Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Lakewood residents questioned why an offender was out on parole after a burgerly turned homocide in Lakewood on December 6, 2025. In fact, more residents commented on parole than offered congratulations to police for a speedy resolution. Comments such as “Another parolee that never should have been released!!” were common to Lakewood Police Department’s (LPD) Facebook post on the issue.
From ScrippNews, By: Lori Jane Gliha , Brittany Freeman
“A Colorado city council member asked a simple question at a July 2023 public meeting, not knowing it would take more than two years to find out the answer.
“Lakewood City Councilor Anita Springsteen called on the city’s police to release body camera footage showing why officers shot and killed a teenage girl months earlier.
The criminal case against Lakewood resident Desirée González raises grave questions about whether political and personal animosity have replaced equal justice under law in Jefferson County.
This is not a defense of any or every email that González sent. It is a clear-eyed examination of the extraordinary disparity between how she has been treated and how individuals who issued explicit, public, and recorded threats have been treated across Colorado.
Two Examples — One System
Jeromie Rose — left voicemails threatening to “put a bullet in the Governor’s head” and “kill” a prosecutor. These are recorded and explicit death threats.
Lakewood spent two years fighting against releasing body cam footage in a fatal shooting case but has now lost in the Court of Appeals. The issue was first raised by then-City Councilor Anita Springsteen. The original story can be found at Fox31: 17-year-old’s killing by police raises questions for councilor. After turning down multiple requests for the video release, Scripps News filed a lawsuit, naming Springsteen as the requesting official. Lakewood lost in lower court, then appealed and has now lost the appeal. The ruling was made July 10. The footage has not yet been released. By Jeffrey A. Roberts, Executive Director, Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition Appeals court: Children’s Code does not bar public disclosure of blurred body-cam footage showing Lakewood officers killing 17-year-old robbery suspect Colorado’s Children’s Code does not prohibit the public disclosure of blurred body-worn camera footage of Lakewood police shooting and killing a 17-year-old robbery suspect in 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. Affirming a district court decision, a three-judge appellate panel rejected the city of Lakewood’s argument that the statute which protects the confidentiality of juvenile records trumps the footage-release provisions in the 2020 Law Enforcement Integrity Act. The statute, the judges concluded, “unambiguously required the court to release” the video. The body camera footage is not a “juvenile record” under the Children’s Code, the opinion says. Rather, “it is a conduit through which information from a juvenile record might be disclosed absent blurring of the video. And even in that circumstance — where the BWC footage might reveal a juvenile record — the statute does not bar release of the footage. The court must still release the footage, but it must blur the video to account for the juvenile’s privacy interest.” The case concerns the shooting of Mariana Martinez by Lakewood police on March 27, 2023. According to a news story, the department initially said Martinez fired at officers but clarified the next day that she pointed a gun at them. First Judicial District Attorney Alexis King found that the officers’ use of deadly force against Martinez “was legally justified to defend themselves and others from the threat posed by Miss Martinez.” Read the full article at CFOIC…
From Ramey Johnson’s Newletter The decay and decline in our community are visible, real, growing, and palpable. Driving along 6th Avenue (though managed by CDOT) feels like a scavenger hunt through cans, rags, tires, car parts, cardboard, overgrown weeds, buckets of dirt, broken glass, and filth. On West 14th Avenue and nearby side streets, the scene is equally disheartening: homeless encampments, tents, graffiti, fenced-off vacant lots, trash, needles, and even human feces have become the norm. Colfax has all but collapsed. Every block from Sheridan to beyond Simms is littered with For Sale and For Lease signs, boarded-up buildings, graffiti, shattered storefronts, shuttered businesses, and abandoned shopping carts – sometimes overflowing with belongings. Businesses are fleeing this once-thriving street. But what does it do to the psyche of those of us who call Lakewood home—and pay property taxes – to live amid decay, squalor, and a declining local economy? Having grown up here, I decided to find out. As it turns out, researchers have studied this very thing. The most familiar is the “Broken Windows Theory.” This criminological concept uses broken windows as a metaphor for anti-social behavior and civil disorder. It draws a stark contrast between caring and apathy toward the physical appearance of a neighborhood. Visible signs of crime and neglect, like broken windows, create an environment that encourages further crime and disorder. The theory suggests that addressing small offenses and maintaining physical order can help prevent more serious crimes. Rooted in the idea of social disorder, Wilson and Kelling argue that such disorder erodes community cohesion and the sense of safety among residents, making neighborhoods an easy target for criminals. Whoa. I needed to know more. As I dug deeper, I discovered that the psychology of living in a decayed environment has been studied extensively, and it offers sobering insights into the psyche of those who call such areas home. Here’s what I found: A 2010 study even found that wives who perceived their homes as cluttered had higher cortisol levels. That one struck a chord with me. CORTISOL – the so-called “stress hormone” produced by the adrenal glands – plays a key role in regulating metabolism, immune response, and blood pressure. But when cortisol levels remain high over time, the health consequences can be serious. After reading these findings, I realized: this isn’t just about potholes, weeds, or trash. The residents of Lakewood may be experiencing a profound shift in our communal psyche, and it’s not in our best interest. As for me, I feel embarrassed and even ashamed to show out-of-town guests my city. Every time I drive down 6th Avenue, I’m hit with irritation and anger. I see people stop caring for their own properties, and I understand why. Why should anyone care when they live next to a “city right of way” where weeds grow five feet tall and filth piles up along the roadside? When we live amid decay and squalor, it becomes easier to toss trash out the car window. If our city is crumbling and its leaders aren’t addressing the degradation, what difference does it make? For some, instead of continuing to fight for our city by writing letters, showing up at meetings, and pleading with city council, they choose flight. Longtime residents are leaving if they have the means. For those who don’t, the symptoms I outlined earlier only deepen and spread. Many questions, but no answers: At the end of the 2024 legislative session, Governor Polis introduced HB24-1313, which designates a half-mile on either side of light rail lines as “Transit-Oriented High Density” zones. It passed. Applied to Lakewood, that half-mile swath encompasses Colfax and 14th Avenue. Meanwhile, six Colorado cities, Arvada, Aurora, Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette, and Westminster, are suing Governor Polis and the state over recent housing legislation (HB24-1313), claiming it violates their home-rule authority. They argue the new laws infringe on their ability to govern local land use. One bill focuses on dramatically increasing density near transit. WHY hasn’t Lakewood joined this lawsuit? We are a home-rule city too. Zoning is a local issue. This bill never should have been introduced by the governor – or passed. No two cities are alike. And yet, both of our state representatives, Monica Duran and Rebekah Stewart, voted YES. Does supporting a lame-duck governor hold more value for them than representing the best interests of the people who elected them? WHY? In the end, we must all ask ourselves: Has the decay and deterioration surrounding us in Lakewood become our personal norm? The majority of this neglect falls squarely at the feet of our city government. The question is: Are we willing to keep fighting—or will we flee? If you’re as concerned as I am, let’s not stay silent. Contact our city council, demand answers, and refuse to let Lakewood’s decline continue unchecked. Together, we can hold our leaders accountable and fight for the city we deserve. Thank you for taking the time to read this newsletter. I welcome and appreciate your comments. With warm regards,Ramey Johnson
Lakewood has reason to be concerned about being placed on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) list of sanctuary cities. Email records show they do not comply with federal immigration law, nor do they plan to. Sanctuary was not granted through official vote of City Council; however, sanctuary from federal immigration law was undertaken behind the scenes while using word games to muddy the issue. From the emails, it appears that some Lakewood City Council Members do not appear to know the full extent of Lakewood’s defiance of federal law. On the other hand, DHS knows more than is publicly apparent – which makes sense because they are the ones that have been stonewalled for years. So although Lakewood does not pay for migrant support, it is clear that there is good reason for Lakewood to be placed on a sanctuary list, no matter the word games Lakewood plays. Lakewood City Council has repeatedly denied being a sanctuary city – which is true if defined by formal vote. However, it is not true that Lakewood does not provide sanctuary for illegals. Lakewood DOES provide sanctuary by not verifying immigration status or cooperating with DHS. In the beginning of the sanctuary city debate, the general public understood that a sanctuary city was just that – a safe place where your immigration status wouldn’t be questioned or held against you. Lakewood never made a public motion or official policy stating that they are a sanctuary city but it is apparent that they fully embrace and enable the state’s sanctuary status rather than federal immigration enforcement. No emails asking for removal When Lakewood was placed on the sanctuary city list, Lakewood did not issue a denial. There are no emails to DHS asking to be removed. That would be the first, honest, response from a city that was NOT acting as a sanctuary and was complying with federal immigration law. That’s what Aurora did. There is no email evidence that occurred in Lakewood. There are no emails asking why Lakewood is on the list. This is despite the fact that there is email from Senator Bennet’s office showing that jurisdictions with questions should reach out via email to SanctuaryJurisdictions@hq.dhs.gov. The official response to City Council was a bland email stating that Lakewood staff didn’t know why they were on the list or that they were concerned. Again, parsing the words carefully, staff “didn’t know why they were on the list” is different than “we have no idea why we are on the list.” Lakewood management may not have known the exact reason DHS was citing, but Lakewood would have known what internal procedural changes have been made over the years. Or perhaps Lakewood assumed they wouldn’t be singled out from other cities in Colorado who may have adopted similar, pro-sanctuary polices. Probably, they could rely on not having an official vote cast for sanctuary, which appears to be the case for some Councilors. Someone must have known there is a reason to be concerned, or they would have asked questions openly and honestly. Instead, Lakewood proceeded by investigating “delicately” (see email below). Lakewood declined to comment to the Denver Gazette and Denver 7 inquiries. A quick Google search could find no comment in any press coverage on the subject although Mayor Strom did reply to an msn.com inquiry. Official Response to City Council Don’t Draw Attention to Sanctuary Policies Nowhere anywhere did our investigation turn up evidence that Lakewood cooperates with DHS and ICE on immigration matters. There was never a suggestion that the situation was a misunderstanding. There was no proof emailed to DHS that Lakewood is indeed cooperating with federal immigration. There was one email showing that a Lakewood employee signed up for e-verify for the first time on Monday, June 2, in what may be a coincidence or a panicked response. In this case, Lakewood appears to have taken the approach that the less said the better because Lakewood cooperates with state law. Colorado sanctuary law is obviously intended to conflict with federal law. Lakewood’s cooperation with the state may be seen in multiple subversive actions, rather than one blanket vote by city council for “sanctuary”. And in fact, Ben Goldstein wrote: “Overall, I think the best strategy is to keep our heads down on this one, but perhaps the cat is out of the bag now” (see below). Lakewood Does Not Cooperate With Federal Immigration Proof that Lakewood provides sanctuary by not cooperating with DHS is shown in several ways besides being unable to deny the charge: There are also a couple things conspicuously missing: Complying with Colorado Law Over Federal Law As one example of City Council opinions, Councilor Jacob LaBure believes being placed on the sanctuary city list is “baseless” (see email below). LaBure’s response is the strong denial of an innocent man – which stands in stark contrast to the “keep your head down approach” from Lakewood management. However, strong beliefs or rewriting definitions of sanctuary does not change Lakewood’s support of migrant polices in 2024 or Lakewood’s vote to help Denver with its influx of migrants or Lakewood’s policy to lessen migrants deportation fears. As previously reported, such support is the original definition of a sanctuary city. In 2024 Lakewood Informer filed CORAs regarding immigration policy and did not receive any answers as to enforcement actions. The responding supervisor said the public information officer would be reaching out – an action that didn’t happen. Verbal responses in public meetings align with Jeffco’s response. They say that checking immigration status, which used to be a routine practice, was not the job of local jurisdictions. There is no federal law that says a home rule police department must check immigration status. This was just a matter of routine, like checking to see if you had an out-of-state drivers license. Lakewood no longer regularly does these routine checks. No Use of DHS Database Colorado law requires Lakewood to NOT share personally identifiable information with DHS non-public databases.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a list of sanctuary cities on Thursday, May 29. Lakewood and Jefferson County were on the list. By Sunday, DHS had taken the list down because of objections by the named jurisdictions. Cities like Lakewood never voted on the issue, just quickly enacted deprioritization policies behind the scenes and then told residents that the increased migrant population is not their problem. Now, DHS is calling out places like Lakewood and Jeffco that hide behind an unofficial policy of not cooperating, while other places do their best to balance a state law that acts against federal law. Lakewood has been through these word games with its residents already. No – Lakewood never formally voted to be a sanctuary city – but only because the state approved sanctuary status so Lakewood politicians didn’t have to take the political risk. At the time, it was apparent that Council would have approved sanctuary status if needed. At that time, around 2018, sanctuary meant being welcoming, resisting ICE cooperation and providing cover for migrant activity. Today, it seems to mean paying for housing and benefits… Because the bar has already been raised! People EXPECT welcoming and resistance to federal immigration. However, DHS is working from the original definition of any jurisdiction not cooperating with ICE. According to the original statement, DHS defined these sanctuary cities as: NOTE: This author seems to remember former Mayor Adam Paul talking about migrants taking refuge in a Lakewood church basement and the need for more placements. Does that sound right to anyone else? Lakewood has still been playing these word games, using “migrant” or “newcomer” instead of “illegal alien”. They would not guarantee that new homeless shelters would not be used for migrants. Instead, some Councilors insisted that all would be welcome. According to an article in The Guardian, the president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff Kieran Donahue, “said the list was created without input from sheriffs and ‘violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement’”. Lakewood still “deprioritizes” crime instead of admitting they will not enforce certain crimes or cooperate with certain agencies. Both Lakewood and Jeffco claim that immigration enforcement is not their jurisdiction so no cooperation is necessary. Neither government has any problem cooperating with other federal agencies, such as the FBI. Therefore, according to Lakewood and Jeffco principles, the National Sheriffs’ Association’s objection is without merit because local jurisdictions shouldn’t be cooperating anyway. Note that the DHS list is more granular than others that just highlight the entire state as a sanctuary. DHS did not respond to requests for more information on how the list was compiled, but there were clearly some cities and counties singled out around the state. Lakewood’s Police Chief has described Venezuelan gang activity in Lakewood in a rare Ward 4 appearance. Lakewood thinks residents are so ignorant that they can’t see the deteriorating conditions brought on by “de-prioritizing” crimes. They seem to think that if they don’t use the word “sanctuary,” they can act defy federal law and be fine. And so far, they are right. During the last discussion about Lakewood’s sanctuary city status, Lakewood Informer news noted that the word games continued with a change from “sanctuary” to “being a good neighbor”.
From a Lakewood Informer reader At approximately 8 p.m. this evening, the King Soopers on 12043 W Alameda Pkwy, was disrupted by a significant emergency response. Multiple police cruisers, along with a fire truck and an ambulance, filled the parking lot of the Market Square Business Center, prompting concern and speculation from bystanders. While the scene appeared serious at first glance, further observation and a conversation with a witness clarified that the situation was less severe than it initially seemed. The following is a summary of the events as they unfolded: It all started with a loud verbal altercation between two men in the neighboring ARC Thrift Store parking lot. Their argument quickly drew the attention of nearby grocery shoppers, prompting someone to call the Lakewood Police Department. By the time officers arrived, the dispute had escalated into a physical fight. One man immediately stopped and complied with police, while the other took off running, prompting a brief foot chase through the area. Despite their efforts and backup from additional units, officers were unable to apprehend the fleeing individual. Fortunately, the man who stayed behind was unharmed and did not require medical attention. Though it may have looked like a major emergency, the situation was relatively contained, and no serious injuries were reported. So if you saw the flurry of first responders at King Soopers tonight, now you know, while dramatic in appearance, the real story was a short-lived bicker that ended with one suspect getting away and no major harm done. Thank you for any resident-generated information, especially including eye-witness reports! Thank you always to Lakewood police for responding as needed!
From the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) announced that it will present a regional Exceptional Service Award to Officer Scott Gillespie, a school resource officer (SRO) with the Castle Rock Police Department and its 2025 SRO Social Award to Det. Jason Ezell, an SRO with the Lakewood Police Department. NASRO will present these awards and others on Monday, July 7, during a ceremony as part of its annual National School Safety Conference in Grapevine Texas, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. The Exceptional Service Award recognizes one recipient in each of NASRO’s 10 regions who demonstrates continuous and sustained service to the school community above and beyond that normally expected of an SRO. Gillespie will receive the award for a region that includes Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming. The SRO Social Award recognizes an SRO for effectively utilizing social media to promote the SRO position, school, and agency. During the July awards ceremony, NASRO will also present several other awards, including its Floyd Ledbetter National School Resource Officer of the Year Award. About the NASRO National School Safety Conference NASRO’s 35th annual National School Safety Conference takes place July 6 through July 11 at the Gaylord Texan Convention Center, Grapevine, Texas. The conference provides opportunities for attendees to learn best practices for SRO and other school safety programs. It also provides networking opportunities to SROs and other law enforcement officers, as well as school security and safety officials, school board members, administrators and anyone interested in school safety. About NASRO NASRO is a nonprofit organization for school-based law enforcement officers, school administrators, and school security and safety professionals working as partners to protect students, school faculty and staff, and the schools they serve. NASRO is headquartered in Hoover, Alabama, and was established in 1991. For more information, visit www.nasro.org.
Maps showing crime locations from Community Crime Map for the month of April, 2025, in Lakewood, Colorado. Note: Statistics seem to vary slightly per application (density map versus event map). This website is very user-friendly and can be zoomed in for better detail. Exact locations are changed for privacy.
