Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dillon Complaint
Dillon Complaint
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
This complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, arises out of the unlawful and
unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force which occurred at a residence
located in Putnam County, on or about early-August of, 2019 in Putnam County, West
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Mason Dillon was at all times relevant hereto a Lincoln County,
West Virginia.
2. Defendant Brian D. Hall is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident
of Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive, Suite 8,
1
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and is employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s
resident of Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive,
Suite 8, Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and is employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s
resident of Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive,
Suite 8, Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and is employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s
Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive, Suite 8,
Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and was employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s
unknown.
of the State of West Virginia. See West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and
7. Defendant John Doe is named herein in his official capacity. His identity is
law enforcement officer for the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department. He is named in his
individual capacity.
2
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
FACTS
police officers, most of whom were not wearing uniforms, unlawfully entering the
Putnam County, West Virginia residence of Dustin Elswick. The officers cut the wires to
an outside surveillance camera prior to illegally entering the residence and searching it.
However, unbeknownst to them, hidden cameras inside the residence filmed their
actions.
of the U.S. Constitution, the officers illegally entered the home by removing an air
conditioner from a window and climbing through the window into the home. The plain-
clothed officers then illegally searched the home, presumably looking for drugs.
10. Though they did not find drugs or any other illegal item inside Mr. Elswick’s
home, the officers removed his firearms from their storage cases in the closet and took
photographs of them. The officers also found the cremated ashes of Mr. Elswick’s
friend, and believing them to be drugs, submitted them to a field drug test kit. After
testing negative, the kit with bits of human bone therein, were thrown on the floor of the
11. The officers left the Elswick residence ransacked, with Mr. Elswick’s
firearms still laying out in the open where they had been photographed. They found no
illegal drugs in the Elswick’s home. Upon information and belief, had the defendant
officers found illegal drugs in Mr. Elswick’s home, they would have taken the firearms,
3
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
12. The officers in the Elswick search video were all members of the Putnam
County Sheriff’s Office’s Special Enforcement Unit (“SEU”). All of the defendant police
officers herein, with the exception of Defendant Kenny Mann, appear in the Elswick
video, and were at all times relevant hereto members of the SEU.
13. Following the Elswick video going viral on social media and being featured
on the television news, other victims of the SEU began to come forward, including the
Plaintiff herein, as well as the Johnson family, who are plaintiffs in the now-pending case
14. Upon information and belief, the SEU would obtain tips about individuals
who may be in possession of marijuana, or who may be selling marijuana. They would
then make warrantless entry into the residence of the suspected individual in
possession of marijuana, or other suspected illegal drugs. Upon finding the marijuana
that was the subject of the tip, the SEU would then threaten and pressure the suspect to
give them another tip, or to identify another individual who was in possession of
marijuana, in exchange for not being arrested or charged. The SEU members would
then leave, taking the marijuana they seized, along with any cash money or firearms
they located in their illegal search and seizure. The SEU would then repeat the process
at the new target residence. They would leave no paper trail, such as police reports,
warrant applications, charging documents, search and seizure inventory, etc. The
seized marijuana, cash money, and even firearms seized, would thereafter disappear
into the possession of the SEU members without ever being properly documented.
4
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
15. Prior to entering the Dustin Elswick home on August 21, 2019, the SEU
visited the home of Plaintiff’s friend, C.R.,” in Putnam County, West Virginia at a time
16. On or about early August, 2019, the Plaintiff traveled to his friend, C.R.’s
home in order to meet up with him to go fishing. The friend’s home was located in
Putnam County, West Virginia. Plaintiff did not reside at the home, but was an occupant
17. While Plaintiff was waiting for his friend, C.R., to finish getting ready,
Plaintiff began to play a video game on a television and gaming console inside his
friend’s home.
18. While Plaintiff was playing the video game inside the house, C.R. was in
19. Suddenly the defendant police officers, acting as the SEU, began to knock
on the exterior door of the home. The officers demanded to come in. Plaintiff’s friend
answered the door and declined to allow the officers to enter his home without a
20. The officers forcibly entered the home anyways, without a warrant and
21. Plaintiff was surprised at the officers’ actions, which placed him in fear. He
immediately put both hands up, to where his hands were visible to the officers.
22. Plaintiff began to ask questions about what was going on. His hands were
kept in the air, where the officers could see that he did not pose a threat to anyone’s
safety.
5
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
23. Defendant Kenny Davis then drew a firearm and pointed it at the Plaintiff.
Davis, Hall and Rahmati then grabbed the Plaintiff and forcibly and violently jerked and
threw him out the front door and slammed him into a wall outside C.R.’s home, causing
Plaintiff’s face to impact the wall. They immediately handcuffed the Plaintiff, with
arm, for the sole reason of causing Plaintiff pain. Plaintiff was not resisting and was
25. Plaintiff was then handcuffed by the defendant officers and placed outside
27. The defendant officers found a small amount marijuana belong to C.R.
inside the home and confiscated the same. They also confiscated all cash found in the
28. During the incident, which lasted approximately an hour and a half, the
29. Plaintiff was eventually released without being arrested. Prior to leaving,
however, the defendant officers each circulated Plaintiff’s ID and each photographed the
ID on their cell phones, threatening Plaintiff that they could cause him harm in the
30. The defendant officers eventually left the residence without providing any
paperwork to either the Plaintiff or his friend. There was no warrant provided. Nor was
6
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
31. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was not charged with any criminal violation. Upon
information and belief, nor was Plaintiff’s friend charged with any criminal violation.
on the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department, requesting documentation that the event
had transpired. However, the FOIA response indicated that no such documentation
existed. There was no record of any sheriff’s deputies ever having come into contact
34. On or early August, 2019, the defendant police officers forcibly entered the
residence of Plaintiff’s friend, C.R., which was then occupied by the Plaintiff, who had
been playing a video game inside the home at the time the officers knocked on the door.
35. The Plaintiff’s friend declined to consent to the defendant officers’ entry
into the home, instead demanding to see a warrant. Nevertheless, the defendant
officers forcibly entered the residence without the consent of any occupant or resident of
the home.
36. Upon information and belief, the defendant officers did not have a search
warrant authorizing them to enter and search the Plaintiff’s friend’s home. A subsequent
FOIA request to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that there is no
record of a warrant.
37. The officers did not have exigent circumstances to justify entering and
searching the Plaintiff’s friend’s home - nor did exigent circumstances objectively exist.
7
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
38. No objectively reasonable police officer would believe that they possessed
the legal justification or authority to enter and/or search the Plaintiff’s friend’s home as
described above, without a warrant, without consent, and without exigent circumstances
justifying entry, for the purposes of searching the home for contraband.
39. During the search, Plaintiff remained seized for a period of approximately
an hour and a half, remaining in handcuffs the entire time, while the officers performed a
virtue of the fact that the search being conduct was without legal justification under the
Fourth Amendment.
unreasonable by virtue of the fact that the treatment of the Plaintiff during the search
was unreasonable, in that Plaintiff was kept handcuffed for a prolonged and
unnecessary period of time, inflicted with violating and unnecessary physical force and
otherwise mistreated by the defendant officers, including being threatened and having
his ID photographed.
42. The defendant officers possessed no legal justification for the forcible
entry, search and seizure, as described above. They did not possess a search warrant.
They did not possess voluntary consent. Nor did exigent circumstances exist to justify
their entry into the home and the ensuing search and seizure.
43. Rather, the defendant officers, acting as the SEU, were engaging in a
pattern and practice of performing warrantless entries and seizures, as described above
8
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
and as illustrated in the Elswick video, as also describe and alleged in Count Three
44. There existed no reasonable suspicion, nor probable cause to support the
seizure of the Plaintiff as occurred and as is described above. Plaintiff was not
45. The defendant officers seized the Plaintiff from inside the home of his
friend, without a warrant, and without probable cause that Plaintiff had committed any
criminal offense.
46. At the time of Plaintiff’s seizure, the facts and circumstances within the
circumstances shown that Plaintiff had violated any criminal statute or offense.
47. The defendants’ actions as alleged herein were performed under color of
law, objectively unreasonable, willful, wanton, intentional and done with a callous and
reckless disregard for the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from
48. Plaintiff suffered damages and is entitled to recover for the same.
50. Defendants Davis, Hall and Rahmati used excessive force against the
Plaintiff as described above when they violently grabbed him inside the home of
Plaintiff’s friend, threw him outside and slammed him into a wall. Additionally, Defendant
Davis used excessive force when he thereafter used an unnecessary amount of force
9
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
twisting Plaintiff’s arm unnecessarily when handcuffing the Plaintiff, immediately after
51. At the time this violent physical force was performed by the said
defendants, no objectively reasonable police officer could have perceived the Plaintiff as
posing an immediate threat to the safety of any person. Plaintiff was unarmed,
compliant, with his hands up and visible at the time the violent force was inflicted.
52. At the time Plaintiff was attacked by the officers, Plaintiff was not
suspected of having committed any crime. Nor was Plaintiff resisting in any way. Plaintiff
53. At the time Plaintiff was attacked by the officers, he was inside his friend’s
established procedural and substantive rights, including the Fourth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution to be free from having an excessive amount of physical force used
against him; namely being violently grabbed and thrown against a wall unnecessarily
55. Defendants Davis, Hall and Rahmati’s actions were willful, wanton,
intentional, malicious, and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s
distress, severe pain, and is entitled to recover damages for the same.
10
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
58. The PCC, through the establishment and operation of the Special
Enforcement Unit, or SEU, adopted and implemented an official policy, custom and
practice of violating the rights of homeowners in Putnam County, West Virginia. The
SEU engaged and a pattern and practice of warrantless searches and seizures under
the auspices of fighting against illegal drug use and crime. They wore no law
enforcement uniforms and generally gave the appearance that they were acting outside
of the law, with no documentation, no warrants, and no paperwork in most cases. They
used intimidation and a perceived lawlessness to more effectively and efficiently acquire
information and sources. However, they were acting under color of law and with the
59. Defendants Hall, Rahmati, Lowther, and Davis, acted in furtherance of that
said official policy, custom and practice when they deprived the Plaintiff of his Fourth
warrantless entry into the Plaintiff’s friend’s home and seized him, inflicted violent force
upon him, leaving him handcuffed for approximately an hour and a half, ultimately
60. The said defendants have also committed other similar civil rights
violations against other victims in Putnam County, West Virginia, including the incident
61. As a direct and proximate result of the said policy, custom and practice,
the plaintiffs were damaged, for which they are entitled to recover.
11
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
63. Supervisor of the defendant police officers - the SEU - had actual
knowledge that his subordinates were engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and
unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to the plaintiffs; namely that they were going to
be searching the plaintiffs’ residence and seizing the plaintiffs, and potentially their
show deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, the aforesaid conduct.
65. As a direct and proximate result of the said supervisors’ inaction, the
plaintiffs suffered constitutional violations and were damaged, for which they are entitled
to recover.
PRAYER
which will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for all compensatory damages
to be proven at trial;
12
Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
MASON DILLON,
By Counsel
/s John H. Bryan
John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)
JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 366
Union, WV 24983
(304) 772-4999
Fax: (304) 772-4998
[email protected]
13