Zobel and O’Connor Law Win Under the Law Enforcement Integrity Act

Press releases are provided to Yellow Scene Magazine. In an effort to keep our community informed, we publish some press releases in whole.

May 11, 2026

PRESS RELEASE: ZOBEL LAW AND DARREN O’CONNOR LAW WIN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AGAINST DENVER FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE BODY WORN CAMERA VIDEO OF VICTIM OF POLICE VIOLENCE WITHIN 21 DAYS.

Zobel Law and Darren O’Connor Law, on behalf of their client, sought a declaratory judgment from the District Court in Denver after Denver failed to provide body camera videos. Our client had sent a complaint and request for body camera videos via letter to Denver’s Chief of Police.

After several days beyond the 21-day deadline to produce the videos, Denver had still not done so. When Attorney O’Connor was able to find the appropriate contact at Denver that handles these records, he was told it would be another 21 days, even though more than 21 days had passed since Denver had received the letter, and even though such a delay violated the Law Enforcement Integrity Act. When Denver refused to budge, our client filed a lawsuit.

Denver filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, citing no cause of action under the Act. Further, Denver sought attorney fees for an alleged frivolous lawsuit.

In Response, our client argued that the Act has an implied cause of action, lest cities like Denver simply continue flouting the law.

The Court agreed with [Plaintiff], writing:

Denver does not contest [Plaintiff] is a member of the class of persons intended to benefit from C.R.S. § 24-31-902(2)(a) but contests legislative intent to create a private cause of action and whether an implied cause of action would be consistent with the purpose of the legislative scheme. C.R.S. § 24-31-902(2)(a) is not permissive but requires agencies to release footage within twenty-one days of a complaint. The Law Enforcement Integrity Act attempts to increase law enforcement integrity by increasing law enforcement transparency. It is contrary to legislative intent to deny an implicit cause of action based on C.R.S. § 24-31-902(2)(a) when C.R.S. § 24-31-902(2)(a) creates a requirement increasing law enforcement transparency and the cause of action only seeks compliance with existing statutory provisions. Furthermore, a civil remedy requiring compliance with the Law Enforcement Integrity Act is consistent with the purpose of the Act. The Court will not presume the Legislature intended to make an unenforceable statute when it wrote the Law Enforcement Integrity Act, and denying a cause of action seeking compliance with the law would make this provision essentially unenforceable.

(Emphasis added).

We and our client took a risk in order to advance the rights of all Coloradans to get access to body-worn camera videos within 21 days when the rights of such complainants are alleged to have been violated under the Law Enforcement Integrity Act. Our client, who was subjected to brutal, unlawful excessive force by law enforcement, and we are all pleased the Denver District Court agreed such that in the future, Denver is now on notice that it must comply with the Act or face potential litigation. Too often people are told to just comply with the law, but at Zobel Law and Darren O’Connor Law, we hold that this applies to the government as well.

###