Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-------
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.
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.
amendment
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
DYes
IBl No
IBl No
o Yes If "Yes", list all related cases by name, case number, and court.
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)
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
MIAMI, FL33138
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
"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.
Defendant.
------___________1
COMPLAINT
attorneys, sues Defendant, 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC., ("50 STATE"), a Florida
INTRD.OUCTION
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
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
5. At all times material hereto, SO STATE, touts itself as "a leader in the security
security challenges."
professional licensed armed and unarmed security officers who are carefully screened and
trained."
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
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
10. Defendant, 50 STATE, also represents touts its services by providing that:
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
workforce.
government, is responsible for planning for and providing all public transit services in the
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
14. On or about June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff, MILLER, was a business invitee at the
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
17. The email contained the pertinent portions of the Miami-Dade County Code,
"[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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
31. The force used by the Defendant's agents against Plaintiff, MILLER, was
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
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
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,
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
36. Plaintiff, MILLER, has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of
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.
38. Plaintiff, CARLOS MILLER. reaffirms and realleges each and every allegation
39. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was a legal business invitee at
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.
41. Defendant, 50 STATE, breached the duties to the Plaintiff in one or more of
Plaintiff; and/or
ways.
against the Defendant, 50 STATE, together with costs and further demands trial by jury on
COUNT II
43. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MILLER, was a legal business invitee at
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:
state and/or federal protected rights such as those protected under the
45. The Defendant, 50 STATE, breached the duties to the Plaintiff in one or more
11
performing security duties including, without limitation, dispute
resolution; and
46. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent hiring and/or retention,
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.
against the Defendant, 50 STATE, together with costs and further demands trial by jury on
Respectfully submitted,
FAX:#~
LsI Michael A. Pancier. Esq.
Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 958484
12