Chronology of Spy Files Controversy
This page has been updated as of 8/21/2003
- Quick Link to New Info
March 11, 2002
ACLU holds news conference . . .
At a news conference on March 11, 2002, the ACLU of Colorado
disclosed documents that show that the Denver Police Department has
been monitoring and recording the peaceful protest activities of Denver-area
residents and keeping files on the expressive activities of law-abiding
advocacy organizations, many of which are falsely labeled in the files
as "criminal extremist."
March 11, 2002
ACLU asks Mayor Webb to take action . . .
In a letter also sent
on March 11, the ACLU asked Denver Mayor Wellington Webb to take
immediate steps to stop the police department's practice of keeping
files on peaceful protest activities. The ACLU also asked the Mayor
to take four additional actions:
- prohibit the police from sharing their Spy Files information with
other law enforcement agencies;
- order a full public accounting of the Spy Files and the Denver Police
Department's spying on the First Amendment activities of peaceful
protesters;
- notify individuals named in the Spy Files and permit them to review
the files that the Denver Police Department compiled about them;
- and preserve the Spy Files, because they might be evidence in any
forthcoming lawsuits.
- ACLU letter to Denver
Mayor Wellington Webb, March 11, 2002
March 13, 2002
Mayor Webb acknowledges ACLU's concerns . . .
In a news conference two days later, Mayor Webb stated that the Denver
Police Department's Intelligence Bureau had compiled computerized files
on 208 organizations and approximately 3200 individuals. He acknowledged
that at least some of the files should not have been compiled, and he
said he would order an independent review. He also said that the inappropriate
files would be purged and that the subjects of the files would receive
some form of notice that a file had existed and had been purged.
In his news conference, Mayor Webb handed out copies of the
City's written policy that governs police intelligence gathering [PDF].
It clearly prohibits gathering and maintenance
of intelligence information about First Amendment activities "unless
such information directly relates to criminal conduct or activity and
there is reasonable suspicion that the subject of the information is
or may be involved in criminal conduct or activity." Rather than acknowledge
directly that Denver police were violating this written policy, Mayor
Webb blamed an "overly broad interpretation" of the policy.
March 18, 2002
Denver City Council adopts Resolution endorsing civil liberties . .
.
The disclosure of the Denver Police Department's political surveillance
files on peaceful protesters influenced the discussion and final text
of an ACLU-endorsed Denver City Council resolution that originally was
drafted and proposed to confirm the City's commitment to civil liberties
in the wake of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. On March 18, 2002, the council
approved the resolution with newly-added text prompted by the Spy Files
controversy.
The resolution reaffirms the City's already-existing (but apparently
ignored) policy on intelligence gathering and states that Denver police
should not gather information on individuals' First Amendment activities
unless the information relates to criminal activity and the subject
is suspected of criminal activity.
March 25, 2002
ACLU asks Police Chief to disclose Spy Files information . . .
On March 25, 2002, the ACLU wrote to Denver Police Chief, Gerald Whitman,
pursuant to the Colorado Open Records laws, asking him to disclose information
about the Spy Files without infringing on individuals' privacy. The
letter asks for disclosure of the Spy Files on all 208 organizations
listed in the database, as well as the individual files on specified
persons on whose behalf the ACLU was writing. The letter also asked
Chief Whitman for additional documents regarding the operation and maintenance
of the Spy Files, such as the criteria for labeling an organization
as "criminal extremist."
March 29, 2002
Police Department declines to disclose information . . .
In a reply to the ACLU dated March
29, 2002 [PDF], the Denver Police Department
declined to disclose any information from the Spy Files. The letter
also stated that most of the additional documents requested by the ACLU
(such as documents revealing the criteria for listing groups as "criminal
extremist" or the criteria for disseminating information from the
Spy Files) did not exist.
March 28, 2002
ACLU files lawsuit against City and County of Denver . . .
On March 28, 2002, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in state court
to challenge the Denver police department's custom and practice of spying
on peaceful protesters, maintaining the Spy Files, and disseminating
information from the files to third parties.
In April, 2002, the City and County of Denver exercised its right to
remove the Spy Files case from state court to federal court, where it
was assigned to Judge Nottingham. The City filed a motion to dismiss,
and the ACLU filed its response on June 11, 2002.
Judge Nottingham denied the motion to dismiss in a one-page order
dated October 21, 2002. Meanwhile, discovery in the lawsuit has been
proceeding. For more information on the lawsuit, click
here.
Late March 2002
Mayor Webb hires three former judges to review Spy Files . . .
In late March, 2002, pursuant to Mayor Webb's plan for an independent
review of the Spy Files, Denver hired three former judges (William Meyer,
Roger Cisneros, and Jean Dubofsky) to review the Spy Files database
and make recommendations. In April, they distributed a draft of a proposed
revised policy about the gathering and storing of criminal intelligence
information. On May 14, 2002, the judges conducted an open hearing to
hear comments from the public about the proposed policy. The ACLU participated
in the hearing and later provided written comments.
April 21, 2002
Rally at State Capitol Protests Denver Police Spy Files . . .
On April 21, 2002, the Tyranny Response Team sponsored a rally on the
steps of the state capitol to protest the Denver Police Spy Files. Participants
included members of the Libertarian Party, the Colorado Green Party,
and several motorcycle clubs, including Bikers for Justice. According
to a Denver Post report, many of the motorcycle cub members left the
rally after organizers warned that police officers were systematically
taking down license plate numbers of vehicles parked nearby.
June 30, 2002
Review Panel issues report and recommends policy changes . . .
On June 30, 2002, the former judges
issued a seven-page report [PDF] describing
their review of the Spy Files and presenting their recommendations to
the City. The judges recommended:
The report of the former judges left many questions unanswered. It
failed to explain, for example, how Denver police came to regard peaceful
protests as crime scenes, or how the police justify the false labeling
of peaceful advocacy organizations as "criminal extremist." Although
the Spy Files violate the City's already-existing written policy on
intelligence gathering, the former judges opined that there was no reason
to punish any police officers. According to the report, the captain
of the Intelligence Bureau who wrote the policy did not bother to distribute
it to the other intelligence officers.
July 22, 2002
Mayor Webb adopts most of former judges' recommendations . . .
On July 22, 2002, Mayor Webb announced that the City would adopt all
of the recommendations in the judges' report except the recommendation
to destroy the Spy Files.
Both before and after the former judges issued their report, the ACLU
of Colorado urged Denver officials to take responsibility for actively
notifying individuals and groups whose names appear inappropriately
in the Spy Files. Although Denver police spokespersons initially agreed
that they would provide that notice, the City's final plan, announced
August 1, failed to fulfill that commitment.
August 1, 2002
City announces procedures for limited disclosure of Spy Files . . .
On August 1, Denver officials announced that for a two-month period
beginning September 3, the Denver Police Department would permit the
targets of inappropriate political surveillance to review their files.
Instead of providing notice to the subjects of the files, however, Denver
said it would require individuals to come to the police station in person
during specified hours and show identification just to find out if files
on them exist.
August 29, 2002
Magistrate Judge Rules That 22 Intelligence Files Are Not Subject to
Discovery . . .
Responding to the United States Attorney's concern that 22 files in
Denver's intelligence database are the subject of pending criminal investigations
by the FBI, Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer conducted an in-chambers
inspection and ruled that the files would not be subject to discovery
in the pending federal court lawsuit.
September 3, 2002
Denver Police Department begins limited disclosure of Spy Files . .
.
On the evening of September 3, hundreds of individuals packed the Denver
police station to request the opportunity to review their files. The
police department's restrictive and cumbersome procedures immediately
prompted criticism, particularly the police department's refusal to
notify individuals if a file exists and the refusal to permit persons
to request their files by mail.
September 16, 2002
Police find more Spy Files and announce new procedures for disclosure
. . .
On September 16, the Denver Police Department announced that its collection
of Spy Files is more extensive than it had previously disclosed.
In a news release and in subsequent statements to the press, Chief
Whitman announced that a search for documents in connection with the
ACLU's lawsuit turned up additional paper intelligence files. He said
he had assigned six detectives to sort through the newly discovered
documents.
Chief Whitman further announced that in light of the new documents
and the criticisms of the existing disclosure procedures, the department
would modify the process for permitting citizens to determine if they
are the subjects of inappropriately-maintained intelligence files.
The news release stated that starting September 17, 2002, the Denver
Police Department would attempt to contact those individuals and organizations
that have a purged intelligence file. In addition, requests by mail
and by persons authorized by power of attorney would now be honored
if certain procedures are followed.
In redrafted procedures dated October 18, 2002, the Police Department
extended the time period during which the Spy Files may be reviewed.
The purged intelligence files will be available for review "until Further
Notice."
October 16, 2002
ACLU files Motion for Protective Order in the Spy Files lawsuit . .
.
On October 16, 2002, the ACLU filed a motion in the Spy Files lawsuit
in federal court arguing that the City and County of Denver had gone
too far when it served a discovery request on the plaintiffs seeking
detailed information about their First Amendment activities. In the
challenged discovery request, Denver's attorneys asked the plaintiffs
to provide:
- A list of every organization with which they have affiliated since
1999;
- Membership lists for each plaintiff organization for the last four
years;
- An account of every expressive activity in which they have participated
since 1999, as well as names of other participants;
- Details of each time plaintiffs have spoken about issues raised
by the Denver Police Department's political spying, and the names
of persons who may have heard their comments
In the motion, the ACLU argued that these and other discovery requests
propounded by Denver's lawyers endangered the very First Amendment rights
that the lawsuit was filed to protect.
November 21, 2002
Colorado Springs police collect information for Denver Spy Files . .
.
The ACLU of Colorado released documents today that reveal that the Colorado
Springs Police Department has collected intelligence information on
the expressive activities of peaceful critics of government policy and
sent its information directly to the Denver Police Department for inclusion,
with other information about First Amendment activities in Colorado
Springs, in the controversial Denver Police Spy Files.
December 18, 2002
Spy Files controversy returns to front pages . . .
Beginning on December 18, 2002, and continuing for several days afterwards,
both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News published several prominently-placed
articles about the Spy Files controversy. They reported that in depositions
taken in the ACLU's lawsuit, police officials testified that the Denver
Police Intelligence unit did not have an official policy in place that
barred it from creating and maintaining criminal intelligence files
on peaceful protesters who were not suspected of any crime. This testimony
contradicted statements made by
Mayor Webb at his news conference on March 13, 2002, when he distributed
a document he identified as the City's
written intelligence policy.
December 19, 2002
Spy Files controversy emerges as issue in 2003 mayoral campaign . .
.
The handling of the Spy Files controversy has become in issue in the
campaign for Denver mayor, the Rocky Mountain News announced on December
19, 2002. The paper noted that the Spy Files posed questions for candidate
Ari Zavaras, a former chief of police who also oversaw the police department
as Manager of Public Safety from 2000 until the summer of 2002.
At a December 19 news conference, the All Nations Alliance asked Denver
Auditor Don Mares, also a candidate for mayor in the Spring, 2003, election,
to conduct an accounting to determine how much Denver would save if
it stopped collecting information on the political views of peaceful
protesters. The following week, Mares asked the police department for
financial records regarding the Intelligence Unit.
December 22, 2002
Former police chief and mayoral candidate contends police did have spy
policy . . .
At a news conference held on December 22, mayoral candidate Ari Zavaras
contradicted deposition testimony in the Spy Files lawsuit and declared
that, when he was Chief of Police, the department did have a formal
written policy that prohibited police from building dossiers on the
political views of law-abiding protesters. Quoted in the Denver Post
as saying that "depositions are not necessarily factual," Zavaras distributed
copies of the newly-discovered policy, which Denver officials had never
produced in the course of the ACLU's lawsuit. The document, which regulates
what it calls "special interest activity," states that intelligence
information can be gathered only on organizations that advocate or participate
in criminal conduct.
December 26, 2002
Denver Post Asks Federal Court to Ease Its Confidentiality Order . .
.
On December 26, 2002, the Denver Post filed a motion to participate
as a party in the Spy Files lawsuit. The newspaper asked to intervene
for the limited purpose of arguing that certain documents that Denver
disclosed to the ACLU in connection with the lawsuit are inappropriately
marked as "confidential." Pursuant to the Court's confidentiality order
of July 12, 2002, that "confidential" designation prohibits the ACLU
attorneys from disclosing the information outside the lawsuit. The paper's
motion argues that at least some of those "confidential" documents should
be released to the Denver Post and to the public.
January 4, 2003
Additional Spy Files could be hidden in homes of Denver intelligence
officers . . .
Reporting on a hearing in the Spy Files case, the Rocky Mountain News
revealed the contents of a memorandum discussed in federal court on
January 3, 2003. The 1998 memo, written when Denver Police Department
Intelligence officers were beginning a "purge" of the paper intelligence
files to prepare for moving to the new Orion database software, instructed
that "purge" did not necessarily mean "destroy." Instead, according
to then-Commander of the Intelligence Unit Joe Black, intelligence officers
could "purge" a file by taking it home. The explanation, according to
the memorandum, was that: "The heart of an Intelligence Bureau lies
with the ability to maintain integrity of all files and references in
the likely event of litigation by political or subversive groups."
January 31, 2003
Denver Police declare that Spy Files will no longer be available for
review . . .
Beginning January 31, the Denver Police Department stopped honoring
requests from members of the public who want to find out if they are
subjects of the Spy Files.
February 20, 2003
Public Safety Review Commission begins inquiry into Spy Files . . .
The Denver Safety Review Commission, which provides civilian oversight
of the police department, began a series of public hearings about issues
raised by the Spy Files controversy. At the request of commissioners,
ACLU Legal Director Mark Silverstein provided a critique of a new intelligence
policy that the Denver Police Department quietly adopted in October,
2002. Additional public hearings scheduled for April are expected to
include testimony from officers of the Denver Police Department's Intelligence
Unit.
April 17, 2003
ACLU announces agreement to resolve Spy Files lawsuit . . . .
The ACLU announced the terms of an agreement reached with Denver to
resolve the Spy Files lawsuit. The agreement cannot will not become
final until it is submitted to Judge Edward Nottingham for approval.
May 5, 2003
New documents raise questions about JTTF, MAGIC . . .
The ACLU disclosed documents from the Spy Files litigation that
show that the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force (JTTF) has been collecting
information about peaceful protesters who have no connection to terrorism
or to any other kind of criminal activity. Additional documents reveal
that at least two dozen Colorado law enforcement agencies swap political
intelligence information at bimonthly meetings of an organization known
as the Multi-County Group Intelligence Conference (MAGIC).
May 7, 2003
Judge Nottingham approves settlement of Spy Files lawsuit . . .
The Spy Files settlement became effective today with Judge Nottingham's
signed order. For a ninety-day period beginning today, the Denver Police
Department will once again permit individuals and organizations to find
out if they are the subjects of any of the Spy Files that will be purged.
Members of the public can request their files in person or by mail.
August 21, 2003
Public Safety Review Commission issues preliminary report on Spy Files
scandal
In a preliminary report about its investigation of policy issues raised
by the Spy Files controversy, the Public Safety Review Commission (PRSC)
recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance that would forbid
any Denver police officers, including those assigned to work with the
FBI in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, from
engaging in any activities prohibited by the new intelligence policy
adopted as part of the settlement of the Spy Files lawsuit.
The PSRC also urged that the intelligence policy be amended to forbid
the Denver Police Department from sharing information with organizations
such as the Multi-Agency Group Intelligence
Conference (MAGIC).