A federal court has allowed a Colorado Springs man to sue an El Paso County Sheriff’s Office deputy over his vehicular tactics during an apprehension.

On Aug. 19, 2017, law enforcement pursued Brian Halik for running a stop sign on his motorcycle. According to Halik’s narrative, Sgt. Steven D. Brown joined the pursuit and approached Halik “head on.” Brown reportedly attempted a second time to stop Halik by driving against traffic, and eventually hit the motorcycle, ejecting him.

Deputies took Halik into custody and charged him with felony vehicular eluding. He subsequently made a series of allegations against the sheriff’s office, from lying to secure a higher bond for him, depriving him of medical care and placing him in segregation.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya found that several of Halik’s claims lacked any specificity about the individuals who reportedly violated his rights, nor did he advance a sufficient legal argument. However, to his Fourth Amendment claim that Brown violated his rights by unlawfully seizing him — or preventing his freedom of movement — during the motorcycle chase, Tafoya believed Halik had stated a plausible case.

“[T]he Complaint explicitly alleges that Sergeant Brown ‘was aiming to collide with Plaintiff in a head-on collision;’ that he ‘turned his Chevrolet Tahoe to his right . . . in order to strike Plaintiff;’ and that he ‘then rammed into Plaintiff at a high rate of speed,’” wrote Tafoya in a Sept. 30 opinion. “These allegations, taken as true, show that Sergeant Brown intentionally placed his vehicle in Plaintiff’s pathway, thereby causing the crash.”

She also indicated that the force Brown used in the pursuit was conceivably unreasonable, and Halik did not appear armed or to present an immediate threat to the safety of others.

“[W]hile Plaintiff’s flight undoubtedly created a risk of harm to other individuals,” Tafoya concluded, “it is reasonable to infer that Sergeant Brown should have known, at the time of the head-on collision, that the threat posed by Plaintiff was insufficient to necessitate the use of lethal force against him.”

Pursuant to precedent that a claim alleging due process violations must show “a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience-shocking,” Tafoya similarly allowed Halik’s claim on Fourteenth Amendment grounds to proceed against Brown, citing the sergeant’s attempts to collide with the motorcycle head on.

“Defendant Brown knowingly and intentionally used an unparalleled and illegal amount of force to stop Plaintiff, which was tantamount to deadly force,” Halik argued in his federal complaint.

The sheriff’s office declined to comment on pending litigation. The case is Halik v. Brown.