A federal judge has ordered Denver to stand trial over claims that the city's own practices led two police officers to unlawfully arrest a man for recording them during a tense traffic stop in Lower Downtown in June 2022. Zachary Manchas was detained, searched and charged with interference after he yelled at officers to put down a gun and announced he was filming — but he was never convicted, and a judge now says a jury could find his rights were violated.
A High-Risk Stop Turns Into a Confrontation
The case, Manchas v. City and County of Denver, traces back to around 2 a.m. in June 2022, when Officers Selena Bibiana Faile and Joseph Stewart were patrolling Lower Downtown and pulled over a Volkswagen for a traffic infraction, according to the Denver Gazette. Because the officers had spotted a handgun inside the car, they turned it into a high-risk stop, drawing their guns and ordering the driver out, the Denver Gazette reports.
Manchas saw the stop unfold and began yelling at the officers to “put your gun down,” announcing at the same time that he was recording them, per the same account. He also asked Stewart for his name and badge number. Stewart told him he was interfering with an active investigation, and Denver police went on to detain Manchas; Faile took his phone, and Sgt. Jason Simmons approved his arrest for interference under the city's municipal code, the Denver Gazette reported.
Charges Dropped, but a Lawsuit Moves Forward
Denver ultimately dismissed the interference charge after Manchas completed the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement, meaning he never received a conviction tied to the arrest. He went on to sue both the city and the four officers involved — Stewart, Faile, Simmons and Mia Sanchez — alleging the officers violated his First Amendment rights and unlawfully arrested and searched him, while the city's broader practices and policies were to blame.
Chief Judge Regina M. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court advanced several of those claims to trial in a Sept. 16 order, per the Denver Gazette's reporting. She found the evidence could support a jury finding that Denver's practices and customs caused the alleged constitutional violations, and separately that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to conclude Denver has a widespread practice of arresting people who are recording officers. As a result, a jury will decide whether Denver had policies or practices that led officers to unconstitutionally arrest Manchas for recording and speaking to them.
Officers Shielded, but Arrest and Search Claims Survive
Rodriguez also ruled that jurors could determine Manchas was unlawfully arrested, searched and retaliated against for activity protected by the First Amendment, allowing his unlawful arrest and search claims to proceed because it was unclear whether officers had probable cause to arrest Manchas. The Denver City Attorney's Office had argued that any restrictions on Manchas's speech stemmed from his volume, proximity, distraction and safety concerns during the stop, while his attorneys countered that he never actually prevented the officers from communicating with the driver, according to the Denver Gazette.
Even so, Stewart, Faile and Simmons will not personally face trial on those claims. Rodriguez found the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity after the three invoked it in seeking judgment without a trial, ruling that Manchas had failed to show they were on notice that their actions would violate his clearly established rights, the Denver Gazette reported.
Privacy Act Claim Rejected Over Phone Seizure
Rodriguez rejected a separate claim Manchas brought under the federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a law that generally shields journalistic work-product materials from seizure unless they are directly connected to a crime. She wrote that Faile took Manchas's phone because he was under arrest and could not keep it with him in jail — not because the device contained work-product material, according to the Denver Gazette.
A separate filing in the case, reviewed by vLex, notes that courts in the District of Colorado have declined to split municipal-liability claims from individual claims in most similar cases, calling that kind of bifurcation uncommon in the jurisdiction — a detail that helps explain why Manchas's case against the city is proceeding to trial even as the officers themselves have been cleared of personal liability.
Part of a Broader Pattern in Denver Police Litigation
Manchas's lawsuit is not the first time Denver has faced claims that its officers retaliate against people for filming them. In a separate case, Levi Frasier sued Denver officers alleging they retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to record them performing their duties in public during a 2014 encounter, a dispute that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, as reported by Colorado Politics.
Another Denver case involved Kevin Detreville, who said he was recording outside Denver's District 5 police station when officers arrested him on Nov. 10, 2019, according to Colorado Politics' coverage of that suit. Similar disputes have surfaced well beyond Colorado — in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, an officer arrested Richard Fields after he photographed police, then confiscated and searched his phone and opened several photos, per the Third Circuit opinion reproduced by Justia.
