Byrnes Mill MO Sued for Unlawful Seizure, Battery and False Arrest

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

JASON GREIL ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. ) CITY OF BYRNES MILL, MISSOURI ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

) and )

) EDWARD LOCKE, SR. ) ) Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff Jason Greil was stopped by a Byrnes Mill Police Officer, arrested for

Driving While Intoxicated, charged with Driving While Intoxicated and, despite the

fact that there was a sober, competent driver immediately available to remove his

car from the side of the road, his car was towed at the direction of the Byrnes Mill

Police.

2. This is a civil action seeking damages for the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights

secured under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution for which a cause of action is provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff

also asserts a claim for battery under Missouri common law.

Case: 4:13-cv-01014-AGF Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/24/13 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343 and 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Plaintiffs claims for relief are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, and

under Missouri state law. The Plaintiff respectfully invokes the supplemental

jurisdiction of the Court to hear and decide his claims arising under Missouri state

law.

4. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the

Defendant is located, and all incidents giving rise to this suit occurred, in this

judicial district.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jason Greil is a citizen and resident of the City of Dittmer, State of

Missouri and of the United States of America.

6. At all times referred to herein, Defendant Byrnes Mill, Missouri was a municipal

corporation, organized and function pursuant to Missouri law.

7. At all times referred to herein, Edward Locke, Sr. was a law enforcement officer

employed by the Defendant Byrnes Mill, and was the Chief of Police and

policymaker for Defendant Byrnes Mill in matters of law enforcement and was

acting under color of law. Defendant Locke is sued in his individual capacity.

FACTS

8. On January 29, 2012, Plaintiff was driving on Highway 30 through within the City

Limits of Defendant Byrnes Mill when he was caused to pull over by a Byrnes Mill

Police Officer


3

9. Upon stopping his vehicle, Plaintiff was contacted by an unidentified officer who

informed Plaintiff that he was speeding.

10. After Plaintiff was stopped, Defendant Locke arrived and Plaintiff was accused of

being intoxicated.

11. At the side of the road, he took two breathylyzer tests. He was then placed under

arrest at the direction of Defendant Locke.

12. Plaintiff was not intoxicated and the roadside breathylyzer tests did not indicate that

he was intoxicated.

13. While at the side of the road, Plaintiff overheard a discussion among the officers

about whether they would order that his car be towed. The officers discussed

whether any passenger was sober and could drive. Plaintiff stated to Defendant

Locke that his companion, Cyndi Fasnacht had consumed no alcohol and she was

permitted to drive his car. He made this statement to Defendant Locke prior to the

tow driver beginning the process for towing the car.

14. After Plaintiff had been removed by Defendant Locke, Plaintiffs wife, Kerry Greil

and Cyndi Fasnacht conversed with the tow truck driver and the police officers

about whether the car would be towed. A police officer made the statement that it

was up to the tow truck driver whether the car was towed. Upon hearing that,

Cyndi stated that she expected the car to be towed because of the profit motive of

the tow operator. Upon hearing that statement, the tow truck driver made a

statement to the effect that if Cyndi continued to run her mouth she would not be

able to retrieve the car for several days.


4

15. The car was towed, the police officers left and Kerry Greil and Cyndi Fasnacht

were left standing on the side of Highway 30, in the early morning hours of a cold

January night and told that they could walk to a Taco Bell down the road.

16. Plaintiff was taken to the Byrnes Mill Police Department and administered a

breathylyzer that he passed. Nevertheless, he was booked by Defendant Locke and

then released on two summonses; one was for Driving While Intoxicated and the

other was for Speeding.

17. The summons for the speeding violation cited to the city ordinance that was

allegedly violated and alleged the speed at which Plaintiff was traveling and the

speed limit. It appears to have been filed out in a correct fashion. The summons

issued for the driving while intoxicated, which was signed by Defendant Locke,

contains no citation to the ordinance, and no record of the blood alcohol content

reading. Under the section that reads, Did then and there commit the following

offense. The facts supporting this belief are as follows: Defendant Locke wrote

simply, Driving while intoxicated.

18. Plaintiff was also released with documentation, including a temporary driving

permit, relative to an administrative suspension of his license.

19. The Driving While Intoxicated charge was refused and not issued and the

administrative suspension action was dismissed.

20. Plaintiff received a letter from the Missouri Department of Revenue that informed

Plaintiff that the Missouri Department of Revenue had received an arrest report

from Byrnes Mill Police Department and we are unable to take any action because


5

your blood alcohol is less than the minimum required for administrative action.

(Chapter 302 RSMo).

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983 BY

DEFENDANTS BYRNES MILL, MISSOURI AND EDWARD LOCKE, SR.

For his cause of action against Defendants Byrnes Mill, Missouri and Edward

Locke, Sr., Plaintiff states:

21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

20 of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

22. Defendant Locke was the policymaker for the City of Byrnes Mill, Missouri in all

matters touching upon the police function in that city.

23. Defendant Byrnes Mill had a custom and practice of making unlawful arrests,

issuing unlawful charges and seizing vehicles in an unreasonable manner. As such,

Defendant Byrnes Mill was deliberately indifferent to the rights of individuals who

encountered Byrnes Mill police officers while driving.

24. The custodial arrest of Plaintiff was unreasonable because there was no probable

cause to believe that he had committed the offense of Driving While Intoxicated.

25. The seizure of Plaintiffs car was unreasonable because there was a sober driver at

the scene and Plaintiff authorized that person to have possession of his car.

26. Defendants Locke and Byrnes Mill knew that the seizure of Plaintiffs car was a

violation of the United States Constitution.

27. Defendant Locke either acquiesced in the towing of Plaintiffs car or directed that it

be towed. As the commander in chief of the Byrnes Mill Police Department and the


6

policymaker for Byrnes Mill regarding police matters, he had a duty to supervise

the officers under his command and failed in that duty by either directing or

acquiescing in the towing of Plaintiffs car.

28. As a direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed unlawful acts Plaintiff

suffered damages, including the indignity of an unlawful arrest and the cost to

defend an unlawful charge, the cost of towing and storage, lost time from work

resulting in a loss of pay, attorneys fees to defend the Driving While Intoxicated

charge and significant emotional distress.

29. The acts of Defendant Locke were intentional, wanton, malicious, oppressive,

reckless and callously indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff thus entitling Plaintiff to

an award of punitive damages against Defendant Locke.

30. If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to recover attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1988.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Greil prays for judgment against Defendants City

of Byrnes Mill, Missouri and Edward Locke, Sr. jointly and severally, for compensatory

damages in an amount that is fair and reasonable, against Defendant Edward Locke, Sr.

for punitive damages, for attorneys fees and the costs of litigation, and for such

additional relief as is just and proper.

COUNT II

BATTERY OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT LOCKE

COGNIZABLE UNDER STATE LAW

For his cause of action against Defendant Locke in Count II, Plaintiff states:


7

31. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 30 of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

32. When Plaintiff was taken into custody and transported to the Byrnes Mill Police

Department, he was placed in handcuffs and was handled by Defendant Locke.

33. The contact and touching of Plaintiff was unwanted, uninvited and offensive to

Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant Locke for

compensatory and punitive damages, for attorney fees and costs and for such further

relief as is appropriate.

COUNT III

FALSE ARREST & FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY DEFENDANT LOCKE COGNIZABLE UNDER STATE LAW

For his cause of action against Defendant Locke in Count III, Plaintiff states:

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

33 of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

35. Defendant Locke, at such times as previously set forth herein, intentionally caused

the detention and restraint of Plaintiff against his will without probable cause that

he had committed any crime.

36. Defendant Locke ordered the false arrested of Mr. Greil.

37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Locke causing the detention and

restraint of Plaintiff as aforedescribed, he suffered emotional distress and mental

anguish.


8

38. The acts of Defendant Locke as aforedescribed were intentional, wanton, malicious

and oppressive, and the result of evil motive or reckless indifference, thus entitling

Mr. Greil to an award of punitive damages against Defendant Locke.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant Locke for

compensatory and punitive damages, for attorney fees and costs and for such further

relief as is appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted

May 24, 2013

THE RYALS LAW FIRM, P.C.

By: /s/ Stephen M. Ryals Stephen M. Ryals MO34149 3120 Locust Street St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 862-6262 phone (314) 880-2027 facsimile [email protected] email


Byrnes Mill MO Sued for Unlawful Seizure, Battery and False Arrest

Documents

Transcript of Byrnes Mill MO Sued for Unlawful Seizure, Battery and False Arrest