Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No: 13-CV-20552-King/McAliley CARLOS MILLER, Plaintiff, vs. 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC., Defendant. _______________________________________________/ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL The Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, (MILLER), by and through his undersigned

attorneys, sues Defendant, 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC., (50 STATE), a Florida Corporation and alleges: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, on

behalf of Plaintiff, MILLER, a Miami based multi-media photojournalist, author, and advocate for the rights of photographers, whose rights under the First and Fourth Amendments were violated by Defendant, 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC., due to the Defendants willful indifference and reckless disregard for the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff and the public at large at the numerous Metrorail Facilities that Defendant is responsible to protect pursuant to their contract with Miami Dade County Transit Authority. 2. It is further alleged that the individual security officers made an

unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff and violated his right of free expression. It is further

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 2 of 34

alleged that these constitutional violations and torts were committed as a result of policies, practices and customs of 50 State Security Service, Inc. 3. In addition to the federal civil rights claims, Plaintiff, Miller, also seeks relief

for damages he incurred as a result of the negligent training, supervision, and retention, of its employees. As a result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiff was the victim of multiple assaults, batteries, false imprisonment, and other deprivations, by Defendants employees while Plaintiff, MILLER, was either attempting to exercise his First Amendment right to videotape or take photographs the public areas of the Douglas Road Metrorail Station on matters of public concern or simply because he was taking pictures on a train platform at the Downtown Miami Government Center station. JURISDICTION & VENUE ALLEGATIONS 4. This court has federal-question jurisdiction over plaintiffs federal claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Because the state claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as do the federal claims, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 5. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County because it is where the events

complained of occurred. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff, MILLER, is a citizen of the State of Florida and a resident of Dade

County and is otherwise sui juris. 7. Defendant, 50 STATE, was and continues to be a Florida corporation

authorized to and, in fact, doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 3 of 34

8.

At all times material hereto, 50 STATE, touts itself as a leader in the security

services industry provid[ing] comprehensive security solutions that address your security challenges. 9. Additionally, Defendant, 50 STATE, represents to the public that it provides

professional licensed armed and unarmed security officers who are carefully screened and trained. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendant, 50 STATE, contracts with both

private and public entities, including, without limitation, municipalities such as Miami- Dade County, Florida. Accordingly, Defendant, 50 STATE, also provides a guarantee that all of its security are required to adhere to all federal, state and local laws, which apply to the provision of security services. 11. Given that Defendants, 50 STATE, personnel that are hired to provide

security services for public buildings and public property, and are expected to interact with the public, the company again represents that its employees are provided specialized training depending on the nature of the assignment, by providing the following: * Pre-assignment training up to 100 hours * Continuing education training up to 24 hours annually * Classroom instruction; and * On-site supervised instruction. 12. Among the topics that Defendant purports to train its personnel include

terrorism threat response and security officers training. 13. Defendant, 50 STATE, also represents touts its services by providing that: a. an Account Manager is assigned to every security officer; 3

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 4 of 34

b. an Account Manager primary liaison for its customers who shall provide support to the security officer 24 hours per day and 7 days per week; and c. Field Supervision provides support to and inspections of security officer workforce. 14. Miami-Dade Transit, one of the largest departments of Miami-Dade County

government, is responsible for planning for and providing all public transit services in the county, including providing security on the 22 Metrorail stations throughout Miami-Dade County. As a result, Miami Dade County Transit entered into a contract with Defendant, 50 STATE, to providing security services and personnel at the Countys Metrorail stations. 15. Between 2010 and 2012, Metrorail has an average between 17 and 18

million passengers per year. 16. At all times material hereto, Defendant, 50 STATE, was providing security

services and personnel at the Douglas Road Metrorail Station located at 3100 South Douglas Road, Coral Gables, Florida and at the Government Center Station located at 111 NW 1st St #2510 Miami, Florida. Defendants, 50 STATE, security personnel are uniformed and most, if not all, are armed with weapons, handcuffs, and other tools commonly kept by sworn law enforcement officers. 17. By virtue of its contract to provide security at all of Miami Dade Transits

Metrorail Station, at all material times, Defendant, 50 STATE, and in all of their acts described hereto, were acting under color of state law and color of their authority as contract security guards for public facilities owned and operated by Miami Dade County, Florida. At all times, Defendant was engaged in conduct that was the proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiffs federally protected rights, as more particularized herein. 4

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 5 of 34

18.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was a business invitee at the

Douglas Road and Government Center Metrorail Stations. The June 30, 2010 Incident Douglas Road Station 19. On or about June 30, 2010, while at the parking lot of the Douglas Road

Station with another photojournalist taking pictures, Miller was approached by one of Defendants security guards who advised them that they were forbidden from taking photos on public property because of a purported federal law, when no such law exists. 20. Stretch Ledford, the photojournalist who was with Plaintiff, MILLER,

provided the guard with a copy of an email he had received from Eric Muntan, the Director of Security for Miami-Dade Transit, stating that non-commercial photography was permitted on the Metrorail and at the Metrorail stations. 21. The email contained the pertinent portions of the Miami-Dade County Code,

section 30B-5(2) which states in pertinent part: Commercial photography or recording. No person, unless authorized in writing by MDTA or the County Manager when appropriate under Section 2-11.14 of this Code, shall take still, motion, or sound motion pictures or sound records or recordings of voices or otherwise for commercial, training or educational purposes, other than news coverage anywhere in the transit system. 22. The aforementioned email also contained a reference to Miami-Dade County Ordinance Sec. 2-11.14 (2) (iii), which states the following: [n]othing in this section shall require any permit from: (i) Individuals filming or video taping only for their own personal or family use; (ii) Employees of print or electronic news media when filming on-going news events. This exception shall not apply to simulations or re-enactments orchestrated by print or electronic news media; or (iii) Students and faculty filming exclusively for educational purposes. 23. The Defendants security guard, apparently having never been trained or instructed what the law was with respect to the use of photography in public places, such 5

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 6 of 34

as Metrorail, then proceeding to call the police. Then, this guard, along with two other female security guards forbade the Plaintiff and Mr. Ledford from entering the Metrorail station, even though they both had tickets and had a legal right to do so. Evidently, the two female security guards were likewise abysmally ignorant of the law and of the First Amendment right the Plaintiff had as a private citizen and a journalist to take photographs and video at the Metrorail station. 24. A security captain (supervisor) shortly arrived and was provided a copy of

the email with the language of the pertinent Miami Dade County Code. The security captain also appeared clueless of the law, or he intentionally chose to disregard it. 25. Miami-Dade Police then arrived at the scene and ran background checks on

MILLER and Ledford that determined that these journalists were not on any terrorist watch list or members of some subversive organization. 26. Despite this, the Captain for Defendant, 50 State, informed Plaintiff, MILLER,

and Mr. Ledford that they were permanently banned from ever riding the Metrorail again notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff, MILLER, had not violated any law, rule, or regulation. 27. Defendant had no legal authority to permanently ban Plaintiff or anyone

from riding a public transit train simply because they were taking pictures and video on public property for non-commercial purposes protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 6

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 7 of 34

The July 28, 2010 Incident Douglas Road Station 28. On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff, MILLER, returned to the Douglas Road Metrorail

station with a news crew from HD Net who were working on a story about photography in public places and who were chronicling the June 30, 2010 incident. 29. While in the parking lot, none of the security guards said anything to Plaintiff,

MILLER. Plaintiff purchased a ticket and entered the station and began shooting video. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was once again a business invitee at the Douglas Road Metrorail Station. 30. However, within a minute of Plaintiff entering the station, one of Defendants

security agents started approaching Plaintiff in an aggressive manner and raised fist telling him that he was not allowed to videotape at the station. Plaintiff continued filming while clearly walking backwards away from the threatening guard. Then within a matter of seconds, a second security guard wearing a black beret and single glove stealthily came up alongside Plaintiff, MILLER, striking him and causing Plaintiffs camera to fall to the floor. The security guard then picked up the video camera belonging to Plaintiff, MILLER, and put it in his pocket and unlawfully refused to return it to Plaintiff, MILLER. 31. Plaintiff, MILLER, then took out his Apple iPhone to continue videotaping the

incident and asking for the return of his camera. The Defendants armed security guard then repeatedly pushed and battered the Plaintiff in an aggressive manner in an attempt to remove the iPhone from Plaintiffs hand. Plaintiff, MILLER, then attempted to defend himself from the battery, wherein the Defendants security guard then charged Plaintiff, MILLER, with an ASP Tactical Carbon Steel Baton in an attempt to once again strike

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 8 of 34

Plaintiffs person. Plaintiff, fearing additional injuries, retreated to the area next to the television crew. 32. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was lawfully on the premises of the

Douglas Road Metrorail station. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was within his First Amendment rights of free expression as a private citizen and a member of the press to take still photographs and video on all publically accessible common areas of the Metrorail Station including the parking area, the turnstiles, the lobby and train platform areas. Further, at all times material hereto, Plaintiff has a Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force and unreasonable seizures of his person and property 33. Mr. MILLER did not engage in any unlawful conduct that would have justified

him being assaulted and battered by Defendants security personnel. 34. What happened to Plaintiff, MILLER, was not an isolated incident of the

Defendants use of unreasonable and excessive force and harassment of patrons taking photographs or video on Metrorail property. 35. The force used by the Defendants agents against Plaintiff, MILLER, was

excessive and without lawful justification. 36. Plaintiff, MILLERs presence and act of taking photographs and video at the

Metrorail station did not pose any risk to the Defendants agents or members of the public located at the Metrorail station. No reasonable security personnel could have concluded that MILLER posed any risk of harm to the security officers or to other persons or property in the area. Rather, MILLER was an independent photojournalist filming the events at the station while moving away from the advancing security personnel. MILLERs actions were specifically permitted under the Miami Dade County Code. 8

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 9 of 34

37.

Plaintiff, MILLER, was targeted, assaulted and battered, and was deprived of

his personal property solely because he was visually recording what many people would later complain to be excessive use of force and harassment by Defendants security personnel against photographers. 38. Defendant knew or should have known Plaintiff, MILLER, posed no threat to

its employees, or to other persons or property in the area, and therefore their excessive use of physical force against him was unreasonable and violated, inter alia, his First Amendment rights. 39. Defendant failed to properly train its personnel on the appropriate use of

force and failed to train and instruct its security officers, and restrict the use of such force and weapons, such as the ASP, against non-threatening individuals such as Plaintiff, MILLER, was a reckless disregard of his civil rights as a non-violent, non-threatening individual. Furthermore, Defendant failed to properly train and instruct its personnel as to the type of lawful conduct, such as non-commercial still and video photography, that was permitted on the Metrorail grounds without a permit. In fact, the Defendants also failed to properly train their employees as evidenced by the fact that the employees instructed Plaintiff and others that their sole act of photographing and videotaping the premises was in violation of federal law, and their subsequent detention of Plaintiff (who was forced to undergo the humiliation of a background check against terrorist watch lists) when he had the right to enter the station and ride the train, as well as their advising Plaintiff that he was banned from ever riding the Metrorail and entering any Metrorail station. No reasonable security officer could have believed that Plaintiff, MILLER, posed any risk of harm to the security officers or other persons or property in the area. Moreover, at no time 9

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 10 of 34

did Plaintiff, MILLER, photograph or videotape any area of the Metrorail station where an expectation of privacy existed. October 28, 2010 Incident University of Miami Station 40. On October 28, 2010, months after the above incidents, Plaintiff visited the

United of Miami Metrorail Station. While in the public area outside the station, Plaintiff began to videotape with his iPhone and was advised by security guard Y. Guevara that Plaintiff was not allowed to videotape. He was then approached by another security guard, Carlos Rodriguez, who came without legal justification and assaulted Plaintiff and Plaintiffs companion in an attempt to take away their personal property for videotaping in a public area. Rodriguez indicated that they were not allowed to videotape in the public area. As before, no reasonable security officer could have believed that Plaintiff, MILLER, posed any risk of harm to the security officers or other persons or property in the area. Moreover, at no time did Plaintiff, MILLER, photograph or videotape any area of the Metrorail station where an expectation of privacy existed. The January 20, 2013 Incident Government Center Station 41. On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant, 50 State, for

the June 30, 2010 and July 28, 2010 incidents. Defendant was on notice of the nature of the claims brought by Plaintiff and were on notice that any member of the public has a constitutional right to take non-commercial photos and videos on all publicly accessible areas of the Metrorail and Metrorail Stations. 42. On January 20, 2013, Plaintiff, Miller, and a friend from California in

Downtown Miami to visit friends and enjoy dinner at a Downtown Miami pizza restaurant. After finishing their meal, around 11:40 pm, Plaintiff and his friend decided to try and 10

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 11 of 34

catch the Metrorail home instead of spending money on a cab. Because of the hour, Plaintiff and his friend had to hurry to catch the last train from Downtown Miami to the Coconut Grove station which is near Plaintiffs home. 43. Plaintiff and his companion made their way to the Omni Station Metromover,

then stepped off at Government Center where they paid for their tickets, then made their way up to the platform where they had planned to take the southbound train to the Coconut Grove station. 44. While waiting for the southbound train, Plaintiffs companion decided to take

photos of the Dade County Courthouse, which was beautifully illuminated at night and which is visible from the Government Center platform. 45. As Plaintiffs companion was taking handheld snapshots of the Courthouse,

Plaintiff, Miller, took out his Apple iPhone and started taking a photo of his companion so he could upload it to Facebook and tag his friend as having a good time in Miami; something millions of people do each day. 46. Suddenly, a loud voice came over the loudspeaker mentioning something

about the two guys taking photos and , get down from there. 47. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff and his companion were in the

publically accessible area of the Metrorail Station. 48. Given Plaintiffs prior experience with Defendants Metrorail security, and

because Plaintiff and his friend knew they were not breaking any law, rule, or regulation, so Plaintiff began video recording with his cell phone because he anticipated Defendants security guards confronting them as they had done in the past for taking photos.

11

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 12 of 34

49.

Plaintiff spotted the guards as they were approaching and greeted them with

and walked up towards them with, how are you doing, sir? 50. The armed guard, whose named turned out to be R. Perez, responded by

telling Plaintiff that they were not allowed to take pictures of the rail because it was against the law which is clearly untrue. 51. Plaintiff then advised Mr. Perez that they had not been photographing the

rail, but asked him to elaborate since there was no such law, rule, or regulation. Perez then ordered Plaintiff to turn off his iPhone camera or Plaintiff would get kicked out of the station. 52. Plaintiff them read Mr. Perezs nametag and asked him to confirm his name.

Perez, clearly became more agitated and moved into Plaintiffs personal space, close to his face, and accused Plaintiff of being drunk, which Plaintiff was not. 53. A second security guard whose name was Gutierrez, then began moving in

closer. At that point, Perez assaulted and battered Plaintiff by grabbing his arm as Plaintiff kept telling him not to touch him because he knew that he had not broken any laws nor was he being physically confrontational. Plaintiff kept insisting that he was there lawfully, had not broken any laws, and fully intended on getting on the next train so he could go home. The guards then advised that Plaintiff was not going to be allowed to board the train and had to leave the premises. 54. Moments later, one of the guards advised that the police had been called. At

this point, a third armed security guard named R. Myer walked up, forcibly grabbed Plaintiff and began to push him towards the escalator.

12

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 13 of 34

55.

While Plaintiff attempted to walk down the escalator, one of the guards

attempted to push him down the stairs. When Plaintiff resisted the unlawful use of force being used on him, two of the guards then pounced on Plaintiff. One of the guards, who upon information and belief was Gutierrez, then reached out and slapped the camera out of Plaintiffs companions hands to prevent him from video recording the altercation. The guard kept telling Plaintiffs companion to shut off his camera. 56. The Defendants guards ended up going down the elevator with Guard Myer

placing Plaintiff in a suffocating chokehold that left him unable to breathe. 57. At one point at the bottom of the escalator, Gutierrez placed his arm on top of

Plaintiffs head and forcibly pushed it down, causing Plaintiff to further suffocate and suffer physical distress. 58. At this point, Plaintiff began breathing heavy because he felt as I was going

to suffocate. Plaintiff then began pleading for help and for someone to call police because he saw several people watching from above. 59. Defendants agents then forcibly and unlawfully restrained Plaintiff against

his will and placed Plaintiff and his companion in handcuffs. 60. Minutes later, the guards walked Plaintiff and his companion downstairs

near the turnstiles to wait for police. 61. Once downstairs, Plaintiff and his companion, both handcuffed and

physically restrained against their will, were unlawfully ordered to sit down to wait for police. Police then arrived, including at least one more from the Miami Police Department and several others from the Miami-Dade Police Department. Paramedics arrived as well.

13

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 14 of 34

62.

After over 30 minutes of being physically and unlawfully restrained against

their will, Defendants guards removed their handcuffs only to place new handcuffs on them because they were transferring Plaintiff and his companion from the custody of the 50 State security guards to the Miami-Dade Police Department. 63. Plaintiff and his companion were lead outside and ordered to sit in the back

of a couple of patrol cars. Plaintiff kept asking them to release them without taking them to jail because they had not committed a crime. 64. A conversation ensued between the security guards and the police about

what to charge Plaintiff and his friend with. 65. Plaintiff and his friend were eventually released and were given a bogus

citation for making excessive noise, which was fabricated as evidenced by the video footage of the incident. After being given the citation and allowing themselves to be fingerprinted, the Plaintiff and his companion were told they were free to go, but were told they were being banned from using the Metrorail for 30 days. After receiving the citation, the Plaintiff and his companion then took a taxi cab to go home. As to the Complaint in its Entirety 66. At all times material hereto, providing security to public transportation

facilities, such as Miami-Dade County Metrorail Stations, is an exclusive public and/or governmental function. 67. Plaintiff, MILLER, has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of

this action and/or such conditions have been waived.

14

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 15 of 34

68.

Plaintiff, MILLER, has retained the Law Offices of Michael A Pancier, P.A. to

represent him in this litigation and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT, 50 STATE 69. Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, reaffirms and realleges each and every allegation

as contained in numbered Paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein. 70. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was a legal business invitee at

the Douglas Road and Government Center Metrorail Station. 71. At all times material hereto, 50 STATE owed Plaintiff a duty to: a. Exercise reasonable care for the safety and protection of persons and more particularly herein the Plaintiff, MILLER, at said time. b. Maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition; c. Protect patrons, like Plaintiff, from foreseeable harm; d. Protect patrons, like Plaintiff, from reasonably foreseeable risks; 72. Defendant, 50 STATE, breached the duties to the Plaintiff in one or more of

the following ways: a. Allowed dangerous and/or violent individuals to attack Plaintiff on the premises of the Defendant; and/or b. Allowed the dangerous and/or violent individual(s) that attacked Plaintiff to remain on the premises of the Defendant; and/or c. Failed to take appropriate action to remove the dangerous and/or violent individual(s) that attacked Plaintiff from the premises of the Defendant, despite that Defendant knew or should have known 15

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 16 of 34

that this/these individual(s) posed a substantial risk of danger to Plaintiff; and/or d. Failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of Plaintiff while on the premises of the Defendant; and/or e. Failed to maintain the premises of the Defendant in a reasonably safe condition; and/or f. Negligently acted or failed to act in other presently undetermined ways. 73. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, 50 STATE,

Plaintiff, MILLER, has suffered injuries and other damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, demands judgment for damages against the Defendant, 50 STATE, together with costs and further demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right. COUNT II NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION AND/OR TRAINING AGAINST DEFENDANT, 50 STATE Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, repeats the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 68 as though fully set forth herein. 74. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was a legal business invitee at

the Douglas Road and Government Center Metrorail Station. 75. At all times material hereto, 50 STATE owed Plaintiff a duty to properly train

supervise, oversee and/or manage its security officers to ensure that they: a. adequately, reasonably and responsibly performed their duties so as to not harm or abuse the public, including the commissions of assault, 16

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 17 of 34

battery, conversion, and the application of excessive force and resulting damage flowing from excessive force; b. adequately, reasonably and responsibly performed their duties so as to not deprive patrons on public property, such as Plaintiff, MILLER, of their state and/or federal protected rights such as those protected under the First Amendment of the federal Constitution; and c. properly train, instruct, oversee and/or manage its security officers to ensure that they adequately, reasonably and responsibly performed their duties not to expose public to harm or abuse when confronting people, such as photographers and photojournalists, who were lawfully exercising their constitutionally protected rights on public property. 76. The Defendant, 50 STATE, breached the duties to the Plaintiff in one or more

of the following ways: a. Hired agents, apparent agents, servants, employees, security personnel without conducting a proper and appropriate background search/investigation that, if conducted, would have placed Defendant on notice that these agents, apparent agents, servants, employees, security personnel were ill-qualified for employment as security personnel at the Metrorail station(s); b. Retained agents, apparent agents, servants, employees, security personnel that were ill-qualified for said employment and duties; c. Failed to adequately supervise its agents, apparent agents, servants, employees, security personnel to ensure that the individuals were 17

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 18 of 34

acting professionally, responsibly, and otherwise appropriately in performing security duties including, without limitation, dispute resolution; and d. Failed to exercise reasonable care in the evaluation, employment, training, supervision and retention of its security guards, who committed acts of assault, battery, conversion, and the application of excessive force toward Plaintiff, MILLER, and resulting damage flowing from excessive force. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent hiring and/or retention,

and/or supervision and/or training, by the Defendant, 50 STATE, Defendants security guards improperly, negligently, wrongfully, recklessly and intentionally used excessive force and/or incorrectly applied force against Plaintiff, MILLER, and his property resulting in a deprivation of his civil rights, injuries and other damages to Plaintiff, MILLER. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, demands judgment for damages

against the Defendant, 50 STATE, together with costs and further demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right. COUNT III FALSE IMPRISONMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT, 50 STATE Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, repeats the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 68 as though fully set forth herein. 78. At all times relevant herein the actions of Defendant on January 20, 2013

were done with the intention of confining Miller against his will within the fixed boundary of the Government Center Metrorail Station. 18

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 19 of 34

79.

At all times material hereto, the actions of Defendant directly resulted in the

confinement of Plaintiff, Miller. 80. Defendants agents imposed by force and threats an unlawful restraint upon

Plaintiffs freedom of movement, to wit by pouncing on him, choking him, handcuffing his hands behind his back, and detaining him for an extended period of time without lawful justification. 81. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff,

Miller, has suffered harm and damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, demands judgment for damages

against the Defendant, 50 STATE, together with costs and further demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right. COUNT IV ASSAULT AND BATTERY AGAINST DEFENDANT - 50 STATE Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, repeats the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 68 as though fully set forth herein. 82. At all times material hereto, the intentional actions of the Defendants

security guards at the Douglas Road and Government Center facilities created an apprehension of immediate physical harm. 83. Plaintiff Miller and any reasonable person would also become apprehensive

in the face of Defendants threatening conduct. 84. Additionally, without the consent of Miller, Defendants agents, who were

acting in the interests of the Defendant, under color of state law, while armed with deadly 19

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 20 of 34

force and other tools normally reserved for law enforcement, intentionally, harmfully, and offensively touched Plaintiff by hitting him, grabbing him, tackling him, choking him, and handcuffing him. 85. Said battery was intentionally committed by said defendant, and was willful,

wanton, malicious, oppressive and shocking to the conscience thereby justifying the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant. 86. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant, Plaintiff,

Miller, has suffered harm and damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, demands judgment for damages

against the Defendant, 50 STATE, together with costs and further demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right. COUNT V VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF 1ST, 4TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AGAINST DEFENDANT, 50 STATE 87. Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, repeats the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 68 as though fully set forth herein. 88. At all times material hereto, the Defendant through its Rule 1.310(b)(6)

Representative has acknowledged that Plaintiff Miller had the right to be on Metrorail Public Property, that he and other members of the public have a Constitutional Right to videotape and photograph within the public areas of the Metrorail Stations for non commercial purposes, that the guards have no right to deny entry to a Metrorail Station to a paid ticket holder; that the guards do not have the right to confiscate the personal property

20

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 21 of 34

of patrons; and that the guards are not allowed to place their hands on patrons unless to prevent a crime or to defend themselves. 89. Despite being aware of federally protected rights afforded members of the

public like Plaintiff, Miller, Defendant has repeatedly engaged in a willful and deliberate disregard and indifference to the federally protected rights of the public, including Plaintiff, MILLER. 90. Notwithstanding the official line espoused by Defendant, it is no secret

that the Defendant has a history of harassing and suppressing the free speech rights of the public by the use of force and intimidation and blatant misrepresentations that they are not allowed to take photographs or video on publically accessible areas of the Metrorail. An example of some incidents where the free speech rights of patrons were violated are set forth in the sample of incidents reports attached hereto as Exhibit A which were produced pursuant to a public records request. Moreover, even after Plaintiff, Miller, filed this action and notwithstanding the attention this matter has brought Defendant via blogs and social media, Defendant continues to turn a blind eye to the Constitutional Rights of the public allowing even more egregious conduct to be perpetrated against Plaintiff, Miller. 91. The aforesaid action of the Defendant of assaulting and battering Miller,

taking and destroying his personal property, beating him, choking him, handcuffing him, and falsely imprisoning him was willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive and shocking to the conscience. Furthermore, Defendants have retaliated against Plaintiff, Miller, for exercising his First Amendment rights by threatening him with arrest should he use the Metrorail or should he enter Metrorail Property.

21

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 22 of 34

92.

At the time of these constitutional violations, Defendant had in place and

had ratified policies, procedures, customs and practices which permitted and encouraged security officers to unjustifiably, unreasonably and in violation of First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights use excessive force against lawful citizens and members of the media who had a first amendment right to take personal photographs and video and/or take photographs or videos on matters of public concern. 93. Because of the establishment of policies and practices described above as

well as their failure to adequately train their subordinates and the deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Metrorails patrons, Defendant, 50 State, is liable for the constitutional violations committed by its security officers and for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Miller, described herein. 94. Additionally, since Plaintiff reported the aforementioned incidents on his

blog and his Facebook page, Plaintiff has been receiving violence threats from individuals who purport to be employees of the Defendant. 95. At no time was Plaintiff, Miller, violating any law rules or regulation which

justified the beat-down he received at the hands of Defendants security officers. Moreover, the Defendants officers while acting under color of state law also had no legal cause or excuse to seize his person. 96. At the aforementioned dates and locations, Defendants had ample and

reasonably sufficient time and opportunity to so intervene and prevent the beatings and false imprisonment and deprivation of Plaintiffs rights, and was compelled to do so as contract security officers for Miami-Dade County Transit under the laws of the State of Florida and under the Constitution of the Untied States of America. 22

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 23 of 34

97.

At the aforementioned dates and location, in deliberate indifference to the

life, health and Constitutional rights of Plaintiff, said defendants intentionally and with deliberate indifference to the civil rights of Plaintiff, Miller, refrained from so intervening and permitted said conduct to continue. 98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered

damages and will continue to suffer damages. 99. The aforementioned acts by said defendants were willful, wanton, malicious,

oppressive, and in deliberate indifference to the rights, health and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant. 100. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees in this matter pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 1988. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, demands judgment for compensatory

and punitive damages against the Defendant, 50 STATE, and further requests that the Court enter a declaration that Defendant, 50 STATE, has violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that the Court enter a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing the pattern, practice, custom and policy of depriving Plaintiff and other members of the public of their Constitutional Rights when aboard Metrorail or on the public areas of Metrorail property; and award Plaintiff attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and such other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Dated February 14, 2013. 23

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 24 of 34

Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Michael A. Pancier, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiff 9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 96 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 TEL: (954) 862-2217 FAX: (954) 862-2287 /s/ Michael A. Pancier, Esq. Michael A. Pancier, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 958484

24

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 25 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 26 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 27 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 28 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 29 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 30 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 31 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 32 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 33 of 34

Case 1:13-cv-20552-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/14/2013 Page 34 of 34