The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld an Aurora police officer’s 24-hour unpaid suspension following an administrative review in which the current chief of police acknowledged the officer “violated those people’s rights that evening.”

Then-police Chief Nicholas J. Metz imposed the punishment on Officer John Gonzales for entering a home without a warrant and violating other policies regarding reporting of incidents and releasing handcuffed persons. An Aurora Police Department directive bars officers from making an arrest, search or seizure “which they know or reasonably should know is not according to established legal precedent or statutory law.”

The discipline stemmed from an incident on June 26, 2016, in which Gonzales and Officer Darryl Huntsman responded to a welfare check on a potentially suicidal woman in Aurora. However, they unknowingly went to the wrong residence. An individual who answered the door informed Huntsman the woman in distress was not there.

At the same time, another man in the house opened the garage door and encountered Gonzales. The officer indicated he would enter the home and said he had a warrant, even though he did not. Gonzales’s body-worn camera captured a physical interaction between the two. Huntsman heard the commotion and came to handcuff the man.

Over the objections of another individual in the home, Gonzales entered. A fourth person tried to block him, but was put in handcuffs.

Only after questioning the people inside the home did Gonzales understand the woman in distress was not there. He did not report the incident, and the police department initiated an internal affairs investigation after an attorney for the occupants Gonzales encountered requested the body camera footage.

Gonzales appealed his discipline from the chief, and Aurora’s Civil Service Commission upheld the decision following a two-day hearing. During that hearing, Metz testified to the training Aurora officers receive on constitutional law and the limits on entries, searches and seizures. Vanessa Wilson, who succeeded Metz as chief, also concluded Gonzales was “lying to that citizen” about the warrant and it was “APD’s mistake 100 percent. We violated those people’s rights that evening.”

In siding against Gonzales, the commission found he knew or should have known that the circumstances made his search of the home unconstitutional.

An Arapahoe County District Court judge upheld the decision over the warrantless entry, and a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals also agreed on Thursday. The statements of Metz and Wilson to the commission were sufficient to establish a policy violation.

“Their testimony outlines the training made available to Gonzales, their familiarity with the training, and their understanding of when a home entry meets constitutional standards,” wrote Judge Terry Fox in an unpublished opinion not intended to set precedent. Given the absence of an immediate risk to the lives and safety of others, the officer lacked the pretext to enter the home.

“That Gonzales disagrees with others’ assessment of the situation at issue does not insulate him from disciplinary action,” she added.

Aurora eventually settled for $150,000 with the occupants of the home. Mari Newman, an for the occupants with Killmer, Lane & Newman, described the city as recalcitrant in responding to her open records request. 

“Gonzales got off easy. He should be feeling lucky that all he got was a 24-hour suspension for violating constitutional rights he should have been aware of,” she said.

An attorney for Gonzales did not respond to a message seeking comment. Newman added that the relatively light discipline was indicative of the troubles with the department, which is under multiple investigations.

“Even when the Aurora Police Department leadership fully acknowledges that it’s a constitutional violation, that the officer was 100% at fault, that the officer lied about what happened,” she said, “the most they were willing to do was discipline in the form of a 24-hour suspension.”

The case is Gonzales v. Aurora.