IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …Defendant Javed R ichards is an IMPD police officer....

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


15

Count 2 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 False Arrest


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.


willfulness, and reckless indifference to Mr. Sowell’s constitutional rights.



rights.


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.



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


16

from unreasonable search and seizure by seizing Mr. Sowell without justification and

without probable cause.


undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.






and death.

Count 4 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Failure to Intervene


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.






and death.


17

Count 5 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights


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.






and death.

Count 6 -- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Denial of Medical Attention


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.


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


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.



rights.


willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.


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.


19

Count 8 -- State Law Claim False Arrest and False Imprisonment


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.



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.


20


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.


Estate of Donte Sowell suffered injury, including physical harm, mental distress, and

death.

Count 10 -- State Law Claim Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress


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


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.


21


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



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



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


23


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


26

Count 19 - Federal Law Claim First Amendment Violation


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.


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


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


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


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …Defendant Javed R ichards is an IMPD police officer....

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE …Defendant Javed R ichards is an IMPD police officer....