Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No.:

16-cv-1103______

KRISTIN BANTLE, an individual

Plaintiff,
v.
THE ROUTT COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ROUTT COUNTY, COLORADO
SHERIFF GARRETT WIGGINS, in his official and individual capacity
Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Kristen Bantle, (referred herein as Plaintiff or Ms. Bantle), by and through her
undersigned counsel, Aviso Law LLC, brings this action and alleges as follows:
I.
1.

INTRODUCTION

This is an action arises out of the unlawful conduct by Defendants Garrett Wiggins,

Sherriff of the Routt County Sherriffs Office, the Board of County Commissioners and The Route
County Sheriffs Office (hereinafter Defendants) for violating Plaintiffs Constitutional rights and
other illegal activities. As a result of Defendants actions, Ms. Bantle suffered loss of wages,
deprivation of her constitutional guaranteed rights, loss of her employment, loss of future employment
opportunities, harm to her reputation, humiliation, severe emotional distress and other significant
injuries, damages and losses.
2.

Ms. Bantle has satisfied her statutory obligation to provide notice of tort claims to

governmental entities by filing the required notice under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
C.R.S. 24-10-109 on December 8, 2015 within 180 days of Plaintiff being injured and discovering
the cause of such injuries.

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20

3.

Ms. Bantle alleges that Defendants violated her Constitutional rights, specifically her

Fourth Amendment right to be secure in her person, papers and effects from unreasonable search and
seizure. By violating these rights, the Defendants caused Ms. Bantle to be terminated from her
position of employment as a law enforcement officer with the Steamboat Springs Police Department
on August 10, 2015 an occurrence that would not have occurred but for the Defendants violation
of Ms. Bantles constitutionally protected civil rights.
4.

In addition to causing the termination of Ms. Bantles employment, Sherriff Garrett

Wiggins (hereinafter The Sheriff Wiggins) interfered with her employment contract, caused the
malicious criminal prosecution of Ms. Bantle for criminal allegations for which she was ultimately
acquitted and took actions that intentionally caused Ms. Bantle emotional distress. Ms. Bantle brings
this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and additional causes of action under Colorado law and seeks
compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages.
II.
5.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

Jurisdiction of this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States

and 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Court further has jurisdiction to adjudicate supplemental state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331
and 1343. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs claim for attorneys fees is conferred by 42 U.S.C. 1988.
6.

Venue in the United States District Court is proper in that the action complained of

took place in the State of Colorado and all the parties are residents of the state.
III.
7.

PARTIES

At all pertinent times mentioned herein, Ms. Bantle was and is a citizen of the United

States of America and a resident of Colorado residing at 810 Amethyst, Steamboat Springs, Colorado
80477.

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20

8.

Sheriff Wiggins is and was an individual residing in the State of Colorado at all

pertinent times mentioned herein and he is a citizen of the United States of America. He is the elected
Sheriff of Routt County, State of Colorado. In his position as Sheriff, he is responsible for all activities
of the Routt County Sherriffs Office and is also responsible for the administrative activities and
functions of the Routt County Sheriffs Office. Sheriff Wiggins is a departmental head and therefore
maintains the sole responsibility for all law enforcement activities in Routt County, Colorado as well
as all policies, customs and acts of the Routt County Sheriffs Office. At all times mentioned herein,
Sheriff Wiggins was serving in the capacity as Sheriff of Routt County, Colorado.
9.

Routt County, State of Colorado, is governed by a three (3) member Board of County

Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners are elected.

10.

All acts taken by the Defendants were taken under the color of law, ordinance, custom,

practice and usage.

IV.
11.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Ms. Bantle became employed as a law enforcement officer by the Steamboat Springs

Police Department in April, 2011.

12.

Prior to becoming employed as a law enforcement officer with the Steamboat Springs

Police Department, Ms. Bantle served as a law enforcement officer for many years in Michigan.
13.

On or about April, 2013, Ms. Bantle applied for employment as a law enforcement

officer with the Routt County Sherriffs Office (hereinafter Sheriffs Office), which is headquartered
in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
14.

As part of the application for employment with the Sherriffs Office, Ms. Bantle was

required to complete a comprehensive personal history and pre-employment questionnaire. This

questionnaire required that Ms. Bantle provide a wide range of information.

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20

15.

Information requested in the questionnaire called for highly personal and sensitive

information, the disclosure of which would be objectionable by an ordinary person of reasonable

sensibilities. Examples of this information included: Ms. Bantles social security number, her birth
date, the medications that she was currently taking, her drivers license number, a list of all traffic
violations and traffic accidents within the last five (5) years, laws that Ms. Bantle had broken that she
had not been caught breaking, prior work-related disciplinary actions and Ms. Bantles self-reported
use of illegal substances. Ms. Bantle was also required to undergo a psychiatric examination as part of
the application for employment.
16.

In providing responses to this highly personal and sensitive information requested in

the questionnaire, Ms. Bantle had a legitimate and reasonable expectation that the information would
not be disclosed and would be kept confidential.
17.

In the instructions for the questionnaire, Ms. Bantle was informed by the Sheriffs

Office that, the information you supply and any information obtained by the agency through the
background investigation is held in complete confidentiality and, at no time, will any portion of the
background investigation be released to any person other than those authorized by law to receive such
information.
18.

With the understanding and expectation that such highly personal and sensitive

information would be kept strictly confidential, Ms. Bantle truthfully disclosed in a pre-polygraph
interview and on her pre-employment questionnaire that she had previously used marijuana around
Christmas of 2012, cocaine during the summer of 2012, LSD in college in the 1990s, mushrooms
while in college in the 1990s and ecstasy while in college in the 1990s.
19.

Following the pre-polygraph interview and after completing the pre-employment

questionnaire, Ms. Bantle was required as part of the application process to take a polygraph

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20

examination. Ms. Bantle passed the polygraph examination indicating that she had truthfully disclosed
her complete history of prior use of illicit substances.
20.

In truthfully responding to questions about her prior drug use, Ms. Bantle had the

understanding that truthful disclosure of her drug use was necessary in order for the Sheriffs Office
to assess her eligibility for the law enforcement position. In admitting to prior drug use, some of
which was within the previous twelve (12) months, Ms. Bantle understood that an admission in any
other setting could form the basis for a criminal prosecution against her; however, in this setting where
she was informed that information she provided would be held in complete confidentiality and that
at no time would the information be released to any person other than those authorized by law to
receive such information Ms. Bantle had the understanding that under no circumstances would the
information she provided ever be released absent the issuance of a search warrant. Ms. Bantle further
had the understanding and legitimate expectation that the information she provided could not be
lawfully used to seek and obtain a search warrant for any of her disclosures during the application
process and background investigation, since such a scenario would defeat the promise of
confidentiality by the Sheriffs Office.
21.

Because the Sheriffs Office made such promises of confidentiality as discussed in

paragraph 17 above, the Sheriffs Office did not have a compelling state interest in disclosing such
information.
22.

Ultimately on April 23, 2013, Ray Birch, Undersheriff with the Sheriffs Office,

informed Ms. Bantle that she had failed the background portion of the Sheriffs Office application
process and that Ms. Bantle was therefore disqualified for continuing in the application process.
23.

Following Ms. Bantles disqualification, Sheriff Wiggins sought the advice of the Routt

County Attorneys Office. Specifically, Sheriff Wiggins inquired about his ability to disclose the
information that Ms. Bantle had provided during the background investigation. Wiggins made such

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20

inquiry because he desired to disclose the information to Ms. Bantles employer, the Steamboat Springs
Police Department, and to law enforcement.
24.

Sheriff Wiggins was advised by the Routt County Attorneys Office that he could not

disclose such information and that disclosure of such information could result in liability to the
County, the Sheriffs Office and Sheriff Wiggins.
25.

On December 1, 2015, during the criminal prosecution of Ms. Bantle (which will be

discussed below), Sheriff Wiggins testified, I had numerous conversations, myself and my
undersheriff, with our legal counsel, and we were advised numerous times that the information should
be held confidential and we should not pass that information on the police department. Sheriff
Wiggins further testified that as a result of such advice, he did not pass such information along to the
police department, district attorneys office or any other investigative agency.
26.

On or about February 2014, Ms. Bantle was assigned, as part of her duties with the

Steamboat Springs Police Department, to be the School Resource Officer for the Steamboat Springs
Middle and High School.
27.

Though Ms. Bantle was assigned as the School Resource Officer, she did not have

traditional law enforcement authorities in this role because the schools were located outside of the
Steamboat Springs city limits and thus outside of the Citys jurisdiction. The schools are, however,
located within Routt County and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of the Routt County Sheriffs
Office and within Sheriffs Wiggins jurisdiction.
28.

Though the schools were located within Routt County, Sheriff Wiggins had no

authority over Ms. Bantle. Further, Sheriff Wiggins had no authority to direct who in the Steamboat
Springs Police Department was assigned to serve as the School Resource Officer. Sheriff Wiggins
also had no authority to direct the non-law-enforcement functions being provided by the School
Resource Officer.

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20

29.

As a School Resource Officer without traditional law enforcement authorities, Ms.

Bantle served several non-law-enforcement functions, some of which included teaching and also
training for events such as a natural disaster or active-shooter type situations.
30.

Upon information and belief, on or about May, 2015, Sheriff Wiggins sought to either

implement or make changes to a School Safety Task Force within the schools where Ms. Bantle
worked. Some of those changes Ms. Bantle opposed.
31.

On May 22, 2015, Sheriff Wiggins sent an email to Stewart Curcio stating, Stew, I just

got back into the office and I understand Laurie in communications and Kristin [Bantle] from SSPD
threw up some roadblocks this week. Lets get together next week and talk about what has happened
as I intend on fixing both of these problems.
32.

On or around this same date, Sheriff Wiggins son, who was in sixth grade and

attended the middle school where Ms. Bantle worked, reported to Sheriff Wiggins that Ms. Bantle had
use questionable language while at the school.
33.

In response to this report, and as Sheriff Wiggins testified in court on December 1,

2015, I was concerned about it and concerned about the type of language that was being used in the
middle school class, and I chose at that point in time, especially since it was my son providing this
information to me, not to act on that. And I thought that I would just sit back and wait and see if I
had other students and teacher . . . or parents that had concerns with that. . . .
34.

Sheriff Wiggins did not hear any other concerns from parents, students or teachers.

35.

On or about May 25, 2015, Sheriff Wiggins was provided with a letter voicing concern

from a ninth-grade female student about some language used by Ms. Bantle and also about some
stories that Ms. Bantle had shared. This letter, however, was drafted by the daughter of Mark Elliott,
a Deputy with the Sheriffs Office and Sheriff Wiggins employee. Deputy Elliott was the individual
who provided the letter to Sheriff Wiggins.

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20

36.

Though Sheriff Wiggins never received any complaints from concerned students,

parents or teachers unaffiliated with the Sheriffs Office, Sheriff Wiggins, who was unhappy that Ms.
Bantle was serving as a School Resource Officer because of the information that he possessed from
her application for employment with the Sheriffs Office, acted with malice intent to interfere with
Ms. Bantles employment as a School Resource Officer and with her employment as a law enforcement
officer with the Steamboat Springs Police Department (hereinafter SSPD).
37.

On May 26, 2015, Sheriff Wiggins drafted and sent an email to Jerry Delong

(hereinafter Chief Delong) Chief of the Steamboat Springs Police Department. In the email Sheriff
Wiggins reported Ms. Bantles use of inappropriate language and recital of inappropriate personal
stories from her experiences as a law enforcement officer. In addition to reporting such information,
Sheriff Wiggins stated, At this time, I am withdrawing permission for SRO Bantle to conduct any
official SRO duties in any school outside of the city limits. . . . SRO Bantle has no law enforcement
authority outside Steamboat Springs city limits so I am requesting that you inform her that she is not
to conduct any SRO activities in Strawberry Park.
38.

In doing so, Sheriff Wiggins intentionally, maliciously and without authority, interfered

with Ms. Bantles employment contract. As Sheriff Wiggins had no authority to control who served
as the School Resource Officer, or the non-law-enforcement functions being performed by the School
Resource Officer, he did not possess the authority to prohibit Ms. Bantle from conducting official
School Resource Officer duties in schools outside of city limits. Nonetheless, Sheriff Wiggins
intended to cause the SSPD to breach their contract with Ms. Bantle, and by sending the email on
May 26, 2015, took steps to cause the breach of the employment contract between the SSPD and Ms.
Bantle.
39.

On May 26, 2015, Sheriff Wiggins also sent an email to administrators within the

schools where Ms. Bantle served as the School Resource Officer. In this email, Sheriff Wiggins

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20

informed the administrators that Ms. Bantle was no longer permitted to perform School Resource
Officer duties. Despite Sheriff Wiggins absence of authority, Chief Delong immediately removed Ms.
Bantle from the School Resource Officer position pending the outcome of an internal affairs
investigation.
40.

Ultimately, on June 8th, 2015, Ms. Bantle was removed from her duties as a School

Resource Officer and reassigned.

41.

Though Sheriff Wiggins intentionally and tortuously interfered with Ms. Bantles

employment contract by causing her to be removed as the School Resource Officer, he also took
continuing and additional steps to interfere with the employment contract and ultimately caused the
SSPD to terminate Ms. Bantles employment on August 10, 2015.
42.

Within the same email sent by Sheriff Wiggins to Chief Delong on May 26, 2015,

Sheriff Wiggins stated in bold font,

As a side note, several years ago Officer Bantle applied with our agency and during
the background phase something was discovered that was VERY distrusting to me
and US Burch. This discovery immediately terminated her as an applicant and we
pondered whether or not we should inform you of these circumstances. We did not
know if this information would be considered as Protected or not so we checked
with our legal counsel. Our attorney advised us that in order to avoid a potential law
suit we should not inform you of this finding.
43.

After receiving Sheriff Wiggins email, Chief Delong asked another employee of the

SSPD, Captain Stabile, to setup a meeting in regards to the information provided by Ms. Bantle during
the background investigation portion of her application for employment with the Sheriffs Office.
44.

A meeting occurred around noon on May 26, 2015 at the SSPD between Sheriff

Wiggins, Chief Delong and Captain Stabile. During this meeting, as Sheriff Wiggins explained in his
testimony on December 1, 2015,
I explained to them that I couldnt go into detail for civil or for liability reasons, that
I felt there was information there that they needed to have, and there was information
there that I wanted them to have but they had to go through a legal process. I needed
to be served with a court order before I could release the details of that information.
9

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20

I did not specifically tell him what she had done. I had told them that she had, in my mind,
committed a criminal offense that spoke negatively to her integrity. They had asked some
questions and there was some discussion, but I never came straight out and told them that
Kristin Bantle had used cocaine.
45.

Instead of directly telling Chief Delong and Captain Stabile that Ms. Bantle had used

cocaine, Sheriff Wiggins intentionally alluded to the fact that Ms. Bantle had admitted to using cocaine.
Sheriff Wiggins did so in such a way as to unambiguously reveal to Chief Delong and Captain Stabile
the sensitive and highly private information that Ms. Bantle disclosed in her application for
employment with the Sheriffs Office. As Sheriff Wiggins explained during his testimony on
December 1, 2015, I think my exact words [were] Steamboat Springs is known for champagne
power. Sheriff Wiggins further explained this statement during the following colloquy while
testifying:
Q. Okay. By the time that youre making this statement that Steamboat Springs is
known for its champagne powder, you have been advised not to reveal any
information from her application, havent you?
A. I was advised not to reveal any specific information without court order.
Q. Okay. And you didnt think that specifically referring to champagne powder meant
cocaine?

A. They can interpret that statement in any way they wanted to.
Q. But what did you mean when you said it?
A. What did I mean? In my mind I knew she had used cocaine, and the terminology
is common terminology for powder. Powder being cocaine.
Q. So it was your intent to breach that confidentiality and leak that information to the
Steamboat Springs Police Department?
A. Absolutely

10

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20

46.

In making this disclosure, Sheriff Wiggins was acting under the color of law, ordinance,

custom, practice and usage. Sheriff Wiggins knew that by revealing this confidential and private
information that he would violate Ms. Bantles constitutionally protected rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments, and by actually revealing this information, Sheriff Wiggins did violate Ms.
Bantles constitutional rights.
47.

In interpreting the oral statement made by Sheriff Wiggins in Chief Delongs office,

Chief Delong, as he explained in a memorandum he drafted to document the interaction, understood

that once Sheriff Wiggins made the above comment, my immediate thought was Officer Bantle used
a controlled substance while she was an employee of the Steamboat Springs PD.
48.

As a result of Sheriff Wiggins disclosure of confidential and private information within

Ms. Bantles application for employment, both an internal affairs investigation and a criminal
investigation began.
49.

Specific to the criminal investigation, following the meeting with Sheriff Wiggins,

Chief Delong contacted the 14th Judicial District, District Attorneys Office to request that one of
their investigators conduct a criminal investigation into Ms. Bantles purported use of cocaine while
employed as a law enforcement officer with the SSPD. The District Attorneys Office assigned the
case to Investigator Doug Winters (hereinafter Investigator Winters). A criminal investigation
began for the specific purpose of determining whether Ms. Bantle had violated the law by using a
controlled substance.
50.

Though Sheriff Wiggins revealed private and highly sensitive information from Ms.

Bantles application for employment with the Sheriffs Office on May 26, 2015, this was not the only
time that he did so without lawful authority or authorization.
51.

On June 2, 2015, Sheriff Wiggins sent an email to 14th Judicial District, District

Attorney Brett Barkey. Because of Sheriff Wiggins previous disclosures to Chief Delong, and Chief

11

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20

Delongs subsequent report of Ms. Bantles drug use to the District Attorneys Office, the District
Attorneys Office already knew, prior to Sheriff Wiggins email on June 2, 2015, that Ms. Bantle had
disclosed using cocaine in her application for employment with the Sheriffs Office. In Sheriff
Wiggins email to the District Attorney, he further revealed confidential and private information in
violation of Ms. Bantles constitutionally protected rights. Sheriff Wiggins stated to the District
Attorney,
Several years ago, we had a police officer from a different agency apply with the RCSO for an
opening in patrol. . . . The applicant successfully passed our first phase in the application
process and was offered a position based on a [pending and] successful background check.
Here is where things go afoul. During the polygraph phase the applicant admitted to using
marijuana along with their spouse who had a medical MJ prescription. The applicant also
admitted using cocaine 1 time while being employed [as] a police officer for their current
agency. Obviously, because of the illegal drug use the applicant was denied a position.
52.

Following Sheriff Wiggins email, Investigator Winters met with Sheriff Wiggins on or

about June 15, 2015. During this meeting Sheriff Wiggins confirmed to Investigator Wiggins that Ms.
Bantle had applied for employment with the Sheriffs Office and that during the background
investigation portion of the application process, Ms. Bantle admitted to using marijuana and cocaine
and that she did so while employed as a law enforcement officer with the SSPD.
53.

In addition to the meeting with Investigator Winters, Sheriff Wiggins also met with

Josh Carrell (hereinafter Mr. Carrell), an internal affairs investigator with the SSPD. Sheriff Wiggins
informed Mr. Carrell that Ms. Bantle had admitting to using cocaine during the background
investigation portion of her application to the Sheriffs Office.

Mr. Carrell then relayed this

information to Investigator Winters on June 15, 2015.

54.

On June 16, 2015, using the private and confidential information provided by Ms.

Bantle in her application for employment with the Sheriffs Office that had been completely disclosed
by Sheriff Wiggins without lawful authority or authorization and in violation of Ms. Bantles

12

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20

constitutionally protected rights, Investigator Winters applied for a search warrant of Ms. Bantles
application for employment with the Sheriffs Office.
55.

In his application and affidavit for a search warrant, Investigator Winters used the

constitutionally protected information that should have never been disclosed as the underlying factual
basis to support the application for search authorization. The entirety of the information used in the
application for a search warrant was protected from disclosure.
56.

The request for a search warrant for Ms. Bantles application for employment with the

Sheriffs Office was approved on June 16, 2015.

57.

On June 16, 2016 Ms. Bantle was placed on administrative leave by the SSPD.

58.

On June 19, 2015, as part of Sheriff Wiggins outrageous and continuing attempt to

cause harm to Ms. Bantle, Sheriff Wiggins had an unprovoked conversation with Dennis Hensen
(hereinafter Mr. Hensen) who is a law enforcement officer with the SSPD. Mr. Hensen believes
that Sheriff Wiggins approached Mr. Hensen because the Sheriff believed that Mr. Hensen was
supporting Ms. Bantle within the department and/or publically. During the conversation, as Mr.
Hensen explains in a sworn affidavit,
On June 19, 2015, at about 9:57 a.m. I was walking toward the Grand Futures Office
in Steamboat Springs, Colorado when as I opened the door leading to the office
stairway, Sheriff Garrett Wiggins approached me. Sheriff Wiggins stated he had been
trying to get a hold of me for about a week. . . .
Sheriff Wiggins stated he knows I have been supporting Kristen Bantle and he wanted
to warn me that she is in far more trouble than just being reassigned from the School
Resource Officer Position. . . .
Sheriff Wiggins told me he didnt want me to get into trouble for supporting Bantle. .
..
Sheriff Wiggins told me there is a new investigation into a felony Bantle had
committed. He explained that Bantle had applied for a position with the Routt County
Sheriffs Office several years ago and that he was about to offer her a job when he got
the results of her background and mental health investigations. Sheriff Wiggins told
me there was some really bad information in those reports which resulted in Bantle
13

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20

not being hired by the RCSO.

Sheriff Wiggins told me he has had this information for several years, but for some
reason he could not disclose the information. He told me recently someone had gotten
a court order which forced him to give the information to SSPD.
Sheriff Wiggins told me the results of this new investigation should be public by the
end of the month and he said Bantle is going to be in serious trouble.
59.

In disclosing highly personal and sensitive information from Ms. Bantles application

for employment with the Sheriffs Office, Sheriff Wiggins, in essence, disclosed the entirety of the
information Ms. Bantle shared in her application for employment. The only things not shared were
the actual papers containing Ms. Bantles handwriting. As such, Sheriff Wiggins disclosures did not
occur in the manner which was the least intrusive with respect to Ms. Bantles right to confidentiality
and privacy.
60.

Sheriff Wiggins actions discussed above in paragraphs 1-58 not only occurred in his

individual capacity, they occurred in his official and supervisory capacity as he was the elected head of
the Routt County Sheriffs Department and personally participated in the constitutional deprivation.
61.

On August 10, 2015, Ms. Bantles employment was terminated by the SSPD.

62.

The termination of Ms. Bantles employment contract with the SSPD resulted from

Sheriff Wiggins unconstitutional disclosures and intent to cause a breach of the employment contract
between Ms. Bantle and the SSPD, as described in detail above in paragraphs 1-59.
63.

At the time Ms. Bantles employment was terminated, her annual salary was $50,000

per year plus benefits. As a result of Sheriff Wiggins actions, Ms. Bantle suffered damages caused by
her loss of employment and salary, amongst other damages.
64.

On July 14, 2015, Ms. Bantle was charged criminally with Attempting to Influence a

Public Servant pursuant to C.R.S. 18-8-306, a class 4 felony. The alleged attempt to influence a
public servant was based upon allegations that Ms. Bantle allegedly attempted to influence Sheriff
Wiggins by making false statements in her application for employment with the Sheriffs Office.
14

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20

Sheriff Wiggins was alleged to be the individual with hiring authority for the Sheriffs Department and
thus it was alleged that Ms. Bantle illegally attempted to influence Sheriff Wiggins.
65.

The criminal charges filed against Ms. Bantle were a direct result of Sheriff Wiggins

actions alleged above in paragraphs 1-62, specifically his disclosure of highly sensitive, confidential
and private information provided by Ms. Bantle in her application for employment with the Sheriffs
Office. Given that Ms. Bantle truthfully disclosed her drug use in the application for employment
with the Sheriffs Office, there was no probable cause to support the allegations against Ms. Bantle
for improperly attempting to influence Sheriff Wiggins in his official capacity. In making the series of
disclosures, and through his actions discussed above in paragraph 1-62, Sheriff Wiggins acted with
malice, and by doing so caused Ms. Bantle a wide range of damages, to include loss of employment,
the incurrence of attorneys fees, loss of reputation and emotional damages, to name but a few.
66.

On or about Thursday December 3, 2015, following a three-day trial, Ms. Bantle was

acquitted of the criminal allegations against her.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Deprivation of Rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. 1983)
67.

Ms. Bantle re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each

preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

68.

The conduct and actions of Defendants at all times relevant occurred while acting

under color of law in disclosing highly sensitive and private information provided by Ms. Bantle to
the Sheriffs Office as part of her application for employment and background investigation;
information which was provided under the promise of non-disclosure and which was of a nature to
be highly personal, sensitive private information.
69.

At all times relevant, the disclosure by the Defendants was done without lawful

justification or reason, and was designed to and did cause damages and emotional pain and suffering

15

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20

in violation of Plaintiffs rights as guaranteed under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, including the right to be secure in her person, papers
and effects from unreasonable search and seizure.
70.

At all times relevant the Defendants violated Ms. Bantles Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights under the United States Constitution to be secure in her person, papers and effects
from unreasonable search and seizure by disclosing information within Ms. Bantles application for
employment that was confidential, highly sensitive and personal in nature information which was
protected against unlawful disclosure by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution.
71.

At all times relevant the Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the

disclosure of information within Ms. Bantles application for employment, which was highly personal
and sensitive information, would result in the deprivation of Ms. Bantles rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
72.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Ms. Bantle was deprived of her right

to be secure in her person, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizure and otherwise
suffered damages including, but not limited to: loss of employment, loss of wages, loss of benefits,
other economic losses, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience mental anguish and
loss of enjoyment of life.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Malicious Prosecution)
73.

Ms. Bantle re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each

preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

74.

By engaging in the acts discussed above, the Defendants contributed to the brining of

a criminal complaint against Ms. Bantle by releasing confidential, private and highly sensitive
information that was provided by Ms. Bantle to the Defendants under the promise of confidentiality
16

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20

to Ms. Bantles employer and to the Routt County District Attorneys Office and their employees. As
a result of the release of information by the Defendants, the 14th Judicial District, District Attorney,
filed criminal charges against Ms. Bantle on July 14, 2014 alleging one count of Attempt to Influence
a Public Servant in violation of C.R.S. 18-8-306.
75.

On or about December 3, 2015 the criminal prosecution was resolved in favor of Ms.

Bantle as she was acquitted of the criminal allegation against her.

76.

Though charges were filed against Ms. Bantle, there was no probable cause for the

proceeding. This is partially because Ms. Bantle admitted to her drug use during the background
investigation portion of her application for employment; alternatively, there was no probable cause
because of the fact that, based upon information and belief, Sheriff Wiggins did not personally
participate in any portion of the application process involving Ms. Bantles application for
employment.
77.

As evidenced by the facts and circumstances discussed above in paragraphs 1-75, in

disclosing the aforementioned information, the Defendants acted with malice.

78.

As a result of the Defendants actions, Ms. Bantle incurred damages which include but

are not limited to: attorneys fees, costs, psychological and emotional damages as well as a loss of
reputation.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress)
79.

Ms. Bantle re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each

preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

80.

By engaging in the acts discussed above, to include disclosing the information

provided by Ms. Bantle in her application for employment with the Routt County Sheriffs Office to
Ms. Bantles employer and the District Attorneys Office, as well as discussing the information within
Ms. Bantles application for employment with other third parties, information that was highly sensitive
17

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20

and personal and provided under the promise of confidentiality, the Defendants engaged in extreme
and outrageous conduct.
81.

In engaging in this conduct, the Defendants did so in a reckless fashion and/or with

the intent of causing Ms. Bantle severe emotional distress and with complete disregard to the effect
of disclosing highly personal and sensitive information on Ms. Bantle.
82.

As a result of the Defendants conduct, Ms. Bantle suffered severe emotional distress

physically manifesting in a number of ways to include, but not limited to: loss of sleep, loss of appetite,
incidents of panic, rashes on her skin and muscle tightness.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Interference with Contractual Obligations)
83.

Ms. Bantle re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each

preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

84.

Ms. Bantle had an existing and valid employment contract whereby she was employed

by a third party, the Steamboat Springs Police Department, as a law enforcement officer.
85.

Defendants know of this contract as previously set forth above.

86.

The defendants intended to cause the Steamboat Springs Police Department to breach

the employment contract with Ms. Bantle. The Defendants did so by first relaying information to the
Steamboat Springs Police Department in regards to alleged statements made by Ms. Bantle as a School
Resource Officer, and then continued in their attempt to cause the Police Department to breach its
contract with Ms. Bantle by disclosing confidential, private and highly sensitive information from Ms.
Bantles application for employment, which was disclosed by Ms. Bantle to the Defendants under the
promise of confidentiality.
87.

The disclosure of this information caused the Steamboat Springs Police Department

to breach its employment contract with Ms. Bantle by terminating her employment on August 10,
2015.
18

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20

88.

The Defendants interference with Ms. Bantles employment contract was improper.

89.

Ms. Bantle suffered actual damages as a result of the Defendants interference with the

contract in an amount to be proven at trial. Such damages include but are not limited to: loss of
employment, loss of wages, loss of benefits, other economic losses, emotional pain and suffering,
humiliation, inconvenience mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor as follows:
A.

On the First Claim for Relief against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial;

B.

On the Second Claim for Relief against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial;

C.

On the Third Claim for Relief against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial;

D.

On the Fourth Claim for Relief against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial;

E.

Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress,

loss of reputation, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering allowed by law
in an amount to be determined at trial;
F.

All economic losses allowed by law;

G.

Punitive damages, to be proven and established trial;

H.

Exemplary damages, to be proven and established at trial;

I.

Attorneys fees and costs as permitted under federal and state law, including those

associated with having to defend against the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff;

J.

Pre-and Post-Judgment interest, costs and expert witness fees; and

K.

Such other and further relief as the court deems proper in the circumstances and any

other relief as allowed by law.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL CLAIMS AND ISSUES SO
TRIABLE.

19

Case 1:16-cv-01103 Document 1 Filed 05/13/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of May, 2016.

AVISO LAW LLC.
/s/ Ryan S. Coward
Ryan S. Coward
Cory R. Tuck
Attorneys for Plaintiff
415 N. Tejon St.
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
Tel: 719-247-3111
Fax: 303-431-3753
ryan@avisolawllc.com
cory@avisolawllc.com

Plaintiffs Address:
810 Amethyst
Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477

20