Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/51760099/Lemonade-Complaint
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 20:01:16
Document Index: 59051300

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 712', '§ 1331', '§ 1983', '§ 1391', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 1988']

Lemonade Complaint | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Search And Seizure
This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by minor Leo Ratté and his biological parents, Claire Zimmerman and Christopher Ratté, for blatant violations of their United States Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Leo Ratté’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, by City of Detroit Police Officers and Michigan Department of Human Services Child Protection Case Workers. After an innocent mix-up regarding the partial consumption of a Mike’s Hard Lemonade beverage at a Detroit Tigers baseball game at Comerica Park, seven-year-old Leo Ratté was promptly and unconstitutionally removed from the custody of his parents in the middle of the night and placed into a foster home. This improper action was made (1) without a valid court order; (2) absent any emergency or other exigent circumstances; (3) against medical evidence demonstrating Leo Ratté’s blood did not contain any level of alcohol; and (4) refusing to release Leo Ratté to his mother, Claire Zimmerman, even though she was not at the Tigers game and had no involvement whatsoever with the consumption of the lemonade.
saveSave Lemonade Complaint For Later
4th Amendment 28
Excerpt From Abenes vs CA
United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971, 1st Cir. (1994)
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 15
LEO RATTÉ, a minor, by his Next Friend, CLAIRE
ZIMMERMAN; CLAIRE ZIMMERMAN,
individually; and CHRISTOPHER RATTÉ,
SERVICES DIRECTOR MAURA CORRIGAN, in
her official capacity; CITY OF DETROIT;
OFFICER CELESTE REED, in her individual
capacity; OFFICER HALL, in his individual
capacity; OFFICER KNOX, in his individual
capacity; CASEWORKER JANET WILLIAMS, in
her individual capacity; CASEWORKER SUALYN
HOLBROOK, in her individual capacity;
CASEWORKER TURNER, in her individual
capacity; CASEWORKER WILSON, in her
individual capacity; CASEWORKER JANE DOE,
in her individual capacity; and CASEWORKER
JOHN DOE, in his individual capacity,
Plaintiffs Leo Ratté, through his parent and Next Friend, Claire Zimmerman, and
Claire Zimmerman and Christopher Ratté, in their individual capacities, by their counsel, hereby
submit their Complaint against Defendants and state as follows:
1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by
minor Leo Ratté and his biological parents, Claire Zimmerman and Christopher Ratté, for blatant
violations of their United States Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Leo
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 2 of 15
Ratté’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, by City of Detroit Police Officers and Michigan
Department of Human Services Child Protection Case Workers. After an innocent mix-up
regarding the partial consumption of a Mike’s Hard Lemonade beverage at a Detroit Tigers
baseball game at Comerica Park, seven-year-old Leo Ratté was promptly and unconstitutionally
removed from the custody of his parents in the middle of the night and placed into a foster home.
This improper action was made (1) without a valid court order; (2) absent any emergency or
other exigent circumstances; (3) against medical evidence demonstrating Leo Ratté’s blood did
not contain any level of alcohol; and (4) refusing to release Leo Ratté to his mother, Claire
Zimmerman, even though she was not at the Tigers game and had no involvement whatsoever
with the consumption of the lemonade. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from
this Court finding that the Michigan emergency removal statute (M.C.L. § 712A.14(1)) and court
rule (Mich. Ct. R. 3.963(A)) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also seek damages for the extreme emotional distress caused by Defendants’ illegal
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), because this case involves a federal question and federal
law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b), because the actions which give rise to the claims asserted in this Complaint arose in
this district, and Defendants reside or are located within this district.
4. Plaintiffs are members of a family who reside together in Ann Arbor,
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 3 of 15
5. Plaintiff Leo Ratté is a minor child. During the events at issue in this
litigation, he was seven years old. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, Leo Ratté is ten
6. Plaintiff Claire Zimmerman is Plaintiff Leo Ratté’s biological mother.
She is a professor of art history and architecture at the University of Michigan.
7. Plaintiff Christopher Ratté is Plaintiff Leo Ratté’s biological father. He is
a professor of classics at the University of Michigan.
8. Defendant City of Detroit (“Detroit” or the “City”) is a municipal
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan. The City of Detroit
Police Department (“DPD” or the “Department”) is the City’s agent, created and authorized by
the City to conduct acts as alleged herein.
9. Defendant Officer Celeste Reed (“Reed”) was, at all times material to this
action, an officer with the DPD, employed by the City. She is being sued in her individual
10. Defendant Officer Hall (“Hall”) was, at all times material to this action, an
officer with the DPD, employed by the City. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
11. Defendant Officer Knox (“Knox”) was, at all times material to this action,
an officer with the DPD, employed by the City. During the event at issue, Defendant Knox was
the supervisor of Defendant Reed. Defendant Knox is being sued in his individual capacity.
12. Defendant DPD Officers Reed, Hall, and Knox are collectively referred to
herein as the “Defendant Police Officers.”
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 4 of 15
13. Defendant Director Maura Corrigan (“Defendant Corrigan”) is the director
of the Michigan Department of Human Services (“DHS”). She is being sued in her official
14. Defendant Caseworker Janet Williams (“Williams”) was, at all times
material to this action, a caseworker employed with the Wayne County office of DHS. She is
being sued in her individual capacity.
15. Defendant Caseworker Sualyn Holbrook (“Holbrook”) was, at all times
16. Defendant Caseworker Turner (“Turner”) was, at all times material to this
action, a caseworker employed with the Wayne County office of DHS. She is being sued in her
17. Defendant Caseworker Wilson (“Wilson”) was, at all times material to this
18. Defendant John Doe (“John Doe”) was, at all times material to this action,
a caseworker with the DHS. Caseworker John Doe’s identity is presently unknown. Defendant
John Doe is being sued in his individual capacity.
19. Defendant Jane Doe (“Jane Doe”) was, at all times material to this action,
a caseworker with the DHS. Caseworker Jane Doe’s identity is presently unknown. Defendant
Jane Doe is being sued in her individual capacity.
20. Defendant DHS caseworkers Williams, Holbrook, Turner, Wilson, John
Doe, and Jane Doe are hereafter referred to collectively as the “DHS Defendants.”
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 5 of 15
21. On Saturday, April 5, 2008, Christopher Ratté brought his seven-year-old
son, Leo Ratté, to Comerica Park in Detroit to attend a Detroit Tigers professional baseball
22. Christopher Ratté and Leo Ratté arrived at the game at approximately
3:50 pm, stopping at a concession stand before making their way to their assigned seats.
23. The sign located at the concession stand read: “Canned beer/Mike’s
24. Christopher Ratté was unfamiliar with “Mike’s Lemonade” or even
“Mike’s Hard Lemonade” and was unaware the lemonade contained alcohol.
25. There was no identification as to the nature of the type of lemonade.
Specifically, absent from the sign was any indication the lemonade being sold was an alcoholic
26. Christopher Ratté purchased a beer for himself and then asked Leo Ratté
whether he wanted a lemonade to drink.
27. Christopher Ratté did not pay attention to the label on the lemonade bottle
and handed it to his son.
28. At approximately 6:30 pm, during the top of the 9th inning, Christopher
Ratté was approached by a Comerica Park security guard.
29. The security guard picked up the partially full lemonade bottle sitting in
front of Leo Ratté and questioned Christopher Ratté as to whether Christopher Ratté was
permitting Leo Ratté to drink the lemonade.
30. To Christopher Ratté’s surprise, the security guard informed Christopher
Ratté the lemonade contained alcohol.
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 6 of 15
31. Christopher Ratté requested to see the lemonade bottle to view the label,
but the security guard refused and told Christopher Ratté he must remain in his seat.
32. A large cluster of security guards assembled at the end of the row where
Christopher Ratté and Leo Ratté were seated.
33. Christopher Ratté and Leo Ratté were then informed that they must
accompany the security guards to a police substation located in Comerica Park.
34. Once Christopher Ratté and Leo Ratté arrived at the police substation,
located within Comerica Park, Defendant Hall of the DPD questioned Christopher Ratté
regarding his purchasing the lemonade for Leo Ratté.
35. During this time and at all future times, Christopher Ratté responded he
had no idea the lemonade was alcoholic. He further stated that if he had known the drink
contained alcohol he would not have given it to his son.
36. Christopher Ratté again requested Defendant Hall to permit him to view
the lemonade bottle.
37. Upon reading the label, which had a small notation stating the drink
contained five percent alcohol, Christopher Ratté again expressed his surprise to Defendant Hall
regarding this discovery.
38. Defendant Hall then informed Christopher Ratté and Leo Ratté that Leo
Ratté must submit to examination by the substation medical staff. Christopher Ratté and Leo
Ratté proceeded to the medical clinic where two nurses conducted a cursory examination of Leo
Ratté.
39. Although the medical examination resulted in no findings that Leo Ratté
suffered any adverse reactions from consuming the lemonade, against Christopher Ratté’s will,
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 7 of 15
Leo Ratté was forced by Defendant Hall to travel in an ambulance to Children’s Hospital in
Detroit for further examination.
40. During this time, Christopher Ratté contacted his wife, Claire
Zimmerman, on his cell phone and informed her that their son, Leo Ratté, was being taken to the
41. At approximately 7:00 pm, the ambulance arrived at Children’s Hospital.
Leo Ratté was placed into an examination room, blood samples were taken, and Leo Ratté was
examined by Dr. Sethuraman.
42. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Zimmerman arrived at the hospital.
43. Following his physical examination of Leo Ratté, Dr. Sethuraman
concluded Leo Ratté appeared “normal,” that there was “no trace of alcohol seen,” and “decided
to medically clear him.” (This information is contained in a document which is in Defendants’
44. At approximately 7:15 pm, Christopher Ratté was taken into a separate
room by Defendant Reed, a DPD officer from the Child Abuse Division.
45. Defendant Reed questioned Christopher Ratté at length and requested
Christopher Ratté provide a signed statement, to which Christopher Ratté obliged.
46. Prior to receiving the results of Leo Ratté’s blood test and armed with
information that Christopher Ratté was unaware the lemonade contained alcohol, Defendant
Reed informed Christopher Ratté that Leo Ratté was to be transferred to the DHS.
47. Even though Leo Ratté’s mother, Claire Zimmerman, had no involvement
with the activities at the Tigers game, was available to take custody, and vehemently demanded
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 8 of 15
that her son be released to her, Defendant Reed refused to release Leo Ratté to her or her
husband, Christopher Ratté.
48. Defendant Reed’s only explanation was that her supervisor, Defendant
Knox, was “pushing this case to impress her new boss.”
49. Defendant Reed then filed a fraudulent complaint (the “Complaint”) with
the Intake Unit of the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Center, falsely alleging she [Defendant
Reed] “observed [Leo Ratté] to be intoxicated.” (Copy of Complaint attached as Exh. 1).
50. The Complaint made no mention of the blood alcohol test given to Leo
Ratté, which resulted in a conclusive showing that no alcohol was detected in Leo Ratté’s
bloodstream, or the physical examination conducted by Dr. Sethuraman.
51. The Complaint did not allege Leo Ratté would be in imminent harm if
released to his father.
52. The Complaint did not allege Leo Ratté would be in imminent harm if
released to his mother, who was not involved in the mix-up regarding the lemonade.
53. Further, upon information and belief, the professionals at Children’s
Hospital were never even interviewed by Defendant Reed prior to filing the Complaint.
54. Included with the fraudulent Complaint was an equally improper Petition
for Child Protective Proceedings (the “Petition”) seeking the issuance of an order removing Leo
Ratté from the custody of his parents. (Copy of Petition attached as Exh. 2).
55. Christopher Ratté was informed that the Complaint and Petition were
given to an intake referee at the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Center.
56. Christopher Ratté was further told that the electronic signature of a judge
was “affixed” onto an invalid order (the “Order”).
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 9 of 15
57. If the electronic signature was affixed to the Order, it was done without
judicial review and in violation of Michigan law.
58. Plaintiffs were never served with this “Order” and are not certain that any
such “Order” was ever entered.
59. At approximately midnight, Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe from the
Wayne County Department of Human Services arrived at Children’s Hospital.
60. Christopher Ratté and Claire Zimmerman were then informed that Leo
Ratté would not be permitted to stay overnight at the hospital and would be taken by DHS and
61. At that time, Defendants Reed, Jane Doe and John Doe led Plaintiffs to
believe that Leo Ratté would be released into the custody of his aunts the following morning,
once they arrived from out of town. Subsequently, similar assurances were given by Defendant
62. At approximately 7:45 am on April 6, 2010, after driving all night from
Massachusetts, Leo Ratté’s aunts arrived at DHS.
63. Contrary to prior assurances, the aunts were informed by Defendant
Wilson that they would not be allowed to see or speak with Leo Ratté.
64. After repeated conversations with Defendant Reed and Defendant
Williams, the aunts were told that if they checked into a hotel room, Leo Ratté would be placed
65. However, when the aunts returned from checking into the hotel, they were
informed that Leo Ratté had already been placed into foster care.
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 10 of 15
66. Despite numerous calls to DHS from Christopher Ratté and Claire
Zimmerman, they were constantly placed on hold and were unable to speak to anyone from DHS
67. It was not until approximately 2:00 pm on April 6, 2010, that Christopher
Ratté finally managed to speak with Defendant Turner’s supervisor, Defendant Holbrook.
68. Defendant Holbrook informed Christopher Ratté that Leo Ratté would not
be released to his aunts and that no one from the family would be allowed to see Leo Ratté.
69. Defendant Holbrook further informed Christopher Ratté that he and his
wife would only be allowed to speak with Leo Ratté as permitted by the foster parents.
70. During the remainder of the day, Christopher Ratté and Claire
Zimmerman had, at a minimum, three further telephone conversations with Defendant Holbrook.
During each such conversation, Christopher Ratté and Claire Zimmerman were again informed
that they were not permitted to see or speak with Leo Ratté.
71. It was not until Monday, April 7, 2008, that Leo Ratté was finally released
into the custody of his mother, Claire Zimmerman. Such decision did not occur until
Christopher Ratté agreed to temporarily move out of the family home and not see or speak with
his son, Leo Ratté, unless supervised by Claire Zimmerman.
72. Shortly thereafter, all pretrial charges against Christopher Ratté were
dropped and he was permitted to return home to his family.
73. Plaintiffs suffered extreme stress, anxiety, and trauma from the conduct of
Defendants, as alleged herein.
74. Defendants were acting under the color of law at all times relevant to this
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 11 of 15
75. The acts of Defendant Police Officers were done pursuant to the policy,
practice and custom of the City and the Police Department in assisting DHS Defendants in
removing children from their parents without exigent circumstances or imminent danger, and
without the consideration of whether or not a different parent or relative is available.
76. According to local attorneys and child advocacy experts familiar with
child advocacy proceedings, the City of Detroit Police Department maintains a general and
ongoing practice of assisting DHS case workers in removing children, in absence of a valid court
order, without regard to whether children are in imminent danger of harm or other exigent
77. The City, Defendant Police Officers, and the DHS Defendants were
indifferent to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations of this Complaint
into this Count.
79. M.C.L. § 712A.14(1) and Mich. Ct. R. 3.963(A) are unconstitutional on
their face, and as applied to Plaintiffs, because neither the statute nor the rule requires, in the
absence of a valid court order, that removal of a child occur only under “exigent circumstances”
or when there is “imminent danger,” as required by the guarantees of the Due Process Clause of
80. M.C.L. § 712A.14(1) and Mich. Ct. R. 3.963(A) are also unconstitutional
on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs, because in the absence of a valid court order, neither the
statute nor the rule requires officers to consider placement of the child with the non-offending
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 12 of 15
parent prior to a minor child’s removal, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
81. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment finding that M.C.L. § 712A.14(1)
and Mich. Ct. R. 3.963(A) are unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
82. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations of this Complaint
83. Defendants, by their unlawful acts and acting under the color of Michigan
law, violated Christopher Ratté and Claire Zimmerman’s right to the care, custody and
association with their child, Leo Ratté, in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive
due process right to family integrity.
84. Defendants, by their unlawful acts and acting under the color of Michigan
law, deprived Leo Ratté of his right to receive such care, custody and association with his
parents, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to family
85. As further alleged herein, all Plaintiffs suffered such deprivations with
respect to Defendants’ removal of Leo Ratté from the custody of his parents and placement with
86. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations of this Complaint
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 13 of 15
87. The Fourteenth Amendment requires government provide procedural due
process before making a decision to infringe upon a person’s life, liberty, or property interest.
88. Defendants, by their unlawful acts and acting under the color of Michigan
law, violated Claire Zimmerman’s right to family integrity, without providing constitutionally
89. Defendants, by their unlawful acts and acting under the color of Michigan
law, violated Christopher Ratté’s rights to family integrity and liberty, without providing
constitutionally adequate process.
90. Defendants, by their unlawful acts and acting under the color of Michigan
law, violated Leo Ratté’s rights to family integrity and liberty, without providing constitutionally
91. Plaintiffs were simply not afforded any process prior to the removal of
Leo Ratté from his parent’s custody, in the absence of a valid court order and without regard to
whether Leo would face imminent harm if he was released to one or both of his parents, or to his
92. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior allegations of this Complaint
93. Defendants, by their acts and acting under the color of Michigan law,
violated Leo Ratté’s rights against unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 14 of 15
94. Leo Ratté suffered such deprivations as a result of his removal from the
custody of his parents, his being taken into protective custody, and his placement into a foster
95. The unlawful seizure of Leo Ratté by Defendants was done without a duly
authorized court order, without probable cause, and was not justified by any exigent
circumstances, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following:
1. Enter a declaration that M.C.L. § 712A.14(1) and Mich. Ct. R. 3.963(A)
violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and cannot be enforced as
currently enacted;
2. Enter a declaration that Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights and Leo
Ratté’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated;
3. Award Plaintiffs’ appropriate damages;
4. Award Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
5. Award all other relief that is just and proper.
Case 2:11-cv-11190-AC -MJH Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 15 of 15
Plaintiffs demands trial by jury of all issues so triable.
s/ Abraham Singer
Abraham Singer (P23601)
singera@pepperlaw.com
Adam A. Wolfe (P71278)
wolfea@pepperlaw.com
Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil Liberties
313.259.7110
313.578.6814
Amy L. Sankaran (P70763)
Cooperating Attorney, American Civil Liberties
734.764.7787
Documents Similar To Lemonade Complaint
United States v. Tye Davis, 3rd Cir. (2010)
United States v. Daniel Jeronimo-Rodas, 4th Cir. (2014)
United States v. Shane Hare, 4th Cir. (2016)