Robert S. Wagner, OSB #844115

David C. Lewis, OSB #953348

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, OR 97210-3408

Telephone: (503) 299-6116

Facsimile: (503) 299-6106

E-mail: rsw@miller-wagner.com

dcl@miller-wagner.com

Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CARRIE MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal

corporation, CITY OF GRESHAM, a

municipal corporation, TRI-COUNTY

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

DISTRICT OF OREGON, a municipal

corporation, OFFICER TAYLOR LETSIS,

as both an individual and in his official

capacity as an officer of the Gresham

Police Department, UNKNOWN POLICE

OFFICERS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3, both as

individuals and in their capacities as

officers of the Portland Police Bureau,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:15-cv-00232-BR

DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND, CITY

OF GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

DISTRICT OF OREGON AND TAYLOR

LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Demand for Jury Trial)

In answer to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, defendants City of Portland,

City of Gresham, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (hereinafter

“TriMet”) and Officer Taylor Letsis, admit, deny and allege as follows:

///

Page 1 - DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND, CITY OF

GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON AND

TAYLOR LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(503) 299-6116

Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR Document 35 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 7
1.

Admit jurisdiction and venue are proper in federal court based on the allegations

of plaintiff’s Complaint.

2.

Admit the City of Portland, the City of Gresham and TriMet are municipal

corporations existing under their respective municipal charters and the laws of the State

of Oregon.

3.

Admit Officer Taylor Letsis was at all times relevant employed by the City of

Gresham and acting within the course and scope of his employment for and under color

of law of the City of Gresham.

4.

Admit the City of Gresham, along with the City of Portland and other

governmental entities within the TriMet service area provide transit police services

through a Transit Police Division pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreements between

the governmental entities. Those Intergovernmental Agreements speak for themselves.

5.

Admit that at all relevant times, Gresham Officer Letsis was assigned to the

Transit Police Division and remained subject to the General Orders, training, discipline

and Collective Bargaining Agreements of the City of Gresham.

6.

Admit that on or about February 12, 2013, Gresham Officer Taylor Letsis was

involved in the arrest of a combative male suspect in the area of S.W. 6th and S.W.

Broadway in Portland, Oregon; that force was used to take the male suspect into

custody, to arrest him and to overcome his violent and resistive behavior; and that

Page 2 - DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND, CITY OF

GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON AND

TAYLOR LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(503) 299-6116

Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR Document 35 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 7
Portland Police officers were present at the scene of the arrest.

7.

Admit that Gresham Officer Letsis began looking for persons who had been

potentially video recording the arrest of the combative male suspect to determine if the

videos were evidence of the male suspect’s crimes.

8.

Admit that Gresham Officer Letsis observed a female holding a cell phone upright

with the phone camera pointed towards the scene of the arrest and on his own volition

and by himself approached her and had a conversation with her; that plaintiff was

uncooperative with Gresham Officer Letsis’ investigation; that her demeanor, behavior

and the ephemeral nature of the cell phone evidence led him to reasonably believe the

evidence would be deleted or concealed if he did not take immediate steps to preserve it;

that he did briefly hold her cell phone in his hands and preserved the video; that he

asked her if she would now show him the video and plaintiff said she would; that

plaintiff played the video for him while she held her cell phone; and that at one point

during the encounter did place his hand on her forearm between her wrist and elbow

and grip her arm briefly.

9.

Admit that a portion of Gresham Officer Letsis’ conversation with plaintiff was

captured on the cell phone video and the video speaks for itself.

10.

Admit that after viewing the video, Gresham Officer Letsis ceased his encounter

with plaintiff and returned to his patrol car and the other officers to continue the

processing of the male suspect; that plaintiff continued holding her cell phone up with

the camera pointed towards the officers, apparently video recording them for several

Page 3 - DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND, CITY OF

GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON AND

TAYLOR LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(503) 299-6116

Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR Document 35 Filed 08/21/15 Page 3 of 7
minutes; and that she approached within several feet of where Officer Letsis was

standing while she was doing so.

11.

Except as expressly admitted above, defendants deny each and every remaining

allegation of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint either because they are untrue or

untrue as phrased; or because they are opinions or conclusions, rather than allegations

of fact; or because they lack sufficient information to form a belief as to their truth or

accuracy at this time; or because they are irrelevant or inflammatory.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12.

Gresham Officer Letsis is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s § 1983

claims.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13.

Gresham Officer Letsis is not a proper party on plaintiff’s state law claims.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14.

Plaintiff’s state law claims are subject to the conditions, limitations and

immunities contained in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et. seq.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15.

Gresham Officer Letsis’ actions were at all times justified, made in good faith and

without malice.

///

///

Page 4 - DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND, CITY OF

GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON AND

TAYLOR LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(503) 299-6116

Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR Document 35 Filed 08/21/15 Page 4 of 7
BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16.

Consent and/or probable cause and exigent circumstances existed for the alleged

search and seizure.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17.

Gresham Officer Letsis’ brief physical contact with plaintiff was reasonable under

the circumstances.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18.

Plaintiff fails to state claims for relief against the City of Portland, the City of

Gresham or the TriMet under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. None of the municipal corporations

were deliberately indifferent to its policies or training. Gresham Officer Letsis was not

the employee or agent of the City of Portland and/or TriMet.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19.

Plaintiff fails to state claims for relief under the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000aa against any defendant. Plaintiff is not a person protected under the Act or

exigent circumstances existed to reasonably believe the cell phone video would be

destroyed, altered or concealed if Gresham Officer Letsis did not immediately act and he

had consent to view the cell phone video. Gresham Officer Letsis was not the employee

or agent of the City of Portland and/or TriMet.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

///

///

Page 5 - DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND, CITY OF

GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON AND

TAYLOR LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(503) 299-6116

Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR Document 35 Filed 08/21/15 Page 5 of 7
20.

Plaintiff fails to state claims for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 

ORS 28.010. Gresham Officer Letsis’ encounter with plaintiff was consensual,

reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause existed to believe that she possessed

evidence of a crime on her cell phone, exigent circumstances existed to believe that

evidence would be destroyed, altered or concealed if Gresham Officer Letsis did not take

immediate action, and plaintiff consented to viewing the cell phone video. Gresham

Officer Letsis was not the employee or agent of the City of Portland and/or TriMet.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21.

At all material times, Gresham Officer Letsis was not the employee or agent of the

City of Portland or TriMet. Under the terms and conditions of the Intergovernmental

Agreements and the daily operations of the Transit Police Division, police officers

assigned to Transit Police remain the employees and agents of the respective municipal

entities who provided that officer for transit police services. 

WHEREFORE, having fully answered plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,

defendants City of Portland, City of Gresham, TriMet and Taylor Letsis pray for judgment

in their favor to include an award of their costs, disbursements and attorney fees

incurred herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Defendants respectfully demand trial by jury.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2015.

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ David C. Lewis 

 Robert S. Wagner, OSB #844115

 David C. Lewis, OSB #953348

Of Attorneys for Defendants

503-299-6116

Page 6 - DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND, CITY OF

GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON AND

TAYLOR LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(503) 299-6116

Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR Document 35 Filed 08/21/15 Page 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing DEFENDANTS CITY OF PORTLAND,

CITY OF GRESHAM, TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF

OREGON AND TAYLOR LETSIS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT, on the following parties at the following addresses by notice of electronic

filing using the CM/ECF system: 

Charles J. Paternoster

Parsons Farnell & Grein LLP

1030 SW Morrison Street

Portland, Oregon 97205

503-222-1812

cpaternoster@pfglaw.com

Alan J. Galloway

Tim Cunningham

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

1300 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201

503-241-2300

alangalloway@dwt.com

timcunningham@dwt.com

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

DATED this 21st day of August, 2015.

 /s/ David C. Lewis 

Robert S. Wagner, OSB #844115

David C. Lewis, OSB #953348

503-299-6116

Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, Oregon 97210-3408

(503) 299-6116

Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR Document 35 Filed 08/21/15 Page 7 of 7