(1) A peace officer, as defined in section 24-31-901 (3), who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors secured by the bill of rights, article II of the state constitution, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief.
(2) (a) Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees do not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section. The "Colorado Governmental Immunity Act", article 10 of title 24, does not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section.
(b) Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section.
(3) In any action brought pursuant to this section, a court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. In actions for injunctive relief, a court shall deem a plaintiff to have prevailed if the plaintiff's suit was a substantial factor or significant catalyst in obtaining the results sought by the litigation. When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant, the court may award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the defendant for defending any claims the court finds frivolous.
(4) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer's employer shall indemnify its peace officers for any liability incurred by the peace officer and for any judgment or settlement entered against the peace officer for claims arising pursuant to this section; except that, if the peace officer's employer determines on a case-by-case basis that the officer did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, then the peace officer is personally liable and shall not be indemnified by the peace officer's employer for five percent of the judgment or settlement or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is less. Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, if the peace officer's portion of the judgment is uncollectible from the peace officer, the peace officer's employer or insurance shall satisfy the full amount of the judgment or settlement. A public entity does not have to indemnify a peace officer if the peace officer was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct from which the claim arises unless the peace officer's employer was a causal factor in the violation, through its action or inaction.
(b) (I) An employer shall not:
(A) Preemptively determine whether a peace officer acted in good faith before such action in question has occurred; or
(B) Provide a determination providing that any peace officer or peace officers are deemed to have acted in good faith until completion of a documented investigation conducted by the employer.
(II) If a person believes that an employer has violated the provisions of subsection (4)(b)(I) of this section, the person shall submit a complaint to the P.O.S.T. board, created in section 24-31-302, which shall refer the complaint to an administrative law judge to determine whether a violation occurred. The administrative law judge shall notify the P.O.S.T. board chair of a finding that a violation of subsection (4)(b)(I) of this section occurred. If a violation is found, the P.O.S.T. board shall not provide P.O.S.T. cash fund money to the employer for one full year from the date of the finding.
(III) For the purposes of this subsection (4)(b), an employer includes the elected sheriff, chief of police, city or town administrator, county administrator, mayor, city or town council, county commission, or any other public body with formal supervision and oversight of a law enforcement agency.
(5) A civil action pursuant to this section must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.
Source: L. 2020: Entire section added, (SB 20-217), ch. 110, p. 452, § 3, effective June 19. L. 2021: (1) and (4) amended, (HB 21-1250), ch. 458, p. 3062, § 6, effective July 6.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 20-217, see section 1 of chapter 110, Session Laws of Colorado 2020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
49 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case:
Johnson v. Staab, 2025 COA 45 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Johnson v. Staab, 2025 COA 45 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 15× “Staab — Damages — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights; Constitutional Law — Colorado Constitution — Searches and Seizures — Search Warrant Affidavits — False Statements and Material Omissions A division of the court of appeals concludes for the first time that, for purposes…”
Mosley v. Daves, 2025 COA 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 26× “aves — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights; Constitutional Law — Fourth Amendment — Searches and Seizures — Warrantless Search; Civil Jury Instructions — Affirmative Defenses In a case of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that legal justification for…”
Palmas v. Bd. (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 56× “3- 107, section 13-21-131 is intended to address the circumstances in which a government entity is responsible for paying a judgment entered against a peace officer who violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
Hudnall v. Bd. (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 56× “3- 107, section 13-21-131 is intended to address the circumstances in which a government entity is responsible for paying a judgment entered against a peace officer who violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
Vincent Damon Ditirro v. Matthew J. Sando (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 43× “Sando — Causes of Action — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights — Peace Officers — Indemnification by Peace Officer’s Employer A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado’s statute that authorizes civil actions against a “peace officer” who subjects another…”
Waugh v. Veith, 2025 COA 41 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 41× “In this section 13-21-131 action, the district court awarded costs to the prevailing defendants without finding that any of the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous.”
Brooks v. City & Cnty. of Denver (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 25× “II, § 25, and sought damages against multiple peace officers under section 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025. The district court dismissed each of Brooks’ claims for failure to state a claim under C.”
Minter v. City of Aurora, Colorado (D. Colo. 2022).
· cites it 19× “See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131 . 18 any controlling precedent circumscribing law enforcement’s ability to forcibly disperse a crowd after an unlawful assembly is declared when the crowd does not voluntarily comply.”
Denver Homeless Out Loud v. Denver, Colorado (D. Colo. 2022).
· cites it 13× “For example, in a footnote in their response, Plaintiffs state that they “explicitly specified in the Amended Complaint that they do not bring their Colorado Constitutional claims against the State Defendants under C.R.S. § 13-21-131.”5 (ECF No. 202 at 6 n.”
Denver Homeless Out Loud v. Denver, Colorado (D. Colo. 2022).
· cites it 12× “§ 1983 , against Denver (Claim 6); • unlawful seizure, pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-131 and Colorado Constitution, Article II, § 7 against Defendants John & Jane Boes 1-50,6 Cody, A.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(1) — 9 cases
Mosley v. Daves, 2025 COA 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“aves — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights; Constitutional Law — Fourth Amendment — Searches and Seizures — Warrantless Search; Civil Jury Instructions — Affirmative Defenses In a case of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that legal justification for…”
Johnson v. Staab, 2025 COA 45 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“Staab — Damages — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights; Constitutional Law — Colorado Constitution — Searches and Seizures — Search Warrant Affidavits — False Statements and Material Omissions A division of the court of appeals concludes for the first time that, for purposes…”
Vincent Damon Ditirro v. Matthew J. Sando (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
“Sando — Causes of Action — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights — Peace Officers — Indemnification by Peace Officer’s Employer A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado’s statute that authorizes civil actions against a “peace officer” who subjects another…”
Palmas v. Bd. (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“3- 107, section 13-21-131 is intended to address the circumstances in which a government entity is responsible for paying a judgment entered against a peace officer who violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(2)(a) — 3 cases
Brooks v. City & Cnty. of Denver (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
“II, § 25, and sought damages against multiple peace officers under section 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025. The district court dismissed each of Brooks’ claims for failure to state a claim under C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(2)(b) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(3) — 4 cases
Mosley v. Daves, 2025 COA 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“aves — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights; Constitutional Law — Fourth Amendment — Searches and Seizures — Warrantless Search; Civil Jury Instructions — Affirmative Defenses In a case of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that legal justification for…”
Waugh v. Veith, 2025 COA 41 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“In this section 13-21-131 action, the district court awarded costs to the prevailing defendants without finding that any of the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous.”
Brooks v. City & Cnty. of Denver (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
“II, § 25, and sought damages against multiple peace officers under section 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025. The district court dismissed each of Brooks’ claims for failure to state a claim under C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(4) — 3 cases
Vincent Damon Ditirro v. Matthew J. Sando (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
“Sando — Causes of Action — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights — Peace Officers — Indemnification by Peace Officer’s Employer A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado’s statute that authorizes civil actions against a “peace officer” who subjects another…”
Palmas v. Bd. (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“3- 107, section 13-21-131 is intended to address the circumstances in which a government entity is responsible for paying a judgment entered against a peace officer who violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
Hudnall v. Bd. (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“3- 107, section 13-21-131 is intended to address the circumstances in which a government entity is responsible for paying a judgment entered against a peace officer who violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(4)(a) — 4 cases
Palmas v. Bd. (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“3- 107, section 13-21-131 is intended to address the circumstances in which a government entity is responsible for paying a judgment entered against a peace officer who violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
Hudnall v. Bd. (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“3- 107, section 13-21-131 is intended to address the circumstances in which a government entity is responsible for paying a judgment entered against a peace officer who violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
Johnson v. Staab, 2025 COA 45 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“Staab — Damages — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights; Constitutional Law — Colorado Constitution — Searches and Seizures — Search Warrant Affidavits — False Statements and Material Omissions A division of the court of appeals concludes for the first time that, for purposes…”
Vincent Damon Ditirro v. Matthew J. Sando (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
“Sando — Causes of Action — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights — Peace Officers — Indemnification by Peace Officer’s Employer A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado’s statute that authorizes civil actions against a “peace officer” who subjects another…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(4)(b)(II) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(5) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.