~--.--.------~.~---------------.

-------

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.

DIVISION CASE NUMBER

1&1 CIVIL
o DISTRICTS CIVIL COVER SHEET
o FAMILY
o OTHER
PLAINTIFF VS. DEFENDANT CLOCK IN

CARLOS MILLER 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE.

The civil cover sheet and the information contained here does not replace thelling and s~{Yi!?~\)f"l eadin$s or other papers
as required by law. This form is required by the Clerk of Court for the purpose ~aieial-wotk1oa1:l data pursuant to
Florida Statute 25.075. See instructions and definitions on reverse of this form.
TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most definitive category.) If the most descriptive
label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader category), place an x in both the main category and subcategory boxes.

0 001 • Eminent Domain

o 119 - Other Real Property Actions $250,000 or
0 003 - Contracts and Indebtedness
more
0 010 - Auto Negligence
0 Professional Malpractice
0 022 - Products Liability
o 094 • Malpractice - Business
0 023 - Condominium
o 095 - Malpractice Medical
r&J Negligence· Other
o 096 - Malpractice - Other professional

o 097 - Business Govemance 0 Other

o 098 - Business Torts o 120 - AntitrustiTrade Regulation

0 099 - EnvironmentallToxin Tort 0121 - Business Transactions
0 100 - Third Party Indemnification o 122 - Constitutional Challenge - Statute or
0 101 - Construction Defect Ordinance

0 102 - Mass Tort o 123 - Constitutional Challenge - Proposed

amendment

lID 103 - Negligent Security

0 104 - Nursing Home Negligence
o 124 - Corporate Trust

iii , .emises Liability - Commercial

o 125 Discrimination - Employment or Other

0 106 - Premises Liability - Residential

o 126 - Insurance Claims

107 - Negligence - Other

o 127 -Intellectual Property
o
0
Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure
o 128 - Libel/Slander
0 108 - Commercial Foreclosure $0 - $50,000
o 129 - Shareholder Derivative Action
0 109 - Commercial Foreclosure $50,001 - $249,999
o 130 - Securities Litigation
0131. Trade Secrets
110 - Commercial Foreclosure $250,000 - or more
0
0
111 - Homestead Residential Foreclosure $0 - $50,000
o 132· Trust Litigation

0 133 • Other Civil Complaint

0 112 - Homestead Residential Foreclosure

$50,001 - $249,999 o 009 - Bond Estreature

o 113 - Homestead Residential Foreclosure $250,000 or 0014 - Replevin

more o 024 Witness Protection

o 114 - Non·Homestead Residential Foreclosure o 080 Declaratory Judgment
$0 - $50,000
0081 -Injunctive Relief
o 115 Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure
o 082 • Equitable Relief
$50,001 - $249,999
o 116 - Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure o 083 - Construction Lien
$250,000 or more o 084 - Petition for Adversary Preliminary Hearing
o 117 - Other Real Property Actions $0 - $50,000 o 085 - Civil Forfeiture
o 086 Voluntary Binding Arbitration
o 118 - Other Real Property Actions $50,001 ­ o 087 - Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
$249,999

Ct:~KI':'::C:-::T;-::9:-::6'-:R::-e-v-.1:~2:-:/O::-:9'---- ~
·~-----------~C~le~rk~'s-w-e~b-a-d~d~re-s-s-:www---.-m~ia-m~i~~ad~e-c~le~.oom
 COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the
Administrative Order. Yes 0 No IBl

REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):

IBl monetary;
o non-monetary declaratory or injunctive relief;
o punitive

NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ 2]

(specify) 1) NEGLIGENCE; 2) NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION ANDIOR TRAINING

IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?

DYes

IBl No

HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED?

IBl No

o Yes If "Yes", list all related cases by name, case number, and court.

IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?

IBl Yes
o No

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature ~
tOrfieYOrparty
Florida Bar # 958484
(Bar # if attorney)

MICHAEL A. PANCIER, ESQUIRE MARCH 10.2011

I (type or print name) Date

CLKfCT 96 Rev. 12/09 Clerk's web address: www.miami-dadeclerk.com

 [81 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
D IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
DIVISION CASE NUMBER
[81 CIVIL SUMMONS 20 DAY CORPORATE SERVICE
o DISTRICTS (a) GENERAL FORMS
D OTHER 11 - 09 495 CA 31
I
PLAINTIFF(S) I VS. DEFENDANT(S) SERVICE

CARLOS MILLER 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and copy of the complaint or petition in this
action on defendant(s): 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC. 0
{;
BY SERVING: CHRISTOPHER P. KELLEY, ESQ., as 'i"';1''''.'''''''.... Agent 0

11098 BISCAYNE BLVD. #205 "Z

MIAMI, FL33138

Each defendant is required to serve written defense to the complaint or petition on

Plaintiffs Attorney: MICHAEL A. PANCIER, ESQUIRE

whose address is: 9000 SHERIDAN STREET STE 96

PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33024

TEL: (954) 862-2217 FAX: (954) 862·2287 EMAIL: mpancier@pancierlaw.com

within 20 days· Except when suit is brought pursuant to s. 768.28, Florida Statutes, if the State of Florida, one of its agencies,
or one of its officials or employees sued in his or her official capacity is a defendant, the time to respond shall be 40 days.
When suit is brought pursuant to. 768.28, Florida Statutes, the time to respond shall be 30 days." after service of this summons
on that defendant, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Clerk Court either before
service on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If a defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered against that defendant for
the relief demanded in the complaint or petition.
I
HARVEY RUVIN
CLERK OF COURTS

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

ADA NOTICE

"If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to

participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain

assistance. Please contact the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court's ADA Coordinator, Lawson

, E. Thomas Courthouse Center, 175 NW 1st Ave., Suite 2702, Miami, FL 33128, Telephone

(305) 349-7175; TDD (305) 349-7174, Fax (305) 349-7355 at least 7 days before your
scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time
before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired,
call 711."
ClK/CT. 314 Rev. 01/11 Clerk's web address: www.miami-dadeclerk.com
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.:

CARLOS MILLER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.
------___________1
COMPLAINT

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:

INTRD.OUCTION

1. Plaintiff, MILLER, a Miami based photojournalist, author, and advocate for

the rights of photographers, brings the instant action against Defendant, 50 STATE

SECURITY SERVICE, INC., for damages he incurred due to the Defendant's negligent

training. supervision, and retention, of its employees. As a result of Defendant's negligence,

Plaintiff was the victim of an assault and battery and other deprivations, by Defendant's

employees while Plaintiff, MILLER, was attempting to exercise his First Amendment right

to videotape the public areas of the Douglas Road Metrorail Station on matters of public

concern.
 JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

2. This is an action for damages that exceeds Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00)

Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.

3. Plaintiff, MILLER, is a citizen of the State of Florida and a resident of Dade

County and is otherwise sui juris.

4. Defendant, 50 STATE, was and continues to be a Florida corporation

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

5. At all times material hereto, SO STATE, touts itself as "a leader in the security

services industry... provid(ing] comprehensive security solutions that address your

security challenges."

6. Additionally, Defendant, SO STATE, represents to the public that it "provides

professional licensed armed and unarmed security officers who are carefully screened and

trained."

7. 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, SO 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."

8. Given that Defendant's, 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.
9. Among the topics that Defendant purports to train its personnel include

"terrorism threat response and security officers training."

10. Defendant, 50 STATE, also represents touts its services by providing that:

a. an Account Manager is assigned to every security officer;

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.

11. 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 atthe County's Metrorail stations.

12. For the year 2010, the average number of daily Metrorail boarders was

61,700.

13. 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 33134.

14. On or about June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff, MILLER, was a business invitee at the

Douglas Road Metrorail Station.

 15. While at the parking lot with another photojournalist taking pictures, they

were approached by one of Defendant's guard who advised them that they were forbidden

from taking photos on public property because of a purported federal law, when no such

law exists.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. The aforementioned email also contained a reference to Miami-Dade County

Ordinance Sec. 2-11.14 (2) (iii), which states the following:

"[nJothing 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. "

19. The Defendant's security guard, apparently having never been trained or

instructed what the law was with respect to the use of photography in public places, such

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
4

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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. While in the parking lot, none of the guard 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.

26. However, within a minute of Plaintiff entering the station, one of Defendant's

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.

27. Plaintiff, MILLER, then took out his Apple iPhone to continue videotaping the

incident and asking for the return of his camera. The Defendant's 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 Defendant's security guard then charged Plaintiff,

MILLER, with an ASP Tactical Carbon Steel Baton in an attempt to once again strike

Plaintiffs person. Plaintiff, fearing additional injuries, retreated to the area next to the

television crew.

28. 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 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.

 29. Mr. MILLER did not engage in any unlawful conduct that would have justified

him being assaulted and battered by Defendant's security personnel.

30. What happened to Plaintiff, MILLER, was not an isolated incident of the

Defendant's use of unreasonable and excessive force and harassment of patrons taking

photographs or video on Metrorail property.

31. The force used by the Defendant's agents against Plaintiff, MILLER, was

excessive and without lawful justification.

32. Plaintiff, MILLER's presence and act of taking photographs and video at the

Metrorail station did not pose any risk to the Defendant's 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. MILLER's actions were

specifically permitted under the Miami Dade County Code.

33. 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 Defendant's security

personnel against photographers.

34. 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.

 35. 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

did Plaintiff, MILLER, photograph or videotape any area of the Metrorail station where an

expectation of privacy existed.

36. Plaintiff, MILLER, has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of

this action and/or such conditions have been waived.

37. 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.

 NEGLIGENCE AGA.INST DEFENDANT, 50 STATE

38. Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER. reaffirms and realleges each and every allegation

as contained in numbered Paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully set forth herein.

39. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was a legal business invitee at

the Douglas Road Metrorail Station.

40. 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;

41. 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

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.

42. 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, SQPERVISION AND/OR TRAINING

AGAINST DEFENDANT, 50 STATE

Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER, repeats the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 37 as though fully set forth herein.

43. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was a legal business invitee at

the Douglas Road Metrorail Station.

44. 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,

battery, conversion, and the application of excessive force and resulting

damage flowing from excessive force;

10

 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.

45. 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

acting professionally, responsibly, and otherwise appropriately in

11
 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.

46. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent hiring and/or retention,

and/or supervision and/or training, by the Defendant, 50 STATE, Defendant's 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

Dated March '1 j/ 2011.

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:#~
LsI Michael A. Pancier. Esq.
Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 958484

12