UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Paul Scott Seeman, Civil File No. Plaintiff, v. Officer Joshua Alexander, Officer B. Johns, Officer Michael Thul, Officers John Does 1-10, and City of Faribault, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND For his Complaint against the Defendants, Plaintiff Seeman states the following: INTRODUCTION Documenting police officers behavior in public by way of audio and video recording is expressive activity protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not and, under our Constitution, could not be a crime. Nevertheless, law enforcement officers routinely misapply Minnesota criminal statutes to punish civilians who observe, photograph, or otherwise record police activity. This case involves just such a misapplication of the obstruction of legal process statute by the Faribault Police Department to prosecute a man who used his cell phone to record an interaction between police and members
of the public in a bar. This civil rights action seeks declaratory relief and damages. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is an adult male who currently resides and has resided in the state of Minnesota at all times relevant to this action. 2. Defendants Officer Joshua Alexander, Officer B. Johns (first name unknown to Plaintiff at this time), Officer Michael Thul, and Officers Does 1-10 are adults who at all times relevant to the allegations set forth in this Complaint were acting under the color of state law in their capacities as law enforcement officers employed by the City of Faribault, Minnesota. Plaintiff is suing them in their individual capacities. 3. Defendant City of Faribault is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. Faribault employed defendants Officer Joshua Alexander, Officer B. Johns, Officer Michael Thul, and Officers Does 1-10 as police officers at all times relevant to this action. Faribault is sued directly and also, on all relevant claims, on the theories of respondeat superior or vicarious liability and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.02 for the unlawful conduct of Officer Joshua Alexander, Officer B. Johns (first name unknown to Plaintiff at this time), Officer Michael Thul, and Officers Does 1-10. Faribault is the political subdivision charged with training and supervising law enforcement officers. Faribault has established and implemented, or delegated the responsibility for establishing and implementing policies, practices, procedures, and customs used by law enforcement officers employed by Faribault regarding seizures and 2
the use of force. Faribault is being sued directly pursuant to Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action for monetary and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 and federal and state common law. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3), 1331, and 1367. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391, as the acts and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this district, and, on information and belief, all Defendants reside in this district. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5. On June 8, 2012, Officers Alexander and Johns responded to a report of a fight at Grandpa Al s bar in Faribault, Minnesota. 6. At the time the officers arrived at Grandpa Al s, they did not see anyone involved in any type of fight, verbal or physical. 7. When Johns arrived at Grandpa Al s, he spoke with a man, C.D. 8. C.D. told Johns that he was involved in the fight. 9. When Alexander arrived at Grandpa Al s, he spoke with a woman, B.D., whom he later identified as the person who had called the police. 10. As Johns was speaking with C.D., Plaintiff Seeman pointed his cell phone in their direction and recorded their conversation. 11. Johns requested C.D. to step away from Seeman to continue their conversation, and C.D. complied with that request. 3
12. Seeman continued to record the officers interactions with the public. 13. Seeman stood at least five feet away from the officers at all times he recorded their interactions with the public. 14. Johns requested Seeman to produce identification. 15. Seeman declined that request. 16. Johns confiscated Seeman s cell phone and told Seeman to place his hands behind his back. 17. Seeman asked why Johns was confiscating his cell phone and ordering him to place his hands behind his back. 18. Johns told Seeman he was under arrest for failure to identify himself to a police officer. 19. Johns and another police officer placed Seeman in handcuffs and put him in the back seat of a squad car. 20. The officers transported Seeman to the Rice County jail. 21. While transporting Seeman from the squad car to the jail, and at the jail, officers Alexander, Johns, Thul, and Does 1-10 beat Seeman up. 22. Seeman was not disruptive at any time relevant to this action. 23. Seeman did not physically obstruct or interfere with any officer at any time relevant to this action. 24. Seeman did not verbally obstruct or interfere with any officer at any time relevant to this action. 25. Seeman did not resist arrest at any time relevant to this action. 4
this action. this action. 26. Seeman was cooperative with the officers at all times relevant to 27. Seeman did not utter any fighting words at any times relevant to 28. Seeman did not engage in any offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct at any time relevant to this action. 29. Defendants conduct caused Seeman to suffer injuries. 30. All criminal charges against Seeman in connection with these events were dismissed. 31. 31. Seeman s recording of the police undertaking their official duties was protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore cannot be the basis for any criminal citation, including obstruction of legal process. COUNT I DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS FALSE ARREST AND UNLAWFUL SEIZURE 32. Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully incorporated herein. 33. Defendants proximately caused Seeman s arrest and detention. 34. Defendants lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest and detain Seeman. 35. Defendants lacked a reasonable belief of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest and detain Seeman. 5
36. Defendants were acting under color of state law when they caused Seeman s arrest and detention. 37. Defendants actions or omissions caused Seeman to suffer a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 38. At the time of Seeman s arrest, it was clearly established that it was unconstitutional to authorize or execute an arrest or detention absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion. 39. Seeman suffered harm and damages as a result of Defendants denial of his constitutional rights. COUNT II DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS EXCESSIVE FORCE 40. Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein. of him. 41. Defendants used force against Seeman while effectuating a seizure 42. The amount of force Defendants used while seizing Seeman was unreasonable under the circumstances. 43. Defendants were acting under color of state law when they used unreasonable force while seizing Seeman. 44. Defendants actions or omissions caused Seeman to suffer a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 6
45. At the time of the events giving rise to this action, it was clearly established that it was unconstitutional to use unreasonable force, as Defendants used against Seeman, to effectuate a seizure. 46. Seeman suffered harm as a result of Defendants denial of his constitutional rights. COUNT III DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS 47. Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein. 48. Observing and recording public police activities, without interfering with those duties, is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and is therefore expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 49. Defendants arrest of and attempted prosecution of Plaintiff in absence of probable cause that he had committed a crime constituted unlawful retaliation by public officials for Plaintiff s engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 50. Defendant City of Faribault is responsible for the violation of Plaintiff s constitutional rights because the individuals Defendants actions resulted from the City s custom, pattern, practice, or policy of allowing officers to arrest individuals for their expressive conduct in videotaping or otherwise recording police undertaking their official duties. 7
51. Seeman suffered harm as a result of Defendants denial of his constitutional rights. COUNT IV MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 52. Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein. 53. Plaintiff has a clearly established right under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person. Defendants violated this right when they commenced or maintained the criminal proceeding against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff s constitutionally protected recording of Defendants public activities as law enforcement officers with the Faribault Police Department and in absence of any probable cause that Plaintiff had committed a crime. 54. The charges against Plaintiff were later terminated in his favor. 55. Defendants pursued this prosecution of Plaintiff with malice in retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in constitutionally-protected activity, and without any probable cause or reasonable basis for believing that Plaintiff violated Minnesota s obstruction of legal process statute or committed any other crime in the State of Minnesota. 56. Defendant City of Faribault is responsible for the violation of Plaintiff s constitutional rights because the individual Defendants actions resulted from the City s custom, pattern, practice, or policy of allowing officers to arrest and charge individuals in retaliation for their expressive conduct in videotaping or otherwise recording police undertaking their official duties. 8
57. Seeman suffered harm as a result of Defendants malicious prosecution. herein. COUNT V INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 58. Plaintiff restates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated 59. By Defendants aforementioned wrongful conduct and/or failure to act, Defendants engaged in a pattern of unlawful conduct that caused Seeman to suffer severe emotional distress and trauma that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. 60. The course of Defendants conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society. 61. Defendants, by their extreme and outrageous conduct complained of herein, intentionally and/or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Seeman. 62. Seeman has suffered injuries as a result of the severe emotional distress caused by Defendants, in an amount to be proven at trial. herein. COUNT VI BATTERY 63. Plaintiff restates the preceding paragraphs as though fully stated 64. The Defendants harmfully touched Seeman. 9
65. The Defendants actions were objectively unreasonable and actually and proximately caused Seeman to suffer harm. JURY DEMAND 66. Plaintiff demands a jury trial. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 1. Enter judgment in Plaintiff s favor on his claims against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial; 2. Declare that Defendants conduct, as set forth above, violated 42 U.S.C. 1983; 3. Award Plaintiff damages to compensate him for the injuries he suffered as a result of Defendants unlawful conduct; 4. Award Plaintiff punitive damages with respect to his claims under federal law, the exact amount to be proven at trial; 5. Grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to include a claim for punitive damages with respect to his claims under state law, the exact amount to be proven at trial; 6. Award Plaintiff reasonable expenses incurred in this litigation, including attorney and expert fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; 7. Grant Plaintiff all statutory relief to which he is entitled; 8. Grant Plaintiff leave to amend this Complaint to supplement any factual deficiencies or otherwise address any pleading deficiencies herein; and 10
9. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and equitable. Dated: April 29, 2014 s/joshua R. Williams Joshua R. Williams (#389118) jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com Tim M. Phillips (#390907) tphillips@jrwilliamslaw.com 3249 Hennepin Ave, S, Ste. 216 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408 (612) 486-5540 (612) 605-1944 Fax ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 11