kohn v. hollywood police, einhorn, knapp, perez, sheffel, cantor, blattner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

STEVEN KOHN, RENEE LEAVY, )

REBECCA KOHN, HANNAH KOHN, )

SARA KOHN, LEAH KOHN, ) AMENDED COMPLAINT

H.K. (a minor), A.K.(a minor), S.M.K.(a minor), )

C.K. (a minor), S.G.K.(a minor), D.K.(a minor) )

)

Plaintiffs )

vs. )

)

City of Hollywood, a municipal corporation )

Jeffrey Sheffel, Joel Cantor, )

Robert Knapp, Chadwick Wagner, Alexander Perez, )

Grant Einhorn, Sandra Einhorn, )

Richard S. Blattner )

)

Defendants )

_______________________________________/ )

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

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

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs STEVEN KOHN (KOHN), RENEE LEAVY, REBECCA KOHN, HANNAH

KOHN, SARA KOHN, LEAH KOHN, H.K. (a minor), A.K. (a minor), S.M.K. (a minor), C.K.

(a minor), S.G.K. (a minor), and D.K. (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 employed by the Defendant, City of Hollywood (“City”), as a duly sworn law enforcement

officer, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, was acting under color of law and color of

his authority as a police detective of Defendant City of Hollywood.

Case 0:13-cv-62588-RSR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2013 of 30

2

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

action, was employed by the City of Hollywood, as a duly sworn law enforcement officer, and at

all times mentioned in this complaint, was acting under color of law and color of his authority as

a police detective of Defendant City of Hollywood.

4. Defendant CHADWICK WAGNER (“Defendant Wagner”), at all times material to this

action was employed by the City of Hollywood as a duly sworn law enforcement officer, and

served as the City’s police chief charged with supervising, training, directing, promoting, and

disciplining all subordinate officers employed by the City’s police department. Defendant

Wagner was the City’s highest ranking law enforcement official and as such is responsible for

the day to day operations of the Hollywood Police Department.

5. 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.

6. 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.

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

Commissioner for the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida.

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

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

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

acting under color of state law.

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

action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.


3

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

action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

II. JURISDICTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

transaction or occurrence as Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

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

capacities in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest

and attorney's fees, as well as injunctive relief.

16. 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 the City

of Hollywood, employee police officers of the City of Hollywood, employees of the City of


4

Hollywood government, the Chief of Police of the City of Hollywood, a Commissioner of the

City of Hollywood, and two City of Hollywood 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, Blattner, the City of Hollywood, and the City of Hollywood Police Department,

whose combined purpose was to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs under color of law. This

conspiracy was formed for the sole purpose of violating the Kohns’ civil rights by using official

process to unlawfully enter the Kohns’ residence and illegally seize their private property.

Detectives Knapp and Perez had been assigned to investigate a report that Steven Kohn

had violated a restraining order which was never obtained by the Einhorns following a long

series of disputes between these two neighbors. This dispute ultimately resulted in separate

litigation in Broward County Circuit Court. This lawsuit so irritated the Einhorns that they

engaged the assistance of named Defendant City officials. Subsequent to the Einhorns’ meeting

with the other Defendants, a scheme was concocted whereby the Kohns would be harassed by

the City Police Department under the guise of an improper injunction violation investigation.


5

First, Sandra Einhorn summoned Detectives Knapp and Perez to her home where she

informed the detectives that an injunction had been entered by the Broward Clerk’s office, and

alleged that the Kohns had violated an injunction, even though she knew that none had ever been

in effect. Second, Detectives Knapp and Perez knew that the alleged injunction did not exist, but

continued to investigate the Kohns for violating the non-existent injunction. Subsequent to their

meetings with the Einhorns, Detectives Knapp and Perez executed an affidavit for a search

warrant which they knew contained false information. To provide themselves with a plausible

cover story, Detectives Knapp and Perez checked a criminal justice database NCIC/FCIC where

they knew they would find an injunction which had been erroneously entered by the Broward

Clerk’s office. Despite a clear and conspicuous warning on the teletype telling both officers not

to rely on the information provided when making an arrest or conducting a search, the detectives

used this bogus injunction as basis for the criminal investigation to secure issuance of the

warrant.

It was only after the unlawful search and seizure was conducted by the Detectives, after

the Kohns protested their innocence, did the detectives contact the Broward County Clerk’s

Office directly to verify that the erroneous injunction entry had been vacated prior to the

violation alleged by the Einhorns.

Defendant Wagner, as police chief, permitted officers to execute false affidavits for

search warrants, said violation evincing a deliberate indifference to a police practice which he

knew would lead to civil rights violations. Additionally, Chief Wagner failed to properly train

his employees to verify civil process when said process serves as the basis for an arrest, search,

or other criminal investigation given NCIC/FCIC’s admonition against relying on the criminal

justice database keeping pace with the fluid nature of civil proceedings. Chief Wagner’s failure


6

to properly supervise and train his employees amounted to deliberate indifference to a practice

which he knew was likely to result in civil rights violations. Additionally, Chief Wagner’s

complicity in allowing this unlawful investigation to proceed at the behest of his superiors was

the direct cause of the Kohns’ injury.

IV. FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

17. 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.

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

because they were free speech.

19. 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.

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

determined that the gift was an act of harassment, based partially on the fact that blessings were

offered in the name of “a God the reportees do not believe in” and opened an investigation under

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

21. 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.


7

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

Blattner, showing him the Facebook message that Plaintiff 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 Plaintiffs: “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!”

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

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

and City Manager Benson, 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).

24. As a result of the aforementioned meeting all of the named Defendants Blattner, Wagner,

Sheffel, Grant and Sandra Einhorn agreed to conspire to violate the Kohns’ civil rights.


8

25. 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).

26. Defendants Grant and Sandra Einhorn sought the removal of the 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 $55,000.00 worth of services to the City.

27. As part of the Defendants’ conspiracy, 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).

28. Defendant Sandra Einhorn lied under oath during a deposition and in Court in Case No.:

10-048282 when testifying that she never told Hollywood Police Department that an injunction

existed against Mr. Kohn.

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

curtilage of Kohns’ 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.

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

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


9

and interfered with the outcome of the aforementioned lawsuit by handicapping the Plaintiffs’

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

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

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

nuisance lawsuit.

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

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

33. 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. Detectives Knapp and Perez knew the

information being provided to them was false and is evidence of their active participation in

furtherance of the conspiracy to deprive the Kohns of their civil liberties.

34. 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. The 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).

35. 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


10

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

(Exhibits p19).

36. 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).

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

38. 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.

39. 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 (or the temporary injunction would have been granted).

40. 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.

41. 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).


11

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.

42. On February 23, 2011, the Broward County Circuit Court held a hearing on Case No.: 10-

048282, and elected not to grant a temporary injunction to remove Kohns’ 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).

43. 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).

44. 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.

This was not done because Defendant Perez knew the injunction was no longer in effect and

making an attempt to verify the injunction would leave irrefutable evidence of his unlawful


12

intent. There were no exigencies to justify not confirming the status or terms of the protection

order.

45. 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.

46. On April 29, 2011, based upon the irrelevant materials provided by Einhorns, 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 did not exist. (Exhibits pp 28-32)

47. 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. An element of the crime of aggravated

stalking is violation of an injunction.

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

Plaintiffs Rebecca Kohn, Hannah Kohn, and (14 year old) H.K. for possible violations of felony

cyber stalking after injunction. Defendant Knapp then executed an affidavit in support of a

Search Warrant which, he knew contained false information, and said application resulted in the

issuance of a search warrant. The Warrant was served 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.


13

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).

49. The Affidavit contains statements that were deliberately false and but for those false

statements no warrant would have been issued.

50. 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, there was no legal basis for the

officers’ investigation.

51. 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. 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


https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2003508462&pubNum=735&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29






































https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000006&cite=FLSTS923.04&originatingDoc=Iad88fd63e62811de8bf6cd8525c41437&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29
























14

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

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

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

54. 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. 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.

55. 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

and unlawful 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.

56. Steven Kohn was entitled to and was granted an evidentiary hearing (referred to as a

"Franks hearing;" Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667].) regarding the

integrity of the search warrant:

a. The affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a

reckless disregard for the truth; and

















15

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.)

The Kohns prevailed at that hearing and the Circuit Court found that the warrant was not

supported by probable cause.

57. 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.

58. 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).


16

59. 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.

60. 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.

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

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

pickup. In the end, the 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. All of these facts are raised to demonstrate evidence

of the City’s motivation for violating the Kohns’ civil rights and further evidence of the

conspiracy which existed between the Einhorns and the named Defendant City Officials.

62. 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.


17

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

due to the absolute nonexistence of probable cause, the motion was granted by Broward County

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

64. 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 Kohns’

residence seeking any and all electronic equipment or storage devices capable of

accessing the internet and/or the sending and receiving of electronic mail.”

65. 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).”

66. On the morning of June 8, 2011, Plaintiff 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) These officers, which included Detectives

Knapp and Perez, threatened use of imminent physical force during execution of the warrant and

unlawfully entered the Kohns occupied residence.

67. 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


18

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).

68. During the execution of the search warrant on June 8, 2011 Plaintiff Leavy 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.”

69. 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.

70. During the aforementioned hearing Detective Knapp testified that he ultimately

determined that the injunction against the Kohns did not in fact exist. He verified this

information by simply contacting the Broward County Clerk’s Office. Detective Knapp

conveniently failed to do this before executing his affidavit in support of a search warrant.

Detective Knapp’s written comments were presented by Defendant Cantor at the Kohns’ Franks

hearing:


19

“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).

71. 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).

72. 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.

73. 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)


20

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.

74. 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

(Defendants KNAPP, PEREZ, and WAGNER in their official and individual capacities and

Defendants Sandra and Grant EINHORN)

PLAINTIFFS repeat and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 74, and incorporate them by

reference herein.

1. Defendant Knapp, while acting in his official capacity, provided knowingly false

testimony in his sworn application for a search warrant 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. 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, and whose subsequent actions ratified the

actions of the officers.


21

3. 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.

4. 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. Detective Knapp participated in this unlawful search

of the Kohns’ residence and unlawfully seized the Kohns’ personal property.

5. Defendants Sandra Einhorn and Grant Einhorn acted in concert with Defendants Perez

and Knapp in order to cause them to violate the 4th

Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.

6. 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.

7. The Defendants were all united in their animus against the cultural and religious practices

of the Plaintiffs, as demonstrated by the facts that

a. the investigation was opened based upon the giving of a gift and the

accompanying note which offered blessings in the name of “a God the

reportees do not believe in.”


22

b. the fact that the Defendants intentionally picked a major religious Holiday as

the date to execute the warrant, even though they knew that at such a time a

greater number people were likely to be present.

8. By reason of the foregoing, all Defendants in their official capacity violated 42 U.S.C.

§1983. The Einhorns are liable for violating the Kohns civil rights under section 1983 by

knowingly employing the Hollywood police department to violate the Kohns’ rights under color

of state law.

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

the damages complained of herein.

10. 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

named 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

§1985 CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS

(All Defendants in their individual and official capacities)


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


23

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." Defendant

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 Article II, Section 2.06, of the Charter of the City of Hollywood

(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). At that meeting the Defendants agreed to conspire to unlawfully deprive the

Kohns of their civil rights.

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.


24

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 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. However, the police were nefariously in cahoots with the

Einhorns and therefore proof of an injunction was not a priority.

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,


25

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.]


26

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. The affidavit was perjured with the intended result

being the violation of the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.

17. Defendant Cantor and Defendant Sheffel repeatedly ratified the actions of the officers by

deliberately ignoring the fact that no probable cause existed with which to obtain and execute a

search warrant, and by deliberately seizing and preventing the timely return of the Plaintiffs’

property which they knew was taken based on a perjured warrant.

18. By reason of the foregoing, all Defendants in their official and individual capacities

conspired to violate the Kohns’ civil rights and are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985.

19. The Kohns were subject to an unlawful search and seizure of their personal property and

suffered severe emotional distress from the actions of the named Defendants.

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

the damages complained of herein.

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 III


27

§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 executing false search warrant affidavits.

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

Hollywood Police Department’s officers by allowing them to violate the civil rights of

individuals at the behest of top city officials.

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

officers including the pursuit of search warrants that were knowingly false.

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

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

to the damages complained of herein.




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.


28

STATE CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT IV

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

(Defendant Knapp individual and official 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 warrant without

probable cause.

2. Defendant Knapp used force to effect 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 is false imprisonment under Florida law.




Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Knapp in his official

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

COUNT V

ASSAULT

(Defendant Knapp)


reference herein.


29


the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs, by executing an unconstitutional search warrant with force.

2. Defendant Knapp and the unknown officers that accompanied him used physical force to

enter the Kohns’ home and threatened imminent physical harm if their orders to enter the home

were no obeyed.

3. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were placed in reasonable apprehension of

imminent unlawful physical harm and therefore suffered injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Knapp in his individual

capacity, in an amount in excess of FIFTY THOUSAND ($50,000.00) DOLLARS.

COUNT VI

Burglary

(Defendant Knapp)


reference herein.


the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs, by executing an unconstitutional search warrant with force.

2. Defendant Knapp, with the purpose of committing an unlawful search inside the Kohns’

home, unlawfully entered said occupied dwelling and, in fact committed several criminal and

tortious acts therein.

3. Defendant Knapp executed a search warrant affidavit he knew to be false and, therefore,

his entry to the home was done maliciously and not privileged.

4. Therefore, Detective Knapp committed a burglary and is liable for damages.


30

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Knapp in his individual

capacity, in an amount in excess of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($250,000.00)

DOLLARS.

CONCLUSION

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. 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 a trial by jury.

DAVID LOW, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Infinity at Brickell

40 S.W. 13th

Street, Suite 601

Miami, Florida 33130

Phone: (305) 935-8986

Fax: (305) 675-2685

BY: s/David Low

DAVID LOW, ESQ.

FBN: 67957


kohn v. hollywood police, einhorn, knapp, perez, sheffel, cantor, blattner

Documents

city of hollywood city

defendant richard

times material

city of hollywood andor

city of broward county

city attorney

hollywood police department

minor plaintiffs