The Aurora, Colorado, police department has been operating under a consent decree since 2021, when the state identified a pattern and practice of racial profiling and excessive force.
(CN) – The family of an unarmed black man shot and killed by an Aurora police officer filed a second lawsuit against the metro city of Denver on Friday, this time for municipal liability.
The plaintiffs say the unconstitutional killing of attempted homicide suspect Kilyn Lewis in 2024 was a direct result of the city’s inadequate policy and failure to train officers in risk assessment, less-lethal planning and de-escalation.
“Lewis’s killing is precisely the type of constitutionally foreseeable harm that adequate policies, training, supervision, discipline and force review systems are supposed to prevent,” the plaintiffs say in the 27 page lawsuit. “A planned apprehension of an unarmed person by specialized officers turned within seconds into a fatal shooting because officers rushed contact, issued conflicting commands, failed to de-escalate, failed to use available time and cover, failed to use available less lethal options, and treated a non-threatening move toward compliance as justification for force.
The Aurora Police Department has operated under a consent decree with the Colorado Attorney General since 2021, when the Colorado Department of Law found that the department had engaged in a pattern and practice of violating state and federal law through racially biased policing, excessive force and failure to record legally required information during interactions with the community.
The state reported that Aurora police used force against black people almost 2.5 times more often than against white people, and nearly half of the individuals the department used force against were black, even though black residents made up only 15% of Aurora’s population.
The consent decree requires Aurora to improve policies and training to reduce the use of force, ensure the use of force complies with state and federal law, protect officer and community safety, and build a culture of continuous improvement. The state-appointed independent monitor applauded the city for its improvements in October, but Lewis’ family says the 2024 shooting was just another example of a broken system that hasn’t made enough progress since then.
“The officers in this case used tactics directly contrary to reforms the city knew were necessary,” the plaintiffs say. “They rushed a planned apprehension, used a show of overwhelming force against an unarmed person, issued overlapping and conflicting commands, failed to de-escalate, failed to use time and distance, failed to use less lethal force available, and used deadly force when Mr. Lewis did not pose an imminent threat.”
Using undercover officers and drone surveillance, Aurora police tracked Lewis for two days before arresting him on suspicion of attempted murder. At the time, plaintiffs say officers should have determined he was unarmed and not an immediate threat.
Led by Officer Michael Dieck, Aurora police eventually stopped Lewis in his apartment parking lot, quickly surrounding him after he got out of his car. Plaintiffs say officers shout conflicting commands; they told them both to sit on the ground and show their hands.
As he knelt on the ground, just seven seconds after surrounding him, Dieck shot Lewis in the stomach. He did not warn Lewis that he was going to shoot.
In a public statement, the city said: “Every investigative body — internal and external — responsible for reviewing the officer-involved shootings in Aurora determined that the officer in this case acted legally.”
The city says Dieck mistook the cellphone in Lewis’ hand for a gun.
The family filed the first lawsuitcharging the department with excessive force and constitutional violations, in May 2025. That case is still pending in federal court.
In Friday’s lawsuit, plaintiffs say Dieck was the only officer authorized to carry a less-lethal weapon — a 40 mm stick launcher. But Dieck exchanged his baton for his firearm before approaching Lewis, eliminating a de-escalation option. The plaintiffs say Dieck had time to repeat non-confrontational commands and avoid using gunfire.
They also say the operation could have been planned in more detail to reduce the risk.
In the lawsuit, they call out specific policies, including those that allow SWAT teams to execute warrants for outside jurisdictions without adequate vetting, planning and preparation, allow officers to escalate encounters through sudden displays of overwhelming force, allow officers to use deadly force without reasonable warning, and allow less tactical officers to override planned means.
Plaintiffs raise three claims under municipal liability: unconstitutional policy, practice or custom; failure to train, supervise and discipline; and final policymaker ratification and approval.
The city did not respond to a request for comment.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
