[music] >> On the early morning of October 9th, 2022, Officer Colby Hickman of the Colorado Springs Police Department was on patrol in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Dalvin Gadson with passenger Carlos Carranza after observing that the vehicle had no rear license plate and was traveling at approximately 15 mph in a 45 mph zone. During his initial approach, Officer Hickman observed what he believed to be a knife in the center console of the vehicle, after which he called for additional units with Officer Christopher Hummel and Officer Matthew Anderson responding as backup. The encounter that followed was captured on the officers' body worn cameras. We will start our review of the footage with Officer Anderson's body camera. >> All right, man. What you got there, cop car? >> [laughter] >> Yeah, dude. Sweet. You got your You got your ID or anything? >> Oh, yeah. Here's his >> You got his ID, too, already? Okay, cool. >> Nice, huh? >> Yeah. So, pull him out. Hey. Move. Move. Move. Get down. On the ground. On the ground. ON THE GROUND. STAY. STAY THE SAME. >> I'M NOT A COP, BRO. >> GET OUT OF THE CAR. >> STOP PLAYING. >> GET THE [ __ ] OUT. YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK. HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK. >> Put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest. >> Hey, they don't need to hear my phone. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Hands behind your back now. >> What happened? What Why you Why you hurting me? Why you hurting >> You're good. You're good. You're good. You're good. You're good. >> Let me get up. Let me get >> Stay. STILL? >> YES. >> UH-OH. BRO, I LOVE Y'ALL. >> PUT YOUR hands behind your back. >> All right, bro. >> You're done. FLIP OVER NOW. YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. >> ALL RIGHT, BUDDY. >> PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK. >> ON YOUR STOMACH NOW. >> WHAT THE >> NO. >> GET UP, BLUE. I'M LAYING. I'M LAYING. I'M LAYING. I'M LAYING. I DIDN'T DO NOTHING. I ain't fighting. I'm chill, all right? >> Get on your back now. >> I'm laying. I'm laying. I'm laying. I'm trying. I'm trying. I'm laying. My brother is my >> I'm going to tase you. >> My brother is Oh, my brother. Oh, my brother. Oh, my brother. Oh, my brother. Oh, my god. >> Right hand behind your back now. >> What did I do? >> Right hand BEHIND YOUR BACK NOW. >> YES, SIR. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. >> HEY, I said right hand >> Yes, sir. >> BEHIND YOUR [ __ ] BACK NOW. >> OKAY. OKAY. >> We got to do the tasing, blue. Stay here. Stay here. Stay here. >> You're under arrest. dumb >> Hey, hey, hey. Why you trying to fight me? >> Now you can see if you can slow everyone down. Code four, one in custody, one detained. Supervisor medical, code two. You good? Hey, man. >> [clears throat] >> What did you say? I have to search him? We're just going to pat him. We're going to go to your butt, okay? >> Okay. >> Roll. And sit. >> Yep. Please give me your height. >> Good. >> Yeah. >> You can go. You can go. You're done. You're done. You're all right. >> All right, uh he's fine. >> Officer Anderson approaches the front passenger door, makes contact with Mr. Carranza, and once the struggle with Mr. Gadsden begins on the driver side, Officer Anderson pulls Mr. Carranza out of the vehicle and forces him to the ground without any prior verbal warning, command, or expression of resistance from Mr. Carranza. Officer Anderson then handcuffs Mr. Carranza and later conducts a frisk of his person. The Supreme Court held in the 1997 case of Maryland v. Wilson that an officer making a lawful traffic stop may order a passenger out of the vehicle as a matter of course. And the court further held in the 2009 case of Arizona v. Johnson that a passenger is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes for the duration of the stop and may be subjected to a frisk if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and presently dangerous. The constitutional question is therefore not whether Officer Anderson had the legal authority to remove Mr. Carranza from the vehicle, but whether the manner in which he did so and the subsequent frisk and handcuffing were each objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. On one hand, the rapidly developing altercation on the driver's side, the officer's awareness of a knife in the center console of a vehicle within Mr. Carranza's reach, and the concern that Mr. Carranza could intervene in the struggle or access a weapon during the chaos, all weigh in favor of finding that quickly removing him from the vehicle and securing him in a controlled position fell within the bounds of objective reasonableness. And the frisk that followed could be supported by the officer's knowledge of the accessible knife. On the other hand, Mr. Carranza had been calm and cooperative throughout his interaction with Officer Anderson, was given no opportunity to comply with a verbal command before being physically forced from the vehicle to the pavement, and was not himself the focus of Officer Hickman's stated investigation, all of which weigh against a finding that the manner in which the force was applied was the least intrusive means reasonably available. A court evaluating these facts would weigh the immediacy of the perceived threat against the absence of any individualized basis to suspect Mr. Carranza of wrongdoing prior to the moment that Officer Anderson made physical contact with him. >> He just kept going back in. The knife was right there. That's when I was I just put my knuckles through my gloves. I got your car back. I got your car back. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome, man. >> In addition to the footage from Officer Anderson's body-worn camera, the same sequence of events was simultaneously captured from a separate vantage point on Officer Hummel's body-worn camera. >> He tries to get out immediately. >> Yeah. >> Um just two of them in there. >> Is he going to be detained for a DUI investigation? >> Uh yeah, I was waiting for you guys to pull them out. Looks like there was a knife in the center console. >> Okay. >> Um yeah, I was just waiting. >> 88 can I get a 4? >> I'm 11. >> Okay. >> Can you read that? >> Give me a 796. Uh >> Copy. >> Yeah, maybe. He's not going to have a return on that. >> 88 can I get a >> Just going to detain driver. >> Okay. >> Says he's got a knife or something in the center console. >> All right, man. >> So, um going to ask you to just not reach for anything and step on out of the vehicle, okay? >> What am I going to do? >> Uh we'll talk about that, okay? So, just step on out. >> You got your You got your ID or anything? You got his ID too already? >> Yeah, okay. >> I'm going to just chill right here if that's cool. >> No, you can get out of the car. And we're going to detain you, okay? >> Detain me for what? >> Yep, you're under investigation for a DUI. >> Under investigation >> stand up, turn around. Step out of the car Step out of the car, man. >> Hands behind my back? >> Yes, you're going to be detained in handcuffs. >> Uh no, I'm not. You're about to stand up. >> You are. >> Hey! Get your [ __ ] hands off me. GET OFF ME. GET GET OFF ME. STOP [ __ ] WITH ME. STOP FIGHTING ME. YOU'RE ASSAULTING ME. >> I'M NOT ASSAULTING YOU. >> HE'S KICKING ME. >> 88 11 IS CHASING ME. >> I GOT IT, 88. >> 88 11 is code 3. >> You're under arrest. >> I'm not hearing you. >> My dog. >> 88 11 is code 3. He's really fighting. >> Hands behind your back. >> Put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest. >> Code 3. >> All right, let me let me get out. Let me get out. Put your hands behind your back. HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK NOW. LET GO. LET ME GET UP. YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. >> ALL RIGHT, BRO. Quit resisting. Bro, quit resisting. >> Yes. Put your hands behind your back. PUT THEM OVER NOW. >> YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. >> ALL RIGHT, BRO. I'M UNDER THE CAR. >> PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK. >> I'M UNDER YOUR CAR NOW. >> WHAT THE [ __ ] >> NO. >> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WHAT THE [ __ ] DO I DO, BRO? >> I'm fine. >> I ain't fighting no cop, all right, bro? >> Get on your back now. >> All right. All right. All right. I'm trying. I'm trying. I'm trying. I'm trying, man. My brother is my brother. >> you. >> My brother is my brother. All my brothers. All my brothers. All my brothers. All my brothers. Oh my god. >> We are still >> All right. All right. GET BACK NOW. >> RIGHT HAND BEHIND YOUR BACK NOW. >> YES, SIR. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. >> HEY, I said right hand behind your back now. >> Okay. >> We have two detained. >> Stay here. Stay here. >> And the supervisor. You're under arrest. You dumb >> Hey. Hey. I'm going to try to fight you. >> Officer Hickman and Officer Hummel return to the driver's door, inform Mr. Gatson that he's being detained, and after he refuses to exit, the encounter rapidly escalates into a protracted struggle inside and around the vehicle. The body worn camera footage of this sequence is, by its nature, chaotic and partially obscured. With the close quarters of the vehicle, the movement of three officers, and the angles of the cameras making it difficult to discern the precise sequence of events as the encounter unfolds in real time. Additionally, the accounts of what occurred diverge significantly between the officers' subsequent reports and the allegations that Mr. Gadson set forth in a complaint for a federal civil rights lawsuit that he filed following the incident. What can be established across those sources is that Officer Hummel reached in to grab Mr. Gadson's arm. Mr. Gadson pulled away, and the force that followed included multiple knee strikes, punches, and kicks, including approximately 13 to 14 closed fist strikes by Officer Anderson to Mr. Gadson's head and face, and approximately 10 to 11 additional strikes by Officer Anderson to Mr. Gadson's torso before Mr. Gadson was ultimately placed in handcuffs. The Supreme Court established the governing constitutional framework for evaluating police uses of force in the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, holding that claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force in the course of an arrest are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. Additionally, the court identified three non-exclusive factors that guide that analysis: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Building on that framework, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Colorado, explained in the 2025 case of Krueger v. Phillips that courts must consider whether the force used is proportional to the suspect's crime, and that where officers use multiple forms of force, the court generally considers whether the combined force was reasonable rather than evaluating each strike in isolation. Applied to the encounter with Mr. Gadson, the severity of the suspected offense at the moment that force began was a suspected DUI, a non-violent misdemeanor offense. Regarding the immediacy of the threat at the moment that Officer Hummel first applied force, the officers articulated that Mr. Gadsden's movement back into the vehicle put him within reach of the knife in the center console and that the vehicle was running. Although the footage itself does not definitively confirm or refute the officers' characterization of Mr. Gadsden's movements towards the knife. Now, as to the third Graham factor, although the footage does show Mr. Gadsden physically pulling away and failing to present his hands for handcuffing, the broader question of whether his conduct amounted to active aggression or rather to a defensive reaction to the force being applied to him is contested between the officers' reports and Mr. Gadsden's complaint. The primary constitutional concern, regardless of which version of the underlying struggle is accurate, is whether the volume of force employed, particularly the more than 20 strikes Officer Anderson delivered in close succession, was proportional to a suspected misdemeanor DUI investigation. Although the proximity of the knife does play into the analysis and a court could find that the officers were justified in using some force to remove Mr. Gadsden from the vehicle, there's a strong argument that the totality of the force used against him was excessive. >> No. >> What are you talking about, man? >> Three pole 14, do you still need units? Code three. >> So, everyone down here. >> Code four, one in custody, one detained. Supervisor, medical, code two. >> God. >> I'm code three. >> What? >> You can clear the code one. >> [panting] >> Hey, can you clear the code one? >> Holy >> Hey, 28, when you get here, can you come up here with this gentleman with me? He said you can clear the code one. >> Copy code one zero four. >> 23 you copy. >> You good? >> He just kept going back in. >> Yeah, I know. >> You are in route to DJC with one >> You are in route to DJC. >> Yeah, one four. >> [snorts] >> Copy >> [sighs] >> Dude, what >> My knee hurts. >> You good? >> Three out of 38. >> Good. >> For AMR's information, what are we needing them for? >> Hey 27, you can show me out. Um, one of our parties is going to have uh, a couple blows to the head. He's bleeding out of his arm and his face. The other one I think is fine. >> [sighs] >> I copy. >> Hey 27, yeah, it's just going to be our one party that's bleeding out of his uh, his head and his arm. He's going to need medical for. Uh, second party to scene was not uh, having any use of force on him. >> I copy. >> Hey, before he Before he goes, take pictures of him. Hey Kev. Stolen? They were acting so weird when I came up. >> [sighs] >> Made him put his hands out the window. Cuz he was [ __ ] acting so weird. So I said, "Keep your hands out the window." Gave me his ID. So I'm going to back Everybody good? >> He did not He did not want to get out of that car. I bet that's why. >> [snorts] >> What do you guys need besides >> One alpha four 10 11 10 11. >> Copy. >> Three alpha seven. >> Copy. >> that's one. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah, we got enough that are coming so you guys can just stay out of it for here. >> I almost I almost backed into the couch trying to get here cuz I heard you say one's fighting and I was like, "Where are they?" cuz I had my computer inside. I tried to I tried to reach down and say airport immediately but I couldn't get to my radio. >> No, it was it was a fight. He was fighting back. >> You hear him he looks like that. I assume was you. >> Yeah, me. It was all three of us. >> Mr. Gadson was transported by ambulance to UC Health Memorial Central Hospital where he received medical treatment for the injuries that he sustained during the encounter. He was subsequently charged with two counts of assault in the second degree, one count of obstructing a peace officer, one count of resisting arrest, one count of failure to display a license plate, and one count of driving under the influence. The El Paso County District Attorney's Office subsequently dismissed all the criminal charges. And Mr. Gadson ultimately pleaded guilty only to a traffic violation for unlawful display of a license plate for which he received a fine. On December 21st, 2022, Mr. Gadson filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Officer Hickman, Officer Hummel, Officer Anderson, and the City of Colorado Springs. On May 14th, 2024, the Colorado Springs City Council voted 7 to 1 to approve a $2.1 million settlement Mr. Gadson and the case was formally terminated by stipulated dismissal on June 24th, 2024. Separately, the Colorado Springs Police Department conducted an Internal Affairs investigation in which Deputy Chief David Edmonson found the use of force allegations against Officer Hickman, Officer Hummel, and Officer Anderson to be unfounded under the Department's policy. The Department did, however, sustain allegations against Officer Hummel for violating the treatment of the public policy and the conduct unbecoming of a police officer policy, both arising from his post-incident comments toward and about Mr. Gadson, for which Officer Hummel received a 10-hour suspension and was removed from his position as a police training officer. The department also sustained an allegation against Officer Anderson for violating the orders and discretionary judgment policy for failing to evaluate the effectiveness of his strikes and consider alternative tactics during the application of force, for which he received a supervisor discussion record and 10 hours of remedial scenario training. Additional sustained findings against Officer Joshua Kephart for impartiality-related comments after the use of force and against Sergeant Kareem Fudge for failures in scene supervision and investigative procedures resulted in a supervisor discussion record and a written reprimand, respectively. Overall, Officer Hickman, Officer Hummel, and Officer Anderson get an F for resorting to physical force with remarkable speed, applying a volume of force disproportionate to the underlying suspected misdemeanor offense, and pursuing criminal charges against Mr. Gadson that the District Attorney's Office ultimately found unworthy of prosecution. The traffic stop and the order to exit the vehicle were both lawful, and although the body-worn camera footage of the moments immediately preceding and during the use of force is inconclusive as to what Mr. Gadson was doing with his hands and the precise nature of his resistance, the officer's decision to reach into the vehicle and grab Mr. Gadson occurred within seconds of his refusal to exit without any meaningful effort to de-escalate, issue additional commands, or warn Mr. Gadson before force was applied. What followed was force applied without the kind of evaluation and reassessment that department itself trains its officers to perform, with Officer Anderson's sequence of more than 20 consecutive strikes raising a serious question about whether the combined force was proportional to a suspected misdemeanor DUI investigation. Regardless of which version of the underlying struggle is to be believed, the settlement the City of Colorado Springs paid to Mr. Gadson reflects an institutional assessment of the litigation risk that this volume of force created and the fact that the district attorney dismissed every charge against Mr. Gadson except the failure to display a license plate further reflects the prosecutorial reality that this incident did not survive legal review. This interaction highlights how the speed with which force is initiated and the volume in which it is applied can transform a lawful detention into a constitutional and institutional liability regardless of whether the underlying seizure was justified. As for Mr. Gadson, I cannot rightly assign him a grade based on the available evidence. The body worn camera footage of the moments immediately preceding and during the use of force is inconclusive. With the close quarters of the vehicle, the movement of the officers, and the angles of the cameras obscuring critical details about what Mr. Gadson was doing with his hands, whether he was reaching for the knife in the center console, and the precise nature of his resistance. And the account of what occurred diverge significantly between the officers subsequent reports and the allegations that Mr. Gadson set forth in the complaint in his federal civil rights lawsuit. What can be said with confidence is that Mr. Gadson was legally obligated to step out of the vehicle once officer Hickman ordered him to do so as part of a lawful detention and that his refusal to comply with that order is not constitutionally protected conduct. It can also be said that the officers resorted to physical force with remarkable speed reaching into the vehicle to grab Mr. Gadson within seconds of his refusal and without any meaningful effort to de-escalate, give additional commands, or allow Mr. Gadson an opportunity to comply before force was applied. Whether what followed was a man attempting to protect himself against an unprovoked beating as Mr. Gadson alleges or a man potentially attempting to access a weapon while assaulting officers as the officers reported is not a question that this footage can resolve. What is undisputed is that Mr. Gadson subsequently utilized the proper legal channels in response by obtaining counsel, filing a federal civil rights lawsuit, and ultimately securing a $2.1 million settlement from the city of Colorado Springs. While the district attorney dismissed every charge against him other than the unlawful display of a license plate violation. I commend Mr. Gadson for pursuing accountability through the courts and for securing a substantial settlement for the physical harm that was done to him. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out Audit the Court if you're interested in exploring the legal nuance beyond the body cam. >> [music] [music]