Colorado’s second-highest court last week rejected an argument from Adams County that sheriffs’ offices are not actually “public entities” that, consequently, cannot be held liable for deputies’ motor vehicle collisions.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals acknowledged that multiple prior court cases stated as fact that sheriffs’ offices are public entities, but none of them explained why. Adams County challenged that assumption, reasoning that if sheriffs’ offices do not fit the description, Colorado law provides them immunity for certain injuries caused by their employees.

“We agree that, as a county officer, the Sheriff himself can be classified as a ‘public employee,'” wrote Judge Katharine E. Lum in the panel’s July 13 opinion. “However, we see no reason why this precludes the sheriff’s office from being classified as a ‘public entity.'”

Felipe Bohnet-Gomez, a civil rights attorney, noted that Adams County has made similar arguments in federal court to avoid liability, with the logical conclusion that a “sheriff’s office” would cease to exist legally.

“While it may be the first time that the Colorado Court of Appeals has explicitly held that a sheriff’s office can be sued under Colorado law, it’s by no means the first case dealing with claims against a sheriff’s office,” he said. “This was simply the first time that anyone had argued that a sheriff’s office could not be sued.”

Case: Dodge v. Padilla

Decided: July 13, 2023

Jurisdiction: Adams County

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Katharine E. Lum (author)

John Daniel Dailey

Sueanna P. Johnson

Background: State Supreme Court takes up governmental immunity cases for trip-and-fall, speeding officer

The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act limits the ability of people to sue public employees and public entities, with certain exceptions. If a public employee injures someone with a motor vehicle while on the job, then the “public entity” may be held liable under the law.

Timothy Dodge sued Deputy Jacob Padilla after Padilla allegedly failed to pay attention to traffic and pulled his vehicle out in front of Dodge’s, colliding with him. Dodge originally named Adams County as a defendant, but the county pointed out Padilla was not their employee, but Sheriff Rick Reigenborn’s employee.

Dodge refiled his lawsuit to include the “Adams County Sheriff” as a defendant. The county then claimed the sheriff was not a public entity that could be sued under the governmental immunity law for a motor vehicle collision caused by an employee.

District Court Judge Teri L. Vasquez rejected that argument, as Dodge was suing the sheriff in his official capacity. Because such lawsuits are equivalent to suing a government agency itself, the exception to immunity for public entities applied to the office.

Adams County turned to the Court of Appeals, insisting a sheriff is actually a “public employee” who hires other public employees, but is distinct from cities or counties.

“Why can’t we have both? Why can’t the sheriff be classified as a public employee for things that he does in his capacity as a sheriff, and the sheriff’s office can also be a public entity?” asked Lum during oral arguments.

The panel noted in its opinion that the governmental immunity law defines “public entities” as the state, counties, school districts and, among other things, an “agency.” Lum wrote that sheriffs’ offices easily fit under the definition of an agency.

Moreover, she explained, the governmental immunity law elsewhere defines public employees as those who work for public entities. Under the county’s proposal, sheriffs’ personnel would no longer be immune from lawsuit because they would not be public employees who work for a public entity.

At the same time, the panel acknowledged that civil rights lawsuits in federal court have treated the status of sheriffs unevenly. While there are different standards for claims under federal law, some judges have held that a sheriff’s office can be sued, while others have ruled the counties themselves are the correct defendant.

In particular, Lum cited a 2022 decision of U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak, who is presiding over a case alleging Reigenborn retaliated against his subordinates for their political activity. There, Adams County argued the sheriff was separate from the county, so Adams County could not be sued – but also, the sheriff’s office was not an entity that could be sued on its own.

“These positions are untenable,” Varholak wrote, rejecting the liability “loophole” the county was proposing.

Taylor Pendergrass of the ACLU of Colorado praised the Court of Appeals for adhering to the principle that sheriffs’ offices can be held liable for certain injuries their employees cause.

“Slamming shut the courthouse doors on people wrongfully harmed by police and deputies has led to egregious injustice, distrust of law enforcement, and enabled abusive police officers to act with impunity,” he said.

The case is Dodge v. Padilla et al.