Colorado’s second-highest court decided last month that the standard used by federal courts for assessing whether government officials may be liable for constitutional violations upon the death of a jail detainee also applies to claims made under the Colorado Constitution.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit over the July 2022 suicide of Gavin Tweed in the Denver jail. The panel concluded that Tweed’s surviving common law spouse needed to allege the sheriff’s defendants were deliberately indifferent to Tweed’s serious medical needs. The standard requires that a person know about, but disregard, a substantial risk of harm to the detainee.

“If the officers had known that Tweed was suicidal, we would agree that using aggressive tactics or inadequately monitoring him could, under some circumstances, show deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs,” wrote Judge Grant T. Sullivan in the May 28 opinion. But the plaintiff “didn’t allege that any defendant knew that Tweed might harm himself.”

The plaintiff, Shia Brooks, alleged that Denver police arrested Tweed at his home on July 17, 2022, on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant from Adams County. The officers “aggressively” locked Tweed in the Denver jail and “formed the belief” that he had assaulted them. As a result, the jail assigned Tweed a felony-level classification.

Sheriff’s employees at the jail allegedly failed to assess Tweed’s history of trauma and mental disorder. They also failed to adequately monitor him. Four days after his arrest, Tweed attempted suicide. Although medical staff at nearby Denver Health placed him on life support, he died on July 23.

Brooks filed suit against the police chief, sheriff, Denver Health, the city and various other defendants. She alleged the defendants unlawfully arrested him, violated his due process rights by failing to keep him alive and were liable for wrongful death, among other claims.

In part, Brooks relied on a Colorado law enacted in 2020 that authorized claims against law enforcement officers for monetary damages for violations of state constitutional rights. Her lawyers also noted Colorado Supreme Court precedent — predating the law change — that generally rejected the existence of damages for state constitutional violations. Brooks asserted that she intended to ask the Supreme Court to overturn that earlier ruling.

In a May 2025 order, District Court Judge Jill D. Dorancy granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims. She did not mention the 2020 law permitting damages claims against law enforcement officers. Instead, she leaned on the Supreme Court’s precedent and believed that Brooks could pursue only state constitutional claims if they differed from those under the U.S. Constitution.

Because Brooks’ state constitutional claims could have been brought as federal constitutional violations, Dorancy dismissed them. As for the wrongful death claim, she concluded that Brooks did “not identify any protocols that were violated or that personnel were aware of Mr. Tweed’s suicide risk or mental health needs. Further, Plaintiff provides insufficient information as to what procedures were or were not followed, what information was known to staff or how any departure from protocol led to harm.”

In reviewing Brooks’ appeal of the dismissal order, the Court of Appeals panel acknowledged that Dorancy had not mentioned the 2020 change in law. Sullivan largely sidestepped her reasoning, focusing instead on the standard for evaluating jail death claims under the Colorado Constitution. He wrote that the federal standard of deliberate indifference was appropriate, even though the parties had not explicitly advocated for it.

“Brooks didn’t allege that any defendant knew about Tweed’s traumatic history or that he was suicidal at the time of his detention,” wrote Sullivan. “And without actual knowledge that Tweed was currently suicidal, the defendants couldn’t have been deliberately indifferent by failing to ascertain Tweed’s medical and mental health needs.”

As for the sheriff and police chief, who were allegedly responsible for failing to implement effective suicide-prevention policies, “Brooks never alleged that (they) knew that their agencies’ suicide-prevention policies presented an excessive risk to detainees’ safety,” Sullivan continued.

Because the appellate panel decided Brooks failed to allege that any government official violated Tweed’s rights, Sullivan noted the panel did not need to engage with the Supreme Court’s precedent barring damages claims for state constitutional violations. He pointed out, however, that the Supreme Court’s ruling permitted Brooks to bring a federal lawsuit for damages in the alternative.

Finally, the panel rejected Brooks’ claim of an unlawful seizure for Tweed’s arrest, with Sullivan writing that the allegations painted “a picture of a relatively unremarkable arrest.”

The case is Brooks v. City and County of Denver et al.