Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division JESSE CAMPODONICO, Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY OF MIAMI, JAVIER ORTIZ, NATHANIEL DAUPHIN, EDWARD LUGO, and HAROLD JAMES, : : : : : :

Defendants. : _______________________________________ COMPLAINT Plaintiff Jesse Campodonico sues the City of Miami, Sergeant Javier Ortiz, and Officers Nathaniel Dauphin, Edward Lugo, and Harold James, for damages. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for damages arising out of a beating, tasing, and false arrest

and coverup by City of Miami police officers on the evening of March 25, 2011, at the Ultra Music Festival held at Bicentennial Park. This action alleges violations of federal civil rights laws and the laws of the State of Florida, and the Plaintiff seeks in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.

1331, 1332(a), and 1367(a).

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 2 of 29

3.

Under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), venue lies in the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, because it is the judicial district and division in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. PARTIES 4. of New York. 5. Defendant City of Miami (Defendant City) is a political subdivision of the Plaintiff Jesse Campodonico (Plaintiff Campodonico) is a citizen of the State

State of Florida, a Florida municipal corporation, and at all relevant times had ultimate authority over the City of Miami Police Department and the other defendants. The Defendant City was responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, discipline, and conduct of the individual defendants, as all of them were employed by the City of Miami Police Department at all relevant times. 6. Defendant Javier Ortiz (Defendant Ortiz) is a Sergeant with the City of

Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant times, Defendant Ortiz was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee of the City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant Ortiz is being sued in his individual capacity. 7. Defendant Nathaniel Dauphin (Defendant Dauphin) is a police officer with

the City of Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant times, Defendant Dauphin was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee
2

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 3 of 29

of the City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant Dauphin is being sued in his individual capacity. 8. Defendant Edward Lugo (Defendant Lugo) is a police officer with the City

of Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant times, Defendant Lugo was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee of the City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant Lugo is being sued in his individual capacity. 9. Defendant Harold James (Defendant James, and together with Defendants

Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo, the Defendant Officers) is a police officer with the City of Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant times, Defendant James was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee of the City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant James is being sued in his individual capacity. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. 10. The Defendant Officers False Arrest and Excessive Use of Force On the night of March 25, 2011, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James

were working in an off-duty capacity at the Ultra Music Festival at Bicentennial Park. Upon information and belief, the Defendant City contracted with the private entity putting on the festival to provide City of Miami police officers for the event. The Defendant City assigned each of the Defendant Officers to work at the front entrance of the festival, with Defendant Ortiz, the ranking officer, acting as their supervisor.
3

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 4 of 29

11.

This was not the first time that the Defendant Officers had worked an off-duty

job under Defendant Ortizs supervision. Defendant Ortiz is frequently approached by private companies to assemble teams of police officers to work off-duty details. Defendant Ortiz has previously hand-picked each of the other Defendant Officers to work off-duty jobs under his supervision, with Defendants Lugo and James being officers who Defendant Ortiz frequently turns to when he is looking to staff an off-duty detail. 12. Plaintiff Campodonico traveled from his hometown in New York to attend the

Ultra Music Festival and arrived at the festival at around 10:30 p.m. on March 25, 2011, accompanied by his girlfriend, Crystal Iglesias, and several other friends. 13. Plaintiff Campodonico entered the festival alongside Ms. Iglesias. At the

entrance, private event security did not allow Ms. Iglesias into the park because she was holding a glow stick in her hand. 14. While Ms. Iglesias was speaking to private event security, Defendant Dauphin

approached her and Plaintiff Campodonico and told them that Ms. Iglesias could not enter the festival. 15. As Plaintiff Campodonico and Ms. Iglesias began leaving the festival,

Defendant Dauphin, who has a history of misconduct involving harassment and excessive force, positioned himself within one-half of an inch from Plaintiff Campodonicos face in a threatening manner. 16. Defendant Dauphin then punched Plaintiff Campodonico, grabbed Plaintiff

Campodonicos hair, pulled his head down by the hair, and began to repeatedly punch
4

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 5 of 29

Plaintiff Campodonico in the face with wide, swinging upper cuts while Plaintiff Campodonico was bent over his waist. 17. At no point did Defendant Dauphin or any other officer have probable cause

to arrest Plaintiff Campodonico or Ms. Iglesias for anything. 18. Soon after Defendant Dauphin began to strike Plaintiff Campodonico, multiple

City of Miami police officers arrived on scene, including Defendants Ortiz, Lugo, and James. 19. Plaintiff Campodonico was thrown to the ground by some combination of the

police officers who had arrived. 20. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, and Lugo then proceeded to repeatedly strike

Plaintiff Campodonicos face and body with their hands, knees, and feet. 21. During the incident, one or more of the Defendant Officers kicked Plaintiff

Campodonico repeatedly throughout his body, including his head; dropped their knees onto Plaintiff Campodonicos back multiple times as he lay on his stomach; and threw multiple round-house type punches (commonly referred to as hay-makers) which connected hard with Plaintiff Campodonicos face and head, all while Plaintiff Campodonico was down on the ground. 22. Plaintiff Campodonico attempted to get in the fetal position to deflect the

barrage of blows to his face and body from the Defendant Officers. He begged the Defendant Officers to stop hitting him. 23. After Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, and Lugo beat Plaintiff Campodonico for

several minutes, Defendant James discharged his hand-held Electronic Control Device
5

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 6 of 29

(ECD or taser), by shooting two probes from the taser into Plaintiff Campodonicos body. 24. The two probes were connected by wire to the taser. Immediately after the

probes latched onto Plaintiff Campodonicos skin, Defendant James pulled the trigger to his taser which sent an electrical charge through the wires and into Plaintiff Campodonicos body. 25. As captured on video by a stranger who was also attending the festival,

approximately nine seconds after the first taser discharge, and with the two probes still embedded in Plaintiff Campodonicos body, and despite Plaintiff Campodonicos obviously submissive position, Defendant James pulled the trigger to the taser a second time, sending a second electrical charge through Plaintiff Campodonicos body. 26. Approximately fourteen seconds after the second taser discharge, Defendant

James issued a third taser charge. On the third discharge, defendant James used the drivestun method, which means he applied the taser directly to Plaintiff Campodonicos body while pressing the tasers trigger and sending a third charge through his body. Throughout the entire period that Plaintiff Campodonico was tased, he never got up from the ground. 27. Both immediately before the first taser discharge, and in between the

subsequent discharges, Plaintiff Campodonico was on the ground, and was laying on his stomach or side or on his knees with his stomach facing the ground. 28. Bystanders were horrified by the Defendant Officers actions. One bystander,

a school teacher who had never met Plaintiff Campodonico before, saw what was taking
6

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 7 of 29

place, repeatedly yelled, Theyre going to kill him!, and then attempted to rush in to stop the beating when she saw an officer kick Plaintiff Campodonico in the head. 29. Another bystander who also had never met Plaintiff Campodonico before

began to film the incident using his hand-held device and later posted the video of what he witnessed publicly on YouTube. 30. The bystanders video captured the three taser discharges and demonstrated

that Plaintiff Campodonico was on the ground and helpless both immediately before the first taser discharge, and in between each subsequent taser discharge. 31. Bystanders witnessing the incident reacted to the Defendant Officers conduct

by making comments such as: a. b. c. d. e. f. 32. Did you see them just knocking that guy out for no reason? They just started knocking him out. They just started whacking him. They just put him in a choke-hold and started punching. They tased that guy like four times. Thats f**ked up. Thats f**ked up.

After the tasing, Defendant Dauphin placed Plaintiff Campodonico under arrest

and handcuffed him. 33. After Plaintiff Campodonico was handcuffed, one of the Defendant Officers

threw him to the ground and one or more of the Defendant Officers further beat and kicked Plaintiff Campodonico while he was handcuffed.
7

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 8 of 29

34.

After the beating ended and Plaintiff Campodonico was in handcuffs and

sitting, several of the Defendant Officers began to mock and laugh at Plaintiff Campodonico. 35. For instance, one or more of the Defendant Officers took pictures of Plaintiff

Campodonico with his personal hand-held device while laughing, and Defendant Dauphin said to Plaintiff Campodonico words to the effect of, I whooped youre a**, and get a new girlfriend and upgrade, while laughing at Plaintiff Campodonico as he sat bleeding and in pain. 36. Thereafter, Defendant James prepared an arrest affidavit and Plaintiff

Campodonico was transported to the Dade County Jail. 37. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James subsequently caused the Miami-

Dade State Attorneys Office to file an Information falsely accusing Plaintiff Campodonico of three counts of battery on a law enforcement officer and one count of resisting arrest with violence. See Information, State v. Campodonico, F11-8033 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. filed Apr. 25, 2011). 38. On February 14, 2012, the State Attorneys Office nolle prossed the charges

against Plaintiff Campodonico based on insufficient evidence. B. 39. Improper Use of a Taser At the time of this incident, the Defendant City had in effect a written policy

regarding the use of tasers, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 40. Defendant James use of the taser violated the Defendant Citys written policy

and generally accepted standards regarding the administration of a taser in at least four
8

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 9 of 29

respects. 41. First, at all relevant times, Plaintiff Campodonico was not actively or

aggressively resisting any of the officers, lacked the ability to physically threaten or hurt the officers, and was not attempting or preparing to flee or escape. 42. Thus, Defendant Jamess use of the taser violated generally accepted standards

and the Defendant Citys written policy regarding the circumstances under which a taser may be discharged and the drive-stun method may be utilized. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.3, 18.4.11. 43. Second, neither immediately before the first taser discharge, nor in between the

subsequent discharges, did Defendant James issue verbal warnings to Plaintiff Campodonico that he was about to discharge his taser, notwithstanding the fact that it was reasonable and practical for Defendant James to verbally warn Plaintiff Campodonico. 44. Thus, Defendant Jamess use of the taser violated generally accepted standards

and the Defendant Citys written policy regarding verbal warnings an officer must issue when using a taser on a subject. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.5. 45. Third, Defendant James failed to assess in between taser discharges whether

it was necessary to continue tasing Plaintiff Campodonico in order to subdue him. 46. Thus, Defendant Jamess use of the taser violated generally accepted standards

and the Defendant Citys written policy regarding assessments to be performed in between taser discharges. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.6.3. 47. Fourth, at the time of the incident, Defendant James had failed to participate

in any regular in-service training sessions regarding the use of a taser.

9

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 10 of 29

48.

Thus, Defendant James use of the taser violated generally accepted standards

regarding regular in-service training and the Defendant Citys written policy requiring officers with tasers to participate in annual in-service training. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.1.1. C. 49. Preparation of a False Report Because a taser was deployed against Plaintiff Campodonico, the police

officers were required by departmental policy to submit a Response to Resistance Report (RTRR) to the Internal Affairs division of the City of Miami Police Department. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.8. 50. The purpose of the RTRR is to create a record of a taser incident sufficient for

the Defendant Citys Internal Affairs division to evaluate whether an officers use of the taser complied with departmental policy and was justified under the circumstances. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.8.1 & 18.4.8.3. 51. Therefore, it is necessary that the supervisor in charge of preparing the RTRR

and conducing the post-incident investigation be a person not involved in the incident. 52. In this instance, however, the post-incident investigation and resulting RTRR

was not prepared by a disinterested objective supervisor. Instead, it was prepared by Defendant Ortiz, who was personally involved in the use of force and claimed to be a victim in the criminal case. 53. The RTRR contains statements purportedly taken by Defendant Ortiz

from seven police officers involved in the incident, as well as Defendant Ortizs own narrative of the incident.
10

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 11 of 29

54.

Evidence developed during the discovery process in the criminal case revealed,

however, that the RTRR prepared by Defendant Ortiz contained numerous fabrications in an apparent attempt to justify the arrest and use of excessive force against Plaintiff Campodonico. 55. In countless respects, the RTRR is materially contradicted by the deposition

testimony of the police officers who provided the purported statements contained within the RTRR. 56. In their depositions in the criminal case, at least five police officers

contradicted substantial portions of the statements attributed to them in the RTRR and, in fact, denied having told Defendant Ortiz many of the matters attributed to them. 57. For example, a number of the officers statements in the RTRR claim that

the officers personally observed Plaintiff Campodonico bite, punch, and kick other named officers. Those same officers testified in their depositions that they never personally observed the biting, punching, or kicking of the other named officers and never told Defendant Ortiz that they had. 58. 59. The RTRR is also contradicted by the video taken by the innocent bystander. For example, in the RTRR, the officers purportedly stated that Plaintiff

Campodonico tensed his arms, kicked his legs, bit one officer, and kicked another officer in the crotch between taser cycles. 60. The video, however, demonstrates that Plaintiff Campodonico was on the

ground and defenseless while being tased.

11

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 12 of 29

61.

City of Miami Police departmental policy regarding the use of tasers provides

that a supervisor shall respond to the scene and conduct an inquiry into the incident. Exhibit 1 at 18.4.8.1. 62. However, such policy does not expressly provide that a supervisor (such as

Defendant Ortiz in this instance) involved in the use of force may not be the one who conducts such inquiry. 63. Thus, Defendant City has failed to establish clear guidelines expressly

prohibiting supervisors involved in taser incidents from evaluating whether the taser was properly used. 64. The failure to establish such a clear, express guideline contributed significantly

to Plaintiff Campodonicos damages associated with defending the criminal case filed against him, because if the post-incident investigation had been performed by a supervisor not involved in the use of force, such officer would have discovered that Mr. Campodonico was the victim of police brutality, and that there was no probable cause to arrest him. D. 65. Defendant City was Aware of Defendant Officers History of Misconduct During the course of the Defendant Citys employment of the Defendant

Officers, it became aware, or should have become aware, of information indicating the Defendant Officers inability to follow orders and departmental policies and unfitness to serve in a capacity where force could be used. 66. Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant Ortiz had been: a. the subject of twenty citizen complaints filed with the Defendant City
12

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 13 of 29

since joining the police force in March 2004; b. excessive force; c. investigated for using excessive force by the Civilian Investigative Panel investigated by the Defendant Citys Internal Affairs division for using

of the City of Miami (CIP), a civilian oversight agency that monitors City of Miami Police Department practices and investigates claims of City of Miami police officer misconduct; and d. placed on a Monitoring List maintained by the CIP for City of Miami

Police officers, which lists officers who demonstrate a pattern of misconduct. 67. Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant Dauphin had been: a. the subject of at least fifty-five complaints filed with the Defendant City,

disciplined eleven times by the Defendant City; b. investigated by the Defendant Citys Internal Affairs division for using

excessive force, refusing to follow orders, harassment, violating a domestic violence injunction, failing to comply with subpoenas, and failing to timely prepare reports; c. d. 68. the subject of at least twelve complaints filed with the CIP; and placed on the CIPs Monitoring List.

Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant Lugo had been: a. the subject of sixteen citizen complaints filed with the Defendant City

and at least eight complaints filed with the CIP since joining the police force in June 2001; b. counseled and/or disciplined by the Defendant City at least eleven times

for committing at least fifteen violations of departmental policies;

13

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 14 of 29

c.

investigated by the Defendant Citys Internal Affairs division for using

excessive force, failing to report another officers criminal activity, and improper use of restraints; d. the subject of two separate recommendations by City of Miami Police

disciplinary personnel, arising out of separate incidents, that he be terminated from the police department; and e. 69. placed on the CIPs Monitoring List.

Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant James had been: a. the subject of twenty citizen complaints filed with the Defendant City

since joining the police force in March 2004; b. investigated by the Defendant Citys Internal Affairs division and the

CIP for using excessive force and failing to document an arrestees resulting injury; and c. also investigated by the Defendant Citys Internal Affairs division for

failing to comply with subpoenas. 70. The Defendant City knew, or should have known, about the Defendant

Officers history of misconduct, but nevertheless permitted the Defendant Officers to serve in a capacity on March 25, 2011, where force could be used. E. 71. Plaintiff Campodonicos Damages As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants City, Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo, and James, Plaintiff Campodonico suffered damages, including the following:
14

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 15 of 29

a. emotional distress; b. prosecution; c.

injuries to his face and body, causing severe pain and suffering and

harm to reputation as a result of the false arrest and malicious

financial loss for having to retain counsel to defend him in connection

with a false arrest and malicious prosecution; d. inconvenience, loss of time and money, and other hardships in

defending against the criminal charges, exacerbated by the fact that he was at all relevant times a New Jersey resident; e. Music Festival; and f. violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth loss of the value of his trip from New Jersey to Miami for the Ultra

Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure of his person, and common law rights to be free from battery, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and negligence by the police. 72. 73. The Defendants are subject to punitive damages for their conduct. Plaintiff Campodonico is obligated to pay undersigned counsel a reasonable

fee for their services. 74. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have occurred, been

performed, or been waived. 75. Plaintiff Campodonico complied with the pre-suit notice requirement of Fla.
15

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 16 of 29

Stat. 768.28(6)(a) by giving the Defendant City written notice of his claim on or about February 15, 2012. The Defendant City did not dispose of Plaintiff Campodonicos claim within 6 months of such notice, and therefore denied the claim. See Fla. Stat. 768.28(6)(d). COUNT I (Claim for Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James) 76. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 77. color of law. 78. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James deprived Plaintiff Campodonico At all relevant times, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James acted under

of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures when: a. Defendant Dauphin, unprovoked and without probable cause or

provocation, struck a blow against Plaintiff Campodonico that took him to the ground; b. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff

Campodonico in his face and body with their hands, knees and feet; c. Campodonico; and d. handcuffing him. 79. At all relevant times, the law was clearly established that the force used by the the Defendant Officers continued to beat Plaintiff Campodonico after Defendant James discharged his taser multiple times against Plaintiff

Defendant Officers was excessive and violated the Fourth Amendment.

16

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 17 of 29

80.

As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages. COUNT II (Claim for False Arrest in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James) 81. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 82. color of law. 83. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James deprived Plaintiff Campodonico At all relevant times, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James acted under

of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures when they arrested Plaintiff Campodonico without a warrant or probable cause. 84. At all relevant times, the law was clearly established that arresting Plaintiff

Campodonico violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 85. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages. COUNT III (Claim for Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James) 86. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count.

17

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 18 of 29

87. color of law. 88.

At all relevant times, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James acted under

Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James reached an agreement and

understanding to violate Plaintiff Campodonicos Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures by agreeing that one, some, or all of them would use excessive force against him and falsely arrest him. 89. Multiple overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including

the following: a. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff

Campodonico in his face and body with their hands, knees and feet; b. c. d. e. Campodonico. 90. As a result of the Defendant Officers conspiracy, Plaintiff Campodonicos Defendant James tased Plaintiff Campodonico; Defendant Dauphin handcuffed Plaintiff Campodonico; Defendant Ortiz drafted the RTRR; and Defendant James prepared and signed the arrest affidavit for Plaintiff

Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. 91. At all relevant times, the law was clearly established that the Defendant

Officers agreement and conduct violated Plaintiff Campodonicos Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 92. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz,
18

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 19 of 29

Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages. COUNT IV (Claim for an Unconstitutional Policy/Custom in Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendant City) 93. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 94. Plaintiff Campodonico possessed a constitutional right secured by the Fourth

Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. 95. Plaintiff Campodonico was deprived of his Fourth Amendment rights on March

25, 2011, when he was falsely arrested and excessively beaten and tased by the Defendant Officers. 96. Upon information and belief, and notwithstanding its written policy, the

Defendant City has an unwritten policy and custom where it does not provide officers to whom tasers are issued any regular in-service training on the use of a taser, such as training on: a. a taser; b. conducting discharge-to-discharge assessments on the need for further determining the circumstances under which it is appropriate to discharge

tasing, including training on how to discern whether a subjects actions after a taser discharge are voluntary efforts to resist or involuntary reactions to the tasers electrical current; and c. drive-stun method.
19

determining the circumstances under which it is appropriate to use the

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 20 of 29

97.

The Defendant Citys unwritten policy and custom of failing to regularly train

its officers to whom tasers are issued amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons with whom its officers come into contact. 98. A police officers excessive and unconstitutional use of a taser is a known or

obvious consequence of a municipal policy and custom where officers are not provided with regular in-service training on the appropriate use of a taser. 99. The Defendant Citys policy-makers disregarded that known or obvious

consequence by permitting officers such as Defendant James to continue carrying a taser without receiving regular in-service training. 100. At the time of the incident, Defendant James, the officer who discharged the

taser, had not received regular in-service training on the use of a taser. 101. As a result of his lack of training, Defendant James discharged his taser three

times against Plaintiff Campodonicos body when it was unnecessary to issue even a single taser discharge, did not issue any verbal warnings to Plaintiff Campodonico before discharging his taser, did not conduct any assessment between taser discharges of whether it was necessary to continue tasing Plaintiff Campodonico, and utilized the drive-stun method when it was unnecessary to do so. 102. Accordingly, the Defendant Citys unwritten policy and custom of failing to

regularly train its officers in the use of tasers caused its employee, Defendant James, to violate Plaintiff Campodonicos Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
20

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 21 of 29

103.

As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of the Defendant City,

Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages. COUNT V (Claim for Battery against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James) 104. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 105. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James intentionally inflicted harmful or

offensive contact upon Plaintiff Campodonico when: a. Defendant Dauphin, unprovoked and without probable cause, struck a

blow against Plaintiff Campodonico; b. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff

Campodonico in his face and body with their hands, knees and feet; c. Campodonico; and d. handcuffing him. 106. The force used by the Defendant Officers was excessive and unreasonable the Defendant Officers continued to beat Plaintiff Campodonico after Defendant James discharged his taser multiple times against Plaintiff

under the circumstances. 107. When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful acts, they acted within

the scope of their employment, and acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and/or in a manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety and/or property.

21

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 22 of 29

108.

As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages. COUNT VI (Claim for Malicious Prosecution against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James) 109. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 110. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James instigated and caused to be

commenced a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff Campodonico styled State v. Campodonico, F11-8033 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. filed April 25, 2011). 111. The criminal case against Plaintiff Campodonico ended in Plaintiff

Campodonicos favor because the State of Florida nolle prossed the case for insufficient evidence. 112. The Defendant Officers instigated and caused to be commenced the criminal

case with malice. 113. There was no probable cause to support the criminal charges against Plaintiff

Campodonico. 114. When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful act, they acted within

the scope of their employment, and acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and/or in a manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety and/or property. 115. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages.
22

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 23 of 29

COUNT VII (Claim for False Imprisonment against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James) 116. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 117. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James intentionally restrained Plaintiff

Campodonico by arresting him and taking him to the Dade County Jail. 118. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James restrained Plaintiff Campodonico

against his will. 119. Plaintiff Campodonico was aware at all relevant times that the Defendant

Officers had restrained him. 120. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James acted without legal authority in

restraining Plaintiff Campodonico because the arrest was not supported by probable cause or a warrant. 121. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and Jamess arrest of Plaintiff Campodonico

was unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances. 122. When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful act, they acted within

the scope of their employment, and acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and/or in a manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety and/or property. 123. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages.

23

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 24 of 29

COUNT VIII (Claim for Negligence against Defendant James) 124. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 125. At all times material, Defendant James had a duty to exercise reasonable care

in the administration of his taser. 126. his taser by: a. unnecessary; b. c. discharge; and d. were necessary. 127. When Defendant James committed such wrongful acts, he acted within the failing to assess between taser discharges whether subsequent discharges failing to be regularly trained in the use of a taser; failing to properly warn Plaintiff Campodonico before each taser using a taser under circumstances where it was unauthorized and Defendant James breached his duty of reasonable care in the administration of

scope of his employment, and acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and/or in a manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety and/or property. 128. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant James,

Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages.

24

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 25 of 29

COUNT IX (Claim for Civil Conspiracy against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James) 129. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 130. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James reached an agreement and

understanding to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. 131. Specifically, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James reached an

agreement and understanding to commit one or more of the following torts against Plaintiff Campodonico, as alleged in above: battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution by agreeing that one, some, or all of them would use excessive force against Plaintiff Campodonico, falsely arrest him battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence, and maliciously prosecute him for those offenses. 132. Multiple overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including

the following: a. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff

Campodonico in his face and body with their hands, knees and feet; b. c. d. e. Campodonico. Defendant James tased Plaintiff Campodonico; Defendant Dauphin handcuffed Plaintiff Campodonico; Defendant Ortiz prepared the RTRR; and Defendant James prepared and signed the arrest affidavit for Plaintiff

25

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 26 of 29

133.

When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful acts, they acted within

the scope of their employment, and acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and/or in a manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety and/or property. 134. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages. COUNT X (Claim for Respondeat Superior Liability against Defendant City of Miami) 135. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 136. Subject to certain statutory limitations, the Defendant City is liable for the

negligent or wrongful acts of its employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment to the same extent as a private employer. See Fla. Stat. 768.28(1)(a), (5). 137. At all relevant times, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James committed

the torts of battery, false imprisonment, civil conspiracy and negligence while acting within the course and scope of their employment as employees of the Defendant City. 138. One statutory limitation on imposing Respondent superior liability on the

Defendant City is that it shall not be liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an officer, employee, or agent committed while acting outside the scope of her or his employment or committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wilful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property. Fla. Stat. 768.28(9)(a). 139. As permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d), in the alternative to the contrary

26

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 27 of 29

allegations set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiff Campodonico alleges that the Defendant Officers did not commit the above-mentioned torts of battery, false imprisonment, civil conspiracy, or negligence in bad faith or with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wilful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property. 140. Accordingly, Respondent superior liability ought to be imposed on the

Defendant City for the Defendant Officers acts of battery, false imprisonment, civil conspiracy, and negligence to the extent provided by law. COUNT XI (Claim for Negligence against Defendant City) 141. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 73 above, and

incorporates them into this Count. 142. The Defendant City has a duty to protect individuals from acts of false arrest,

excessive force, battery, malicious prosecution and negligence by the officers it employs. 143. During the course of the Defendant Citys employment of the Defendant

Officers, the Defendant City knew or should have known that: a. each of the Defendant Officers had histories of misconduct indicating

their unfitness to serve as police officers; b. each of the Defendant Officers had histories of misconduct indicating

their unfitness to serve in a capacity where force, including force by way of a taser, could be used; c. Defendant James carried a taser without receiving regular in-service

27

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 28 of 29

training regarding the use of a taser; and d. the Defendant Citys own policies regarding the use of tasers failed to

expressly prohibit officers involved in taser incidents from serving as the supervisor responsible for conducting post-incident investigations. 144. The Defendant City breached its duty of reasonable care by: a. b. retaining the Defendant Officers as police officers; permitting the Defendant Officers to serve in a capacity where force,

including force by way of a taser, could be used; c. allowing Defendant James to carry a taser while failing to regularly train

him regarding its use; and d. failing to set forth a clear policy that would have prohibited Defendant

Ortiz from serving as the supervisor responsible for the post-incident investigation in this case. 145. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant City,

Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff Jesse Campodonico demands the following relief against Defendants City, Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James: a. judgment in favor of Plaintiff Campodonico and against each of the

Defendants on the above-mentioned counts; b. an award of damages, including any and all actual, compensatory,
28

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 Page 29 of 29

consequential, and nominal damages; c. d. an award of punitive damages; reasonable attorneys fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any

other applicable law; e. f. g. joint and several liability; interest; and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Campodonico demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted, s/ Scott A. Srebnick________________ Scott A. Srebnick, Esq. Florida Bar No. 872910 scott@srebnicklaw.com Manuel A. Arteaga-Gomez, Esq. alex@srebnicklaw.com Florida Bar No. 18122 SCOTT A. SREBNICK, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 1380 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: 305-285-9019 Facsimile: 305-377-9937 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jesse Campodonico

29