Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/67598965/Brooklyn-Bridge-Arrests-Lawsuit-Full-Text
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 01:10:37
Document Index: 800833062

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1331', '§ 1343', '§2201', '§ 1391', '§1983', '§ 1983', '§1988']

Brooklyn Bridge Arrests Lawsuit - Full Text | Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Lawsuit
Brooklyn Bridge Arrests Lawsuit - Full Text
Uploaded by Anjali Mullany
Description: This is the lawsuit filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund on October 4th, 2011 in Manhattan Federal Court, against Mayor Bloomberg, The City of New York, and Police Commissioner Kelly.
This is the lawsuit filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund on October 4th, 2011 in Manhattan Federal Court, against Mayor Bloomberg, The City of New York, and Police Commissioner Kelly.
MOl kAKOFF
REV. 5/2010
The JS-44 civilcover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace norsBjiiplemjM't the fili
pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules otcouti. "iflWform.Btopi
Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for use of the Clerk of Court fol initiating the civil docket sheet.
n /. 9f
Karina Garcia, Marcel Cartier, Yari Osorio, Benjamin Becker, Michael R. Bloomberg, The City of New York, Raymond W. Cassandra Regan Kelly
ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Office of Corporation Counsel, 100 Church Street, New York 617 Florida Ave. N.W., Washington D.C. 20001, 202-232-1180 NY 10007, 212-788-0303
42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, U.S. Constitution First and Fourth Amendments
Has this or a similar case been previously filed in SDNY at any time? No?[7] Yes? | | Judge Previously Assigned Ifyes, was this case Vol.LJ Invol. lJ Dismissed. NoD Yes LJ Ifyes, givedate
(PLACE AN[x] INONEBOXONLY) NATURE OF SUIT
[ 1610 [ ]620 [ ]625
AGRICULTURE OTHER FOOD & DRUG DRUG RELATED
[ 1410 [J 430 [ ]450 [ ]460 [ I 470
STATE REAPPORTIONMENT ANTITRUST BANKS & BANKING COMMERCE DEPORTATION
RACKETEER INFLU
[ 1110 INSURANCE [ 1120 MARINE [ ]130 MILLER ACT 11140 NEGOTIABLE
[ ] 310 AIRPLANE [ ]315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT
[ ]362 [ ]365 []368
PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT LIABILITY ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT
[ ) 320 ASSAULT, LIBEL &
[]150 RECOVERY OF
21 USC 881 LIQUOR LAWS RR & TRUCK AIRLINE REGS OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY/HEALTH OTHER
[ ] 820 COPYRIGHTS [ ]830 PATENT [ ] 840 TRADEMARK
[ ] 151 MEDICARE ACT [J 152 RECOVERY OF
[ ] 350 MOTOR VEHICLE [ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE
I 1370 OTHER FRAUD [ ]371 TRUTH IN LENDING [ ]380 OTHER PERSONAL
[ J 690
(RICO) ]480 CONSUMER CREDIT ]490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV 1810 SELECTIVE SERVICE ]850 SECURITIES/
(EXCL VETERANS) [ 1153 RECOVERY OF
OVERPAYMENT OF VETERAN'S BENEFITS
[ ) 360 OTHER PERSONAL
[ ]710 [ ] 720 [ ]730
] 861 ] 862 ] 863 ]864 ] 865
[ ]875 CUSTOMER
I 1160 STOCKHOLDERS SUITS I 1190 OTHER CONTRACT []195 CONTRACT PRODUCT
[ 1891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS [ J 892 ECONOMIC
[]196
REAL PROPERTY PRISONER PETITIONS
[ ]740 [ ] 790
RAILWAY LABOR ACT [ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or OTHER LABOR Defendant) LITIGATION [ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY EMPL RET INC 26 USC 7609
[ ]894 [ ]895
[ ] 210 LAND CONDEMNATION [ J 220 FORECLOSURE [ J 230 RENT LEASE &
[ 1510
VACATE SENTENCE IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION
ALLOCATION ACT FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
[ ]900 APPEAL OF FEE
[ J 240 TORTS TO LAND [ ] 245 TORT PRODUCT
)530 [ ]462 ]535 DEATH PENALTY )540 MANDAMUS & OTHER [ ]463 ]550 CIVIL RIGHTS ]555 PRISON CONDITION [ ]465
20 USC 2255 HABEAS CORPUS
APPLICATION HABEAS CORPUSALIEN DETAINEE
XI440 OTHERCIVIL RIGHTS
Check if demanded in complaint: Rl CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?
OTHER JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DEMAND $_
JURY DEMAND: 0 YES •
Please submit at the time of filing an explanation of why cases are deemed related.
L^J 1 Original
I—I 2a. Removedfrom
Remanded from I I 4 Reinstated or
Appellate Court Reopened
I I 5 Transferred from Lj 6 Multidistrict
I I 7 Appeal to District
I I 2u.Removed from
State Court AND
BAS IS O F JURISDICTION
• 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF Q 2 U.S. DEFENDANT
0 3 FEDERAL QUESTION
(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one boxfor Defendant)
[ I 3 [ J3
)4 [ ]4
[)5
INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
[ J6
Karina Garcia, 355 8th Avenue, Apt. 9D, New York, NY 10001 (Kings County) Marcel Cartier, 1983 Sedgwick Avenue, Spt. 6A, Bronx, NY (Bronx County) Yari Osorio, 43-15 54th Street, Apt. 1F, Woodside NY 11377 (Queens County) Benjamin Becker, 355 8th Avenue, Apt. 9D, New York, NY 10001 (Kings County) Cassandra Regan, 9031 Eldert Lane, Apt. 1, Woodhaven, NY 11421 (Queens County)
Michael R. Bloomberg, c/o The Law Department ofthe City of New York, Office ofCorporation Counsel, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 (Kings County). Residential address: 17 E 79th Street, New York NY 10075 (Kings County)
The City of New York c/o The Law Department ofthe City of New York, Office of Corporation Counsel, 100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007 (Kings County)
Raymond W. Kelly, One Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038 (Kings County)
REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE
NYPD Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly's residential address is not confirmed at this time.
(DO NOT check either boxifthis a PRISONER PETITION.)
L7] MANHATTAN
K] YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.
Attorney Bar Code #CM4500
Magistrate Judge Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by
iVfAillD
355 8th Avenue, Apt. 9D
11 CIV CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL
1983 Sedgwick Avenue, Apt. 6A
43-15 54th Street, Apt. IF
9031 Eldert Lane, Apt. 1
as Class Representatives on behalfofthemselves and others similarly situated
in his official and individual capacities c/o The Law Department of the City of New York Office of Corporation Counsel
Residential address for Mayor Bloomberg: 17 E 79th Street
The Law Department of the City of New York Office of Corporation Counsel
In his official and individual capacities NYPD Headquarters
JANE and JOHN DOES 1 - 40 Defendants.
(Class action constitutional rights lawsuit)
1. As a new protest movement for social and economic justice sweeps New York City and the
country, the Police Department of the City of New York (NYPD) has engaged in an
unconstitutional effort to disrupt and suppress the ability of the people to come together and advocate for social change using the time-honored methods of mass assembly and collective
2. On October 1, 2011, the NYPD engaged in a premeditated, planned, scripted and calculated
effort to sweep the streets of protestors and disrupt a growing protest movement in New
York. This lawsuit seeks to stop the NYPD from taking illegal actions against mass assembly
3. As seen in the movements for social change in the Middle East and Europe, all movements for social justice, jobs, and democracy need room to breathe and grow and it is imperative that there be a halt to law enforcement actions used to shut down mass assembly and free expression of the people seeking to redress grievances.
4. On October 1, 2011, the NYPD engaged in a mass false arrest of approximately 700 persons
who participated in, or were in proximity to, a demonstration and march crossing over the
5. After escorting and leading a group of demonstrators and others well out onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway, the NYPD suddenly and without warning curtailed further forward movement, blocked the ability of persons to leave the Bridge from the rear, and arrested hundreds of protestors in the absence of probable cause. This was a form of entrapment, both
illegal and physical.
6. That the trap and detain mass arrest was a command-level-driven intentional and calculated
police operation is evidenced by the fact that the law enforcement officials who led the
demonstration across the bridge were command officials, known as "white shirts."
7. That the trap and detain mass arrest was an intentional and calculated police operation is also evidenced by the charade the police conducted - and themselves duly videotaped —of speaking inaudibly into a bullhorn that could not be heard mere feet away from the officer,
given the ambient noise. 8. The NYPD knew no audible communication was given. The NYPD also knew that the Constitution requires that any ostensible command must be heard by those who are expected
to be bound by it.
9. Instead, the NYPD engaged in a performance, videotaped it, and sprang their trap. They then
set their PR machine into motion, distributing widely edited videos of events to spin a false
narrative of events to the public and media.
10. The NYPD, as a matter of policy and practice, engages in unconstitutional tactics to disturb,
disrupt, penalize, infringe upon and criminalize constitutionally protected speech and
11. The NYPD's trap and detain actions interfere with freedom of association, assembly, speech
12. The NYPD employs unconstitutional tactics to trap protesters, and others in physical
proximity, on all sides, seize, detain and arrest those trapped/seized. These actions are
accomplished through force and threat of force in order to deprive, interfere with, and deter
the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. 13. The conduct challenged herein is neither aberrational nor the consequence of overzealous but
well-intentioned law enforcement. It is the implementation of a plan to disrupt political
assembly and activities.
14. When a named plaintiff asked why the group was being arrested, one officer explained that
they were being arrested because otherwise "you'd go right back down there." When the
arrestee responded that it was not illegal to be demonstrating as part of Occupy Wall Street,
the officer said that if it was up to her she would not have arrested them, but "if we let you go
you will just keep protesting."
15. When another named plaintiff was at the precinct being processed for release, an officer
stated, "next time you'll think twice about going out to protest."
16. The NYPD not only falsely arrested hundreds in a mass violation of Fourth Amendment rights, it illegally terminated demonstration activities in a mass violation of First Amendment rights.
17. The NYPD took a spirited and moving demonstration and sought to extinguish it. A protest march is moveable demonstration engaging with the public as it proceeds, in a pristine and
classic form of democratic grassroots action and assembly. As a march continues it collects energy, collects participants, absorbing those who see it and hear it going by, who are moved by the political message and want to make common cause and join in. 18. The march from Wall Street was a spirited action, moving its message through New York into Brooklyn to communicate with and join with working people on the other side of the
19. The NYPD terminated the march, the message, the opportunity to communicate, and the
opportunity for the people of New York to join together at that moment. The NYPD
conducted a mass false arrest and extinguished the demonstration activity in an attempt to
stop and prohibit further growing democratic and political collective action.
20. These unconstitutional actions also send a threatening message to the public that may be interested in making common cause with the political actions. That message is that free speech activities are criminalized by the police department and that joining in lawful First
Amendment protected activities comes at the risk of police violence and false arrest. 21. These unconstitutional actions create a substantial chilling effect and deterrent to First
Amendment protected activity as they burden free speech activities with the risk of arrest, of being wrongfully subject to the criminal process of the city, of being threatened with physical
harm by the police, being bound with handcuffs and having one's identification and
association with a demonstration be collected and recorded by the police and transferred to
federal and other law enforcement authorities for data warehousing and collection.
22. This police conduct is anathema to democracy. These blatantly unconstitutional tactics have been ratified by the highest policy makers from the Chief of Police to the Mayor of New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated of the October 1 mass arrest, "The police did exactly what they were supposed to do."
23. This complaint seeks, in addition to monetary compensation, injunctive relief enjoining
defendants from engaging in the challenged conduct in the future, an order nullifying the arrests, and expunging all arrest records.
24. This civil rights action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988. The court has
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4) (Civil Rights).
25. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§2201 2202 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 57.
26. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the municipal defendant is deemed to reside therein and as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred therein.
27. Plaintiff KARINA GARCIA, one of the named plaintiffs representing the class, is a public
high school teacher and resides in New York. GARCIA was peaceably and lawfully participating in the demonstration and march when the police led, escorted and permitted the march onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway. After leading the demonstration well out onto the
Brooklyn Bridge, police without cause, notice and opportunity to comply with any order, trapped and detained GARCIA, boxed GARCIA in without avenue of exit, and falsely
detained and arrested GARCIA in the absence of probable cause. 28. Plaintiff MARCEL CARTIER, one of the named plaintiffs representing the class, is a student
at Bronx Community College, a hip hop artist, and community activist and resides in Bronx,
New York. CARTIER was peaceably and lawfully participating in the demonstration and march when the police led, escorted and permitted the march onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway. After leading the demonstration well out onto the Brooklyn Bridge, police without cause, notice and opportunity to comply with any order, trapped and detained CARTIER, boxed CARTIER in without avenue of exit, and falsely detained and arrested CARTIER in
the absence of probable cause.
29. Plaintiff YARI OSORIO, one of the named plaintiffs representing the class, is an
unemployed college graduate looking for work, and resides in Queens, New York. OSORIO
was peaceably and lawfully participating in the demonstration and march when the police led, escorted and permitted the march onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway. After leading the
demonstration well out onto the Brooklyn Bridge, police without cause, notice and
opportunity to comply with any order, trapped and detained OSORIO, boxed OSORIO in
without avenue of exit, and falsely detained and arrested OSORIO in the absence of probable
30. Plaintiff BENJAMIN BECKER, one of the named plaintiffs representing the class, is an
adjunct instructor at the City College of New York and a graduate student at the CUNY
Graduate Center and resides in New York. BECKER was peaceably and lawfully participating in the demonstration and march when the police led, escorted and permitted the
march onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway. After leading the demonstration well out onto the Brooklyn Bridge, police without cause, notice and opportunity to comply with any order,
trapped and detained BECKER, boxed BECKER in without avenue of exit, and falsely
detained and arrested BECKER in the absence of probable cause. 31. Plaintiff CASSANDRA REGAN, one of the named plaintiffs representing the class, is a recent graduate with a Masters degree in early childhood education and a community organizer and resides in Queens, New York. REGAN was peaceably and lawfully participating in the demonstration and march when the police led, escorted and permitted the march onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway. After leading the demonstration well out onto the Brooklyn Bridge, police without cause, notice and opportunity to comply with any order, trapped and detained REGAN, boxed REGAN in without avenue of exit, and falsely detained and arrested REGAN in the absence of probable cause.
Named and Unnamed Defendants
32. Defendant MICHAELR. BLOOMBERG is the Mayor of New York City and the chief
policymaker for the CITY OF NEW YORK and its departments and agencies, including the
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. Mayor BLOOMBERG has approved and ratified the unconstitutional conduct challenged herein. He is sued in his official and individual capacities.
33. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation within the State of New York. 34. Defendant RAYMOND W. KELLY is the Commissioner of the New York City Police
Department, which is an agency of the City of New York. KELLY is a policymaker for the
CITY of NEW YORK and the NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT. He is sued in his
official and individual capacities.
35. Defendants JOHN or JANE DOES 1 - 30 are unidentified New York City police officials,
officers or command staff who caused or did arrest the plaintiff class. These as-yet-
unidentified defendants engaged in the mass arrest notwithstanding the absence of probable
cause or lawful justification. These defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.
36. Defendants JOHN or JANE DOES 31-40 are unidentified law enforcement officials,
officers or agents who, although not employed by the NYPD, did engage in joint action with the NYPD and its officials, officers and agents to cause the mass false arrest of the plaintiff
class. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
37. The proposed class is: All persons who were arrested on or at the Brooklyn Bridge in the
mass arrest conducted on October 1, 2011.
38. The proposed class and their claims satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and,
alternately, Rule 23(b)(2).
39. The proposed class of persons, which is composed of approximately 700+ persons, is too
numerous for joinder.
40. The defendants did conduct a mass arrest of the class, as a group, and insodoing did act on
grounds that apply generally to the class. 41. The class claims that the members' Fourth Amendment rights against false arrest and false imprisonment were violated raise common questions of law and fact that predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members.
42. The class claims that the mass group arrest violated the class' and members' First Amendment rights to engage in, observe or associate with free speech and assembly activities
(i.e., through physical proximity), raise common questions of law and fact that predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members. 43. The class claims that the mass group arrest was a pre-planned and deliberate course of false arrest, put into effect in order to retaliate against all those who would engage in the mass
protest from Wall Street or associate with said protest, raise common questions of law and
44. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class, as each was engaged
in or associating with peaceable and lawful free speech and assembly activity when each was
subjected to false arrest on October 1, 2011 as part of the same police sweep against the class
45. The named plaintiffs have a strong interest in the outcome of this action, have no conflicts of interest with the plaintiff class, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
46. The named plaintiffs are represented by the undersigned counsel and with the attorneys of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. Undersigned counsel has successfully litigated a wide range of complex federal court constitutional rights matters a substantial part of which focuses on the rights of protestors to engage in free speech and dissent. Undersigned counsel
was the sole lead counsel in Becker, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al„ Civil Action No. 01
- 00811 (PLF), United States Court for the District of Columbia (trap and detain tactic used
in mass false arrest of 700+ persons engaged in or in proximity to protest march) and Barham
v. Ramsey. Civil Action No. 02-2283 (EGS), United States Court for the District of
Columbia (trap and detain tactic used in mass false arrest of 400+ marchers, protestors and
others in Pershing Park, Washington, D.C.), See Barham v. Ramsey. 434 F.3d 565 (D.C. Cir.
2006). The Becker case resulted in what is believed to be the largest financial settlement of a
protest case in U.S. history. Significantly, these two class actions, as well as multiple
additional protest lawsuits, have resulted in sweeping equitable relief and reform through
settlement terms and resultant statutory reforms, establishing in the nation's capital an
unprecedented bulwark against police misconduct in the context of mass demonstrations,
including a ban on the trap and detain tactics challenged here. Counsel for the plaintiffs were
lead counsel on the successful lawsuit challenging the City of New York's efforts to ban mass assembly on the Great Lawn of Central Park during the Republican National Convention of 2004, National Council of Arab Americans, et al. v City of New York, et al..
Civil Action No. 04 CV 6602 (WHP), United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. Plaintiffs' counsel is also currently counsel on the lawsuit challenging the trap
and detain tactic used to mass arrest persons demonstrating over the killing of Oscar Grant in
Oakland, CA, Spalding, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al.. Civil Action No. 1l-CV-02867
(TEH), United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Counsel for the
plaintiffs has the resources, expertise and experience to prosecute this action. Counsel for the plaintiffs knows of no conflicts among members of the class or between the attorneys and
47. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
this controversy. The class is readily defined and prosecution of a class action will eliminate
the need of repetitious litigation.
48. On October 1, 2011 demonstrators began marching from Zuccotti Park near Wall Street, which the demonstrators have dubbed Liberty Square. The demonstrators were engaged in
mass assembly and collective action calling for a shifting of resources in society from the 1%
who hold the greatest concentration of wealth and corporate power, to the other 99%. The protestors' political chants included, "We are the 99 percent" and "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!" 49. The march moved towards the Brooklyn Bridge. The first part of the march was able to access the pedestrian walkway of the Bridge. At a point there was a bottleneck as hundreds of protestors waited to enter the walkway. 50. The police, including command officials and other city officials, stood in the east bound roadway at the entrance of the bridge.
51. The command officials gave no audible warnings or orders to the mass of people assembled.
52. One officer, consulting with a non-uniformed person, spoke inaudibly into a bullhorn that could not be heard mere feet away from the officer, given ambient noise. 53. The NYPD knew no audible communication was given. 54. The NYPD also knew that the Constitution requires that any ostensible command must be heard by those who are expected to be bound by it. 55. There was no attempt by the NYPD to communicate a command, order or other message to the mass of people at the base of the bridge.
56. The inaudible presentation with the bullhorn, duly videotaped by the NYPD, was a charade,
and is evidence of the police's intention conduct a mass false arrest.
57. Shortly thereafter, the law enforcement command officials and other representatives of the
NYC municipality standing at the entrance to the roadway then turned their backs to the
demonstrators and began leading them onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge.
58. As marchers, including the plaintiff class, followed the police officials onto the Brooklyn
Bridge roadway, there was no effort by the police to stop the marchers from entering the
roadway. On the contrary, NYPD command staff or "white shirts" led the march.
59. Police not only led the march onto the Bridge roadway but escorted the marchers alongside
as they walked onto the bridge.
60. After leading, taking, and escorting hundreds of demonstrators, including plaintiffs, well onto the Brooklyn Bridge roadway, law enforcement suddenly stopped, turned and prohibited
further forward movement by the demonstrators.
61. Again, an officer spoke inaudibly into a bullhorn that could not be heard mere feet away
from the officer, given ambient noise.
62. Again, the NYPD knew no audible communication was given.
63. This inaudible presentation with the bullhorn, duly videotaped by the NYPD, was also a
charade, and evidences the police's intention conduct a mass false arrest by surprise and
without notice or warning to the hundreds they had just permitted and led onto the bridge. 64. The plaintiff class was blocked from forward movement by the police. 65. The plaintiff class was prevented from moving backward as the NYPD prevented dispersal
through the use of orange netting and police vehicles.
66. An officer at the front told a named plaintiff, "leave or get arrested." The plaintiff determined
that there was no exit from the back because the police were blocking exit. She told the officer that they wanted to leave but that they were blocked on the back side too, and asked how they were to leave. The officer merely restated, "leave or get arrested.'The NYPD's
actions were not only unconstitutional, they were dangerous. The NYPD's actions put
hundreds of persons in jeopardy of injury from forced compression of people with no avenue
of escape, threat of injury from stampede, or being forced over the side of the bridge. When the police action commenced and rippled back through the crowd, a completely peaceful
demonstration was suddenly gripped with chaos and pandemonium. It is extremely fortunate
that there was not mass injury from the NYPD's dangerous actions. 67. The plaintiff class was then subject to a mass false arrest by the NYPD.
68. The plaintiff class was handcuffed, taken into custody, processed and released through the
night into the early morning hours.
69. At no time did the plaintiff class fail to obey a police order. At no time did the plaintiff class
engage in disorderly conduct. At no time did the plaintiff class illegally block vehicular
traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge, as the police had stopped vehicular traffic, opened up the
roadway to pedestrian traffic, and themselves led and escorted the demonstration onto the roadway with police command officials at the lead.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE NYPD
70. The NYPD maintains the policy, practice and/or custom of abusing its state authority to
disturb and disrupt targeted civil political assembly and mass demonstrations.
71. The NYPD maintains a policy, practice and/or custom of engaging in mass false arrests of
protestors in the absence of probable cause.
72. The NYPD maintains a policy, practice and/or custom of engaging in mass group arrests without having probable cause to arrest the group as a group; and without having probable
cause to arrest each person within the mass group to be arrested. 73. The NYPD maintains a policy, practice and/or custom of engaging in indiscriminate arrests
of protestors in the absence of individualized probable cause, a practice typified by the
NYPD's use of orange netting to capture and arrest masses of people without regard to
whether there exists probable cause to arrest the individuals trapped in such sweeping seizures of personage. 74. The NYPD maintains a policy, practice and/or custom of engaging in mass group arrests of protestors without giving the group fair notice, warnings or order to disperse (or comply with lawful police directives), and a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to comply. See Dellums v. Powell. 566 F.2d 167, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In order to be constitutional, fair notice is notice that is likely to have reached all of the crowd despite any noise the
demonstrators may have been making. Id. at 181-82 n.31. In order to be constitutional, the
police must afford a meaningful avenue of exit if dispersal or clearing of an area has been ordered prior to arrest for failing to disperse or clear an area. 75. The NYPD and the City of New York maintains a policy, practice and/or custom of tolerating and failing to discipline unlawful police conduct against, specifically false arrest of, protestors. 76. The mass false arrest of the plaintiff class, were ordered or approved by command staff and by NYPD policy makers with sufficient authority as to constitute agency policy makers. This was a case of intentional entrapment and false arrest, committed with command staff at the front of the march, with command staff leading the march onto the bridge, with command
staff apparently or presumably being advised at the time by Corporation Counsel to proceed
with the mass arrest having led the march themselves onto the bridge. 77. The municipality has been deliberately indifferent to the violation of plaintiffs' constitutional
78. The municipality has failed to adequately train or instruct the NYPD and its officers so as to prevent the foreseeable violation of the clearly established rights of protestors to be able to
engage in peaceable assembly and free speech without being subject to mass false arrest. 79. The municipality is aware of, and tolerated, the practice of the NYPD in making mass false
arrests of persons engaged in protest, for example, as reflected in the mass false arrests and punitive conditions in connection with the 2004 Republican National Convention protests in
80. The above-referenced policies, practices and/or customs, and also the failure to properly train
its officers, constitute deliberate indifference on the part of the policymakers of the City of
New York and of the New York Police Department to the constitutional rights of protestors
as well as all those who would associate with such protestors.
81. The actions of the above-referenced defendants violated the following clearly established and
well settled federal constitutional rights: a. Freedom from the unreasonable seizure of one's person; b. Freedom from government disruption of, interference with, or retaliation for, engagement in free speech, assembly and association activities. 82. NYPD Command Staff, identified and unidentified, did participate in, cause, approve or ratify the arrest of the plaintiff class. This included through issuing or approving or ratifying the order to arrest the class. Additionally, individual supervisory officers, had the duty to
exercise appropriate command authority in their supervision of their subordinates and failed to do so, resulting in the unconstitutional deprivations complained of herein. Individual officers had the duty to intervene to prevent or halt unlawful and/or unconstitutional conduct
complained of herein, including the mass false arrest of the class.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the acts or omissions of the defendants identified in this
complaint and the other unidentified persons acting jointly, each of the plaintiffs has suffered
monetary and non-monetary harm, including deprivation of constitutional rights under the
First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, loss of liberty and related suffering
False Arrests On or At the Brooklyn Bridge (First Amendment; Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. §1983)
84. Paragraphs 1 through 83 are incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. 85. Defendants' actions in participating in, executing, causing to be executed, approving or ratifying the arrest of the plaintiff class on October 1, 2011 on or at the Brooklyn Bridge
violated the First and Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unlawful seizure and arrest; to
be free of retaliatory government conduct including false arrest substantially motivated by an intent to disrupt and abridge constitutionally protected rights of free speech and assembly. 86. As a direct and proximate result of said acts or omissions, the plaintiff class has suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including the risk or likelihood of future acts of false arrest.
87. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant the following
a. Entry of a declaratory judgment that the disruption and preventive arrest tactics of the
defendants constitute violations of the First and Fourth Amendments;
b. Entry of a permanent injunction to enjoin and prohibit the CITY OF NEW YORK from executing the unconstitutional disruption and false arrest tactics complained of
herein, including but not limited to the trap-and-arrest tactic whereby without fair
notice the NYPD engages in the mass false arrest of persons engaged in lawful free
speech activity and peaceable assembly;
c. Entry of a permanent injunction to enjoin and prohibit the CITY OF NEW YORK
from using orange netting to indiscriminately trap and arrest persons in the absence of
the existence of particularized probable cause exists to seize and arrest each and every individual to be trapped and arrested by the netting;
d. Entry of a permanent injunction requiring defendants to seal and destroy the records
derived from this arrest, including all photographs, fingerprints and other identification or descriptive information; e. Entry of an order that disclosure be made in writing to plaintiffs and the Court as to
all entities and agencies to which such material, and other intelligence information
derived from or relating to the underlying events, has been disseminated and by
whom gathered; and that all records gathered and disseminated be collected and
sealed, including all copies of such disseminated records that may have been subject to further dissemination by others;
f. Entry of an order declaring the arrests to be null and void, and authorizing each
individual class member to deny that such arrest ever occurred in response to any
inquiry, such as employment or educational or any other nature of inquiry; g. Compensatory damages against the defendants for violations of federal rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in an amount appropriate to the proof adduced at trial;
h. Punitive damages against MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, and as against other defendants sued in their individual capacities, for causing, approving and/or ratifying
the arrest of the plaintiff class and for the consequential loss of freedom of expression
and constitutionally protected rights of peaceable assembly; i. An award of plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1988 and any other applicable statute or rule of law; and j. Such other and further relief, including all appropriate equitable relief, as to the Court may seem just and proper.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
4xOwVO*. vqj^
617 Florida Ave. N.W.
^sAx^D
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard (MV7011)
T. 202.232.1180; F. 202-747-7747
CarlvMtssineo (CM4500)
PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Ave. N.W.
Documents Similar To Brooklyn Bridge Arrests Lawsuit - Full Text
Mark Casterline Lawsuit
Is Warrantless GPS Surveillance Constitutional?
Arthur Broadnax v. State of New Mexico, 141 F.3d 1184, 10th Cir. (1998)
Joseph S. Cucullu, in Error v. Louis Emmerling, 63 U.S. 83 (1860)
19 Solid Waste Dept. v. City of Albuquerque, 10th Cir. (2000)
Asbury Park Press front page Thursday, Aug. 18 2016
Louis H. Granade v. United States, 356 F.2d 837, 2d Cir. (1966)
PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ADVANCED CLINICAL EMPLOYMENT STAFFING LLC Complaint for Breach of Contract
Bellville v. 3COM Corporation, 375 F.3d 25, 1st Cir. (2004)
United States v. Russell Anthony Clouden, United States of America v. Timothy Clouden, 818 F.2d 861, 4th Cir. (1987)
Howard Ray Smith v. John Walsh, Sheriff, Cleveland County, Oklahoma Cliff Winkler Kevin Austin the Board of County Commissioners of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and Michael J. Followwill John's Trucking, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, 48 F.3d 1233, 10th Cir. (1995)
United States v. Watkins, 10th Cir. (2007)
Peter Evans v. City of Zebulon, Georgia, 407 F.3d 1272, 11th Cir. (2005)
United States v. Steve Karathanos and John Karathanos, 531 F.2d 26, 2d Cir. (1976)
United States v. Jose A. Gonzalez, 11th Cir. (2010)
United States v. Stanley Weaver, 104 F.3d 351, 2d Cir. (1996)
Arthur Meister and Dorothy Meister v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 504 F.2d 505, 3rd Cir. (1974)
Bill Wilkinson and James Farrands v. Lester Forst, Donald Long, Austin McGuigan and the City of Meriden, 832 F.2d 1330, 2d Cir. (1987)
Brown v. Champion, 10th Cir. (1997)
John W. Singleton, A/K/A John Westly, A/K/A John Sinkler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, John W. Singleton, 606 F.2d 50, 3rd Cir. (1979)