Ross
C/O Ricky Duncan
Plaintiff, In Pro Per
In the
In and for the District of the State of
|
Plaintiff, vs. Steve
Corich - Defendant #1 Lynn
Bray - Defendant #2 Turner
- Defendant #3 MCC Police Aid - Defendant
#4 Sgt. A Spicer Defendant #5 J Behnke Defendant
#6 Mesa Community College
Defendant #7 Maricopa Community College
District Defendant #8 City of Mesa, Arizona
Defendant #9 Defendants |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded) |
COMES
NOW the Plaintiff, Ross, and for his complaint alleges and avers as follows.
I. JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
1. This action arises the First, Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the
2.
Venue
is proper in this District Court as the Defendants are believed to reside
within this district and all acts alleged occurred within this District
II. PARTIES
3. The plaintiff is a single man and can
be found in
4. Defendant #1 is Steve Corich a man
believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and are further believed to
be a Police Officer and Director of Public Safety in the Mesa Community College
Police Department.
5. Defendant #2 is Lynn Bray a man
believed to be a resident of the State of
6. Defendant #3 is Turner a man believed
to be a resident of the State of
7. Defendant #4 is an unknown man
believed to be a resident of the State of
8. Defendant
#5 Sgt. A Spicer is a
man believed to be a resident of the State of
9. Defendant
#6 J Behnke is a man
believed to be a resident of the State of
10.
Defendant
#7
11.
Defendant
#8 Maricopa Community College District is a government entity that runs most of
the government community colleges in
12.
Defendant
#9 the City of Mesa Arizona is a government entity in
III. GENERAL
STATEMENT
13. On Thursday January 31, 2008 at about
11:45 a.m., the Plaintiff was using a computer on the second floor of the Mesa
Community College Library, which is open to the public. The plaintiff was
writing a computer program used to generate web pages, something which is a legal
and allowed in the library.
14. Unknown to the plaintiff he was being
approached by defendant #2 and defendant #3 who were soon going to attack and
then falsely arrest the plaintiff.
15. Defendant #2 and defendant #3 could
have yelled at the plaintiff and said, “We are police officers. You’re under
arrest, put your hands up in the air and get away from the computer”. The plaintiff
would have complied because he does not want to be killed by the police for not
following orders like 15 year-old Mario Madrigal Jr. of
16. Defendant #2 and defendant #3 could
have lied to the plaintiff and used a ruse to get him away from the computer.
They could have said “We are police officers and there is a bomb scare and you
have to leave the building.”, or said “We are police officers, the computer you
are using needs to be repaired. Could you step away and use a computer at a
different table”, and then arrested the plaintiff when he stepped away from the
computer. But again those simple plans wouldn’t be any fun because it would not
allow defendants #2 and #3 to engage in “extra curricular activities”.
Defendants #2 and #3 didn’t have any qualms about lying to the plaintiff while
he was under arrest for almost two hours. They must have lied to the plaintiff
at least 20 times when they told the plaintiff that he didn’t have any 5th
Amendment rights while in their custody. They could have easily told one more lie
and used a lie like one of the above to arrest the plaintiff with out any
violence.
17. Defendants #2 and #3 did not tell the
plaintiff they were police officers when they attacked him from behind. They
plaintiff thinks they were probably hoping the plaintiff would fight back when
he was attacked and then the defendants could charge him with felony charges
for resisting arrest and attacking a police officer.
18. Defendant #2 snuck up behind the
plaintiff and either punched him in the head or used some other martial arts
technique to attack the plaintiff and knock his glasses off. The plaintiff
thinks defendant #2 did this intentionally to blind the plaintiff by removing
his glasses. The plaintiff was in shock during the attack and does not remember
exactly what happened, other then not having his glasses, and missing one shoe
after the attack was over.
19. At the same time defendant #2 and
maybe defendant #3 used physical force to remove the plaintiff’s body away from
the computer and the plaintiff out into the open area of the library. The
plaintiff remembers that defendant #2 had his arms wrapped around the plaintiff
when the attack was over.
20. At the time of the attack and during
the entire arrest the plaintiff does not remember being in any pain, although
the plaintiff was in shock. For several days after the attack the plaintiff
begin to notice a pain in his left arm. The plaintiff thinks that defendant
number #2 or #3 may have intentionally used some martial arts technique to
cause this injury, which was very painful for several days.
21. The plaintiff did not notice if
defendants #2 and #3 were in possession of deadly weapons. The plaintiff knows that the MCC police were
to be armed with .40 caliber Glock handguns by January 1, 2008 from newspaper
articles. That would make the assault charges go from simple assault per A.R.S.
13 § 1202.1,2,3 to aggravated assault, a felony, per A.R.S. 13 § 1204.2 if a
deadly weapon was involved.
22. The entire attack was probably
recorded on video tape as the library has an extensive system of cameras that
are monitored by the MCC police in real time. Defendants #2 and #3 mentioned
that the plaintiff initially sat at another computer and then move to the
computer that he was arrested at. Defendants #2 and #3 said something to the
effect that they would lock down both computers so they could grab the data on
them. This almost certainly means they were in communication with a 3rd
MCC police officer or aid who was watching the plaintiff real time thru the
cameras in the MCC library.
23. The plaintiff requested a copy of all
the video tapes in an e-mail to defendant #1 and the tapes should give a good
indication of what happened. That is if the MCC police department does not
destroy the tapes to cover up their crimes.
24. Defendant #2 and defendant #2 then
begin to question the plaintiff, they asked him a number of times what his name
and address was. Each time the plaintiff said something to the effect that he
was refusing to answer any questions, was taking the 5th Amendment and would
not answer any questions unless his lawyer was present.
25. Each time defendant #2 and defendant
#3 lied and told the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not have any 5th
Amendment rights in this context, and that the plaintiff had to answer their
questions.
26. The plaintiff started counting how
many times defendant #3 told the plaintiff that he did not have any 5th
Amendment rights. The plaintiff stopped counting after the count reached 4. The
plaintiff suspects that defendant #1, #2, #3 and #5 lied to the plaintiff 20 to
40 times saying that the plaintiff didn't have any 5th Amendment rights and had
to answer the defendants questions.
27. At some point in time, which should
also be on the video tapes taken in the MCC library defendant #2 illegally
searched the plaintiff. Defendant #2 searched all the plaintiffs pant pockets
removing almost everything. This was not a pat down search as allowed by
"Terry vs.
28. Defendant #2, in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, illegally removed the plaintiff's wallet and took it
somewhere.
29. Defendant #2 later returned the
plaintiff's wallet, minus everything except the money in it. Defendant #2 then
counted off the money and said something to the effect see we are returning all
$24 and we didn't steal any of your money. As is somehow returning the
plaintiffs money with out stealing any of it somehow justified the theft of the
plaintiffs money and wallet and the illegal search.
30. The plaintiff could not longer see
because the defendants had taken his glasses. But it appeared that the police
involved were phoning the numbers on the business cards that they illegally
took from the plaintiff’s wallet attempting to get the people that answered to
identify the plaintiff.
31. The plaintiff didn't and couldn't see
it if it did happen but he suspects that defendant #2 and defendant #3 xeroxed
everything they took from the plaintiff's wallet.
32. Defendant #2 decided that he was
going to punish the plaintiff like a first grade child being punished for some
trivial crime. Defendant #2 moved the plaintiff's chair and made him sit with
his face towards the wall humiliating the plaintiff in front of all the people
in the library.
33. Around the same time period defendant
#3 who was guarding the plaintiff called either a MCC Police officer or police
aid, who is defendant #4 and had him guard the plaintiff. He guarded the
plaintiff for a long time until defendant #3 told defendant #4 that he could
leave.
34. The plaintiff thinks the MCC police
called in the
35. Two Mesa Police officers did show up
on the 2nd floor of the MCC library and talked to defendants #2 and #3. These
36. The Mesa Police Officers were all
armed with handguns.
37. The plaintiff could not hear
everything defendants #2, 3, #5 and #6 said, but they appeared to be talking
about ways they could falsely charge the plaintiff with a crime and use that as
an excuse to fingerprint the plaintiff and find out the plaintiff's identity.
38. They may have talked about releasing
the plaintiff and then stopping him for a traffic violation when he left the
campus in his car. That may have been shot down because one of the MCC police
officers or employees who monitors the video surveillance cameras told them
that the plaintiff doesn't have a car and rides a bicycle.
39. Eventually one of the Mesa Police
officers questioned the plaintiff. That is defendant #5 or #6. Defendant #5 or
#6 did not try to get into the plaintiffs face like defendants #2 and #3.
Defendant #5 or #6 didn't come closer then 10 feet to the plaintiff. Defendant
#5 or #6 did not treat the plaintiff in the mean, rude and disrespectful way
that the MCC police who are defendants #2 and #3 treated the plaintiff.
40. Defendant #5 or #6 asked the
plaintiff several different variations of what is your name and address.
41. Each time the plaintiff responded to
defendants #5 or #6 questions, with something like "I am taking the 5th. I
do not want to answer any questions unless my lawyer is present".
42. Each time defendant #5 or #6 lied and
said something to the effect that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply here and that
the plaintiff had to answer defendant #5's or #6’s questions.
43. After defendant #5 or #6 questioned
the plaintiff for the 3rd or 4th time he gave up.
44. At about this time defendant #1
showed up. Defendant #1 is Steve Corich, the head of the MCC Department of
Public Safety.
45. From this point in time until the
plaintiff was released defendant #1 question the plaintiff a number of times.
Most of the time the plaintiff responded that he was taking the 5th and
refusing to answer any questions. Most of the time defendant #1 would lie and tell
the plaintiff that in this context he did not have any 5th Amendment rights and
had to answer all his questions.
46. Defendant #1 did not treat the
plaintiff in the mean, rude and disrespectful way that defendants #2 and #3
treated the plaintiff.
47. Up to this point in time the
plaintiff had not been told why he had been arrested. Defendant #1 mentioned to
the plaintiff that the plaintiff was accused of hacking. The plaintiff still
did not know what he was accused of because "hacking" is not a
specific crime. "Hacking" is just a term that could refer to hundreds
of things, some of which are legal, some of which are criminal.
48. The plaintiff was again illegally
searched by defendant #2. Defendant #2 was a very angry man and the plaintiff
thinks defendant #2 removed the plaintiff’s coat from the plaintiff’s body and
begin searching all the pockets. The plaintiff told defendant #2 that he did
not have permission to search it. Not because the plaintiff expected him to
stop searching it, but to assert that the plaintiff wanted them to honor his
4th Amendment right not to be searched unless they had a search warrant based
on probable cause.
49. Defendant #2 seemed to be looking for
both drugs and a thumb drive. Defendant #2 also asked the plaintiff if he had a
thumb drive, the plaintiff gave his usual answer that he was taking the 5th and
refusing to answer the question. Thumb drives are legal and many other MCC
students have them, and use them on the computers in the library. Defendant #2 asked the plaintiff if he had
any needles in the coat. The plaintiff responded that he was taking the 5th and
refusing to answer any questions.
50. As defendant #2 searched thru the coat
he cursed at the plaintiff and said that if he pricked himself on a needle that
he would physically harm the plaintiff.
51. In one of the pockets defendant #2
found a 35mm film container. He seemed to smile with glee as if he found some
drugs and he would finally have probable cause to charge the plaintiff with a
crime. He seemed unhappy when he opened the container and it only contained a
set of headphones, not the illegal drugs he was hoping to find.
52. The plaintiff doesn't remember what
else defendant #2 found in his coat but he thinks defendant #2 took everything
else he found in the coat and took it off to wherever he put the stuff the
defendants illegally took from the plaintiff’s wallet.
53. Around this time defendant #2 seemed
to behave like a madman. He was probably 20 to 30 feet away from the plaintiff
and he screamed at the plaintiff or perhaps nobody in specific "This is my
library! You will do what I say! You will answer my questions!”
54. Despite the fact that the plaintiff
had taken the Fifth defendant #1 continued to question the plaintiff. Defendant
#1 told the plaintiff that the plaintiff was really smart and asked the
plaintiff about his educational back ground. The plaintiff told defendant #1 he
was taking the Fifth and refusing to answer the questions.
55. Defendant #1 made some statements to
the plaintiff that sounded like the MCC police did not have either the probable
cause, or the reasonable suspicion needed to arrest the plaintiff. His
statements seemed to say that they considered the plaintiff suspicious and
stopped him for that reason. The plaintiff wrote in his notes “Steve Corich did
tell me that I didn’t do anything wrong, that I wasn’t under arrest, but they
were just looking at the computer to see if they could find something I did
wrong”.
56. The plaintiff asked defendant #1 “Am
I under arrest”? Defendant #1, lied and responded “no”!
57. The plaintiff then told defendant #1
something to the effect “If I am not under arrest then I am free to go, I am
leaving. Bye!” Defendant #1 responded with something like “No you are not free
to go, your under xxx custody”. The plaintiff does not remember what the words
xxx were but they are a term he had never heard before and the plaintiff thinks
defendant #1 made it up as part of his lie that the plaintiff was not under
arrest, while at the same time the plaintiff was not free to go, which is an
oxymoron.
58. During this time frame the plaintiff
asked defendant #1 if defendant #1 knew Ray Krone. Defendant #1 said yes.
59. Defendant #1, defendant #2, and
defendant #3 told the plaintiff a number of times, that because the plaintiff
was taking the Fifth, that the plaintiff 1) must have something to hide 2) is a
criminal, 3) is parole violator 4) is a felon who has done time in prison 5)
has warrants out for his arrest and probably a few other nasty things the
plaintiff forgot to write down, and that the defendants had every right to arrest
the plaintiff for that reason. Not once did the defendants say they had a legal
reason based on either “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” that they
could use to arrest the plaintiff for. Plaintiff stupidly forgot to take his
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and said “Well maybe I am just a civil
rights activist who wants you to honor my 5th Amendment right to
remain silent”.
60. Defendant #1, defendant #2, and
defendant #3 told the plaintiff at different times that if the plaintiff
continued to demand his right to take the Fifth and refuse to answer the
questions of the MCC police that he would be banned from all the Maricopa
Community College Campuses and would be arrested for trespassing if he ever set
foot again on one of them.
61. Towards the end of the almost two
hours the plaintiff was under arrest someone brought defendant #2 a camera so
the MCC police could photograph the plaintiff against the plaintiffs wishes.
62. The plaintiff moved his face toward
the wall so he could not be photographed.
63. Defendant #2 grabbed the plaintiff
and forced the plaintiff to stand up, like a Nazi thug leading a Jew off to a
gas chamber.
64. Defendant #2 then slammed the
plaintiff’s body against the wall as if to punish him for taking his Fifth
Amendment right and to punish and humiliate the plaintiff and say look you
filthy criminal I am a police officer with a badge and gun, you will respect my
authority, you don’t have any rights when you’re around me, I am God and you
will do what I say or you will be severely punished.
65. Defendant #2 then said something to
the plaintiff that sounded like defendant #2 was going to beat up the
plaintiff. The plaintiff was terrified because he thought defendant #2 was
going to punch him in the face and break all his teeth.
66. Defendant #2 then took a photo of the
terrified plaintiff.
67. Defendant #2 then yanked the stocking
cap off of the plaintiff’s head and took a another photo of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff felt like he was a Jew being abused by a Nazi thug and was very
angry. The plaintiff thinks defendant #2 did this as to punish and humiliate
the plaintiff and say look you filthy criminal I am a police officer with a
badge and gun, you will respect my authority, you don’t have any rights when
your around me, I am God and you will do what I say or you will be severely
punished.
68. The plaintiff thinks that defendant
#2 slammed the plaintiff up against the wall and yanked off the plaintiff hat
hoping to anger, insult and incite the plaintiff and make the plaintiff defend
himself, giving defendant #2 a reason to falsely arrest the plaintiff on
charges of attacking a police officer.
69. Sometime after this defendant #2
returned to the plaintiff all the stuff defendants #2 and #3 had stolen from
the plaintiff. It was mostly bus tickets, notes and business cards. The
plaintiff shoved it in his coat pocket instead of putting it back in his wallet
and putting in the places it belonged.
70. Sometime in this time frame both
defendant #2 and defendant #1 told the plaintiff that they didn’t think he had
done anything wrong. In fact defendant #2 told the plaintiff several times that
he didn’t think the plaintiff had done anything wrong and that the plaintiff
was going to be released.
71. Defendant #2 then told the plaintiff
to shut up and listen to defendant #2 and that defendant #2 was going to give
the plaintiff two options.
72. Defendant #2 told the plaintiff that
the first option was that the plaintiff could leave the campus and that if the
plaintiff ever returned to any
73. Defendant #2 rudely told the
plaintiff that he could not take the first option with out listing to the 2nd
option. Defendant #2 then told the plaintiff that if the plaintiff stopped
taking his Fifth Amendment right and told the MCC police his name that the
plaintiff could continue using the library that day as if nothing had happened,
and that the plaintiff could continue to use all the Maricopa Community College
Campuses with out being arrested for trespassing. This single sentence makes it
clear that the MCC police are punishing the plaintiff for taking the Fifth
Amendment.
74. The plaintiff told defendant #2 that
he would continue to take his Fifth Amendment right would leave the campus as
soon as possible.
75. The plaintiff knew he would be filing
a civil rights suit in Federal Court against all the police officers involved
so he asked defendant #2 for the names of all the officers. Defendant #2 again
became very angry and mean spirited and said that he was refusing to tell the
plaintiff the his name or the names of any of the other officers involved
because the plaintiff took the Fifth and refused to answer the police
questions.
76. The plaintiff was not given the
opportunity to save or backup the computer program he was editing when he was
falsely arrested almost two hours ago.
77. Before defendant #2 escorted the
plaintiff off the campus defendant #1 got near the plaintiff. The plaintiff
asked defendant #1 if he could have the names of all the police officers
involved. Defendant #1 gave the plaintiff his card and wrote the last name of
the two MCC police officers that had falsely arrested the plaintiff on the
card. Defendant #1 said he didn’t know the names of the Mesa Police officers
who were part of the arrest.
78. Defendant #2 escorted the plaintiff
out of the library and to his bicycle. The plaintiff then rode his bicycle to a
bus stop across the street from the campus where he sat for two hours writing
notes of what happened on the MCC campus and how the MCC police and
79. The defendants #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6 who are
police officers employed by defendants #7, #8 and #9 don’t know that you have
to have probable cause to arrest a person or that people have civil rights
which they must honor. Or more likely the defendants know about these rights
exist but choose to ignore them because it is easier for them to make arrests
if they stop people with out probable cause and search them for contraband, and
force them to answer questions. In either case the defendants #7, #8, and #9
should be liable for the illegal conduct of police officers they employee.
IV. FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation
of Rights
80. The Plaintiff incorporates by
reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 79 of this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
81. As is more fully described the
Plaintiff was detained, arrested, searched and restrained of his liberty
without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and without due process of law,
and the plaintiff was prevented from using the Mesa Community College Library
which is open to the public, all in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.
V. SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION
False
Arrest
82. The Plaintiff incorporates by
reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 79 of this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
83. As is more fully described the Plaintiff was
falsely detained, arrested, and restrained of his liberty by the Defendants who
knew full at the time that they did not have probable cause or reasonable
suspicion to arrest the plaintiff for any offense.
VI. THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION
Assault
or Aggravated Assault
84. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference
the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 79 of this complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
85. If the defendants had guns then the
assault would be an aggravated assault, a felony per A.R.S. 13 § 1204.2,
instead of simple misdemeanor assault per A.R.S. 13 § 1202.1,2,3.
86. The defendant #2 and defendant #3
intentionally intended to injure, insult and provoke the plaintiff in paragraphs
15 thru 19.
87. The defendant #2 intentionally
intended to injure, insult and provoke the plaintiff in paragraphs 29, 30 and
61 thru 65.
WHEREFORE
the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
A.
Proceed with a
trial by jury upon issues so triable; and,
B.
Award the
Plaintiff’s damages of no less than $1,000,000; and
C.
Award the
Plaintiff’s costs and fees incurred for the prosecution of this action;
D.
Award such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10_day of June,
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross
C/O Ricky
Duncan
Plaintiff, In Pro Per
VERIFICATION
I,
Ross verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America, that I am the Plaintiff herein, that I have read the foregoing
Complaint, and that the same is true and correct that, based upon my knowledge,
information, and belief, it is well-grounded as fact, is warranted by existing
law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law, and is not interposed for any improper purpose.
Dated
June 10, 2008____________ ______________________________ Ross