FOLLOW US

Disciplinary Actions and Departmental Response

Mesa County Sheriff Todd Rowell announced significant disciplinary measures following the completion of an internal investigation. Zwinck received three weeks of unpaid leave, while Olson was suspended for two weeks without pay. Both deputies were immediately removed from their drug task force assignments.

The disciplinary actions extended beyond the two primary deputies involved. Two supervisors also faced consequences, with one receiving a two-day unpaid suspension and another receiving a formal letter of reprimand. A third supervisor underwent counseling as part of the department's response to the violations.

According to investigation documents released by the sheriff's office, both deputies had received and acknowledged emails prior to the new law's passage that outlined existing limitations on cooperation with federal immigration officials. The most recent communication, sent on January 30, 2025, explicitly instructed officers not to contact Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after a federal official had requested such cooperation during a law enforcement meeting.

Officers Defend Actions as Standard Operating Procedure

Both deputies maintained during disciplinary hearings that they believed their actions aligned with established departmental procedures and had no knowledge of the new legal restrictions.

"When I was out there, I wanted to find drugs, guns and bad guys," Zwinck testified at his July 23 disciplinary hearing. "And sending that information to HSI they provided the ability to give me real time background information on the person I was in contact with."

Olson, an 18-year veteran of the Mesa County Sheriff's Office, emphasized the routine nature of such communications during his hearing. "It was routine for ICE to show up on the back end of a traffic stop to do their thing," Olson stated. "I truly thought what we were doing was condoned by our supervision and lawful."

Despite these explanations, the internal investigation determined that both officers had been properly notified of legal restrictions on immigration-related information sharing prior to their violations.

Broader Implications for State-Federal Relations

This case represents a microcosm of the larger conflict between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement policies. Since President Trump's inauguration, numerous states including Illinois, Vermont, California, and Connecticut have advanced pro-immigrant legislation designed to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The federal government has responded with its own legal challenges, with the U.S. Department of Justice filing lawsuits against Illinois, New York, and several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws.

Sheriff Rowell criticized the timing and public nature of the attorney general's lawsuit, arguing that it undermines law enforcement morale and represents political posturing rather than fair legal application.

"As it stands, the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General's Office sends a demoralizing message to law enforcement officers across Colorado — that the law may be wielded selectively and publicly for maximum political effect rather than applied fairly and consistently," Rowell stated.