You are on page 1of 12

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

Page 1 of 12 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
PHILLIP TURNER
Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT DRIVER,
OFFICER GRINALDS, Badge 3825,
OFFICER DYESS, Badge 2586,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-cv-824

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff, Phillip Turner [Mr. Turner], complaining of Defendants, Lt. Driver, Officer
Grinalds, and Officer Dyess, hereby files Plaintiffs Original Complaint and Jury Demand and
respectfully shows the following:
I.
1.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is a civil rights action for declaratory relief and damages arising under the

Constitution of the United States and under the laws of the United States. Mr. Turner was
lawfully exercising his First Amendment rights under the Constitution by using his video camera
to observe and videotape activity of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, Police Department from a
public sidewalk in daylight hours and in plain view, without interfering with traffic or with any
activities of Fort Worth Police Department. This was not a crime. Nonetheless, Defendant
Officers treated Mr. Turner as if it were. Defendant Officers harassed, detained, assaulted, seized
and arrested Mr. Turner without reasonable suspicion or probable cause merely because Mr.
Turner was lawfully exercising his First Amendment rights by using his video camera to observe
and videotape activity of the Fort Worth Police Department.

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

II.
2.

Page 2 of 12 PageID 2

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.


III.

PARTIES

3.

Mr. Turner, an individual, is a black male citizen and adult resident of Texas, U.S.A.

4.

Defendant Lt. Driver is a Caucasian male individual citizen and adult resident of Texas

and at all relevant times was employed by the City of Fort Worth as a Police Sergeant. He is sued
in his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work address at the City of
Fort Worth Police Department, 1100 Nashville Ave, Fort Worth, Texas 76105.
5.

Defendant Officer Grinalds, Badge No. 3825, is a Caucasian male individual citizen and

adult resident of Texas and at all relevant times was employed by the City of Fort Worth as a
Police Officer. He is sued in his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work
address at the City of Fort Worth Police Department, 1100 Nashville Ave, Fort Worth, Texas
76105.
6.

Defendant Officer Dyess, Badge No. 2586, is a Caucasian male individual citizen and

adult resident of Texas and at all relevant times was employed by the City of Fort Worth as a
Police Officer. He is sued in his individual capacity and can be served with Summons at his work
address at the City of Fort Worth Police Department, 1100 Nashville Ave, Fort Worth, Texas
76105.
IV.
7.

JURISDICTION

This action to vindicate Plaintiffs rights protected by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988. This Court
has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(a) (3)

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

Page 3 of 12 PageID 3

and (4). This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 to declare the rights
of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
V.
8.

VENUE

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

Northern District of Texas.


9.

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

giving rise to the claims occurred in the Northern District of Texas.


VI.

FACTS

A.

INTRODUCTION

10.

Mr. Turner is employed part-time and is a part-time student. Photography and

videography are hobbies of Mr. Turner.


11.

Mr. Turner decided to videotape the activity at the Fort Worth Police Department

headquarters offices located at 1100 Nashville Ave, Fort Worth, TX 76105.


12.

On September 1, 2015 during midday, Mr. Turner was walking on the sidewalk across

the street from the Fort Worth Police Station located at 1100 Nashville Ave, Fort Worth, Texas
76105 and he was videotaping the station and the activity at the station, which is within his First
Amendment right.
13.

Mr. Turner was not violating any laws and was not acting suspiciously or furtively, as he

was standing on the sidewalk in plain view wearing basketball shorts, a t-shirt, a hat, and sport
shoes. Mr. Turner was not armed with any weapon and was only carrying a video camera.
14.

Further, Mr. Turner was not interfering with traffic or with any activities of Fort Worth

Police Department.

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

15.

Page 4 of 12 PageID 4

Mr. Turner was simply exercising his clearly established First Amendment rights to

observe and videotape the routine activities of Fort Worth Police Department building.
B.

POLICE HARRASSMENT AND DETENTION

16.

At all times relevant to the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants were acting under

the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the City of Fort Worth
and the State of Texas and under the authority of their respective offices as a police lieutenant
and police officers.
17.

While he was videotaping, Mr. Turner observed Officers Grinalds and Dyess drove up in

a squad car and parked on the same side of the street as the station, got out and crossed the street
and walked up to Mr. Turner. Officer Grinalds said to Mr. Turner Hows it going man? and
without giving Mr. Turner time to respond asked Got your ID with you?
18.

Mr. Turner kept videotaping and Officer Grinalds repeatedly kept asking Mr. Turner if he

had ID with him.


19.

After several such questions, Mr. Turner calmly asked if he was being detained. Officer

Grinalds responded that Mr. Turner was being detained for investigation and that they were
concerned about who was walking around with a video camera including stating We like to
know whos surrounding our complexes.
20.

Officer Grinalds never explained how it was possible for one person with a video camera

to surround the complex.


21.

After the officers identified themselves, Officer Grinalds confirmed again that Mr. Turner

was being detained, and Mr. Turner asked him for what crime he was being detained.
22.

Officer Grinalds said I didnt say you committed a crime, and continued stating that he

had the right to detain Mr. Turner for investigation. We have the right and authority to know

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

Page 5 of 12 PageID 5

whos walking around our facilities, said Officer Grinalds [apparently forgetting the fact that
this is a free country] and resumed requesting Mr. Turners ID until Mr. Turner asked, What
happens if I dont ID myself? Officer Grinalds replied, Well cross that bridge when we come
to it. Mr. Turner said But you have to tell me what happens if I dont ID myself. Officer
Grinalds said he did not have to tell Mr. Turner what would happen and continued with repeated
requests for Mr. Turners ID. In response, Mr. Turner politely asked the officer if he was familiar
with Texas Penal Code 38.02.
C.

POLICE ASSAULT AND ARREST

23.

Mr. Turner stated that he was not going to identify himself, and the two officers then

grabbed Mr. Turner and put handcuffs on him using excessive force and hurting Mr. Turners
wrist, effectively arresting him with no reason.
24.

The officers took Mr. Turners video camera away from him and turned it off. Officer

Grinalds said This is what happens when you dont ID yourself.


25.

Mr. Turner had not attempted to leave when informed that he was being detained and had

shown no aggressive behavior to the officers but had merely continued talking with them calmly.
26.

Mr. Turner asked for a supervisor to come to the scene, which was right across the street

from the station house. On the video, the dispatch can be heard asking if Officer Grinalds is in
the parking lot with someone that was videotaping, to which Officer Grinalds can be heard
falsely replying, Yes, I am, when he was, in fact, not in the parking lot but instead on a
sidewalk in front of the private residences across the street from the station.
27.

Another voice believed to be the driver of a police car leaving the station can be heard off

camera confirming that he was calling it in when he was coming out of the gate.

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

28.

Page 6 of 12 PageID 6

Officer Grinalds voice can be heard off camera continuing to ask Mr. Turner for ID and

saying, youll go on down and get fingerprinted then, so we know who you are.
29.

The officers put Mr. Turner handcuffed into the back of their patrol car and left him there

to sweat for a while with the windows rolled up and no air was getting in the back.
30.

Mr. Turner was banging on the door to try to get them to open the windows.

31.

They delayed and seemingly ignored Mr. Turner and left him to sweat for a while.

32.

Finally, the officers rolled the window down and Mr. Turner was lying down on the seat

exhausted from the heat and the actions of the officers.


33.

Another police officer came to the open window and identified himself as Lt. Driver and

said that he was the commander.


34.

Lt. Driver started asking Mr. Turner what he was doing and Mr. Turner told him that he

was taking pictures from the sidewalk across the street.


35.

Lt. Driver asked Mr. Turner if he had any ID on him and Mr. Turner said that he did not

have to ID himself because he had not been lawfully arrested and that he chose not to freely give
his information.
36.

Lt. Driver replied to Mr. Turner, Youre right.

37.

Mr. Turner asked him why they were treating him like a criminal and said, You guys

need to let me go because I havent done anything wrong.


38.

Although Mr. Turner had taken no aggressive actions whatsoever and was only

videotaping and with no objectively factual basis for believing that Mr. Turner was involved in
any criminal activity and no basis for believing that Mr. Turner would take any actions
whatsoever to harm Lt. Driver and other officers or anyone else, instead of replying Mr. Turners

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

Page 7 of 12 PageID 7

question, Lt. Driver walked away and began talking with the other officers and was also talking
on the phone.
39.

All three officers then came back to where Mr. Turner was sitting in the car, opened the

door of the car, took Mr. Turner out of the car, and Lt. Driver started lecturing Mr. Turner.
40.

Mr. Turner asked if he could get his property back and Lt. Driver told him not until they

were finished talking to him.


41.

Lt. Driver was saying things which appeared to be an attempt to justify his officers

actions and he said the next time Mr. Turner stepped foot on their property he would be arrested
for trespassing, even though Mr. Turner was not on the property of the station at the time of his
filming, detention, and handcuffing, and the patrol car Mr. Turner was put into was parked on the
street, not in the parking lot of the police station.
42.

Finally, the officers released Mr. Turner and gave him his camera back, even though he

never produced his ID.


43.

The officers never apologized or showed any concern whatsoever for Mr. Turner and his

civil rights.
44.

When Mr. Turner was handcuffed, he was on the public sidewalk in plain view during

daylight hours for all persons driving by or arriving to observe.


45.

Mr. Turner had to suffer the humiliation of being handcuffed and held in custody by

multiple police officers as if he were a common criminal.


46.

No actions of Mr. Turner would have provided a reasonable officer with reason to believe

that the officer had legal cause to detain Mr. Turner, seize Mr. Turner with force and arrest Mr.
Turner by placing him in handcuffs.

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

47.

Page 8 of 12 PageID 8

Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants had information in the form of

objective facts that would have allowed a reasonable officer to initially detain or to arrest by
handcuffing Mr. Turner.
VII.

ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983 FOR

VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST, FOURTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS


48.

Mr. Turner adopts by reference the facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-47 as

though fully set forth herein.


49.

Observing public police activities, without interfering with those duties, is a legitimate

means of gathering information for public dissemination and is expressive conduct protected by
the First Amendment.
50.

This First Amendment right to gather information includes the right to record actions of

police, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.


51.

In this instance, Mr. Turner was standing on a public sidewalk videotaping apparently

normal activities of the police during broad daylight from a public sidewalk, which activity is
protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
52.

Mr. Turner was not engaged in any unlawful activity or interfering with the duties of

public police activities.


53.

None of Mr. Turners activities were being conducted in an unreasonable time, place or

manner.
54.

In fact, it is apparent from the actions of the officers and the statements made by the

officers that the entire incident was an illegal attempt to chill Mr. Turners First Amendment
rights.

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

55.

Page 9 of 12 PageID 9

Defendants acting under color of law deprived Plaintiff of certain constitutionally

protected rights as follows:


a.

Officers Grinalds and Dyess unlawfully initially detained Mr. Turner and

demanded to see his identification without reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Turner had
engaged in ,was engaging in, or was about to engage in any criminal conduct;
b.

Officers Grinalds and Dyess unlawfully and unreasonably seized Mr. Turner

using excessive force and arrested Mr. Turner by placing handcuffs on him without probable
cause, without a warrant, without consent, and without exigent circumstances; and
c.

Lt. Driver, after arriving at the scene, instead of immediately releasing Mr.

Turner, continued the unlawful detention, seizure and arrest in public view in broad daylight
without reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Turner had engaged in, was engaging in, or was
about to engage in any criminal conduct and without probable cause, without a warrant, without
consent, and without exigent circumstances.
56.

Defendants acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously, or with reckless disregard for Mr.

Turners exercise of his clearly established rights protected by the First Amendment, Fourth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
57.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants unlawful detention, seizure, and

arrest, Mr. Turner sustained physical injuries. In addition, Mr. Turner sustained damages for pain
and suffering, mental anguish, and other damages as pled herein.
VIII. LACK OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
58.

Mr. Turner adopts by reference the facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-57 as

though fully set forth herein.

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

59.

Page 10 of 12 PageID 10

It is clearly established law that a person has a First Amendment right to gather

information and videotape police activity, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions.
60.

Defendants did not observe Mr. Turner engage in any criminal conduct and had no

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Mr. Turner had committed or was
committing any criminal conduct.
61.

Mr. Turner was merely videotaping the police at work which was protected by the First

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in broad daylight from across the street, without interfering
in an arrest or trespassing or interceding in a police action such as an ongoing investigation or
apprehension of a suspect.
62.

None of Mr. Turners activities were being conducted in an unreasonable time, place or

manner.
63.

It is also clearly established law that a person has a Fourth Amendment right to be free

from arrest without a warrant or probable cause and free from detention without a reasonable
suspicion that a person had committed or is committing or about to commit a crime.
64.

The United States Supreme Court held more than thirty five years ago that it was a

violation of the Fourth Amendment to detain a person without reasonable suspicion to believe
that the person was engaged in or had engaged in criminal conduct and Texas law does not
require a person to produce his identification unless the person has been placed under arrest.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
65.

Mr. Turner was illegally detained and arrested by handcuffing simply because Mr. Turner

was videotaping in front of a Fort Worth police station and legally refused to produce his ID as
demanded.

10

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

66.

Page 11 of 12 PageID 11

Mr. Turner was nonviolent at all times, was unarmed, and made no threats to the safety of

Defendants or others at any time prior to the illegal acts of Defendants.


67.

Defendants actions violated clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of

which a reasonable officer would have known.


68.

No reasonable officer confronting a situation where the officer had not observed a person

engage in any criminal conduct and had no reasonable suspicion to believe that a person was
engaging in or had engaged in criminal conduct and where the need for any force was clearly
absent would have concluded that detaining Mr. Turner, seizing Mr. Turner, handcuffing Mr.
Turner and deploying any force under such circumstances was reasonable, and therefore
Defendants should not be entitled to any protection of Qualified Immunity to avoid
accountability in this case.
IX.
69.

DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES

Mr. Turner adopts by reference the facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-68 as

though fully set forth herein.


70.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions, Mr. Turner suffered

deprivations of his constitutional rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
71.

Mr. Turner incurred damages for loss of reputation, shame, embarrassment, humiliation,

mental anguish, pain and suffering, and such other compensatory and tangible consequential
damages as the law entitles Plaintiff to recover.
72.

Mr. Turner seeks punitive damages against Defendants for their intentional, willful and

wanton acts completely ignoring clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of which
a reasonable officer would have known.

11

Case 4:15-cv-00824-A Document 1 Filed 10/30/15

Page 12 of 12 PageID 12

73.

Mr. Turner hereby sues for these damages, and prays for just and fair recovery thereof.

74.

Mr. Turner is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b).
X.

75.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following:


a.

Enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs First

Amendment rights to observe and videotape police activity;


b.

Enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure;


c.

Award compensatory damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in an

amount to be determined at trial;


d.

Alternatively award nominal damages for the violations of Plaintiffs

Constitutional rights;
e.

Award punitive damages against Defendants;

f.

Enter an award for costs, expenses, and counsel fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1988(b); and
g.

Enter such other relief as this honorable Court may deem just and deserving.

DATED this 30th day of October 2015.


Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Kervyn B. Altaffer Jr.
Kervyn B. Altaffer Jr.
State Bar No. 01116575
Law Office of Kervyn B. Altaffer Jr.
4054 McKinney Ave Ste 310
Dallas, TX 75204
Tel: 972-234-3633
Fax: 972-947-3663
Email: kervyn@altafferlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PHILLIP TURNER
12

You might also like