A federal judge on Monday rejected the city of Aurora’s attempt to invoke a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision about government employees’ personal conduct, and instead stood by her prior ruling that city policies allegedly motivated an officer to attack a woman while he was on administrative leave.

Wyoma Martinez filed suit against Officer Douglas Harroun and the city after Harroun attempted to arrest Martinez at her apartment complex in January 2023 while he was off duty. Martinez lodged claims of excessive force and unlawful seizure against Harroun, while alleging Aurora’s policies for officers who are on administrative leave were the driving force behind Harroun’s unconstitutional conduct.

In September, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney believed Martinez had credibly alleged multiple ways in which Aurora catalyzed Harroun’s attack, including by giving him the impression he was empowered to use force against Martinez even while on leave. However, Aurora quickly asked Sweeney to reconsider, drawing her attention to a March 2024 decision of the Supreme Court.

In Lindke v. Freed, the justices analyzed whether a city official in Michigan could be held liable for deleting comments and blocking a user from his Facebook page on which he posted both personal and governmental content. The Supreme Court decided the conduct could amount to a First Amendment violation if the official “possessed actual authority” to speak on behalf of the government.

“An act is not attributable to a State unless it is traceable to the State’s power or authority,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “To misuse power, however, one must possess it in the first place.”

Aurora pointed to Lindke to argue that Sweeney was mistaken to find Harroun’s attack on Martinez, as alleged, was a product of his official authority.

Martinez’s lawsuit claimed she was walking her dog over an icy patch near her building when Harroun “aggressively approached” her in his vehicle. Harroun exited his vehicle and told her, “I’m a cop.” He continued to scream at Martinez and she allegedly attempted to end the confrontation. Martinez told Harroun she had pepper spray on her, prompting Harroun to allegedly slam her to the ground and punch her in the face.

Harroun told Martinez she was under arrest for “assaulting a peace officer.”

At the time of the encounter, Harroun was on administrative leave for shooting a man in the leg a few weeks prior. Harroun had been instructed not to take “any action as a sworn police officer” while he was on leave, but he was allowed to retain his badge and authority.

Martinez, whose injuries included impaired vision, exacerbation of her existing condition and cognitive dysfunction, alleged Aurora’s policies, lack of training and decision to hire Harroun despite his “red flags” were to blame for his conduct. Among other things, Martinez argued Aurora trained its officers they were “never off-duty,” with no clear exception for those on administrative leave.

Sweeney originally declined to dismiss the city from the lawsuit. She acknowledged the encounter could be viewed as Harroun acting for purely personal reasons. However, he identified himself as a police officer, displayed his badge and allegedly told Martinez she was under arrest for assaulting an officer — suggesting he believed he had police power at the time.

The city then argued Sweeney should have factored the Lindke decision into her reasoning. In Aurora’s view, the fact that Harroun was on administrative leave meant he did not have actual authority as an officer. Therefore, the city could not be liable for any injuries he caused to Martinez.

In a Jan. 6 order, Sweeney explained the Supreme Court’s analysis of a public official’s social media use was a “substantively distinct” context from an officer’s use of force. She wrote that government employees do have a First Amendment right to free speech in their personal capacity.

“Here, in contrast, Defendant Harroun does not have a competing constitutional right that needs to be balanced with Ms. Martinez’s right to be free from excessive force,” Sweeney wrote.

The question, she continued, was whether Aurora empowered off-duty officers, including those on administrative leave, to retain their authority.

At this stage of the case, the allegations showed Harroun “believed that the off-duty directive applied to him and granted him the authority to use force when performing police duties, such as when arresting someone,” Sweeney wrote.

Therefore, she stood by her decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed against the city.

The case is Martinez v. Harroun et al.