Post on 12-Jul-2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RACHEL LONG, as Administrator for the ESTATE OF DONTE LAMONT SOWELL and on behalf of herself,
Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARMTENT OFFICER JAVED RICHARDS, AS-YET UNKNOWN METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, AMBER WOODS COOPERATIVE, FLAHERTY & COLLINS PROPERTIES, SPECIAL TASK FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY LLC (A.K.A. CRIME PREVENTION TASK FORCE SPECIAL SERVICES, INC.), STEPFON SEYMOUR, and AS-YET UNKNOWN SECURITY GUARD EMPLOYEES OF THE SPECIAL TASK FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY LLC,
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 15 C 252 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Rachel Long, as Administrator for the Estate of Donte Lamont Sowell,
by and through her attorneys, Loevy & Loevy, complains of Defendants City of
Indianapolis; Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Officer Javed
Richards and other unknown Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officers
(collectively, “Defendant Officers”); Amber Woods Cooperative; Flaherty & Collins
Properties; Special Task Force Protection Agency LLC (also known as Crime Prevention
Task Force Special Services, Inc.); and Stepfon Seymour and other as-yet unknown
Security Guards employed by Special Task Force Protection Agency LLC (collectively,
Defendant Security Guards”), stating:
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 1 of 28
2
Introduction
1. Donte Lamont Sowell was shot in the back and killed without justification
by one or more of the Defendant Officers and Defendant Security Guards. At the time
the Defendants killed Mr. Sowell, he had surrendered, was unarmed, and presented no
threat to Defendants or anyone else.
2. To cover up their misconduct, the Defendants falsely claimed that Mr.
Sowell had shot at them. In actuality, all of the shooting was perpetrated by various
Defendants, who were each shooting at Mr. Sowell.
3. The Defendants’ unlawful conduct is the product of the policies and
practices of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”), which has for
years permitted its officers and agents to shoot at Indianapolis residents without any
meaningful training, supervision, post-incident review, or discipline.
4. Mr. Sowell’s death has proven no exception to this rule. Within hours of
the shooting, IMPD spokespersons relayed Defendants’ false account to the media, thus
deeming it justified before a proper investigation could take place.
5. Not only has Indianapolis failed to hold anyone accountable for Mr.
Sowell’s death, but it has also refused to disclose any meaningful information about the
shooting – including any video recordings of the shooting – to Mr. Sowell’s family.
6. Ms. Long brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Indiana law
to hold Defendants accountable for their actions; to redress the devastating injuries to
Mr. Sowell’s Estate caused by the unjustified shooting; and to require IMPD to release
any existing video of Mr. Sowell’s shooting.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 2 of 28
3
Jurisdiction and Venue 7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1367.
8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events giving rise to
the claims asserted herein all occurred within the district, Defendant City of
Indianapolis is a municipal corporation located here, and, on information and belief, all
or most of the parties reside in this judicial district.
Parties
9. Before he was shot and killed by the Defendants, Donte Lamont Sowell
was a 27-year-old lifelong resident of Indianapolis, a much beloved member of his close-
knit community, and a father to three young children. At the time of his death, Mr.
Sowell lived with his fiancée, Rachel Long, who was pregnant with Mr. Sowell’s fourth
child, a daughter born in August 2015.
10. Rachel Long is the administrator of Mr. Sowell’s estate and was Mr.
Sowell’s fiancée at the time of his death.
11. Defendant City of Indianapolis is a municipal corporation under the laws
of the State of Indiana.
12. Defendant Javed Richards is an IMPD police officer. At all times relevant
to this Complaint, Defendant Richards and as-yet unknown City of Indianapolis police
officers acted under color of law and within the scope of their employment as police
officers for the City of Indianapolis.
13. Defendant Amber Woods Cooperative is the housing development where
Mr. Sowell was shot and killed. Defendant Amber Woods Cooperative is owned and
managed by Flaherty & Collins Properties.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 3 of 28
4
14. Defendant Flaherty & Collins Properties develops, owns, and manages
residential apartments including the Amber Woods Cooperative housing development
where Mr. Sowell was shot and killed. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Defendant Flaherty & Collins Properties employed Defendant Special Task Force
Protection Services Agency LLC to provide police services at the Amber Woods
Cooperative despite having previously received notice of a myriad of complaints from
residents that security guards employed by Special Task Force Protection Services
Agency LLC routinely harassed residents and overstepped their authority at the Amber
Woods Cooperative.
15. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLC (a.k.a. Crime
Prevention Task Force Special Services, Inc.) is a security company located in
Indianapolis, Indiana that employed the Defendant Security Guard(s) who shot Mr.
Sowell. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Special Task Force
Protection Agency LLC provided police services in the Amber Woods Cooperative; hired
current or former police officers; acted in concert with, as agents for, and with the
approval of IMPD; patrolled a low-income housing development funded by state money;
and acted with police powers granted by a state licensing body. Special Task Force
Protection Agency LLC continued to employ Defendant Stephfon Seymour and the
other Defendant Security Guards despite having received notice of a myriad of
complaints from residents that security guards employed by Special Task Force
Protection Services Agency LLC routinely harassed residents and overstepped their
authority at the Amber Woods Cooperative.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 4 of 28
5
16. Defendant Stephfon Seymour is a security guard employed by Special
Task Force Protection Services Agency LLC. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Defendant Seymour and other as-yet unknown security guards employed by Special
Task Force Protection Services Agency LLC to provide security at the Amber Woods
Cooperative acted as state actors. They were current and/or former law enforcement
officers themselves; they acted in concert with and as agents for IMPD; their conduct
was facilitated, condoned, and approved of by IMPD; they acted with police powers
granted by a state licensing body; and they patrolled a low-income housing development
funded by state money.
The Shooting of Mr. Sowell
17. On the evening of January 15, 2015, Donte Sowell and his brother left the
Amber Woods Cooperative in Indianapolis by car.
18. Within just two blocks of his departure from the Amber Woods
apartments, Mr. Sowell’s brother, who was driving, was pulled over for a traffic stop by
a female Defendant Officer in a marked police car.
19. The traffic stop was unlawful. The female Defendant Officer lacked any
reasonable basis to believe that Mr. Sowell’s brother had done anything illegal or
improper. In fact, Mr. Sowell’s brother had not violated any law or ordinance while
driving.
20. Nonetheless, Mr. Sowell’s brother promptly pulled into the gas station at
the corner of 38th Street and Mitthoefer Road and stopped the car.
21. Mr. Sowell, alarmed by the unjustified stop, exited the car and ran south
in the direction of the Amber Woods Apartments.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 5 of 28
6
22. The female Defendant Officer searched Mr. Sowell’s brother and the car.
She found no weapons or contraband of any sort and did not charge Mr. Sowell’s
brother with any traffic or criminal violations.
23. The female Defendant Officer radioed a description of Mr. Sowell’s
appearance and location on a publicly available frequency.
24. As Mr. Sowell ran into Amber Woods, one or more Defendant Officers and
one or more Defendant Security Guards began shooting at Mr. Sowell, who had done
nothing to justify this use of deadly force.
25. Mr. Sowell surrendered, but the Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant
Security Guard(s) continued to shoot at him, coordinating their efforts.
26. As Defendants were well aware, Mr. Sowell was unarmed and posed no
threat to anyone at the time Defendants shot him.
27. The Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant Security Guard(s) fired many
bullets at Mr. Sowell, at least two of which hit him in the back.
28. Additional Defendant Officers and Defendant Security Guards who were
present had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the violation of Mr. Sowell’s
constitutional rights, but failed to do so.
29. Defendant Officers were the first people to reach Mr. Sowell after the
shooting and recovered no weapon from him or the surrounding area.
30. The Defendant Officers handcuffed Mr. Sowell, who was lying on the
ground gravely wounded. They did not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”)
or provide any other medical assistance in the time it took for an ambulance to arrive.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 6 of 28
7
31. Mr. Sowell remained alive and experienced excruciating pain and
suffering from the time he was first shot by the Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant
Security Guard(s) until he died – handcuffed to a hospital bed – several hours later.
32. The fatal shooting of Mr. Sowell was entirely unjustified and unnecessary.
Mr. Sowell had done nothing which could have justified the use of deadly force.
33. After the shooting, the Defendant Officers falsely claimed that Mr. Sowell
had fired at them, to conceal their misconduct.
34. Those statements were fabricated. As is explained above, Mr. Sowell
presented no threat to anyone and was not carrying a gun – let alone shooting one –
when Defendants killed him.
35. On the night of the shooting, IMPD spokespersons relayed to the media
that Mr. Sowell had shot at police officers, thus justifying the Defendant Officers’
conduct within hours of its occurrence. That justification was patently false.
36. In addition to falsely deeming the Defendant Officers’ shooting justified,
the City of Indianapolis failed to investigate or prosecute the Defendant Security
Guard(s) for shooting at Mr. Sowell without cause and conspired with them to conceal
the unjustified nature of the shooting.
37. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, the Estate of Donte Sowell suffered
devastating injuries that included physical harm from at least six gunshot wounds;
death; loss of liberty, property, and companionship; great mental anguish; humiliation;
degradation; anxiety; and financial loss.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 7 of 28
8
The City of Indianapolis’s Policies and Practices
38. The Defendant Officer and Security Guards’ unlawful conduct was
directly caused by the City of Indianapolis and IMPD’s deficient policies and practices
regarding police shootings of civilians. These policies and practices include the failure
to provide meaningful training and supervision regarding the use of deadly force, such
as against people fleeing from police officers; inadequate post-incident review; and a
lack of meaningful discipline for excessive force, including the use of unjustified deadly
force.
39. IMPD, which was created in 2007 through a merger of the Indianapolis
Police Department and the Marion County Sheriff’s Department, has a long history of
unjustified police shootings and other use of force violations. As but a few examples:
a. In 1996, a jury found that Indianapolis police officers Charles F.
Penniston and Edwin M. Aurs had killed 16-year-old Michael Taylor while he was
handcuffed in the back of a squad car. The police initially claimed that Taylor had shot
himself in the head, while handcuffed, with a gun hidden in his shoe. A jury rejected
that version of events, awarding Taylor’s family over $3 million dollars in damages.
Penniston and Aurs, however, were permitted to remain on duty.
b. In 2001, Officer Ronald Shelnutt of the Marion County Sheriff’s
Department awoke, shot, and killed a sleeping stockbroker who had broken into his
own home because he did not have his keys. Although the City settled the case for
nearly a million dollars, the Indianapolis Firearms Review Board exonerated Shelnutt
of all misconduct. Not only did Indianapolis fail to fire Shelnett at that time, but it
continued to employ him after he was involved in a 2005 high speed chase that ended in
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 8 of 28
9
two deaths, prompting a second wrongful death lawsuit; after he was accused in two
separate cases of releasing K-9 dogs on suspects who had surrendered, both of which
resulted in confidential settlements; and after he initiated a high-speed chase in 2008
that caused yet another two fatalities. Shelnutt remains on the IMPD force today.
c. In May 2010, Indianapolis police officer Jerry Piland subjected 15-
year-old Brandon Johnson to an unjustified beating that was documented in horrific
photographs. Although the advisory Indianapolis Citizens Police Complaint Board
recommended disciplinary action and Indianapolis settled the resulting lawsuit for
$150,000, IMPD’s Internal Affairs Division exonerated Piland of any wrongdoing and
placed him back on duty.
d. In May 2014, IMPD officers Justin Beaton and Jennifer Gabel
kicked and repeatedly deployed their stun guns on 29-year-old Marcus Jackson. A
portion of Jackson’s arrest was captured on video, showing Beaton brutalizing Jackson
as he lay limp and face-down. Despite public outcry, Indianapolis failed to discipline
the officers and placed them back on duty, until Beaton was arrested earlier this year
for beating and attempting to murder his girlfriend.
40. The City of Indianapolis’s rate of police shootings of civilians is
staggeringly high. In 2013, for example, IMPD officers shot and killed nearly as many
civilians as police in New York City, whose population is nearly ten times greater than
that of Indianapolis. See Killed by Police 2013, http://www.killedbypolice.net.
41. This year alone, Indianapolis Municipal Police Department officers have
fatally shot and killed at least seven people, including Mr. Sowell. See Killed by Police
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 9 of 28
10
2015, http://www.killedbypolice.net; http://wishtv.com/2015/08/18/family-demands-
answers-after-man-dies-in-police-shooting/.
42. As high-ranking police leaders acknowledge, inadequate training,
supervision, and review of police officers sharply increases of the frequency of police
shootings. For example, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly credits New York’s
success in reducing police shootings to its “improvement in training procedures and a
more thorough shooting-review process.” See Sean Gardner, NYPD Marks All Time
Low In Shootings, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 11, 2011. Likewise, Police Chief Gary
McCarthy credits “better training and supervision as well as restraint by officers” for
reductions in shootings in Chicago. See Jeremy Gorner, Police-Involved Shootings
Down Sharply in Chicago So Far This Year, Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2015.
43. Unlike some of their counterparts, however, Indianapolis and IMPD have
failed to adopt reforms to reduce unnecessary and unjustified police shootings despite
notice of their occurrence at disturbing rates.
44. When excessive force incidents occur, IMPD rarely undertakes a
meaningful review and almost never disciplines any officers. A 2012 external audit of
IMPD’s Professional Standards Division concluded that “the current system of
managing and ensuring police accountability in the IMPD is significantly flawed, if not
broken.” See Audit: IMPD's Issues ‘Significant, Problematic’: Consulting Group Reviews
Department's Internal Investigation Process, The Indy Channel, March 26, 2012.
45. Recognizing the scope of IMPD officer misconduct, former Indianapolis
Public Safety Director Frank Straub stated in 2010: “We have ignored people, and
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 10 of 28
11
trouble has followed. Inaction by supervisors or someone else led to unnecessary
incidents.” See It’s gotten out of control, IndyStar.com, Aug. 29, 2010.
46. Indianapolis and IMPD’s failures to train, supervise, review, and
discipline police officers with regard to unjustified police shootings – in the face of
widespread de facto policies permitting the use of excessive deadly force – reflect
deliberate indifference to Indianapolis residents and were the moving force behind Mr.
Sowell’s tragic and unnecessary death.
IMPD’s Refusal to Release Video of Mr. Sowell’s Shooting
47. Due to the ubiquitous nature of recording devices, the deadly encounter
between Defendants and Mr. Sowell may well have been captured on video. Many
police squad cars are equipped with recording devices; many buildings and city buses
record surveillance video; many members of the public use cell phones to record
suspicious police interactions; and, at the time of Mr. Sowell’s shooting, certain IMPD
officers were equipped with body cameras.
48. Following the Defendants’ killing of Mr. Sowell, Plaintiff requested from
IMPD a copy of any video recordings depicting Defendants’ shooting of Mr. Sowell.
Specifically, Plaintiff requested:
A copy of all video recordings depicting any events that transpired during the interaction between Donte Sowell and members of IMPD on January 15, 2015. This request includes but is not limited to recordings from dashboard cameras, body cameras, police car cameras, security cameras, cameras on buses, and cameras on city buildings.
49. IMPD refused to produce the requested video recordings, in violation of
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the common law.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 11 of 28
12
50. In response, IMPD initially contended that Plaintiff’s request was
insufficiently particular, even after Plaintiff enclosed a copy of the police report
describing the shooting.
51. IMPD also refused to confirm whether or not it had responsive records,
despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for such information.
52. When IMPD finally considered the merits of Plaintiff’s request, it claimed
an entitlement to withhold responsive recordings pursuant to the “investigatory
records” exemption in the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, see Indiana Code § 5-
14-3-4(b)(1).
53. In making this claim, IMPD failed to disclose whether it had any
responsive video recordings, and if so, from what source; failed to offer any justification
for the withholding other than the mere exercise of its discretion; and withheld
responsive records even though it had just released video of IMPD officers’ April 2015
shooting of Mack Long, which post-dated the shooting of Mr. Sowell by nearly three
months.
54. Plaintiff has filed a formal complaint seeking an advisory opinion from
the Office of the Public Access Counsel that declares IMPD’s conduct to be a violation of
Plaintiff’s rights, but has not yet received a response to that complaint.
55. The public’s right to information about the workings of government is a
cornerstone of the democratic form of government, and of particular importance when
police officers shoot and kill civilians.
56. Police departments may not selectively disclose video recordings of police
shootings when such recordings serve their interests, and withhold them when they do
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 12 of 28
13
not. Instead, the public, to fulfill its role of holding police departments accountable, is
entitled to access all video recordings that depict police officers shooting and killing
civilians, such as Mr. Sowell, during the course of performing official police duties in
public places.
Count 1 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Excessive Force
57. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
58. In the manner described above, the conduct of one or more of the
Defendant Officers and Defendant Security Guards constituted excessive force in
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
59. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and
was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Mr. Sowell’s constitutional
rights.
60. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,
willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
61. The Individual Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was
undertaken pursuant to the policy and practice of the City of Indianapolis in that:
a. As a matter of both policy and practice, the IMPD directly
encourages, and is thereby the moving force behind, the very type of misconduct at
issue here by failing to adequately train and supervise its officers regarding the use of
deadly force on fleeing suspects, such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate
indifference;
b. As a matter of both policy and practice, the City facilitates the very
type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately review and discipline prior
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 13 of 28
14
instances of similar misconduct, thereby leading Indianapolis Police Officers to believe
their actions will never be scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging future
abuses such as those affecting Mr. Sowell. Specifically, Indianapolis Police Officers
accused of excessive force can be confident that those accusations will not be
investigated in earnest by the IMPD, and that the IMPD will decline to recommend
discipline even where the officer has engaged in excessive force;
c. Generally, as a matter of widespread practice so prevalent as to
comprise municipal policy, IMPD officers abuse citizens in a manner similar to that
alleged by Plaintiff in this Count on a frequent basis, yet the IMPD makes findings of
wrongdoing in a disproportionately small number of cases;
d. City policy-makers are aware of, and condone and facilitate by
their inaction, a “code of silence” in the IMPD. Police officers routinely fail to report
instances of police misconduct and lie to protect each other from punishment, and go
un-disciplined for doing so; and,
e. The City of Indianapolis has failed to act to remedy the patterns of
abuse, despite actual knowledge of the same, thereby causing the types of injuries
alleged here.
f. The City of Indianapolis fails to utilize records of allegations of
excessive force against its officers to identify and respond to patterns of misconduct by
its officers.
62. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell has suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress,
and death.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 14 of 28
15
Count 2 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 False Arrest
63. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
64. As is described more fully above, one or more of the Defendant Officers
and Defendant Security Guards falsely arrested and unlawfully detained Mr. Sowell
without justification and without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
65. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,
willfulness, and reckless indifference to Mr. Sowell’s constitutional rights.
66. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and
was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Mr. Sowell’s constitutional
rights.
67. The Individual Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was
undertaken pursuant to the custom, policy, and/or practice of Defendant City of
Indianapolis, such that Defendant City of Indianapolis is also liable, as described above.
68. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell has suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress,
and death.
Count 3 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Unlawful Search and Seizure
69. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
70. In the manner described above, one or more of the Defendant Officers and
Defendant Security Guards violated Mr. Sowell’s Fourth Amendment right to be free
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 15 of 28
16
from unreasonable search and seizure by seizing Mr. Sowell without justification and
without probable cause.
71. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and
undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
72. The Individual Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was
undertaken pursuant to the custom, policy, and/or practice of Defendant City of
Indianapolis, such that Defendant City of Indianapolis is also liable, as described above.
73. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell has suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress,
and death.
Count 4 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Failure to Intervene
74. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
75. In the manner described above, one or more of the Defendant Officers and
Defendant Security Guards had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the violation of
Mr. Sowell’s constitutional rights as set forth above, but failed to do so.
76. The Individual Defendants’ actions were undertaken intentionally, with
malice and reckless indifference to Mr. Sowell’s rights.
77. The Individual Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was
undertaken pursuant to the custom, policy, and/or practice of Defendant City of
Indianapolis, such that Defendant City of Indianapolis is also liable, as described above.
78. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell has suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress,
and death.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 16 of 28
17
Count 5 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights
79. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
80. In the manner described above, there was an agreement between two or
more of the Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant Security Guard(s) to deprive Mr.
Sowell of his constitutional rights.
81. Specifically, the Defendants conspired by concerted action to accomplish
an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of
the co-conspirators committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful participant in
joint activity.
82. The conspiring Defendants’ actions were undertaken intentionally, with
malice and reckless indifference to Mr. Sowell’s rights.
83. The Individual Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was
undertaken pursuant to the custom, policy, and/or practice of Defendant City of
Indianapolis, such that Defendant City of Indianapolis is also liable, as described above.
84. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell has suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress,
and death.
Count 6 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Denial of Medical Attention
85. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
86. As described more fully above, while Mr. Sowell was falsely imprisoned by
Defendant Officers and Defendant Security Guards, he was denied necessary medical
attention.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 17 of 28
18
87. The conduct of the Defendant Officers and Defendant Security Guards
was objectively unreasonable and they were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Sowell’s
objectively serious medical needs.
88. As a result of the Individual Defendants’ objectively unreasonable conduct
and deliberate indifference to Mr. Sowell’s necessary medical needs, the Estate of Donte
Sowell suffered damages, including but not limited to pain and suffering and mental
distress.
Count 7 -- State Law Claim Assault and Battery
89. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
90. In the manner described above, the conduct of one or more Defendant
Officers and Defendant Security Guards, acting under color of law and within the scope
of his employment, constituted unjustified and offensive physical contact, undertaken
willfully and wantonly, proximately causing Mr. Sowell’s bodily injuries.
91. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and
was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to Mr. Sowell’s constitutional
rights.
92. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,
willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
93. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell sustained bodily and other injuries, including but not limited to
great bodily harm and a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 18 of 28
19
Count 8 -- State Law Claim False Arrest and False Imprisonment
94. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
95. Mr. Sowell was imprisoned by Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant
Security Guard(s), and thereby had his liberty to move about unlawfully restrained,
despite Defendants’ knowledge that there was no probable cause for the imprisonment.
96. The actions of the Defendants were undertaken intentionally, with malice
and reckless indifference to Mr. Sowell’s rights.
97. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell has suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress,
and death.
Count 9 -- State Law Claim Conspiracy
98. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
99. In the manner described above, the Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant
Security Guard(s), acting in concert, reached an agreement among themselves to shoot
Mr. Sowell without justification and conspired by concerted action to accomplish an
unlawful purpose by an unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed
among themselves to protect one another from liability for depriving Mr. Sowell of these
rights.
100. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators
committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 19 of 28
20
101. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and
was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of
others, and in total disregard of the truth and Mr. Sowell’s innocence of their claims.
102. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, the
Estate of Donte Sowell suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress, and
death.
Count 10 -- State Law Claim Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
103. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
104. The actions, omissions, and conduct of the Defendant Officer(s) and
Defendant Security Guard(s) as set forth above were extreme and outrageous. These
actions were rooted in an abuse of power and authority and were undertaken with the
intent to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the probability that their conduct would
cause, severe emotional distress to Mr. Sowell, as is more fully alleged above.
105. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ misconduct described
in this Count, the Estate of Donte Sowell suffered injury, including severe emotional
distress.
Count 11 -- State Law Claim Respondeat Superior against Defendant City of Indianapolis
106. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
107. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the
Defendant Officers were agents of the IMPD acting at all relevant times within the
scope of their employment.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 20 of 28
21
108. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the
Defendant Security Guards were agents of the IMPD acting at all relevant times within
the scope of their employment.
109. Defendant City of Indianapolis is liable as principal for all torts
committed by its agents.
Count 12 -- State Law Claim Respondeat Superior against Defendant
Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP
110. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
111. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the
Defendant Security Guard(s) were employees and agents of Special Task Force
Protection Agency acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment.
112. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency is liable as principal for
all torts committed by its agents.
Count 13 -- State Law Claim Respondeat Superior against Defendants
Amber Woods Cooperative and Flaherty & Collins Properties
113. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
114. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the
Defendant Security Guard(s) were employees and agents of Defendant Amber Woods
Cooperative and Defendant Flaherty & Collins Properties, acting at all relevant times
within the scope of their employment.
115. Defendant Amber Woods Cooperative and Defendant Flaherty & Collins
Properties are liable as principals for all torts committed by their agents.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 21 of 28
22
Count 14 – State Law Claims Negligent Hiring, Entrustment, Supervision, and Training Against Defendants
Flaherty & Collins Properties and Amber Woods Cooperative
116. The Defendant Security Guard(s) and Defendant Special Task Force
Protection Agency LLP provided police and security services at the Amber Woods
Cooperative only at the direction of Defendant Flaherty & Collins Properties and
Defendant Amber Woods Cooperative.
117. Defendants Flaherty & Collins Properties and Amber Woods Cooperative
had a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to control their agents, the Defendant
Security Guard(s) and Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP, to prevent
them from harming others.
118. Defendants Flaherty & Collins Properties and Amber Woods Cooperative
knew or had reason to know that they maintained the ability to control the Defendant
Security Guard(s) and Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP.
119. Defendants Flaherty & Collins Properties and Amber Woods Cooperative
knew or had reason to know of the necessity of exercising control over the Defendant
Security Guard(s) and Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP, and their
opportunity to do so.
120. Defendants Flaherty & Collins Properties and Amber Woods Cooperative
breached their duty of reasonable care to hire, retain, supervise, and train competent
employees.
121. The Defendant Security Guard(s) and Defendant Special Task Force
Protection Agency LLP were unfit and incompetent to provide security services at the
Amber Woods Cooperative and lacked adequate supervision and training.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 22 of 28
23
122. Defendants Flaherty & Collins Properties and Amber Woods Cooperative
knew or, by the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the Defendant
Security Guard(s) and Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP were unfit
and incompetent to provide security services at the Amber Woods Cooperative and
lacked adequate supervision and training.
123. The above-described breach of duty by Defendants Flaherty & Collins
Properties and Amber Woods Cooperative proximately caused damages to the Estate of
Donte Sowell.
Count 15 – State Law Claims Negligent Entrustment, Hiring, Supervision, and Training
Against Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP
124. The Defendant Security Guard(s) provided police and security services at
the Amber Woods Cooperative only at the direction of Defendant Special Task Force
Protection Agency LLP.
125. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP had a duty to
exercise reasonable care so as to control its agents, the Defendant Security Guard(s), to
prevent them from harming others.
126. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP knew or had reason
to know that it maintained the ability to control the Defendant Security Guard(s).
127. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP knew or had reason
to know of the necessity of exercising control over the Defendant Security Guard(s) and
and its opportunity to do so.
128. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP breached its duty of
reasonable care to hire, retain, supervise, and train competent employees.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 23 of 28
24
129. The Defendant Security Guard(s) were unfit and incompetent to provide
security services at the Amber Woods Cooperative and lacked adequate supervision and
training.
130. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP knew or, by the
exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the Defendant Security Guard(s)
were unfit and incompetent to provide security services at the Amber Woods
Cooperative and lacked adequate supervision and training.
131. Defendant Special Task Force Protection Agency LLP’s breach of duty
proximately caused damages to the Estate of Donte Sowell.
Count 16 -- State Law Claim Indemnification
132. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
133. Indiana law requires public entities to pay any tort judgment for
compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their
employment activities.
134. The Defendant Officers are or were employees of the IMPD who acted
within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct described above.
Count 17 - State Law Claim Wrongful Death: Intentional or Reckless Battery
135. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
136. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, the actions of the
Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant Security Guard(s) constituted offensive physical
contact made without the consent of the Decedent.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 24 of 28
25
137. The Individual Defendants’ actions were undertaken willfully and
wantonly and either intentionally or with reckless indifference or conscious disregard
for the safety of others.
138. The Individual Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of
Decedent's great bodily harm and death, as well as Decedent’s great pain and suffering.
139. As a result, the Estate of Donte Sowell has incurred medical, funeral,
burial, and other expenses, and suffered other injuries, including loss of society and
companionship.
Count 18 - State Law Claim Survival Action: Intentional or Reckless Battery
140. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
141. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, the actions of the
Defendant Officer(s) and Defendant Security Guard(s) constituted offensive physical
contact made without the consent of the Decedent.
142. The Individual Defendant’ actions were undertaken willfully and
wantonly and either intentionally or with reckless indifference or conscious disregard
for the safety of others.
143. The Individual Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of Mr.
Sowell’s great bodily harm and death, as well as Mr. Sowell’s great pain and suffering.
144. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with intentional
disregard for Mr. Sowell’s rights.
145. As a result of these actions, Mr. Sowell experienced injuries including
conscious pain and suffering.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 25 of 28
26
Count 19 - Federal Law Claim First Amendment Violation
146. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
147. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution affords the public
a qualified right of access to certain government activities, processes, and information
to ensure that citizens can effectively participate in and contribute to our republican
system of self-government.
148. Pursuant to this right, Plaintiff has a First Amendment right of access to
video recordings depicting interactions between police officers and civilians in which
police officers shoot and kill a civilian during the course of performing their official
duties in public.
149. Defendants Indianapolis and IMPD denied Plaintiff access to any video
recordings depicting the interaction between Mr. Sowell and Defendants that
culminated in Mr. Sowell’s death.
150. The encounter between Mr. Sowell and government agents took place on
public streets open to the press and general public.
151. Public access to video of police shootings plays a significant positive role
in the functioning of police departments by ensuring accountability and transparency.
152. Police officers performing their public duties in public places have no
reasonable expectation that their conduct is private and will not be recorded, published,
and disseminated.
153. By denying Plaintiff any existing video recordings of the police shooting of
Mr. Sowell, Indianapolis and IMPD violated Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 26 of 28
27
154. As a result of these actions, Plaintiff suffered damages.
Count 20 – Federal and State Law Claim Violation of Common Law Right to Information
155. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein.
156. Pursuant to the common law, Plaintiff has a right to inspect and copy
records within the possession of the government.
157. As set forth in further detail above, Indianapolis and IMPD wrongfully
denied Plaintiff an opportunity to inspect any available video depicting the interaction
in public between Defendants and Mr. Sowell on January 15, 2015 that culminated in
Mr. Sowell’s death.
158. As the administrator of Mr. Sowell’s estate, Plaintiff has a direct and
tangible interest such video recordings.
159. Plaintiff seeks the recordings for a legitimate purpose: to challenge
Defendants’ claims about the circumstances of their shooting of Mr. Sowell and to bring
transparency and accountability to shootings of civilians by IMPD officers.
160. Indianapolis and IMPD have no legitimate countervailing interest in
withholding any existing recordings.
161. Immediately after shooting Mr. Sowell, the Defendants told the press
their account of what had happened, and so there was never a legitimate investigation
into Mr. Sowell’s death.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rachel Long respectfully requests that this Court enter
judgment in her favor and against Defendants City of Indianapolis, Defendant Officers,
Special Task Force Security LLC, and Defendant Security Guards, awarding
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs; declaring that
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 27 of 28
28
IMPD and Indianapolis have violated the First Amendment and the common law right
to information; ordering the release of any video recordings of the interaction between
Mr. Sowell and Defendants on the night of Mr. Sowell’s death; and ordering any other
relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Rachel Long hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
Dated: September 10, 2015 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, /s/_Ruth Z. Brown
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Arthur Loevy Jon Loevy Russell Ainsworth Matthew Topic Ruth Z. Brown LOEVY & LOEVY 312 North May St., Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60607 (312) 243-5900
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00252 document 1 filed 09/10/15 page 28 of 28