A federal judge indicated on Monday that it is a jury’s role to decide whether Denver police officers violated a woman’s rights by arresting her for disrupting the inauguration ceremony of then-Mayor Michael Hancock in 2019.

U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez found the officers had not performed a clearly unconstitutional seizure of Caryn Marie Sodaro by arresting her because they arguably had probable cause of a municipal code infraction. But Martínez agreed jurors, after hearing the evidence, could side with Sodaro on her other claims that the officers retaliated against her for her speech and that their potentially false statements contributed to her prosecution.

Judges “have consistently found that a close temporal proximity between a plaintiff’s protected speech and arrest without probable cause can give rise to a ‘strong inference’ the arrest was motivated by the protected speech,” Martínez wrote in an Oct. 7 order. “And indeed, the video evidence shows that but a few seconds passed from when Sodaro commenced chanting and when the Officers took her into custody.”

On July 15, 2019, Hancock was sworn in to a third and final term on the steps of the City and County Building, along with other city officials. Sodaro approached a temporary fence near the podium and chanted, “stop harassing the homeless,” a reference to the city’s “sweeps” of homeless encampments.

Denverite reported at the time that multiple attendees shouted at Hancock about the city’s treatment of homeless residents, but Sodaro was the only person arrested. She also yelled “f–k Mayor Hancock” as police led her away.

Officers took her into custody for violating the municipal ordinance against “significantly” disrupting a parade, procession or gathering. Denver prosecutors later dropped the charge against Sodaro, citing “no reasonable likelihood of conviction.”

The city submitted body-worn camera footage to the court that purportedly showed Sodaro disrupting the inauguration, and argued the officers could not be held liable because they had probable cause to arrest her for violating the ordinance.

“The content of Plaintiff’s message was irrelevant; her outburst distracted multiple people around her, including photographers who turned their attention away from the event, thus giving the Defendants a reasonable inference that Plaintiff was disrupting a lawful gathering,” wrote Assistant City Attorney Honor K. Moore.

Sodaro disputed that the video depicted a significant disruption.

“No crime or violation occurred. In fact, the ceremony continued without any delay,” argued attorney Kenneth Mark Burton.

Martínez weighed whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, a judicial doctrine that shields government employees from civil lawsuits unless they violate a person’s clear legal rights. He acknowledged a jury could examine the evidence and come to different conclusions about whether Sodaro was, or intended to be, disruptive.

However, because there was no clear indication that officers would be violating Sodaro’s rights by arresting her under the circumstances, Martínez determined they had “arguable” probable cause. Therefore, he granted them immunity for Sodaro’s claim of unlawful seizure.

As for her First Amendment and malicious prosecution claims, Martínez concluded the question of Sodaro’s actual disruption was crucial. Therefore, he left those claims intact for jurors to decide.

A five-day trial is scheduled for November.

The case is Sodaro v. Chavez et al.