78-Year-Old Grandmother Awarded $3.8 Million After Illegal SWAT Raid
The legal victory has been attributed to a 2020 law banning qualified immunity for police in Colorado.

A 78-year-old woman whose home was mistakenly raided by a Denver SWAT team will now receive a nearly $3.8 million payout. The large sum comes as a result of a 2020 Colorado law that banned qualified immunity protections for police officers in the state, making civil rights lawsuits against police significantly more likely to succeed.
On January 4th, 2022, Ruby Johnson, a retired postal worker, was sitting in her Denver home when she heard a police airhorn loudly commanding that she leave her home with her hands up. Johnson, who had recently showered and was only wearing a bathrobe, left her house to find a Denver SWAT team gathered outside her door.
The SWAT team had been sent to Johnson's home as part of an effort to recover a vehicle that had been stolen the previous day. According to Johnson's lawsuit, the stolen car had an iPhone inside, and the Find My app feature indicated that the phone was near Johnson's house.
While the police officers had obtained a warrant to search Johnson's home, they did so using an affidavit that allegedly provided "false characterization" of how reliable the Find My app is, overstating how sure the police could be that the iPhone—and the truck—would be at Johnson's house.
According to Johnson's lawsuit, after receiving this warrant, the SWAT team aggressively searched her home, causing considerable damage to her belongings. Making matters worse, even though Johnson gave police her garage door opener and told them how to enter the garage's front door, police used a battering ram to enter the garage, destroying the door and door frame. Ultimately, the SWAT team found no sign of the truck or any other criminal activity. The officers left and later told Johnson's children that the department wouldn't pay Johnson for the considerable damage caused to her home.
Johnson filed a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado in December 2022, alleging that the search was unlawful under the Colorado Constitution.
"Officers combed through Ms. Johnson's home for hours and found no evidence of anything even remotely connected to any criminal activity. The illegal search succeeded only in leaving the innocent Ms. Johnson traumatized," the complaint states. "Ms. Johnson's privacy, sense of safety, and peace in her home have been shattered since her house became the scene of a militarized criminal investigation. This illegal search has destroyed Ms. Johnson's sense of safety and security in the home that has been her castle for forty years."
On Monday, the ACLU of Colorado announced that Johnson had been awarded $3.76 million, including $1.26 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages. In a press release, the ACLU largely credited the passage of a 2020 law that revoked police qualified immunity protections—which typically prevent law enforcement from being sued for Constitutional violations—for the victory.
"This is a small step toward justice for Ms. Johnson, but it is a critical case under our state's Constitution, for the first time affirming that police can be held accountable for invading someone's home without probable cause," Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado Legal Director said on Monday. "The ACLU worked hard in the summer of 2020, with lots of other stakeholders, to create a right to sue for violations of the state Constitution."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Defendant: GARY STAAB, an officer of the Denver Police Department, in his individual capacity.
So is Gary Staab on the hook for the 3.5 million?
No
Bad faith in this case doesn't usually mean "incompetent" or "careless" - it usually means they knew they were abusing their authority when they acted as they did. Not very likely.
I get this impression that police officers who don't do at least ten thousand dollars worth of damage while executing a search warrant are viewed as pussies.
How is it not an abuse of authority to look through the garage door's window and seeing an old lady's sedan, proceed to bust down the door looking for the truck in the warrant?
Good they are civilly liable. But do we really need to celebrate liability becoming lottery winnings? The amount is pretty damn insane.
Was she really damaged over 1M dollars??
Well, she only gets one bite at the apple, better to err on her side than the other way around. What does therapy cost anyway?
For a 78 year old?
So a Colorado judge signed off on a warrant to search a HOUSE for a stolen CAR?
Not a warrant to search just the garage, but the whole damn HOUSE!.
Just for the record: "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Well, there was an iPhone inside the car, and perhaps that iPhone had been moved to inside the house, and the car sold.
Perhaps.
Yeah, smashing the door off its frame with a SWAT team, looking for an iphone, is really a good use of resources.
What isn't apparent here is why a SWAT team was needed at all. That shit is supposed to be for standoffs with armed suspects endangering others, not to ask gramma if they could take a quick peek in her garage.
"for the first time affirming that police can be held accountable for invading someone's home without probable cause"
It did no such thing. None of those police were held personally accountable. The taxpayers were held personally accountable for every one of those $3.8 million. If you asked the taxpayers if they think police should have invaded this person's home, almost all of them would have said, "No!" Yet the government did it anyway. How is that representative government?
Hahaha, suck on it Denver taxpayers.
Also: This is a small step toward justice for Ms. Johnson
"If you give a mouse a cookie..."
"... he won't steal your toy motorcycle."
So how many SWAT team members is the 3.8 million fine divided between? Are they starting Go Fund Yourself pages?
Or are the local taxpayers good for it?
We already know the answer to this question.
That said, it'd be great of officers had to carry some sort of insurance. Indemnification insurance for just such breeches of their duty. Then, remove their qualified immunity and if they were found liable for 3 or 4 mil they'd suddenly be unhireable as no other police department would be willing to pay the now-massive premiums on their insurance.
Just the first thought that comes to mind. Insurance actuaries being really damned good at judging risk based on data and charging premiums accordingly.
The SWAT team isn't the one who asked for them to be used. Put the liability on whoever decided to request their use and I'm down for this.
If it's anything like our area, I'm willing to bet that the SWAT Team was used to give them something to do. The number of incidents that need a SWAT Team in are area is so small that it doesn't justify the existence of a SWAT Team, so they are used for other incidents.
Then the SWAT team gets used to pushing old ladies and people with too many parking tickets around, and is no longer trained to handle tough cases.
Polis is so dreamy, maybe he’ll see the cops get charged.
Isn't the mention of qualified immunity misleading? It's not the cops who did the raid who are being sued, it's the city and their police department.
Qualified immunity means cops who perform the misdeeds can't be sued personally. But they weren't.
They were sued individually. They're indemnified by the city. Under idiotic SCOTUS precedent, 1983 suits have to be against specific, named individuals.
"$1.26 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages.”
Was the garage door made out of solid gold leaf and jeweled trimmings to be worth $1.26 million in actual compensation?
Regardless, I just don’t see how this is a win. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The police acted wrongly, but they aren’t on the hook. That $3.8 million will either be taken from schools, homeless shelters, libraries, etc, or the public will pay with another tax increase. Even if the city takes it on as debt, it will have to be paid in the future, with one of those two methods.
The only way to get states and local governments serious about curbing government thugs is to make it very expensive.
Very expensive - for whom? It's not the "government thugs" paying these costs, it's the taxpayers.