1983 Civil Right Complaint Done Well by ACLU Lawyer
1983 Civil Right Complaint Done Well by ACLU Lawyer
BRETT DARROW, )
)
Plaintiff, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
v. ) Cause No.
)
JAMES E. KUEHNLEIN, JR., in his official )
and individual capacities, )
)
JOHN DOE, in his official and individual )
capacities, and )
)
CITY OF ST. GEORGE, MISSOURI, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Brett Darrow, for his complaint against Defendants James Kuehnlein, John Doe,
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for money damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, and under the law of the State of Missouri, against Sergeant James
Kuehnlein and Officer John Doe, police officers of the City of St. George, in their individual and
2. Plaintiff Brett Darrow alleges that Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe made an
unreasonable search and seizure of his person, assaulted, battered, and falsely imprisoned him by
stopping him, threatening to arrest him, and physically restraining him without cause. Plaintiff
alleges that these constitutional violations were committed as a result of the policies and customs
1
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 10
of the City of St. George, and that the City of St. George is liable under the theory of respondeat
3. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 over
Plaintiff’s cause of action arising under the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court
has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s causes of action arising under the Missouri state
4. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in
5. Divisional venue is in the Eastern Division because the events leading to the
claim for relief arose in St. Louis County. E.D.Mo. L.R. 2.07(A)(1), (B)(2).
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Brett Darrow is an adult citizen and resident of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri. He runs a painting business during the day and attends college in the evenings.
7. Defendant James Kuehnlein was a Sergeant with the St. George Police
Department when the relevant events occurred. He has since been terminated. He is sued in his
8. Defendant John Doe is an unknown officer of the St. George Police Department
who arrived at the scene that gave rise to this claim for relief. He failed to take reasonable steps
to end the unlawful conduct alleged in this complaint. He is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
2
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 3 of 10
municipal corporation and the public employer of Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe.
BACKGROUND
10. On or about September 7, 2007 at about 2:00 a.m., Plaintiff Brett Darrow properly
turned into a commuter parking lot at Spokane and Reavis Barracks roads. The commuter lot
was located in an unincorporated part of St. Louis County, outside the jurisdiction of the St.
11. Plaintiff properly signaled his intention to turn, and did not violate any traffic
laws. He was not illegally parked in the commuter lot, and he did not engage in any unlawful
12. A police car driven by Defendant Sergeant Kuehnlein followed Plaintiff’s vehicle
13. A video camera installed in Plaintiff’s vehicle recorded the ensuing more than 18-
Plaintiff. Defendant Kuehnlein responded aggressively to Plaintiff’s questions about why he was
being detained. Plaintiff asked if he could park in the commuter lot, and Defendant Kuehnlein
leaned into the car and yelled, “You are a suspicious vehicle right now!”
16. Plaintiff asked Defendant Kuehnlein if he had committed a moving violation, and
Defendant Kuehnlein pinned Plaintiff between himself and the vehicle, got close to his face, and
shouted, “You wanna try me tonight? You think you’ve had a bad night? I will ruin your
fucking night.”
3
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 4 of 10
17. Defendant Kuehnlein asserted that he could make up reasons for detaining
Plaintiff. He shouted, “Oh, while you were coming towards me you were swerving back and
forth within the roadway. Okay? I might give you a ticket for that. You want me to make up
some more? When you turned in, you failed to use your turn signal.”
18. Defendant Kuehnlein also threatened to make up other reasons for arresting
Plaintiff and taking him to jail. He shouted, “Do you want to go to jail for some fucking reason I
come up with? Do you wanna see who knows the law better, me or you? My experience
19. Defendant Kuehnlein threatened to arrest Plaintiff for resisting arrest: “Try and
talk back. Talk back to me again. I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want
to come up with something. I come up with nine things. Do you wanna try something?”
20. A few minutes later, Defendant Kuehnlein threatened to arrest Plaintiff for failure
to comply with a police officer’s commands: “Did we have a bad night, boy? Huh? Answer me
or I’ll lock you up for failure to comply with a police officer’s commands.”
21. Before noticing the video camera in Plaintiff’s vehicle, Defendant Kuehnlein
threatened to make up a reason to tow his car. He threatened, “I bet—I guarantee I can tow this
22. After seeing the camera, Defendant Kuehnlein threatened to destroy it: “I really
23. About eight minutes into the encounter between Defendant Kuehnlein and
Plaintiff, Defendant John Doe, another St. George police officer, arrived at the scene. Defendant
4
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 5 of 10
Doe was present for part of the discussion about Plaintiff’s camera and the police camera. He
24. About nine minutes into the encounter, Plaintiff asserted his Fifth Amendment
right to refuse to answer Defendant Kuehnlein’s questions and his Fourth Amendment right to
privacy. Defendant Kuehnlein stated that Plaintiff’s refusal to tell Defendant Kuehnlein why he
was in the commuter lot was impeding the flow of a police officer’s duties. He also shouted that
Plaintiff did not have a right to privacy when he was out in public.
25. When Plaintiff again refused to answer personal questions, Defendant Kuehnlein
once again threatened to arrest him: “You know what, I think I’m gonna bring you with me.
Come on.”
26. Twelve minutes after approaching Plaintiff’s car, Defendant Kuehnlein conducted
28. Throughout the encounter with Defendant Kuehnlein, Plaintiff repeatedly told the
officer that he did not want any trouble. He was not intoxicated, incapacitated, a threat to the
safety of himself or others, or disorderly. He did not refuse to comply with Defendant
Kuehnlein’s orders or resist arrest in any way. He had not committed any criminal offenses.
29. Pursuant to St. George Police Department policy, Defendant Kuehnlein had a
video camera attached to his car. Throughout his encounter with Plaintiff, Defendant Kuehnlein
30. Despite these assertions, the video tape was lost or destroyed, and the St. George
Police Department could not produce the tape for Plaintiff to view.
5
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 6 of 10
31. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered the
Amendments to the United Sates Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and
32. The actions of Defendants violated the following clearly established and well
33. At all relevant times, Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe were acting under color of
law and under color of authority as police officers, employees, and agents or servants of the City
COUNT I
35. Plaintiff claims damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the injuries set forth above
against Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe for violation of his constitutional rights under color of
law.
COUNT II
6
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 7 of 10
injure him with apparent present ability to effectuate the injury under circumstances creating fear
of imminent peril when he pinned Plaintiff against the car and shouted in his face.
COUNT III
Plaintiff’s body when he pinned him against the car and when he conducted a pat search without
COUNT IV
detaining him against his will. Defendant Kuehnlein had no reason to detain or search Plaintiff
because he did not reasonably believe that Plaintiff had committed an offense. Defendant Doe
COUNT V
43. Prior to September 7, 2007, the St. George Police Department developed and
persons in the City of St. George, which caused the violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
7
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 8 of 10
44. It was the policy and/or custom of the St. George Police Department to fail to
exercise reasonable care in hiring its police officers, including Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe,
thereby failing to adequately prevent constitutional violations on the part of its police officers.
45. It was the policy and/or custom of the St. George Police Department to
inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe,
thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police
officers.
46. As a result of the above described policies and customs, police officers of the City
of St. George, including Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe, believed that their actions would not be
properly monitored by supervisory officers and that misconduct would not be investigated or
47. The above described polices and customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on
the part of the City of St. George to the constitutional rights of persons within the City of St.
George, and were the cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s rights alleged herein.
COUNT VI
49. Defendant City of St. George is liable for the assault, battery, and false
imprisonment committed against Plaintiff by Defendants Kuehnlein and Doe. The City of St.
George employed the officers, who committed assault, battery, and false imprisonment while
8
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 9 of 10
City of St. George to adopt appropriate policies related to the hiring and supervision of its police
officers; and
F. Grant to Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper
under the circumstances, including but not limited to appropriate injunctive relief.
Plaintiff demands a jury trial, pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the
Respectfully submitted,
9
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 10 of 10
Christopher M. Donohoo*
The Donohoo Law Firm, LLC
61 East Ferguson Avenue
P.O. Box 226
Wood River, Illinois 62095
(618) 251-6088 Telephone
(618) 251-6086 Facsimile
Cooperating Attorney for ACLU
of Eastern Missouri
*
Verified motion for admission pro hac vice forthcoming.
10