Baton Bob Sues Atlanta Police Over Arrest

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
___________________________________________________________________
BOB JAMERSON a/k/a BATON
BOB,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA; H.J.
DAVIS, City of Atlanta Police Officer;
LT. JEFFREY CANTIN, City of Atlanta
Police Lieutenant; UNKNOWN
DEFENDANT, City of Atlanta Police
Officials; and MIDTOWN ALLIANCE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
__________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Bob Jamerson a/k/a Baton Bob (Plaintiff
or Jamerson) and files this Complaint, as follows:
NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1.
This is an action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
damages, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, arising from the
wrongful arrest of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was arrested on June 26th, 2013 while
engaging in an act of celebratory performance after the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down the federal ban on gay marriage in the case of United States v.
Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). Defendants not only arrested Plaintiff, but they
later compelled him to make public statements, while in custody, to the effect
that defendants were not culpable for their wrongful acts, in an attempt to
control the public outrage over his arrest. Defendants violated Plaintiffs
constitutional and legal rights, including his right to free speech, his right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to remain silent while in
custody, his right to be free from compelled speech, his right to counsel, and his
right to privacy, among others, as set forth herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as this action arises under the laws and
Constitution of the United States; pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983; and pursuant to
its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367. This Court is authorized to
grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
3.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because at least one
Defendant resides in this district and division and because a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth in this Complaint
occurred within this district and division.
4.
Plaintiff provided the City of Atlanta with notice of his allegations
by letter sent to Atlanta Department of Law via certified mail on November 22,

2013, in accordance with Georgias ante litem notice statute, O.C.G.A. 36-33-5.
Thirty days have passed from the presentation of such claim to the City of
Atlanta and the City of Atlanta has not acted upon it, see O.C.G.A. 36-33-5(b),
(c).
PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. He is an actor,
performance artist, and activist. Plaintiff is the creator of the alternate persona
Baton Bob, who is well known throughout Atlanta and the United States.
6.
Defendant City of Atlanta (the City) is a municipal government
entity that maintains an office at 55 Trinity Avenue SW, Atlanta, Georgia. Its
official policies, customs, and practices were the driving force behind many of
the constitutional and statutory violations described herein.
7.
Defendant H.J. Davis (Officer Davis) was an Officer with the City
of Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action.
8.
Defendant Lt. Jeffrey Cantin (Lt. Cantin) was a supervising officer
with the City of Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action.
9.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes there is at least one
additional City of Atlanta police officer or agent that bears responsibility in

some way for Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff is unable to specifically identify said
police officer at this time. Plaintiff believes he will be able to identify said
defendant(s) though the discovery process.

10. Midtown Alliance is an entity created and funded by a coalition of

private businesses for various purposes, including providing security to
businesses in the Midtown neighborhood of Atlanta. Midtown Alliance
maintains a security force known as Midtown Blue, which is comprised largely
of off-duty City of Atlanta police officers. Midtown Alliances Office is located
at 999 Peachtree Street Suite 730 Atlanta, GA 30309.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
The Baton Bob Persona
11. In 2001, Plaintiff created a business around a street-performance

character of his own design, one Baton Bob.
12. For many years, Baton Bob has performed in public areas
throughout metro Atlanta, wearing creative outfits often including a tutu and
tiara, blowing a whistle, and twirling his signature baton, much in the style of a
majorette.
13. In addition to his frequent appearances at public events, Bob is

often privately hired to perform at weddings, parties and other events.
14. Bob has become so well known in Atlanta that his page on the
Facebook web site had at one point amassed the maximum number of five
thousand (5,000) friends.
15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff used Facebook as

his primary method of communication to his fans, friends, and prospective
clients.
16. Plaintiff uses a private username and password to access the

Facebook account in order to provide updates on appearances and social issues.
Bobs Arrest
17. On June 26th, 2013, the United States Supreme Court released its
five to four decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). The High
Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (codified at 1
U.S.C. 7) was unconstitutional, essentially ending the federal ban on same-sex
marriage.
18. The
decision
was
celebrated
by
the
LGBT
(Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) community because it acknowledged

their equal rights under federal law.
19. On the day of the Windsor decision, Plaintiff posted a message on

his Facebook page indicating that he planned to celebrate the ruling with a
performance on the corner of Peachtree and 14th Streets, in Midtown, next to
the Colony Square Mall.
20. To dress for the occasion, Plaintiff wore a wedding dress.
21. At approximately 12:00 p.m. on June 26th, 2013, Plaintiff arrived at

the Colony Square Mall parking deck and paid to park.
22. Plaintiff exited the parking deck and began walking through
Colony Square Mall en route to the corner of Peachtree and 14th Streets.
23. As Plaintiff passed through the mall, he was approached by a

number of Colony Square security guards. The security guards accosted
Plaintiff and began to harass him.
24. Plaintiff protested the security guards harassment of him and may
have used an expletive.
25. Plaintiff left the Colony Square property and moved onto the public
street corner to begin his performance.
26. Defendant Officer Davis arrived at the scene approximately ten (10)
minutes after Plaintiff exited the building.
27. At the time, Officer Davis was working both in his capacity as a
City of Atlanta police officer and a security guard for Midtown Alliance, as part
of its Midtown Blue security force.
28. Officer Davis was wearing his City of Atlanta police uniform.
29. When Officer Davis arrived, Plaintiff was in the midst of his
performance, dancing, twirling his baton, blowing his whistle, and waving at
people in the area.
30. A few pedestrians had stopped to watch the performance, but

neither Plaintiff nor the onlookers were blocking the sidewalk or otherwise
impeding pedestrian traffic.
31. Vehicle traffic next to the street was light. At least one motorist that
had stopped at the traffic light honked his horn in support of Plaintiff.
32. Plaintiffs dance was not obscene or otherwise unlawful.

33. To the contrary, Plaintiff was peacefully exercising his First
Amendment right to create political performance art in celebration of that days
landmark Supreme Court decision affirming the rights of LGBT Americans.
34. Officer Davis approached Plaintiff and ordered him to come with
him.
35. Plaintiff protested.

36. Officer Davis grabbed Plaintiff and placed his hands behind his
back.
37. Officer Davis shoved Plaintiff onto the ground, face first.
38. Officer Davis placed handcuffs on Plaintiff.
39. Officer Davis placed Plaintiff under arrest.
40. Neither Officer Davis, nor any City of Atlanta officer, ever read
Plaintiff his Miranda rights, explaining his right to remain silent, his right to
counsel, etc.
41. Officer Davis claimed in his police report that Plaintiff resisted
arrest and tried to kick me in my private area. However, this was not true, as
revealed by Colony Square video footage.
42. Once it became clear to Plaintiff that Officer Davis was attempting to
arrest him, Plaintiff did not resist arrest.
43. Officer Davis charged Plaintiff with assault and obstruction of

justice.
44. Once Officer Davis had Plaintiff in custody, he transported Plaintiff

to the Zone 5 Precinct of the Atlanta Police Department.
45. Atlanta Police authorities quickly realized that the media was
beginning to cover the arrest.
46. According to the City of Atlantas internal affairs report regarding

this arrest, numerous witnesses stated Bob continued to ask why he was being
arrested and that he didnt do anything.
The events following the arrest
47. In the wake of the notorious raid on the Atlanta Eagle nightclub,
numerous officials within the City of Atlanta and its police department had
become fearful of another public outrage from the LGBT community.
48. According to Atlantas internal affairs report regarding this arrest,

Atlanta officials saw news coverage regarding Plaintiffs arrest on Facebook
and the Atlanta Journal Constitution website while Plaintiff was being
processed for custody.
49. While looking at news reports, Officer Davis saw a picture of him
arresting Plaintiff.
50. Defendant Lt. Cantin was on duty at the precinct at the time.
51. According to Atlantas internal affairs report, Lt. Cantin received a
call from Public Affairs . . . asking about the arrest and charges.
52. The Citys Public Affairs official stated they were getting a lot of
phone calls from different media outlets on the incident.
53. Lt. Cantin then notified others in his chain of command about the
situation.
54. At 3:14 pm, Lt. Cantin wrote an email to Public Affairs, imploring
them to work your media magic with this case.
55. According to Lt. Cantins statement to internal affairs investigators,

Lt. Cantin suggested to Plaintiff, who was in custody in the Zone 5 Precinct,
to post something positive on his Facebook page, and say that it wasnt the
police department directing him to make the post, but that it was totally up
to him.
56. However, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin did not merely suggest
that Plaintiff post a positive message; instead, they told Plaintiff that they
would allow Plaintiff to be released from custody on a signature bond only in

exchange for a positive statement.
57. Plaintiff complied with Lt. Cantins instructions. Plaintiff gave

Officer Davis (who was sitting next to the computer) his private password
information.
58. Officer Davis logged in to Bobs Facebook account and typed out a
message to be broadcast to Bobs followers.
59. Plaintiff was in handcuffs while the Facebook post was being typed.
60. Officer Davis typed out the following message:
First of all, the atl police officer that responded to the incident
thru security has been very respectful and gracious to me even
in handcuffs. So, the situation escalated from a complaint
from a security officer in the area and for some reason she
rolled up on me like she didn't know who I was and like I had
not been there before. For them to call police to come to
intervene was not necessary. So, out of it, because of my fury,
the Atlanta police officer did not understand the elements of
the situation, so he was trying to do his job, respectfully and
arrested my ass!!!!!!!!! I'll be out tomorrow so look out for my
show at 14th and Peachtree. So now I'm waiting to be
transported so I can sign my own bond and get the hell out of
here. I want to verify, that the Atlanta police was respectful to
me considering the circumstances. See you when I see
you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
61. As promised, Plaintiff was given a signature bond the next day and
released from jail.
10
62. The City of Atlanta conducted an internal affairs investigation

regarding these events.
63. Following the conclusion of that investigation in December 2013, Lt.

Cantin received a 5-day suspension for violating Responsibilities of a
Supervisor.
64. Lt. Cantin accepted responsibility and stated, he was just trying to
do what was best for the department.
65. Officer Davis was suspended for one (1) day for not following arrest
procedures.
66. According to POST records, Officer Davis resigned from the police
department on the same month that Internal Affairs concluded its
investigation.
67. Authorities within the City of Atlanta and Atlanta Police

Department are aware that Plaintiffs arrest and coerced statement were
illegal. They have taken no public action to clear Plaintiff of the illegal
confession or unlawful charges.
68. On December 18th, 2014, all criminal charges against Plaintiff were
dismissed after the prosecutor entered an order of nolle prosequi.
11
Facts relating to Citys liability under Section 1983
69. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
Lt. Cantin was acting as an official policymaker on behalf of the City.
70. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint,
both Lt. Cantin and Officer Davis were acting on instructions from an official
policymaker of the City.
71. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs unlawful arrest, and the
events that followed, were driven by an unlawful policy or custom of the City;
namely, the City has been acutely aware of irrational anti-LGBT bias and
discrimination within its police department, in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the United States Constitution, for many years, yet has acted with
deliberate indifference to same. Events including, but not limited to, the raid on
the Atlanta Eagle bar have given the Citys policymakers actual notice of this
trend within the police department; yet, the Citys policymakers had not, at the
time of the events giving rise to this Complaint, taken appropriate corrective
action. This deliberate indifference was the driving force behind Plaintiffs
wrongful arrest and the events that followed.
12
LEGAL CLAIMS
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
72. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the Facts section of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
73. Officer Davis, acting under color of state law, arrested Plaintiff
without probable cause to believe he had committed a crime, thereby depriving
him of his liberty in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
74. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful
arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual
knowledge that there was no probable cause for same.
75. Officer Davis used excessive force in his arrest of Plaintiff, in that he
had no probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed a crime, and the
amount of force usednamely, slamming Plaintiffs face into the concrete
was grossly disproportionate to the amount necessary under the circumstances.
76. At all times relevant to this action, the law was established with
obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
13
77. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an

amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the
violation of his rights as stated herein.
78. The actions described herein were willful, deliberate, and malicious,
thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be
determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
79. Davis, Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable under 42 U.S.C.
1983.
80. The City is liable for these actions to the extent they were driven by
an unlawful policy or ordered by a final policymaker for the City, as described
in paragraphs 69-71, supra.
COUNT II
ARTICLE 1 1 PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION:
SEARCH AND SEIZURE

82. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause to believe he

had committed a crime, thereby depriving him of his liberty in violation of the
Article 1 1 13 of the Georgia Constitution.
14
84. Officer Davis used excessive force, as described supra, in violation of

the Article 1 1 13 of the Georgia Constitution.

86. The actions of Davis were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby
entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be
87. Officers Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others are liable pursuant to O.C.G.A.
36-33-4 and other provisions of state law.
88. The City is liable for these offenses to the extent permitted by state
law.
COUNT III
FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY

15
90. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff in order to silence and punish his
political speech and artistic expression, in violation of the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
92. After interrogating Plaintiff at the police station, Officer Davis and
Lt. Cantin coerced Plaintiff to provide them with the username and password
to his Facebook account and then published a statement on Plaintiffs behalf.
This compelled speech violated Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
93. Upon information and belief, other authorities and policymakers

within the City of Atlanta became aware of the coercion of the Plaintiffs
incriminating statements and the publishing of those statements on Plaintiffs
Facebook account and knowingly used the unlawful public statements to shield
them from public controversy, further violating Plaintiffs rights under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the constitution.
16

97. Davis, Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable under 42 U.S.C.
1983
COUNT IV
(ARTICLE 1 1 PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH)

100. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff in order to silence and punish his
political speech and artistic expression, in violation of Article 1 1 5 of the
Georgia Constitution.
17
102. After interrogating Plaintiff at the police station, Officer Davis and
Lt. Cantin coerced Plaintiff to provide them with the username and password
to his Facebook account and then published a statement on Plaintiffs behalf.
This compelled speech violated Article 1 1 5 of the Georgia Constitution.
103. Upon information and belief, other authorities and policymakers

within the City of Atlanta became aware of the coercion of the Plaintiffs
incriminating statements and the publishing of those statements on Plaintiffs
Facebook account and knowingly used the unlawful public statements to shield
them from public controversy, further violating Plaintiffs rights under Article 1
1 5 of the Georgia Constitution.

105. The actions of Davis, Cantin, and others, were willful, deliberate,
and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an
amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
18
106. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others are liable pursuant to O.C.G.A.
36-33-4 and other provisions of state law.
107. The City is liable for these offenses to the extent permitted by state
law.
COUNT V
FIFTH AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: EQUAL
PROTECTION

109. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs unlawful arrest was

motivated in whole or in part by his sexual orientation.
110. Evidence for same shall include, but not be limited to, the fact that
demonstrators and performers for numerous causes, including anti-war
demonstrators, frequently hold large rallies on the street corner where Plaintiff
was arrested, without the threat of arrest. However, Plaintiffs one-man
performance in support of LGBT rights led to his arrest.
111. There is no rational basis to treat Plaintiff, as a gay American,

differently from non-LGBT citizens.
112. There is no rational basis to discriminate against pro-LGBT speech in

favor of other forms of protected speech.
19
obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the constitution.

COUNT VI
BATTERY

118. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause by way of

unlawful and unwanted touching of his person.
knowledge that there was no probable cause for same by way of unlawful and
unwanted physical contact.

20
120. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable
pursuant to state tort law, including O.C.G.A. 33-36-4.
COUNT VII
O.C.G.A. 51-7-1: FALSE ARREST

122. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause, in violation

of O.C.G.A. 51-7-1.
knowledge that there was no probable cause for same, in violation of O.C.G.A.
51-7-1.

126. The officers involved are liable under state law, including O.C.G.A.
36-33-4.
127. The City is liable to the extent permitted by state law.

21
128. Midtown Alliance is liable pursuant to respondeat superior.

COUNT VIII
(COMPUTER IDENTITY THEFT, THEFT, TRESPASS, AND INVASION OF
PRIVACY, O.C.G.A. 16-9-93)

130. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others coerced Plaintiff to provide
them with the confidential username and password to Plaintiffs Facebook
account, and then published false statements on Plaintiffs behalf to his
Facebook page.
131. The statements mischaracterized Plaintiffs arrest. Major Whitmire

and the City of Atlanta were aware of the violations around the time they
occurred. Defendants Davis, Lt. Cantin, Major Whitmire, and City of Atlanta
violated Plaintiffs rights under O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.
132. O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.1 which states in relevant part:

It shall be unlawful for any person, any organization, or any
representative of any organization knowingly to transmit any data
through a computer network or over the transmission facilities or
through the network facilities of a local telephone network for the
purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data
with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic
information storage bank or point of access to electronic information
if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered
trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol to
falsely identify the person, organization, or representative
transmitting such data or which would falsely state or imply that
such person, organization, or representative has permission or is

22
legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark,

logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol for such purpose
when such permission or authorization has not been obtained
O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.1 (emphasis added).
133. By logging on to Plaintiffs Facebook account and writing and

publishing a statement as if they were Plaintiff, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin,
used a computer network with knowledge that they were without authority to
do so and appropriated and converted the property of the character, name, and
persona Baton Bob and applied the same to publish a statement of criminal
liability. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, Major Whitmire, and City of Atlanta are
guilty of Computer Theft, a tort for which damages lie in accordance with
O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.
134. By logging on to Plaintiffs Facebook account and writing and

publishing a statement as if they were Plaintiff, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin
used a computer network with the intention of examining personal data
relating to another person with the knowledge that such examination was
without authority. Supervisors of Lt. Cantin and Officer Davis were aware of
this violation and are guilty of Computer Invasion of Privacy, at tort for which
damages lie in accordance with O.C.G.A. 16-9-93.
135. Defendants violation of Plaintiffs constitutional and statutory

rights has caused Plaintiff to suffer damages the amount of which is to be
determined at trial.

23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
On the basis of the forgoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
a. Hold a trial by jury;

b. Award Plaintiff all actual damages, including damage to property,
physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;
c. Award Plaintiff nominal damages;

d. Award Plaintiff punitive damages to the extent permitted by law;
e. declare that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs legal and
constitutional rights by
i. arresting him without probable cause;
ii. arresting him in order to restrain, punish and deter his right to
free speech
iii. conducting a warrantless search and seizure of the Plaintiff
and his Plaintiffs property by coercing him to turn over his
username and password to authorities
iv. interrogating Plaintiff absent legal counsel and coercing
Plaintiff into making public incriminating statements without
access to legal counsel;
v. violating Plaintiffs right to remain silent by compelling and
coercing Plaintiff to make public statements of an
incriminating nature;
vi. violating Plaintiffs right to have bond set by a neutral
magistrate free from coercion;
vii. violating Plaintiffs right to free speech without governmental
interference;
24
viii. violating Palintiffs due process and equal protection rights in

unlawfully discriminating against Plaintiff due to his sex,
sexual orientation, or gender orientation;
f. Enjoin Defendants
i. from further unlawful access to Plaintiffs Facebook account,
ii. from prohibiting Plaintiff to attend public events and to
perform as Baton Bob therein;
iii. from continued discrimination against LGBT individuals;
g. That prejudgment and postjudgment interest be awarded;

h. Award attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other
applicable provision of law; and
i. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted this February 25, 2015.
/s/ Joshua Landon Brownlee

Joshua Landon Brownlee
Georgia Bar No. 611140
Travis D. Andres
Georga Bar No. 302040
114 New Street, Suite G2
Decatur, GA 30030
(404) 844-6139
jbrownleelaw@gmail.com
/s/ James Radford
James Radford
Regan Keebaugh
Caleb Gross
RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
545 N. McDonough St.
Suite 212

25
Decatur, Georgia 30030

(678) 369-3609
james@decaturlegal.com
regan@decaturlegal.com
caleb@decaturlegal.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
26

Baton Bob Sues Atlanta Police Over Arrest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baton Bob Sues Atlanta Police Over Arrest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CIVIL ACTION NO.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

This is an action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 26

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because at least one

Plaintiff provided the City of Atlanta with notice of his allegations

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 26

Plaintiff is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. He is an actor,

Defendant City of Atlanta (the City) is a municipal government

of Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action.

Defendant Lt. Jeffrey Cantin (Lt. Cantin) was a supervising officer

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes there is at least one

additional City of Atlanta police officer or agent that bears responsibility in

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 26

10. Midtown Alliance is an entity created and funded by a coalition of

11. In 2001, Plaintiff created a business around a street-performance

13. In addition to his frequent appearances at public events, Bob is

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 26

15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff used Facebook as

16. Plaintiff uses a private username and password to access the

(Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) community because it acknowledged

19. On the day of the Windsor decision, Plaintiff posted a message on

20. To dress for the occasion, Plaintiff wore a wedding dress.

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 6 of 26

21. At approximately 12:00 p.m. on June 26th, 2013, Plaintiff arrived at

23. As Plaintiff passed through the mall, he was approached by a

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 7 of 26

30. A few pedestrians had stopped to watch the performance, but

32. Plaintiffs dance was not obscene or otherwise unlawful.

35. Plaintiff protested.

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 8 of 26

43. Officer Davis charged Plaintiff with assault and obstruction of

44. Once Officer Davis had Plaintiff in custody, he transported Plaintiff

46. According to the City of Atlantas internal affairs report regarding

48. According to Atlantas internal affairs report regarding this arrest,

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 9 of 26

55. According to Lt. Cantins statement to internal affairs investigators,

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 10 of 26

would allow Plaintiff to be released from custody on a signature bond only in

57. Plaintiff complied with Lt. Cantins instructions. Plaintiff gave

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 11 of 26

62. The City of Atlanta conducted an internal affairs investigation

63. Following the conclusion of that investigation in December 2013, Lt.

67. Authorities within the City of Atlanta and Atlanta Police

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 12 of 26

Facts relating to Citys liability under Section 1983

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 13 of 26

72. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the Facts section of this

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 14 of 26

77. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an

81. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the Facts section of this

82. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause to believe he

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 15 of 26

84. Officer Davis used excessive force, as described supra, in violation of

85. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an

89. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the Facts section of this

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 16 of 26

93. Upon information and belief, other authorities and policymakers

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 17 of 26

95. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an

99. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the Facts section of this

Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 18 of 26