Colorado’s second-highest court ruled last week that Lakewood is obligated to release body-worn camera footage of police fatally shooting a 17-year-old girl, notwithstanding her surviving family’s objections.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel interpreted a key transparency requirement in Colorado’s landmark police accountability law from 2020. Judge Timothy J. Schutz wrote that legislators crafted “a delicate balance” in directing the public release of body cam videos that capture a person’s death.

On the one hand, “the recordings depicting deaths in high-profile cases have profoundly impacted the public’s perceptions and spurred legislative action surrounding law enforcement’s use of force. On the other hand, the cost of releasing graphic and disturbing recordings includes the intrusion into the privacy interest of those depicted,” he wrote in the July 10 opinion. “But it is the General Assembly’s purview to draw those lines.”

On March 27, 2023, three Lakewood police agents pursued Mariana Martinez, a teenager suspected of armed robbery. According to an inquiry by District Attorney Alexis King, the agents cornered her at an auto shop, saw her draw and point a handgun, and opened fire on her. The agents fatally injured Martinez. King cleared the agents of wrongdoing, finding deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances.

Months later, Martinez’s family notified the city of their intent to file a civil claim. A reporter for Scripps News then sought release of the agents’ body cam footage pursuant to Senate Bill 217, a comprehensive accountability law enacted in the wake of George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis. Among other things, the law mandates the release of audio or video recordings when agencies receive complaints of officer misconduct.

Lakewood denied the request for the footage. Senior Assistant City Attorney Patrick Freeman alerted Martinez’s family that Lakewood had received “a number of requests” but that Martinez’s “privacy interests are vested with you, her family, and you can ultimately decide whether you want the video footage released to the media and made public.” The family confirmed it did not want the footage released.

Scripps News then petitioned for the videos’ disclosure pursuant to SB 217. At a May 2024 hearing, Jefferson County District Court Judge Chantel Contiguglia concluded the family’s wishes were not the driving force under the law.

“Folks, I don’t see that there is a choice. I see that it has to be disclosed,” she said.

Contiguglia explained that SB 217 designated juveniles as having “substantial privacy concerns,” for which the remedy was to blur the footage.

Freeman asked what would become of the audio, which was “pretty tragic and pretty awful.”

“I share the same concerns. And just as a human, what I’ve heard on the video, the last moments, the last breaths of life of Ms. Martinez are incredibly difficult for someone to hear,” responded Contiguglia. But because SB 217 said nothing about withholding the audio, “I don’t have authority that suggests that muting it at any portion is authorized.”

The city turned to the Court of Appeals, arguing body cam video depicting the death of a juvenile should not be disclosed publicly against the wishes of the surviving family.

“Given that not just the face but the entire head of the juvenile was ordered to be blurred, why does that not provide adequate protections?” asked Judge Terry Fox during oral arguments.

“The issue is identity,” echoed Judge Elizabeth L. Harris. “If you’re a minor, they don’t want your identity broadcast out to the world. … It sounds like your argument is whenever police officers shoot and kill a kid, (we are) not releasing the body cam.”

Ultimately, the panel upheld Contiguglia’s order to release the videos while blurring Martinez. Schutz wrote that the family did not have veto authority in this situation, nor did the footage amount to a “juvenile record” that was subject to confidentiality. He added that SB 217 did not appear to authorize judges to allow for the redaction of audio. But even if it did, the panel did not discern Martinez to say anything as she was dying.

“Rather her sounds were limited to gasps for breath and expressions of pain. The audio portion reveals the physical act of dying,” Schutz wrote. SB 217 “clearly contemplates the release of BWC video and audio recordings that depict the death of an individual.”

The case is Ion Media Networks, Inc. v. West.