Colorado Supreme Court Favors Weaker Interpretation Of Governmental Immunity

In the case of Cisneros v. Elder, 2022CO13, the Colorado Supreme Court today chose an interpretation of the state's governmental immunity statutes that is less protective of jail guards. The official syllabus states:

In this case, the supreme court considers whether section 24-10-106(1.5)(b), C.R.S. (2021), of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act ("CGIA") waives sovereign immunity for intentional torts that result from the operation of a jail for claimants who are incarcerated but not convicted.

The court now concludes that section 24-10-106(1.5)(b) waives immunity both for intentional torts and for acts of negligence resulting from the operation of a jail for claimants who are incarcerated but not convicted. In reaching this determination, the court concludes that the statutory language waiving immunity for claimants who "are incarcerated but not yet convicted" and who "can show injury due to negligence" sets a floor, not a ceiling.

In contrast, in many circumstances, governmental immunity is waived for negligent acts of governments and government officials that cause injury, but not for intentional acts.  

The Colorado Supreme Court also rejected the argument that governments themselves should not be responsible for the intentional wrongs of their employees, basically on that theory the intentional wrongs are beyond the scope of the authority of these officials and that suing particular government employees for "willful and wanton" acts is expressly permitted in Colorado under CGIA. In this case, the court reasoned, the government was not being held vicariously liable for the willful and wanton misconduct of its employees, but for its own intentional wrongs as a matter of policy.

The underlying case involved the El Paso County Sheriff refusing to release an inmate who had posted bail, without authorization to do so, in connection with an alleged immigration hold that was held to be improper in separate litigation  resulting in the inmate's release four months later. 

The inmate was represented by the Colorado ACLU and Holland & Hart, LLP, one of the largest law firms in the state (presumably pro bono).

The decision of the Colorado Supreme Court was unanimous and followed a 2-1 decision against the inmate in the Colorado Court of Appeals which was reversed.

The damages in this individual case aren't huge, perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars at most, and possibly much less. But, the principal will probably significantly influence how sheriffs manage jails in Colorado going forward.