IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY. v. Case No. CL ANSWER AND GROUNDS OF DEFENSE

Similar documents
WAIVER OF APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM. I,, the Respondent in. give up my right to have this Court appoint a Guardian Ad Litem

VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT, SECTION II SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR

INDEX TO APPENDIX. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. DEHURRER... l10tion FOR SPECIFIC GROUNDS. GROUNDS OF DEMURRER. MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER.

* * * * NOTICE * * * *

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : VERIFIED COMPLAINT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEMURRER AND MOTION TO DISMISS. Defendant Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("Authority"), by counsel and pursuant

Case 1:11-cv GBL -TRJ Document 4 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 349

Case 1:18-cr TSE Document 304 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 6635

Courthouse News Service

Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25

7 GWINNETTCOUNTY ;ORGIA ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS MATTHEW C. HINES AND THE HINES LAW FIRM, P.C.

Case 1:08-cv GBL-TCB Document 21 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 652

Case 1:18-cv JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2018 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO

Case 1:17-cv RDB Document 17 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 6. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Baltimore Division ANSWER

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

V I R G I N I A : IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Plaintiffs, : versus Civil Action No : YUSUF ABDI ALI, : Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case KRH Doc 1952 Filed 04/05/16 Entered 04/05/16 22:00:50 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10

Docket Number: 3757 WASHINGTON ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. Mark F. Nowak, Esquire VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO MICHAEL WARE MOORE, VIRGINIA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, et al., BRIEF OF APPELLEES

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY. ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY #50 MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiffs hereby submit their response to the counterclaims presented by. 1. Plaintiff Meadowsweet Dairy, LLC ( Meadowsweet ) denies the allegations

Case 1:10-cv TSE-TCB Document 1 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ) ) ) ) ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:16-CV-285

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 4:05-cv Y Document 86 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID 789 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

Plaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC ( Plaintiff ) complains and alleges as follows against Defendant Gimme Gimme, LLC ( Defendant ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

Case 3:14-cr JRS Document 11 Filed 01/22/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 108

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

Case 2:18-cv HCM-RJK Document 1 Filed 07/03/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

RECEIVED ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF

Case 1:18-cr TSE Document 223 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 4200

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SCOTT L. BEAU AND WYNCROFT, LLC ANSWER

Clerk of the Circuit Court Powhatan County, Virginia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

Case KLP Doc 558 Filed 10/16/17 Entered 10/16/17 22:03:54 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SARASOTA, MANATEE, DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case Doc 51 Filed 05/30/17 Entered 05/30/17 13:41:52 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

thejasminebrand.com thejasminebrand.com

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF VENANGO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv AJT-TCB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 3:75-CR-26-F No. 5:06-CV-24-F

Docket Number: 3900 THOMAS DIDIANO, THOMAS DIDIANO, JR. AND THOMAS DIDIANO & SON, INC. Carlyle J. Engel, Esquire VS.

Case 3:04-cv Document 32 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTENTS OF APPENDIX MOTION FOR JUDGMENT... 1 ANSWER TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT.. 3 LETTER OF JUDGE PERCY THORNTON, JR. DATED NOVEMBER 3,

Case 1:14-cv JCC-IDD Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 39

Case 5:17-cv JPB Document 29 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 972

Case 1:06-cv MPT Document 12 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 5:17-cv JPB Document 29 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 972

Case 7:11-cv MFU Document 10 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 6. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Roanoke Division

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY

Case 1:18-cr TSE Document 216 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 4171

IN THE. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2011-CA AND MISSISSIPPI STATE OIL AND GAS BOARD, ET AL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE,,,,,

U= ---^ ^ ^.., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO . THIS IS A DEATH PENALTY CASE

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH DANNY MEEKS, et al.,

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Greenbelt Division

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2013

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES

BEFORE THE FIRST DISTRICT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR. IN THE MATTER OF Kevin Peter Shea VSB Docket No

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Motion for Judgment filed August 18, Letter Opinion of the Honorable. William R. Shelton dated January 11,

X

Case KLP Doc 60 Filed 09/19/17 Entered 09/19/17 15:52:21 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6

Docket Number: 1468 WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS, INC. Thomas J. Stallings, Esquire Jack M. Stover, Esquire Charles I. Artz, Esquire CLOSED VS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. Plaintiffs JAMES MCGIBNEY and VIA VIEW, INC., (Plaintiffs), brings this

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Judge:

COMES NOW Defendant Blue Ridge Bone & Joint Clinic, P.A. ( BRBJ ), pursuant to Rule

Case 4:15-cv AWA-DEM Document 129 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1232

Docket Number: Daniel K. Natirboff, Esquire Samuel B. Fineman, Esquire CLOSED

Case 1:10-cr LMB Document 182 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1647 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION NOTICE OF REMOVAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 1:05-cv WMN Document 88 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:15-cv HEH Document 64 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 445

hcm Doc#150 Filed 07/10/15 Entered 07/10/15 19:14:59 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

Transcription:

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY HARRISON NEAL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CL-2015-5902 FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. ANSWER AND GROUNDS OF DEFENSE COME NOW Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD), and Colonel Edwin C. Roessler, Jr. (Chief Roessler) Defendants herein, by counsel, and file this Answer and Grounds of Defense to the Complaint filed herein by the Plaintiff. ( Answer 1. The first sentence of f 1 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. The second and third sentences of f 1 of the Complaint are denied. The acronym assigned to the Fairfax County Police Department in the second sentence of 1 of the Complaint is incorrect. The Defendants are without sufficient information either to admit or deny the allegations of the fourth sentence of 1 of the Complaint, so those allegations are denied. To the extent that the Defendants are required to answer any other provisions of this paragraph of the Complaint, any 2. f 2 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required.

3. The Defendants are without sufficient information either to admit or deny the allegations of sentence 4 of f 1 of the Complaint, so those allegations are denied. 4. 14 of the Complaint is admitted. 5. The first sentence of If 5 of the Complaint is admitted. The second sentence of ]f 5 of the Complaint is denied. 6. If 6 of the Complaint is denied. 7. f 7 of the Complaint is admitted. 8. The first sentence of "f 8 of the Complaint is admitted. The second and third sentences of f 8 of the Complaint are denied. 9. f 9 of the Complaint is admitted. 10. [ 10 of the Complaint is admitted. 11. ]f 11 of the Complaint is admitted. 12. f 12 of the Complaint is denied. 13. f 13 of the Complaint is admitted, except to the extent that the paragraph asserts that the vehicle license plate number that the Plaintiff submitted a request regarding is actually the Plaintiffs vehicle's license plate number. The Defendants are without sufficient information either to admit or deny that allegation, so it is denied. 14. The first and third sentences of *[ 14 of the Complaint are admitted, except to the extent that the paragraph asserts that the vehicle license plate number that the Plaintiff submitted a request regarding is actually the Plaintiffs vehicle's license plate number. The Defendants are without sufficient information either to admit or deny that allegation, so it is denied. The second sentence of 14 of the Complaint is denied. 2

15. The Defendants are without sufficient information either to admit or deny the allegations of If 15 of the Complaint, so those allegations are denied. 16. 116 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 17. 117 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 18. If 18 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 19. '119 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 20. Tf 20 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 21. If 21 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 22. ^f 22 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 3

23. f 23 of the Complaint is denied. 24. 24 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 25. If 25 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. 26. f 26 of the Complaint is admitted. 27. f 27 of the Complaint is admitted. 28. If 28 of the Complaint is admitted. 29. f 29 of the Complaint is admitted. 30. f 30 of the Complaint is denied. By way of further answer, the Defendants affirmatively state that the Plaintiff, by counsel, was aware when he filed the Complaint that the State Police did not cease to use its ALPR equipment for "passive" data collection, and that they maintain passive data for a period of 24 hours. 31. The Defendants admit that the FCPD retains ALPR data for 364 days. The remaining allegations contained in f 31 of the Complaint are denied. 32. If 32 of the Complaint is denied. The Plaintiff is referred to in the plural in"f 32 of the Complaint, which is incorrect. There is only one plaintiff to the Complaint. 33. f 33 of the Complaint is denied. The Plaintiff is referred to in the plural in Tf 33 of the Complaint, which is incorrect. There is only one plaintiff to the Complaint. 4

The Defendants hereby deny any allegations contained in the Complaint that require a substantive response but are not addressed in the above paragraphs. Pursuant to Rule 3:11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, a reply is demanded to the new matters pleaded herein. The Defendants assert that the actions they have taken with regard to the Plaintiff's allegations are not in violation of the Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (Act), and therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the remedy soughtin his Complaint. A license plate number is not personal information as defined in the Act, and therefore, the Plaintiff is not an aggrieved person who is entitled to any of the relief that he requests in his Request for Relief. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully requests that the Complaint herein be dismissed with prejudice. DAVID P. BOBZIEN COUNTY ATTORNEY Grounds of Defense Respectfully submitted, FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT COLONEL EDWIN C. ROESSLER, JR. By Counsel Virginia State Bar No. 44419 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 549 Fairfax, VA 22035-0064 Phone: (703)324-2421 Fax: (703) 324-2665 \ kimberly.baucom@fairfaxcoimty.gov Counsel for FCPD and Colonel Roessler 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 18th day of September, 2015, a true copy of the foregoing document was sent via electronic mail and mailed, first-class mail, postage prepaid, to: Rebecca K. Glenberg, Esquire Hope R. Amezquita, Esquire American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc. 701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1412 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 649-2733 Edward S. Rosenthal, Esquire Rich Rosenthal Brincefield Mannitta Dzubin & Kroeger, LLP 201 North Union Street, Suite 230 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Fax: (703) 299-3441 6