in the united states district court western district … · western district of missouri . central...
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION P. M., a minor, by his mother and next ) friend, BRITTANY WHITWORTH, ) ) and ) ) BRITTANY WHITWHORTH, ) ) and ) ) JONATHAN WHITWORTH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. ) (1)LANCE BOLINGER, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) and ) ) (2) MICHAEL CAVENER, ) ) and ) ) (3) CRYSTAL CLEMENTS, ) ) and ) ) (4) CATHY DODD, ) ) and ) ) (5) ROBERT FOX, ) ) and ) ) (6) SCOTT HENDRICK, ) ) and ) ) (7) RICHARD HORRELL, )
1
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 36
) and ) ) (8) KYLE LUCAS, ) ) and ) ) (9) THOMAS QUINTANA, ) ) and ) ) (10) MICHAEL PARSONS, ) ) and ) ) (11) JEFFRY RUKSTAD, ) ) and ) ) (12) ROGER SCHLUDE, ) ) and ) ) (13) CITY OF COLUMBIA, MISSOURI ) ) and ) ) (14) UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER(S) ) ) Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1. A Boone County search warrant was executed by the Columbia Poli
Department at about 8:00 p.m. on February 11, 2010, at 1501 Kinloch
Court, Columbia, Missouri.
ce
2
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 2 of 36
2. The residential home was occupied by Jonathan Whitworth, his wife
Brittany Whitworth (f/k/a Brittany Montgomery), and their seven year ol
minor child, P
d
.M.
es
house.
is
xt,
3. Initially, the police officers banged on the front door with loud voic
demanding immediate entry.
4. One of the two family dogs ran to the front door, attracted by the noise.
5. A police officer opened the door and immediately fired a shot from his
assault weapon into the
6. When the first shot was fired into the home, P. M. was in his bed with h
mother, Brittany Whitworth, who was reading him to sleep. P. M.’s step-
father, Jonathan Whitworth, immediately ran toward the family living room
as the second shot was fired into the home. P. M. and his mom were in P.
M.’s bedroom when he heard the next series of shots fired into the kitchen
which killed P.M.’s pet dog, Nala. The police chased and pursued the dog
from the front door into the kitchen firing their assault weapons at the dog
until it was dead. The police also wounded a second dog (Bruno) which was
hit and wounded by several projectiles. In all, seven shots were fired into
Whitworth home.
7. P.M. and his mother were ordered to step over Jonathan Whitworth who
was ordered face-down in the hallway, and toward the bloody kitchen. Ne
P.M. and Brittany were required to sit, at gun point, in the front entry way
of their home. Directly in P.M.’s line of sight was his just-killed pet dog,
3
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 3 of 36
Nala. Next, Jonathan Whitworth, who was still prone and on the ground,
was kicked by a police officer. The masked, armed police officers who fired
their assault weapons into the Whitworth’s home at least seven times were
all Columbia, Missouri, police officers.
8. Defendants had no reason to use deadly force or any other force upon
entering the Whitworth home. Defendants were all armed with assault
weapons and side arms and other weapons. Jonathan Whitworth, Brittany
Whitworth, and P. M. were not armed, were not violent, were not resisting
and were no threat to Defendants or anyone else. The two pet dogs were
threat to anyone and there was no reason to use assault weapons on th
two animals. Defendants, under color of law, deprived each Plaintiff of
rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Defendants conspired to deprive each Plaintiff of rights secured under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Defendants refused or failed to
prevent the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights secured under the Constitution
and laws of the Unit
no
ose
ed States.
rth and
9. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1983 (as
amended) to redress the violations concerning Jonathan Whitworth,
Brittany Whitworth and the minor child P. M.’s rights under the Fou
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Each Plaintiff
also brings claims for False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Intentional
4
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 4 of 36
Infliction of Emotional Distress, Assault and Battery and Properly Damage
against all De
fendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343 and 28 U.S.C.
§1331. Each Plaintiff’s claims for relief are cognizable under 42 U.S.C.
§§1983 and 1988, and under Missouri state law. Each Plaintiff respectfully
invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of the Court to hear and decide th
claims arising under Missouri stat
eir
e law.
al district.
11. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because
the Defendants are located, and all incidents giving rise to this suit
occurred, in this judici
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff P. M, is a minor, seven years old, and is the son of Brittany
Whitworth. P. M. appears in this action through his mother and next
friend, Plaintiff Brittany Montgomery Whitworth.
ri.
ne
13. Plaintiff Jonathan Whitworth resides in Columbia, Missou
14. Plaintiff Brittany Whitworth resides in Columbia, Missouri.
15. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri is a municipal corporation organized
and existing pursuant to Missouri law. The City of Columbia is in Boo
County, Missouri, which is within the Western District of Missouri. The
City acted by and through its policymakers, agents, and employees and
acted under color of law in all respects set forth herein.
5
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 5 of 36
16. There may also be Defendants that are UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS
who were also employed by the City of Columbia who acted under color of
law and those Defendants are also sued in their individual capacity.
ed
city.
ed
city.
of
capacity.
capacity.
ed
city.
17. Defendant Lance Bolinger is a police officer employed by the City of
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Lance Bolinger is su
in his individual capa
18. Defendant Michael Cavener is a police officer employed by the City of
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Michael Cavener is su
in his individual capa
19. Defendant Crystal Clements is a police officer employed by the City
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Crystal Clements is
sued in her individual capacity.
20. Defendant Cathy Dodd is a police officer employed by the City of Columbia
who acted under color of law. Defendant Cathy Dodd is sued in her
individual
21. Defendant Robert Fox is a police officer employed by the City of Columbia
who acted under color of law. Defendant Robert Fox is sued in his
individual
22. Defendant Scott Hendrick is a police officer employed by the City of
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Scott Hendrick is su
in his individual capa
6
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 6 of 36
23. Defendant Richard Horrell is a police officer employed by the City of
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Richard Horrell is su
in his individual capa
ed
city.
capacity.
of
ed
city.
ed in
ty.
24. Defendant Kyle Lucas is a police officer employed by the City of Columbia
who acted under color of law. Defendant Kyle Lucas is sued in his
individual
25. Defendant Thomas Quintana is a police officer employed by the City
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Thomas Quintana is
sued in his individual capacity.
26. Defendant Michael Parsons is a police officer employed by the City of
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Michael Parsons is su
in his individual capa
27. Defendant Roger Schlude is a police officer employed by the City of
Columbia who acted under color of law. Defendant Roger Schlude is su
his individual capaci
FACTS
28. Around 6:00 p.m. on February 11, 2010, at least twelve (12) members of t
Columbia Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT)
assembled to plan the execution of an eight day-old search warrant at 1501
Kinloch Court in Columbia, Missouri.
he
ome.
29. The Tactical Entry Plan created for the execution of this search warrant
noted a child could be in the h
7
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 7 of 36
30. At about 8:30 p.m., Mr. Whitworth, Mrs. Whitworth, and P. M. were
lawfully in their home in the City of Columbia.
m
d
ed
me.
e.
5
5
.
31. At that moment, members of the Columbia Police Department SWAT Tea
assembled at the front of the Whitworth home.
32. The police officers and Defendants caused the front door to open an
immediately shot, without any reasonable cause, a family pet dog (Nala)
and the dog immediately started to run away and the police officers entered
and pursued and chased the dog through the residence firing their assault
weapons at said dog until the dog was dead.
33. The police officers and Defendants also wounded a second dog, a corgi mix
(Bruno) by use of their assault weapons and fire arms.
34. Before any SWAT Team member entered the home, Defendant Cavener
fired his nine millimeter submachine gun into the ho
35. The SWAT Team then entered the Whitworth hom
36. Defendant Quintana entered the kitchen and fired one round from his MP
submachine gun.
37. Next, Defendant Fox entered the kitchen and fired two rounds from his MP
submachine gun.
38. At the same time, Defendant Sergent Schlude entered the kitchen and fired
3 rounds from his handgun
39. The police officers and Defendants fired at least seven high powered
projectiles and bullets inside the Whitworth home which caused damage to
8
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 8 of 36
the interior of the residence. The police officers and Defendants also
damaged the residence during the search causing damage to personal
property and to real estate while conducting their search and during the
occupancy
ir
of the property.
t.
e
d
rs
s.
d
ed
40. The police officers and the Defendants also caused damage to property own
by Plaintiffs outside the residence and attached to i
41. The pet dog who was wounded (Bruno) by the police officers and th
Defendants’ assault weapons was taken the University veterinary hospital
for medical procedures that saved the life of that family pet at a
considerable cost and damage to Plaintiffs.
42. Other Officers confronted Mr. Whitworth in the hallway of the home an
ordered him to the ground. Mr. Whitworth complied.
43. Mrs. Whitworth and P.W. remained in P.W.’s bedroom until SWAT office
ordered, at gun-point, that they step over Mr. Whitworth and sit in the front
entry way of their home.
44. From their ordered position in the front entry way of their home, Mr
Whitworth and P. M. sat staring at their just-executed family pet.
45. Mr. Whitworth was kicked by a SWAT Team member while prone an
compliant in his hallway.
46. Mrs. Whitworth and P. M. were ordered into police custody and deni
repeated requests to be released and were held in police control for
approximately two (2) hours.
9
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 9 of 36
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
UNLAWFUL SEIZURE BY DETENTION OF P. M. BY DEFENDANTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. §1983
For his cause of action against Defendants in Count I, Plaintiff P. M. states:
47. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 46 as though fully set forth herein.
e to do so.
him.
onstitutional rights by their
lt of the acts and omissions of Defendants, P.
48. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and other officers, unreasonably seized P. M. by forcefully
entering his home, detaining him and then seizing his person by use of force
when they had no caus
49. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and other officers, unreasonably seized P. M. by using excessive
force against
50. Defendants each had the opportunity to intervene, to protect P. M., and to
stop the unlawful conduct of each other and of other officers, but failed to do
so.
51. Defendants caused the violations of P. M.’s c
acts, direct and indirect, and by their omissions.
52. As a direct and proximate resu
M. suffered injury and damages.
10
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 10 of 36
53. The acts, conduct, omissions, and failures to act by Defendants were
recklessly indifferent to the rights of P. M. Their conduct warrants an
like manner in the future.
54.
jointly and
severally, for compensatory damages, for pu tive damages and for attorneys’ fees and
the costs of litigation, and for other relief as is appropriate under the law.
M. BY DEFENDANTS, IN VIOLATION OF TH
STATES CONSTITUTION
nts in Count II, Plaintiff P. M. states:
asonably searched P. M. and his home by
award of punitive damages to punish them and to deter them and others
from acting in a
If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff P. M. prays judgment against Defendants,
ni
COUNT II
UNREASONABLE SEARCH OF P.
E FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
42 U.S.C. §1983
For his cause of action against Defenda
55. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 54 as though fully set forth herein.
56. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and other officers, unre
forcefully entering his home and firing automatic weapons into his home
when they had no cause to do so.
11
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 11 of 36
57. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and other officers, unreasonably searched P. M. and his home by
rvene, to protect P. M., and to
.
indifferent to the rights of P. M. Their conduct warrants an
like manner in the future.
62.
t to
S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff P. M. nt against Defendants, jointly and
several nd
for attorneys’ fees and the costs of l other relief as is appropriate
under the law.
using excessive force against him.
58. Defendants each had the opportunity to inte
stop the unlawful conduct of each other and of other officers, but failed to do
so.
59. Defendants caused the violations of P. M.’s constitutional rights by their
acts, direct and indirect, and by their omissions.
60. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, P.
M. suffered injury and damages
61. The acts, conduct, omissions, and failures to act by Defendants were
recklessly
award of punitive damages to punish them and to deter them and others
from acting in a
The acts of Defendants resulted in actual damages to P. M.’s real and
personal property.
63. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuan
42 U.
prays judgme
ly, for actual damages, for compensatory damages, for punitive damages a
itigation, and for
12
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 12 of 36
COUNT III
LIABILITY O
F THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, MISSOURI FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST P. M.
nt City of Columbia in Count III,
e Department come in contact.
of
ively screen, train,
ly
ity of Columbia’s custom and practice and
ges to punish them and to deter them and others from acting
42 U.S.C. §1983
For his cause of action against Defenda
Plaintiff P. M. states:
64. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 63 as though fully set forth herein.
65. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri caused the constitutional violations
suffered by P. M. by its deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizenry
with whom the Columbia Polic
66. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri has and had a custom and practice
unlawfully executing search warrants, detaining citizens, and using force
against citizens in Columbia.
67. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri has failed to effect
supervise, discipline, and/or control the people it employs as police officers.
68. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri, executed warrants in an untime
manner making allegations stale and untrustworthy.
69. As a direct result of Defendant C
failures, P. M. suffered damages. Their conduct warrants an award of
punitive dama
in a like manner in the future.
13
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 13 of 36
70. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff P. M. nt against Defendant City of
C
attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, and for other relief as is appropriate under
the law.
COUNT IV
FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF P. M. BY DEFENDANTS
rence the allegations in paragraphs 1
ionally
inst his will.
ere
of his rights.
the rights and well-being of P. M. This conduct warrants an
prays judgme
olumbia, Missouri for compensatory damages, for punitive damages and for
COGNIZABLE UNDER STATE LAW
For his cause of action against Defendants in Count IV, Plaintiff P. M. states:
71. Plaintiff incorporates by this refe
through 70 as though fully set forth herein.
72. Defendants, at such time as previously set forth herein, intent
arrested, detained, and restrained P. M. against his will without probable
cause that P. M. had committed any crime.
73. The conduct of Defendants in exercising dominion and control over the
freedom of P. M. was an intentional restraint of P. M. aga
74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ detention of P. M., he
suffered damages to his emotional well-being through the unlawful and
malicious arrest and detention of his person. P. M. has also suffered sev
mental anguish in connection with the deprivation
75. The conduct of Defendants was outrageous because Defendants reckless
indifference to
14
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 14 of 36
award of punitive damages to punish Defendants and to deter then an
others from acting in a like manner in the future.
76. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of atto
d
rneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WH
compensatory damages, for punitive damages and for attorneys’ fees and the costs of
litigation, and for other relief as is appropriate under the law.
COUNT V
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
s reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
. M. was a child
ts
each other and with other officers, in the presence of P. M., repeatedly fired
EREFORE, Plaintiff P. M. prays judgment against Defendants for
UPON P. M. BY DEFENDANTS
For his cause of action against Defendants in Count V, Plaintiff P. M. states:
77. Plaintiff incorporates by thi
through 76 as though fully set forth herein.
78. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and with other officers, intentionally or recklessly caused
extreme emotional distress to P. M.
79. Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, that P
and in his home when the Defendants entered. Defendants were aware, or
should have been aware that P. M. was the owner of the both family pe
shot by Columbia police and that he was present and in close proximity
when Defendants engaged in the conduct set forth herein.
80. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
15
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 15 of 36
submachine guns and automatic weapons into his home, assaulted P.
shouted, yelled, and s
M.,
creamed at P. M., and/or failed to prevent other
e Defendants, as previously described, was
reasonable
s to suffer severe emotional distress as a result
of
was outrageous because of their reckless
nish Defendants and to deter then and others from acting in a
officers from doing so. Defendants then ordered P. M., at gunpoint, to sit, on
the floor, in the front entry way of his home while staring at his just-
executed family pet.
81. Each act and omission of th
extreme, outrageous, and shocking to the senses, was deliberately
indifferent to the health and welfare of P. M., and posed an un
risk of causing P. M. severe emotional distress.
82. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct posed an
unreasonable risk of causing P. M. severe emotional distress.
83. P. M. suffered and continue
of Defendants’ conduct. Such distress is medically diagnosable, is
sufficient severity to be medically significant, and has required P. M. to seek
and receive medical treatment.
84. The conduct of Defendants
indifference to the rights of others so as to warrant an award of punitive
damages to pu
like manner in the future.
85. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983.
16
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 16 of 36
WHERE for
ompensatory damages, for punitive damages and for attorneys’ fees and the costs of
litigation, and for other relief as is appropri te under the law.
COUNT VI
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF SWAT OFFICERS
laintiff P. M. states:
rth herein.
olice force.
ine its SWAT officers.
its
FORE, Plaintiff P. M. prays judgment against Defendants
c
a
BY THE COLUMBIA, MISSOURI POLICE DEPARTMENT
For his cause of action against Defendants in Count VI, P
86. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 85 as though fully set fo
87. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department has a duty to professionally
hire, train, educate, lead, and supervise its p
88. This duty ensures the safety and constitutional protection of citizens and
visitors of Columbia, Missouri.
89. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department failed to properly train,
supervise, control, and discipl
90. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department’s failure to properly train
SWAT officers resulted in constitutional wrongs against P. M. The
Department’s failure to train its SWAT officers reflects a deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of P. M.
91. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department failed to properly discipline,
supervise, and control its SWAT officers. This failure is demonstrated by
the Department’s deliberate indifference and tacit authorization of the
offensive and unconstitutional acts of its SWAT officers against P.M.
17
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 17 of 36
92. As a direct and proximate result of the Columbia, Missouri Police
Department’s failure to properly train, supervise, control, and discipline its
cipline its SWAT officers warrants an award of punitive
m
rneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983.
compensa osts of
litigation, and for other relief as is appropri te under the law.
COUNT VII
UNLAWFUL SEIZURE BY DETENTION OF MRS. WHITWORTH BY
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 1983
W
h herein.
, detaining her and then seizing her person by
use of force when they had no cause to do so.
SWAT officers, P. M. suffered. The gross failure to properly train, supervise,
control, and dis
damages to punish the Department and to deter them and others fro
acting in a like manner in the future.
93. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of atto
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff P. M. prays judgment against Defendants for
tory damages, for punitive damages and for attorneys’ fees and the c
a
DEFENDANTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH
42 U.S.C. §
For her cause of action against Defendants in Count VII, Plaintiff Mrs.
hitworth states:
94. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 93 as though fully set fort
95. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and other officers, unreasonably seized Mrs. Whitworth by
forcefully entering her home
18
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 18 of 36
96. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and other officers, unreasonably seized Mrs. Whitworth by us
excessive force a
ing
gainst her.
her and of other
hitworth’s constitutional rights
ts,
endants were
d of punitive damages to punish them and to deter them
to
, Plaintiff Brittany Whitworth prays judgment against
efendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, for punitive damages
nd for attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, and for other relief as is appropriate
under the law.
97. Defendants each had the opportunity to intervene, to protect Mrs.
Whitworth, and to stop the unlawful conduct of each ot
officers, but failed to do so.
98. Defendants caused the violations of Mrs. W
by their acts, direct and indirect, and by their omissions.
99. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendan
Mrs. Whitworth suffered injury and damages.
100. The acts, conduct, omissions, and failures to act by Def
recklessly indifferent to the rights of Mrs. Whitworth. Their conduct
warrants an awar
and others from acting in a like manner in the future.
101. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE
D
a
19
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 19 of 36
COUNT VIII
UNREASONABLE SEARCH OF MRS. WHITWORTH BY DEFENDANTS, IN HE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
nt VIII, Plaintiff Mrs.
ng together and in concert with
r
with
d
force against her.
and of other
orth’s constitutional rights
ts,
VIOLATION OF T
42 U.S.C. §1983
For her cause of action against Defendants in Cou
Whitworth states:
102. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 101 as though fully set forth herein.
103. Defendants, acting individually and acti
each other and other officers, unreasonably searched Mrs. Whitworth’s
home by forcefully entering her home and firing automatic weapons into he
home when they had no cause to do so.
104. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert
each other and other officers, unreasonably searched Mrs. Whitworth an
her home by using excessive
105. Defendants each had the opportunity to intervene, to protect Mrs.
Whitworth, and to stop the unlawful conduct of each other
officers, but failed to do so.
106. Defendants caused the violations of Mrs. Whitw
by their acts, direct and indirect, and by their omissions.
107. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendan
Mrs. Whitworth suffered injury and damages.
20
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 20 of 36
108. The acts, conduct, omissions, and failures to act by Defendants were
recklessly indifferent to the rights of Mrs. Whitworth. Their conduct
cting in a like manner in the future.
109 d
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Britta h prays judgment against
Defend r
punitive damages and for attorney s of litigation, and for other relief
COUNT IX
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST MRS. WHITWORTH
Pl
its deliberate indifference to the rights of the
citizenry with whom the Columbia Police Department comes in contact.
warrants an award of punitive damages to punish them and to deter them
and others from a
. The acts of Defendants resulted in actual damages to P. M.’s real an
personal property.
110. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983.
ny Whitwort
ants, jointly and severally, for actual damages, for compensatory damages, fo
s’ fees and the cost
as is appropriate under the law.
LIABILITY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, MISSOURI FOR THE
42 U.S.C. §1983
For her cause of action against Defendant City of Columbia in Count IX,
aintiff Mrs. Whitworth states:
111. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 110 as though fully set forth herein.
112. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri caused the constitutional violations
suffered by Mrs. Whitworth by
21
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 21 of 36
113. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri has and had a custom and practice of
unlawfully executing search warrants, detaining citizens, and using force
against citizens in Columbia.
114. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri has failed to effectively screen, tra
supervise, discipline, and/or control the people it employs as police officers
115. As a direct result of Defendant City of Colum
in,
.
bia’s custom and practice and
damages to punish them and to deter them and others
uant to
tiff Brittany Whitworth prays judgment against
Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri atory damages, for punitive
d
appropriate under the law.
COUNT X
FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF MRS. WHITWORTH BY
t X, Plaintiff Mrs.
failures, Mrs. Whitworth suffered damages. Their conduct warrants an
award of punitive
from acting in a like manner in the future.
116. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees purs
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plain
for compens
amages and for attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, and for other relief as is
DEFENDANTS COGNIZABLE UNDER STATE LAW
For her cause of action against Defendants in Coun
Whitworth states:
117. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 116 as though fully set forth herein.
22
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 22 of 36
118. Defendants, at such time as previously set forth herein, intentionally
arrested, detained, and restrained Mrs. Whitworth against her will without
probable cause that Mrs. Whitworth had committed any crime.
the
e suffered damages to her emotional well-being through the
rth
nts reckless
d of punitive damages to punish Defendants and to deter
o
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Britta h prays judgment against
Defendant s’ fees
and the costs of litigation, and for other reli f as is appropriate under the law.
COUNT XI
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON MRS. WHITWORTH BY DEFENDANTS
119. The conduct of Defendants in exercising dominion and control over
freedom of Mrs. Whitworth was an intentional restraint of Mrs. Whitworth
against her will.
120. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ detention of Mrs.
Whitworth, sh
unlawful and malicious arrest and detention of her person. Mrs. Whitwo
has also suffered severe mental anguish in connection with the deprivation
of her rights.
121. The conduct of Defendants was outrageous because Defenda
indifference to the rights and well-being of Mrs. Whitworth. This conduct
warrants an awar
then and others from acting in a like manner in the future.
122. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant t
42 U.S.C. §1983.
ny Whitwort
s for compensatory damages, for punitive damages and for attorney
e
23
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 23 of 36
For her cause of action against Defendants in Count XI, Plaintiff Mrs.
Whitworth states:
123. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 122 as though fully set forth herein.
124. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and with other officers, intentionally or recklessly caused
extreme emotional distress to Mrs. Whitworth.
125. Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, that Mrs. Whitworth
was the wife of Mr. Whitworth, the mother of P. M., and the owner of both
family pets shot by Columbia police and that she was present and in close
proximity when Defendants engaged in the conduct set forth herein.
126. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and with other officers, in the presence of Mrs. Whitworth,
repeatedly fired submachine guns and automatic weapons into her home,
assaulted Mr. Whitworth, shouted, yelled, and screamed at Mrs. Whitworth,
and/or failed to prevent other officers from doing so. Defendants then
ordered Mrs. Whitworth, at gunpoint, to sit, on the floor, in the front entry
way of her home while staring at her just-executed family pet.
127. Each act and omission of the Defendants, as previously described, was
extreme, outrageous, and shocking to the senses, was deliberately
indifferent to the health and welfare of Mrs. Whitworth, and posed an
unreasonable risk of causing Mrs. Whitworth severe emotional distress.
24
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 24 of 36
128. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct posed an
unreasonable risk of causing Mrs. Whitworth severe emotional distress.
129. Mrs. Whitworth suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress
as a result of Defendants’ conduct. Such distress is
medically diagnosable,
rs.
others so as to warrant an award of punitive
e future.
131 rsuant to
Defendants for compensatory damag damages and for attorneys’ fees
and the costs o law.
COUNT XII
LIGENT SUPERVISION OF SWAT OFFICERS BY THE COLUMBIA, MISSO RI POLICE DEPARTMENT
For her cause of action against Defendants in Count XII, Plaintiff Mrs. W
is of sufficient severity to be medically significant, and has required M
Whitworth to seek and receive medical treatment.
130. The conduct of Defendants was outrageous because of their reckless
indifference to the rights of
damages to punish Defendants and to deter then and others from acting in a
like manner in th
. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pu
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brittany Whitworth prays judgment against
es, for punitive
f litigation, and for other relief as is appropriate under the
NEG
U
hitworth states:
132. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 131 as though fully set forth herein.
25
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 25 of 36
133. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department has a duty to professionally
hire, train, educate, lead, and supervise its police force.
and
. Whitworth.
,
by
ent’s deliberate indifference and tacit authorization of the
s.
e its
fficers warrants an
in a like manner in the future.
134. This duty ensures the safety and constitutional protection of citizens
visitors of Columbia, Missouri.
135. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department failed to properly train,
supervise, control, and discipline its SWAT officers.
136. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department’s failure to properly train its
SWAT officers resulted in constitutional wrongs against Mrs
The Department’s failure to train its SWAT officers reflects a deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of Mrs. Whitworth.
137. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department failed to properly discipline
supervise, and control its SWAT officers. This failure is demonstrated
the Departm
offensive and unconstitutional acts of its SWAT officers against Mr
Whitworth.
138. As a direct and proximate result of the Columbia, Missouri Police
Department’s failure to properly train, supervise, control, and disciplin
SWAT officers, Mrs. Whitworth suffered. The gross failure to properly
train, supervise, control, and discipline its SWAT o
award of punitive damages to punish the Department and to deter them and
others from acting
26
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 26 of 36
139 rsuant to
Defendants for compensatory damag damages and for attorneys’ fees
an
UNREASONABLE SEARCH OF MR. WHITWORTH BY DEFENDANTS, IN IOLA O THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. §1983
W
bly searched Mr. Whitworth and his
d acting together and in concert with
portunity to intervene, to protect Mr.
. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pu
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brittany Whitworth prays judgment against
es, for punitive
d the costs of litigation, and for other relief as is appropriate under the law.
COUNT XIII
V TION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS T
For his cause of action against Defendants in Count XIII, Plaintiff Mr.
hitworth states:
140. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 139 as though fully set forth herein.
141. Defendants, acting individually and acting together and in concert with
each other and other officers, unreasona
home by forcefully entering his home, firing automatic weapons into his
home when they had no cause to do so.
142. Defendants, acting individually an
each other and other officers, unreasonably searched Mr. Whitworth by
using excessive force against him.
143. Defendants each had the op
Whitworth, and to stop the unlawful conduct of each other and of other
officers, but failed to do so.
27
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 27 of 36
144. Defendants caused the violations of Mr. Whitworth’s constitutional rights
their acts, direct and indirect, and by their om
by
issions.
nts,
heir conduct
n a like manner in the future.
erty.
148 uant to
, for actual damages, for compensatory damages, for
punitive damages and for attorneys’ sts of litigation, and for other relief
as is ap
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST MR. WHITWORTH 42 U.S.C. §1983
Pl
145. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defenda
Mr. Whitworth suffered injury and damages.
146. The acts, conduct, omissions, and failures to act by Defendants were
recklessly indifferent to the rights of Mr. Whitworth. T
warrants an award of punitive damages to punish them and to deter them
and others from acting i
147. The acts of Defendants resulted in actual damages to Mr. Whitworth’s real
and personal prop
. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees purs
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jonathan Whitworth prays judgment against
Defendants, jointly and severally
fees and the co
propriate under the law.
COUNT XIV
LIABILITY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, MISSOURI FOR THE
For his cause of action against Defendant City of Columbia in Count XIV,
aintiff Mr. Whitworth states:
28
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 28 of 36
149. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 148 as though fully set forth herein.
150. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri caused the constitutional violations
issouri has and had a custom and practice of
rs.
Their conduct warrants an
ke manner in the future.
154 uant to
, Missouri for compensatory damages, for punitive
amages and for attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, and for other relief as is
ppropriate under the law.
suffered by Mr. Whitworth by its deliberate indifference to the rights of the
citizenry with whom the Columbia Police Department comes in contact.
151. Defendant City of Columbia, M
unlawfully executing search warrants, detaining citizens, and using force
against citizens in Columbia.
152. Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri has failed to effectively screen, train,
supervise, discipline, and/or control the people it employs as police office
153. As a direct result of Defendant City of Columbia’s custom and practice and
failures, Mr. Whitworth suffered damages.
award of punitive damages to punish them and to deter them and others
from acting in a li
. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees purs
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jonathan Whitworth prays judgment against
Defendant City of Columbia
d
a
29
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 29 of 36
COUNT XV
ASSAULT AND BATTERY OF MR. WHITWORTH BY DEFENDANT JOHN DOE COGNIZABLE UNDER STATE LAW
W
1
th the
arm, apprehension
rth.
t, as
rutal. This conduct warrants an
nner in the future.
159 uant to
ed Defendant for compensatory damages, for punitive damages and for
For his cause of action against Defendants in Count XV, Plaintiff Mr.
hitworth states:
155. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs
through 154 as though fully set forth herein.
156. The acts of unidentified Defendant kicking Mr. Whitworth, as afore
described, were committed without just cause or provocation, and wi
intent to cause Mr. Whitworth offensive contact, bodily h
of offensive contact, and apprehension of bodily harm, constitute an
intentional assault and battery against Mr. Whitwo
157. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of unidentified Defendan
afore described, Mr. Whitworth suffered damages.
158. The acts of unidentified Defendant as afore described were wanton,
malicious, oppressive, excessive, and b
award of punitive damages to punish him and to deter him and others from
acting in a like ma
. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees purs
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jonathan Whitworth prays judgment against
unidentifi
30
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 30 of 36
attorneys’ fees and the costs of litiga her relief as is appropriate under
the law.
LIGENT SUPERVISION OF SWAT OFFICERS
BY THE COLUMBIA, MISSOURI POLICE DEPARTMENT
For his cause of action against Defendants in Count XVI, Plaintiff Mr.
Whitworth states:
160. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through159 as though fully set forth herein.
161. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department has a duty to professionally
hire, train, educate, lead, and supervise its police force.
162. This duty ensures the safety and constitutional protection of citizens and
visitors of Columbia, Missouri.
163. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department failed to properly train,
supervise, control, and discipline its SWAT officers.
164. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department’s failure to properly train its
SWAT officers resulted in constitutional wrongs against Mr. Whitworth.
The Department’s failure to train its SWAT officers reflects a deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of Mr. Whitworth.
165. The Columbia, Missouri Police Department failed to properly discipline,
supervise, and control its SWAT officers. This failure is demonstrated by
the Department’s deliberate indifference and tacit authorization of the
tion, and for ot
COUNT XVI
NEG
31
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 31 of 36
offensive and unconstitutional acts of its SWAT officers against Mr
Whitworth.
166. As a direct and proximate result of the Columbia, Missouri Police
Department’s failure to properly train, supervise, control, and discipline it
SWAT officers, Mr. Whitworth suffered. The gross failure to properly train
supervise, control, and discipline its SWAT
.
s
,
officers warrants an award of
ke manner in the future.
167 uant to
Defendants for compensatory dama damages and for attorneys’ fees
an
IFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
than
Whitw
ach other and
al property and
real estate (marital home) of Plaintiffs by the following acts:
punitive damages to punish the Department and to deter them and others
from acting in a li
. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees purs
42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jonathan Whitworth prays judgment against
ges, for punitive
d the costs of litigation, and for other relief as is appropriate under the law.
COUNT XVII
PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM OF PLAINT
For their cause of action against Defendants in Count XVII, Plaintiffs Jona
orth, Brittany Whitworth and P.M. state,
168. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 167 as though fully set forth herein.
169. Defendants acting individually, together and in concert with e
other officers ,willfully and intentionally damaged person
32
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 32 of 36
a. Defendants shot and killed Plaintiffs’ pet dog (Nala);
b. Defendants used assault weapons which wounded and caused serious
physical injuries to the second pet dog, a corgi mix, (Bruno) which caused
damaged by bullet impacts and ricochets from
o
ct, Plaintiffs
they are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant
ng the
ard
Plaintiffs to incur damages for veterinary treatment;
c. The marital residence was
impacts inside the house;
d. The Defendants caused damage to other areas inside the house and t
the outside of the residence during their occupancy of the premises;
e. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ condu
suffered damage to personal property and to real estate.
170. If Plaintiffs prevail,
to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
171. The actions of the Defendants were outrageous due to the Defendants’ evil
motive and/or reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs entitli
Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages under applicable law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against each Defendant for
medical and veterinary bills for the surviving dog, general damages for the value of
the dog that was shot and killed, damages for construction and injury of Plaintiffs’
real estate and personal property inside the residence and outside the residence all
with interest as permitted by law. If Plaintiffs prevail, they are entitled to an aw
of attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C, for compensatory damages, for punitive
33
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 33 of 36
damages and for attorneys’ fees and ation, and for other relief as is
ap
INST DEFENDANTS
Jo te,
cert with each other and
al estate
caused serious
for veterinary treatment;
m
premises;
to personal property and to real estate.
the costs of litig
propriate under the law.
COUNT XVIII
PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM OF PLAINTIFFS AGA
For their cause of action against Defendants in Count XVIII, Plaintiffs
nathan Whitworth, Brittany Whitworth and P.M. sta
172. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 171 as though fully set forth herein.
173. Defendants acting individually, together and in con
other officers ,negligently damaged personal property and re
(marital home) of Plaintiffs by the following acts:
a. Defendants shot and killed Plaintiffs’ pet dog (Nala);
b. Defendants used assault weapons which wounded and
physical injuries to the second pet dog, a corgi mix, (Bruno) which caused
Plaintiffs to incur damages
c. The marital residence was damaged by bullet impacts and ricochets fro
impacts inside the house;
d. The Defendants caused damage to other areas inside the house and to
the outside of the residence during their occupancy of the
e. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs
suffered damage
34
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 34 of 36
174. If Plaintiffs prevail, they are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuan
to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
175. The actions of the Defendants were outrageous due to the Defenda
t
nts’ evil
all
42 U.S.C, for compensatory damages, for punitive
damages and for attorneys’ fees and the cos igation, and for other relief as is
The undinstrume arties o
motive and/or reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs entitling the
Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages under applicable law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against each Defendant for
medical and veterinary bills for the surviving dog, general damages for the value of
the dog that was shot and killed, damages for construction and injury of Plaintiffs’
real estate and personal property inside the residence and outside the residence
with interest as permitted by law. If Plaintiffs prevail, they are entitled to an award
of attorneys fees pursuant to
ts of lit
appropriate under the law.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoingnt was served upon the attorneys or p f
reco the above action: By enclosing same in envelopes ad
rd in( ) dressed to
nvelopes in a U.S. Postouri
) By leaving same at the business office with a
) By transmitting the same by facsimile to him orher at _____ _.m. to facsimile number
By handing same to him or her On this ______ day of ____________________, 20____.
each at the address as disclosed in the pleadingsof record herein, with first class postage prepaidand by depositing said eOffice mailbox in Columbia, Miss
( clerk, secretary, or another attorney
(
___________________ ( )
____________________________________________________
d, Respectfully Submitte ____________________________________Milt Harper, #21538 Harper, Evans, Wade & Netemeyer
01 olumbia, MO 65201
73) 874-8961 - fax [email protected]
401 Locust Street, Ste. 4C(573) 442-1660 (5m Attorney for Plaintiffs
35
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 35 of 36
36
____________________________________Jeff Hilbrenner, #57727
& Netemeyer
olumbia, MO 65201
73) 874-8961 - fax
Harper, Evans, Wade401 Locust Street, Ste. 401 C(573) 442-1660 ([email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:10-cv-04208-NKL Document 1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 36 of 36