wilk family vs. st. vrain valley school district, erie police department, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. ________________________ ERIK WILK, DEREK WILK, and JAMI WILK,

Plaintiffs,

v. ST. VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOHN CREIGHTON, JOIE SIEGRIST, BOB SMITH, DEBBIE LAMMERS, JOHN AHRENS, PAULA PEAIRS, and MIKE SCHIERS, members of the District’s Board, in their individual and official capacities, DON HADDAD, Superintendent of Schools, in his individual and official capacity, GREG WINGER, Expulsion Officer of the District, in his individual capacity, MATTHEW BUCHLER, Principal of Erie High School, in his individual capacity, TOWN OF ERIE POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARC VASQUEZ, Erie Police Department, in his individual and official capacity, DAN NIEMOTH, Erie Police Department, in his individual capacity, and AARON HADDOX, Erie Police Department, in his individual capacity,

Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

For their Complaint, Plaintiffs Erik Wilk, Derek Wilk, and Jami Wilk allege as

follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the wrongful expulsion

of Erik Wilk from Erie High School, the wrongful arrest of Erik Wilk, and the wrongful

searches of the Wilk residence in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First, Fourth,

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Case 1:15-cv-01925-NYW Document 2 Filed 09/04/15 USDC Colorado of 62

2

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs.

1. Erik Wilk resides at 1325 Banner Circle, Erie, Boulder County, Colorado

80516.

2. Derek Wilk resides at 1325 Banner Circle, Erie, Boulder, County, Colorado

80516 and is Erik’s father.

3. Jami Wilk resides at 1325 Banner Circle, Erie, Boulder, County, Colorado

80516 and is Erik’s mother.

B. Defendants.

4. Defendant St. Vrain Valley School District (“the District”) is a school district

organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, with principal offices

located at 395 South Pratt Parkway, Longmont, Colorado 80501. The District

operates under the supervision and control of its Board of Education (“the

Board”).

5. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendants John Creighton, Joie

Siegrist, Bob Smith, Debbie Lammers, John Ahrens, Paula Peairs, and Mike

Schiers were members of the District’s Board.

6. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Don Haddad (“Haddad”)

was the District’s Superintendent of Schools.

7. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Greg Winger (“Winger”) was the

District’s Expulsion Officer.

8. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Matthew Buchler (”Buchler”)

was the Principal of Erie High School, a District school.


3

9. Defendant Erie Police Department (Erie PD) is a department of the Town of

Erie, Colorado government.

10. At all times material to the Complaint, Defendant Marc Vasquez was the Chief

of Police for the Erie Police Department.

11. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Dan Niemoth was a peace

officer with the Erie Police Department.

12. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendant Aaron Haddox was a peace

officer with the Erie Police Department.

13. In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants were acting under color

of state law.

14. In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the

United States.

15. In doing the things complained of herein, Defendants acted with reckless or

callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ federally-protected rights or were motivated

by evil motive or intent.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. Plaintiffs’ claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has

jurisdiction of the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3) and (4).

17. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)

and (2).

IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS


4

18. The Town of Erie (Erie) is a Colorado statutory town with principal offices

located at 645 Holbrook St., Erie, Colorado 80516 and a population of

approximately 22,000.

19. Erie High School (Erie HS) is a District school located at 3180 Weld County

Rd 5, Erie, Colorado and has an enrollment of approximately 750 students.

20. Plaintiffs have lived in Erie, Colorado for approximately fifteen years.

21. Derek and Jami Wilk have been married for approximately twenty-three years

and have three sons and one daughter, ranging in age from four to eighteen

years. Erik is the Wilks’ oldest son.

22. Erik grew up in Erie and, until the events described below, attended Erie

public schools, including Erie Elementary School, Erie Middle School, and

Erie HS.

23. At Erie HS, in addition to his academic pursuits, Erik participated in the

marching, pep, and symphonic bands. Band involvement was year-round,

including summer practices.

24. Outside of school, Erik has been actively involved in the Boy Scouts since the

first grade. In May 2015, he earned the rank of Eagle Scout, scouting’s

highest honor. He also is a member of the Order of the Arrow, scouting’s

honor society, and has earned the National Outdoor Award for camping.

25. Erik has been active in his church, both in youth group and as a confirmation

group leader.

26. Erik is interested in military history and, as a hobby, has been involved with

the Colorado Military Historical Group (CMHG) since 2010. The CHMG is


5

dedicated to preserving history and educating the public about World War II.

Its membership includes people of various ages and from many walks of life.

Among other things, members of the CHMG participate in reenactments of

military battles, using adapted period rifles. In addition, Erik has volunteered

at the Broomfield Veteran’s Museum to teach flag etiquette and history.

27. During the school year 2013- 2014, Erik was in his junior year at Erie HS.

28. On the morning of Friday, February 28, 2014, Principal Buchler called the Erie

PD to report a “possible threat” against Erie HS. Officer Haddox of the Erie

PD took Buchler’s call.

29. Buchler told Haddox that an Erie HS teacher had reported to him that two

female students, S.G. and V.T., had reported to the teacher that a male

student, S.M., said that Erik may have a plan to shoot up the school.

30. S.G. and V.T. were cheerleaders at Erie HS and had spoken with S.M the

previous afternoon at the school gym prior to a cheerleading practice. S.M.

was at the gym cleaning up while serving a disciplinary detention.

31. Erik was not present when S.M. made the alleged comment to the two female

students.

32. Erik himself never made a comment about planning to shoot up the school.

33. Prior to this encounter, S.G. and V.T. did not know either S.M. or Erik.

34. February 28, 2014 was a non-student contact day at Erie HS, and students

were not in attendance at the school that day.

35. Prior to calling the Erie PD, Buchler did not speak to S.M., S.G., V.T. or Erik

or his parents.


6

36. Haddox asked Buchler to come to the Erie PD to brief the information further.

37. Buchler e-mailed school information about Erik to Haddox and screen shots

from Erik’s Facebook page showing photographs of a zombie in a Nazi

soldier, photographs of Erik holding a rifle and dressed in a military uniform,

and reference to “Johnny the Homicidal Maniac.” The reference to Johnny the

Homicidal Maniac was one of approximately 50 “likes” that also included

Cookie Monster and Star Wars.

38. Upon further investigation, Haddox found that the photograph of the Nazi

soldier was related to a movie, the photographs of Erik in uniform with a rifle

were related to his participation in WWI reenactments, and Johnny the

Homicidal Maniac was found to be a comic book. Erik’s Facebook page

contained no mention of any threats against Erie HS.

39. At approximately 11:45 a.m. that morning, after receiving Buchler’s call,

Officers Haddox and Niemoth were standing outside the Erie PD station when

Erik and S.M. happened to be skateboarding past the building.

40. Haddox formerly had served as an Erie HS School Resource Officer and was

familiar with many of the school’s students. He recognized Erik and S.M. and

called them over. Haddox told the boys he wanted to speak with them and

asked if they would come into the station. They agreed to do so.

41. Haddox told Erik and S.M. he needed to contact their parents before he could

talk with them. Haddox attempted unsuccessfully to reach S.M.’s father.

Haddox reached Erik’s mother at home, and she agreed to come to the

station.


7

42. The Erie PD investigation and finding of no credible threat. Although he

had not been able to reach S.M.’s father, Haddox proceeded to question S.M.

Haddox permitted Buchler to attend the session and to question S.M. as well.

43. S.M. told Haddox and Buchler that S.G. and V.T. had engaged him in

conversation while waiting for cheerleading practice to start. According to

S.M., the cheerleaders asked him a “bunch of questions,” including, among

other things, whether he had a girlfriend, whether he was able to fall in love,

whether he was a psychopath, whether he ever had brought a knife to school,

and whether he was going to shoot up the school. During this conversation,

S.M. told S.G. and V.T. he was not going to shoot up the school.

44. Buchler told S.M. about S.G. and V.T. reporting that S.M. said Erik was going

to shoot up the school. S.M. denied saying that. S.M. said that, when S.G.

and V.T. asked him about shooting up the school, he told them that Erik hates

the school more than he does and that if someone was going to shoot up the

school, it would not be him it would “more likely” be Erik. S.M. told Haddox

that his statement to the cheerleaders was “more like a joke.”

45. Haddox asked S.M. if he had ever talked with Erik about doing anything to the

school, and S.M. stated that he had not.

46. Haddox asked S.M. if he and Erik had a plan to do anything at the school,

and S.M stated that they did not.

47. Haddox asked S.M. if Erik had ever thought of a plan on his own, and S. M.

said he had not.

48. Haddox asked S.M. if Erik had access to weapons, and S.M. said he did not.


8

49. Haddox asked S.M. if Erik had firearms in his residence, and S.M. said he did

not.

50. Buchler asked S.M. if Erik had access to weapons, and S.M. said he did not.

51. S.M. told Haddox that there is a gun safe in S.M.’s home but that the key is

with his mother in Colorado Springs. The next day, Haddox confirmed that

information with S.M.’s mother. She told Haddox that she lives in Colorado

Springs and possesses the only two keys to the gun safe in the home in Erie.

52. The questioning of S.M. lasted about twenty minutes and concluded at

approximately 12:18 p.m.

53. After questioning S.M., Haddox proceeded to question Erik. Haddox allowed

Buchler to be present for this session as well. Jami Wilk was present in

person, and Derek Wilk attended the session by telephone.

54. During the questioning, Haddox asked Erik if he had any plans to attack Erie

HS, and Erik said he did not.

55. Haddox asked Erik if he had any access to weapons, and Erik said he did not

and that his family does not own guns.

56. Haddox asked Erik about the rifles he was holding in the Facebook page

photographs. Erik told Haddox that they are adapted rifles used as part of his

WWII reenactment hobby and are not capable of firing bullets.

57. Haddox asked Jami Wilk whether Erik had access to or possessed firearms.

Jami told Haddox that Erik did not possess or have access to firearms and

that the Wilk family does not own firearms.


9

58. Haddox asked Erik if he had ever, in a joking or fantasizing manner, talked

about a plan to attack Erie HS, and Erik stated that he had not.

59. Haddox asked Erik again if he had ever talked about shooting up the school,

killing a student at the school, or hurting a student at the school, and Erik

stated that he had not.

60. Haddox asked Erik whether Haddox would find anything in Erik’s bedroom

that indicated a plan to attack the school, and Erik said he would not.

61. The questioning of Erik lasted approximately forty-five minutes and concluded

at approximately 1:03 p.m.

62. After questioning Erik, Haddox informed the Wilks that he wanted to search

Erik’s bedroom, and the Wilks consented to the search.

63. Shortly after receiving the consent, Haddox, Niemoth, Jami Wilk, and Erik

proceeded to the Wilk residence. Derek Wilk arrived at the residence a short

time later.

64. Beginning at approximately 1:14 p.m., Haddox and Niemoth conducted a

search of Erik’s bedroom for weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings,

maps, plans, and any other items possibly related to an attack on Erie High

School. They found no such items.

65. Haddox reported that he found WWII memorabilia, uniforms, and equipment

in the bedroom related to Erik’s WWII reenactment hobby.

66. Haddox also reported that he located no other suspicious items or documents

during the search.


10

67. The search of Erik’s bedroom lasted approximately forty-five minutes and

concluded at approximately 1:56 p.m.

68. Following the search, Haddox told Erik, in the presence of his parents, that he

had looked at Erik’s Facebook page and did not find it disturbing and that he

believed that Erik had gotten a “bum rap.”

69. The Erie PD also obtained consent to search S.M.’s bedroom. At

approximately 2:18 p.m., Haddox and Niemoth proceeded to S.M.’s residence

and searched his bedroom for weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings,

maps, plans, and any other items possibly related to an attack on Erie HS.

They found no such items.

70. The search of S.M.’s bedroom lasted approximately thirty minutes and

concluded at approximately 2:48 p.m.

71. During this search, Haddox further questioned S.M. about his alleged

comment to the two cheerleaders. Haddox reported that S.M. remained

adamant that the statements made to the cheerleaders were a joke and that

he had no knowledge that Erik was planning an attack on Erie HS.

72. On Saturday, March 1, 2014, Haddox continued the investigation by

questioning S.G. and V.T. at the Erie PD station.

73. Haddox questioned S.G. first, and her father attended the session.

74. According to S.G., she and V.T. had conversed with S.M. the previous

Thursday evening when they went to Erie HS for cheerleading practice.

75. According to S.G., at one point during the conversation, she and V.T. asked

S.M. if he was a psychopath. After S.M. said he did not know but maybe he


11

was, they asked him if he was going to shoot up the school. According to

S.G., S.M. said: “I don’t think so, but my friend is planning on it.”

76. According to S.G., they then asked S.M. who his friend was, and S.M. said it

was Erik Wilk.

77. S.G. also told Haddox she subsequently had searched Erik on Facebook and

saw photographs of him with a rifle. The photographs S.G. saw on Erik’s

Facebook page were from his WWII reenactment hobby and scouting and

were the same photographs Haddox already had seen.

78. S.G. told Haddox that she and V.T. subsequently reported the conversation

with S.M. to their teacher.

79. At the conclusion of S.G.’s interview, Haddox explained to S.G. and her father

the investigative actions that had been taken and provided them with

information about obtaining a protective order if they felt they needed one.

S.G. did not seek a protective order.

80. After questioning S.G., Haddox questioned V.T. Neither of V.T.’s parents was

present, but, with the permission of V.T.’s mother, S.G.’s father attended

V.T.’s questioning.

81. V.T. told Haddox that she and S.G. had arrived early to cheerleading practice

on Thursday, February 27, 2014. V.T said they knocked on the locked gym

doors, and S.M. opened the doors for them. They learned that he was at the

gym cleaning up while serving a detention.

82. V.T. told Haddox that she and S.G. were talking with S.M. about life in

general and that, at one point during the conversation, they asked S.M. if he


12

was a psychopath. V.T. said they then asked S.M. if he would shoot up the

school. According to V.T., S.M. said: “No, but my friend’s planning on it.” V.T.

asked S.M. who his friend was, and S.M. said Erik Wilk.

83. At the conclusion of the questioning, Haddox explained to V.T. the

investigative actions that had been taken and gave her information on

obtaining a protective order if she felt she needed one. V.T. did not seek a

protective order.

84. Based upon his investigation, Haddox determined that there was no evidence

of a credible threat against Erie HS or of any steps taken to act on such a

threat.

85. Haddox concluded his report of the investigation with the following finding:

No evidence has been produced to determine that this particular threat was credible or that specific steps were taken to act on any threats. This case will be cleared as unfounded.

86. Later that day, Haddox contacted Buchler to inform him of the results of the

investigation. Buchler advised Haddox that, notwithstanding the results of the

investigation, action would be taken against both S.M. and Erik.

87. On Monday, March 3, 2014, Buchler required Erik to undergo a threat

assessment screening before being allowed to return to school. The

screening consisted of a meeting between Buchler, Stacy Davis, District

Safety and Security Manager, Erik, and his father. After conducting the

screening, Buchler permitted Erik to return to school that day.

88. On March 3, 2014, S.M. gave Buchler a written statement regarding what he

had said to S.G. and V.T. the previous Thursday. In his written statement,


13

S.M. said he had been asked “a bunch of random questions” by two

cheerleaders, including, among other things, whether he was going to shoot

up the school and that he jokingly said: “I won’t but my friend Erik hates the

school more than I do.” In his statement, S.M. did not say that he told S.G.

and V.T. that Erik was planning to shoot up the school, and S.M.’s written

statement differs from what S.G. and V.T. reported. In his statement, S.M.

also stated: “They thought I was threatening the school, and they dragged

Erik into this whole thing.” In his statement, S.M. also said:

I spoke without thinking and I made an inappropriate joke to two girls I didn’t know. That’s why it was taken wrong. I understand that they were scared, but it was not my intention to do that to them.

89. On Monday evening, March 3, 2014, notwithstanding that the Erie PD had

cleared the report as unfounded, that Erik had been cleared to attend school

that day, and the content of S.M.’s written statement, Buchler called Derek

Wilk and told him Erik would not be permitted to attend school the next day.

Buchler said that “new evidence” had surfaced and that a “full team threat

assessment” would be conducted the next day.

90. Derek Wilk asked Buchler to send him the alleged new evidence. At 5:26

p.m., Buchler sent Derek an e-mail referencing seven items from Erik’s

“Changes” class notebook. None of these excerpts referenced a plan to

attack Erie HS.

91. Buchler’s e-mail and the items from Erik’s Changes class notebook.

During the 2013-14 school year, Erik was taking a class called “Changes.”

The Changes class covered science and English and was co-taught by two


14

teachers. The teachers pushed the students to be provocative, and it was not

unusual for student responses to class assignments to discuss controversial

topics.

92. Buchler’s e-mail said that Erik had the right to submit a statement regarding in

response to his e-mail. Erik had been suspended from school and did not

have access to his class notebooks, which had been turned in to his teacher.

Working from memory, Erik prepared a written statement responding as best

he could to the seven items referenced in Buchler’s e-mail. Derek Wilk e-

mailed Erik’s statement to Buchler later that night.

93. The first item referenced in Buchler’s e-mail was that the cover of one of

Erik’s notebooks had a marking of a swastika and the letters “SS.” The cover

of the notebook and the markings were faded from age, and, in his response

to Buchler, Erik explained that this was an older notebook from middle school,

that it was used only occasionally, and, when used, was used mainly for

drawings and writings. No other student had ever expressed fear or

apprehension about the cover of the notebook, and, at all times material to

this Complaint, the swastika symbol appeared in a poster on an Erie HS

classroom wall. The teacher had not expressed fear or apprehension about

the cover of the notebook, counseled Erik about it, or brought it to his parents’

attention. No administrator previously had expressed fear or apprehension

about the cover of the notebook or raised the matter with Erik or his parents.

94. The second item referenced in Buchler’s e-mail was a sentence Erik had

written in response to a Changes class assignment back in August or


15

September of 2013, near the start of the 2013-14 school year. The sentence

read: “I use dominance to my advantage creating a hiararchy (sic) and

instilling fear in others.” For this assignment, the students had been instructed

to use the vocabulary words “dominance” and “hierarchy” together in a single

sentence to explain how they would gain the upper hand or show control in a

situation. No student had expressed fear or apprehension about Erik’s

response to this assignment. The teacher had not expressed fear or

apprehension about Erik’s response, counseled Erik, or brought the response

to the attention of his parents. To the contrary, Erik received a perfect score

on this assignment. No administrator previously had expressed fear or

apprehension about Erik’s response or raised the matter with Erik or his

parents.

95. The third item referenced in Buchler’s e-mail was a drawing of a skeleton with

a Nazi helmet and a Nazi flag. Erik explained to Buchler that this was an old

sketch possibly from freshman year (i.e., two years earlier). As previously

alleged, Erik is interested in World War II history, and, in his response to

Buchler’s e–mail, Erik explained that, if this was the drawing he was thinking

of, at the bottom of the drawing was the Battle of Stalingrad with Soviet troops

charging German machine gun nests. No other student had expressed fear or

apprehension about this drawing, if they had even seen it. No teacher had

expressed fear or apprehension about this drawing, counseled Erik about it,

or brought it to the attention of his parents. No administrator previously had


16

expressed fear or apprehension about this drawing or raised the matter with

Erik or his parents.

96. The fourth item referenced in Buchler’s e-mail was a portion of Erik’s answer

to another Changes class assignment from November 2013. In this

assignment, students were instructed to provide “reactive” and “proactive”

choices in response to various hypothetical scenarios. In answer to one of the

scenarios, for “reactive choices,” Erik wrote: “1. Kill him, 2. Leave him in a

dumpster, 3. Put a plastic bag over his head beat him with a pipe.” In the

same answer, for “proactive choices,” Erik wrote: “Quit, Adress (sic) the

manager, let it go.” Buchler made no mention of the proactive choices Erik

gave. No other student had expressed fear or apprehension about Erik’s

answer, and other students in the class also had provided answers containing

violent references. For example, in response to another assignment, another

student had created a pamphlet on how to be a serial killer and where to bury

the bodies. The teacher had not counseled Erik regarding his response to the

assignment or brought it to the attention of his parents. To the contrary, Erik

received a score of 30/30 on this assignment. No administrator previously had

expressed fear or apprehension about Erik’s response or raised the matter

with Erik or his parents.

97. The fifth item referenced in Buchler’s e-mail was a portion of Erik’s response

to another Changes class assignment from November 2013. For this

assignment, the students were required to respond to several questions. One

of the questions was: “Everyone has one or more talents. Which of the ones


17

above are you good at? Or write down ones not listed.” A list of talents was

provided. In response to the list of talents he was good at, Erik circled: “good

with words,” “creative thinking,” “making things happen,” “artistic,” “decision

making,” “building things,” “accepting others,” “listening,” “humorous,” and

“music.” Among talents not listed, Erik wrote: “shooting,” “video games,” and

“history.” Buchler’s e-mail focused solely on Erik’s reference to “shooting.” In

his response to Buchler’s e-mail, Erik explained why he had listed “shooting”

as a talent:

Shooting and guns are something I’m good at. In Scouts, I’ve earned the rifle and shotgun merit badges. With both Scouts and the Colorado Military Historical Group, gun safety is extremely important. We are encouraged to pay attention, know what you’re doing and follow instructions.

No other student had expressed fear or apprehension about Erik’s response

to this assignment. The teacher had not counseled Erik regarding his

response or brought it to the attention of his parents. To the contrary, the

teacher wrote on Erik’s paper: “Erik, you are fascinating.” No administrator

previously had expressed concern about Erik’s answers to this assignment or

raised the matter with Erik or his parents.

98. The sixth item referenced in Buchler’s e-mail was a portion of Erik’s response

to another Changes class assignment from December 2013. In this

assignment, students were instructed to do a “brain dump” and write down

whatever happened to be on their minds at the time. Buchler’s e-mail noted

that Erik had written down “guns” and “weed.” In the same answer, Erik had

written down fifteen other words including: “music,” “love,” “caring,” “having

fun,” “skateboarding,” “laughing,” “creative thinking,” “doing good,” “listening,”


18

“respecting,” “learning,” “being myself,” “Freedom,” and “Art.” Buchler’s e-mail

did not mention any of those other words. In his response to Buchler’s e-mail,

Erik explained:

When I sit and think about guns, it’s a quiz to me to test my knowledge and memory about them from size, make, model, caliber, disassembly and re- assembly of them and the differences between them. It has been something I have been doing since 8th grade when I took my first gun safety course with my Assistant Scoutmaster, Lew Ladwig. Weed was on my mind to an extent. I have no past history with drugs, but I had to go to a class called iTHRIVE and every participant in that class was attending because of marijuana type offenses. I was curious about it at the time.

No other student had expressed fear or apprehension about Erik’s response

to this assignment. The teacher had not expressed fear or apprehension or

counseled Erik regarding his response to the assignment or brought it to the

attention of Erik’s parents. To the contrary, Erik received a score of 20/20 on

this assignment. No administrator previously had expressed fear or

apprehension about Erik’s response or raised the matter with Erik or his

parents.

99. The seventh item referenced in Buchler’s e-mail was a class project from the

Changes class back in October 2013. For this project, Erik had chosen to

explore the question: “What levels of radiation are needed to change things?”

Buchler noted that Erik had written: “Radiation kills” and “How can I create it?”

This was part of an assignment to choose a science project. After discussing

several possible projects with his teachers, Erik had approached his teachers

about studying how radiation affects living things. The teachers had agreed to

allow Erik to study the effects of UV radiation and microwave radiation on

plants. One of the teachers suggested that, if his project were well-organized,


19

they might be able to collaborate with some local scientists to test Erik’s idea

under the teachers’ supervision. No other student had expressed fear or

apprehension about this project. Erik’s teachers had not expressed fear or

apprehension about the project, and they had helped Erik select and design

the project. No administrator previously had expressed fear or apprehension

about the project or raised the matter with Erik or his parents.

100. In addition to referencing the seven excerpts from Erik’s Changes notebook,

Buchler’s e-mail said that Erik could not return to school Tuesday because he

allegedly had been “bragging” about getting arrested. In response to this

allegation, Erik explained that he had not been arrested and had not been

“bragging” about being arrested. Erik told Buchler that he had been walking

through the hallway of the school with several of his friends on the way to

intermediate algebra, and they had asked him why he had not been there in

the morning. Erik told them about what had happened the previous Friday

when Haddox had asked to speak with S.M. and him and that he had missed

chemistry class that morning because he had been in a threat assessment

evaluation. Erik explained to Buchler that he was talking in a normal tone of

voice to his friends, that he was not bragging, and that he did not use the

word “arrested.”

101. Buchler’s e-mail also said that Erik had caused a “disturbance” in

intermediate algebra class by talking about last Friday’s events and that his

teacher had taken a worksheet away from him as he was doodling a figure

shooting a machine gun and tossing a hand grenade. In his response to


20

Buchler’s e-mail, Erik denied that he had caused a disturbance, had doodled

a figure shooting a machine gun, and that his teacher had taken the

worksheet away from him. Erik explained that the worksheet had been turned

in along with the rest of his assignments that day and that it contained a

doodle of a dinosaur with a flame thrower and a hand grenade. Erik also

explained that the doodle was a couple of days old and he thought it had

been seen by the teacher at the time he drew it. No other student had

expressed fear or apprehension about the doodle, if they had even seen it,

and the teacher had not counseled Erik about the doodle or reported it to

Erik’s parents. No administrator previously had expressed fear or

apprehension about the doodle or raised the matter with Erik or his parents.

102. Buchler’s threat assessment process and results. Notwithstanding Erik’s

response to his e-mail, Buchler did not allow Erik to return to school on

Tuesday, March 4, 2014. Rather, on the morning of March 4, 2014, Buchler

convened a “full-team threat assessment” under a District threat assessment

protocol.

103. A the time Buchler convened the full-team threat assessment, the Board had

not adopted a formal policy on threat assessments and had not informed

students or parents of the circumstances under which threat assessments

would be performed, the procedures for performing threat assessments, or

the potential consequences to students of performing threat assessments.


21

104. Upon information and belief, in August 2013, the District had selected a threat

assessment protocol adopted by the Adams 12 Five Star School District, as a

model for conducting the District’s own threat assessments.

105. In November 2013, Buchler, Davis, and Assistant Principal Kudrna attended a

training session on the District’s newly-adopted threat assessment protocol.

Erie HS school counselors Pohlman and Schroeder also attended the threat

assessment training, but they were not included in Buchler’s threat

assessment team.

106. The full-team threat assessment convened by Buchler on March 4, 2014 was

one of the steps required under the District’s threat assessment protocol in

order to determine whether a threat exists.

107. Buchler’s threat assessment team consisted of Buchler; Assistant Principal

Douglas Kudrna; Stacy R. Davis, District Director of Security and Emergency

Management; the Changes class teachers, Stacey Wallace and Julie Todd;

and Bryan Parker, an Erie PD Officer temporarily filling in as Erie HS School

Resource Officer.

108. Buchler’s team conducted Erik’s threat assessment by reviewing the

interviews of Erik and Derek Wilk conducted during the screening the day

before, reviewing Erik’s student discipline records, school papers, and

Facebook page, and meeting for an hour and a half. At the conclusion of that

meeting, the team concluded that Erik posed a “High Level” threat of violence

to Erie HS.


22

109. In conducting Erik’s threat assessment, the threat assessment team failed to

follow the District threat assessment protocol in numerous respects, including,

among others, the following:

a. The team did not include a school psychologist/social worker,

counselor, or mental health representative.

b. The team did not include, or obtain information from, other

teachers who knew Erik better than those selected for the team and who

would have provided positive information about Erik.

c. The team relied upon multiple levels of hearsay, speculation,

rumor, and incorrect information.

d. The team relied upon characteristics or “traits” rather than facts,

contrary to the District’s protocol and the Secret Service’s guidelines for

conducting threat assessments, when Officer Parker, a member of the threat

assessment team, reported that Erik and S.M. were observed walking in Old

Town dressed in military fatigues (which, if true, is First Amendment-protected

conduct) and expressed the opinion that they were “displaying traits of

persons associated with the “sovereign citizen movement.” Moreover, Erik

has never been associated with any group known as the “sovereign citizen

movement.”

e. The protocol requires that an individualized assessment be

made, but the team conducted threat assessments of S.M. and Erik

concurrently, thereby confusing the facts as between S.M. and Erik and

making erroneous factual findings as to Erik.


23

f. The threat assessment document was not completely filled out

and contained unanswered questions.

g. The threat assessment document contained factually incorrect

answers.

h. The threat assessment document contained factual assertions

for which no supporting evidence was cited.

i. The threat assessment document did not identify a motive for

communicating the alleged threat.

j. The question “Has any part of the threat been resolved?” was

answered “No,” when the Erie PD had concluded an investigation of the

alleged threat and determined that there was no evidence of a credible threat.

k. The team did not develop a Response, Management, and

Support Plan (“RMS Plan”), as required, the purpose of which is to respond,

manage, and support the student, protect potential victims, and address the

student’s educational, social, and emotional needs.

l. The team did not conduct a “manifestation hearing” as required

where, as in this case, suspension or expulsion are recommended.

110. Under the District’s guidelines, the threat assessment team is required to

conclude the assessment by selecting an overall “level of concern” from one

of three categories:

Low Level: “A threat which poses a minimal risk to the victim and to

public safety.”


24

Medium Level: “A threat which could be carried out, although it may

not appear entirely realistic. The team has moderate, ongoing

concerns about the student’s motivation to carry out the threat

warranting district consultation and/or request for external support

resources in addition to school-based interventions.”

High Level: “A threat that appears to pose an imminent and serious

danger to the safety of others and requires a district directed response

in cooperation with building administration.”

111. Buchler’s team identified the threat as “High Level,” i.e. the highest possible

level of concern.

112. The conclusion that Erik posed a “High Level” threat was flawed in numerous

respects, including, among others, the following:

a. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when, three days

earlier, the Erie PD had investigated and determined that there was no

evidence of a credible threat or specific steps taken to act on any threat.

b. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the search of

Erik’s bedroom had produced no weapons, documents, notes, letters,

writings, maps, plans, or other items related to an attack on Erie HS.

c. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the search of

S.M.’s bedroom had produced no weapons, documents, notes, letters,

writings, maps, plans, or other items related to an attack on Erie HS.


25

d. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when Erik had not

communicated a threat and when the threat assessment document states that

“Erik didn’t communicate” a threat.

e. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the alleged

threat was in the form of a disputed comment made by another student, not

Erik, and when the comment had been deemed not credible by the Erie PD.

f. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the team’s

conclusion was based upon multiple, conflicting levels of hearsay.

g. The team misidentified a “High-Level” threat when the threat

assessment document only vaguely describes the alleged threat as: “Erik’s

best friend told 2 girls that Erik has been planning to shoot up the school

since middle school.”

h. The team misidentified a “High-Level” threat when there was no

documentation of a plan to attack Erie High School.

i. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the threat

assessment document stated “Unknown” in answer to the question: “Does the

student have an attack plan?”

j. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat, i.e. an “imminent”

danger, when there was no evidence of a plan or steps taken to implement a

plan to attack Erie HS;

k. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat, i.e. an “imminent”

danger, when the team was relying upon responses to class assignments

provided months earlier and not considered a threat when made;


26

l. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the threat

assessment document did not identify any verbal or written statement of a

threat by Erik.

m. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the ground that

Erik had communicated an intent to attack Erie HS in electronic media when

he had not done so.

n. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the ground that

Erik had communicated an intent to attack Erie HS in writing when he had not

done so.

o. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the threat

assessment document states that Erik did not verbalize a threat to attack Erie

HS.

p. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the ground that

Erik had “used or practiced with weapons” when that finding was based on

Erik’s involvement in the CHMG and scouting

q. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the basis of

Erik’s involvement with the CHMG when such involvement had been known

to Erie HS teaching staff and administration since at least August of 2012 and

had not been raised as a concern to Erik or his parents;

r. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the basis of

Erik’s involvement with the CHMG when Paul Stecina, Erie HS Dean of

Students, notified Buchler and Kudrna, both members of the threat

assessment team, that Erik’s World Languages teacher had informed Erie HS


27

administration that Erik’s involvement in the CHMG was “NOT a threat,” that

“Erik is a very nice student who has a reenacting hobby that he might be

sharing in a class,” and that “I want to make sure it does not get him expelled

and arrested.”

s. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when there was no

evidence that Erik or his parents owned or possessed guns.

t. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the ground that

Erik allegedly had “access to weapons” through S.M. when there was no

evidence that S.M. ever had provided weapons to Erik and when the gun

case located in the S.M. family residence was locked and the keys were in

the possession of S.M.’s mother in Colorado Springs.

u. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the basis of an

erroneous factual finding that Erik’s parents “are not able to supervise him

and he has a lot of unstructured free time, walks around a lot,” when Erik’s

dad frequently drove him to and from school, when Erik went home after

school to a stay-at-home mom, and when Erik was heavily involved in band

and scouting, both of which occupied much supervised time.

v. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the ground that

Erik had an “antisocial attitude” when Erik was heavily involved in band and

scouting and when he had been recommended for Leadership (an Erie HS

mentoring program), had attended the introductory meetings, and his

intermediate algebra teacher had informed Erie HS administration that Erik

“seemed excited” about it.


28

w. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat on the basis of an

erroneous factual finding of substance abuse by Erik. This erroneous factual

finding was based upon a false e-mail from Officer Haddox to Stacy Davis in

November 2013 accusing Erik of getting caught with marijuana and wanting

to “get” Dean of Students Stecina when, in fact, it was another student, not

Erik, who was caught with marijuana and made the comment about Stecina.

Officer Haddox and the Erie PD have failed and refused to retract this false e-

mail despite repeated requests by the Wilks.

x. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the team

answered “No” to the question whether the student had experience with

homicidal ideation.

y. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the team

answered “No” to the question whether Erik was a victim, perpetrator, or

witness of violent behavior.

z. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the team

answered “No” to the question: “Does the student see violence as an

acceptable or desirable way to solve problems?”.

aa. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the team

determined that the student’s experience with violence elicits a “Low degree

of concern.”

bb. The team misidentified a “High Level” threat when the team

answered “No” to the question: “Are those who know the student concerned

about a specific target?”.


29

cc. The team misidentified a “High-Level” threat when the team

answered “No” to the question: “Is there evidence that this student has a

history of fabrication?” and stated: “… he doesn’t say something to shock

people, he is speaking the truth.”

113. On March 5, 2014, the day after conducting the threat assessment, Buchler

hand-delivered a letter to Derek and Jami Wilk stating that he was forwarding

a recommendation that Erik be expelled from the St. Vrain Valley School

District for “detrimental behavior” (“the March 5th Letter”). As the basis for the

recommendation, the March 5th letter referred to S.M.’s alleged comment to

S.G. and V.T. and the threat assessment team’s conclusion “that the threat

level is high for Erik.”

114. The March 5th Letter stated that Erik was suspended from Erie HS “from this

point forward.” In addition, the March 5th Letter stated that a hearing on

expulsion would be conducted sometime within the “next ten business days.”

115. The March 5th Letter did not state a specific length of time for Erik’s

suspension.

116. Buchler’s action in suspending Erik for an indeterminate period of time

violated Colorado law and District policy, under which a school principal is

delegated authority to suspend a student for detrimental behavior for only five

school days.

117. On March 5, 2014, Buchler, who is not a psychologist and who had not

included the school psychologist on the threat assessment team, also told

Erik’s parents that Erik was in need of a psychological evaluation.


30

118. On March 7, 2014, notwithstanding that Haddox already had investigated and

concluded that there was no credible threat, Buchler informed Erie PD Chief

Vasquez by letter that Erik and S.M. had been suspended from Erie High

School and recommended for expulsion and provided Chief Vasquez with a

copy of the threat assessment document on Erik.

119. On March 7, 2014, Buchler and Mark Mills, Area 2 Assistant Superintendent,

also met with Commander Lee Mathis and Commander Kim Stewart of the

Erie PD. Following the meeting with Buchler and Mills, Commander Stewart

directed department personnel to contact the Weld County District Attorney’s

Office about pursuing criminal charges against Erik and S.M.

120. On the afternoon of March 7, 2014, Haddox contacted the Weld County

District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney’s Office responded that no

charges would be accepted for either Erik or S.M.

121. On the afternoon of March 7, 2014, Haddox also contacted the Erie municipal

prosecutor and was told that Erik’s and S.M.’s actions did not violate any

municipal ordinances.

122. The District expulsion proceedings. On March 7, 2014, District Expulsion

Officer Greg Winger (Winger) sent Derek and Jami Wilk a letter stating, in

pertinent part, that “Principal Matt Buchler suspended Erik from Erie High

School for five school days beginning March 5, 2014” and that an expulsion

hearing would be held on March 13, 2014.

123. Winger’s statement that Erik had been suspended for five school days was

untrue. Buchler had suspended Erik for an indeterminate period of time.


31

124. Winger’s March 7, 2014 letter also stated that Erik’s suspension “has been

extended for an additional ten school days through March 25, 2014.”

125. Under Colorado law and District policy, the Superintendent of the District is

delegated authority to suspend a student for an additional ten school days.

When Winger sent the March 7th letter, Superintendent Haddad had not

notified the Wilks that Erik’s suspension had been extended for an additional

ten school days.

126. On March 11, 2014, Buchler, with Superintendent Haddad’s knowledge, sent

an e-mail to all principals in the Erie K-12 system reporting that a threat

assessment had been conducted on two students the previous week.

Buchler’s e-mail used Erik’s full name and reported that the “results of the

threat assessment showed a high risk of violence for both boys.” Buchler did

not inform the Wilks of this notification. The Wilks had other children in the

District at the time, and they experienced harassing behavior, including,

among other things, being subjected to monitoring, as a result of Buchler’s e-

mail.

127. When notified of Buchler’s recommendation that Erik be expelled, Derek Wilk

requested a meeting to review the threat assessment document on Erik. The

threat assessment document is eight pages long and contains numerous

sections and subsections. Buchler agreed to meet with Derek for thirty

minutes at 6:30 a.m. on March 12, 2014 to allow him to review the threat

assessment document but refused to provide a copy of the document to

Derek.


32

128. Erik’s expulsion hearing was conducted the next day, Thursday, March 13,

2014. Winger presided, and Jeffrey Fredman, Assistant Expulsion Officer,

Buchler, and the District’s counsel attended from the District. Erik, his

parents, and their counsel attended for Erik. Superintendent Haddad was not

present.

129. Buchler called no witnesses at the expulsion hearing. His presentation

consisted of offering hearsay statements gathered from third parties and

seven written exhibits, including, among other things, further excerpts from

Erik’s Changes class notebook. Buchler’s presentation contained no evidence

of a plan by Erik to attack Erie HS.

130. Buchler did not limit his presentation to the items previously identified in his

March 3rd e-mail to the Wilks but included other materials of which the Wilks

had no prior notice.

131. In addition, Buchler relied upon the threat assessment’s conclusion of a “High

Level” threat. However, the threat assessment document itself was not

produced at the hearing, and Expulsion Officer Winger did not review the

threat assessment document.

132. Under District policy, if the expulsion hearing is conducted by a delegee of the

Superintendent, as in this case, the delegee is required to make a

recommendation to the Superintendent regarding the proposed expulsion.

133. On Friday, March 14, 2014, the day after the expulsion hearing, Winger sent

a recommendation to Haddad that Erik be expelled from District schools for

one full calendar year.


33

134. Winger’s recommendation referenced Board policy and Colorado law stating

that behavior detrimental to the welfare or safety of other students or staff is

grounds for expulsion. In his recommendation, Winger stated: “Erik’s

behavior, creating a credible threat to engage in violence at school, meets

this requirement.”

135. Winger made this recommendation without having reviewed the threat

assessment document.

136. When Winger sent this recommendation, Erik had not engaged in behavior

creating a credible threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.

137. When Winger sent this recommendation, the alleged statement of a possible

threat against Erie HS had been made by S.M., not by Erik.

138. When Winger sent this recommendation, the Erie PD had concluded its

investigation, had searched Erik’s and S.M.’s bedrooms, had found no

evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS, and had determined that there was no

evidence of a credible threat or steps taken to act on a threat to attack Erie

HS.

139. On Monday morning, March 17, 2014, Derek Wilk delivered to Superintendent

Haddad’s office a written rebuttal to Buchler’s presentation at the expulsion

hearing.

140. Haddad did not acknowledge receipt of the Wilks’ rebuttal. However, that

same day, Haddad prepared a letter, mailed to the Wilks on March 18, 2014,

notifying them that Erik had been expelled from the District schools for one


34

full calendar year, for the period from March 13, 2014 through March 12, 2015

(“the March 18th Expulsion Letter”).

141. As grounds for expulsion, the March 18th Expulsion Letter cited Board Policy

JKD/JKE-E and Colorado law § C.R.S. 22-33-106(1)(c) prohibiting behavior

on or off school property which is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other

pupils or of school personnel. The March 18th Expulsion Letter stated: “Erik’s

behavior, creating a threat to engage in violence at school, meets this

requirement.”

142. The March 18th Expulsion letter did not refer to a “credible” threat, as Winger’s

recommendation had, but just to “a threat.”

143. When Haddad issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter, Erik had not engaged

in behavior creating a threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.

144. When Haddad issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter, the alleged statement

regarding a possible threat against Erie HS had been made by S.M., not by

Erik.

145. When Haddad issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter, the Erie PD had

concluded its investigation, had searched Erik’s and S.M.’s bedrooms, had

found no evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS, and had determined that there

was no evidence of a credible threat or steps taken to act on a threat to attack

Erie HS.

146. On or about March 19, 2014, Haddad verbally notified Jami Wilk to

“disregard” the March 18th Expulsion Letter. However, Haddad did not issue a

written retraction of the March 18th Expulsion Letter, and, six days later, he


35

issued a second expulsion letter citing the same grounds for expulsion, as

further alleged below.

147. The Niemoth arrest warrant affidavit. On March 17, 2014, Officer Niemoth

swore out an affidavit seeking a warrant for Erik’s arrest on one count of

interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational institutions contrary

to C.R.S. § 18-9-109(6)(a) (“the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit”).

148. C.R.S. § 18-9-109(6)(a) proscribes the making of a “credible threat to cause

death or to cause bodily injury with a deadly weapon against” students,

school officials, or employees of an educational institution.

149. As further alleged below in the Fourth Claim for Relief, Niemoth did not act

reasonably in swearing out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit and did not

have probable cause to seek a warrant for Erik’s arrest.

150. Based upon the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, a warrant was issued for

Erik’s arrest.

151. The Haddox search warrant affidavit. Notwithstanding that he already had

searched Erik’s bedroom and found no evidence of a credible threat or steps

taken to carry out a plan to attack Erie HS, Officer Haddox swore out an

affidavit on March 17, 2014 seeking a search warrant for the entire Wilk

residence (“the Haddox Affidavit”).

152. As further alleged below in the Fifth Claim for Relief, Haddox did not act

reasonably in swearing out the Haddox Affidavit and did not have probable

cause to seek a warrant for a search of the Wilk residence.


36

153. Based upon the Haddox Affidavit, a search warrant was issued for the Wilk

residence including, among other things, “plans, diagrams, maps, notes,

writings, photographs, hit lists, or receipts of items purchased to carry out an

attack” and “weapons to include firearms and knives.”

154. The second search of the Wilk residence and Erik’s arrest. On March 18,

2014, the Erie PD executed a second search at the Wilk residence. This

search, like the earlier search of Erik’s bedroom, failed to produce any

weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings, maps, plans, or other items

related to an attack on Erie HS.

155. Despite the failed second search, Erik was arrested on March 18, 2014

pursuant to the arrest warrant previously obtained based on the Niemoth

Arrest Warrant Affidavit. Following his arrest, Erik was transported to the

Platte Valley Juvenile Detention Facility in Greeley and confined therein.

156. During the second search of the Wilk residence, the Erie PD confiscated, over

protest, electronic equipment and media belonging to Erik’s parents including,

without limitation, Jami Wilk’s personal computer and numerous memory

cards containing years of family photographs. The Erie PD subsequently lost

one of the confiscated memory cards, causing the irreplaceable loss of

numerous Wilk family photographs.

157. On March 18, 2014, the Erie PD issued a press release publicizing the

execution of arrest and search warrants at the “1300 Block of Banner Circle”

and the “600 Block of High Street.” The press release stated that “two juvenile

males, both students at Erie High School, were arrested without incident.” At


37

the time, Erik was the only juvenile male student of Erie HS who lived in the

1300 Block of Banner Circle.

158. On March 19, 2014, Buchler sent an e-mail to Erie HS parents, teachers, and

staff announcing the boys’ arrests.

159. On March 19, 2014, Erik appeared in court before the Weld County District

Court, and the court ordered that he remain in detention until an ankle monitor

was available.

160. The Niemoth search warrant affidavit and third search of the Wilk

residence. On March 18, 2014, the day that Erik and S.M. were arrested,

Niemoth interviewed S.M., and his father, at the Platte Valley Juvenile

Detention Center, where S.M. had been confined following his arrest.

161. Based upon that interview, in which S.M. allegedly made further statements

about the alleged plan to attack Erie HS, on March 19, 2014, Niemoth swore

out an affidavit for yet another search of the Wilk residence (“the Niemoth

Search Warrant Affidavit”). This affidavit described the property to be

searched for as “any and all military style equipment and apparel.”

162. The property described in the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit (with the

exception of “bandoleers,” as more particularly alleged below) had been

observed and photographed by the Erie PD during the second search of the

residence the day before. According to the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit,

the property had not been seized “due to the fact that Wilk’s parents told

Deputies these items were used by Wilk for World War II re-enactments.”


38

163. On March 19, 2014, a search warrant was issued based upon the Niemoth

Search Warrant Affidavit.

164. On March 19, 2014, Niemoth and another Erie HS officer executed the search

and seized the military apparel and equipment which already had been

observed during the second search. Most of the items confiscated belonged

to Derek Wilk and had been issued to him when he joined the Army in 1984.

Niemoth also seized “spats” from 1942, which Erik had purchased for his

WWII re-enacting uniform.

165. Contrary to the property described in the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit,

no “bandoleers” were located in the Wilk residence, and no bandoleers were

seized as a result of the third search.

166. When he swore out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knew

there were no “bandoleers” in the Wilk residence because the property in the

Wilk residence had been observed and photographed by the Erie PD the day

before.

167. The search of the Wilk residence pursuant to the Niemoth Search Warrant

Affidavit was the second search of the Wilk residence in two days and the

third such search in nineteen days.

168. On March 21, 2014, an ankle monitor became available, and Erik was

released from the Platte Valley Juvenile Detention Facility to the custody of

his parents. At the time of his release, Erik had been detained in the Platte

Valley Juvenile Detention Facility for three days.


39

169. The continued expulsion proceeding. On March 19, 2014, despite the fact

that Haddad already had issued the March 18th Expulsion Letter expelling Erik

from the District schools, Winger sent a letter to the Wilks stating that

expulsion “is being considered.” Winger’s letter scheduled a “continuation of

the expulsion hearing” for 1:00 p.m. on March 21, 2014.

170. On Friday afternoon, March 21, 2014, the expulsion hearing was reconvened.

Haddad did not attend the reconvened hearing, and the District presented no

further evidence in support of Erik’s expulsion. The Wilks presented further

objection to the proposed expulsion disputing every point of Buchler’s

presentation.

171. The following Monday, March 24, 2014, without receiving a further

recommendation from Winger, Haddad sent the Wilks a second letter

informing them that Erik had been expelled from the District for one calendar

year, this time from March 21, 2014 through March 20, 2015 (“the March 24th

Expulsion Letter”).

172. The March 24th Expulsion Letter stated the same ground for expulsion as the

March 18th Expulsion letter, i.e. that Erik had engaged in behavior creating a

threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.

173. When Haddad issued the March 24th Expulsion Letter, Erik had not engaged

in behavior creating a threat to engage in violence at Erie HS.

174. When Haddad issued the March 24th Expulsion Letter, the alleged statement

about possibly attacking Erie HS had been made by S.M., not by Erik.


40

175. When Haddad issued the March 24th Expulsion Letter, the Erie PD had

completed a second search of the Wilk residence and had found no evidence

of a plan to attack Erie HS.

176. On March 24, 2014, despite the fact that it earlier said that charges would not

be accepted against Erik, the Weld County District Attorney’s office filed a

petition in delinquency with the Weld County District Court charging Erik with

one count of interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational

institutions under C.R.S. § 18-9-109(6).

177. On March 28, 2014, Buchler sent an e-mail to Greg Sadar, Agent-in-Charge

of the CBI, soliciting a letter substantiating concerns about the alleged threat

to Erie HS. In this e-mail, Buchler represented to Sadar that: “We are holding

an expulsion hearing and that would be the limit of the letter.”

178. Buchler’s representation that the District was holding an expulsion hearing

was false. When Buchler sent the March 28th e-mail to Sadar, the District

already had completed Erik’s expulsion hearings, and Haddad already had

issued the two letters of expulsion to Erik.

179. Sadar refused to provide the letter solicited by Buchler.

180. The Board appeal. On March 31, 2014, Erik appealed his expulsion to the

Board.

181. On April 16, 2014, the Board held a meeting to consider Erik’s appeal.

Haddad attended the meeting and was permitted to introduce additional

evidence not previously brought up during the expulsion hearings. Haddad

also was permitted to refer to the results of the threat assessment on Erik.


41

However, the threat assessment document was not presented to the Board,

and the Board did not review the threat assessment document. At the

conclusion of the meeting, the Board affirmed the expulsion.

182. On April 18, 2014, as permitted under Board policy and Colorado law, Derek

Wilk requested that the Board reduce its decision to writing.

183. On April 23, 2014, the Board sent Derek Wilk a letter containing its written

decision affirming the expulsion (“the Board Decision”).

184. The Board Decision stated, among other things, that District procedures had

been followed and that any “minor procedural irregularities” were not of

sufficient magnitude to require remand for another hearing.

185. As more particularly alleged herein, the District did not follow Colorado law

and District procedures during the suspension and expulsion proceedings,

and significant procedural and substantive irregularities occurred during the

course of the proceedings in violation of due process and fundamental

fairness.

186. The Board Decision stated that the Board had a sufficient factual basis to

support Superintendent Haddad’s determination that Erik’s behaviors were

detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or school personnel. The

Board Decision also stated that Superintendent Haddad’s determination was

not unreasonable based upon the factual findings from the expulsion hearing.

187. The Board did not have a sufficient factual basis to support Haddad’s

determination that Erik’s behaviors were detrimental to the welfare or safety

of other pupils or school personnel.


42

188. Haddad’s determination was based upon the flawed threat assessment and

unsubstantiated and incorrect factual findings contained therein and in other

documents used by Haddad as a basis for the expulsion. The Board affirmed

the expulsion without reviewing the threat assessment document upon which

Haddad’s expulsion was based.

189. The Board Decision stated: “Students of Erik’s age/grade must realize that

statements and writings, that were intended to be heard and read by others at

the high school, simply cannot reference killings, shootings, dominance, and

instilling fear in others without causing fear and apprehension after our state

and nation have experienced repeated tragedies.”

190. Erik did not make any statements and writings referencing killings, shootings,

dominance, or instilling fear in others with the intent or effect of causing fear

and apprehension in others or which had such effect. Erik’s sentence about

“instilling fear” came from a class assignment requiring the use of the words

“dominance” and “hierarchy.”

191. In suspending and expelling Erik, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board

members improperly relied upon statements made by S.M., not by Erik.

192. In suspending and expelling Erik, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board

members impermissibly infringed Erik’s First Amendment rights by using as a

basis for expulsion his responses to class assignments and his private

drawings, which were not seen by others or, if seen, did not cause fear or

apprehension in them.


43

193. Under District policy JK, disciplinary interventions and consequences are

required to be proportionate.

194. Under District policy JKG, expulsion is regarded as a punishment of last

resort, and the District, working with the student’s parents, is required to

provide students with the necessary support services to help them avoid

expulsion.

195. District policy provides for a range of alternative responses to student

discipline short of expulsion, including in-school suspension, keeping students

engaged in learning, and plans for use of prevention, intervention, restorative

justice, peer mediation, counseling, and other approaches to address student

misconduct.

196. Prior to his suspension and expulsion, Erik was not referred to an Erie HS

school counselor or given any other alternative intervention or consequence

regarding the alleged and unsubstantiated threatening behavior used as the

basis for expulsion.

197. Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board members failed to follow District

policy and violated Erik’s constitutional right to due process and fundamental

fairness in expelling Erik without applying proportionate discipline or using

other available, disciplinary interventions and consequences.

198. On April 29, 2014, the Weld County District Court approved the removal of

Erik’s ankle monitor because he had remained in full compliance with the

terms of his release, had received a complimentary letter from the person in

charge of the monitoring, and the monitor was a hindrance to family activities.


44

By that time, Erik had been required to wear the ankle monitor for thirty-five

days.

199. On May 20, 2014, Derek Wilk sent a letter to Mark Mills, District Area 2

Assistant Superintendent, lodging a formal complaint against Principal

Buchler for violating Staff Code of Conduct Policy GBEA-2(2) in his handling

of Erik’s expulsion (“the Suppression/Distortion Complaint”).

200. Policy GBEA-2(2) prohibits a staff member from deliberately suppressing or

distorting subject matter for which he or she bears responsibility.

201. Mr. Wilk’s complaint alleged that Buchler had violated Policy GBEA-2(2) by

deliberately suppressing and distorting information during the expulsion

proceedings and requested that the expulsion be rescinded and that all

documents related to the expulsion be expunged.

202. On May 30, 2014, the District denied the Suppression/Distortion Complaint in

its entirety.

203. On June 6, 2014, Derek Wilk filed a second complaint against Buchler for

violating Staff Code of Conduct Policy GBEA-2(4), the federal Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), other District policies, and the

Wilks’ privacy rights (“the Privacy Complaint”).

204. Policy GBEA-2(4) provides that staff “shall conduct professional business in

such a way that they do not expose the student to unnecessary

embarrassment or disparagement.”

205. The Privacy Complaint alleged that dissemination of Erik’s name and the

result of the threat assessment violated Policy GBEA-2.


45

206. When Buchler sent the March 11, 2014 e-mail to the other principals,

identifying Erik and disclosing the results of the threat assessment, the Wilk

family had two younger children attending Erie public schools. Following

Buchler’s e-mail, they were subjected to harassing behavior by school staff .

207. On June 16, 2014, District Area 2 Assistant Superintendent Mills sent Derek

Wilk a letter denying the Privacy Complaint in its entirety. However, in the

letter, Mills acknowledged that the District had no formal Board policies

governing the threat assessment process.

208. On June 20, 2014, Derek Wilk sent a letter to the Board requesting review of

the denial of the Suppression/Distortion Complaint against Buchler.

209. On July 3, 2014, Derek Wilk sent a letter to the Board requesting review of

the denial of the Privacy Complaint against Buchler.

210. During the pendency of the expulsion proceedings against Erik, the Wilks

engaged a licensed Colorado psychologist to perform a full psychological

evaluation of Erik. After extensive interviews and multiple risk assessments,

the psychologist concluded, on every assessment performed, that Erik’s risk

for violence was “low,” the lowest possible level for the assessments

performed.

211. In his July 3, 2014 letter to the Board, Mr. Wilk advised the Board of the

results of Erik’s comprehensive psychological evaluation.

212. On August 13, 2014, the Board met to review the denial of the Wilks’

complaints against Buchler. The Board did not reconsider the expulsion or the

results of the threat assessment in light of Erik’s private psychological


46

evaluation, and, orally and without stating a reason, denied all relief

requested by the Wilks.

213. Erik’s trial and acquittal. On September 25, 2014, Erik Wilk went to trial

before a judge of the Weld County, Colorado District Court on the charge of

interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational institutions, Section

18-9-109(6), C.R.S.

214. The trial included testimony from S.M., S.G., V.T., several other Erie HS

students, and Erie PD officers Haddox and Niemoth.

215. During the trial, Niemoth admitted that the Erie PD had searched the Wilk

residence on March 18, 2014 and seized thirty-nine pieces of digital media

including, without limitation, an iPod and Kindle from Erik’s bedroom,

numerous memory cards, a Dell laptop computer, and numerous flash drives.

Niemoth also admitted that the search of the Wilk residence found nothing of

evidentiary value regarding a plan to attack Erie HS, and no pipe bombs, nail

bombs, supplies to make bombs, tear gas, hand grenades, guns, or other

means of implementing an attack on Erie HS.

216. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge acquitted Erik of the charge against

him.

217. Upon information and belief, another judge of the Weld County District Court

also subsequently acquitted S.M. of the charge against him.

218. Consequences of the suspension, expulsion, detention, and criminal

proceedings. Erik’s suspension and expulsion occurred in the middle of the

spring semester of his junior year and precluded him from attending classes


47

or participating in any school functions or extracurricular activities either on or

off District property.

219. Erik’s suspension and expulsion prevented him from completing his junior and

senior years at Erie HS and deprived him of the opportunity to participate in

numerous activities including, without limitation, attending junior and senior

proms, earning his letter with the Erie HS band, assuming a mentoring

leadership role for which he had had been recommended by a fellow student,

graduating with the class of students and friends with whom he had been in

school since kindergarten, and assisting with scouting activities that took

place on District property, i.e. his youngest brother’s crossover from Cub

Scouts to Boy Scouts.

220. Following the expulsion, Erik applied for and was accepted at Boulder Prep,

where he completed his junior and senior years. He graduated in 2015 and

earned a scholarship for college.

221. As a result of the wrongful arrest, Erik suffered three days of detention in a

juvenile facility and thirty-five days of ankle monitoring.

222. As a result of the Erie PD officers’ conduct, the Wilks were subjected to two

unwarranted searches of their residence in two days and three unwarranted

searches in the span of nineteen days, none of which produced evidence of a

plan to attack Erie HS.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (First/Fourteenth Amendments)

223. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding allegations of this Complaint.


48

224. In doing the things alleged above, including, without limitation, doodling on

the cover and inside his class notebooks, providing responses to class

assignments, and discussing the fact that he was subjected to a threat

assessment by Buchler, Erik engaged in constitutionally-protected activity

under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

225. Buchler impermissibly suspended Erik and recommended him for expulsion

based upon his constitutionally-protected activity.

226. Winger impermissible recommended Erik for expulsion based upon his

constitutionally-protected activity.

227. Haddad impermissibly expelled Erik based upon his constitutionally-protected

activity.

228. The Board members impermissibly affirmed Erik’s expulsion based upon his


229. In doing the things alleged herein, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board

members (“the School Defendants”) caused Erik to suffer an injury that would

chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in


230. The School Defendants’ adverse actions were unreasonable and substantially

motivated in response to Erik’s exercise of constitutionally-protected conduct.

231. Reasonable school officials in the School Defendants’ position would have

known that their actions violated clearly established law.

232. The School Defendants deprived Erik of his rights under the First Amendment

to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth


49

Amendment) and caused economic and non-economic injuries to him and his

family.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process)


234. Erik Wilk was a public school student.

235. As a public school student, Erik had a constitutionally-protected property

interest in public education.

236. In doing the things alleged herein, Buchler, Winger, Haddad, and the Board

members deprived Erik of his protected property interest in public education

in violation of procedural due process and fundamental fairness, including,

without limitation, in the following respects:

a. Buchler suspended Erik for an indeterminate period of time in

violation of Colorado law and District policy.

b. In conducting Erik’s threat assessment, the threat assessment

team failed to follow its own protocol for conducting threat assessments.

c. In conducting Erik’s threat assessment, the threat assessment

team relied upon hearsay, inaccurate, and incomplete information and

reached an erroneous and unsubstantiated conclusion that Erik posed a

“High Level” threat of violence to Erie HS.

d. Buchler relied upon the flawed threat assessment in

suspending Erik and recommending his expulsion.


50

e. Buchler recommended Erik’s expulsion without providing Erik

and his parents with a copy of the threat assessment document and without

affording them a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.

f. Buchler recommended Erik’s expulsion, the harshest form of

discipline available under District policies, without complying with District

policies requiring proportionate discipline and consideration of lesser,

alternative forms of discipline.

g. In conducting the expulsion hearing, Winger permitted Buchler

to present information not previously provided to Erik and his family.

h. In recommending Erik’s expulsion, Winger relied upon the

results of the flawed threat assessment without having reviewed the threat

assessment document.

i. Winger recommended Erik’s expulsion without providing Erik

and his parents with a copy of the threat assessment document and without

affording them a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.

j. Winger recommended Erik’s expulsion, the harshest form of

discipline available under District policies, without complying with District



k. Haddad acted prematurely by issuing the March 18th Expulsion

Letter without considering the Wilks’ rebuttal of Buchler’s presentation;


51

l. Haddad prejudged the outcome of the expulsion process by

issuing the March 18th Expulsion Letter before the conclusion of the expulsion

hearings.

m. Haddad relied upon the flawed threat assessment in expelling

Erik.

n. Haddad expelled Erik without providing Erik and his parents

with a copy of the threat assessment document and affording them a

reasonable opportunity to respond to it.

o. Haddad expelled Erik, applying the harshest form of discipline

available under District policies, without complying with District policies

requiring proportionate discipline and consideration of lesser, alternative

forms of discipline.

p. Haddad expelled Erik without receiving a further

recommendation from Winger, as required by District policy and Colorado

law, after the reconvened expulsion hearing.

q. During the expulsion appeal, the Board did not limit its review to

the record previously created during the expulsion hearing and permitted

Haddad to present additional information not previously provided to Erik and

his parents, including, among other things, over the Wilks’ objection, the e-

mail from Haddox falsely accusing Erik of getting caught with marijuana.

r. The Board affirmed Erik’s expulsion based upon the results of

the flawed threat assessment


52

s. The Board affirmed Erik’s expulsion without providing Erik and

his parents a copy of the threat assessment document and affording them a

reasonable opportunity to respond to it.

t. The Board affirmed Erik’s expulsion without reviewing the

threat assessment document upon which Haddad relied in expelling Erik.

u. The Board affirmed Erik’s expulsion, applying the harshest form

of discipline available under District policies, without complying with District



237. Reasonable school officials in the School Defendants’ position would have


238. In doing the things alleged herein, the School Defendants deprived Erik of his

rights to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and caused economic and non-economic injuries

to him and his family.


THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process)


240. In doing the things alleged herein, Defendants acted arbitrarily and in

conscious and unreasonable disregard of Erik’s rights under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.


53

241. In doing the things alleged herein, the Defendants intentionally or recklessly

deprived Erik and his family of liberty and property rights by misusing or

abusing their power or employing it as an instrument of oppression.

242. Reasonable officials and officers in the Defendants’ positions would have


243. In doing the things alleged herein, the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their

substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and caused them economic and non-economic

injuries as further alleged herein.


FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment v. Niemoth)


245. When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth did not

have probable cause to believe that Erik had made a credible threat to cause

death or bodily injury with a deadly weapon against any student, school

official, or employee of an educational institution.

246. When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knew that

his fellow officer Haddox had concluded, after investigation, that there was no

evidence of a credible threat or specific steps taken to act on a threat by Erik

to attack Erie HS.

247. When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth personally

had participated in the searches of Erik’s and S.M.’s bedrooms and knew that


54

those searches had produced no evidence of a threat to attack Erie HS or

steps taken to act on such a threat.

248. When he swore out the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth was relying

upon information from persons who did not have personal knowledge of a

plan to attack Erie HS and who were reporting statements made by S.M., who

had denied, and given conflicting statements, about an alleged plan for an

attack on Erie HS.

249. False information in the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit. In preparing

the affidavit for Erik’s arrest, Niemoth knowingly and intentionally, or with

reckless disregard for the truth, included false information in the affidavit,

including, without limitation, the following:

a. That there was a high degree of concern for Erik’s capacity to

carry out an act of targeted violence based on a finding that he had access to

weapons, which was not true;

b. That there was a high degree of concern for Erik’s capacity to

carry out an act of targeted violence because Erik had a lack of parental

supervision, which was not true;

c. That there was a high degree of concern for Erik’s capacity to

carry out an act of targeted violence, when the threat assessment document

answered “No” to the question: “Are those who know the student concerned

about a specific target?”;


55

d. That there was credible evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS,

when Niemoth and Haddox already had searched Erik’s and S.M.’s bedrooms

and found no evidence of such a plan;

e. That there was credible evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS,

when Niemoth knew that the persons reporting such a plan had no first-hand

knowledge of a plan and were relying upon a rumor started by S.M;

f. That there was credible evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS,

when S.M. had denied that Erik had a plan to attack Erie HS;

g. That there was credible evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS,

when S.M. had given numerous, conflicting statements about an alleged plan

to attack Erie HS.

h. That Wilk had talked to the cheerleaders about an alleged plan

to attack when Niemoth knew that it was S.M., not Erik, who had talked to

them and that Erik was not present when S.M. spoke with them.

i. That Niemoth had confused S.M. with Erik and erroneously

identified Erik’s parents as Derek and Jami “M.”

250. The false information included in the affidavit for Erik’s arrest, if omitted,

would have vitiated probable cause to arrest Erik for the crime alleged and

should have been made known to the judicial officer to whom the application

for the warrant was presented.

251. Material information omitted from the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit.

In preparing the Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knowingly and

intentionally condensed Haddox’s 14-page incident report, concluding that the


56

threat was not credible, down to a 3-page affidavit that was false and

misleading.

252. The Niemoth Arrest Warrant Affidavit contained factual errors, selective

presented information, and omitted material exculpatory information which, if

included, would have vitiated probable cause to arrest Erik for the crime

charged and which should have been made known to the judicial officer to

whom the application was presented, including, without limitation, as follows:

a. The affidavit omitted reference to Officer Haddox’s conclusion,

after investigation, that there was no credible threat to attack Erie HS and that

no steps had been taken to act on any such threat.

b. The affidavit relied upon hearsay statements from the Erie HS

expulsion proceedings and the flawed threat assessment document, which

Niemoth knew were inaccurate and which he had not independently

corroborated.

c. The affidavit stated, in pertinent part, that Erik denied making

any statements to S.G. and V.T. regarding plans to “shoot up” Erie HS, when

Niemoth knew that Erik had not to either S.G. or V.T., that it was only S.M.

who had spoken to them, and that Erik was not present when the statements

were made by S.M.

d. The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that there were

numerous and conflicting accounts regarding what S.M. had said to S.G.,

V.T., and others about an alleged plan to attack Erie HS.


57

e. The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that S.M. denied that

there was a plan to attack Erie HS.

f. The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that S.M. said that

Erik did not have a plan to attack Erie HS.

g. The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that Erik denied a

plan to attack Erie HS.

h. The affidavit omitted reference to the fact that the Erie PD had

found no evidence of a plan to attack Erie HS, including, among other things,

no plan document or steps taken to implement such a plan.

253. False information contained in the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit. In

swearing out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knowingly and

intentionally included false information, i.e. that there were “bandoleers” in the

Wilk residence.

254. In swearing out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth knowingly and

intentionally relied upon uncorroborated and unreliable information from S.M.

regarding items to be found in the Wilk residence.

255. In swearing out the Niemoth Search Warrant Affidavit, Niemoth caused an

unwarranted and unnecessary search of the Wilks’ residence for property

which already was known to him at the time of the second search and could

and would have been seized at that time if there was probable cause to

believe that it was evidence of a crime, which it was not.

256. A reasonable officer in Niemoth’s position would have known that his actions

violated clearly established law.


58

257. In doing the things alleged herein, Niemoth violated Erik’s rights to be free

from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment (as applied through

the Fourteenth Amendment) to the United States Constitution.

258. In doing the things alleged herein, Niemoth caused injuries to Erik and his

family, including, without limitation, causing Erik’s arrest and confinement,

severe emotional distress, and the time and expense of defending an

unjustified criminal charge.


FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment v. Haddox)


260. When he prepared the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox already had searched Erik’s

bedroom and found no weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings, maps,

plans, or other items related to an attack on Erie HS.

261. When he prepared the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox had no evidence that

weapons, documents, notes, letters, writings, maps, plans, or other items

related to an attack on Erie HS would be found in the Wilk residence.

262. When he prepared the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox willfully and intentionally

omitted significant, exculpatory information that had been included in his

earlier incident report, including, without limitation, his own previous

conclusion that there was no evidence of a credible threat against Erie HS or

steps taken to act on such a threat.

263. In swearing out the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox relied upon representations

from Niemoth that “more information had been developed regarding the


59

investigation due to additional witnesses coming forward with further

information.”

264. Niemoth reported to Haddox that these additional witnesses had heard

rumors about an alleged plan to attack Erie HS.

265. The information upon which these witnesses based their statements came

from S.M., not Erik.

266. None of these additional witnesses provided information regarding any

evidence potentially located at the Wilk residence regarding a plan to attack

Erie HS.

267. Before swearing out the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox did not interview the

additional witnesses and did not independently verify the alleged “further

information” provided by Niemoth, despite Haddox’s own prior knowledge and

conclusion of no credible threat, participation in a search of Erik’s bedroom

that yielded no evidence related to an attack on Erie HS, and the numerous,

conflicting statements regarding an alleged plan to attack Erie HS.

268. The information omitted from the Haddox Affidavit, if included, would have

vitiated probable cause to search the Wilk residence for evidence of the crime

alleged, and should have been presented to the judicial officer to whom the

application for the warrant was presented.

269. When Haddox swore out the Haddox Affidavit, he did not act reasonably and

did not have probable cause to believe that evidence of a violation of C.R.S. §

18-9-109(6)(a) would be found at the Wilk residence.


60

270. In swearing out the Haddox Affidavit, Haddox caused a search warrant to be

issued and a search to be conducted of the Wilk residence in violation of

Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment (as applied through the

Fourteenth Amendment) to the United States Constitution to be free from

unreasonable search.

271. A reasonable officer in Haddox’ position would have known that their actions

violated clearly established law.

272. The search of the Wilk residence caused economic and non-economic

injuries to Plaintiffs including, without limitation, invasion of their residence

and personal dignity, seizure of their personal property, the irreplaceable loss

of family photographs, and emotional distress.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against

Defendants for relief on the above claims as follows:

a. Injunctive relief ordering the District to expunge Erik’s suspension and

expulsion from all District records;

b. Injunctive relief ordering the District to issue a statement to all persons to

whom the District communicated the results of the threat assessment that Erik that the

threat assessment has been retracted and that Erik did not pose a threat to Erie High

School;

c. Injunctive relief ordering the Erie Police Department to expunge all records

relating to the Erik’s arrest and the searches of the Wilks’ residence.


61

d. Injunctive relief ordering the Erie Police Department to expunge the false

Haddox e-mail of November 13, 2013 and to issue a statement to all persons to whom

the e-mail was communicated that it has been retracted.

e. Actual damages for pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses including,

without limitation, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, in an amount to be determined at

trial;

f. Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;

g. Nominal damages, to the extent they may be applicable;

h. Attorney fees and costs incurred in this action;

i. Prejudgment interest, to the extent allowable by law; and

j. Such other and further relief to which they are entitled at law or in equity.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues

so triable.

Dated this 4th day of September, 2015.

Joel W. Cantrick, P.C. /s Joel W. Cantrick 900 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 101 Boulder, CO 80302 303-800-2820 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs


mailto:[email protected]

62

Plaintiffs’ Address: 1325 Banner Circle, Erie, CO 80516


wilk family vs. st. vrain valley school district, erie police department, et al

Documents

town of erie police

district school

derek wilk

jami wilk

principal of erie high

plaintiffs erik wilk

individual capacity

wilk residence