City of Columbia Police Department Civil Rights Lawsuit Ahmed Salau

8/10/2019 City of Columbia Police Department Civil Rights Lawsuit Ahmed Salau

1/26

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

MISSOURI

JEFFERSON CITY MISSOURI DIVISION

AHMED SALAU, ) Case No. 2:14cv-04309MJW

P. O. BOX 6008, )

PRINCETON, WV 24740. )

Plaintiff, pro se )

vs. ) COMPLAINT

CITY OF COLUMBIA,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203.) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CITY OF COLUMBIA POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203

)

BOB MCDAVID IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

MAYOR OF COLUMBIA MO

)

NORTH 7TH

STREET,COLUMBIA MO 65203.

BRIAN LEIBHART

PERSONALLY AND IN HIS

DefendantS.

)


2/26


DETECTIVE OF COLUMBIA

POLICE DEPARTMENT.

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203

KEN BURTON PERSONALLY

AND IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF

POLICE OF COLUMBIA, MO

POLICE DEPARTMENT ,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA, MO 65203.

STEPHEN MONTICELLI



ASSISTANT CHIEF OF

POLICE OF COLUMBIA, MO

POLICE DEPARTMENT,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA, MO 65203.

ERIC WHITE, PERSONALLY

AND IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS SUPERVISOR

FOR COLUMBIA MO POLICE

DEPARTMENT,


3/26

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA, MO 65203.

ROGER D ALLEN,



SUPERVISOR FOR

COLUMBIA MO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, NORTH 7TH

STREET, COLUMBIA MO

65203

STEVEN D KANEASTER,



POLICE OFFICER FOR CITY

OF COLUMBIA MO POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203

RUKSTAD, PERSONALLY

AND IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS DETECTIVE

FOR CITY OF COLUMBIA

MO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203


4/26

QUINTANA, PERSONALLY

AND IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS POLICE

OFFICER FOR CITY OF

COLUMBIA MO POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203

MCLANE, PERSONALLY

AND IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS DETECTIVE

FOR THE CITY OF

COLUMBIA MO POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

NORTH 7THSTREET,

COLUMBIA, MO 65203.

JOHN DOES 1 10,

PERSONALLY AND IN

THEIR OFFICIAL

CAPACITIES AS ASSISTANT

PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS

FOR THE BOONE COUNTY

PROSECUTING

ATTORNEYS OFFICE,

WALNUT STREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203


5/26

JANE DOES 1 10,

PERSONALLY AND IN

THEIR OFFICIAL

CAPACITIES AS ASSISTANT

PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS

FOR THE BOONE COUNTY

PROSECUTING

ATTORNEYS OFFICE,

WALNUT STREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203

DANIEL KNIGHT,



THE PROSECUTING

ATTORNEY OF THE BOONE

COUNTY PROSECUTING

ATTORNEYS OFFICE,

WALNUT STREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203

TRACY GONZALEZ,

PERSONALLY AND IN HER


THE ASSISTANT

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

OF THE BOONE COUNTY

PROSECUTING

ATTORNEYS OFFICE,


6/26

WALNUT STREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203.

JOHNSON, PERSONALLY

AND IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS AN

ASSISTANT PROSECUTING

ATTORNEY FOR THE

BOONE COUNTY

PROSECUTING

ATTORNEYS OFFICE,

BOONE COUNTY MISSOURI

PROSECUTING

ATTORNEYS OFFICE,

WALNUT STREET,

COLUMBIA MO 65203.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Ahmed Salau, pro se, for his complaint alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CAUSE

This is a civil rights action in which the Plaintiff, Ahmed Salau, seeks relief

for the Defendants violation of his rights secured by the Civil Rights Acts of 1866

and 1871, 42 U.S.C 1983 & 1985, of his rights secured by the 4th, 5th, 13th, 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution and of his rights under the laws and

Constitution of the State of Missouri.


7/26

The Plaintiff seeks damages both compensatory and punitive, affirmative &

equitable relief, special & exemplary damages, an award of costs and attorneys fees

& such other and further relief the Court deems equitable and proper.

The Defendants actions started on/or about October 24 th2010 and

continues till today and occurred substantially in the Western District of Missouri

such that Missouri substantive laws apply herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C 1331, 1343(3)

and (4), this being an action seeking redress for the violation of the Plaintiffs

Constitutional and Civil Rights.

Plaintiffs claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C

2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff further invokes this Courts pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C 1367 (a) as against all parties that are so related to claims in this actionwithin the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or

controversy.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on each and every one of his claims as

pled.

Venue is proper for the United District Court for the Western District of

Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1391 (a), (b) and (c).


8/26

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Ahmed Salau is a natural person and is a resident of

Princeton, West Virginia. Plaintiff majored in chemistry and psychology

and had a minor in women and gender studies. Plaintiff was a research

associate, co-author, co-investigator on a number of ongoing and

completed scientific projects that have been published in peer-reviewed

journals like the American Chemical Society Journal, Journal of

Thermodynamics among others. Plaintiff also had another job as a

nursing assistant at a nursing home and as a customer service agent at a

restaurant. Plaintiff was also involved and/or is a member of numerous

groups on campus including but not limited to STOP TRAFFIC, BAPTIST

STUDENT UNION, ON THE ROCK, AUTISM SPEAKS, PSI CHI, THE

FOOD BANK, Foundation for the International Medical Relief of Children

(FIMRC),among others. Plaintiff is also the Founder, President and Chief

Executive Officer of PARIS Angels a mentoring program for at-risk

youth. The Plaintiff is also the recipient of numerous scholarships for

academic achievement including the McNair National Research

scholarship, Judy C Johnston Chemistry Prize, Mary R Futch HumanitiesPrize, etc. The Plaintiff is an African-American permanent resident of the

United States, and was at all times relevant herein a resident of the City of

Columbia Mo, County of Boone and State of Missouri.

2. Defendant, City of Columbia is a municipal entity created and

authorized under the laws of the State of Missouri. It is authorized by

law to maintain a police department which acts as its agent in the area

of law enforcement and for which it is ultimately responsible. The

Defendant City of Columbia Missouri assumes the risks incidental to

the maintenance of a Police force and the employment of Police


9/26

officers as said risk attaches to the public consumption of the services

provided by the City of Columbia, Missouri Police Department.

3. Defendant City of Columbia Police Department is a municipal entity

created and authorized under the laws of the State of Missouri. It is

authorized by law to carry out all police functions for the Defendant

City of Columbia, Missouri and assumes the risks incidental to the

maintenance of its police force and the employment and supervision

of police officers.

4. Defendant Bob McDavid is a natural person and the Mayor of

Columbia, Missouri with his primary business activities conducted in

Columbia, Missouri and assumes supervisory authorities over the

actions of the Defendants City of Columbia, Missouri, Defendant City of

Columbia Missouri Police Department, Defendant City of Columbia

Missouri Police officers and Defendants City of Columbia Missouri

Police Detectives.

5. Defendant Brain Leibhart is a natural person, a resident of Columbia,

Missouri, and was a detective of the Columbia Police Department and

was at all times relevant herein an officer, employee, and agent of the

Defendants City of Columbia, Missouri and he is sued individually and

in his official capacity.

6. Defendant Ken Burton is a natural person, a resident of Columbia,

Missouri, and is the Chief of Police for the City of Columbia, Missouri

and is responsible for and the Chief architect of the policies, practices

and customs of the City of Columbia Police Department as well as

responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision,

discipline, counselling and control of the Police officers & detectives

under his command. He is sued individually and in his official capacity.


10/26

7. Defendant Stephen Monticelli is a natural person, a resident of

Harrisonburg, Virginia, and was the Assistant Chief of Police for the

City of Columbia, Missouri and was responsible for the hiring,

screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counselling and

control of the police officers & detectives under his command. He is

sued individually and in his official capacity.

8. Defendant Eric White is a natural person, a resident of Columbia,

Missouri, and is a Supervisor of Defendant Steven Kaneaster and

directly responsible for Defendant Kaneasters actions as a city of

Columbia Missouri Police officer. He is sued individually and in his

official capacity.

9. Defendant Roger Allen is a natural person, a resident of Columbia

Missouri and is a Supervisor of Defendant Brian Leibhart and directly

responsible for Defendant Leibharts actions as a city of Columbia

Missouri Detective. He is sued individually and in his official capacity.

10. Defendant Steven Kaneaster is a natural person and a resident of

Columbia Missouri, and was a detective of the Columbia Police

Department and was at all times relevant herein an officer, employee,

and agent of the Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri and he is sued

individually and in his official capacity.

11. Defendant Rukstad is a natural person and a resident of Columbia

Missouri and was a detective of the Columbia Police Department and

was at all times relevant herein an officer, employee and agent of the

Defendant City of Columbia, Missouri and he is sued individually and


12. Defendant Thomas Quintana is a natural person and a resident of

Columbia Missouri and was a police officer of the Columbia Missouri


11/26

Police Department and was at all times relevant herein an officer,

employee and agent of the Defendant City of Columbia Missouri and

he is sued individually and in his official capacity.

13.

Defendant McLane is a natural person and a resident of Columbia

Missouri and was a detective of the Columbia Police Department and

was at all times relevant here in an officer, employee and agent of the

Defendant City of Columbia Missouri and she is sued individually and


14. Defendant Boone County Prosecuting Attorneys Office is a municipal

entity created and authorized under the laws of the State of Missouri

to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct within the County of

Boone, Missouri and the City of Columbia Missouri and assumes the

risks incidental to the employment, training and supervision of her

assistant prosecuting attorneys. The office is sued in her official

capacity.

15. Defendant Boone County Prosecuting Attorney Daniel R. Knight is and

was at all times relevant herein the Prosecuting Attorney of the

County of Boone and is responsible for and the chief architect of the

policies, practices and customs of the Boone county Prosecuting

attorneys office as well as responsible for the hiring, screening,

training, retention, supervision, discipline, counselling and control of

the assistant prosecuting attorneys who work in his office. He is sued

individually and in his official capacity.

16.

Defendant Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Tracy Gonzalez is a natural

person, a resident of Columbia Missouri and was at all times relevant

herein, an officer, employee and an agent of the Boone County


12/26

Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys Office. She is sued individually and in

her official capacity.

17. Defendant Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Johnson is a natural person,

a resident of Columbia Missouri and was at all times relevant herein

an officer, employee, and an agent of the Boone County Missouri

Prosecuting Attorneys Office. She is sued individually and in her

official capacity.

18. Defendants John Does 1 -10 are natural persons and residents of

Columbia Missouri, are assistant Prosecuting Attorneys for the Boone

County Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys office and were at all times

relevant herein officers, employees, and agents of the Boone County

Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys Office. They are sued individually and

in their official capacities.

19. Defendants Jane Does 1 10 are natural persons, residents of

Columbia Missouri, and are assistant Prosecuting attorneys for the

Boone County Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys office and were at all

times relevant herein officers, employees, and agents of the Boone

County Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys Office. They are sued,

individually and in their official capacities.

20. At all times relevant herein, the individual defendants herein were

acting under color of State law in the Course and scope of their duties

and functions as agents, servants, employees and officers of either the

City of Columbia Missouri Police Department, and or the Boone

County Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys office and otherwise

performed and engaged in conduct incidental to the performance of

their lawful functions in the course of their duties. They were acting

for and on behalf of the City of Columbia police Department and the


13/26

Boone County Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys Office at all times

relevant herein with the power and authority vested in them as

officers, agents and employees of City of Columbia Missouri Police

Department and Boone County Prosecuting Attorneys office and

incidental to the lawful pursuit of their duties as officers, employees

and agents of the City of Columbia Missouri Police Department and the

Boone County Prosecuting Attorneys office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

21. On October 24th2010, Plaintiff Ahmed Salau was 26 years old and

lived at 2607 east wood Drive, Apt 41, Columbia, Missouri with his

roommates Diane Leslie Kaster & Randall Gene Williams and his

girlfriend Constance Suzanne Agregaard.

22. Around 9pm, Defendants McLane and Kaneaster came to the Plaintiffs

employment place Columba Manor Care Center and arrested him.

23. When the Plaintiff asked the Defendants what he was under arrest for,

they simply told him they could not tell him and transported him to

the Columbia Police Department.

24. Around 10pm on 10/24/10, the Plaintiff is placed in holding at the

Columbia Police Department and left unattended for over three hours.

25. Around 1:00am, October 25th2010, Defendant Leibhart begins to

question the Plaintiff, after the Plaintiff asserts his Miranda rights, the

Defendant Leibhart continues to question the Plaintiff until the

Plaintiffs sister who is an attorney Olakemi Salau, calls repeated to

the Police Department to stop the questioning and allow her access to

the Plaintiff.

26. Around 3:00am, October 25th2010, Defendant Leibhart released the

Plaintiff from Police questioning and custody.


14/26

27. The Plaintiff repeatedly warns the Defendant Leibhart that he was in

an extremely selective Air Force Select program and to make sure he

properly investigated the matter and to not ruin his life with a rape

charge.

28. On Monday October 25th2010, the Plaintiff hires David Tyson Smith to

represent him and Attorney Smith cancels a meeting previously

scheduled with Defendant leibhart.

29. On Tuesday, October 26th, 2010, the Defendants Leibhart and Mclane

came to the Plaintiffs apartment to interview him, which request was

denied,

30. On Wednesday October 27th, 2010, Defendant Leibhart submitted a

falsified probable cause statement for a warrant which was reviewed

by Defendant Gonzalesz and Defendant Knight and subsequently

authorized without any scintilla of evidence.

31. On Friday, October 29th2010, the Plaintiff writes a detailed letter to

the Defendants City of Columbia Missouri, City of Columbia Missouri

Police Department, Bob McDavid, Tracy Gonzalez, Johnson, Leibhart,

and Ken Burton professing his actual innocence and providing proof

by way of pictures, insurance receipts, bills & phone records all to no

avail.

32. On the same day, he is arrested by Defendant Leibhart and Quintana

and taken to the Boone County Jail for processing.

33. The Plaintiffs arrest was not just as aresult of sloppy police or

investigative work done by the Defendants but was a deliberate act

undertaken by the Defendants pursuant to the policies, practices, and

customs of the Defendants City of Columbia Missouri, City of Columbia

Police Department, and Boone County Missouri Prosecuting

Attorneys Office, and were undertaken in a manner and method

designed to exploit Plaintiffs lack of financial resources, the Plaintiffs

race, ethnicity, and nationality and the Plaintiff.


15/26

34. The Plaintiff had previously informed the Defendants of the presence

of numerous witnesses who could testify to the consensual

relationship between the Plaintiff and Constance Agregaard his Air

Force Recruiters, His Managers at work, his attorney friend Olayinka

Hamza, and his roommates.

35. Nonetheless, even after the Defendants Leibhart & McLane

interviewed Sgt. Dobrow the Plaintiffs Air Force Recruiter, and

became aware of the consensual nature of the relationship, the

Defendants Knight, Gonzalez, and Boone County Prosecuting

Attorneys office still continued to prosecute the Plaintiff.

36. In fact, the Defendants knew at the time of the arrest that the Plaintiff

& Constance Agregaard were in fact in a consensual relationship but

deliberately failed to explore that facet of the case.

37. The failure of the Defendants to declare the Plaintiffs actual innocence

was not simply the result of sloppy investigative work; it

demonstrates a deliberate intent on the part of the Defendants to

cover up the Plaintiffs innocence because it would have completely

undermined the integrity of the prosecution of the Plaintiff; a

prosecution which both the prosecuting attorney and Police Officer

Defendants were heavily invested in both because of the extreme

amount of public attention to the prosecution and for the benefit of

their careers.

38. As of May 11th2011, the Plaintiff had been prosecuted for more than

seven months for a charge of forcible rape. Plaintiff had lost out on

income, familial and social interaction, education and loss of good

name.

39. Throughout his confinement, the Plaintiff has consistently denied

forcibly raping his girlfriend.

40. In November 2010, the Defendants Knight, Burton, Monticelli, White,

Allen, Gonzalez, Boone County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, City of


16/26

Columbia Police Department were provided with explicit still video

images showing no rape in fact occurred.

41. The Defendants deliberately ignored the evidence and continued to

request continuance after continuance and prosecuting the matter In

bad faith.

42. Sometime in 2010 or 2011, the alleged victim recanted her statement

and the Defendants still failed to declare the Plaintiffs actual

innocence.

43. The Defendants obtained statements from Leslie Diane Kaster &

Randall Gene Williams that were favorable to the Plaintiff but falsified

their notes to align the statements with their malicious intent.

44. The Defendant police officers, detectives and prosecuting attorneys

knew or should have known at the time, and, on information and

belief, concealed from the Plaintiffs and his Defense Counsel and from

the Public as well, that at the time they had misrepresented the

statements of Kaster & Williams: they had information about the

actual innocence of the Plaintiff.

45. The Defendants knew the Plaintiff was being actually recruited for an

elite Air Force program Yet they deliberately ignored these facts in

favor of a speedy and politically expedient accusation that the Plaintiff

allegedly raped his girlfriend.

46. In addition to their efforts to suppress the truth at the time of the

prosecution, the Defendants here continued to actively conspire to

propound the belief that the Plaintiff was actually and was in fact

complicit in the crimes he was charged with notwithstanding his

exoneration by the Court, the physical evidence showing the

relationship was consensual, the recantation of Constance Aregaard,

and the statement of Plaintiffs Air Force Recruiter Sgt Jeffrey Dobrow;

and the Defendants engaged in misconduct in the course of their

investigation and prosecution of the Plaintiff.


17/26

47. The Defendants illegal arrest, confinement and imprisonment,

malicious prosecution without probable cause, with the attendant

suppression of exoneratory and exculpatory evidence, the coercion

and manufacture and intentional misrepresentation of knowingly

false evidence, and the deception of the Missouri Courts concerning

this evidence, constituted an unconstitutional seizure of the Plaintiff,

and was effectuated without due process of law, in violation of the 4 th

& 14thAmendment of the United States Constitution and proximately

caused and directly caused the Plaintiffs grievous and permanent

injury including more than 7 months of imprisonment, and the

attendant loss of freedom, companionship, and income, mental and

physical pain, suffering, anguish, fear, and humiliation and defamation

of character & reputation which caused by the Plaintiffs public

branding as a rapist.

48. The conduct of the Defendants in maliciously prosecuting and

conspiring to cover up the truth about what happened at 2607 Est

wood Drive in 2010 and in subsequently ratifying this wrongful

conduct in 2012, proximately caused the Plaintiff serious an

permanent physical and emotional injury, pain and suffering, mental

anguish, humiliation and embarrassment.

49. The conduct of The Defendants has irreparably injured the Plaintiff.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(VIOLATION OF RIGHTS SECURED BY 42 U.S.C 1981 AND THE

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION)


18/26

50. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs

1 to 50 as if fully set forth at length herein.

51.

The conduct and actions of the Defendants acting under color of Statelaw, in subjecting the Plaintiff who is African American to malicious

prosecution and a conspiracy to cover up the truth was motivated by

racial animus and done intentionally, maliciously and/or with a

reckless disregard for the natural and probable consequence of their

acts, was done without lawful justification, and was designed to and

did cause specific and serious bodily, mental and emotional harm, pain

and suffering in violation of the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights as

guaranteed under 42 U.S.C 1981 and the 4thand 13thAmendment of

the United States Constitution.

52. Defendants actions forever paint the Plaintiff in a bad light, forever

damage his business, educational and social prospects and curtail his

associations forever and have severely damaged the Plaintiff both

emotionally, physically, socially, and fiscally.

53. Plaintiff has been and is forever damaged by Defendants tortious

misconduct.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(VIOLATION OF RIGHTS SECUIRED BY 42 U.S.C 1983 AND THE

14THAMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FOR ASSUALTING

AND DETAINING THE PLAINTIFF)




19/26

55. The conduct and actions of the Defendants acting under color of state

law, in subjecting the Plaintiff who is African American to malicious

prosecution and a conspiracy to cover up the truth was motivated by

racial animus, was done intentionally, maliciously and/or with a

reckless disregard for the natural and probable consequence of their

acts, was done without lawful justification, and was designed to and

did cause specific and serious bodily , mental, and emotional harm,

pain and suffering in violation of the Plaintiffs Constitutionally

guaranteed rights under 2 U.S.C 1983, and the 4th& 14th

Amendments to the United States Constitution.






misconduct.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(VIOLATION OF RIGHTS SECURED BY 42 U.S.C 1983 & 1985 &

THE 14THAMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.)



59. Defendants Bob McDavid, Ken Burton, Stephen Monticelli, Brian

Leibhart, Steven Kaneaster, Thomas Quintana, Eric White, Roger Allen,

Rukstad, McLane, with other investigative, supervisory, and


20/26

concerned personnel, together and under color of State law, reached

an understanding, engaged in a course of conduct, and otherwise

conspired among and between themselves to deprive the Plaintiff of

his Constitutional rights, and did deprive Plaintiff of said right,

including the right to be free from unreasonable arrest and from

wrongful confinement, imprisonment, and from malicious

prosecution, and their right to access the Courts as protected by the

1st, 4th, & 14thAmendment of the United States constitution and 42

U.S.C 1983 because said actions were done with the knowledge &

purpose of depriving Plaintiff who is African American of the equal

protection of the laws and /or of equal privileges and immunities

under the law, and with racial animus towards the Plaintiff, they also

deprived Plaintiff of the right to equal protection of the laws under the

14th Amendment, 42 U.S.C 1983 &1985.

60. In furtherance of this conspiracy or conspiracies, the Defendants

named above, together with their unsued co-conspirators committed

the overt acts set forth in the facts set forth above, including but not

limited to the wrongful arrest, imprisonment and prosecution ofPlaintiff; the manufacture by the methods articulated above of

knowingly false inculpatory evidence against the Plaintiff; the

suppression of exoneratory & exculpatory evidence, including but not

limited to the Sgt. Dobrow interviews, the Kaster & Wiliiams

interview,; wither at the time it was received or after it became known

that there was not scientific or physical evidence that linked the

Plaintiff to the crime alleged; the physical abuse and psychological

coercion of the Plaintiff in an attempt to compel him to make false

inculpatory statements; and the presentation of these known

misstatements, knowingly false and incomplete evidence to


21/26

prosecutors, judges; & the filing of false and incomplete statements &

reports.

61. Said conspiracies and overt acts are continuing in nature, and caused

Plaintiffs constitutional injuries, pain, suffering, fear, mental anguish,

incarceration , imprisonment, humiliation, defamation of character

and reputation, and loss of freedom, companionship, and income as

set forth more fully above.






misconduct.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C 1983 MONELL CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF COLUMBIA

MISSOURI)



65. Defendant Ken Burton as Chief of Police for City of Columbia, Missouri

is by operation of State law and as a matter of fact, the final decision

maker for Columbia, Mo with regard to the investigation, arrest,

custodial and administrative acts, omissions, and decisions which he

made or participated in as alleged above.


22/26

66. In 2012, 2013, 2014, the Defendant Burton and his co-defendant

Police Officers & detectives have continued to make statements to

other entities alleging that the Plaintiff is in fact not innocent of the

crime he was exonerated of.

67. In so doing, Defendant Burton and co-defendant police officers,

detectives ratified and condoned the wrongdoing that took place.

68. These acts by Defendant Burton directly and proximately caused the

Constitutional injuries to the Plaintiff and are directly chargeable to

the Defendant City of Columbia Missouri because of Defendant

Burtons status as final decision maker for the City with regard to

matters involving City of Columbia Police Department.

69. Additionally and/or alternatively, on information and belief, the City

of Columbia Missouri through its Police Department and Police

Detectives including Defendant Stephen Monticelli had in effect both

before and at the time of the events alleged in this complaint, several

inter-related de facto policies, practices and customs, including inter

alia:

a. A policy, practice and custom of suppressing, destroying or

otherwise secreting from criminal Defendants exculpatory or

exoneratory evidence; and

b, A policy, practice and custom of failing to properly train or

supervise officers on the proper techniques of investigating serious

crimes, particularly where African American and foreign born

residents were involved or to properly discipline officers who violate

the Constitution or otherwise transgress the rights of criminal

suspects during their investigations.

70. These interrelated policies, practices and customs separately and/or

together were implemented with deliberate indifference, and were a

direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs Constitutional injuries as

set forth above.


23/26






misconduct.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C 1983 MONELL CLAIM AGAINST THE BOONE COUNTY

PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OFFICE)



74. The Boone County Prosecuting Attorneys Office itself also had in

effect, both before and at the time of the events alleged in this

complaint, several inter-related defactopolicies, practices and

customs, including interalia:

a. A policy, practice and custom of suppressing, destroying or

otherwise secreting from criminal Defendants exculpatory or

exoneratory evidence; and

b. A policy, practice and customs of failing to properly train or

supervise Assistant prosecuting attorneys and investigators in the

proper techniques of investigating serious crimes, particularly where

African-American and foreign-born residents are involved or to

properly discipline officers and investigators who violate the

Constitution or law or otherwise transgress the rights of criminal

suspects during their investigations.

75. These interrelated policies, practices and customs, separately and/or

together, were implemented with deliberate indifference, and were a


24/26

direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs Constitutional injuries as

set forth above.






misconduct.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER STATE LAW)



79. By The actions described above, each and all of the Defendants jointly

and severally have committed the following wrongful acts against the

Plaintiff which are tortious under the laws of the State of Missouri.

a. Malicious Prosecution

b. Conspiracy to cover-up

c. Negligence in causing the injuries to the Plaintiff

d. Intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that

the Defendants intended to and did cause the Plaintiff severe

emotional distress, and the Defendantsacts were outrageous in

the extreme and utterly unacceptable in a civilized society.

e. Negligent hiring, screening, retention, supervision and training of

Defendant Police Officers by Defendants City of Columbia Missouri

and City of Columbia Missouri Police Department.

f. Negligent hiring, screening, retention, supervision and training of

Defendant Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys by Defendant Boone

County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, Defendant Dan Knight and


25/26

the Defendant City of Columbia Missouri and Defendant City of

Columbia Missouri Police Department.

g. Conspiracy by the Defendants to commit all of the above acts;

h. Violation of rights otherwise guaranteed to the plaintiff under the

laws and constitutions of the State of Missouri.

80. The foregoing acts and conduct of the Defendants were the direct and

proximate cause of injury and damage to the Plaintiffs and violated his

statutory and common law rights as guaranteed him the laws and

constitution of the State of Missouri.






misconduct.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(RESPONDEAT SUPERIORCLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF COLUMBIA MISSOUIR AND

THE BOONE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OFFICE)



84. The Defendants were at all times relevant to this Court, employees,

and agents of either the City of Columbia Missouri or the Boone

County Prosecuting Attorneys Office. Each of the Defendants was

acting within the scope of his or her employment and their acts and

omissions as alleged above, are therefore directly chargeable to their

respective employers under State law under the doctrine of

Respondeat Superior.


26/26






misconduct.

WHEREFORE,THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF JOINTLY AND

SEVERALLY AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS:

A. COMPENSATORY, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE

DAMAGES FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000,000.00

B. THE CONVENING AND EMPANELLING OF A JURY TO CONSIDER THE

MERITS OF THE CLAIMS HEREIN;

C. A COURT ORDER PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C 1988 THAT THE

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE COSTS INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING

THIS ACTION AND ATTORNEYS FEES;

D. SUCH OTHER & FURTHER RELIEF AS THIS COURT MAY DEEM

APPROPRIATE AND EQUITABLE, INCLUDING INJUNCTIVE,

DECLARATORY RELIEF AS MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Ahmed Salau

Plaintiff Pro Se

P O Box 6008

Princeton, WV 24740Phone) 5403151147 Fax) 5403016034 [email protected] Princeton, West Virginia November 27th, 2014.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

City of Columbia Police Department Civil Rights Lawsuit Ahmed Salau

Documents

Transcript of City of Columbia Police Department Civil Rights Lawsuit Ahmed Salau