CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v.

Civil File No. 12-CV-632 (SRN/JSM)

City of Bloomington; City of Burnsville; City of Cottage Grove; City of Eagan; City of Eden Prairie; City of Golden Valley; City of Isanti; City of Lakeville; City of Minneapolis; City of Minnetonka; City of St. Paul; City of Woodbury; Chisago County; Dakota County; Pine County; Ramsey County; Tim Anderson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police Department; Charles Gollop, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Bloomington Police Department; Casey Buck, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNDER FRCP of the Burnsville Police Department; Valerie 38(b) Lonetti, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police Department; Danielle Anselment, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department; Sean Sweeney, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Eagan Police Department; Jennifer Bahr, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Ann Bogren, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kyle Duchschere, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Robert Haberle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Erica Halverson, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Laurie Henning, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Zachary Hessel, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department;

EXHIBIT 1

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 2 of 88

Tracy Luke, acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Christopher Millard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Marci Pogatchnik, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Beth Sams, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Rachel Selness, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Carter Staaf, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Steve Velner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kevin White, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Joe Dutton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police Department; Steve Callahan, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Isanti Police Department; Todd Williams, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department; Kara Abbas, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Laura Bartsch, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Calvin Cook, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tim Costello, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Department; Hien Dinh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Thomas Fahey, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Fuchs, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Marc

2

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 3 of 88

Gingerich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Robert Glasrud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy Gross, in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Aaron Hanson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kimberly Heyda, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lonnie Hoffbeck, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jerry Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mark Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Joseph, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Christopher Karakostas, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mike Keefe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jason King, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Richard Lillard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy MacDougall, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Minneapolis Police Department; Darcy Mackenthun, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Sean McGinty, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David O’Connor, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Billy Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lucas Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis

3

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 4 of 88

Police Department; Michael Pfaff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David Pleoger, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Luis Porras, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Reuben, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Rocklin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Staufenberg, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristina Stichter, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristin Sturgis, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chris Thomsen, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Brian Thureson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Geoffry Toscano, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Stephanie Weibye, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Matthew Wente, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Pam Wheeler, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; William Willner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Wolf, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Nelson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police Department; Stephanie Bailey, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ann Baumgart, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Neil Benner, acting in his individual capacity

4

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 5 of 88

as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Bruce Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Laura Bolduan, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Amy Boyer, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Boyle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Brubaker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Brian Coyle, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Chad Degree, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Wes Denning, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Luis Diaz-Calle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Edward Dion, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Michael Dunaski, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shawn Filiowich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matthew Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tim Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Gorud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Nikkole Graupmann, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mike Helgoe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer for the St. Paul Police Department; Axel Henry, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Andrew Heroux, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cortez Hull, acting in his individual capacity as an officer of the St. Paul

5

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 6 of 88

Police Department; Jeffrey Hutchinson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Robert Jerue, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Erik Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Candice Jones, acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Ian Kough, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kimberly Kunde, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cary Lee, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Stephen Lentsch, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Sean LohseJohnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Theodore Mackintosh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James McKnight, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shelly Mehl, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Justin Miller, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Timothy Moore, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ryan Murphy, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James Nash, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Neubrand, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Evan O’Hara, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Salim Omari, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kathy O’Reilly, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mark Pierce, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Chris Rhoades, acting

6

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 7 of 88

in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Craig Rhode, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeff Rothecker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; David Rud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jon Sherwood, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Adam Siegfried, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Charles Sims, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Alan Singleton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jamie Sipes, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Stevens, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Stiff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Tallarico, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Todd Tessmer, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Threasa Timp, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matt Toupal, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Scott Wendell, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Ofstead, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police Department; Jay Belisle, acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s Department; John Grant, acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department; Blake Fjosne, acting in his individual capacity as an Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Rebecca Lawrence, acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Dan Vosika, acting in

7

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 8 of 88

his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; John Melvin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of Corrections; Millicent Tompa, acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Sean Huls, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-Duluth Police Department; Dean Grothem, acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol; Michael Campion, acting in his individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Mona Dohman, acting in her individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Elke Hobus; John and Jane Does (1 - 50) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other named lawenforcement agencies; Ramsey County Doe, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department; Department of Public Safety Does (1-30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1-10) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota and federal departments and agencies, Defendants. For her First Amended Complaint, for which she demands trial by jury on all claims so triable, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson (“Rasmusson”) hereby states and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION The United States Supreme Court long has recognized privacy as a fundamental constitutional right protected by the U.S. Constitution and entitled to protection from encroachment by the States, both under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and under

8

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 9 of 88

various protections extended to the people of the United States by the Bill of Rights. To enforce those rights, the legislative branch of our federal government has adopted a strict approach to the protection of privacy interests, particularly in the past twenty years. Recognizing that lawenforcement personnel, among others, have the ability to access any person’s private information, especially that information retained by the State in connection with a driver’s license, Congress passed legislation commonly known as the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (“DPPA”) to safeguard this information. In a separate but related vein, in 1997 the Minnesota Supreme Court first recognized the tort of invasion of privacy. This case involves the invasion of privacy and illegal searches of Plaintiff Anne Rasmusson by approximately 144 Minnesota law-enforcement officers, who accessed, used or disclosed her private information approximately 554 times in the time period 2005 to 2012, without any legitimate business reason to do so, and who not only violated the DPPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, but have damaged Plaintiff Rasmusson’s life by these violations. Plaintiff is entitled to a determination that her rights have been violated, to an order enjoining further violations, and to monetary damages for these invasions of her privacy.

9

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 10 of 88

General Background of Law and Facts 1. This is an action for injunctive relief and money damages for injuries sustained

when approximately 147 law-enforcement personnel in Minnesota illegally viewed Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson’s private, personal, and confidential driver’s license information without a legitimate purpose. These law-enforcement personnel viewed her private information in excess of 550 times from the 2005 to 2012. Further, several of these individuals used or disclosed Rasmusson’s private information. Each unauthorized use of her private information, made while acting under color of state law, violated Rasmusson’s federal civil rights and constituted behavior prohibited by federal statute, Minnesota statute, common law, and agency and departmental regulations prohibiting some or all of the conduct engaged in by Defendants in this case. 2. Rasmusson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3), the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., and Minnesota common law invasion of privacy. The aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions confer original jurisdiction of this Court over this matter. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interests and costs. The Parties 4. Rasmusson is, and was at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States

and a resident of the State of Minnesota. 5. Defendant City of Bloomington is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which

can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.

10

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 11 of 88

6.

Defendant City of Burnsville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued

under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 7. Defendant City of Cottage Grove is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be

sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 8. Defendant City of Eagan is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under

Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 9. Defendant City of Eden Prairie is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued

under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 10. Defendant City of Golden Valley is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be

sued under § 466.01 et. seq. 11. Defendant City of Isanti is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under

Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 12. Defendant City of Lakeville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued

under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 13. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which

can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 14. Defendant City of Minnetonka is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which

can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 15. Defendant City of St. Paul is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which can be

sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 16. Defendant City of Woodbury is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued

under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.

11

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 12 of 88

17.

Defendant Chisago County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under

Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 18. Defendant Dakota County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under

Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 19. Defendant Pine County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn.

Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 20. Defendant Ramsey County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under

Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. 21. Defendants Entity Does (1-10) are various cities, counties, municipalities and

other entities sited in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. or other statutes, and federal departments and agencies, which can be sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 or other statutes. 22. Plaintiff will refer to the entities named in paragraphs 5-16 above collectively as

the “Defendant Entities” or “Entity Defendants.” 23. Defendant Tim Anderson (“Anderson”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police Department. 24. Defendant Charles Gollop (“Gollop”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police Department.

12

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 13 of 88

25.

Defendant Casey Buck (“Buck”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police Department. 26. Defendant Valerie Lonetti (“Lonetti”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police Department. 27. Defendant Danielle Anselment (“Anselment”), upon information and belief, was,

at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department. 28. Defendant Sean Sweeney (“Sweeney”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department. 29. Defendant Jennifer Bahr (“Bahr”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 30. Defendant Ann Bogren (“Bogren”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department.

13

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 14 of 88

31.

Defendant Kyle Duchschere (“Duchschere”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 32. Defendant Robert Haberle (“Haberle”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 33. Defendant Erica Halverson (“Halverson”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 34. Defendant Laurie Henning (“Henning”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 35. Defendant Zachary Hessel (“Hessel”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 36. Defendant Tracy Luke (“Luke”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly

14

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 15 of 88

appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police Department 37. Defendant Christopher Millard (“Millard”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 38. Defendant Marci Pogatchnik (“Pogatchnik”), upon information and belief, was at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 39. Defendant Beth Sams (“Sams”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 40. Defendant Rachel Selness (“Selness”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 41. Defendant Carter Staaf (“Staaf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department.

15

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 16 of 88

42.

Defendant Steve Velner (“Velner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 43. Defendant Kevin White (“White”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department. 44. Defendant Joe Dutton (“Dutton”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police Department. 45. Defendant Steve Callahan (“Callahan”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Isanti Police Department. 46. Defendant Todd Williams (“Williams”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department. 47. Defendant Kara Abbas (“Abbas”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.

16

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 17 of 88

48.

Defendant Laura Bartsch (“Bartsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 49. Defendant John Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 50. Defendant Calvin Cook (“Cook”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 51. Defendant Tim Costello (“Costello”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 52. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of Minneapolis”), upon information and

belief, was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 53. Defendant Hien Dinh (“Dinh”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.

17

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 18 of 88

54.

Defendant Thomas Fahey (“Fahey”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department 55. Defendant Chad Fuchs (“Fuchs”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 56. Defendant Marc Gingerich (“Gingerich”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 57. Defendant Robert Glasrud (“Glasrud”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 58. Defendant Tracy Gross (“Gross”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 59. Defendant Aaron Hanson (“Hanson”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly

18

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 19 of 88

appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 60. Defendant Kimberly Heyda (“Heyda”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 61. Defendant Lonnie Hoffbeck (“Hoffbeck”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 62. Defendant Jerry Johnson, upon information and belief, was at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 63. Defendant Mark Johnson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 64. Defendant Chad Joseph (“Joseph”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 65. Defendant Christopher Karakostas (“Karakostas”), upon information and belief,

was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of

19

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 20 of 88

Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department. 66. Defendant Mike Keefe (“Keefe”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 67. Defendant Jason King (“King”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 68. Defendant Richard Lillard (“Lillard”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 69. Defendant Jill Mrolsa Loonsfoot (“Loonsfoot”), upon information and belief, was,

at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 70. Defendant Tracy MacDougall (“MacDougall”), upon information and belief, was

at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Minneapolis Police Department.

20

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 21 of 88

71.

Defendant Darcy Mackenthun (“Mackenthun”), upon information and belief, was,

at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 72. Defendant Sean McGinty (“McGinty”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 73. Defendant David O’Connor (“O’Connor”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 74. Defendant Billy Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 75. Defendant Lucas Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 76. Defendant Michael Pfaff (“Pfaff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.

21

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 22 of 88

77.

Defendant David Pleoger (“Pleoger”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department. 78. Defendant Luis Porras (“Porras”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department. 79. Defendant Patrick Reuben (“Reuben”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department 80. Defendant Michael Rocklin (“Rocklin”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 81. Defendant John Staufenberg (“Staufendberg”), upon information and belief, was,

at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 82. Defendant Kristina Stichter (“Stichter”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly

22

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 23 of 88

appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 83. Defendant Kristin Sturgis (“Sturgis”), upon information and belief, was at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 84. Defendant Chris Thomsen (“Thomsen”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 85. Defendant Brian Thureson (“Thureson”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 86. Defendant Geoffrey Toscano (“Toscano”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 87. Defendant Stephanie Weibye (“Weibye”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.

23

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 24 of 88

88.

Defendant Matthew Wente (“Wente”), upon information and belief, was at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 89. Defendant Pam Wheeler (“Wheeler”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 90. Defendant William Willner (“Willner”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 91. Defendant Jill Wolf (“Wolf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department. 92. Defendant Michael Nelson (“Nelson”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police Department. 93. Defendant Stephanie Bailey (“Bailey”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

24

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 25 of 88

94.

Defendant Ann Baumgart (“Baumgart”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 95. Defendant Neil Benner (“Benner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 96. Defendant Bruce Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 97. Defendant Laura Bolduan (“Bolduan”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department 98. Defendant Amy Boyer (“Boyer”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 99. Defendant Jeffrey Boyle (“Boyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 100. Defendant Jason Brubaker (“Brubaker”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 101. Defendant Brian Coyle (“Coyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly

25

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 26 of 88

appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department. 102. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of St. Paul”), upon information and belief,

was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 103. Defendant Chad Degree (“Degree”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 104. Defendant Wes Denning (“Denning”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 105. Defendant Luis Diaz-Calle (“Diaz-Calle”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 106. Defendant Edward Dion (“Dion”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 107. Defendant Michael Dunaski (“Dunaski”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

26

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 27 of 88

108.

Defendant Shawn Filiowich (“Filiowich”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 109. Defendant Matthew Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 110. Defendant Tim Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department. 111. Defendant Eric Gorud (“Gorud”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 112. Defendant Nikkole Graupmann (“Graupmann”), upon information and belief,

was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 113. Defendant Mike Helgoe (“Helgoe”), upon information and belief, was at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 114. Defendant Axel Henry (“Henry”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.

27

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 28 of 88

115.

Defendant Andrew Heroux (“Heroux”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 116. Defendant Cortez Hull (“Hull”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 117. Defendant Jeffrey Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”), upon information and belief, was,

at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department 118. Defendant Robert Jerue (“Jerue”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 119. Defendant Erik Johnson (“Erik Johnson”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 120. Defendant Candice Jones (“Jones”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department. 121. Defendant Ian Kough (“Kough”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

28

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 29 of 88

122.

Defendant Kimberly Kunde (“Kunde”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 123. Defendant Cary Lee (“Lee”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 124. Defendant Stephen Lentsch (“Lentsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 125. Defendant Sean Lohse-Johnson (“Lohse-Johnson”), upon information and belief,

was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 126. Defendant Theodore Mackintosh (“Mackintosh”), upon information and belief,

was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 127. Defendant James McKnight (“McKnight”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

29

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 30 of 88

128.

Defendant Shelly Mehl, (“Mehl”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 129. Defendant Justin Miller (“Miller”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 130. Defendant Timothy Moore (“Moore”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 131. Defendant Ryan Murphy (“Murphy”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 132. Defendant James Nash (“Nash”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department 133. Defendant Jason Neubrand (“Neubrand”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 134. Defendant Evan O’Hara (“O’Hara”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

30

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 31 of 88

135.

Defendant Salim Omari (“Omari”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department 136. Defendant Kathy O’Reilly (“O’Reilly”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 137. Defendant Mark Pierce (“Pierce”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department. 138. Defendant Chris Rhoades (“Rhoades”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 139. Defendant Craig Rhode (“Rhode”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 140. Defendant Jeff Rothecker (“Rothecker”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 141. Defendant David Rud (“Rud”), upon information and belief, was at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

31

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 32 of 88

142.

Defendant Jon Sherwood (“Sherwood”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 143. Defendant Adam Siegfried (“Siegfried”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 144. Defendant Charles Sims (“Sims”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 145. Defendant Alan Singleton (“Singleton”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 146. Defendant Jamie Sipes (“Sipes”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 147. Defendant Eric Stevens (“Stevens”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 148. Defendant Jeffrey Stiff (“Stiff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

32

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 33 of 88

149.

Defendant Tony Tallarico (“Tallarico”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 150. Defendant Todd Tessmer (“Tessmer”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 151. Defendant Threasa Timp (“Timp”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 152. Defendant Matt Toupal (“Toupal”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department. 153. Defendant Scott Wendell (“Wendell”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department. 154. Defendant Tony Ofstead (“Ofstead”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police Department. 155. Defendant Jay Belisle (“Belisle”), upon information and belief, was at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s Department.

33

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 34 of 88

156.

Defendant John Grant (“Grant”), upon information and belief, was at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department. 157. Defendant Blake Fjosne (“Fjosne”), upon information and belief, was at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department. 158. Defendant Rebecca Lawrence (“Lawrence”), upon information and belief, was at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department. 159. Defendant Dan Vosika (“Vosika”), upon information and belief, was at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department. 160. Defendant John Melvin (“Melvin”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. 161. Defendant Millicent Tompa (“Tompa”), upon information and belief, was at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly

34

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 35 of 88

appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 162. Defendant Sean Huls (“Huls”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of MinnesotaDuluth Police Department. 163. Defendant Dean Grothem (“Grothem”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol. 164. Defendant Elke Hobus (“Hobus”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota. 165. Defendant, Ramsey County Doe, upon information and belief, was at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department. 166. Defendants John and Jane Does (1-50), upon information and belief, were, at all

times material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in their individual capacities as law-enforcement supervisors, officers or employees of the Defendant Entities or other federal, state, county or municipal entities in Minnesota. 167. Plaintiff will refer to the individual Defendants (with the exception of the

“Commissioner Defendants,” “Department of Public Safety Defendants” and “Supervisor

35

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 36 of 88

Defendants” defined below), including John, Jane and Ramsey County Does, collectively as the “Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel,” “Individual Defendants,” or “Defendant Individuals.” 168. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants with supervisory authority over the

Individual Defendants, including any John and Jane Does with such supervisory authority, collectively as the “Defendant Supervisors” or “Supervisor Defendants.” 169. Defendant Michael Campion (“Campion”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. 170. Defendant Mona Dohman (“Dohman”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen, of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. 171. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants Campion and Dohman collectively, as the

“Commissioner Defendants” or “Defendant Commissioners.” 172. Defendants DPS Does (1-30), upon information and belief, were, at all times

material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting their individual capacities as officers, supervisors, employees, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. 173. Plaintiff will refer to officers, supervisors, employees, staff, employees,

independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety who created, installed, monitored, regulated, coded, enforced, supervised, maintained, oversaw, updated, or otherwise worked on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database or Bureau of

36

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 37 of 88

Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database, each of which contained Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information (collectively or individually, “DPS Databases”) as “Department of Public Safety Does” or “DPS Does.”) FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. Rasmusson Served Honorably as a Law-Enforcement Officer 174. In 1996, Rasmusson graduated from the police academy at Range Technology

College in Hibbing, Minnesota. Her fellow classmates elected her as a Community Service Sergeant for their class. 175. Immediately after graduation, in May 1996, she became a park ranger for the City

of Eden Prairie, Minnesota. 176. In December 1996, Rasmusson became a police officer for the Eden Prairie Police

Department. She worked as a patrol officer. 177. Rasmusson was injured in the line of duty on June 6, 1999, while on a medical

emergency call. During that call, she needed to move some furniture, and, while doing so, snapped her coccyx (tail bone). 178. In March 2000, Rasmusson underwent surgery related to that injury where her

coccyx and partial sacrum were removed. 179. 180. Despite the injury and surgery, Rasmusson returned to duty. In 2001, Rasmusson became a police officer for the City of St. Paul, Minnesota.

St. Paul requires lateral hires such as Rasmusson to attend their police academy. While there, Rasmusson became the first female academy president in the department’s history. She gave her St. Paul Police Academy class commencement speech.

37

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 38 of 88

181.

In St. Paul, Rasmusson worked as a patrol officer in the West District, commonly

known as the “Frogtown” neighborhood. 182. In 2003, Rasmusson began to experience numbness in her leg and had difficulty

sitting. She was diagnosed with nerve damage and an unstable pelvis. Based on this diagnosis, she was granted a full-medical retirement on December 17, 2003. 183. Rasmusson was deeply disappointed that she had to retire. Until the revelation of

the massive invasion of privacy in this case, retirement was one of the worst things to happen in her life. 184. 185. 186. 187. II. In 2004, Rasmusson moved to her rural home in northern Minnesota. Rasmusson was never disciplined while on the force. Rasmusson was highly regarded police officer and served with honor. Rasmusson was proud to serve as a police officer.

Over 140 Minnesota Law Enforcement Officers Viewed Rasmusson’s Private Information Outside the Scope of Any Investigation or Official Police Business 188. As early as July 2006, law enforcement officers began looking up Rasmusson’s

private information on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database. 189. The officers viewed Rasmusson’s private personal and highly-restricted personal

information from her State-issued driver’s license including her home address, color photograph or image, and driver identification number. 190. Under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, the Minnesota Department

of Public Safety (“DPS”) and DPS Does, knowingly created the DPS Databases that include Rasmusson’s driver’s license information and the system for law-enforcement personnel to access to that information.

38

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 39 of 88

191.

DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,

knowingly maintained and updated the databases that include Plaintiff’s driver’s license information. 192. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,

knowingly provided access to the databases that included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information. 193. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, had the

ability to determine that drivers’ license information, including Plaintiff’s, was being accessed on multiple occasions, by multiple law-enforcement personnel from multiple law-enforcement agencies. 194. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, had the

ability to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s driver’s license information. 195. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, failed

to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including access to Plaintiff’s driver’s license information. 196. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does knowingly authorized, directed,

ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in the disclosure of Plaintiff’s driver’s license information. 197. The policy of the State of Minnesota is to uphold the provisions of the law, both

state and federal, and to protect and safeguard the privacy rights of the State’s citizens and inhabitants, including its drivers’ privacy rights, and including those rights as are required to be protected by federal law, and in particular, it is the policy of the State of Minnesota to comply with the provisions and requirements of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.

39

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 40 of 88

Section 2721, et seq. This policy is even set forth in the driver’s license application and set forth in statutory language with proper citation to that federal statute. 198. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly disclosed Plaintiff’s and

others’ driver’s license information and violated state policy by devising and implementing a database that failed abysmally to uphold the privacy rights of Rasmusson and others similarly situated as protected by the DPPA, exposing her information and others’ to impermissible and knowing accesses by various persons, including the Defendants in this lawsuit, constituting a knowing disclosure of her information within the meaning of the DPPA. 199. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly devised and implemented a

database, and a method for using and misusing that database, that both permitted and encouraged, through the nature and monitoring of the system, accesses by police officers, state employees, and others that failed to comply with state policy of protecting privacy rights and complying with the DPPA. 200. The system knowingly devised and implemented by Commissioner Defendants

and DPS Does failed to set rules for protecting the privacy rights, and permitted and on information and belief still permits, and in some instances promotes, the accessing of the database from personal computers, the giving out of passwords to others, including persons not authorized to have them, and the accessing of the system by persons without any accountability or even in some instances without the ability to trace the person who made the access; so that effective monitoring of the system is difficult if not impossible under the system as devised and implemented by the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, who deliberately emphasized and favored the convenience of the system by users at the expense of protecting the privacy rights of the persons in the database.

40

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 41 of 88

201.

This deliberate emphasis and preference of the convenience of the system users

over the privacy rights of the drivers was known to the Commissioner Defendants and the DPS Does, and was purposeful. 202. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does actually knew

that law-enforcement officers were accessing the databases for impermissible purposes, including viewing Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and acquiesced, facilitated, approved or simply ignored the conduct. 203. Even if the Commissioners and DPS Does had no actual knowledge of the

impermissible uses of the databases they oversaw, upon information and belief, they were reckless in their supervision of their subordinates who did operate the database. 204. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does were grossly

negligent in supervising their subordinates who operated the databases. 205. Rasmusson began having suspicions that law enforcement officers were taking an

uncomfortable interest in her starting approximately in 2007. She had recently divorced, and numerous officers who asked her for dates knew where she lived or what kind of car she drove. 206. In mid-2009, Rasmusson began to distance herself from law-enforcement get-

togethers and from police officers, even those who were her former colleagues and those whom she considered her friends. More and more she began to live a secluded, even hermit-like, reclusive existence. 207. On May 5, 2010, Rasmusson was pulled over for a potential speeding violation by

a Minneapolis police officer. Although the officer did not issue a citation against her, three other squad cars arrived on the scene and then left without performing any known law enforcement duties.

41

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 42 of 88

208.

In early July 2010, Rasmusson changed her cell phone number and personal email

address, and moved from Lakeville back to northern Minnesota. She told few people of her move and ceased contact with the majority of police acquaintances from then on. 209. Based in part on these foregoing incidents, Rasmusson contacted DPS to inquire

whether law enforcement officers had been viewing her private information. She asked that only those officers who had run her name—as opposed to her license plates—on the DVS computer database be identified. 210. On August 30, 2011, she was unpleasantly surprised, even horrified to learn from

DPS that it had determined that law-enforcement officers from 18 different departments and agencies had reviewed her private driver’s license information since 2007. She became physically ill upon learning that fact; she pulled over, opened her car door, and vomited. 211. In October 2011, she learned through the press that approximately 100 law-

enforcement officers had accessed her private driver’s license information approximately 400 times in the last four years, from 2007 through the fall of 2011. 212. Upon learning of the sheer volume of intrusions, Rasmusson again became

physically sick. 213. During Phase One discovery, Rasmusson was able to determine that, since 2005,

approximately 144 law-enforcement personnel from 23 entities in Minnesota accessed her private personal driver’s license information on approximately 554 occasions without a permissible purpose. 214. Rasmusson believes that even more unauthorized accesses and viewings will

occur in the future if the policies of the Entity Defendants and other police departments and law enforcement agencies similarly situated are not changed to bring the actual custom and practice

42

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 43 of 88

of these Entity Defendants and others similarly situated into compliance with their own written rules, with the rules of the Department of Public Safety, and with federal law, including the DPPA. 215. In November 2011, DPS informed Rasmusson’s counsel that it was, in fact,

investigating 26 entities and their employees regarding this illegal conduct. 216. At the request of Rasmusson’s counsel, DPS provided a list of the entities whose

personnel had viewed her private information. 217. As part of Phase One Discovery, for each access of Rasmusson’s private, personal

information, DPS has provided DVS audits identifying the date, time, name of the lawenforcement personnel and entity where the personnel were employed. The BCA audits do not contain the names of the law-enforcement personnel. 218. As part of Phase One Discovery, many entities have indicated whether they

believe their law-enforcement personnel had a permissible or law-enforcement related purpose for obtaining, using or disclosing Rasmusson’s private information. 219. Included in the audits provided by DPS to Rasmusson’s counsel were personnel

from law-enforcement departments associated with the following Defendant Entities: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • City of Anoka City of Bloomington City of Burnsville City of Coon Rapids City of Cottage Grove City of Eagan City of Eden Prairie City of Fridley City of Golden Valley City of Hopkins City of Inver Grove Heights City of Isanti City of Lakeville City of Mendota Heights 43

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 44 of 88

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 220.

City of Minneapolis City of Minnetonka City of Princeton City of Red Wing City of Rosemount City of St. Paul City of St. Peter City of South St. Paul City of Woodbury Chisago County Dakota County Dakota County Comm Center Faribault County Pine County Ramsey County Washington County Metro Transit University of Minnesota (Duluth Campus) Federal Bureau of Investigation The chart attached to this First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A summarizes the

number of times law-enforcement personnel accessed Rasmusson’s without a permissible, lawenforcement related reason, as indicated in the DPS audits, Phase One Discovery responses and subpoena responses. 221. Plaintiff incorporates Exhibit A into his First Amended Complaint as though fully

set forth in this paragraph. 222. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants primarily used Rasmusson’s

name, not her license plate number, to look up her private, personal information. 223. During Phase One Discovery, Bloomington did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Anderson or Gollop.

44

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 45 of 88

224.

During Phase One Discovery, Burnsville did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Buck. 225. During Phase One Discovery, Cottage Grove did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Lonetti. 226. The Eagan Police Department issued Eagan Police Officer Sean Sweeney an oral

reprimand for accessing Rasmusson’s private data from the DPS database for personal reasons. 227. During Phase One Discovery, Eagan did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Anselment or Sweeney. 228. The City of Eden Prairie (“Eden Prairie”) disciplined three officers for viewing

Rasmusson’s private, personal information: Officer Zachary Hessel, Officer Christopher Millard and Sergeant Carter Staaf. In addition, at least eight other Eden Prairie officers or employees viewed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information. 229. Hessel viewed Rasmusson’s private information on August 13, 2011, on a

computer in the patrol squad room. There were no incidents related to Rasmusson that day (or any other day). 230. Hessel was on duty on August 13, 2011, made no traffic stops and had no reason

to look up Rasmusson. 231. 2010. Hessel had been trained to use the database on March 11, 2008 and on March 8,

45

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 46 of 88

232.

Hessel admitted to Eden Prairie that he looked up Rasmusson after hearing other

Eden Prairie personnel discussing her. He had met her at a police softball tournament in 2006. He did not have a permissible reason to access her personal information several years later. 233. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to obtain

Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information. 234. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Hessel and required him to undergo

coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data. 235. Millard viewed Rasmusson’s private personal information on three separate

occasions in 2007 and 2011. He was on an alarm call and arrest the first time he looked her up. He was also on duty when he did so again in 2011. 236. 2010. 237. 238. Millard looked up Rasmusson’s information so that he could obtain her address. Eden Prairie determined that Millard did not have an official purpose to obtain Millard had been trained to use the database on March 18, 2008 and October 15,

Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information. 239. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Millard and required him to undergo

coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data. 240. Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s private information at least 13 times from January

2007 until May 2011. 241. 242. Staaf had been trained twice on the proper use of the database. Despite that training, Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s information while on duty and

on both his mobile computer and at his Sergeant’s desk.

46

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 47 of 88

243.

Staaf looked up Rasmusson’s present driver’s license, as well as her old driver’s

licenses to compare her photographs. 244. Staaf encouraged his subordinates to conduct their own DVS queries of

Rasmusson’s information because she was very attractive and so they could see that “she’s changed and she’s got a new look.” 245. Eden Prairie’s records also indicate that one “John or Jane Doe” who looked up

Rasmusson’s personal information at Staaf’s suggestion did so “in the middle of a money transport for the Community Center.” 246. Staaf has conceded that he did not run Rasmusson’s information for a legitimate

law-enforcement purpose. 247. Eden Prairie investigative records do not indicate an official, law-enforcement

purpose for Staaf to have obtained Rasmusson’s private, personal information. 248. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to obtain

Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information. 249. 250. As discipline for his conduct related to Rasmusson, Eden Prairie demoted Staaf. During Phase One Discovery, Eden Prairie did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Bahr, Bogren, Duchschere, Haberle, Halverson, Henning, Hessel, Luke, Millard, Pogatchnik, Sams, Selness, Staaf, Velner, and White. 251. During Phase One Discovery, Golden Valley did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Dutton.

47

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 48 of 88

252.

During Phase One Discovery, Isanti did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Callahan. 253. During Phase One Discovery, Lakeville did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Williams. 254. On September 21, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the Minneapolis

Police Department (“Minneapolis Police”). While there, Minneapolis Police informed Rasmusson that at least 20 Minneapolis Police officers had viewed her private, personal information. According to the Minneapolis Police, police officers had made inquiries about her as late as June 2011. 255. On information and belief, DPS has disciplined a few of these Minneapolis police

officers to a limited extent. 256. On information and belief, the Minneapolis Police Department has not disciplined

any of its officers for their unauthorized access of Rasmusson’s information. 257. On information and belief, 46 Minneapolis Police officers accessed Rasmusson’s

record 179 times from 2005 through of 2012 without a permissible purpose. 258. During Phase One Discovery, Minneapolis did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Abbas, Bartsch, John Bennett, Cook, Costello, Patrick Daly of Minneapolis, Dinh, Fahey, Fuchs, Glasrud, Gross, Hanson, Heyda, Hoffbeck, Jerry Johnson, Mark Johnson, Joseph, Karakostas, Keefe, King, Lillard, Loonsfoot, MacDougall, Mackenthun, McGinty, O’Connor,

48

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 49 of 88

Billy Peterson, Lucas Peterson, Pfaff, Pleoger, Porras, Reuben, Rocklin, Staufenberg, Stichter, Sturgis, Thomsen, Thureson, Toscano, Weibye, Wente, Wheeler, Willner, Wolf, 259. Minneapolis claims that Gingerich accessed Plaintiff’s driver’s license

information as part of a traffic stop. 260. At one point, Plaintiff had thought that Gingerich had been the Minneapolis

officer who had stopped her for a speeding violation. 261. Plaintiff now believes that Gingerich did not stop her for speeding, and that

Gingerich did not have a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for his access of her private, driver’s license information. 262. By letter dated January 26, 2012, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety

admits that Minnesota State Patrol Trooper Dean Grothem received a written reprimand for unauthorized use of the database related to Rasmusson. 263. Grothem’s written reprimand specifically states that he was being disciplined “for

accessing private information in the DVS database without a legitimate law enforcement need.” 264. During Phase One Discovery, Minnetonka did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Nelson. 265. The DVS audit indicates that Dean Backlund, identified as a City of Princeton

employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on June 20, 2006. 266. The City of Princeton maintains that Backlund was not employed by it on June

26, 2006, and that the IP address does not match any devices at the Princeton Police Department. The City of Princeton was not able to identify why Backlund appeared on the DVS audit.

49

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 50 of 88

267.

It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of Princeton is

incorrect or that DPS failed to accurately track this access of Rasmusson’s private information, which it attributed to Joseph Backlund. 268. The DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the access attributed

to Backlund on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to properly record this access. 269. On September 27, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the St. Paul

Police Department (“St. Paul Police”). While there, the St. Paul Police informed Rasmusson that at least 13 St. Paul Police officers and employees viewed her private, personal information. 270. Upon information and belief, between 2005 and 2012, St. Paul Police had

approximately 61 officers and employees who have accessed Rasmusson’s record 228 times without a permissible purpose. 271. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Bailey, Baumgart, Benner, Bruce Bennett, Bolduan, Boyer, Boyle, Brubaker, Coyle, Patrick Daly of St. Paul, Degree, Denning, Diaz-Calle, Dion, Dunaski, Filiowich, Matthew Flynn, Tim Flynn, Gorud, Graupmann, Helgoe, Henry, Heroux, Hull, Hutchinson, Jerue, Erik Johnson, Jones, Kough, Kunde, Lee, Lentsch, Lohse-Johnson, Mackintosh, McKnight, Mehl, Miller, Moore, Murphy, Nash, Neubrand, O’Hara, Omari, O’Reilly, Pierce, Rhoades, Rhode, Rothecker, Rud, Sherwood, Siegfried, Sims, Singleton, Sipes, Stevens, Stiff, Tallarico, Tessmer, Timp, Toupal, or Wendell. 272. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that Plaintiff asked Benner, Jerue

and Henry to access her driver’s license information.

50

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 51 of 88

273. information. 274.

Plaintiff denies asking Benner, Jerue or Henry to access her driver’s license

The DPS audits also listed the names of two St. Paul law-enforcement personnel

who looked up Rasmusson on two occasions only as “Johnson.” 275. According to St. Paul, it has not yet been able to determine the first name(s) of the

individuals who accessed Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information on those two occasions. 276. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by either “Johnson” look-up where the first name was not known. 277. The DPS audits list six accesses of Rasmusson’s information by unnamed officers

from the St. Paul PD Comm Center. 278. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that “the access to DVS on these

particular devices were assigned to the device itself, not to an individual. The City of St. Paul no longer has information indicating what employee was assigned to these devices at the time of access.” 279. The DVS audit indicates that Phillip Hartung (“Hartung”), identified as a City of

South St. Paul employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on March 3, 2006. 280. During Phase One Discovery, South St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Hartung, but claimed that Hartung resigned in 2005 and worked for the U.S. Marshall’s office at the time of the access attributed to him.

51

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 52 of 88

281.

It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of South St. Paul is

incorrect or that DPS failed to accurately track this access of Rasmusson’s private information, which it attributed to Hartung. 282. The DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the access attributed

to Hartung on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to properly record this access. 283. During Phase One Discovery, Woodbury did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Ofstead. 284. During Phase One Discovery, Chisago County did not provide a permissible law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Belisle. 285. During Phase One Discovery, Dakota County claimed Grant was investigating

Rasmusson for a law-enforcement-related reason. 286. Grant met Plaintiff the day prior to his accessing her private, driver’s license

information at a law-enforcement softball tournament in Duluth. There was no reason for Grant to suspect anything of Plaintiff, who was not a resident of Dakota County, the very next day. 287. During Phase One Discovery, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not

provide a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Melvin. 288. During Phase One Discovery, the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not provide

a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Tompa.

52

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 53 of 88

289.

Pine County did not provide a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for

each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Fjosne, Lawrence or Vosika. 290. Pine County claimed that Fjosne accessed Rasmusson’s information as part of a

wide-range license plate check. 291. Yet, according to the DPS audit, Fjosne used the DVS driver’s license database,

not a license plate search to access Rasmsson’s information. 292. Ramsey County Doe claims that he was not in the country when his DPS database

passwords and login information were used to look up Rasmusson. 293. Ramsey County Doe admits that he gave his password to two BCA employees he

worked with on the Metro Gang Strike Force. 294. 295. Both BCA employees deny receiving Ramsey County Doe’s password. Both BCA employees deny using Ramsey County Doe’s password to view

Rasmusson’s driver’s license information. 296. DPS regulations prohibit law-enforcement personnel and their employees from

sharing their DPS database passwords. 297. By sharing the password with BCA employees, by which they could access the

protected drivers’ license information of any Minnesota resident, including Rasmusson, Ramsey County Doe and Ramsey County knowingly disclosed Ms. Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information under the DPPA. 298. Because they maintained a database without adequate security, the DPS

Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Ramsey County Doe and Ramsey County.

53

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 54 of 88

299.

During Phase One Discovery, the University of Minnesota-Duluth did not provide

a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Huls. 300. 301. 302. The DPS audits list Hobus as working for the City of Red Wing. The City of Red Wing claims that Hobus never worked for it. The City of Red Wing claims that it was informed by the DPS that Hobus worked

as a deputy registrar, which was a private business. 303. Because they allowed non-law-enforcement personnel access to the DPS

databases and because of their inability to properly track these accesses, the DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Hobus. 304. The remaining Individual Defendants’ identities (John and Jane Does) are not

presently known, because the Defendant Entities have either not provided Plaintiff with their identities or not provided sufficient information to determine if their law enforcement personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized, despite her requests. Plaintiff anticipates that these yet-to-be-named Individual Defendants will become known through discovery. 305. The Supervisor Defendants are not presently known. Plaintiff anticipates that the

yet-to-be-named Supervisor Defendants who should have monitored, prevented and stopped the unauthorized access to Rasmusson’s information will become known through discovery. 306. The remaining Entity Defendant identities (Entity Does) are not presently known,

because not all of the entities identified by the DPS have provided sufficient information to determine if their law enforcement personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized. Plaintiff anticipates that these yet-to-be-named Entity Defendants will become known through discovery.

54

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 55 of 88

307.

The login page to the DVS website includes the following admonition: Access to this service is for authorized personnel only conducting official business. If you do not have the express authorization, you must exit now or face the consequences of violating Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes and other laws. Further, the State of Minnesota prohibits unauthorized access, disclosure, duplication, modification, diversion, destruction, loss, misuse, or theft of its information in accordance with the Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.87 – 609.891. DVS collects and maintains electronic access data. This data may be used and disseminated for the purpose of evaluating electronic government services; to prevent unlawful intrusions into government electronic systems; or as otherwise provided by law.

308.

On information and belief, the Individual Defendants’ training included

admonitions against viewing private driver’s license information for unofficial purposes. 309. Whatever training, monitoring, or inquiry into the officers’ usage of the

information systems has been adopted is woefully inadequate to ensure that access is used properly and lawfully. 310. The Minneapolis Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual prohibits

accessing drivers’ license information for anything other than official business. 311. as follows: “1) . . . misuse of the system can lead to sanctions and disciplinary action; 2) . . . operators may run queries only for criminal justice purposes; 3) driver’s license or motor vehicle registration information can be accessed through CJDN only for the performance of official duties authorized by law. 4) For practice purposes, you are authorized to complete inquiries on family members or coworkers? FALSE.” (emphasis added). The City of Eden Prairie’s training includes quizzing its law-enforcement officers

55

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 56 of 88

312.

The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook admonishes its employees to

“conduct themselves, both on and off duty, in a manner that supports this trust.” 313. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook states that technology should be

“used primarily for City business. Employees should not use City technology for any purpose that would reflect negatively on the City.” 314. The Eden Prairie Police Department Manual (“EPPD Manual”) informs officers

that its policies “also applies to off-duty conduct.” 315. The EPPD Manual explains that “[p]eace officers shall observe the confidentiality

of information available to them due to their status as peace officers.” 316. The EPPD Manual clearly states that officers should not use their official position

for personal gain: Peace officers shall not use the authority of their position as peace officers, or information available to them due to their status as peace officers, for any purpose of personal gain, including, but not limited to, initiating or furthering personal and/or intimate interactions of any kind with persons which (sic) whom the officer has had contact while on duty. 317. The EPPD Manual also informs its officers that “Minnesota driver license

information obtained or otherwise accessed through a CJDN terminal or the DVS website may be disseminated to authorized law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official duties.” 318. On information and belief, despite this training, Defendant Entities and Defendant

Supervisors, allowed their employees, including but not limited to the Individual Defendants, to view Plaintiff’s private driver’s license information for unlawful purposes.

56

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 57 of 88

319.

On information and belief, Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors,

Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does permitted, condoned, or acquiesced in this illegal access to Plaintiff’s private information, and knew or should have known that it was occurring. 320. On information and belief, this illegal access occurs with regularity not only of

Plaintiff’s private information, but of other Minnesota drivers’ private information. 321. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, Defendant Commissioners and DPS

Does have lax policies or lax enforcement of these policies that allow for these intrusions. 322. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, Defendant Commissioners and DPS

Does either have no viable method of or have an inadequate method of ascertaining and controlling the illegal access to individuals’ private information by their officers. 323. The extent of this illegal access appears to be widespread and pervasive

throughout departments, and is a custom and practice. This is demonstrated by the tolerance of this practice, and the customary disregard of punishment for violations, such as a prosecution that was dismissed when the officer’s attorney complained that the prosecution was akin to “using a sledge hammer to kill a fly” or words to that effect. Further evidence of the custom and practice can be found in actual statements made by current officers, one of whom was quoted in a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “every single cop in the state has done this. Chiefs on down.” ; and based on actual statements made by former officers, one of whom was quoted in a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “[y]ou used to look up people without a second thought. You’d look up old friends from high school or just someone you used to know.”

57

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 58 of 88

324.

Before publicity surrounding Rasmusson’s situation, there was little or no training

by the DPS or the individual entities regarding appropriate use of the DPS Databases or what was a permissible purpose for viewing drivers’ license information under the DPPA. 325. Before publicity surround Rasmusson’s situation, law-enforcement personnel

throughout Minnesota commonly looked up driver’s license information for personal reasons. 326. Each law-enforcement personnel has a password allowing that individual access

to the DPS Database. Law-enforcement personnel can access the DPS Databases from any computer with internet access. 327. On further information and belief, this illegal access to driver’s license

information occurs disproportionately to women. 328. When Defendant law-enforcement personnel viewed Rasmusson’s private

information, they did not do so to carry out official police functions. 329. Rasmusson committed no crimes that would authorize the unauthorized access of

her private drivers’ license information. 330. The Individual Defendants obtained Rasmusson’s personal information without

probable cause or reasonable suspicion. 331. On a small handful of occasions, Rasmusson asked certain law-enforcement

personnel to view her driver’s license information for the express purpose of determining if the database had posted her change of address or had listed the automobile she was presently driving. None of the claims in this suit relate to those few instances. 332. Rasmusson never waived the protections of the DPPA.

III. Rasmusson Has Been Harmed By This Intrusion Into Her Private Life

58

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 59 of 88

333.

The sheer volume of these intrusions into her private life demonstrates that law-

enforcement personnel are unfairly hostile toward Rasmusson’s privacy and safety. 334. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson does not feel comfortable

going to public places where police officers are likely to be around and has lost her sense of freedom including her freedom to travel and enjoy public places. 335. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has become a recluse and was

forced to live like a hermit. 336. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson feels she has lost any control

over the privacy in her life. 337. accounts. 338. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has installed a security gate As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has shut down her social media

and an alarm system on her property. 339. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed and unlisted her

home and mobile telephone number. 340. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed her email address. COUNT I (Against all Defendants including Commissioner, Individual, Supervisor and Entity Defendants, including John, Jane, Entity and DPS Does, for Violations of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq.) 341. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through 340 as

though fully set forth in this Paragraph 341.

59

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 60 of 88

342.

Rasmusson provided personal information to the DPS including her address, color

photograph, date of birth, weight, height and eye color for the purpose of acquiring and utilizing a State of Minnesota driver’s license. 343. 344. The DPS Database also maintained Rasmusson’s driving record. Rasmusson did not provide her consent for any of the Defendant Individuals to

obtain, disclose or use, or for any of the Defendant Entities or Defendant Supervisors to disclose or to allow Defendant Individuals to obtain, disclose or use, her private information for anything but official law-enforcement business for any of the occasions listed in the attached Exhibit A. 345. Intentionally obtaining, disclosing or using driver’s license information without

an authorized purpose is a violation of the DPPA. The statute provides for criminal fines and civil penalties. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2723, 2724. 346. The DPPA provides redress for violations of a person’s protected interest in the

privacy of her motor vehicle records and the identifying information therein. 347. The Defendants, each of them, have invaded Rasmusson’s legally protected

interest under the DPPA. 348. The Commissioners of the Department of Public Safety or the employees they

supervised knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s private personal information from her driver’s license for purposes not permitted under the DPPA. 349. According to the Department of Vehicle Services and the Defendant Entities, the

Individual Defendants knowingly obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a). 350. None of the Individual Defendants’ activities fell within the DPPA’s permitted

exceptions for procurement of Rasmusson’s private information.

60

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 61 of 88

351.

By the actions described above, each Defendant Individual law-enforcement

personnel was acting within the scope of his or her employment when he or she obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information from the DPS Databases for an impermissible purpose. 352. The Individual Defendants knew that their actions related to Rasmusson’s

personal information were in violation of the DPPA. 353. The Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors knowingly authorized,

directed, ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in obtaining, disclosing or using of Rasmusson’s private personal information by the Individual Defendants. 354. The Individual Defendants knowingly used the Defendant Entities’ computers,

passwords and passcodes to access Rasmusson’s private information. 355. By sharing database access passwords, Ramsey County Doe and Ramsey County

knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information in violation of the DPPA. 356. The sheer volume of law-enforcement personnel that obtained, disclosed or used

Rasmusson’s private personal information, especially given Rasmusson’s lack of a criminal record, makes apparent that Defendants’ use was not permissible. 357. Individuals. 358. Individuals. 359. Rasmusson has suffered harm because her private information has been obtained The Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the acts of Defendant The Defendant Entities are each vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant

unlawfully. Rasmusson suffered and continues to suffer harm by virtue of the increased risk that her protected information is in the possession of numerous law-enforcement personnel who

61

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 62 of 88

obtained it without a legitimate purpose. This is precisely the harm Congress sought to prevent by enacting the DPPA and its statutory remedies. 360. The Individual Defendants, Supervisor Defendants, Commissioner Defendants,

DPS Does and Entity Defendants each willfully and recklessly disregarded the law, entitling Rasmusson to punitive damages under the DPPA, see 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(2), which is not subject to the pleading requirement of Minnesota state law as set forth in Minn. Stat. section 549.20. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b). 361. In addition, under the DPPA, Plaintiff is entitled to a baseline liquidated damages

award of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1). Rasmusson need not prove actual damages to receive said liquidated damages. COUNT II (Against Individual Defendants, including John and Jane Does, for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with the exception of Hobus) 362. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 361 as

though fully set forth in this Paragraph 362. 363. At no time did Rasmusson behave in a manner that would provide any legal

justification for the above-described invasion of her privacy. 364. The DPPA establishes that obtaining an individual’s driver’s license information

without a legitimate purpose constitutes an illegal search under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

62

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 63 of 88

365.

The Individual Defendants’ viewing of Rasmusson’s personal information was

unauthorized, unjustified, and excessive, and violates the Fourth Amendment, the laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Minnesota. 366. By the actions described above, each Individual Defendant Law-Enforcement

Personnel, acting under color of state law, violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly established and well-settled civil right to be free from an unconstitutional search. 367. The acts of each Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel, acting under the color

of state law, constituted an invasion or repeated invasions of Rasmusson’s clearly-established privacy rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States, including the DPPA, and the laws of the State of Minnesota. 368. The DPPA creates an individual right to privacy in a person’s driver’s license

information, thereby prohibiting unauthorized accessing of all persons’ information, including Rasmusson’s information. 369. Each individual law-enforcement personnel, acting under color of state law, knew

that his or her actions violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly established statutory rights under the DPPA. 370. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel deprived Rasmusson of

her federal statutory rights and civil rights maliciously or by acting with reckless disregard for whether Rasmusson’s rights would be violated by his or her actions. 371. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel was deliberately

indifferent to Rasmusson’s statutory and civil right to be free from illegal searches, invasions of privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her private driver’s license information.

63

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 64 of 88

372.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-named

Individual Defendants, Rasmusson endured physical and mental suffering, and was damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars. 373. Punitive damages are available against Individual Defendant law-enforcement

personnel for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirement for punitive damages set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20. 374. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney fees,

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. COUNT III (Against Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants, including John, Jane and Entity Does, for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 375. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 374 as

though fully set forth in this Paragraph 375. 376. The Individual Defendants’ numerous accesses of Rasmusson’s private

information are not unique, but one example of how frequently such law-enforcement agencies customarily violate the DPPA by accessing private driver’s license information of persons without having any legitimate or permissible reason for doing so. 377. Recently, in a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s private

information, a current officer, speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation, stated that every officer does it, including the chiefs of police. In that same article, another former officer stated

64

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 65 of 88

that the practice was widespread as a form of social media, simply to look up former friends or acquaintances. 378. In addition, persons familiar with police departments and those involved in

teaching supervisors how to train and hold accountable their subordinate law-enforcement personnel have been told by those supervisors that the unlawful and impermissible accessing of private information is among the most frequently committed wrongs by police, for which they are seldom if ever held accountable. 379. The foregoing information, other information to be presented at trial, and

evidence reasonably likely to be determined after full discovery demonstrate that the improper access of citizens’ driver’s license information by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel for their own personal and private uses, obtained by accessing that information through the computerized information storage system kept by the State for official purposes only, is an official custom or practice well known to Defendant Supervisors. 380. These customs and practices by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel are at

variance with the written rules set down by the Entity Defendants, but these formal rules are widely and knowingly disregarded. 381. Given the municipalities’ failure to monitor and enforce their rules, the

aforementioned customs and practices are attributable to the municipalities themselves, including the Entity Defendants herein. 382. The Defendant Entities and the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement

personnel accessing this information knew or should have known of this and other unlawful, improper, unjustified, and impermissible access to private information by law-enforcement personnel.

65

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 66 of 88

383.

The prevalence of this custom, the lack of monitoring regarding these access

practices and the failure to take action to stop or prevent these practices, demonstrate the state of mind of Defendant Supervisors and municipal officials of the Entity Defendants. These customs and practices further demonstrate Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the federal statutory and constitutional rights of the citizens and persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been wrongfully accessed. 384. The Defendant Entities, in their official capacity, are directly liable for the custom

and practice of the widespread illegal access of citizens’ driver’s license information. The Supervisor Defendants, up to and including the chief police officers and sheriffs employed by each Entity Defendant, are liable in their individual capacity. Defendants’ liability is due to their actual and constructive knowledge of this practice, their failure to institute any process for monitoring and preventing it and their deliberate indifference to the federal rights of those persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been and continues to be wrongfully accessed. 385. In addition, the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement personnel, up to

and including the chief police officer in each of the Defendant Entities, are liable in their individual capacities for the failure to train, monitor, supervise, and properly discipline the officers who are improperly and unlawfully accessing the private driver’s license information of citizens, including Plaintiff, without a proper, lawful, permissible, justifiable purpose for doing so. This pattern of failure to train, monitor, supervise, and discipline demonstrates the state of mind of these Defendant Supervisors and a deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens and others whose information has been so widely accessed, including Plaintiff.

66

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 67 of 88

386.

The federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, whose information is

improperly accessed, are held in light regard by many if not most of the Defendant Supervisors and by the Defendant Entities themselves. 387. Defendants’ lack of concern evidences their deliberate indifference both to the

problem of the unauthorized access and to the impact of the unauthorized access on the federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, who would often be unaware of that access. 388. Defendants’ lack of concern is evidenced by the failure of most Defendant

Entities to take any sort of corrective action upon learning that multiple improper, unlawful, unjustified accesses of Plaintiff’s information had taken place. Defendants have also consistently refused to fully involve Plaintiff, keep her fully informed of the progress of the investigation into the persons accessing her information, or to advise her of their identities, their reasons for accessing her information, their knowledge of Plaintiff, and any discipline imposed on them for their improper and illegal conduct. 389. The manner in which the investigation was handled by the Entity Defendants and

Supervisor Defendants provides little expectation that these and other law-enforcement personnel will cease accessing Plaintiff’s private information and the private information of other persons similarly situated to Plaintiff, without a justifiable, permissible basis. 390. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no system has been established by the Entity

Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to monitor the regular access of the DPS Databases by law-enforcement personnel. 391. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no reviews have taken place of other

accesses of the DPS Databases by these same law-enforcement personnel, or of other officers and employees in the Defendant Entities.

67

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 68 of 88

392.

To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the Entity

Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to protect and safeguard the rights of other persons’ DPS Database information. 393. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the Entity

Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to provide redress and assurance to the persons, including Plaintiff, whose DVS information has been wrongfully accessed by the Defendant LawEnforcement Personnel named in this Complaint, or by other officers in the municipalities named in this Complaint. 394. Defendants’ accesses have been widely discussed among the Defendant Law-

Enforcement Personnel committing the accesses as well as among other personnel in the Defendant Entities – all of which have damaged Plaintiff and her reputation, including but not limited to her reputation as a single woman. 395. The reputational damage alone to Plaintiff, as well as the knowledge that this

activity is not merely unlawful but a federal crime, should have been enough to ensure that Plaintiff’s concerns listed in the preceding paragraphs were addressed by Defendants in a meaningful fashion. Holding accountable the law-enforcement personnel engaged in an unlawful activity would have been an important step in eliminating this custom and practice of permitting the widespread illegal accessing of Rasmusson’s information; yet nothing meaningful in this regard has been accomplished, and no prosecutions have been initiated to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge. 396. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-named

Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors, Rasmusson has endured and continues to endure

68

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 69 of 88

physical and mental suffering, and has been damaged in an amount yet to determined and of a continuing nautre, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars. 397. Punitive damages are available against Defendant Supervisors for their reckless

and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20. 398. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney fees,

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. COUNT IV (Against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 399. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 398 as

though fully set forth in this Paragraph 399. 400. 2011. 401. Defendant Dohman became Commissioner of DPS in March 2011 and presently Defendant Campion was Commissioner of DPS from April 2004 to February

serves in that role. 402. As DPS Commissioners, Campion and Dohman, along with DPD Does, were and

are responsible for creating, maintaining, and providing access to the database that included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information. 403. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does also had the ability to determine if

unauthorized access was being made and to prevent such unauthorized access to the database, including of Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and have the ongoing duty to prevent such unauthorized accesses.

69

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 70 of 88

404.

The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to prevent unauthorized

access to the database, including Plaintiff’s driver’s license information. 405. The actions of the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, as alleged, violate

the rights of the Plaintiff under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the DPPA. 406. On information and belief, the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does created

or oversaw the creation and maintenance of a database and system that was supposed to prevent unauthorized access to driver’s license information. 407. From 2005, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does allowed unauthorized

access of Rasmusson’s driver’s license information such that approximately 144 lawenforcement personnel from 18 different departments accessed her information over 544 times. 408. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants’ and DPS Does’ efforts

have been insufficient to prevent future unauthorized access of Plaintiff’s and other individuals’ private, personal information. 409. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does have sanctioned the constitutional

violations by the Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel through their failure to remedy the policy, custom and practice of officers’ and employees’ unfettered and unauthorized access to the database. 410. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Doeshave been grossly negligent in

supervising subordinates responsible for implementing a law-enforcement database that prevents unauthorized access to private, personal information.

70

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 71 of 88

411.

On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to

monitor and prevent unauthorized access to private, personal information even though they knew or should have known that such unconstitutional acts were occurring. 412. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, acting under the color of state law,

were deliberately indifferent to Rasmusson’s constitutionally-recognized and federal statutory rights to be free from illegal searches, invasions of privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her private driver’s license information. 413. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does are jointly liable for disclosure of Ms.

Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information for each Individual Defendants’ access. 414. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Commissioner

Defendants and DPS Does, Rasmusson was forced to endure physical and mental suffering, and was thereby damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars. 415. Punitive damages are available against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does

for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20. 416. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney fees,

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. COUNT V (Against All Defendants, including John, Jane, Entity and DPS Does, for Common Law Invasion of Privacy)

71

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 72 of 88

417.

Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through 416 as

though fully set forth in this Paragraph 417. 418. By improperly obtaining Rasmusson’s private personal information for

impermissible reasons, Defendants intentionally intruded upon the solitude or seclusion of Rasmusson’s private affairs and concerns. 419. 420. The Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The Defendants’ intrusion caused Rasmusson to suffer severe emotional distress

and physical harm. 421. The Defendants’ intrusion was intended to cause Rasmusson to suffer severe

emotional distress and physical harm, and was made with either actual or legal malice, or with reckless disregard of her rights and her privacy. 422. Plaintiff is entitled to tort damages for Defendants’ invasion of privacy. JURY DEMAND 423. Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all issues of fact herein properly triable to a

jury under any statute or under common law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson prays for judgment against the Defendants as follows: 1. A money judgment against all the Defendants for liquidated, actual and

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, together with her costs, including reasonable attorney fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the DPPA, and other applicable laws, and prejudgment interest;

72

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 73 of 88

2.

Actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs and

such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b); 3. Liquidated damages of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA under 18

U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1); 4. An injunction, permanently enjoining all Defendants from viewing Plaintiff’s

private information in violation of the DPPA, unless necessary for law enforcement purposes; 5. A permanent injunction, barring Defendant Individuals from trespassing or

instructing proxies to trespass on Plaintiff’s property or otherwise harass her or infringe in any way on her privacy and her right against the invasion of her privacy; 6. A permanent injunction, allowing Plaintiff to use a post-office box in place of an

address on her Minnesota Driver’s License; and, 7. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP PLLC

Dated: October __, 2012

_________________________________ Jonathan A. Strauss (#0279602) Lorenz F. Fett (#196769)

Sonia Miller-Van Oort (#278087)
Kenneth H. Fukuda (#0389301) 12 South Sixth Street, Suite 1242 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 756-7100

Fax: 612-756-7101 jons@sapientialaw.com larryf@sapientialaw.com soniamv@sapientialaw.com kennf@sapientialaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

73

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 74 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Bloomington PD Individual Defendant Tim Anderson Date Accessed 09/26/09 09/26/09 09/26/09 02/24/10 02/24/10 02/24/10 02/24/10 02/24/10 02/24/10 Charles Gollop 10/22/06 10/22/06 07/28/08 07/28/08 07/28/08 08/03/08 Burnsville PD Casey Buck 07/30/09 07/30/09 07/30/09 07/30/09 07/30/09 Chisago Cnty SO Jay Belisle 02/04/06 02/04/06 02/04/06 02/08/06 02/08/06 02/23/06 04/13/06 Cottage Grove PD Dakota Cnty SO Dept of Corrections Valerie Lonetti John Grant John Melvin 11/16/07 07/28/08 05/20/08 05/20/08 05/20/08 05/20/08 05/20/08 08/13/07 02/10/06 02/10/06 02/10/06 Time Accessed 4:12:00 4:13:00 4:13:00 6:16:00 6:17:00 6:17:00 6:23:00 6:24:00 6:24:00 11:08:00 12:18:00 8:31:00 8:40:00 13:35:00 11:56:00 16:56:00 16:57:00 16:57:00 16:58:00 16:58:00 20:51:00 20:52:00 20:54:00 20:26:00 20:31:00 23:43:00 20:58:00 19:55:00 16:10:00 15:45:00 15:46:00 15:48:00 15:49:00 15:49:00 7:09:00 20:46:00 20:46:00 20:47:00

DRAFT

Eagan PD

Danielle Anselment Sean Sweeney

Page: 1

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 75 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Eagan PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Sean Sweeney (cont'd) Date Accessed 02/10/06 08/24/06 08/24/06 11/16/06 12/26/06 07/09/07 07/09/07 07/09/07 07/09/07 08/13/07 08/13/07 10/05/07 10/10/07 10/19/07 11/16/07 11/16/07 11/19/07 02/08/08 09/23/08 09/23/08 09/23/08 09/23/08 01/22/09 01/22/09 01/22/09 03/13/09 12/17/09 12/17/09 12/17/09 11/18/10 11/18/10 01/04/09 06/01/06 07/21/07 07/24/06 06/06/08 08/08/07 08/08/07 02/14/06 Time Accessed 20:48:02 1:43:00 1:43:00 23:21:00 3:39:00 8:46:00 8:47:00 8:52:00 14:45:00 8:06:00 15:15:00 9:29:00 7:46:00 10:41:00 14:12:00 14:13:00 10:55:00 10:48:00 8:30:00 8:30:00 8:31:00 8:31:00 15:14:00 15:27:00 15:28:00 13:56:00 10:17:00 10:17:00 10:19:00 8:29:00 8:29:00 8:43:01 20:44:00 1:45:00 10:40:00 10:27:00 20:26:00 20:27:00 11:52:00

DRAFT

Unknown Eden Prairie PD Jennifer Bahr Ann Bogren Kyle Duchschere Robert Haberle Erica Halverson Laurie Henning

Page: 2

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 76 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Eden Prairie PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Zachary Hessel Date Accessed 07/31/06 07/31/06 08/13/11 09/26/06 09/26/06 08/10/06 09/09/06 07/14/07 05/31/11 05/31/11 05/31/11 06/09/07 08/29/06 12/01/07 04/09/06 07/24/06 01/13/07 07/01/07 08/08/07 01/04/09 01/04/09 01/04/09 03/09/09 07/08/09 07/08/09 11/21/09 11/21/09 07/17/10 07/17/10 05/01/11 07/01/07 08/05/07 08/05/07 06/15/06 04/17/07 02/19/06 01/26/07 Time Accessed 3:34:00 3:34:00 11:40:00 12:25:00 12:28:00 18:13:00 13:17:00 9:08:00 16:47:00 16:48:00 16:48:00 6:54:00 6:57:00 10:39:00 13:25:00 1:06:00 1:56:00 1:53:00 20:27:00 23:52:00 23:53:00 23:53:00 10:50:33 1:34:00 1:34:00 4:05:00 4:05:00 2:26:00 2:26:00 2:42:00 0:28:00 6:35:00 6:36:00 10:21:00 7:25:00 11:56:00 17:39:00

DRAFT

Tracy Luke Christopher Millard

Marci Pogatchnik Beth Sams Rachel Selness Carter Staaf

Steve Velner Kevin White FBI Mpls Golden Valley PD Isanti PD Millicent Tompa Joe Dutton Steve Callahan

Page: 3

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 77 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Lakeville PD Individual Defendant Todd Williams Date Accessed 08/30/09 10/18/09 01/14/10 10/14/06 10/27/06 05/14/11 05/14/11 04/12/07 09/08/06 06/04/06 08/12/06 09/13/06 11/18/06 08/09/07 08/09/07 08/24/07 02/12/09 02/12/09 05/28/09 05/28/09 05/28/09 09/09/06 10/26/06 10/26/06 11/03/06 Thomas Fahey 11/03/06 08/18/06 08/18/06 09/22/06 12/28/05 11/28/09 03/07/05 04/30/08 12/07/09 12/07/09 02/17/11 02/17/11 02/17/11 02/17/11 Time Accessed 8:43:00 10:49:42 8:42:15 19:18:00 12:14:00 2:42:00 2:58:00 18:51:00 0:53:00 1:11:00 0:17:00 1:18:00 12:01:00 17:06:00 17:27:00 17:59:00 19:01:00 19:02:00 19:57:00 19:57:00 19:58:00 22:44:00 1:57:00 1:58:00 23:32:00 23:33:00 23:07:00 23:08:00 17:20:00 19:17:00 2:24:00 21:37:26 13:06:00 1:00:00 1:00:00 23:32:00 23:32:00 23:33:00 23:33:00

DRAFT

Minneapolis PD

Kara Abbas Laura Bartsch John Bennett Calvin Cook Tim Costello

Patrick Daly Hien Dinh

Chad Fuchs Marc Gingerich Robert Glasrud Tracy Gross (Lemieux)

Page: 4

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 78 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Tracy Gross(Lemieux) (cont'd) Date Accessed 06/27/11 06/27/11 06/27/11 06/27/11 02/03/09 02/03/09 02/03/09 01/13/07 08/08/06 09/29/06 03/07/05 05/07/07 08/31/07 03/01/06 01/02/06 08/14/06 08/14/06 08/14/06 11/11/06 02/25/07 11/15/08 11/15/08 11/16/08 11/16/08 11/16/08 11/16/08 Christopher Karakostas Mike Keefe Jason King 10/08/07 10/14/06 08/08/06 08/08/06 08/08/06 09/02/06 10/20/06 04/09/07 04/09/07 06/18/07 01/11/08 01/16/08 01/26/08 Time Accessed 22:40:00 22:40:00 22:59:00 22:59:00 2:02:00 2:02:00 2:03:00 13:18:00 15:01:00 2:09:00 21:37:43 20:48:00 0:19:00 15:11:00 23:57:00 22:12:00 22:13:00 22:14:00 1:25:00 1:05:00 23:58:00 23:59:00 0:00:00 0:01:00 0:02:00 0:15:00 7:24:00 0:00:00 14:54:00 14:55:00 14:57:00 22:26:00 19:23:00 21:01:00 21:01:00 14:20:00 0:46:00 2:00:00 4:14:00

DRAFT

Aaron Hanson

Kimberly Heyda Lonnie Hoffbeck Jerry Johnson

Mark Johnson Chad Joseph

Page: 5

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 79 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Jason King (cont'd) Date Accessed 03/23/08 06/02/08 08/22/08 08/22/08 08/22/08 11/22/08 11/22/08 11/22/08 11/22/08 11/26/08 11/26/08 12/08/08 12/08/08 12/19/08 12/19/08 12/19/08 12/19/08 12/20/08 12/20/08 12/20/08 12/27/08 12/27/08 05/18/09 05/18/09 05/27/09 05/27/09 07/17/09 07/17/09 01/14/10 07/30/10 12/17/10 12/17/10 Richard Lillard Tracy MacDougall 10/28/06 06/21/07 06/21/07 06/21/07 06/21/07 06/21/07 Time Accessed 0:56:00 14:35:00 0:28:00 0:28:00 0:29:00 14:57:00 17:52:00 17:52:00 17:53:00 2:57:00 2:57:00 0:29:00 0:29:00 1:21:00 1:22:00 1:22:00 1:25:00 1:59:00 2:00:00 2:00:00 13:46:00 13:46:00 14:42:00 14:42:00 23:22:00 23:22:00 15:52:00 15:52:00 19:38:00 21:37:00 16:12:00 16:12:00 18:41:00 3:12:00 3:13:00 3:15:00 18:40:00 18:41:00

DRAFT

Page: 6

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 80 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Darcy Mackenthun Date Accessed 12/18/06 01/19/08 11/06/08 11/06/08 11/06/08 11/06/08 11/24/06 12/16/05 01/24/06 09/06/06 05/18/07 10/05/07 10/11/07 01/11/08 08/05/08 01/02/09 05/27/09 05/27/09 05/27/09 David O'Connor Billy Peterson Lucas Peterson Michael Pfaff 04/29/06 10/05/06 10/13/06 01/26/06 10/05/06 03/16/08 04/13/08 04/13/08 David Pleoger Luis Porras 06/08/06 04/25/07 03/29/06 03/29/06 05/01/08 08/19/10 08/19/10 Patrick Reuben Michael Rocklin 09/21/06 09/21/06 07/15/06 Time Accessed 2:42:00 0:32:00 0:53:00 0:53:00 0:54:00 0:54:00 1:26:00 0:33:00 18:53:00 22:41:00 19:19:00 20:11:00 19:34:00 19:20:00 11:53:00 20:11:00 23:42:00 23:43:00 23:43:00 5:03:00 12:13:00 19:23:00 12:11:00 13:08:00 13:56:00 14:08:00 14:08:00 20:58:00 21:02:00 19:44:00 19:45:00 9:01:00 7:53:00 7:54:00 17:05:00 17:06:00 17:30:00

DRAFT

Sean McGinty Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot

Page: 7

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 81 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant John Staufenberg Date Accessed 11/01/06 11/01/06 01/29/08 01/29/08 Kristina Stichter Kristin Sturgis 09/21/06 09/21/06 05/02/07 05/02/07 05/02/07 03/07/08 Chris Thomsen Brian Thureson Geoffrey Toscano Stephanie Weibye Matthew Wente 10/11/06 01/29/07 07/14/07 10/15/08 10/15/08 08/24/06 12/11/06 05/15/07 05/15/07 05/15/07 Pam Wheeler 08/26/06 02/17/07 09/27/07 09/14/08 William Willner 10/21/06 10/21/06 07/04/07 12/15/07 Jill Wolf MN State Patrol Minnetonka PD Pine Cnty SO Dean Grothem Michael Nelson Blake Fjosne Rebecca Lawrence Dan Vosika 10/06/06 01/03/11 08/15/07 04/11/11 07/11/06 11/16/06 11/16/06 11/22/06 12/07/06 Time Accessed 7:59:00 8:00:00 19:57:00 19:58:00 15:07:00 15:08:00 18:10:00 18:10:00 18:11:00 17:27:00 22:38:00 21:56:00 3:14:00 19:51:00 19:51:00 1:19:00 3:08:00 10:25:00 10:47:00 10:56:00 22:15:00 0:48:00 19:16:00 20:11:00 22:01:00 22:04:00 14:25:00 13:51:00 10:29:00 13:56:00 10:32:00 19:27:00 14:01:00 7:37:00 7:38:00 9:49:00 10:55:00

DRAFT

Page: 8

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 82 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity Princeton PD Ramsey Cnty SO Individual Defendant Joseph Backlund Ramsey County Doe Date Accessed 06/20/06 03/14/07 03/14/07 03/14/07 Red Wing Elke Hobus 11/08/06 01/10/07 11/29/07 03/03/06 04/01/06 04/17/06 05/23/06 05/23/06 02/22/07 07/06/07 07/06/07 10/09/07 02/14/07 02/23/06 01/06/08 12/15/07 02/14/06 07/10/06 01/21/07 06/25/07 11/04/09 09/10/10 05/16/11 08/29/06 08/03/06 09/22/06 07/13/06 11/21/07 11/19/06 11/13/06 11/16/06 11/03/07 05/07/08 02/21/07 03/21/07 Time Accessed 1:10:00 16:54:00 16:55:00 16:55:00 18:01:00 15:23:00 22:02:00 13:27:00 23:25:00 22:54:00 22:23:00 22:23:00 22:49:00 17:31:00 17:34:00 10:02:00 16:08:00 10:42:00 6:28:00 23:15:00 1:05:00 0:56:00 20:15:00 21:40:00 13:39:00 15:09:00 9:45:00 22:55:00 21:25:00 8:27:00 22:20:00 8:19:00 19:14:00 0:08:00 10:10:00 6:56:00 2:08:00 2:49:00 1:14:00

DRAFT

So. St. Paul PD St. Paul PD

Phillip Hartung Stephanie Bailey

Ann Baumgart Neil Benner Bruce Bennett Laura Bolduan Amy Boyer Jeffery Boyle

Jason Brubaker Brian Coyle Patrick Daly Chad Degree Wes Denning Luis Diaz-Calle Edward Dion Michael Dunaski Shawn Filiowich Tim Flynn Matthew Flynn Eric Gorud Nikkole Graupmann Mike Helgoe Page: 9

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 83 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity St. Paul PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Axel Henry Date Accessed 07/31/06 08/01/06 08/01/06 08/02/06 08/05/06 08/14/07 11/06/07 01/06/08 01/14/09 09/02/06 09/27/06 09/27/06 08/27/06 09/15/06 12/08/06 06/30/07 07/01/07 07/08/07 07/12/07 11/15/07 04/22/11 04/26/06 09/26/06 08/20/06 11/19/06 07/28/06 07/28/06 10/21/06 12/10/06 12/31/06 02/21/07 03/11/07 03/24/07 03/28/07 03/29/07 03/30/07 04/01/07 04/02/07 04/03/07 Time Accessed 9:47:00 7:32:00 16:45:00 16:20:00 8:36:00 4:11:00 17:55:00 6:29:00 14:27:00 4:47:00 3:10:00 3:14:00 10:14:00 22:32:00 22:03:00 7:48:00 16:12:00 13:57:00 22:02:00 8:14:00 16:10:00 17:32:00 8:30:00 20:07:00 19:04:00 23:51:00 23:52:00 22:01:00 0:44:00 13:20:00 21:40:00 22:43:00 22:08:00 21:26:00 21:35:00 21:36:00 10:09:00 22:28:00 21:43:00

DRAFT

Andrew Heroux Cortez Hull Jeffery Hutchinson

Robert Jerue

Johnson Johnson Erik Johnson Candice Jones

Page: 10

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 84 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity St. Paul PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Candice Jones (cont'd) Date Accessed 04/05/07 04/06/07 04/07/07 04/08/07 04/09/07 04/12/07 04/14/07 05/04/07 05/20/07 05/30/07 06/09/07 07/18/07 07/20/07 08/11/07 10/07/07 10/26/07 02/03/08 02/23/08 03/14/08 Ian Kough 05/06/08 05/28/11 05/28/11 05/28/11 05/28/11 11/13/06 11/29/06 11/29/06 09/23/06 10/17/06 01/11/07 10/17/07 12/21/07 03/05/08 12/26/08 12/26/08 12/26/08 07/08/09 07/08/09 07/08/09 Time Accessed 20:33:00 20:03:00 22:38:00 20:02:00 21:40:00 17:54:00 20:57:00 20:08:00 0:11:00 19:52:00 18:48:00 23:51:00 19:55:00 16:44:00 0:25:00 23:23:00 0:02:00 0:06:00 3:10:00 21:44:00 10:38:00 10:38:00 10:38:00 10:39:00 2:43:00 3:31:00 3:32:00 14:04:00 20:07:00 6:45:00 18:21:00 0:34:00 11:37:00 14:25:00 14:26:00 14:26:00 0:31:00 0:31:00 0:32:00

DRAFT

Kimberly Kunde

Cary Lee Stephen Lentsch

Page: 11

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 85 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity St. Paul PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Stephen Lentsch (cont'd) Sean Lohse-Johnson Date Accessed 07/08/09 10/08/07 03/03/08 03/03/08 03/03/08 03/04/08 03/05/09 03/05/09 03/05/09 03/05/09 03/05/09 05/21/09 06/16/09 08/04/06 10/18/09 12/04/10 12/04/10 10/11/06 11/16/06 09/24/06 09/24/06 09/24/06 09/24/06 09/24/06 06/15/09 09/24/06 11/19/06 11/19/06 12/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 Time Accessed 0:32:00 10:17:00 7:47:00 7:48:00 7:48:00 15:18:00 14:00:00 14:01:00 14:03:00 14:04:00 14:04:00 13:47:00 15:06:00 18:00:00 2:47:00 21:52:00 21:52:00 13:33:00 10:22:00 22:50:00 22:51:00 22:53:00 22:53:00 22:54:00 18:48:00 17:35:00 17:38:00 19:02:00 19:18:00 0:22:00 0:23:00 0:24:00 0:25:00 0:26:00 0:26:00 0:28:00 0:29:00 0:32:00 0:33:00

DRAFT

Theodore Mackintosh James McKnight

Shelly Mehl Justin Miller

Timothy Moore Ryan Murphy

James Nash

Page: 12

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 86 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity St. Paul PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant James Nash (cont'd) Date Accessed 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 10/04/08 11/01/08 11/01/08 11/01/08 11/01/08 11/01/08 11/01/08 11/01/08 10/22/07 09/13/08 09/13/08 09/17/08 09/17/08 04/30/09 04/30/09 04/30/09 Evan O'Hara Salim Omari 05/05/08 05/05/08 09/27/08 09/27/08 09/27/08 10/26/07 08/21/07 08/21/07 08/22/07 05/20/09 05/20/09 05/20/09 05/20/09 12/27/05 01/14/09 03/21/07 10/02/08 08/13/06 08/14/06 Time Accessed 0:40:00 0:40:00 1:59:00 2:00:00 2:36:00 22:15:00 22:17:00 22:18:00 22:18:00 22:19:00 22:21:00 22:23:00 6:17:00 4:09:00 4:09:00 23:53:00 23:53:00 0:49:00 0:50:00 0:50:00 15:56:00 15:57:00 23:33:00 23:34:00 23:34:00 14:31:00 0:10:00 2:39:00 19:21:00 17:17:00 17:18:00 19:33:00 19:33:00 3:14:00 20:37:00 1:21:00 8:59:00 23:10:00 0:11:00

DRAFT

Jason Neubrand

Kathy O'Reilly Mark Pierce

Chris Rhoades

Craig Rhode Jeff Rothecker David Rud Jon Sherwood Adam Siegfried

Page: 13

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 87 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity St. Paul PD (cont'd) Individual Defendant Charles Sims Date Accessed 09/26/06 09/26/06 10/16/06 01/13/09 01/13/09 01/13/09 01/13/09 01/13/09 01/13/09 01/13/09 01/18/08 06/25/07 11/13/06 03/30/07 03/30/07 05/19/09 05/19/09 05/19/09 05/19/09 03/31/08 12/15/07 01/10/08 04/17/09 04/17/09 08/11/09 08/11/09 10/28/09 10/28/09 02/14/07 12/29/05 04/25/07 04/27/07 04/27/07 05/18/07 06/11/07 06/11/07 08/17/08 09/27/08 Time Accessed 7:58:00 8:02:00 13:06:00 11:22:00 11:28:00 11:28:00 11:29:00 11:30:00 11:35:00 11:35:00 2:13:00 22:04:00 0:07:00 2:35:00 2:36:00 2:50:00 2:50:00 2:51:00 2:51:00 10:09:00 20:41:00 7:46:00 11:13:00 11:13:00 13:10:00 13:10:00 14:09:00 14:09:00 15:59:00 12:23:00 9:25:00 13:58:00 13:59:00 14:26:00 12:49:00 12:56:19 22:21:22 23:37:23

DRAFT

Alan Singleton

Jamie Sipes Eric Stevens Jeffery Stiff

Tony Tallarico Todd Tessmer Threasa Timp

Matt Toupal Scott Wendell

St. Paul PD Comm Cntr

Unknown Unknown Unknown

Page: 14

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 88 of 88

EXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al. Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)
Entity St. Paul PD Comm Cntr (cont'd) Individual Defendant Unknown Unknown Unknown UMD PD Sean Huls Date Accessed 05/20/09 02/07/10 04/22/11 09/22/06 09/22/06 09/22/06 09/22/06 09/22/06 09/22/06 09/27/06 12/18/06 01/03/07 12/12/06 Time Accessed 17:18:34 21:17:55 16:11:21 0:55:00 1:04:00 1:04:00 1:05:00 2:39:00 2:39:00 17:56:00 21:53:00 7:51:00 15:20:00

DRAFT

Woodbury PD

Tony Ofstead

Page: 15

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful