complaint cc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION_______________________________________

)JASON WALKER; KACY DANIEL; )ANTONIO DANIEL; VANCE PERRY; )and TRENTON BOYD )

)Plaintiffs, )

)vs. ) CIVIL ACTION

) FILE NO. __________________KASIM REED, in his official capacity as )Mayor of the CITY OF ATLANTA; )STALONE DAVIS, individually; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDBRANDON JACKSON, individually; )CHRISTOPHER LANIER, individually; )CAYENNE MAYES, individually; )JUAN ORTIZ, individually; )REGINALD PETTIS, individually; )DIMITRI CALDWELL, individually; )ANTONIO BLASINI, individually; )ZOEL MURPHY, individually; )LUCA AMARENA, individually; )VICTOR GUEVARA, individually; )DEREK CHAO, individually; )DARNELL PERRY, individually; and )JOHN DOE 1 )

) Defendants. )

______________________________________ )

COMPLAINT

of 60

COME NOW Plaintiffs Jason Walker, Kacy Daniel, Antonio Daniel, Vance

Perry and Trenton Boyd who bring this Complaint seeking damages and

declaratory relief against Defendant City of Atlanta and the individual

Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as relief under Georgia law

against the individual defendants. This action arises from the unlawful searches

and seizures and public strip-searches of the Plaintiffs by the individual

Defendants, pursuant to a custom, policy and/or practice of the Atlanta Police

Department (“APD”).

JURISDICTION

1.

This action arises under the authority vested in this Court by virtue of 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and pendent

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court is authorized to grant

declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202.

of 60

VENUE

2.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391. The City of

Atlanta, Georgia, (“Atlanta”) is within this judicial district and a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial

district.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff Kacy Daniel (“Kacy Daniel”) is a resident of Georgia.

4.

Plaintiff Antonio Daniel (“Antonio Daniel”) is a resident of Georgia.

5.

Plaintiff Vance Perry (“ V. Perry”) is a resident of Georgia.

6.

Plaintiff Trenton Boyd (“Boyd”) is a resident of Georgia.

7.

Kasim Reed is sued in his official capacity as mayor of the City of Atlanta

(“Defendant City of Atlanta”), a City chartered under the laws of the State of

of 60

Georgia and subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. The Atlanta

Police Department (“APD”) is a division of Defendant City of Atlanta.

8.

Defendant Stalone Davis (“Davis”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police

Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the

allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.

9.

Defendant Brandon Jackson (“Jackson”) was an officer of the Atlanta

Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the


10.

Defendant Christopher Lanier (“Lanier”) was an officer of the Atlanta



11.

Defendant Cayenne Mayes (“Mayes”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



of 60

12.

Defendant Juan Ortiz (“Ortiz”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



13.

Defendant Reginald Pettis (“Pettis”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



14.

Defendant Dimitri Caldwell (“Caldwell”) was an officer of the Atlanta



15.

Defendant Antonio Blasini (“Blasini”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



of 60

16.

Defendant Zoel Murphy (“Murphy”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



17.

Defendant Luca Amarena (“Amarena”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



18.

Defendant Victor Guevara (“Guevara”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



19.

Defendant Derek Chao (“Chao”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



of 60

20.

Defendant Darnell Perry (“D. Perry”) was an officer of the Atlanta Police



21.

Defendant John Doe 1 was an officer of the Atlanta Police Department and

acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this

Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. John Doe 1 is an African-

American male, approximately 5' 10", medium-build with short hair, and may be

Officer Rodney Jefferson.

22.

Collectively, the individual defendant police officers named above shall, at

times, be referred to below collectively, as indicated by the attentive fact and

circumstances as the “Defendant Officers”.

of 60

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MUNICIPAL LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA

Common to all Plaintiffs

Unconstitutional Policies, Customs, and Practices

Custom, Policy and/or Practice of Public Strip-Searches

23.

At all times relevant to the events described in this complaint the APD,

and in particular its “Red Dog Unit,”had a custom, policy and/or practice to

perform strip searches and body cavity searches in public. Among other

examples to be proven at trial are:

a. The body cavity search of Ronald McNair performed by Defendant

Davis in the field on December 9, 2008, during which Defendant

Davis searched McNair’s “anal cavity”according to his own

statement in APD incident report #083441853;

b. the body cavity search of Chaddrick Hood conducted in the field on

February 19, 2010, during which the officer “conducted a search of

Hood’s rectal cavity”according to the statements in APD incident

report #100501758;

of 60

c. The search and touching of the genitals of Clarence Smith, a 23-year

old man, in the dressing room of a department store on November

26, 2007, by APD officers Cayenne Mayes and Reginald Pettis;

d. The strip search of Shawn Venegas conducted on a public street by

Red Dog Officers Cayenne Mayes, Dion Meredith, and Travis Britt

on June 30, 2010;

e. The search and touching of the genitals of 17-year old Olajuwan

Wilson in a convenience store by Red Dog officer Jonathan B.

Cornelius on September 28, 2010;

f. The public strip search of Plaintiff Kacy Daniel on May 20, 2010, as

described herein;

g. The public strip search of Jason Walker on September 30, 2009, as

described herein;

h. The public strip search of Plaintiff Vance Perry on June 29, 2010, as

described herein; and,

i. The public strip search of Plaintiff Trenton Boyd on March 20, 2010,

as described herein.

of 60

Custom, Policy and/or Practice of Detention, Search & Seizure WithoutReasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause

24.

At all times relevant to the events described in this complaint the Atlanta

Police Department (“APD”), and in particular its “Red Dog Unit,”had a policy,

custom, and/or practice to stop, frisk, and search persons without reasonable

suspicion or probable cause. Among other examples to be proven at trial are the

following:

a. the unlawful stop, search, and arrest of Kelvin Bryant on October 16,

2008, by Defendant Brandon Jackson, along with Red Dog officers

James Menzoian, William Porter, and Jason Overbaugh, about which

a federal judge found "that the officers did not have probable cause

or even reasonable suspicion to stop [Bryant's] vehicle." (See United

States v, Kelvin Bryant, 1:09-CR-018-JEC, U.S.D.C.-N.D.Ga);

b. the unlawful stop and search of Shawn Venegas and Brian Kidd by

Red Dog Officers on June 30, 2010 (for which the City of Atlanta

eventually paid a settlement of $200,000.00);

of 60

c. The unlawful search and seizure of dozens of persons not suspected

of any criminal activity during the “Atlanta Eagle bar raid”in

September, 2009 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a

settlement of $1,025,000.00);

d. The unlawful search and seizure of persons not suspected of any

criminal activity during the “Ruby’s Sanabella Restaurant and

Lounge raid” in May, 2010; and,

e. The unlawful seizure of James Hereford on August 5, 2010 (for

which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $50,000.00).

Unconstitutional Policies & Procedures

25.

The searches and seizures of Plaintiffs described herein were conducted pursuant

to unconstitutional official policies of the Atlanta Police Department which authorize

suspcionless seizures, frisks, and searches, including Standard Operating Procedure 3065

(which authorizes and instructs officers to detain and frisk individuals without regard to

reasonable articulable suspicion) and Standard Operating Procedure 3020 Section 4.3.1

(which authorizes officers to perform warrantless searches without probable cause).

of 60

Acquiescence & Deliberate Indifference to Unconstitutional Practices

26.

As described herein, the policy of conducting strip and/or body cavity

searches in public was widespread and well-known within the APD and so

widely tolerated that Atlanta Police officers openly described these searches in

their own publicly available incident reports, as described in Paragraph 23. This

policy was tolerated, condoned and acquiesced to by senior policy makers in

APD, and this was a moving force behind the conduct described herein.

27.

As described herein, the policy of conducting unlawful searches and

seizures without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause was

widespread and well-known and widely accepted by APD. This policy was

tolerated, condoned and acquiesced to by senior policy makers in APD, and this

was a moving force behind the conduct described herein.

of 60

Failure to Train and Discipline

28.

Prior to the conduct described herein, the City of Atlanta was aware of

pervasive violations of the Fourth Amendment by APD officers. Among other

incidents to be proven at trial are the following:

a. The unlawful search of 1056 Dill Avenue by Sergeant Wilbert Stallings and

other APD officers in October, 2005 (for which Sgt. Stallings was

sentenced to 18 months in federal prison);

b. The unlawful arrest of Deborah Schowalter in January, 2006 (for which the

City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $25,000.00);

c. Various Fourth Amendment violations associated with the death of Kathryn

Johnston in November, 2006 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid

a settlement of $4,900,000.00);

d. The unlawful stop and arrest of Kelvin Bryant on October 16, 2008, by

Atlanta police officers Brandon Jackson, James Menzoian, William Porter,

and Jason Overbaugh, about which a federal judge found "that the officers

did not have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to stop [Bryant's]

vehicle." (See United States v. Kelvin Bryant, 1:09-CR-018-JEC, U.S.D.C.-

N.D.Ga);

of 60

e. The unlawful arrest of Minnie Carrie in March, 2009 (for which the City of

Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $20,000);

f. The unlawful search, seizure, and arrest of dozens of innocent bar patrons

during the Atlanta Eagle bar raid (the “Atlanta Eagle Raid”) on September

10-11, 2009 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of

$1,025,000.00).

29.

The APD’s lack of training regarding the requirements of the Fourth

Amendment, prior to the incidents complained of herein, is also demonstrated by

the following:

a. On July 14, 2009, the Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”)

recommended that the Atlanta Police Department conduct training

regarding Fourth Amendment issues including “Terry stops.” The

Chief of Police rejected this recommendation.

b. In connection with its investigation of the Atlanta Eagle Raid the

ACRB reviewed “records concerning the department’s in-service

training for officers during 2008 and 2009. There was no indication

officers received training concerning constitutional law.”

of 60

c. The ACRB “Study of Supervisory Responsibility” regarding the

Atlanta Eagle Raid also reported that: “It became evident during the

course of the investigation that many officers are unfamiliar with the

constitutional requirements for conducting a search and/or seizure.”

d. Deposition testimony and other statements related to the Atlanta

Eagle Raid by senior APD commanders including former Chief

Richard Pennington, Deputy Chief Carlos Banda, and Major Debra

Williams also suggest a pervasive lack of training regarding basic

Fourth Amendment concepts such as the requirements of a lawful

Terry stop; the requirements of a lawful frisk; and the definition of

an arrest, among other subjects. These statements suggest both the

failure of the Atlanta Police Department to train these employees

themselves, as well as the improper training provided by senior

commanders to the subordinates who look to them for guidance.

30.

Despite knowledge of these pervasive Fourth Amendment violations the

City of Atlanta acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of persons, such as

Plaintiffs, with whom the police would come into contact by failing to provide

of 60

appropriate training, guidance and discipline to APD officers regarding the

requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

31.

The Atlanta Police Department has also demonstrated a pervasive failure

to discipline police officers for unreasonable searches and seizures under the

Fourth Amendment, and other violations of law. Among other examples to be

proven at trial, although the Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) has

sustained complaints against dozens of police officers for unlawful conduct the

Atlanta Police Department has a pattern of not following the ACRB’s

recommendations to impose discipline. Additional factual information about

this pattern is available on the website of the ACRB at http://acrbgov.org ,

including, among other references, http://acrbgov.org/case-10-7-complaint-

brian-kidd/ .

32.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant Officers, as police

officers of the City of Atlanta, were acting under the direction and control of

APD and were acting pursuant to the official custom, policy and/or practice of

the City of Atlanta.

of 60

33.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the City of Atlanta as set

forth herein, the Plaintiffs suffered physical injury, mental anguish, lost wages,

and other general and special damages in connection with the deprivation of

Plaintiffs’constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C.

§1983 and are thereby entitled to a judgment against the City of Atlanta for those

damages and injuries suffered.

ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF JASON WALKER

34.

Plaintiff Walker incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 33, as if fully set forth herein.

35.

Plaintiff Walker was driving his vehicle along Chappell Road in Atlanta,

Georgia, on September 30, 2009. He observed a marked patrol car belonging to

APD’s Red Dog Unit traveling in the opposite direction.

of 60

36.

As he was turning into the Chappell Forrest Apartment complex, Walker

was “blue-lighted”and stopped by the APD vehicle which contained Defendants

Davis, Jackson, and Lanier – all members of the APD’s now-disbanded “Red Dog

Unit.”

37.

Immediately after stopping Walker’s car and without advising Walker

why they had stopped him, one of the Defendants ordered Walker out of the

vehicle and handcuffed him.

38.

Defendant Davis immediately frisked Walker.

39.

Defendant Davis ordered Walker to open his mouth and Davis shined a

flashlight into Walker’s mouth.

40.

With Walker still handcuffed, Defendant Davis pulled down Walker’s

pants to mid-thigh, exposing Walker’s genitals to public view. Several witnesses

unconnected to the incident saw Walker’s exposed genitals during this search.

of 60

41.

While Defendant Davis was searching Walker’s person, Defendants

Jackson and Lanier searched Walker’s car.

42.

These Defendants neither requested nor received consent to search Walker

or Walker’s vehicle.

43.

These Defendants did not find any drugs, weapons, or contraband of any

kind on Walker’s person or in Walker’s vehicle.

44.

After searching Walker and his car these Defendants issued Walker a

citation for a malfunctioning tail light and released him.

45.

These Defendants never submitted the citation they issued Walker, and the

charge was never entered into the Atlanta Municipal Court docketing system; the

citation simply “disappeared.”

of 60

PLAINTIFF WALKER’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unreasonable Search and Seizure under the United States’ Constitution

(By Plaintiff Walker against Defendants Jackson, Davis, Lanier & City of Atlanta)

46.

Defendants Jackson, Davis & Lanier had no reason to suspect Walker of

any criminal activity when they stopped his vehicle and had neither reasonable

articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize Walker.

47.

The seizure of Walker without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or

probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution.

48.

These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer

could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize Walker without a

warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.

of 60

49.

At the time these Defendants frisked and handcuffed Walker they had no

reason to believe that Walker was either armed or dangerous.

50.

The frisk of Walker was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

51.


could have believed that it was lawful to frisk Walker without reasonable

suspicion that he was both armed and presently dangerous.

52.

These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Walker was

involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband.

53.

The search of Walker and his vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

of 60

54.


could have believed that it was lawful to search Walker and his vehicle without

consent, a warrant, or probable cause.

55.

The public search of Walker’s genitals, and exposure of Walker’s genitals

to public view, was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments


56.


could have believed that it was lawful to strip search Walker in public and

expose Walker’s genitals to public view.

57.

In all the foregoing, these Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and

callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiff.

of 60

58.

These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Walker’s rights as

described above; therefore, the individual Defendants are jointly and severally

liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiff.

59.

Defendants Davis, Jackson and Lanier are each liable to Plaintiff for their

failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiff from the

unlawful conduct of the other officers present.

60.

The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were

the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above.

PLAINTIFF WALKER’S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law

(By Plaintiff Walker against Defendant’s Jackson, Davis & Lanier)

61.

By unlawfully detaining Walker and depriving him of his personal liberty,

these Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for

damages will lie under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-20.

of 60

62.

These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful

objective of falsely imprisoning Walker by unlawful means.

63.

The false imprisonment was the act of these several individual Defendants

jointly, and the individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the

entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.

64.

These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to

humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and

conspired to falsely imprison Walker and did so under color of legal process.

PLAINTIFF WALKER’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Battery Under Georgia Law


65.

These Defendants intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking

contact with Walker. Such acts constitute battery by these Defendants, under the

laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-14.

of 60

66.


objective of committing a battery on Walker by unlawful means.

67.


humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and

conspired to commit a battery on Walker and did so under color of legal process.

PLAINTIFF WALKER’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Punitive Damages


68.

The acts of Defendants Jackson, Davis and Lanier, as set forth herein, were

willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to entitle Walker to

an award of punitive damages against these individual Defendants.

PLAINTIFF JASON WALKER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:

a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;

of 60

b. Award Plaintiff Walker actual damages, including compensation for

physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;

c. Award Plaintiff Walker general damages in an amount to be

determined by the jury;

d. Award Plaintiff Walker nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights;

e. Award Plaintiff Walker punitive (exemplary) damages against the

individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law;

f. Declare that Defendants Jackson, Davis, Lanier, and the City of

Atlanta violated Plaintiff Walker’s rights under the United States

Constitution;

g. Award Plaintiff Walker attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and

any other applicable provision of law;

h. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and

proper.

of 60

ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL & ANTONIO DANIEL

69.

Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel incorporate the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 33, as if fully set forth herein.

70.

On May 20, 2010, Kacy Daniel and Antonio Daniel, who are cousins, were

sitting in a car belonging to Antonio’s mother in a parking lot of a strip mall on

Oak Street in Atlanta, Georgia, waiting for Antonio’s mother who was getting a

manicure in the mall. The two young men were seated in the front seat, drinking

soft-drinks, eating potato chips and listening to the car’s radio.

71.

Without warning or cause, and APD vehicle containing Defendants Mayes,

Ortiz and Pettis – members of the now-disbanded “Red Dog Unit” - stopped in

the middle of the road in front of the parking lot. The officers quickly exited the

police car, approached Ms. Daniel’s vehicle and pointed their service weapons at

Kacy and Antonio Daniel. The officers instructed the young men to exit the

vehicle or they would shoot the young men in the head.

of 60

72.

Kacy and Antonio exited the vehicle as instructed. Once they were out of

the vehicle, the defendant officers began to search them. When Kacy Daniel

asked what they had done wrong, Officer Pettis demanded that he “shut the fuck

up” and change his attitude.

73.

Immediately thereafter, Pettis unbuttoned Kacy Daniel’s pants, allowing

them to fall to the ground. He then pulled down Mr. Daniel’s underwear,

allowing his buttocks and genitals to be exposed in public. When doing so, Pettis

told Daniel that if he moved he would knock his back out (or words to that

effect). During the search, Pettis touched the genitals of Kacy Daniel. The officer

found nothing illegal in Kacy Daniel’s possession.

74.

While Pettis was searching Kacy Daniel, Mayes was searching Antonio

Daniel. As his cousin Kacy had done, Antonio Daniel asked what they had done

wrong. Mayes told him, “don’t worry about it.” As with the search of his

cousin, Mayes found nothing illegal in Antonio Daniel’s possession.

of 60

75.

These Defendants neither requested nor received consent to search Kacy or

Antonio Daniel.

76.

After searching the Plaintiffs, the officers then asked to search Ms. Daniel’s

vehicle. Antonio Daniels responded, “no” and that he could not give consent for

the officers to search his mother’s car. He told the officers that his aunt was in

the nail salon a few feet away and that they could ask her. Officer Mayes

responded that he was a man and did not need his mother.

77.

The officers proceeded with the search of the vehicle, without consent. No

drugs or contraband of any kind was found in the vehicle.

78.

The officers did not charge either young man with any offense or even

write an incident report about the encounter, despite their warrantless search of

the vehicle and the two young men and the use of force in drawing their service

weapons and pointing them at Kacy and Antonio Daniel.

of 60

PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unreasonable Search and Seizure Under the United States Constitution

(By Plaintiffs Kacy Daniel and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis, Ortiz and the City of Atlanta)

79.

Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz had no reason to suspect Kacy or

Antonio Daniel of any criminal activity when they approached the vehicle

occupied by the two young men and had neither reasonable articulable suspicion

nor probable cause to seize either of them.

80.

The seizure of Kacy and Antonio Daniel without a warrant, reasonable

suspicion, or probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth


81.


could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize Kacy or Antonio Daniel

without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.

of 60

82.

These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Kacy or Antonio

Daniel was involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband.

83.

The search of Kacy and Antonio Daniel and the vehicle in which they were

sitting was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.

84.


could have believed that it was lawful to search Kacy or Antonio Daniel or the

vehicle in which they were seated without consent, a warrant or probable cause.

85.

The public search of Kacy Daniel’s buttocks and genitals, and exposure of

Kacy Daniel’s buttocks and genitals to public view, was unreasonable under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

of 60

86.


could have believed that it was lawful to strip search Kacy Daniel in public and

expose his genitals to public view.

87.


callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiffs.

88.

These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Kacy Daniel’s and

Antonio Daniel’s rights as described above; therefore, the individual Defendants

are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiffs.

89.



of 60

PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL’S & ANTONIO DANIEL’SSECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Excessive Use of Force Under the Fourth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution

(By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel againstDefendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz)

90.

By the unreasonable conduct described above, the Defendant Officers used

excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States of America.

91.

Defendants Mays, Pettis and Ortiz are each liable to Plaintiffs for their

failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiffs from the

unlawful conduct of the other officers present.

of 60

PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF


(By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz)

92.

By unlawfully detaining Kacy and Antonio Daniel and depriving them of

their personal liberty, these Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort

for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-20.

93.


objective of falsely imprisoning Kacy and Antonio Daniel by unlawful means.

94.


jointly; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for

the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.

95.


humiliate and harm the Plaintiffs, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and

of 60

conspired to falsely imprison Kacy and Antonio Daniel and did so under color of

legal process.

PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF



96.

These Defendants intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking

contact with Kacy and Antonio Daniel. Such acts constitute battery by these

Defendants, under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-

14.

97.


objective of committing a battery on Kacy and Antonio Daniel by unlawful

means.

98.



of 60

conspired to commit a battery on Kacy and Antonio Daniel and did so under

color of legal process.

PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL’S FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Punitive Damages


99.

The acts of Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz, as set forth herein, were

willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to entitle Kacy and

Antonio Daniel to an award of punitive damages against these individual

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL’S & ANTONIO DANIEL’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:


b. Award Plaintiffs actual damages, including compensation for

physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;

c. Award Plaintiffs general damages in an amount to be determined by

the jury;

of 60

d. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages for violations of Plaintiffs’


e. Award Plaintiffs punitive (exemplary) damages against the


f. Declare that Defendants Mayes, Pettis, Ortiz, and the City of Atlanta

violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution;

g. Award Plaintiffs attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any

other applicable provision of law;


proper.

ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY

100.

Plaintiff Vance Perry incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1


101.

On June 29, 2010, Plaintiff Vance Perry arrived at the home of friends at

Overlook Atlanta apartments located on Donald Lee Hollowell Parkway in

of 60

Atlanta, Georgia where he planned to share meal and socialize with friends and

family.

102.

Upon arrival with his two and five year old daughters, he was bringing in

food and other items from his car when he saw an police vehicle operated by

members of APD’s Red Dog Unit, specifically Defendants Blasini, Murphy

Amarena and Caldwell driving slowly into the neighborhood. Plaintiff V. Perry

briefly glanced back towards the police car because he wanted to see if there was

an apparent reason for the police being present in the neighborhood, as his

children and others were playing in the yard. Seeing nothing to cause alarm, he

looked away and headed back towards the apartment.

103.

As Plaintiff V. Perry was about to enter his friends’ apartment, two of these

Defendant Officers (a white, muscular male, approximately 6'0" tall, and a

shorter, dark-skinned, bald African-American male) violently grabbed hold of V.

Perry and pulled him backwards, away from the apartment. V. Perry had to grab

a bannister to avoid hitting his head on the ground.

of 60

104.

Before being grabbed, V. Perry did not hear the officers coming towards

him or say anything to him.

105.

The officers described above threw V. Perry to the ground and stepped on

his head to hold him down while they handcuffed and searched him. Still the

officers did not tell V. Perry why they had seized him, searched him or

handcuffed him. No drugs were found on V. Perry’s person.

106.

These Defendant Officers took V. Perry to their police car and threw him

onto the hood of the vehicle, leaving his feet dangling above the ground.

107.

While on the hood, one of the officers (a white male with dark hair,

approximately 6' tall) grabbed the waistband of V. Perry’s pants and pulled his

pants and underwear down in front of all those present, exposing his buttocks

and genitals to those present, including his friends, his girlfriend, and his two

small daughters.

of 60

108.

The same officer then spread V. Perry’s buttocks apart in front of those

present, including his children. No drugs or any other contraband was found.

109.

When the officer pulled his buttocks apart, V. Perry looked back to see

why they were doing this. When he looked back, the same officer who pulled

down his pants and underwear told him to “stop resisting,” pulled his pants up

and threw him, face-first, onto the pavement next to the car. V. Perry could not

prevent his face from striking the pavement, as he was handcuffed. V. Perry’s

body struck the ground so hard that he urinated on himself.

110.

V. Perry’s head was held down on the pavement by an officer’s foot (the

shorter, dark-skinned, stocky, bald male), while the same officer asked “what’s

wrong with you” and laughed with the other officers.

111.

When these officers saw that people were witnessing what they were

doing and began asking questions, they put V. Perry in the police car and drove

him down the street to a gas station parking lot.

of 60

112.

The officers removed V. Perry from the Red Dog Unit car and made him sit

on the tire of the car while they questioned him about having or using drugs. V.

Perry stated he neither used nor had drugs. V. Perry then asked the officers why

they had beaten him. The officers refused to answer him – one stated, “I’m not

even gonna talk to you anymore” and walked away. V. Perry asked the officers

what he was being charged with, but none of the officers would respond.

113.

Only after seizing, arresting, strip-searching and assaulting V. Perry did

these officers locate V. Perry’s identification and determine his identity. V. Perry

was not wanted for any offense by any jurisdiction.

114.

V. Perry was eventually placed into a prisoner transport van by the officers

and was transported to jail and charged with obstruction of law enforcement

officers and possessing a weapon with an altered identification number.

115.

Soon after being beaten by these Defendant Officers, Plaintiff V. Perry

began experiencing severe headaches and dizziness. When dizzy he fell and

of 60

broke his ankle. He was taken to the doctor and found that he had suffered a

concussion when beaten. V. Perry has since been treated for his injuries and is

recuperating.

116.

When hearing of the improper conduct by these officers from numerous

witnesses, reading the officers inconsistent reports and speaking to V. Perry, the

district attorney’s office dismissed all charges against V. Perry and are assisting

V. Perry in having his record expunged regarding his arrest.

PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF


(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena, Caldwell and the City of Atlanta)

117.

Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell had no reason to

suspect V. Perry of any criminal activity when they drove past him or

approached him in the yard of his friend’s apartment and had neither reasonable

articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize him.

of 60

118.

The seizure of V. Perry without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or

probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments


119.


could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize V. Perry without a

warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.

120.

These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that V. Perry was

involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband.

121.

The search of V. Perry was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth


122.


could have believed that it was lawful to search V. Perry without consent, a

warrant or probable cause.

of 60

123.

The public search of V. Perry’s buttocks and genitals, and exposure of his

buttocks and genitals to public view, was unreasonable under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

124.


could have believed that it was lawful to strip search V. Perry in public and

expose his genitals to public view.

125.


callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiff.

126.

These Defendants combined and conspired to violate V. Perry’s rights, as

described above; therefore, the individual Defendants are jointly and severally

liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiffs.

of 60

127.

Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are each liable to

Plaintiff for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect

Plaintiff from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present.

128.



PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Excessive Use of Force Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena, and Caldwell)

129.

By the unreasonable conduct described above, the Defendant Officers used

excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States of America.

of 60

130.

Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are each liable to

Plaintiff for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect

Plaintiff from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present.

PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF


(By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell)

131.

By unlawfully detaining V. Perry and depriving him of his personal

liberty, Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are guilty of false

imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. §

51-7-20.

132.


objective of falsely imprisoning V. Perry by unlawful means.

of 60

133.


jointly; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for

the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.

134.


humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and

conspired to falsely imprison V. Perry and did so under color of legal process.

PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF



135.

Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell intended to make

harmful or insulting or provoking contact with V. Perry. Such acts constitute

battery by these Defendants, under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under

O.C.G.A. § 51-1-14.

of 60

136.

These Defendants intentionally caused physical injury to V. Perry in

violation of O.C.G.A. § 51-1-13.

137.


objective of committing a battery on V. Perry by unlawful means.

138.



conspired to commit a battery on Vance Perry and did so under color of legal

process.

PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Punitive Damages


139.

The acts of Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell, as set

forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to

of 60

entitle Plaintiff Vance Perry to an award of punitive damages against these

individual Defendants.

PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff Vance Perry respectfully prays that

this Court:


b. Award Plaintiff actual damages, including compensation for

physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress ;

c. Award Plaintiff general damages in an amount to be determined by

the jury;

d. Award Plaintiff nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff’s


e. Award Plaintiff punitive (exemplary) damages against the


f. Declare that Defendants Blasini, Murphy Amarena, Caldwell, and

the City of Atlanta violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States

Constitution;

of 60

g. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other

applicable provision of law;


proper.

ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD

140.

Plaintiff Trenton Boyd incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs1


141.

On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff Trenton Boyd filed a complaint with the

Atlanta Citizen Review Board regarding a beating he received at the hands of

Atlanta Police “Red Dog”officers including Defendants Guevara and Pettis,

which resulted in severe injuries including two fractures and significant bruising.

142.

On March 20, 2010, Boyd was in front of Chanterelles Restaurant at 646

Evans St., Atlanta, Georgia, 30310.

of 60

143.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 were in a “Red Dog”

police vehicle that stopped in front of the restaurant, having apparently

recognized Boyd.

144.

Defendant Guevara exited the police car and ran toward Boyd. Guevara

ordered Boyd to put his hands up and began searching him.

145.

Defendant Guevara frisked Boyd, and searched Boyd’s pants pockets

(turning them inside-out), shoes, and socks, among other parts of Plaintiff’s

Boyd’s clothing and person.

146.

Defendant Guevara placed his hands inside Boyd’s underwear, touching

Boyd’s genital and buttocks.

147.

Defendant Guevara then pulled Boyd’s pants and underwear down to his

knees, exposing Boyd’s genitals and buttocks to public view.

of 60

148.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 were present at the

scene and failed to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Boyd

from the unlawful conduct of Defendant Guevara.

PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF


(By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry, John Doe 1 & the City of Atlanta)

149.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 had no reason to

suspect Plaintiff Trenton Boyd of any criminal activity when they stopped him,

and had neither reasonable articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize

Boyd.

150.

The seizure of Boyd without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable

cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.

of 60

151.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 violated clearly

established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to

stop and seize Boyd without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.

152.

At the time Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 frisked

Boyd they had no reason to believe that Boyd was either armed or dangerous.

153.

The frisk of Boyd was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth


154.


established law; no reasonable officer could have believed it was lawful to frisk

Boyd without reasonable suspicion that he was both armed and presently

dangerous.

of 60

155.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 had no probable

cause to believe that Boyd was involved in criminal activity or in possession of

contraband.

156.

The search of Boyd was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth


157.


established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to

search Boyd without consent, a warrant, or probable cause.

158.

The public exposure and search of Boyd’s genitals and buttocks was

unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

of 60

159.


could have believed that it was lawful to search Boyd’s genitals and buttocks in

public and expose Boyd’s genitals and buttocks to public view.

160.

In all the foregoing, Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1

acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally

protected rights of the Plaintiff.

161.

These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Boyd’s rights as

described above; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally

liable for the entire damages.

162.

Defendants Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 are liable to Boyd for their

failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Boyd from the

unlawful conduct of Defendant Guevara.

of 60

163.



PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF


(By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry & John Doe 1)

164.

By unlawfully detaining Plaintiff Trenton Boyd and depriving him of his

personal liberty, Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 are liable

for false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under

O.C.G.A. § 51-7-20.

165.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 combined and

conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely imprisoning Boyd by

unlawful means.

of 60

166.

The false imprisonment was the act of Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry

and John Doe 1 jointly; therefore, these Defendants are jointly and severally liable

for the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-7-22.

167.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, with malice and

oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely

imprisoned and/or combined and conspired to falsely imprison Boyd and did so

under color of legal process.

PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF



168.

Defendant Guevara intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking

contact with Plaintiff Trenton Boyd. Such acts constitute battery by Guevara

under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-14.

of 60

169.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 combined and

conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing a battery on Boyd

by unlawful means.

170.

Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, with malice and

oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a

battery on and/or combined and conspired to commit a battery on Boyd and did

so under color of legal process.

PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Punitive Damages


171.

The acts of Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, as set

forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to

entitle Plaintiff Trenton Boyd to an award of punitive damages against these

Defendants.

of 60

PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff Trenton Boyd respectfully prays

that this Court:


b. Award Plaintiff actual damages, including compensation for

physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress ;

c. Award Plaintiff general damages in an amount to be determined by

the jury;

d. Award Plaintiff nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff’s


e. Award Plaintiff punitive (exemplary) damages against the


f. Declare that Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry, John Doe, and the

City of Atlanta violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States

Constitution;

g. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other

applicable provision of law;

of 60


proper.

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED

Respectfully submitted this 29th of September, 2011.

GLASER, CURRIE & BULLMAN, LLP

/s/ Mark B. Bullman Mark B. BullmanGeorgia Bar No. 0943761455 Lincoln ParkwaySuite 300Atlanta, Georgia [email protected](770) 563-9300

LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. GROSSMAN

/s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. GrossmanGeorgia Bar No. 313815Law Office of Daniel J. Grossman1579 Monroe Drive, Ste F-138Atlanta, Georgia [email protected](404) 654-0326

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

complaint cc

Documents