A federal judge last week dismissed a man’s constitutional challenge to a Colorado law prohibiting the online dissemination of certain personal identifying information, while simultaneously noting the law did not appear to criminalize the man’s objective of posting details about one specific state trooper.

Andrew Thomas Scott is a process server who attempted to deliver a subpoena at the personal home of Trooper Charles Hiller. Hiller subsequently filed a professional complaint against Scott for allegedly lying and including Hiller’s personal information on the subpoena paperwork. As a result, Scott was expelled from his trade association for the way he handled Hiller’s identifying details.

Scott then filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s law covering “protected persons,” which include law enforcement officers, educators, healthcare workers and others. The law makes it unlawful for someone to post on the Internet personal information about protected persons — such as a home address or phone number — if the details would pose an imminent and serious threat to the protected person’s safety.

In an unusual move, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang did not ultimately consider the free speech arguments at play. She noted Scott’s goal was to post documentation online about his visit to Hiller’s home in order to vindicate himself. By the text of the law, that would not be illegal.

“First, the Statute only proscribes publication if it presents an imminent and serious threat,” Wang wrote in an Aug. 9 order. “In reviewing the docket as a whole, this Court cannot find any reference to Trooper Hiller’s identification (as) an imminent and serious threat to his safety.”

Because Scott’s actions in disseminating personal information in the absence of a threat would fall outside the scope of the law, Wang determined he lacked standing to challenge its constitutionality.

Attorneys for Scott did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Scott was hired to deliver a subpoena to Hiller for him to appear at a Department of Revenue hearing. After unsuccessful attempts to serve him with the notice, Scott went to Hiller’s Colorado Springs home one morning in March 2021. Recording on a body-worn camera, Scott spoke to Hiller’s wife at the door, but ultimately Hiller did not make himself available.

Scott filled out an affidavit describing his unsuccessful attempt at serving Hiller, and included personal details like Hiller’s address, phone number and license plate. He also sent Hiller a text message calling his conduct “unprofessional” and warning “the criminals will see” Hiller’s personal information on the affidavit.

In response, Hiller filed a complaint with the state and with the Process Servers Association of Colorado about Scott’s inappropriate inclusion of his personal information for “the criminals” to see. The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies found no discipline was warranted, but the trade association expelled Scott based on his text message and his decision to include Hiller’s personal information on the affidavit.

Scott’s lawsuit explained he wished to publish the video footage and his affidavit online to “corroborate his version of events and to defend against Trooper Hiller’s accusations,” but he feared prosecution under the law covering protected persons. As a defendant, Scott named Michael Allen, the elected district attorney for El Paso and Teller counties.

In October 2022, Wang permitted Scott’s claims to proceed, noting there was “no dispute” between the parties that Scott intended to do something prohibited by state law but which may implicate his constitutional rights.

Both sides then asked Wang to end the case in their favor without a trial, with Allen arguing the state has a legitimate interest in protecting certain types of workers from threats and Scott countering that the law is not narrowly drawn to prohibit only threatening speech.

However, Wang opted to take a closer look at the seeming consensus that Scott’s desired conduct would open him up to criminal charges. She ultimately concluded Scott’s plans to post the video and affidavit with Hiller’s identifying information — plus Scott’s new assertion that he wishes to create a website to assist Coloradans in serving police officers with legal papers — were not inherently illegal.

There is “a lack of evidence before the Court to suggest any ‘imminent’ and serious threat to Trooper Hiller’s safety. Both are necessary elements for liability under the Statute,” Wang wrote. Moreover, neither Allen nor anyone with his office “ever accused Mr. Scott’s action of posing an imminent and serious threat to Trooper Hiller.”

She dismissed the lawsuit.

The case is Scott v. Allen.