Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car
The cops tried to cover up their mistake after they "terrorized" the family, according to a lawsuit.

A Denver SWAT team burst into the wrong family's apartment, holding several women and children at gunpoint before locking them in a police car for hours. Despite multiple signs that the cops had raided the wrong apartment, they still searched it, forced out its terrified occupants, and—according to a lawsuit filed this week—attempted to cover up their misconduct.
On June 6, 2023, a Denver SWAT team was set to arrest a man named Danny Garcia on "very serious alleged violent crimes," according to the lawsuit. In the documents listed in the complaint, the officers repeatedly documented that Garcia lived in unit 307 of his apartment building. However, despite this fact—and the apartment numbers prominently displayed by each apartment door—the officers rammed the door to apartment 306, shouting "that they knew Danny Garcia was in their apartment and to come out with their hands up," according to the complaint.
Inside, the SWAT team found Sharon Shelton-Knight, her two adult daughters Kristy and Brittany, and Kristy's two young daughters. Body camera footage referenced in the suit shows the officers pointing their guns at the women, one of whom had just gotten out of the shower when police burst in.
After forcing Sharon and Kristy out of the apartment with guns drawn, the officers entered the apartment, and found the two children hiding in their bedroom.
"After refusing to bring the children's mother or grandmother to comfort and reassure them, and after stolidly refusing to even consider what they were repeatedly told about being in the wrong apartment, the officers swept the apartment to the room with the children in the back, with assault rifles out and brandished at the least in low ready positions," the suit states. "They found the children cowering in their bedroom, extremely frightened by this SWAT team who had just rammed their door very loudly while screaming. The children immediately began loud and prolonged screaming."
After forcing Brittany and her two children out of the apartment, an officer locked the family in the back of an unmanned vehicle for several hours. Making matters worse, the suit claims that the officers soon attempted to cover up their mistake. In a report on the incident, one of the officers wrote that "due to the layout of the 3rd floor, occupants in #306 were contacted, advised of the situation, and evacuated for their safety." Another officer wrote that "an elderly female exited 306 and was advised of the situation. We then evacuated her and two adult females and two young children from their apartment due to the suspects apartment directly across the hallway."
The family's suit claims that the officers' actions violated protections against unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force in the Colorado Constitution, arguing that the officers "unconstitutionally and intentionally assaulted Plaintiffs by threatening them with excessive force when they were suspected of no crimes, engaged in no resistance or attempt to flee, were not armed or suspected of being armed, and in fact were defenseless."
While police would typically be protected by qualified immunity in cases like this, Colorado abolished qualified immunity for law enforcement who violate individuals' rights under state law in 2020. That means this lawsuit is much more likely to succeed—and the cops who terrorized this family are much more likely to be held accountable.
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
Like New York and California, Colorado is a very good place not to be.
Sad but true. And almost entirely due to the influx of drug fans who fled their blue shitholes and brought their politics here with them.
Oh yeah? Well what about Babbitt? You didn't complain when she was murdered in cold blood. That makes any complaints you make about law enforcement hypocritical and wrong.
Gone full schizo have you?
Sounds in character for Denver cops.
ALL big blue city cops and most other city cops. So much for the "thin blue line."
Denver cops have a long history of corruption and incompetence. Dating back to before they were KKK infested from the 1920s to the 1950s. Interspersed with violence and brutality. Which would date back to the Wild West days - but more common recently. And pretty much never held accountable. So add arrogant and entitled to the list of redeeming qualities.
So you had Denver cops in your KKK cell? Not surprising.
"" the officers repeatedly documented that Garcia lived in unit 307 of his apartment building.... the officers rammed the door to apartment 306, shouting "that they knew Danny Garcia was in their apartment and to come out with their hands up," according to the complaint. ""
Meanwhile next door, Danny Garcia slips out the back.
Meanwhile next door, Danny Garcia slips out the back.
These cops were so stupid, Danny could have walked out from his front door without them even questioning him.
Wait... *I* didn't 307! Did *you* check 307?
Without commenting on this most recent 'way too common example, I did take note of the date of the incident - June 6th, 2023 - "632 days or 1 year, 8 months, 21 days or 20 months, 21 days" for the wheels of justice to start turning. The most egregious example of "justice delayed is justice denied" would be the murder of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas by Police Officer Gerald Goines on January 28th, 2019 who was recently found guilty - 2222 days from the start date to the end date, or 6 years, 30 days or 72 months, 30 days.
AT will be along shortly to remind us that law enforcement would be impossible if cops were not allowed to terrorize innocent people by making idiotic mistakes and trying to cover them up.
And this is why in my judgment about how you right-wingers would have fared in Nazi Germany, I think you'd have been sent to the Eastern Front for not obeying orders, while AT is drinking schnapps in a warm office in Buchenwald.
AT will also be sad that the terror victims did not have a dog the cops could shoot.
AT is a big supporter of law enforcement.
Even he may find it hard to justify this one
The house numbers clearly show it’s the wrong apartment
Every second the police have to spend checking to make sure they're kicking in the doors of the right place is another second some bad guy can use to get away. This is why cops should have nukes; if you target the house next door, the house you want to destroy will still be eliminated.
Even he may find it hard to justify this one
Might have to see the woman who just got out of the shower first.
"and the cops who terrorized this family are much more likely to be held accountable."
One word: Indemnification
It is exceedingly unlikely that the officers involved will experience any personal accountability as a result of the lawsuit, but at least their victims will be compensated.
Paying them some egregious sum funded by the taxpayer is hardly what I would call "compensated." I would prefer it came directly from the seized pensions of these cops after their termination, but I don't think that should be unique to cops. Similar lawsuits against schools should be shouldered by the teachers' unions, and ditto every other governmental department. Perhaps then they would all be vigilant about hiring and retaining the dregs of society in their services.
Calling it "some egregious sum" when they don't have a judgement and we don't know how much they are asking for much less how much they will be awarded is wrong.
"I would prefer it came directly from the seized pensions of these cops after their termination, but I don't think that should be unique to cops."
I agree with this, but unfortunately nearly every police union contract requires indemnification.
Individuals should be individually responsible and accountable for their actions. And that responsibility and accountability belongs to the people they've harmed, not to some government slush fund.
More states should abolish QI.
Well, has there ever before been a case where cops busted down door 306 instead of door 307 and a judge said that was a bad thing?
No?
QI for all.
Well, there was a case where they SWATted 408 not 409 but that's a different floor, so it's not the same thing.
Somewhere between Denver and Uvalde PD is the just right technique.
"Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car."
The welfare of humanity has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus.
“ In a report on the incident, one of the officers wrote that "due to the layout of the 3rd floor, occupants in #306 were contacted, advised of the situation, and evacuated for their safety." Another officer wrote that "an elderly female exited 306 and was advised of the situation. We then evacuated her and two adult females and two young children from their apartment due to the suspects apartment directly across the hallway."”
Is this not perjury? Or some equivalent charge
It's falsifying official documents. I don't know how that compares to perjury under CO law, but I do know that it is highly likely that if the falsehood had not been exposed and the cops were called upon to testify in court, they would have perjured themselves rather than expose their earlier lies. Their careers in law enforcement should be finished, because neither their reports nor their testimony should ever be accepted as evidence in court.
They just wanted to slap (the cuffs on) the naked chick.
according to a lawsuit
EMMA CAMP MEME *drink*
And again, with a complaint that's more for the media than it is for the courts. (Where's my sad violin music, I just had it for the last Emma article on this subject...)
Anyway.
OK, so this one has some facially questionable aspects.
In his report, however, Defendant Smith falsely claimed that the complained of events with Plaintiffs were just part of some pre-determined tactical plan to simply help them.
What. ????
Seriously?
I would love to see that report, but taking this at face value - if that's written down somewhere, this is very bad for Det. Smith. If anything, they'd be doing everything in their power to KEEP the plaintiffs in their apartment while they take down #307. You don't evac them unless you're afraid it's like a bomb or a meth lab type of situation. And even then if possible, if you're tactically breaching, you'd prior evac them VERY QUIETLY. Now one might argue that might tip off the suspect - but if that's their concern, breaching #306 likely did a lot MORE to tip him off, right?
I mean, come on.
Plaintiffs were not “advised of the situation” or “evacuated for their safety.”
Technically they were, but I'm pretty sure bursting in screaming and manhandling them is not the way that's supposed to happen lmao.
Responded to 2381 Cleveland Pl # 307 to assist Safe Streets on a fugitive pickup.
Oh wow, I didn't really get that part until now. (Until now, they only described #307 as "he was ultimately arrested hours later for very serious alleged violent crimes.") That explains why they went in so heavy and had mass coordinated surveillance.
That's actually kinda worse for the cops though, because they then (allegedly) go on to describe it as “we knocked on the door and identified ourselves as Denver police Officers and that had a warrant for the suspect and he needed to exit the apartment.”
I mean, which is it - you're going full-tac because he's a dangerous fugitive (admittedly, my basic search on the life and times of Danny Garcia didn't turn up anything I could verify was related to this matter); or you're bringing a strike team so that you can politely knock on the door?
I mean, OK - unfortunately, and as is always the case with Emma Camp, we only get one side of the story (and a frankly garbage write-up of it). But the specificity in this complaint leads me to believe that counsel has some records. I don't like this kinda nonsense: "DPD’s long and disturbing history of such coverups is again maliciously present in this case." - because it's unnecessary. But if they've got the receipts, and it sounds like they do, they're only peppering the complaint with that kinda crap to get the media talking.
Moving on... Plaintiff's have suffered *sad violin* blah blah blah... OK, causes of action.
So... just the one then?
They're claiming violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131. Now, I don't know Colorado Law, but a quick read of the statute tells me that this avoids the QI defense. But weirdly, this is their claim to which they think 13-121-131 applies: "Article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures and the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers."
So, the question is: was this unreasonable and excessive?
Well, they WERE there for a proper purpose, it seems. They did have a legit warrant out for a fugitive arrest - and clearly they spent some time surveilling the guy. (Honestly, and granted this is MMQ, they probably could have and arguably should have just intercepted this guy somewhere OUTSIDE of the apartment - they made him going to and from a Safeway for pete's sake. Just car-door him in an intersection or something.)
Was breaching #306 an honest mistake? Arguably... unless, as they heavily intimate, plaintiff's have the receipts of the cover-up. In which case, the cops may have some very real trouble defending this one.
Sure wish Emma did a little more digging before she went to print on this one, but those narratives aren't going to write themselves, are there.
AT carefully pans the spoils from the wash plant in search of excuses for the pigs.
I literally said they're claim that it was to "help them" is unbelievable on its face, and that they're going to have some real trouble with this one. Get over your bigotry already, ACAB. It's 2025. Try objectivity for a change.
Was breaching #306 an honest mistake? Arguably.
No. It was an inexcusable fuck-up. Inarguably. Try "objectivity" yourself.
No, it actually could have been an honest mistake. For whatever reason they could have been completely innocently thinking "306" despite having been told 307 in repeated briefings/comms.
I mean, it happens. To everyone. I mean, heck, I've gone to the grocery store with the specific intent of buying a green bell pepper, and walked out with a red because - I don't know, brainfart, inner preference, whatever. Point is, it happens.
I don't know. I'm not going to speculate as to what's going through the mind of a breach team as they're going online. You will though, won't you.
I'm not saying it excuses it. I'm not saying it justifies any kind of cover up. All I'm saying, Vern, is take your biogted ACAB head out of your bigoted ACAB ass.