IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. ________________________

ANGELA WEISHOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL ARNOLD, in his official and individual capacities;
C&D ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a C&D SECURITY; and
SHERIFF DAVID C. WALCHER, in his official and individual capacities,

Defendants.


COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND


Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, David A. Lane and Danielle C. Jefferis of
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, respectfully alleges for her Complaint and Jury Demand as
follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for damages and other relief against Defendants Michael Arnold,
C&D Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a C&D Security, and Arapahoe County Sheriff David C. Walcher.
2. Angela Weishoff is the victim of a horrific sex assault at the hands of Michael
Arnold, an armed security guard employed by C&D Security and tasked by Sheriff Walcher with
supervising Ms. Weishoff after she gave birth to her daughter. Defendant Arnold sexually
assaulted Ms. Weishoff as she lay in her hospital bed just hours after delivery. Responsible for
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15
2

and trusted with supervising Ms. Weishoff while she was in one of the most vulnerable states
imaginable, Arnold instead abused his position of trust and took complete advantage of Ms.
Weishoff, still coming off the effects of the epidural she received and the trauma of delivery.
3. Defendants conduct violated Ms. Weishoffs rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ms. Weishoffs injuries were caused
not only by Arnolds conduct, but also Defendants C&D Securitys and Sheriff Walchers
unconstitutional hiring and supervision of the entities and individuals responsible for performing
a traditionally state government and law enforcement function and, ultimately, ensuring the
safety and protection of individuals in the custody of Arapahoe County.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
State of Colorado, including Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and 42
U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331,
1343(a)(3). Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs claims for attorney fees and costs is conferred by,
and such claims are brought pursuant to, 42 U.S.C. 1988. This Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over the pendant state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
5. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). All
of the events alleged herein occurred within the State of Colorado, and all of the parties were
residents of the State of Colorado at all relevant times.
III. PARTIES
6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Angela Weishoff was a citizen of
the United States and a resident of the State of Colorado.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 15
3

7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant C&D Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
C&D Security, was a for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Colorado and
performing the traditionally state governmental function of providing law enforcement and
security services, including supervising individuals in government custody, through contractual
relationships with, among other entities, the Arapahoe County Sheriffs Department.
8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Arnold was employed
by C&D Security as an armed security guard, was a citizen of the United States, a resident of
Colorado, and was acting under color of state law in his official and individual capacity.
9. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant David C. Walcher was a citizen
of the United States and a resident of Colorado, and was acting under color of state law in his
capacity as Arapahoe County Sheriff. Defendant Walcher was responsible for selecting, training,
and supervising the companies and individuals with whom Arapahoe County contracts to
perform the traditionally state government function of providing law enforcement and security
services, including supervising individuals in government custody, as well as the overall
management and protection of individuals in the custody of the Arapahoe County Sheriffs
Department.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10. On or around September 22, 2012, Ms. Weishoff went into labor. She was about
to deliver and meet her daughter for the first time.
11. Ms. Weishoff was in the custody of the Arapahoe County Sheriffs Department
(ACSD). When she began having contractors, ACSD transported her under armed-guard
supervision to Sky Ridge Medical Center in Lone Tree, Colorado.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15
4

12. Ms. Weishoff gave birth in the evening of September 22, 2012. Soon after she
welcomed her daughter into the world, hospital staff transported her from the delivery room to a
hospital room where she was to stay overnight to recover.
13. Ms. Weishoff received an epidural during labor, so she was still groggy as she
was moved into her room.
14. As she recovered, Ms. Weishoff remained under constant armed-guard
supervision in the hospital. Prior to giving birth, it was always a female guard who had stood
watch over her.
15. Defendant Arnold was assigned to Ms. Weishoffs recovery room immediately
after she gave birth.
16. As soon as she arrived to her room, Arnold told Ms. Weishoff that he needed to
lay down the ground rules that he expected of her while he guarded her. This was in spite of
the fact that Ms. Weishoff had just given birth, was groggy, and was nearly incapable of moving
off of her bed. She had also already been under the supervision of female guards prior to Arnold
taking watch.
17. Soon, Arnolds dialogue with Ms. Weishoff became harassing. He asked her,
suggestively, What is a good girl like you doing in here?
18. Arnold was wearing a full uniform and carrying a loaded firearm in a holster at
his waist. He sat in a chair next to Ms. Weishoffs hospital bed.
19. Ms. Weishoff, still groggy as the effects of the epidural and trauma of labor
slowly wore off, remembers next Arnold dimming the lights in her room and lowering the side
rail of her bed. He moved progressively closer to her. His hand was on her bed.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15
5

20. Arnold opened Ms. Weishoffs hospital gown, exposing her body. He unzipped
his pants and began kissing and touching her.
21. Arnold started to move on top of Ms. Weishoff. He attempted twice to put his
penis in her mouth. As he moved his genitals closer to her, the gun in the holster on his waist
also moved closer to her.
22. Ms. Weishoff was frozen with fear and intimidation. She wanted to scream for
help, but she feared what Arnold would do to her if she did.
23. After what felt to Ms. Weishoff like hours had passed, a nurse walked by Ms.
Weishoffs room and noticed the lights were dimmed. As the nurse stepped inside the room,
Arnold quickly zipped up his pants.
24. During the entire assault, Ms. Weishoffs newborn baby girl was sleeping in a
crib next to her.
25. Arnold pleaded guilty to felony sexual assault, victim in custody. He was
sentenced to ten-years-to-indeterminate probation.
26. During Arnolds sentencing hearing, Douglas County District Court Judge
Vincent White expressed his own horror at the heinousness of Arnolds conduct:
THE COURT: Mr. Arnold, when I read this I was horrified. A
woman who was pregnant, just had given birth to a baby and was
sexually assaulted in a hospital. Sir, I dont know what you were
thinking. I dont care that your defense is that it was consensual. I
think thats horrific and very hard to believe. And Ill be honest
with you, sir, if I had this open to the Court youd be going to the
Department of Corrections.

You were in a position of trust as a security guard watching a
young lady who had a baby, and you sexually assaulted her. Just
had a baby within hours. Its one of the most horrific fact patterns
Ive seen in the ten years on the bench, in terms of a position of
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15
6

trust. You were supposed to be there to guard her, and you
assaulted her.

Exhibit 1, State v. Arnold, No. 12CR597, Douglas County District Court (Aug. 23, 2013).
27. Since at least 2011, C&D Security has contracted with the Arapahoe County
Sheriffs Department to provide armed security services within Arapahoe County facilities.
28. Upon information and belief, Arnold has committed similar assaults on other
women in Arapahoe County facilities whom he was responsible for guarding prior to assaulting
Ms. Weishoff.
29. Defendants C&D Security and Sheriff Walcher (Supervisory Defendants) knew
or should have known that those previous assaults by Arnold had occurred.
30. Nonetheless, Supervisory Defendants failed to take either prompt or effective
action to remedy the problem.
31. Supervisory Defendants hired Arnold, continued to employ him, and continued to
assign him to guard women in custody.
32. Supervisory Defendants knew that Ms. Weishoff and other women in Arapahoe
County facilities were at serious risk of being sexually assaulted by Arnold.
33. Supervisory Defendants failed to provide Ms. Weishoff and other women in
ACSD custody humane conditions of confinement by knowingly, voluntarily, recklessly, and
with willful disregard to the womens personal safety by allowing them to be sexually assaulted.
34. Supervisory Defendants failed to institute appropriate hiring practices to ensure
the safety of women in ACSD custody.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15
7

35. Defendants conduct shocks the conscience and amounts to deliberate
indifference to the rights of women in ACSD custody with whom security guards inevitably
come into contact and is so grossly reckless that future misconduct is virtually inevitable.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983 Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(Against Defendants Arnold and C&D Enterprises, Inc.)
1


36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
37. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions at
all times relevant to this action.
38. Defendant Arnold knowingly inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain upon Ms.
Weishoff by his coercive sex acts, including forcible touching and oral sex, in violation of Ms.
Weishoffs rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
39. By engaging in inherently coercive sex acts, including the acts of forcible
touching and oral sex with Ms. Weishoff, Defendant Arnold was deliberately indifferent and
completely without regard to Ms. Weishoffs health and safety.
40. Defendant C&D Security exhibited deliberate indifference to the substantial risk
of harm inflicted upon Ms. Weishoff, and other women in ACSD custody and in Arapahoe

1
Plaintiff recognizes that the weight of the law does not recognize respondeat superior
liability for the constitutional violations of supervisory actors. Plaintiff, however, brings these
claims on a good-faith argument that the law should be reversed or modified to recognize such
liability.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15
8

County facilities, by employing and continuing to employ Defendant Arnold despite the known
risk of substantial harm Defendant Arnold posed to women in custody, including Ms. Weishoff.
41. Defendants conduct is so grossly reckless that future misconduct was and is
almost inevitable.
42. When viewed in total, this conduct shocks the conscience.
43. The acts or omissions of each Defendant were the legal and proximate cause of
Ms. Weishoffs damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into bodily privacy and integrity,
humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish.
44. The acts or omissions of each Defendant caused Ms. Weishoff damages in that
she suffered physical, mental and emotional pain and injury as described above, from which she
will likely continue to suffer for the rest of her life. As a direct and proximate cause and
consequence of the unconstitutional policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices described
above, Ms. Weishoff suffered and continues to suffer injuries, damages and losses as set forth
herein.
45. Defendants conduct in violating Ms. Weishoffs rights as described herein
shocks the conscience and is intolerable to societys standards of fundamental fairness.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process
Invasion of Bodily Integrity
(Against Defendants Arnold and C&D Enterprises, Inc.)

46. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
47. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions
which occurred at all times relevant to this action.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15
9

48. Be engaging in inherently coercive sex acts with Ms. Weishoff, Defendant Arnold
recklessly, with conscious disregard to the serious and obvious risk to Ms. Weishoffs safety, and
with deliberate indifference, violated Ms. Weishoffs constitutionally protected right to bodily
integrity.
49. This conduct amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of women in ACSD
custody and in Arapahoe County facilities, including Ms. Weishoff, with whom armed security
guards come into conduct, and over whom those guards exercise significant, if not complete,
control.
50. Defendant C&D Security exhibited deliberate indifference to the substantial risk
of harm inflicted upon Ms. Weishoff, and other women in ACSD custody and in Arapahoe
County facilities, by employing and continuing to employ Defendant Arnold despite the known
risk of substantial harm Defendant Arnold posed to women in custody, including Ms. Weishoff.
51. Defendants conduct is so grossly reckless that future misconduct was and is
almost inevitable.
52. When viewed in total, Defendants conduct shocks the conscience.
53. The acts and/or omissions of each Defendant were the legal and proximate cause
of Ms. Weishoffs damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into bodily privacy and
integrity, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish.
54. Such policies, as well as Defendants actions and inactions, violated Ms.
Weishoffs substantive due process right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15
10

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process
Failure to Protect
(Against Defendants Sheriff Walcher and C&D Enterprises, Inc.)

55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
56. Supervisory Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and
inactions which occurred at all times relevant to this action.
57. By taking Ms. Weishoff into custody, and thereby assuming control over her and
depriving her of her liberty to care for herself, Supervisory Defendants created a special
relationship with Ms. Weishoff that required Supervisory Defendants to assume an affirmative
duty of care and protection with respect to Ms. Weishoff.
58. Supervisory Defendants recklessly and with conscious disregard to the serious
and obvious risk to the safety of women in custody failed to protect Ms. Weishoff and other
women in ACSD custody and in Arapahoe County facilities from sexual assaults by employing
Arnold in positions that allowed him unsupervised access to women in ACSD custody and in
Arapahoe County facilities, with, and in spite of, information with which to believe (at
minimum) that Arnold is a sexual predator.
59. This conduct amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of women in ACSD
custody and in Arapahoe County facilities, including Ms. Weishoff, with whom C&D Security
armed security guards come into contact, and over whom those guards exercise significant, if not
complete, control.
60. This conduct is so grossly reckless that future misconduct was and is almost
inevitable.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15
11

61. When viewed in total, this conduct shocks the conscience.
62. The acts and/or omissions of each Defendant were the legal and proximate cause
of Ms. Weishoffs damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into bodily privacy and
integrity, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish.
63. Supervisory Defendants, by and through their official duties within Arapahoe
County, proximately caused an unconstitutional invasion of Ms. Weishoffs bodily integrity, as
well as that of other women in custody, by failing to implement practices, policies, and
procedures that protect women in custody, including Ms. Weishoff, from the substantial risk of
serious harm posed by armed security guards using (and abusing) their authority and influence to
sexually assault women in ACSD custody and in Arapahoe County facilities.
64. Such policies, as well as Defendants actions and inactions, violated Ms.
Weishoffs substantive due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process
Danger Creation
(Against Defendants Sheriff Walcher and C&D Enterprises, Inc.)

65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
66. Supervisory Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and
inactions, which occurred at all times relevant to this action.
67. Supervisory Defendants created the danger that led to Arnold sexually assaulting
Ms. Weishoff and/or increased Ms. Weishoffs vulnerability to the sexual assault by the
affirmative conduct of employing Arnold in positions that allowed him unsupervised access to
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15
12

women in ACSD custody and in Arapahoe County facilities, with, and in spite of, information
with which to believe that Arnold is a sexual predator.
68. Ms. Weishoff and other women in ACSD custody are members of a limited group
of individuals at serious risk of sexual assault by Defendant Arnold and other armed security
guards.
69. The conduct of Supervisory Defendants placed and continues to place Ms.
Weishoff and other women in ACSD custody and in Arapahoe County facilities at substantial
risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm namely, sexual assault by armed security
guards.
70. By continuing to employ Arnold in a position that allowed him unsupervised
access to women in ACSD custody, in spite of information that he had committed sexual assaults
on other women in ACSD custody, Supervisory Defendants acted recklessly and in conscious
disregard of the obvious risk that Arnold would sexually assault a woman in ACSD custody
again.
71. This conduct amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of women in ACSD
custody and in Arapahoe County facilities, including Ms. Weishoff, with whom armed security
guards come into contact, and over whom they exercise control.
72. The conduct is so grossly reckless that future misconduct was and is virtually
inevitable.
73. When viewed in total, this conduct shocks the conscious.
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15
13

74. The acts or omissions of each Supervisory Defendants were the legal and
proximate cause of Ms. Weishoffs damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into bodily
privacy and integrity, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish.
75. Such policies, as well as Defendants actions and inactions, violated Ms.
Weishoffs substantive due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process
Failure to Train or Supervise
(Against Defendants Sheriff Walcher and C&D Enterprises, Inc.)

76. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
77. Supervisory Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and
inactions, which occurred at all times relevant to this action.
78. C&D Security failed to properly hire, train, supervise, and/or discipline their
armed security guard employees regarding the protection of women in custody, including Ms.
Weishoff, from sexual assault, resulting in the constitutional violations described herein,
including but not limited to, cruel and unusual punishment and invasion of bodily integrity.
79. The inadequate hiring, training, and/or supervision provided by Supervisory
Defendants results from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from
among various alternatives available to them.
80. In light of the duties and responsibilities of Supervisory Defendants personnel
who exercise control over individuals in ACSD custody and in Arapahoe County facilities, the
need for scrutiny in hiring and specialized training, supervision, and discipline regarding sex
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15
14

assaults of women in custody is so obvious, and the inadequacy of appropriate hiring, training,
and/or supervision is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, such as those
described herein, that Supervisory Defendants are liable for their failure to appropriately hire,
train, and/or supervise armed security guards.
81. Such failure to properly hire, train, and supervise their employees was the moving
force and proximate cause of the violation of Ms. Weishoffs constitutional rights.
82. This conduct amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of women in ACSD
custody, including Ms. Weishoff, with whom armed security guards come into contact, and over
whom they exercise control.
83. The conduct is so grossly reckless that future misconduct was and is virtually
inevitable.
84. When viewed in total, this conduct shocks the conscious.
85. Such policies, as well as Defendants actions and inactions, violated Ms.
Weishoffs substantive due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in her
favor and against Defendants, and grant:
(a) Appropriate declaratory and other injunctive and/or equitable relief;
(b) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional
distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all
claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial;
(c) All economic losses on all claims allowed by law;
Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15
15

(d) Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be
determined at trial;
(e) Attorney fees and the costs associated with this action on all claims allowed by
law;
(f) Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate.
(g) Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief as
allowed by law.
PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A TRIAL TO A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
Dated this 19th day of September, 2014.
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP

_s/_David A. Lane___________________
David A. Lane
Danielle C. Jefferis
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 571-1000
dlane@kln-law.com
djefferis@kln-law.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:14-cv-02608-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15