2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION"

Basil Silvester Bennett
5 years ago
Views:

1 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MEGAN PEARCE, individually and as NEXT FRIEND of BABY B, her infant child, Plaintiffs, -vs- Case No.: 16-CV- Hon. Hazel Park Police Officer, MICHAEL EMMI, in his individual capacity, Defendant. / KEVIN ERNST (P44223) JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450) Attorneys for Plaintiff ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100 Detroit, Michigan Phone: Fax: jon@ernstmarkolaw.com kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com / COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, MEGAN PEARCE, individually and as NEXT FRIEND of BABY B, her infant child, by and through their attorneys, Ernst and Marko PLC, and for their Complaint against the above-named Defendant, state as follows: INTRODUCTION Megan Pearce, a four-year veteran as a dispatcher in for the City of Warren Police Department, was adjusting to her new life as a mother of her infant son, Plaintiff Baby B. On Page 1 of 13

2 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 2 March 2, 2016, Ms. Pearce s fiancé and the father of Baby B, Cody Fuhrman, who was a licensed caregiver under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, was arrested on marijuana charges. His phone was seized by Defendant Michael Emmi of the Hazel Park police and placed on evidence tag # Later that day, the phone was purportedly logged into evidence at the Oakland County Jail Computer Crime Lab. Ms. Pearce had a daily routine where she would take her infant son into the bath tub, bathe him, nurse him, and put him to bed. At least one day after her fiancé s phone was seized by Defendant Emmi and purportedly logged into evidence at the Oakland County Jail, Ms. Pearce noticed a small green light flashing on her Nest Cam baby monitor while she was nursing her son in the sanctity of his nursery, while she and Baby B were naked after just leaving the bath tub. The Nest Cam light flashes when the camera is being monitored by a designated device, such as a cell phone, or I-Pad. The Nest Cam has a motion sensor, and sends an alert to the monitoring device when there is motion in the baby s room. There were only three devices designated to monitor the Nest Cam in Baby B s nursery: Ms. Pearce s I-Phone, her I-Pad, and Cody Fuhrman s I-Phone. Shortly after she saw the light flashing, it occurred to Ms. Peace that since her fiancé had been arrested and she was in possession of the other two devices, she was being watched by someone else; someone was violating the sanctity and privacy of her home and watching her nurse her son in the nude. The only other device that could access that camera at the time was Cody Fuhrman's I-Phone. She conducted a Find My I-Phone search, and discovered that the phone was located at the home residence of Hazel Park Police Officer Defendant Emmi. So the man in possession of her fiancé s phone, the one that was that was illegally spying on her and her infant son while she lay naked, nursing him in the sanctity of the nursery, was Defendant Page 2 of 13

3 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 3 Michael Emmi. Ms. Pearce immediately tried to disable the phone s monitoring capability, and thought she was successful. However, later on, while she was lying there nude nursing her infant son and talking to her brother on her cell phone about the events surrounding her fiancé s arrest, she noticed the Nest Cam light flashing again. She sat there momentarily in shock and then cried out to her brother, Oh my God, someone is watching me again. Seconds later, the light stopped blinking. The peeping tom detective had been discovered. Ms. Pearce's world has been shattered. She no longer feels safe and secure in her own home. Defendant Emmi, who is paid to uphold the law, perversely and illegally spied on her and her infant son, in one of the most intimate and private moments between a mother and her baby imaginable, to satisfy his prurient voyeurism. She suffers daily from the memory of the events of that day and lives in constant fear that the footage from the Nest Cam will wind up on the internet. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 1. This is an action for money damages brought against Defendant Michael Emmi pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 1988, the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Federal Wiretapping Act, 18 USC 2511 et. seq, the Michigan Eavesdropping Act, MCL a-h. and under the common law of the State of Michigan. 2. This lawsuit arises out of events occurring within the City of New Baltimore, County of Wayne Macomb, State of Michigan. 3. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 USC 1331 and Page 3 of 13

4 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 4 PARTIES 4. Plaintiffs are residents of the City of New Baltimore, County of Macomb, State of Michigan. 5. Defendant Michael Emmi is, upon information and belief, a resident of the City of Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan. He was acting in his capacity as a Hazel Park police officer and under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Cody Fuhrman is Plaintiff Pearce's fiancé and the father of Baby B. 7. Mr. Fuhrman is a licensed care giver under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. 8. At or around 2:00pm on March 2, 2016, Defendant Emmi, in concert with the Hazel Park Police Department and the Oakland County Task Force N.E.T, executed search warrants on several locations related to marijuana allegations against Mr. Fuhrman and arrested him. 9. One of the locations searched was a workshop at 1638 Nine Mile Road in Hazel Park, Michigan. 10. The officer in charge of the search was Defendant Michael Emmi. During the search, Defendant Emmi, seized and searched Mr. Fuhrman's cell phone and Mr. Fuhrman was arrested. 11. The phone was tagged into evidence tag # and purportedly logged into the Oakland County Jail Computer Crime Lab sometime later that day. Page 4 of 13

5 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID On March 2, 2016,at approximately 3:00 p.m., Defendant Emmi obtained a search warrant for Plaintiffs home. 13. At or around 4:00pm on March 2, 2016, Defendant, in concert with officers from the Hazel Park Police Department, the Oakland County Task Force N.E.T, and the New Baltimore Police Department searched Plaintiffs home pursuant to the search warrant. 14. Defendant Emmi searched the nursery of Plaintiff Baby B, Plaintiff Pearce's Infant son, wherein was located a Nest Cam, a wireless, remotely accessed baby room monitor. 15. The Nest Cam can be monitored from designated devices like a cell phone or I- Pad. 16. The Nest Cam camera, which has a motion sensor, sends an alert to the designated device when there is motion in the baby s room. The Nest Cam sends a notification to each registered device showing "Your camera noticed some motion in Kid's Room" and prompts viewing of the camera when there is activity in front of the Nest Cam. 17. When a designated device is viewing the Nest Cam, a light on the Nest Cam flashes, alerting persons in the baby s room that the Nest Cam is being viewed. 18. The only devices designated to view Plaintiff s Nest Cam were her cell phone, her I-Pad, and Cody Fuhrman s cell phone, the one that Defendant Emmi seized. 19. Defendant Emmi completed the search of Plaintiffs' home, and, after finding no Contraband, left at or around 6:30 p.m. on March 2, 2016, after announcing to Ms. Pearce that he had completed his search. 20. Plaintiff Pearce then went to the nursery where the Nest Cam was located and spent two to three hours cleaning Baby B s room that was left in total disarray from the search. Page 5 of 13

6 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID While cleaning Baby B s nursery, Plaintiff Pearce thought she noticed the light flashing on her Nest Cam baby monitor. 22. Plaintiff would later discover that at or around 7:12pm on March 2, 2016, Cody Fuhrman's cellphone showed data usage at a cell tower near the residence of Defendant Emmi. 23. On or about March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Pearce gave her son Baby B his morning bath and walked backed into the nursery room while both were still naked as she was getting Baby B ready for bed. 24. Plaintiff Pearce then preceded to breast feed her son. 25. During the breast-feeding, Plaintiff Pearce noticed the green light flashing on her Nest Cam. 26. Plaintiff Pearce's Ipad was turned off and her IPhone was not monitoring the Nest Cam. 27. Shortly after she saw the light flashing, it occurred to Ms. Peace that since Cody Fuhrman had been arrested and her two devices were not viewing the Nest Cam, she was being watched by someone and that someone was violating the sanctity and privacy of her home and watching her nurse Baby B in the nude. 28. Since the only other device that could access Nest Cam was Cody Fuhrman's I- Phone, she conducted a Find My IPhone search, and discovered that the phone was located at the residence of Defendant Emmi. 29. Plaintiff Pearce then tried to disable the Nest Cam monitoring capabilities of Mr. Fuhrman s I-Phone, and thought she had successfully done so. 30. However, after giving Baby B his evening bath, and while she was lying in the nursery nude nursing Baby B and talking to her brother on her cell phone about her fiancé s Page 6 of 13

7 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 7 arrest, Ms. Pearce noticed the Nest Cam light flashing again. 31. She lied there momentarily in shock and then cried out to her brother, Oh my God, someone is watching me again. 32. Seconds after Ms. Pearce screamed out that she was being watched, the Nest Cam light stopped blinking. 33. Again, Ms. Pearce's Ipad was turned off and her IPhone was not monitoring the Nest Cam. 34. Upon information and belief, Defendant Emmi was secretly watching Plaintiffs while Plaintiff Pearce was naked and breast-feeding. 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's illegal acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs suffered the following injuries and are entitled to damages including, but not limited to: a. Violation of their constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution including the right to be free from unreasonable searches; b. Loss of personal freedom and liberty; c. Fright and shock; d. Horror, outrage and indignity; e. Extreme emotional trauma and suffering; f. Violation of their right to privacy, seclusion, and solitude;. g. Violation of their personal integrity;. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Court award to the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants the following damages and/or relief: a. Compensation for all allowable economic damages; b. Compensation for all allowable non-economic damages; Page 7 of 13

8 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 8 c. Punitive damages; d. Attorney fees and costs; e. Interest on all allowable damages; f. Any and all additional damages allowed under federal or Michigan law; g. Such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just under the circumstances of this case. COUNT I: 42 U.S.C VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT 36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 37. Plaintiffs seeks damages for injuries suffered as set forth and described above pursuant to 42 U.S.C against Defendant who, while acting under color of law, violated Plaintiffs' clearly established civil rights secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitutions including, but not limited to, the right to be free from unlawful searches. 38. At all times relevant, Defendant, acting under color of law, was required to obey the laws of the United States including those laws identified and described in the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 39. Defendant was a willful participant in an illegal search upon Plaintiffs and their residence. 40. Defendant knew or should have known that by watching Plaintiffs through the Nest Cam, he was violating their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches. 41. Defendant's acts were intentional, objectively unreasonable, unnecessary, excessive, reckless, and/or grossly negligent in violation of Plaintiffs' clearly established rights Page 8 of 13

9 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 9 under the United States Constitution. 42. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C and 42 U.S.C 1983, Defendant is liable for all damages allowed under federal and Michigan common law. 43. By these actions, Defendant has caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries as previously described. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as well as award compensatory damages, costs, interest, attorney fees and punitive damages. COUNT II: FEDERAL WIRETAPPING ACT 18 U.S.C.A Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 45. Defendant watched Plaintiffs on the Nest Cam, which includes audio, while Ms. Pearce was talking on the phone to her brother about her fiancé s criminal case. 46. At no time did Plaintiffs consent to being watched by Defendant or give him permission to watch them. 47. Defendant did not have authorization from any governmental authority to listen to Plaintiff Pearce's phone call or hack into the Nest Cam. 48. Defendant could not, in good faith, have believed he had a right to watch and listen to Plaintiff Pearce as she spoke on the phone in her own home. 49. Defendant, while acting under the color of the law, intentionally intercepted oral communications by Plaintiff Pearce. Page 9 of 13

10 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as well as award costs, interest, attorney fees, statutory, and punitive damages so wrongfully incurred as allowed under 18 U.S.C.A COUNT III: MICHIGAN COMMON LAW INVASION OF PRIVACY 50. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 51. Plaintiffs have a right to be left alone and be protected from any wrongful intrusion into their lives that would outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities. 52. Defendant's actions in viewing a private camera in a room of Plaintiffs' child and monitoring Plaintiff Pearce in the nude was an unreasonable and serious interference with Plaintiffs' right to seclusion. 53. At no time did the Plaintiffs consent to such invasion of privacy. 54. By these actions, Defendant have caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries as previously described WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as well as award costs, interest, attorney fees and punitive damages so wrongfully incurred. COUNT IV: EAVESDROPPING MCL a-h 55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 56. Plaintiffs were in a private place in their home while being watched by Defendant. Page 10 of 13

11 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID Plaintiffs reasonably expected to be safe from intrusion or surveillance while in their bedroom. 58. Plaintiff Pearce did not give permission for Defendant to watch and listen to her conversation. 59. Defendant willfully used the Nest Cam to eavesdrop on Plaintiff Pearce's conversation. 60. By these actions, Defendant have caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries as previously described. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant and award actual and punitive damages, and grant any other relief the court deems appropriate. Dated: April 26, 2014 Respectfully submitted, By/s/ Jonathan R. Marko KEVIN ERNST (P44223) JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450) Attorneys for Plaintiff ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100 Detroit, Michigan Phone: Fax: jon@ernstmarkolaw.com kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com Page 11 of 13

12 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MEGAN PEARCE, individually and as NEXT FRIEND of BABY B, her infant child, Plaintiffs, -vs- Case No.: 16-CV- Hon. Hazel Park Police Officer, MICHAEL EMMI, in his individual capacity, Defendant. / KEVIN ERNST (P44223) JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450) Attorneys for Plaintiff ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100 Detroit, Michigan Phone: Fax: jon@ernstmarkolaw.com kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com / REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Ernst and Marko Law, hereby request a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter. Page 12 of 13 By/s/ Jonathan R. Marko KEVIN ERNST (P44223) JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450) Attorneys for Plaintiff ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100 Detroit, Michigan 48226

13 2:16-cv GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 13 Dated: April 26, 2014 Phone: Fax: jon@ernstmarkolaw.com kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com Page 13 of 13

Case 2:10-cv GCS -VMM Document 1 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:10-cv GCS -VMM Document 1 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:10-cv-14942-GCS -VMM Document 1 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES JONES as ) Personal Representative of the ) Estate