An Arvada police officer may be held liable for the unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution of a man after a federal judge determined her alleged actions, if true, would amount to a clear constitutional violation.

Officer Samantha Zehner obtained an arrest warrant for Michael Lehmann in December 2019, and he was arrested for the offense of felony menacing the following month. Prosecutors, however, later dismissed the charges, leading Lehmann to claim Zehner misled a state judge into signing off on the warrant by omitting key information that would have shown no probable cause of a crime.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney agreed with Lehmann.

A cell phone recording of the the alleged menacing incident “was central to Officer Zehner’s probable cause determination,” she wrote in an Oct. 20 order. “The video footage provides ‘obvious reasons to doubt’ the veracity of the allegations contained in the arrest affidavit.”

Lehmann’s attorney, Raymond K. Bryant, applauded Sweeney’s refusal to dismiss the case, saying Zehner’s actions caused his client to be jailed on felony charges and deprived him of “significant housing and employment opportunities.”

“It is important to a free society that innocent people are not jailed at the whims of police officers who misrepresent evidence – or if they are, that the officers are held accountable,” Bryant said.

Lawyers for Zehner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

On Nov. 12, 2019, according to Lehmann’s lawsuit, his romantic partner and roommate, Kayla Vanwatermeulen, assaulted him and destroyed several of his belongings. Police arrested Vanwatermeulen and the following day, a judge issued a protection order preventing Vanwatermeulen from having contact with Lehmann. The order only permitted her to live at their residence “if the victim is not there.”

The district attorney’s office for Jefferson County confirmed the existence and terms of the protection order to Colorado Politics. Court records show a jury eventually returned a guilty verdict on the assault charge.

Lehmann arrived home after midnight on Nov. 16 and could see multiple silhouettes inside. Concerned for his safety, he entered holding a metal pipe in one hand and his cell phone in the other. Inside, Vanwatermeulen was gathering items from the home in the presence of a male acquaintance. She reportedly indicated she was preparing to leave.

The male acquaintance began recording the encounter on a cell phone. Colorado Politics reviewed the four-minute footage, which largely tracked the narrative in Lehmann’s lawsuit.

“If I catch you here, you’re dead,” Lehmann said calmly, standing in the doorway between the kitchen and the living room.

“OK, yeah,” Vanwatermeulen responded, walking past him between the two rooms. Lehmann held the pipe by his side out of view. The male acquaintance told Lehmann he was “just a friend helping a friend.” 

Lehmann walked over to shake the acquaintance’s hand, saying: “You’re good.” The acquaintance then noticed the pipe and asked if Lehmann could put it down. Lehmann complied.

Lehmann told Vanwatermeulen he was not planning on calling the police because he did not “want you to get in trouble.” Vanwatermeulen responded by calling him “petty” and a “piece of s–t.”

As Lehmann stood by a wall and began to converse with the male acquaintance, Vanwatermeulen continued to walk past Lehmann, telling him to shut up. The three parties were largely silent as Vanwatermeulen finished gathering her possessions and said goodbye to her dogs.

The lawsuit noted that nothing came of the encounter until Dec. 5, when Lehmann again came home to find Vanwatermeulen present. He called police asking for enforcement of the protection order, and Zehner arrived to assist.

Vanwatermeulen allegedly complained about the Nov. 16 interaction, saying Lehmann was “wielding” a pipe and had threatened her. Zehner watched the video footage, did not arrest anyone and departed after Vanwatermeulen left.

“However, Defendant Zehner took special interest in Ms. Vanwatermeulen’s complaint and began investigating Mr. Lehmann when she returned to the police station,” Lehmann alleged. 

He claimed Zehner elicited “false accusations” from Vanwatermeulen and the male acquaintance that they had allegedly feared for their lives. Lehmann argued no one would find from the video footage that he was aggressive or violent, and had actually remained calm throughout.

As for Lehmann’s comment that Vanwatermeulen was “dead” if he caught her again, “Any reasonable person hearing this comment in this context would know that the comment was hyperbolic and not to be taken literally,” his attorneys wrote.

Zehner obtained a warrant for two counts of felony menacing, and police arrested Lehmann on Jan. 29, 2020, placing him in jail. Prosecutors eventually dropped the case.

Lehmann sued Zehner for unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution, based on the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrants lacking in probable cause. He alleged the officer knew from watching the video that Lehmann had not placed anyone in fear for their lives. She had allegedly “misled the criminal court to find probable cause” by relying on unsupported testimony at the expense of the objective video footage.

Zehner’s lawyers attempted to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing she was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally shields government employees from civil liability unless they violate a person’s clearly-established legal rights. Zehner disputed that she had made false statements on the arrest affidavit and, consequently, there was no violation of Lehmann’s rights.

“Plaintiff’s attack on the quality of the evidence may also be appropriate to cast doubt on his guilt at a criminal trial, but any such arguments do nothing to establish any deliberate, false, or reckless conduct by Officer Zehner,” wrote attorney Mark S. Ratner.

Sweeney disagreed with Zehner, finding the officer’s statements in support of Lehmann’s arrest were undermined by the cell phone footage.

Lehmann “made no movements that a reasonable officer could have believed placed either Ms. Vanwatermeulen or (the male acquaintance) in fear of imminent serious bodily injury,” she wrote. “Nor does the cell phone footage show Mr. Lehmann using the metal pipe as a weapon or threatening to use the metal pipe as a weapon.”

Sweneey concurred with Lehmann that a 1998 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over federal cases in Colorado, was relevant. In Baptiste v. J.C. Penney, two Colorado Springs police officers detained and searched a Black woman when department store security guards alleged she had shoplifted. The officers searched her after viewing surveillance footage that failed to show the woman stealing.

The 10th Circuit found the Colorado Springs officers acted unreasonably by relying on the security guards’ accusations when there was “an exact replication” of events on the videotape that showed no shoplifting.

The Baptiste decision, Sweeney wrote, clearly established the actions Zehner allegedly took in her investigation were a constitutional violation.

The case is Lehmann v. Zehner.