Carpenter vs. West Virginia State Police

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THESOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT CHARLESTON

SARA CARPENTER,ROBERT CARPENTER, individuals,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Action No.

J.D. PERRY, individually,R.S. MINOR, individually, J.R. POWERS, individually,L.G. O’BRIAN, individually,S.W. PERDUE, individually,PAMELA INGRAM, individually,JOHN DOE, individually,JOHN DOE NO. 2, individually,JOHN DOE NO. 3, individually,JOHN DOE NO. 4, individually,JOHN DOE NO. 5, individually,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

This complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Fourth Amendment to

the United States Constitution, arises out of the defendants’ commission of an unreasonable

search and seizure against the Plaintiff at her home on or about May 13, 2014 near the town of

Elkview, Kanawha County, West Virginia, within the Southern District of West Virginia.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.

1

2:16-cv-04199

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 of 15 PageID #: 1

PARTIES

1. The Plaintiffs, Sara Carpenter and Robert Carpenter, are husband and wife and

were at all times relevant hereto residents of Elkview, Kanawha County, West Virginia.

2. Defendant J.D. Perry was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West

Virginia State Police and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an

address of 2700 E. Dupont Avenue, Belle, West Virginia.

3. Defendant R.S. Minor was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West



4. Defendant J.R. Powers was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West



5. Defendant L.G. O’Brian was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West



6. Defendant S.W. Perdue was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West



7. Defendant Pamela Ingram was at all relevant times hereto an employee

(“investigator”) with the West Virginia DHHR Child Protective Services and was at all times

relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an address of 4190 W. Washington Street,

Charleston, West Virginia.

2


8. Defendant John Doe No. 1 is currently unidentified. He was present with the

police officer defendants during the search and seizure described herein. He was identified to the

plaintiffs as a plain-clothed officer. However, he has been described in documents by the

defendant police officers as a “ride-along.”

9. Defendant John Doe No. 2 is currently unidentified. He was present with the

police officer defendants during the search and seizure described herein. He was identified to the

plaintiffs as a plain-clothed officer. However, he has been described in documents by the

defendant police officers as a “ride-along.”

10. Defendant John Does Numbers 3 through 5 are currently unidentified. They are

West Virginia State Troopers who are believed to be k-9 officers who participated in the search

and seizure of 174 Jarrett Heights Road, Elkview, West Virginia, as described below in detail.

FACTS

11. On or about May 1, 2014, Sara Carpenter’s then-16 year old daughter, following

an argument with her mother, ran away from home and to the home of her paternal grandfather,

Chris Jarrett, who had been engaged in an ongoing custody dispute with the plaintiffs over

grandparent custodial rights and visitation.

12. Plaintiff Sara Carpenter immediately contacted the West Virginia State Police, and

subsequently met with Trooper Stepp, who located the child at the home of Chris Jarrett.

13. Chris Jarrett made accusations to Trooper Stepp that the plaintiffs were unfit

parents, and that they were drug dealers. He asked for permission to keep the child.

14. Trooper Stepp investigated the complaints, and found no reason not to return the

child to the plaintiffs’ home, which he did.

3


15. The following day, on or about May 2, 2014, Mr. Jarrett filed a domestic violence

protective order petition against Mrs. Carpenter, which was granted on a temporary basis with a

hearing scheduled for mid-May of 2014. Mr. Jarrett then picked the child up from school,

without notification to the plaintiffs.

16. On or about May 13, 2014, at around 10:30 p.m., one day prior to the plaintiffs’

hearing on the domestic violence protective order petition, defendant West Virginia State

Troopers Minor and Powers arrived at plaintiffs’ residence, along with two plain-clothed (no law

enforcement uniforms) individuals, who are identified above as John Does 1 and 2.

17. The officers identified themselves as being from the Quincy Detachment of the

West Virginia State Police.

18. The plaintiffs’ home is not within the geographical vicinity of the Quincy

Detachment, but rather is in the geographic vicinity of the South Charleston Detachment of the

West Virginia State Police.

19. Upon information and belief, Chris Jarrett’s nephew is a Sergeant in the West

Virginia State Police, who was at that time stationed at the Quincy Detachment. Upon

information and belief, Mr. Jarrett sought assistance from his nephew in order to gather evidence

against the plaintiffs to use in Family Court the following day. Upon information and belief,

such assistance from members of the Quincy detachment of the state police was performed with

the knowledge of, and either expressly, or tacitly, approved by supervisor defendant L.G.

O’Brian.

20. Sergeant J.D. Perry (Defendant Perry) noted in his narrative that on May 13,

2014, he “received information from Chris Jarrett concerning a possible child neglect and

4


endangerment due to the drug usage and trafficking at the residence of Sara Carpenter and

Robert Carpenter. He did not mention in his report that Mr. Jarrett was his uncle.

21. Perry continued, “Sergeant Perry was advised that Robert Carpenter was also a

registered sex offender.” He continued, “Corporal Abbess [of the South Charleston detachment]

was contacted concerning the offender being verified.”

22. Having been previously convicted years earlier of what is commonly referred to

as statutory rape, plaintiff Robert Carpenter is a registered sex offender and re-registers yearly,

during the month of his date of birth, with the South Charleston detachment of the West Virginia

State Police, since his residence is located in the geographical vicinity of the South Charleston

detachment. Since Robert’s date of birth is May, he had recently re-registered, and has often

throughout the year updated his notification information, when necessary.

23. West Virginia Code § 15-12-10 provides that the West Virginia State Police “shall

verify addresses of those persons registered . . . once a year.” It further provides that the “State

Police may require registrants to periodically submit to new fingerprints and photographs as part

of the verification process.”

24. Sgt. Perry wrote in his narrative that Corporal Abbess informed him that Robert

Carpenter had not yet been verified by the South Charleston detachment.

25. Robert Carpenter’s residence address had not changed since his initial

registration, and had been provided on each of his yearly renewal notifications. However, he had

not knowingly been visited by the State Police at his residence on any previous year as a part of

any verification process. Neither has he been visited in the two years since this incident.

5


26. Sgt. Perry wrote that he contacted defendant Trooper Minor and defendant

Trooper Powers “to conduct a verification of the residence and the offender registration to

determine the validity of his registration information and any immediate danger to the four year

old child who remained in the residence.”

27. Sgt. Perry wrote that he “directed both Senior Trooper Powers and Trooper Minor

to only do a sex offender verification and if anything further was located in the residence to

secure the occupants and obtain a search warrant.”

28. Upon information and belief, Sgt. Perry had determined to use the sex offender

verification process as a “Trojan Horse” to attempt to get into the plaintiffs’ residence in order to

search for evidence sought by Chris Jarrett. However, neither West Virginia Code § 15-12-10,

nor any other state law provides for warrantless searches of residences of sex offender

registrants. Neither does West Virginia case law indicate that sex offenders registered in West

Virginia have surrendered their rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in their

residence under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, at no relevant time

was Robert Carpenter on probation, parole or supervised release.

29. Sgt. Perry notes in his narrative that there were two “ride-a-long participants”

with Powers and Minor during the verification, and notes that both subjects “completed the

proper paperwork and were approved.” The two individuals with Powers and Minor at the

plaintiffs’ residence were represented to the plaintiffs as being “plain-clothed police detectives.”

The two individuals are named as defendants herein as John Does 1 and 2.

30. Upon arrival at the plaintiffs’ residence, the defendants knocked on the door,

which was answered by Sara Carpenter’s stepson. When he opened the door, one of the troopers

6


grabbed him on the back of his neck and led him forcefully through the house into the kitchen,

where plaintiff Sara Carpenter was located, along with her nephew.

31. Once in the kitchen, the two troopers identified themselves, as well as the “plain-

clothed police detectives” and represented that they were there to verify Robert Carpenter’s sex

offender registry.

32. Sarah Carpenter, her stepson, and her nephew, were all forced to sit down in the

kitchen in the presence of Trooper Powers, while the others proceeded upstairs and began to

search the residence.

33. Sara Carpenter asked to see a search warrant. Trooper Minor responded, “shut up

and sit down or I’ll cuff you and take you to jail.”

34. At the time of the entry, Robert Carpenter was upstairs putting their four-year-old

child to bed. He was immediately escorted to the kitchen by one of the officers, while the child

was left unattended wandering around the residence. Plaintiffs requested to be able to attend to

the child, or to allow the older child, or nephew, to be able to assist the four-year-old child. The

officers refused.

35. The officers proceeded to search the residence, but found nothing incriminating,

and ultimately left.

36. None of the occupants consented to the officers entering the residence. In his

narrative, Sgt. Perry notes that “Sara Carpenter told these officers that they could not be in her

residence without a warrant.” Perry further explains that the officers replied that “the purpose of

the visit was to verify her husband Robert Scott Carpenter’s information on the sex offender

registry was correct and accurate.” He describes that “Senior Trooper Powers stood with them

7


while Trooper Minor checked the rest of the residence for any other violations not reported on

the registry information sheet including attempting to locate secret cellular telephones not

registered.”

37. Following the search of the plaintiffs’ home, plaintiffs realized that the troopers

were searching for evidence on behalf of Chris Jarrett, in order to enable him to gain custody of

the plaintiff’s daughter at the Family Court hearing the following day.

38. The next morning, plaintiffs and Chris Jarrett attended the Family Court hearing

on the domestic violence protective order petition filed by Chris Jarrett. Trooper Stepp was

subpoenaed by the plaintiffs and testified that he was directed by a superior officer to lie to Sara

Carpenter regarding the location of her daughter after she was reported missing (that she was in

their custody rather than the truth, which was that she was at Chris Jarrett’s residence). He

further testified that there was no indication of illegal activity in plaintiffs’ house. The Family

Court Judge denied Chris Jarrett’s petition.

39. On or about May 31, 2014, state troopers, including defendants Minor and

Perdue, obtained a search warrant for the plaintiffs’ residence, which at all times relevant hereto

was 172 Jarrett Heights Road, Elkview, West Virginia, for the purposes of seeking evidence of

felony delivery of controlled substances. The officers contemporaneously obtained a felony

arrest warrant for the plaintiffs for felony delivery of controlled substances.

40. On the said date, Trooper Perdue, Minor and other troopers who are named and

identified as defendants John Doe Numbers 3 through 5, arrested Mrs. Carpenter at her home and

performed a search of 172 Jarrett Heights Road. They found no incriminating evidence. They

8


found no evidence to support Chris Jarrett’s accusations that plaintiffs were drug dealers. They

found no evidence to substantiate the felony charges against the plaintiffs.

41. After finding nothing at the plaintiffs’ residence, defendants Perdue, Minor and

John Does No. 3-5 sought consent to search the nearby residence of 174 Jarrett Heights Road,

Elkview, West Virginia, also owned by the plaintiffs, having been the home of Robert

Carpenter’s deceased mother. After being denied consent, the officers nevertheless kicked down

the door to the 174 Jarrett Heights Road residence and proceeded to perform a search of that

residence. Sara Carpenter’s stepson was in the residence at the time and witnessed the entry and

search. Three K-9 drug dogs were taken through the 174 Jarrett Heights Road residence, and

additional property was destroyed by the officers during their search and seizure, including

furniture and the garage door, which was also kicked-in. Again, no drugs or other incriminating

evidence was found to substantiate the felony arrest of Sara Carpenter that had just occurred.

42. Defendant Pamela Ingram, a CPS investigator brought into the case by Defendant

Perry, also entered the 174 Jarrett Heights Road residence and participated in the search and

seizure of plaintiffs’ property.

43. No police officer present on May 31, 2014 had obtained a search warrant for the

174 Jarrett Heights Road home. The search warrant they obtained was for 172 Jarrett Heights

Road, which was very clearly described, and depicted, in the search warrant. No officer had

consent to enter the 174 Jarrett Heights Road home. Nor did any officer claim to meet any

exception to the rule against warrantless searches. The officers were aware of the plaintiffs’

ownership of the 174 Jarrett Heights Road home, as well as suspicions incriminating evidence

might be found inside, prior to their application for a search warrant. In fact, the search warrant

9


affidavit mentioned the fact that plaintiffs also owned 174 Jarrett Heights Road and that they

were suspected of harboring drugs inside that home. Thus, the decision to search 174 Jarrett

Heights Road was not based on any new information or exigent circumstances.

44. Sara Carpenter was held in jail for six hours before being released. Based on a

lack of evidence, the criminal charges against Sara Carpenter were dismissed shortly thereafter.

45. Upon information and belief, using his relationship with his nephew state trooper,

Chris Jarrett was able to get CPS, and DHHR to investigate and file an abuse and neglect petition

for removal of the plaintiffs’ children, based on the same allegations that plaintiffs were drug

dealers. This was the reason that Pamela Ingram was at the plaintiffs’ residence.

46. On or about June 6, 2014, a preliminary hearing on the abuse and neglect petition

was held before the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Following the ruling, the court dismissed

the action, noting that after reviewing the evidence submitted by DHHR through Pamela Ingram,

Chris Jarrett, as well as the West Virginia State Police, that the State failed to meet its burden for

the preliminary hearing; that the State failed to demonstrate that there was reasonable cause to

believe that the children were abused or neglected and that it was necessary to take them into

care to preserve their safety and well-being. The Court ordered that the children be returned

forthwith to the custody of their parents, consistent with any Family Court orders. The Special

Prosecutor appointed to the case personally apologized to Sara Carpenter for the State’s actions

against her.

47. Chris Jarrett also filed a Petition for Appointment of Guardian (for minor

children) in the Family Court of Kanawha County, seeking custody of the child. A Guardian ad

Litem was appointed, who after investigation concluded that his investigation “has not revealed

10


anything that would make Mrs. Carpenter’s home unsuitable.” He continued, “In fact, my main

concerns (drug and alcohol abuse . . . ) seem to have been dealt with in a recently dismissed

Abuse and Neglect proceeding. He recommended that the Infant Guardianship not be granted,

and that the child be returned to Sara Carpenter.

COUNT ONE - UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

49. On or about May 13, 2014, the defendant police officers, under color of law, made

entry into the residence of Robert Carpenter and Sara Carpenter for the purposes of searching

their home, and seizing the occupants therein pending the search.

50. The defendant police officers did not seek, nor did they obtain, a search warrant

for the Carpenter residence.

51. The defendant police officers did not obtain consent to enter, or to search, the

Carpenter residence.

52. The defendant police officers did not claim that exigent circumstances were

present as justification for their entry, or search.

53. Defendants Minor and Powers made entry and conducted the search and seizure,

along with John Does 1 and 2. This was performed at the direction, and under the supervision of

defendant Perry and defendant O’Brian - supervisors and superior officers over defendants

Minor and Powers.

11


54. Defendant Perry directed the search to be conducted under the auspices of sex

offender verification, when in reality, he was seeking evidence unrelated to sex offender

verification.

55. West Virginia Code § 15-12-10, under which Trooper Perry was acting, does not

authorize warrantless searches of the homes of sex offender registrants who are not on parole or

probation. Nor does any other state or federal law provide such authorization.

56. Neither does West Virginia Code § 15-12-10 authorize the warrantless seizure of

Sara Carpenter, Robert Carpenter, and other family members during a sex offender verification.

Sara Carpenter’s stepson was physically seized in his doorway and led into the kitchen. Sara

Carpenter, and her nephew, were seized inside the kitchen, and forced to remain in the kitchen.

Robert Carpenter was taken into the kitchen and forced to remain there during the search. None

of the occupants of the residence were allowed to get, or care for, the four year old child left

alone in the house by the officers.

57. No objectively reasonable police officer would have any reason to believe they

have the authority to conduct a warrantless search and seizure of a residence to search for

evidence of drug activity under the auspices of West Virginia Code § 15-12-10.

58. The defendants’ actions as alleged herein were under color of law, objectively

unreasonable, willful, wanton, intentional and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the

plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

59. Plaintiffs suffered damages and are entitled to recover for the same.

COUNT TWO - UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

12


60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

61. On or about May 31, 2014, the defendant police officers, under color of law, as

described above in detail, made entry into the home belonging to the plaintiffs located at 174

Jarrett Heights Road, in Elkview, West Virginia for purposes of performing a search and seizure.

62. The defendant police officers did not seek, nor did they obtain, a search warrant

for the home located at 174 Jarrett Heights Road, in Elkview, West Virginia.

63. The defendant police officers did not obtain consent to enter, or to search, the

Carpenter residence.

64. The defendant police officers did not claim that exigent circumstances were

present as justification for their entry, or search.

65. Defendants Perdue, as well as John Does 3 through 5 made entry and conducted

the search and seizure, along with their K-9 drug sniffing dogs. Defendant Pamela Ingram also

made entry and participated in the search of the said home.

66. No objectively reasonable police officer would have any reason to believe they

have the authority to conduct a warrantless search and seizure of a residence under the

circumstances described above in detail.

67. The defendants’ actions as alleged herein were under color of law, objectively

unreasonable, willful, wanton, intentional and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the

plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

68. Plaintiffs suffered damages and are entitled to recover for the same.

13


COUNT THREE - BYSTANDER LIABILITY

69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the previous paragraphs.

70. In the event that any of the defendant officers, or other officers, observed, or had

reason to know that a constitutional violation(s) was being committed against the plaintiffs on

May 13, 2014, and possessed a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from

occurring to the plaintiffs, and chose not to act, the plaintiffs make a claim against them pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. 1983 under Randall v. Prince George’s County, Md., 302 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2002).

COUNT FOUR - SUPERVISORY LIABILITY

UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the previous paragraphs.

72. Supervisors Defendant Perry and Defendant O’Brian had actual knowledge that

their subordinates were engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of

constitutional injury to the plaintiffs; namely that they were going to be searching the plaintiffs’

residence and seizing the plaintiffs, and potentially their property without a search warrant, or

applicable exception to obtaining a search warrant, as described in the above paragraphs in

detail.

73. The said supervisors’ response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show

deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, the aforesaid conduct.

74. As a direct and proximate result of the said supervisors’ inaction, the plaintiffs

suffered constitutional violations and were damaged, for which they are entitled to recover.

PRAYER

14


WHEREFORE, based on the above stated facts, the plaintiffs respectfully requests that

this Honorable Court award:

1. Damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial which will

fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for all compensatory damages to be proven at

trial;

2. Punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be determined

at trial; and

3. Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY

SARA CARPENTER and ROBERT CARPENTER, By Counsel

/s John H. Bryan John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW611 Main StreetP.O. Box 366 Union, WV 24983(304) 772-4999Fax: (304) [email protected]

for the Plaintiff

15


JS 44 (Rev. 11/15) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)1 Original

Proceeding2 Removed from

State Court 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court4 Reinstated or

Reopened 5 Transferred from

Another District(specify)

6 MultidistrictLitigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONCite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBERDATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Kanawha Kanawha

John H. Bryan, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 366, Union, WV 24983(304) 772-4999

42 USC 1983

1983 action for violation of Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs

5/5/16 /s John H. Bryan

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 16

Carpenter vs. West Virginia State Police

Documents

Transcript of Carpenter vs. West Virginia State Police