IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION _______________________________________ ) JASON WALKER;

KACY DANIEL; ) ANTONIO DANIEL; VANCE PERRY; ) and TRENTON BOYD ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION ) FILE NO. __________________ KASIM REED, in his official capacity as ) Mayor of the CITY OF ATLANTA; ) STALONE DAVIS, individually; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRANDON JACKSON, individually; ) CHRISTOPHER LANIER, individually; ) CAYENNE MAYES, individually; ) JUAN ORTIZ, individually; ) REGINALD PETTIS, individually; ) DIMITRI CALDWELL, individually; ) ANTONIO BLASINI, individually; ) ZOEL MURPHY, individually; ) LUCA AMARENA, individually; ) VICTOR GUEVARA, individually; ) DEREK CHAO, individually; ) DARNELL PERRY, individually; and ) JOHN DOE 1 ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) COMPLAINT

COME NOW Plaintiffs Jason Walker, Kacy Daniel, Antonio Daniel, Vance Perry and Trenton Boyd who bring this Complaint seeking damages and declaratory relief against Defendant City of Atlanta and the individual Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as relief under Georgia law against the individual defendants. This action arises from the unlawful searches and seizures and public strip-searches of the Plaintiffs by the individual Defendants, pursuant to a custom, policy and/or practice of the Atlanta Police Department ( APD ). JURISDICTION 1. This action arises under the authority vested in this Court by virtue of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988; 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 28 U.S.C. 1343, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2201 and 28 U.S.C. 2202.

Page 2 of 60

VENUE 2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1391. The City of Atlanta, Georgia, ( Atlanta is within this judicial district and a substantial part ) of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Kacy Daniel ( Kacy Daniel is a resident of Georgia. ) 4. Plaintiff Antonio Daniel ( Antonio Daniel is a resident of Georgia. ) 5. Plaintiff Vance Perry ( Perry is a resident of Georgia. V. ) 6. Plaintiff Trenton Boyd ( Boyd is a resident of Georgia. ) 7. Kasim Reed is sued in his official capacity as mayor of the City of Atlanta ( Defendant City of Atlanta a City chartered under the laws of the State of ),

Page 3 of 60

Georgia and subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. The Atlanta Police Department ( APD is a division of Defendant City of Atlanta. ) 8. Defendant Stalone Davis ( Davis was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 9. Defendant Brandon Jackson ( Jackson was an officer of the Atlanta ) Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 10. Defendant Christopher Lanier ( Lanier was an officer of the Atlanta ) Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 11. Defendant Cayenne Mayes ( Mayes was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.

Page 4 of 60

12. Defendant Juan Ortiz ( Ortiz was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 13. Defendant Reginald Pettis ( Pettis was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 14. Defendant Dimitri Caldwell ( Caldwell was an officer of the Atlanta ) Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 15. Defendant Antonio Blasini ( Blasini was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.

Page 5 of 60

16. Defendant Zoel Murphy ( Murphy was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 17. Defendant Luca Amarena ( Amarena was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 18. Defendant Victor Guevara ( Guevara was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 19. Defendant Derek Chao ( Chao was an officer of the Atlanta Police ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity.

Page 6 of 60

20. Defendant Darnell Perry ( Perry was an officer of the Atlanta Police D. ) Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. 21. Defendant John Doe 1 was an officer of the Atlanta Police Department and acted under color of state law at all times pertinent to the allegations in this Complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity. John Doe 1 is an AfricanAmerican male, approximately 5' 10", medium-build with short hair, and may be Officer Rodney Jefferson. 22. Collectively, the individual defendant police officers named above shall, at times, be referred to below collectively, as indicated by the attentive fact and circumstances as the Defendant Officers .

Page 7 of 60

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MUNICIPAL LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA Common to all Plaintiffs Unconstitutional Policies, Customs, and Practices Custom, Policy and/or Practice of Public Strip-Searches 23. At all times relevant to the events described in this complaint the APD, and in particular its Red Dog Unit,had a custom, policy and/or practice to perform strip searches and body cavity searches in public. Among other examples to be proven at trial are: a. The body cavity search of Ronald McNair performed by Defendant Davis in the field on December 9, 2008, during which Defendant Davis searched McNair s anal cavity according to his own statement in APD incident report #083441853; b. the body cavity search of Chaddrick Hood conducted in the field on February 19, 2010, during which the officer conducted a search of Hood rectal cavityaccording to the statements in APD incident s report #100501758;

Page 8 of 60

c.

The search and touching of the genitals of Clarence Smith, a 23-year old man, in the dressing room of a department store on November 26, 2007, by APD officers Cayenne Mayes and Reginald Pettis;

d.

The strip search of Shawn Venegas conducted on a public street by Red Dog Officers Cayenne Mayes, Dion Meredith, and Travis Britt on June 30, 2010;

e.

The search and touching of the genitals of 17-year old Olajuwan Wilson in a convenience store by Red Dog officer Jonathan B. Cornelius on September 28, 2010;

f.

The public strip search of Plaintiff Kacy Daniel on May 20, 2010, as described herein;

g.

The public strip search of Jason Walker on September 30, 2009, as described herein;

h.

The public strip search of Plaintiff Vance Perry on June 29, 2010, as described herein; and,

i.

The public strip search of Plaintiff Trenton Boyd on March 20, 2010, as described herein.

Page 9 of 60

Custom, Policy and/or Practice of Detention, Search & Seizure Without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause 24. At all times relevant to the events described in this complaint the Atlanta Police Department ( APD and in particular its ), Red Dog Unit,had a policy, custom, and/or practice to stop, frisk, and search persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Among other examples to be proven at trial are the following: a. the unlawful stop, search, and arrest of Kelvin Bryant on October 16, 2008, by Defendant Brandon Jackson, along with Red Dog officers James Menzoian, William Porter, and Jason Overbaugh, about which a federal judge found "that the officers did not have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to stop [Bryant's] vehicle." (See United States v, Kelvin Bryant, 1:09-CR-018-JEC, U.S.D.C.-N.D.Ga); b. the unlawful stop and search of Shawn Venegas and Brian Kidd by Red Dog Officers on June 30, 2010 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $200,000.00);

Page 10 of 60

c.

The unlawful search and seizure of dozens of persons not suspected of any criminal activity during the Atlanta Eagle bar raidin September, 2009 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $1,025,000.00);

d.

The unlawful search and seizure of persons not suspected of any criminal activity during the Ruby Sanabella Restaurant and s Lounge raid May, 2010; and, in

e.

The unlawful seizure of James Hereford on August 5, 2010 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $50,000.00). Unconstitutional Policies & Procedures 25.

The searches and seizures of Plaintiffs described herein were conducted pursuant to unconstitutional official policies of the Atlanta Police Department which authorize suspcionless seizures, frisks, and searches, including Standard Operating Procedure 3065 (which authorizes and instructs officers to detain and frisk individuals without regard to reasonable articulable suspicion) and Standard Operating Procedure 3020 Section 4.3.1 (which authorizes officers to perform warrantless searches without probable cause).

Page 11 of 60

Acquiescence & Deliberate Indifference to Unconstitutional Practices 26. As described herein, the policy of conducting strip and/or body cavity searches in public was widespread and well-known within the APD and so widely tolerated that Atlanta Police officers openly described these searches in their own publicly available incident reports, as described in Paragraph 23. This policy was tolerated, condoned and acquiesced to by senior policy makers in APD, and this was a moving force behind the conduct described herein. 27. As described herein, the policy of conducting unlawful searches and seizures without reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause was widespread and well-known and widely accepted by APD. This policy was tolerated, condoned and acquiesced to by senior policy makers in APD, and this was a moving force behind the conduct described herein.

Page 12 of 60

Failure to Train and Discipline 28. Prior to the conduct described herein, the City of Atlanta was aware of pervasive violations of the Fourth Amendment by APD officers. Among other incidents to be proven at trial are the following: a. The unlawful search of 1056 Dill Avenue by Sergeant Wilbert Stallings and other APD officers in October, 2005 (for which Sgt. Stallings was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison); b. The unlawful arrest of Deborah Schowalter in January, 2006 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $25,000.00); c. Various Fourth Amendment violations associated with the death of Kathryn Johnston in November, 2006 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $4,900,000.00); d. The unlawful stop and arrest of Kelvin Bryant on October 16, 2008, by Atlanta police officers Brandon Jackson, James Menzoian, William Porter, and Jason Overbaugh, about which a federal judge found "that the officers did not have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to stop [Bryant's] vehicle." (See United States v. Kelvin Bryant, 1:09-CR-018-JEC, U.S.D.C.N.D.Ga);

Page 13 of 60

e.

The unlawful arrest of Minnie Carrie in March, 2009 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $20,000);

f.

The unlawful search, seizure, and arrest of dozens of innocent bar patrons during the Atlanta Eagle bar raid (the Atlanta Eagle Raid on September ) 10-11, 2009 (for which the City of Atlanta eventually paid a settlement of $1,025,000.00). 29.

The APD lack of training regarding the requirements of the Fourth s Amendment, prior to the incidents complained of herein, is also demonstrated by the following: a. On July 14, 2009, the Atlanta Citizen Review Board ( ACRB ) recommended that the Atlanta Police Department conduct training regarding Fourth Amendment issues including Terry stops. The Chief of Police rejected this recommendation. b. In connection with its investigation of the Atlanta Eagle Raid the ACRB reviewed records concerning the department in-service s training for officers during 2008 and 2009. There was no indication officers received training concerning constitutional law.

Page 14 of 60

c.

The ACRB Study of Supervisory Responsibility regarding the Atlanta Eagle Raid also reported that: became evident during the It course of the investigation that many officers are unfamiliar with the constitutional requirements for conducting a search and/or seizure.

d.

Deposition testimony and other statements related to the Atlanta Eagle Raid by senior APD commanders including former Chief Richard Pennington, Deputy Chief Carlos Banda, and Major Debra Williams also suggest a pervasive lack of training regarding basic Fourth Amendment concepts such as the requirements of a lawful Terry stop; the requirements of a lawful frisk; and the definition of an arrest, among other subjects. These statements suggest both the failure of the Atlanta Police Department to train these employees themselves, as well as the improper training provided by senior commanders to the subordinates who look to them for guidance. 30.

Despite knowledge of these pervasive Fourth Amendment violations the City of Atlanta acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of persons, such as Plaintiffs, with whom the police would come into contact by failing to provide

Page 15 of 60

appropriate training, guidance and discipline to APD officers regarding the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. 31. The Atlanta Police Department has also demonstrated a pervasive failure to discipline police officers for unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and other violations of law. Among other examples to be proven at trial, although the Atlanta Citizen Review Board ( ACRB has ) sustained complaints against dozens of police officers for unlawful conduct the Atlanta Police Department has a pattern of not following the ACRB s recommendations to impose discipline. Additional factual information about this pattern is available on the website of the ACRB at http://acrbgov.org , including, among other references, http://acrbgov.org/case-10-7-complaintbrian-kidd/ . 32. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant Officers, as police officers of the City of Atlanta, were acting under the direction and control of APD and were acting pursuant to the official custom, policy and/or practice of the City of Atlanta.

Page 16 of 60

33. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the City of Atlanta as set forth herein, the Plaintiffs suffered physical injury, mental anguish, lost wages, and other general and special damages in connection with the deprivation of Plaintiffsconstitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and are thereby entitled to a judgment against the City of Atlanta for those damages and injuries suffered. ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF JASON WALKER 34. Plaintiff Walker incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33, as if fully set forth herein. 35. Plaintiff Walker was driving his vehicle along Chappell Road in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 30, 2009. He observed a marked patrol car belonging to APDRed Dog Unit traveling in the opposite direction. s

Page 17 of 60

36. As he was turning into the Chappell Forrest Apartment complex, Walker was blue-lighted and stopped by the APD vehicle which contained Defendants Davis, Jackson, and Lanier members of the APDnow-disbanded all s Red Dog Unit. 37. Immediately after stopping Walker car and without advising Walker s why they had stopped him, one of the Defendants ordered Walker out of the vehicle and handcuffed him. 38. Defendant Davis immediately frisked Walker. 39. Defendant Davis ordered Walker to open his mouth and Davis shined a flashlight into Walkermouth. s 40. With Walker still handcuffed, Defendant Davis pulled down Walker s pants to mid-thigh, exposing Walkergenitals to public view. Several witnesses s unconnected to the incident saw Walkerexposed genitals during this search. s

Page 18 of 60

41. While Defendant Davis was searching Walker person, Defendants s Jackson and Lanier searched Walkercar. s 42. These Defendants neither requested nor received consent to search Walker or Walkervehicle. s 43. These Defendants did not find any drugs, weapons, or contraband of any kind on Walkerperson or in Walkervehicle. s s 44. After searching Walker and his car these Defendants issued Walker a citation for a malfunctioning tail light and released him. 45. These Defendants never submitted the citation they issued Walker, and the charge was never entered into the Atlanta Municipal Court docketing system; the citation simply disappeared.

Page 19 of 60

PLAINTIFF WALKER FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Unreasonable Search and Seizure under the United States Constitution (By Plaintiff Walker against Defendants Jackson, Davis, Lanier & City of Atlanta) 46. Defendants Jackson, Davis & Lanier had no reason to suspect Walker of any criminal activity when they stopped his vehicle and had neither reasonable articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize Walker. 47. The seizure of Walker without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 48. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize Walker without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.

Page 20 of 60

49. At the time these Defendants frisked and handcuffed Walker they had no reason to believe that Walker was either armed or dangerous. 50. The frisk of Walker was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 51. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to frisk Walker without reasonable suspicion that he was both armed and presently dangerous. 52. These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Walker was involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband. 53. The search of Walker and his vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Page 21 of 60

54. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to search Walker and his vehicle without consent, a warrant, or probable cause. 55. The public search of Walker genitals, and exposure of Walker genitals s s to public view, was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 56. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to strip search Walker in public and expose Walkergenitals to public view. s 57. In all the foregoing, these Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiff.

Page 22 of 60

58. These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Walker rights as s described above; therefore, the individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiff. 59. Defendants Davis, Jackson and Lanier are each liable to Plaintiff for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiff from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present. 60. The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above. PLAINTIFF WALKER SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF S False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiff Walker against DefendantJackson, Davis & Lanier) s 61. By unlawfully detaining Walker and depriving him of his personal liberty, these Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. 51-7-20.

Page 23 of 60

62. These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely imprisoning Walker by unlawful means. 63. The false imprisonment was the act of these several individual Defendants jointly, and the individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-7-22. 64. These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and conspired to falsely imprison Walker and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFF WALKER THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Battery Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiff Walker against DefendantJackson, Davis & Lanier) s 65. These Defendants intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking contact with Walker. Such acts constitute battery by these Defendants, under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. 51-1-14.

Page 24 of 60

66. These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing a battery on Walker by unlawful means. 67. These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and conspired to commit a battery on Walker and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFF WALKER FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Punitive Damages (By Plaintiff Walker against DefendantJackson, Davis & Lanier) s 68. The acts of Defendants Jackson, Davis and Lanier, as set forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to entitle Walker to an award of punitive damages against these individual Defendants. PLAINTIFF JASON WALKER PRAYER FOR RELIEF S On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court: a. Assume jurisdiction over this action;

Page 25 of 60

b.

Award Plaintiff Walker actual damages, including compensation for physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;

c.

Award Plaintiff Walker general damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

d.

Award Plaintiff Walker nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff s constitutional rights;

e.

Award Plaintiff Walker punitive (exemplary) damages against the individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law;

f.

Declare that Defendants Jackson, Davis, Lanier, and the City of Atlanta violated Plaintiff Walker rights under the United States s Constitution;

g.

Award Plaintiff Walker attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and s any other applicable provision of law;

h.

Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Page 26 of 60

ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL & ANTONIO DANIEL 69. Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33, as if fully set forth herein. 70. On May 20, 2010, Kacy Daniel and Antonio Daniel, who are cousins, were sitting in a car belonging to Antoniomother in a parking lot of a strip mall on s Oak Street in Atlanta, Georgia, waiting for Antonio mother who was getting a s manicure in the mall. The two young men were seated in the front seat, drinking soft-drinks, eating potato chips and listening to the carradio. s 71. Without warning or cause, and APD vehicle containing Defendants Mayes, Ortiz and Pettis members of the now-disbanded Red Dog Unit- stopped in the middle of the road in front of the parking lot. The officers quickly exited the police car, approached Ms. Danielvehicle and pointed their service weapons at s Kacy and Antonio Daniel. The officers instructed the young men to exit the vehicle or they would shoot the young men in the head.

Page 27 of 60

72. Kacy and Antonio exited the vehicle as instructed. Once they were out of the vehicle, the defendant officers began to search them. When Kacy Daniel asked what they had done wrong, Officer Pettis demanded that he shut the fuck up and change his attitude. 73. Immediately thereafter, Pettis unbuttoned Kacy Daniel pants, allowing s them to fall to the ground. He then pulled down Mr. Daniel underwear, s allowing his buttocks and genitals to be exposed in public. When doing so, Pettis told Daniel that if he moved he would knock his back out (or words to that effect). During the search, Pettis touched the genitals of Kacy Daniel. The officer found nothing illegal in Kacy Danielpossession. s 74. While Pettis was searching Kacy Daniel, Mayes was searching Antonio Daniel. As his cousin Kacy had done, Antonio Daniel asked what they had done wrong. Mayes told him, t worry about it. As with the search of his don cousin, Mayes found nothing illegal in Antonio Danielpossession. s

Page 28 of 60

75. These Defendants neither requested nor received consent to search Kacy or Antonio Daniel. 76. After searching the Plaintiffs, the officers then asked to search Ms. Daniel s vehicle. Antonio Daniels responded, and that he could not give consent for no the officers to search his mother car. He told the officers that his aunt was in s the nail salon a few feet away and that they could ask her. responded that he was a man and did not need his mother. 77. The officers proceeded with the search of the vehicle, without consent. No drugs or contraband of any kind was found in the vehicle. 78. The officers did not charge either young man with any offense or even write an incident report about the encounter, despite their warrantless search of the vehicle and the two young men and the use of force in drawing their service weapons and pointing them at Kacy and Antonio Daniel. Officer Mayes

Page 29 of 60

PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unreasonable Search and Seizure Under the United States Constitution (By Plaintiffs Kacy Daniel and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis, Ortiz and the City of Atlanta) 79. Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz had no reason to suspect Kacy or Antonio Daniel of any criminal activity when they approached the vehicle occupied by the two young men and had neither reasonable articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize either of them. 80. The seizure of Kacy and Antonio Daniel without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 81. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize Kacy or Antonio Daniel without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.

Page 30 of 60

82. These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Kacy or Antonio Daniel was involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband. 83. The search of Kacy and Antonio Daniel and the vehicle in which they were sitting was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 84. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to search Kacy or Antonio Daniel or the vehicle in which they were seated without consent, a warrant or probable cause. 85. The public search of Kacy Danielbuttocks and genitals, and exposure of s Kacy Danielbuttocks and genitals to public view, was unreasonable under the s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Page 31 of 60

86. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to strip search Kacy Daniel in public and expose his genitals to public view. 87. In all the foregoing, these Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiffs. 88. These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Kacy Daniel and s Antonio Daniel rights as described above; therefore, the individual Defendants s are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiffs. 89. The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above.

Page 32 of 60

PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL & ANTONIO DANIEL S S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Excessive Use of Force Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz) 90. By the unreasonable conduct described above, the Defendant Officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. 91. Defendants Mays, Pettis and Ortiz are each liable to Plaintiffs for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiffs from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present.

Page 33 of 60

PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz) 92. By unlawfully detaining Kacy and Antonio Daniel and depriving them of their personal liberty, these Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. 51-7-20. 93. These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely imprisoning Kacy and Antonio Daniel by unlawful means. 94. The false imprisonment was the act of these several individual Defendants jointly; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-7-22. 95. These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiffs, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and

Page 34 of 60

conspired to falsely imprison Kacy and Antonio Daniel and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Battery Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz) 96. These Defendants intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking contact with Kacy and Antonio Daniel. Such acts constitute battery by these Defendants, under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. 51-114. 97. These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing a battery on Kacy and Antonio Daniel by unlawful means. 98. These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and

Page 35 of 60

conspired to commit a battery on Kacy and Antonio Daniel and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFFS KACY AND ANTONIO DANIEL S FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Punitive Damages (By Plaintiffs Kacy and Antonio Daniel against Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz) 99. The acts of Defendants Mayes, Pettis and Ortiz, as set forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to entitle Kacy and Antonio Daniel to an award of punitive damages against these individual Defendants. PLAINTIFFS KACY DANIEL & ANTONIO DANIEL S S PRAYER FOR RELIEF On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: a. b. Assume jurisdiction over this action; Award Plaintiffs actual damages, including compensation for physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress; c. Award Plaintiffs general damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

Page 36 of 60

d.

Award Plaintiffs nominal damages for violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights;

e.

Award Plaintiffs punitive (exemplary) damages against the individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law;

f.

Declare that Defendants Mayes, Pettis, Ortiz, and the City of Atlanta violated Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution;

g.

Award Plaintiffs attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any s other applicable provision of law;

h.

Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY 100.

Plaintiff Vance Perry incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33, as if fully set forth herein. 101. On June 29, 2010, Plaintiff Vance Perry arrived at the home of friends at Overlook Atlanta apartments located on Donald Lee Hollowell Parkway in

Page 37 of 60

Atlanta, Georgia where he planned to share meal and socialize with friends and family. 102. Upon arrival with his two and five year old daughters, he was bringing in food and other items from his car when he saw an police vehicle operated by members of APD Red Dog Unit, specifically Defendants Blasini, Murphy s Amarena and Caldwell driving slowly into the neighborhood. Plaintiff V. Perry briefly glanced back towards the police car because he wanted to see if there was an apparent reason for the police being present in the neighborhood, as his children and others were playing in the yard. Seeing nothing to cause alarm, he looked away and headed back towards the apartment. 103. As Plaintiff V. Perry was about to enter his friends apartment, two of these Defendant Officers (a white, muscular male, approximately 6'0" tall, and a shorter, dark-skinned, bald African-American male) violently grabbed hold of V. Perry and pulled him backwards, away from the apartment. V. Perry had to grab a bannister to avoid hitting his head on the ground.

Page 38 of 60

104. Before being grabbed, V. Perry did not hear the officers coming towards him or say anything to him. 105. The officers described above threw V. Perry to the ground and stepped on his head to hold him down while they handcuffed and searched him. Still the officers did not tell V. Perry why they had seized him, searched him or handcuffed him. No drugs were found on V. Perryperson. s 106. These Defendant Officers took V. Perry to their police car and threw him onto the hood of the vehicle, leaving his feet dangling above the ground. 107. While on the hood, one of the officers (a white male with dark hair, approximately 6' tall) grabbed the waistband of V. Perry pants and pulled his s pants and underwear down in front of all those present, exposing his buttocks and genitals to those present, including his friends, his girlfriend, and his two small daughters.

Page 39 of 60

108. The same officer then spread V. Perry buttocks apart in front of those s present, including his children. No drugs or any other contraband was found. 109. When the officer pulled his buttocks apart, V. Perry looked back to see why they were doing this. When he looked back, the same officer who pulled down his pants and underwear told him to stop resisting,pulled his pants up and threw him, face-first, onto the pavement next to the car. V. Perry could not prevent his face from striking the pavement, as he was handcuffed. V. Perry s body struck the ground so hard that he urinated on himself. 110. V. Perry head was held down on the pavement by an officer foot (the s s shorter, dark-skinned, stocky, bald male), while the same officer asked what s wrong with you and laughed with the other officers. 111. When these officers saw that people were witnessing what they were doing and began asking questions, they put V. Perry in the police car and drove him down the street to a gas station parking lot.

Page 40 of 60

112. The officers removed V. Perry from the Red Dog Unit car and made him sit on the tire of the car while they questioned him about having or using drugs. V. Perry stated he neither used nor had drugs. V. Perry then asked the officers why they had beaten him. The officers refused to answer him one stated, m not I even gonna talk to you anymore and walked away. V. Perry asked the officers what he was being charged with, but none of the officers would respond. 113. Only after seizing, arresting, strip-searching and assaulting V. Perry did these officers locate V. Perryidentification and determine his identity. V. Perry s was not wanted for any offense by any jurisdiction. 114. V. Perry was eventually placed into a prisoner transport van by the officers and was transported to jail and charged with obstruction of law enforcement officers and possessing a weapon with an altered identification number. 115. Soon after being beaten by these Defendant Officers, Plaintiff V. Perry began experiencing severe headaches and dizziness. When dizzy he fell and

Page 41 of 60

broke his ankle. He was taken to the doctor and found that he had suffered a concussion when beaten. V. Perry has since been treated for his injuries and is recuperating. 116. When hearing of the improper conduct by these officers from numerous witnesses, reading the officers inconsistent reports and speaking to V. Perry, the district attorney office dismissed all charges against V. Perry and are assisting s V. Perry in having his record expunged regarding his arrest. PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Unreasonable Search and Seizure Under the United States Constitution (By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena, Caldwell and the City of Atlanta) 117. Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell had no reason to suspect V. Perry of any criminal activity when they drove past him or approached him in the yard of his friendapartment and had neither reasonable s articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize him.

Page 42 of 60

118. The seizure of V. Perry without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 119. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize V. Perry without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. 120. These Defendants had no probable cause to believe that V. Perry was involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband. 121. The search of V. Perry was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 122. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to search V. Perry without consent, a warrant or probable cause.

Page 43 of 60

123. The public search of V. Perrybuttocks and genitals, and exposure of his s buttocks and genitals to public view, was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 124. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to strip search V. Perry in public and expose his genitals to public view. 125. In all the foregoing, these Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiff. 126. These Defendants combined and conspired to violate V. Perry rights, as s described above; therefore, the individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages cause to the Plaintiffs.

Page 44 of 60

127. Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are each liable to Plaintiff for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiff from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present. 128. The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above. PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Excessive Use of Force Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena, and Caldwell) 129. By the unreasonable conduct described above, the Defendant Officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Page 45 of 60

130. Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are each liable to Plaintiff for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Plaintiff from the unlawful conduct of the other officers present. PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF S False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell) 131. By unlawfully detaining V. Perry and depriving him of his personal liberty, Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. 51-7-20. 132. These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely imprisoning V. Perry by unlawful means.

Page 46 of 60

133. The false imprisonment was the act of these several individual Defendants jointly; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-7-22. 134. These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and conspired to falsely imprison V. Perry and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Battery Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell) 135. Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking contact with V. Perry. Such acts constitute battery by these Defendants, under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. 51-1-14.

Page 47 of 60

136. These Defendants intentionally caused physical injury to V. Perry in violation of O.C.G.A. 51-1-13. 137. These Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing a battery on V. Perry by unlawful means. 138. These Defendants, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and conspired to commit a battery on Vance Perry and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Punitive Damages (By Plaintiff Perry against Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell) 139. The acts of Defendants Blasini, Murphy, Amarena and Caldwell, as set forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to

Page 48 of 60

entitle Plaintiff Vance Perry to an award of punitive damages against these individual Defendants. PLAINTIFF VANCE PERRY PRAYER FOR RELIEF S On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff Vance Perry respectfully prays that this Court: a. b. Assume jurisdiction over this action; Award Plaintiff actual damages, including compensation for physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress ; c. Award Plaintiff general damages in an amount to be determined by the jury; d. Award Plaintiff nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff s constitutional rights; e. Award Plaintiff punitive (exemplary) damages against the

individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law; f. Declare that Defendants Blasini, Murphy Amarena, Caldwell, and the City of Atlanta violated Plaintiffrights under the United States s Constitution;

Page 49 of 60

g.

Award Plaintiff attorneyfees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other s applicable provision of law;

h.

Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD 140.

Plaintiff Trenton Boyd incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs1 through 33, as if fully set forth herein. 141. On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff Trenton Boyd filed a complaint with the Atlanta Citizen Review Board regarding a beating he received at the hands of Atlanta Police Red Dogofficers including Defendants Guevara and Pettis, which resulted in severe injuries including two fractures and significant bruising. 142. On March 20, 2010, Boyd was in front of Chanterelles Restaurant at 646 Evans St., Atlanta, Georgia, 30310.

Page 50 of 60

143. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 were in a Red Dog police vehicle that stopped in front of the restaurant, having apparently recognized Boyd. 144. Defendant Guevara exited the police car and ran toward Boyd. Guevara ordered Boyd to put his hands up and began searching him. 145. Defendant Guevara frisked Boyd, and searched Boyd pants pockets s (turning them inside-out), shoes, and socks, among other parts of Plaintiff s Boydclothing and person. s 146. Defendant Guevara placed his hands inside Boyd underwear, touching s Boydgenital and buttocks. s 147. Defendant Guevara then pulled Boyd pants and underwear down to his s knees, exposing Boydgenitals and buttocks to public view. s

Page 51 of 60

148. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 were present at the scene and failed to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Boyd from the unlawful conduct of Defendant Guevara. PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Unreasonable Search and Seizure Under the United States Constitution (By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry, John Doe 1 & the City of Atlanta) 149. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 had no reason to suspect Plaintiff Trenton Boyd of any criminal activity when they stopped him, and had neither reasonable articulable suspicion nor probable cause to seize Boyd. 150. The seizure of Boyd without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Page 52 of 60

151. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to stop and seize Boyd without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. 152. At the time Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 frisked Boyd they had no reason to believe that Boyd was either armed or dangerous. 153. The frisk of Boyd was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 154. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed it was lawful to frisk Boyd without reasonable suspicion that he was both armed and presently dangerous.

Page 53 of 60

155. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 had no probable cause to believe that Boyd was involved in criminal activity or in possession of contraband. 156. The search of Boyd was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 157. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to search Boyd without consent, a warrant, or probable cause. 158. The public exposure and search of Boyd genitals and buttocks was s unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Page 54 of 60

159. These Defendants violated clearly established law; no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to search Boydgenitals and buttocks in s public and expose Boydgenitals and buttocks to public view. s 160. In all the foregoing, Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiff. 161. These Defendants combined and conspired to violate Boyd rights as s described above; therefore, these individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages. 162. Defendants Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 are liable to Boyd for their failure to take any action, let alone reasonable steps, to protect Boyd from the unlawful conduct of Defendant Guevara.

Page 55 of 60

163. The facts and circumstances described in paragraphs 23 through 33 were the moving force behind the conduct of these officers set forth above. PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF S False Imprisonment Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry & John Doe 1) 164. By unlawfully detaining Plaintiff Trenton Boyd and depriving him of his personal liberty, Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 are liable for false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. 51-7-20. 165. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely imprisoning Boyd by unlawful means.

Page 56 of 60

166. The false imprisonment was the act of Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 jointly; therefore, these Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-7-22. 167. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and conspired to falsely imprison Boyd and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Battery Under Georgia Law (By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry & John Doe 1) 168. Defendant Guevara intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking contact with Plaintiff Trenton Boyd. Such acts constitute battery by Guevara under the laws of Georgia and are actionable under O.C.G.A. 51-1-14.

Page 57 of 60

169. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1 combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing a battery on Boyd by unlawful means. 170. Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, with malice and oppression and with the intent to humiliate and harm the Plaintiff, committed a battery on and/or combined and conspired to commit a battery on Boyd and did so under color of legal process. PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF S Punitive Damages (By Plaintiff Boyd against Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry & John Doe 1) 171. The acts of Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry and John Doe 1, as set forth herein, were willful, wanton, malicious and so extreme and oppressive as to entitle Plaintiff Trenton Boyd to an award of punitive damages against these Defendants.

Page 58 of 60

PLAINTIFF TRENTON BOYD PRAYER FOR RELIEF S On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff Trenton Boyd respectfully prays that this Court: a. b. Assume jurisdiction over this action; Award Plaintiff actual damages, including compensation for physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress ; c. Award Plaintiff general damages in an amount to be determined by the jury; d. Award Plaintiff nominal damages for violations of Plaintiff s constitutional rights; e. Award Plaintiff punitive (exemplary) damages against the

individual Defendants, to the extent permitted by law; f. Declare that Defendants Guevara, Chao, D. Perry, John Doe, and the City of Atlanta violated Plaintiff rights under the United States s Constitution; g. Award Plaintiff attorneyfees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other s applicable provision of law;

Page 59 of 60

h.

Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED

Respectfully submitted this 29th of September, 2011. GLASER, CURRIE & BULLMAN, LLP

/s/ Mark B. Bullman Mark B. Bullman Georgia Bar No. 094376 1455 Lincoln Parkway Suite 300 Atlanta, Georgia 30346 mbb@gcblaw.net (770) 563-9300 LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. GROSSMAN /s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman Georgia Bar No. 313815 Law Office of Daniel J. Grossman 1579 Monroe Drive, Ste F-138 Atlanta, Georgia 30324 Dan@DanGrossmanLaw.com (404) 654-0326 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Page 60 of 60