maclin suit

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

STATE OF MISSOURI

LARMORE MACLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. _____________

v. )

) Division ______

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, )

Serve: Mayor Francis Slay ) Jury Trial Demanded

1200 Market Street )

St. Louis, Missouri, 63103, )

)

JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER I )

Serve: Hold Service )

)

Defendants. )

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

Comes now Plaintiff Larmore Maclin, and for his cause of action against

Defendants, states as follows:

Facts Common to All Counts

1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff seeking monetary damages for excessive

force arising from an incident whereby City of St. Louis Police Officers approached Plaintiff

while Plaintiff was lawfully walking on Washington Avenue and intentionally searched his

genitalia using violent force, causing physical injury to Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff Larmore Maclin is an individual over the age of 18, and currently and at

all times relevant resided within the State of Missouri.

3. Defendant City of St. Louis is a Missouri municipality.

4. Defendant City of St. Louis operates and controls a police department, commonly

referred to as the City of St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.

Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - July 15, 2015 - 09:20 AM

1522-CC10129

2

5. Defendant John Doe Police Officer I is one of two officers involved in the

incident described in this Petition occurring on or about May 12, 2015.

6. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis because all acts

complained of occurred within the City of St. Louis.

7. On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff presented to the IMOs Pizza located at 1828

Washington Avenue.

8. Officer Matthew Burle and Officer Marco Moreno-Christlieb, of the St. Louis

Metropolitan Police Department, were in IMOs at the time Plaintiff entered the restaurant.

9. Officers Burle and Moreno-Christlieb harassed Plaintiff without provocation, and

followed him out of the restaurant where they searched Plaintiff.

10. Plaintiff was not arrested and eventually was allowed to leave the scene.

11. Officers Burle and Moreno-Christlieb are officers in the 304 4th District.

12. On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Allegation of Employee Misconduct Report

with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department pertaining to the April 10, 2015 incident.

13. On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff was walking on Washington Avenue at approximately

1:00 a.m.

14. Plaintiff was returning to a loft on Washington Avenue after work.

15. Plaintiff was wearing a dress coat and dress slacks.

16. Suddenly, Plaintiff was approached by a police vehicle with two officers inside

the vehicle.

17. The officers approached very aggressively.

18. One officer ordered the other officer to search Plaintiff.


3

19. While searching Plaintiff, this officer, John Doe Police Officer I, intentionally and

violently grabbed and pulled Plaintiffs genitalia, causing physical injury.

20. During this encounter the officers were also verbally abusive towards Plaintiff.

21. Plaintiff was not arrested, and eventually was allowed to leave the scene.

22. On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Allegation of Employee Misconduct Report

pertaining to the May 12, 2015 incident.

23. The Department refused to identify the names of the officers involved; however,

the Report form indicates that the officers were part of the 304 4th District, the same unit as

Officers Burle and Moreno-Christlieb.

Count I Excessive Force/Battery (Plaintiff v. John Doe Police Officer I)

24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein, and further alleges as follows:

25. Defendants use of force on May 12, 2015, was excessive because it was not

reasonably necessary, for the following reasons, including but not limited to:

a. Plaintiff was not posing any threat to public safety or to the safety of

Defendant because he was lawfully walking on Washington Avenue when he

was approached by Defendant;

b. Plaintiff did not pose a threat to public safety or to the safety of Defendant

because Defendant had no reason to suspect Plaintiff had committed a crime

involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm when

he assaulted him; and


4

c. Plaintiff did not pose a threat to public safety or to the safety of Defendant

because Plaintiff was unarmed and did not have any weapon in his possession

when he was assaulted by Defendant.

26. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants actions, Plaintiff suffered bodily

harm and personal injuries, as well as pain and suffering and emotional distress, and will

continue to endure pain and suffering into the future.

27. The acts of Defendant were intentional, done with malice, and in reckless or

conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff so as to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive

damages against Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court enter its Judgment against Defendant for

such sums that are fair and reasonable and in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in

such sums that are fair and reasonable, for costs expended herein, and for other such relief as the

Court deems just and proper.

Count II Negligent Training and Supervision (Plaintiff v. City of St. Louis)

28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein, and further alleges as follows:

29. Defendant John Doe Police Officer was at all times relevant acting as an

employee\agent under the direction and control, and pursuant to the policies, practices, and

customs of Defendant City of St. Louis.

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant acted negligently, carelessly, recklessly,

and with deliberate indifference to the safety of Plaintiff and others by failing to properly train,

supervise, control, direct, monitor, and/or discipline its officers, including John Doe Police

Officer I.


5

31. Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to adequately supervise and train

its officers, including John Doe Police Officer I, with respect to avoiding using excessive force,

the proper use of force, and other proper methods of use of force and investigation.

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants failures as listed above, Plaintiff

suffered severe bodily harm and personal injuries, as well as pain and suffering and emotional

distress, and will continue to endure pain and suffering into the future.

33. The acts of Defendant were intentional, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and

therefore entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court enter its Judgment against Defendant for

such sums that are fair and reasonable and in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in

such sums that are fair and reasonable, for costs expended herein, and for other such relief as the

Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

PONDER ZIMMERMANN LLC

By /s/ Douglas B. Ponder

Douglas Ponder, #54968

[email protected]

Jaclyn M. Zimmermann, #57814

[email protected]

20 South Sarah Street

St. Louis, MO 63108

Phone: 314-272-2621

FAX: 314-272-2713

Attorneys for Plaintiff


maclin suit

Documents