Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rob Riley Lawsuit--Quash Service

Rob Riley Lawsuit--Quash Service

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28,532|Likes:
Published by Roger Shuler
Motion to Quash Service in defamation lawsuit that Alabama Republican Rob Riley brought against Legal Schnauzer blog.
Motion to Quash Service in defamation lawsuit that Alabama Republican Rob Riley brought against Legal Schnauzer blog.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Roger Shuler on Oct 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Defendants Roger and Carol
Shuler (“
the Shulers
”) move this court to
quash service inthe above-styled matter. The Shulers also move this court to impose sanctions upon Shelby
County Sheriff’s Lt. Mike DeHart for his unlawful acts in attempting to serve process in thismatter. The Shulers also seek sanctions against Plaintiffs (“Riley” and “Duke”) and anyone elsewho knowingly encouraged or participated in DeHart’s unlawf 
ul acts. In support of this motion,the Shulers state as follows:1.
DeHart conducted an unlawful traffic stop against the Shulers on September 29, 2013, asthey were attempting to visit the North Shelby Library.2.
With the lights on his vehicle flashing,
DeHart pulled behind the Shulers’ vehicle,
instructed them to remain in their vehicle as they attempted to exit, and informed Roger Shuler that he had rolled through a stop sign at the intersection of MacIan Lane and KeithDrive in the Broken Bow South subdivision, where the Shulers have lived for 23 years.3.
The Shulers knew immediately that DeHart was lying. The intersection in question is in
the shape of a “T,” with an obstructed view and traffic coming from both directions. No
sane driver rolls through a stop sign at such an intersection, unless he simply enjoys thethought of causing a car crash. Roger Shuler has an outstanding driver record for roughly40 years and never has been involved in a car crash, at a T intersection or anywhere else.4.
Roger Shuler told DeHart right up front that he had not rolled through the stop sign.
 Nevertheless, DeHart took Roger Shuler’s license, registration, and insurance information
and returned to his squad car. The Shulers were detained from the moment DeHart blocked their path and restricted their movement.5.
DeHart returned to the Shulers’ vehicle and handed Roger Shuler a warning for rolling
through the stop sign and asked him to sign it. Shuler asked if his signature indicated
agreement with DeHart’s version of events.
DeHart said no, so Shuler signed the warning
notice. DeHart returned Shuler’s license and other information, and the Shulers prepared
to exit their vehicle and enter the library.6.
Before they could do that, DeHart handed Roger Shuler a stack of papers and s
aid, “Mr.Shuler, you’ve been served.” The papers apparently were a copy of the summ
ons andcomplaint in the instant case.7.
Roger Shuler became irate upon realizing that DeHart had conducted a bogus traffic stopin order to serve the Shulers with papers in
Rob Riley’s lawsuit. Shuler called DeHart a“fraud,” and DeHart responded by angrily grabbing Shuler’s arm and blocking the car 
door as he attempted to re-enter his vehicle and drive away. DeHart reached for hishandcuffs and threatened Roger Shuler with arrest, apparently deciding against it onlywhen Carol Shuler made it clear the officer was going to have to physically restrain her.
Well-settled state and federal law states that a traffic stop is a seizure under the FourthAmendment of the U.S. Constitution.
United States v. Purcell, 236 F. 3d 1274 (11
The law also is well settled that a traffic stop constitutes an unreasonable seizure if it is not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
United States v.Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003).
Officer DeHart had no probable cause to conduct a traffic stop against the Shulers. Infact, the Shulers contend that Officer DeHart was not even in a position to witness thealleged violation. DeHart conducted an unreasonable seizure from the outset, but hislawlessness became even worse when he concluded the traffic stop, but then proceeded to
“serve” the Shulers with co
urt papers in the instant case.10.
The law on such matters has been settled for many years, at the federal and state levels:The officer may further detain the driver only if he has probable cause to arrest the driver for some other non-traffic offense,
 Hawkins v. State, 585 So. 2d 154 (Ala., 1991,)
or has a
reasonable suspicion of the driver’s involv
ement in some other criminal activity justifying further detention for investigatory purposes.
Terry v. Ohio, 391 U.S. 1 (1968).
DeHart’s actions constitute an outrageous violation of the Shulers’
civil rights. His
“service” of process, during a traffic s
top that was unlawful to begin with and then wasunlawfully prolonged, is invalid, unconstitutional, and is due to be quashed.12.
DeHart likely engaged in criminal activity, under 
18 U.S.C. 242
, and service thereforeinvalid, unconstitutional, and is due to be quashed.13.
The Shulers intend to pursue a federal lawsuit against DeHart, the Shelby County
Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Chris Curry, and anyone else (including plaintiffs Riley and
Duke) who is responsible for the unlawful seizure described herein.14.
Shulers also intend to report DeHart’s actions to the U.S. Justice Department and theAlabama Attorney General’s Office for criminal investigation.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->