Byrnes Mill MO Sued for Unlawful Seizure and 1st Amendment Retaliation

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

)LINDA SCHROEDER, )

)Plaintiff, )

)v. ) No. 4:07-CV-01661-SNLJ

)CITY OF BYRNES MILL, MISSOURI, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDEDWARD LOCKE, SR., )

))

Defendants. ))

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Introductory Statement

1. This is a civil action by Plaintiff LINDA SCHROEDER for damages against

the CITY OF BYRNES MILL, MISSOURI, and its Chief of Police, EDWARD LOCKE, SR.

The CITY OF BYRNES MILL and MR. LOCKE deprived Plaintiff of her First, Fourth,

and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they retaliated against her for exercising her

right to free speech and when they seized her car.

Jurisdiction

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 for

deprivation of rights secured by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C.

Section 1983, 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

Ý¿» ìæðéó½ªóðïêêïóÍÒÔÖ Ü±½«³»²¬ îðóî Ú·´»¼ ïïñïîñîððè Ð¿¹» ï ±º é

Case: 4:07-cv-01661-SNLJ Doc. #: 23 Filed: 11/19/08 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 129

2

Parties

3. Plaintiff LINDA SCHROEDER is a citizen and resident of the County of

Jefferson, State of Missouri, and the United States of America.

4. At all times referred to herein, Defendant CITY OF BYRNES MILL,

MISSOURI [hereinafter the CITY or the Defendant CITY ] is and was a municipal

corporation, a city of the fourth class, organized and existing in accordance with the

laws of the State of Missouri.

5. At all times referred to herein, Defendant EDWARD LOCKE, SR.

[hereinafter CHIEF LOCKE or Defendant LOCKE ] is and was the Chief of Police for

Defendant CITY OF BYRNES MILL, MISSOURI. Defendant Locke is sued in his

individual and official capacities.

Facts

6. On or about January 3, 2007, CHIEF LOCKE conducted a traffic stop of

LINDA SCHROEDER, who was driving her car on Highway 30. Plaintiff was

accompanied by her nephew, Michael Hill.

7. Plaintiff had committed no violation of the law.

8. CHIEF LOCKE informed Plaintiff that he was going to give her a verbal

warning for allegedly driving unlawfully in the left lane.

9. Plaintiff verbally challenged CHIEF LOCKE, questioning among other

things whether she had committed a violation of law.

10. CHIEF LOCKE informed Plaintiff that because she was being

argumentative, he was going to issue her a Uniform Citation and Summons, instead of a

Ý¿» ìæðéó½ªóðïêêïóÍÒÔÖ Ü±½«³»²¬ îðóî Ú·´»¼ ïïñïîñîððè Ð¿¹» î ±º é


3

verbal warning.

11. CHIEF LOCKE issued Plaintiff a Uniform Citation and Summons alleging

that Plaintiff had unlawfully driven in the left lane.

12. Plaintiff would not sign the summons and complaint.

13. CHIEF LOCKE then affected a custodial arrest of Plaintiff and informed her

that her car would be towed.

14. Plaintiff informed CHIEF LOCKE that her nephew was a licensed driver, an

insured driver on her vehicle and that she was desirous of having her nephew take

charge of the car.

15. CHIEF LOCKE declined to allow Michael Hill to take control of the car and

instead called for a tow-truck.

16. The policymaker for matters of law enforcement in the CITY is CHIEF

LOCKE.

17. At all times relevant to this action, it was the policy, custom, or practice of

the CITY to tow the vehicle of every person who is arrested for a traffic offense or who is

arrested in the context of a car stop.

18. At all times relevant to this action, it was the policy, custom, and practice of

the CITY to tow the vehicle of each arrestee without regard for the desire of the

owner/operator of the car and without probable cause to believe that either the car was

used in the commission of a crime or contains contraband. Defendant thereby

committed a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

Ý¿» ìæðéó½ªóðïêêïóÍÒÔÖ Ü±½«³»²¬ îðóî Ú·´»¼ ïïñïîñîððè Ð¿¹» í ±º é


4

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

UNLAWFUL SEIZUREBY DEFENDANT EDWARD LOCKE, SR.,

AND DEFENDANT CITY OF BYRNES MILLCOGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

For her cause of action against Defendant BYRNES MILL and Defendant LOCKE

in Count I, Plaintiff states:

19. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation and

averment contained in paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

20. As a direct and proximate result of her vehicle being towed, Plaintiff

suffered damages in the form of a tow fees, pain of the mind, fear, and emotional

distress.

21. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant EDWARD

LOCKE, SR., and Defendant CITY OF BYRNES MILL, MISSOURI, for compensatory

damages in an amount which is fair and reasonable, punitive damages (against

Defendant EDWARD LOCKE, SR.), plus costs of this action, attorney s fees and such

other relief as the Court deems fair and appropriate under the circumstances.

Ý¿» ìæðéó½ªóðïêêïóÍÒÔÖ Ü±½«³»²¬ îðóî Ú·´»¼ ïïñïîñîððè Ð¿¹» ì ±º é


5

COUNT II

FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION BY DEFENDANT EDWARD LOCKE, SR.,

AND DEFENDANT CITY OF BYRNES MILLCOGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

For her cause of action against Defendant BYRNES MILL and Defendant LOCKE

in Count II, Plaintiff states:

22. By this reference, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation and

averment contained in paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

23. Plaintiff s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.

Constitution were violated when CHIEF LOCKE issued Plaintiff a citation for engaging

in constitutionally protected free speech.

24. Plaintiff engaged in one or more acts of speech protected by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments.

25. In response to these acts of speech, CHIEF LOCKE issued Plaintiff a

citation.

26. Plaintiff s acts of speech were substantial or motivating factors in the

decision of CHIEF LOCKE to issue Plaintiff a citation.

27. The actions of CHIEF LOCKE deterred Plaintiff from continuing to exercise

her right of free speech.

28. As a direct and proximate result of being issued a citation and arrested,

Plaintiff suffered damages, including the loss of her liberty, the cost of defending against

the citation, tow fees, pain of the mind, fear, and emotional distress.

Ý¿» ìæðéó½ªóðïêêïóÍÒÔÖ Ü±½«³»²¬ îðóî Ú·´»¼ ïïñïîñîððè Ð¿¹» ë ±º é


6

29. If Plaintiff prevails, she is entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant EDWARD

LOCKE, SR., and Defendant CITY OF BYRNES MILL, MISSOURI, for compensatory

damages in an amount which is fair and reasonable, punitive damages (against

Defendant EDWARD LOCKE, SR.), plus costs of this action, attorney s fees and such

other relief as the Court deems fair and appropriate under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted this12th day of November 2008

_/s/ Steven J. Gunn_Steven J. Gunn, Fed. Reg. No. 504800Stephen M. Ryals, Fed. Reg. No. 10602RYALS & BREED, P.C.3120 Locust StreetSt. Louis, Missouri 63103Telephone: (314) 862-6262Facsimile: (314) 880-2027 Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Ý¿» ìæðéó½ªóðïêêïóÍÒÔÖ Ü±½«³»²¬ îðóî Ú·´»¼ ïïñïîñîððè Ð¿¹» ê ±º é


7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 12th day of November 2008, the foregoing was filed

electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court s electronic

filing system to all parties and counsel of record.

_/s/ Steven J. Gunn Steven J. Gunn, # 504800

Ý¿» ìæðéó½ªóðïêêïóÍÒÔÖ Ü±½«³»²¬ îðóî Ú·´»¼ ïïñïîñîððè Ð¿¹» é ±º é


Byrnes Mill MO Sued for Unlawful Seizure and 1st Amendment Retaliation

Documents

Transcript of Byrnes Mill MO Sued for Unlawful Seizure and 1st Amendment Retaliation