Rivera Lawsuit

8/13/2019 Rivera Lawsuit

1/5

UNITED ST TES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT O CONNECTICUT

PEDRO RIVERA,Plaintiff,v.BRIAN FOLEY,EDWARD YERGEAU,HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT,Defendants.

cv

FEBRUARY 18 2014C OM PL IN T

1. This is an action alleging violation of the plaintiff s federal constitutionalrights: specifically his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures,and his First Amendment right to freedom of expression .

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Sections1331 and 1343(3) of Title 28 and, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988.

3. At all times relevant to this action , the plaintiff , Pedro Rivera , was an adultresident of the State of Connecticut, residing in Hartford.

4. At all times relevant to this action, Brian Foley was a lieutenant in theHartford Police Department, acting under color of his authority as a police officer. He issued in his individual capacity only .

5. At all times relevant to this action , Edward Yergeau was a sergeant in theHartford Police Department, acting under color of his authority as a police officer. He issued in his individual capacity only.


2/5

6 The City of Hartford is a municipal entity organized and operating underthe laws of the State of Connecticut. The city maintains a police department for theprotection of persons within municipal boundaries.

7. On February 1, 2014, the plaintiff heard on a police scanner that there wasa serious motor vehicle accident in the City of Hartford. He responded to the scene othe accident, where he operated a remote-controlled model aircraft, colloquially knownas a drone, he owns to hover over the accident scene and to record visual images othe accident scene. His device was hovering at an altitude of 150 feet. At all timesrelevant to this action, the plaintiff was standing outside of the area denoted as thecrime scene by officers responding to the accident. He was standing in a public place,operating his device in public space, observing events that were in plain view.

8. Although the plaintiff is employed as a photographer and editor at a localtelevision station , he was not acting as an employee o the television station at the time,a fact he made clear to police officers who were also at the accident scene, includingdefendant Yergeau and others.

9. The plaintiff did acknowledge to defendant Yergeau and others that hedoes, from time to time, forward the video feed from his drone to the television stationfor which he works.

10. While at the scene of the accident, defendant Yergeau and other

uniformed members of the Hartford Police Department surrounded the plaintiff,demanded his identification card, and asked him questions about what he was doing.


3/5

The plaintiff did not feel as though he were free to leave during the course of thisquestioning .

11 . Defendant Yergeau and other uniformed members of the Hartford PoliceDepartment demanded that the plaintiff cease operating the device over the accidentscene, and that he leave the area .

12 The plaintiff was not in violation of any state or federal law when theofficers stopped him, detained him, and then ordered him to stop flying his deviceover the crime scene and to leave the area .13 The plaintiff was not operating a civil aircraft within the meaning o any

state or federal regulations when the officers stopped him , detained him, and thenordered him to stop flying his device over the crime scene and to leave the area .

14 Private citizens do not need local, state or federal approval to operate aremote-controlled model aircraft.

15 . There was no probable cause, or arguable probable cause, to believe thatthe plaintiff was in violation o any law or regulatory requirement when defendantYergeau and other uniformed members of the Hartford Police Department detained him .

16 The actions o defendant Yergeau and other uniformed members o theHartford Police Department were intentional and inspired by improper motive, to wit: toimpede the exercise o the plaintiff's First Amendment rights in monitoring the policeresponse to a motor vehicle accident.

17 Immediately after the plaintiff was ordered to leave the crime scene,defendant Foley contacted the plaintiff's employer, and spoke to one of the plaintiff's


4/5

supervisors . Defendant Foley complained that the plaintiff had interfered with the policedepartment's investigation of the accident, and had compromised the crime scene'sintegrity. Upon information and belief, defendant Foley either requested that disciplinebe imposed upon the plaintiff by his employer, or suggested that the employer couldmaintain its goodwill with the employer by disciplining the plaintiff.

18 As a direct and proximate result of defendant Foley's contact with theplaintiff's employer, the plaintiff was suspended from work for a period o at least oneweek

19 Defendant Foley intended to chill, and did chill, the plaintiff in his FirstAmendment right to freedom of speech.

20. Defendant Foley was inspired by improper motive : to wit, to prevent thepublic at large to have video reports of what police officers do in the investigation of acrime.

21 The City o Hartford's Police Department maintains a policy, practice andcustom of seeking to prevent citizens from filming their conduct at arrests, at the sceneof criminal investigations, and at accident scenes. The actions o each individuallynamed defendant, and of the unnamed uniformed police officers, were undertakenunder cloak of that policy, practice or custom.

22. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions complained ofherein, the plaintiff suffered ascertainable economic loss in the form of a lost week ofwages, emotion distress and the loss of his constitutional right to be free fromunreasonable seizures to freedom of speech .

4


5/5

Wherefore, the plaintiff seeks damages as follows:1. Compensatory damages;2. Punitive damages, as against the individually named defendants only ;3. Declaratory relief establishing that his operation of a remote-controlled

model aircraft in the manner and means herein described is not a violationof any federal , local or state law or regulation ;

4. Injunctive relief forbidding the City of Hartford s Police Department frominterfering with the lawful operation of drones within city limits;

5 Attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;6. Such other relief as this Court deems fair and equitable .

TRI L CL IMThe plaintiff claims trial by jury as to all legal issues in the instant action.

P ORMAN A PATTISct13120649 Amity RoadBethany, CT 06524203.393.3017203.393.9745 (fax)

Rivera Lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Rivera Lawsuit