annemarie rasmus so mam end complaint
TRANSCRIPT
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v. City of Bloomington, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 12-CV-00632-SRN-JSM
AFFIDAVIT OF LORENZ FETT, JR.
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
I, Lorenz Fett, Jr., being first duly sworn under oath, state and depose as follows:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in this Court and submit this affidavit
in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended
Complaint in a clean, non-redlined manner.
3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended
Complaint, with all amendments shown in “red-line” fashion.
4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Stipulation to
Approve Filing of First Amended Complaint.
5. The Plaintiff’s need to amend her complaint was known to all parties and to
the Court at the first Scheduling Conference, at which Defendants consented to a two-
phase discovery process, the first phase of which was to seek a new and more complete
audit from the Department of Public Safety and thereafter to serve limited discovery on
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 2
2
the Entity Defendants in this case to discover if the persons accessing Ms. Rasmusson’s
information had a legally permissible purpose to do so. All of this is set forth in the
Court’s May 30, 2012 Pretrial Scheduling Order.
6. That phase has concluded, and the First Amended Complaint represents the
best efforts of the undersigned and other counsel for Plaintiff to determine which persons
accessing Plaintiff’s private information had a permissible purpose and which persons did
not, and to include the latter as parties in this suit.
7. As shown in the Stipulation to Approve Filing of First Amended
Complaint, only counsel for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have consented to this
amendment as of the date of filing it.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
s/Lorenz Fett, Jr. Lorenz Fett, Jr. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of September, 2012. s/Catherine A. Haugen Notary Public
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v. City of Bloomington; City of Burnsville; City of Cottage Grove; City of Eagan; City of Eden Prairie; City of Golden Valley; City of Isanti; City of Lakeville; City of Minneapolis; City of Minnetonka; City of St. Paul; City of Woodbury; Chisago County; Dakota County; Pine County; Ramsey County; Tim Anderson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police Department; Charles Gollop, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police Department; Casey Buck, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police Department; Valerie Lonetti, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police Department; Danielle Anselment, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department; Sean Sweeney, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Eagan Police Department; Jennifer Bahr, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Ann Bogren, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kyle Duchschere, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Robert Haberle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Erica Halverson, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Laurie Henning, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Zachary Hessel, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department;
Civil File No. 12-CV-632 (SRN/JSM)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNDER FRCP
38(b)
EXHIBIT 1
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 88
2
Tracy Luke, acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Christopher Millard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Marci Pogatchnik, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Beth Sams, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Rachel Selness, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Carter Staaf, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Steve Velner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kevin White, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Joe Dutton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police Department; Steve Callahan, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Isanti Police Department; Todd Williams, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department; Kara Abbas, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Laura Bartsch, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Calvin Cook, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tim Costello, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Department; Hien Dinh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Thomas Fahey, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Fuchs, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Marc
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 88
3
Gingerich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Robert Glasrud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy Gross, in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Aaron Hanson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kimberly Heyda, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lonnie Hoffbeck, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jerry Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mark Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Joseph, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Christopher Karakostas, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mike Keefe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jason King, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Richard Lillard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy MacDougall, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Minneapolis Police Department; Darcy Mackenthun, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Sean McGinty, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David O’Connor, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Billy Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lucas Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 88
4
Police Department; Michael Pfaff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David Pleoger, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Luis Porras, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Reuben, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Rocklin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Staufenberg, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristina Stichter, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristin Sturgis, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chris Thomsen, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Brian Thureson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Geoffry Toscano, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Stephanie Weibye, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Matthew Wente, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Pam Wheeler, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; William Willner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Wolf, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Nelson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police Department; Stephanie Bailey, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ann Baumgart, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Neil Benner, acting in his individual capacity
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 4 of 88
5
as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Bruce Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Laura Bolduan, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Amy Boyer, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Boyle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Brubaker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Brian Coyle, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Chad Degree, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Wes Denning, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Luis Diaz-Calle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Edward Dion, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Michael Dunaski, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shawn Filiowich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matthew Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tim Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Gorud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Nikkole Graupmann, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mike Helgoe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer for the St. Paul Police Department; Axel Henry, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Andrew Heroux, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cortez Hull, acting in his individual capacity as an officer of the St. Paul
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 5 of 88
6
Police Department; Jeffrey Hutchinson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Robert Jerue, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Erik Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Candice Jones, acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Ian Kough, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kimberly Kunde, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cary Lee, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Stephen Lentsch, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Sean Lohse-Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Theodore Mackintosh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James McKnight, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shelly Mehl, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Justin Miller, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Timothy Moore, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ryan Murphy, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James Nash, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Neubrand, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Evan O’Hara, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Salim Omari, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kathy O’Reilly, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mark Pierce, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Chris Rhoades, acting
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 6 of 88
7
in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Craig Rhode, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeff Rothecker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; David Rud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jon Sherwood, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Adam Siegfried, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Charles Sims, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Alan Singleton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jamie Sipes, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Stevens, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Stiff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Tallarico, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Todd Tessmer, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Threasa Timp, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matt Toupal, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Scott Wendell, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Ofstead, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police Department; Jay Belisle, acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s Department; John Grant, acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department; Blake Fjosne, acting in his individual capacity as an Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Rebecca Lawrence, acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Dan Vosika, acting in
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 7 of 88
8
his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; John Melvin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of Corrections; Millicent Tompa, acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Sean Huls, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-Duluth Police Department; Dean Grothem, acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol; Michael Campion, acting in his individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Mona Dohman, acting in her individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Elke Hobus; John and Jane Does (1 - 50) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other named law-enforcement agencies; Ramsey County Doe, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department; Department of Public Safety Does (1-30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1-10) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota and federal departments and agencies,
Defendants. For her First Amended Complaint, for which she demands trial by jury on all claims so
triable, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson (“Rasmusson”) hereby states and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The United States Supreme Court long has recognized privacy as a fundamental
constitutional right protected by the U.S. Constitution and entitled to protection from
encroachment by the States, both under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and under
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 8 of 88
9
various protections extended to the people of the United States by the Bill of Rights. To enforce
those rights, the legislative branch of our federal government has adopted a strict approach to the
protection of privacy interests, particularly in the past twenty years. Recognizing that law-
enforcement personnel, among others, have the ability to access any person’s private
information, especially that information retained by the State in connection with a driver’s
license, Congress passed legislation commonly known as the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of
1994 (“DPPA”) to safeguard this information. In a separate but related vein, in 1997 the
Minnesota Supreme Court first recognized the tort of invasion of privacy. This case involves the
invasion of privacy and illegal searches of Plaintiff Anne Rasmusson by approximately 144
Minnesota law-enforcement officers, who accessed, used or disclosed her private information
approximately 554 times in the time period 2005 to 2012, without any legitimate business reason
to do so, and who not only violated the DPPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, but have
damaged Plaintiff Rasmusson’s life by these violations. Plaintiff is entitled to a determination
that her rights have been violated, to an order enjoining further violations, and to monetary
damages for these invasions of her privacy.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 9 of 88
10
General Background of Law and Facts
1. This is an action for injunctive relief and money damages for injuries sustained
when approximately 147 law-enforcement personnel in Minnesota illegally viewed Plaintiff
Anne Marie Rasmusson’s private, personal, and confidential driver’s license information without
a legitimate purpose. These law-enforcement personnel viewed her private information in excess
of 550 times from the 2005 to 2012. Further, several of these individuals used or disclosed
Rasmusson’s private information. Each unauthorized use of her private information, made while
acting under color of state law, violated Rasmusson’s federal civil rights and constituted
behavior prohibited by federal statute, Minnesota statute, common law, and agency and
departmental regulations prohibiting some or all of the conduct engaged in by Defendants in this
case.
2. Rasmusson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343(a)(3), the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., and
Minnesota common law invasion of privacy. The aforementioned statutory and constitutional
provisions confer original jurisdiction of this Court over this matter. This Court has jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
3. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interests and costs.
The Parties
4. Rasmusson is, and was at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the State of Minnesota.
5. Defendant City of Bloomington is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which
can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 10 of 88
11
6. Defendant City of Burnsville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
7. Defendant City of Cottage Grove is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be
sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
8. Defendant City of Eagan is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
9. Defendant City of Eden Prairie is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
10. Defendant City of Golden Valley is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be
sued under § 466.01 et. seq.
11. Defendant City of Isanti is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
12. Defendant City of Lakeville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
13. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which
can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
14. Defendant City of Minnetonka is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which
can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
15. Defendant City of St. Paul is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which can be
sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
16. Defendant City of Woodbury is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 11 of 88
12
17. Defendant Chisago County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
18. Defendant Dakota County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
19. Defendant Pine County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn.
Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
20. Defendant Ramsey County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
21. Defendants Entity Does (1-10) are various cities, counties, municipalities and
other entities sited in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. or other
statutes, and federal departments and agencies, which can be sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 or
other statutes.
22. Plaintiff will refer to the entities named in paragraphs 5-16 above collectively as
the “Defendant Entities” or “Entity Defendants.”
23. Defendant Tim Anderson (“Anderson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police
Department.
24. Defendant Charles Gollop (“Gollop”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 12 of 88
13
25. Defendant Casey Buck (“Buck”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police
Department.
26. Defendant Valerie Lonetti (“Lonetti”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police
Department.
27. Defendant Danielle Anselment (“Anselment”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police
Department.
28. Defendant Sean Sweeney (“Sweeney”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department.
29. Defendant Jennifer Bahr (“Bahr”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
30. Defendant Ann Bogren (“Bogren”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 13 of 88
14
31. Defendant Kyle Duchschere (“Duchschere”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
32. Defendant Robert Haberle (“Haberle”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
33. Defendant Erica Halverson (“Halverson”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
34. Defendant Laurie Henning (“Henning”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
35. Defendant Zachary Hessel (“Hessel”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
36. Defendant Tracy Luke (“Luke”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 14 of 88
15
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police
Department
37. Defendant Christopher Millard (“Millard”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
38. Defendant Marci Pogatchnik (“Pogatchnik”), upon information and belief, was at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
39. Defendant Beth Sams (“Sams”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
40. Defendant Rachel Selness (“Selness”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
41. Defendant Carter Staaf (“Staaf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 15 of 88
16
42. Defendant Steve Velner (“Velner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
43. Defendant Kevin White (“White”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
44. Defendant Joe Dutton (“Dutton”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police
Department.
45. Defendant Steve Callahan (“Callahan”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Isanti Police Department.
46. Defendant Todd Williams (“Williams”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department.
47. Defendant Kara Abbas (“Abbas”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 16 of 88
17
48. Defendant Laura Bartsch (“Bartsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
49. Defendant John Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
50. Defendant Calvin Cook (“Cook”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
51. Defendant Tim Costello (“Costello”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
52. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of Minneapolis”), upon information and
belief, was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State
of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
53. Defendant Hien Dinh (“Dinh”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 17 of 88
18
54. Defendant Thomas Fahey (“Fahey”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department
55. Defendant Chad Fuchs (“Fuchs”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
56. Defendant Marc Gingerich (“Gingerich”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
57. Defendant Robert Glasrud (“Glasrud”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
58. Defendant Tracy Gross (“Gross”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
59. Defendant Aaron Hanson (“Hanson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 18 of 88
19
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
60. Defendant Kimberly Heyda (“Heyda”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
61. Defendant Lonnie Hoffbeck (“Hoffbeck”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
62. Defendant Jerry Johnson, upon information and belief, was at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
63. Defendant Mark Johnson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
64. Defendant Chad Joseph (“Joseph”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
65. Defendant Christopher Karakostas (“Karakostas”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 19 of 88
20
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
66. Defendant Mike Keefe (“Keefe”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
67. Defendant Jason King (“King”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
68. Defendant Richard Lillard (“Lillard”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
69. Defendant Jill Mrolsa Loonsfoot (“Loonsfoot”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
70. Defendant Tracy MacDougall (“MacDougall”), upon information and belief, was
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the
Minneapolis Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 20 of 88
21
71. Defendant Darcy Mackenthun (“Mackenthun”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
72. Defendant Sean McGinty (“McGinty”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
73. Defendant David O’Connor (“O’Connor”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
74. Defendant Billy Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
75. Defendant Lucas Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
76. Defendant Michael Pfaff (“Pfaff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 21 of 88
22
77. Defendant David Pleoger (“Pleoger”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
78. Defendant Luis Porras (“Porras”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
79. Defendant Patrick Reuben (“Reuben”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department
80. Defendant Michael Rocklin (“Rocklin”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
81. Defendant John Staufenberg (“Staufendberg”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
82. Defendant Kristina Stichter (“Stichter”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 22 of 88
23
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
83. Defendant Kristin Sturgis (“Sturgis”), upon information and belief, was at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
84. Defendant Chris Thomsen (“Thomsen”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
85. Defendant Brian Thureson (“Thureson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
86. Defendant Geoffrey Toscano (“Toscano”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
87. Defendant Stephanie Weibye (“Weibye”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 23 of 88
24
88. Defendant Matthew Wente (“Wente”), upon information and belief, was at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
89. Defendant Pam Wheeler (“Wheeler”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
90. Defendant William Willner (“Willner”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
91. Defendant Jill Wolf (“Wolf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
92. Defendant Michael Nelson (“Nelson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police
Department.
93. Defendant Stephanie Bailey (“Bailey”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 24 of 88
25
94. Defendant Ann Baumgart (“Baumgart”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
95. Defendant Neil Benner (“Benner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
96. Defendant Bruce Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
97. Defendant Laura Bolduan (“Bolduan”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department
98. Defendant Amy Boyer (“Boyer”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
99. Defendant Jeffrey Boyle (“Boyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
100. Defendant Jason Brubaker (“Brubaker”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
101. Defendant Brian Coyle (“Coyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 25 of 88
26
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police
Department.
102. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of St. Paul”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
103. Defendant Chad Degree (“Degree”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
104. Defendant Wes Denning (“Denning”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
105. Defendant Luis Diaz-Calle (“Diaz-Calle”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police
Department.
106. Defendant Edward Dion (“Dion”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
107. Defendant Michael Dunaski (“Dunaski”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 26 of 88
27
108. Defendant Shawn Filiowich (“Filiowich”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police
Department.
109. Defendant Matthew Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
110. Defendant Tim Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department.
111. Defendant Eric Gorud (“Gorud”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
112. Defendant Nikkole Graupmann (“Graupmann”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
113. Defendant Mike Helgoe (“Helgoe”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
114. Defendant Axel Henry (“Henry”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 27 of 88
28
115. Defendant Andrew Heroux (“Heroux”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
116. Defendant Cortez Hull (“Hull”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
117. Defendant Jeffrey Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department
118. Defendant Robert Jerue (“Jerue”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
119. Defendant Erik Johnson (“Erik Johnson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
120. Defendant Candice Jones (“Jones”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
121. Defendant Ian Kough (“Kough”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 28 of 88
29
122. Defendant Kimberly Kunde (“Kunde”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
123. Defendant Cary Lee (“Lee”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
124. Defendant Stephen Lentsch (“Lentsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
125. Defendant Sean Lohse-Johnson (“Lohse-Johnson”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
126. Defendant Theodore Mackintosh (“Mackintosh”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
127. Defendant James McKnight (“McKnight”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 29 of 88
30
128. Defendant Shelly Mehl, (“Mehl”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
129. Defendant Justin Miller (“Miller”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
130. Defendant Timothy Moore (“Moore”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
131. Defendant Ryan Murphy (“Murphy”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
132. Defendant James Nash (“Nash”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department
133. Defendant Jason Neubrand (“Neubrand”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
134. Defendant Evan O’Hara (“O’Hara”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 30 of 88
31
135. Defendant Salim Omari (“Omari”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department
136. Defendant Kathy O’Reilly (“O’Reilly”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
137. Defendant Mark Pierce (“Pierce”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
138. Defendant Chris Rhoades (“Rhoades”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
139. Defendant Craig Rhode (“Rhode”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
140. Defendant Jeff Rothecker (“Rothecker”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
141. Defendant David Rud (“Rud”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 31 of 88
32
142. Defendant Jon Sherwood (“Sherwood”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
143. Defendant Adam Siegfried (“Siegfried”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
144. Defendant Charles Sims (“Sims”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
145. Defendant Alan Singleton (“Singleton”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
146. Defendant Jamie Sipes (“Sipes”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
147. Defendant Eric Stevens (“Stevens”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
148. Defendant Jeffrey Stiff (“Stiff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 32 of 88
33
149. Defendant Tony Tallarico (“Tallarico”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
150. Defendant Todd Tessmer (“Tessmer”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
151. Defendant Threasa Timp (“Timp”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
152. Defendant Matt Toupal (“Toupal”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
153. Defendant Scott Wendell (“Wendell”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
154. Defendant Tony Ofstead (“Ofstead”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police
Department.
155. Defendant Jay Belisle (“Belisle”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 33 of 88
34
156. Defendant John Grant (“Grant”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s
Department.
157. Defendant Blake Fjosne (“Fjosne”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s
Department.
158. Defendant Rebecca Lawrence (“Lawrence”), upon information and belief, was at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s
Department.
159. Defendant Dan Vosika (“Vosika”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s
Department.
160. Defendant John Melvin (“Melvin”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of
Corrections.
161. Defendant Millicent Tompa (“Tompa”), upon information and belief, was at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 34 of 88
35
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
162. Defendant Sean Huls (“Huls”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-
Duluth Police Department.
163. Defendant Dean Grothem (“Grothem”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol.
164. Defendant Elke Hobus (“Hobus”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota.
165. Defendant, Ramsey County Doe, upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s
Department.
166. Defendants John and Jane Does (1-50), upon information and belief, were, at all
times material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in their individual capacities as law-enforcement supervisors, officers or
employees of the Defendant Entities or other federal, state, county or municipal entities in
Minnesota.
167. Plaintiff will refer to the individual Defendants (with the exception of the
“Commissioner Defendants,” “Department of Public Safety Defendants” and “Supervisor
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 35 of 88
36
Defendants” defined below), including John, Jane and Ramsey County Does, collectively as the
“Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel,” “Individual Defendants,” or “Defendant Individuals.”
168. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants with supervisory authority over the
Individual Defendants, including any John and Jane Does with such supervisory authority,
collectively as the “Defendant Supervisors” or “Supervisor Defendants.”
169. Defendant Michael Campion (“Campion”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety.
170. Defendant Mona Dohman (“Dohman”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen, of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety.
171. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants Campion and Dohman collectively, as the
“Commissioner Defendants” or “Defendant Commissioners.”
172. Defendants DPS Does (1-30), upon information and belief, were, at all times
material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting their individual capacities as officers, supervisors, employees, staff,
employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
173. Plaintiff will refer to officers, supervisors, employees, staff, employees,
independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety who created,
installed, monitored, regulated, coded, enforced, supervised, maintained, oversaw, updated, or
otherwise worked on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database or Bureau of
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 36 of 88
37
Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database, each of which contained Rasmusson’s private
driver’s license information (collectively or individually, “DPS Databases”) as “Department of
Public Safety Does” or “DPS Does.”)
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Rasmusson Served Honorably as a Law-Enforcement Officer
174. In 1996, Rasmusson graduated from the police academy at Range Technology
College in Hibbing, Minnesota. Her fellow classmates elected her as a Community Service
Sergeant for their class.
175. Immediately after graduation, in May 1996, she became a park ranger for the City
of Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
176. In December 1996, Rasmusson became a police officer for the Eden Prairie Police
Department. She worked as a patrol officer.
177. Rasmusson was injured in the line of duty on June 6, 1999, while on a medical
emergency call. During that call, she needed to move some furniture, and, while doing so,
snapped her coccyx (tail bone).
178. In March 2000, Rasmusson underwent surgery related to that injury where her
coccyx and partial sacrum were removed.
179. Despite the injury and surgery, Rasmusson returned to duty.
180. In 2001, Rasmusson became a police officer for the City of St. Paul, Minnesota.
St. Paul requires lateral hires such as Rasmusson to attend their police academy. While there,
Rasmusson became the first female academy president in the department’s history. She gave her
St. Paul Police Academy class commencement speech.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 37 of 88
38
181. In St. Paul, Rasmusson worked as a patrol officer in the West District, commonly
known as the “Frogtown” neighborhood.
182. In 2003, Rasmusson began to experience numbness in her leg and had difficulty
sitting. She was diagnosed with nerve damage and an unstable pelvis. Based on this diagnosis,
she was granted a full-medical retirement on December 17, 2003.
183. Rasmusson was deeply disappointed that she had to retire. Until the revelation of
the massive invasion of privacy in this case, retirement was one of the worst things to happen in
her life.
184. In 2004, Rasmusson moved to her rural home in northern Minnesota.
185. Rasmusson was never disciplined while on the force.
186. Rasmusson was highly regarded police officer and served with honor.
187. Rasmusson was proud to serve as a police officer.
II. Over 140 Minnesota Law Enforcement Officers Viewed Rasmusson’s Private Information Outside the Scope of Any Investigation or Official Police Business
188. As early as July 2006, law enforcement officers began looking up Rasmusson’s
private information on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database.
189. The officers viewed Rasmusson’s private personal and highly-restricted personal
information from her State-issued driver’s license including her home address, color photograph
or image, and driver identification number.
190. Under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety (“DPS”) and DPS Does, knowingly created the DPS Databases that include
Rasmusson’s driver’s license information and the system for law-enforcement personnel to
access to that information.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 38 of 88
39
191. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,
knowingly maintained and updated the databases that include Plaintiff’s driver’s license
information.
192. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,
knowingly provided access to the databases that included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
193. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, had the
ability to determine that drivers’ license information, including Plaintiff’s, was being accessed on
multiple occasions, by multiple law-enforcement personnel from multiple law-enforcement
agencies.
194. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, had the
ability to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including unauthorized access to
Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
195. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, failed
to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including access to Plaintiff’s driver’s license
information.
196. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does knowingly authorized, directed,
ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in the disclosure of Plaintiff’s
driver’s license information.
197. The policy of the State of Minnesota is to uphold the provisions of the law, both
state and federal, and to protect and safeguard the privacy rights of the State’s citizens and
inhabitants, including its drivers’ privacy rights, and including those rights as are required to be
protected by federal law, and in particular, it is the policy of the State of Minnesota to comply
with the provisions and requirements of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 39 of 88
40
Section 2721, et seq. This policy is even set forth in the driver’s license application and set forth
in statutory language with proper citation to that federal statute.
198. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly disclosed Plaintiff’s and
others’ driver’s license information and violated state policy by devising and implementing a
database that failed abysmally to uphold the privacy rights of Rasmusson and others similarly
situated as protected by the DPPA, exposing her information and others’ to impermissible and
knowing accesses by various persons, including the Defendants in this lawsuit, constituting a
knowing disclosure of her information within the meaning of the DPPA.
199. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly devised and implemented a
database, and a method for using and misusing that database, that both permitted and
encouraged, through the nature and monitoring of the system, accesses by police officers, state
employees, and others that failed to comply with state policy of protecting privacy rights and
complying with the DPPA.
200. The system knowingly devised and implemented by Commissioner Defendants
and DPS Does failed to set rules for protecting the privacy rights, and permitted and on
information and belief still permits, and in some instances promotes, the accessing of the
database from personal computers, the giving out of passwords to others, including persons not
authorized to have them, and the accessing of the system by persons without any accountability
or even in some instances without the ability to trace the person who made the access; so that
effective monitoring of the system is difficult if not impossible under the system as devised and
implemented by the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, who deliberately emphasized and
favored the convenience of the system by users at the expense of protecting the privacy rights of
the persons in the database.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 40 of 88
41
201. This deliberate emphasis and preference of the convenience of the system users
over the privacy rights of the drivers was known to the Commissioner Defendants and the DPS
Does, and was purposeful.
202. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does actually knew
that law-enforcement officers were accessing the databases for impermissible purposes,
including viewing Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and acquiesced, facilitated, approved
or simply ignored the conduct.
203. Even if the Commissioners and DPS Does had no actual knowledge of the
impermissible uses of the databases they oversaw, upon information and belief, they were
reckless in their supervision of their subordinates who did operate the database.
204. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does were grossly
negligent in supervising their subordinates who operated the databases.
205. Rasmusson began having suspicions that law enforcement officers were taking an
uncomfortable interest in her starting approximately in 2007. She had recently divorced, and
numerous officers who asked her for dates knew where she lived or what kind of car she drove.
206. In mid-2009, Rasmusson began to distance herself from law-enforcement get-
togethers and from police officers, even those who were her former colleagues and those whom
she considered her friends. More and more she began to live a secluded, even hermit-like,
reclusive existence.
207. On May 5, 2010, Rasmusson was pulled over for a potential speeding violation by
a Minneapolis police officer. Although the officer did not issue a citation against her, three other
squad cars arrived on the scene and then left without performing any known law enforcement
duties.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 41 of 88
42
208. In early July 2010, Rasmusson changed her cell phone number and personal email
address, and moved from Lakeville back to northern Minnesota. She told few people of her
move and ceased contact with the majority of police acquaintances from then on.
209. Based in part on these foregoing incidents, Rasmusson contacted DPS to inquire
whether law enforcement officers had been viewing her private information. She asked that only
those officers who had run her name—as opposed to her license plates—on the DVS computer
database be identified.
210. On August 30, 2011, she was unpleasantly surprised, even horrified to learn from
DPS that it had determined that law-enforcement officers from 18 different departments and
agencies had reviewed her private driver’s license information since 2007. She became
physically ill upon learning that fact; she pulled over, opened her car door, and vomited.
211. In October 2011, she learned through the press that approximately 100 law-
enforcement officers had accessed her private driver’s license information approximately 400
times in the last four years, from 2007 through the fall of 2011.
212. Upon learning of the sheer volume of intrusions, Rasmusson again became
physically sick.
213. During Phase One discovery, Rasmusson was able to determine that, since 2005,
approximately 144 law-enforcement personnel from 23 entities in Minnesota accessed her
private personal driver’s license information on approximately 554 occasions without a
permissible purpose.
214. Rasmusson believes that even more unauthorized accesses and viewings will
occur in the future if the policies of the Entity Defendants and other police departments and law
enforcement agencies similarly situated are not changed to bring the actual custom and practice
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 42 of 88
43
of these Entity Defendants and others similarly situated into compliance with their own written
rules, with the rules of the Department of Public Safety, and with federal law, including the
DPPA.
215. In November 2011, DPS informed Rasmusson’s counsel that it was, in fact,
investigating 26 entities and their employees regarding this illegal conduct.
216. At the request of Rasmusson’s counsel, DPS provided a list of the entities whose
personnel had viewed her private information.
217. As part of Phase One Discovery, for each access of Rasmusson’s private, personal
information, DPS has provided DVS audits identifying the date, time, name of the law-
enforcement personnel and entity where the personnel were employed. The BCA audits do not
contain the names of the law-enforcement personnel.
218. As part of Phase One Discovery, many entities have indicated whether they
believe their law-enforcement personnel had a permissible or law-enforcement related purpose
for obtaining, using or disclosing Rasmusson’s private information.
219. Included in the audits provided by DPS to Rasmusson’s counsel were personnel
from law-enforcement departments associated with the following Defendant Entities:
• City of Anoka • City of Bloomington • City of Burnsville • City of Coon Rapids • City of Cottage Grove • City of Eagan • City of Eden Prairie • City of Fridley • City of Golden Valley • City of Hopkins • City of Inver Grove Heights • City of Isanti • City of Lakeville • City of Mendota Heights
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 43 of 88
44
• City of Minneapolis • City of Minnetonka • City of Princeton • City of Red Wing • City of Rosemount • City of St. Paul • City of St. Peter • City of South St. Paul • City of Woodbury • Chisago County • Dakota County • Dakota County Comm Center • Faribault County • Pine County • Ramsey County • Washington County • Metro Transit • University of Minnesota (Duluth Campus) • Federal Bureau of Investigation
220. The chart attached to this First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A summarizes the
number of times law-enforcement personnel accessed Rasmusson’s without a permissible, law-
enforcement related reason, as indicated in the DPS audits, Phase One Discovery responses and
subpoena responses.
221. Plaintiff incorporates Exhibit A into his First Amended Complaint as though fully
set forth in this paragraph.
222. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants primarily used Rasmusson’s
name, not her license plate number, to look up her private, personal information.
223. During Phase One Discovery, Bloomington did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Anderson or Gollop.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 44 of 88
45
224. During Phase One Discovery, Burnsville did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Buck.
225. During Phase One Discovery, Cottage Grove did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Lonetti.
226. The Eagan Police Department issued Eagan Police Officer Sean Sweeney an oral
reprimand for accessing Rasmusson’s private data from the DPS database for personal reasons.
227. During Phase One Discovery, Eagan did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Anselment or Sweeney.
228. The City of Eden Prairie (“Eden Prairie”) disciplined three officers for viewing
Rasmusson’s private, personal information: Officer Zachary Hessel, Officer Christopher Millard
and Sergeant Carter Staaf. In addition, at least eight other Eden Prairie officers or employees
viewed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.
229. Hessel viewed Rasmusson’s private information on August 13, 2011, on a
computer in the patrol squad room. There were no incidents related to Rasmusson that day (or
any other day).
230. Hessel was on duty on August 13, 2011, made no traffic stops and had no reason
to look up Rasmusson.
231. Hessel had been trained to use the database on March 11, 2008 and on March 8,
2010.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 45 of 88
46
232. Hessel admitted to Eden Prairie that he looked up Rasmusson after hearing other
Eden Prairie personnel discussing her. He had met her at a police softball tournament in 2006.
He did not have a permissible reason to access her personal information several years later.
233. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to obtain
Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.
234. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Hessel and required him to undergo
coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.
235. Millard viewed Rasmusson’s private personal information on three separate
occasions in 2007 and 2011. He was on an alarm call and arrest the first time he looked her up.
He was also on duty when he did so again in 2011.
236. Millard had been trained to use the database on March 18, 2008 and October 15,
2010.
237. Millard looked up Rasmusson’s information so that he could obtain her address.
238. Eden Prairie determined that Millard did not have an official purpose to obtain
Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.
239. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Millard and required him to undergo
coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.
240. Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s private information at least 13 times from January
2007 until May 2011.
241. Staaf had been trained twice on the proper use of the database.
242. Despite that training, Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s information while on duty and
on both his mobile computer and at his Sergeant’s desk.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 46 of 88
47
243. Staaf looked up Rasmusson’s present driver’s license, as well as her old driver’s
licenses to compare her photographs.
244. Staaf encouraged his subordinates to conduct their own DVS queries of
Rasmusson’s information because she was very attractive and so they could see that “she’s
changed and she’s got a new look.”
245. Eden Prairie’s records also indicate that one “John or Jane Doe” who looked up
Rasmusson’s personal information at Staaf’s suggestion did so “in the middle of a money
transport for the Community Center.”
246. Staaf has conceded that he did not run Rasmusson’s information for a legitimate
law-enforcement purpose.
247. Eden Prairie investigative records do not indicate an official, law-enforcement
purpose for Staaf to have obtained Rasmusson’s private, personal information.
248. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to obtain
Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.
249. As discipline for his conduct related to Rasmusson, Eden Prairie demoted Staaf.
250. During Phase One Discovery, Eden Prairie did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Bahr, Bogren, Duchschere, Haberle, Halverson, Henning, Hessel, Luke, Millard, Pogatchnik,
Sams, Selness, Staaf, Velner, and White.
251. During Phase One Discovery, Golden Valley did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Dutton.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 47 of 88
48
252. During Phase One Discovery, Isanti did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Callahan.
253. During Phase One Discovery, Lakeville did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Williams.
254. On September 21, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the Minneapolis
Police Department (“Minneapolis Police”). While there, Minneapolis Police informed
Rasmusson that at least 20 Minneapolis Police officers had viewed her private, personal
information. According to the Minneapolis Police, police officers had made inquiries about her
as late as June 2011.
255. On information and belief, DPS has disciplined a few of these Minneapolis police
officers to a limited extent.
256. On information and belief, the Minneapolis Police Department has not disciplined
any of its officers for their unauthorized access of Rasmusson’s information.
257. On information and belief, 46 Minneapolis Police officers accessed Rasmusson’s
record 179 times from 2005 through of 2012 without a permissible purpose.
258. During Phase One Discovery, Minneapolis did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Abbas, Bartsch, John Bennett, Cook, Costello, Patrick Daly of Minneapolis, Dinh, Fahey,
Fuchs, Glasrud, Gross, Hanson, Heyda, Hoffbeck, Jerry Johnson, Mark Johnson, Joseph,
Karakostas, Keefe, King, Lillard, Loonsfoot, MacDougall, Mackenthun, McGinty, O’Connor,
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 48 of 88
49
Billy Peterson, Lucas Peterson, Pfaff, Pleoger, Porras, Reuben, Rocklin, Staufenberg, Stichter,
Sturgis, Thomsen, Thureson, Toscano, Weibye, Wente, Wheeler, Willner, Wolf,
259. Minneapolis claims that Gingerich accessed Plaintiff’s driver’s license
information as part of a traffic stop.
260. At one point, Plaintiff had thought that Gingerich had been the Minneapolis
officer who had stopped her for a speeding violation.
261. Plaintiff now believes that Gingerich did not stop her for speeding, and that
Gingerich did not have a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for his access of her
private, driver’s license information.
262. By letter dated January 26, 2012, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety
admits that Minnesota State Patrol Trooper Dean Grothem received a written reprimand for
unauthorized use of the database related to Rasmusson.
263. Grothem’s written reprimand specifically states that he was being disciplined “for
accessing private information in the DVS database without a legitimate law enforcement need.”
264. During Phase One Discovery, Minnetonka did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Nelson.
265. The DVS audit indicates that Dean Backlund, identified as a City of Princeton
employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on June 20, 2006.
266. The City of Princeton maintains that Backlund was not employed by it on June
26, 2006, and that the IP address does not match any devices at the Princeton Police Department.
The City of Princeton was not able to identify why Backlund appeared on the DVS audit.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 49 of 88
50
267. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of Princeton is
incorrect or that DPS failed to accurately track this access of Rasmusson’s private information,
which it attributed to Joseph Backlund.
268. The DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the access attributed
to Backlund on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to
properly record this access.
269. On September 27, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the St. Paul
Police Department (“St. Paul Police”). While there, the St. Paul Police informed Rasmusson that
at least 13 St. Paul Police officers and employees viewed her private, personal information.
270. Upon information and belief, between 2005 and 2012, St. Paul Police had
approximately 61 officers and employees who have accessed Rasmusson’s record 228 times
without a permissible purpose.
271. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Bailey, Baumgart, Benner, Bruce Bennett, Bolduan, Boyer, Boyle, Brubaker, Coyle, Patrick
Daly of St. Paul, Degree, Denning, Diaz-Calle, Dion, Dunaski, Filiowich, Matthew Flynn, Tim
Flynn, Gorud, Graupmann, Helgoe, Henry, Heroux, Hull, Hutchinson, Jerue, Erik Johnson,
Jones, Kough, Kunde, Lee, Lentsch, Lohse-Johnson, Mackintosh, McKnight, Mehl, Miller,
Moore, Murphy, Nash, Neubrand, O’Hara, Omari, O’Reilly, Pierce, Rhoades, Rhode, Rothecker,
Rud, Sherwood, Siegfried, Sims, Singleton, Sipes, Stevens, Stiff, Tallarico, Tessmer, Timp,
Toupal, or Wendell.
272. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that Plaintiff asked Benner, Jerue
and Henry to access her driver’s license information.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 50 of 88
51
273. Plaintiff denies asking Benner, Jerue or Henry to access her driver’s license
information.
274. The DPS audits also listed the names of two St. Paul law-enforcement personnel
who looked up Rasmusson on two occasions only as “Johnson.”
275. According to St. Paul, it has not yet been able to determine the first name(s) of the
individuals who accessed Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information on those two
occasions.
276. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by either “Johnson” look-up where the first name was not known.
277. The DPS audits list six accesses of Rasmusson’s information by unnamed officers
from the St. Paul PD Comm Center.
278. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that “the access to DVS on these
particular devices were assigned to the device itself, not to an individual. The City of St. Paul no
longer has information indicating what employee was assigned to these devices at the time of
access.”
279. The DVS audit indicates that Phillip Hartung (“Hartung”), identified as a City of
South St. Paul employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on March 3, 2006.
280. During Phase One Discovery, South St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Hartung, but claimed that Hartung resigned in 2005 and worked for the U.S. Marshall’s office
at the time of the access attributed to him.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 51 of 88
52
281. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of South St. Paul is
incorrect or that DPS failed to accurately track this access of Rasmusson’s private information,
which it attributed to Hartung.
282. The DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the access attributed
to Hartung on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to properly
record this access.
283. During Phase One Discovery, Woodbury did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Ofstead.
284. During Phase One Discovery, Chisago County did not provide a permissible law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Belisle.
285. During Phase One Discovery, Dakota County claimed Grant was investigating
Rasmusson for a law-enforcement-related reason.
286. Grant met Plaintiff the day prior to his accessing her private, driver’s license
information at a law-enforcement softball tournament in Duluth. There was no reason for Grant
to suspect anything of Plaintiff, who was not a resident of Dakota County, the very next day.
287. During Phase One Discovery, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not
provide a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private,
driver’s license information by Melvin.
288. During Phase One Discovery, the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not provide
a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s
license information by Tompa.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 52 of 88
53
289. Pine County did not provide a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for
each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Fjosne, Lawrence or Vosika.
290. Pine County claimed that Fjosne accessed Rasmusson’s information as part of a
wide-range license plate check.
291. Yet, according to the DPS audit, Fjosne used the DVS driver’s license database,
not a license plate search to access Rasmsson’s information.
292. Ramsey County Doe claims that he was not in the country when his DPS database
passwords and login information were used to look up Rasmusson.
293. Ramsey County Doe admits that he gave his password to two BCA employees he
worked with on the Metro Gang Strike Force.
294. Both BCA employees deny receiving Ramsey County Doe’s password.
295. Both BCA employees deny using Ramsey County Doe’s password to view
Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.
296. DPS regulations prohibit law-enforcement personnel and their employees from
sharing their DPS database passwords.
297. By sharing the password with BCA employees, by which they could access the
protected drivers’ license information of any Minnesota resident, including Rasmusson, Ramsey
County Doe and Ramsey County knowingly disclosed Ms. Rasmusson’s private driver’s license
information under the DPPA.
298. Because they maintained a database without adequate security, the DPS
Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Ramsey County Doe and
Ramsey County.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 53 of 88
54
299. During Phase One Discovery, the University of Minnesota-Duluth did not provide
a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s
license information by Huls.
300. The DPS audits list Hobus as working for the City of Red Wing.
301. The City of Red Wing claims that Hobus never worked for it.
302. The City of Red Wing claims that it was informed by the DPS that Hobus worked
as a deputy registrar, which was a private business.
303. Because they allowed non-law-enforcement personnel access to the DPS
databases and because of their inability to properly track these accesses, the DPS Commissioners
and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Hobus.
304. The remaining Individual Defendants’ identities (John and Jane Does) are not
presently known, because the Defendant Entities have either not provided Plaintiff with their
identities or not provided sufficient information to determine if their law enforcement
personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized, despite her requests. Plaintiff anticipates
that these yet-to-be-named Individual Defendants will become known through discovery.
305. The Supervisor Defendants are not presently known. Plaintiff anticipates that the
yet-to-be-named Supervisor Defendants who should have monitored, prevented and stopped the
unauthorized access to Rasmusson’s information will become known through discovery.
306. The remaining Entity Defendant identities (Entity Does) are not presently known,
because not all of the entities identified by the DPS have provided sufficient information to
determine if their law enforcement personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized.
Plaintiff anticipates that these yet-to-be-named Entity Defendants will become known through
discovery.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 54 of 88
55
307. The login page to the DVS website includes the following admonition:
Access to this service is for authorized personnel only conducting official business. If you do not have the express authorization, you must exit now or face the consequences of violating Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes and other laws. Further, the State of Minnesota prohibits unauthorized access, disclosure, duplication, modification, diversion, destruction, loss, misuse, or theft of its information in accordance with the Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.87 – 609.891. DVS collects and maintains electronic access data. This data may be used and disseminated for the purpose of evaluating electronic government services; to prevent unlawful intrusions into government electronic systems; or as otherwise provided by law.
308. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants’ training included
admonitions against viewing private driver’s license information for unofficial purposes.
309. Whatever training, monitoring, or inquiry into the officers’ usage of the
information systems has been adopted is woefully inadequate to ensure that access is used
properly and lawfully.
310. The Minneapolis Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual prohibits
accessing drivers’ license information for anything other than official business.
311. The City of Eden Prairie’s training includes quizzing its law-enforcement officers
as follows:
“1) . . . misuse of the system can lead to sanctions and disciplinary action; 2) . . . operators may run queries only for criminal justice purposes; 3) driver’s license or motor vehicle registration information can be accessed through CJDN only for the performance of official duties authorized by law. 4) For practice purposes, you are authorized to complete inquiries on family members or coworkers? FALSE.” (emphasis added).
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 55 of 88
56
312. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook admonishes its employees to
“conduct themselves, both on and off duty, in a manner that supports this trust.”
313. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook states that technology should be
“used primarily for City business. Employees should not use City technology for any purpose
that would reflect negatively on the City.”
314. The Eden Prairie Police Department Manual (“EPPD Manual”) informs officers
that its policies “also applies to off-duty conduct.”
315. The EPPD Manual explains that “[p]eace officers shall observe the confidentiality
of information available to them due to their status as peace officers.”
316. The EPPD Manual clearly states that officers should not use their official position
for personal gain:
Peace officers shall not use the authority of their position as peace officers, or information available to them due to their status as peace officers, for any purpose of personal gain, including, but not limited to, initiating or furthering personal and/or intimate interactions of any kind with persons which (sic) whom the officer has had contact while on duty.
317. The EPPD Manual also informs its officers that “Minnesota driver license
information obtained or otherwise accessed through a CJDN terminal or the DVS website may
be disseminated to authorized law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official
duties.”
318. On information and belief, despite this training, Defendant Entities and Defendant
Supervisors, allowed their employees, including but not limited to the Individual Defendants, to
view Plaintiff’s private driver’s license information for unlawful purposes.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 56 of 88
57
319. On information and belief, Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors,
Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does permitted, condoned, or acquiesced in this illegal
access to Plaintiff’s private information, and knew or should have known that it was occurring.
320. On information and belief, this illegal access occurs with regularity not only of
Plaintiff’s private information, but of other Minnesota drivers’ private information.
321. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, Defendant Commissioners and DPS
Does have lax policies or lax enforcement of these policies that allow for these intrusions.
322. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, Defendant Commissioners and DPS
Does either have no viable method of or have an inadequate method of ascertaining and
controlling the illegal access to individuals’ private information by their officers.
323. The extent of this illegal access appears to be widespread and pervasive
throughout departments, and is a custom and practice. This is demonstrated by the tolerance of
this practice, and the customary disregard of punishment for violations, such as a prosecution
that was dismissed when the officer’s attorney complained that the prosecution was akin to
“using a sledge hammer to kill a fly” or words to that effect. Further evidence of the custom and
practice can be found in actual statements made by current officers, one of whom was quoted in
a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “every single
cop in the state has done this. Chiefs on down.” ; and based on actual statements made by
former officers, one of whom was quoted in a magazine article about the illegal access into
Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “[y]ou used to look up people without a second thought.
You’d look up old friends from high school or just someone you used to know.”
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 57 of 88
58
324. Before publicity surrounding Rasmusson’s situation, there was little or no training
by the DPS or the individual entities regarding appropriate use of the DPS Databases or what
was a permissible purpose for viewing drivers’ license information under the DPPA.
325. Before publicity surround Rasmusson’s situation, law-enforcement personnel
throughout Minnesota commonly looked up driver’s license information for personal reasons.
326. Each law-enforcement personnel has a password allowing that individual access
to the DPS Database. Law-enforcement personnel can access the DPS Databases from any
computer with internet access.
327. On further information and belief, this illegal access to driver’s license
information occurs disproportionately to women.
328. When Defendant law-enforcement personnel viewed Rasmusson’s private
information, they did not do so to carry out official police functions.
329. Rasmusson committed no crimes that would authorize the unauthorized access of
her private drivers’ license information.
330. The Individual Defendants obtained Rasmusson’s personal information without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
331. On a small handful of occasions, Rasmusson asked certain law-enforcement
personnel to view her driver’s license information for the express purpose of determining if the
database had posted her change of address or had listed the automobile she was presently
driving. None of the claims in this suit relate to those few instances.
332. Rasmusson never waived the protections of the DPPA.
III. Rasmusson Has Been Harmed By This Intrusion Into Her Private Life
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 58 of 88
59
333. The sheer volume of these intrusions into her private life demonstrates that law-
enforcement personnel are unfairly hostile toward Rasmusson’s privacy and safety.
334. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson does not feel comfortable
going to public places where police officers are likely to be around and has lost her sense of
freedom including her freedom to travel and enjoy public places.
335. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has become a recluse and was
forced to live like a hermit.
336. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson feels she has lost any control
over the privacy in her life.
337. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has shut down her social media
accounts.
338. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has installed a security gate
and an alarm system on her property.
339. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed and unlisted her
home and mobile telephone number.
340. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed her email address.
COUNT I
(Against all Defendants including Commissioner, Individual, Supervisor and Entity Defendants, including John, Jane, Entity and DPS Does, for Violations of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et
seq.)
341. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through 340 as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph 341.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 59 of 88
60
342. Rasmusson provided personal information to the DPS including her address, color
photograph, date of birth, weight, height and eye color for the purpose of acquiring and utilizing
a State of Minnesota driver’s license.
343. The DPS Database also maintained Rasmusson’s driving record.
344. Rasmusson did not provide her consent for any of the Defendant Individuals to
obtain, disclose or use, or for any of the Defendant Entities or Defendant Supervisors to disclose
or to allow Defendant Individuals to obtain, disclose or use, her private information for anything
but official law-enforcement business for any of the occasions listed in the attached Exhibit A.
345. Intentionally obtaining, disclosing or using driver’s license information without
an authorized purpose is a violation of the DPPA. The statute provides for criminal fines and
civil penalties. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2723, 2724.
346. The DPPA provides redress for violations of a person’s protected interest in the
privacy of her motor vehicle records and the identifying information therein.
347. The Defendants, each of them, have invaded Rasmusson’s legally protected
interest under the DPPA.
348. The Commissioners of the Department of Public Safety or the employees they
supervised knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s private personal information from her driver’s
license for purposes not permitted under the DPPA.
349. According to the Department of Vehicle Services and the Defendant Entities, the
Individual Defendants knowingly obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information,
from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a).
350. None of the Individual Defendants’ activities fell within the DPPA’s permitted
exceptions for procurement of Rasmusson’s private information.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 60 of 88
61
351. By the actions described above, each Defendant Individual law-enforcement
personnel was acting within the scope of his or her employment when he or she obtained,
disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information from the DPS Databases for an
impermissible purpose.
352. The Individual Defendants knew that their actions related to Rasmusson’s
personal information were in violation of the DPPA.
353. The Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors knowingly authorized,
directed, ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in obtaining, disclosing or
using of Rasmusson’s private personal information by the Individual Defendants.
354. The Individual Defendants knowingly used the Defendant Entities’ computers,
passwords and passcodes to access Rasmusson’s private information.
355. By sharing database access passwords, Ramsey County Doe and Ramsey County
knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information in violation of the DPPA.
356. The sheer volume of law-enforcement personnel that obtained, disclosed or used
Rasmusson’s private personal information, especially given Rasmusson’s lack of a criminal
record, makes apparent that Defendants’ use was not permissible.
357. The Defendant Entities are each vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant
Individuals.
358. The Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the acts of Defendant
Individuals.
359. Rasmusson has suffered harm because her private information has been obtained
unlawfully. Rasmusson suffered and continues to suffer harm by virtue of the increased risk that
her protected information is in the possession of numerous law-enforcement personnel who
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 61 of 88
62
obtained it without a legitimate purpose. This is precisely the harm Congress sought to prevent
by enacting the DPPA and its statutory remedies.
360. The Individual Defendants, Supervisor Defendants, Commissioner Defendants,
DPS Does and Entity Defendants each willfully and recklessly disregarded the law, entitling
Rasmusson to punitive damages under the DPPA, see 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(2), which is not
subject to the pleading requirement of Minnesota state law as set forth in Minn. Stat. section
549.20. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the
court determines to be appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b).
361. In addition, under the DPPA, Plaintiff is entitled to a baseline liquidated damages
award of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1). Rasmusson
need not prove actual damages to receive said liquidated damages.
COUNT II
(Against Individual Defendants, including John and Jane Does, for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with the exception of Hobus)
362. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 361 as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph 362.
363. At no time did Rasmusson behave in a manner that would provide any legal
justification for the above-described invasion of her privacy.
364. The DPPA establishes that obtaining an individual’s driver’s license information
without a legitimate purpose constitutes an illegal search under the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 62 of 88
63
365. The Individual Defendants’ viewing of Rasmusson’s personal information was
unauthorized, unjustified, and excessive, and violates the Fourth Amendment, the laws of the
United States and the laws of the State of Minnesota.
366. By the actions described above, each Individual Defendant Law-Enforcement
Personnel, acting under color of state law, violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly
established and well-settled civil right to be free from an unconstitutional search.
367. The acts of each Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel, acting under the color
of state law, constituted an invasion or repeated invasions of Rasmusson’s clearly-established
privacy rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, the laws of the United States, including the DPPA, and the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
368. The DPPA creates an individual right to privacy in a person’s driver’s license
information, thereby prohibiting unauthorized accessing of all persons’ information, including
Rasmusson’s information.
369. Each individual law-enforcement personnel, acting under color of state law, knew
that his or her actions violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly established statutory rights
under the DPPA.
370. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel deprived Rasmusson of
her federal statutory rights and civil rights maliciously or by acting with reckless disregard for
whether Rasmusson’s rights would be violated by his or her actions.
371. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel was deliberately
indifferent to Rasmusson’s statutory and civil right to be free from illegal searches, invasions of
privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her private driver’s license information.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 63 of 88
64
372. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-named
Individual Defendants, Rasmusson endured physical and mental suffering, and was damaged in
an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000)
Dollars.
373. Punitive damages are available against Individual Defendant law-enforcement
personnel for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional
violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith
v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirement for
punitive damages set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.
374. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney fees,
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III
(Against Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants, including John, Jane and Entity Does, for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
375. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 374 as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph 375.
376. The Individual Defendants’ numerous accesses of Rasmusson’s private
information are not unique, but one example of how frequently such law-enforcement agencies
customarily violate the DPPA by accessing private driver’s license information of persons
without having any legitimate or permissible reason for doing so.
377. Recently, in a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s private
information, a current officer, speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation, stated that every
officer does it, including the chiefs of police. In that same article, another former officer stated
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 64 of 88
65
that the practice was widespread as a form of social media, simply to look up former friends or
acquaintances.
378. In addition, persons familiar with police departments and those involved in
teaching supervisors how to train and hold accountable their subordinate law-enforcement
personnel have been told by those supervisors that the unlawful and impermissible accessing of
private information is among the most frequently committed wrongs by police, for which they
are seldom if ever held accountable.
379. The foregoing information, other information to be presented at trial, and
evidence reasonably likely to be determined after full discovery demonstrate that the improper
access of citizens’ driver’s license information by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel for
their own personal and private uses, obtained by accessing that information through the
computerized information storage system kept by the State for official purposes only, is an
official custom or practice well known to Defendant Supervisors.
380. These customs and practices by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel are at
variance with the written rules set down by the Entity Defendants, but these formal rules are
widely and knowingly disregarded.
381. Given the municipalities’ failure to monitor and enforce their rules, the
aforementioned customs and practices are attributable to the municipalities themselves, including
the Entity Defendants herein.
382. The Defendant Entities and the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement
personnel accessing this information knew or should have known of this and other unlawful,
improper, unjustified, and impermissible access to private information by law-enforcement
personnel.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 65 of 88
66
383. The prevalence of this custom, the lack of monitoring regarding these access
practices and the failure to take action to stop or prevent these practices, demonstrate the state of
mind of Defendant Supervisors and municipal officials of the Entity Defendants. These customs
and practices further demonstrate Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the federal statutory and
constitutional rights of the citizens and persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been
wrongfully accessed.
384. The Defendant Entities, in their official capacity, are directly liable for the custom
and practice of the widespread illegal access of citizens’ driver’s license information. The
Supervisor Defendants, up to and including the chief police officers and sheriffs employed by
each Entity Defendant, are liable in their individual capacity. Defendants’ liability is due to their
actual and constructive knowledge of this practice, their failure to institute any process for
monitoring and preventing it and their deliberate indifference to the federal rights of those
persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been and continues to be wrongfully
accessed.
385. In addition, the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement personnel, up to
and including the chief police officer in each of the Defendant Entities, are liable in their
individual capacities for the failure to train, monitor, supervise, and properly discipline the
officers who are improperly and unlawfully accessing the private driver’s license information of
citizens, including Plaintiff, without a proper, lawful, permissible, justifiable purpose for doing
so. This pattern of failure to train, monitor, supervise, and discipline demonstrates the state of
mind of these Defendant Supervisors and a deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens
and others whose information has been so widely accessed, including Plaintiff.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 66 of 88
67
386. The federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, whose information is
improperly accessed, are held in light regard by many if not most of the Defendant Supervisors
and by the Defendant Entities themselves.
387. Defendants’ lack of concern evidences their deliberate indifference both to the
problem of the unauthorized access and to the impact of the unauthorized access on the federal
rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, who would often be unaware of that access.
388. Defendants’ lack of concern is evidenced by the failure of most Defendant
Entities to take any sort of corrective action upon learning that multiple improper, unlawful,
unjustified accesses of Plaintiff’s information had taken place. Defendants have also
consistently refused to fully involve Plaintiff, keep her fully informed of the progress of the
investigation into the persons accessing her information, or to advise her of their identities, their
reasons for accessing her information, their knowledge of Plaintiff, and any discipline imposed
on them for their improper and illegal conduct.
389. The manner in which the investigation was handled by the Entity Defendants and
Supervisor Defendants provides little expectation that these and other law-enforcement personnel
will cease accessing Plaintiff’s private information and the private information of other persons
similarly situated to Plaintiff, without a justifiable, permissible basis.
390. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no system has been established by the Entity
Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to monitor the regular access of the DPS Databases by
law-enforcement personnel.
391. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no reviews have taken place of other
accesses of the DPS Databases by these same law-enforcement personnel, or of other officers
and employees in the Defendant Entities.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 67 of 88
68
392. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the Entity
Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to protect and safeguard the rights of other persons’ DPS
Database information.
393. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the Entity
Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to provide redress and assurance to the persons, including
Plaintiff, whose DVS information has been wrongfully accessed by the Defendant Law-
Enforcement Personnel named in this Complaint, or by other officers in the municipalities named
in this Complaint.
394. Defendants’ accesses have been widely discussed among the Defendant Law-
Enforcement Personnel committing the accesses as well as among other personnel in the
Defendant Entities – all of which have damaged Plaintiff and her reputation, including but not
limited to her reputation as a single woman.
395. The reputational damage alone to Plaintiff, as well as the knowledge that this
activity is not merely unlawful but a federal crime, should have been enough to ensure that
Plaintiff’s concerns listed in the preceding paragraphs were addressed by Defendants in a
meaningful fashion. Holding accountable the law-enforcement personnel engaged in an
unlawful activity would have been an important step in eliminating this custom and practice of
permitting the widespread illegal accessing of Rasmusson’s information; yet nothing meaningful
in this regard has been accomplished, and no prosecutions have been initiated to the best of
Plaintiff’s knowledge.
396. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-named
Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors, Rasmusson has endured and continues to endure
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 68 of 88
69
physical and mental suffering, and has been damaged in an amount yet to determined and of a
continuing nautre, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.
397. Punitive damages are available against Defendant Supervisors for their reckless
and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional violations of the federal law,
and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983),
and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.
398. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney fees,
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT IV (Against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
399. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 398 as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph 399.
400. Defendant Campion was Commissioner of DPS from April 2004 to February
2011.
401. Defendant Dohman became Commissioner of DPS in March 2011 and presently
serves in that role.
402. As DPS Commissioners, Campion and Dohman, along with DPD Does, were and
are responsible for creating, maintaining, and providing access to the database that included
Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
403. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does also had the ability to determine if
unauthorized access was being made and to prevent such unauthorized access to the database,
including of Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and have the ongoing duty to prevent such
unauthorized accesses.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 69 of 88
70
404. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to prevent unauthorized
access to the database, including Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
405. The actions of the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, as alleged, violate
the rights of the Plaintiff under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and under the DPPA.
406. On information and belief, the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does created
or oversaw the creation and maintenance of a database and system that was supposed to prevent
unauthorized access to driver’s license information.
407. From 2005, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does allowed unauthorized
access of Rasmusson’s driver’s license information such that approximately 144 law-
enforcement personnel from 18 different departments accessed her information over 544 times.
408. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants’ and DPS Does’ efforts
have been insufficient to prevent future unauthorized access of Plaintiff’s and other individuals’
private, personal information.
409. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does have sanctioned the constitutional
violations by the Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel through their failure to remedy the
policy, custom and practice of officers’ and employees’ unfettered and unauthorized access to
the database.
410. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Doeshave been grossly negligent in
supervising subordinates responsible for implementing a law-enforcement database that prevents
unauthorized access to private, personal information.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 70 of 88
71
411. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to
monitor and prevent unauthorized access to private, personal information even though they knew
or should have known that such unconstitutional acts were occurring.
412. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, acting under the color of state law,
were deliberately indifferent to Rasmusson’s constitutionally-recognized and federal statutory
rights to be free from illegal searches, invasions of privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her
private driver’s license information.
413. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does are jointly liable for disclosure of Ms.
Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information for each Individual Defendants’ access.
414. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Commissioner
Defendants and DPS Does, Rasmusson was forced to endure physical and mental suffering, and
was thereby damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One
Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.
415. Punitive damages are available against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does
for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional violations of
the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v. Wade, 461
U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth in Minn. Stat.
§ 549.20.
416. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney fees,
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT V
(Against All Defendants, including John, Jane, Entity and DPS Does, for Common Law Invasion of Privacy)
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 71 of 88
72
417. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through 416 as
though fully set forth in this Paragraph 417.
418. By improperly obtaining Rasmusson’s private personal information for
impermissible reasons, Defendants intentionally intruded upon the solitude or seclusion of
Rasmusson’s private affairs and concerns.
419. The Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
420. The Defendants’ intrusion caused Rasmusson to suffer severe emotional distress
and physical harm.
421. The Defendants’ intrusion was intended to cause Rasmusson to suffer severe
emotional distress and physical harm, and was made with either actual or legal malice, or with
reckless disregard of her rights and her privacy.
422. Plaintiff is entitled to tort damages for Defendants’ invasion of privacy.
JURY DEMAND
423. Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all issues of fact herein properly triable to a
jury under any statute or under common law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson prays for judgment against the
Defendants as follows:
1. A money judgment against all the Defendants for liquidated, actual and
compensatory damages in an amount in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars and punitive
damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, together with her costs, including reasonable
attorney fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the DPPA, and other applicable laws, and prejudgment
interest;
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 72 of 88
73
2. Actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs and
such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate under 18
U.S.C. § 2724(b);
3. Liquidated damages of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA under 18
U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1);
4. An injunction, permanently enjoining all Defendants from viewing Plaintiff’s
private information in violation of the DPPA, unless necessary for law enforcement purposes;
5. A permanent injunction, barring Defendant Individuals from trespassing or
instructing proxies to trespass on Plaintiff’s property or otherwise harass her or infringe in any
way on her privacy and her right against the invasion of her privacy;
6. A permanent injunction, allowing Plaintiff to use a post-office box in place of an
address on her Minnesota Driver’s License; and,
7. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP PLLC Dated: October __, 2012 _________________________________ Jonathan A. Strauss (#0279602) Lorenz F. Fett (#196769) Sonia Miller-Van Oort (#278087) Kenneth H. Fukuda (#0389301) 12 South Sixth Street, Suite 1242
Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 756-7100
Fax: 612-756-7101 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 73 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 1
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Bloomington PD Tim Anderson 09/26/09 4:12:0009/26/09 4:13:0009/26/09 4:13:0002/24/10 6:16:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:23:0002/24/10 6:24:0002/24/10 6:24:00
Charles Gollop 10/22/06 11:08:0010/22/06 12:18:0007/28/08 8:31:0007/28/08 8:40:0007/28/08 13:35:0008/03/08 11:56:00
Burnsville PD Casey Buck 07/30/09 16:56:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:58:0007/30/09 16:58:00
Chisago Cnty SO Jay Belisle 02/04/06 20:51:0002/04/06 20:52:0002/04/06 20:54:0002/08/06 20:26:0002/08/06 20:31:0002/23/06 23:43:0004/13/06 20:58:00
Cottage Grove PD Valerie Lonetti 11/16/07 19:55:00Dakota Cnty SO John Grant 07/28/08 16:10:00Dept of Corrections John Melvin 05/20/08 15:45:00
05/20/08 15:46:0005/20/08 15:48:0005/20/08 15:49:0005/20/08 15:49:00
Eagan PD Danielle Anselment 08/13/07 7:09:00Sean Sweeney 02/10/06 20:46:00
02/10/06 20:46:0002/10/06 20:47:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 74 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 2
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Eagan PD (cont'd) Sean Sweeney (cont'd) 02/10/06 20:48:0208/24/06 1:43:0008/24/06 1:43:0011/16/06 23:21:0012/26/06 3:39:0007/09/07 8:46:0007/09/07 8:47:0007/09/07 8:52:0007/09/07 14:45:0008/13/07 8:06:0008/13/07 15:15:0010/05/07 9:29:0010/10/07 7:46:0010/19/07 10:41:0011/16/07 14:12:0011/16/07 14:13:0011/19/07 10:55:0002/08/08 10:48:0009/23/08 8:30:0009/23/08 8:30:0009/23/08 8:31:0009/23/08 8:31:0001/22/09 15:14:0001/22/09 15:27:0001/22/09 15:28:0003/13/09 13:56:0012/17/09 10:17:0012/17/09 10:17:0012/17/09 10:19:0011/18/10 8:29:0011/18/10 8:29:00
Unknown 01/04/09 8:43:01Eden Prairie PD Jennifer Bahr 06/01/06 20:44:00
Ann Bogren 07/21/07 1:45:00Kyle Duchschere 07/24/06 10:40:00Robert Haberle 06/06/08 10:27:00Erica Halverson 08/08/07 20:26:00
08/08/07 20:27:00Laurie Henning 02/14/06 11:52:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 75 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 3
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Eden Prairie PD (cont'd) Zachary Hessel 07/31/06 3:34:0007/31/06 3:34:0008/13/11 11:40:00
Tracy Luke 09/26/06 12:25:0009/26/06 12:28:00
Christopher Millard 08/10/06 18:13:0009/09/06 13:17:0007/14/07 9:08:0005/31/11 16:47:0005/31/11 16:48:0005/31/11 16:48:00
Marci Pogatchnik 06/09/07 6:54:00Beth Sams 08/29/06 6:57:00Rachel Selness 12/01/07 10:39:00Carter Staaf 04/09/06 13:25:00
07/24/06 1:06:0001/13/07 1:56:0007/01/07 1:53:0008/08/07 20:27:0001/04/09 23:52:0001/04/09 23:53:0001/04/09 23:53:0003/09/09 10:50:3307/08/09 1:34:0007/08/09 1:34:0011/21/09 4:05:0011/21/09 4:05:0007/17/10 2:26:0007/17/10 2:26:0005/01/11 2:42:00
Steve Velner 07/01/07 0:28:00Kevin White 08/05/07 6:35:00
08/05/07 6:36:00FBI Mpls Millicent Tompa 06/15/06 10:21:00
04/17/07 7:25:00Golden Valley PD Joe Dutton 02/19/06 11:56:00Isanti PD Steve Callahan 01/26/07 17:39:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 76 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 4
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Lakeville PD Todd Williams 08/30/09 8:43:0010/18/09 10:49:4201/14/10 8:42:15
Minneapolis PD Kara Abbas 10/14/06 19:18:0010/27/06 12:14:00
Laura Bartsch 05/14/11 2:42:0005/14/11 2:58:00
John Bennett 04/12/07 18:51:00Calvin Cook 09/08/06 0:53:00Tim Costello 06/04/06 1:11:00
08/12/06 0:17:0009/13/06 1:18:0011/18/06 12:01:0008/09/07 17:06:0008/09/07 17:27:0008/24/07 17:59:0002/12/09 19:01:0002/12/09 19:02:0005/28/09 19:57:0005/28/09 19:57:0005/28/09 19:58:00
Patrick Daly 09/09/06 22:44:00Hien Dinh 10/26/06 1:57:00
10/26/06 1:58:0011/03/06 23:32:0011/03/06 23:33:00
Thomas Fahey 08/18/06 23:07:0008/18/06 23:08:0009/22/06 17:20:00
Chad Fuchs 12/28/05 19:17:00Marc Gingerich 11/28/09 2:24:00Robert Glasrud 03/07/05 21:37:26Tracy Gross (Lemieux) 04/30/08 13:06:00
12/07/09 1:00:0012/07/09 1:00:0002/17/11 23:32:0002/17/11 23:32:0002/17/11 23:33:0002/17/11 23:33:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 77 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 5
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Tracy Gross(Lemieux) (cont'd) 06/27/11 22:40:0006/27/11 22:40:0006/27/11 22:59:0006/27/11 22:59:00
Aaron Hanson 02/03/09 2:02:0002/03/09 2:02:0002/03/09 2:03:00
Kimberly Heyda 01/13/07 13:18:00Lonnie Hoffbeck 08/08/06 15:01:00
09/29/06 2:09:00Jerry Johnson 03/07/05 21:37:43
05/07/07 20:48:0008/31/07 0:19:00
Mark Johnson 03/01/06 15:11:00Chad Joseph 01/02/06 23:57:00
08/14/06 22:12:0008/14/06 22:13:0008/14/06 22:14:0011/11/06 1:25:0002/25/07 1:05:0011/15/08 23:58:0011/15/08 23:59:0011/16/08 0:00:0011/16/08 0:01:0011/16/08 0:02:0011/16/08 0:15:00
Christopher Karakostas 10/08/07 7:24:00Mike Keefe 10/14/06 0:00:00Jason King 08/08/06 14:54:00
08/08/06 14:55:0008/08/06 14:57:0009/02/06 22:26:0010/20/06 19:23:0004/09/07 21:01:0004/09/07 21:01:0006/18/07 14:20:0001/11/08 0:46:0001/16/08 2:00:0001/26/08 4:14:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 78 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 6
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Jason King (cont'd) 03/23/08 0:56:0006/02/08 14:35:0008/22/08 0:28:0008/22/08 0:28:0008/22/08 0:29:0011/22/08 14:57:0011/22/08 17:52:0011/22/08 17:52:0011/22/08 17:53:0011/26/08 2:57:0011/26/08 2:57:0012/08/08 0:29:0012/08/08 0:29:0012/19/08 1:21:0012/19/08 1:22:0012/19/08 1:22:0012/19/08 1:25:0012/20/08 1:59:0012/20/08 2:00:0012/20/08 2:00:0012/27/08 13:46:0012/27/08 13:46:0005/18/09 14:42:0005/18/09 14:42:0005/27/09 23:22:0005/27/09 23:22:0007/17/09 15:52:0007/17/09 15:52:0001/14/10 19:38:0007/30/10 21:37:0012/17/10 16:12:0012/17/10 16:12:00
Richard Lillard 10/28/06 18:41:00Tracy MacDougall 06/21/07 3:12:00
06/21/07 3:13:0006/21/07 3:15:0006/21/07 18:40:0006/21/07 18:41:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 79 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 7
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Darcy Mackenthun 12/18/06 2:42:0001/19/08 0:32:0011/06/08 0:53:0011/06/08 0:53:0011/06/08 0:54:0011/06/08 0:54:00
Sean McGinty 11/24/06 1:26:00Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot 12/16/05 0:33:00
01/24/06 18:53:0009/06/06 22:41:0005/18/07 19:19:0010/05/07 20:11:0010/11/07 19:34:0001/11/08 19:20:0008/05/08 11:53:0001/02/09 20:11:0005/27/09 23:42:0005/27/09 23:43:0005/27/09 23:43:00
David O'Connor 04/29/06 5:03:00Billy Peterson 10/05/06 12:13:00
10/13/06 19:23:00Lucas Peterson 01/26/06 12:11:00
10/05/06 13:08:00Michael Pfaff 03/16/08 13:56:00
04/13/08 14:08:0004/13/08 14:08:00
David Pleoger 06/08/06 20:58:00
04/25/07 21:02:00Luis Porras 03/29/06 19:44:00
03/29/06 19:45:0005/01/08 9:01:0008/19/10 7:53:0008/19/10 7:54:00
Patrick Reuben 09/21/06 17:05:0009/21/06 17:06:00
Michael Rocklin 07/15/06 17:30:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 80 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 8
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) John Staufenberg 11/01/06 7:59:00
11/01/06 8:00:0001/29/08 19:57:00
01/29/08 19:58:00Kristina Stichter 09/21/06 15:07:00
09/21/06 15:08:00Kristin Sturgis 05/02/07 18:10:00
05/02/07 18:10:0005/02/07 18:11:0003/07/08 17:27:00
Chris Thomsen 10/11/06 22:38:00Brian Thureson 01/29/07 21:56:00
07/14/07 3:14:00Geoffrey Toscano 10/15/08 19:51:00
10/15/08 19:51:00Stephanie Weibye 08/24/06 1:19:00
12/11/06 3:08:00Matthew Wente 05/15/07 10:25:00
05/15/07 10:47:0005/15/07 10:56:00
Pam Wheeler 08/26/06 22:15:0002/17/07 0:48:00
09/27/07 19:16:0009/14/08 20:11:00
William Willner 10/21/06 22:01:0010/21/06 22:04:00
07/04/07 14:25:0012/15/07 13:51:00
Jill Wolf 10/06/06 10:29:00
MN State Patrol Dean Grothem 01/03/11 13:56:00
Minnetonka PD Michael Nelson 08/15/07 10:32:00Pine Cnty SO Blake Fjosne 04/11/11 19:27:00
Rebecca Lawrence 07/11/06 14:01:00Dan Vosika 11/16/06 7:37:00
11/16/06 7:38:0011/22/06 9:49:0012/07/06 10:55:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 81 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 9
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Princeton PD Joseph Backlund 06/20/06 1:10:00
Ramsey Cnty SO Ramsey County Doe 03/14/07 16:54:0003/14/07 16:55:0003/14/07 16:55:00
Red Wing Elke Hobus 11/08/06 18:01:0001/10/07 15:23:0011/29/07 22:02:00
So. St. Paul PD Phillip Hartung 03/03/06 13:27:00St. Paul PD Stephanie Bailey 04/01/06 23:25:00
04/17/06 22:54:0005/23/06 22:23:0005/23/06 22:23:0002/22/07 22:49:0007/06/07 17:31:0007/06/07 17:34:00
Ann Baumgart 10/09/07 10:02:00Neil Benner 02/14/07 16:08:00Bruce Bennett 02/23/06 10:42:00Laura Bolduan 01/06/08 6:28:00Amy Boyer 12/15/07 23:15:00Jeffery Boyle 02/14/06 1:05:00
07/10/06 0:56:0001/21/07 20:15:0006/25/07 21:40:00
Jason Brubaker 11/04/09 13:39:0009/10/10 15:09:00
Brian Coyle 05/16/11 9:45:00Patrick Daly 08/29/06 22:55:00Chad Degree 08/03/06 21:25:00Wes Denning 09/22/06 8:27:00Luis Diaz-Calle 07/13/06 22:20:00Edward Dion 11/21/07 8:19:00Michael Dunaski 11/19/06 19:14:00Shawn Filiowich 11/13/06 0:08:00Tim Flynn 11/16/06 10:10:00Matthew Flynn 11/03/07 6:56:00Eric Gorud 05/07/08 2:08:00Nikkole Graupmann 02/21/07 2:49:00Mike Helgoe 03/21/07 1:14:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 82 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 10
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Axel Henry 07/31/06 9:47:0008/01/06 7:32:0008/01/06 16:45:0008/02/06 16:20:0008/05/06 8:36:0008/14/07 4:11:0011/06/07 17:55:00
Andrew Heroux 01/06/08 6:29:00Cortez Hull 01/14/09 14:27:00Jeffery Hutchinson 09/02/06 4:47:00
09/27/06 3:10:0009/27/06 3:14:00
Robert Jerue 08/27/06 10:14:0009/15/06 22:32:0012/08/06 22:03:0006/30/07 7:48:0007/01/07 16:12:0007/08/07 13:57:0007/12/07 22:02:0011/15/07 8:14:0004/22/11 16:10:00
Johnson 04/26/06 17:32:00Johnson 09/26/06 8:30:00Erik Johnson 08/20/06 20:07:00
11/19/06 19:04:00Candice Jones 07/28/06 23:51:00
07/28/06 23:52:0010/21/06 22:01:0012/10/06 0:44:0012/31/06 13:20:0002/21/07 21:40:0003/11/07 22:43:0003/24/07 22:08:0003/28/07 21:26:0003/29/07 21:35:0003/30/07 21:36:0004/01/07 10:09:0004/02/07 22:28:0004/03/07 21:43:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 83 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 11
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Candice Jones (cont'd) 04/05/07 20:33:0004/06/07 20:03:0004/07/07 22:38:0004/08/07 20:02:0004/09/07 21:40:0004/12/07 17:54:0004/14/07 20:57:0005/04/07 20:08:0005/20/07 0:11:0005/30/07 19:52:0006/09/07 18:48:0007/18/07 23:51:0007/20/07 19:55:0008/11/07 16:44:0010/07/07 0:25:0010/26/07 23:23:0002/03/08 0:02:0002/23/08 0:06:0003/14/08 3:10:0005/06/08 21:44:00
Ian Kough 05/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:39:00
Kimberly Kunde 11/13/06 2:43:0011/29/06 3:31:0011/29/06 3:32:00
Cary Lee 09/23/06 14:04:00Stephen Lentsch 10/17/06 20:07:00
01/11/07 6:45:0010/17/07 18:21:0012/21/07 0:34:0003/05/08 11:37:0012/26/08 14:25:0012/26/08 14:26:0012/26/08 14:26:0007/08/09 0:31:0007/08/09 0:31:0007/08/09 0:32:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 84 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 12
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Stephen Lentsch (cont'd) 07/08/09 0:32:00Sean Lohse-Johnson 10/08/07 10:17:00
03/03/08 7:47:0003/03/08 7:48:0003/03/08 7:48:0003/04/08 15:18:0003/05/09 14:00:0003/05/09 14:01:0003/05/09 14:03:0003/05/09 14:04:0003/05/09 14:04:0005/21/09 13:47:0006/16/09 15:06:00
Theodore Mackintosh 08/04/06 18:00:00James McKnight 10/18/09 2:47:00
12/04/10 21:52:0012/04/10 21:52:00
Shelly Mehl 10/11/06 13:33:0011/16/06 10:22:00
Justin Miller 09/24/06 22:50:0009/24/06 22:51:0009/24/06 22:53:0009/24/06 22:53:0009/24/06 22:54:00
Timothy Moore 06/15/09 18:48:00Ryan Murphy 09/24/06 17:35:00
11/19/06 17:38:0011/19/06 19:02:0012/04/08 19:18:00
James Nash 10/04/08 0:22:0010/04/08 0:23:0010/04/08 0:24:0010/04/08 0:25:0010/04/08 0:26:0010/04/08 0:26:0010/04/08 0:28:0010/04/08 0:29:0010/04/08 0:32:0010/04/08 0:33:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 85 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 13
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) James Nash (cont'd) 10/04/08 0:40:0010/04/08 0:40:0010/04/08 1:59:0010/04/08 2:00:0010/04/08 2:36:0011/01/08 22:15:0011/01/08 22:17:0011/01/08 22:18:0011/01/08 22:18:0011/01/08 22:19:0011/01/08 22:21:0011/01/08 22:23:00
Jason Neubrand 10/22/07 6:17:0009/13/08 4:09:0009/13/08 4:09:0009/17/08 23:53:0009/17/08 23:53:0004/30/09 0:49:0004/30/09 0:50:0004/30/09 0:50:00
Evan O'Hara 05/05/08 15:56:0005/05/08 15:57:00
Salim Omari 09/27/08 23:33:0009/27/08 23:34:0009/27/08 23:34:00
Kathy O'Reilly 10/26/07 14:31:00Mark Pierce 08/21/07 0:10:00
08/21/07 2:39:0008/22/07 19:21:00
Chris Rhoades 05/20/09 17:17:0005/20/09 17:18:0005/20/09 19:33:0005/20/09 19:33:00
Craig Rhode 12/27/05 3:14:00Jeff Rothecker 01/14/09 20:37:00David Rud 03/21/07 1:21:00Jon Sherwood 10/02/08 8:59:00Adam Siegfried 08/13/06 23:10:00
08/14/06 0:11:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 86 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 14
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Charles Sims 09/26/06 7:58:0009/26/06 8:02:0010/16/06 13:06:00
Alan Singleton 01/13/09 11:22:0001/13/09 11:28:0001/13/09 11:28:0001/13/09 11:29:0001/13/09 11:30:0001/13/09 11:35:0001/13/09 11:35:00
Jamie Sipes 01/18/08 2:13:00Eric Stevens 06/25/07 22:04:00Jeffery Stiff 11/13/06 0:07:00
03/30/07 2:35:0003/30/07 2:36:0005/19/09 2:50:0005/19/09 2:50:0005/19/09 2:51:0005/19/09 2:51:00
Tony Tallarico 03/31/08 10:09:00Todd Tessmer 12/15/07 20:41:00Threasa Timp 01/10/08 7:46:00
04/17/09 11:13:0004/17/09 11:13:0008/11/09 13:10:0008/11/09 13:10:0010/28/09 14:09:0010/28/09 14:09:00
Matt Toupal 02/14/07 15:59:00Scott Wendell 12/29/05 12:23:00
04/25/07 9:25:0004/27/07 13:58:0004/27/07 13:59:0005/18/07 14:26:0006/11/07 12:49:00
St. Paul PD Comm Cntr Unknown 06/11/07 12:56:19Unknown 08/17/08 22:21:22Unknown 09/27/08 23:37:23
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 87 of 88
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 15
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD Comm Cntr (cont'd)
Unknown 05/20/09 17:18:34
Unknown 02/07/10 21:17:55Unknown 04/22/11 16:11:21
UMD PD Sean Huls 09/22/06 0:55:0009/22/06 1:04:0009/22/06 1:04:0009/22/06 1:05:0009/22/06 2:39:0009/22/06 2:39:0009/27/06 17:56:0012/18/06 21:53:0001/03/07 7:51:00
Woodbury PD Tony Ofstead 12/12/06 15:20:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 88 of 88
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v. City of Bloomington; City of Burnsville; City of Cottage Grove; City of Eagan; City of Eden Prairie; City of Golden Valley; City of Isanti; City of Lakeville; City of Minneapolis; City of Minnetonka; City of St. Paul; City of Woodbury; Chisago County; Dakota County; Pine County; Ramsey County; University of Minnesota; Tim Anderson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police Department; Charles Gollop, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police Department; Casey Buck, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police Department; Valerie Lonetti, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police Department; Danielle Anselment, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department; Sean Sweeney, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Eagan Police Department; Jennifer Bahr, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Ann Bogren, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kyle Duchschere, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Robert Haberle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Erica Halverson, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Laurie Henning, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Zachary Hessel, acting in his individual capacity as an
Case Civil File No. ____________12-CV-632 (SRN/JSM)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNDER FRCP
38(b)
EXHIBIT 2
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 91
2
Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Tracy Luke, acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Christopher Millard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Marci Pogatchnik, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Beth Sams, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Rachel Selness, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Carter Staaf, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Steve Velner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kevin White, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Joe Dutton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police Department; Steve Callahan, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Isanti Police Department; Todd Williams, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department; Kara Abbas, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Laura Bartsch, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Calvin Cook, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tim Costello, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Department; Hien Dinh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Thomas Fahey, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Fuchs, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 91
3
of the Minneapolis Police Department; Marc Gingerich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Robert Glasrud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy Gross, in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Aaron Hanson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kimberly Heyda, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lonnie Hoffbeck, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jerry Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mark Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Joseph, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Christopher Karakostas, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mike Keefe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jason King, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Richard Lillard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy MacDougall, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Minneapolis Police Department; Darcy Mackenthun, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Sean McGinty, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David O’Connor, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Billy Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lucas Peterson, acting in his individual
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 91
4
capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Pfaff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David Pleoger, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Luis Porras, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Reuben, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Rocklin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Staufenberg, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristina Stichter, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristin Sturgis, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chris Thomsen, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Brian Thureson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Geoffry Toscano, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Stephanie Weibye, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Matthew Wente, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Pam Wheeler, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; William Willner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Wolf, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Nelson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police Department; Chris Erickson, acting in his individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Minnesota State Patrol; Dean Grothem, acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol; Michael
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 4 of 91
5
Campion, acting in his individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety;Stephanie Bailey, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ann Baumgart, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Neil Benner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Bruce Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Laura Bolduan, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Amy Boyer, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Boyle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Brubaker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Brian Coyle, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Chad Degree, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Wes Denning, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Luis Diaz-Calle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Edward Dion, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Michael Dunaski, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shawn Filiowich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matthew Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tim Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Gorud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Nikkole Graupmann, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mike Helgoe, acting in his
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 5 of 91
6
individual capacity as an Officer for the St. Paul Police Department; Axel Henry, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Andrew Heroux, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cortez Hull, acting in his individual capacity as an officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Hutchinson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Robert Jerue, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Erik Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Candice Jones, acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Ian Kough, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kimberly Kunde, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cary Lee, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Stephen Lentsch, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Sean Lohse-Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Theodore Mackintosh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James McKnight, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shelly Mehl, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Justin Miller, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Timothy Moore, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ryan Murphy, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James Nash, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Neubrand, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Evan O’Hara, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 6 of 91
7
St. Paul Police Department; Salim Omari, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kathy O’Reilly, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mark Pierce, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Chris Rhoades, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Craig Rhode, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeff Rothecker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; David Rud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jon Sherwood, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Adam Siegfried, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Charles Sims, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Alan Singleton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jamie Sipes, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Stevens, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Stiff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Tallarico, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Todd Tessmer, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Threasa Timp, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matt Toupal, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Scott Wendell, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Ofstead, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police Department; Jay Belisle, acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 7 of 91
8
Department; John Grant, acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department; Blake Fjosne, acting in his individual capacity as an Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Rebecca Lawrence, acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Dan Vosika, acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; John Melvin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of Corrections; Millicent Tompa, acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Sean Huls, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-Duluth Police Department; Dean Grothem, acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol; Michael Campion, acting in his individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Mona Dohman, acting in her individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Elke Hobus; John and Jane Does (1 - 12050) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other named law-enforcement agencies; Ramsey County Doe, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department; Department of Public Safety Does (1-30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1-2010) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota and federal departments and agencies,
Defendants. For her First Amended Complaint, for which she demands trial by jury on all claims so
triable, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson (“Rasmusson”) hereby states and alleges as follows:
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 8 of 91
9
INTRODUCTION
The United States Supreme Court long has recognized privacy as a fundamental
constitutional right protected by the U.S. Constitution and entitled to protection from
encroachment by the States, both under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and under
various protections extended to the people of the United States by the Bill of Rights. To enforce
those rights, the legislative branch of our federal government has adopted a strict approach to the
protection of privacy interests, particularly in the past twenty years. Recognizing that law-
enforcement personnel, among others, have the ability to access any person’s private
information, especially that information retained by the State in connection with a driver’s
license, Congress passed legislation commonly known as the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of
1994 (“DPPA”) to safeguard this information. In a separate but related vein, in 1997 the
Minnesota Supreme Court first recognized the tort of invasion of privacy. This case involves the
invasion of privacy and illegal searches of Plaintiff Anne Rasmusson by approximately 14400
Minnesota law-enforcement officers, who accessed, used or disclosed her private information
approximately 554400 times in the time period 200507 to fall of 20112012, and probably more
times before and after that time period, without any legitimate business reason to do so, and who
not only violated the DPPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, but have damaged Plaintiff
Rasmusson’s life by these violations. Plaintiff is entitled to a determination that her rights have
been violated, to an order enjoining further violations, and to monetary damages for these
invasions of her privacy.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 9 of 91
10
General Background of Law and Facts
1. This is an action for injunctive relief and money damages for injuries sustained
when approximately 14700 law-enforcement personnel in Minnesota—and perhaps more—
illegally viewed Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson’s private, personal, and confidential driver’s
license information without a legitimate purpose. These law-enforcement personnel viewed her
private information in excess of 550400 times from the 2005 period 2007 to the fall of
20112012.; presumably more had viewed it prior to 2007 and more after the fall of 2011.
Further, several of these individuals used or disclosed Rasmusson’s private information. Each
unauthorized use of her private information, made while acting under color of state law, violated
Rasmusson’s federal civil rights and constituted behavior prohibited by federal statute,
Minnesota statute, common law, and agency and departmental regulations prohibiting some or
all of the conduct engaged in by Defendants in this case.
2. Rasmusson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343(a)(3), the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., and
Minnesota common law invasion of privacy. The aforementioned statutory and constitutional
provisions confer original jurisdiction of this Court over this matter. This Court has jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
3. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interests and costs.
The Parties
4. Rasmusson is, and was at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the State of Minnesota.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 10 of 91
11
5. Defendant City of Bloomington is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which
can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
6. Defendant City of Burnsville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
7. Defendant City of Cottage Grove is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be
sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
7.
8. Defendant City of Eagan is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
9. Defendant City of Eden Prairie is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
10. Defendant City of Golden Valley is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be
sued under § 466.01 et. seq.
9.11. Defendant City of Isanti is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
10.12. Defendant City of Lakeville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
11.13. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which
can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
14. Defendant City of Minnetonka is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which
can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
12.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 11 of 91
12
15. Defendant City of St. Paul is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which can be
sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
16. Defendant City of Woodbury is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued
under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
17. Defendant Chisago County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
18. Defendant Dakota County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
13.19. Defendant Pine County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn.
Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
14.20. Defendant Ramsey County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under
Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.
15. University of Minnesota was established by Article XIII of the Minnesota
Constitution and can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 3.736 et. seq.
16.21. Defendants Entity Does (1-120) are various cities, counties, municipalities and
other entities sited in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. or other
statutes, and federal departments and agencies, which can be sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 or
other statutes.
22. Plaintiff will refer to the entities named in paragraphs 5-16 above collectively as
the “Defendant Entities” or “Entity Defendants.”
17.23. Defendant Tim Anderson (“Anderson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 12 of 91
13
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police
Department.
18. Defendant Charles Gollop (“Gollop”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police
Department.
24.
25. Defendant Casey Buck (“Buck”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police
Department.
26. Defendant Valerie Lonetti (“Lonetti”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police
Department.
27. Defendant Danielle Anselment (“Anselment”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police
Department.
28. Defendant Sean Sweeney (“Sweeney”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 13 of 91
14
29. Defendant Jennifer Bahr (“Bahr”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
30. Defendant Ann Bogren (“Bogren”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
31. Defendant Kyle Duchschere (“Duchschere”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
32. Defendant Robert Haberle (“Haberle”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
33. Defendant Erica Halverson (“Halverson”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
19.34. Defendant Laurie Henning (“Henning”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 14 of 91
15
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
35. Defendant Zachary Hessel (“Hessel”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
20.36. Defendant Tracy Luke (“Luke”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police
Department
37. Defendant Christopher Millard (“Millard”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
38. Defendant Marci Pogatchnik (“Pogatchnik”), upon information and belief, was at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
39. Defendant Beth Sams (“Sams”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 15 of 91
16
21.40. Defendant Rachel Selness (“Selness”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
41. Defendant Carter Staaf (“Staaf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
42. Defendant Steve Velner (“Velner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
43. Defendant Kevin White (“White”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police
Department.
44. Defendant Joe Dutton (“Dutton”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police
Department.
45. Defendant Steve Callahan (“Callahan”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Isanti Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 16 of 91
17
46. Defendant Todd Williams (“Williams”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department.
47. Defendant Kara Abbas (“Abbas”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
48. Defendant Laura Bartsch (“Bartsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
49. Defendant John Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
50. Defendant Calvin Cook (“Cook”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
51. Defendant Tim Costello (“Costello”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 17 of 91
18
52. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of Minneapolis”), upon information and
belief, was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State
of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
53. Defendant Hien Dinh (“Dinh”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
54. Defendant Thomas Fahey (“Fahey”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department
55. Defendant Chad Fuchs (“Fuchs”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
56. Defendant Marc Gingerich (“Gingerich”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
57. Defendant Robert Glasrud (“Glasrud”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 18 of 91
19
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
58. Defendant Tracy Gross (“Gross”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
59. Defendant Aaron Hanson (“Hanson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
60. Defendant Kimberly Heyda (“Heyda”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
61. Defendant Lonnie Hoffbeck (“Hoffbeck”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
62. Defendant Jerry Johnson, upon information and belief, was at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 19 of 91
20
63. Defendant Mark Johnson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
64. Defendant Chad Joseph (“Joseph”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
65. Defendant Christopher Karakostas (“Karakostas”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
66. Defendant Mike Keefe (“Keefe”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
67. Defendant Jason King (“King”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
68. Defendant Richard Lillard (“Lillard”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 20 of 91
21
69. Defendant Jill Mrolsa Loonsfoot (“Loonsfoot”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
70. Defendant Tracy MacDougall (“MacDougall”), upon information and belief, was
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the
Minneapolis Police Department.
71. Defendant Darcy Mackenthun (“Mackenthun”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
72. Defendant Sean McGinty (“McGinty”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
73. Defendant David O’Connor (“O’Connor”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
74. Defendant Billy Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 21 of 91
22
75. Defendant Lucas Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.
76. Defendant Michael Pfaff (“Pfaff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
77. Defendant David Pleoger (“Pleoger”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
78. Defendant Luis Porras (“Porras”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
79. Defendant Patrick Reuben (“Reuben”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department
80. Defendant Michael Rocklin (“Rocklin”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 22 of 91
23
81. Defendant John Staufenberg (“Staufendberg”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis
Police Department.
82. Defendant Kristina Stichter (“Stichter”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
83. Defendant Kristin Sturgis (“Sturgis”), upon information and belief, was at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
84. Defendant Chris Thomsen (“Thomsen”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
85. Defendant Brian Thureson (“Thureson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
86. Defendant Geoffrey Toscano (“Toscano”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 23 of 91
24
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
87. Defendant Stephanie Weibye (“Weibye”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
88. Defendant Matthew Wente (“Wente”), upon information and belief, was at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
89. Defendant Pam Wheeler (“Wheeler”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
90. Defendant William Willner (“Willner”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
91. Defendant Jill Wolf (“Wolf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 24 of 91
25
22. Defendant Michael Nelson (“Nelson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police
Department.
23. Defendant Chris Erickson (“Erickson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Minnesota State Patrol.
92. Defendant Dean Grothem (“Grothem”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol.
93. Defendant Stephanie Bailey (“Bailey”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
94. Defendant Ann Baumgart (“Baumgart”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
95. Defendant Neil Benner (“Benner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
96. Defendant Bruce Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 25 of 91
26
97. Defendant Laura Bolduan (“Bolduan”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department
98. Defendant Amy Boyer (“Boyer”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
99. Defendant Jeffrey Boyle (“Boyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
100. Defendant Jason Brubaker (“Brubaker”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
101. Defendant Brian Coyle (“Coyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police
Department.
102. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of St. Paul”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
103. Defendant Chad Degree (“Degree”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 26 of 91
27
104. Defendant Wes Denning (“Denning”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
105. Defendant Luis Diaz-Calle (“Diaz-Calle”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police
Department.
106. Defendant Edward Dion (“Dion”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
107. Defendant Michael Dunaski (“Dunaski”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
108. Defendant Shawn Filiowich (“Filiowich”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police
Department.
109. Defendant Matthew Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
110. Defendant Tim Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material
herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and
acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 27 of 91
28
111. Defendant Eric Gorud (“Gorud”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
112. Defendant Nikkole Graupmann (“Graupmann”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
113. Defendant Mike Helgoe (“Helgoe”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
114. Defendant Axel Henry (“Henry”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
115. Defendant Andrew Heroux (“Heroux”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
116. Defendant Cortez Hull (“Hull”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
117. Defendant Jeffrey Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 28 of 91
29
118. Defendant Robert Jerue (“Jerue”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
119. Defendant Erik Johnson (“Erik Johnson”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
120. Defendant Candice Jones (“Jones”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
121. Defendant Ian Kough (“Kough”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
122. Defendant Kimberly Kunde (“Kunde”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
123. Defendant Cary Lee (“Lee”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
124. Defendant Stephen Lentsch (“Lentsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
125. Defendant Sean Lohse-Johnson (“Lohse-Johnson”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 29 of 91
30
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
126. Defendant Theodore Mackintosh (“Mackintosh”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul
Police Department.
127. Defendant James McKnight (“McKnight”), upon information and belief, was, at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police
Department.
128. Defendant Shelly Mehl, (“Mehl”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
129. Defendant Justin Miller (“Miller”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
130. Defendant Timothy Moore (“Moore”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
131. Defendant Ryan Murphy (“Murphy”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 30 of 91
31
132. Defendant James Nash (“Nash”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department
133. Defendant Jason Neubrand (“Neubrand”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
134. Defendant Evan O’Hara (“O’Hara”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
135. Defendant Salim Omari (“Omari”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department
136. Defendant Kathy O’Reilly (“O’Reilly”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
137. Defendant Mark Pierce (“Pierce”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
138. Defendant Chris Rhoades (“Rhoades”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 31 of 91
32
139. Defendant Craig Rhode (“Rhode”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
140. Defendant Jeff Rothecker (“Rothecker”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
141. Defendant David Rud (“Rud”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
142. Defendant Jon Sherwood (“Sherwood”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
143. Defendant Adam Siegfried (“Siegfried”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
144. Defendant Charles Sims (“Sims”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
145. Defendant Alan Singleton (“Singleton”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 32 of 91
33
146. Defendant Jamie Sipes (“Sipes”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
147. Defendant Eric Stevens (“Stevens”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
148. Defendant Jeffrey Stiff (“Stiff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
149. Defendant Tony Tallarico (“Tallarico”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
150. Defendant Todd Tessmer (“Tessmer”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
151. Defendant Threasa Timp (“Timp”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
152. Defendant Matt Toupal (“Toupal”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 33 of 91
34
153. Defendant Scott Wendell (“Wendell”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.
154. Defendant Tony Ofstead (“Ofstead”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police
Department.
155. Defendant Jay Belisle (“Belisle”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s
Department.
156. Defendant John Grant (“Grant”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s
Department.
157. Defendant Blake Fjosne (“Fjosne”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s
Department.
158. Defendant Rebecca Lawrence (“Lawrence”), upon information and belief, was at
all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,
duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s
Department.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 34 of 91
35
159. Defendant Dan Vosika (“Vosika”), upon information and belief, was at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s
Department.
160. Defendant John Melvin (“Melvin”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of
Corrections.
161. Defendant Millicent Tompa (“Tompa”), upon information and belief, was at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
162. Defendant Sean Huls (“Huls”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-
Duluth Police Department.
163. Defendant Dean Grothem (“Grothem”), upon information and belief, was, at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol.
164. Defendant Elke Hobus (“Hobus”), upon information and belief, was, at all times
material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota.
24.165. Defendant, Ramsey County Doe, upon information and belief, was at all
times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 35 of 91
36
appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s
Department.
25.166. Defendants John and Jane Does (1-5120), upon information and belief,
were, at all times material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in their individual capacities as law-enforcement
supervisors, officers or employees of the Defendant Entities or other federal, state, county or
municipal entities in Minnesota.
26.167. Plaintiff will refer to the individual Defendants (with the exception of the
“Commissioner Defendants,” “Department of Public Safety Defendants” and “Supervisor
Defendants” defined below), including John, and Jane and Ramsey County Does, collectively as
the “Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel,” “Individual Defendants,” or “Defendant
Individuals.”
27.168. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants with supervisory authority over the
Individual Defendants, including any John and Jane Does with such supervisory authority,
collectively as the “Defendant Supervisors” or “Supervisor Defendants.”
28.169. Defendant Michael Campion (“Campion”), upon information and belief,
was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
29.170. Defendant Mona Dohman (“Dohman”), upon information and belief, was,
at all times material herein, a citizen, of the United States and a resident of the State of
Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 36 of 91
37
171. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants Campion and Dohman collectively, as the
“Commissioner Defendants” or “Defendant Commissioners.”
172. Defendants DPS Does (1-30), upon information and belief, were, at all times
material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly
appointed and acting their individual capacities as officers, supervisors, employees, staff,
employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
30.173. Plaintiff will refer to officers, supervisors, employees, staff, employees,
independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety who created,
installed, monitored, regulated, coded, enforced, supervised, maintained, oversaw, updated, or
otherwise worked on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database or Bureau of
Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database, each of which contained Rasmusson’s private
driver’s license information (collectively or individually, “DPS Databases”) as “Department of
Public Safety Does” or “DPS Does.”)
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Rasmusson Served Honorably as a Law-Enforcement Officer
31.174. In 1996, Rasmusson graduated from the police academy at Range
Technology College in Hibbing, Minnesota. Her fellow classmates She was elected her as a
Community Service Sergeant for their class.as a Sergeant of her class.
32.175. Immediately after graduation, in May 1996, she became a park ranger for
the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
33.176. In December 1996, Rasmusson became a police officer for the Eden
Prairie Police Department. She worked as a patrol officer.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 37 of 91
38
34.177. Rasmusson was injured in the line of duty on June 6, 1999, while on a
medical emergency call. During that call, she needed to move some furniture, and, while doing
so, snapped her coccyx (tail bone).
35.178. In March 2000, Rasmusson underwent surgery related to that injury where
her coccyx and partial sacrum were removed.
36.179. Despite the injury and surgery, Rasmusson returned to duty.
37.180. In 2001, Rasmusson became a police officer for the City of St. Paul,
Minnesota. St. Paul requires lateral hires such as Rasmusson to attend their police academy.
While there, Rasmusson became the first female academy president in the department’s history.
She gave her St. Paul Police Academy class commencement speech.
38.181. In St. Paul, Rasmusson worked as a patrol officer in the West District,
commonly known as the “Frogtown” neighborhood.
39.182. In 2003, Rasmusson began to experience numbness in her leg and had
difficulty sitting. She was diagnosed with nerve damage and an unstable pelvis. Based on this
diagnosis, she was granted a full-medical retirement on December 17, 2003.
40.183. Rasmusson was deeply disappointed that she had to retire. Until the
revelation of the massive invasion of privacy in this case, retirement was one of the worst things
to happen in her life.
41.184. In 2004, Rasmusson moved to her rural home in northern Minnesota.
185. Rasmusson was never disciplined while on the force.
42.186. Rasmusson was highly regarded police officer and served with honor.
43.187. Rasmusson was proud to serve as a police officer.
II. Over 14000 Minnesota Law Enforcement Officers Viewed Rasmusson’s Private Information Outside the Scope of Any Investigation or Official Police Business
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 38 of 91
39
44.188. As early as July 2006, law enforcement officers began looking up
Rasmusson’s private information on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database.
45.189. The officers viewed Rasmusson’s private personal and highly-restricted
personal information from her State-issued driver’s license including her home address, color
photograph or image, and driver identification number.
46.190. Under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) and DPS Does, knowingly created the DVS DPS
dDatabases that includes Rasmusson’s driver’s license information and the system for law-
enforcement personnel to access to that information.
47.191. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,
knowingly maintained and updated the database that includesdatabases that include Plaintiff’s
driver’s license information.
48.192. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,
knowingly provided access to the databases that included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
49.193. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,
had the ability to determine that drivers’ license information, including Plaintiff’s, was being
accessed on multiple occasions, by multiple law-enforcement personnel from multiple law-
enforcement agencies.
50.194. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,
had the ability to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including unauthorized access to
Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 39 of 91
40
195. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, failed
to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including access to Plaintiff’s driver’s license
information.
196. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does knowingly authorized, directed,
ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in the disclosure of Plaintiff’s
driver’s license information.
197. The policy of the State of Minnesota is to uphold the provisions of the law, both
state and federal, and to protect and safeguard the privacy rights of the State’s citizens and
inhabitants, including its drivers’ privacy rights, and including those rights as are required to be
protected by federal law, and in particular, it is the policy of the State of Minnesota to comply
with the provisions and requirements of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2721, et seq. This policy is even set forth in the driver’s license application and set forth
in statutory language with proper citation to that federal statute.
198. Defendant Commissioners,Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly disclosed
Plaintiff’s and others’ driver’s license information and disclosed Plaintiff’s and others’ driver’s
license information and violated state policy by devising and implementing a database that
failed abysmally to uphold the privacy rights of Rasmusson and others similarly situated as
protected by the DPPA, exposing her information and others’ to impermissible and knowing
accesses by various persons, including the Defendants in this lawsuit, constituting a knowing
disclosure of her information within the meaning of the DPPA, exposing her information and
others’ to impermissible and knowing accesses by various persons, including the Defendants in
this lawsuit, constituting a knowing disclosure of her information within the meaning of the
DPPA.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 40 of 91
41
199. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly devised and implemented a
database, and a method for using and misusing that database, that both permitted and
encouraged, through the nature and monitoring of the system, accesses by police officers, state
employees, and others that failed to comply with state policy of protecting privacy rights and
complying with the DPPA.
200. The system knowingly devised and implemented by Commissioner Defendants
and DPS Does failed to set rules for protecting the privacy rights, and permitted and on
information and belief still permits, and in some instances promotes, the accessing of the
database from personal computers, the giving out of passwords to others, including persons not
authorized to have them, and the accessing of the system by persons without any accountability
or even in some instances without the ability to trace the person who made the access; so that
effective monitoring of the system is difficult if not impossible under the system as devised and
implemented by the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, who deliberately emphasized and
favored the convenience of the system by users at the expense of protecting the privacy rights of
the persons in the database.
201. This deliberate emphasis and preference of the convenience of the system users
over the privacy rights of the drivers was known to the Commissioner Defendants and the DPS
Does, and was purposeful.
202. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does actually knew
that law-enforcement officers were accessing the databases for impermissible purposes,
including viewing Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and acquiesced, facilitated, approved
or simply ignored the conduct.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 41 of 91
42
203. Even if the Commissioners and DPS Does had no actual knowledge of the
impermissible uses of the databases they oversaw, upon information and belief, they were
reckless in their supervision of their subordinates who did operate the database.
204. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does were grossly
negligent in supervising their subordinates who operated the databases.
51.
52.205. Rasmusson began having suspicions that law enforcement officers were
taking an uncomfortable interest in her starting approximately in 2007. She had recently
divorced, and numerous officers who asked her for dates knew where she lived or what kind of
car she drove.
53.206. In mid-2009, Rasmusson began to distance herself from law-enforcement
get-togethers and from police officers, even those who were her former colleagues and those
whom she considered her friends. More and more she began to live a secluded, even hermit-like,
reclusive existence.
54.207. On May 5, 2010, Rasmusson was pulled over for a potential speeding
violation by a Minneapolis police officer. Although the officer did not issue a citation against
her, three other squad cars arrived on the scene and then left without performing any known law
enforcement duties.
55.208. In early July 2010, Rasmusson changed her cell phone number and
personal email address, and moved from Lakeville back to northern Minnesota. She told few
people of her move and ceased contact with the majority of police acquaintances from then on.
56.209. Based in part on these foregoing incidents, Rasmusson contacted DPS to
inquire whether law enforcement officers had been viewing her private information. She asked
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 42 of 91
43
that only those officers who had run her name—as opposed to her license plates—on the DVS
computer database be identified.
57.210. On August 30, 2011, she was unpleasantly surprised, even horrified to
learn from DPS that it had determined that law-enforcement officers from 18 different
departments and agencies had reviewed her private driver’s license information since 2007. She
became physically ill upon learning that fact; she pulled over, opened her car door, and vomited.
58.211. In October 2011, she learned through the press that approximately 100
law-enforcement officers had accessed her private driver’s license information approximately
400 times in the last four years, from 2007 through the fall of 2011.
59.212. Upon learning of the sheer volume of intrusions, Rasmusson again became
physically sick.
60.213. On information and belief, Rasmusson believes that this number is only a
partial list of the illegal accesses of her information, and that more illegal accesses likely
occurred prior to 2007 and after summer of 2011During Phase One discovery, Rasmusson was
able to determine that, since 2005, approximately 144 law-enforcement personnel from 23
entities in Minnesota accessed her private personal driver’s license information on approximately
554 occasions without a permissible purpose..
61.214. Rasmusson believes that even more unauthorized accesses and viewings
will occur in the future if the policies of the Entity Defendants and other police departments and
law enforcement agencies similarly situated are not changed to bring the actual custom and
practice of these Entity Defendants and others similarly situated into compliance with their own
written rules, with the rules of the Department of Public Safety, and with federal law, including
the DPPA.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 43 of 91
44
62.215. In November 2011, DPS informed Rasmusson’s counsel that it was, in
fact, investigating 26 entities and their employees regarding this illegal conduct.
216. At the request of Rasmusson’s counsel, DPS provided a list of the entities whose
personnel had viewed her private information.
217. As part of Phase One Discovery, for each access of Rasmusson’s private, personal
information, DPS has provided DVS audits identifying the date, time, name of the law-
enforcement personnel and entity where the personnel were employed. The BCA audits do not
contain the names of the law-enforcement personnel.
63.218. As part of Phase One Discovery, many entities have indicated whether
they believe their law-enforcement personnel had a permissible or law-enforcement related
purpose for obtaining, using or disclosing Rasmusson’s private information.
64.219. Included in the list audits provided by DPS to Rasmusson’s counsel were
personnel from law-enforcement departments from associated with the following Defendant
Entities:
• City of Anoka • City of Bloomington • City of Burnsville • City of Coon Rapids • City of Cottage Grove • e • City of Eagan • City of Eden Prairie • City of Fridley • City of Golden Valley • City of Hopkins • City of Inver Grove Heights • City of Isanti • City of Lakeville • City of Mendota Heights • City of Minneapolis • City of Minnetonka
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 44 of 91
45
• City of Princeton • City of Red Wing • City of Rosemount • City of St. Paul • City of St. Peter • City of South St. Paul • City of Woodbury • Chisago County • Dakota County • Dakota County Comm Center • Faribault County • Pine County • Ramsey County • Washington County • Metro Transit • University of Minnesota (Duluth Campus) • Federal Bureau of Investigation
65. Either on their own initiative or upon the request of her counsel, some of the
Defendant entities have identified the names of their law enforcement personnel who viewed
Rasmusson’s private, personal information.
220. The chart attached to this First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A summarizes the
number of times law-enforcement personnel accessed Rasmusson’s without a permissible, law-
enforcement related reason, as indicated in the DPS audits, Phase One Discovery responses and
subpoena responses.
221. Plaintiff incorporates Exhibit A into his First Amended Complaint as though fully
set forth in this paragraph.
222. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants primarily used Rasmusson’s
name, not her license plate number, to look up her private, personal information.
223. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants used Rasmusson’s name,
not her license plate number, to look up her private, personal information.During Phase One
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 45 of 91
46
Discovery, Bloomington did not provide a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each
access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Anderson or Gollop.
224. During Phase One Discovery, Burnsville did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Buck.
66.225. During Phase One Discovery, Cottage Grove did not provide a
permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s
license information by Lonetti.
226. The Eagan Police Department issued Eagan Police Officer Sean Sweeney an oral
reprimand for accessing Rasmusson’s private data from the DPS database for personal reasons.
67.227. During Phase One Discovery, Eagan did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Anselment or Sweeney.
68.228. The City of Eden Prairie (“Eden Prairie”) disciplined three officers for
viewing Rasmusson’s private, personal information: Officer Zachary Hessel, Officer
Christopher Millard and Sergeant Carter Staaf. In addition, at least eight other Eden Prairie
officers or employees viewed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.
69.229. Hessel viewed Rasmusson’s private information on August 13, 2011, on a
computer in the patrol squad room. There were no incidents related to Rasmusson that day (or
any other day).
70.230. Hessel was on duty on August 13, 2011, made no traffic stops and had no
reason to look up Rasmusson.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 46 of 91
47
71.231. Hessel had been trained to use the database on March 11, 2008 and on
March 8, 2010.
72.232. Hessel admitted to Eden Prairie that he looked up Rasmusson after hearing
other Eden Prairie personnel discussing her. He had met her the day before at a police softball
tournament in 2006. He did not have a permissible reason to access her personal information
several years later.
73.233. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to
obtain Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.
74.234. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Hessel and required him to
undergo coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.
75.235. Millard viewed Rasmusson’s private personal information on three
separate occasions in 2007 and 2011. He was on an alarm call and arrest the first time he looked
her up. He was also on duty when he did so again in 2011.
76.236. Millard had been trained to use the database on March 18, 2008 and
October 15, 2010.
77.237. Millard looked up Rasmusson’s information so that he could obtain her
address.
78.238. Eden Prairie determined that Millard did not have an official purpose to
obtain Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.
79.239. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Millard and required him to
undergo coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.
80.240. Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s private information at least 13 times from
January 2007 until May 2011.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 47 of 91
48
81.241. Staaf had been trained twice on the proper use of the database.
82.242. Despite that training, Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s information while on
duty and on both his mobile computer and at his Sergeant’s desk.
83.243. Staaf looked up Rasmusson’s present driver’s license, as well as her old
driver’s licenses to compare her photographs.
84.244. Staaf encouraged his subordinates to conduct their own DVS queries of
Rasmusson’s information because she was very attractive and so they could see that “she’s
changed and she’s got a new look.”
85.245. Eden Prairie’s records also indicate that one “John or Jane Doe” who
looked up Rasmusson’s personal information at Staaf’s suggestion did so “in the middle of a
money transport for the Community Center.”
86.246. Staaf has conceded that he did not run Rasmusson’s information for a
legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
87.247. Eden Prairie investigative records do not indicate an official, law-
enforcement purpose for Staaf to have obtained Rasmusson’s private, personal information.
88.248. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to
obtain Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.
249. As discipline for his conduct related to Rasmusson, Eden Prairie demoted Staaf.
250. During Phase One Discovery, Eden Prairie did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Bahr, Bogren, Duchschere, Haberle, Halverson, Henning, Hessel, Luke, Millard, Pogatchnik,
Sams, Selness, Staaf, Velner, and White.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 48 of 91
49
251. During Phase One Discovery, Golden Valley did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Dutton.
252. During Phase One Discovery, Isanti did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Callahan.
89.253. During Phase One Discovery, Lakeville did not provide a permissible,
law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license
information by Williams.
90.254. On September 21, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the
Minneapolis Police Department (“Minneapolis Police”). While there, Minneapolis Police
informed Rasmusson that at least 20 Minneapolis Police officers had viewed her private,
personal information. According to the Minneapolis Police, police officers had made inquiries
about her as late as June 2011.
91.255. On information and belief, DPS has disciplined a few of these
Minneapolis police officers to a limited extent.
92.256. On information and belief, the Minneapolis Police Department has not
disciplined any of its officers for their unauthorized access of Rasmusson’s information.
257. On information and belief, 24 46 Minneapolis Police officers accessed
Rasmusson’s record 17933 times from 20057 through summer of 20112 without a permissible
purpose.
258. During Phase One Discovery, Minneapolis did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 49 of 91
50
by Abbas, Bartsch, John Bennett, Cook, Costello, Patrick Daly of Minneapolis, Dinh, Fahey,
Fuchs, Glasrud, Gross, Hanson, Heyda, Hoffbeck, Jerry Johnson, Mark Johnson, Joseph,
Karakostas, Keefe, King, Lillard, Loonsfoot, MacDougall, Mackenthun, McGinty, O’Connor,
Billy Peterson, Lucas Peterson, Pfaff, Pleoger, Porras, Reuben, Rocklin, Staufenberg, Stichter,
Sturgis, Thomsen, Thureson, Toscano, Weibye, Wente, Wheeler, Willner, Wolf,
259. Minneapolis claims that Gingerich accessed Plaintiff’s driver’s license
information as part of a traffic stop.
260. At one point, Plaintiff had thought that Gingerich had been the Minneapolis
officer who had stopped her for a speeding violation.
93. Plaintiff now believes that Gingerich did not stop her for speeding, and that
Gingerich did not have a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for his access of her
private, driver’s license information.
94.261. On information and belief, more than those 24 officers in the Minneapolis
Police have viewed Rasmusson’s record prior to 2007 and more since summer of 2011, along
with law enforcement personnel from other departments.
95.262. By letter dated January 26, 2012, the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety admits that Minnesota State Patrol Trooper Chris Erickson received an oral reprimand and
Trooper Dean Grothem received a written reprimand for unauthorized use of the database related
to Rasmusson.
263. Grothem’s written reprimand specifically states that he was being disciplined “for
accessing private information in the DVS database without a legitimate law enforcement need.”
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 50 of 91
51
264. During Phase One Discovery, Minnetonka did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Nelson.
265. The DVS audit indicates that Dean Backlund, identified as a City of Princeton
employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on June 20, 2006.
266. The City of Princeton maintains that Backlund was not employed by it on June
26, 2006, and that the IP address does not match any devices at the Princeton Police Department.
The City of Princeton was not able to identify why Backlund appeared on the DVS audit.
267. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of Princeton is
incorrect or that DPS failed to accurately track this access of Rasmusson’s private information,
which it attributed to Joseph Backlund.
268. The DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the access attributed
to Backlund on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to
properly record this access.
96.
97.269. On September 27, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the St.
Paul Police Department (“St. Paul Police”). While there, the St. Paul Police was informed
Rasmusson that at least 13 St. Paul Police officers and employees viewed her private, personal
information.
270. Upon information and belief, between 200507 and the summer of 20112, St. Paul
Police had approximately 6142 officers and employees who have accessed Rasmusson’s record
175228 times without a permissible purpose, including one female officer who accessed
Rasmusson’s record 34 times.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 51 of 91
52
98.
271. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Bailey, Baumgart, Benner, Bruce Bennett, Bolduan, Boyer, Boyle, Brubaker, Coyle, Patrick
Daly of St. Paul, Degree, Denning, Diaz-Calle, Dion, Dunaski, Filiowich, Matthew Flynn, Tim
Flynn, Gorud, Graupmann, Helgoe, Henry, Heroux, Hull, Hutchinson, Jerue, Erik Johnson,
Jones, Kough, Kunde, Lee, Lentsch, Lohse-Johnson, Mackintosh, McKnight, Mehl, Miller,
Moore, Murphy, Nash, Neubrand, O’Hara, Omari, O’Reilly, Pierce, Rhoades, Rhode, Rothecker,
Rud, Sherwood, Siegfried, Sims, Singleton, Sipes, Stevens, Stiff, Tallarico, Tessmer, Timp,
Toupal, or Wendell.
272. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that Plaintiff asked Benner, Jerue
and Henry to access her driver’s license information.
273. Plaintiff denies asking Benner, Jerue or Henry to access her driver’s license
information.
274. The DPS audits also listed the names of two St. Paul law-enforcement personnel
who looked up Rasmusson on two occasions only as “Johnson.”
275. According to St. Paul, it has not yet been able to determine the first name(s) of the
individuals who accessed Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information on those two
occasions.
276. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by either “Johnson” look-up where the first name was not knownOn information and belief,
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 52 of 91
53
more illegal accesses by St. Paul Police occurred prior to 2007 and some likely have occurred
after the summer of 2011.
277. The DPS audits list six accesses of Rasmusson’s information by unnamed officers
from the St. Paul PD Comm Center.
278. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that “the access to DVS on these
particular devices were assigned to the device itself, not to an individual. The City of St. Paul no
longer has information indicating what employee was assigned to these devices at the time of
access.”
279. The DVS audit indicates that Phillip Hartung (“Hartung”), identified as a City of
South St. Paul employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on March 3, 2006.
280. During Phase One Discovery, South St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Hartung, but claimed that Hartung resigned in 2005 and worked for the U.S. Marshall’s office
at the time of the access attributed to him.
281. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of South St. Paul is
incorrect or that DPS failed to accurately track this access of Rasmusson’s private information,
which it attributed to Hartung.
282. The DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the access attributed
to Hartung on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to properly
record this access.
283. During Phase One Discovery, Woodbury did not provide a permissible, law-
enforcement related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Ofstead.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 53 of 91
54
284. During Phase One Discovery, Chisago County did not provide a permissible law-
enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information
by Belisle.
285. During Phase One Discovery, Dakota County claimed Grant was investigating
Rasmusson for a law-enforcement-related reason.
286. Grant met Plaintiff the day prior to his accessing her private, driver’s license
information at a law-enforcement softball tournament in Duluth. There was no reason for Grant
to suspect anything of Plaintiff, who was not a resident of Dakota County, the very next day.
287. During Phase One Discovery, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not
provide a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private,
driver’s license information by Melvin.
288. During Phase One Discovery, the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not provide
a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s
license information by Tompa.
289. Pine County did not provide a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for
each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Fjosne, Lawrence or Vosika.
290. Pine County claimed that Fjosne accessed Rasmusson’s information as part of a
wide-range license plate check.
291. Yet, according to the DPS audit, Fjosne used the DVS driver’s license database,
not a license plate search to access Rasmsson’s information.
292. Ramsey County Doe claims that he was not in the country when his DPS database
passwords and login information were used to look up Rasmusson.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 54 of 91
55
293. Ramsey County Doe admits that he gave his password to two BCA employees he
worked with on the Metro Gang Strike Force.
294. Both BCA employees deny receiving Ramsey County Doe’s password.
295. Both BCA employees deny using Ramsey County Doe’s password to view
Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.
296. DPS regulations prohibit law-enforcement personnel and their employees from
sharing their DPS database passwords.
297. By sharing the password with BCA employees, by which they could access the
protected drivers’ license information of any Minnesota resident, including Rasmusson, Ramsey
County Doe and Ramsey County knowingly disclosed Ms. Rasmusson’s private driver’s license
information under the DPPA.
298. Because they maintained a database without adequate security, the DPS
Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Ramsey County Doe and
Ramsey County.
299. During Phase One Discovery, the University of Minnesota-Duluth did not provide
a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s
license information by Huls.
300. The DPS audits list Hobus as working for the City of Red Wing.
301. The City of Red Wing claims that Hobus never worked for it.
302. The City of Red Wing claims that it was informed by the DPS that Hobus worked
as a deputy registrar, which was a private business.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 55 of 91
56
99.303. Because they allowed non-law-enforcement personnel access to the DPS
databases and because of their inability to properly track these accesses, the DPS Commissioners
and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Hobus.
100.304. The remaining Individual Defendants’ identities (John and Jane Does) are
not presently known, because the Defendant Entities have either not provided Plaintiff with their
identities or not provided sufficient information to determine if their law enforcement
personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized, despite her requests. Plaintiff anticipates
that these yet-to-be-named Individual Defendants will become known through discovery.
101.305. The Supervisor Defendants are not presently known. Plaintiff anticipates
that the yet-to-be-named Supervisor Defendants who should have monitored, prevented and
stopped the unauthorized access to Rasmusson’s information will become known through
discovery.
102.306. The remaining Entity Defendant identities (Entity Does) are not presently
known, because not all of the entities identified by the DPS have provided sufficient information
to determine if their law enforcement personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized.
Plaintiff anticipates that these yet-to-be-named Entity Defendants will become known through
discovery.
103.307. The login page to the DVS website includes the following admonition:
Access to this service is for authorized personnel only conducting official business. If you do not have the express authorization, you must exit now or face the consequences of violating Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes and other laws. Further, the State of Minnesota prohibits unauthorized access, disclosure, duplication, modification, diversion, destruction, loss, misuse, or theft of its information in accordance with the Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.87 – 609.891.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 56 of 91
57
DVS collects and maintains electronic access data. This data may be used and disseminated for the purpose of evaluating electronic government services; to prevent unlawful intrusions into government electronic systems; or as otherwise provided by law.
104.308. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants’ training included
admonitions against viewing private driver’s license information for unofficial purposes.
105.309. Whatever training, monitoring, or inquiry into the officers’ usage of the
information systems has been adopted is woefully inadequate to assure ensure that access is used
properly and lawfully.
106.310. The Minneapolis Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual
prohibits accessing drivers’ license information for anything other than official business.
107.311. The City of Eden Prairie’s training includes quizzing its law-enforcement
officers as follows:
“1) . . . misuse of the system can lead to sanctions and disciplinary action; 2) . . . operators may run queries only for criminal justice purposes; 3) driver’s license or motor vehicle registration information can be accessed through CJDN only for the performance of official duties authorized by law. 4) For practice purposes, you are authorized to complete inquiries on family members or coworkers? FALSE.” (emphasis added).
108.312. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook admonishes its employees
to “conduct themselves, both on and off duty, in a manner that supports this trust.”
109.313. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook states that technology
should be “used primarily for City business. Employees should not use City technology for any
purpose that would reflect negatively on the City.”
110.314. The Eden Prairie Police Department Manual (“EPPD Manual”) informs
officers that its policies “also applies to off-duty conduct.”
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 57 of 91
58
111.315. The EPPD Manual explains that “[p]eace officers shall observe the
confidentiality of information available to them due to their status as peace officers.”
112.316. The EPPD Manual clearly states that officers should not use their official
position for personal gain:
Peace officers shall not use the authority of their position as peace officers, or information available to them due to their status as peace officers, for any purpose of personal gain, including, but not limited to, initiating or furthering personal and/or intimate interactions of any kind with persons which (sic) whom the officer has had contact while on duty.
113.317. The EPPD Manual also informs its officers that “Minnesota driver license
information obtained or otherwise accessed through a CJDN terminal or the DVS website may
be disseminated to authorized law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official
duties.”
114.318. On information and belief, despite this training, Defendant Entities and
Defendant Supervisors, allowed their employees, including but not limited to the Individual
Defendants, to view Plaintiff’s private driver’s license information for unlawful purposes.
115.319. On information and belief, Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors,
and Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does permitted, condoned, or acquiesced in this illegal
access to Plaintiff’s private information, and knew or should have known that it was occurring.
116.320. On information and belief, this illegal access occurs with regularity not
only of Plaintiff’s private information, but of other Minnesota drivers’ private information.
117.321. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, and Defendant
Commissioners and DPS Does have lax policies or lax enforcement of these policies that allow
for these intrusions.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 58 of 91
59
118.322. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, and Defendant
Commissioners and DPS Does either have no viable method of or have an inadequate method of
ascertaining and controlling the illegal access to individuals’ private information by their
officers.
323. The extent of this illegal access appears to be widespread and pervasive
throughout departments, and is a custom and practice. This is demonstrated by the tolerance of
this practice, and the customary disregard of punishment for violations, such as a prosecution
that was dismissed when the officer’s attorney complained that the prosecution was akin to
“using a sledge hammer to kill a fly” or words to that effect. Further evidence of the custom and
practice can be found in actual statements made by current officers, one of whom was quoted in
a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “every single
cop in the state has done this. Chiefs on down.” ; and based on actual statements made by
former officers, one of whom was quoted in a magazine article about the illegal access into
Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “[y]ou used to look up people without a second thought.
You’d look up old friends from high school or just someone you used to know.”
324. Before publicity surrounding Rasmusson’s situation, there was little or no training
by the DPS or the individual entities regarding appropriate use of the DPS Databases or what
was a permissible purpose for viewing drivers’ license information under the DPPA.
325. Before publicity surround Rasmusson’s situation, law-enforcement personnel
throughout Minnesota commonly looked up driver’s license information for personal reasons.
119.326. Each law-enforcement personnel has a password allowing that individual
access to the DPS Database. Law-enforcement personnel can access the DPS Databases from
any computer with internet access.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 59 of 91
60
120.327. On further information and belief, this illegal access to driver’s license
information occurs disproportionately to women.
121.328. When Defendant law-enforcement personnel viewed Rasmusson’s private
information, they did not do so to carry out official police functions.
122.329. Rasmusson committed no crimes that would authorize the unauthorized
access of her private drivers’ license information.
330. The Individual Defendants obtained Rasmusson’s personal information without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
123.331. On a small handful of occasions, Rasmusson asked certain law-
enforcement personnel to view her driver’s license information for the express purpose of
determining if the database had posted her change of address or had listed the automobile she
was presently driving. None of the claims in this suit relate to those few instances.
124.332. Rasmusson never waived the protections of the DPPA.
III. Rasmusson Has Been Harmed By This Intrusion Into Her Private Life
125.333. The sheer volume of these intrusions into her private life demonstrates that
law-enforcement personnel are unfairly hostile toward Rasmusson’s privacy and safety.
126.334. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson does not feel
comfortable going to public places where police officers are likely to be around and has lost her
sense of freedom including her freedom to travel and enjoy public places.
127.335. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has become a recluse
and was forced to live like a hermit.
128.336. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson feels she has lost any
control over the privacy in her life.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 60 of 91
61
129.337. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has shut down her
social media accounts.
130.338. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has installed a security
gate and an alarm system on her property.
131.339. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed and
unlisted her home and mobile telephone number.
132.340. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed her email
address.
COUNT I
(Against all Defendants including Commissioner, Individual, Supervisor and Entity Defendants, including John, Jane, and Entity and DPS Does, for Violations of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2721,
et seq.)
133.341. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through
132339 340 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 1333401.
134.342. Rasmusson provided personal information to the DPS including her
address, color photograph, date of birth, weight, height and eye color for the purpose of
acquiring and utilizing a State of Minnesota driver’s license.
135.343. The DVS DPS dDatabase also maintained Rasmusson’s driving record.
136.344. At no time did Rasmusson did not provide her consent for any of the
Defendant Individuals to obtain, disclose or use, or for any of the Defendant Entities or
Defendant Supervisors to disclose or to allow Defendant Individuals to obtain, disclose or use,
her private information for anything but official law-enforcement business for any of the
occasions listed in the attached Exhibit A.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 61 of 91
62
137.345. Intentionally obtaining, disclosing or using driver’s license information
without an authorized purpose is a violation of the DPPA. The statute provides for criminal fines
and civil penalties. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2723, 2724.
138.346. The DPPA provides redress for violations of a person’s protected interest
in the privacy of her motor vehicle records and the identifying information therein.
347. The Defendants, each of them, have invaded Rasmusson’s legally protected
interest under the DPPA.
139.348. The Commissioners of the Department of Public Safety or the employees
they supervised knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s private personal information from her driver’s
license for purposes not permitted under the DPPA.
140.349. According to the Department of Vehicle Services and the Defendant
Entities, the Individual Defendants knowingly obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal
information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA. 18
U.S.C. § 2724(a).
141.350. None of the Individual Defendants’ activities fell within the DPPA’s
permitted exceptions for procurement of Rasmusson’s private information.
142.351. By the actions described above, each Defendant Individual law-
enforcement personnel was acting within the scope of his or her employment when he or she
obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information from the DPSVS dDatabases for
an impermissible purpose.
143.352. The Individual Defendants knew that their actions related to Rasmusson’s
personal information were in violation of the DPPA.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 62 of 91
63
144.353. The Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors knowingly authorized,
directed, ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in obtaining, disclosing or
using of Rasmusson’s private personal information by the Individual Defendants.
145. The Individual Defendants knowingly used the Defendant Entities’ computers,
passwords and passcodes to obtain access Rasmusson’s private information.
354.
355. By sharing database access passwords, Ramsey County Doe and Ramsey County
knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information in violation of the DPPA.
146.356. The sheer volume of law-enforcement personnel that obtained, disclosed
or used Rasmusson’s private personal information, especially given Rasmusson’s lack of a
criminal record, makes apparent that Defendants’ use was not permissible.
357. The Defendant Entities are each vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant
Individuals.
147.358. The Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the acts of
Defendant Individuals.
148.359. Rasmusson has suffered harm because her private information has been
obtained unlawfully. Rasmusson suffered and continues to suffer harm by virtue of the increased
risk that her protected information is in the possession of numerous law-enforcement personnel
who obtained it without a legitimate purpose. This is precisely the harm Congress sought to
prevent by enacting the DPPA and its statutory remedies.
149.360. The Individual Defendants, Supervisor Defendants, Commissioner
Defendants, DPS Does and Entity Defendants each willfully and recklessly disregarded the law,
entitling Rasmusson to punitive damages under the DPPA, see 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(2), which is
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 63 of 91
64
not subject to the pleading requirement of Minnesota state law as set forth in Minn. Stat. section
549.20. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the
court determines to be appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b).
150.361. In addition, under the DPPA, Plaintiff is entitled to a baseline liquidated
damages award of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1).
Rasmusson need not prove actual damages to receive said liquidated damages.
COUNT II
(Against Individual Defendants, including John and Jane Does, for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with the exception of Hobus)
151.362. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through
3601150 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 3612151.
152.363. At no time did Rasmusson behave in a manner that would provide any
legal justification for the above-described invasion of her privacy.
153.364. The DPPA establishes that obtaining an individual’s driver’s license
information without a legitimate purpose constitutes an illegal search under the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
154.365. The Individual Defendants’ viewing of Rasmusson’s personal information
was unauthorized, unjustified, and excessive, and violates the Fourth Amendment, the laws of
the United States and the laws of the State of Minnesota.
155.366. By the actions described above, each Individual Defendant Law-
Enforcement Personnel, acting under color of state law, violated and deprived Rasmusson of her
clearly established and well-settled civil right to be free from an unconstitutional search.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 64 of 91
65
156.367. The acts of each Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel, acting under the
color of state law, constituted an invasion or repeated invasions of Rasmusson’s clearly-
established privacy rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, the laws of the United States, including the DPPA, and the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
157.368. The DPPA creates an individual right to privacy in a person’s driver’s
license information, thereby prohibiting unauthorized accessing of all persons’ information,
including Rasmusson’s information.
158.369. Each individual law-enforcement personnel, acting under color of state
law, knew that his or her actions violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly established
statutory rights under the DPPA.
159.370. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel deprived
Rasmusson of her federal statutory rights and civil rights maliciously or by acting with reckless
disregard for whether Rasmusson’s rights would be violated by his or her actions.
160.371. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel was deliberately
indifferent to Rasmusson’s statutory and civil right to be free from illegal searches, invasions of
privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her private driver’s license information.
161.372. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-
named Individual Defendants, Rasmusson endured physical and mental suffering, and was
damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One Million
($1,000,000) Dollars.
162.373. Punitive damages are available against Individual Defendant law-
enforcement personnel for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 65 of 91
66
intentional violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common
law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading
requirement for punitive damages set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.
163.374. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney
fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III
(Against Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants, including John, Jane and Entity Does, for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
164.375. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through
3734163 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 375164.
165.376. The Individual Defendants’ numerous accesses of Rasmusson’s private
information are not unique, but one example of how frequently such law-enforcement agencies
customarily violate the DPPA by accessing private driver’s license information of persons
without having any legitimate or permissible reason for doing so.
166.377. Recently, in a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s
private information, a current officer, speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation, stated that
every officer does it, including the chiefs of police. In that same article, another former officer
stated that the practice was widespread as a form of social media, simply to look up former
friends or acquaintances.
167.378. In addition, persons familiar with police departments and those involved
in teaching supervisors how to train and hold accountable their subordinate law-enforcement
personnel have been told by those supervisors that the unlawful and impermissible accessing of
private information is among the most frequently committed wrongs by police, for which they
are seldom if ever held accountable.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 66 of 91
67
168.379. The foregoing information, other information to be presented at trial, and
evidence reasonably likely to be determined after full discovery demonstrate that the improper
access of citizens’ driver’s license information by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel for
their own personal and private uses, obtained by accessing that information through the
computerized information storage system kept by the sState for official purposes only, is an
official custom or practice well known to Defendant Supervisors.
169.380. These customs and practices by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel
are at variance with the written rules set down by the Entity Defendants, but these formal rules
are widely and knowingly disregarded.
170.381. Given the municipalities’ failure to monitor and enforce their rules, the
aforementioned customs and practices are attributable to the municipalities themselves, including
the Entity Defendants herein.
171.382. The Defendant Entities and the Defendant Supervisors of the law-
enforcement personnel accessing this information knew or should have known of this and other
unlawful, improper, unjustified, and impermissible access to private information by law-
enforcement personnel.
172.383. The prevalence of this custom, the lack of monitoring regarding these
access practices and the failure to take action to stop or prevent these practices, demonstrate the
state of mind of Defendant Supervisors and municipal officials of the Entity Defendants. These
customs and practices further demonstrate Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the federal
statutory and constitutional rights of the citizens and persons, including Plaintiff, whose
information has been wrongfully accessed.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 67 of 91
68
173.384. The Defendant Entities, in their official capacity, are directly liable for the
custom and practice of the widespread illegal access of citizens’ driver’s license information.
The Supervisor Defendants, up to and including the chief police officers and sheriffs employed
by each Entity Defendant, are liable in their individual capacity. Defendants’ liability is due to
their actual and constructive knowledge of this practice, their failure to institute any process for
monitoring and preventing it and their deliberate indifference to the federal rights of those
persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been and continues to be wrongfully
accessed.
174.385. In addition, the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement personnel,
up to and including the chief police officer in each of the Defendant Entities, are liable in their
individual capacities for the failure to train, monitor, supervise, and properly discipline the
officers who are improperly and unlawfully accessing the private driver’s license information of
citizens, including Plaintiff, without a proper, lawful, permissible, justifiable purpose for doing
so. This pattern of failure to train, monitor, supervise, and discipline demonstrates the state of
mind of these Defendant Supervisors and a deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens
and others whose information has been so widely accessed, including Plaintiff.
175.386. The federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, whose information is
improperly accessed, are held in light regard by many if not most of the Defendant Supervisors
and by the Defendant Entities themselves.
176.387. Defendants’ lack of concern evidences their deliberate indifference both to
the problem of the unauthorized access and to the impact of the unauthorized access on the
federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, who would often be unaware of that access.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 68 of 91
69
177.388. Defendants’ lack of concern is evidenced by the failure of most Defendant
Entities to take any sort of corrective action upon learning that multiple improper, unlawful,
unjustified accesses of Plaintiff’s information had taken place. Defendants have also
consistently refused to fully involve Plaintiff, keep her fully informed of the progress of the
investigation into the persons accessing her information, or to advise her of their identities, their
reasons for accessing her information, their knowledge of Plaintiff, and any discipline imposed
on them for their improper and illegal conduct.
178.389. The manner in which the investigation was handled by the Entity
Defendants and Supervisor Defendants provides little expectation that these and other law-
enforcement personnel will cease accessing Plaintiff’s private information and the private
information of other persons similarly situated to Plaintiff, without a justifiable, permissible
basis.
179.390. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no system has been established by
the Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to monitor the regular access of the DVPS
dDatabases by law-enforcement personnel.
180.391. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no reviews have taken place of other
accesses of the DPVS Ddatabases by these same law-enforcement personnel, or of other officers
and employees in the Defendant Entities.
181.392. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the
Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to protect and safeguard the rights of other
persons’ DPVS Ddatabase information.
182.393. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the
Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to provide redress and assurance to the persons,
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 69 of 91
70
including Plaintiff, whose DVS information has been wrongfully accessed by the Defendant
Law-Enforcement Personnel named in this Complaint, or by other officers in the municipalities
named in this Complaint.
183.394. Defendants’ accesses have been widely discussed among the Defendant
Law-Enforcement Personnel committing the accesses as well as among other personnel in the
Defendant Entities – all of which have damaged Plaintiff and her reputation, including but not
limited to her reputation as a single woman.
184.395. The reputational damage alone to Plaintiff, as well as the knowledge that
this activity is not merely unlawful but a federal crime, should have been enough to ensure that
Plaintiff’s concerns listed in the preceding paragraphs were addressed by Defendants in a
meaningful fashion. Holding accountable the law-enforcement personnel engaged in an
unlawful activity would have been an important step in eliminating this custom and practice of
permitting the widespread illegal accessing of Rasmusson’s information; yet nothing meaningful
in this regard has been accomplished, and no prosecutions have been initiated to the best of
Plaintiff’s knowledge.
185.396. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-
named Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors, Rasmusson has endured and continues to
endure physical and mental suffering, and has been damaged in an amount yet to determined and
of a continuing nautre, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.
186.397. Punitive damages are available against Defendant Supervisors and
Defendant Entities for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their
intentional violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 70 of 91
71
law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading
requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.
187.398. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney
fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT IV (Against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Doess for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
188.399. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through
187 3987 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 399188.
189.400. Defendant Campion was Commissioner of DPS from April 2004 to
February 2011.
190.401. Defendant Dohman became Commissioner of DPS in March 2011 and
presently serves in that role.
191.402. As DPS Commissioners, Campion and Dohman, along with DPD Does,
were and are responsible for creating, maintaining, and providing access to the database that
included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
192.403. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does also had the ability to determine
if unauthorized access was being made and to prevent such unauthorized access to the database,
including of Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and have the ongoing duty to prevent such
unauthorized accesses.
193.404. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to prevent
unauthorized access to the database, including Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 71 of 91
72
194.405. The actions of the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, as alleged,
violate the rights of the Plaintiff under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and under the DPPA..
195.406. On information and belief, the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does
created or oversaw the creation and maintenance of a database and system that was supposed to
prevent unauthorized access to driver’s license information.
196.407. From 20057, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does allowed
unauthorized access of Rasmusson’s driver’s license information such that approximately 100
144 law-enforcement personnel from 18 different departments accessed her information over
544400 times.
197.408. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants’ and DPS Does’
efforts have been insufficient to prevent future unauthorized access of Plaintiff’s and other
individuals’ private, personal information.
198.409. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does have sanctioned the
constitutional violations by the Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel through their failure to
remedy the policy, custom and practice of officers’ and employees’ unfettered and unauthorized
access to the database.
199.410. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Doeshave been grossly negligent in
supervising subordinates responsible for implementing a law-enforcement database that prevents
unauthorized access to private, personal information.
200.411. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does
failed to monitor and prevent unauthorized access to private, personal information even though
they knew or should have known that such unconstitutional acts were occurring.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 72 of 91
73
412. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, acting under the color of state law,
were deliberately indifferent to Rasmusson’s constitutionally-recognized and federal statutory
rights to be free from illegal searches, invasions of privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her
private driver’s license information.
201.413. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does are jointly liable for disclosure
of Ms. Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information for each Individual Defendants’ access.
202.414. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-
namedthe Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, Rasmusson was forced to endure physical
and mental suffering, and was thereby damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to
be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.
203.415. Punitive damages are available against Commissioner Defendants and
DPS Does for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional
violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith
v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth
in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.
204.416. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney
fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT V
(Against All Defendants, including John, Jane, and Entity and DPS Does, for Common Law Invasion of Privacy)
205.417. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through
4156204 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 4167205.
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 73 of 91
74
206.418. By improperly obtaining Rasmusson’s private personal information for
impermissible reasons, Defendants intentionally intruded upon the solitude or seclusion of
Rasmusson’s private affairs and concerns.
207.419. The Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person.
208.420. The Defendants’ intrusion caused Rasmusson to suffer severe emotional
distress and physical harm.
209.421. The Defendants’ intrusion was intended to cause Rasmusson to suffer
severe emotional distress and physical harm, and was made with either actual or legal malice, or
with reckless disregard of her rights and her privacy.
210.422. Plaintiff is entitled to tort damages for Defendants’ invasion of privacy.
JURY DEMAND
211.423. Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all issues of fact herein properly triable
to a jury under any statute or under common law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson prays for judgment against the
Defendants as follows:
1. A money judgment against all the Defendants for liquidated, actual and
compensatory damages in an amount in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars and punitive
damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, together with her costs, including reasonable
attorney fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the DPPA, and other applicable laws, and prejudgment
interest;
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 74 of 91
75
2. Actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs and
such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate under 18
U.S.C. § 2724(b);
3. Liquidated damages of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA under 18
U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1);
4. An injunction, permanently enjoining all Defendants from viewing Plaintiff’s
private information in violation of the DPPA, unless necessary for law enforcement purposes;
5. A permanent injunction, barring Defendant Individuals from trespassing or
instructing proxies to trespass on Plaintiff’s property or otherwise harass her or infringe in any
way on her privacy and her right against the invasion of her privacy;
6. A permanent injunction, allowing Plaintiff to use a post-office box in place of an
address on her Minnesota Driver’s License; and,
7. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP PLLC Dated: March October __, 2012 _________________________________ Jonathan A. Strauss (#0279602) Lorenz F. Fett (#196769) Sonia Miller-Van Oort (#278087) Lori D. Semke (#0296910) Kenneth H. Fukuda (#0389301) 12 South Sixth Street, Suite 1242
Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 756-7100
Fax: 612-756-7101 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 75 of 91
76
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 76 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 1
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Bloomington PD Tim Anderson 09/26/09 4:12:0009/26/09 4:13:0009/26/09 4:13:0002/24/10 6:16:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:23:0002/24/10 6:24:0002/24/10 6:24:00
Charles Gollop 10/22/06 11:08:0010/22/06 12:18:0007/28/08 8:31:0007/28/08 8:40:0007/28/08 13:35:0008/03/08 11:56:00
Burnsville PD Casey Buck 07/30/09 16:56:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:58:0007/30/09 16:58:00
Chisago Cnty SO Jay Belisle 02/04/06 20:51:0002/04/06 20:52:0002/04/06 20:54:0002/08/06 20:26:0002/08/06 20:31:0002/23/06 23:43:0004/13/06 20:58:00
Cottage Grove PD Valerie Lonetti 11/16/07 19:55:00Dakota Cnty SO John Grant 07/28/08 16:10:00Dept of Corrections John Melvin 05/20/08 15:45:00
05/20/08 15:46:0005/20/08 15:48:0005/20/08 15:49:0005/20/08 15:49:00
Eagan PD Danielle Anselment 08/13/07 7:09:00Sean Sweeney 02/10/06 20:46:00
02/10/06 20:46:0002/10/06 20:47:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 77 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 2
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Eagan PD (cont'd) Sean Sweeney (cont'd) 02/10/06 20:48:0208/24/06 1:43:0008/24/06 1:43:0011/16/06 23:21:0012/26/06 3:39:0007/09/07 8:46:0007/09/07 8:47:0007/09/07 8:52:0007/09/07 14:45:0008/13/07 8:06:0008/13/07 15:15:0010/05/07 9:29:0010/10/07 7:46:0010/19/07 10:41:0011/16/07 14:12:0011/16/07 14:13:0011/19/07 10:55:0002/08/08 10:48:0009/23/08 8:30:0009/23/08 8:30:0009/23/08 8:31:0009/23/08 8:31:0001/22/09 15:14:0001/22/09 15:27:0001/22/09 15:28:0003/13/09 13:56:0012/17/09 10:17:0012/17/09 10:17:0012/17/09 10:19:0011/18/10 8:29:0011/18/10 8:29:00
Unknown 01/04/09 8:43:01Eden Prairie PD Jennifer Bahr 06/01/06 20:44:00
Ann Bogren 07/21/07 1:45:00Kyle Duchschere 07/24/06 10:40:00Robert Haberle 06/06/08 10:27:00Erica Halverson 08/08/07 20:26:00
08/08/07 20:27:00Laurie Henning 02/14/06 11:52:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 78 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 3
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Eden Prairie PD (cont'd) Zachary Hessel 07/31/06 3:34:0007/31/06 3:34:0008/13/11 11:40:00
Tracy Luke 09/26/06 12:25:0009/26/06 12:28:00
Christopher Millard 08/10/06 18:13:0009/09/06 13:17:0007/14/07 9:08:0005/31/11 16:47:0005/31/11 16:48:0005/31/11 16:48:00
Marci Pogatchnik 06/09/07 6:54:00Beth Sams 08/29/06 6:57:00Rachel Selness 12/01/07 10:39:00Carter Staaf 04/09/06 13:25:00
07/24/06 1:06:0001/13/07 1:56:0007/01/07 1:53:0008/08/07 20:27:0001/04/09 23:52:0001/04/09 23:53:0001/04/09 23:53:0003/09/09 10:50:3307/08/09 1:34:0007/08/09 1:34:0011/21/09 4:05:0011/21/09 4:05:0007/17/10 2:26:0007/17/10 2:26:0005/01/11 2:42:00
Steve Velner 07/01/07 0:28:00Kevin White 08/05/07 6:35:00
08/05/07 6:36:00FBI Mpls Millicent Tompa 06/15/06 10:21:00
04/17/07 7:25:00Golden Valley PD Joe Dutton 02/19/06 11:56:00Isanti PD Steve Callahan 01/26/07 17:39:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 79 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 4
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Lakeville PD Todd Williams 08/30/09 8:43:0010/18/09 10:49:4201/14/10 8:42:15
Minneapolis PD Kara Abbas 10/14/06 19:18:0010/27/06 12:14:00
Laura Bartsch 05/14/11 2:42:0005/14/11 2:58:00
John Bennett 04/12/07 18:51:00Calvin Cook 09/08/06 0:53:00Tim Costello 06/04/06 1:11:00
08/12/06 0:17:0009/13/06 1:18:0011/18/06 12:01:0008/09/07 17:06:0008/09/07 17:27:0008/24/07 17:59:0002/12/09 19:01:0002/12/09 19:02:0005/28/09 19:57:0005/28/09 19:57:0005/28/09 19:58:00
Patrick Daly 09/09/06 22:44:00Hien Dinh 10/26/06 1:57:00
10/26/06 1:58:0011/03/06 23:32:0011/03/06 23:33:00
Thomas Fahey 08/18/06 23:07:0008/18/06 23:08:0009/22/06 17:20:00
Chad Fuchs 12/28/05 19:17:00Marc Gingerich 11/28/09 2:24:00Robert Glasrud 03/07/05 21:37:26Tracy Gross (Lemieux) 04/30/08 13:06:00
12/07/09 1:00:0012/07/09 1:00:0002/17/11 23:32:0002/17/11 23:32:0002/17/11 23:33:0002/17/11 23:33:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 80 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 5
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Tracy Gross(Lemieux) (cont'd) 06/27/11 22:40:0006/27/11 22:40:0006/27/11 22:59:0006/27/11 22:59:00
Aaron Hanson 02/03/09 2:02:0002/03/09 2:02:0002/03/09 2:03:00
Kimberly Heyda 01/13/07 13:18:00Lonnie Hoffbeck 08/08/06 15:01:00
09/29/06 2:09:00Jerry Johnson 03/07/05 21:37:43
05/07/07 20:48:0008/31/07 0:19:00
Mark Johnson 03/01/06 15:11:00Chad Joseph 01/02/06 23:57:00
08/14/06 22:12:0008/14/06 22:13:0008/14/06 22:14:0011/11/06 1:25:0002/25/07 1:05:0011/15/08 23:58:0011/15/08 23:59:0011/16/08 0:00:0011/16/08 0:01:0011/16/08 0:02:0011/16/08 0:15:00
Christopher Karakostas 10/08/07 7:24:00Mike Keefe 10/14/06 0:00:00Jason King 08/08/06 14:54:00
08/08/06 14:55:0008/08/06 14:57:0009/02/06 22:26:0010/20/06 19:23:0004/09/07 21:01:0004/09/07 21:01:0006/18/07 14:20:0001/11/08 0:46:0001/16/08 2:00:0001/26/08 4:14:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 81 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 6
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Jason King (cont'd) 03/23/08 0:56:0006/02/08 14:35:0008/22/08 0:28:0008/22/08 0:28:0008/22/08 0:29:0011/22/08 14:57:0011/22/08 17:52:0011/22/08 17:52:0011/22/08 17:53:0011/26/08 2:57:0011/26/08 2:57:0012/08/08 0:29:0012/08/08 0:29:0012/19/08 1:21:0012/19/08 1:22:0012/19/08 1:22:0012/19/08 1:25:0012/20/08 1:59:0012/20/08 2:00:0012/20/08 2:00:0012/27/08 13:46:0012/27/08 13:46:0005/18/09 14:42:0005/18/09 14:42:0005/27/09 23:22:0005/27/09 23:22:0007/17/09 15:52:0007/17/09 15:52:0001/14/10 19:38:0007/30/10 21:37:0012/17/10 16:12:0012/17/10 16:12:00
Richard Lillard 10/28/06 18:41:00Tracy MacDougall 06/21/07 3:12:00
06/21/07 3:13:0006/21/07 3:15:0006/21/07 18:40:0006/21/07 18:41:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 82 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 7
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Darcy Mackenthun 12/18/06 2:42:0001/19/08 0:32:0011/06/08 0:53:0011/06/08 0:53:0011/06/08 0:54:0011/06/08 0:54:00
Sean McGinty 11/24/06 1:26:00Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot 12/16/05 0:33:00
01/24/06 18:53:0009/06/06 22:41:0005/18/07 19:19:0010/05/07 20:11:0010/11/07 19:34:0001/11/08 19:20:0008/05/08 11:53:0001/02/09 20:11:0005/27/09 23:42:0005/27/09 23:43:0005/27/09 23:43:00
David O'Connor 04/29/06 5:03:00Billy Peterson 10/05/06 12:13:00
10/13/06 19:23:00Lucas Peterson 01/26/06 12:11:00
10/05/06 13:08:00Michael Pfaff 03/16/08 13:56:00
04/13/08 14:08:0004/13/08 14:08:00
David Pleoger 06/08/06 20:58:00
04/25/07 21:02:00Luis Porras 03/29/06 19:44:00
03/29/06 19:45:0005/01/08 9:01:0008/19/10 7:53:0008/19/10 7:54:00
Patrick Reuben 09/21/06 17:05:0009/21/06 17:06:00
Michael Rocklin 07/15/06 17:30:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 83 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 8
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Minneapolis PD (cont'd) John Staufenberg 11/01/06 7:59:00
11/01/06 8:00:0001/29/08 19:57:00
01/29/08 19:58:00Kristina Stichter 09/21/06 15:07:00
09/21/06 15:08:00Kristin Sturgis 05/02/07 18:10:00
05/02/07 18:10:0005/02/07 18:11:0003/07/08 17:27:00
Chris Thomsen 10/11/06 22:38:00Brian Thureson 01/29/07 21:56:00
07/14/07 3:14:00Geoffrey Toscano 10/15/08 19:51:00
10/15/08 19:51:00Stephanie Weibye 08/24/06 1:19:00
12/11/06 3:08:00Matthew Wente 05/15/07 10:25:00
05/15/07 10:47:0005/15/07 10:56:00
Pam Wheeler 08/26/06 22:15:0002/17/07 0:48:00
09/27/07 19:16:0009/14/08 20:11:00
William Willner 10/21/06 22:01:0010/21/06 22:04:00
07/04/07 14:25:0012/15/07 13:51:00
Jill Wolf 10/06/06 10:29:00
MN State Patrol Dean Grothem 01/03/11 13:56:00
Minnetonka PD Michael Nelson 08/15/07 10:32:00Pine Cnty SO Blake Fjosne 04/11/11 19:27:00
Rebecca Lawrence 07/11/06 14:01:00Dan Vosika 11/16/06 7:37:00
11/16/06 7:38:0011/22/06 9:49:0012/07/06 10:55:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 84 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 9
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
Princeton PD Joseph Backlund 06/20/06 1:10:00
Ramsey Cnty SO Ramsey County Doe 03/14/07 16:54:0003/14/07 16:55:0003/14/07 16:55:00
Red Wing Elke Hobus 11/08/06 18:01:0001/10/07 15:23:0011/29/07 22:02:00
So. St. Paul PD Phillip Hartung 03/03/06 13:27:00St. Paul PD Stephanie Bailey 04/01/06 23:25:00
04/17/06 22:54:0005/23/06 22:23:0005/23/06 22:23:0002/22/07 22:49:0007/06/07 17:31:0007/06/07 17:34:00
Ann Baumgart 10/09/07 10:02:00Neil Benner 02/14/07 16:08:00Bruce Bennett 02/23/06 10:42:00Laura Bolduan 01/06/08 6:28:00Amy Boyer 12/15/07 23:15:00Jeffery Boyle 02/14/06 1:05:00
07/10/06 0:56:0001/21/07 20:15:0006/25/07 21:40:00
Jason Brubaker 11/04/09 13:39:0009/10/10 15:09:00
Brian Coyle 05/16/11 9:45:00Patrick Daly 08/29/06 22:55:00Chad Degree 08/03/06 21:25:00Wes Denning 09/22/06 8:27:00Luis Diaz-Calle 07/13/06 22:20:00Edward Dion 11/21/07 8:19:00Michael Dunaski 11/19/06 19:14:00Shawn Filiowich 11/13/06 0:08:00Tim Flynn 11/16/06 10:10:00Matthew Flynn 11/03/07 6:56:00Eric Gorud 05/07/08 2:08:00Nikkole Graupmann 02/21/07 2:49:00Mike Helgoe 03/21/07 1:14:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 85 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 10
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Axel Henry 07/31/06 9:47:0008/01/06 7:32:0008/01/06 16:45:0008/02/06 16:20:0008/05/06 8:36:0008/14/07 4:11:0011/06/07 17:55:00
Andrew Heroux 01/06/08 6:29:00Cortez Hull 01/14/09 14:27:00Jeffery Hutchinson 09/02/06 4:47:00
09/27/06 3:10:0009/27/06 3:14:00
Robert Jerue 08/27/06 10:14:0009/15/06 22:32:0012/08/06 22:03:0006/30/07 7:48:0007/01/07 16:12:0007/08/07 13:57:0007/12/07 22:02:0011/15/07 8:14:0004/22/11 16:10:00
Johnson 04/26/06 17:32:00Johnson 09/26/06 8:30:00Erik Johnson 08/20/06 20:07:00
11/19/06 19:04:00Candice Jones 07/28/06 23:51:00
07/28/06 23:52:0010/21/06 22:01:0012/10/06 0:44:0012/31/06 13:20:0002/21/07 21:40:0003/11/07 22:43:0003/24/07 22:08:0003/28/07 21:26:0003/29/07 21:35:0003/30/07 21:36:0004/01/07 10:09:0004/02/07 22:28:0004/03/07 21:43:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 86 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 11
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Candice Jones (cont'd) 04/05/07 20:33:0004/06/07 20:03:0004/07/07 22:38:0004/08/07 20:02:0004/09/07 21:40:0004/12/07 17:54:0004/14/07 20:57:0005/04/07 20:08:0005/20/07 0:11:0005/30/07 19:52:0006/09/07 18:48:0007/18/07 23:51:0007/20/07 19:55:0008/11/07 16:44:0010/07/07 0:25:0010/26/07 23:23:0002/03/08 0:02:0002/23/08 0:06:0003/14/08 3:10:0005/06/08 21:44:00
Ian Kough 05/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:39:00
Kimberly Kunde 11/13/06 2:43:0011/29/06 3:31:0011/29/06 3:32:00
Cary Lee 09/23/06 14:04:00Stephen Lentsch 10/17/06 20:07:00
01/11/07 6:45:0010/17/07 18:21:0012/21/07 0:34:0003/05/08 11:37:0012/26/08 14:25:0012/26/08 14:26:0012/26/08 14:26:0007/08/09 0:31:0007/08/09 0:31:0007/08/09 0:32:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 87 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 12
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Stephen Lentsch (cont'd) 07/08/09 0:32:00Sean Lohse-Johnson 10/08/07 10:17:00
03/03/08 7:47:0003/03/08 7:48:0003/03/08 7:48:0003/04/08 15:18:0003/05/09 14:00:0003/05/09 14:01:0003/05/09 14:03:0003/05/09 14:04:0003/05/09 14:04:0005/21/09 13:47:0006/16/09 15:06:00
Theodore Mackintosh 08/04/06 18:00:00James McKnight 10/18/09 2:47:00
12/04/10 21:52:0012/04/10 21:52:00
Shelly Mehl 10/11/06 13:33:0011/16/06 10:22:00
Justin Miller 09/24/06 22:50:0009/24/06 22:51:0009/24/06 22:53:0009/24/06 22:53:0009/24/06 22:54:00
Timothy Moore 06/15/09 18:48:00Ryan Murphy 09/24/06 17:35:00
11/19/06 17:38:0011/19/06 19:02:0012/04/08 19:18:00
James Nash 10/04/08 0:22:0010/04/08 0:23:0010/04/08 0:24:0010/04/08 0:25:0010/04/08 0:26:0010/04/08 0:26:0010/04/08 0:28:0010/04/08 0:29:0010/04/08 0:32:0010/04/08 0:33:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 88 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 13
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) James Nash (cont'd) 10/04/08 0:40:0010/04/08 0:40:0010/04/08 1:59:0010/04/08 2:00:0010/04/08 2:36:0011/01/08 22:15:0011/01/08 22:17:0011/01/08 22:18:0011/01/08 22:18:0011/01/08 22:19:0011/01/08 22:21:0011/01/08 22:23:00
Jason Neubrand 10/22/07 6:17:0009/13/08 4:09:0009/13/08 4:09:0009/17/08 23:53:0009/17/08 23:53:0004/30/09 0:49:0004/30/09 0:50:0004/30/09 0:50:00
Evan O'Hara 05/05/08 15:56:0005/05/08 15:57:00
Salim Omari 09/27/08 23:33:0009/27/08 23:34:0009/27/08 23:34:00
Kathy O'Reilly 10/26/07 14:31:00Mark Pierce 08/21/07 0:10:00
08/21/07 2:39:0008/22/07 19:21:00
Chris Rhoades 05/20/09 17:17:0005/20/09 17:18:0005/20/09 19:33:0005/20/09 19:33:00
Craig Rhode 12/27/05 3:14:00Jeff Rothecker 01/14/09 20:37:00David Rud 03/21/07 1:21:00Jon Sherwood 10/02/08 8:59:00Adam Siegfried 08/13/06 23:10:00
08/14/06 0:11:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 89 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 14
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD (cont'd) Charles Sims 09/26/06 7:58:0009/26/06 8:02:0010/16/06 13:06:00
Alan Singleton 01/13/09 11:22:0001/13/09 11:28:0001/13/09 11:28:0001/13/09 11:29:0001/13/09 11:30:0001/13/09 11:35:0001/13/09 11:35:00
Jamie Sipes 01/18/08 2:13:00Eric Stevens 06/25/07 22:04:00Jeffery Stiff 11/13/06 0:07:00
03/30/07 2:35:0003/30/07 2:36:0005/19/09 2:50:0005/19/09 2:50:0005/19/09 2:51:0005/19/09 2:51:00
Tony Tallarico 03/31/08 10:09:00Todd Tessmer 12/15/07 20:41:00Threasa Timp 01/10/08 7:46:00
04/17/09 11:13:0004/17/09 11:13:0008/11/09 13:10:0008/11/09 13:10:0010/28/09 14:09:0010/28/09 14:09:00
Matt Toupal 02/14/07 15:59:00Scott Wendell 12/29/05 12:23:00
04/25/07 9:25:0004/27/07 13:58:0004/27/07 13:59:0005/18/07 14:26:0006/11/07 12:49:00
St. Paul PD Comm Cntr Unknown 06/11/07 12:56:19Unknown 08/17/08 22:21:22Unknown 09/27/08 23:37:23
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 90 of 91
DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Page: 15
Entity Individual DefendantDate
AccessedTime
Accessed
St. Paul PD Comm Cntr (cont'd)
Unknown 05/20/09 17:18:34
Unknown 02/07/10 21:17:55Unknown 04/22/11 16:11:21
UMD PD Sean Huls 09/22/06 0:55:0009/22/06 1:04:0009/22/06 1:04:0009/22/06 1:05:0009/22/06 2:39:0009/22/06 2:39:0009/27/06 17:56:0012/18/06 21:53:0001/03/07 7:51:00
Woodbury PD Tony Ofstead 12/12/06 15:20:00
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-2 Filed 09/28/12 Page 91 of 91
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v. City of Bloomington, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 12-CV-00632-SRN-JSM
STIPULATION TO APPROVE FILING OF
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WHEREAS, when Plaintiff initially filed her Complaint in this matter, she was
unable, despite a thorough investigation, to identify all the individuals who accessed her
driver’s license information without a permissible purpose;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Complaint listed, as “John and Jane Does,” the unknown
individuals who accessed her driver’s license information without a permissible purpose;
WHEREAS, this Court provided for Phase One Discovery to provide the Plaintiff
the opportunity to determine the identities of the individuals who accessed her driver’s
license information without a permissible purpose;
WHEREAS, through Phase One Discovery, Plaintiff has been able to determine
the identities of many of the individuals who accessed her driver’s license information
without a permissible purpose;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff now wishes to amend her Complaint to identify many of the
“John and Jane Does;”
EXHIBIT 3
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-3 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, Plaintiff also wishes to amend her Complaint to add direct claims
under the Drivers Privacy Protection Act against Minnesota Department of Public Safety
Commissioners Michael Campion and Mona Dohman;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff also wishes to amend her Complaint to add claims against
unknown officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety in their individual capacity and identified for the
present as “DPS Does;”
WHEREAS, Plaintiff also wishes to make various other changes to the Complaint;
WHEREAS, the changes Plaintiff proposes are all identified in the attached draft
First Amended Complaint;
The parties, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and
agree:
1. That Plaintiff shall be allowed to file and serve a First Amended Complaint
mirroring the attached draft; and,
2. That Answers to the First Amendment Complaint for the Defendants named in
the initial Complaint are due 20 days after the First Amended Complaint is filed.
Dated: September 28, 2012 SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP, PLLC s/Lorenz F. Fett, Jr. Lorenz F. Fett, Jr. (#196769) Jonathan A Strauss (#279602) Sonia Miller-Van Oort (#278087) Kenneth H. Fukuda (#389301) 12 S 6th St, Suite 1242 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-756-7100 Fax: 612-756-7101
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-3 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 5
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Dated: ___________________ IVERSON REUVERS, LLC __________________________________ Jon K Iverson (#146389) Susan M. Tindal (#330875) Iverson Reuvers, LLC 9321 Ensign Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 Phone: 952-548-7204 Fax: 952-548-7210 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF BURNSVILLE, CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, CITY OF EAGAN, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, CITY OF LAKEVILLE, CITY OF MINNETONKA
Dated: September 28, 2012 OFFICE OF THE MINNEAPOLIS CITY ATTORNEY s/Timothy S. Skarda Kristin R Sarff (#388003) Timothy S. Skarda (#10176X) 350 S 5th St Rm 210 Mpls, MN 55415 Phone: 612-673-3919 Fax: 612-673-3362 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-3 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 5
OF MINNEAPOLIS
Dated: September 28, 2012 OFFICE OF THE ST. PAUL CITY ATTORNEY s/Cheri M. Sisk Cheri M Sisk (#32999X) City of St Paul Attorney's Office 15 W Kellogg Blvd 750 City Hall and Courthouse St Paul, MN 55102 Phone: 651-266-8768 Fax: 651-266-8787 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF ST. PAUL
Dated: ______________________ OFFICE OF THE RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY ______________________________ Kimberly Parker (#0296685) Assistant Ramsey County Attorney 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 4500 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 266-3117 Fax: (651) 266-3032 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT RAMSEY COUNTY
Dated: _____________________ JARDINE, LOGAN & O'BRIEN, PLLP ________________________________ Joseph E. Flynn (#165712) Elisa M. Hatlevig (#336920) 8519 Eagle Point Boulevard Lake Elmo, MN 55042-8624
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-3 Filed 09/28/12 Page 4 of 5
Phone: (651) 290-6500 Fax: (651) 223-5070 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CHARLES GOLLOP, SEAN SWEENEY, ZACHARY HESSEL, CHRISTOPHER MILLARD AND CARTER STAAF
Dated: ___________________ OFFICE OF THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL ______________________________ Gary R. Cunningham (#180610) Stephen D. Melchionne (#391374) Minnesota Attorney General's Office 445 Minnesota Street St Paul, MN 55101 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MONA DOHMAN AND MICHAEL CAMPION
CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-3 Filed 09/28/12 Page 5 of 5