UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : PATRICIA WALLACE and COURTNEY : DOPP, : : COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civil Action Number : THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, : MICHAEL AMATO, both individually and : in his official capacity as the Sheriff of : Montgomery County, JEFFREY SMITH, : both individually and in his official capacity : as the Undersheriff of Montgomery County, : SCOTT W. WHITMAN and DEPUTY : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ELLWOOD, : : Defendants. : : Plaintiffs Patricia Wallace and Courtney Dopp, through counsel, hereby complain and allege as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 USC 1331, 1341, & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory and punitive damages for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 USC Venue is proper under 28 USC 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this judicial district.

2 PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Patricia Wallace ( Wallace ) is a citizen of the United States and currently resides in Montgomery County, New York. 4. Plaintiff Courtney Dopp ( Dopp ) is a citizen of the United States and currently resides in Montgomery County, New York. 5. Defendant County of Montgomery is a county government duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business being the County Annex Building, Fonda, New York. 6. Defendant Michael Amato ( Amato ) was and remains the duly elected Sheriff of the County of Montgomery, with his principal place of business being the Montgomery County Public Safety Building, Fultonville, New York. Sheriff Amato is made a defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacity. 7. Defendant Jeffrey Smith ( Smith ) was and remains the duly appointed Undersheriff of the County of Montgomery, with his principal place of business being the Montgomery County Public Safety Building, Fultonville, New York. Undersheriff Smith is made a defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacity. 8. Defendant Scott Whitman ( Whitman ) was and remains a duly appointed Deputy Sheriff employed by the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department, with his principal place of business being the Montgomery County Public Safety Building, Fultonville, New York. 9. Defendant Deputy Ellwood ( Ellwood ) was and remains a duly appointed Deputy Sheriff employed by the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department, with his principal place of business being the Montgomery County Public Safety Building, Fultonville, New York. The Plaintiffs do not presently recall Deputy Ellwood s first name.

3 FACTS 10. On December 30, 2005, Plaintiffs Patricia Wallace and Courtney Dopp were at the home of Ms. Wallace s sister, Irene Carpenter, in Fonda, New York. Patricia Wallace is the mother of Courtney Dopp. 11. Wallace was a frequent guest in Carpenter home, where she would frequently babysit and supervise Ms. Carpenter s daughters. 12. On December 30, 2005, Plaintiff Courtney Dopp joined her mother at the Carpenter house, together with Dopp s infant son. 13. At approximately 3:00 AM on December 30, 2005, the Plaintiffs were sleeping at the Carpenter home when Defendant Scott Whitman arrived at the residence. Defendant Whitman arrived at the Carpenter home to question and arrest Courtney Dopp on misdemeanor criminal charges relating to an altercation Dopp had had with her boyfriend earlier that evening. 14. At the time Deputy Whitman arrived at the Carpenter home, he neither possessed an arrest warrant or a search warrant. 15. Upon announcing his arrival, Deputy Whitman was instructed by Ms. Wallace to remain outside the Carpenter home and wait while she woke Courtney Dopp. Instead of waiting, Deputy Whitman proceeded to enter the Carpenter residence without permission. 16. Whitman then followed Ms. Wallace through the home, unbeknownst to Wallace, and then confronted Ms. Dopp in the living room and demanded that she put on her coat and leave the home with him. 17. Both Ms. Dopp and Ms. Wallace asked Deputy Whitman if he had a warrant to arrest Ms. Dopp. Whitman stated that he had a warrant in his car, and was requested to produce the warrant by Ms. Dopp.

4 18. At this time, and without provocation, Defendant Whitman lunged at Plaintiff Dopp, presumably to take her into custody. During the course of the following altercation, Defendant Whitman proceeded to assault Ms. Dopp, strangling her, ripping her clothing, placing her in a headlock, and roughly handcuffing her. Whitman also dragged Ms. Dopp through the home by her throat. 19. As this was occurring, Ms. Wallace telephoned the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department and requested assistance relative to Whitman s assault on her daughter. 20. In response to this call for help, two Montgomery County Sheriff s Deputies, including Defendant Ellwood, arrived at the Carpenter home. After Ellwood enter the home, Whitman motioned toward Wallace, at which point Ellwood grabbed Ms. Wallace, threw her hands behind her back, removed her from the home, and shoved her face first over a deck rail. Ms. Wallace was then placed in handcuffs. This altercation was preceded by Ms. Wallace asking the deputies not to touch her because she had a serious back condition. 21. After Ms. Wallace objected to her being arrested, Defendant Whitman then ordered Ellwood to double cuff Ms. Wallace by placing two pairs of handcuffs on her. This, together with Ellwood s other actions, caused Ms. Wallace considerable pain and physical injury. 22. Ms. Wallace was eventually arrested on two counts of Obstruction of Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, one for interfering with Whitman s arrest of her daughter, Courtney Dopp, and one for refusing to cooperate in being fingerprinted. 23. The obstruction charges relative to fingerprinting were dismissed with prejudice by the trial court. Ms. Wallace was tried and acquitted of the other obstruction charge by a jury on July 17, 2006.

5 24. Plaintiff Wallace incurred significant monetary expenses defending these baseless criminal charges, including lost time from work. 25. The present claims against Whitman and Ellwood are part of a larger pattern of misconduct by the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department. In recent years, the Department has been the subject of scores of lawsuits for, among other things, excessive force, illegal strip searches and sexual harassment twice by Sheriff Amato. The reason why Deputies Whitman and Ellwood are empowered to falsely arrest and brutalize innocent civilians is because Sheriff Amato and Undersheriff Smith have abjectly failed in their responsibilities to train and supervise members of the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department, or otherwise administer the Department in an appropriate manner. 26. The Defendants herein acted within the scope of their authority to act as public servants for the County of Montgomery and the State of New York. 27. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants were acting under color of state law, that is, under color of the statutes, laws, charter, ordinances, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the County of Montgomery and the State of New York. 28. The Defendants should have known that their actions violated clearly established law protecting the Constitutional and statutory rights of the Plaintiffs.

6 CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BY PATRICIA WALLACE AGAINST DEFENDANTS SCOTT WHITMAN AND DEPUTY ELLWOOD Violation of Constitutional Rights under Color of State Law - False Arrest Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable seizures by local governments, and prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting and detaining individuals in the absence of appropriate authorization. The Fourth Amendment also precludes police officers from conducting arrests in the absence of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. 31. The actions of Defendants Whitman and Ellwood detailed above violated the Plaintiff s rights under the United States Constitution. It was not objectively reasonable for Whitman and Ellwood to arrest Wallace for anything on December 30, Wallace did not commit the offense of obstruction of governmental administration, or any criminal offense, that would justify her arrest and later assault. The criminal charges pressed by Whitman were later dismissed or resulted in an acquittal by a jury. Defendants Whitman and Ellwood then proceeded to remove Wallace from her sister s home in the absence of a warrant. 32. Defendants actions were motivated by bad faith and malice. 33. This conduct on the part of Defendants Whitman and Ellwood also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that his actions were undertaken under color of state law. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff Patricia Wallace has been irreparably injured.

7 AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BY PATRICIA WALLACE AGAINST DEFENDANT SCOTT WHITMAN Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law -- Malicious Prosecution 35. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from overzealous and malicious prosecution by government officials without probable cause. 37. Patricia Wallace was prosecuted, without probable cause, relative to two misdemeanor offenses for the events of December 30, The criminal charges resulted in the loss of liberty for Patricia Wallace, as she was held at the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department for several hours, and also incurred substantial defense costs as a result of her prosecution. 39. All of these criminal proceedings were terminated in favor of Ms. Wallace, as the charges in question were either dismissed outright or resulted in an acquittal. 40. Defendant s actions were motivated by bad faith and malice. 41. This conduct on the part of Defendant Whitman represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that his actions were undertaken under color of state law. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff Patricia Wallace has been irreparably injured.

8 AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BY PATRICIA WALLACE AGAINST DEFENDANT DEPUTY ELLWOOD Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law - Excessive Use of Force 43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment precludes police officers from utilizing unreasonable force against citizens to affect their detention. 45. Defendant Ellwood s use of force against Patricia Wallace was far in excess of the amount of force that would be considered objectively reasonable, especially considering that Ellwood did not have a valid warrant to enter the Carpenter home where Ms. Wallace was sleeping. Ellwood s conduct represents a violation of Plaintiff Patricia Wallace s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 46. This conduct on the part of Defendant Ellwood also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law. 47. The Defendant s actions were motivated by bad faith and malice. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff Patricia Wallace has been irreparably injured.

9 AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY COURTNEY DOPP AGAINST DEFENDANT SCOTT WHITMAN Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law - Warrantless Arrest Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable seizures by local governments, and prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting and detaining individuals in the absence of appropriate authorization. 51. The actions of Defendants Whitman detailed above violated the Plaintiff s rights under the United States Constitution. It was not objectively reasonable for Whitman to arrest Courtney Dopp when she was sleeping in a home as an invited guest in the absence of an appropriate arrest warrant. In short, the removal of a young mother from her child s side in the dead of night by a police officer is exactly the sort of abuse the Fourth Amendment was crafted to protect against. 52. Defendant s actions were motivated by bad faith and malice. 53. This conduct on the part of Defendant Whitman also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that his actions were undertaken under color of state law. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff Courtney Dopp has been irreparably injured.

10 AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY COURTNEY DOPP AGAINST DEFENDANT SCOTT WHITMAN Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law - Excessive Use of Force Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment precludes police officers from utilizing unreasonable force against citizens to affect their detention. 57. Defendant Whitman s use of force against Courtney Dopp was far in excess of the amount of force that would be considered objectively reasonable, especially considering that Whitman did not have a valid warrant to enter the Carpenter home where Ms. Dopp was sleeping. Whitman s conduct represents a violation of Plaintiff Courtney Dopp s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 58. This conduct on the part of Defendant Whitman also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law. 59. The Defendant s actions were motivated by bad faith and malice. 60. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff Courtney Dopp has been irreparably injured.

11 AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS MICHAEL AMATO, JEFFREY SMITH AND THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY Implementation of Municipal Policies and Practices that Directly Violate Constitutional Rights, Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid Constitutional Deprivations and Failure to Train and Supervise Employees under Color of State Law 61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through Upon information and belief, Defendants Michael Amato and Jeffrey Smith were directly responsible for supervising Defendants Whitman and Ellwood. 63. Upon information and belief, Amato and Smith have failed to supervise and/or discipline Deputies under their supervision for previous misconduct that resulted in the repeated violation of the civil rights of arrestees of the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department. 64. Additionally, Amato and Smith have failed to institute an appropriate training regimen on a variety of subjects, including use of force, alternatives to use of physical force, search and seizure, and probable cause for arrest and prosecution. 65. In the alternative, and upon information and belief, Defendants Amato and Smith have instituted policies addressing the topics listed above, but then have through gross negligence and carelessness demonstrated deliberate indifference to detainees arrested by the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department by failing or intentionally refusing to enforce them. 66. Defendants Amato and Smith have also demonstrated deliberate indifference to the needs of detainees arrested by the Montgomery County Sheriff s Department by failing to adequately hire, screen, train and supervise Montgomery County Deputies. 67. The policies, procedures, customs and practices of the above-named Defendants violated the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

12 68. This conduct on the part of Defendants Michael Amato, Jeffrey Smith and the County of Montgomery also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiffs have been irreparably injured. DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 70. The actions of Defendants Whitman and Ellwood described herein were extreme and outrageous, and shock the conscience of a reasonable person. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is appropriate to punish these Defendants for their cruel and uncivilized conduct. The Plaintiffs do not seek punitive damages against the County of Montgomery. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 71. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Patricia Wallace and Courtney Dopp request that this Honorable Court grant him the following relief: A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff Patricia Wallace against Defendants Scott Whitman and Deputy Ellwood for compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a properly charged jury;

13 B. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff Courtney Dopp against Defendant Scott Whitman for compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a properly charged jury; C. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants Michael Amato and Jeffrey Smith for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a properly charged jury; D. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendant County of Montgomery for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a properly charged jury; U.S.C. 1988; E. A monetary award for attorney s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 F. Any other relief that this Court finds to be just, proper and equitable. Respectfully Submitted By: /s Elmer Robert Keach, III Dated: December 29, 2008 Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire Amsterdam, New York USDC, NDNY Bar Roll Number LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center Post Office Box 70 Amsterdam, NY Telephone: Telecopier: Electronic Mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PATRICIA WALLACE AND COURTNEY DOPP