A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Denver’s former mayor and several city officials alleging they conspired with those who violently disrupted a pro-police rally four years ago in Civic Center Park.

Weeks after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd in May 2020, sparking international demonstrations, a scheduled “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” event took place in downtown Denver. Black Lives Matter supporters and related groups counter-protested simultaneously, but the two sides physically clashed, causing injuries to attendees.

In response, event organizer Ron MacLachlan Jr. filed suit, along with three-time Republican congressional nominee Casper Stockham, who was unable to give his speech due to the chaos. They alleged former Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, former Chief Paul Pazen and others conspired with the demonstrators to infringe on their First Amendment rights.

In a March 7 order, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer dismissed the lawsuit, finding the plaintiffs failed to allege cooperation between city officials and the rioters.

“I obviously disagree with the dismissal. My biggest issue is, without the case going to trial, a lot of the evidence we had was not seen nor allowed to be seen by all parties involved,” said Stockham. “The city failed to protect us and the police failed to protect us.”

MacLachlan, who originally began to hold law enforcement appreciation events in 2015 and has organized a total of 25 in Colorado and Wyoming, said he plans to resume the rally in Denver this July for the first time since 2020.

Of the dismissal, he said he was “not going to allow this to take away time from the other things that need to be taken care of, like the events.” MacLachlan added, “This is about our Constitution, about our rights to speak.”

Representing himself and the other plaintiffs, MacLachlan’s complaint described several of his annual pro-police rallies being interrupted by protesters. He alleged that in 2020, shortly before the scheduled event, high-ranking police department officials asked him not to proceed. They allegedly mentioned “violent rioters had been terrorizing various neighborhoods” since Floyd’s death.

Afterward, Pazen allegedly called MacLachlan and said he was “begging you, stop the event.” MacLachlan declined. Instead, he proceeded to hold the event and a commanding officer allegedly told law enforcement to “retreat” once rioting broke out.

In the process, MacLachlan suffered injuries to his head and Stockham was unable to speak about his congressional candidacy. A third plaintiff, Lo Becker, alleged rioters damaged his instruments and equipment as he was playing music onstage.

In December, U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter recommended dismissing the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. He reasoned Becker’s claims were not viable because he was added too late in the litigation. Moreover, Neureiter concluded the named government officials had not taken action to restrict the plaintiffs’ speech.

“Plaintiffs were stopped from speaking by counter protesters and ‘rioters’ — i.e., private individuals — not by any state actors,” Neureiter wrote.

He also recommended dismissing MacLachlan’s claim that he had to cancel a similar rally for 2022 because the city imposed an “onerous financial burden” to install fencing.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the government from imposing some restrictions on free speech,” wrote Neureiter. “Indeed, it appears that other events also necessitated fencing, which suggests that the requirement, such as it existed, was content neutral and imposed for risk mitigation purposes.”

MacLachlan objected to Neureiter’s recommendation, emphasizing Denver Police “willfully and wantonly stood by and allowed our First Amendment rights to be taken from us by a mob.”

Brimmer, the district judge, was unconvinced.

“The magistrate judge correctly found that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege any specific facts showing agreement and concerted action between the City defendants and the rioters,” he noted.

A Denver police spokesperson declined to speak about the law enforcement response to the rally.

The case is Pro-Police Rally Colorado et al. v. Hancock et al.