IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SANDRA LOVE, as parent and next ) friend of B.L., a minor; and ) PATRICIA PERKINS, as parent and ) next friend of A.L., a minor, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF LANETT, TEDDY MORRIS, ) individually and in his official capacity as) Chief of the Lanett Police Department; ) JOSE MALDONADO JARAMILLO, JR.,) individually and in his official capacity as) as a police officer for the City of Lanett, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Case No. 3 09 C-f Q '2 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 2GO? JUL -2 A to : lb fl. ACr CL TT!Cf CO:JjT Plaintiffs Sandra Love, as the custodial parent and next friend of her minor child, B.L., and Patricia Perkins, as the custodial parent and next friend of her minor child, A.L, complain against the above-named Defendants as follows: PARTIES 1 Plaintiff Sandra Love is a resident of Chambers County, Alabama, over the age of nineteen years, and the natural mother of B.L., a minor. Courthouse News Service 2. Plaintiff Patricia Perkins is a resident of Lee County, Alabama, over the age of nineteen years, and the natural mother of A.L, a minor. 3. Defendant City of Lanett is an incorporated municipality in Chambers County, Alabama.
4. Defendant Teddy Morris, upon information and belief, is a resident of Chambers County, Alabama, over the age of nineteen years, and the Chief of Police for the City of Lanett. He is sued both individually and in his official capacity as acting Chief of Police for the City of Lanett. 5. Defendant Jose Maldonado Jaramillo, Jr., upon information and belief, is a resident of Lee County, Alabama, and over the age of nineteen years. At all times relevant to the allegations contained in this Complaint, he was a police officer for the City of Lanett. He is sued both individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the City of Lanett. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Defendant City of Lanett, and upon information and belief, Defendants Morris and Jaramillo reside in the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division. All events alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint occurred in Chambers County, Alabama, within the Eastern Division of the Middle District of Alabama. Venue accordingly is proper in this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 7. This is an action at law to redress deprivation of rights under color of state law rights, privileges, or immunities secured to Plaintiffs by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action also seeks damages for Defendants' tortious acts and omissions amounting to violations of Alabama state common law. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims arising under federal law 2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(a)(3), and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). FACTS 8. On or about December 30, 2008, Defendant Jose Maldonado Jaramillo, Jr. ("Defendant Jaramillo") was on duty as a City of Lanett Police Officer. 9. While on duty in uniform and driving his marked City of Lanett patrol car at around 11:30 P.M., Defendant Jaramillo came upon two minor girls, B.L. and A.L., both fifteen (15) years of age, walking on the side of the road near Evangel Temple Church on South Phillips Road in the City of Lanett. 10. Defendant Jaramillo pulled his car off the roadway next to where the minor girls were, stopped the car, and got out to confront the girls. 11. Standing outside the patrol car, Defendant Jaramillo questioned B.L. and A.L. as to where they were going and whether they had any drugs on their person. Neither girl had any illegal substances on their persons. Both girls answered Defendant Jaramillo' s questions truthfully and indicated that they were not carrying any illegal substance(s) on their person. 12. Defendant Jararnillo is approximately six feet, two inches (6'2) tall and weighs about 235 pounds. Both minor girls are considerably shorter and of slight build. Defendant Jaramillo lacked any probable cause or other basis to take either girl into custody, or any facts to suggest that either girl was carrying a weapon or otherwise posed a danger to him. 3
13. Despite lacking probable cause to search either girl or even any facts to justify an investigative stop and a protective pat-down or frisk of either girl, Defendant Jaramillo proceeded to search both girls, first A.L. and then B.L. 14. Standing in front of and facing A.L., Defendant Jaramillo first made A.L. take off her jacket. Rather than patting the outside of the pockets, Defendant Jaramillo, using both hands, reached inside both of A.L.'s front pants pockets. After telling A.L. to turn around so he could search her back pockets, Defendant Jaramillo entered both back pockets with the palms of his hands facing her buttocks. After then making A.L. turn back around to face him, Defendant Jaramillo put both his hands up under A.L.'s shirt, went inside her bra from the top, and groped her breasts under her bra. 15. Defendant Jaramillo then turned to searching B.L. Standing in front of and facing B.L., Defendant Jaramillo first reached up under B.L.'s shirt with both hands, grabbed B.L.'s bra, and pulled it away from her body. Defendant Jaramillo, using both hands, reached inside both of B.L.'s front pockets and then inside both of her back pockets. He then reached both hands up under B.L.'s shirt and bra, and groped both her breasts too. 16. After having thrust his hands in the pockets of both minor girls in both front and back, and having groped the breasts of B.L., Defendant Jaramillo then told both minor girls to get inside his patrol car. Terrified, the girls complied. 17. Before the two minor girls got in the patrol car, Defendant Jaramillo searched both girls' bags. ru
18. Once inside the patrol car, Defendant Jaramillo asked the minor girls where they wanted to be dropped off and warned them not to say anything about him touching them, because he could get into trouble. When he saw one of the minor girls using her cell phone to start composing a text message, Defendant Jaramillo told the minor girls not to use their cell phones. 19. After driving to and arriving at the location where A.L. and B.L. had asked to be let out, Defendant Jaramillo drove past the location, and parked his patrol car at the end of the street, stating to the girls that he didn't want anybody to see him letting them out of his car. 20. Defendant Jaramillo opened the back door of his patrol car to let the two fifteenyear-old girls out. With all three of them now standing outside his patrol car, and after the two fifteen-year-old girls had started to walk away, Defendant Jaramillo hugged A.L., and, reaching around her with both hands, stuck both his hands down her pants and inside her panties to feel her buttocks. With B.L. having started to walk away, Defendant Jaramillo then asked B.L. to come back. Defendant Jaramillo proceeded to put his hand down inside B.L.'s shirt from the collar or neck under her bra to her breasts, which he felt. Then, reaching around behind her with both hands, Defendant Jaramillo likewise stuck both his hands down B.L.'s pants and inside her panties to feel her buttocks. He asked B.L. if this was okay and she replied "no." 21. Defendant Jaramillo then repeated his warning to A.L. and B.L. not to tell anybody about him touching them, and drove away in his patrol car. 5
22. Once Defendant Jaramillo got in his car to drive away, the two fifteen-year-old girls ran to the nearby home of a friend, where A.L. called another friend to get the two girls and take them to the house where A.L. and her mother, Plaintiff Patricia Perkins, lived. 23. When the two minor girls arrived at A.L.'s home shortly thereafter, B.L. began to cry. When A.L.'s mother (Plaintiff Patricia Perkins) asked what was wrong, A.L. told Plaintiff Patricia Perkins about Defendant Jaramillo having just then stopped them and fondled them. A.L.'s mother (Plaintiff Patricia Perkins) promptly called the emergency number of the Lanett Police Department to report and complain about Defendant Jaramillo' s misconduct. 24. A supervisor with the Lanett Police Department came to Plaintiff Patricia Perkins' house in the early morning hours to take a report regarding the complaint. Plaintiffs Love and Perkins timely filed sworn notice of claim on behalf of their minor daughters as to the Defendant City of Lanett with the City Clerk in compliance with Code of Alabama 11-47-192. COUNT I 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Fourth Amendment (Defendant Jaramillo) 25. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 24, as though set out fully herein. 26. At all times material to this complaint, Defendant Jaramillo was acting under the color of state law and authority.
27. Defendant Jaramillo violated the civil rights of B.L. and A.L. when he groped the two minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., in an inappropriate and sexual manner. 28. Defendant Jaramillo had no warrant and lacked probable cause to search either minor Plaintiff or their property. 29. Defendant Jaramillo lacked any articulable facts to believe either girl was armed or any other reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a "Terry' stop" and "pat down" or protective frisk of either girl. 30. Neither girl consented to a search or a "pat down" of their persons. 31. Even if Defendant Jaramillo had had probable cause so as to justify a search, or reasonable suspicion so as to justify a protective frisk, of the persons or property of either girl, or had obtained consent of either girl, Defendant Jaramillo's searching, groping, and fondling of each girl and his searching of their property exceeded the scope of any reasonable or permissible intrusion into their persons and their property, all in violation of each girl's clearly-established right under those circumstances to be free of warrantless and unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo' s deprivation of her Fourth Amendment rights, minor Plaintiff B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968), and its progeny. 7
which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's deprivation of her Fourth Amendment rights, minor Plaintiff A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 34. Defendant Jaramillo's acts and omissions were intentional, malicious, and/or involved reckless or callous indifference to the minor girls' federally protected rights, justifying an award of punitive damages so as to prevent a recurrence of such misconduct and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Jaramillo for compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT II 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process (Defendant Jaramillo) 35. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set out herein. 8
36. B.L. and A.L. have a clearly-established Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to bodily integrity, including a right to be free from sexually motivated assault or other sexual misconduct. 37. In the course of conducting unreasonable or otherwise unjustified searches or frisks, Defendant Jaramillo twice placed his hands up or down fifteen-year old B.L.'s shirt under her bra and groped her breasts, and once placed both his hands down the back of her pants inside her underwear and fondled her buttocks. 38. In the course of conducting unreasonable or otherwise unjustified searches or frisks, Defendant Jaramillo reached both his hands under fifteen-year-old A.L.'s shirt and bra and fondled her breasts, and reached both his hands down the back of her pants inside her underwear and grabbed her buttocks. 39. Neither girl consented to Defendant Jaramillo groping her breasts or fondling her buttocks. Defendant Jaramillo's physical handling of their persons was offensive to them and unwanted, and caused both minor girls severe and lasting emotional trauma. 40. Defendant Jaramillo abused and otherwise took advantage of his position of official authority as an armed, on-duty City of Lanett patrol officer, the minor girls' youth, his substantial size advantage as compared to the size of the girls, and the girls' fear and anxiety from the circumstances (including being unable to get away from Defendant Jaramillo) to sexually abuse both girls. 41. Defendant Jaramillo's acts and omissions violated each girl's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to bodily integrity.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's deprivation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's deprivation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 44. Defendant Jaramillo's acts and omissions were intentional, malicious, andlor involved reckless or callous indifference to the minor girls' federally protected rights, justifying an award of punitive damages so as to prevent a recurrence of such misconduct and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Jaramillo for compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. 10
COUNT III 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Supervisory and Municipal Liabilit y - Failure to Screen Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Defendants Morris. City of Lanett) 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 as though fully set out herein. 46. Upon information and belief before Defendant Jaramillo was hired to work as a police officer for the City of Lanett, Defendant Jaramillo was employed by another law enforcement agency in eastern Alabama. 47. During his employment with that other police department, Defendant Jaramillo was accused of abusing his official position and authority by improperly groping or fondling one or more females in the course of a pretextual search and/or investigative stop. 48. After the victim(s) complained to Defendant Jaramillo's previous employer, Defendant Jararnillo immediately resigned his employment in that agency, before any adverse employment action was taken against him. 49. The Chief of Police is the official of the City of Lanett having final authority to hire police officers for the Lanett Police Department, and establishes policy for the City of Lanett in setting criteria for the screening, pre-hire investigation, and hiring of police officers for the City of Lanett. 50. Defendant Morris failed to set proper criteria for the screening, pre-hiring investigation, and hiring of police officers for the City of Lanett. 11
51. Defendant Morris failed to screen or conduct a proper background investigation of Defendant Jaramillo when Defendant Jaramillo applied for employment as a police officer in the Lanett Police Department. 52. If Defendant Morris had set proper criteria for the screening, pre-hiring investigation, and hiring of police officers for the Defendant City of Lanett, and had properly screened and investigated Defendant Jaramillo and his law enforcement employment background, Defendant Jaramillo would not have been hired as a police officer for the City of Lanett and would not have been placed in a position in which he could abuse his official authority in order to stop, search, and improperly grope or fondle women, in violation of their clearly-established constitutional rights. 53. The Chief of Police's failure to set proper criteria for the screening, pre-hiring investigation, and hiring of police officers for the Defendant City of Lanett, and his failure to properly screen and investigate Defendant Jaramillo before hiring proximately resulted in the hiring of Defendant Jaramillo and Defendant Jaramillo's deprivations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of minor females B.L. and A.L. 54. The Chief of Police's failure to set proper criteria for the screening, pre-hiring investigation, and hiring of police officers amounted to a municipal policy or custom of deliberate indifference on the part of the Defendant City of Lanett in the 12
screening and hiring of officers; and the hiring of Defendant Jaramillo was a result and/or example of that municipal custom or policy. 55. An adequate background investigation of Defendant Jaramillo's employment history, especially in law enforcement, would have alerted Defendant Morris and the Defendant City of Lanett to Defendant Jaramillo's history of sexual misconduct toward females, and that to hire him into the Lanett Police Department would subject females with whom he would come in contact to risk of suffering similar sexual misconduct, in violation of their federally-protected constitutional rights. By ignoring and failing to take any or proper steps to discover the known or obvious risk that Defendant Jaramillo was likely to engage in repeat sexual misconduct, Defendant Morris and the Defendant City of Lanett acted with deliberate indifference to the federally-protected rights of females in the City of Lanett, including B.L. and A.L. 56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' deprivation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' deprivation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other 13
therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment for compensatory damages (as to Defendant Morris and Defendant City of Lanett) and punitive damages (as to Defendant Morris only) in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT IV 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Supervisory and Municipal Liability - Failure to Train Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Defendants Morris, City of Lanett) 58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 57 as though fully set out herein. 59. The Chief of Police is the official of the City of Lanett having final authority to train police officers for the Lanett Police Department, and makes policy for the City of Lanett in establishing and implementing procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett. 60. Defendant Morris failed to establish proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett. 14
61. Defendant Morris failed to implement proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett. 62. Defendant Morris failed to train Defendant Jaramillo as to proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities when Defendant Jaramillo was hired as a police officer in the Lanett Police Department. 63. If Defendant Morris had established and implemented proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the Defendant City of Lanett, and had trained Defendant Jaramillo in those procedures and the legal limits of such activities, Defendant Jaramillo would not have abused his official authority in order to stop, search, and improperly grope or fondle women, including minors B.L. and A.L., in violation of their clearly-established constitutional rights. 64. The Chief of Police's failure to establish and implement proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the Defendant City of Lanett, and his failure to properly train Defendant Jaramillo in those procedures proximately resulted in Defendant Jaramillo's deprivations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of minor females B.L. and A.L. 15
65. The Chief of Police's failure to establish and implement proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks for police officers and the legal limits of such activities amounted to a municipal policy or custom of deliberate indifference on the part of the Defendant City of Lanett in the training of officers; and the failure to train Defendant Jaramillo was a result and/or example of that municipal custom or policy. 66. An adequate background investigation of Defendant Jaramillo's employment history, especially in law enforcement, would have alerted Defendant Morris and the Defendant City of Lanett to Defendant Jaramillo's history of sexual misconduct toward females; that to hire Defendant Jaramillo into the Lanett Police Department would subject females with whom he would come in contact to risk of suffering similar sexual misconduct, in violation of their federally-protected constitutional rights; and that if he were nonetheless hired, Defendant Jaramillo would need appropriate specific training in proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks, as well as the appropriate legal limits of such activities. By ignoring and failing to take any or proper steps to discover the known or obvious risk that Defendant Jaramillo was likely to engage in repeat sexual misconduct, and by failing to train Defendant Jaramillo in proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks, as well as the appropriate legal limits of such activities, Defendant Morris and the Defendant City of Lanett acted with deliberate indifference to the federallyprotected rights of females in the City of Lanett, including B.L. and A.L. 16
67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' deprivation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' deprivation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment for compensatory damages (as to Defendant Morris and Defendant City of Lanett) and punitive damages (as to Defendant Morris only) in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT V Negligence (Defendant Jaramillo) 69. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set out herein. 70. Defendant Jaramillo owed minor girls B.L. and A.L. a duty of care to act as a reasonably prudent law enforcement officer would under similar circumstances, 17
including but not necessarily limited to the decisions whether to stop the two minor girls, to conduct any protective frisk, and to search the two girls, along with the basis or justification for each decision and the maimer in which each decision was carried out. 71. Defendant Jaramillo was negligent and failed to act in a reasonable, prudent manner during the course of the conduct that gave rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, thereby breaching the duty owed to the minor Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the following acts and omissions: a. Defendant Jaramillo had no warrant and lacked even arguable probable cause to arrest or search either minor Plaintiff; b. Defendant Jaramillo lacked any articulable reasonable suspicion to believe either minor Plaintiff was involved in any criminal activity so as to justify an investigative stop of either Plaintiff; c. Defendant Jaramillo lacked any articulable facts to believe either minor Plaintiff was armed or dangerous or any other arguable reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative stop and "pat down" or protective frisk of either minor Plaintiff; d. Even if Defendant Jaramillo had had a warrant or probable cause to search either minor Plaintiff, Defendant Jaramillo's search of both minor Plaintiffs exceeded the scope of any reasonable or permissible intrusion into their persons and property; 18
e. Even if Defendant Jaramillo had had arguable reasonable suspicion, any "pat down" or protective frisk by Defendant Jaramillo of the two minor Plaintiffs and their property exceeded the scope of any reasonable or permissible intrusion into their persons. 72. Under the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Jaramillo acted beyond his discretionary authority or under a mistaken interpretation of the law in making an investigative stop of the two minor Plaintiffs, in effecting any arrest of the two minor Plaintiffs, and in conducting any search or protective frisk or "pat down" of either minor Plaintiff, as such discretion is eliminated or restricted by Article I, 5 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, Title 15 of the Code of Alabama, and other Alabama state law. 73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's negligent acts and omissions, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's negligent acts and omissions, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical andlor other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Jaramillo for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT VI Wantonness or Willfulness (Defendant Jaramillo) 75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 74 as though ftilly set out herein. 76. By the manner in which he stopped, searched, groped, and fondled the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., during the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Jaramillo acted wantonly, with reckless or conscious disregard of the rights of the minor Plaintiffs and conscious that his conduct was likely to harm the minor Plaintiffs; and/or willfully, with knowledge under the circumstances of the likely harm to the minor Plaintiffs from his acts or omissions of his duty to them and with a design or purpose to harm the minor Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the following acts and omissions: a. Defendant Jaramillo had no warrant and lacked even arguable probable cause to arrest or search either minor Plaintiff' b. Defendant Jaramillo lacked any articulable reasonable suspicion to believe either minor Plaintiff was involved in any criminal activity so as to justify an investigative stop of either Plaintiff; 20
c. Defendant Jaramillo lacked any articulable facts to believe either minor Plaintiff was armed or dangerous or any other arguable reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative stop and "pat down" or protective frisk of either minor Plaintiff or their property; d. Even if Defendant Jaramillo had had a warrant or probable cause to search either minor Plaintiff, Defendant Jaramillo' s search of both minor Plaintiffs and their property exceeded the scope of any reasonable or permissible intrusion into their persons and property; e. Even if Defendant Jaramillo had had arguable reasonable suspicion, any "pat down" or protective frisk by Defendant Jaramillo of the two minor Plaintiffs exceeded the scope of any reasonable or permissible intrusion into their persons and property. 77. Defendant Jaramillo's acts and omissions were willful, undertaken with actual or legal malice, fraudulent, and/or in bad faith. 78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's wanton andlor willful acts and omissions, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's wanton and/or willful acts and omissions, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish 21
and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Jaramillo for compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT VII Negligent Battery (Defendant Jaramillo) 80. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 79 as though fully set out herein. 81. In stopping, frisking, andlor searching the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., Defendant Jaramillo touched both girls on their bodies on their chests and on their buttocks, among other places. 82. In stopping, frisking, and/or searching the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., Defendant Jaramillo intended to touch both girls on their bodies on their chests and on their buttocks, among other places. 83. Defendant Jaramillo negligently exceeded the scope of whatever protective frisk and/or search of the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., arguably may have been reasonably necessary, appropriate, and/or permissible under the circumstances. 22
84. Defendant Jaramillo's touching of the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., on their bodies was offensive and deeply disturbing to both girls. 85. Under the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Jaramillo acted beyond his discretionary authority or under a mistaken interpretation of the law in the mariner in which he frisked, searched, or otherwise touched or handled the minor girls, B.L. and A.L. 86. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's negligent touching of her body, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical andlor other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 87. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's negligent touching of her body, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Jaramillo for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. 23
COUNT VIII Battery (Defendant Jaramillo) 88. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 87 as though fully set out herein. 89. In the course of stopping, searching, groping, and fondling the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., Defendant Jaramillo touched both girls on their bodies on their chests and on their buttocks, among other places. 90. In stopping, searching, groping, and fondling the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., Defendant Jaramillo intended to touch both girls on their bodies on their chests and on their buttocks, among other places. 91. Defendant Jaramillo wantonly, willfully, and/or intentionally exceeded the scope of whatever protective frisk and/or search of the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., arguably may have been reasonably necessary, appropriate, and/or permissible under the circumstances. 92. Defendant Jaramillo's touching of the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., on their bodies was offensive and deeply disturbing to both girls. 93. Under the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Jaramillo's acts and omissions in the manner in which he frisked, searched, or otherwise touched or handled the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., were outside his discretionary
authority, based on a mistaken interpretation of the law, willful, taken with actual or legal malice, fraudulent, and/or in bad faith. 94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's wanton, willful, and/or otherwise intentional touching of her body, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical andlor other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo' s wanton, willful, andlor otherwise intentional touching of her body, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Jaramillo for compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT IX Outrage (Defendant Jaramillo) 96. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 95 as though fully set out herein. 25
97. In the course of stopping, searching, groping, and fondling the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., Defendant Jaramillo willfully and intentionally touched both minor girls with both hands on their bodies on their chests and on their buttocks, among other places. 98. Defendant Jaramillo's acts were extreme and outrageous as reflected by at least the following circumstances: Defendant Jaramillo was on-duty as a City of Lanett police officer at the time he sexually molested the two minor girls; he abused his state-conferred official authority, as an armed, on-duty officer in a marked police vehicle, to stop the two minor girls on the street, and then question, frisk, search both girls and fondle one, and then direct them to get in his cruiser, which gave him another opportunity to fondle the girls again when he dropped them off; Defendant Jaramillo displayed and at least implicitly used his physical presence (standing about 6 feet, 2 inches tall and weighing about 235 pounds, as compared to the two girls, who both were considerably shorter and slight of build) to obtain the girls' compliance with his instructions; both girls were fifteen-year-old minors, whereas Defendant Jaramillo was an approximately forty-year-old adult male; the two minor girls were alone on the street on foot well after dark, without any adult to protect them or keep them safe; Defendant Jaramillo took advantage of the minor girls' fear and anxiety from the circumstances (including their being unable to get away from Defendant Jaramillo) to sexually molest both minor girls; and instead of protecting them, as a law enforcement officer is expected to do, Defendant Jaramillo exploited both minor girls' vulnerability under the 26
circumstances for his own gratification, committing criminal sexual misconduct on both girls. 99 Defendant Jaramillo's touching of the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., on their bodies was offensive and deeply disturbing to both girls. 100. Defendant Jaramillo's willful actions and omissions toward the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., were so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree under the circumstances as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and reason, and are so offensive that they should not be tolerated in a civilized society. 101. Under the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Jaramillo's acts and omissions in the manner in which he frisked, searched, or otherwise touched or handled the minor girls, B.L. and A.L., were outside his discretionary authority, based on a mistaken interpretation of the law, willful, taken with actual or legal malice, fraudulent, and/or in bad faith. 102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's willful acts and omissions, B.L. has suffered emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering so severe that no reasonable person should be expected to have to endure it, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jaramillo's willful acts and omissions, A.L. has suffered emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain
and suffering so severe that no reasonable person should be expected to have to endure it, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 104. Defendant Jaramillo's conduct was intentional, gross, malicious, wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, and designed to injure and damage the minor girls, B.L. and AL. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Jaramillo for compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT X Negligence (Defendant Morris) 105. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 104 as though fully set out herein. 106. Defendant Morris, as Chief of Police for the City of Lanett, has final authority to hire police officers for the Lanett Police Department, and is responsible for setting criteria for the screening, pre-hire investigation, and hiring of police officers for the City of Lanett. 107. Defendant Morris, as Chief of Police for the City of Lanett, has final authority to train police officers for the Lanett Police Department, and is responsible for 28
establishing and implementing procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett. 108. Defendant Morris breached his duty of care and was negligent in at least the following ways: a. failing to set proper criteria for the screening, pre-hiring investigation, and hiring of police officers for the City of Lanett; b. failing to screen or conduct a proper background investigation of Defendant Jaramillo when Defendant Jaramillo applied for employment as a police officer in the Lanett Police Department; c. failing to establish proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett; d. failing to implement proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett; and e. failing to train Defendant Jaramillo as to proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett. 109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Morris' negligent acts and omissions, Defendant Jaramillo was hired as a police officer for the City of Lanett; 29
was placed in a position in which Defendant Jaramillo could abuse his official authority to stop, search, and improperly grope or fondle women; and abused his official authority so as to stop, search, and improperly grope or fondle minor females B.L. and A.L.. 110. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Morris's negligent acts and omissions, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 111. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Morris's negligent acts and omissions, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 112. Under the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Morris's negligent acts and omissions were outside his discretionary authority or based on a mistaken interpretation of the law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Morris for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. 30
COUNT XI Wantonness (Defendant Morris) 113. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 112 as though ftilly set out herein. 114. Defendant Morris, as Chief of Police for the City of Lanett, has final authority to hire police officers for the Lanett Police Department, and is responsible for setting criteria for the screening, pre-hire investigation, and hiring of police officers for the City of Lanett. 115. Defendant Morris, as Chief of Police for the City of Lanett, has final authority to train police officers for the Lanett Police Department, and is responsible for establishing and implementing procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett. 116. Defendant Morris acted wantonly in at least the following ways: a. failing to set proper criteria for the screening, pre-hiring investigation, and hiring of police officers for the City of Lanett; b. failing to screen or conduct a proper background investigation of Defendant Jaramillo when Defendant Jaramillo applied for employment as a police officer in the Lanett Police Department; 31
c. failing to establish proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett; d. failing to implement proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett; and e. failing to train Defendant Jaramillo as to proper procedures with respect to searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities for police officers for the City of Lanett. 117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Morris' wanton acts and omissions, Defendant Jaramillo was hired as a police officer for the City of Lanett; was placed in a position in which Defendant Jaramillo could abuse his official authority to stop, search, and improperly grope or fondle women; and abused his official authority so as to stop, search, and improperly grope or fondle minor females B.L. and A.L. 118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Morris's wanton acts and omissions, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 32
119. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Morris's wanton acts and omissions, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical andlor other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 120. With respect to the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Morris's acts and omissions were wanton, with actual or legal malice, fraudulent, and/or in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Morris for compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. COUNT XII Vicarious/Respondeat Superior Liability (Defend ant City of Lanett) 121. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 120 as though fully set out herein. 122. Defendant City of Lanett is liable pursuant to Code of Alabama 11-47-190 for damages for injury done to or wrong suffered by the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. and A.L., through the neglect, carelessness or unskillfulness of Defendants Jaramillo and Morris, as set out above in the negligence and negligent battery counts against Defendant Jaramillo and the negligence count against Defendant Morris. 33
123. With respect to the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Jaramillo acted in the line of duty and within the line and scope of his employment with the Defendant City of Lanett in negligently, carelessly or unskillfully conducting stops, frisks, and searches of the minor Plaintiffs, B.L. arid A.L.; and in furtherance of the Defendant City of Lanett's business in investigating possible crime, questioning potential suspects, apprehending and punishing perpetrators of crime, and protecting the public. 124. With respect to the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Morris acted in the line of duty and within the line and scope of his employment with the Defendant City of Lanett in negligently, carelessly or unskillfully setting criteria for the screening, pre-hire investigation, and hiring of police officers for the City of Lanett, including Defendant Jaramillo, and in establishing, implementing, and training City of Lanett police officers, including Defendant Jaramillo, as to proper procedures regarding searches, investigative stops, and protective frisks and the legal limits of such activities. With respect to the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs' complaint, Defendant Morris acted in furtherance of the Defendant City of Lanett's business in hiring qualified police officers, establishing appropriate procedures regarding law enforcement activities, and training those officers properly to carry out those activities in investigating possible crime, questioning potential suspects, apprehending and punishing perpetrators of crime, and protecting the public. 34
125. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants Jaramillo and Morris acting in the line of duty, within the line and scope of their employment with the Defendant City of Lanett, and in furtherance of the business of the Defendant City of Lanett, B.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. 126. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of Defendants Jaramillo and Morris acting in the line of duty, within the line and scope of their employment with the Defendant City of Lanett, and in furtherance of the business of the Defendant City of Lanett, A.L. has suffered severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and suffering, undergone medical and/or other therapeutic treatment, and incurred expenses for such treatment, which trauma, injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue well into the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant City of Lanett for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a struck jury, along with interest, costs, and all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may justly be entitled. Dated this 2nd day of July, 2009. Respectfully submitted, 35 M. Brandon Walker (WAL17I)