Colorado Man Wins $50,000 After Social Media Ban by Public Agency

The Colorado State Patrol has reached a settlement in a civil case involving Jerod Zaczkowski, a 45-year-old resident of Aurora. Zaczkowski was awarded $50,000 after he alleged that the agency violated his free speech rights on social media.
Background of the Case
Zaczkowski’s legal troubles began when he posted critical comments on the Colorado State Patrol’s Facebook page. His comments included harsh remarks directed at CSP troopers, leading to their deletion and Zaczkowski’s eventual ban from the page in January 2025.
Legal Arguments
His attorney, Andy McNulty, argued that Zaczkowski’s constitutional rights were infringed upon. He distinguished between personal Facebook profiles and public agency pages. According to McNulty, the CSP’s Facebook page serves as a public forum for discussions about government policies.
Settlement Details
The settlement was finalized on May 12. As part of the agreement, the Colorado State Patrol must update its social media policies to align with the Colorado Department of Public Safety. Furthermore, training will be provided annually to the Public Affairs Section.
Statements from Officials
Trooper Gabriel Moltrer, who managed the CSP’s social media page, acknowledged mistakes in handling Zaczkowski’s comments. He stated that efforts are underway to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Broader Implications
The case highlights a growing concern over censorship of free speech by public agencies. McNulty emphasized the importance of accountability and protecting citizens’ rights to voice criticism of government entities.
- Settlement Amount: $50,000
- Incident Date: January 2025
- Settlement Reached: May 12
- Attorney: Andy McNulty
- Public Agency: Colorado State Patrol
- Previous Similar Cases: $45,000 settlement for Jered Morgan; $65,000 settlement for Delbert Sgaggio.
The Colorado State Patrol’s adjustment to its policies following this settlement could set a precedent for how public agencies use social media. The case reflects an ongoing debate about free speech in digital spaces.



