Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 2 of 2 7 of 7 4. Defendants, Sergeant Gerard S

Transcription

1 Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 1 of 1 7 of 7 Kenneth D. Aita, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH D. AITA 126 White Horse Pike Haddon Heights, NJ (856) Attorney for plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MAURICE T. HENDERSON, : : CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, : : v. : : VOORHEES TOWNSHIP, VOORHEES : TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; : PATROL SERGEANT GERARD SLACK; : PATROL OFFICER LANCE KLEIN; : PATROL OFFICER JOSEPH GONNION; : PATROL OFFICER NICHOLAS : GRUBER; JOHN DOES (1-5), all : individually and in their official capacities : as police officers, : COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND : Defendant(s). : : Plaintiff, Maurice T. Henderson, by way of Complaint against the defendants says: 1. Plaintiff, Maurice T. Henderson, is adult individual and a citizen of the State of New Jersey residing in the Township of Lindenwold and County of Camden. 2. Defendant, Voorhees Township was, and continues to be, a domestic municipal corporation duly organized and existing under, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 620 Berlin Road, Voorhees, New Jersey. 3. Defendant, Voorhees Township Police Department was, and continues to be, a public entity duly organized and existing under, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, which is responsible for providing police protection within the township of Voorhees and performs all of the activities and services associated with police departments, with its principal place of business located at 1180 White Horse Road, Voorhees, New Jersey.

2 Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 2 of 2 7 of 7 4. Defendants, Sergeant Gerard Slack, Patrol Officer Lance Klein, Patrol Officer Joseph Gonnion, Patrol Officer Nicholas Gruber, and John Does (1-5), were at all times relevant employees acting under the supervision of, and under the direction of defendant Voorhees Township Police Department of defendant Voorhees Township. At all times relevant hereto, defendants Slack, Klein, Gonnion, Gruber and John Does (1-5) were acting under color of law and authority as officers of defendants Voorhees Township Police Department and Voorhees Township. 5. Defendants, John Does (1-5) are fictitious names used to designate as of yet unknown or unidentified parties to this action who are either police officers and/or employees of defendants Voorhees Township or Voorhees Township Police Department. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action arises under the Laws and Constitution of the United States, in particular the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. sec Plaintiff was deprived of the rights secured to him under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including but not limited to, his right to free speech, right to be secure in his person and property and to be free from unlawful arrests and seizures, and from freedom of arrest and imprisonment when no probable cause exists. Plaintiff, Maurice Henderson was pulled over, arrested, charged and incarcerated without probable cause. While being subjected to these constitutional violations, he suffered assaults and indecencies. He was likewise falsely and maliciously charged and falsely and maliciously imprisoned without cause or justification. 7. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff s State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367, including, but not limited to violations of his New Jersey State Constitutional rights against defendants, false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and malicious prosecution. These claims are related to the claims within the Court s original jurisdiction that they and said claims form part of the same case or controversy under article 3 of the United States Constitution. COUNT 1 1. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 2

3 Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 3 of 3 7 of 7 2. On or about September 16, 2005, at approximately 3:11 a.m., plaintiff, Maurice T. Henderson was operating his vehicle in a westbound direction on White Horse Road in Voorhees Township. At that time he was traveling home from working the night shift. 3. At the same time, Patrolman Lance Klein was operating his vehicle in an eastbound direction when he noticed the plaintiff driving in the opposite way. After Patrolman Klein noticed that the plaintiff was a black male, he immediately made a U-turn and began following the plaintiff s vehicle. 4. After following plaintiff s vehicle for a quarter mile, Patrolman Klein initiated a motor vehicle stop of plaintiff for driving under the speed limit. The posted speed limit was 40 mph and the plaintiff was driving safely at 25 mph. Due to plaintiff s speed, Patrolman Klein was going to give plaintiff a ticket for careless driving and not wearing a seatbelt. 5. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was operating his vehicle in a safe and careful manner and was wearing his seatbelt. 6. Immediately after Patrolman Klein activated his overhead lights, the plaintiff stopped his vehicle and awaited the officer s arrival at his window. 7. After a few minutes passed, Patrolman Klein approached the window and requested the plaintiff s documentation. 8. Before providing the documentation, plaintiff asked Klein why he was being pulled over as he did not violate any motor vehicle laws or commit any crime whatsoever. 9. Klein rudely responded that if plaintiff did not provide the documentation he would lock him up for obstruction of justice. 10. Plaintiff became extremely upset and fearful of this officer due to his behavior and repeatedly requested to speak to his supervisor. 11. After a few minutes, Sergeant Slack appeared on location and presented himself at plaintiff s passenger side window. Sergeant Slack began shining his flashlight in plaintiff s face and told him that he better provide the information to Klein or they both would lock him up for obstruction of justice. 12. After initially refusing, plaintiff provided all of his valid documentation. He was then instructed by Klein that he was being stopped for driving 25 mph in a 40 mph zone. 13. After being instructed that he was being pulled over for driving safely at 25 mph in a 40 mph zone, plaintiff immediately began calling dispatch from his cell phone to report this 3

4 Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 4 of 4 7 of 7 officer and request assistance. He made six calls to the 911 operator as he believed that this was a dangerous situation and feared for his safety. 14. After a few more minutes passed, Officers Gonnion and Gruber arrived and began flashing their flashlights in his face. 15. At this time, Klein returned to the vehicle and handed plaintiff two traffic tickets; one for careless driving and one for not wearing a seatbelt. Plaintiff immediately called 911 again to report this behavior and was instructed to go directly to the Voorhees Police station and file a complaint. Plaintiff took his tickets and immediately proceeded to the Police station to file a complaint as he was instructed to do by the dispatcher. 16. Plaintiff then left the area and proceeded to turn around so that he could head back towards the police department. At this time, plaintiff yelled, crackers at the officers to express his displeasure with their behavior. 17. After yelling at the officers on the side of the road, they entered their police cruisers and began chasing plaintiff. Plaintiff s immediate concern was getting to the police station so that someone could help him. 18. The officers followed plaintiff into the police station parking lot, and immediately upon him exiting his vehicle to report the incident, he was arrested and handcuffed and informed that he was being placed under arrest for eluding police. During the arrest, his pants were pulled down and his buttocks and penis were exposed to the officers. 19. Plaintiff explained to the officer that he did not do anything wrong and as he was walking towards the police station, one of the officers told him, don t look at me boy, you don t want a piece of me. A search of his motor vehicle was then conducted without plaintiff s consent. 20. Plaintiff was detained and subsequently charged with the following: Second Degree Eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b), under Warrant Number W ; Disorderly Conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(A)2,(plaintiff was charged for exercising his free speech rights pursuant to the First Amendment for using offensive language or gestures specifically by giving the middle finger to Sergeant Slack and calling him a Cracker ) under Summons Number S ; Careless Driving, N.J.S.A 39:4-97 under Summons Number V157890; and Failure to Wear a Seatbelt, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f), under Summons Number V

5 Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 5 of 5 7 of On October 26, 2005, plaintiff appeared for a pre-indictment conference in Camden County Superior Court. The Honorable Irvin Snyder, J.S.C. dismissed all charges including the traffic tickets. The plaintiff entered a guilty plea to Obstructing the Administration of Law under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1, a disorderly person s offense, for not immediately producing his license when officer Klein requested him to do so. 22. The aforesaid actions of defendants violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff in that he was illegally arrested, searched, seized, detained, and incarcerated without probable cause in contravention to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec (b), costs of suit, and any other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. COUNT 2 1. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 2. The aforesaid actions of defendants violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff in that he was illegally arrested without probable cause for expressing his opinion pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec (b), costs of suit, and any other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. COUNT 3 1. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 2. The aforesaid actions of defendants violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff in that he was illegally arrested, searched, seized, detained, and incarcerated without probable cause in contravention to Article I, paragraph 7 to the New Jersey State Constitution. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees pursuant 5

6 Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 6 of 6 7 of 7 to 42 U.S.C. sec (b), costs of suit, and any other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. COUNT 4 1. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 2. The aforesaid actions of defendant Voorhees Township and its police department, were negligent in that as a matter of policy and practice, failed to discipline, train, or otherwise sanction officers and sergeants who violate the rights of citizens, including the rights of plaintiff, thus encouraging, acquiescing the defendants Slack, Klein, Gonnion, Gruber and John Does (1-5) to engage in the unlawful and actionable conduct described above. 3. Defendants, Voorhees Township and its police department as a further matter of public policy and practice failed to properly train its police officers and sergeants, including defendants Slack, Klein, Gonnion, Gruber and John Does (1-5) with respect to the constitutional, statutory and departmental limits of their authority. 4. At all times herein mentioned, the defendants Slack, Klein, Gonnion, Gruber and John Does (1-5) were acting as the agents, servants, and/or employees of the defendants Voorhees Voorhees Township Police Department and therefore their acts are attributable to defendant, Voorhees Township. 5. The defendant Voorhees Township and Voorhees Township Police Department were on actual notice of the need to train, supervise, discipline or terminate its defendant officers prior to the incident in question as other similar incidents may have occurred in the past. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec (b), costs of suit, and any other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. COUNT 5 1. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 2. The aforesaid actions of defendants were carried out unlawfully, intentionally and maliciously, without just or probable cause, for the purpose of trying to justify the illegal arrest of plaintiff. Such actions constitute false arrest and false imprisonment. 6

7 Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 7 of 7 7 of 7 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec (b), costs of suit, and any other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. COUNT 6 1. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 2. The aforesaid actions of defendants constitute an assault and battery. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec (b), costs of suit, and any other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable. COUNT 7 1. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 2. The aforesaid actions of defendants constitute malicious prosecution under both 28 U.S.C. sec and common law. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec (b), costs of suit, and any other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH D. AITA /s/ Kenneth D. Aita Kenneth D. Aita, Esquire Dated: January 4,

8 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 1 of 11

9 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 2 of 11

10 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 3 of 11

11 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 4 of 11

12 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 5 of 11

13 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 6 of 11

14 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 7 of 11

15 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 8 of 11

16 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 9 of 11

17 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 10 of 11

18 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 4 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 11 of 11

19

20

21 Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS Document 24 Filed 11/06/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : MAURICE T. HENDERSON : Plaintiff (s) Civil Action No (RMB) : v. VOORHEES TOWNSHIP, ET AL Defendant (s) : : ORDER OF DISMISSAL : : It having been reported to the Court that the above-captioned action has been settled; IT IS on this 6th day of November, 2008, ORDERED THAT: (1) This action is hereby DISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon motion and good cause shown, within 60 days, to reopen this action if the settlement is not consummated; and (2) If any party shall move to set aside this Order of Dismissal as provided in the above paragraph or pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in deciding such motion the Court retains jurisdiction of the matter to the extent necessary to enforce the terms and conditions of any settlement entered into between the parties. s/renée MARIE BUMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Hon. Renée Marie Bumb Hon. Joel Schneider