Hamtramck Police Tire Dumping Lawsuit

8/16/2019 Hamtramck Police Tire Dumping Lawsuit

1/48

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT

RASOUL JOUMAAH, an individual; GAYLE

JOUMAAH, an individual; AMJAD SABER,

an individual; YOUSRA JALAL, an individualand SAM’S TIRE SHOP, a Michigan Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

vs. Honorable:

DETECTIVE JAMES MCMAHON,

In his individual and official capacity;

DETECTIVE MICHAEL STOUT,

In his individual and official capacity;

ANNE MOISE, Chief of Police Hamtramck,In her individual and official capacity;

THE CITY OF HAMTRAMCK;

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK and

THE MICHIGAN AUTO THEFT PREVENTION

AUTHORITY (ATPA); a private entity

Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

STEVEN A. HANEY, SR. (P63947)

Haney Law Group, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiffs

811 South Blvd., Suite 210

Rochester Hills, MI 48037

(517) 614.2304

[email protected]

Muneeb M. Ahmad, Esq (P70391)

S. Hussain Akbar, Esq (P67967)

AHMAD & AKBAR LAW, PLLCAttorneys for Plaintiff

900 Wilshire Drive, Suite 202

Troy, Michigan 48084

Tel: (248) 519-2313

Fax: (248) 519-2399

______________________________________________________________________________

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/48


3/48

Chief of Police of the City of Hamtramck and domiciled in the State of Michigan. Defendant

Moise is being sued in her individual and official capacity.

8. Defendant, City of Hamtramck [hereinafter “Defendant Hamtramck”], is a

municipal corporation, and is organized and exists under the laws of the State of Michigan, with

its principal office located at 3401 Evaline, Hamtramck, Michigan. All current and former

employees identified herein as Defendants are being named in their individual and official

capacities.

9. Defendant, James McMahon [hereinafter “Defendant McMahon”], an individual,

is a police officer with the Highland Park Police Department and is domiciled in the State of

Michigan. Defendant McMahon is being sued in his individual and official capacity.

10. Defendant, City of Highland Park [hereinafter “Defendant Highland Park”], is a

municipal corporation, and is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan,

with its principal offices located at 12050 Woodward Blvd., Highland Park, Michigan. All

current and former employees identified herein as Defendants are being named in their

individual and official capacities. [Collectively Defendant Hamtramck and Defendant Highland

Park shall be hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Cities”.]

11. Defendant, Michigan Auto Theft Prevention Authority (MATPA) [hereinafter

“Defendant MATPA”], is a administered by the Miichigan State Police, and is organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal offices located at 333 South

Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA is privately funded by the

insurance industry and is a supervisory agency for the C.O.B.R.A Auto Theft Task Force, as well

3


4/48

as for Defendants McMahon and Stout. Defendant MATPA utilizes a $1 per policy insurance

premium for the purpose of funding and supporting the actions and conduct of its “grantees”, of

which includes the C.O.B.R.A auto theft task force, as well as MATPA Wayne County

Prosecutor Dennis Doherty. Given its supervisory role and relationship to the C.O.B.R.A

Taskforce and Defendants McMahon and Stout, Defendant MATPA is vicariously liable for

Defendant McMahon, Stout and Moise’s actions or lack thereof. [Defendants Stout, Moise,

McMahon and MATPA shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as “Defendant Officers”.]

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Jurisdiction is proper and based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as United States District

Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States. Further, this Court has jurisdiction over the companion state law

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

14. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and

attorney fees.

15. Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

16. Plaintiff R. Joumaah, also known as “Sam”, is the principal owner of Plaintiff

Sam’s Tire Shop, located at 9500 Conant Drive in Hamtramck, Michigan, which has operated in

the community since 2008. Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop’s primary source of business is in the

retail and wholesale business of buying and selling used tires.

17. Plaintiff G. Joumaah is the wife of Plaintiff Rasoul Joumaah and resides with her

husband, as well as his father, Plaintiff Amjed Saber, and his mother, Plaintiff Yousra Jalal, at

4


5/48

their residence located at 7830 Normile Street in Dearborn, Michigan, County of Wayne, State of

Michigan.

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant James McMahon, a Detective with the

Highland Park Police Department, is a police officer and member of a multi-jurisdictional auto

theft task force named C.O.B.R.A. This “task force” is funded by the Auto Theft Prevention

Authority, which receives $1 premiums on auto policies throughout the state to grant fund

specialized auto theft teams and prosecutors. The delegated Wayne County MATPA Prosecutor

is Wayne County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Dennis Doherty, who is noted to have reviewed

the search warrants at issue in this case.

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Stout, a Detective with the

Hamtramck City Police Department, is a police officer and also a member of the

multi-jurisdictional C.O.B.R.A auto theft task force with his partner Defendant McMahon.

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Moise, the Chief of Police of

Hamtramck, was at all times the Supervising authority with personal knowledge as to the

conduct and allegations of misconduct and racial discrimination of her subordinate Defendant

Stout. Defendant Moise woefully failed to engage in any appropriate steps in addressing the

illegal conduct of City of Hamtramck police officer Defendant Stout, for which she had a duty,

and in fact violated that duty when she was observed to be conspiring and directly benefiting in

the illegal conduct and abuse of power by Defendant Stout and his partner Defendant McMahon

(See Ex. A - John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al paragraph 90).

21. At all times relevant, Defendants McMahon, Stout and Moise, as officers acting

under the color or authority of law, had a duty to protect, serve and ensure the clearly established

5


6/48

constitutional and civil rights of the citizens of the municipalities in which they policed. 1

22. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck, a municipal

corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal

office located at 3401 Evaline, Hamtramck, Michigan, at all times employed both Defendant

Stout and Defendant Moise and owed a duty to the citizens and community of all municipalities

in which they policed, to adequately train or supervise its employees so as to ensure that,

Defendant Stout and Defendant Moise, would not intentionally and/or negligently and recklessly

abuse their police power under the color or authority of law by engaging actions that would

violate the clearly established constitutional and civil rights of citizens of any municipality in

which these Defendants policed.2

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Highland Park, a municipal

corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal

office located at 12050 Woodward Blvd., Highland Park, Michigan, at all times employed

Highland Park Detective James McMahon and owed a duty to the citizens and community of all

municipalities in which they policed, to adequately train or supervise its employee so as to

ensure that, Defendant McMahon, would not intentionally and/or negligently and recklessly

abuse his police power under the color or authority of law by engaging actions that would violate

the clearly established constitutional and civil rights of citizens of any municipality in which he

policed.3

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Michigan Auto Theft Prevention

1 Poe v. Haydon, 853 F.2d 418, 425 (6th Cir. 1988); see also Grawey v. Drury, 567 F. 3d 302, 309 (6th Cir. 2009) see

also Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)2 Ellis ex rel. Pendergrass v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 455 F.3d 690,700 (6th Cir. 2006)3 Ellis ex rel. Pendergrass v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 455 F.3d 690,700 (6th Cir. 2006)

6


7/48

Authority (MATPA), is a privately funded organization, administered by the Michigan State

Police, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal offices

located at 333 South Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48909 . MATPA serves as a privately

Insurance funded funding source and agency for the C.O.B.R.A Auto Theft Task Force, and was

directly responsible and owed a duty to the citizens and community of all municipalities in which

C.O.B.R.A operated or policed, to adequately train, supervise, administer, manage and provide

safeguards to prevent the racially vile and unconstitutional thievery of Defendant police officers

McMahon and Stout. 4

25. Upon information and belief, on or about the date of August 15th, 2015, a John

Doe informant agreed to assist Defendants McMahon and Stout (C.O.B.R.A Task Force) in an

investigation of Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop and its principal owner Plaintiff R. Joumaah.

26. Upon information and belief, that during the initial briefing of the investigation,

Defendants McMahon and Stout advised the confidential informant that they were targeting

Sam’s Tire Shop because they wanted to rid the Hamtramck community of “ these fucking

Arabs.” (See Ex. A - John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al paragraph 22).

27. Upon information and belief, that during this initial August 2015 briefing,

Defendants McMahon and Stout told the confidential informant, “we want to get rid of Sam and

everybody like him. ” (See Ex. A - John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al paragraph 23) .

The reference to getting rid of “ Sam and everybody like him ” was with respect to Plaintiff R.

Joumaah, an Arab American, also known as “Sam”, the principal owner of Plaintiff Sam’s Tire

Shop.

4 Ellis ex rel. Pendergrass v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 455 F.3d 690,700 (6th Cir. 2006)

7


8/48

28. Upon information and belief, that during the course of the investigation and

racially targeted mission to rid the Hamtramck community of “these fucking Arabs” and “Sam

and everybody like him” , Defendant police officers Stout and McMahon habitually referenced

members of the Arab American business community, including Plaintiff R. Joumaah, an Arab

American, as; “ towel heads”, “rag heads”, “ sand niggers ” and “ camel jockeys”. (See Ex. A -

John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al paragraphs 36-43) .

29. Upon information and belief, that as a factual basis to fabricate probable cause to

procure a search warrant, and initiate a raid upon Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop and the residence of

Plaintiffs R. Joumaah, the confidential John Doe informant was directed by Defendants

McMahon and Stout to present himself to Plaintiff R. Joumaah, as a purchaser of marijuana and

guns.

30. That or about the latter part of August 2015, the confidential informant solicited

the purchase of marijuana from Plaintiff R. Joumaah, but was refused, as Plaintiff R. Joumaah

informed the confidential informant he was not a drug, or gun dealer, and could not provide the

confidential informant with either (See Ex. A - John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al

paragraph 90).

31. Upon information and belief, that on or about the month of September 2015,

Defendants McMahon and Stout advised the confidential informant to further ingratiate himself

with Plaintiff R. Joumaah and inform him that for one dollar per tire, he could dispose of tires on

behalf of Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop. (See Ex. A - John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al

paragraph27).

32. Upon information and belief, that unbeknownst to Plaintiff R. Joumaah, as well as

8


9/48

his company, Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop, Defendant McMahon rented a U-Haul truck for the

confidential informant, as well as a secured unmarked police van, which was then used to

illegally dump the tires in the City of Detroit. Defendants McMahon and Stout selected to

illegally dump the tires in Detroit by virtue of Defendant Stout telling the confidential informant,

an African American male, “ you must be out of your nigger mind if you think we are dumping

those tires in Hamtramck. ” (See Ex. A - John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al paragraph

30-32).

33. Upon information and belief, that while illegally dumping the tires from Plaintiff

Sam’s Tire Shop in the city of Detroit, Defendants McMahon and Stout acted as lookouts and

escorts and were armed while the confidential informant was illegally dumping the tires from

Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop in Detroit. (See Ex. A - John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al

paragraph 29).

34. Upon information and belief, that on or about October 6th, 2015, Defendant

McMahon prepared a falsified Search Warrant and Affidavit, attesting under oath that probable

cause existed alleging Plaintiff R. Joummah’s involvement in crimes associated with conducting

a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), insurance fraud, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud

and using a computer to commit a felony (See Ex. B - October 6th, 2015 - Search Warrant

and Affidavit) .

35. That pursuant to the October 6th, 2015 Search Warrant and Affidavit, Defendant

McMahon alleged probable cause of such criminal activity necessitated a search of the following

locations; 9500 Conant Street, the business of Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop, in the city of

Hamtramck, County of Wayne; 16800 West Warren Avenue, the business name of Soboh

9


10/48

Insurance Agency, in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne; 7830 Normile Street, single family

residence of Plaintiffs R. Joumaah, G. Joumaah and their parents, Plaintiffs Amjad Saber and

Yousra Jamal. (See Ex. B - October 6th, 2015 - Search Warrant and Affidavit) .

36. That pursuant to the October 6th, 2015 Search Warrant and Affidavit, Defendant

McMahon alleged probable cause of such criminal activity necessitated the seizure at the areas to

be searched of substantial personal and business property.

37. That despite what fabricated information was sworn to in the October 6th, 2015

Search Warrant and Affidavit, which included such entirely irrelevant information as “vehicle

sales”, when Plaintiff R. Joumaah sells no vehicles, upon execution of the Search Warrant,

Detective McMahon advised Plaintiff R. Joumaah, owner of Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop, the

factual basis for the raid was predicated upon allegations that Plaintiff R. Joumaah, and his

father, Plaintiff Saber, somehow assisted and conspired with the same illegal tire dumping John

Doe confidential informant for the purchase of a falsified insurance policy from an insurance

agency somewhere in Dearborn, Michigan. (See Ex. C - Witness Affidavit of Rasoul

Joumaah).

38. That at no point in time did Plaintiff R. Joumaah ever have any contact with the

alleged seller of the falsified insurance, have any idea who the person even was, or have any idea

whatsoever what was alleged to be the factual basis of any criminal nexus between the conduct

of himself, or his business, with the manufactured criminal investigation by Defendants

McMahon and Stout and their illegal tire dumping Confidential Informant.

39. That on October 6th, 2015, based on this blatantly falsified criminal investigation,

Defendants McMahon and Stout raided the Plaintiffs’ Dearborn residence, and in their search for

10


11/48

“cash”, ripped panels and cabinets off walls, overturned furniture and summarily seized such

personal effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s mother’s (Plaintiff Yousra Jamal) jewelry box and

family immigration records, as well as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s passport, green card and his wife’s

(Plaintiff Gayle Joumaah) birth certificate, marriage license and numerous vehicle titles. Despite

numerous requests of both Defendants McMahon and Stout, none of the seized property was

ever returned to any of the rightful Plaintiffs’ possession. (See Ex. C - Witness Affidavit of

Rasoul Joumaah).

40. During this October 6th, 2015 raid at the Plaintiffs’ Dearborn residence, the

confidential informant noted he was being apprised telephonically as the events were unfolding,

as to the seizure and successful efforts of locating nearly $30,000 in U.S. Currency (See Ex. A -

John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al). To this day, none of the seized cash has been returned

to the possession of Plaintiff R. Joumaah and there exists no known records of the U.S. currency

being tabulated and placed into evidence.

41. Immediately following the October 6th, 2015 raid, at approximately 4:00 p.m.,

Defendants McMahon and Stout Imprisoned Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber in the Hamtramck

City Jail. On October 9th, 2015, three days later, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Plaintiffs R.

Joumaah and Saber were released from custody with no explanation as to the basis for their false

imprisonment and at no point in time were ever criminally charged with any conduct whatsoever

that led ride to the events of the October 6th, 2015 raids. (See Ex. C - Witness Affidavit of

Rasoul Joumaah).

42. As a result of the October 6th, 2015 raid upon the Plaintiffs’ Dearborn residence,

as well as Plaintiff Sam’s Tire Shop, neither Plaintiff R. Joumaah, nor his father, Plaintiff

11


12/48

Amjed Saber, were ever criminally charged with any wrongdoing and at no point was a

civil in rem forfeiture proceeding ever initiated by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.

Despite repeated demands, at the time of this Federal Complaint, all Plaintiffs to this action

remain deprived of their cash and personal property stolen by these Defendant police officers and

Defendant municipalities. (See Ex. C - Witness Affidavit of Rasoul Joumaah).

43. That Defendants McMahon and Stout knowingly falsified evidence and fabricated

an alleged conspiracy between Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and his father, Plaintiff Saber, for no other

reason than to rid the Hamtramck community of “these fucking Arabs” and “Sam and everybody

like him

” and steal under the color of authority of law, tens of thousands of dollars in cash and

property from the very “rag heads, sand niggers and towel heads” they sought to eliminate from

the very community they were obligated to protect.

44. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck, knew or should have

known that Defendant Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly established

constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all municipalities in which he policed,

as Defendant Hamtramck knew or should have known that that Defendant Stout previously

engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false affidavits,

obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete information, and falsely arresting people

of Arabic descent or other minority ethnicities.


known that Defendant Stout and Moise acted in concert and conspired to engage in conduct that

violated the clearly established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all

municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant Hamtramck knew or should have known that

12


13/48

that Defendants Stout and Moise previously engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing

false police reports, false affidavits, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete

information, and falsely arresting people of Arabic descent or other minority ethnicities.

46. Defendant City of Hamtramck’s failure to take corrective action, or its tacit

authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendants Stout’s and

Moise’s actions, which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the

citizens and community of all municipalities in which they policed, established a defacto policy

of deliberate indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant Hamtramck is

liable.

47. Upon information and belief, Defendant Highland Park, knew or should have

known that Defendant McMahon Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly

established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all municipalities in

which he policed, as Defendant Highland knew or should have known that that Defendant Stout

previously engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false

affidavits, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete information, and falsely

arresting people of Arabic descent or other minority ethnicities.

48. Defendant Highland Park’s failure to take corrective action, or its tacit

authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendant McMahon’s

actions, which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the citizens and

community of all municipalities in which he policed, established a defacto policy of deliberate

indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant Highland Park is liable.

49. Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA, knew or should have known

13


14/48

that Defendants McMahon and Stout, both of whom belong to the C.O.B.R.A. task force, for

which Defendant MATPA is charged with administering and managing and supervising, were

engaging in conduct that violated the clearly established constitutional civil rights of the citizens

and community of all municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant MATPA knew or

should have known that that Defendants McMahon and Stout previously engaged in a pattern of

practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false affidavits, obtaining search warrants based

on false or incomplete information, and falsely arresting people of Arabic descent or other

minority ethnicities.

50. Defendant MATPA’s failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization,

toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendants McMahon and Stout’s actions,

which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the citizens and


indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant MATPA is liable.

51. In addition to the relief requested by Plaintiffs below, Plaintiffs seeks a

declaratory judgment that Defendants Hamtramck, Highland Park and MATPA have a policy,

custom, or practice of acquiescence in, inadequate training of or supervision regarding

unconstitutional conduct of its officers in general, and Defendants McMahon and Stout in

particular, to wit: their failure to investigate in good faith, their falsification of evidence against

an accused or others, and conduct amounting to unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, false

imprisonment without probable cause, as well as cruel and unusual punishment, failure to

disclose exculpatory evidence or material, all, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly

established constitutional rights and liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of

14


15/48

the United States.

COUNT I – FEDERAL CLAIM

VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871

42 U.S.C § 1983 FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS – FALSE

ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZUREAS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS

52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set

forth, herein.

53. Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutionally protected rights that Defendant

Officers violated include the following:

a. their rights to liberty protected in a substantive component of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which includes personal safety, privacy,

liberty, and freedom from captivity;

b. their rights to free and equal treatment guaranteed and protected by the Equal

Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

c. the right to be secure in his person, papers and effects against unreasonable

searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

54. Defendant Officers acting under color and authority of law, violated Plaintiffs

above referenced clearly established Constitutionally protected rights, when despite the fact that

there was no evidence or probable cause to demonstrate that Plaintiffs had committed, or were

committing, any crime, fabricated such information and wrongfully detained Plaintiffs, depriving

them of their freedom, freedom of movement, and subjecting them to a wrongful and

unreasonable search and seizure.

55. Specifically, Defendant Officers acting under color and authority of law, violated

Plaintiffs above referenced clearly established Constitutionally protected rights, when despite the

fact that there was no evidence or probable cause to demonstrate that Plaintiffs had committed,

15


16/48

or were committing, any crime, on October 6, 2015, based on a blatantly falsified criminal

investigation, they raided the Plaintiffs’ Dearborn residence, and in their search for “cash”,

ripped panels and cabinets off walls, overturned furniture and summarily seized such personal

effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s mother’s (Plaintiff Yousra Jamal) jewelry box and family

immigration records, as well as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s passport, green card and Plaintiff Gayle

Joumaah’s birth certificate, marriage license and numerous vehicle titles. The conduct of these

officers was tantamount to an armed robbery. Despite numerous requests to both Defendants

McMahon and Stout, none of the seized property was ever returned to any of the rightful

Plaintiffs’ possession. (See Ex. C - Witness Affidavit of Rasoul Joumaah).

56. The search conducted on Plaintiffs’ persons and property was without their

consent.

57. Defendant Officers, acting under color and authority of law, violated Plaintiffs



committing, any crime, they handcuffed, arrested, and unlawfully searched, and unlawfully

imprisoned Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber, resulting in their incarceration.

58. Defendant Officers, acting under color and authority of law, violated Plaintiffs



committing, any crime, on October 6, 2015, based on a blatantly falsified criminal investigation,

they imprisoned Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber in the Hamtramck City Jail, and then

subsequently three days later released them from custody with no explanation as to the basis for

16


17/48

their false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Ex. C - Witness Affidavit of Rasoul Joumaah).

59. Neither Plaintiff R. Joumaah, nor his father, Plaintiff A. Saber, were ever

criminally charged with any wrongdoing and at no point was any civil in rem forfeiture

proceeding ever initiated by the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.

60. In addition to the initial restraint and deprivation of personal liberty and freedom

of movement being unreasonable, the continued detention was unreasonable, as Defendant

Officers, did not have any probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs.

61. At the time, Defendant Officers executed the search warrant and raided Plaintiffs’

residence, and arrested Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber, Defendant Officers were acting in an

administrative or police capacity.

62. Upon information and belief, Defendant Officers’ egregious conduct was

motivated because of Plaintiffs’ ethnicity, national origin and/or religious background.

63. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class as defined by State and Federal laws.

64. Plaintiffs were also denied equal protection of the law because of their ethnicity,

national origin and/or religious background. Defendant Officers, jointly and individually, acting

under color of law, authorized, tolerated, ratified, permitted or acquiesced in the creation of

policies, practices and customs, establishing a defacto policy of deliberate indifference to

individuals such as Plaintiffs and their clearly established constitutionally protected rights.

65. Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA, knew or should have known

that Defendants McMahon and Stout, both of whom belong to the C.O.B.R.A. task force, for

which Defendant MATPA is charged with administering and managing and supervising, were

engaging in conduct that violated the clearly established constitutional civil rights of the citizens

17


18/48

and community of all municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant MATPA knew or

should have known that that Defendants McMahon and Stout previously engaged in a pattern of

practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false affidavits, obtaining search warrants based

on false or incomplete information, and falsely arresting people of Arabic descent or other

minority ethnicities.

66. Defendant MATPA’s failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization,

toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendants McMahon and Stout’s actions,

which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the citizens and


indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant MATPA is liable.

67. Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA’s systemic deficiencies include

but are not limited to awarding grants to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices,

which Defendant MATPA knew or should have known:

a. hire and employ police personnel who are suspected or known to have

conspired with other individuals and entities in order to deprive individuals of their

clearly established constitutionally protected civil rights;

b. hire and employ police personnel who are suspected or known to have

falsely arrest individuals without probable cause;

c. hire and employ police personnel who are suspected or known to have

detain and falsely imprison individuals against their will, and without probable cause;

d. hire and employ police personnel who are suspected or known to have

withhold and/or suppress evidence from individuals or defendants that is favorable to them;

e. hire and employ police personnel who are suspected or known to have

conspire with other individuals and entities in order to deprive individuals of their clearly

established Constitutionally protected civil rights;

f. Inadequately train, supervise and discipline police personnel, whom the

18


19/48

law enforcement agencies knew or should have known to falsely arrest individuals

without probable cause;

g. Inadequately train, supervise and discipline police personnel, whom the

law enforcement agencies knew or should have known to detain and falsely imprison

individuals against their will, and without probable cause;

h. Inadequately train, supervise and discipline police personnel, whom the

law enforcement agencies knew or should have known to withhold and/or suppress

evidence from individuals or defendants that is favorable to them;

i. Fail to train police personnel properly on arrest management and

applicable law, where such failure amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of

persons with whom the police come into contact;

j. Fail to adequately investigate citizens’ complaints as to police misconduct

and pursue proper remedial measures; and

k. Other acts and omissions which will be determined during discovery

68. Upon information and belief, the policymakers of Defendant MATPA have

through its failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization, toleration, ratification,

permission, or acquiescence created a defacto policy of deliberate indifference to the clearly

established constitutional rights of individuals by (1) failed to implement or enforce policies

regarding unconstitutional conduct, including ethnic harassment, violation of Constitutional

rights, and false imprisonment by failing to properly investigate such conduct after being put on

notice of facts in support of a claim that unconstitutional acts occurred; and (2) failing to have

adequate procedures in place to investigate and train against police misconduct.

69. Each of the aforementioned customs, policies and practices of failure to train,

supervise and discipline police personnel including, Defendants McMahon and Stout, as well and

others, was known to Defendant MATPA as highly likely and probable to cause violations of

constitutional rights of members of the public in particular Plaintiff herein.

19


20/48

70. As a result of Defendant MATPA’s conduct as outlined above, Defendant

MATPA is vicariously liable for the actions of Defendants Stout and McMahon.

71. Defendant Officers’ policies, customs, and practices were carried out with

deliberate indifference, willful and wanton disregard and with the spirit of gross negligence, and

were the direct and deliberate cause of the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ clearly established

Constitutionally protected rights of liberty, due process, and were the direct cause of Plaintiffs’

unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment.

72. As a result of their conduct described above, Defendant Officers are, also, jointly

and severally liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

73. As a result of Defendant Officers actions, Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber

suffered loss of liberty; incarceration; and imprisonment.

74. As a result of Defendant Officers actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of tens of

thousands of dollars in cash and property.

75. Plaintiffs further suffer and continue to suffer economic and non-economic

damages including but not limited to: embarrassment, indignation, anxiety, mental anguish,

nightmares, emotional distress, discomfort, pain, loss of weight, humiliation, outrage, shame,

fear, loss of income, damage to their professional reputation, damage to their reputation in the

community, denial of constitutional rights, and other injuries, damages or consequences related

to the incident and Defendant Officers unlawful conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests declaratory relief from this Honorable

Court as outlined above, and further requests judgment against Defendant Officers, jointly and

severally, for compensatory damages for whatever amount the jury finds necessary, and further

20


21/48

demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in whatever

amount the jury finds necessary, in addition to all costs, interest, and actual attorney fees

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just, and

equitable under the circumstances.

COUNT II - FEDERAL CLAIM

42 U.S.C. § 1983 MONELL CLAIM

(AGAINST DEFENDANT CITIES ONLY)

76. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set

forth.


known that Defendant Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly established

constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all municipalities in which he policed,

as Defendant Hamtramck knew or should have known that that Defendant Stout previously

engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false affidavits,

fabricating evidence, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete information, and

falsely arresting people targeting those of Arabic descent, or other minority ethnicities.


known that Defendant Stout and Moise acted in concert and conspired to engage in conduct that

violated the clearly established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all

municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant Hamtramck knew or should have known that

that Defendants Stout and Moise previously engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing

false police reports, false affidavits, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete


21


22/48

79. Defendant City of Hamtramck’s failure to take corrective action, or its tacit

authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendants Stout’s and

Moise’s actions, which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the

citizens and community of all municipalities in which they policed, established a defacto policy

of deliberate indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant Hamtramck is

liable.

80. Upon information and belief, Defendant Highland Park, knew or should have

known that Defendant McMahon Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly

established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all municipalities in

which he policed, as Defendant Highland knew or should have known that that Defendant Stout

previously engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false

affidavits, fabricating evidence, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete


81. Defendant Highland Park’s failure to take corrective action, or its tacit

authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendant McMahon’s

actions, which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the citizens and


indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant Highland Park is liable.

82. At all times material to this complaint, Defendant Cities by and through their

police departments, pursued de facto policies, practices and customs that were a direct and

proximate cause of the unconstitutional arrest and unreasonable search and seizure of Plaintiffs

and the other deprivations of Constitutional rights alleged herein, including the Fourth and

22


23/48

Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

83. Defendant Cities permitted, encouraged, tolerated and ratified a practice of

unjustified, unreasonable, and illegal arrests by police officers in that Defendant Cities and State

Agency failed to properly supervise, monitor, discipline, transfer, counsel or otherwise control

police officers who are known or who should have been known to violate their established

department policies, and procedures for arrest management, and where said failure amounted to

deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.

84. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cities systemic deficiencies include but

are not limited to:

a. Hiring and/or retaining as police personnel whom the aforementioned

Defendants knew or should have known to conspire with other individuals and entities in

order to deprive individuals of their clearly established constitutionally protected civil

rights;

b. Hiring and/or retaining as police personnel, whom the aforementioned

Defendants knew or should have known to falsely arrest individuals without probable

cause;

c. Hiring and/or retaining as police personnel, whom the aforementioned

Defendants knew or should have known to detain and falsely imprison individuals against

their will, and without probable cause;

d. Hiring and/or retaining as police personnel, whom the aforementioned

Defendant knew or should have known to withhold and/or suppress evidence from

individuals or defendants that is favorable to them;

e. Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining police personnel,

whom the aforementioned Defendants knew or should have known to conspire with other

individuals and entities in order to deprive individuals of their clearly established Constitutionally protected civil rights;

f. Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining police personnel,

whom the aforementioned Defendants knew or should have known to falsely arrest

individuals without probable cause;

g. Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining personnel, whom the

23


24/48

aforementioned Defendants knew or should have known to detain and falsely imprison

individuals against their will, and without probable cause;

h. Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining personnel, whom the

aforementioned Defendant knew or should have known to withhold and/or suppress

evidence from individuals or defendants that is favorable to them;

i. Failing to train police personnel properly on arrest management and

applicable law, where such failure amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of

persons with whom the police come into contact;

j. Failing to adequately investigate citizens’ complaints as to police

misconduct and pursue proper remedial measures; and

k. Other acts and omissions which will be determined during discovery.

85. The municipal policymakers of Defendant Cites have (1) failed to enforce

departmental policies regarding, inter alia, the duties of a public safety officer, abuse of process,

and conformance to laws; (2) have acquiesced in or ratified unconstitutional conduct, including

ethnic harassment, violation of Constitutional rights, and false imprisonment, by failing to

properly investigate such conduct after being put on notice of facts in support of a claim that

unconstitutional acts occurred; and (3) failing to have adequate procedures in place to investigate

and train against police misconduct.

86. Each of the aforementioned customs, policies and practices of failure to train,

supervise and discipline the Defendants McMahon and Stout and others, was known to

Defendant Cities as highly likely and probable to cause violations of constitutional rights of

members of the public in particular Plaintiff herein.

87. As a result of their conduct described above, Defendants are, also, jointly and

severally liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

88. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber suffered loss

24


25/48

of liberty; incarceration; and imprisonment.

89. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of tens of thousands of

dollars in cash and property.






to the incident and Defendants unlawful conduct.


Court as outlined above, and further requests judgment against all Defendants, jointly and


demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in

whatever amount the jury finds necessary, in addition to all costs, interest, and actual attorney

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just, and


COUNT III - FEDERAL CLAIM

VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §1985

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

91. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set

forth, herein.

92. Defendants conspired to prevent and deprive Plaintiffs through force, violence

and intimidation of their entitled equal protection of the laws and from enjoying and exercising

25


26/48

their entitled rights and privileges, including but not limited to, their right to be secure in their

persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including being subjected

to the use of excessive force.

93. Defendants’ egregious conduct was motivated because of Plaintiffs’ ethnicity,

national origin and/or religious background.

94. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class as defined by State and Federal laws.

95. Plaintiffs were intentionally discriminated against because of their ethnicity and

national origin.

96. Upon information and belief, Defendants, further conspired to conceal the

incident that took place as described in this complaint, by preparing untimely, false and

inaccurate police reports, to cover up what actually took place.

97. By their conspiracy, Defendants have willfully and maliciously, directly and

indirectly, prevented Plaintiffs from enjoying and exercising their rights and privileges afforded

to them under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

98. As a result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiffs were deprived of rights and

privileges of citizens of the United States and were injured in their persons and property.

99. Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).






26


27/48





to the incident and Defendants unlawful conduct.








COUNT IV – STATE CLAIM

ETHNIC INTIMIDATION UNDER MCLA 750.147b

AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS


forth, herein.

104. That this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations contained in this count under

the equitable doctrine of pendent and supplemental jurisdiction, as the state tort claims alleged in

this count arise from the same facts and circumstances underpinning Plaintiff’s federal cause of

action.

105. Under MCLA 750.147b, a person is liable for ethnic intimidation if that person

maliciously and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another because of that person’s

27


28/48

national origin and causes physical contact with another person; or damages, destroys or defaces

any real or personal property of another person.

106. Upon information and belief, Defendant Officers maliciously and with specific

intent caused physical contact with Plaintiffs for no other reason than those based on their

articulated racial hatred towards Arabs.

107. Defendants Defendant Officers intimidated and harassed Plaintiffs because of

their ethnicity, national origin and/or religious background.

108. Defendants Defendant Officers also took, defaced, destroyed and damaged

Plaintiffs’ personal property, which included ransacking Plaintiffs’ store and home as further

discussed above and plead as to particularity as to time, place and manner by the accompanying

witness Affidavits..

109. Based on the conduct described above, Defendant Officers are liable to Plaintiffs

for ethnic intimidation.

110. Defendant Officers are also liable for three times the actual damages pursuant to

MCLA 750.147(b)(3)(a) and costs and attorney’s fees for engaging in ethnic intimidation.

111. As a result of Defendant Officers’ actions, Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber


112. As a result of Defendant Officers actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of tens of





28


29/48











COUNT V – STATE CLAIM

FALSE ARREST

AS TO DEFEDANT OFFICERS

114. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully

set forth herein.




action.

116. On or about October 6, 2015, Defendant Officers falsely, unlawfully and

wrongfully, and without Plaintiffs’ consent and against his will, caused his arrest and deprived

Plaintiffs of their liberty, plead with particularity as to time, place and manner through the

accompanying witness Affidavits.

29


30/48

117. As corroborating acts to falsely arrest Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs specifically re-allege

the factual allegations as set forth and outlined above, as though fully set forth herein.

118. As a corroborating act to falsely arrest Plaintiffs, despite the fact that Defendant

Officers had no evidence or probable cause to demonstrate that Plaintiffs had committed, or were

committing any crime, Defendant Officers placed Plaintiffs under arrest and handcuffed them,

and kept them in custody.

119. This false arrest was malicious, willful, wanton, and demonstrated a reckless

disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and was motivated by unmitigated racial hatred and a desire to

“rid”

the Hamtramck community of Arabs..


suffered loss of liberty; incarceration; and false imprisonment and wrongful incarceration.

121. As a result of Defendant Officers’ illegal actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of tens of







to the incident and Defendant Officers’ unlawful conduct.




30


31/48



fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just, and equitable under the

circumstances.

COUNT VI – STATE CLAIM

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

AS TO DEFEDANT OFFICERS


forth, herein.




action.

125. On or about October 6, 2015, Defendant Officers falsely, unlawfully and

wrongfully, and without Plaintiffs’ consent and against their will, caused the arrest and deprived

Plaintiffs of their liberty for a period of three (3) days

126. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ egregious conduct was motivated

because of Plaintiffs’ ethnicity, national origin and/or religious background.

127. Defendant Officers physically restrained Plaintiffs and deprived them of their

personal liberty and freedom of movement.

128. Defendant Officers caused Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber to be held in the City

of Hamtramck Jail for four (4) days without charge.

129. The imprisonment and restraints were against Plaintiffs’ will.

31


32/48

130. Defendant Officers, accomplished the imprisonment and restraint by actual

physical force and the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ liberty and freedom was intentional, unlawful

and unprivileged and motivated solely based on articulated racial hatred towards

Arab-Americans..

131. In addition to the initial restraint and deprivation of personal liberty and freedom

of movement being unreasonable, the continued detention was excessive and unreasonable.



133. As a result of Defendant Officers’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of tens of














32


33/48

circumstances.

COUNT VII – STATE CLAIM

ASSAULT AND BATTERY



forth, herein.




action.

137. The above described conduct of Defendant Officers constitutes assault and battery

on Plaintiffs as further discussed above.

138. Defendant Officers, caused physical contact to be inflicted on plaintiffs without

Plaintiffs’ consent as further discussed above.










33


34/48








circumstances.

COUNT VIII – STATE CLAIMGROSS NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT OFFICERS


forth, herein.




action.

144. Defendant Officers conduct, as described above, which proximately caused

Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, was grossly negligent because it was so reckless that it

demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for whether Plaintiffs would be injured.

145. No magistrate or competent judicial authority had issued a warrant for plaintiffs’

arrest and detention, and Defendant Officers’ actions were perpetrated without having any

physical evidence or any probable cause that Plaintiff had committed, or was committing any

crime.

34


35/48

146. Defendant Officers are also liable for plaintiffs’ injuries and damages under

MCLA 691.1407(2).

















circumstances

35


36/48

COUNT IX - STATE LAW CLAIM

ABUSE OF PROCESS



set forth herein.




action.

152. Defendant Officers abused the criminal investigatory process by using it for their

ulterior motives or personal reasons for the purpose of causing: Vexation; Harassment; Ethnic

and religious intimidation and suggested genocide; Damage to Plaintiff’s personal reputation;

Damage to Plaintiff’s community reputation; and to enrich themselves through inappropriate use

of State forfeiture laws; Plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested and detained against his will; and

Plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutionally protected rights of freedom and liberty.

153. As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers’ improper purpose, Plaintiff

specifically re-alleges the factual allegations as set forth and outlined above, as though fully set

forth herein.

154. The allegations and misuse of the criminal investigatory process was improper

since Defendant Officers knew, or should have known, that the allegations and testimony

regarding Plaintiff’s alleged actions were false and was falsified due to their articulated racial

hatred towards Arab-Americans..

155. As a direct result of Defendant Officers’ abuse of process in making knowingly

36


37/48

false and fabricated allegations that initiated the criminal investigations, and as a direct and

proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Officers, referred to more fully above, Plaintiffs R.

Joumaah and Saber suffered loss of liberty; incarceration; and imprisonment.


thousands of dollars in cash and property stolen from their residence.













circumstances

COUNT X – STATE CLAIM

CONCERT OF ACTIONAS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS


set forth herein.

37


38/48




action.

160. At all relevant times, Defendant Officers engaged in concerted activities with the

intent to, and for the illegal or unlawful purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly

established constitutionally protected civil rights, as outlined above, by express or implied

agreement.

161. Plaintiff may not be able to identify all of the activities of Defendant Officers due

to the generic similarity of such activities as produced and promoted by these Defendant

Officers.

162. As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers’ concerted activities, Plaintiffs

specifically re-allege the factual allegations as set forth and outlined above, as though fully set

forth herein.

163. As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers’ concerted activities, two or more of

the Defendant Officers, acted in concert to have Plaintiffs arrested without probable cause and

arrested based on knowingly falsified and fabricated evidence.

164. As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers’ concerted activities, two or more of

the Defendant Officers, acted in concert to wrongfully arrest and imprison Plaintiffs against their

will, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly established constitutionally protected rights and

liberties.

165. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers’ concerted activities as

38


39/48

outlined above, Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally protected rights were violated when Plaintiffs were

unlawfully subjected to an illegal search and seizure, wrongfully arrested, and wrongfully

imprisoned thereby depriving them of their freedom of movement.





168. Defendant Officers are jointly, severally and/or alternatively liable to Plaintiff for

all of his damages.







circumstances. Due to the concert of action among all of the various Defendants, each is liable to

Plaintiff for these damages even if there was no direct relation to the activity conducted by that

particular Defendant.

39


40/48

COUNT XI - STATE CLAIM

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS


set forth herein.




action.

171. At all relevant times, all Defendants conspired with one another with the intent to,

and for the illegal or unlawful purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly established

constitutionally protected civil rights, as outlined above, by express or implied agreement.

172. Plaintiff may not be able to identify all of the activities of Defendants due to the

generic similarity of such activities as produced and promoted by these Defendants.

173. As corroborating acts of Defendants’ civil conspiracy activities, Plaintiffs

specifically re-allege the factual allegations as set forth and outlined above, as though fully set

forth herein.

174. As corroborating acts of Defendants’ civil conspiracy, two or more of the

Defendants, conspired together to have Plaintiffs arrested without probable cause.

175. As corroborating acts of Defendants’ concerted activities, two or more of the

Defendants, conspired together to wrongfully arrest and imprison Plaintiffs against their will,

thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly established constitutionally protected rights and

liberties.

40


41/48

176. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ civil conspiracy as outlined

above, Plaintiffs’ Constitutionally protected rights were violated when Plaintiffs were unlawfully

subjected to an illegal search and seizure, wrongfully arrested, and wrongfully imprisoned

thereby depriving them of their freedom of movement.





179. Defendants are jointly, severally and/or alternatively liable to Plaintiff for all of

his damages.







circumstances. Due to the concert of action among all of the various Defendants, each is liable to

Plaintiff for these damages even if there was no direct relation to the activity conducted by that

particular Defendant.

COUNT XII - STATE CLAIM

STATUTORY CONVERSION



41


42/48

set forth herein.




action.

182. On October 6, 2015, Defendants, and/or their agents, representatives or

employees unlawfully accessed Plaintiffs’ residence and business and removed Plaintiffs’

personal property, business’ property, and other items under the authority of an alleged warrant,

unlawfully obtained without having any physical evidence or any probable cause that Plaintiff

had committed, or was committing any crime.

183. While on the property Defendants removed Plaintiffs’ property which should not

have been subject to the alleged warrant.

184. Specifically, October 6th, 2015, based on this blatantly falsified criminal

investigation, Defendants McMahon and Stout raided the Plaintiffs’ Dearborn residence, and in

their search for “cash”, ripped panels and cabinets off walls, overturned furniture and summarily

seized such personal effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s mother’s (Plaintiff Yousra Jamal) jewelry

box and family immigration records, as well as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s passport, green card and

his wife’s (Plaintiff Gayle Joumaah) birth certificate, marriage license and numerous vehicle

titles. Despite numerous requests of both Defendants McMahon and Stout, none of the seized

property was ever returned to any of the rightful Plaintiffs’ possession. (See Ex. C - Witness

Affidavit of Rasoul Joumaah).

185. Defendants and/or their agents, representatives and/or employees unlawfully

42


43/48

asserted dominion over all of the items found in Plaintiffs’ residence and business regardless of

who was the actual owner.



187. Defendants and/or their agents, representatives or employees’ actions amount to

statutory conversion under MCL 600.2919a.







circumstances.

COUNT XIII - STATE CLAIM

COMMON LAW CONVERSION



set forth herein.




action.

190. On October 6, 2015, Defendants, and/or their agents, representatives or

43


44/48

employees unlawfully accessed Plaintiffs’ residence and business and removed Plaintiffs’

personal property, business’ property, and other items under the authority of an alleged warrant,

unlawfully obtained without having any physical evidence or any probable cause that Plaintiff

had committed, or was committing any crime.

191. While on the property Defendants McMahon and Stout removed Plaintiffs’

property which should not have been subject to the alleged warrant.

192. Specifically, October 6th, 2015, based on this blatantly falsified criminal

investigation, Defendants McMahon and Stout raided the Plaintiffs’ Dearborn residence, and in

their search for “cash”, ripped panels and cabinets off walls, overturned furniture and summarily

seized such personal effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s mother’s (Plaintiff Yousra Jamal) jewelry

box and family immigration records, as well as Plaintiff R. Joumaah’s passport, green card and

his wife’s (Plaintiff Gayle Joumaah) birth certificate, marriage license and numerous vehicle

titles. Despite numerous requests of both Defendants McMahon and Stout, none of the seized

property was ever returned to any of the rightful Plaintiffs’ possession. (See Ex. C - Witness

Affidavit of Rasoul Joumaah).

193. Defendants and/or their agents, representatives and/or employees unlawfully

asserted dominion over all of the items found in Plaintiffs’ residence and business regardless of

who was the actual owner.



195. Defendants actions, as outlined above, amount to conversion under Michigan

44


45/48

common law.5

196. The acts described above constitute an unlawful conversion of Plaintiffs’

property.







circumstances.

COUNT XIV – STATE CLAIM

FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION BY DEFENDANT OFFICERS


set forth herein.




action.

199. Defendant Officers made representations, representations to Plaintiffs regarding

Plaintiff's legal rights.

200. Defendant Officers representations to Plaintiffs were false.

5 Thoma v. Tracy Motor Sales, Inc, 360 Mich 434, 104 N.W.2d 360 (1960); Rohe Scientific Corp. V. National Bank

of Detroit , 133 Mich. App. 462, 350 N.W.2d 280 on reh’g 135 Mich. App 777, 355 N.W2d 883 (1984); Miller v.

Green, 37 Mich App 132, 194 N.W.2d 491 (1971).

45


46/48

201. When making the representations to Plaintiffs, Defendant Officers knew, or

should have known, that their representations were false, or made the representations recklessly.

202. Defendant Officers made the representations to Plaintiffs with the intention that

Plaintiffs rely on them.

203. Plaintiffs, acted in reliance of the representations made by Defendant Officers, so

as to suffer injury and detriment.







circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Steven A. Haney____________

Steven A. Haney (P63947)

Haney Law Group, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiffs

811 South Blvd., Suite 210

Rochester Hills, Michigan 48037

517.614.2304

[email protected]

_/s/ Muneeb Ahmad

____________Muneeb M. Ahmad, Esq (P70391)

S. Hussain Akbar, Esq (P67967)

AHMAD & AKBAR LAW, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

900 Wilshire Drive, Suite 202

Troy, Michigan 48084

Tel: (248) 519-2313

46


47/48

Fax:

Hamtramck Police Tire Dumping Lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Hamtramck Police Tire Dumping Lawsuit