Scumbusters

UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

File No. 1:07CV0225 [Filed March 8, 2007 Clerks Seal and Signature]

Hon. Richard Alan Enslen
Senior, U.S. District Judge

ANGELA CHURCH, Individually and
as Next Friend of Minors B.C., K.C., and M.C.,
Plaintiffs

VS.

DEBORAH CLAWSON, OFFICER COLBERT,
THREE RIVERS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
JUDY BUCHNER-VAN CAMP,
DONALD HEATH, DEPUTY DIEKMAN,
DEPUTY GORDON, GUARDS 1-8,
OFFICER DOE, OFFICER ROE, DEPUTY DOE,
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY,
Defendants

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

The plaintiff, Angela Church, individually and as next friend of minor plaintiffs B.C., K.C., and M.C., makes this complaint against the above named defendants and demands a jury trial on the complaint.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. All the transactions and events occurred in St. Joseph County in the State of Michigan.

2. All the individual defendants reside or do business in St. Joseph County in the State of
Michigan.

3. The claims are based on federal questions involving a violation of the United States Constitution brought as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 5 1983 with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 8 1343; and state law claims over which the court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 5 1367(a) because they are so related to the claims in this action that they form part of the case or controversy.

Parties

4. The plaintiff Angela Church (”plaintiff ‘) is a female adult who resides in Jackson, Michigan.

5. The minor plaintiffs (”minors”) for which Angela Church is next friend are her children, B.C. (daughter DOB: 6/10/97), K.C. (daughter DOB: 5/16/99), and M.C.(son DOB: 10/23/03), who were ages 7,5, and 1 at the time of these events.

6. Defendants DEBORAH CLAWSON and OFFICER COLBERT at the time of these events were police officers employed by the defendant THREE RIVERS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

7. Defendants JUDY BUCHNER-VAN CAMP, DONALD HEATH, DEPUTY DIEKMAN, and DEPUTY GORDON are employed by the defendant ST. JOSEPH COUNTY at the St. Joseph County Sheriffs Department and at the time of these events worked at the county jail as either sheriffs deputies or correctional officers. BUCHNER-VAN CAMP and DEPUTY GORDON are female and DEPUTY DIEKMAN and DONALD HEATH are male.

8. GUARDS 1-8 were the jail employees or sheriff deputies working on one of the four shifts guarding inmates at the St. Joseph County jail from day shift on March 9,2005, through the day shift on March 10,2005, while the plaintiff was confined in the jail. One or more of GUARDS 1-8 are male.

9. OFFICER DOE is the unknown male sheriffs employee at the jail who conducted or viewed videotape surveillance of the plaintiff while she was partially or totally naked on March 9-10,2005.

10. OFFICER ROE is the unknown female sheriffs employee who held plaintiff at the jail on March 10, 2005, after the magistrate ordered her released.

11. DEPUTY DOE is the unknown sheriffs employee who made a videotape of the surveillance tape of the plaintiff showing her naked and distributed it outside the jail to other state actors not employed by the sheriff.

Factual Allegations

12. On March 9,2005, an adult woman named C.W. 5told the Three Rivers Police Department that she had just given a ride to a stranger from the local hospital to a residence in Three Rivers.

13. The report by C.W. was investigated by DEBORAH CLAWSON who interviewed C.W. CLAWSON identified the plaintiff as the stranger who got a ride from C.W.

14. C.W. did not tell CLAWSON that she had been kidnapped by the plaintiff. C.W. did not say that the plaintiff made threats, had a weapon, displayed force, or confined or detained C.W. or her baby for ransom of other criminal purposes. C.W. said the plaintiff got in her car and asked for a ride from the hospital to a house in the same town for which plaintiff paid C.W. $9. C.W. said she did not give plaintiff a ride willingly and that she did so only out of fear for the safety of herself and her baby.

15. Based only on the statement from C.W., CLAWSON and OFFICER COLBERT decided to arrest plaintiff for kidnapping C.W. and her baby. The defendant officers did not obtain an arrest warrant for the plaintiff.

16. The two defendant police officers identified the home where C.W. took plaintiff in which T.S. lived. T.S. was a friend of the plaintiff and was caring for the plaintiffs children that night. The defendants forced T.S. to become their agent to gain entry into plaintiffs home.

17. The plaintiff opened her door and allowed T.S. to enter. The two defendant police officers came into the home behind T.S. without the consent of the plaintiff.

18. The defendant officers interviewed the plaintiff inside the home. She gave an account of how she got the ride from C.W. that was substantially identical to C.W.’s statement except plaintiff said she made a “friendly” request for the ride.

19. The defendant officers arrested plaintiff in her dining room and took her to the St. Joseph County Jail for confinement.

20. A kidnapping charge was never filed against the plaintiff. She was released from jail on March 10,2005, on her personal recognizance with no bond.

21. Shortly after she arrived at the jail a guard saw the plaintiff in the eating area poking at her arm with a plastic fork that the guard replaced with a spoon.

22. After the fork incident BUCHNER-VAN CAMP requested plaintiff to change into a suicide gown which she loudly refused to do. BUCKENER-VAN CAMP brought HEATH into the shower room and the two of them attempted to forcibly remove plaintiffs clothing which she resisted.

23. After the attempted clothing removal BUCHNER-VAN CAMP and DEPUTY DIEKMAN forcibly strapped plaintiff into a restraint chair in the shower room with straps on her chest, arms, and legs. The plaintiff in the restraint chair was then taken into the bubble cell. These two defendants inflicted physical injuries on the plaintiffs arms and restricted breathing capacity while she was in the restraint chair, which caused physical injuries and pain and suffering.

24. While she was in the restraint chair the plaintiff spoke to a mental health evaluator, Michael Malloy, from St. Joseph County Community Mental Health, who was assigned to perform suicide evaluations at the jail upon request of jail staff. Malloy had evaluated the plaintiff at the hospital a few hours before the jail evaluation and concluded she was not suicidal. Malloy communicated to jail staff on the day shift on March 9,2005, that the only suicide precaution to take for the plaintiff was an hourly safety check.

25. The plaintiff was kept in the restraint chair about two and half hours total, the last two hours being after Malloy had evaluated her.

26. Upon plaintiff expressing agreement to change into a jail suit, BUCHNER-VAN CAMP and DEPUTY GORDON released her from the restraint chair. BUCHNER-VAN CAMP and DEPUTY GORDON forced her to remove all her clothing, except for her socks, while in public view in the bubble cell, and to put on a suicide gown.

27. The bubble cell is a glass walled isolation cell located across from the booking desk. The cell occupant is visible to the hallway in front of the cell and to the cells across from it. By a large mirror on the wall she is visible to adjacent cells and down the hallway. There is no segregation of males from females in this booking-bubble cell area. Inmates being booked, identified, or released from the jail can see into the bubble cell from the booking area. Male jail employees and inmates walk past the bubble cell to other parts of the jail.

28. The bubble cell was added to the jail in a remodel in 2004, in part, to provide a protective environment for suicidal inmates, which purpose is reasonably satisfied by the cell’s construction, the total visibility to guards and others from the glass wall by the mirrors, a video camera, and the location in view of the booking area.

29. The county defendants who work at the jail are aware that some inmates, especially females, can have an adverse emotional reaction or breakdown from being stripped of their clothes, put in a suicide gown, or kept in naked detention.

30. The plaintiff used the toilet in the bubble cell twice that required her to lift up the suicide gown and expose her genitals in view of anyone looking at her through the glass wall, the mirrors, or the surveillance camera.

31. While she was in the restraint chair and bubble cell the plaintiff repeatedly requested she be given her thyroid and depression medications that were in her property at the jail. Her friend T.S. called the jail requesting the plaintiff be given her medications. Some jail guards who are defendants heard her medication requests but refused to give them to the plaintiff.

32. Deprivation of her thyroid medication caused the plaintiff to become so hot and to experience psychosis-like symptoms that she discarded the suicide gown and tried to use the blanket alone to cover herself. Missing doses of the thyroid and depression medications adversely affected the plaintiffs physical and emotional health while she was detained. Her impaired medical condition, along with the clothing deprivation, caused mental health symptoms, including depression, anxiety, psychosis, and a dissociative episode that caused her to lose control and awareness of her behavior that became increasingly immodest.

33. The plaintiffs immodest appearance at the jail was observed by one of more of the individual county defendants who considered it abnormal and inappropriate, but who requested no medical or mental health evaluation or treatment for her or clothing to cover her naked body.

34. Some male jail staff that saw the plaintiff unclothed in the bubble cell watched and laughed at her, while others tried to avert their eyes when they passed by.

35. The plaintiff was confined at the St. Joseph County jail for about 32 hours from about 11:00 a.m. on March 9, 2005, until 7:00 p.m. on March 10, 2005.

36. When the plaintiff was released in her property returned to her was the $9 she had given to C.W., the alleged kidnapping victim.

37. For about 18 hours of the confinement the plaintiff was held naked or partially naked in the “bubble cell” with only the suicide gown or a blanket to cover herself.

38. The naked detention ended because the undersheriff directed BUCHNER-VAN CAMP to dress plaintiff in a jail suit when he saw her naked at about 9:00 a.m. on March 10.

39. While she was naked or partially covered by a blanket in the bubble cell the plaintiff was viewed by the following people some of whom were male: some of the 13 guards working the three shifts while she was unclothed; jail employees passing down the hall; current inmates in other cells or passing through the area; and at least 12 male prisoners being booked or conducting other jail business in the booking area.

40. One or more of the individual county defendants were on duty during the three shifts when the plaintiff was unclothed or partially covered by a blanket saw her in that condition, but did not intervene to provide plaintiff body privacy.

41. At about 1 :00 p.m. on March 10,2005, the jail magistrate ordered that the plaintiff be released without bond on her personal recognizance because the facts the police provided to the magistrate did not support a kidnapping charge.

42. By 3:00 p.m. the plaintiff was ready to be released, having signed all the necessary papers, but OFFICER ROE returned her to the bubble cell and detained her hours longer.

43. This extended detention was after OFFICER ROE received a call from an unknown person asking her not to release the plaintiff for reasons related to a child protection case on the plaintiffs children. The only additional paper the jail gave the plaintiff when she was released was the removal order on her children.

44. It was during this extended detention that CPS got the court removal order and went to the home of T.S. to take the minors into custody. The mother’s arrest and incarceration was the cause of CPS deciding to remove the children from her custody.

45. The plaintiff has never had her children living with her since they were taken on March 10,2005, and the minors are now in the temporary custody of the St. Joseph County family court.

46. This break-up of the family caused emotional distress to all the plaintiffs and the loss of companionship between the mother and the children. From the loss of her children the plaintiff has these damages: the loss of her home and family; grief, mental anguish, humiliation, and emotional distress; aggravation of pre-existing depression; developed new substance abuse problems; multiple mental health hospitalizations and increased mental health treatment for severe depression.

47. The minor plaintiffs have suffered from the emotional trauma of their removal on March 10,2005, from the mother’s custody by social workers and law enforcement; emotional distress from the prolonged separation from their mother; and the loss of parental consortium.

48. When the plaintiff was at the jail there was a surveillance camera in the bubble cell connected to a videotaping surveillance system that recorded onto a computer. The surveillance tape showed the plaintiff naked in the bubble cell and her emotional breakdown after her clothing was taken. It shows her walking and lying down naked in the cell; sometimes partially covered up with a blanket; distraught; and touching her genitals.

49. Plaintiffs naked surveillance was seen by OFFICER DOE either live or later on the computer or DVD of the surveillance tape.

50. On March 11,2005, CPS added a charge of unfitness to the child neglect charge informing the court of the mother’s arrest and incarceration for the kidnapping of a woman. This was also put into evidence at the placement hearing that day to prove the mother was emotionally unstable and that affected the court’s decision to continue the placement of the children in foster care. Buchner-Van Camp’s report describing the mother’s immodesty at the jail was put in the court file in the child neglect case.

51. At the hearing on March 11, 2005, the plaintiff refused to admit to the neglect charges.

52. On or about March 16,2005, DEPUTY DOE made a DVD of the jail surveillance tape of the plaintiff and gave it to either a state social worker from the Department of Human Services or to the social worker’s attorney, the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Joseph County, or one of his assistants, at the request of the recipient.

53. On March 24,2005, CPS amended the child neglect charge again to include accusations of unfitness against the plaintiff based on her “bizarre behavior” at the jail that included public masturbation. On that same date CPS communicated a threat to the plaintiff through the attorneys to play the jail surveillance tape to a jury if the plaintiff continued to demand a trial on the neglect case.

54. The plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment upon learning of the existence of the jail surveillance tape, from the inclusion of her jail behavior in the neglect charges, from the threat to use the tape against her at a trial to take custody of her children, and from the knowledge that the male prosecutor had viewed the DVD. Yet she refused to give up fighting the neglect case, which resulted in nearly two years of emotional trauma for her and the minors and the continued separation of their family.

55. On April 28,2005, the state dropped the child neglect case against the mother and denied her a trial to get her children returned until January 2007 after an appeal.

56. The plaintiff got an adjudication trial in January 2007 on the boy M.C. where evidence was introduced about her emotional breakdown after the children were removed, which was caused, in part, by her emotional injury from the actions of the defendants described in this case. She lost the trial.

COUNT I: 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure)

Defendants: Deborah Clawson and Officer Colbert

A. On March 9,2005, the defendant police officers were acting under color of state law when they arrested the plaintiff Angela Church in her home for kidnapping C. W. and her daughter.

B. The defendants coerced a civilian agent, T.S., to gain entry into the plaintiffs home and then followed the agent into the home without the plaintiffs consent.

C. There were no exigent circumstances to justify the failure of the defendants to get an arrest warrant.

D. The plaintiffs arrest violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free of and unreasonable seizure of her person and search of her home by:

(1) Arresting her without probable cause to believe she committed the crime of kidnapping as defined by Mich. Comp. Laws 750.349 (2004);

(2) Arresting her in her home without an arrest warrant.

E. The plaintiffs arrest caused the following damages to the plaintiff and to her minor children B.K., K.C., and M.C.:

(1) The plaintiff had a loss of liberty and loss of reputation from being arrested and incarcerated in the St. Joseph County jail;

(2) At the jail the plaintiff was subjected to prisoner abuse that included physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional injury, and other civil rights violations of her rights to privacy and medical treatment described in [paragraphs] 32,48, and 54;

3) The plaintiff lost physical custody of her three minor children B.C., K.C., and M.C. for a prolonged period of time;

(4) The creation of allegations and evidence that has been used against the plaintiff in a child protection case on the minor children to charge her with child neglect and to make placement decisions for the children described in [paragraphs] 50-54;

(5) The damages to the minor children described in [paragraph] 47;

(6) Emotional damages to the plaintiff described in [paragraph] 46.

COUNT II 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure)

Defendant: Three Rivers Police Department

A. The defendant is a city police department and so is a municipality under federal civil rights laws acting under color of state law.

B. As of March 9,2005, the defendant had an official policy or custom that constitutes a deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to have an arrest warrant issued before she can be arrested in her home.

C. The defendant’s indifference to her constitutional rights was a failure to train its police officers on the constitutional requirement for an arrest warrant to arrest the subject in her home.

D. On March 9,2005, the defendant’s inadequate training was a cause of a constitutional violation against the plaintiff by police officers employed by the defendant because a reasonable magistrate would not have issued an arrest warrant due to the lack of any evidence that the plaintiff committed the kidnapping crime for which she was arrested.

E. The constitutional violation caused damages to the plaintiff and her minor children including those described in paragraph I (E) above.

COUNT III: 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy)

Defendants: Judy Buchner-Van Camp and Deputy Gordon

A. On March 9-10,2005, the defendants were acting under color of state law in their conduct towards the plaintiff being county employees of St. Joseph County working as sheriffs deputies or correctional officers at the county jail.

B. On March 9,2005, the defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional right to body privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment when they engaged in the following conduct:

(1) Removed all the plaintiffs clothing except for her socks in a glass walled cell that provided her no privacy for her naked body and so exposed her naked to persons beside these two female jail guards, including males jail guards and inmates;

(2) Requiring the plaintiff to wear a suicide gown in addition to being placed in a glass isolation cell when this was not reasonably necessary, after the mental health evaluation did not give an opinion supporting the need for no clothing or a suicide gown;

(3) Refusing to let her have underpants on underneath the suicide gown that caused involuntary exposure of her genitals;

(4) Depriving the plaintiff of adequate clothing or other covering to shield her naked body from public view by numerous people for a prolonged time, including members of the opposite sex.

C. On March 10,2005, the defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional right to body privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment when they observed the plaintiff naked in a glass cell in public view, without intervening to put her in a private place or getting her adequate clothing, until ordered to do so by the undersheriff.

D. This constitutional violation caused damages to the plaintiff and her minor children B.C., K.C., and M.C. including:

(1) The plaintiffs humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional distress, and mental anguish from having her naked body exposed to public view and video surveillance, especially to males;

(2) An emotional breakdown and psychiatric injury that caused her to remain naked or near naked for about eighteen hours in the jail;

(3) The damages to the plaintiff described in Count I(E)(3), (4), (6).

COUNT IV: 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourteenth Amendment Liberty Right)

Defendants: Judy Buchner-Van Camp, Deputy Gordon, Donald Heath, Deputy Diekman

A. On March 9-10,2005, the defendants were acting under color of state law in their conduct towards the plaintiff being county employees of St. Joseph County working as sheriffs deputies or correctional officers at the county jail.

B. The defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional liberty right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by retaliating against her for reasons unrelated to an authorized detention, specifically for being disobedient and disruptive.

C. The retaliation included:

(1) by Buchner-Van Camp and Deputy Diekrnan, putting her into a restraint chair;

(2) one of more of these officers keeping her in a restraint chair for hours and after a CMH evaluator found no medical cause to restrain her;

(3) by Buchner-Van Camp, bringing in a male officer to forcibly remove her clothing;

(4) by Buchner Van -Camp and Deputy Gordon, stripping her of all in her clothes in a glass cell where she could be viewed naked by persons including males;

(5) by Buchner Van-Camp and Deputy Gordon, requiring her to wear a suicide gown and refusing to let her wear normal street or jail clothing after she promised to comply with the officers’ request to wear a jail suit and after the CMH evaluator found no medical necessity;

(6) by letting her remain naked with only a blanket to cover her when they saw her the next day when they came to work on the day shift.

D. These actions by the defendants caused these damages:

(1) physical injury and pain and suffering from the restraint chair described in [paragraph] 23;

(2) emotional distress, mental injury and anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, and fright at the time of these events;

(3) the loss of liberty in confinement;

(4) an emotional breakdown of the plaintiff that caused her to naked in a cell for a prolonged period of time and observed by numerous people in that condition, including males;

(5) emotional damages from being on live and recorded video surveillance by members of the opposite sex as described in [paragraphs] 32,48, and 54;

(6) the creation of a tape of her naked detention that caused the emotional injury to the plaintiff described in [Paragraph] 54;

(7) providing the surveillance tape to her legal adversaries in a child protection case that led to charges of unfitness and adverse rulings on custody that caused the damages to the plaintiff described in [paragraph] 50-54.

COUNT V: 42 U.S.C. 6 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth Amendment Privacy Right)

Defendants: Judy Buchner-Van Camp, Deputy Gordon, Donald Heath, Deputy Diekrnan, Guards 1-8

A. On March 9-10,2005, the defendants were acting under color of state law in their conduct towards the plaintiff being county employees of St. Joseph County working as sheriff’s deputies or correctional officers at the county jail.

B. The defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional right to body privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment when they saw the plaintiff naked or near naked in the bubble cell, knowing that her bare breasts and genitals were being exposed to males, and failed to intervene to stop the privacy violation.

C. The defendants allowed the privacy violation to continue over three work shifts over two days for almost eighteen hours.

D. The inaction of the defendants caused a continuing privacy violation to the plaintiff and these damages described in Count IV(D)(2), (4)-(7).

COUNT VI: 42 U.S.C. 5 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourteenth Amendment Right to Medical Treatment)

Defendants: Judy Buchner-Van Camp, Deputy Gordon, Donald Heath, Deputy Diekman, Guards 1-8

A. On March 9 -1 0 ,2005, the defendants were acting under color of state law in their conduct towards the plaintiff being county employees of St. Joseph County working as sheriffs deputies or correctional officers at the county jail.

B. The defendants violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of pretrial detainees to medical treatment that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment by being aware of her request or need for medical care but not providing it, specifically by:

(1) refusing to give her thyroid and depression medications that were available in her jail property;

(2) failure to provide her mental health care when it she was obviously suffering a mental breakdown after her clothes were taken.

C. This constitutional violation caused damages to the plaintiff including:

(1) uncomfortable physical symptoms and physical suffering, an emotional breakdown that caused her to be unable to control her behavior and impaired her willingness, awareness, or ability to keep her naked body covered;

(2) the mental anguish and suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment then and in the future from knowing she was publicly naked and acting immodestly and that persons outside the jail know about it;

(3) the damages in Count IV(D)(4)-(7).

COUNT VII: 42 U.S.C. 5 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy)

Defendants: Officer Roe and Deputy Roe

A. In March 2005 the defendants were acting under color of state law in their conduct towards the plaintiff being county employees of St. Joseph County working as sheriffs deputies or correctional officers at the county jail.

B. On March 9 and 19,2005, a video surveillance was done at the jail showing the plaintiff naked or semi-naked with exposed bare breasts and genitals acting immodestly and masturbating.

C. The defendants violated the constitutional right to privacy of the plaintiff protected by the Fourth Amendment by:

1. On March 9-10,2005, Officer Doe conducting the live or video surveillance; and

2. On or about March 16,2005, Deputy Doe made a DVD recording of the video surveillance and distributed it outside the jail to a state agent from the Department of Human Services or the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Joseph County.

D. There was no legitimate penal objective of the jail served by having a male officer view the plaintiff naked or semi-naked, to make a videotape of that surveillance, or to distribute the tape to state agents outside the jail.

E. The actions of the defendants caused damages to the plaintiff described in TIT[ 50-54 and Count IV(D)(6)-(7).

COUNT VIII: CIVIL CONSPIRACY

Defendant: Deputy Doe

A. On March 16,2005, at the time of this event there was a Michigan criminal statute, Mich. Comp. Laws 750.539j, passed and effective in 2004, commonly known as the visual voyeur statute, that makes it a felony to distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image of a person “clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks or another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Mich. Comp. Laws 750.539j (2004).

B. The St. Joseph County jail for lawful security purpose has a video surveillance system in the jail that observes prisoners in the jail.

C. On March 9-1 0,2005, the video surveillance system made a visual record in a jail computer showing images of the plaintiff with unclad genitalia, buttocks, or breasts.

D. The plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy (I) that the video camera in her cell would not be creating a recording of her naked body and

(2) that the recording would not be distributed to third parties outside the jail.

E. On or about March 16,2005, the defendant, acting pursuant to an agreement with one or more uncharged coconspirators from the Department of Human Services or the St. Joseph County Prosecuting Attorney’s office, engaged in a concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose, specifically the crime of visual voyeurism, by making a DVD of the video surveillance of the plaintiff in the jail and distributing or disseminating it to one or more of the coconspirators to use as evidence in a civil case against the plaintiff.

F. The making and distribution of this DVD was unrelated to any penal tasks of the jail or criminal law enforcement purposes.

G. This civil conspiracy was a proximate cause of these damages to the plaintiff described in Count VII(E).

COUNT IX: False Imprisonment
Defendants: Officer Roe and St. Joseph County

A. On March 10 ,2005, Officer Doe, acting in the course and furtherance of her duties as an employee of the St. Joseph County jail, was performing the job of releasing jail prisoners.

B. Officer Doe knew that the plaintiff was entitled to be released from confinement because the jail magistrate had ordered her release on personal recognizance and the necessary release papers had been completed.

C. Officer Doe unlawfully restrained the plaintiffs liberty without legal authority to do by continuing to confine her in the jail after she was eligible for release.

D. The actions of the defendant caused these damages to the plaintiff and to her minor children:

(1) the plaintiff had a loss of liberty;

(2) the removal of plaintiffs children by state social workers;

(3) the damages to the plaintiff and the minor children described in [paragraphs] 46-47.

COUNT X: 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Privacy and Liberty)
Defendant: St. Joseph County

A. St. Joseph County is a municipality under federal civil rights laws and the employees at the county jail are county employees working for the county sheriff.

B. On March 9-16,2005, the defendant had official policies or customs that constituted a deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional right to bodily privacy and liberty for pretrial detainees protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically:

(1) the right not to be subjected for a substantial period unreasonably to naked detention, especially the involuntary exposure to genitals to the opposite sex, unless it is reasonably necessary;

(2) the right not to be subjected to cross-gender removal of clothing unless it is reasonably necessary;

(3) the right not to be subjected to retaliation by jail guards that deprives the inmate of liberty under the guise of an authorized detention;

(4) the right not to be subjected to a privacy violation by the making and dissemination of a visual record of a naked detention to persons outside the jail absent a criminal law enforcement purpose.

C. The official policies or customs includes one of more of the following actions or inactions by the defendant:

(1) failure to formulate policies to prevent a violation of constitutional rights;

(2) having policies or customs that expressly approve the violation, or implicitly tolerate the violation, or create a substantial risk that a violation will occur;

(3) failure to train on these constitutional rights;

(4) failure to enforce these rights with disciplinary actions;

(5) failure to supervise inmate conditions to discover violations of the constitutional right and to take prompt corrective action to restore the inmate’s privacy.

D. As a result of an official policy or custom of the defendant the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to privacy and Fourteenth Amendment Right to liberty were violated when a single jail employee without a mental health evaluator or supervisor approval was allowed to make the decision to remove all her clothes; she was subjected to an attempted cross-gender clothing removal; she was strapped in a restraint chair for punitive reasons for over two hours and left there after she was deemed safe by a mental health evaluator; she was stripped of all her clothes in a glass cell where others could see her naked; she was forced to wear a suicide gown although the cell itself provided a reasonably safe environment and the mental health evaluator deemed her safe; she was left naked or nearly naked for 18 hours in the glass cell with inadequate covering; she was viewed in that naked condition by numerous county employees and citizens including male guards, jail staff, inmates, new inmates, and video surveillance
operators; a jail employee made a DVD of the nude and lewd video surveillance tape of the plaintiff and gave it to one or more government agents unrelated to jail or law enforcement purposes; numerous jail employees saw her in this condition and took no action to protect her body privacy.

E. The policies or customs of the defendant caused the plaintiff and her minor children damages described in Count III(D).

COUNT XI: 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
(Fourteenth Amendment Right to Medical Treatment)

Defendant: St. Joseph County

A. St. Joseph County is a municipality under federal civil rights laws and the employees at the county jail are county employees working for the county sheriff.

B. On March 9- 10,2005, the defendant had an official policy or custom that constitutes a deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional right to medical treatment as a pretrial detainee protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically:

(1) not allowing inmates to take previously prescribed medications that the plaintiff has at the jail;

(2) failure to provide mental health treatment to an inmate who has an emotional breakdown from a clothing deprivation at the jail.

C. An official policy or custom of the defendant caused a violation of the plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment Right to medical treatment when the plaintiff was refused her prescribed thyroid and depression medications; she had an emotional breakdown when her clothing was taken from her but was given no mental health care; as a result she ended up being unwilling, unaware, or unable to keep the suicide gown or blanket on her naked body; this caused her to suffer a humiliating immodesty that caused substantial privacy violations, including a further privacy violation of the making and distribution of a video recording of her humiliating immodesty outside the jail.

D. As a result of the actions or inactions of the defendant the plaintiff suffered damages described in Count VI(C).

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The plaintiffs request a total of $2 million dollars in compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs divided as follows:

1. $1 million dollars for the plaintiff Angela Church individually.
2. $1 million dollars for the plaintiff minor children B.C., K.C., and M.C.

Dated: March 8, 2007 Elizabeth Warner
2654 Spring Arbor Rd.
Jackson, MI 49203
(517) 787-3560
eswarner@aol.com
P59379

Trackback URI | Comments RSS