Four Denver residents have filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Denver alleging violations of their federal civil rights through police use of force during the racial justice protests of the past week.

The complaint to the U.S. District Court for Colorado contains pages of references to videos, social media posts and news articles that depicted instances of tear gas, less-than-lethal bullets and flash bangs that Denver officers used against people protesting the deaths of George Floyd and other African Americans in police custody.

“For seven days, they have shown, across hundreds of incidents and just as many officers, that the use of these ‘less than lethal’ ordinances is being done without regard to the constitutional rights of protesters and bystanders,” the lawsuit alleges about the department. “The officers have, time and again, targeted journalists and ordinary citizens documenting their conduct, targeted medics seeking to give aide to those harmed by the use of these ordinances, failed to follow training or have not been trained on the use of these ordinances, and most upsettingly, these officers have simply used these weapons to assert and show their dominance over protesters and the citizens of Denver.” 

The city did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs Agazi Abay, Gabriel Thorn, Amy Schneider and Michael McDaniel seek compensation as well as a temporary restraining order that prevents Denver police from using tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper balls, pepper spray and flash bangs. Each of them was the target of the police tactics: Thorn and McDaniel claimed that officers shot pepper balls at them while they were identified as medics. In McDaniel’s case, he said he was treating a protester when he was shot. Schneider alleged that an officer responded to calls for medical personnel for an asthmatic protestor by saying, “If you wanted to breathe, you should have stayed home tonight.”

The complaint references injuries sustained by journalists, as well as an Instagram post from one officer captioned “Let’s start a riot.” Originally reported by Colorado Politics, the city subsequently fired the officer.

“This mentality that the DPD was not there to serve a public safety role, but instead to dominate the protesters, is evident through talks with protesters, bystanders, press, and indeed, as captured on video,” the lawsuit claims.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly urged states to “dominate” the demonstrations, which initially saw incidents of looting and vandalism from people not necessarily associated with the protests. However, there has been a cascade of criticism for police nationwide following numerous reports of excessive force against nonviolent demonstrators. The White House itself ordered the forceful clearing of protesters in the District of Columbia on Monday so that Trump could pose for photos by a church.

The Denver Post reported that a shooting occurred near Thursday night’s protest at the capitol, but it appeared to be unrelated to the demonstration.

The plaintiffs bring their claim under section 1983 of federal civil rights law, which allows for government officials to be sued for violating people’s clearly established constitutional rights. The complaint against Denver alleges violations of the First Amendment’s protection of free expression and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unlawful seizure. It accuses Denver of failing to train and supervise its officers.

Alan Chen, a law professor at the University of Denver, said that while he did not have access to all of the evidence in the Denver lawsuit, “I have no doubt that there are numerous civil rights violations that have occurred at the protests here and in other cities.”

Chen said that it is difficult to succeed in claims against local governments because of the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The Court concluded that a locality cannot be sued simply because its employee caused an injury.

“Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under 1983,” wrote Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

“It‘s frequently difficult to satisfy the Monell official policy requirement without fairly specific evidence,” Chen said. “Police departments rarely, if ever, write down policies that are themselves unconstitutional.”

A recently-introduced bill in Congress proposes to end qualified immunity by removing the defense that a government employee was acting in good faith or that the violation was not of a clearly established right. U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette is a cosponsor of the proposal.

Another proposal introduced this week in the Colorado General Assembly attempts to address some concerns about police excesses by further restricting use of deadly force and allowing for officers to be sued individually for civil rights violations, waiving qualified immunity. Colorado’s law enforcement representatives agree with some of the provisions, including the elimination of the use of chokeholds, but are seeking revisions to others.

“Some of these topics deserve more time for stakeholders, including community members, to address areas of concern and achieve meaningful change,” Gary Creager, president of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police.