united states district court district of connecticut … · secured to the plaintiff, luis luna, by...

LUIS LUNA,Plaintiff,

V.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ARIEL MELENDEZ, KRISTIN FITZGERALDCURTIS MILLER, FRANK LIMONand the CITY OF NEW HAVEN,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

This civil rights action seeks money damages to redress the deprivation of rights

secured to the plaintiff, LUIS LUNA, by the United States Constitution and the laws of

the United States, in particular Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims

asserted herein occurred in this district.

FIRST COUNT: False Arrest (against defendants MELENDEZ and FITZGERALD)

1. A t all times relevant to this Complaint, plaintiff LUIS LUNA was an adult male

residing in the Town of Wallingford in the State of Connecticut.

2. A t all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant ARIEL MELENDEZ was a

law enforcement officer employed by the City of New Haven Police

1

CIVIL ACTION NO.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013

Case 3:13-cv-01364-JCH Document 1 Filed 09/18/13 of 15

Department (NHPD) where he held the rank of Assistant Chief. At all times

relevant to this Complaint, defendant MELENDEZ, as Assistant Chief of

Police, was employed in a position of policy-making authority for the CITY OF

NEW HAVEN. At all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant MELENDEZ

was acting under the color of his authority as a police officer and as Assistant

Chief of Police. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

3. A t all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant KRISTIN FITZGERALD was

a law enforcement officer employed by the City of New Haven Police

Department where she held the rank of Sergeant. At all times relevant to this

Complaint, FITZGERALD was acting under the color of her authority as a

police officer. She is sued in her individual capacity only.

4. A t all times relevant to this Complaint, each individual defendant had a duty to

protect the plaintiff from the unconstitutional actions of other individuals,

including other law enforcement officers.

5. T h e plaintiff was born and raised in Ecuador where he also worked for a time

as the staff photographer for the provincial government of Imbabura.

6. P r i o r to moving to Connecticut, the plaintiff studied photography and film at

the Art Institute of Philadelphia.

7 O n September 24, 2010, the plaintiff drove his car from Wallingford,

Connecticut to New Haven, Connecticut, to attend a film festival being held in

New Haven at that time.

2


8. I n the early morning hours of September 25, 2010, the plaintiff returned to his

parked car near the intersection of Crown and Orange Streets in New Haven.

9. T h e plaintiff retrieved his bicycle from his car and rode it along Crown Street

on his way to a restaurant located at 85 Howe Street in New Haven.

10. A s he made his way down Crown Street, the plaintiff took video and still

photographs with his Apple iPhone to capture the night life of Crown Street.

11. A s he approached the corner of Crown and College Streets, the plaintiff

observed a crowd and police officers struggling with three people.

12. T h e plaintiff got off of his bicycle and began to take video of the incident from

a distance of approximately 20-30 feet.

13. T h e plaintiff observed some police officers taking notice of him, but none

approached or attempted to communicate with him.

14. D e fe n d a n t FITZGERALD was then present at the intersection of College and

Crown Streets and saw the plaintiff ride up on his bicycle, stop, and begin

using his phone to take pictures.

15. FITZGE R A L D did not hear the plaintiff say anything, determined that the

plaintiff was not a threat, and then directed her attention elsewhere.

16. D e fe n d a n t MELENDEZ was also then present near the intersection of College

and Crown Streets.

17. M E L E N D E Z walked toward the plaintiff and stood very close to him.

3


18. M E L E N D E Z asked the plaintiff what he was doing, to which the plaintiff

replied, "Filming."

19. M E L E N D E Z then told the plaintiff that he was not allowed to film.

20. B e f o r e the plaintiff could respond, MELENDEZ snatched the iPhone from

plaintiff's hand and placed it in his own pocket.

21. M E L E N D E Z then directed his subordinate officer, FITZGERALD, to arrest the

plaintiff on the charge of Interfering with an Officer in violation of Connecticut

General Statutes § 53a-167a.

22. C o n n e cti cu t General Statutes § 53a-167a provides in relevant part that a

person "is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs,

resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer i n the performance of

such peace officer's .du ti es ."

23. T h e plaintiff was compliant as FITZGERALD placed him in handcuffs and

patted him down.

24. M E L E N D E Z then said to the plaintiff, "Instead of helping us, you're filming."

25. A s he was being placed in a prisoner conveyance van, the plaintiff noticed

that other arrestees were having their cell phones returned to them.

26. T h e plaintiff then asked MELENDEZ if he could have his cell phone back, to

which MELENDEZ responded, "I don't know what you're talking about."

27. T h e plaintiff was then transported to New Haven Police Department

headquarters at 1 Union Avenue.

4


28. U p o n his arrival at 1 Union Avenue, the plaintiff asked a judicial marshal

where his cell phone was; the marshal said that he did not know.

29. W h e n MELENDEZ arrived at 1 Union Avenue, he handed the plaintiff's

iPhone to Officer CURTIS MILLER and told MILLER, "I need to delete a

video. Delete this video."

30. M I L L E R complied with MELENDEZ'S command and attempted to hand the

plaintiff's iPhone back to MELENDEZ.

31. M E L E N D E Z pushed the phone back to MILLER and said, "No, no, no, no. I

want to make sure that video is deleted."

32. M I L L E R again examined the phone then handed it back to MELENDEZ,

stating, "There's no video, sir."

33. M E L E N D E Z then accepted the phone back from MILLER and told MILLER

that he had just arrested a "kid" for videotaping police.

34. M E L E N D E Z indicated to MILLER that he would take the phone to the

detention area so that it could be returned to the plaintiff.

35. A f t e r four hours in a holding cell, the plaintiff was released upon signing a

written promise to appear in court on the assigned date of October 8, 2010.

36. T h e plaintiff's iPhone was returned to him upon his release, and he noticed

that all video he had taken that night had been erased.

5


37. O n October 8, 2010, the plaintiff appeared in Connecticut Superior Court,

Judicial District of New Haven at Geographical Area 23, to answer to the

charge of Interfering with an Officer.

38. A t court, an attorney for the New Haven Office of the State's Attorney advised

the plaintiff that the State would reduce the charge if the plaintiff would pay a

$50 fine and plead guilty to the infraction of Creating a Public Disturbance in

violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-181a.

39. C o n n e cti cu t General Statutes § 53a-181a provides that a person "is guilty of

creating a public disturbance when, with intent to cause inconvenience,

annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he (1) engages in

fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (2) annoys or

interferes with another person by offensive conduct; or (3) makes

unreasonable noise."

40. T h e plaintiff protested that he had done nothing wrong; the State responded

that he would likely not qualify for a public defender and that the plaintiff

should take some time to think it over before deciding to fight the charge.

41. A f t e r considering his options, the plaintiff reluctantly agreed to plead guilty to

the infraction of Creating a Public Disturbance and paid the $50 fine.

42. O n January 11, 2011, MELENDEZ retired from the NHPD.

43. O n February 17, 2011, NHPD Internal Affairs issued the findings of its

investigation into the arrest of the plaintiff and concluded that MELENDEZ

6


had engaged in "conduct unbecoming an officer" and noted, "The mere act of

an individual recording the police officers while performing their duties is not

prohibited by Federal or State Statute. The officer must be able to clearly

articulate why an individual was arrested for filming."

44. O n March 3, 2011, the CITY OF NEW HAVEN issued a press release

regarding the Internal Affairs investigation that quoted LIMON as saying, "This

incident demonstrated a lack of complete and thorough policies in regards to

training and conduct in situations concerning the filming of officers."

45. O n March 4, 2011, the plaintiff moved to reopen the Superior Court judgment

and vacate his plea of guilty to Creating a Public Disturbance. With the

consent of the Office of the State's Attorney, the court granted the plaintiff's

motion and vacated his plea. The matter was scheduled for the next available

infractions docket on March 7, 2011.

46. T h e criminal proceedings against the plaintiff terminated in his favor on March

7, 2011 when the State entered a no/le prose qui, citing on the record the

finding of the Internal Affairs investigation and the statement of LIMON that

the arrest was the result of a lack of officer training.

47. A t no time relevant to this Complaint did the plaintiff engage in any criminal

conduct or take any action that would provide police officers with probable

cause to believe that he had violated any law of the United States or of the

State of Connecticut.

7


48. M E L E N D E Z and FITZGERALD acted deliberately and/or with reckless

disregard for the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

49. A s the direct and proximate result of the actions of MELENDEZ and

FITZGERALD, the plaintiff suffered false arrest and the unlawful deprivation

of his liberty.

50. A t all times the plaintiff had the constitutional right to be free from

unreasonable seizures of his person and to be free from false arrest.

51. T h e actions of MELENDEZ and FITZGERALD violated the plaintiff's rights

guaranteed to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

52. T h e plaintiff suffered economic and non-economic damages as a direct and

proximate result of the actions of MELENDEZ and FITZGERALD.

SECOND COUNT: Unlawful Seizure of Property (against defendants MELENDEZand MILLER)

1-36. Plainti ff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-36 of the First Count as

paragraphs 1-36 of the Second Count.

37. A t all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant CURTIS MILLER was a law

enforcement officer employed by the City of New Haven Police Department.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, MILLER was acting under the color of

his authority as a police officer. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

8


38. A s a direct and proximate result of the actions of MELENDEZ, the plaintiff

suffered a temporary deprivation of his property in the form of his iPhone.

39. A s a direct and proximate result of the actions of MELENDEZ and MILLER,

the plaintiff suffered a permanent deprivation of his property in the form of the

videos deleted from his iPhone.

40. A t all times the plaintiff had the constitutional right to be free from

unreasonable seizures of his property.

41. M E L E N D E Z and MILLER acted deliberately and/or with reckless disregard for

the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

42. T h e actions of MELENDEZ and MILLER violated the plaintiff's rights

guaranteed to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.


proximate result of the actions of MELENDEZ and MILLER.

THIRD COUNT: First Amendment Violation (against defendants MELENDEZ,FITZGERALD and MILLER)

1-36. Pla in ti ff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-36 of the First Count as

paragraphs 1-36 of the Third Count.

37. A t all times the plaintiff had the right under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution not only to film, photograph or

9


otherwise record in a public place but also to retain any video, photographs

or other recordings obtained thereby.

38. M E L E N D E Z, FITZGERALD and MILLER acted deliberately and/or with

reckless disregard for the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

39. T h e actions of MELENDEZ, FITZGERALD and MILLER violated the plaintiff's

rights guaranteed to him by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.


proximate result of the actions of MELENDEZ, FITZGERALD and MILLER.

FOURTH COUNT: Monet! Liability (against defendant CITY OF NEW HAVEN)

1-36. Plainti ff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-36 of the First Count as

paragraphs 1-36 of the Fourth Count.

37. A t all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant CITY OF NEW HAVEN was

a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

38. A s a municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of Connecticut,

defendant CITY OF NEW HAVEN had a duty to ensure that persons holding

policy-making positions within its police department did not explicitly or

implicitly adopt, condone or manifest any policy or practice that would result in

the deprivation of citizens' constitutional rights by police officers.

39. A s Assistant Chief, MELENDEZ occupied a policy-making position within the

police department of the CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

10


40. I n the moments prior to the arrest of the plaintiff, FITZGERALD observed the

plaintiff taking video with his iPhone and determined that the plaintiff posed no

threat to officers and had not violated any law of the State of Connecticut or of

the United States.

41. T h e r e is no indication that, but for the direct order of MELENDEZ,

FITZGERALD would ever have arrested the plaintiff.

42. T h e r e is no indication that, but for the direct order of MELENDEZ, MILLER

would ever have erased the videos from the plaintiff's iPhone.

43. M I L L E R stated to Internal Affairs, "I'm an officer, he's a Chief, ordering me to.

I had to."

44. A s Assistant Chief of the police department for the CITY OF NEW HAVEN,

MELENDEZ specifically directed FITZGERALD and MILLER to engage in

unlawful activity in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the

First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

45. A s Assistant Chief of the police department for the CITY OF NEW HAVEN,

MELENDEZ manifested and articulated to subordinate officers a policy of

arresting citizens without sufficient probable cause, of arresting citizens for

filming police, seizing the cameras or other devices used in that filming, and

of destroying any recording made of the police.

46. M E L E N D E Z acted deliberately and/or with reckless disregard for the

constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

11


47. A s a direct and proximate result of his actions as Assistant Chief of the police

department for the CITY OF NEW HAVEN, MELENDEZ caused the

deprivation of plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the First, Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.


proximate result of the actions of the CITY OF NEW HAVEN and

MELENDEZ.

FIFTH COUNT: Supervisory Liability (against defendants LIMON and the CITY OF NEWHAVEN).

1-37. Pla in ti ff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-37 of the Fourth Count as

paragraphs 1-37 of the Fifth Count.

36. A t all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant FRANK LIMON was a law

enforcement officer employed by the City of New Haven Police Department

(NHPD) where he held the rank of Chief. At all times relevant to this

Complaint, defendant LIMON, as Chief of Police, was employed in a position

of policy-making authority for the CITY OF NEW HAVEN. At all times relevant

to this Complaint, defendant LIMON was acting under the color of his

authority as a police officer and as Chief of Police. He is sued in his individual

capacity only.

12


37. A s then-Chief of Police, defendant LIMON had a duty to ensure adequate

supervision and training of police officers to protect the plaintiff from unlawful

deprivation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

38. A s a municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of Connecticut,

defendant CITY OF NEW HAVEN had a duty to ensure adequate supervision

and training of police officers to protect the plaintiff from unlawful deprivation

of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

39. O n March 3, 2011, the CITY OF NEW HAVEN issued a press release

including a statement from LIMON admitting that the deprivation of the

plaintiff's constitutional rights "demonstrated a lack of complete and thorough

policies in regards to training and conduct in situations concerning the filming

of officers."

40. D e fe n d a n ts CITY OF NEW HAVEN and LIMON failed to provide supervision

and training to police officers with respect to the right of citizens to film,

photograph or otherwise record the conduct of police in public places and to

retain any recordings made.

41. A s the direct and proximate result and as a natural consequence of the

failures of LIMON and the CITY OF NEW HAVEN to provide supervision and

training to police officers with respect to the right of citizens to film,

photograph or otherwise record the conduct of police in public places, the

plaintiff suffered a deprivation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights when

13


he was arrested for filming police and when his iPhone was seized and the

videos erased.


proximate result of the actions of LIMON and the CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Court:

A. A s s u m e jurisdiction over this cause of action;

B. E n t e r a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

1985, and 1988;

C. A w a r d him the costs of this action and a reasonable attorney fee;

D. A w a r d him compensatory damages;

E. A w a r d him punitive damages;

F. E n t e r such other and further relief as law and equity may provide.

14


15

THE PLAINTIFF, LUIS LUNA

BYDIANE POLANHis AttorneyLaw Offices of Diane Polan, LLC746 Chapel Street, Suite 202New Haven, CT 06510Telephone: (203) 865-5000Facsimile: (203) 865-2177E-mail: [email protected] Bar No. Ct00223

BYMAX SIMMONSHis AttorneyLaw Offices of Diane Polan, LLC746 Chapel Street, Suite 202New Haven, CT 06510Telephone: (203) 865-5000Facsimile: (203) 865-2177E-mail: max.simmons@polanlawnetFed Bar No. Ct28025


united states district court district of connecticut … · secured to the plaintiff, luis luna, by...

Documents