kohn v. hollywood, einhorn, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

STEVEN KOHN, RENEE LEAVY, ) REBECCA KOHN, HANNAH KOHN, ) SARA KOHN, LEAH KOHN, ) COMPLAINT HINDA KOHN (a minor), ABRAHAM KOHN ) (a minor), SIMHA KOHN (a minor), ) CLARA KOHN (a minor), SOPHIA KOHN ) (a minor), DAVID KOHN (a minor) ) ) Plaintiffs ) vs. ) ) City of Hollywood, a municipal corporation ) Jeffrey Sheffel, Joel Cantor, ) City of Hollywood Police Department, ) Robert Knapp, Chadwick Wagner, Alexander Perez, ) Grant Einhorn, Sandra Einhorn, Peter Bober ) Richard S. Blattner ) ) Defendants ) _______________________________________/ )

COMES NOW Plaintiffs by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby sue the

above named Defendants, and in support thereof allege as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff’s STEVEN KOHN (KOHN), RENEE LEAVY, REBECCA KOHN, HANNAH

KOHN, SARA KOHN, LEAH KOHN, HINDA KOHN (a minor) ABRAHAM KOHN (a minor)

SIMHA KOHN (a minor) CLARA KOHN (a minor) SOPHIA KOHN (a minor) and DAVID

KOHN (a minor), at all times material to this action, were residents of Broward County, Florida.

2. Defendant ROBERT KNAPP (“Defendant Knapp”), at all times material to this action,

was a Detective of the Defendant, City of Hollywood, and at all times mentioned in this

complaint was acting under color of law and color of their authority as a police detective of

Defendant City of Hollywood.

3. Defendant ALEXANDER PEREZ (“Defendant Perez”), at all times material to this

action, was an officer of the Defendant City of Hollywood, and at all times mentioned in this

complaint was acting under color of law and color of their authority as a police officer of

Defendant City of Hollywood.

4. Defendant CHADWICK WAGNER (“Defendant Wagner”), is the police chief of

Defendant City of Hollywood and at all times mentioned in this complaint was acting under

color of law and color of his authority as police chief of Defendant City of Hollywood.

5. Defendant CHADWICK WAGNER, as police chief of Defendant, City of Hollywood, is

responsible for the acts of the police officers of Defendant, City of Hollywood, while in the

performance of their duties as police officers for Defendant, City of Hollywood. Furthermore, he

is responsible for the ongoing training of the police officers of Defendant, City of Hollywood, to

ensure that those officers are competent to carry out their assigned duties.

6. Defendant JEFFREY SHEFFEL (“Defendant Sheffel”), at all times material to this

action, was the City Attorney for the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida.

7. Defendant JOEL CANTOR (“Defendant Cantor”), at all times material to this action, was

an attorney for the City of Hollywood and/or the Hollywood Police Department and was a

resident of Broward County, Florida.

8. Defendant PETER BOBER, at all times material to this action, was the Mayor for the

City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida.

9. Defendant RICHARD S. BLATTNER, at all times material to this action, was a

Commissioner for the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida

10. Defendant CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a municipal corporation (“Defendant

Hollywood”), at all times material to this action, was a City of Broward County, Florida.

11. Defendant HOLLYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT (“Defendant HPD”), at all times

material to this action, was an agency of the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida.

12. At all times material to this action, the applicable, aforementioned Defendants were

acting under color of state law.

13. Defendant GRANT EINHORN (“Defendant Einhorn”), at all times material to this

action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

14. Defendant SANDRA EINHORN (“Defendant Einhorn”), at all times material to this

action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

II. JURISDICTION

15. This is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States of America.

16. This complaint seeks, inter alia, damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 42

U.S.C.A. § 1988 for violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights.

17. This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of 42 United States Code, Sections

1983, 1985, and 1988. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law

torts claims pursuant to 28 United States Code, Section 1367 as they arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence as Plaintiff’s federal claims.

18. This action seeks monetary damages against Defendants in their official and individual

capacities in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), exclusive of costs, interest and

attorney's fees, as well as injunctive relief.

19. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been met, including, but not limited

to, a Notice of Claim setting forth the name and post office address of the claimants and of their

attorneys, the nature of the claim, the time when, the place where, and the manner in which the

claim arose, and the items of damage and injuries claimed to have been sustained so far as then

practicable, was served upon Defendants.

III. BACKGROUND

This is an action for damages sustained by citizens of the United States against

Hollywood City, Hollywood City Police Department, employee police officers of Hollywood

City, employees of Hollywood City government, the Mayor of Hollywood City, the Chief of

Police of Hollywood City, a Commissioner of Hollywood City, and two Hollywood City

residents.

On June 8, 2011, while the Plaintiffs were preparing for a religious holiday celebration

that was taking place that day, 12 armed Hollywood Police officers arrived with an unlawfully

obtained search warrant, demanding entry to the home. Entry was granted under threat of

incarceration. The officers unlawfully detained the family, and proceeded to unlawfully search

for and seize all computers, financial records, legal records, cameras, telephones, diaries,

photographs, and other papers of all of the Plaintiffs. The officers unlawfully conducted a search

for drugs as well.

The search and seizure warrant was obtained as a result of cooperative efforts undertaken

between Defendants Grant Einhorn and Sandra Einhorn, and Defendants Knapp, Perez, Sheffel,

Cantor, Wagner, Bober, Blattner, Hollywood City, and Hollywood City Police Department,

whose combined purpose was to violate the Civil Rights of the Plaintiffs under color of law.

Defendant Sandra Einhorn knowingly falsely accused Plaintiff Steven Kohn of violating

a restraining order that she knew did not exist, and then later lied about it under oath.

Defendants Perez and Knapp knowingly violated common police practices by refusing to take

reasonable efforts to determine the terms and status of the alleged restraining order, in violation

of the Plaintiff Steven Kohn’s civil rights. Defendant Perez knowingly violated common police

practices regarding the issuance of a subpoena by refusing to ascertain whether the evidence

sought could possibly lead to a conviction under the statute cited, in violation of Plaintiff Steven

Kohn’s civil rights. Defendant Perez determined that an innocent cultural and religious act

undertaken by Plaintiff Steven Kohn was an act of harassment, in violation of Plaintiff Steven

Kohn’s civil rights. Defendant Knapp perjured as the Affiant in order to obtain a search warrant,

in violation of the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp caused the search warrant

to be executed, violating the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp caused the

search warrant to be executed on a major religious holiday, violating the civil rights of all of the

Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp caused the search warrant to be exceeded by allowing and directing

a search for drugs, when the warrant was allegedly only for the purposes of seeking evidence of

cyber stalking, in violation of the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs. Defendants Knapp, Sheffel,

Bober, Cantor, Wagner, Hollywood City Police Department, upon being provided on at least

seven occasions with indisputable proof that the warrant was based on non-existent probable

cause, failed to return the Plaintiffs property, violating the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs.

Defendants Knapp, Sheffel, Bober, Blattner, Cantor, Wagner, Hollywood City and Hollywood

City Police Department conspired to retain Plaintiffs property in order to prevent the Plaintiffs

from being able to complete a competent defense in a lawsuit initiated by Defendants Grant

Einhorn and Sandra Einhorn, and timed the return of the property to coincide with the conclusion

of the legal proceedings of that lawsuit, in violation of the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs.

Defendants Sheffel and Cantor conspired to maliciously file a lawsuit against Plaintiff Steven

Kohn that was to be executed during the time period when Hollywood Police Department was in

illegal possession of Plaintiff’s legal and financial records, in violation of Plaintiff Steven

Kohn’s civil rights. Plaintiffs bring suit against Chief Chadwick Wagner as the supervisory

officer responsible for the conduct, training and supervision of police officers under his charge.

Defendant Wagner failed to properly train police officers in the appropriate methods of

determining and prosecuting violations of restraining orders and cyber stalking laws. Defendant

Wagner failed to adequately discipline and supervise officers in regards to their propensity to

allow, supervise and commit illegal searches against the citizenry and to have appropriate

policies, procedures, and practices in place regarding the appropriate methods of lawful search

and seizures.

IV. FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

20. Defendant Grant Einhorn was accused by Plaintiff Steven Kohn of placing pamphlets of

an ethnically and religiously disparaging nature on the cars of guests attending the engagement

party of Plaintiff Rebecca Kohn, which took place on November 27, 2010. The pamphlets were

entitled “Are the Kohn’s Jewish?” and questioned the Kohns’ Jewishness based upon some of

their culturally Arabic practices and based upon an internet based Islamic clothing business that

two of the Kohn children were engaged in, using faux Muslim Facebook personas to promote.

Twenty two of the pamphlets were recovered by the Kohns before the party ended.

21. Plaintiff Kohn called the police, who determined the pamphlets were not harassing

because they were free speech.

22. Plaintiffs, seeking a way to find peace with their neighbors while also not offering any

legitimacy to what was perceived as Einhorns’ anti-Muslim sentiments, presented them with a

gift.

23. Einhorn called the police, saying they thought the gift was harassing. The police

determined that the gift was an act of harassment, and opened an investigation under case

number 33-1011-187374, which is the focus of this lawsuit.

24. After the Einhorns rebuffed the Kohns gift offering, Plaintiff Steven Kohn wrote a

message to Defendant Sandra Einhorn on Facebook pleading for a peaceful resolution.

25. On December 1, 2010, Sandra Einhorn wrote a letter to Defendant Commissioner

Blattner of Hollywood City, showing him the Facebook message that Defendant Kohn sent.

(Exhibits pp1-2). The letter, signed by Sandra Einhorn in her professional capacity, both opens

and closes reminding Commissioner Blattner of their professional relationship, and then asks

him for several forms of intervention that are not legal for him to provide, after implying that a

quid pro quo is in place:

a) Language that implies that favors are being traded:

"Grant and I have gone out of our way to work with the City and Code Compliance in order to help the situation from the City's end, with code violations and such. I would expect the same support from the City for us."

b) Language that directly requests Commissioner Blattner use coercive influence to

cause the police to target the Defendants: "As our City Commissioner I plead for you

to please help my neighbors and I in bringing these people to justice."

c) Implied request for financial help in securing an attorney: "We have been forced to

hire an attorney we really can't afford." "Please help us!"

26. The next morning, December 2, 2010, Commissioner Blattner arranged a meeting

consisting of the Chief of Police Wagner, City Attorney Sheffel, Code Enforcement Chief Milan,

City Manager Benson, and himself, in order to find a way to help Sandra Einhorn. (Exhibits pp1,

3-7). The specific subject of the meeting was apparently the Facebook message, the context of

which is clearly not official business of the city. City Attorney Jeff Sheffel stated in an email the

morning of 12/2/2010 that “I am anxious to meet to discuss an appropriate strategy.” (Exhibits

p7).

27. As a result of the aforementioned meeting, Hollywood Police department opened a

criminal investigation of the gift that Kohn gave, which ultimately resulted in the illegal search

and seizure described herein.

28. Commissioner Blattner, City Manager Benson, and Code Chief Clay Milan have been

named as co-Respondents in HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8, Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6,

Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9 for their role in this matter as it relates to discriminatory

code enforcement practices. (Exhibits pp8-14).

29. Defendants Grant and Sandra Einhorn sought the removal of Kohns pets via a private

nuisance lawsuit (CACE 10-048282(18)) that was filed less than 3 weeks after the

aforementioned letter meeting, after City of Hollywood entered into a contract with Sandra

Einhorn to provide up to $55,000 worth of services to the City.

30. The Defendant Sandra Einhorn knowingly made a false report to Hollywood Police

Department, with the intent and outcome of violating Plaintiffs state and federal protection from

unreasonable search and seizure, and causing a direct interference with an injunction hearing in

Broward County Circuit Court taking place on August 3-4 2011. (CASE NO.: 10-048282)

31. Defendant Sandra Einhorn lied under oath regarding her false report to Hollywood Police

Department.

32. Hollywood City government, on 8 documented occasions, conducted searches within the

curtilage of Kohn’s property that were enabled or caused by the Einhorns, who allowed and

encouraged city employees to stand on objects in order to peer over the 6 foot privacy fence that

rests on the property line. The 8 occasions are 7/20/10, 8/24/10, 9/7/10, 9/16/10, 9/29/10,

11/24/10, 12/1/10, and 12/3/10.

33. Hollywood City government, acting in collusion with Defendant Sandra Einhorn,

conspired to violate Plaintiffs state and federal protection from unreasonable search and seizure

and interfered with the outcome of the aforementioned lawsuit by handicapping the Plaintiff’s

ability to mount a proper defense in CACE 10048282(18).

34. This was accomplished on June 8, 2011 via an unconstitutional search and seizure of the

Plaintiff’s business, legal strategies, and all evidence that was to be used in his defense in the

nuisance lawsuit.

35. The warrant was issued under Hollywood Case Number 33-1011-187374, showing that

the giving the gift to Einhorn was the genesis this action.

36. The search warrant was based upon a false report made by Defendant Sandra Einhorn,

that a valid restraining order existed against Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, and that Steven Kohn had

violated the active restraining order against her.

37. On January 7, 2011, Defendant Sandra Einhorn petitioned (DVCE 11-134) to obtain an

injunction for a protective order against Plaintiff Steven Kohn. A hearing date was set without a

temporary injunction being granted. (Exhibits p15). On January 18, 2011, the hearing was

continued until April 15, 2011. The form that was used to set the hearing was the same form that

is used to extend a temporary restraining order, had one been previously granted. Hon. Judge

Michael Kaplan explained to both parties that the order merely maintained the status quo, and

that since no temporary restraining order had been granted, there was no temporary order to

extend. (Exhibits pp16-18).

38. Defendant Sandra Einhorn understood Hon. Judge Kaplan’s explanation as indicated on a

January 25, 2011 Police Report authored by HPD Officer Ferguson, which reported Defendant

Sandra Einhorn stating "that she will go to court to obtain an injunction order from the judge."

(Exhibits p19).

39. On January 27, 2011, responding to concerns Plaintiff Steven Kohn expressed,

Hon.Judge Kaplan issued an order vacating the order of January 18, 2011 and set the hearing for

April 15, 2011. (Exhibits p20).

40. At the hearing on April 15, 2011, the Petition was dismissed (Exhibits p21).

41. Instantly after the hearing on April 15, 2011, Sandra Einhorn re-Petitioned on case

DVCE 11-2439. A hearing was set for May 2, 2011 without setting a temporary injunction

(Exhibit), and was dismissed on May 2, 2011 after a full hearing.

42. The allegations made in DVCE 11-2439 were far in excess of those contained within

Hollywood Case Number 33-1011-187374, and were not deemed by the Court to constitute

stalking even if true (else the temporary injunction would have been granted).

43. On April 24, 2011, Hollywood Police Officer Plummer (badge #3221) authored a report

saying that Defendant Sandra Einhorn stated that she had a temporary restraining order against

Mr. Kohn on case DVCE 11-2439. (Exhibits p85) A recording of Defendant Sandra Einhorn’s

call to HPD from the previous day (April 23) also exists wherein she repeats that she has a

restraining order against Mr. Kohn.

44. Sometime before February 23, 2011, Defendant Sandra Einhorn provided Hollywood

Police Department with a copy of the January 18, 2011 order, as evidenced by:

a. In January 2012, Plaintiff Steven Kohn made a public records request of

Hollywood Police Department, specifically asking for “the complaint from Sandra

Einhorn stating she had a restraining order that was being violated.” (Exhibits

p22, last paragraph under item 3).

b. On January 11, 2012, Hollywood Police sent an email stating “Attached please

find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part of your public records

request.” (Exhibits pp. 23-26).

c. Comparing Kohn’s copy (Exhibits p18) to the copy that Hollywood Police

provided (Exhibits p26), it is unmistakable that the court stamp is in a different

location on HPD’s copy, and there is no time stamp showing it was a copy of the

one entered into the file. The only two copies of the order that lack a time stamp

are the copies given in open Court to the Petitioner (Sandra Einhorn) and

Respondent (Steven Kohn). Therefore, the only possible source of the Hollywood

Police Department copy is Defendant Sandra Einhorn.

45. On February 23, 2011, the Broward County Circuit Court held a hearing on CASE NO.:

10-048282, and elected to not grant a temporary injunction to remove Kohn’s pets at that time.

Immediately after the hearing, at 1:46PM, Hollywood Police Detective Alex Perez ran an NCIC

report and found the aforementioned order of January 18, 2011. (Exhibits p25).

46. The NCIC report explicitly states: "Do not search, detain, or arrest based solely on this

record. Contact entering agency to confirm status and terms of protection order." (Exhibits p27).

47. Defendant Perez took no actions to confirm the status or terms of the protection order.

Had Defendant Perez either looked at the docket in DVCE 11-134 or looked for the original

restraining order that was allegedly being extended (which would have been necessary in order

to know precisely what the terms were), he would have seen that no such order had been granted.

48. On March 30, 2011, Detective Perez visited the Einhorns at their home, and obtained

from them emails that Sandra Einhorn claimed had been sent from Kohn’s unsecured wireless

network.

49. On April 29, 2011, based upon materials provided by Einhorn, and without verifying the

existence or terms of a restraining order, Defendant Perez (Badge #2064) issued a subpoena to

Comcast to learn the origin of the emails, basing his request on suspected violations of a

restraining order that he knew or should have known did not exist. (Exhibits pp 28-32)

50. On June 1, 2011, in the “General Affidavit and Application for Search Warrant”,

Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, was accused by Officers of the City of Hollywood of violating of Florida

Statute 784.048 (1)(d)(4) entitled Aggravated Stalking in sworn testimony under oath by

Defendant Detective Robert Knapp Badge #2536.

51. The Affidavit requested that the search warrant authorize the search of emails of

Plaintiff’s Rebecca Kohn, Hannah Kohn, and (14 year old) Hinda Kohn for possible violations of

felony cyber stalking after injunction. Defendant Knapp then executed an affidavit in order to

obtain a search warrant which was executed on June 8, 2011. The affidavit alleges on its face the

following:

On 01/07/2011, victim Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn, restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interfering with, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18/2011 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this order on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on 02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed.

(Emphasis Added) (Affidavit is attached as Exhibits pp 33-41).

52. The Affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a reckless

disregard for the truth as Sandra Einhorn stated under oath that the Hollywood Police

Department knew she had not obtained a restraining order, and simple following of standard

operating procedures would have revealed that no such order existed.

53. The Affiant, Detective Robert Knapp, blatantly disregarded the truth when Sandra

Einhorn specifically discussed with Hollywood Police that she did not have a restraining order

against Steven Kohn and yet he still made a representation that he verified the restraining order.

Supra.

54. The Affidavit lists Florida State 933.18(6) and Florida Statute 933.02 as grounds for

issuance of the Search Warrant. However, the underlying felony, aggravated stalking pursuant to

Fla. Stat. 784.048(1)(d)(4) that Defendant had been alleged to have violated, required an

injunction to be in place. Because there was no valid injunction, the warrant rested on perilous

probable cause grounds.

55. The Affidavit contained false and manufactured statements made in order to achieve a

willful and reckless violation of Steven Kohn’s Fourth Amendment right to be protected from

unreasonable searches and seizures

56. The Search Warrant was subject to the following requirements:

a. Must be issued by a neutral disinterested magistrate. Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175;

b. Those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate the existence of

probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension of

conviction for particular offense Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175; and

c. Warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized as well as the place to be

searched. Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979).

57. The Fourth Amendment, the Florida Constitution, and Florida Statutes (§ 923.04 and

923.05) provide that no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or

affirmation, in particular describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be

seized. A search warrant is issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the

legitimate object of the search is located in a particular place. Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204

(1981). The reason cited must be sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a crime has been

committed, and, as long as a neutral magistrate has a substantial basis for concluding that a

search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the probable cause requirement is satisfied.

Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1991).

58. A basic principle is that searches and seizures inside a constitutionally protected area

without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984).

59. Statutes and rules authorizing searches and seizures are strictly construed and affidavits

and warrants issued pursuant to such authority must meticulously conform to statutory and

constitutional provisions. State v. Quigg, 17 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1944).

60. The reviewing court, judge, or magistrate must make sure that a magistrate had a

substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S.

727 (1984); McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Whether an affidavit

supporting a search warrant sufficiently supports a probable cause finding must be determined

within its four corners. State v. Starks, 633 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The burden is on the

state to prove that the police had probable cause for a search and seizure. Doctor v. State, 596 So.

2d 442 (Fla. 1992).

61. A defendant in the proceeding has the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte issuance of a search warrant to challenge the

truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant. Mason v. State,

375 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Jacobs, 320 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

62. Under the circumstances in this matter, the search warrant would have been issued

pursuant to Section 933.02(3) which provides that a search warrant may be issued when any

property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.

63. Even where the search warrant can be found properly issued, an exception exists to

evidence seized which is “testimonial” or “communicative” in nature; such evidence is

considered tantamount to compelling the defendant to become a witness against himself in

violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. State v. Kircheis, 269

So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

64. The target of the affidavit and warrant in this matter were statements allegedly made in

emails by Steven Kohn which were communicative in nature showing violations of aggravated

stalking. Under Kircheis, such search would be unlawful because of the nature of the items

sought.

65. Further, regardless of whether the emails sought after by the City of Hollywood’s Police

Department were of the same communicative nature of those described in Kircheis, the affidavit

is completely void of any meaningful probable cause.

66. Steven Kohn challenged the truth of the information contained in the warrant Affidavit.

67. Particularly, the Affiant left out the fact that at the time the search warrant was sought

and signed, alleged victim Einhorn and the Affiant both knew that the temporary injunction that

was the crux of the alleged law violation was denied, as Einhorn had informed the police of this

fact. This is contrary to the Affiant’s sworn statement in which Affiant verified that a valid

injunction existed, and was in place continuously from 1/18/11 through 4/15/11, and wherein the

Affiant implied that he knew the terms and conditions of the injunction.

68. Under oath, Sandra Einhorn stated the following:

Q: And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if you have a restraining order against Steve Kohn?

A: The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining order against Steve Kohn.

Q: So they knew that you were unsuccessful? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Did they -- did they – A: Or that's what I told them. Q: And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid

restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A: No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very

easily figure out for themselves one way or another. Q: So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining

order against Mr. Kohn? A: That is correct. Q: In fact, you told the police you did not have valid restraining order because

it was denied? A: I told -- I called the police and I -- actually lost when the decision was

made that I did not receive it. I did call Hollywood Police to let them know that I did not receive the restraining order. Yes, that is correct.

Einhorn v. Kohn, 10-048282 (18) (2011). (Attached is a copy of pages 197,198 of the trial transcript in relevant part as Exhibits pp.86-88).

69. The direct result of Detective Knapp’s falsely reporting that a valid restraining order

existed in his affidavit to the magistrate was the execution of an unconstitutional search and

seizure warrant against Plaintiff Steven Kohn and his entire family, conducted by 12 armed

Hollywood Police officers, causing extreme emotional distress to all members of the Kohn

family, disrupting the family’s observance of a major religious holiday, causing the complete

confiscation of Mr. Kohn’s business, financial records, legal strategies, medical records, the

school work of his children, his adult children and minor children’s online job materials, all of

the Plaintiff’s records and plans that were going to be used in his defense in the lawsuit initiated

by the Einhorns, and all of the telephones, cameras, pictures, and diaries of every member of the

household.

70. Steven Kohn was entitled to an evidentiary hearing (referred to as a "Franks hearing;"

Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667].) on this issue upon a "substantial

showing" that:

a. The affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a reckless disregard for the truth; and b. The affidavit's remaining contents are reevaluated after the false statements are excised to see if, as corrected, there is still sufficient evidence to justify a finding of probable cause. Frank v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667, 672]; precluding the cross-examination of the affiant until the necessary showing is made. See also People v. Wilson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3rd 742, 747; Theodor v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3rd 77, 103; People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3rd 67, 78; and People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297; People v. Lewis et al. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 989); and c. The affidavit contains information that is the direct product of a Fourth Amendment violation. (See People v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073.)

71. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were repeatedly

made aware that the search and seizure were illegal, they declined to make a decision to return

Mr. Kohn’s property, which included the legal defenses, strategies and evidence Mr. Kohn

intended to use in the Einhorn lawsuit (CASE NO.: 10-048282), and money-earning capability of

the Plaintiff, until the very same day that the hearing concluded in CASE NO.: 10-048282 on

August 4, 2011. Although the decision was made on that date, the property still was not

returned.

72. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were made aware

that the search and seizure were illegal, and after seeing Mr. Kohn’s financial status, income

earning capability, and legal strategies on the illegally seized electronic items, the City of

Hollywood on July 13, 2011 then filed a $161,487 lawsuit against Mr. Kohn (Case number:

CACE 11-016210) resting on the same or similar facts as were being litigated in the August 3-4th

hearing in CASE NO.: 10-048282. (CACE 11-016210 was subsequently dismissed on April 2,

2012 after the Circuit Court found that even if Mr. Kohn’s keeping of pets had actually violated

the subject ordinance, the maximum penalty allowable by law was only $100, an amount below

the threshold of jurisdiction for the Circuit Court).

73. By filing the lawsuit on July 13, 2011, Mr. Kohn would have been expected to be served

on July 14, making his reply due on August 3, 2011; the first day of the August 3-4 hearing in

CACE 10-048282(18). This was another action by Hollywood City designed to interfere with

that proceeding.

74. On August 8, 2011, after the hearing of August 3-4 during which time Mr. Kohn did not

have access to the evidence he intended to use in his defense (due to Hollywood’s unlawful

possession of it), the Circuit Court in case CACE 10-048282(18) granted an injunction against

Mr. Kohn, causing him to remove his pets. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 allows for a

Motion for Rehearing within 10 days of rendition of the order, making August 18, 2011 the last

day that such a Motion could have been filed.

75. The next business day that Detective Knapp was at work after August 18 was Tuesday

August 23, 2011, the selfsame day that the Kohns’ property was made available to the Kohns for

pickup. In other words, Hollywood Police Department waited until the day the hearing in the

civil case CACE 10-048282(18) was completed before deciding to return Kohn’s property, and

waited 19 additional days, until the day after the time had expired for a Motion for Rehearing to

actually allow the property to be retrieved.

76. On August 16, 2011 while still illegally retaining possession of Kohn’s property even

after having allegedly decided to return it, and with only 2 days remaining for Mr. Kohn to file a

Motion for Rehearing in CACE 10-048282(18), Hollywood City filed a Motion for Final

Summary Judgment [for $161,487] in the case they had filed on July 13, 2011, for Mr. Kohn’s

alleged violation of a minor city ordinance that has a $100 maximum fine built into it if violated.

77. Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, filed a Motion to Quash the search warrant as unconstitutional

due to the absolute nonexistence of probable cause, and after argument by counsel, and without

opposition from the City of Hollywood, the motion was granted by Broward County Circuit

Judge Martin J. Bidwill on December 16, 2011. (Exhibits p52-58)

78. Hollywood Police Detective Robert Knapp’s report of December 15, 2011, submitted as

testimony to Judge Martin J. Bidwill on December 16, 2011, stated that he had ignored the

instructions in the NCIC printout and relied exclusively on the NCIC printout in order to obtain a

search warrant (Exhibits p45):

“After reading the teletype indicating the effective date of the restraining order issued by Judge Michael G. Kaplan, I authored a search warrant of the Kohn’s residence seeking any and all electronic equipment or storage devices capable of accessing the internet and/or the sending and receiving of electronic mail.”

79. Detective Knapp was fully aware that a business was being seized, stating on page 6 of

the search warrant affidavit (Exhibits p38):

"In light of concerns that might arise that the listed home business may be hindered without the use of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that every effort will be made to expedite the forensic examination and return any system(s) expeditiously if after the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).”

80. On the morning of June 8, 2011, Defendant, Kohn’s birthday and the Jewish Holiday of

Shavuot, while the Kohn family was preparing their holiday meal, 12 armed Hollywood Police

officers executed the search warrant based on the alleged violation of a non-existent restraining

order that Defendant Sandra Einhorn had presented to HPD as a valid restraining order. (Search

warrant and affidavit are shown as Exhibits pp33-44) Defendant Einhorn had claimed that the

“order” had been violated via the sending of emails to her—emails that were sent via an open

unsecured wireless network housed in Kohn’s home, which Einhorn had access to due to the

close proximity of the houses. During the June 8, 2011 execution of this warrant, all records that

Kohn had which could have been used in his Defense in the Einhorn lawsuit (CACE

10048282(18)) were taken, including all backups. Also seized were Kohn’s entire business, all

telephones, all handheld cameras, home movies (including Kohn’s wedding video), and all of the

Kohn children’s school work as well as all of the personal computers, cameras, telephones, and

records (financial records, medical records, etc.) of everyone living in the house, both adults and

minors. (see Exhibits pp47-51 for inventory list).

81. The search warrant was granted on June 1 2011, and on its face indicates that the

urgency of the matter is such that "...serving this warrant and making the search in the daytime or

nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demand or require.."

82. In spite of the apparent urgency of the warrant on its face, Defendants waited an entire

week, until the first day of the major Jewish Holiday of Shavuot, to execute it. Based on prior

actions of the Defendants against the Plaintiffs cultural and religious practices, Plaintiffs allege

that this timing was intentional, designed to disrupt the family Holiday and was not coincidental.

83. The Kohn family was so accustomed to being visited by Hollywood Police or Code

Enforcement on religious holidays that Plaintiff Renee Leavy can be clearly heard on a video

recorded by the City of Hollywood Police Department during their search, very upset, shouting

before even coming to the door on June 8 that the police have been at the door “every holiday,

every holiday since we’ve moved in!”

84. Plaintiff Leavy also stated to Defendant Knapp, at the front door right after the Warrant

was read “She brought her stalking charge to court and you know the judge dismissed it twice”

to which Defendant Knapp’s companion (Sgt Bien) replied “That has nothing to do with why

we’re here, okay? That has nothing to do with why we’re here.”

85. A search for drugs was also conducted in an unconstitutional expansion of the warrant

even if the warrant had been valid. No drugs were found.

86. The search warrant was quashed as unconstitutional due to the absolute nonexistence of

probable cause, by the order of Broward County Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill, on December 16,

2011, without any objection from Hollywood Police department. The Motion to Quash and the

Order are both shown in full in Exhibits pp52-58. Included in the Motion is an excerpt from

Sandra Einhorn’s testimony from the August 3-4, 2011 hearing in CACE 10048282(18), wherein

she testified under oath in Court stating:

Q: And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if you have a restraining order against Steve Kohn?

A: The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining order against Steve Kohn.

Q: So they knew that you were unsuccessful? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Did they -- did they – A: Or that's what I told them. Q: And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid

restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A: No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very

easily figure out for themselves one way or another. Q: So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining

order against Mr. Kohn? A: That is correct.

87. The aforementioned December 15, 2011 report authored by Detective Knapp and

presented in Court the following day, stated:

“On August 04, 2011, I confirmed that the listed restraining order against Mr. Kohn had erroneously been issued by the Courts and also that the entered teletype confirmation had remained in the system even after an order to vacate the restraining order had been issued. This was confirmed by Broward Clerk of Courts Domestic Violence Manager Tonya Green. She advised that the listed restraining order teletype information was issued in error and to prove that it was issued in error, she showed me a copy of the listed order vacated on 01/27/2011. Based upon this information and the fact that the listed search warrant relied on the active restraining order, I prepared for the release of all of the listed seized items to Mr. Kohn on 08/20/2011.”

(Exhibits p45).

88. Detective Knapp, as well as Mayor Peter Bober, City Attorney Jeff Sheffel and City

Attorney Joel Cantor, had already repeatedly received the very same information (the copy of the

1/27/2011 vacating order) from Plaintiff Kohn on 6/27, 6/28, 6/29, 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, and 7/20/2011

(Exhibits pp59-77). On 7/5/2011 City Attorney Jeff Sheffel asked City Attorney Joel Cantor and

Police Chief Chadwick Wagner to show him the alleged restraining order. (Exhibits p72). The

meeting took place on 7/7/2011 (Exhibits p76).

89. Although the Defendants had the Plaintiffs computers in their possession for 8 weeks

before deciding to return them, the computers were never formally searched and no evidence was

gathered. Based on this fact, it would appear that the seizure of the property was the actual goal,

and there was no intention to actually conduct a true police investigation.

90. These are the unpleasant and indisputable facts:

a) After Hollywood officials already had the proof they would later rely upon to return

the property of the Kohn family, they waited 6 additional weeks to make the decision

to return the property—the day that the hearing concluded on August 4, 2011 where

Sandra Einhorn and Grant Einhorn sued for an injunction against Steven Kohn.

b) The Court issued the Order granting injunction on August 8, 2011.

c) Hollywood officials elected to keep the property for almost 3 additional weeks after

deciding to return it, until exactly after the 10 day time period had expired during

which the Plaintiffs could have filed a Motion for Rehearing under Local Rule 1.530.

d) Hollywood’s City Attorney, after knowing for certain that they were illegally holding

Kohn’s property, business, and records (including his bank records), filed a lawsuit

for $161,437.02 against Kohn on July 13, 2011, and then moved for Summary

Judgment on the $161,437.02 on August 16, 2011 (for what the court ultimately

confirmed was an offense with a maximum fine of $100), while knowingly still

illegally holding all of Kohn’s records.

e) Hollywood City officials, working in collusion with Sandra Einhorn, held the seized

materials for precisely the amount of time necessary to prevent the Plaintiffs from

properly defending themselves in the lawsuit initiated by the Einhorns, and to prevent

the Plaintiffs from properly defending themselves in the lawsuit initiated by the City.

91. After City Attorney Jeffrey Sheffel asked the Chief of Police, Chadwick Wagner, and

City Attorney, Joel Cantor, (on 7/5/11) to show him “whether there was a restraining order in

place at the time the actions alleged in the warrant took place”, after he was confronted by a

political activist by phone about the illegal search and seizure, Mr. Sheffel again asked Police

Chief Wagner and Attorney Cantor on 7/28/11 “When I met with your guys to confirm the

validity of the warrant, I did not take a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order. (Exhibits p70)

Could you please have it scanned and e-mailed to me.” By 7/5/11 all three people had already

seen the Vacate order of 1/27/11 at least 4 times.

92. It is simply inconceivable that two experienced attorneys, a police chief, and an

experienced detective, individually and collectively could not have understood that a vacated

injunction was not valid, and that it took them almost two months, [conveniently until the very

day proceedings ended in CASE NO.: 10-048282], to realize this fact, absent malicious intent.

Their actions and the timing thereof must have been intentional, and were obviously undertaken

to violate Plaintiffs state and federal protection from unreasonable search and seizure and

influence the outcome of the aforementioned proceedings.

V. FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I §1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

(All Defendants official and individual capacity)

PLAINTIFFS repeat and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 92, and incorporate them by

reference herein.

1. Defendant Knapp, using his capacity as a ranking officer in the Hollywood Police

Department, and exploiting the City of Hollywood’s policy and practice that officers do not have

to confirm the veracity of facts in order to swear to them in an affidavit, gave sworn testimony to

a Broward County Circuit Court judge in order to obtain a search warrant in violation of the

Plaintiffs 4th Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

2. Defendant Perez and Defendant Knapp, like any reasonable officer should have

known that when a citizen reports that a crime has been committed, the facts need to be verified

before swearing to those facts in an affidavit to obtain a search warrant, and that failing to do so

could violate the Plaintiffs constitutional rights to be protected from unreasonable search and

seizure.

3. This was done with the blessing of Defendant Wagner, who was present at the

meeting that took place on December 8, 2010, the subject of which was supporting Defendant

Sandra Einhorn in her personal fight against the Plaintiffs.

4. Defendant Wagner allowed his officers to abuse process and selectively enforce

the Florida Statute on Aggravated Stalking in order to violate the 4th and 14th Amendment rights

of the Plaintiffs, seize control of Plaintiffs business (computers) including all backups,

traumatize the family and children in order to break their spirit and will to fight, and gain

leverage for the City of Hollywood in their upcoming lawsuit against the Plaintiffs by obtaining

Plaintiffs financial position, legal strategies, and violate their right to procedural due process by

handicapping their ability to defend themselves in the August 3-4 2011 hearing.

5. This was accomplished by a raid on the Plaintiffs home on June 8, 2011 where 12

visibly armed officers of the Hollywood Police Department, including Defendant Knapp, and

some in uniform, forced their way into the Plaintiffs home, held them against their will, searched

their home, and seized their personal property.

6. The selective enforcement of the Aggravated Stalking statute is evidenced by the fact

that this was the first time that the Hollywood Police Department took such aggressive action

against a family and individual under this statute.

7. Defendant Sandra Einhorn acted in concert with Defendant Perez and Defendant

Knapp in order to cause them to violate the 4th Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.

8. This was done when she engaged Defendant Perez, and then Defendant Knapp at the

Hollywood Police Department in order to pursue a criminal complaint that she knew had no

merit.

9. Defendant Sandra Einhorn then led the officers to believe that she had obtained a

restraining order against Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, and the officers relied on her word in pursuing a

search warrant to prove that Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, had violated that restraining order. That

search warrant was ultimately executed on June 8, 2011.

10. The Plaintiffs were damaged by the actions of Defendants Einhorn, Perez, Knapp,

and Wagner as well as the Hollywood Police Department’s custom and practice of selective

enforcement of criminal statutes and non-requirement of officers to verify facts before swearing

to them and pursuing criminal complaints, by having been subject to a search and seizure

grounded on an affidavit to obtain a search warrant that was avoidable. This scheme was

designed and executed to violate the Plaintiffs constitution rights.

11. By reason of the foregoing, all Defendants in their official capacity violated 42

U.S.C. §1985.

12. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and cost in

addition to the damages complained of herein.

13. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were severely and permanently injured when 12

armed officers from the Hollywood Police Department stormed into their home in execution of a

search warrant which would not have been gotten but for the coordinated effort of all of the

Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against all Defendants in their individual and

official capacity, in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 ($1,000,000.00)

DOLLARS.

COUNT II

§1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (Defendants City of Hollywood, Hollywood Police Department)


reference herein.

1. The City of Hollywood, and Hollywood Police Department’s decision to adopt a

the course of action taken toward the Plaintiffs was directed by those who establish

governmental policy, specifically the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and both City Attorneys, as

well as the officer (Defendant Knapp) who had the responsibility under state law to obtain and

execute a search warrant under certain circumstances.

2. The City of Hollywood, and Hollywood Police Department’s decision to adopt a

the course of action taken toward the Plaintiffs was ratified and respected by those who establish

governmental policy, specifically the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and both City Attorneys, as

well as the officers (Defendants Detective Knapp and Alex Perez) who had the responsibility

under state law to obtain and execute a search warrant under certain circumstances.

3. The course of action taken by the defendants was

a. Repeatedly refusing to verify that a restraining order existed;

b. Repeatedly refusing to determine what the terms of the alleged order were or

what the status of the alleged order was;

c. Repeatedly refusing to confirm whether the alleged actions attributed to

Plaintiff Steven Kohn were potentially violations of the terms of the

restraining order;

d. Drafting and then swearing to a warrant affidavit without verifying or

attempting to verify the accuracy thereof;

e. Executing the putative search warrant;

f. Intentionally executing the putative search warrant on a major religious

holiday;

g. Unconstitutionally broadening the search by conducting search for drugs;

h. Illegally seizing the property of the Plaintiffs;

i. Failing to promptly return the Plaintiffs’ property after repeatedly being made

aware of the fact that the requisite probable cause could not possibly exist;

j. Holding the property until precisely the same time that the hearing of August

3-4 was concluded in order to influence the outcome of that hearing; and

k. Intentionally selecting the timing of the filing of the $161,487.02 lawsuit to

coincide with the illegal seizure of the Plaintiffs’ property in order to

influence the outcome of that lawsuit.

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff was in fact violating a restraining order via an

electronic means, as was alleged, various alternatives to obtain the evidence existed, and the

most invasive and aggressive method was deliberately selected. For example, officers could have

obtained a warrant that would allow them to rapidly create images of hard disk drives rather than

seize them for an indefinite period of time. The city officials with policy making power united

before and after the fact to deliberately ratify and respect the course of action taken.

5. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant City of Hollywood and Defendant Hollywood

Police Department violated 42 U.S.C. §1983.

6. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in





Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendants City of Hollywood and

Hollywood Police Department in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100

($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

COUNT III §1985 CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS

(All Defendants official and individual capacity)


reference herein.

1. Acting upon a written request made by Defendant Sandra Einhorn, [made as a vendor

providing services to Hollywood City], on December 2, 2010, Commissioner Richard Blattner of

Hollywood City (Legislative branch), requested that a meeting be convened in order to assist the

Einhorns in their personal complaints about the Kohns. (Exhibits p1)

2. Defendant Einhorn specifically asked for Police action to be taken against the Plaintiffs:

"As our City Commissioner I plead for you to please help my neighbors and I in bringing these people to justice." ExhibitDefendant Einhorn also made an implied request for legal or financial help, stating "We have been forced to hire an attorney we really can't afford." "Please help us!" (Exhibit p1-2)

3. Defendant Sandra Einhorn also declared that there was already a quid pro quo

arrangement in place with Hollywood City, when stating

"Grant and I have gone out of our way to work with the City and Code Compliance in order to help the situation from the City's end, with code violations and such. I would expect the same support from the City for us.” (Exhibit p1-2)

4. In direct violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and of Article II, Section

2.06, of the Charter of the City of Hollywood Commission (Exhibits page 78), Defendant

Blattner called a meeting consisting of Hollywood Police Department, Code Enforcement, the

City Manager, and City Attorney, for the stated purpose of aiding Einhorn and determining an

appropriate course of action to take against the Plaintiffs. (Exhibits pp1,3-7)

5. The specific subject of the meeting was the Facebook message referenced in

paragraphs 23-24 of this complaint, the context of which is clearly not official business of the

city. Defendant Sheffel stated in an email the morning of 12/2/2010 that “I am anxious to meet to

discuss an appropriate strategy.” (Exhibits p7)

6. The meeting was scheduled to occur on December 8, 2010 (Exhibits pp 3,4).

Plaintiffs allege that this meeting was convened to plan and execute a strategy intended to violate

the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

7. Defendants Grant and Sandra Einhorn sought the removal of Kohns pets via a private

nuisance lawsuit (CACE 10-048282(18)) that was filed less than 3 weeks after the

aforementioned letter meeting.

8. Sometime between January 18, 2011 and February 23, 2011, Defendant Sandra

Einhorn informed Defendant Perez that the Plaintiff had violated a temporary injunction against

repeat violence in case DVCE 11-134, providing Defendant Perez with a copy of an

indeterminate and erroneously entered “Order Extending Injunction”, which Defendant Einhorn

knew was not actually a restraining order (Exhibits pp23-26 and/or paragraph 36), and which

Defendant Einhorn also knew had been corrected and vacated on January 27, 2011.

9. Defendant Einhorn made the report with the intent of violating the civil rights of the

Plaintiffs. Defendant Perez ignored standard operating procedure, which would have required

that he determine that an injunction exists, what its terms were, and whether the alleged behavior

would be a violation. Defendant Perez was aware that notice of a restraining order had not been

sent to Hollywood Police by Broward Sheriff’s Office, which is the standard practice. Defendant

Perez, from checking the docket on the case, knew that no restraining order had been granted,

and that the January 18 order had been vacated.

10. In spite of his knowledge that there was no restraining order in existence for even a

short time, Defendant Perez continued to pursue and investigate Plaintiff Steven Kohn for a

violation of FS 784.048(1)(d)(4); the felony of aggravated stalking after injunction, when both he

and the alleged victim knew that no such injunction existed. Defendant Perez continued to

pursue the investigation in order to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

11. On February 23, 2011, a hearing was held in CACE 10048282(18) wherein

Defendant Einhorn failed to obtain an injunction removing the Kohns pets. Immediately after

the hearing, Defendant Perez ran an NCIC report on Plaintiff Steven Kohn, finding the order of

January 18, 2011 had been entered. The NCIC printout explicitly informs the reader “Do not

search, detain, or arrest based solely on this record. Contact entering agency to confirm status

and terms of protection order.” (Exhibits p27)

12. Defendants Perez and Knapp disregarded the instructions, in order to violate the

civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

13. On April 15, 2011, DVCE 11-134 was dismissed. (Exhibits p21)

14. On April 29, 2011, Defendant Perez issued a Subpoena to Comcast Communications,

seeking personal information of the Plaintiffs, stating “Crimes under investigation: Stalking, F.S.

784.048(2) and Violation of Protective Injunction F.S. 784.047(5)” (Exhibits pp29-30). Both of

these felonies are dependent upon the existence of an injunction. The Subpoena was authored

with the intention of violating the civil rights of the Plaintiff both instantly (by obtaining

information about the Plaintiffs via a perjured Subpoena), and ultimately by setting the stage for

the raid of June 8, 2011.

15. The subpoena was returned on May 18, 2011, at which time Defendant Sheffel made

the decision to initiate lawsuit CACE 11016120(18) against Plaintiff Steven Kohn, seeking a

money judgment of over $161,487 for a $100 code violation. (Exhibits p 79). The timing

demonstrates a connection between the actions of Hollywood Police Department and the civil

lawsuit. [Additionally, the attorney hired by Hollywood to execute the lawsuit, made a Power

Point presentation to Hollywood City, advising her client to “Bother them- Use Pressure and a

System Wide System” when attempting to collect code enforcement judgments, and used the

specific case CACE 11016210(18) as the example. Relevant pages of the presentation are

attached as Exhibits pp80, 82, 84.]

16. On June 1, 2011, Defendant Knapp authored a “General Affidavit and Application for

Search Warrant” in order to obtain a warrant to search the Plaintiffs property and seize all of

their internet capable technology, as well as any and all papers, photographs, or other devices or

equipment that could be used for stalking purposes. (pp33-41) Defendant Knapp, having taken

over the investigation, and also responsible for following standard operating procedures,

collaborated and conspired with Defendant Perez in order to competently take over the

investigation, and therefore was aware that no injunction existed, and that the felony in question

could not possibly have been committed. By failing to verify the terms and status of a restraining

order, Defendant Knapp deliberately ignored the language in the NCIC report he allegedly relied

upon, in order to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

17. The affidavit was perjured with the intended result being the violation of the civil

rights of the Plaintiffs.

18. Based on the perjured affidavit, the search warrant was granted on June 1 2011. On

its face the warrant indicates that the urgency of the matter is such that "...serving this warrant

and making the search in the daytime or nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the

occasion may demand or require…"

19. In spite of the apparent urgency of the warrant on its face, Defendant Knapp waited

an entire week, until the first day of the major Jewish Holiday of Shavuot, to execute it.

Hollywood Police Department was already providing extra police for the street crossings near

the major synagogues in town as a result of the Holiday, and was therefore fully aware that the

day was a major Jewish Holiday. It was Defendants Knapp’s intent to interfere with family’s

religious observance and familial integrity, by selecting the morning of the Holiday as the time to

execute the warrant.

20. Defendant Knapp stated in the Affidavit that he was aware that the Plaintiffs business

was going to be seized, causing considerable hardship to all of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp

intended to violate the Plaintiffs’ civil rights by seizing the family’s sole means of support for no

lawful cause.

21. On June 8, 2011, Defendant Knapp led a team of 12 armed Hollywood Police and

executed the warrant, as described in paragraph 79, committing numerous civil rights violations.

22. Included in the group of officers that Defendant Knapp assembled was an officer

whose sole purpose was to conduct a drug search. The warrant does not specify drugs. Defendant

Knapp’s purpose in bringing the officer was to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

23. The search warrant was quashed as unconstitutional due to the absolute nonexistence

of probable cause, by the order of Broward County Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill, on December

16, 2011, without any objection from Hollywood Police department. The Motion to Quash and

the Order are both shown in full in Exhibits pp52-58. Included in the Motion is an excerpt from

Sandra Einhorn’s testimony from the August 3-4, 2011 hearing in the instant case, wherein she

testified under oath in Court stating:

Q: And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if you have a restraining order against Steve Kohn? A: The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining order against Steve Kohn.

Q: So they knew that you were unsuccessful? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Did they -- did they – A: Or that's what I told them. Q: And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A: No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very easily figure out for themselves one way or another. Q: So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A: That is correct.

24. Defendant Joel Cantor represented the city at the aforementioned hearing, and offered

no objection to the statement Defendant Einhorn made, that Hollywood Police were fully aware

there was never a valid restraining order.

25. The aforementioned December 15, 2011 report authored by Detective Knapp and

presented in Court the following day, by Defendant Cantor, stated:

“On August 04, 2011, I confirmed that the listed restraining order against Mr. Kohn had erroneously been issued by the Courts and also that the entered teletype confirmation had remained in the system even after an order to vacate the restraining order had been issued. This was confirmed by Broward Clerk of Courts Domestic Violence Manager Tonya Green. She advised that the listed restraining order teletype information was issued in error and to prove that it was issued in error, she showed me a copy of the listed order vacated on 01/27/2011. Based upon this information and the fact that the listed search warrant relied on the active restraining order, I prepared for the release of all of the listed seized items to Mr. Kohn on 08/20/2011.”

26. Defendant Knapp, as well as Defendants Bober, Sheffel and Cantor, had already

repeatedly received the very same information (the copy of the 1/27/2011 vacating order) from

Plaintiff Kohn on 6/27, 6/28, 6/29, 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, and 7/20/2011 (Exhibits pp59-77). On

7/5/2011 Defendant Sheffel asked Defendant Cantor and Defendant Wagner to show him the

alleged restraining order. (Exhibits p72, 76). The meeting took place on 7/7/2011 (Exhibits p76).

27. Defendants Knapp, Sheffel, Wagner, and Cantor endlessly conspired to continue to

keep the Plaintiffs property, including the business of the Plaintiffs, in violation of the Plaintiffs

civil rights.

28. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were made aware

that the search and seizure were illegal, and after seeing Mr. Kohn’s financial status, income

earning capability, and legal strategies on the illegally seized electronic items, the City of

Hollywood on July 13, 2011 then filed a $161,487 lawsuit against Mr. Kohn (Case number:

CACE 11-016210) resting on the same or similar facts as were being litigated in the August 3-4th

hearing in CASE NO.: 10-048282. (CACE 11-016210 was subsequently dismissed on April 2,

2012 after the Circuit Court found that even if Mr. Kohn’s keeping of pets had actually violated

the subject ordinance, the maximum penalty allowable by law was only $100).

29. By filing the lawsuit on July 13, 2011, Mr. Kohn would have been expected to be

served on July 14, making his reply due on August 3, 2011; the first day of the August 3-4

hearing in CACE 10-048282(18). This was another action by Hollywood City designed to

interfere with that proceeding, in violation of the Plaintiffs civil rights.

30. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were

repeatedly made aware that the search and seizure were illegal, they declined to make a decision

to return the evidence and money-earning capability of the Plaintiff, until the very same day that

the hearing concluded in CASE NO.: 10-048282 on August 4, 2011. Although the decision was

made on that date, the property still was not returned.

31. On August 8, 2011, after the hearing of August 3-4 during which time Mr. Kohn did

not have access to the evidence he intended to use in his defense (due to Hollywood’s unlawful

possession of it), the Circuit Court in case CACE 10-048282(18) granted an injunction against

Mr. Kohn, causing him to remove his pets. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 allows for a

Motion for Rehearing within 10 days of rendition of the order, making August 18, 2011 the last

day that such a Motion could have been filed.

32. The next business day that Defendant Knapp was at work after August 18 was

Tuesday August 23, 2011, the selfsame day that the Kohns’ property was made available to the

Kohns for pickup. In other words, Hollywood Police Department waited until the day the

hearing in the civil case CACE 10-048282(18) was completed before deciding to return Kohn’s

property, and waited 19 additional days, until the day after the time had expired for a Motion for

Rehearing to actually allow the property to be retrieved. The timing was designed by the

Defendants to violate the Plaintiffs civil rights.

33. On August 16, 2011 while still retaining possession of Kohn’s property even after

having made the decision to return it, and with only 2 days remaining for Mr. Kohn to file a

Motion for Rehearing in CACE 10-048282(18), Hollywood City filed a Motion for Final

Summary Judgment [for $161,487] in the case they had filed on July 13, 2011, intending to

interfere with the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

34. Although the Defendants had the Plaintiffs computers (and business) in their

possession for 8 weeks before deciding to return them, the computers were never formally

searched and no evidence was gathered. Based on this fact, it would appear that the seizure of the

property was the actual goal, and there was no intention to actually conduct a true police

investigation, and the only intent was to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

35. The Defendants intention was to obstruct justice by using force and intimidation to

prevent the Plaintiffs from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully in the court proceedings

scheduled for August 3-4 2011 in CACE 10048282(18), and affect the outcome of the

proceedings by seizing the Plaintiffs legal records, strategy, and evidence, as well as

intentionally inflicting extreme emotional and economic duress on the Plaintiffs, which would be

expected to interfere with a competent defense.

36. By initiating proceedings in CACE 11016210(18) at a time when the Defendants

were aware they were unlawfully retaining the Plaintiffs property that would be utilized in the

Plaintiffs defense, the Defendants intention was to obstruct justice by using force and

intimidation to prevent the Plaintiffs from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully in the court

proceedings in CACE 10048282(18), by intimidating the Plaintiffs into depriving themselves of

their property (pets) without due process of law, thus obstructing justice in the planned hearing

of August 3-4 2011 by rendering it moot.

37. The Defendants intention was to obstruct justice by using force and intimidation to

prevent the Plaintiffs from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully in the court proceedings in

CACE 11016210(18), and affect the outcome of the proceedings in that case by removing all of

Plaintiff Steven Kohn’s legal records and money earning capability that would be used to defend

himself.

38. By reason of the foregoing, all Defendants in their official capacity violated 42

U.S.C. §1985.

39. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and cost in





Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against all Defendants in their official and

individual capacity, in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 ($1,000,000.00)

DOLLARS.

COUNT IV

§1983 POLICY AND PRACTICE (Defendant Wagner Official Capacity)


reference herein.

1. When Defendant Knapp and Defendant Perez pursued and applied for a search warrant

without first verifying the veracity of the statement made by Defendant Sandra Einhorn, they

were acting pursuant to a policy, custom and practice of the Hollywood Police Department

which did not discourage officers from swearing to facts and taking them to be true without first

verifying them, without regard to citizens Constitutional rights.

2. Defendant Wagner displayed deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of

Hollywood Police Department’s officers including allowing them to do a favor for certain people

such as Defendant Sandra Einhorn by pursing her accusation by obtaining a search warrant

without first verifying the facts.

3. Defendant Wagner knew of and ratified the repeated constitutional violations of his

officers including the pursuit of search warrants without first verifying facts.

4. Defendant Wagner confirmed that the constitutional violations of his officers were the

policy and practice of the City of Hollywood and Hollywood Police Department by having the

policy reviewed by the City Attorneys; Defendants Sheffel and Cantor.

5. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Wagner violated 42 U.S.C. §1983.

6. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in addition

to the damages complained of here.




Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Wagner in his official

capacity, in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

COUNT V

§1983 IMPROPER TRAINING (Defendant Wagner Official Capacity)


reference herein.

1. Defendants Knapp and Perez received improper training in policies, procedures, and

tactics that could have caused a violation of the necessary rights of all United States citizens, and

ultimately took action to cause the abolition of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights in the instant

case.

2. Prior to June 8, 2011, Defendant Wagner did not require any or enough evidence

other than the word of a complainant to apply for a search warrant a swear to the facts.

Defendant Wagner did not require the officers to verify the facts given to them by the accuser.

3. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner failed and neglected to establish proper and

adequate guidelines, procedures or training programs for his officers.

4. After June 8, 2011, and becoming aware of the improper and unconstitutional actions

of his officers, Defendant Wagner did nothing to retrain his officers.

5. Defendant Wagner was aware of his officers training in use of police power against

constitutional rights.

6. The actions of Defendant Wagner in assigning officers to duty who were improperly

trained in the use of police power against constitutional rights evidenced a deliberate indifference

to the right of persons with whom the officers came into contact.

7. The improper training received by Defendants Knapp and Perez were a contributing

cause of the hurt they caused to the Plaintiffs.


9. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in





Defendants.



COUNT VI §1983 LACK OF TRAINING

(Defendant Wagner Official Capacity)


reference herein.

1. Defendants Knapp and Perez received grossly inadequate training.

2. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner assigned officers to duty without proper

training.

3. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner implemented a policy of assigning officers

to duty who had received grossly inadequate training.

4. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner failed and neglected to establish proper and

adequate guidelines, procedures or training programs for his officers.

5. Defendant Wagner was aware of his officers lack or training in using police power

against constitutional rights.

6. The actions of Defendant Wagner in assigning inadequately trained officer to duty

evidenced a deliberate indifference by Defendant Wagner to the rights of persons with whom the

officers came in contact displayed by the exceptionally inadequate training offered to and

received by the officers.

7. The exceptionally inadequate training received by Defendants Knapp and Perez

was the reason the officers believed they were within their police power to swear to unverified

facts in order to obtain a search warrant.

8. The exceptionally inadequate training received by the officers also caused them to

believe that they were under no obligation to return the property seized after becoming aware

that the property was seized illegally.


10. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in





Defendants.



STATE CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT VII FALSE IMPRISONMENT

(Defendant Knapp individual Capacity)


reference herein.

1. Defendant Knapp acted with malicious purpose and with wanton and willful

disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs in obtaining and executing a search without

probable cause.

2. Defendant Knapp used force to influence an illegal search and seizure of Plaintiffs

home and personal property by rounding up the parents and children into a closed area of the

home while the family’s property was being searched and seized. Confinement to any area of the

home to accomplish this illegal search and seizure was false imprisonment.




Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Knapp in his official


COUNT VIII EXCESSIVE FORCE

(Defendant Knapp Individual Capacity)

PLAINTIFFS repeat and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 92, and incorporate them by reference

herein.

1. If Defendant Knapp did not have probable cause to search and seize personal property

belonging to the Plaintiffs, he used excessive force in achieving his objective. A reasonable

officer would have known that 12 armed Hollywood police officers surrounding a residential

home and rounding up a family would clearly violate the rights of the Plaintiffs.

2. Defendant Knapp acted with malicious purpose and with wanton and willful

disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs, by executing an unconstitutional search

warrant with excessive force.

3. Any use of force was excessive to effect this illegal search and seizure.




Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Knapp in his official


COUNT IX CHIEF OF POLICE’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY


reference herein.

1. Defendant Wagner is the head of the Hollywood Police Department and Defendants

Knapp and Perez were under the command of Defendant Wagner at all times material to this

action and Defendant Wagner is liable via respondeat superior.

2. Alternatively, Defendants Knapp and Perez were both acting within the scope of their

employment by the Hollywood Police Department.




Defendants.



CONCLUSION

1. Hollywood City and Hollywood Police Department have a pattern, practice, and custom

of intentionally disregarding the parameters of the laws and ordinances they entrusted to enforce,

intentionally disregarding standard police procedures, intentionally disregarding Court orders,

and condones such violations of law by not disciplining employees or officers that engage in

such indiscriminate constitutional violations that are perpetrated against the public and against

Plaintiffs in particular.

2. Hollywood City and Hollywood Police Department failed to discipline or prosecute

known incidents of warrantless searches, and to overrule the conclusions within the Department

in spite of the overwhelming evidence that such incidents are unjustified and improper.

Hollywood Police Department failed to investigate or prosecute known incidents of false

reporting made to law enforcement.

3. On information and belief, the abuse to which Plaintiffs were subjected was

consistent with an institutionalized practice of Hollywood City and Hollywood Police

Department, which was known to and ratified by Defendants Wagner, Bober, Sheffel, and

Cantor, and neither took any effective action to prevent Defendants Knapp or Perez from

continuing to engage in such misconduct.

4. As a direct and proximate result of the deliberate indifference of Hollywood City or

Hollywood Police Department to prevent or change unconstitutional policies, customs and

practices, all twelve of the Plaintiffs suffered the following injuries and damages:

a. Violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure of their

person and property, to be afforded due process of law and equal protection under the law;

b. Loss of physical liberty; and

c. Government interference with religious worship

d. Disruption of familial integrity

e. Humiliation, emotional distress, and suffering

f. Loss of income and other financial damage

5. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants Hollywood City,

Hollywood Police Department, Knapp, Perez, Bober, Blattner, Wagner, Sheffel, Cantor, Grant

Einhorn and Sandra Einhorn, the following clearly established and well-settled federal

constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs were violated:

a. Freedom from an unreasonable search and seizure;

b. Equal Protection under the law;

c. Due process of law.

d. Freedom of association

e. Freedom of religious practice

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief against each and every

Defendant, jointly and severally:

1. Compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof and which is

fair, just and reasonable;

2. Punitive damages under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and Florida law against the individual

defendants in an amount according to proof and which is fair, just and reasonable;

3. All other damages, penalties, costs, interest, and attorney’s fees allowed by 42

U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 and 1988, and as otherwise may be allowed by Florida and/or federal law;

4. An order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from unlawfully interfering

with the rights of Plaintiffs and others to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and

excessive and unreasonable force;

5. An order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from engaging in racial

profiling or otherwise discriminating against Plaintiffs or others based on their nationality;

6. An order requiring Defendants to rescind any and all of their policies, practices,

procedures, and/or customs allowing police officers to engage in racial profiling and/or

discrimination based on race;

7. An order requiring Defendants to institute and enforce appropriate and lawful policies

and procedures prohibiting racial profiling, racial discrimination, and the use of excessive force;

8. An order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from engaging in the “code

of silence” as may be supported by the evidence in this case;

9. An order requiring Defendants to train all Hollywood Police officers concerning racial

profiling, racial bias and discrimination, and this Court’s orders concerning the issues raised in

injunctive relief requests 4 through 8 above; and

10. Such other and further relief as presented by the evidence in this case and as this

Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs in this matter hereby request trial by jury.

DAVID LOW, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiffs 17840 W. Dixie Hwy. North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Phone: (305) 935-8986 Fax: (305) 675-2685

BY: _____________________ DAVID LOW, ESQ.

U.S. Department Of Housing and Urban Development Georgia State Office Five Points Plaza 40 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303-2806

August 12, 2011

Mr. & Mrs. Steven Kohn 3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kohn: Subject: Housing Discrimination Complaint

Kohn, Steven & Renee v. City Commission of Hollywood, FL, et al HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8

Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6 Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9

Your complaint, alleging one or more discriminatory housing practices, was officially filed on 08/08/2011 as a complaint under the Federal Fair Housing Law, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601-3619. For your records, we are enclosing a copy of your complaint, and, as required by law, a copy has been sent to the respondent(s).

Additionally, the complaint was filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department. The HUD regulation implementing Title VI at 24 CFR Part 1 requires that no person shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. Further, Title VI at 24 CFR Part 1 provides for an investigation whenever a complaint or other information indicates a possible failure by a HUD-funded recipient to comply with the Acts. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will investigate this complaint under this authority.

The complaint also was filed under Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Section 109). Section 109 requires that no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex or religion be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with community development funds.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of: 1) the rights you have during the processing of this complaint, 2) the rights each respondent has in responding to this complaint, and 3) the

8

8

steps the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (the Department) will take to determine whether the complaint has merit.

In order to ensure that the Department informs you properly of the law's requirements, this notification letter contains language required by the law. A similar letter is used to notify all parties whenever a formal complaint has been filed with the Department under the Federal Fair Housing Law. We are governed by federal law, which sets out what steps we must take when a formal complaint is filed. The law also includes steps that each respondent can take to answer or refute the allegations of this complaint. Under federal law, a respondent can file an answer to this complaint or any amendment made to this complaint within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Department's notification letter to him or her. Each respondent's answer must be signed and affirmed that the response is truthful by including the statement "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." A respondent can, with the agreement of the Department, amend his or her answer at any time during the investigation. Our responsibility under the law is to undertake an impartial investigation and, at the same time, encourage all sides to reach an agreement, where appropriate, through conciliation. The law requires us to complete our investigation within 100 days of the date of the official filing of the complaint. If we are unable to meet the 100-day requirement for issuing a determination, the law requires that we notify you and the respondent(s) and explain the reasons why the investigation of the complaint is not completed. In handling this complaint, we will conduct an impartial investigation of all claims that the Fair Housing Act has been violated. If the investigation indicates that there is not evidence establishing jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. At any point, you can request that our staff assist you in conciliating (or settling) this complaint with the respondent(s). If the case is not resolved, we will complete our investigation and decide whether or not the evidence indicates that there has been a fair housing violation. If the parties involved have not reached an agreement to settle the complaint, the Department will issue a determination as to whether there is reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. If our investigation indicates that there is reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice has occurred, the Department must issue a charge. If the investigation indicates there is no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, the complaint will be dismissed. In either event, you will be notified in writing. If the determination is one of reasonable cause, the notification will advise you and the respondent(s) of your rights to choose, within 20 days, whether you wish to have the case heard by an Administrative Law Judge, or to have the matter referred for trial in the appropriate U.S. District Court. Under federal law, even if the Department dismisses the complaint, you still have the right to bring an individual suit under the Federal Fair Housing Law. You may file your lawsuit

9

9

in an appropriate federal, state or local court within two years of the date of the alleged discriminatory practice or of the date when a conciliation agreement has been violated. The law does not count, as part of the two-year period, any of the time when a proceeding is pending with the Department. You also have the legal right to file a lawsuit in court, even if your complaint formed the basis for a charge, as long as an Administrative Law Judge has not started a hearing on the record with respect to the charge. There may be other applicable federal, state or local statutes under which you and/or the respondent(s) may initiate court action. You may consult a private attorney in this regard. The law also requires us to notify you that section 818 of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful for a respondent or anyone else to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with you in your exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected under the Federal Fair Housing Law. The law also makes it illegal for anyone to coerce, threaten or interfere with you for your having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right or protection granted to them under the Federal Fair Housing Law. Some explanatory material on the law is enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions regarding this case, please contact Candace Tapscott at (305) 536-4479, ext. 2218. Please refer to the case number at the top of this letter in those contacts, and keep this office advised of any change of your address or telephone number. We hope this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Carlos Osegueda FHEO Region IV Director

Enclosures

10

10

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT

CASE NUMBER: 04-11-1099-8/6/9

1. Complainants

Steven Kohn 3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021

Renee Kohn 3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021

2. Other Aggrieved Persons

Rebecca L. Kohn

Hannah E. Kohn

Sara R. Kohn

Minor #1 Kohn

Minor #2 Kohn

Minor #3 Kohn

Minor #4 Kohn

Minor #5 Kohn

Minor #6 Kohn

Minor #7 Kohn

3. The following is alleged to have occurred or is about to occur:

Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.). Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use.

4. The alleged violation occurred because of:

National origin and religion.

11

11

5. Address and location of the property in question (or if no property is involved,

the city and state where the discrimination occurred):

3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021

6. Respondent(s)

City Commission of Hollywood, FL P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Cameron D. Benson, City Manager City of Hollywood, FL P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Richard Blattner, Dist 4 Commissioner City of Hollywood, Florida P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Mgr City of Hollywood, FL P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Clay Milan, Director, Code Enforcement City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Irish Gardner, Code Enforcement Officer City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

7. The following is a brief and concise statement of the facts regarding the

alleged violation:

Complainants Steven and Renee Kohn own a single family home located at 3841 N 51st Ave., in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complainants identified their religion as Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. The complainants note that their readily observable religious practices, speech, dress, and customs are influenced by Arabic culture. The complainants belong to a class of persons whom the Fair

12

12

Housing Act (the Act) as amended, protects from unlawful discrimination because of religion and national origin. The complainants' property is subject to the ordinances and restrictions of the City of Hollywood, Florida, administered by and through the Respondent City Commission, Respondent Cameron D. Benson, the City Manager, Respondent Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Manager, Respondent Richard Blattner, District 4 City Commissioner, Respondent Clay Milan, Director of Code Enforcement, and Respondent Irish Gardner, Code Enforcement Officer. To the complainants' belief, none of the respondents practice Sephardic Orthodox Judaism.

According to the complainants, shortly after they moved into their home in 2008, some of their neighbors objected to their Judeo-Arabic cultural practices, describing the complainants as "Palestinians," "Muslims," and "terrorists." The neighbors undertook a campaign to harass the complainants by repeatedly reporting them to the City of Hollywood Police and Code Enforcement in regard to their pets: eight hens and two 17" Dwarf Nigerian goats. In November of 2010, the same neighbors went so far as to circulate a pamphlet entitled, "Are the Kohns Jewish," pointing out Muslim influences that, in their opinion, negate their status as Jewish.

On November 24, 2010, the City of Hollywood dispatched 5 police cars, 10 armed police officers and 2 code enforcement officers to the complainants' home to deliver citation warnings about their pets, which Respondent Milan contends are livestock. The complainants felt intimidated, upset, and humiliated by the City's show of force. The complainants observed that the warnings were written and ordered to be delivered before an inspection of their property had even occurred. They assert that they are in compliance with the City's ordinances, dispute the characterization of their pets as "livestock," and believe the City is selectively enforcing these ordinances against them, based on cultural biases. In deposition testimony on July 27, 2011, Respondent Gardner, a code enforcement officer, admitted that other city residents with poultry have been treated differently by the City. To the complainants' belief, these other residents are not practitioners of Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. During their dealings with the respondents and their neighbors, the complainants assert they have never demonstrated threatening behavior to justify the City's show of force.

Within a few days of circulating the "Are the Kohns Jewish" pamphlet, on December 1, 2010, the neighbor e-mailed Respondent Blattner asking for his support in dealing with the Kohns via code compliance enforcement. Respondent Blattner forwarded her e-mail to other City officials and convened an internal meeting to discuss the complainants. The complainants assert that because of the cultural bias of City officials, and as a result of the neighbor's discriminatory influence on Respondent Blattner, the City of Hollywood has persisted in harassing the complainants. Continually since August 23, 2010, the City of Hollywood has fined the complainants $250/day for their pets, applying the lien retroactively to August 18, 2009. On July 13, 2011, the City of Hollywood filed a lawsuit against the complainants to collect over $160,000 in Code Enforcement fines.

13

13

The complainants believe the respondents are using code enforcement violations as a pretext to discriminate against them based upon their religion and perceived national origin. They allege that the respondents collectively have harassed and intimidated them in violation of Section 818 of the Act. They further allege the respondents collectively have used zoning and land use ordinances to discriminate against them in violation of Section 810(g)(2)(C) of the Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.

8. The most recent date on which the alleged discrimination occurred:

July 13, 2011, and is continuing.

9. Types of Federal Funds identified:

Community Development Block Grant.

10. The acts alleged in this complaint, if proven, may constitute a violation of the

following:

Sections 818 and 810(g)(2)(C) or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.

Please sign and date this form:

I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this complaint (including any

attachments) and that it is true and correct.

_____________________________________________ _______________ Steven Kohn (Date)

_____________________________________________ _______________ Renee Kohn (Date)

N O T E : HUD WILL FURNISH A COPY OF THIS COMPLAINT TO THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION AGAINST WHOM IT IS FILED.

14

14

15

15

TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORTDA

caseNo.: ll- l3VDivision: 5q

ORDER EXTENDING IN{UCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAII\ST: ' H( ) DOMESTTC VTOLENCE (p"l nrprAT VIOLENCE ( ) DATING VIOLENCE -n*( ) SEXUALVTOLET\CE Fi" :)i,<

THIS CAUSE camebefore the Cour t on {date} f- ( 8 I q, upon Petitioner's

motion for an extension of injunction for protection and it appearing to the Court as follows:

"/E Ex parte. The claims in the motion for extension of injunction for protection make it appear

to the Court that there is an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, orsexual violence, as required under section 74I.30 or section 784.046, Florida Statutes. The

previously entered injunction is extended until {date} t{-tS' ! f . A full hearing

on the petition is scheduled for {darc} Va S-{ / at t :3O u.*.@ i,Room frZO , Broward County Courihouse,2}l S.E. 6th Street, Fort Laudildale,Florida 33301.

NOTICE: Because this is a civil case, there is no requirement that these proceedings be

transcribed at public expense.

YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IN THIS COURT:

a. A court reporter is provided by the court.

f{ b. Electronic audio tape recording only is provided by the court. A parly may

arrange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a writtentranscript of the proceedings at thatparty's expense.

c. If this is a repeat violence, dating violence, or sexual violence action, no.1."t oni. ,rdio tape recording or Lourt reporting ,.*i.., are provided by the court. A parfymay afiange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a writtentranscript of the proceedings at the party's expense.

A RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES A TRANSCRIPT, MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ANAPPEAL. THE PARTY SEEKING THE APPEAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING THE

Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, RepeatViolence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)

16

16

TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BYA COURT REPORTER. THE TRANSCRIPT MUST BE FILEDWITH THE REVIEWTNG COURT OR THE APPEAL MAY BE DENIED.

If you are aperson with disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate inthis proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance.

Please contact{name } A.D.A Information

{address} Broward Countv Courthouse ,{telephone} (.954) 83I-6364 ,

within 2 working days of your receipt of this order. If you are hearing or voice impaired, callTdd 1-800-9ss-877t.

After notice and hearing. Respondent was served with a copy of the temporary injunction,if applicable, and a notice of this hearing within the time required by Florida law and wasafforded an opportunity to be heard. The notice and opportunity to be heard were sufficientto protect Respondent's right to due process. The following persons attended the hearing:( ) Petitioner ( ) Respondent.

After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consentof Respondent, the Court finds that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat violence,dating violence, or sexual violence or reasonably fears that helshe will become a victim ofdating violence from Respondent. The previously entered injunction is extended until{date} , or until fuither order of the Court.

ORDERED on l*{ g*f t

COPIES TO: JUDGE I\NICHAELG. KAPIjH

by U.S. Mailby hand delivery in open court (Petitioner mustacknowledge receipt in writing on face of theoriginal order

- see below)

forwarded to sheriff for service

Sheriff of CountyPetitioner (or his or her attorney):

-rF

Respondent (or his or her attorney):

--6by hand delivery in open court (Respondent mustacknowledge receipt in writing on face of the

original order

- see below)

by certified mail (may only be used whenRespondent is present at the hearing and

respondent fails or refuses to acknowledge thereceipt of certified copy of this injunction)

State Attorney's Office

Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, RepeatViolence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)

CIRCUTT JUDGE

17

17

Other:

I CERTIFY the foregoing is a true copy of the original as it appears on file in the office ofthe Clerk of the Circuit Couft of Broward County, Florida, and that I have fuinished

is order as indicated above.

iEAL)r "'if,(

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I, {Name of Respondent}of a certifled copy of this Injunction

.*,:'oa 11,,1, * , acknowledge receipt

'. ":. r' i,/.,'i: _ I t"

n ,.;'"1--'-

Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Fom 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, RepeatViolence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)

18

18

Ho I lywo od P o lice Dep artment

CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: oznlt2olt t3:32

oce: 331101010821

Case Status: INACTIT/E

Offense: INFOfuMATION

Case Mng Status: i,/l Occured: l1/29/2010

lnvestigator: VALENTIN, D. (3240)

Supervisor: FERGUSON, W. (1841)

Contact: Reference: Follow Up

ON THE ABOVE DATE AND TIME THE COMPLAINANT RETURNED TO HOLLYWOOD POLICEDEPARTMENT PID TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF T}IE ABOVE INCIDENT. TTM VICTIMSTATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN GETTING E-MAIL FROM HER NEIGIIBORS, COPMS THAT I OBSERVED,PROVIDING INFORMATION OF THE COMPLAINANTS DAILY ACTTVITIES. THE COMPLAINANTSSTATED THAT SHE BELMVES THAT HER NEIGI{BORS HAS BEEN CONDUCTING BACKGROUNDINVESTIGATION OF HER. TIIE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT SHE WILL GO TO COURT TO OBTAIN ANINJTINCTION ORDER FROM THE JUDGE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION

Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22: I4:16, Tuesday

Supervisor Review Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22:45:42, Tuesday

r supp3 Page 519

19

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TT{E SEVENTEE}.ITH JUDICTAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR BBOVABD-_ COLINTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: DVCE 11-t34Division: 59 Michael Kaplan

SANDRA EINEIORNPetitioner,

and

STEVE KOTIN. ,

Respondent.

Ei..-i -_-

*-a

Ttrr is ord er vacates order extend in gEFi u nctiont

dated 1/[8/11. ;'r:.r:-,: :.*-l'..1 r--:,i-.: E

t\J<J

.-rJ",.',1,

4!

I

a \ ,'!ar_--4.r i . I

t$-

.b;*,i*J f)(f| i-rtGR.DER SETTING EIEARING ON PETITTON FOR, ENJUNCTHOT'{

FOR PROTECTTGN,A.GAINST( ) DOMESTTC VTOLENCE ( X ) REPEAT VIOLENCE ( ) DATING VIOLENCE

( ) sExuAL VHOLENCEWITI{OUT HSSUANCE GF AN TNTERtrM TEiUPORARY IN.TUNCTTON

The Fetition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence filed under section 741.30,

Florida Statutes, or Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence under section 784.046, FloridaStatutes, has been reviewed. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject rnatter. ATernporary Injunctiol for Protection Against Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence, pending the hearing

scheduled below, is NOT being entered at this time but an injunction may be entered after the hearing,

depending on the frndings made by the Court atthattime.

FINDTNGS

The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the rnatter, do

not demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence or that Petitioner has

reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic or dating

violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporaryt

Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence prior to a hearing. A hearing

is scheduled on the Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual

Violence in section II of this Order. Petitioner lnay amend or supplement the Petition rt any time to state

further reasons why a Temporary lnjunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing

scheduled below.

NOTICE OF EIEARING

Petitioner and Respondent are ordered to appear and testiff at a hearing on the Petition for Injunction

for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence an {date} 84/ld,l1l, ?t l:30a.m./p.m.at{loca.tiorl.JudEeMichaelKaplan_,W,201'sE6thSkeet,FortL,auderdale, Florida, at which time the Court will consider whether a Final Judgment of Injunction fcrr

Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence should be entered. lf entered, the injunctionwillremainirreffectuntilafixeddatesetbytheCourtoruntilrnodifiedordissolvedbytheCourt.Atthphearing, the Court will determine whether other ttrings should be ordered, including, for example, such,tnatters

:'t

Florida Supreme Court Approved Farnily Larv Form 12.980(bXl), Order Setting Hearing on Petition for Injunetion for Protection Against Dotnestic

Viotence, Repeat Violence. Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence rvithout Issuance of an Interim Ternporary In-iunction (03104) :i

i.,:r:

f -.)

20

20

c____)

tr<t__-J

r___l

IT.T TIIE CIR-CUIT CCURT OF TI-,;E

iTT- J_I'DICA]L CIRCUIT, TIT1 AND

FCR BROWAJR-D CCLI}ITY, FLCP,']DA

case ru" / /* /3{

CLERK,SCERTIFICAT,EoFCOIUPLIA]{CE

seciion 741.30 Florida statutes (Domesiic Violence)

Section 7 84.046 Florida Statutes (Repeat Violence)

section 784.0+6Floric'a Statutes @r,ing violence)

seciicn 784.O46F1orid-a StatL:-tes (Sexual Violence)

I IIEREBY CERTIFY thal on

L--J TernPorarY iajunction

(----l Final Judgment

t--j E:lensionA{otice of Heariag

t--_) Vacated

t___j

rvas foiwarded or mailed within 24 hours from the time of its entry to the sheriffreceiving the original

noti-fication of the iajunction, to wit:

AgencyName:

l\) :._-r-: E ,:a,,:- i-li J; '.-..,(J1"- *r'.Ei*=* -.n-e.-ii= F? i.::E=:i-." T, .,')ac'# fr

=ft *n.*-

:: :;'ilj (Jl ii'-'-:r' '

:'li ':iq

:': ,,. .. -Ur.-i - q; f*l""it ' ...j *h .:*_*:

f"" (' I -:J.:j t

sEh $ *l:;ii di:[--r c4 c]tE, fn

(Check one):a copy of 'rhe

Dismissal

Other:

Pe-r-itioner

R-espondent

Address:

d C. Forman, CLERK

Deputy Clerk

DOh'ES T VIOL i 2 3 - 5 2 CEFJIFICATE OF CO]"PLIAN CE

21

21

Subject: Public Records help request

From: Kohn <[email protected]>

Date: 1/5/2012 7:21 PM

To: [email protected]

CC: David Low <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Pat

Gleason <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]

Lt. Weatherford,

Copied on this note is Pat Gleason of the Florida Attorney General's office in hopesthat Ms. Gleason can help you understand that you are required to provide the requestedrecords.

I received a phone call this afternoon from Alicia in records telling me the recordsrequested below were ready. I came and picked them up, and the complete packet ofrecords is attached as a PDF, with the sole exception of a DVD recording of the searchwarrant being served, which was provided with the records.

When I stated "I would like to request complete copies of ALL records that relate tothis investigation, including any meeting notes, NCIC printouts, internal summaries,photographs, inventory lists, and so forth. Every record of every kind.", I did notthink there was ambiguity.

Based on the packet you have provided, I conclude that there were no meetings, no NCICprintouts, no investigation, no testing of materials seized, and so forth. I alsoconclude that whereas your search warrant affidavit states that a subpoena existed, thatthere was never a subpoena. I also conclude that the alleged victim never reported thatthere was a restraining order which was violated. I also conclude that there were noemails from the alleged victim as the affidavit states.

Please clarify if this packet is the totality of1) what Hollywood Police used to obtain a search warrant2) all of the investigation reports and results3) all of the 'evidence' collected4) all of the internal communications about this matter

If this is truly everything, I'm looking forward to a day in Federal Court where you canexplain how based on absolutely nothing other than these slim reports you obtained asearch a warrant and lied on the affidavit by saying that things existed which did not.

Assuming this is not truly everything, I once again respectfully request to be providedwith the records.

I have requested and want copies of the following:1) ALL data of every kind that relates to this case in any way2) that data will include all internal communications between Hollywood City employeesor contractors, and all external communications between any Hollywood City employee andoutside agencies, such as the United States Secret Service, or any third parties whichmight have been consulted with regarding any aspect of this case3) ALL information referred to in the search warrant affidavit, including but notlimited to the NCIC printout, the 88 emails, the complaint from Sandra Einhorn statingshe had a restraining order that was being violated, copies of ALL of the photos thatwere allegedly only in existence on Einhorn's computer, and a timeline showing whichcomputers were inspected on what dates/times that will show how you complied with thelast paragraph of page 6 on the Affidavit, wherein HPD acknowledges a business is on thecomputers and that every effort was indeed taken to expedite the investigations andreturn the computers expeditiously one by one.

PublicRecordshelprequest imap://imap.googlemail.com:993/fetch>UID>/Lawsuit>670?heade...

1of4 7/11/20122:07PM

22

22

Subject: Copy of restraining order requested

From: Alicia Fernandez-Davis <[email protected]>

Date: 1/11/2012 10:59 AM

To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>

Good morning Mr. Kohn,

Attached please find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part of your

public records request.

Thank you.

Alicia

Attachments:

[email protected]_20120111_104854.pdf 92.4 KB

Copyofrestrainingorderrequested

1of1 7/11/20122:08PM

23

23

24

24

25

25

26

26

27

27

28

28

29

29

30

30

31

31

32

32

I l*oq alsFl u

PAGE 1GENERAL AEEIDAVIT AND APPI.ICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

IN T}IE CIRCUIT COT]RT OF TIIE SEYENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND F'ORBROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL AT'F'IDAVIT AI\[D APPLICATIONFOR SEARCH WARRANT

STATEOF FLORTDA ))ss

CoUNTYoFBROWARD )

BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, THE HONORABLE Judge Marcia Beach, Judge ofthe Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward Cormty, State of Florida,personally came Detective ROBERT KNAPP #2536, of the Hollywood Police Departrnent, whoafter being first duly swom, deposes and says:

DESCRIPTIOI+OF PREMISES TO BE SEARCIIED:

A residential house, any detached structues, and any registered vehicles on the propertylocated at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State ofFlorida. The residence is a concrete biock construction single family residence. The exteriorwalls are painted tan with a terra cotta barrel tile roof. The blue front exterior door faces westbetween two decorative off white colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The residencehas a circular driveway $iith a two car gamge. The address number "3841" is afExed to theexterior wall facing west above the garage doors.

The location in question can be reached from I-95, to west on Sterling Road, to south onSarazen Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of3841 North51 Avenue'

'il't:' -sAll electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated periphq-BL locefrwithin the residence listed above at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollyw@Qi$""Sf 'Broward, and the State of Florida ,t,->-i -*- *

--s<*' cd i-;

-:r,, \ C.)-.!- -+ €,-- ii

3

Page 1 of9

33

33

GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION

STATUTE(S) BEING VIOLATED:

Aggravated Stalking

PROPERTY SOUGHT:

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

ll- oYs iS(lo

F.s.s .784.048 (1) (d) (4)

Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search ofanyof tle listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.

1 . Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software andhardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computer printers,modems, tape drives, disk appiication programs, data disks, system disk operatingsystems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and hard drive andother computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computer photographs,graphic interchange forrnats and/or photographs, digital cameras, slides, scanners or othervisua.l depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment which may be or are usedto visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

2. Any and all electronic equipment thalis capable of accessing the intemet and./or thesending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones andtablet computers, pertaining to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

3. Any and all correspondence, in elechonic, printed or any other form, pertaining toaggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

4. Any and a"ll mziterials and photographs, either electronic, printed or any otlgq form,conceming aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4). S; H

5rE

5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, storeffifaiffiq -r,the evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or stdfiH :* ftcommunications described in the affidavit. S.S,i ; 5

'..-!e -= 56. Files and data on the computer that show the suspect's ownership, posselffin and;- -{control at time of the offense. '- - -i.. [r.}

C}

7 . kry and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:Steven Kohn [email protected], Rebecca Kohn (reUecca@amniqvseffc ), Mike boy

(mitceyUoyg1a@hotma ),sandra.veszi@)rahoo.com,HannahKohn

([email protected]), and Hinda Esther Kohn ([email protected]).

Page2 of9

34

34

J l-oVst J Ftt

PAGE 3

GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

8. Encrllpted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of theinformation listed in previous paragraphs.

GROUI\DS FOR ISSUANCE:

u t . "u;t1t:If-rflitrIentalitv, or

committed is contained therein.Evidence relevant to proving atherein.

means by which a felony has been

felony has been committed is contained

F.S. 933.02: (Non-Dwel1ing). (2) Properfy has been used as a means to commit any crime.. (3) Property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that-a*felony has

been committed.

i--: 1l t\,

-U-\)'-b

c:!' * ?.-- ' ...*- -\ t-i]. : 'r'_, fq

-rr,r-,f 'l # -T-;a#n - rr*i

r\.,-.Y r= ..- r--,*=-: b ;-< !,,! ? d*t_-1 ^.F: -i-<;:'*

- *\

" .r_...J r

tt

.-;;.il (.o:l-_i ft

Page 3 of9

35

35

ll-cV3l Sfia

PAGE 4

GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT

PROBA.BLE CAUSE:

Affitant's reason for his beliefthat the laws of the State ofFlorida are being violated as stated above

and the facts establishing the grounds for this Affidavit and the probable cause for believing that such facts

exist are as follows:

Detective Alex Perez is assigned as the lead investigator to t}lis case. He described that the victim,

Sandra Veszi Einlorn alleges the suspect Steven Kohn and his wife Renee Kohn have been continually

harassing her and her husband over the course ofthe past several months. She alleges the harassment

commenced on or about 1 1/2812010 when she made a complaint about the livestock they keep at the rear

of their property. Shortly afterwards, the victim began receiving harassing messages via facebook.com and

her e-mail address of [email protected].

An 01/0712011, victirn Einhom applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,

restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interfering with, or stalking the

victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18201 1 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this

order on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court date of 04/15/201 1.

The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on '.-l: E.-.=,OZl23/2Oll and the dates listed were confirmed. ;l .f :: *c.:;E a- il

During the time period of 0l/ I 2/201 1 through 04/1 1/201 1, ar least eighty-ejght (8S Seftronic ;11_ ".r;_i = =mail messases (e-maiD were sent to the victim at [email protected] from various e-d6lBdreE&s. 1.

This time period was within the time period the protection order was active. Vtany of ttre}4qait messigesc)

are addressed from Steve Kohn. Listed below are tlle email addresses (and names, if available) of the e-

mails that were sent to victim:

Fage 4 of9

36

36

ll-DY 3l srl a

PAGE 5GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT

Steven Kohn [email protected]

Rebecca Kohn (rqbpqaa@effuiih/searqh.com)

Mike boy (lo1kq&ay&!4@hatmailpa!0)

sandra.veszi@lahoo. com

Hannah Kohn ([email protected])

Hinda Esther Kohn ([email protected])

Many of the e-mails from Steven Kohn Gsb!@14aet sqra) were regarding victim Einhom's

appearance. The remmks in the e-mai1 referred to having seen victim Einhorn on that day and included

attached pictures related to the content ofthe e-mails. The author repeatedly criticized victim Einhom's

personal appearance or attirc. Additional e-mails from the same internet potocol addrcss were regarding

the victim's vehicle (an Audi), and how some Gemans misteated the Jews during the World War tr era.

In particular, one of the e-mails wamed she had a front left flat tirc and rJrat "cmeful it's dangerous" and

another ten (10) e-mails with videos depicting an Audi, similar to victim Einhom's, either involved in a

crash or on fire (attached copies are provided). These e-mails in particular, were sent durine the. time tSabove listed protection order was in effect, which frightenerl and intimidated UcUm finhom:iile aaaAf

la j:: (-that many of the photographs seart to her were not publicly available on the internet ana sne$$lg6iea $ -lsomeone hacked into her computer to obtain thern. Sib ..r- FF=;+F

Detective Perez and your affiant examined the header information for each of theg"Eilr. fr :i

- :i:

discovered that they were all sent from the intemet protocol (IP) address of 65.34.193.158. "This ad$ss

was researched using the American Regisky for Intemet Numbers (ARIN). ARIN provides sen ices

related to the technical coordination and management of internet number resources. A semch on their

website of the IP address 65.34.193.15 8 revealed this was one of a set of IP addresses that belong to

Comcast Cable Comrnunications Holdings, Inc. A subpoena was drafted and approved by the Broward

county state attomey's oIEce on 04/2912011 requesting the information for some of the e-mails sent. Arequest for the entire time frame was not made, due to the possibility of a great deal of subscribers assigned

to this dynamically assigned IP address. The subpoena was submitted to Comcast Communications on the

same date. On 05/18/2011, Comcast retumed the subpoena to Detective Perez indicating the IP address

Page 5 of9

37

37

tl-DLf SlStto

PAGE 6GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

65.34.193.158 is a dlmamically assigned IP address and that for the time period where many of the above

e-mails were sent, the IP address belonged to a commercial account registered to search affinity executive

out of 3841 n 5 1't Ave in Hollywood, Florida. This is the home address for Steve and Renee Kohn, the

suspects in question. This IP address has also been assigned to this customer, without intemrption, from

the time period of 0412912011through 0511812011. Additionally, one of the e-mail addresses,

[email protected], specifically appears to be affiliated with the business name on the account.

Finally, one of the e-mail addresses used, sandra.veszi@)zahoo.com, is very similar to the victim's

e-mail address of [email protected]. It appears to have been created to harass the victim and to

masquerade the identrty of the person sending the intimidating e-mails.

kr light of concerns that may arise that the iisted home business may be hindered without the use

of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that

every effort will be made to expedite the forensic examination and retum any system(s), e_lpeditiously ifafter the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).

q*- j-:'t

E

,5-:.-r k-.l-r . nr \k

=:,*.,, F'j B

--':- ( ) -r,,.1il-"1 1..)/-'-/*

:;=,; >JF .r 'i -F.-+

- ra -r*L

-\ 'lw' E,\!: ! k

,-;, r l

r-l -':i; (-t)'-r c)

-Jt

\-J

Page 6 of9

38

38

t I - o'/sisvlo

PAGE 1

GENERAL AFF]DAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

EXPERIENCE A}{D TRAINING OF AIT'IANTS

Your affiant is a certified police officer with the City of Hollywood, Florida Police Departrnent

and has been so employed for 15 years. Your affiant has been a detective for 9 years and is cgrrently

assigned to The Economrc Crimes Unit (Specializing in Computer Crimes). Your affiant has been a swom

law enforcement officer since 1988 in the State of Florida. Your affiant's responsibilities include

rnvestigating computer crimes, conducting computer acquisitions / forensics / analysis, conducting video /aud:ro acquisitions / forensics i analysis, and cellula phone / skinnner / pda / gps acquisitions / forensics /

analysis. Your affiant has successfully attended and completed over (1000) hours of specialized training in

the forensic anallsis of electronic digital media / computer systems, the use of colnputer systems to commit

or facilitate crimilal activity, the investigations of internet crimes, and the subsequent seizure and analysis

of those systerns. This included an (80) hour training gogram at The Federal Law Enforcernent Training

Center (FLETC) in Glenco, Georgia, a (200) hour training / certification program conducted by the

Departrnent of Defense and The United States Seoet Service titled "Electronic Crimes State and Local

Program @CSLP) -IRC-ENCASE" which focused on the techniques for the seizure, forepg& acquisi$on

and analysis of electronic data from computer systerns, a (80) hour training / certifcation fd:dlr" "E*

States Secret Semce Cellulm Phone Lab in Tulsa, OIg and an additional (80) hour rffi$t urEg I 1*,=c) __ l-rrcertification from The United States Secret Service Cellular Phone Lab in Tulsa, Ok whifrfi&bed 6a the r"-''

ectonic data from c"rrfi$o*$onErDevices, Skrmmer Devices, and GPS Devices. Yow affiant has investigated a wrde iirfie of c&rinal "

cases in which computer(s) and / or electronic device(s) was utilized as the means to commii feloq&?imes

as well as a means of storing relevant evidence to proving felony criminal crimes- Your afhant is a

federally deputized active member of the multi-jurisdictional Miami Electronics Crimes Task Force

CA4ECTF) consisting of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcernent Agencies. Said Task Force is headed

by the United States Secret Service and is engaged in the investigations of electronic crimes with a focus

on computer related investigations. Your affiant has participated in the execution of numerous search

v/arrants and was an affiant or co-affiant on a number of those warrants. Your affiant has successfully

performed numerous forensic acquisition and analysis of electronic data from corputer systerns for both

State and Federal cases which vrere seized for criminal investigations.

Page 7 of9

39

39

tl'- o\stsrl o

PAGE 8

GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

THE ROLE OF TIIE COMPUTER IN THE OFF'ENSE

Your affiant knows that computer hardware, software, and electronic files may be important to a criminalinvestigation in two distinct ways: (1) the objects themselves may be contraband, evidence,instrumentalities, or fruits of crime, and/or (2) the objects may be used as storage devices that containcontraband, evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of crime in the form of electronic data. In this case, thewarrant application requests permission to search and seize data related to aggravated stalking, includingthose that may be stored on a computer. This data constitutes evidence of crime. This aftrdavit alsorequests permission to seize the computer hardware that may contain the data related to aggravatedcyberstalking. Your affiant believes that, in this case, the computer hardware is a container for evidenceand also itself an instrumentality ofthe crime under investigation.

I{ECESSITY TO REMOVE COMPUTERFROM PREI\{ISES

Based upon your affiant's knowledge, training and experience, your afFlant knows that searching andseizing information from computers often requires agerts-to seize most or all electronic storage devices(along with related peripherals) to be searched later by a qualified computer expert in a laboratory or othercontrolled environmeni. This is true because ofthe following:

.?rl ts( I ) The volume of evidence. Computer storage devices (like hard disk, diskettes, tapes, ,Ia.ffi disksfranstore the equivalent of millions of pages of information. Additionally, a suspect mayi+d JS copal . .

criminal evidence; he or she might store it in random order with deceptive file names. Iffi&riy r.Fire r.'isearching authorities to examine all the stored data to determine which particular nf es &Sfliaen6B or Iinstrumentalities of crime- This sorting process can take weeks or months, depending € ffie'irohift of Udata stored, and it would be impractical and invasive to attempt this kind of data searct onip&

= -i

:F G)(2) Technical Requirements. Searching computer systems for criminal evidence is a hiihly tecFnicalprocess requiring expert skill and a properly controlled environment. The vast array of computer hardwareand software available requires eyen computer experts to specialize in some systems and applications, so itis difftcult to know before a search which expert is qualified to analyze the system and its data. In anyevent, however, data search protocols are exacting scientific procedures designed to protect the integrity ofthe evidence and to recover even "hidden," erased, compressed, password-protected, or encrypted files.

Page 8 of9

40

40

ll oL{ zls({r

PAGE 9GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

Because computer evidence is vulnerable to inadvertent or intsntional modification or deskuction (bothfrom external sources or from destructive code imbedded in the system as a "booby trap"), a controlledenvironment may be necessary to complete an accurate analysis. Further, such searches often require theseizure of most or all of a computer system's input/output peripheral devices, related software,documentation, and data security devices (including passwords) so that a qualified computer expert canaccurately retrieve the system's data in a laboratory or other conkolled enyironment.

h light of these concerns, your affiant hereby requests the Court's permission to seize the

contents of the computer hardware (and associated peripherals) that are believed to contain some

or all of the evidence described in the waffant, and to conduct an off-site search of the hardware

for the evidence described.

WHEREFORE, your AIfiant hereby makes application for a Search Warant authorizing theAffiants, Police Officers for The Cii,- of Hollywood, Broward County, Florid4 with proper andnecessary assistance, to include but not limited to The United States Secret Service and membersof The Miami Electronic Crimes Task Force, to search the above described prertdse ing$edalimeinighttime or on Sunday, and to seize any and all of the aforesaid propgrft foun@yvirtue of such Search Warrant and to list the properry seized on a retum and invent#mh $O _within this Judicial Circuit within ten days of this date. d-!B rfi

0-/ /, k"'-*oE#-rl 5AFFIANT Detective Robgfl/Knapp#36 :*- -''-

,=cr-= 3

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED beforeme at Fort Lauderdale, p,rcwardCounty, Florida, this -f dayoRx,lttxA- . A.D. 20\t.

UJUDGE OF THE CIRCTIIT COI'RT

Page 9 of9

41

41

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THESEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORTDA )

couNTY oF BROWARD )

)SS

SEARCH WARRANT

IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO ALL AND SINGULAR:

The Chief of Police of the City of Hollywood, of Broward County, Florida, and his

officers, specifically Detective Robert Knapp.

Aftidavit having been made before me by Detective Robert Knapp, of the City of

Hollywood Police Department, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida that they have

probable cause to know and they do know that on or about the premises described as:

A residential house, any detached structures, and any registered vehicles on the propertylocated at384l North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State ofFlorida. The residence is a concrete block construction single family residence. The exteriorwalls are painted tan with ateruacotta barrel tile roof, The blue front exterior door faces westbetween two decorative offwhite colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The resideneehas a circular driveway with a two car garuge. The address numb er "3841" is affixed to theexterior wall facing west above the garage doors.The location in question can be reached from l-95,to west on Sterling Road, to south on SarazenDrive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841North 51Avenue.

All electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated peripherals), locatedwithin the residerrce, any detached skuctures, and any registered vehicles listed above at 3B4lNorth 5 1 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, ffid the State of Florida.

The following grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant, as required by chapter 933,exists, to wit: the law relating to Aggravated Stalking F.S.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4), has beenviolated, and property constituting evidence relevant to proving that such a Felony has beencornmitted may be found therein, to wit:

42

42

PAGE TWOSEARCITWARRANT

Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search ofany of the listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.

1. Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software andhardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computerprinters, modems, tape drives, disk application programs, data disks, system diskoperating systems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and harddrive and other computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computerphotographs, graphic interchange formats and/or photographs, digital Gameras, slides,scanners or other visual depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment whichmay be or are used to visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

2. Any and all electronic equipment that is capable of accessing the intemet and/or thesending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones andtablet computers, pertaining to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

3. Any and all conespondence, in electronic, printed or any other form, pertaining toaggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

4. Any and all materials and photographs, either electronic, printed or any other form,concerning aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, store, or modifythe evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or storecommunications described in the affidavit.

6. Files and data on the computer that show the suspeot's ownership, possession andcontrol at time of the offense.

7. Any and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:

Steven Kohn [email protected], Rebecca Kohn , Mike boy

(m ikevbov8 1 4@hotmai I. comt, sand ra. veszi@vahoo. com, Hannah Kohn

, ffid Hinda Esther Kohn

8. Encrypted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of theinformation listed in previous paragraphs.

43

43

NOW THEREFORE, the facts upon which the belief of said affiant is based as set out in saidAffidavit are hereby deemed sufficient to show probable cause for the issuance of a SearchWarrant in accordance with said application of said Affiant.

And as I am satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the laws of the State ofFlorida are being violated as aforesaid and that the above described property is beingconcealed within the above described residence, I expressly find probable cause for theissuance of this Search Warrant.

THIS lS, THEREFORE to command me, Detective Robert Knapp, Police Officer for the City ofHollywood, Broward County, Florida, with proper and necessary assistance, to include but notlimited to The United States Secret Service and members of The Miami Electronic CrimesTask Force, to search the above described location, serving this warrant and making the searchin the daytime or the nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demandor require, with the proper and necessary assistance, and if the property above described befound there, to seize it, Ieaving a copy of this warrant and a receipt for the property taken and toprepare a written inventory of the property seized and return this warrant and inventory andbring the property before a court having competent jurisdiction of the offense within (10) daysas required by law.

DONE AND ORDERED at 4ilswstL , Florida,<t

on thi= (''day iJ-J-- , 2011 .

CIRCUIT JUDGE MARCIA BEACH

44

44

45

45

46

46

City of Hollywood Police Department

INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT

Case #

Received this warrant on

on

20 and executed the same

, 20- at _ _m. by delivering a true copy

thereof to and at the same time showing this original

search warrant and reading it to and explaining to

the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search

I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the propefi appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.

Sworn to and subscribed before methis _ day of ,20

Signature

Witness to the removal of the above items

WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-3110,/02)

Signature

47

47



Case #


on


, 20- at _ _m. by delivering a true copy




I found:

t, the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.

Sworn to and subscribed before methis _ day of ,2O

Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311(12102)

Signature

48

48



Case #


on,20_and executed the same

20_ at _ _m. by delivering a true copy




I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.


Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311 1AO2)

Signature

49

49



Case #


on


, 20-_ at _ _m. by delivering a true copy


.""r.h *"rr"ntrnd r""dlng !tto"nd "*pl"inlns

lothe contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search

I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.

Sworn to and subscribed before methis _ day of ,20-'

Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311(12n21

Signature

50

50



Case #

,20_and executed the sameReceived this warrant on

on ,20- at _ _m. by delivering a true copy




I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinvenlory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.


Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311('t2lO2)

Signature

51

51

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE: THE MATTER OF: CRIMINAL DIVISION

STEVEN KOHN

_________________________/

MOTION TO QUASH AND TRAVERSE SEARCH WARRANT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW, STEVEN KOHN, by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby

moves this Honorable Court pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution, Article I, § 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23 of the Constitution of the

State of Florida, and Chapter 933, Fla. Stat., to quash a certain search warrant, allow a traverse of

the Search Warrant to occur challenging the truthfulness of the affidavit in which the warrant

relies, or in the alternative, for a protective order and as ground thereof states as follows:

1. Defendant stands accused by Officers of the City of Hollywood for the alleged

violation of Florida Statute 784.048 (1)(d)(4) entitled Aggravated Stalking in sworn testimony

under oath by Detective Robert Knapp #2536.

2. The Search Warrant was subject to the following requirements:

a. Must be issued by a neutral disinterested magistrate. Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175;

b. Those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate the existence of

probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension of

conviction for particular offense Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175; and

c. Warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized as well as the place to be

searched. Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979).

52

52

3. The Fourth Amendment, the Florida Constitution, and Florida Statutes (§ 923.04

and 923.05) provide that no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or

affirmation, in particular describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be

seized. A search warrant is issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the

legitimate object of the search is located in a particular place. Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204

(1981). The reason cited must be sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a crime has been

committed, and, as long as a neutral magistrate has a substantial basis for concluding that a

search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the probable cause requirement is satisfied.

Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1991).

4. A basic principle is that searches and seizures inside a constitutionally protected

area without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740

(1984).

5. Statutes and rules authorizing searches and seizures are strictly construed and

affidavits and warrants issued pursuant to such authority must meticulously conform to statutory

and constitutional provisions. State v. Quigg, 17 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1944).

6. The reviewing court, judge, or magistrate, must make sure that a magistrate had a

substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S.

727 (1984); McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Whether an affidavit

supporting a search warrant sufficiently supports a probable cause finding must be determined

within its four corners. State v. Starks, 633 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The burden is on the

state to prove that the police had probable cause for a search and seizure. Doctor v. State, 596 So.

2d 442 (Fla. 1992).

53

53

7. A defendant in the proceeding has the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte issuance of a search warrant to challenge the

truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant. Mason v. State,

375 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Jacobs, 320 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

8. Under the circumstances in this matter, the search warrant would have been

issued pursuant to Section 933.02(3) which provides that a search warrant may be issued when

any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.

9. Even where the search warrant can be found properly issued, an exception exists

to evidence seized which is “testimonial” or “communicative” in nature; such evidence is

considered tantamount to compelling the defendant to become a witness against himself in

violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. State v. Kircheis, 269

So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

10. It is believed that the target of the affidavit and warrant in this matter were

statements made in emails by Defendant which were communicative in nature showing

violations of aggravated stalking. Under Kircheis, such search would be unlawful because of the

nature of the items sought.

11. Further, regardless of whether the emails sought after by the City of Hollywood’s

Police Department were of the same communicative nature of those described in Kircheis, the

affidavit is completely void of any meaningful probable cause.

12. The affidavit alleges on its face the following:

On 01/07/2011, victim Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against

Steven Kohn, restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing,

following, interfering with, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was

approved on 01/18/2011 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this order

on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court

date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on

54

54

02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed.

(Emphasis Added) (Affidavit is attached as Exhibit “A”).

13. Defendant challenges the truth of the information contained in the warrant

Affidavit.

14. First, the Affiant left out the fact that at the time the search warrant was sought

and signed, victim Einhorn knew that the temporary injunction that was the crux of the alleged

law violation was denied. This is contrary to the Affiant’s sworn statement in which Affiant

verified that a valid injunction was in place at the time the search warrant was signed.

15. Under oath, Sandra Einhorn stated the following:

Q. And did the police officers of the

Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if

you have a restraining order against Steve

Kohn?

A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had

been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining

order against Steve Kohn.

Q. So they knew that you were

unsuccessful?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did they -- did they --

A. Or that's what I told them.

Q. And did you ever lead them to believe

to believe you had a valid restraining order

against Mr. Kohn?

A. No, it would be foolish to lead police

into something that they could very easily

figure out for themselves one way or another.

Q. So your testimony is that you never

told police you had a valid restraining order

against Mr. Kohn?

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact, you told the police you did

not have valid restraining order because it was

denied?

A. I told -- I called the police and I --

actually lost when the decision was made that I

did not receive it. I did call Hollywood

Police to let them know that I did not receive

the restraining order. Yes, that is correct.

55

55

Einhorn v. Kohn, 10-048282 (18) (2011). (Attached is a copy of page ____ of the trial transcript

in relevant part).

16. The Affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a

reckless disregard for the truth as Sandra Einhorn states under oath that the Hollywood Police

Department knew she had not obtained a restraining order.

17. The Affiant, Detective Robert Knapp, blatantly disregarded the truth when Sandra

Einhorn specifically told Hollywood Police she did not have a restraining order against Steven

Kohn and yet he still made a representation that he verified the restraining order. Supra.

18. The Affidavit lists Florida State 933.18(6) and Florida Statute 933.02 as grounds

for issuance of the Search Warrant. However, the underlying felony, aggravated stalking

pursuant to Fla. Stat. 784.048(1)(d)(4) that Defendant had been alleged to have violated, required

an injunction to be in place. Because there was no valid injunction, the warrant rested on perilous

probable cause grounds.

19. The Affidavit contained false and manufactured statements made in order to

achieve a willfull and reckeless violation of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be

protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.

20. Because the warrant rests on perilous probable cause grounds, the warrant must

be quashed as there is no crime under which it could be issued pursuant to F.S. 933.18(6) and

F.S. 933.02. Evidence seized under it ought to be suppressed at trial as well. F.S.A. Const.

Declaration of Rights, § 22. Also see Davis v. State, 113 Fla. 713, 152 So. 6 (1934).

21. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing (referred to as a "Franks

hearing;" Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667].) on this issue upon a

"substantial showing" that:

56

56

a. The affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a

reckless disregard for the truth; and

b. The affidavit's remaining contents are reevaluated after the false statements are excised

to see if, as corrected, there is still sufficient evidence to justify a finding of probable

cause. Frank v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667, 672];

precluding the cross-examination of the affiant until the necessary showing is made. See

also People v. Wilson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3rd 742, 747; Theodor v. Superior Court

(1972) 8 Cal.3rd 77, 103; People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3rd 67, 78; and People v.

Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297; People v. Lewis et al. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970,

989); and

c. The affidavit contains information that is the direct product of a Fourth Amendment

violation. (SeeP eople v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073.)

WHEREFORE, Steven Kohn prays this honorable Court quashed and/or traverse the

aforementioned warrant, or in the alternative, issue a protective order preventing the State of

Florida and the City of Hollywood Police Department from having access to, from examining,

testing, reading or otherwise using any copies of data taken from the Kohns’ illegally seized

items during the execution of the warrant pertaining to all items taken, described or not described

in the alleged search warrant because such search violates the protections afforded to Defendant

pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article

I §12 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the aforementioned Florida Statutes and Florida

case law because, among other things, a) there was no probable cause for the search of Steven

Kohn’s home; b) the probable cause was based on false, misleading or incomplete information;

c) the information on which the affidavit was made was unreliable. Defendant further requests

that this Court convene an evidentiary hearing in order to be able to determine the issues raised

by this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________

DAVID LOW, ESQ.

57

57

58

58

Subject: Dismissals of Sandra Einhorn's Pe ons for Protec ve Order from Judge Kaplan


Date: 6/27/2011 8:47 PM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org,

jshe el@hollywoodß.org

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. Sheffel, Chief Wagner, and Detective Knapp,

Today, one of my attorneys met with the State Attorney who reviewed the June 1 search

warrant and attached probable cause. He found it impossible to believe that the warrant

could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order and suggested that I

make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

Although I am sure that I provided these already, I am complying with the suggestion and

making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn

Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the

attachment were:

Content Type: application/pdf;

name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64

Content Disposition: attachment;

filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf


attachment were:


name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



filename="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"

Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf


attachment were:


name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



59

59

filename="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"

Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf


attachment were:


name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



filename="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"

Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf


attachment were:


name="4 21 cover.pdf"



filename="4 21 cover.pdf"



attachment were:






Deleted: Dismissal.pdf


attachment were:


name="Dismissal.pdf"



filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:

Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf 254 bytes

60

60

Deleted: 1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf 268 bytes

Deleted: 4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf 266 bytes

Deleted: 4 15 2011 cover.pdf 262 bytes

Deleted: 4 21 cover.pdf 252 bytes


Deleted: Dismissal.pdf 250 bytes

61

61



Date: 6/28/2011 2:27 PM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org,

jshe el@hollywoodß.org

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. Sheffel, Chief Wagner, and Detective Knapp,

Today, one of my attorneys met with the State Attorney who reviewed the June 1 search

warrant and attached probable cause. He found it impossible to believe that the warrant

could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order and suggested that I

make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

Although I am sure that I provided these already, I am complying with the suggestion and

making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn



attachment were:


name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"



filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"



attachment were:


name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



filename="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



attachment were:


name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"


62

62


filename="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



attachment were:


name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



filename="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



attachment were:








attachment were:








attachment were:


name="Dismissal.pdf"



filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:


63

63







64

64

Subject: Fwd: Dismissals of Sandra Einhorn's Pe ons for Protec ve Order from Judge Kaplan


Date: 6/30/2011 8:34 AM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org, jshe el@hollywoodß.org

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. She el, Chief Wagner, and Detec ve Knapp,

The State attorney was confident that all I had to do was show you the 1/7 cover and 1/27 cover, (denied injuctions) and then realizing the error, HPD

The state attorney found it impossible to believe that the warrant could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order.

He suggested that I repeatedly make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

I am complying with the suggestion and making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them. So here it is again.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 21 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="4 21 cover.pdf"




65

65


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Dismissal.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:








66

66



Date: 7/1/2011 8:21 AM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org, jshe el@holllywoodß.org

Needless to say based upon experience, our family gets especially nervous around holidays.

I know that in the past you have only targeted our family on Jewish holidays (in fact we have not had a religious holiday in the nearly 3 years we have lived in

Hollywood WITHOUT interference from code enforcement, the police or both) but since American Jews do celebrate Independence Day I thought it best to make sure

that you s ll have these dismissals just in case you have forgo en since yesterday that Sandra Einhorn's mul ple Þlings against Steve Kohn were ALL denied and/or

dismissed.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY INJUNCTION AGAINST ANY MEMBER OF OUR FAMILY!!!

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. She el, Chief Wagner, and Detec ve Knapp,

The State attorney was confident that all I had to do was show you the 1/7 cover and 1/27 cover, (denied injuctions) and then realizing the error, HPD

The state attorney found it impossible to believe that the warrant could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order.

He suggested that I repeatedly make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

I am complying with the suggestion and making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them. So here it is again.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:

67

67

Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 21 cover.pdf"






You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Dismissal.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:








68

68

69

69

70

70

Subject: problem I hope we can resolve part 1

From: Steve Kohn <[email protected]>

Date: 7/20/2011 2:55 PM

To: JCANTOR@hollywoodß.org

Part 1 attachments warrant and court orders

Dear Mr. Cantor,

As you might be aware, HPD executed the attached search warrant on 6/8.

What you might not be aware of is that the probable cause is fictitious, and there iscopious proof that it is fictitious and that Detective Knapp knew it.

The statute in the affidavit that was allegedly violated is F.S.S.784.048 (1) (d) (4)which requires an injunction or court imposed prohibition of conduct, and conduct inviolation of that injunction. Since an injunction was sought, but not granted, theprobable cause grounds in the affidavit are insufficient as a matter of law.

The affidavit in question relies on the following information to support probable cause:

"01/07/2011, Sandra Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interferingwith, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18/2011 and suspectSteve Kohn was served with this order on the same date. The order was active and set toexpire on the assigned court date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified viaNCIC/FCIC 02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed."

The affiant, Detective Knapp, made a false statement in declaring that a temporary orderwas approved on 01/18/2011. The order of 01/18/2011, executed on a standard form usedto reschedule the hearing for a later date, merely extended a prior injunction, if onewas already in place. There was no prior injunction and therefore no injunction toextend. Furthermore, on 01/27/2011 Judge Kaplan vacated the order dated 01/18/2011 thatextended the non existent injunction, removing any appearance that there could possiblyhave ever been an injunction. Had there actually been an injunction issued on01/18/2011, it was vacated on 01/27/2011. In other words, at the time the protectionorder was allegedly verified via NCIC/FCIC on 02/23/2011, had such an order actuallyexisted on 01/18/2011 it was already vacated on 01/27/2011. The temporary injunctionthat was the crux of the alleged law violation was vacated. This is contrary to Knapp'ssworn statement that a valid injunction was in place from 01/18/2011 to 04/15/2011.

I met with State Attorney, BSO, FDLE, and HPD members on other occasions to verify thatthe NCIC/FCIC system does not have the entry that Knapp says was there, and furthermore,according to the data entry clerk at the BSO, they would not have been able to enter aninjunction extension unless the original was cross referenced. (after all, one has toknow who is being restricted from exactly which actions). The later vacating orderwould also have been cross referenced by 2/23.

You will find that the HPD system does not show that there was a temporary injunctionunder my name, which would have been required by law for BSO to deliver to HPD upon theorder being made.

Getting my possessions back has proven to be difficult without a state case number.

My attorney was quite sure that all I need to do is make you aware of the factssurrounding this case and that you will immediately correct the situation. He assuredme that if you had this email in your hands by 3:00, I'd probably have all of my stuff

71

71

72

72

Subject: problem I hope we can resolve part 1

From: Steve Kohn <[email protected]>

Date: 7/20/2011 2:55 PM

To: JCANTOR@hollywoodß.org

Part 1 attachments warrant and court orders

Dear Mr. Cantor,

As you might be aware, HPD executed the attached search warrant on 6/8.

What you might not be aware of is that the probable cause is fictitious, and there iscopious proof that it is fictitious and that Detective Knapp knew it.

The statute in the affidavit that was allegedly violated is F.S.S.784.048 (1) (d) (4)which requires an injunction or court imposed prohibition of conduct, and conduct inviolation of that injunction. Since an injunction was sought, but not granted, theprobable cause grounds in the affidavit are insufficient as a matter of law.

The affidavit in question relies on the following information to support probable cause:

"01/07/2011, Sandra Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interferingwith, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18/2011 and suspectSteve Kohn was served with this order on the same date. The order was active and set toexpire on the assigned court date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified viaNCIC/FCIC 02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed."

The affiant, Detective Knapp, made a false statement in declaring that a temporary orderwas approved on 01/18/2011. The order of 01/18/2011, executed on a standard form usedto reschedule the hearing for a later date, merely extended a prior injunction, if onewas already in place. There was no prior injunction and therefore no injunction toextend. Furthermore, on 01/27/2011 Judge Kaplan vacated the order dated 01/18/2011 thatextended the non existent injunction, removing any appearance that there could possiblyhave ever been an injunction. Had there actually been an injunction issued on01/18/2011, it was vacated on 01/27/2011. In other words, at the time the protectionorder was allegedly verified via NCIC/FCIC on 02/23/2011, had such an order actuallyexisted on 01/18/2011 it was already vacated on 01/27/2011. The temporary injunctionthat was the crux of the alleged law violation was vacated. This is contrary to Knapp'ssworn statement that a valid injunction was in place from 01/18/2011 to 04/15/2011.

I met with State Attorney, BSO, FDLE, and HPD members on other occasions to verify thatthe NCIC/FCIC system does not have the entry that Knapp says was there, and furthermore,according to the data entry clerk at the BSO, they would not have been able to enter aninjunction extension unless the original was cross referenced. (after all, one has toknow who is being restricted from exactly which actions). The later vacating orderwould also have been cross referenced by 2/23.

You will find that the HPD system does not show that there was a temporary injunctionunder my name, which would have been required by law for BSO to deliver to HPD upon theorder being made.

Getting my possessions back has proven to be difficult without a state case number.

My attorney was quite sure that all I need to do is make you aware of the factssurrounding this case and that you will immediately correct the situation. He assuredme that if you had this email in your hands by 3:00, I'd probably have all of my stuff

73

73

back by 5:00.

I laughed at him when he said it, but there is always the chance that he is correct andyou will indeed do the right thing. After all, if you don't, what happens if a Judge ora curious reporter asks "Why didn't you return the property as soon as you learned therewas no injunction?"?

It is a very bad thing that HPD for executed this warrant, on the Jewish Holiday ofShavuot, with 12 armed officers scaring my little children half to death, based on aphony probable cause.

I am hoping you will immediately and apologetically return my property and close thecase.

The attachments I will send necessitate breaking this up into a couple of messages. Ihope you can attend to this matter immediately. My real damages already include havingreplaced 5 cell phones, 2 computers, a camera, and a backup drive, and I will soon bepurchasing other replacement items if I don't get my equipment back immediately.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Steve Kohn3841 N 51 AveHollywood FL 33021954 404 [email protected]

Deleted: Warrant.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Warrant.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Warrant.pdf"

Deleted: 1-07-11 Cover page.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 07 11 Cover page.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="1 07 11 Cover page.pdf"

Deleted: 1-18-11 Continuance.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;

74

74

name="1 18 11 Continuance.pdf"Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="1 18 11 Continuance.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 21 cover.pdf"



75

75

76

76

77

77

ARTICLE II. THE CITY COMMISSION

Sec. 2.06. Non-interference.

The city commission and its members shall interact with the employees of the city's departments, offices and agencies solely through the city manager, or, in the case of the city attorney's office, the city attorney, or the designees of the city manager or city attorney, if any. Neither the city commission nor any of its members shall give orders or directions to, nor make requests of, any of the employees of the city's departments, offices and agencies, except that such orders, directions and requests may be directed to designees, if any, of the city manager or, in the case of the city attorney's office, the city attorney.

(Ord. O-2010-28, passed 7-21-10)

78

78

79

79

PresenterStacey S. Fisher, Esq.

80

80

Important Cases

81

81

Beginning The Process-Prior to Sending Us the File

Bother them- Use Pressure and a System Wide System

Not Just One Letter Per Month

Develop A System-

AND USE IT

82

82

Sending The File To Your Attorney1. To Begin the Suit You Need To:

A. Get All Backup Documents TogetherB. Increase Balance Where AppropriateC. Decide Which Road To Take

1. Size of Debt is a Factor2. Do You Want to Collect or Close File?3. Collect or File Suit?4. File Suit Immediately?

83

83

ComplaintForm

84

84

Ho llywoo d Police D epartm ent

CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: 07 /l8l20ll 13:32

oce: 337104061998

,, TT INFoRMATION BEIpw IS CoNFIDENTLAL FoR USE BT A\IffioRtzED pERsoNNEL oNLy ,,Case Status: INACTII/E

Offense: TRESPASSING

Case Mng Status: INACTII/E Occured: 04/23/2011

Investigator: PLUMMER, P. (3221)

Supervisor: ANDRANIS, P. (1930)

Contact: Reference: Follow Up

ON 0412412011, I RESPONDED TO 3821 N 51ST AVE IN REFERENCE TO A NEIGHBOR DISPUTE. I MADECONTACT WITH SANDRA EINHORN. Sr{E STATED THAT TODAY r{ER NEIGr{BOR (3841 N 51 AVE),STEVE KOHN'S CHILDREN AND V/IFE WERE TRESPASSING ON I{ER PROPERTY AND RANG HER DOORBELL AND WERE RI]NNING AROUND IN I{ER FRONT YARD. SIIE EXPLAINED THAT SIIE DOES HAVE ATEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (COtrRT CASE #DVCE-I t-2439) ON STEVE KOHN, BUT NOT HrSWIT'E OR CHILDREN. SANDRA DOES I{AVE VIDEO OF TODAY'S INCIDENT AND WILL BRING T}IEVIDEO TO SHOW TI{E JUDGE AT T}IE FINAL I{EARING FOR TIIE RESTRAINING ORDER IN MAY. I GAVEA VERBAL WARNING TO TIM RESIDENTS OF 3841 N 51ST AVE TO STAY OF OFF SANDRA'S PROPERTY.

Date / Time: 04/24/20 I I I 5 : 28: 3 3, Sunday

Supervisor Review Date / Time: 04/24/2bt t 20:24:35, Sunday

Page 585

85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY


162

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 10-048282 (18)

GRANT EINHORN AND SANDRA )

EINHORN, as husband and )

wife, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN, )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________/

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

VOLUME II of IV (Pages 162 - 262)

DATE: August 3-4, 2011

LOCATION: Broward County Courthouse

201 Southeast 6th Street

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

BEFORE: Honorable Michele Towbin Singer

This cause came on to be heard at the time and place

aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were

reported by:

Carlos A. Rugel

Certified Electronic Court Reporter

Notary Public, State of Florida

Alternative Court Reporting

4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J

Hollywood, FL 33021

P: 954.832.3563

F: 954.556.6607

www.AlternativeCourtReporting.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



197

MR. LOW: Okay.

THE COURT: So ask your next question.

Q. Okay, and how many times did you contact

the Hollywood Police Department in that regard?

A. Several times.

Q. I'm not talking about the time that you

called the non-emergency number for the police to

come over. I'm talking about separate and apart

from that.

A. They're all -- they're all -- they're all

in the same -- they're all in the same to me.

When I made a phone call, it was a phone call

because I was being harassed and I had the

expectation that Hollywood Police would protect me

and allow me to feel safe and secure in my home.

Q. Okay, and do you know who you were

speaking with on the phone at the Hollywood Police

Department?

A. Depended on the day.

Q. Can you give me a name?

A. That I spoke to? I mean, typically I

spoke to dispatch who would then call someone out.

And I had many officers come out to my home.

Q. And did the police officers of the

Hollywood Police Department ever ask you if you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



198

have a restraining order against Steve Kohn?

A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had been

unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining order

against Steve Kohn.

Q. So they knew that you were unsuccessful?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did they -- did they --

A. Or that's what I told them.

Q. And did you ever lead them to believe you

had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn?

A. No, it would be foolish to lead police

into something that they could very easily figure

out for themselves one way or another.

Q. So your testimony is that you never told

police you had a valid restraining order against

Mr. Kohn?

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact, you told the police you did not

have a valid restraining order because it was

denied?

A. I told -- I called the police and I --

the day that I actually lost when the decision was

made that I did not receive it. I did call

Hollywood Police to let them know that I did not

receive the restraining order. Yes, that is