In July of 2021, protesters organized a housing-rights march in Colorado Springs. During that march, some of the protesters engaged in unruly conduct, including pushing a bike in front of a running police officer. Following the march, Colorado Springs Police Officers sought two search warrants for the protester, Jacqueline Armendariz, and one of the non-profit organizers of the event, Chinook Center. These warrants sought seizure of the Armendariz’s electronic devices, seizure of the data stored therein, and the complete social media picture of the non-profit for a seven day period, including posts, chats, and events.

In response, Armendariz and Chinook Center sued the City and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that such warrants were overbroad, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. The District Court, upon motions by the City and Officers, dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and found the individual officers entitled to qualified immunity. Armendariz and Chinook Center appealed.

The City of Colorado Springs ultimately focused on Armendariz because of her conduct involving the bicycle, which the City contended constituted attempted second-degree assault on a police officer. As part of that investigation, the City sought a warrant for her apartment, particularly for the items she wore during the housing march. However, the warrant also sought digital media storage devices. Officers further acquired a second warrant for digital data located on said devices, and a warrant for data pertaining to the Chinook Center’s social media pages, namely, Facebook. Officers alleged they had probable cause to believe the subjects of these warrants “would be material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution.” Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs, No. 24-1201, 2026 WL 694684, at *4 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2026).

Upon review, the Tenth Circuit considered whether arguable probable cause existed to support the search warrants. In particular, the Court reviewed the warrants in their failure to explain “why any of [Armendariz’s] digital devices would contain evidence of the bicycle incident.” Id. at *10. The Court scrutinized this oversight because it permitted the officers to search Armendariz’s home, which is a location at the “very core” of the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Id. (citing Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31 (2001)). Considering this, the Tenth Circuit concluded the officers lacked even arguable probable cause, as there was no nexus between the bicycle incident and anything involving the electronic devices, considering the use of those devices are entirely unrelated to the incident. Id. at 11. Merely owning a phone at the time of the incident did not give officers the right to seize and search it when it was not used in connection with the alleged crime. As a result, the Court found that the seizure and search of Armendariz’s electronic devices were overbroad, in violation of her clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment. As such, the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court’s granting of dismissal and finding of qualified immunity.

With regard to the warrant for Chinook Center’s Facebook page, the Court again found the warrant to be overbroad. Id. at *21. Law enforcement officers have a duty to affirmatively limit the search of computers to evidence of specific federal crimes or specific types of material. Id. The Court emphasized that Facebook searches in particular risk “significant Fourth Amendment intrusions.” Id. As the Court noted, the warrant at issue here sought all Facebook posts, Messenger chats, and Facebook events, “regardless of their relation to the crimes at issue.” Id. The Court noted, despite the difficulty of sorting and searching through data, officers can particularize their requests, and must do so in order to satisfy the particularity requirements for a warrant. Id. As such, the warrants were overly broad and failed to particularize its needs in order to sufficiently limit the search, which, when coupled with the Court’s determination that Facebook searches already implicate a clearly established right, overcame qualified immunity. As such, the Court reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded, ordering the District Court deny the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Law enforcement operations must toe a fine line in order to comply with the Constitutional provisions protecting the rights of individuals. As the Tenth Circuit’s body of law develops, so too do the clearly established rights that individuals enjoy. Municipalities and law enforcement must remain up to date on developments in the Circuit in order to ensure that they continue to comply with the Constitution as they perform their duties. 

Read the full opinion here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111400235.pdf