A federal judge last month dismissed a man’s claims that Jefferson County SWAT team members violated his constitutional rights by forcefully entering his home with little warning, damaging the apartment and removing him half-naked while they executed a search warrant.

Lance P. Schendorf is serving a 20-year prison sentence after a jury convicted him in 2022 of drug charges. Schendorf subsequently filed a constitutional rights lawsuit — challenging not his arrest, but the manner in which law enforcement entered his home searching for narcotics.

In an Oct. 25 order, U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews dismissed Schendorf’s claims against the various officers involved in the raid. He believed the defendants acted reasonably in their “dynamic entry” given what they knew about Schendorf’s drug dealing and the risks associated with executing a search.

“Plaintiff’s arguments rely on the benefit of hindsight. He notes the officers did not discover any weapons in his apartment, none of the evidence was destroyed, and none of the occupants resisted arrest,” wrote Crews. “That, however, is not the appropriate inquiry because it is backward looking. The Court must consider the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.”

Schendorf alleged that in the early morning hours of May 6, 2021, SWAT members executed a “high risk” search warrant at his Arvada apartment. He had no history of violence, gang affiliation or weapons use, but police planned for a “commando-style raid, basically an armed military invasion.”

Although none of the seven occupants was shot, police used flash grenades, shattered windows and battered down the front door. Schendorf was wearing only a t-shirt and had no opportunity to put on clothes, resulting in the “public exposure of plaintiff’s naked body,” he wrote.

Representing himself, Schendorf alleged the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, they used excessive force, failed to “knock and announce” and unreasonably seized him from his home.

The defendants moved to dismiss the claims on multiple grounds. Substantively, they asserted there was no constitutional violation stemming from the officers’ actions. The application for a search warrant attested to Schendorf selling methamphetamine to police informants leading up to the raid, and a lookout saw one occupant of Schendorf’s apartment exit and retreat repeatedly as SWAT members prepared to enter.

“Officers were responding to a situation where they did not know how many people would be in the home, whether anyone would be armed, whether anyone would be under the influence of drugs or other substances, and whether Plaintiff would comply given the serious nature of his conduct,” wrote Kylie T. Justus with the Arvada city attorney’s office. “Officers took adequate measures to protect their own lives and the lives of the people on scene, and it was successful — not one person was injured in the execution of the warrant.”

In July, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell recommended granting the motions to dismiss. She acknowledged the SWAT tactics were “certainly intense,” but they were a legitimate means of minimizing harm and recovering more than 10 pounds of meth from Schendorf’s apartment.

Any “incidental damage” to the home, she elaborated, did not meet the threshold for a constitutional violation. Finally, she credited the “split-second judgments” officers have to make in concluding the manner of the search was in-bounds.

“While the Court acknowledges that initially not allowing Plaintiff to put on pants, underwear, or shoes may have been distressing,” Dominguez Braswell added, “the urgent need to secure the premises and ensure overall safety justified these actions.”

Schendorf objected to her analysis, arguing the officers did not ensure anyone’s safety because of their tactics, but rather because “there was no imminent danger from non-violent individuals who were not armed.”

“The only peril faced that morning was the danger of someone with a cell phone or TV remote being shot by an overzealous, over-amped officer,” he contended.

Crews, the district judge, agreed with Dominguez Braswell’s recommendation. In addition to finding the officers acted reasonably in entering the apartment, he noted the presence of seven occupants and numerous law enforcement personnel justified Schendorf’s half-naked removal from the home while the search progressed.

The case is Schendorf v. Gomez et al.