Romero v. City of Fountain
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 732
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Romero, a former Fountain police officer, sought TRO and preliminary injunction to stop release of an internal investigation report and two summaries in response to a CORA request.
- The investigation allegedly involved inappropriate conduct by Romero with two women while in uniform; release was planned for March 18, 2011.
- Romero filed additional claims under CCJRA and CORA alleging personal information and unwarranted consequences would result from disclosure.
- The district court granted a TRO and held a closed preliminary injunction hearing, denying relief after Rathke v. MacFarlane, and analyzed under CCJRA.
- The court stayed its ruling to permit Romero to appeal; the appellate motions division later denied the stay pending appeal but extended the stay to May 20, 2011 to allow seeking Supreme Court relief.
- Appellate analysis adopted federal stay standards (Nken/Hilton framework) and applied CCJRA balancing considerations, including privacy vs. public interest and custodian discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should a stay pending appeal be granted? | Romero asserts four-factor stay standard supports relief to prevent irreparable harm. | City contends no stay is warranted given public interest and lack of likelihood of success. | Stay pending appeal denied; however, stay extended to May 20, 2011 for relief via Supreme Court. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction under CCJRA? | Romero contends he showed likelihood of success on the CCJRA merits. | City argues no abuse; district court properly weighed interests and applied CCJRA standards. | No abuse of discretion; Romero unlikely to succeed on the CCJRA merits. |
| Was the CCJRA balancing properly performed by the custodian? | Romero argued the balancing was not explained or properly conducted. | City presented articulations of privacy vs. public interest and proper balancing per Harris and Freedom Colorado Information. | Yes; district court properly recognized and the custodian articulated balancing as required. |
| Does the public interest support disclosure or enforcement of a stay? | Public has a right to know about investigation findings and potential misconduct. | Balancing favors disclosure but may be constrained by privacy and ongoing investigations; public interest weighed against stay. | Public interest disfavoring the stay; however, because release would terminate injunctive relief in practice, stay extended to May 20. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1982) (six-factor preliminary injunction test; harms and likelihood of success)
- Freedom Colorado Information, Inc. v. El Paso County Sheriff's Department, 196 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2008) (CCJRA disclosure and balancing framework for records requests)
- Harris v. Denver Post Corp., 123 P.3d 1166 (Colo. 2005) (balancing factors for access to criminal justice records under CCJRA)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (S. Ct. 2009) (traditional four-factor stay standard; appellate discretion)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1987) (same stay factors guidance)
- Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) (probability of success inversely proportional to irreparable harm; flexible stay standard)
- Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1981) (movers may show substantial case on merits when serious legal question involved)
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (no strict probability of success; stay may be granted with flexible standards)
- Arnold v. Garlock, Inc., 278 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2001) (stay standards; substantial merits inquiry when equities weigh heavily)