A Colorado Springs man may proceed with his lawsuit against two university police officers after a federal judge found the allegations of an unreasonable detention were plausible.

Brian Halik sought to hold the University of Colorado Colorado Springs officers and a former administrator liable for allegedly violating his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Although the defendants were successful last month in dismissing several of Halik’s claims, the allegations specifically related to his detention remain intact.

The lawsuit stemmed from Halik’s encounter on Sept. 10, 2019 with then-Officer Robert Pinnock. Halik, who was a student, attended a social event on campus and brought his “highly trained” service dog. According to Halik, the dog was under leash or voice control the whole time in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

After a bystander allegedly reported to police an unleashed, but nonaggressive, dog, Pinnock approached. Halik audio recorded the encounter, and the university acknowledged in court the recording “speaks for itself.”

“Sir, do you have an ID?” Pinnock asked. Halik responded in the affirmative, but asked to move somewhere more private.

“No, no, no,” Pinnock responded. “We can do this the easy way or I can take you into custody.”

Halik asked what crime he was suspected of, but the officer informed Halik, “you’re on my campus,” and reiterated his demand for Halik’s identification.

After Halik declined, Pinnock placed him in handcuffs and walked him to a police vehicle. Sgt. Lisa Dipzinski joined the men and asked where Halik’s dog was. Pinnock responded he did not know, but “it’s up there.”

Pinnock searched Halik and the officers argued with Halik about his refusal to show identification. Dipzinski then continued to talk one on one with Halik about his behavior leading up to the detention.

“This is about you acting like an adult. I need you to act like an adult,” she said. “I don’t wanna see you not be able to go to school here. But if you don’t follow the code of conduct and the policies and rules, then you’re held accountable.”

After 11 minutes in handcuffs, Pinnock agreed to remove them. Dipzinski informed Halik the incident report would go to a special team and he was “gonna be on their radar.” The officers lectured him further about needing to show his identification in the future, warned him to control his dog and released him.

In September of last year, Halik filed a federal lawsuit against both officers as well as Charles Litchfield, the vice chancellor at the time who oversaw public safety operations on the campus. Halik alleged the officers had unlawfully detained and searched him, separated him from his service animal and injured him with the handcuffs. Litchfield was allegedly responsible for enacting and enforcing the policies that led to Halik’s detention.

“Shortly after this incident, Plaintiff temporarily withdrew from all of his classes at the UCCS due to overwhelming anxiety and feeling unsafe on the UCCS campus. Especially with Defendant Dipzinski’s assertion that Plaintiff was now ‘on their radar,’ it had become abundantly clear that the UCCS was no longer a safe place for Plaintiff,” wrote Halik, who represented himself in court.

Pinnock did not seek to dismiss the claims against him for Halik’s detention and search, but Dipzinsky and Litchfield moved to toss the lawsuit. Dipzinsky pointed out she was not the one who first detained or searched Halik, and Litchfield argued the UCCS code of conduct’s requirement for students to comply with the directions of police officers did not itself cause a constitutional violation.

Last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell analyzed the case and largely sided with the defendants. She agreed there was no evidence in Halik’s lawsuit that UCCS police engage in a pattern of unlawful detentions.

“Indeed, aside from recounting the searches and seizures that took place on September 10, 2019, Plaintiff alleges only that UCCS police officers ‘routinely use’ policies from the Student Code of Conduct to violate the constitutional rights of unspecified ‘students and members of the public’,” Dominguez Braswell wrote on Sept. 2. “These allegations, alone, are insufficient to plausibly suggest an ‘ongoing’ violation of federal constitutional law.”

There were insufficient allegations connecting Litchfield or campus policies to any constitutional violation, and the magistrate judge recommended he be dismissed from the lawsuit. Dominguez Braswell also agreed Dipzinski could not be held liable for any constitutional violations before she arrived on the scene, and observed that courts have not clearly established it is illegal for an officer to separate someone from their service animal, as Halik alleged.

“However, the Complaint’s allegations plausibly suggest that Defendant Dipzinski played an active role in the decision to continue to detain Mr. Halik subsequent to the confirmation of his identification, without Mr. Halik’s consent or any suspicion at that point that Mr. Halik had committed a crime,” Dominguez Braswell continued.

She recommended allowing Halik’s claim of unlawful detention to proceed against Dipzinski, in addition to the detention-related claims against Pinnock. No parties objected to the magistrate judge’s analysis and U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore adopted her recommendation on Sept. 20.

UCCS declined to comment on the decision and Halik did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Halik is also suing Colorado Springs officers for an alleged raid on his home several months prior to the UCCS encounter. Police received a report that Halik was impersonating a law enforcement officer, but there was no criminal case ever opened.

The case is Halik v. Pinnock et al.