Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ___________________________________________________________________ BOB JAMERSON a/k/a “BATON BOB,” Plaintiff v. CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA; H.J. DAVIS, City of Atlanta Police Officer; LT. JEFFREY CANTIN, City of Atlanta Police Lieutenant; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, City of Atlanta Police Officials; and MIDTOWN ALLIANCE, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT __________________________________________________________________ COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Bob Jamerson a/k/a “Baton Bob” (“Plaintiff” or “Jamerson”) and files this Complaint, as follows: NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1.
This is an action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
damages, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, arising from the wrongful arrest of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was arrested on June 26th, 2013 while engaging in an act of celebratory performance after the U.S. Supreme Court
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 26
struck down the federal ban on gay marriage in the case of United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). Defendants not only arrested Plaintiff, but they later compelled him to make public statements, while in custody, to the effect that defendants were not culpable for their wrongful acts, in an attempt to control the public outrage over his arrest. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional and legal rights, including his right to free speech, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, his right to remain silent while in custody, his right to be free from compelled speech, his right to counsel, and his right to privacy, among others, as set forth herein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the laws and Constitution of the United States; pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202.
3.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because at least one
Defendant resides in this district and division and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth in this Complaint occurred within this district and division.
4.
Plaintiff provided the City of Atlanta with notice of his allegations
by letter sent to Atlanta Department of Law via certified mail on November 22,
2
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 26
2013, in accordance with Georgia’s ante litem notice statute, O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5. Thirty days have passed from the presentation of such claim to the City of Atlanta and the City of Atlanta has not acted upon it, see O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5(b), (c). PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. He is an actor,
performance artist, and activist. Plaintiff is the creator of the alternate persona “Baton Bob,” who is well known throughout Atlanta and the United States.
6.
Defendant City of Atlanta (the “City”) is a municipal government
entity that maintains an office at 55 Trinity Avenue SW, Atlanta, Georgia. Its official policies, customs, and practices were the driving force behind many of the constitutional and statutory violations described herein.
7.
Defendant H.J. Davis (“Officer Davis”) was an Officer with the City
of Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action.
8.
Defendant Lt. Jeffrey Cantin (“Lt. Cantin”) was a supervising officer
with the City of Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action.
9.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes there is at least one
additional City of Atlanta police officer or agent that bears responsibility in some way for Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff is unable to specifically identify said police officer at this time. Plaintiff believes he will be able to identify said defendant(s) though the discovery process.
3
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 26
10. Midtown Alliance is an entity created and funded by a coalition of private businesses for various purposes, including providing security to businesses in the Midtown neighborhood of Atlanta. Midtown Alliance maintains a security force known as Midtown Blue, which is comprised largely of off-duty City of Atlanta police officers. Midtown Alliance’s Office is located at 999 Peachtree Street Suite 730 Atlanta, GA 30309. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS The “Baton Bob” Persona
11. In 2001, Plaintiff created a business around a street-performance character of his own design, one “Baton Bob.”
12. For many years, Baton Bob has performed in public areas throughout metro Atlanta, wearing creative outfits often including a tutu and tiara, blowing a whistle, and twirling his signature baton, much in the style of a majorette.
13. In addition to his frequent appearances at public events, Bob is often privately hired to perform at weddings, parties and other events.
14. Bob has become so well known in Atlanta that his page on the “Facebook” web site had at one point amassed the maximum number of five thousand (5,000) “friends.”
4
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 26
15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff used Facebook as his primary method of communication to his fans, friends, and prospective clients.
16. Plaintiff uses a private username and password to access the Facebook account in order to provide updates on appearances and social issues. Bob’s Arrest
17. On June 26th, 2013, the United States Supreme Court released its five to four decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). The High Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7) was unconstitutional, essentially ending the federal ban on same-sex marriage.
18. The
decision
was
celebrated
by
the
LGBT
(Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) community because it acknowledged their equal rights under federal law.
19. On the day of the Windsor decision, Plaintiff posted a message on his Facebook page indicating that he planned to celebrate the ruling with a performance on the corner of Peachtree and 14th Streets, in Midtown, next to the Colony Square Mall.
20. To dress for the occasion, Plaintiff wore a wedding dress.
5
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 6 of 26
21. At approximately 12:00 p.m. on June 26th, 2013, Plaintiff arrived at the Colony Square Mall parking deck and paid to park.
22. Plaintiff exited the parking deck and began walking through Colony Square Mall en route to the corner of Peachtree and 14th Streets.
23. As Plaintiff passed through the mall, he was approached by a number of Colony Square security guards. The security guards accosted Plaintiff and began to harass him.
24. Plaintiff protested the security guards’ harassment of him and may have used an expletive.
25. Plaintiff left the Colony Square property and moved onto the public street corner to begin his performance.
26. Defendant Officer Davis arrived at the scene approximately ten (10) minutes after Plaintiff exited the building.
27. At the time, Officer Davis was working both in his capacity as a City of Atlanta police officer and a security guard for Midtown Alliance, as part of its “Midtown Blue” security force.
28. Officer Davis was wearing his City of Atlanta police uniform. 29. When Officer Davis arrived, Plaintiff was in the midst of his performance, dancing, twirling his baton, blowing his whistle, and waving at people in the area.
6
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 7 of 26
30. A few pedestrians had stopped to watch the performance, but neither Plaintiff nor the onlookers were blocking the sidewalk or otherwise impeding pedestrian traffic.
31. Vehicle traffic next to the street was light. At least one motorist that had stopped at the traffic light honked his horn in support of Plaintiff.
32. Plaintiff’s dance was not obscene or otherwise unlawful. 33. To the contrary, Plaintiff was peacefully exercising his First Amendment right to create political performance art in celebration of that day’s landmark Supreme Court decision affirming the rights of LGBT Americans.
34. Officer Davis approached Plaintiff and ordered him to “come with him.”
35. Plaintiff protested. 36. Officer Davis grabbed Plaintiff and placed his hands behind his back.
37. Officer Davis shoved Plaintiff onto the ground, face first. 38. Officer Davis placed handcuffs on Plaintiff. 39. Officer Davis placed Plaintiff under arrest. 40. Neither Officer Davis, nor any City of Atlanta officer, ever read Plaintiff his “Miranda” rights, explaining his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, etc.
7
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 8 of 26
41. Officer Davis claimed in his police report that Plaintiff resisted arrest and tried to “kick me in my private area.” However, this was not true, as revealed by Colony Square video footage.
42. Once it became clear to Plaintiff that Officer Davis was attempting to arrest him, Plaintiff did not resist arrest.
43. Officer Davis charged Plaintiff with assault and obstruction of justice.
44. Once Officer Davis had Plaintiff in custody, he transported Plaintiff to the Zone 5 Precinct of the Atlanta Police Department.
45. Atlanta Police authorities quickly realized that the media was beginning to cover the arrest.
46. According to the City of Atlanta’s internal affairs report regarding this arrest, numerous witnesses stated “Bob continued to ask why he was being arrested” and that “he didn’t do anything.” The events following the arrest
47. In the wake of the notorious raid on the Atlanta Eagle nightclub, numerous officials within the City of Atlanta and its police department had become fearful of another public outrage from the LGBT community.
48. According to Atlanta’s internal affairs report regarding this arrest, Atlanta officials saw news coverage regarding Plaintiff’s arrest on Facebook
8
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 9 of 26
and the Atlanta Journal Constitution website while Plaintiff was being processed for custody.
49. While looking at news reports, Officer Davis saw a picture of him arresting Plaintiff.
50. Defendant Lt. Cantin was on duty at the precinct at the time. 51. According to Atlanta’s internal affairs report, Lt. Cantin “received a call from Public Affairs . . . asking about the arrest and charges.”
52. The City’s Public Affairs official stated they “were getting a lot of phone calls from different media outlets on the incident.”
53. Lt. Cantin then notified others in his chain of command about the situation.
54. At 3:14 pm, Lt. Cantin wrote an email to Public Affairs, imploring them to “work your media magic with this case.”
55. According to Lt. Cantin’s statement to internal affairs investigators, Lt. Cantin “suggested” to Plaintiff, who was in custody in the Zone 5 Precinct, to “post something positive” on his Facebook page, “and say that it wasn’t the police department” directing him to make the post, but that it was “totally up to him.”
56. However, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin did not merely “suggest” that Plaintiff post a positive message; instead, they told Plaintiff that they
9
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 10 of 26
would allow Plaintiff to be released from custody on a “signature bond” only in exchange for a positive statement.
57. Plaintiff complied with Lt. Cantin’s instructions. Plaintiff gave Officer Davis (who was sitting next to the computer) his private password information.
58. Officer Davis logged in to Bob’s Facebook account and typed out a message to be broadcast to Bob’s followers.
59. Plaintiff was in handcuffs while the Facebook post was being typed. 60. Officer Davis typed out the following message: First of all, the atl police officer that responded to the incident thru security has been very respectful and gracious to me even in handcuffs. So, the situation escalated from a complaint from a security officer in the area and for some reason she rolled up on me like she didn't know who I was and like I had not been there before. For them to call police to come to intervene was not necessary. So, out of it, because of my fury, the Atlanta police officer did not understand the elements of the situation, so he was trying to do his job, respectfully and arrested my ass!!!!!!!!! I'll be out tomorrow so look out for my show at 14th and Peachtree. So now I'm waiting to be transported so I can sign my own bond and get the hell out of here. I want to verify, that the Atlanta police was respectful to me considering the circumstances. See you when I see you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
61. As promised, Plaintiff was given a signature bond the next day and released from jail.
10
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 11 of 26
62. The City of Atlanta conducted an “internal affairs” investigation regarding these events.
63. Following the conclusion of that investigation in December 2013, Lt. Cantin received a 5-day suspension for violating Responsibilities of a Supervisor.
64. Lt. Cantin accepted responsibility and stated, “he was just trying to do what was best for the department.”
65. Officer Davis was suspended for one (1) day for not following arrest procedures.
66. According to POST records, Officer Davis resigned from the police department on the same month that Internal Affairs concluded its investigation.
67. Authorities within the City of Atlanta and Atlanta Police Department are aware that Plaintiff’s arrest and coerced “statement” were illegal. They have taken no public action to clear Plaintiff of the illegal confession or unlawful charges.
68. On December 18th, 2014, all criminal charges against Plaintiff were dismissed after the prosecutor entered an order of nolle prosequi.
11
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 12 of 26
Facts relating to City’s liability under Section 1983
69. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Lt. Cantin was acting as an official policymaker on behalf of the City.
70. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, both Lt. Cantin and Officer Davis were acting on instructions from an official policymaker of the City.
71. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest, and the events that followed, were driven by an unlawful policy or custom of the City; namely, the City has been acutely aware of irrational anti-LGBT bias and discrimination within its police department, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, for many years, yet has acted with deliberate indifference to same. Events including, but not limited to, the raid on the “Atlanta Eagle” bar have given the City’s policymakers actual notice of this trend within the police department; yet, the City’s policymakers had not, at the time of the events giving rise to this Complaint, taken appropriate corrective action. This deliberate indifference was the driving force behind Plaintiff’s wrongful arrest and the events that followed.
12
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 13 of 26
LEGAL CLAIMS COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
72. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
73. Officer Davis, acting under color of state law, arrested Plaintiff without probable cause to believe he had committed a crime, thereby depriving him of his liberty in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
74. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual knowledge that there was no probable cause for same.
75. Officer Davis used excessive force in his arrest of Plaintiff, in that he had no probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed a crime, and the amount of force used—namely, slamming Plaintiff’s face into the concrete— was grossly disproportionate to the amount necessary under the circumstances.
76. At all times relevant to this action, the law was established with obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
13
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 14 of 26
77. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the violation of his rights as stated herein.
78. The actions described herein were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
79. Davis, Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
80. The City is liable for these actions to the extent they were driven by an unlawful policy or ordered by a final policymaker for the City, as described in paragraphs 69-71, supra. COUNT II ARTICLE 1 § 1 PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
81. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
82. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause to believe he had committed a crime, thereby depriving him of his liberty in violation of the Article 1 § 1 ¶ 13 of the Georgia Constitution.
14
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 15 of 26
83. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual knowledge that there was no probable cause for same.
84. Officer Davis used excessive force, as described supra, in violation of the Article 1 § 1 ¶ 13 of the Georgia Constitution.
85. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the violation of his rights as stated herein.
86. The actions of Davis were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
87. Officers Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others are liable pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-33-4 and other provisions of state law.
88. The City is liable for these offenses to the extent permitted by state law. COUNT III FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY
89. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
15
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 16 of 26
90. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff in order to silence and punish his political speech and artistic expression, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
91. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual knowledge that there was no probable cause for same.
92. After interrogating Plaintiff at the police station, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin coerced Plaintiff to provide them with the username and password to his Facebook account and then published a statement on Plaintiff’s behalf. This “compelled speech” violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
93. Upon information and belief, other authorities and policymakers within the City of Atlanta became aware of the coercion of the Plaintiff’s incriminating statements and the publishing of those statements on Plaintiff’s Facebook account and knowingly used the unlawful public statements to shield them from public controversy, further violating Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
94. At all times relevant to this action, the law was established with obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the constitution.
16
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 17 of 26
95. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the violation of his rights as stated herein.
96. The actions described herein were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
97. Davis, Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983
98. The City is liable for these actions to the extent they were driven by an unlawful policy or ordered by a final policymaker for the City, as described in paragraphs 69-71, supra. COUNT IV (ARTICLE 1 § 1 PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION: FREEDOM OF SPEECH)
99. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
100. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff in order to silence and punish his political speech and artistic expression, in violation of Article 1 § 1 ¶ 5 of the Georgia Constitution.
17
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 18 of 26
101. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual knowledge that there was no probable cause for same.
102. After interrogating Plaintiff at the police station, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin coerced Plaintiff to provide them with the username and password to his Facebook account and then published a statement on Plaintiff’s behalf. This “compelled speech” violated Article 1 § 1 ¶ 5 of the Georgia Constitution.
103. Upon information and belief, other authorities and policymakers within the City of Atlanta became aware of the coercion of the Plaintiff’s incriminating statements and the publishing of those statements on Plaintiff’s Facebook account and knowingly used the unlawful public statements to shield them from public controversy, further violating Plaintiff’s rights under Article 1 § 1 ¶ 5 of the Georgia Constitution.
104. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the violation of his rights as stated herein.
105. The actions of Davis, Cantin, and others, were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
18
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 19 of 26
106. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others are liable pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-33-4 and other provisions of state law.
107. The City is liable for these offenses to the extent permitted by state law. COUNT V FIFTH AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: EQUAL PROTECTION
108. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
109. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest was motivated in whole or in part by his sexual orientation.
110. Evidence for same shall include, but not be limited to, the fact that demonstrators and performers for numerous causes, including anti-war demonstrators, frequently hold large rallies on the street corner where Plaintiff was arrested, without the threat of arrest. However, Plaintiff’s one-man performance in support of LGBT rights led to his arrest.
111. There is no rational basis to treat Plaintiff, as a gay American, differently from non-LGBT citizens.
112. There is no rational basis to discriminate against pro-LGBT speech in favor of other forms of protected speech.
19
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 20 of 26
113. At all times relevant to this action, the law was established with obvious clarity that the conduct described herein violated the constitution.
114. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the violation of his rights as stated herein.
115. The actions described herein were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
116. The City is liable for these actions to the extent they were driven by an unlawful policy or ordered by a final policymaker for the City, as described in paragraphs 69-71, supra. COUNT VI BATTERY
117. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
118. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause by way of unlawful and unwanted touching of his person.
119. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual knowledge that there was no probable cause for same by way of unlawful and unwanted physical contact.
20
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 21 of 26
120. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and other unknown officers are liable pursuant to state tort law, including O.C.G.A. 33-36-4. COUNT VII O.C.G.A. § 51-7-1: FALSE ARREST
121. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
122. Officer Davis arrested Plaintiff without probable cause, in violation of O.C.G.A. 51-7-1.
123. Lt. Cantin and other unknown officers perpetuated this unlawful arrest, holding Plaintiff in custody at the precinct in spite of their actual knowledge that there was no probable cause for same, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-1.
124. Plaintiff is entitled to actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury for the violation of his rights as stated herein.
125. The actions described herein were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
126. The officers involved are liable under state law, including O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4.
127. The City is liable to the extent permitted by state law.
21
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 22 of 26
128. Midtown Alliance is liable pursuant to respondeat superior. COUNT VIII (COMPUTER IDENTITY THEFT, THEFT, TRESPASS, AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93)
129. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates the “Facts” section of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
130. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, and others coerced Plaintiff to provide them with the confidential username and password to Plaintiff’s Facebook account, and then published false statements on Plaintiff’s behalf to his Facebook page.
131. The statements mischaracterized Plaintiff’s arrest. Major Whitmire and the City of Atlanta were aware of the violations around the time they occurred. Defendants Davis, Lt. Cantin, Major Whitmire, and City of Atlanta violated Plaintiff’s rights under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.
132. O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.1 which states in relevant part: It shall be unlawful for any person, any organization, or any representative of any organization knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network or over the transmission facilities or through the network facilities of a local telephone network for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol to falsely identify the person, organization, or representative transmitting such data or which would falsely state or imply that such person, organization, or representative has permission or is
22
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 23 of 26
legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol for such purpose when such permission or authorization has not been obtained… O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.1 (emphasis added).
133. By logging on to Plaintiff’s Facebook account and writing and publishing a statement as if they were Plaintiff, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin, used a computer network with knowledge that they were without authority to do so and appropriated and converted the property of the character, name, and persona “Baton Bob” and applied the same to publish a statement of criminal liability. Officer Davis, Lt. Cantin, Major Whitmire, and City of Atlanta are guilty of Computer Theft, a tort for which damages lie in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.
134. By logging on to Plaintiff’s Facebook account and writing and publishing a statement as if they were Plaintiff, Officer Davis and Lt. Cantin used a computer network with the intention of examining personal data relating to another person with the knowledge that such examination was without authority. Supervisors of Lt. Cantin and Officer Davis were aware of this violation and are guilty of Computer Invasion of Privacy, at tort for which damages lie in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93.
135. Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights has caused Plaintiff to suffer damages the amount of which is to be determined at trial.
23
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 24 of 26
136. The actions described herein were willful, deliberate, and malicious, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF On the basis of the forgoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
a. Hold a trial by jury; b. Award Plaintiff all actual damages, including damage to property, physical pain and injury, mental anguish, and emotional distress;
c. Award Plaintiff nominal damages; d. Award Plaintiff punitive damages to the extent permitted by law; e. declare that the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s legal and constitutional rights by i. arresting him without probable cause; ii. arresting him in order to restrain, punish and deter his right to free speech iii. conducting a warrantless search and seizure of the Plaintiff and his Plaintiff’s property by coercing him to turn over his username and password to authorities iv. interrogating Plaintiff absent legal counsel and coercing Plaintiff into making public incriminating statements without access to legal counsel; v. violating Plaintiff’s right to remain silent by compelling and coercing Plaintiff to make public statements of an incriminating nature; vi. violating Plaintiffs right to have bond set by a neutral magistrate free from coercion; vii. violating Plaintiff’s right to free speech without governmental interference;
24
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 25 of 26
viii. violating Palintiff’s due process and equal protection rights in unlawfully discriminating against Plaintiff due to his sex, sexual orientation, or gender orientation;
f. Enjoin Defendants i. from further unlawful access to Plaintiff’s Facebook account, ii. from prohibiting Plaintiff to attend public events and to perform as “Baton Bob” therein; iii. from continued discrimination against LGBT individuals;
g. That prejudgment and postjudgment interest be awarded; h. Award attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable provision of law; and
i. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this February 25, 2015.
/s/ Joshua Landon Brownlee Joshua Landon Brownlee Georgia Bar No. 611140 Travis D. Andres Georga Bar No. 302040 114 New Street, Suite G2 Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 844-6139 jbrownleelaw@gmail.com /s/ James Radford James Radford Georgia Bar No. 108007 Regan Keebaugh Georgia Bar No. 535500 Caleb Gross Georgia Bar No. 960323 RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 545 N. McDonough St. Suite 212
25
Case 1:15-cv-00598-MHC Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 26 of 26
Decatur, Georgia 30030 (678) 369-3609 james@decaturlegal.com regan@decaturlegal.com caleb@decaturlegal.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
26