The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has revived much of a civil rights lawsuit brought by activists who said police obtained overly broad search warrants after a housing-rights protest in Colorado Springs.
In Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs, the court held that protesters plausibly alleged police violated the Fourth Amendment by seeking sweeping warrants to search electronic devices and social-media accounts tied to the 2021 demonstration. The panel reversed a district court decision dismissing the case and granting qualified immunity to officers involved in obtaining the warrants.
The dispute stems from a housing-rights march in July 2021. After the protest, police obtained warrants to search activist Jacqueline Armendariz’s apartment and electronic devices and to collect posts and messages from the Facebook account of the Chinook Center, a nonprofit that helped organize the event.
Armendariz and the Chinook Center sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the warrants were unconstitutionally overbroad and part of a broader effort to surveil activists. The 10th Circuit ruled the plaintiffs plausibly alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.
The court did affirm dismissal of some claims, including a Fourth Amendment claim against the FBI related to data retention, finding the issue had been waived on appeal.
The decision signals that broad digital search warrants targeting activists’ devices and social-media activity may face heightened constitutional scrutiny. It also clarifies police officers in the 10th Circuit can lose qualified immunity when warrants allegedly lack sufficient particularity especially when they seek large amounts of electronic data tied to protest activity.