riots, disorders, protest demonstrations, marches, or similar incidents shall be destroyed after the event if no illegal actions occurred. If illegal actions occurred, only those photographs will be retained and filed which will be useful in illustrating the incidents and identifying and bringing to trial the participants in the illegal activity, or in defending against a civil claim. Such photographs shall be destroyed in the event no criminal or civil proceedings are filed.
6 ________ ________
(Initials)

11.0 Notification.
11.1 Notification to Plaintiffs pursuant to this Agreement shall occur via certified mail and via telecopy directed to the following:
Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202
Telecopier number (303) 634-4400
and to
Mark Silverstein, Esq. Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union 400 Corona Street Denver, CO 80218-3915
Telecopier number (303) 777-1773
11.2 Notification to the City pursuant to this Agreement shall occur via certified mail and via telecopy directed to the following:
Thomas S. Rice Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C. P.O. Box 22833 Denver, Colorado 80222
Telecopier number (303) 320-0210
11.3 Either party may give notice of any change in its agent(s) for notification by notifying the other party through its agent as set forth at paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2, above.
12.0 Governing Law.
11.1 This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
7 ________ ________
(Initials)

13.0 Merger, Modification, and Miscellany.
13.1 This Agreement sets forth all agreements between Plaintiffs and the City with respect to the case and controversy and any prior agreement or understanding is deemed superceded and merged herein.
13.2 This Agreement may not be modified absent a writing signed by all Plaintiffs and the City.
13.3 This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, no one of which need be signed by all parties, all of which shall be read together and construed as one and the same Agreement.
13.4 The receipt of the signature of any party by facsimile shall be deemed the equivalent of receipt of an original signature. Subsequent to the transmission of signed duplicates of this Agreement by telecopy, the parties, through counsel, shall exchange handexecuted duplicate originals of this Agreement.

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE

________________________________________ _______________________, authorized representative

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA )

COUNTY OF

)ss

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of

, 2003.

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

8 ________
________
(Initials)

_________________________________________ ANTONIA ANTHONY

STATE OF COLORADO )

COUNTY OF

)ss

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of

, 2003.

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

END THE POLITICS OF CRUELTY

By:_____________________________________ ____________________________, authorized representative

STATE OF COLORADO )

COUNTY OF

)ss

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of

, 2003.

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

9 ________
________
(Initials)

CHIAPAS COALITION

By:______________________________________ _________________________, authorized representative

STATE OF COLORADO )

COUNTY OF

)ss

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of

, 2003.

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

10 ________
________
(Initials)

_________________________________________ STEPHEN NASH

STATE OF COLORADO )

COUNTY OF

)ss

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of

, 2003.

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

_________________________________________ VICKI NASH

STATE OF COLORADO )

COUNTY OF

)ss

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of

, 2003.

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

11 ________
________
(Initials)

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER

By:_____________________________________ ____________________________, authorized representative

STATE OF COLORADO )

COUNTY OF

)ss

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of

, 2003.

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

ATTORNEY APPROVALS:
_________________________________________ Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs
_________________________________________ Thomas S. Rice, Esq. Attorney for the City

12 ________
________
(Initials)

 </s> 118.03 Criminal Intelligence Information
1. PURPOSE
a. To establish internal controls and proper oversight for the collection, retention, dissemination, and disposition of criminal intelligence in conformance with the privacy interests and constitutional rights of individuals, groups, associations or other legal entities.
2. APPLICABILITY
a. This section applies to all Denver Police Department (the “Department”) criminal intelligence systems whether or not funded as part of any multi-jurisdictional systems funded by Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 discretionary assistance awards or Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) formula grant program sub-grants the purpose of which is specifically to support the operation of a criminal intelligence system.
b. The policies and procedures contained in this section are in compliance with all guidelines enumerated in 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23, Criminal Intelligence Systems Policies. There are additional provisions, some of which are more restrictive, but none that are in conflict with the federal guidelines. The Denver Police Department shall not include, in any criminal intelligence file, information which has been obtained in violation of any applicable Federal, State or local law or ordinance, the policies of the Denver Police Department, or this section.
c. Systems that are specifically excluded from the requirements of this section and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 are:
(1) Criminal history files (2) Contact card systems (3) Mug shot systems (4) Offense and accident report systems (5) Criminal investigatory case files
3. POLICY
a. The collection, retention, dissemination, and disposition of criminal intelligence is one of the essential functions of law enforcement public service. All Department employees shall adhere to guidelines established in this section to ensure the security, confidentiality, and proper maintenance and dissemination of criminal intelligence. Criminal intelligence information will not be collected or retained except as specified in this section.
1

b. This policy is based on the careful review and consideration of:
(1) The guidelines identified in Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 - Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, with policy clarifications provided by the Dept. of Justice - Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, and Office of General Counsel.
(2) California Attorney General’s Criminal Intelligence Files Guidelines, also known as the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit Guidelines.
(3) Best practices of Intelligence Unit policies from multiple law enforcement agencies.
4. GOALS
a. Provide liaison, coordination, and resource assistance in the collection, storage, exchange or dissemination, and analysis of criminal intelligence information in on-going investigations or prosecution of serious criminal activity.
b. Provide criminal intelligence information to law enforcement and criminal justice agency personnel on individuals and organizations involved with criminal organizations and enterprises.
c. Provide analysis of organized crime and criminal enterprises in Colorado. This includes identification and/or projection of major changes in crime trends.
5. DEFINITIONS
a. Criminal intelligence
(1) Data that has been processed - collected, evaluated, collated and analyzed - to be used in connection with and in furtherance of law enforcement investigative purposes. Intelligence involves data collection from both overt (information available to the general public) and covert sources. It may include general threat information not necessarily directed at a specific arrest or prosecution. Criminal intelligence data also includes information collected through undercover operations and through photographic, electronic, or other media. All criminal intelligence data shall be collected and maintained in a manner consistent with this policy.
(2) Criminal intelligence includes information that relates to an individual, organization, business, or group reasonably suspected of being involved in the actual or attempted planning, organizing, financing, or committing of one or more of the following criminal acts:
2

(a) Narcotic trafficking/manufacturing
(b) Unlawful gambling
(c) Loan sharking
(d) Extortion
(e) Vice and illegal pornography
(f) Infiltration of legitimate business for illegitimate purposes
(g) Stolen securities
(h) Bribery
(i) Major crimes including homicide, sexual assault, burglary, auto theft, kidnapping, destruction of property, robbery, fraud, fencing stolen property, and arson
(j) Manufacturing, use, or possession of explosive devices for illegal purposes
(k) Threats of violence, or acts of violence against or in connection with, persons or property
(l) Rioting / Inciting to riot, as those terms are defined in C.R.S. §§ 18-9-101(2), 18-9-102 and 18-9-104
(m) Computer crimes
(n) Counterfeiting
(o) Identity theft
(p) International and/or domestic terrorism, which, for purposes of this section, shall be defined as acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal law and that are intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion (q) Any other criminal offense not listed above which is not directly related to purely expressive behavior and is consistent with the purpose and intent of this policy.
3

b. Criminal Intelligence Files. Criminal intelligence information that has been collected, processed, retained in a criminal intelligence information file, and that may be shared within the law enforcement community. Criminal intelligence files include information regarding:
(1) Individuals who:
(a) Are reasonably suspected of being involved in the planning, organizing, financing, or commission of criminal activity, as set forth in paragraph 5(a)(2) above; or
(b) Are reasonably suspected of being involved in criminal activities with known or suspected criminal organizations.
(2) Organizations, businesses, and groups that:
(a) Are reasonably suspected of being involved in planning, organizing, financing, or commission of criminal activity, as set forth in paragraph 5(a)(2) above;
(b) Are reasonably suspected of being illegally operated, controlled, financed, or infiltrated by known or suspected criminal organizations; or
(c) Use illegal activities and/or enterprises as a principal means to obtain resources, support for their existence, or further their organizational goals.
c. “Criminal organization,” as used in this section, consists of a group of individuals associated together in fact for a common purpose of engaging in a course of criminal conduct or activity as set forth in paragraph 5(a)(2), above.
d. Non-Criminal Identifying Information (NCI)
(1) The names of individuals, organizations, groups or businesses that are not suspected of criminal involvement, but whose identification is relevant to a criminal investigation. Examples of (NCI) would be:
(a) A member of a gang (known for narcotics trafficking) is arrested for narcotics violations while driving a car registered to his father (who is not suspected of involvement in the gang or narcotic activity). The name of the gang member and the name of the gang may be entered in the database. The father can only be entered as “non-criminal identifying information” relevant to the criminal suspect and must be clearly labeled as such.
(b) A surveillance on a criminal suspect shows the individual entering a place of
4

business that is not suspected of criminal activity of the suspect. The business can only be entered as “non-criminal identifying information” relevant to the criminal suspect and must be clearly labeled as such.
e. “Purge,” as used in this section, shall mean the complete destruction of a physical file and the permanent deletion from any Intelligence Bureau computer files, systems or databases.
f. Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity
(1) “Reasonable suspicion” is present when sufficient facts are established to give a trained law enforcement officer or criminal investigative agency, officer, investigator, or employee a particularized and objective basis to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an individual or organization is involved in a definable criminal enterprise or activity, as set forth in paragraph 5(a)(2) above. The Intelligence Bureau is responsible for establishing the existence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity through the examination of supporting information submitted, which is subject to routine inspection and audit procedures established by the Department. In determining whether “reasonable suspicion” is present, a law enforcement officer or criminal investigator may consider, within the totality of circumstances, the fact that the individual or organization has been involved in serious criminal activity or conduct in the past. Past criminal activity, without more, shall not be sufficient to satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement. If “reasonable suspicion” is based, in whole or in part, on information obtained through electronic, video, or audio means, that fact and the existence of such information shall be noted in the criminal intelligence file.
6. PROCEDURES FOR MANAGING CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE FILES
a. SUPERVISION OF DATA ENTRY
(1) All criminal intelligence data shall be reviewed by an Intelligence Bureau supervisor or commanding officer prior to entry into any criminal intelligence file. The supervisor or commanding officer shall determine that the criminal intelligence data conforms to these policies and was not obtained in violation of any applicable Federal, State, or local law or ordinance, Department policies, or this section. Criminal intelligence data will not be placed in any criminal intelligence file unless approved by an Intelligence Bureau supervisor or commanding officer. The badge number of the approving supervisor or commanding officer will become part of the file.
b. INFORMATION SUBMISSION CRITERIA
(1) The Department shall only collect or maintain criminal intelligence information concerning an individual or organization if there is reasonable suspicion that the
5

individual or organization is involved in criminal conduct or activity, as set forth in paragraph 5(a)(2) above, and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity. The existence of reasonable suspicion will be based on specific, articulable facts that will be documented in the criminal intelligence file.
(2) The Department shall not collect or maintain information about the political, religious, social views, associations or activities of any individual or any group, association, corporation, business, partnership, or other organization, unless such information directly relates to criminal conduct or activity and there is a reasonable suspicion that the subject of the information is or may be involved in that criminal conduct or activity.
(3) Non-Criminal Identifying Information (NCI) - Under the following circumstances, the names of individuals, organizations, groups or businesses that are not suspected of criminal involvement, but that provide relevant descriptive, identifying information regarding the criminal suspect, may be entered as “Non-Criminal Identifying Information.” A non-criminal identifying label should say that “This individual or organization has been entered into the system for identification purposes only -- he, she or it is not suspected of any criminal activity or involvement.” This label will act as a disclaimer of criminal association and will not be used to meet reasonable suspicion requirements to create a file or record for that individual or organization.
c. EXCLUDED MATERIAL. Only lawfully collected information based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that meets the Department’s criteria for file input should be stored in the criminal intelligence file. Information that shall be specifically excluded from criminal intelligence files includes:
(1) Information on an individual or group merely on the basis that such individual or group support unpopular causes.
(2) Information on an individual or group merely on the basis of race, gender, age, or ethnic background.
(3) Information on an individual or group merely on the basis of religious or political affiliations, or beliefs.
(4) Information on an individual or group merely on the basis of personal habits and/or predilections that do not break any criminal laws or threaten the safety of others.
(5) Information on an individual or group merely on the basis of involvement in expressive activity that takes the form of non-violent civil disobedience that amounts, at most, to a misdemeanor offense.
6

d. FILE CRITERIA. All information retained in the criminal intelligence file will meet the criteria prescribed by the Department. There are two types of intelligence records - Permanent and Temporary files.
(1) Permanent Intelligence Files. Criminal Information may be retained in the permanent intelligence files for up to five (5) years. At that time, criminal information will be automatically purged unless new criminal intelligence has been developed establishing reasonable suspicion that the individual and/or organization continues to be involved in a definable criminal activity or enterprise. When updated criminal intelligence is added into the permanent files on a suspect individual or organization already listed in the database, such entries reset the five year standard for retention of that file. Permanent intelligence files must be periodically reviewed for compliance with this policy consistent with paragraph 9 below.
(2) Temporary Intelligence Files. Criminal Information may also be entered into temporary criminal intelligence files when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but that finding is based, in part, upon “unreliable” or “unknown” sources, or where the content validity of the information is “doubtful” or “cannot be judged.” All temporary intelligence files shall be specifically designated as such and must be reviewed by a supervisor every sixty (60) days for validity. This interim review must be documented in the temporary intelligence file. Temporary intelligence files shall be retained no longer than one year. At that time, temporary files must be either purged or converted into permanent intelligence files. All temporary intelligence files will be kept distinctly separate from the general database.
e. INFORMATION CLASSIFICATION
Information to be retained in the files of the Department shall be labeled for source reliability and content validity prior to entry or submission. Circulating information that has not been evaluated, where the source reliability is poor or the content validity is doubtful, is detrimental to our agency’s operations and is contrary to the individual’s right to privacy. The classification of criminal intelligence information is subject to continual change, the passage of time, the conclusion of investigations, and other factors that may affect the security classification or dissemination criteria assigned to particular documents.
Documents within the intelligence files should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to ascertain whether a higher degree or lesser degree of document security is required and to ensure that information is released only when and if appropriate.
(1) Source Reliability - The reliability of the source is an index of the consistency of the information the source provides. The source shall be evaluated according to the following:
7

(a) RELIABLE - The reliability of the source is unquestioned or has been tested in the past.
(b) USUALLY RELIABLE - The reliability of the source can usually be relied upon. The majority of the information provided in the past has proved to be reliable.
(c) UNRELIABLE - The reliability of the sources has been sporadic in the past.
(d) UNKNOWN - The reliability of the source cannot be judged; either experience or investigation has not yet determined authenticity or trustworthiness.
(2) Content Validity - The validity of information is an index of the accuracy or truthfulness of the information. The validity of the information shall be assessed as follows:
(a) CONFIRMED - The information has been corroborated by an investigator or another reliable independent source.
(b) PROBABLE - The information is consistent with past accounts.
(c) DOUBTFUL - The information is inconsistent with past accounts.
(d) CANNOT BE JUDGED - The information cannot be judged. Its authenticity has not yet been determined by either experience or investigation.
(3) Sensitivity - The sensitivity of the information shall be classified according to the following standards:
(a) SENSITIVE - Information, including, but not limited to, active police investigations, informant identification information, corruption, and those reports which require strict dissemination and release criteria.
(b) RESTRICTED - Information obtained through intelligence channels that is not classified as sensitive and is for law enforcement use only. Restricted information may include previously classified sensitive information for which the need for a high level of security no longer exists.
(c) UNCLASSIFIED - Information that is public in nature. This includes arrest and criminal record information and other information contained in records of official actions.
8

7. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
a. Intelligence Bureau officers shall disseminate criminal intelligence information only where there is a need to know and a right to know the information in the performance of a law enforcement activity.
(1) Except as noted in paragraph (2) of this section, officers shall disseminate criminal intelligence information only to law enforcement authorities who shall agree to follow procedures regarding information receipt, maintenance, security, and dissemination that are consistent with these principles.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this section shall not limit the dissemination of an assessment of criminal intelligence information to a government official or to any other individual, when necessary to avoid imminent danger to life or property.
b. Criminal intelligence information may only be shared with other law enforcement agencies with the express written approval of an Intelligence Bureau supervisor or commanding officer. The release of this information shall be based on a need to know and right to know basis. The facts establishing the requestor’s need to know and right to know shall be documented in the criminal intelligence file. The agency and/or officer requesting the information, the officer approving the sharing, the law enforcement purpose for the request, the date of the request, and the date of the provision of the information shall all be noted in the file. The agency and/or officer requesting the information shall agree in writing to be bound by the Department policy relating to the storage, retrieval and dissemination of the information provided.
(1) In maintaining criminal intelligence information, the Department shall ensure that administrative, technical, and physical safeguards (including audit trails) are adopted to ensure against unauthorized access and against intentional or unintentional damage. A record indicating who has been given information, the reason for release of the information, and the date of each dissemination outside the bureau shall be kept. Information shall be labeled to indicate levels of sensitivity, levels of confidence, and the identity of requesting agencies and control officials. The officer releasing information shall document in the criminal intelligence file the existence of an inquirer’s need to know and right to know the information being requested, either through inquiry or by delegation of this responsibility to a properly trained participating agency, which information release is subject to routine inspection and audit procedures established by the bureau.
(2) Criminal intelligence information shall only be shared with other members of the Department on a need to know basis. The officer requesting the information and the justification for the request shall be noted in the file.
9

c. Intelligence Bureau personnel will not release any original intelligence documents. Whenever information from a criminal intelligence file is disclosed, in any form, either orally, in writing, or through inspection of files, the Intelligence Bureau must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 7(b) above.
d. Need to know
(1) Requested information is pertinent and necessary to the requesting agency in initiating, furthering, or completing the performance of a law enforcement activity.
e. Right to know
(1) Requester is acting in an official capacity and has statutory authority to obtain the information being sought.
f. Intelligence Bureau information will be released according to the following classification and release authority levels:
(1) SENSITIVE - Information in this class may only be released with permission of the Intelligence Bureau commanding officer to law enforcement agencies that have a demonstrated right to know and need to know.
(2) RESTRICTED - Restricted information may be released by Intelligence Bureau personnel to law enforcement agencies that have a demonstrated right to know and need to know.
(3) UNCLASSIFIED - Any Intelligence Bureau personnel may release this information to a Denver Police Department officer or other law enforcement agency. The Chief of Police is the official records custodian and the Chief must approve the release of information to the public or media.
8. SECURITY OF FILES
a. Criminal intelligence files will be physically secured in locked cabinets or in electronic files that are equipped with security protection measures. Those files and databases will be secured during off-hours and when the office is vacant.
b. Key access to the Intelligence Bureau will only be granted to assigned Bureau personnel.
c. Locks, combinations and system passwords will be changed upon the transfer of any member.
10

d. Bureau personnel will adopt a “clean desk” policy to include the removal of sensitive documents from view when not in use. The orientation of computer monitors will be such as to preclude casual observation by visitors and there will be control of sensitive conversations.
9. REVIEW AND PURGE PROCEDURES
a. Reviewing and purging of all information that is contained in the Department criminal intelligence files and kept under paragraph 6 above will be done on an ongoing basis, but, at a minimum, will be accomplished annually. The dates when reviews occurred shall be noted in the criminal intelligence file. The maximum retention period is five years, and a criminal intelligence file must be purged after five years unless the information in that criminal intelligence file has been updated consistent with this section. The Department may update the criminal intelligence file and extend the retention period at any time, based on reasonable suspicion of new criminal activity documented in the criminal intelligence file.
b. The decision to purge information should by guided by the following considerations:
(1) Whether or not the information in the criminal intelligence file continues to comply with the reasonable suspicion standard set forth in paragraph 5(f)(1) above.
(2) Defined retention periods for permanent and temporary files.
(3) Specific credible threats to government officials and/or law enforcement officers.
c. Any information that is found to be collected or retained in violation of this section, or found to be inaccurate, misleading, or obsolete, shall be purged. Any recipient agencies shall be advised of such changes and that the subject information has been purged.
10. TRAINING
a. The commanding officer of the Intelligence Bureau and any bureau, section or unit with responsibility to gather criminal intelligence information shall ensure that all officers assigned to the bureau, section or unit have received training regarding this section. Training will be documented in the officer’s training records.
b. The commanding officer of the Intelligence Bureau and any bureau, section or unit with responsibility to gather criminal intelligence information shall ensure that all officers assigned to the bureau, section or unit receive annual update training regarding this section and any recent court decisions and best practices regarding criminal intelligence information. Training will be documented in the officer’s training records.
11

c. An outline of the training will be kept on file at the Intelligence Bureau and the Training Academy.
d. An annual review will also be conducted of this section and the policy will be updated based on recent court decisions and national best practices.
11. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT
a. Implementation of this policy shall be subject to an audit by an independent agency. This audit shall review data collection, categorization, maintenance, dissemination and Intelligence Bureau practices, as well as training procedures, to verify compliance with established rules and policies.
b. The individual who conducts the audit for the independent agency shall be familiar with these policies and procedures, and the policies and procedures set forth in paragraph 3(b) above. The individual who conducts the audit for the independent agency shall have access to all Intelligence Bureau files and data necessary to perform the audit function, and will be provided with the financial resources necessary to complete the audit and report. The audit shall be conducted on a quarterly basis for the first year, a semi-annual basis for the second and third years, and annually thereafter.
c. The individual who conducts the audit shall prepare a written report which will be provided to the commanding officer of the Intelligence Bureau, the Chief of Police, the City Attorney and the Public Safety Review Commission.
d. The commanding officer of the Intelligence Bureau shall prepare a written response to the audit report within ten (10) days of receipt and copies of that response will be provided to the Chief of Police, the City Attorney and the Public Safety Review Commission. The Public Safety Review Commission shall have the right to submit to the Mayor its comments regarding the audit report and the Intelligence Bureau’s response within ten (10) days after receipt of the Intelligence Bureau’s response.
e. Any conflict between the findings in the audit report and the response prepared by the commanding officer of the Intelligence Bureau shall be resolved by the Mayor.
f. In the event the audit report determines that a criminal intelligence file was improperly opened in violation of paragraph 6(c) above, and that finding is sustained by the Mayor, the Intelligence Bureau will notify in writing the subject of that criminal intelligence file that a file was improperly opened and will be purged. Upon request, the subject will be provided with a copy of his/her criminal intelligence file, with necessary redactions to protect the privacy of third-parties and the safety of law enforcement officers.
12

 </s> Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 1 of 14

U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−00740−EWN−CBS

TERMED

American Friends Svc, et al v. City &Cnty of Denvr Assigned to: Judge Edward W. Nottingham Referred to: Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer Demand: $0
Case in other court: Denver Cty Dist Ct, 02CV2993
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/16/2002 Date Terminated: 05/07/2003 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

American Friends Service Committee a Pennsylvania not−for−profit corporation

represented by Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov McKenna Long &Aldridge, LLP−Denver 1400 Wewatta Street #700 Denver, CO 80202−5556 303−634−4000 Fax: 303−634−4400 Email: llipinsky@mckennalong.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Silverstein American Civil Liberties Union−Denver P.O. Box 18986 400 Corona Street Denver, CO 80218−0986 303−777−5482 Fax: 303−777−1773 Email: msilver2@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Antonia Anthony

represented by Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Silverstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
End The Politics of Cruelty an unincorporated association

represented by Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Silverstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chiapas Coalition an unincorporated association

represented by Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 2 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Silverstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stephen Nash

represented by Mark Silverstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Vicki Nash

represented by Mark Silverstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Denver, City and County of

represented by Brian Keith Matise Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh &Jardine, PC−Englewood 40 Inverness Drive East Englewood, CO 80112 303−792−5595 Fax: 303−708−0527 Email: bmatise@burgsimpson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stanley M. Sharoff Denver City Attorney's Office 201 West Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202−5332 720−913−3100 Fax: 720−913−3182 Email: dlefiling.litigation@ci.denver.co.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Sullivan Rice Senter Goldfarb &Rice, LLC 1700 Broadway #1700 Denver, CO 80290 303−320−0509 Fax: 303−320−0210 Email: trice@sgrllc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/16/2002
04/16/2002

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Denver Cty Dist Ct Case Number: 02CV2993 (bpm) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
COMPLAINT (bpm) (Entered: 04/17/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 3 of 14

04/16/2002 04/18/2002 04/29/2002 05/07/2002 05/09/2002
05/09/2002 05/22/2002 06/04/2002 06/07/2002 06/11/2002 06/17/2002 06/28/2002 07/08/2002
07/09/2002 07/12/2002 07/12/2002 07/29/2002 08/14/2002 08/15/2002 08/16/2002

2 STIPULATION for extension of time limit to answer or respond to Complaint to 05/07/02 by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr (bpm) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
3 ORDER R16,stat,stlmt,pt,pto Case referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer &General Case Management Order by Judge Edward W. Nottingham; disp motions ddl 12/16/02 (cc: to counsel) (pap) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Mark Silverstein (pap) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
5 MOTION by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (pap) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
6 ORDER FOR RULE 16 CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; Rule 16 conference set for 10:30 7/8/02; proposed scheduling order and confidential settlement statements are due on or before 7/1/02 (cc: all counsel) (pap) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
7 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant City &Cnty of Denvr by Stanley M. Sharoff (pap) (Entered: 05/10/2002)
8 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiffs for extension of time to respond to dft's motion to dismiss (pap) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
9 NOTICE of related case by plaintiffs (pap) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
10 RESPONSE by defendant to notice of related case [9−1] (pap) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
11 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [5−1] (pap) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
12 REPLY by plaintiffs to response [10−1] to notice of related case (pap) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
13 REPLY Brief by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr in support of motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [5−1] (pap) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
14 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; rule 16 conf held on 7/8/02 ; discovery ddl set 11/14/02 ; settlement conf set for 9:30 9/10/02 ; preliminary pretrial/status conf set for 9:30 9/30/02 ; confidential settlement statements due on or before 9/4/02; estimated 10 day court trial ; entry date : 7/9/02 Court Reporter: CBS Civil Tape 2002−126 (pap) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
15 SCHEDULING ORDER Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer; confidential settlement statements due on or before 9/4/02 (cc: all counsel) (pap) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
16 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer entering Stipulation and Protective Order submitted 7/8/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 7/15/02 (pap) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
17 Stipulation and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer : concerning the treatment of confidential information (cc: all counsel) (pap) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
18 Stipulated (MOTION) by plaintiffs and defendant for extension of time to respond to first set of discovery until on or before 8/12/02 (pap) (Entered: 07/30/2002)
19 MOTION by plaintiffs to modify (amend) scheduling order [15−1] and for status conf (pap) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
20 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to modify (amend) scheduling order [15−1] and for status conf [19−1] (pap) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
21 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer setting hearing on motion to modify (amend) scheduling order [15−1] and for status conf [19−1] 4:00 8/28/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 8/19/02 (pap) (Entered: 08/19/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 4 of 14

08/26/2002 08/27/2002
08/27/2002
09/04/2002 09/04/2002
09/06/2002
09/10/2002 09/11/2002 09/19/2002 09/20/2002 09/27/2002 10/04/2002 10/09/2002 10/16/2002 10/16/2002
10/16/2002 10/17/2002
10/18/2002

22 RESPONSE by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to motion to modify (amend) scheduling order [15−1] and for status conf [19−1] (pap) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
23 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer telephone status conf held 8/27/02 ; Court will review the 22 files in camera; parties shall file a written stipulation outlining the agreement re: the 22 files in question entry date : 8/27/02 Court Reporter: Tape No 2002−155 (pap) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
24 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; granting motion to modify (amend) scheduling order [15−1] and for status conf [19−1] ; discovery ddl reset 11/27/02 ; telephone conf set for 8/29/02 11:30; entry date : 8/30/02 Court Reporter: CBS Civil Tape 2002−157 &158 (pap) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
25 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; telephonic status /mag conference set for 8:30 9/6/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 9/5/02 (pap) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
26 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer regarding [0−1] complaint; the materials submitted for in camera review shall remain under seal pending disposition of this case (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 9/5/02 (pap) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
27 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; telephonic status/discovery conference held 9/6/02 ; preliminary pretrial/status conf vacated and reset for 9:30 10/23/02 ; entry date : 9/9/02 Court Reporter: Tape CBS CV 2002−164 (pap) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
28 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer pretrial conf vacated and reset for 9:30 10/23/02; settlement conf set for 9/10/02 9:30 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 9/11/02 (pap) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
29 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer; parties' updated confidential settlement statements are due on or before 9/20/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 9/11/02 (pap) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
30 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiffs for 45 day enlargement of time for pre−trial deadlines (pap) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
31 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for 45 day enlargement of time for pre−trial deadlines [30−1] (lam) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
32 RESPONSE by defendant City &Cnty of Denver to Pla's Unopposed motion for 45 day enlargement of time for pre−trial deadlines [30−1] (erv) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
33 NOTICE of Change of address of firm of McKenna Long &Aldridge by plaintiffs (gms) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
34 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; settlement conf reset for 3:30 10/17/02 ; confidential settlement statements are due on or before 10/14/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 10/10/02 (pap) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
35 MOTION by defendant for protective order (pap) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
36 ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham granting motion for 45 day enlargement of time for pre−trial deadlines [30−1]; all pre−trial ddls are extended 45 days ; discovery ddl set 1/13/03 ; disp mtn ddl set 1/30/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 10/18/02 (pap) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
37 MOTION by plaintiff for protective order (pap) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
38 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for protective order [37−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for protective order [35−1] (pap) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
39 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer all briefings are STAYED regarding [37−1] motion for protective order, regarding [35−1] motion for protective order (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 10/22/02 (pap) (Entered: 10/22/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 5 of 14

10/21/2002 10/21/2002 11/01/2002 11/01/2002 11/04/2002 11/07/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/13/2002 11/14/2002 11/15/2002 11/15/2002
11/19/2002
11/21/2002 11/21/2002 11/22/2002

40 ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham denying motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [5−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 10/22/02 (pap) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
41 ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham granting motion for 45 day enlargement of time for pre−trial deadlines [30−1] ; disp mtn ddl reset 2/1/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 10/22/02 (pap) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
42 MOTION by plaintiffs for enlargement of time to respond to discovery requests up to and 12/2/02 (pap) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
43 ANSWER by defendant to complaint [0−1]; jury demand (pap) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
44 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for enlargement of time to respond to discovery requests up to and 12/2/02 [42−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
45 RESPONSE by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to plas' motion for enlargement of time to respond to discovery requests up to and 12/2/02 [42−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
46 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; Telephonic Hearing; Discovery Dispute continued until 11/15/02 3:00 entry date : 11/13/02 Court Reporter: Tape CBS CIV 2002−206 (pap) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
47 Amended COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; discovery dispute hrg/mag conference continued until 3:00 11/15/02 ; entry date : 11/14/02 Court Reporter: Tape CBS Civ #2002−206 (pap) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
48 REPLY by plaintiffs to dft's response to motion for enlargement of time to respond to discovery requests up to and 12/2/02 [42−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
49 MOTION by plaintiffs for enlargement of time (45 days) for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings, for designation of plas' expert witnesses, and for other pretrial ddls (pap) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
50 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for enlargement of time (45 days) for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings, for designation of plas' expert witnesses, and for other pretrial ddls [49−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
51 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer denying w/o prejudice motion for enlargement of time to respond to discovery requests up to and 12/2/02 [42−1], granting motion for protective order [35−1], [37−1] motion for protective order is held, dft shall provide answers to non−objectionable interrogatories and requests of production by 11/22/02, any response brief is due on 11/27/02; entry date : 11/19/02 Court Reporter: Tape 02−202B−02−203B (pap) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
52 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting motion for enlargement of time (45 days) for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings, for designation of plas' expert witnesses, and for other pretrial ddls [49−1], granting motion for protective order , dft response is due on or before 11/22/02, pla may reply on or before 11/27/02; as to request not subject to Protective Order pla shall respond on or before 11/22/02 [37−1] denying motion for enlargement of time to respond to discovery requests up to and 12/2/02 [42−1] ; discovery ddl set 3/3/03 ; mag conference held 11/15/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 11/20/02 (pap) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
56 MOTION by Luis Velez, Chief of the Colorado Springs Police Department to quash subpoena duces tecum (pap) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
57 MOTION by Jefferson Cty SO to quash subpoena duces tecum , and for protective order , and for extension of time to complete the review process until 12/13/02 (pap) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
53 RESPONSE by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to plas' motion for protective order [37−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/25/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 6 of 14

11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/22/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/27/2002 11/27/2002 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 12/11/2002 12/13/2002 12/13/2002
12/16/2002

54 MOTION by Aurora, CO, City of to quash subpoena duces tecum (pap) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
55 MOTION by Golden Police Dept to quash subpoena duces tecum (pap) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
58 MOTION by Arvada, City of to quash subpoena to produce issued to the Arvada Police Department and certification of compliance with LR 7.1(A) (pap) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
60 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [54−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
62 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [57−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
59 RESPONSE by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to plas' motion for enlargement of time (45 days) for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings, for designation of plas' expert witnesses, and for other pretrial ddls [49−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
61 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to quash subpoena to produce issued to the Arvada Police Department [58−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [55−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
63 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of their motion for protective order [37−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
64 EXHIBIT E and F by plaintiff American Friends Svc, plaintiff Antonia Anthony, plaintiff End Pol Cruelty, plaintiff Chiapas Coalition, plaintiff Stephen Nash, plaintiff Vicki Nash to motion reply [63−1] (Filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) Modified on 05/27/2003 (Entered: 12/02/2002)
65 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiff for extension of time to file response to motions to quash up to and including 12/16/02 (pap) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
66 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; Motions Hearing, Plas' answer to interrogatories and request for production on or before 12/24/02 entry date : 12/12/02 Court Reporter: CBS Civil Tape 2002−217 &218 (pap) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
67 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for extension of time to file response to motions to quash up to and including 12/16/02 [65−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
68 MOTION by plaintiffs for protective order re: identities of nonparties (pap) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
69 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting motion for extension of time to file response to motions to quash up to and including 12/16/02 [65−1], setting hearing on motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [57−1] 1:30 12/19/02, setting hearing on motion for protective order [57−2] 1:30 12/19/02, setting hearing on motion for extension of time to complete the review process until 12/13/02 [57−3] 1:30 12/19/02, setting hearing on motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [56−1] 1:30 12/19/02, setting hearing on motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [54−1] 1:30 12/19/02, setting hearing on motion to quash subpoena to produce issued to the Arvada Police Department [58−1] 1:30 12/19/02, setting hearing on motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [55−1] 1:30 12/19/02 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/16/02 (pap) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
70 BRIEF by plaintiff in opposition to motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [56−1], motion to quash subpoena to produce issued to the Arvada Police Department [58−1], motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [55−1], motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [54−1], motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [57−1] (Filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 12/17/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 7 of 14

12/16/2002 12/17/2002 12/17/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002
12/23/2002 12/26/2002 12/27/2002 01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/08/2003

71 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for protective order re: identities of nonparties [68−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
72 MOTION by plaintiffs for 60 day enlargement of time for pretrial deadlines (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) Modified on 12/18/2002 (Entered: 12/18/2002)
73 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for 60 day enlargement of time for pretrial deadlines [72−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
74 REPLY brief by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to plas' brief in opposition to motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [56−1], motion to subpoena duces tecum [57−1], motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [54−1], motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [55−1], motion to quash subpoena to produce issued to the Arvada Police Department [58−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
75 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer taking under advisement on the motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [54−1], taking under advisement on the motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [55−1], taking under advisement on the motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [56−1], taking under advisement on the motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [57−1], motion for protective order [57−2] ; motion hearing held at 1:30 12/19/02, motion for extension of time to complete the review process until 12/13/02 [57−3] ; motion hearing held at 1:30 12/19/02, taking under advisement on the motion to quash subpoena to produce issued to the Arvada Police Department [58−1]; non parties shall file reply briefs on or before 1/3/03; plas and dft shall file any responses on or before 1/10/03 ; entry date : 12/26/02 Court Reporter: CBS Civil Tape 2002−221−222−223 (pap) (Entered: 12/26/2002)
77 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing on 12/10/02 before Magistrate Judge Shaffer ( pages: 1−58) Prepared By: Shirley J. Woods (certified copy) (pap) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
76 MOTION by Denver Post Corp The to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" (pap) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
78 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" [76−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
79 ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham regarding [72−1] motion for 60 day enlargement of time for pretrial deadlines ; disp mtn ddl 2/1/03 vacated; joint status report ddl set for 4/30/03 referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer all other aspects of motion for 60 day enlargement of time for pretrial deadlines [72−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 1/6/03 (pap) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
83 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; discovery ddl 3/7/03 vacated; status conf set for 10:30 1/10/03 ; All depositions must be completed by 4/11/03 and all written discovery to be completed by 3/7/03 ; entry date : 1/10/03 Court Reporter: Tape CBS CV 2003−2 &3 (pap) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
80 RESPONSE by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to plas' motion for protective order re: identities of nonparties [68−1] (pap) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
81 EXHIBIT C by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to dft's response to pla's motion for protective order re: identities of Non parties (response [80−1]) (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
82 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; discovery ddl reset 3/7/03 ; status conf set for 11:30 1/10/03 ; responses are due on or before 1/15/03 regarding [76−1] motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 1/9/03 (pap) (Entered: 01/09/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 8 of 14

01/10/2003 01/10/2003
01/13/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003
01/21/2003 01/22/2003 01/23/2003 01/27/2003 01/28/2003 01/28/2003 01/29/2003 01/31/2003 02/03/2003
02/04/2003

84 Unopposed MOTION by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to stay briefing on motion to intervene (pap) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
85 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; status conf held 1/10/03 ; further status conf set for 11:00 1/23/03 , parties' letters on any outstanding dispute are due on or before 1/21/03; granting motion to stay briefing on motion to intervene [84−1], granting motion for protective order re: identities of nonparties [68−1], proposed protected order due on or before 1/15/03; entry date : 1/13/03 Court Reporter: Tape CBS Civ 2003−06 (pap) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
86 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting unopposed motion to stay briefing on motion to intervene [84−1] responses to motion are due on or before 2/14/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 1/15/03 (pap) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
87 NOTICE of filing of Stipulation and Protective Order regarding Identities of Certain Nonparties by plaintiffs (pap) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
88 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer regarding [85−2] minutes granting motion for protective order re: identities of nonparties [68−1], denying as moot motion for 60 day enlargement of time for pretrial deadlines [72−1] Further status conf set 1/23/03 11:00 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 1/16/03 (pap) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
89 First Sealed MOTION by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr for order to confirm confidential designation (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) Modified on 01/22/2003 (Entered: 01/22/2003)
90 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for order to confirm confidential designation [89−1] (pap) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
91 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; status conf held 1/23/03 ; status conf set for 12:30 2/3/03 ; dft shall respond to plas' written requests or provide a privilege log on or before 1/29/03; entry date : 1/24/03 Court Reporter: Tape CBS Civ #2003−11 &12 (pap) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
92 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer; granting parties request for next status conf ; status conf set for 12:30 2/3/03 ; dft shall respond to pla's written requests or provide a privilege log on or before 1/29/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 1/28/03 (pap) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
93 Second Sealed MOTION by defendant (for order) to confirm confidential designations (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) Modified on 01/29/2003 (Entered: 01/29/2003)
95 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion (for order) to confirm confidential designations [93−1] (pap) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
94 Second Supplemental Privilege Log (STATEMENT) by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr re: minute order [92−2] (pap) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
96 NOTICE of Change of address of Charles H. Richardson and Teresa L. Kinney counsel for the defendant (pap) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
103 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer Status conf held 2/3/03; further status conf set 2/18/03 ; granting pla's oral motion to designate 4th expert witness ; Denying plas' motion to extend time; parties stip and protective order regarding on witness 3rd parties due on or before 2/7/03; entry date : 2/10/03 Court Reporter: Tape CBS CIV 2003−18−19−20 (pap) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
97 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; status conf held 2/3/03 ; status conf set for 1:00 2/18/03 Fourth expert witness disclosure is due on or before 2/28/03; dft shall respond to outstanding discovery on or before 2/7/03; all remaining disputes as to written discovery is due on or before 2/13/03; anticipated despositions identified by 3/7/03; Stipulation and protective order re: non witness third parties due on or before 2/7/03; (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/6/03 (pap) (Entered: 02/06/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 9 of 14

02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/10/2003 02/11/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 02/14/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003
02/19/2003
02/20/2003 02/21/2003 02/21/2003

98 Stipulation (MOTION) by plaintiffs and defendant for protective order preserving as confidential the identities of certain nonparties (pap) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
99 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for protective order preserving as confidential the identities of certain nonparties [98−1] (pap) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
100 Sealed MOTION by defendant for protective order (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
101 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting motion for protective order preserving as confidential the identities of certain nonparties [98−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/10/03 (pap) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
102 STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER perserving as confidential the identities of certain nonparties by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer : regarding [101−1] order (cc: all counsel) (pap) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
104 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiffs for two−day enlargement of time for response to first sealed motion (current ddl is 2/10/02) (pap) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
105 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for two−day enlargement of time for response to first sealed motion (current ddl is 2/10/02) [104−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for protective order [100−1] (pap) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
106 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to first motion for order to confirm confidential designation [89−1] and second motion (for order) to confirm confidential designations [93−1] (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) Modified on 02/13/2003 (Entered: 02/13/2003)
107 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting motion for two−day enlargement of time for response to first sealed motion (current ddl is 2/10/02) [104−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/13/03 (pap) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
108 Stipulated MOTION by defendant to stay briefing on motion to intervene for a period of 30 days, on or before 3/17/03 (pap) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
109 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to stay briefing on motion to intervene for a period of 30 days, on or before 3/17/03 [108−1] (pap) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
110 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ; status/discovery conf held 2/18/03 ; Dfts response to Interrogatory is due on or before 2/20/03; dft's response to interrogatory 2 is due on or before 2/24/03; Re: Request #1, pla may file a motion to compel on or before 3/6/03; parties shall submit updated settlement conf memos on or before 2/26/03; setting hearing on motion for protective order [57−2] 4:00 3/5/03, setting hearing on motion for protective order [100−1] 4:00 3/5/03 ; entry date : 2/19/03 Court Reporter: Tape CBS CV 2003−26/27 (pap) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
111 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer regarding [110−2] minutes; dfts shall supplement their responses to Interrogatory #12 on or before 2/24/03; parties shall submit updated confiedential settlement memos on or before 2/26/03; set hearing on pending protective order motions for 3/5/03 4:00; Plas shall file any motion to compel on or before 3/6/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/20/03 (pap) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
112 MOTION by plaintiffs for order to designate materials as confidential under protective order (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
113 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for order to designate materials as confidential under protective order [112−1] (pap) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
114 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting motion to stay briefing on motion to intervene for a period of 30 days, on or before 3/17/03

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 10 of 14

02/26/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 03/03/2003 03/04/2003 03/05/2003
03/21/2003 03/24/2003 03/25/2003 03/28/2003 04/03/2003 04/10/2003 04/11/2003 04/21/2003

[108−1]; responses are due on or before 3/21/03 regarding [76−1] motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/24/03 (pap) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
115 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiffs for enlargement of time for submission of plas' supplemental settlement statement up to and including 3/5/03 (pap) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
116 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dft's sealed motion for protective order [100−1] (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
117 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for enlargement of time for submission of plas' supplemental settlement statement up to and including 3/5/03 [115−1] (pap) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
118 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting motion for enlargement of time for submission of plas' supplemental settlement statement up to and including 3/5/03 [115−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 3/4/03 (pap) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
119 REPLY brief by defendant re: Sealed motion (for order) to confirm confidential designations [93−1] (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
120 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting in part and denying in part motion for protective order [100−1], granting motion for order to designate materials as confidential under protective order [112−1], granting in part and denying in part motion (for order) to confirm confidential designations [93−1], granting in part and denying in part motion for order to confirm confidential designation [89−1] ; settlement conf set for 1:30 3/10/03 ; entry date : 3/14/03 Court Reporter: CBS Civil Tape 2003−35 and 36 (pap) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
121 Unopposed MOTION by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to extend deadline to respond to motion to intervene an additional 7 days (pap) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
122 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to extend deadline to respond to motion to intervene an additional 7 days [121−1] (pap) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
123 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting motion to extend deadline to respond to motion to intervene an additional 7 days [121−1]; dft has until 3/28/03 to respond (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 3/26/03 (pap) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
124 Unopposed MOTION by defendant to extend deadline to respond to motion to intervene for 7 days (pap) Modified on 04/02/2003 (Entered: 03/31/2003)
125 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting dft's motion to extend deadline to respond to motion to intervene for 7 days [124−1]; dft shall have up and through 4/10/03 to respond (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/4/03 (pap) (Entered: 04/04/2003)
126 RESPONSE by defendant City &Cnty of Denvr to Denver Post Corp's motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" [76−1] (pap) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
127 MEMORANDUM by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer telephone settlement conf held 4/11/03 ; no settlement was reached (pap) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
128 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer denying as moot Aurora's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [54−1], Golden's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [55−1], Velez's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [56−1], Jefferson's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum [57−1] &Arvada's motion to quash subpoena to produce issued to the Arvada Police Department

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 11 of 14

04/21/2003 04/21/2003 04/22/2003
04/22/2003 04/23/2003 04/24/2003 04/25/2003
05/05/2003 05/07/2003
05/13/2003 05/13/2003 05/21/2003 05/22/2003
05/23/2003 05/30/2003

[58−1], setting hearing on Denver Post Corp's motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" [76−1] 3:30 5/1/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/22/03 (gms) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
129 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. Parties to file appropriate motions so case can be placed on administrative closure by 5/30/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/22/03 (gms) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
130 Unopposed MOTION by Denver Post Corp for extension of time to reply re: motion to intervene to 5/13/03 (gms) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
131 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting Denver Post's motion for extension of time to reply re: motion to intervene to 5/13/03 [130−1], resetting hearing on motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" [76−1] 8:30 5/30/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/23/03 (gms) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
132 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for extension of time to reply re: motion to intervene to 5/13/03 [130−1] (bpm) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
133 Unoppposed MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to submit reply to reponse to Denver Post's mtn to intervene to 5/13/03 (lam) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
134 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to extend to submit reply to reponse to Denver Post's mtn to intervene to 5/13/03 [133−1] (lam) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
135 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting pla's unopposed motion to extend time to submit reply to reponse to Denver Post's mtn to intervene to 5/13/03 [133−1], regarding [76−1] motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information." Hrg set on motion to intervene 5/30/03 at 8:30 (cc: all counsel) entry date : 4/28/03 (gms) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
136 Joint MOTION by plaintiffs, defendant for approval of settlement &for administrative closure of case (gms) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
137 ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham granting joint motion for approval of settlement &for administrative closure of case [136−1] administratively closing case ; if after 12 months closure with no motion to reopen case shall be dismiss with prejudice; attached as exhibit A is Settlement agreement and release (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 5/8/03 (pap) Modified on 05/08/2003 (Entered: 05/08/2003)
138 REPLY by Denver Post Corp in support of its motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" [76−1] (pap) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
139 REPLY by plaintiffs to dft's motion response [126−1] to Denver Post's motion to intervene (pap) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
140 Stipulation (MOTION) by plaintiffs and defendant for determination of reasonableness of pla's attorney fees and costs (pap) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
141 ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham regarding [140−1] Stipulation (motion) for determination of reasonableness of pla's attorney fees and costs, ordered re: Agreement Court shall determin pla's attorneys' fees and costs; further ordered plas shall promptly submit their request for attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days; response due within 15 days (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 5/23/03 (pap) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
142 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing on 3/5/03 before Magistrate Judge Shaffer ( pages: 1 − 74) Prepared By: Avery/Woods Reporting Service, Inc (certified copy) (pap) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
143 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting Denver Post Corporation's motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" [76−1];

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 12 of 14

06/03/2003
06/04/2003 06/17/2003 06/27/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/08/2003 08/14/2003 09/26/2003
09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003

Joint Protective Order due on or before 6/13/03; dft shall submit Proposed Redactions and arguments on or before 6/27/03, pla and intervenor shall respond on or before 7/7/03; Oral arguments on Proposed Readactions is set for 8/14/03 1:30 ; entry date : 6/3/03 Court Reporter: Tape CBS CV 2003−89 and 91 (pap) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
144 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer regarding [143−1] minutes; proposed protective order due on or before 6/13/03; dfts' proposed redactions due on or before 6/27/03 and plas' and Denver Post's responses due on or before 7/7/03; Hearing on redactions set for 8/14/03 1:30 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/5/03 (pap) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
145 NOTICE of Change of address of Faegre &Benson LLP attorneys for intervenor Denver Post Corp The (pap) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
146 Stipulation and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer re: Denver Post's limited intervention (cc: all counsel) (pap) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
147 Proposed Readactions (RESPONSE) by defendant to sealed documents re:order [146−1] (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
148 RESPONSE by plaintiff to dft's proposed redactions to sealed documents (response) [147−1] (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
149 RESPONSE by Denver Post, The to the parties' submission of proposed redactions (response) [147−1] (pap) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
150 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring [148−1] response to Magistrate Judge Shaffer (pap) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
151 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer Dft's proposed redactions [147−1] is taken under advisement. Dft's counsel to submit proposed order by 8/21/03; entry date : 8/15/03 Court Reporter: Tape CBS CV 2003−149 (gms) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
152 Stipulated ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer unsealing portions of the record regarding [64−1] exhibits, regarding [70−1] opposition brief, regarding [72−1] motion for 60 day enlargement of time for pretrial deadlines, regarding [89−1] motion for order to confirm confidential designation, regarding [93−1] motion (for order) to confirm confidential designations, regarding [100−1] motion for protective order, regarding [106−1] motion response, regarding [112−1] motion for order to designate materials as confidential under protective order, regarding [116−1] motion response, regarding [119−1] motion reply, regarding [147−1] response, regarding [148−1] response; attached are the unsealed redacted portions of the above listed pleadings; (Oversize documents stored with exhibits) (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 9/29/03 (pap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
153 MOTION by plaintiffs for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft (pap) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
154 DECLARATION of Mark Silverstein by plaintiffs re: motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1] (pap) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
155 DECLARATION of Michael G. Martin by plaintiffs re: motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1] (pap) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
156 DECLARATION of Lino S. Lipinsky De Orlov by plaintiffs re: motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1] (pap) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
157 DECLARATION of Deborah Van Den Honert by plaintiffs re: motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1] (pap) (Entered: 09/30/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 13 of 14

10/29/2003 11/04/2003
11/05/2003 11/18/2003 12/01/2003 12/02/2003 12/02/2003 12/03/2003 12/17/2003 12/19/2003 01/16/2004 01/20/2004 02/18/2004
02/19/2004

158 Unopposed MOTION by defendant Denver, Cty &Cty of to extend deadline to respond to motion for determination of attorneys' fees and costs through 12/1/03 (pap) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
159 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1], referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion to extend deadline to respond to motion for determination of attorneys' fees and costs through 12/1/03 [158−1] (pap) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
160 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting dft's unopposed motion to extend deadline to respond to motion for determination of attorneys' fees and costs through 12/1/03 [158−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 11/7/03 (pap) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
161 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer setting a further hearing on Proposed Redactions (response) [147−1] 9:30 12/29/03 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 11/19/03 (pap) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
162 RESPONSE by defendant Denver, Cty &Cty of to plas' motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
163 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiffs for enlargement of time in which to file reply in support of motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees up to and including 1/20/04 (pap) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
164 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for enlargement of time in which to file reply in support of motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees up to and including 1/20/04 [163−1] (pap) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
165 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting plas' unopposed motion for enlargement of time in which to file reply in support of motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees up to and including 1/20/04 [163−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/5/03 (pap) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
166 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer vacating and resetting hearing on response [147−1] 3:30 1/15/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/18/03 (pap) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
167 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer at the parties' request vacating and resetting hearing on (Proposed Redactions) response [147−1] 2:30 1/16/04 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/22/03 (pap) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
169 COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer response [147−1] ; motion hearing held at 2:30 1/16/04 ; Order to issue; entry date : 1/21/04 Court Reporter: FTR Reporter Deck Courtroom 3 (pap) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
168 REPLY by plaintiffs in support of motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1] (pap) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
170 Memorandum and ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer re: plaintiff−intervenor Denver Post's motion challenging the designation of certain materials as "confidential information"; portions of the following documents, as specified in this order, are unsealed regarding [89−1] motion for order to confirm confidential designation, regarding [93−1] motion (for order) to confirm confidential designations, regarding [100−1] motion for protective order, regarding [106−1] motion response, regarding [112−1] motion for order to designate materials as confidential under protective order (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/19/04 (pap) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
171 Corrected Memorandum and ORDER by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer regarding [76−1] motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging dft's designation of certain discovery materials as "Confidential Information" regarding [170−1] order; Ordered plas and dft shall jointly submit three sets of documents entitled "Submission of previously sealed documets in accordance with Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Order of February 19, 2004";(cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/20/04

Case: 1:02-cv-00740-EWN-CBS As of: 07/09/2012 11:47 AM MDT 14 of 14

06/15/2004
06/28/2004 06/28/2004 06/29/2004 07/07/2004 08/05/2004
10/26/2004 10/26/2004 11/05/2004

(pap) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
172 Submission of previously sealed documents in accordance wiht Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Order of 2/18/04 (STATEMENT) by plaintiff and defendants re: exhibits [64−1], re: opposition brief [70−1], re: motion for 60 day enlargement of time for pretrial deadlines [72−1], re: motion for order to confirm confidential designation [89−1], re: motion (for order) to confirm confidential designations [93−1], re: motion for protective order [100−1], re: motion response [106−1], re: motion for order to designate materials as confidential under protective order [112−1], re: motion response [116−1], re: motion reply [119−1], re: response [147−1], re: response [148−1] (very large document, stored in exhibit area) (pap) Modified on 06/16/2004 (Entered: 06/16/2004)
173 Joint MOTION by plaintiffs and defendant for disposition of documents (for order allowing the purged criminal intelligence files to be transferred to the custody of the Denver Public Library) (pap) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
174 MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer the motion for disposition of documents (for order allowing the purged criminal intelligence files to be transferred to the custody of the Denver Public Library) [173−1] (pap) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
175 MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granting parties' joint motion for disposition of documents (for order allowing the purged criminal intelligence files to be transferred to the custody of the Denver Public Library) [173−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/30/04 (pap) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
176 MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION that plas' motion for determination of attorneys' fees and costs [153−1] be granted in part and denied in part by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer concerning motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1] ; (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 7/8/04 (pap) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
177 ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham accepting [176−1] Magistrate's Recommendation; granting in part plas' motion for determination of amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded against dft [153−1], plas are awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of $469,018.83; regarding [137−2] order dismissing case with prejudice (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 8/5/04 (pap) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
178 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiffs to file list of individuals under seal (pap) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
179 List of Individuals (STATEMENT) by plaintiffs (filed under seal and stored with sealed documents) (pap) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
180 ORDER granting 178 plas' unopposed Motion to file list of individuals under seal. Signed by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 11/5/04. (pap, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)


[CONTENT] March 28, 2002 | the American Friends Service Committee | ACLU | 42 | 1983 | the United States Court | Colorado | Denver Division | Denver ||| ACLU | First | Fourteenth Amendment ||| Spy Files | Colorado ||| March 11, 2002 | ACLU | Spy Files | Denver ||| ACLU | Denver | four | the Spy Files |||  ||| 28 | C.F.R | 23.20 | 1 | 2 ||| Colorado ||| the American Friends Service Committee | the Nobel Peace Prize | 1947 |||  |||  ||| the United State District Court | April 16, 2002 ||| Court | Magistrate | Craig Shaffer | October 17, 2002 ||| April 17, 2003 ||| the City of Denver | Clearinghouse | Appendix to Settlement Agreement |||  |||  ||| two-year ||| August 05, 2004 | Court | Edward Nottingham | 469,018.63 |||  [SUMMARY] On March 28, 2002, the plaintiffs, the American Friends Service Committee, along with the ACLU and other activist organizations, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under federal regulations in the United States Court for the District of Colorado, Denver Division against the City and County of Denver. The plaintiff, represented by the ACLU and private counsel, asked the court for injunctive  and declaratory relief, claiming that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated, as well as violations of federal regulations and the state constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the maintenance of "Spy Files" on leftist groups in Colorado for lawful, peaceful, non-criminal activities and falsely labeling the groups "criminal extremist" was a violation of the constitutional rights of its members to petition the government for redress of grievances, the freedom of association, and a misappropriation of federal funds in electronically storing this information. 

On March 11, 2002, the ACLU published the partial contents of leaked "Spy Files" that the Denver police had been maintaining on several organizations and individuals. The ACLU petitioned the Mayor of Denver to investigate take four specific actions to stem the dissemination and expunge the Spy Files.  The Mayor held a news conference in which he claimed that the Spy Files resulted from an overly broad interpretation of the City's policy on the maintenance of criminal intelligence.

The city's policy mirrored a federal regulation (28 C.F.R § 23.20) that prohibited the police from maintaining criminal intelligence electronic records that would violate citizens' constitutional rights, absent (1) a direct relationship to criminal conduct, and (2) a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity.  

The disclosed records detailed the protest activities of individuals not only in Colorado, but lists of protest and political beliefs of persons from outside the state. The Spy Files also labeled several organizations as criminal extremists (notably including the American Friends Service Committee, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947).  The plaintiffs alleged that this information was false, that the organizations were not criminally extremist, and that there were statements of the political beliefs of the members that the City had misconstrued were defamatory. Most importantly, the plaintiffs claimed that criminal intelligence files were being maintained on them for lawful activity that was not connected to criminal conduct.

Defendantes moved and were permitted to remove the case to the United State District Court for the District of Coloradoon April 16, 2002. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which was denied by the Court (Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer) on October 17, 2002.

On April 17, 2003, the case was settled without class certification being determined. In the settlement agreement, the City of Denver agreed to adopt a more specific and detailed policy (included in the Clearinghouse collection as Appendix to Settlement Agreement), and to review and purge all criminal intelligence files in violation of the new policy. The city also agreed to furnish copies to all individuals and organizations on which the city maintained criminal intelligence files. Lastly, the city agreed to contact entities to which it had distributed copies of the criminal intelligence files and notify them of the purge. Compliance of the agreement was subject to an audit for a two-year period.  

On August 05, 2004, the Court (Judge Edward Nottingham) ordered that the City pay the plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of $469,018.63. The case was dismissed with prejudice thereafter.
