A Parker man may not proceed to sue the city of Aurora and one of its officers for being wrongfully arrested for a theft he did not commit, a federal judge has decided.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico, while simultaneously finding Darren Rucker had not presented a viable claim against Aurora for the erroneous arrest warrant taken out against him, nonetheless agreed Rucker was largely the victim of other people’s failures.

“Mr. Rucker has reason to be frustrated and upset,” Domenico wrote in a July 29 order. “At this stage of the case, it appears that a series of mistakes and wrongful actions — including an employee providing an incorrect receipt then making false accusations about him to cover up her own error, a company calling the police rather than trying to correct an error, and an allegedly slipshod investigation and warrant application that could have been resolved by a quick phone call or visit to his home address, which he had willingly provided — led to his arrest.”

Domenico also appeared to suggest that Rucker, who is Black, could have or should have bolstered his claims of racial discrimination by linking his case to a consent decree Aurora entered into last year. The city agreed to enact changes to its public safety agencies after the Colorado Attorney General’s Office found patterns of racial bias and excessive force in policing.

Rucker’s attorney instead told Domenico he was “unfamiliar with” the consent agreement during a hearing in the spring.

According to his lawsuit, Rucker placed an online order on July 10, 2018 for a roll of synthetic grass. A week later, he traveled to the Aurora warehouse of Xpress Global Systems to retrieve the turf. He presented his driver license to employee Karina Padilla, signed the paperwork she gave him and retrieved his roll of turf.

Later, Officer Paul Seiwald received a call from Turf Pros Solution reporting their synthetic grass order had been stolen from the Aurora warehouse. When Seiwald arrived at the warehouse, Padilla reportedly told him Rucker had represented he was picking up the roll for Turf Pros Solution.

In his police report, Seiwald wrote that he had “no way to contact Rucker” and would apply for an arrest warrant. The following month, Rucker was driving with his daughter in Morrison when law enforcement arrested him and booked him into the Jefferson County jail. Prosecutors later dismissed the charges.

Rucker filed a federal lawsuit naming as defendants Padilla, Xpress Global Systems, Seiwald and Aurora, among others. While alleging negligence and malicious prosecution by the private actors, Rucker claimed Seiwald had violated his due process and equal protection rights under the law. As for the city, it allegedly failed to train and supervise its employees.

A primary theme of Rucker’s lawsuit was that Seiwald failed to conduct even a minimal investigation before seeking Rucker’s arrest.

“One of the things we’re missing here with Officer Seiwald is common sense,” argued attorney George Farmer. “He was shown a paid receipt. How can you infer or conclude that the roll was stolen when he had a paid receipt?”

As part of his constitutional allegations, Rucker offered statistics showing Aurora disproportionately issued warrants for Black suspects between 2014 and 2018, and that Black people made up nearly half of Seiwald’s arrestees during that window. Although Aurora’s population is less than 17% Black, 46% of Seiwald’s arrests were allegedly of Black people.

Rucker used the statistics to argue Seiwald gave him a “presumption of guilt” as a Black man, instead of considering whether the missing turf was the product of a clerical mistake.

The defendants countered that probable cause of a crime existed based on the information witnesses relayed to Seiwald, and further investigation was not constitutionally required.

Domenico dismissed Rucker’s due process claims, explaining that if Rucker wanted to hold Seiwald liable for his arrest without probable cause, Rucker should have pursued a malicious prosecution claim under state law. Otherwise, Rucker had to show Seiwald’s actions “shock the conscience,” which Domenico believed they did not.

The judge also tossed Rucker’s claims made under Senate Bill 217, a 2020 police accountability law the Colorado legislature enacted in the wake of worldwide racial justice protests following the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd. Domenico noted the law does not apply retroactively.

Although Rucker did not sufficiently allege Aurora has engaged in a pattern of constitutional violations through incidents similar to Rucker’s — a key element in a claim for failure to train or supervise — Domenico noted there was some evidence to support Rucker’s assertion of selective policing against Black people. That included the arrest statistics for Aurora and Seiwald showing disproportionate outcomes for Black suspects.

However, according to legal precedent, statistics alone are not enough to show discrimination. As recently as 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which hears cases from Colorado and five neighboring states, threw out the case of a Black trucker who presented statistics illustrating Black drivers at a New Mexico port of entry were subjected to more delays due to searches and inspections. Not only had the plaintiff shown the officer who detained him had disproportionately arrested Black truck drivers, but on the specific day of his encounter, that officer had put every Black trucker through an enhanced inspection.

Those statistics were “not so compelling,” a majority of 10th Circuit judges hearing the appeal wrote in their opinion.

Likewise, Domenico found the general statistics Rucker presented did not rise to “egregious levels” suggesting discrimination against him personally. Domenico called it “understandable” that Rucker suspected he would have been treated differently if he were white, and the judge even indicated he would have considered the city’s consent decree and the attorney general’s findings of racially-biased policing. However, neither Aurora nor Rucker asked him to do so.

“So, whatever relevance the report and consent decree might have to these claims, Mr. Rucker has chosen not to rely on them,” he added.

Farmer, Rucker’s attorney, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The remaining defendants in the lawsuit are Xpress Global Systems and Turf Pros Solution.

The case is Rucker v. City of Aurora et al.