Security guards acted within their authority by requiring a woman to disclose which courtroom she was going to as a condition of entering the federal courthouse in Denver, a judge has ruled.

Tiffany Grays missed a court hearing in her civil case last fall because two court security officers, identified as CSOs Lee and Garcia, would not let her through without answering a “courtesy” question about her destination in the courthouse. Garcia then told the magistrate judge overseeing the hearing that Grays was belligerent, prompting a rescheduling of the proceeding.

Grays, who is representing herself, alleged that the denial of access infringed upon her rights to free speech and due process. However, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martínez flatly rejected those claims in an order last week.

“There is simply no precedent to support Plaintiff’s position that the First Amendment prohibits a government officer from requiring a person entering a government building to answer basic questions about her business there,” Martínez wrote on April 21.

Darold Killmer, a civil rights attorney with Killmer, Lane & Newman, believed the judge decided correctly, noting that security measures placed on government buildings do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

“The First Amendment allows for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on a person’s right to express themself or to access public facilities,” he said. “In this day and age, we have all been subjected to minimally intrusive inconveniences, such as walking through metal detectors, providing identification or other information prior to accessing facilities, and the like. I do not believe Ms. Grays’ constitutional rights were violated.”

Grays initiated her federal lawsuit against student loan servicer Navient in early 2020, alleging that the company incorrectly reported her payments and damaged her credit, affecting her ability to obtain auto loans or credit cards.

On Oct. 27, 2021, Grays arrived at the Byron G. Rogers U.S. Courthouse in downtown Denver for a hearing in the case. According to Grays, as she was proceeding through security, Lee asked her “What/why are you here?”

“I’m here for court,” Grays replied. When Lee reportedly asked which courtroom Grays was going to, she replied that she did not have to tell him.

In a video that Grays began recording, she asked Lee which policy or rule required her to disclose her destination. She told Lee to “get your supervisor.”

“The only thing I’m asking you -” Lee began to say.

“I don’t have to tell you that. I’m in the right courthouse,” Grays retorted.

As Grays was waiting for a supervisor, she repeatedly asked another person in the lobby why they were not wearing a face mask properly. When Garcia arrived, he acknowledged to Grays that there was no rule requiring her to disclose her courtroom, but “we do it out of courtesy.”

“Uh-oh, so you’re making up your own rules and you’re preventing me from going to court,” Grays interrupted. “That is a violation of my constitutional rights to go to court.”

Garcia offered to explain why security officers ask for visitors’ destinations, but Grays said she did not want to hear it. She maintained there was no authority to ask that question.

“Let’s not play games here,” she said. She asked for Garcia’s last name, then his first name. He responded, apparently in jest, that there was “no rule or law that says I gotta tell you.” Grays laughed at the response.

Shortly after the encounter, Grays emailed U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews, who was conducting the hearing in her case, saying she was “being denied access” and asked to have the hearing over the phone. During a brief, three-minute proceeding in his courtroom, Crews announced that Grays was not present because Garcia had informed him that she “became belligerent.”

Crews issued an order that same day explaining that the security guards often ask visitors where they are going because the presence of multiple federal buildings adjacent to the Rogers courthouse can confuse people.

“This is a federal courthouse, not a department store,” Crews wrote. “Ms. Grays is warned that she is required by the Local Rules of Practice, and is ordered by this Court, to comply with all customary requests, inquiries, and procedures of the CSOs anytime she is required to access the courthouse for settings where she is required to appear in person.”

Grays filed several requests to the court, asking for all future hearings to be by phone to limit her “exposure to PTSD” and to be excused from answering future “courtesy questions.” She also submitted a letter pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act asking for video and audio from the courthouse lobby on the day of the encounter.

Martínez, the district court judge assigned to her case, dispensed with all of her concerns, writing that there was no impending hearing requiring her to appear in person and that the court was exempt from FOIA requests. The judge also quoted from Local Rule 83.2(b), which requires anyone seeking to enter a court building to “provide identification or information” upon request of a court security officer.

“The Court agrees with Judge Crews that the CSO’s question about what courtroom she was planning to attend falls within the scope of the questions that anyone seeking entry to any court building must answer if asked,” Martínez concluded. “Therefore, Judge Crews acted properly by ordering Plaintiff to comply with such requests in the future.”

Grays disputed that she was belligerent and told Colorado Politics she intended to pursue the alleged infringement on her rights to the appellate courts.

“I don’t have to answer courtesy questions to get to court,” she said.

The clerk of the U.S. District Court said that neither he nor the U.S. Marshals Service tracked how many people had been prevented from entering Colorado’s district courthouses in the past year.