SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION


UNITED STUDENTS AGAINST
SWEATSHOPS,
1150 17th St., NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036,


PLAINTIFF
vs.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Serve:
Vincent Gray, Mayor
441 4
th
St., NW
6
th
Floor South
Washington, DC 20001

Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General
441 4
th
St., NW
6
th
Floor South
Washington, DC 20001

OFFICER NICOLE RIZZI,

251 Evans Lane
Arlington, Virginia 22305-3002

DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)


Judge _____________
Civil Action No. ____________


COMPLAI NT FOR DECLARATORY AND I NJUNCTI VE RELI EF


THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff UNITED STUDENTS AGAINST SWEATSHOPS ('USAS) is
a nonprofit association having its principal place of business in the District of Columbia.
2. USAS is a national student labor organization Iighting Ior workers` rights
by conducting peaceful lawful actions.
3. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is a municipal corporation of
which the Metropolitan Police Department ('MPD) is a component.
4. Defendant Nicole Rizzi is an MPD officer, who works undercover using
the name 'Missy Thompson.

JURISDICTION

5. This action arises under the District of Columbia Police Investigations
Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of 2004, D.C. Code 5-333.01, et seq.
6. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter pursuant to
D.C. Code 11-921.


STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. MPD has used one or more undercover officers, including Defendant
Nicole Rizzi, in connection with PlaintiII`s engagement in First Amendment activity.
Defendant Nicole Rizzi has infiltrated USAS protests including actions on March 11,
2013, March 15, 2013, and June 29, 2013.
8. In connection with PlaintiII`s protest on May 11, 2013 in Iront oI the GAP
store at 1120 Connecticut Avenue, Defendant employed Nicole Rizzi, identifying herself
as 'Missy to participate in the protest.
9. PlaintiII`s protest on May 11, 2013 was planned to be, and in all respects
was, a peaceful, lawful protest. On information and belief, MPD had no reason to believe
any illegal activity would take place at the May 11, 2013 protest, and in fact no illegal
activity took place at the May 11, 2013 protest.

10. In connection with PlaintiII`s protest on May 15, 2013 in front of the
Columbia Heights retail store The Children`s Place, Defendant employed Nicole Rizzi,
identifying herselI as 'Missy to participate in the protest and hand out fliers.
11. PlaintiII`s protest on May 15, 2013 was planned to be, and in all respects
was, a peaceful, lawful protest. On information and belief, MPD had no reason to believe
any illegal activity would take place at the May 15, 2013 protest, and in fact no illegal
activity took place at the May 15, 2013 protest.
12. In connection with PlaintiII`s protest on June 29, 2013 in Iront oI the GAP
store at 1120 Connecticut Avenue, Defendant employed Nicole Rizzi, identifying herself
as 'Missy to participate in the protest.
13. PlaintiII`s protest on June 29, 2013 was planned to be, and in all respects
was, a peaceful, lawful protest. On information and belief, MPD had no reason to believe
any illegal activity would take place at the June 29, 2013 protest, and in fact no illegal
activity took place at the June 29, 2013 protest.
14. MPD has assigned 'Missy to work undercover at protests throughout the
District of Columbia. At these protests, 'Missy has made herselI appear to be one oI the
protesters by carrying banners, handing out flyers, chanting, and otherwise participating
in the protest.
15. Under the District of Columbia Police Investigations Concerning First
Amendment Activities Act of 2004, 'any undercover activities shall be authorized as
required by 5-333.07. D.C. Code 5-333.10. Under D.C. Code 5-333.07,
'Undercover oIIicers . . . may be used in an authorized investigation or preliminary
inquiry after written approval and authorization is obtained from the Chief of Police or
his designee.
16. On information and belief, Defendant did not obtain written approval and
authorization from the Chief of Police or her designee to open an inquiry or investigation,
or to use undercover officers in an authorized preliminary inquiry or investigation of
Plaintiff on the dates listed in this Complaint.
17. On information and belief, Defendant did not open an inquiry or
investigation into Plaintiff.
18. In the alternative, MPD has initiated a preliminary inquiry or investigation
into PlaintiII`s activities and the ChieI oI Police or her designee has given written
approval and authorization for the use of undercover officers.
19. Under D.C. Code 5-333.05 (a) to open an investigation, the MPD must
have a 'reasonable suspicion that the group being investigated is 'planning or engaged
in criminal activity.
20. Under D.C. Code 5-333.06(a), 'MPD may initiate a preliminary inquiry
involving First Amendment activities, to obtain sufficient information to determine
whether or not an investigation is warranted where: (1) The MPD receives information
or an allegation the responsible handling of which requires further scrutiny; and (2) The
information or allegation received by MPD does not justify opening a full investigation
because it does not establish reasonable suspicion that persons are planning or engaged in
criminal activity.
21. Under D.C. Code 5-333.06(b)(1), 'A MPD member may undertake a
preliminary inquiry involving First Amendment activities, to obtain sufficient
information to determine whether or not an investigation is warranted, only by receiving
prior written authorization from the Commander, Office of Superintendent of Detectives,
or such other MPD commander of similar rank designated by MPD regulations.
22. On information and belief, MPD has not received information or
allegations, the responsible handling of which requires further scrutiny and has no
information that would create a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was being
planned or engaged in.
23. Defendants failed to use the least intrusive methods of investigation and to
utilize minimizing procedures, as required by D.C. Code 5-333.07.
24. MPD`s activities described in this Complaint were and are directed against
a lawful organization and its lawful political activities, and have no crime-detection or
other law enforcement purpose.
25. Plaintiff intends to conduct more First Amendment activities in the near
future. Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation that MPD`s illegal use oI undercover
officers will recur at these demonstrations. Indeed, 'Missy asked organizers at
PlaintiII`s May 15, 2012 protest about upcoming protests and indicated that she would
like to attend future protests.

COUNT I:
VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE INVESTIGATIONS
CONCERNING FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES ACT OF 2004

26. This Count realleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
paragraphs.
27. Defendants have violated the District of Columbia Police Investigations
Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of 2004 by conducting undercover
operations in connection with PlaintiII`s First Amendment activities without the
statutorily required authorization.
28. In the alternative, Defendants have violated the District of Columbia
Police Investigations Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of 2004 by initiating
and conducting unauthorized preliminary inquiries of PlaintiII`s First Amendment
activities.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

(1) Declare Defendants` failure to comply with the District of Columbia Police
Investigations Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of 2004 to be unlawful;
(2) Enjoin Defendants from continuing to use undercover officers during PlaintiII`s
First Amendment activities without a proper basis and statutorily required
authorization;
(3) Enjoin Defendants from continuing to engage in preliminary inquiries or
investigations into PlaintiII`s activities without a proper basis and statutorily
required authorization;
(4) Enjoin Defendants from using any information obtained in violation of District of
Columbia Police Investigations Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of
2004;
(5) Order training of the Metropolitan Police Department on the District of Columbia
Police Investigations Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of 2004; and
(6) Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief which the Court deems proper.
Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________
Jeffrey L. Light
D.C. Bar #485360
1712 Eye St., NW
Suite 915
Washington, DC 20006
(202)277-6213
Jeffrey.Light@yahoo.com

Counsel for Plaintiff