UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT DISTRICTOFCONNECTICUT PEDRORIVERA, Plaintiff, v. BRIANFOLEY, EDWARDYERGEAU, HARTFORDPOLICEDEPARTMENT, Defendants.

: : : : : : : : :

cv_____________________

FEBRUARY18,2014

COMPLAINT 1. Thisisanactionallegingviolationoftheplaintiffsfederalconstitutional

rights:specificallyhisFourthAmendmentrighttobefreefromunreasonableseizures,and hisFirstAmendmentrighttofreedomofexpression. 2. ThejurisdictionofthisCourtisinvokedundertheprovisionsofSections

1331and1343(3)ofTitle28and,42U.S.C.Sections1983and1988. 3. Atalltimesrelevanttothisaction,theplaintiff,PedroRivera,wasanadult

residentoftheStateofConnecticut,residinginHartford. 4. Atalltimesrelevanttothisaction,BrianFoleywasalieutenantintheHartford

PoliceDepartment,actingundercolorofhisauthorityasapoliceofficer.Heissuedinhis individualcapacityonly. 5. Atalltimesrelevanttothisaction,EdwardYergeauwasasergeantinthe

HartfordPoliceDepartment,actingundercolorofhisauthorityasapoliceofficer.Heis suedinhisindividualcapacityonly.

6.

TheCityofHartfordisamunicipalentityorganizedandoperatingunderthe

lawsoftheStateofConnecticut.Thecitymaintainsapolicedepartmentfortheprotection ofpersonswithinmunicipalboundaries. 7. OnFebruary1,2014,theplaintiffheardonapolicescannerthattherewasa

seriousmotorvehicleaccidentintheCityofHartford.Herespondedtothesceneofthe accident,whereheoperatedaremotecontrolledmodelaircraft,colloquiallyknownasa drone,heownstohoverovertheaccidentsceneandtorecordvisualimagesofthe accidentscene.Hisdevicewashoveringatanaltitudeof150feet.Atalltimesrelevantto thisaction,theplaintiffwasstandingoutsideoftheareadenotedasthecrimesceneby officersrespondingtotheaccident.Hewasstandinginapublicplace,operatinghis deviceinpublicspace,observingeventsthatwereinplainview. 8. Althoughtheplaintiffisemployedasaphotographerandeditoratalocal

televisionstation,hewasnotactingasanemployeeofthetelevisionstationatthetime,a facthemadecleartopoliceofficerswhowerealsoattheaccidentscene,including defendantYergeauandothers. 9. TheplaintiffdidacknowledgetodefendantYergeauandothersthathedoes,

fromtimetotime,forwardthevideofeedfromhisdronetothetelevisionstationforwhich heworks. 10. Whileatthesceneoftheaccident,defendantYergeauandotheruniformed

membersoftheHartfordPoliceDepartmentsurroundedtheplaintiff,demandedhis identificationcard,andaskedhimquestionsaboutwhathewasdoing.Theplaintiffdidnot feelasthoughhewerefreetoleaveduringthecourseofthisquestioning.

11.

DefendantYergeauandotheruniformedmembersoftheHartfordPolice

Departmentdemandedthattheplaintiffceaseoperatingthedeviceovertheaccident scene,andthatheleavethearea. 12. Theplaintiffwasnotinviolationofanystateorfederallawwhentheofficers

stoppedhim,detainedhim,andthenorderedhimtostopflyinghisdeviceoverthecrime sceneandtoleavethearea. 13. Theplaintiffwasnotoperatingacivilaircraftwithinthemeaningofanystate

orfederalregulationswhentheofficersstoppedhim,detainedhim,andthenorderedhim tostopflyinghisdeviceoverthecrimesceneandtoleavethearea. 14. Privatecitizensdonotneedlocal,stateorfederalapprovaltooperatea

remotecontrolledmodelaircraft. 15. Therewasnoprobablecause,orarguableprobablecause,tobelievethat

theplaintiffwasinviolationofanylaworregulatoryrequirementwhendefendantYergeau andotheruniformedmembersoftheHartfordPoliceDepartmentdetainedhim. 16. TheactionsofdefendantYergeauandotheruniformedmembersofthe

HartfordPoliceDepartmentwereintentionalandinspiredbyimpropermotive,towit:to impedetheexerciseoftheplaintiffsFirstAmendmentrightsinmonitoringthepolice responsetoamotorvehicleaccident. 17. Immediatelyaftertheplaintiffwasorderedtoleavethecrimescene,

defendantFoleycontactedtheplaintiffsemployer,andspoketooneoftheplaintiffs supervisors.DefendantFoleycomplainedthattheplaintiffhadinterferedwiththepolice departmentsinvestigationoftheaccident,andhadcompromisedthecrimescenes

integrity.Uponinformationandbelief,defendantFoleyeitherrequestedthatdisciplinebe imposedupontheplaintiffbyhisemployer,orsuggestedthattheemployercouldmaintain itsgoodwillwiththeemployerbydiscipliningtheplaintiff. 18. AsadirectandproximateresultofdefendantFoleyscontactwiththe

plaintiffsemployer,theplaintiffwassuspendedfromworkforaperiodofatleastoneweek 19. DefendantFoleyintendedtochill,anddidchill,theplaintiffinhisFirst

Amendmentrighttofreedomofspeech. 20. DefendantFoleywasinspiredbyimpropermotive:towit,topreventthe

publicatlargetohavevideoreportsofwhatpoliceofficersdointheinvestigationofa crime. 21. TheCityofHartfordsPoliceDepartmentmaintainsapolicy,practiceand

customofseekingtopreventcitizensfromfilmingtheirconductatarrests,atthesceneof criminalinvestigations,andataccidentscenes.Theactionsofeachindividuallynamed defendant,andoftheunnameduniformedpoliceofficers,wereundertakenundercloakof thatpolicy,practiceorcustom. 22. Asadirectandproximateresultoftheactsandomissionscomplainedof

herein,theplaintiffsufferedascertainableeconomiclossintheformofalostweekof wages,emotiondistressandthelossofhisconstitutionalrighttobefreefrom unreasonableseizurestofreedomofspeech. Wherefore,theplaintiffseeksdamagesasfollows: 1. 2. Compensatorydamages Punitivedamages,asagainsttheindividuallynameddefendantsonly

3.

Declaratoryreliefestablishingthathisoperationofaremotecontrolled

modelaircraftinthemannerandmeanshereindescribedisnotaviolationofanyfederal, localorstatelaworregulation 4. InjunctivereliefforbiddingtheCityofHartfordsPoliceDepartmentfrom

interferingwiththelawfuloperationofdroneswithincitylimits 5. 6. Attorneysfeespursuantto42U.S.C.Section1988 SuchotherreliefasthisCourtdeemsfairandequitable.

TRIALCLAIM Theplaintiffclaimstrialbyjuryastoalllegalissuesintheinstantaction.

THEPLAINTIFF By_________________________ NORMANA.PATTIS ct13120 649AmityRoad Bethany,CT06524 203.393.3017 203.393.9745(fax)