Ion Media Networks, Inc. v. West.
2025 COA 66. No. 24CA1416. Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act—Body Worn Camera Footage—Substantial Privacy Concerns—Blurring of Footage—Juvenile Code.
July 10, 2025
City of Lakewood (city) Police Department officers responded to a report that M.M. had robbed a mail carrier at gunpoint. When officers approached M.M., she fled on foot, but three officers eventually surrounded her in front of a closed auto repair shop. An officer observed a black object in M.M.’s right hand that the officer believed may have been a gun. Officers ordered M.M. to get on the ground, at which point she removed a handgun from her jacket pocket and pointed the gun in a sweeping motion at the three officers. Each officer fired multiple rounds at M.M., who later died from her injuries. The shooting was recorded by each officer’s body-worn camera (BWC) and a security camera on the auto shop’s exterior. Subsequent investigation confirmed that, during the incident, M.M. possessed a semiautomatic handgun that had a round in the chamber and four rounds in the magazine, though no casings from M.M.’s gun were found, indicating that she did not fire the gun during the incident. The district attorney concluded that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to use deadly physical force against M.M. and declined to criminally charge the three officers.
M.M.’s family filed a notice under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act and the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act (ELEIA) of their intention to file a civil claim against the city. The city later permitted M.M.’s family members and their attorney to view the BWC footage, and M.M.’s family informed the city that they did not want the BWC footage released to the public. Ion Media Networks, Inc. (Ion) subsequently requested release of the BWC footage under CRS § 24-31-902(2). The city contacted M.M.’s family about the request, and they confirmed that they did not want the recordings released to the public. The city attorney denied Ion’s request, citing CRS § 19-1-304, which governs the release of juvenile delinquency records, and CRS § 24-31-902. Ion sued the city, alleging it violated § 24-31-902 by failing to produce the BWC footage within 21 days of Ion’s request, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief ordering the city to produce copies of the BWC footage. Following a hearing on the matter, the district court ordered the city to blur M.M.’s entire head in the BWC footage and then release the footage to Ion. The city sought post-trial relief under CRCP 59. The court denied the motion but stayed its order requiring release of the BWC footage pending the outcome of this appeal.
On appeal, the city contended that the district court erred by finding and concluding that CRS § 24-31-902, which is part of the ELEIA, required release of the BWC footage if M.M.’s substantial privacy interest could be protected by blurring portions of the footage. ELEIA requires a law enforcement agency to release BWC audio and video recordings that depict the death of a person caused by law enforcement within 21 days of a request for such footage. The court of appeals concluded that § 24-31-902(2) unambiguously required the court to release the BWC footage and the district court’s analysis was consistent with the statutory framework.
The city also contended that the district court erred by finding and concluding that the juvenile code does not prohibit release of the BWC footage. The city asserted that the BWC footage is itself a “juvenile record” that may not be disclosed under § 19-1-304 and therefore may not be released under ELEIA. However, under § 24 31-902(2)(b)(II)(A), the BWC footage is not a “juvenile record.” Further, even assuming that the BWC video is a law enforcement record concerning juveniles under § 19-1-304(2)(a), the court could still disclose the record under § 19-1-304(2)(a)(VII). And the district court correctly concluded that § 24-31-902 required the release of the BWC footage to Ion if the privacy interest at stake could be adequately protected by blurring.
The city further argued that the district court erred by finding and concluding that blurring M.M.’s head sufficiently protects her privacy interest, because the court did not articulate all of the privacy interests implicated by the footage, and the audio recording of M.M.’s final breaths could still be heard. However, the city cited no authority suggesting that the district court may mute or otherwise limit the public’s access to the sound of an audio recording. Here, the district court assessed the relevant privacy interests and the degree of blurring necessary to protect them, and the record supports its findings that the privacy interests at stake could be protected by blurring M.M.’s head. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The order was affirmed.