Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Defence Indemnification topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Larimer County to defend, indemnify deputies in two excessive-force lawsuits, commissioners vote 3-0

3730203 · May 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a closed executive session, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-0 to approve county defense and indemnification for employees named in two pending civil cases alleging excessive force at separate domestic-disturbance incidents.

The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners voted 3-0 on Tuesday to approve the county’s defense and indemnification of Larimer County employees named in two pending civil lawsuits alleging excessive force during domestic disturbance responses.

Deputy County Attorney David Aru summarized the cases after the board returned from executive session. In Byrd v. Drizzle et al., 2025CV30209, deputies responding to a disturbance at a Clarion Hotel used a nonlethal “beanbag” method after gaining access to the room, and the plaintiff alleges excessive force, Aru said. In Gassen v. [Larimer County] et al., 2025CV30235, deputies responded to a person potentially experiencing a mental-health crisis; Aru said deputies attempted a prolonged conversation for more than four hours, employed tear gas to encourage the individual to exit, then used a nonlethal canine option; the plaintiff alleges the canine was not disengaged quickly enough and asserts excessive-force claims.

After the legal summary, Commissioner Jody Shattuck McNally moved that the board approve Larimer County defending and indemnifying the named employees in case numbers 2025CV30209 and 2025CV30235. The motion passed unanimously, 3 to 0.

The board had entered executive session earlier under Colorado Revised Statute 24-6-402(4)(b), the portion of state law allowing a governing body to confer with its attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific pending litigation. The transcript shows the board cited that statute when moving into executive session.

The county’s approval to defend and indemnify does not describe settlement positions or further litigation strategy in the open meeting; Aru’s courtroom-style summaries in the public meeting record describe the allegations, the nonlethal tactics used by deputies and the circumstances cited by the plaintiffs.

The board moved into a second executive session later in the meeting to receive legal advice relating to House Bill 24-1271 on local regulation of massage facilities; commissioners said no further public action would follow from that second executive session at the meeting.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke at the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners administrative matters meeting on May 20, 2025. Legal descriptions are summaries provided by the county’s deputy attorney in open session and reflect allegations as described in the pending case filings and the meeting record.