1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

Luisa Lupi and §

Eva Lupi §

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. §

§

Officer Timothy Diven AP4417, §

Officer Jaime von Seltmann AP5984, §

Officer Rocky Reeves AP7219, §

Officer Michael Guetzke AP4690, §

Officer Lauren Villarreal AP7343, §

Officer Jerry Floyd AP4559, §

Officer Ewa Wegner AP4623, §

Officer Alan Schwettmann AP5826, § CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:20-cv-207

Officer Joshua Visi AP4416, §

Officer Sgt Michael Lewis King AP4127, §

Officer Brian Robinson AP6683, §

Code Enforcement Officer Thomas Horn, §

Code Enforcement Inspector Joseph Lucas §

Officer Number 6609, §

Elizabeth Glidden, §

McKenna Kuhr, §

EMS Technician Timothy Hedrick, §

EMS Technician/Driver Steve White, §

City of Austin, §

Travis County, §

Defendants. §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

 Plaintiffs, Luisa Lupi and Eva Lupi, complaining of Defendants, Officer Timothy Diven, 

Officer Jaime Von Seltmann, Officer Rocky Reeves, Officer Michael Guetzke, Officer Lauren 

Villarreal, Officer Jerry Floyd, Officer Ewa Wegner, Officer Alan Schwettmann, Officer Joshua 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 62
2

Visi, Officer Thomas Horn, Officer Michael King, Officer Brian Robinson, Officer Joseph Lucas, 

Elizabeth Glidden, McKenna Kuhr, EMS Technician Timothy Hedrick, EMS Technician/Driver 

Steve White, City of Austin, and Travis County, hereby file Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint and 

Jury Demand and respectfully allege the following:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages arising under 

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), and the laws of Texas. 

2. Plaintiffs (two sisters), one college graduate and another, an attorney, were lawfully 

exercising their constitutional rights to own and quietly live with their pets on their own property 

in the City of Austin, Texas. This was not a crime and Plaintiffs have never been charged or 

convicted of any crimes.

3. Early in the morning on April 17, 2018, Plaintiff Luisa Lupi (“Luisa”) went out to a vet for 

a pet surgery. After she came back home, she showered and put on comfortable pajamas. Around 

9:00 a.m., in broad daylight, multiple people gathered on the front porch of Plaintiffs’ home 

bringing an animal control truck, a Code Enforcement vehicle, a car with a plastic seat 

molded in the shape of a person and numerous restraining straps across the waist and chest 

and bars on the windows, and several other vehicles. They called out Luisa’s name over and 

over.

4. Luisa went on the porch to see what they needed and closed the door behind her. 

Luisa was in her pajamas and did not have a bra on. The people did not identify themselves 

as police. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 62
3

5. When Luisa was on her front porch, the police blocked her exit forward. Officer 

Seltmann, wearing rubber gloves, immediately approached Luisa and tried to put her arm 

around Luisa’s back and shoulders and grabbed her left wrist while Officer Reeves was 

grabbing her right wrist on her own front porch, hurting her wrists. Luisa said to the officers, 

“Please stand back,” and retreated a few inches until her back was against the door of the 

house. Luisa was afraid for herself and immediately afraid for Plaintiffs’ pets in the house 

because she was their only protector there at the time.

6. Officer Seltmann and Reeves then pulled Luisa down the driveway and across the 

street. Officer Seltmann said to Eva, “It’s not her choice. It’s my choice. That’s my decision. 

I’m just telling you what’s happening. I’m in charge.”

7. Luisa requested the officers, “Please loosen your grip – you’re hurting me,” but 

Seltmann and Reeves did not do so. Officer Seltmann and Reeves threatened to handcuff 

Luisa, saying, “If you keep pulling I’ll put handcuffs on you.” Luisa was forced to wait in the 

sun, essentially on display on a neighbor’s lawn across the street from her home. Luisa was 

not even given a chance to put on her regular clothes instead of her pajamas without a bra on. The 

two officers illegally seized Luisa with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no 

exigent circumstances. 

8. Luisa informed the police that she “ha[s] to stay here to take care of the dogs.” And 

Luisa never agreed for the police to seize Plaintiffs’ dogs. 

9. Luisa told the police several times that they CANNOT go in [Plaintiffs’ home]. When 

Luisa instructed the police that they cannot go into the house, Officer Seltmann said, “Yes, we 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 62
4

can.” Luisa called out on the phone “Help me!” to Eva. And Eva could hear Luisa say “No” 

several times. 

10. The police would not let Luisa get her keys to lock the house, power cord for her cell 

phone, or a hairband for her hair. Officer Seltmann could be heard on the audio, saying “I 

need to take her to the hospital.” 

11. Luisa never consented that the police could enter or search Plaintiffs’ home without 

a warrant. Neither did Eva.

12. Plaintiffs’ home was closed (doors and windows), but Defendant Officers entered 

Plaintiffs’ home anyway with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent 

circumstances. Defendant Officers did so in disregard of Luisa’s repeated instructions that 

they cannot enter her house.

13. Luisa has never had mental disabilities or illness. When she was seized, she was at her own 

home. Defendant Officers did not have evidence showing that, at the time of the seizure of Luisa, 

there was a substantial risk of serious harm to Luisa or others unless she was immediately 

restrained, or there was insufficient time for the police to obtain a warrant before taking Luisa into 

custody. 

14. While unlawfully searching and ransacking Plaintiffs’ home, Defendant Officers seized 

Plaintiffs’ four dogs inside the house, and further stole Plaintiffs’ personal property in their home 

and never returned it to Plaintiffs. 

15. All defendants, including Defendants Elizabeth Glidden and McKenna Kuhr who acted to 

be the police witness sources in this case, conspired to conduct all the unlawful actions in a bid to 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 4 of 62
5

permanently remove Luisa, whom they perceived to be mentally disabled, from her own home and 

the neighborhood. 

16. Defendants’ harassment of Plaintiffs has been ongoing. Code Enforcement officers are still 

harassing Plaintiffs with false code violations and threatening to file legal action against Luisa. On 

February 12, 2020, they attached a citation to Luisa’s door alleging code violation of 

“Accumulation of rubbish or garbage” that occurred on April 17, 2018 at 2:16 p.m. when Luisa 

Lupi had been illegally detained in the hospital. 

17. The next day, February 13, 2020, Plaintiffs were finally forced to move out of their home 

due to almost two years of constant harassment and fear that were created by all defendants since 

April 17, 2018, when Plaintiffs decided to stay there to await their dogs’ return. 

II. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury under FRCP Rule 38. 

III. PARTIES

19. Plaintiff Luisa Lupi is a citizen and adult resident of Austin, Texas, U.S.A.

20. Plaintiff Eva Lupi is a citizen and adult resident of Austin, Texas, U.S.A.

21. The City of Austin is a Texas municipality that operates the Austin Police Department.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, the City of Austin policy makers were Interim Chief 

Brian Manley and the City Council. The City may be served with Summons through the City 

Clerk at 301 W. Second St. Austin, TX 78701.

22. Travis County is a Texas county that operates the Travis County EMS. At all times 

relevant to this Complaint, the County policymaker was the County Judge Sarah Eckhardt, or 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 5 of 62
6

alternatively the County Sheriff for the County Sheriff’s Office. The County may be served with 

Summons through the County Judge at 700 Lavaca, Suite 2.300, Austin, Texas 78701.

23. Defendant Officer Timothy Diven is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Sergeant. He is sued in 

his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th St at the

City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

24. Defendant Officer Jaime Von Seltmann is a white female adult resident of Texas and at all 

times relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. She is 

sued in her individual capacity and can be served with Summons at her work address at 715 E 8th 

St at the City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701. 

25. Defendant Officer Rocky Reeves is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. He is sued in 

his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th St at the 

City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701. 

26. Defendant Officer Michael Guetzke is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. He is sued in 

his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th St at the 

City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

27. Defendant Officer Lauren Villarreal is a white female adult resident of Texas and at all 

times relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. She is 

sued in her individual capacity and can be served with Summons at her work address at 715 E 8th 

St at the City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 6 of 62
7

28. Defendant Officer Jerry Floyd is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. He is sued in 

his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th St at the 

City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

29. Defendant Officer Ewa Wegner is a white female adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. She is sued in 

her individual capacity and can be served with Summons at her work address at 715 E 8th St at 

the City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

30. Defendant Officer Joshua Visi is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. He is sued in 

his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th St at the 

City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

31. Defendant Officer Alan Schwettmann is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all 

times relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. He is 

sued in his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th 

St at the City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

32. Defendant Officer Sgt Michael Lewis King is a white male adult resident of Texas and at 

all times relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. He is 

sued in his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th 

St at the City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

33. Defendant Officer Brian Robinson is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Police Officer. He is sued in 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 7 of 62
8

his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 715 E 8th St at the 

City of Austin Police Department, Austin, TX 78701.

34. Defendant Officer Thomas Horn is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Code Enforcement Officer. He 

is sued in his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at the City 

of Austin Code Department, Austin, TX 78741.

35. Defendant Officer Joseph Lucas is a white male adult resident of Texas and at all times 

relevant to this Complaint was employed by the City of Austin as a Code Enforcement Officer. He 

is sued in his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at the City 

of Austin Code Department, Austin, TX 78741.

36. Defendant Elizabeth Glidden is a white female resident of Austin at 6841 Auckland Drive,

Austin, Texas, 78749.

37. Defendant McKenna Kuhr is a white female resident of Austin at 805 Calico Drive, Austin, 

Texas, 78748.

38. Defendant EMS Technician Timothy Hedrick is a white male adult resident of Austin, and at 

all times relevant to this Complaint was employed by Travis County, Texas. He is sued in his

individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 11401 Escarpment Blvd, 

Austin Fire Station 43, Austin, Texas 78739.

39. Defendant EMS Technician/Driver Steve White is a white male adult resident of Austin, and 

at all times relevant to this Complaint was employed by Travis County, Texas. He is sued in his 

individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at 11401 Escarpment Blvd, 

Austin Fire Station 43, Austin, Texas 78739.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 8 of 62
9

40. At all times relevant to this Complaint, all defendants acted in concert and conspiracy and 

were jointly and severally responsible for the harms caused to Plaintiffs.

IV. JURISDICTION

41. This action to vindicate Plaintiffs’ rights protected by the Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. 

42. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1343(a) (3) and (4). This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to 

declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.

V. VENUE

43. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because one or more Defendants reside in the 

Western District of Texas. 

44. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all the events or omissions giving 

rise to the claims occurred in the Austin Division.

VI. FACTS

45. Plaintiff Eva Lupi (“Eva”) is the older sister of Plaintiff Luisa Lupi (“Luisa”). Both are 

law-abiding citizens and have never been charged or convicted of any crimes. 

46. Eva is an attorney. She has a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering and a BA degree in

Economics from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), an MA degree in

Government and International Relations from the University of Notre Dame, and a JD

degree in law, cum Laude, from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 9 of 62
10

47. Luisa has received her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from California State University 

Northridge, has written several theses, and does not require or need anyone’s assistance in 

her daily life. She worked as a lifeguard and works as an artist.

48. Luisa has never been diagnosed with any mental disabilities or illness nor has she sought 

any such medical assistance. She has no history of physical disabilities, mental disabilities, or 

criminal behavior. She takes no medication.

49. Luisa has an actual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) known as 

dyslexia, which is a learning disability shared by millions of people in the US and can be

accompanied by a slight speech impediment. 

Plaintiffs’ great care and love for their family members—

the four dogs Sheera, Polar Bear, Indiana, and Ruby

50. Plaintiffs bought and moved into their home located at 6837 Auckland Dr., Austin, Texas 

in 2011. The home was fully paid for and is free of mortgage. Although paid for by both Plaintiffs, 

the title was intentionally taken under Luisa’s name by Plaintiffs. 

51. Plaintiffs have been animal lovers. They moved in with their four beautiful and wonderful 

dogs, 100% indoor pets—named, Sheera (aged 7 in 2011), an Australian Shepherd, Polar Bear 

(aged 8), a mix of Labrador Retriever and Husky, Indiana (aged 9), a mix of Rhodesian RidgeBack 

and Hound, and Ruby (aged 10), a mix of Australian Shepherd and Rhodesian Ridgeback. At the 

time of the events at issue in this case, all four dogs had been living with Plaintiffs at least 9 years 

as Plaintiffs’ crucial family members—virtually their children in Plaintiffs’ eyes. Plaintiffs also 

had at times multiple cats.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 10 of 62
11

52. Plaintiffs adopted Sheera, Polar Bear, Indiana, and Ruby, the latter two were medically 

fragile, and all were from difficult situations. Plaintiffs loved them as their own children, gave 

them a chance for a great life, and spent large amounts of money on their cutting-edge 

medical care as illustrated below:

• Full body CAT scan (Ruby)

• MRI scan

• Completely operable Mast cell tumor—because Plaintiffs identified it so early 

that this normally fatal tumor was completely operable (Ruby)

• Full allergy panel (Indiana)

• ACTH Stim test x 3 (Polar Bear)

• Laser removal of cutaneous lump on spinal area (Sheera)

• Dental for the four dogs 3X annually per veterinary recommendation one year 

for one dog

• Gland Biopsy (Sheera)

• Extra round of heartworm tests for all when returning from a trip for the four 

dogs

• X rays

• EKG for the four dogs

• Prescription Food (Sheera and Indiana)

• Thyroid testing (Indiana)

• Limited ingredient specialty food for all dogs

53. Plaintiffs kept a chart to ensure that the lives of the dogs were fully addressed and not 

overlooked when taking the dogs to vet visits. Plaintiffs not only created the chart, they also 

updated and maintained it, for each dog and cat. 

54. Plaintiffs’ pets went everywhere with them—skiing, to the beach and on special outings. 

Each has their own calendar of favorite activities, including agility, swimming, sheepherding, etc.

55. Each dog has a leash geared towards their special needs. Further, each dog has an 

emergency harness that could be used to securely transport each dog in case of emergency or 

frightening situation for them.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 11 of 62
12

56. Great care was taken in selecting life jackets: The first issue was the type, which had to 

ensure that it would keep the dogs in the correct position in the water; second, the presence of a 

durable but low profile safety handle so it would not create a snagging danger; third, the 

individualized fit to ensure that each dog had a properly fitting team life jacket; and fourth, each 

dog and human had their own jacket in the team colors. 

57. The dogs had gigantic beds. Because Indiana had become incontinent, everything was 

cycled through the laundry quickly. Plaintiffs had multiple replacement sets of linen for each dog 

bed and human bed, just in case.

58. In addition to their own bowls of special food, the dogs shared any dog safe, allergy safe 

meals with Plaintiffs.

59. The heating and air conditioning in Plaintiffs’ house were adjusted for the dogs’ comfort. 

In summer, when they went out to the bathroom and came back in, Plaintiffs would turn down the 

air conditioner to a temperature at which everyone stopped panting, then continued to adjust. In 

winter, the house was comfortably heated, but the dogs still each had comfortable covers and 

blankets for longer naps. Both Plaintiffs constantly got up to check on the dogs and tuck them in—

they were supervised all day and night.

60. Plaintiffs studied each of their dog’s special issues and built ramps and made other 

modifications so the ones with special needs could play easily with their brothers and sisters. 

Plaintiffs put out wading pools in the summer and built them observation posts so the dogs could 

better see the terrain around. 

61. Indiana had significant skin problems from the time Plaintiffs adopted him. In hopes of 

identifying the problem allergen, they cooked at home for him and their other dogs for over a year 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 12 of 62
13

and a half, using organic ingredients from Whole Foods. He had been extensively tested. Plaintiffs 

had tried every medical treatment available for him. In consultation with their vet, Plaintiffs’ next 

plan was to move to a different environment, where allergens would be reduced (Austin was, and 

still is, known as “allergy central”). They had noted a reduction in Indiana’s symptoms during their 

trips to certain locations in the country and intended to move there. They had packed their 

household, planned and prepared for the move in April 2018, and were ready to go when all 

defendants turned their happy and innocent home into a nightmare that never ends. 

62. Even Judge Phillips, presiding at the county hearing (on appeal), observed, “This house 

looks like it was designed for dogs.” The case was initially filed by the police with the Justice 

Court Precinct Five, Travis County to deprive Plaintiffs of their ownership interests in the dogs on 

the same day, April 17, 2018, after the police illegally seized the dogs. 

63. With incredibly great care that Plaintiffs provided for their dogs, Sheera, although 14 years 

old at the time she was seized, looked like a young pup. The Austin City Vet Rachel Hays (“City 

Vet Hays”), having examined the dogs the same day of the seizure, estimated that Sheera was 6 

years old, based on how well cared for Sheera had been. Like Sheera, Polar Bear was estimated 6 

years old (actually 15) and Ruby approximately 10 (actually 17). 

64. Polar Bear was an excellent judge of character: After being illegally seized and sent to 

Austin Animal Center by Defendant Officers, the center could not manage him, and he sat in a 

cold crate without the love he so desperately needed. But far from being unmanageable, Polar Bear 

was Plaintiffs’ ambassador with all the injured and abused animals Plaintiffs took in. The more 

vulnerable his sibling was, the more careful he had been with them. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 13 of 62
14

65. Ruby was Luisa and Eva’s beloved late Mom’s special friend. Ruby was their closest link 

to their Mom. Ruby always took care of them—and Defendant Officers snatched Ruby at the door 

of her own home and forced her into a world of awful strangers who stole her life. She was 

supposed to be moved into Plaintiffs’ new home the spring of 2018 and enjoy life on the beach 

and in the mountains. Instead, she’s being held captive by strangers, and likely looked around 

hopefully to see if Eva and Luisa had come to take her home yet. Her beautiful eyes, which had 

helped Plaintiffs through a dozen traumatic events in the last few years before the incidents in this 

case, and to which they promised safety forever, were no longer smiling at them.

66. When Defendant Officers invaded Plaintiffs’ home on April 17, 2018, there were (1) four 

large white airtight containers of dog food throughout the house in plain view of the cameras, (2) 

an additional large container and two more unopened large bags of the dogs’ specialty food in the 

pantry, and (3) empty dog food bags being reused to take out recycling (stack of approximately 4 

feet of flattened bags in plain view), contrary to Officer Diven’s testimony under oath in court later 

that he saw no evidence of food. 

67. In the audio (which had been first claimed by County Attorney Cox to be unavailable, 

then was “found” accidentally by a court tech at the appeal hearing), Defendant Officers can 

be heard saying:

• “It’s actually sanitary in here,” and “The floor is actually clear.”

• Officer Diven and another officer can be heard counting the numbers of large 

bowls of clean water for the dogs such as “this is number two,” “there’s another 

one over here,” etc.—water so crystal clear that the officers had to kick the bowl 

to determine that there was water in there.

• “The back yard looks normal.”

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 14 of 62
15

68. After the four dogs were illegally seized by Defendant Officers without a warrant and 

without consent, under the direction of Austin Police, the City Vet Hays conducted full blood tests 

on the dogs. The test results showed that EVERY SINGLE FUNCTION MEASURED WAS 

NORMAL: There was no lameness, no heartworm, no lung problems, no other symptoms normally 

associated with their advanced age, and no other problems. All four dogs had ABSOLUTELY 

PERFECT BLOODWORK IN EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.

69. City Vet Hays falsely listed in her same day examination report that the dogs had 

tapeworms, which are transmissible, but Plaintiffs and the cats did not have them, as they would 

have if the dogs had them. City Vet Hays noted Tapeworm, however, did not administer tapeworm 

medication until the next day as if someone later suggested or instructed her to put the tapeworm 

notation down, because if tapeworms were so obvious then she, as the City Vet, should have 

noticed them right away. 

70. Officer Seltmann claimed, “...the two of the dogs appeared to have severe cases of mange.” 

Officer Diven in his affidavit claimed that on the scene, “inside the house, 4 dogs were found. The 

two red colored dogs had very bad mange/allergies to where the fur was missing on over half their 

bodies.” City Vet Hays also identified the “mange” issue after she examined the dogs. She later 

testified at court on April 24 that the dogs had mange.

71. At the June 13 hearing, however, City Vet Hays admitted under oath that she understood 

and no longer believed that Ruby and Indiana had mange.

72. A competent vet could have tested for mange in a matter of minutes. City Vet Hays held 

on to her incorrect mange belief for days. She was unable to deduce more complex things like 

allergies until Plaintiffs told her. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 15 of 62
16

73. Allergy is a complex assessment requiring a highly trained eye and hundreds of dollars in 

test. City Vet Hays proved that she did not have a highly trained eye:

• She did not know what an average Australian Shepherd lifespan was.

• She did not know the average lifespan for large dogs.

• She did not know that large dogs generally have a much lower life span.

• She made gross errors regarding the weight of Plaintiffs’ four dogs.

• She was unable to determine the age of the dogs within a reasonable standard of 

care for vets—within what would be normally expected of vets.

• She misdiagnosed a simple illness like mange, which the dogs did not have.

74. Plaintiffs’ pets were not just their best friends, they were also therapy and service dogs for 

Luisa, helping to keep her active and healthy and cope with her dyslexia. The dogs seemed to 

instinctively hang out, sleep, and play right next to Plaintiffs, maybe because they created an oasis 

of happiness, warmth, and health. 

75. When the dogs went zooming out to go to the bathroom, the backyard came alive with 

cheerfulness. Eva and Luisa built them agility equipment, bought supplies for fun and for them to 

learn interesting new communication techniques and tricks. 

76. The dogs kept the back yard safe, alive, and happy for Eva and Luisa and their family. Now 

it is empty—only the echoes of happy times remain—and it is too painful for Plaintiffs to go into 

the backyard, which only makes them cry. 

77. Plaintiffs’ dogs were essential to balance their family. Without the dogs, Plaintiffs were, 

still are, and will be, incomplete.

78. At the time Luisa was forced by the police to get into the EMS van that she did not want 

or need, she saw the last view of her formerly happy home—behind the doors were their dogs and 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 16 of 62
17

cats, who for almost 10 years had only known happiness and safety. Behind the door was that 

little slice of heaven that Plaintiffs had built over a lifetime, where their pets had known a lifetime 

of safety and love. 

79. Luisa never agreed that Defendant Officers could seize Plaintiffs’ dogs. Neither did Eva.

Plaintiffs had knowledgeable and trustworthy people who could have taken care of their pets if 

special circumstances arose. Defendant Officers would never even be considered for this. 

80. Had Luisa given the police consent to seize Plaintiffs’ dogs, Officer Diven did not need 

to—after all the dogs were seized and transported to the Austin Animal Center—then complete a 

seizure warrant with an affidavit full of knowingly false statements.

81. Neither Luisa nor Eva ever cruelly treated Plaintiffs’ dogs. Neither Luisa nor Eva ever 

cruelly treated the dogs by torturing them or by unreasonably depriving the animals of necessary 

food, care and shelter. 

82. Plaintiffs never cruelly treated and indeed took good care of not only the four dogs, but all 

of Plaintiffs’ pets. 

83. Just an example, one of the rescues Plaintiffs worked with needed a hospice home for a 

senior, blind Chihuahua they had rescued. The rescue expected the dog to live no more than a 

month. Plaintiffs volunteered to take the dog and keep her safe and happy. The rescue was careful 

to say that the dog was not going to live more than a month. Under Luisa’s care the dog lived for 

2 years, running, happily sleeping the in the arms of her friend Polar Bear, playing with the other 

dogs, barking at the doorbell. The dog had a full dental, her heart trouble was discovered and 

treated, and Luisa managed a complex schedule of medications that had to be prepared and 

administered.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 17 of 62
18

Illegal seizure of Luisa and the dogs and illegal search of Plaintiffs’ home

84. Since Plaintiffs moved to their home in 2011, they did not have any problems with their 

neighbors for the entire seven years and always had good relations with them until around 

September 2017 when a new neighbor, Defendant Elizabeth Glidden (“Ms. Glidden”), moved in

next door. 

85. One or both sisters had frequently been away from home for extended periods 

without issues, and with no undue attention from neighbors before September 2017.

86. Plaintiffs installed security cameras both outside and inside their home. Security 

cameras are commonplace, are recommended for home security even by police, and are 

particularly helpful when people undertake to help medically fragile pets.

87. Plaintiffs always kept their home nice, clean and well organized whenever they were 

at home. They both stay perfectly healthy. 

88. Plaintiffs always put their clothing in the laundry and showered every time they came 

home from outside because of Indiana’s allergies. 

89. At least twice per day, but usually more often, one of Plaintiffs walks between the 

back of their car and the garage in order to provide food and water to birds and any lost 

animals in need of food or water. Their walking through that area would have broken any 

incipient spiderwebs. Since they walk past there at a minimum of twice a day, anything 

between the back of the car and garage would have been formed between Plaintiffs’ outings 

and would therefore have been limited to maybe a strand, NOT cobwebs. Officer Villarreal

claimed “cobwebs” to support her belief that Luisa had been abandoned, in addition to 

Officer Villarreal’s other “proof” that Eva’s car had not been moved for “a long time.”

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 18 of 62
19

90. Even when Plaintiffs were on the way preparing to move to their planned new home

and before Defendant Officers searched Plaintiffs’ Austin home, the moving boxes in the 

home were all labeled with the name of the moving company and the contents neatly written 

in the corner. Each box also had an indication on the side as to the room into which it was to 

be put in the new home. They were all packed but unsealed yet, waiting to be sealed and 

loaded into a moving van upon Eva’s return from working on a case in California. The moving 

was scheduled to take place at the end of April 2018.

91. While Defendant Officers searched Plaintiffs’ home, ransacked and dumped out boxes 

to make the house look very messy, it appeared that they forgot to do the same to the insides 

of the cabinets in the house to corroborate the allegedly messy outside. The insides were

perfectly crystal clear. 

92. In the police video (likely staged and edited because it did not accurately show the interior 

of Plaintiffs’ home), Officer Diven claimed the counters in the Plaintiffs home were covered in 

trash, but the camera avoids the kitchen counters, and he was falsely showing Eva’s desk while 

claiming it was the kitchen counter. 

93. In July of 2017, Ms. Glidden bought the house next door “sight unseen” according to 

the seller, and apparently Ms. Glidden didn’t want to live next door to a mentally “disabled” 

person as she perceived Luisa to be after she moved in, although she and Luisa had never 

spoken with each other and she had never been in Plaintiffs’ home. Ms. Glidden began a 

campaign of harassment in hopes of terrorizing Luisa into selling or abandoning her home,

including such as the following:

• Reaching over the fence and spraying Plaintiffs’ yard and deck with Roundup—a 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 19 of 62
20

recognized carcinogen and neurotoxin that is dangerous for their pets (Indiana 

suffered from incurable complex allergies)—all over: on Plaintiffs’ deck, 

flowerpots, hardscape, deck steps, grape plant, and fence, as shown in a video.

• Making false, denigrating statements to the Police and Adult Protective Services 

regarding Luisa: That Luisa was unable to care for herself due to her disabilities 

and she was believed to be intellectually challenged and unable to take care of 

herself due to her mental disabilities. 

94. Since Ms. Glidden moved in about September 2017, Luisa began receiving notes

offering to buy her home at half market price.

95. In October 2017, Officer Visi came to the front porch of Plaintiffs’ house, spoke with 

Luisa who assured him that she did not require anything, and Officer Visi told Eva that he 

closed the case.

96. Plaintiffs believe Ms. Glidden was disappointed and continued to call in false 

complaints attempting to remove Luisa from her own home.

97. Defendant McKenna Kuhr (“Ms. Kuhr”), reported to be acting as the police’s witness,

was not a neighbor to Plaintiffs, and she apparently lives at 805 Calico Dr., Austin, Texas, 

78748, which is approximately seven miles away from Plaintiffs’ home. The location of her 

secretary job (her another occupation was identified as Estate Sales) with the employer, Dr 

Jo Beth Hammer, was about 13 miles away from Plaintiffs’ home. She was a stranger to 

Plaintiffs. To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, she had never been inside Plaintiffs’ home.

98. Ms. Kuhr allegedly claimed that she knew Luisa and that Plaintiffs’ several anonymous 

neighbors had contacted her about concerns for Luisa. Ms. Kuhr also falsely, even 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 20 of 62
21

disparagingly, claimed that (1) Luisa used to have a caretaker (possibly sister, Eva) who 

moved out about 8 or 9 months ago, (2) since Eva moved out of the house, no one had come 

to visit or care for Luisa, (3) Luisa was believed to be intellectually challenged and unable to 

take care of herself due to her mental disability, (4) the trash had not been seen out on the 

curb in months and she believed that Luisa was hoarding and living in unsanitary conditions, 

(5) there had not been any food seen taken into the residence and Ms. Kuhr believed Luisa 

may not be eating regularly because she was so thin, (6) whenever the neighbors periodically 

did check on Luisa, Ms. Kuhr claimed they smelled a foul door coming from the inside of the 

house, and (7) there was a SUV parked in the driveway that had not been moved for months.

99. But Ms. Kuhr—a stranger who lives seven miles away and was not medically 

trained—was not in a position to know if Luisa had a mental disability and needed a 

caretaker, if Eva lived in the house and how often she was not there, if anyone had come to 

visit or “care for” Luisa, if the house was in sanitary conditions, and how many times Luisa 

bought groceries or put the trash out.

100. And weirdly, the police and Ms. Kuhr claimed that Plaintiffs’ several anonymous 

neighbors had suddenly been calling a non-neighbor, Ms. Kuhr, due to concerns about Luisa 

because they did not see anyone leave or exit the home for a prolonged period. In fact, 

Plaintiffs’ actual neighbors, except Ms. Glidden, came to them when there was an animal 

issue. If the neighbors really had concerns about Luisa, they could call her (they had the cell 

phone numbers of both Luisa and Eva) or the police themselves, or simply come to Luisa to 

check—instead of calling someone who is not a neighbor and lives miles away—just as they 

did so when seeking help from Plaintiffs with animal issues. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 21 of 62
22

101. Ms. Kuhr also allegedly claimed that she took care of the home that Ms. Glidden

bought. During the summer before Ms. Glidden bought the house next door to Plaintiffs’, the 

person who “took care” of the house drove in and out at high speeds, came only a few times 

during the summer, and spent only a short time at the house. The last time Ms. Kuhr was

seen in Plaintiffs’ neighborhood was almost a year before her alleged “call” to police. 

102. On March 30, 2018, due to alleged calls from Ms. Kuhr, Officers Villarreal and Guetzke 

came to the front porch of Plaintiffs’ home, claiming that an anonymous stranger called to say 

that Luisa needed to be “checked on.” 

103. Officer Villarreal asked Luisa, “Are you going to hurt yourself?” Luisa replied, “No.” 

Officer Villarreal then asked, “Are you going to hurt somebody else?” Luisa replied, “No.” 

104. Luisa calmly thanked the officers and explained that she did not need anything. At the time 

Eva was on a business trip. 

105. Officer Villarreal said that she observed that 1) Luisa appeared to be extremely thin and 

frail given her weight estimated by Officer Villarreal to be 5’7, approximate 90lbs; 2) Luisa’s 

clothing also had a strong smell of being soiled and there appeared to be LICE in her hair; 3)

Luisa’s clothing was too large for her size and her pants were covered in animal hair; 4) Luisa’s 

cheeks were sunken in and her hair was also very thin.

106. Luisa’s clothing was nice and clean and no smell at all as always. She has been slim and 

healthy (she weighed 110 lbs, not 90, in the hospital on April 17, 2018, just two weeks later). She 

likes wearing loose clothing at home as many people do. She has very thin hair due to 

Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry on both sides.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 22 of 62
23

107. Officer Villarreal claimed that she could see “lice” while standing a few feet away from 

Luisa. It is medically impossible, however, because the detection of lice requires careful 

close-up work even by trained doctors, sometimes involving a microscope. That claim and 

later (on April 17) Officer Diven’s similar claim (standing approximate 10-15 feet away) are

contradicted by all rational medical personnel and by the Texas Department of State Health 

Services as well.

108. Officer Villarreal stated that she also observed Plaintiffs’ vehicle was strangely registered 

to Eva but with an address to a nearly shopping center (not a residence). It was not strange that the 

vehicle was registered to Eva, and the vehicle was not registered to a shopping center, but to a P 

O Box, a practice that is both legal and common due to people’s concerns about privacy. 

109. Officer Villarreal painted a falsely negative picture of Luisa by using sensational and 

degrading words and was an intentional falsification designed to coordinate with Defendant 

Officers’ later unlawful seizures of Luisa and Plaintiffs’ pets and unlawful search of Plaintiffs’ 

home.

110. Officer Guetzke said to Luisa, “As long as we’re able to verify that everyone’s ok that’s 

living in the household, then we won’t be back out here.” But the officers refused to leave 

Plaintiffs’ property long after they determined that everyone [Luisa] was patently ok.

111. Officer Villarreal initially would not leave unless Luisa provided her date of birth. Officer 

Villarreal told Luisa, she had to have Luisa’s date of birth so she could put it in the call system, so 

the police would not come out to Plaintiffs’ home again. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 23 of 62
24

112. Officer Villarreal prevented Luisa from returning to the house unless she provided her date 

of birth, and then even required Eva, who was on a business trip and on the phone with Luisa, to 

provide Eva’s date of birth.

113. Luisa was forced to comply because (1) she was afraid of the two officers, Officer Guetzke 

was very large and intimidating and Officer Villarreal was overweight and aggressive, and (2) 

Luisa was beginning to shiver in the cold. 

114. Plaintiffs (Eva on the phone) told the police that they were being harassed by these calls. 

The police admitted that their responses to the calls may constitute harassment to the victim of 

these calls. 

115. But Austin Police took no further actions regarding these calls. When Eva asked Officer 

Guetzke, “How do you stop this from turning it into a harassment situation? What do you 

guys do if you get multiple calls and they’re clearly not warranted and it’s clearly somebody 

doing something?” He responded, “We can’t...we don’t have the power to do that.”

116. In over 20 minutes of conversation on March 30, Officers Villarreal and Guetzke did 

not go into Plaintiffs’ house and did not see Plaintiffs’ pets inside the house. They did not ask

Luisa about the pets. 

117. That same day, March 30, having left Plaintiffs’ home, Officer Villarreal consulted with 

Ms. Glidden to check Luisa’s backyard and Ms. Glidden took the officer into her backyard to 

view Plaintiffs’. Officer Villarreal then said that Luisa’s backyard appeared to be fine.

118. Still on that same day, Officer Villarreal alleged that Ms. Glidden said she was planning 

on making a report to Adult Protective Services because she thought Luisa was unable to 

care for herself due to her disabilities. Ms. Glidden also allegedly reported one of Plaintiffs’ 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 24 of 62
25

pets for having a “large sore on it’s [sic] face,” and another for having ribs that were sticking 

out.

119. The “large sore” is a small growth about the size of a pinky nail that had been tested and 

found benign, to be removed electively during his next anesthesia. Even the City Vet Hays who 

examined the pet called the growth “small.” Eva and Luisa’s other dogs had complex allergies that 

had resisted all medical treatment and Eva and Luisa were packed and ready to move to a low 

allergen part of the country for his sake at the time the incidents of this case occurred.

120. Officers Villarreal and Guetzke did not go back to ask Luisa to check or verify what 

Ms. Glidden alleged “large sore” or “sticking out” rib issues with the pets or Luisa’s perceived 

disabilities. 

121. The “check” on Luisa on March 30 was recorded. Plaintiffs told a social worker who 

continued to harass Luisa about the recording. Plaintiffs believed that, once Defendant

Officers found out that their March 30 check on Luisa was recorded, the police decided to 

“teach Eva and Luisa a lesson.”

122. Officer Floyd assigned, checked, and approved (on April 10, 2018) the “check” on 

Luisa by Officers Villarreal and Guetzke on March 30. 

123. On April 5, 2018, Officer Robinson, Lead Investigator, stated that Luisa’s case did not

meet the criteria for Nuisance Abatement and that the title code had been modified to an EDP

[presumably Emotionally Disturbed Person] case and routed. 

124. Officer Sgt King checked and approved Officer Robinson’s assignment on April 7, 

2018. Officer Sgt King also assigned, checked, and approved Defendant Officers’ actions on 

April 17, 2018.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 25 of 62
26

125. Plaintiffs believe that the police modified Luisa’s case on April 5 because the cameras 

inside Plaintiffs’ home would disprove Nuisance Abatement case. Further, the police did not 

have neighbors’ support (except Ms. Glidden) because Luisa was well liked and everyone 

knew of her extraordinary ability with animals, and the care she lavished on them, as well as 

her kindness. She is a good, generous, and quiet neighbor. She helps her neighbors, makes 

sure they’re ok, and is a positive social force.

126. On April 6, Defendant Officers determined that Luisa was not an imminent threat to 

herself or others and notified Adult Protective Services of a follow-up due to Luisa’s “poor 

physical condition”. And a joint home visit with Adult Protective Service, Code Enforcement, 

Animal Cruelty and the Community Health Paramedic Program was planned for April 17, 

2018.

127. Between April 5 and 16, Eva called Officers Visi and Bender (Visi’s counterpart), as 

recommended by Officer Guetzke on March 30, seven times in total. Eva was told by the 

dispatcher that they were “very good” about returning calls the same day. The dispatcher 

even confirmed once or twice that they were in the office, as she had seen them. However, 

no one called Plaintiffs back. The police ignored Plaintiffs’ every effort to communicate with 

them. 

128. Between March 30 and April 17, Luisa stayed the same as always: slim, healthy and 

rational. 

129. Earlier in the morning on April 17, Luisa went out to take her beloved pup (not one 

of the four dogs seized) for a vet surgery.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 26 of 62
27

130. During the entire time of the surgery, Luisa was on the phone with Eva who was on a 

business trip, and they were helping keep each other’s spirits up about their dog in surgery, 

and about how they would all soon be in their new home.

131. Luisa took a taxi in both directions. Her appearance and behavior were completely 

normal, neat, and tidy in every respect when the veterinarian and the taxi driver saw her.

132. Luisa had been up for over 24 hours watching over Plaintiffs’ dogs. After she returned 

home from her trip to the vet, she put her clothing in the laundry as they did every time after 

coming home from outside and showered due to concern about Indiana’s allergies, and put 

on her comfortable pajamas sweats to worry and wait while her best friend was in surgery.

133. At around 9:00 a.m., in broad daylight, multiple people gathered on the front porch of 

Plaintiffs’ home bringing an animal control truck, a Code Enforcement vehicle, a car with a 

molded plastic seat in the shape of a person and numerous restraining straps across the 

waist and chest and bars on the windows, and several other vehicles. These people called out 

Luisa’s name over and over.

134. Luisa went on the porch, without yelling at all, to see what they needed and closed 

the door behind her. Luisa was in her pajamas and did not have a bra on. Both her hair and 

clothing were clean because she had just gotten out of the shower. She has clear, healthy skin. 

She did not have bugs or lice and has never had! The same day photos taken by Luisa herself 

after she was seized also showed that she did not have any bug bites on her clear skin.

135. Office Diven, like Officer Villarreal, claimed that Luisa was covered in bugs. Officer 

Diven also claimed that, though he was “standing 10-15 feet away” from the front door of 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 27 of 62
28

Plaintiffs’ house, he saw lice crawling over Luisa and that he could see lice and “smell urine.” 

In fact, neither lice nor urine were present.

136. Officer Diven’s claims appear to be made with the intention of increasing his own 

credibility and the believability of the police fabrication by being the second person to 

mention lice after Officer Villarreal’s mention, and to corroborate and bolster her earlier 

similar lice claim. 

137. Officer Diven further stated that Luisa appeared to be mentally challenged and had

some issues with her speech.

138. The people at the front porch, including Officer Horn, did not identify themselves as 

police.

139. When Luisa went on her front porch, the police blocked her exit forward. Officer 

Seltmann, wearing rubber gloves, immediately approached Luisa and tried to put her arm 

around Luisa’s back and shoulders and grabbed her left wrist while Officer Reeves was 

grabbing her right wrist on her own front porch, hurting her wrists. Luisa said to the officers, 

“Please stand back,” and retreated a few inches until her back was against the door of the 

house. Luisa was afraid for herself and immediately afraid for Plaintiffs’ pets because she 

was their only protector there at the time. 

140. While the officers were pulling Luisa down the driveway, Officer Seltmann said to 

Luisa, “We’re going to take you to the hospital get you checked out.” “Walk or we’ll carry 

you.”

141. Officer Seltmann and Reeves then pulled Luisa down the driveway and across the 

street. Officer Seltmann said to Eva, “It’s not her choice. It’s my choice. That’s my decision. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 28 of 62
29

I’m just telling what’s happening. I’m in charge.”

142. Luisa asked the officers, “Please loosen your grip – you’re hurting me,” but Seltmann 

and Reeves did not do so. Officer Seltmann and Reeves threatened to handcuff Luisa, saying, 

“If you keep pulling I’ll put handcuffs on you.” Luisa was forced to wait in the sun, essentially 

on display on a neighbor’s lawn across the street from her home. Luisa was not even given a 

chance to put on her regular clothes instead of her pajamas without a bra on. The two officers 

illegally seized Luisa with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent 

circumstances. 

143. Luisa’s wrists are not accustomed to the rough treatment which Defendant Officers

used towards her. She told them several times, “You’re hurting me.” But the officers just 

ignored her. She was never mistreated in her whole life, until the police did so that day.

144. Luisa and Eva had been talking on the phone all morning about their dog having

surgery. When the police were seizing Luisa, Eva confirmed with Luisa, “So some people 

showed up and they’re trying to take you by force?” Eva then verified with an officer by 

asking, “Is she free to leave?” Officer Reeves answered, “No, she’s not free to leave.”

145. Luisa informed the police that she “ha[s] to stay here to take care of the dogs.” Luisa

never agreed for the police to seize Plaintiffs’ dogs. And she would never consider the police 

to even take temporary care of the dogs for her.

146. Plaintiffs’ four dogs were kept inside Plaintiffs’ house and they dogs could not be seen 

from the outside of the house. 

147. Luisa instructed the police several times that they CANNOT go in [Plaintiffs’ home].

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 29 of 62
30

148. When Luisa instructed the police that they cannot go into the house, Officer Seltmann 

said, “Yes, we can.“

149. Luisa called out on the phone “Help me!” to Eva. And Eva could hear Luisa say “No” 

several times.

150. The police would not let Luisa get her keys to lock the house, power cord for her cell 

phone, or a hairband for her hair.

151. Officer Seltmann could be heard on the audio, saying “I need to take her to the 

hospital.” 

152. Luisa never consented that the police could enter or search Plaintiffs’ home without 

a warrant. Neither did Eva.

153. Plaintiffs’ home was closed (doors and windows), but Defendant Officers entered 

Plaintiffs’ home anyway with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent 

circumstances. Defendant Officers entered and searched the home, took Plaintiffs’ beloved 

dogs, and stole and retained Plaintiffs’ valuables. Defendant Officer did so in disregard of

Luisa’s repeated instructions that they cannot enter her house.

154. Officer Von Seltmann once said in a newspaper article that she based her entry into 

people’s homes on her own “gut feelings,” entering homes to “suss out” what’s happening 

whenever her “gut feelings” tell her to.

155. Eva informed the police twice that Luisa wanted a lawyer and one of the officers 

responded that Luisa was not entitled to have an attorney.

156. Defendant Officers, including Officer Schwettmann, used a pole with a wire on the 

end of it to grab Plaintiffs’ senior dogs, ages 14, 15, 16, and 17 years old, around the necks 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 30 of 62
31

and drag them away, taking Plaintiffs’ four best friends and family members from Plaintiffs.

Officer Diven can be heard on the video taken that day saying, “She’s [Luisa] not getting these 

dogs back, and neither is the sister [Eva].”

157. Defendant Officers did not take the cats, leaving them alone and unprotected, without 

the person who had taken care of them for so long and who had ensured that they always 

had clean water and food. Defendant Officers just left them, likely because it would take too 

long to grab them, and the officers never came back for them.

158. The dogs were then all transported to the Austin Animal Center. After the dogs had 

been unlawfully seized with no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent 

circumstances, Officer Diven then completed a seizure warrant and petitioned the Justice 

Court, Precinct 5, Travis County, Texas (JP5) to divest ownership of the dogs from Luisa until 

a hearing could be had to determine proper placement of the dogs.

159. Defendant Officers, including Officer Diven, were not really concerned about the 

welfare of the dogs: They did not even ask Luisa about the dogs when they saw her April 17.

They did not ask her whether the dogs had any existing medical conditions and what those 

were.

160. Defendant Officers carefully planned their April 17,2018 home invasion to Luisa 

ahead of time:

▪ In his report on April 5 (which was checked by Officer King the same day), 

Officer Robinson wrote: “This case does not meet the criteria for a Nuisance 

Abatement. The title code has been modified from Nuisance Abatement to an 

EDP and routed.”

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 31 of 62
32

▪ Officer Seltmann wrote in her report that Luisa was not an imminent threat to 

herself or others; however, the CIT Unit was notified for follow-up due to Luisa’s 

“poor physical condition”; that Adult Protective Services was also notified. 

Officer Seltmann wrote, “On April 6, I received an email from Det. Diven from 

Animal Cruelty concerning this case. After reading the above report, I 

determined that a home visit needed. Joint home visit with Adult Protective 

Services, Code Enforcement, Animal Cruelty and the Community health 

Paramedic Program planned for April 17, 2018.”

▪ Officer Diven wrote in his report, “[4/6/2018] I emailed Ofc. Von Seltmann with 

CIT to inquire as to their plans to deal with Lupi,” “[4/12/2018] Ofc. Von 

Seltmann advised that they have scheduled a home visit with Lupi on Tue, Apr 

17 at 930a. We agreed to met [sic] her out there.”

▪ As stated earlier, between April 5 and 16, Plaintiffs called the police, as 

recommended by Officer Guetzke on March 30, seven times in total with no 

response at all. 

▪ On April 17, multiple people, as assigned and approved by Officer Sgt King (who 

was also briefed later that day after Lusia was forcibly taken to hospital),

brought with them an animal control truck, a Code Enforcement vehicle, a car 

with a plastic seat molded in shape of a person and numerous restraining straps 

across the waist and chest and bars on the windows, and several other vehicles. 

They did not ask Luisa during their encounter with her about the pets, such as if 

the dogs had any preexisting medical conditions, which they had.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 32 of 62
33

▪ Defendant Officers seemed to be there to only carry out their plan: they went 

there to simply seize Luisa, enter and search the house, and seize the dogs, with 

no warrant, no probable cause, no consent, and no exigent circumstances. 

161. Immediately after the April 17 home invasion by Defendant Officers, Plaintiffs told 

everyone that the conditions portrayed by the police were fabricated and asked if the proper 

authorities would like to come to Plaintiffs’ house and see that the conditions portrayed by 

the police were false. But the police refused.

162. During the entire course of the incidents, Luisa had not committed, was not 

committing, and was not about to commit, a crime; she did not pose an immediate threat to 

the safety of the officers or others; she was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to 

evade arrest by flight.

163. During the entire course of the incidents, Luisa had been staying calm and rational.

As Officer Reeves said on April 17 after Luisa was seized by Officers Seltmann and Reeves, 

“She [Luisa] seems very, very rational to me.” 

164. As he also stated, “Luisa was not in any way in trouble and no crime had been 

committed or had committed any crime.” 

165. During the entire course of the incidents, Luisa did not pose or even attempt to pose

in any manner any danger or possible danger to either herself or Defendant Officers present.

She was wearing her comfortable pajamas that many people would do at home. She had only 

her cellphone with her. She did not have anything such as a knife, much less any weapon,

with her. She did not have any firearms. She did not have access to any firearms. She did not 

state that she was going to commit suicide or threatening to do so in front of the police (or 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 33 of 62
34

anyone else at any time). She did not threaten or even attempt to threaten in any way to hurt 

the officers or anyone around. Defendant Officers did not, and could not, have probable cause 

to detain Luisa under Emergency Detention without a warrant when they had sufficient time 

to apply for and obtain one. 

166. After Defendant Officers took Plaintiffs’ dogs unlawfully, they did not allow Eva or 

Luisa or their vet to see or examine the dogs. 

167. After Luisa was forced to enter the EMS truck. When she was told that Officer 

Seltmann said she was bitten by bugs from Luisa, she pieced together that Defendant Officers 

were intentionally fabricating facts and that they were going to try to take her to a 

hospital/mental health facility. Luisa pushed up her sweatshirt sleeves and asked EMS 

technician Hedrick to view her arms and write that she had no bites of any kind on her arms. 

Hedrick replied, “I’m not going to undress you, ma’am.” Eva confirmed on the phone with 

Luisa what Hedrick said. 

168. EMS ordered Luisa to get in the EMS van, then get into the gurney in the van, and lay 

down on the stretcher. EMS strapped Luisa to the gurney with three straps across her ankles, 

knees and thighs. The van driver White wanted to put straps across Luisa’s shoulders, but 

Hedrick stopped him, saying, “I don’t think she needs that.”

169. Luisa was taken to Seton Medical Center Austin. The police did not ask the hospital to 

check Luisa’s wrists, so there would be no contradiction to the story of the police. No one in 

the hospital ever checked her wrists for injuries, though Luisa told the hospital that her wrists 

were injured.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 34 of 62
35

170. Defendant Officers claimed Luisa had “LICE,” but never asked the hospital to perform 

any necessary corresponding checks or tests, which would have disproved their claim. No 

one in Plaintiffs’ family has ever had lice. Luisa has NEVER had lice. 

171. Officer Seltmann claimed that she was bitten by bugs during the incidents and Officer 

Reeves confirmed that by saying “all over her arm.” Yet Officer Seltmann did not ask the 

hospital to check on the bug bites. Officer Reeves holding Luisa’s right arm did not get any 

bug bites and Luisa did not, either, although she had been in the house for some time. 

172. Officer Diven later admitted at the April 24 hearing, which is to be addressed later,

that it was not Officer Seltmann, but he, who had a single bug bite, that he was not covered 

in bug bites, that the bite was sustained outside Plaintiffs’ home, and that it was probably a 

mosquito bite. 

173. In the Notification of Emergency Detention submitted to the hospital, Officer 

Seltmann handwrote under the reason to believe Luisa was a substantial risk of serious harm 

to herself, “Deterioration –Not able to make safe, rational decisions, unable to care for herself 

(hygiene & physical health, malnourished).” 

174. Under “My belief are based upon the following recent behavior, overt acts, attempts, 

statements, or threats observed by me or reliably reported to me,” Office Seltmann 

handwrote, “Multiple neighbors including McKenna Kuhr & Elizabeth Glidden are concerned 

for Luisa’s welfare as she is reported to have an intellectual disability, does not leave her 

home, has a very thin & frail appearance, poor hygiene (lice in her hair, odor of urine/feces 

on her clothing), hoards, has two dogs that also appear malnourished & ill, Luisa’s sister Eva 

was reported by McKenna to be Luisa’s caretaker; however McKenna told officers that she 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 35 of 62
36

moved out 8 or 9 mos ago & reportedly lives in Cal. No one has come or gone from the 

residence since that time. The trash has only been taken out one time in that time period & 

other neighbors, It is unknown how Luisa was getting food. Luisa is very frail & thin and 

appears to be malnourished. When her neighbors come to her door, she is hesitant to answer 

& will only do so if her sister, Eva, is on the phone. ” 

175. Officer Seltmann did not state in the Notification of Emergency Detention, however, 

at the time Luisa was seized, what Luisa was doing or saying that she could be a substantial 

risk of serious harm to herself or others unless she was immediately detained. 

176. The hospital advised that Luisa was not in need of any treatment and would not admit

her, but the police would not let her leave. 

177. In the hospital, Luisa was threatened that she would never be permitted to leave 

unless she gave blood and urine samples. The hospital also forced her to put an oxygen 

monitor on her finger and took her blood pressure against her wishes. 

178. The police stood guard at Luisa’s door and willfully kept her without legal cause in a hot 

and unventilated room for more than eight hours without food or water, which was reported 

through proper hospital complaint channels with no response. Luisa sat there hopelessly, worried 

about her best friend in surgery, and unable to check on her, give her comfort, or support her 

recovery, or communicate with her surgeon.

179. Because the room was overheated and unventilated, Luisa asked for ventilation. One 

of the personnel opened the door to the attached bathroom for fresh toilet-air. None of the 

hospital or police personnel stayed in the room for more than a few minutes at a time.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 36 of 62
37

180. The hospital took Luisa’s temperature twice at the end of the day, and both the 

readings showed that she had developed a small but increasing fever due to the heat and lack 

of water.

181. When Luisa tried to get out of bed to stretch her legs over the eight hours that she 

was forced to remain on the bed, a police officer told her roughly, “Get back on the bed.” 

182. Towards the end of the day, the hospital personnel began asking Luisa to take a “mini 

psych” test, then they even said she could keep her sister on the phone. 

183. The police tried to compel the hospital to admit Luisa, and eventually the hospital 

stated in the “Emergency Services Discharge Instructions”: “Chief Complaint: Failure To 

Thrive, ” which is only used in veterinary and pediatric circumstances.

184. After about eight hours with no food, water, or ventilation provided for her, Luisa was 

released by the hospital, saying that she had no condition requiring an emergency room visit. 

185. Luisa never consented that the police could detain her against her own will in the 

hospital while she was both physically and mentally normal. 

186. The hospital informed Eva that Luisa was charged for the ER room visit in the amount 

of $507.71 after the discount for cash payment (the original charge was $998.50).

187. While in the hospital, Luisa asked for an attorney several times, and each time she 

was refused. 

188. While in the hospital, Luisa was later served by Officer Diven with a copy of Warrant 

For Seizure Of Animals (labeled as Page 3 of 4) and Notice Of Hearing (labeled as Page 4 of 

4), Cause Number J5-AD-18-001957. But she was not served with a copy of the other two 

pages, pages 1 and 2 out of 4, containing Officer Diven’s affidavit to support his application 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 37 of 62
38

for the warrant. When Luisa asked where pages 1 and 2 were, Officer Diven said to Luisa, 

“That’s all you need.” Luisa’s attorney was served by email on April 19 only pages 3 and 4 as 

well. 

189. Luisa was never served with Officer Diven’s Affidavit until the middle of the Magistrate 

hearing when Judge Nicholas Chu gave Plaintiffs “five minutes to look this over.” 

190. The initial hearing was set on April 24, 2018 to determine whether Plaintiffs’ four 

dogs had been cruelly treated. 

191. During the period of time Luisa was inhumanely and illegally detained in the hospital, 

Defendant Officers, after illicitly entering Plaintiffs’ house, had been rummaging through 

every corner of the house, including bank records, client records, attempting to download 

the security system videos, digging through hard drives with intellectual property, opening 

letters, overturning boxes, breaking fragile items, and taking whatever valuables and cash 

they found and wanted. 

192. A number of items, including antique jewelry and cash on the counter, which were in 

the Plaintiff’s house before Defendant Officers’ illegal search, were discovered to be missing 

after the search. Defendant Officers took the missing items with intent to deprive Plaintiffs 

of their property rights because the officers never returned the stolen items to Plaintiffs. 

193. Luisa received the house keys at about 3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. while she was in the 

hospital. Defendant Officers spent at least FIVE AND HALF hours searching and ransacking 

Plaintiffs’ house as the officers pleased. Nothing illegal was found in the house, because neither

sister has been involved in anything illegal.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 38 of 62
39

194. Luisa was finally released after an eight-hour unlawful seizure and willful detention by the 

police. Although the police took her to the hospital, Luisa had to take a taxi herself going back

home. 

195. Interestingly, the next day, April 18, 2018, instead of helping Plaintiffs get their dogs back, 

Officer Visi was bizarrely asking Eva on the phone, “Who has an ownership interest in the home.”

196. At the April 24 hearing, the police were sitting in a large group and laughing out loud while 

seeing Plaintiffs struggling to bring their dogs and family back together. 

197. At the April 24 hearing, the County Assistant Attorney Annalynn Cox (“Attorney Cox”) 

claimed that the audio portion of the video taken by the police on April 17 raid of Plaintiffs’ house 

was “unavailable.” At the appeal hearing, she pretended that the audio did not work, when it was 

accidentally made available by the court audio/video tech. The audio portion disproved, at least 

partially as stated earlier, what Defendant Officers and Attorney Cox claimed that Luisa cruelly 

treated Plaintiffs’ dogs. 

198. Luisa was not allowed to introduce her rebuttal evidence. Neither was Eva.

199. The magistrate court judge Nicholas Chu literally signed an order dated April 25, 2018

based on anything Attorney Cox wrote, even matters not having been mentioned at the hearing. 

The order ruled, among other things, that Luisa “has cruelly treated” the four dogs by torturing 

them and by unreasonably depriving them of necessary food, care and shelter, and that Luisa and 

all other owners were divested of ownership of the dogs.

200. Eva, as the joint owner of the four dogs, was never served with any documents regarding 

the seizure and disposition of the dogs and was not named as a party to the case, making it 

impossible for her to defend her rights. Yet she was illegally deprived of her ownership (as “all 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 39 of 62
40

other owners”). And County Judge Phillips issued a “holding” against Eva (although she was not 

named as defendant) to punish her for defending Luisa.

201. Plaintiffs were not provided with any documents for their appeal of the April 25 order to 

the county court until a few days before the appeal hearing. They still do not have most of the 

documents involved in the case. 

202. At the appeal hearing, Attorney Cox falsely testified that Luisa only fed two of Plaintiffs’ 

four dogs [because of her alleged mental “challenges”]. But Plaintiffs’ veterinary evidence—

including under oath statement from their veterinarian about the great care of pets provided by 

Plaintiffs and half a dozen other affiants, one of them an Austin Police employee for whom 

Plaintiffs dog sat—was not permitted to be produced to rebut Attorney Cox’s testimony. To ensure 

that Plaintiffs’ voluminous rebuttal evidence be not presented and be not admitted, the county even 

hired an extra attorney for that sole purpose. 

203. It did not matter whether the county met their burden of proof that Luisa did not provide 

adequate care to Plaintiffs’ pets. For instance, Officer Diven stated that he didn’t know when 

Plaintiffs’ four dogs had been to the vet. At least from their first visit to Luisa on March 30, 

Defendant Officers, including later the judges involved and Attorney Cox, perceived and treated 

Luisa as mentally disabled, and did not treat her in the same way as others.

204. Apparently, all defendants conspired to reach an agreement to remove perceived 

disabled Luisa out of her own home and the neighborhood. 

205. After the seizures of Luisa and Plaintiffs’ dogs and the search of Plaintiffs’ home, 

Plaintiffs were told that: (1) Eva might be able to get the pets [the hostages] back if Luisa 

went somewhere else to live (Luisa’s attorney Daniel Smith told Plaintiffs that Attorney Cox 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 40 of 62
41

said this); (2) They should sell their house and move to a different city; (3) If they tried to 

get their pets back, the police would file criminal charges even though there was no basis for 

those charges; and (4) If they filed an appeal, the police would file criminal charges even 

though there was no basis for those charges.

206. Attorney Cox told Plaintiffs’ attorney that they would never get their pets back and 

that no discussions would take place as long as Luisa was living at that house (Cleansing the 

Neighborhood).

207. Attorney Cox refused to extend to Plaintiffs’ attorney any of the courtesies normally 

extended to opposing counsel. Attorney Cox said to the judge that the reason she wanted 

hearing #2 so early was because of a statutory deadline requiring the hearing to be held 

within a certain amount of time. In fact, Attorney Cox had already missed the deadline. 

208. Plaintiffs were forced to pay for the cost of duplicated tests on the dogs, thereby 

maximizing Plaintiffs’ financial burden, in addition to their attorneys’ fees, appeal bond, etc., 

so that they would be financially devastated and eventually give up.

209. Plaintiffs engaged a firm to write a motion for a new trial (at county court level). The 

judge refused entirely to rule on the motion.

210. Plaintiffs have never been able to bring back their dogs that were illegally seized by 

Defendant Officers.

211. Eva filed complaints with the office of the Police Monitor of Austin Police Department, 

which immediately instructed them to file the complaints directly with Internal Affairs. 

Plaintiffs never received any information on any actions taken by Internal Affairs or any 

response with questions or for any further information.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 41 of 62
42

212. Plaintiffs were contacted, however, by Code Enforcement Officer Joseph Lucas, who 

Plaintiffs believe has been conspiring with other defendants, demanding entry into Plaintiffs’ 

home. If Plaintiffs did not give Officer Lucas permission to enter, he said: “I have 30 years of 

experience in law enforcement in this town and I retired from the Austin Police Department. 

I am pretty confident I could obtain a search warrant in a very short time.” 

213. Officer Lucas also threatened on January 13, 2020 to file legal action against Luisa, 

which would have the effect of subjecting her to damages and costs possibly sufficient to 

drive her out of the neighborhood.

214. Seven days later, on January 21, Officer Lucas posted a notice of violation on the front 

door of Plaintiffs’ house. The alleged violation of “Accumulation of rubbish or garbage”

occurred on April 17, 2018.

215. On February 12, 2020, Officer Lucas posted a citation numbered 09630 against Luisa, 

claiming violation of “Accumulation of rubbish or garbage” that occurred on April 17, 2018 

at 2:16 p.m. At the time of the alleged violation, Luisa had been seized and was forcibly and 

unlawfully detained in the hospital. At the time of the alleged violation, Defendant Officers 

had already been rummaging through and ransacking Plaintiffs’ home multiple hours. 

216. Plaintiffs were planning to move out of their home before the police raid of the home 

on April 17, 2018. But they decided to continue to stay there until their dogs were brought 

back because they would not move out without their dogs together. 

217. On February 13, 2020, the next day after Officer Lucas’s most recent post of the 

citation, however, Plaintiffs were finally forced to move out of their home because they could 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 42 of 62
43

not any longer keep living in almost two years of constant harassment and fear that were 

created by the defendants.

Warrant issued after seizure, based on knowingly false facts, 

and containing contradicting information

218. As stated previously, when the police seized Luisa and Plaintiffs’ dogs and searched 

Plaintiffs’ house, the police did not have a warrant, did not have consent, did not have 

probable cause, and did not have exigent circumstances. Only, and only, after the police

illegally seized Luisa, illegally entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home, and illegally seized 

Plaintiffs’ dogs inside the home, Officer Diven then completed his affidavit to apply for a 

warrant for seizure of Plaintiffs’ pets—an affidavit filled with numerous false, and even 

deliberately fabricated statements as articulated below:

• Luisa had a caretaker that moved out about 8 months ago and that no one had 

been coming by to care for Luisa since. 

The statement is false because Luisa never has had a caretaker at any time—she has 

been able to take care of herself and sometime her sister Eva as well—and Eva did not move 

out. 

• Luisa appeared to be intellectually challenged and was unable to care for herself 

due to her mental disabilities. 

The statement is false because Luisa never has had any mental disabilities and she 

has been taking care of herself.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 43 of 62
44

• The trash [from Plaintiffs’ home] had not been put out for months.

The statement is false because Luisa, sometimes Eva, has been putting out their trash 

when they needed (often about every four weeks since they produced very small trash and 

not at all when they were traveling).

• A foul odor was emanating from the house.

The statement is false because Plaintiffs always kept their home nice and clean and 

there was no smell from the house.

• Luisa was never seen bringing any food into the house.

The statement is misleading because Luisa ordered delivery food many times. 

Sometimes Plaintiffs went out to eat.

• Luisa was believed to be hoarder.

The statement is false because Luisa was never a hoarder. Plaintiffs did have wellorganized items in moving boxes, which is not hoarding. They were on the way preparing for

moving to a new larger home from a three-bedroom house. 

• Luisa was living in unsanitary conditions.

The statement is false because Luisa has been living in sanitary conditions shown by 

the fact that Plaintiffs always keep their house nice and clean and well organized. 

• The house smelled strongly of urine and feces when Luisa opened the door on 

April 17, 2018.

The statement is false because when the police went to the front porch of Plaintiffs’ 

home, Luisa had just got out of shower and put on her clean pajamas and there was no smell 

of urine or feces from Luisa or the house.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 44 of 62
45

(Officers Villarreal and Guetzke made similar false statements that the house smelled 

strongly of urine and feces when Luisa opened the door. Officer Reeves also claimed, in 

“corroborating” other officers’ stories, that upon walking up to the front door, he could right 

away smell a strong urine/ammonia smell coming from the house.) 

• Luisa was very thin and frail, and her clothing was soiled and smelled.

The statement is false because Luisa was slim but very healthy. And her clothing was 

nice and clean and no smell. 

• Luisa had what appeared to be lice in her hair.

The statement is false and intentionally fabricated to paint a very negative picture of 

Luisa because she has never had any lice nor has anyone in Plaintiffs’ family. And the 

detection of lice requires careful close-up work even by trained doctors, sometimes involving 

a microscope—Officer Diven, standing 10-15 feet away from the front door, was not in a 

position to make that detection.

• Eva advised the officers that Luisa was taken care of. 

The statement is false because Eva did not make that advice and Luisa has never 

needed to be taken care of.

• Neither Eva nor Luisa were very cooperative with providing information.

The statement is false because the police were provided with all the information they 

asked for. 

• On the scene, Defendant Officers determined that Luisa was a danger to herself 

based on what the officers observed, and they completed an emergency detention 

on Luisa in order to have her mentally evaluated.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 45 of 62
46

The emergency seizure statement did not say what Defendant Officers observed that 

Luisa was a danger to herself.

• Plaintiffs’ two red colored dogs found inside Plaintiffs’ home had very bad 

mange/allergies.

The statement is false because Officer Diven and other Officers on the scene were not 

in a position to identify the mange/allergies shown by the facts that: (a) Even the City Vet 

admitted later, after examining the dogs and first claiming she identified the mange issue, 

that the two dogs did not have mange; (b) Identification of allergies is more complex than 

mange and even the City Vet was not able to deduce allergies until Plaintiffs told her.

• [Indiana]... would not get up and walk and had to be carried to the truck [by 

Officer Schwettmann]. 

The statement is untrue and misleading because Indiana was very old and was just 

terrified by aggressive strangers hurting Luisa and invading the home.

• There was a yellow large mixed breed dog that had a large sore on its face.

The statement is false because the “large sore” is a small growth about the size of a pinky 

nail that had been tested and found benign. Even the City Vet who examined the pet called the 

growth “small.”

• The inside of Plaintiffs’ home was a typical hoarder house. 

The statement is false because Plaintiffs had well-organized items in moving boxes, 

which is not hoarding. They were about to move to their new home from a three-bedroom 

house.

• The smell of ammonia was very strong.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 46 of 62
47

The statement is false because Plaintiffs’ home was nice and clean and no smell. 

• Luisa was covered in bugs.

The statement is false and deliberately fabricated because Luisa never had bugs and 

did not have at the time she was seized. Luisa’s skin was clear and healthy as evidenced by 

the photos taken by herself the same day, after she was seized.

• There was trash, debris, and belongings stacked floor to ceiling in all corners of 

Plaintiffs’ home.

The statement is false because there was no trash or debris except in trash bags—

Plaintiffs recycled dog and cat food bags and used them as recycling bags. Plaintiffs’ moving 

boxes were stacked; boxes had some of Plaintiffs’ personal items on top that were not going 

to be packed in the moving van but were going to be taken in their SUV—and they were only 

in some corners.

• A window was opened in a room to allow Plaintiffs’ cats to get in and out as 

necessary to survive.

The statement is intentionally made misleading because the only window opened was 

seven feet high that was almost impossible for Plaintiffs’ domestic cats to get in and out. It is 

more likely that the window was opened so that someone might get in and out later.

• Luisa cruelly treated the dogs.

The statement is false because Plaintiffs provided only great care and love to their 

dogs—virtually their children—and neither Luisa nor Eva ever cruelly treated them.

• Two of the four dogs were in really bad condition.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 47 of 62
48

The statement is false and misleading because the two dogs, Ruby and Indiana, were

very old but happy, warm and cool as appropriate, fed lavishly, always had access to lots of 

fresh water, and were loved, understood, and cherished.

219. The JP5 received Officer Diven’s Affidavit for Seizure of Animals at April 17, 2018 at 

2:41p.m. and issued the warrant for seizure of animals. 

220. But it seems that Officer Diven obtained the warrant at 2:20 p.m., even 21 minutes 

before he applied for the warrant, and competed the warrant at 3:00 p.m.

Harassment never ends

221. After the seizure of Plaintiffs’ dogs, Ms. Glidden turned her attention to Code Enforcement, 

from which Plaintiffs received a barrage of threats, calls, emails, and visits.

222. On February 6, 2019, Officer Lucas emailed Eva, stating that he received an anonymous 

complaint that Plaintiffs’ backyard had “much junk” and “raccoons nesting there.” Five days later, 

Officer Lucas informed Eva that he did not really see anything that was too bad.

223. About 14 days later, Luisa heard some noise outside. She saw a tree trimmer on the roof of 

her house without her permission. The tree trimmer’s truck was parked in front of Ms. Glidden’s 

home and Ms. Glidden was on her back porch and talking with the tree trimmer.

224. On March 11, 2019, Officer Lucas emailed Eva that there was a new complaint, claiming 

that “Tall weeds unmaintained yard, strong smell of urine” coming from Plaintiffs’ home. He sent 

Eva another email, saying “The grass/weeds are under 12 inches tall. I don’t deal with trees and 

brush. I did not smell urine from the front yard.”

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 48 of 62
49

225. As stated earlier, Officer Lucas threatened in January 2020 to file a lawsuit against Luisa, 

and on February 12, 2020, he posted the citation for a claimed code violation that occurred 

on April 17, 2018 while Luisa was in the hospital.

General

226. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of all defendants, Plaintiffs suffered 

substantial damages, including pain and suffering, emotional distress and harm, embarrassment, 

loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of financial damages.

227. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the conduct of all defendants was in willful, 

reckless, and callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights under federal and state law.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I

Actions against all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations of 

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

228. Plaintiffs adopt by reference the facts and allegations set forth above as though fully set 

forth herein.

229. All causes of action under § 1983 are alleged against all defendants under conspiracy.

230. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable seizures and searches. And 

the Fourth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

231. The Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure of a person without a

warrant supported by probable cause was clearly established at the time of the events in this case.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 49 of 62
50

232. The Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search of a person's home

without a warrant supported by probable cause was clearly established at the time of the events

in this case.

233. The Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure of a person's pets 

and other personal property without a warrant supported by probable cause was clearly

established at the time of the events in this case.

234. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall "deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property without due process of law.”

235. Under the Tex. Health & Safety Code § 573.001, a peace officer may, without a warrant,

take a person into custody if (1) the officer has reason to believe and does believe that a person

is mentally ill and because of that illness there is a substantial risk of serious harm to the person 

or to others unless the person is immediately restrained; and (2) believes that there is not

sufficient time to obtain a warrant before taking the person into custody.

A. Fourth Amendment and Probable Cause

a. Emergency Detention -

236. On April 17, 2018, Defendant Officers did not have a warrant or Luisa’s consent to seize 

her and did not meet any of the exceptions for the seizure without a warrant. 

237. There was no probable cause for the seizure of Luisa without a warrant under Texas Health 

and Safety Code § 573.001 et seq. and Defendant Officers did not comply with the requirements 

of the statute.

238. Luisa did not have mental disabilities as all defendants perceived and she has never had

any mental disabilities.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 50 of 62
51

239. Defendant Officers did not observe on the scene Luisa engage in any conduct

suggesting any substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others unless she was 

immediately detained.

240. Defendant Officers had sufficient time to obtain a warrant before they seized Luisa because 

they well planned ahead of time the seizure of Luisa on April 17, 2018. 

241. Under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant Officers did not have probable

cause to seize Luisa without a warrant and without consent and have her taken to Seton Medical 

Center Austin.

b. Entry into and search of home without a warrant or consent -

242. On April 17, 2018, Defendant Officers forcibly seized and took into custody Luisa, they

then entered Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant and disregarded Luisa’s repeated instructions that 

they cannot enter the home. 

243. None of the circumstances constituting a recognized exception to the Fourth

Amendment requirement of a warrant were present t o justify Defendant Officers’ 

warrantless entry into Plaintiffs’ home. 

244. After entering Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant or consent, Defendant Officers 

searched Plaintiffs’ home, upon information and belief, at least five and half hours, without a 

warrant or consent from Luisa or Eva. 

245. None of the circumstances constituting a recognized exception to the Fourth

Amendment requirement of a warrant were present t o justify Defendant Officers’ 

warrantless search of Plaintiffs’ home.

c. Seizure of Plaintiffs’ four dogs without a warrant or consent -

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 51 of 62
52

246. On April 17, 2018, Defendant Officers illegally entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home, and 

seized Plaintiffs’ four dogs inside the home and transported them to Austin Animal Center without 

a warrant and without consent from either Luisa or Eva. 

247. None of the circumstances constituting a recognized exception to the Fourth

Amendment requirement of a warrant were present t o justify Defendant Officers’ 

warrantless seizure of Plaintiffs’ dogs.

B. Fourteenth Amendment –

a. Substantive Due Process

248. At all times relevant to this Complaint, all defendants conspired to willfully, recklessly, 

callously harass Plaintiffs, especially Luisa, and egregiously violate their due process rights to 

own, use and quietly enjoy their home and enjoy their lives, to own their pets and other property, 

and to enjoy the companionship of their pets. 

249. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Officers Villarreal, Seltmann, Reeves, 

and Diven deliberately fabricated evidence to seize Plaintiffs’ dogs, falsely testified in court, used 

the fabricated evidence against Plaintiffs in court, thus unlawfully but effectively depriving 

Plaintiffs of their ownership interest in and companionship of their pet dogs. Plaintiffs have never 

been able to bring back their dogs—their family members. 

b. Procedural Due Process 

250. Upon information and belief, conspiring with County Attorney Cox who prosecuted the 

case to determine whether Luisa cruelly treated the dogs and divest Plaintiffs’ ownership of their 

dogs, Defendant Officers willfully, recklessly, and callously prohibited Plaintiffs from receiving 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 52 of 62
53

full service of process, producing Plaintiffs’ evidence, or obtaining exculpatory evidence 

withheld by Attorney Cox.

251. By doing so, Defendant Officers willfully, recklessly, and callously deprived Plaintiffs of 

their rights to a fair trial. 

C. Supervisory Liabilities

252. Upon information and belief, Officer Floyd was callously indifferent in supervising, 

training, or both, the subordinates on how to conduct proper investigation into a person that was 

perceived to be mentally disabled, and the callous indifference proximately caused Officers 

Villarreal and Guetzke’s unconstitutional conduct violating Luisa’s constitutional rights. 

253. Upon information and belief, Officer Floyd exhibited deliberate indifference to Luisa’s 

constitutional rights by failing to act on information indicating Officers Villarreal and Guetzke’s 

unconstitutional conduct were occurring.

254. Upon information and belief, Officer Robinson was callously indifferent in supervising, 

training, or both, the subordinates on how to conduct proper investigation into a person that was 

perceived to be mentally disabled, how to legally enter and search a person’s home, how to legally 

seize a person under emergency detention, and how to legally seize personal property of the 

person. That callous indifference proximately caused Defendant Officers unconstitutional conduct 

violating Luisa’s constitutional rights on April 17, 2018.

255. Upon information and belief, Officer Robinson exhibited deliberate indifference to Luisa’s 

constitutional rights by failing to discipline or take other actions on information indicating 

Defendant Officers’ unconstitutional conduct were occurring.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 53 of 62
54

256. Upon information and belief, Officer Seltmann was callously indifferent in supervising, 

training, or both, the subordinates on how to conduct proper investigation into a person that was 

perceived to be mentally disabled, how to legally enter and search a person’s home, how to legally 

seize a person under emergency detention, and how to legally seize personal property of the 

person. Officer Seltmann was also callously indifferent in participating in violating Plaintiffs’ 

constitutional rights. That callous indifference proximately caused Defendant Officers 

unconstitutional conduct violating Luisa’s constitutional rights on April 17, 2018.

257. Upon information and belief, Officer Seltmann exhibited deliberate indifference to Luisa’s 

constitutional rights by failing to prevent, discipline or take other actions on information indicating 

Defendant Officers’ unconstitutional conduct were occurring.

258. Upon information and belief, Officer King was callously indifferent in supervising, 

training, or both, the subordinates on how to conduct proper investigation into a person that was 

perceived to be mentally disabled, how to legally enter and search a person’s home, how to legally 

seize a person under emergency detention, and how to legally seize personal property of the 

person. That callous indifference proximately caused Defendant Officers unconstitutional conduct 

violating Luisa’s constitutional rights on April 17, 2018.

259. Upon information and belief, Officer King exhibited deliberate indifference to Luisa’s 

constitutional rights by failing to discipline or take other actions on information indicating 

Defendant Officers’ unconstitutional conduct were occurring. 

D. City of Austin and Travis County 

260. The violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and/or the conduct of Defendant 

Officers, were directly and proximately caused by the actions and inactions of Defendants 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 54 of 62
55

City of Austin and Travis County, which have encouraged, tolerated, ratified, and have been

deliberately indifferent to the following policies, patterns, practices and customs and to the

need for more or different training, supervision, investigation or discipline in the areas of:

i. Legal cause to seize a citizen perceived to be mentally ill without a warrant.

ii. Legal cause to seize a pet perceived to be cruelly treated without a warrant.

iii. Legal cause to search a citizen’s house without a warrant. 

iv. Officer's duties and responsibilities to engage in proper investigative techniques.

v. Officer's constitutional duties to disclose exculpatory evidence.

vi. The failure to identify and take remedial or disciplinary action against 

officers who were the subject of civilian complaints of misconduct.

261. The failure to properly sanction or discipline officers who are aware of and

conceal and/or aid and abet constitutional and statutory violations of citizens' rights by

the officers of City of Austin and Travis County.

262. Upon information and belief, the City of Austin, through its policy maker, the then 

Interim APD Chief Brian Manley, or the City Council, or both had notice of the violations of

constitutional rights by its officers and failed and refused to take action to stop and prevent

such violations.

263. Upon information and belief, Travis County, through its policy maker, Travis County 

Judge or County Sheriff, had notice of the violations of constitutional rights by its officers and

failed and refused to take action to stop and prevent such violations.

Count II

Actions against the City of Austin under ADA -

Protection against discrimination based on perceived disabilities

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 55 of 62
56

264. Plaintiffs adopt by reference the facts and allegations set forth above as though fully set 

forth herein.

265. Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason 

of such disability, be excluded from participation or denied the benefits of the services, programs 

or activities of a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

266. Under the ADA, a “disability” means: (1) a physical or mental impairment that 

substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (2) a record of such 

an impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3).

267. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Officers had been perceiving Luisa to 

be mentally disabled and had knowledge of her dyslexia on April 17, 2018 when they seized Luisa 

in the front porch of her own house. Based on her perceived disabilities, dyslexia, or both, 

Defendant Officers illegally seized her without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent 

circumstances and took her to Seton Medical Center Austin to be mentally evaluated. 

268. Based on Luisa’s perceived disabilities, dyslexia, or both, after Defendant Officers seized 

Plaintiffs’ dogs without a warrant or consent, Defendant officers then intentionally fabricated 

evidence and falsely accused Luisa that she cruelly treated Plaintiffs’ dogs; Defendant Officers 

further made false testimony against Luisa in subsequent court proceedings. 

269. Based on Luisa’s perceived disabilities, dyslexia, or both, Defendant Officers has been 

harassing Plaintiffs, and attempting to remove Luisa out of Plaintiffs’ home and the neighborhood.

270. Defendant Officers’ actions and omissions, based on Luisa’s perceived or actual disability,

denied her the benefits of her rights to be free from unreasonable seizure, search (of her house)

and to fair legal proceedings, the benefits of her ownership interests in her house and Plaintiffs’ 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 56 of 62
57

pets and of her rights to thee companionship of the pets, the benefits of quiet use and enjoyment 

of her house, and the benefits of her rights to decide where she wanted to live.

271. The City of Austin, a public entity, through all Defendant Officers’ illegal actions or 

omissions, subjected Luisa to discrimination based on her perceived disabilities, dyslexia, or both. 

Count III

Actions against all Defendants under Texas Theft Liability Act

272. Plaintiffs adopt by reference the facts and allegations set forth above as though fully set 

forth herein.

273. On April 17, 2018, Defendant Officers unlawfully entered Plaintiffs’ home, then stole or 

converted Plaintiffs’ personal property without consent and with intent to deprive Plaintiffs’ of 

their property rights while illegally searching Plaintiffs’ home in violation of the Texas 

Theft Liability Act (“TTLA”) and Plaintiffs suffered financial loss from the actions of Defendant 

Officers. 

274. All actions under the laws of Texas are alleged against all defendants under conspiracy.

VI. APPLICATION FOR

PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

275. Plaintiffs adopt by reference the facts and allegations set forth above as though fully set 

forth herein.

276. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against all defendants for the 

immediate release of Plaintiffs’ four dogs and stolen jewelry items and for immediate 

enjoinment from any actions or proceedings, brought or to be brought, against either plaintiff. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 57 of 62
58

VIII. LACK OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

277. Plaintiffs adopt by reference the facts and allegations set forth above as though fully set 

forth herein.

278. Defendant Officers’ actions violated "clearly established statutory and constitutional

rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.”

279. Defendant Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they detained and seized 

Luisa without a warrant or consent and failed to comply with the statutory requirements for 

emergent detention of Luisa.

280. Defendant Officers did not observe Luisa engage in any behavior that would have given

any reasonable officer any reason to believe that there was a substantial risk of serious harm

to Luisa herself or others unless she was immediately restrained and are therefore not entitled

to qualified immunity for t h e seizure of Luisa without a warrant.

281. Defendant Officers did not have any or sufficient evidence other than Luisa’s mental 

disabilities they perceived. Defendant Officers intentionally disregarded the fact that Luisa was 

normal and rational on the scene and they knew the fact.

282. No reasonable officer confronting a situation under the same or similar circumstances as 

Defendant Officers would have concluded that seizing Luisa and taking her to Seton Medical 

Center Austin without obtaining a warrant was appropriate, and Defendant Officers should not be 

entitled to any protection of qualified immunity to avoid accountability in this case.

283. No reasonable officer would have entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home under the same or 

similar circumstances as Defendant Officers did without a warrant, consent, probable cause, and 

exigent circumstances, and Defendant Officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 58 of 62
59

284. No reasonable officer would have seized Plaintiffs’ four dogs under the same or similar 

circumstances as Defendant Officers did without obtaining a warrant or consent, and Defendant 

Officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

285. No reasonable officer would have deliberately fabricated evidence and used the evidence 

against Plaintiffs in later court proceedings to deprive them of the rights to fair trials and ownership 

interest in their dogs under the same or similar circumstances as Officers Villarreal, Seltmann, 

Reeves, and Diven did, and the officers should not be entitled to qualified immunity

286. No reasonable officer would have willfully and egregiously harassed Plaintiffs, especially 

Luisa, and attempted to deprive them of their rights to (1) own, use, and quietly enjoy their home, 

(2) enjoy a normal life free from harassment and fear of the police, and (3) own their pets and 

enjoy their companionship under the same or similar circumstances as Defendant Officers did, and 

they should not be entitled to qualified immunity.

IX. DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

287. Plaintiffs adopt by reference the facts and allegations set forth above as though fully set 

forth herein.

288. As a direct and proximate result of all defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs suffered 

deprivations of their constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments 

to the U.S. Constitution.

289. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City of Austin’s unlawful actions, Luisa 

suffered deprivations of her rights protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

290. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs suffered 

deprivations of their rights protected by the Texas Theft Liabilities Act.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 59 of 62
60

291. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of all defendants, Plaintiffs suffered 

financial loss totaling $290,278: Stolen jewelry valued at $220,000; stolen Helmust Lang

jeans $278; approximately 10 $100 bills on counter: $1,000; loss of ability to rent $56,700; 

appeal bond $1,800; attorneys’ fees charged for both magistrate and county courts $10,500. 

292. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of all defendants, Plaintiffs suffered

extraordinary damages, some of which may be permanent, including Luisa’s loss of liberty

and having been living in constant fear that she might be taken by the police any time again,

and Plaintiffs’ loss of the companionship of their long-term beloved dogs, emotional distress

and trauma, loss of the enjoyment of life and home, and physical symptoms of anxiety, 

stress and fear such as headaches, difficulty sleeping and nightmares, loss of reputation,

shame, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and such other

compensatory and tangible consequential damages as the law entitles Plaintiffs to recover. 

293. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for their mental anguish and any other damages to

which they might be legally entitled as a result of the actions of all defendants.

294. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against Defendant Officers for their intentional, willful 

and wanton acts violating “clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable officer would have known.”

295. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against Defendants Kuhr and Glidden for their intentional, 

willful and wanton acts violating Plaintiffs’ rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendments and by the laws of both the United States and Texas. 

296. Plaintiffs hereby sue for their damages in the amount of ten million and pray for just and 

fair recovery thereof.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 60 of 62
61

297. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and 

the Texas Theft Liabilities Act.

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

298. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgement the following and ask 

the Court to:

a. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights.

b. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against all defendants ordering them 

to find and release Plaintiffs’ all four pet dogs.

c. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against all defendants ordering them 

to return to Plaintiffs all antique jewelry items taken from Plaintiffs’ home.

d. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against all defendants ordering them 

be enjoined from any actions or proceedings, brought or to be brought, against either 

plaintiff. 

e. Award actual/compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly and severally, 

in an amount to be determined at trial.

f. Alternatively award nominal damages for the violations of Plaintiff’s 

Constitutional rights.

g. Award punitive damages against all individual defendants.

h. Enter an award for costs, expenses, and counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1988(b) and the Texas Theft Liabilities Act; and 

i. Enter such other relief as this honorable Court may deem just and deserving.

DATED this 25th day of February 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 61 of 62
62

Respectfully submitted,

By: __s/ Kervyn B. Altaffer Jr.

Kervyn B. Altaffer Jr.

State Bar No. 01116575

Email: kervyn@altafferlaw.com

Lunbing Chen

State Bar No. 24097493

Email: lunbing@altafferlaw.com

 

Altaffer & Chen PLLC

4054 McKinney Ave Ste 310

Dallas, TX 75204

Tel: 972-234-3633

Fax: 972-947-3663

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint and Jury Demand is being served upon each defendant by 

hand delivery.

Case 1:20-cv-00207-RP Document 1 Filed 02/25/20 Page 62 of 62