You are on page 1of 6

92.100.

1 Civil Rights Suit

Civil Action No.

Trevor Titman, IN THE COUNTY COURT


TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
plaintiff
v.
Austin Police Officer JELANI JOHNSON,
ART ACEVEDO, CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS,
The City of Austin, Texas ,
Austin Police Officer Katy Ricker,
Austin Police Officer Philip Linsalata,
defendants

First Amended COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Trevor Titman plaintiff, complains of JELANI JOHNSON, AND ART ACEVEDO, CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS the defendant, and for cause of action shows: On September 16, 2014 the
Plaintiff was stopped by the Defendant, Jelani Johnson near the ramp at N IH 35 svrd and Braker Ln. The
Plaintiff was questioned by the Defendant who asked him to do a field sobriety test. The plaintiff
complied to the best of his ability, but the defendant was unnecessarily aggressive. The Plaintiff
admitted to drinking one cider hours before. The Plaintiff volunteered to have his breath tested for
alcohol which resulted in 0.00. The Plaintiff was then placed under arrest at which point he immediately
volunteered to have his blood tested for any intoxicants. The results of those test are still not known to
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was later (between 4am and 6am) questioned by two drug recognition experts,
and was fully cooperative. The Plaintiff was pressured to falsely confess to having taken various drugs.
He refused and was kept for close to 26 hours in the Travis County Jail.

This lawsuit is filed to 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1988, the United States Constitution. This lawsuit is a 4 th
amendment violation case for the following reasons. There was no reason for the stop and detention of
Page 2 of 6
LexisNexis(R) Forms FORM 712-92.100.1

plaintiff Trevor Titman. There was no probable cause for the arrest because officer Jelani Johnson knew
plaintiff Trevor Titman was not intoxicated. Officer Jelani Johnson knew it based on F.S.Ts. Oficer Jelani
Johnson falsified the arrest affidavit in claiming that Plaintiff Trevor Titman ran a police road block. ( See
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); and Hale v. Fish, 899 F.2d 390, 400 n.3 (5th Cir. 1990).

Austin Police Officers Katy Ricker and Philip Linsalata have been added to the lawsuit because of
information gained during the discovery process from the original lawsuit filed on September 16, 2014.
Plaintiff Trevor Titman was unaware of the existence of police blood test results which he had
volunteered to take on the night of the arrest. When the blood test results were known to Austin Police
Officers Katy Ricker and Philip Linsalata on November 12, 2014 there is no evidence that they made any
effort to dismiss the case. Instead a do not prosecute order was only issued on June 15 th 2015. This is a
4th amendment due process violation because Austin Police Officers Katy Ricker and Philip Linsalata did
not imminently seek the complete dismissal of the case.

I.

This is a Civil Rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other appropriate relief brought by Plaintiff, Trevor
Titman

II.

The Plaintiff, Trevor Titman is a resident of Travis County, Texas

III.

Defendant, JELANI JOHNSON was an employee of the Austin Police Department

Defendant ART ACEVEDO, was at the time Chief of Police for the Austin Police Department, in this capacity he
was responsible for creating policies and practices for police officers and for DWI enforcement for the
city of Austin. He is also responsible the training and the standards associated with arrests.

Defendant Katy Ricker is an employ of the Austin Police department.


Defendant Philip Linsalata is an employ of the Austin Police department.

IV.

On September 16, 2014 at about 1:30 am the Plaintiff was driving home on the I 35 service road and
observed Officer Nguyens police car, with his flashing lights on, blocking the road around Yager Ln. The
Plaintiff waited at the intersection for a few minutes to determine a new route home. When Officer
Nguyen turned off his flashing lights, the Plaintiff slowly proceeded through the intersection. Officer
Nguyen did not signal that the Plaintiff should stop. Shortly thereafter several other cars went through
the intersection.
Page 3 of 6
LexisNexis(R) Forms FORM 712-92.100.1

A few hundred feet down the road, the Plaintiff was stopped by the Defendant, Jelani Johnson near the
ramp at N IH 35 Service Road and Braker Ln. The Plaintiff was asked by the Defendant why he passed the
police car. The plaintiff explained that he thought that Officer Nguyen had signaled that he should
proceed. At this point several more cars started to come down the I 35 service road. The Plaintiff was
told to wait in his car while the defendant, Jelani Johnson redirected traffic. A short period later the
defendant was informed that the road was cleared and returned to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff was asked
to pull over next to a parking lot of a nearby office complex. Officer Nguyen soon approached and told
the plaintiff that Officer Nguyen had let cars on the road too early.

The Defendant then asked the Plaintiff to do a field sobriety test. The Plaintiff complied to the best of his
ability, but the defendant was unnecessarily aggressive. The Plaintiff admitted to drinking one cider
hours before. The Plaintiff explained to the Defendant Officer Jelani Johnson that he was partially
bowlegged which hindered his ability to complete some of the walking tests. The Plaintiff volunteered to
have his breath tested for alcohol. After the plaintiff took the breath test he was physically handcuffed
and told by the defendant that the results were what he was looking for. The Plaintiff later learned the
test result was 0.00 BAC. On police video obtained through discover in the initial lawsuit Officer Nguyen
is heard apologizing for the confusion.

The Plaintiff was then placed under arrest at which point he immediately volunteered to have his blood
tested for any intoxicants. The results of the test were only discovered by Plaintiff Trevor Titman after he
filed his initial lawsuit.

Defendant Officer Jelani Johnson and Officer Nguyen are heard discussing their need for OT or Overtime
pay during the police car camera video obtained through discover in the initial lawsuit. Officer Jelani
Johnson knew he had no cause for the arrest but did it anyway to obtain over time pay. He intentionally
engaged in the false arrest in order to get over time pay.

The Plaintiff was later (between 4am and 6am) questioned by two drug recognition experts, and was
fully cooperative. The Plaintiff was questioned for approximately 90 minutes. The Plaintiff was
pressured to falsely confess to having taken various drugs. He refused and explained he had already
taken a breath test, given blood to be tested and then offered to do any other medical test to prove his
innocence. The Plaintiff explained to the Drug recognitions experts that he thought it was unreasonable
to charge and release defamatory booking photos when he was fully corporative and prepared to do
anything asked to show he was not under any intoxicants. The Plaintiff was then informed that he would
be charged with a DWI. The Plaintiff was then taken to have his booking photo taken and make
arrangements for bail. The Plaintiff was kept in Travis County Jail for close to 26 hours in the Travis
County Jail.

This is a 4th amendment violation case for the following reasons. There was no reason for the stop and
detention of plaintiff Trevor Titman. There was no probable cause for the arrest because officer Jelani
Johnson knew plaintiff Trevor Titman was not intoxicated. Officer Jelani Johnson knew it based on F.S.Ts.
This is also a Franks case due to the fact that officer Jelani Johnson falsified the arrest affidavit in claiming
that Plaintiff Trevor Titman ran a police road block.
Page 4 of 6
LexisNexis(R) Forms FORM 712-92.100.1

Defendant Acevedo is liable to the Plaintiff in the following respects:

a) In failing to properly train his officers to perform duties in an unintimidating and non-aggressive
manner, provided the atmosphere that allowed for the abuse of the Plaintiff.

b) In failing to properly train his officers to recognize symptoms of intoxication.

c) In failing to discipline officers who provide false information to justify a false arrest.

d) In failing to train officers to work with an individual who is fully cooperative.

e) In creating policy that would lead to pressuring individuals to make false confessions.

f) In creating and releasing defamatory booking photos creating the presumption of guilt.

Austin Police Officers Katy Ricker and Philip Linsalata have been added to the lawsuit because of
information gained during the discovery process from the original lawsuit filed on September 16, 2014.
Austin Police Officers Katy Ricker and Philip Linsalata alleged that Trevor Titman was under the influence
of a CNS Depressant, a CNS Stimulant and Marijuana. Trevor Titman only received information on
November 14,2016 of the results of the blood analysis which he volunteered to take on the night of the
arrest. The results of which were know by Austin Police officials on November 12, 2014 as being
Negative for every substance tested. Plaintiff Trevor Titman made his best efforts to receive the results
of the blood test after his arrest. On March 23, 2016 The Travis County Attorneys Office received a
request for information from Trevor Titmans lawyers. The Travis County Attorneys responded with an
appeal to the Texas Attorney Generals office to not hand over said information. The Texas Attorney
Generals office made a ruling in which Trevor Titman had to sue for this information. When the blood
test results were known to Austin Police Officers Katy Ricker and Philip Linsalata there is no evidence that
they made any effort to dismiss the case. Instead a do not prosecute order was only issued on June 15 th
2015. This is a 4 th amendment due process failure because they intentional left the case pending despite
knowing there was no probable cause for the charge. During this same time Trevor Titman was they
deprived of discovery so that Trevor Titman could seek legal remedies to have the case dismissed .

V.

False Arrest

Plaintiff Trevor Titman was arrested under false pretenses.

VI.

False Imprisonment

Plaintiff Trevor Titman unjustly spent 26 hours under Imprisonment in Travis County.

VII.
Page 5 of 6
LexisNexis(R) Forms FORM 712-92.100.1

Malicious Prosecution

Plaintiff Trevor Titman spent time and money to fight an unjust prosecution from actions of police
employed by the City of Austin, Texas.

VII.

Punitive Damages

All individuals sued are liable for punitive damages as they were consciously indifferent to Plaintiffs

constitutional rights. Punitive damages are unspecified but significant due to the fact that Plaintiff now

has lasting stress from the arrest and has to live with the fact that he has been publicly branded a danger to

society by the city of Austin, Texas officials with the publication of a Driving While Intoxicated booking

photo.

Trevor Titman's personal damages also include that he suffered mental anguish for his time and treatment

at the Travis County Jail, damage to reputation from numerous booking photos online from this false

arrest, economic damages in the form of legal fees to fight a case that should not have been filed, damage

to car from being towed and time spent in a hotel room for a week due to not having a car. Trevor Titman

will also suffer economic damages far into the future with public evidence online that the city of

Austin,Texas felt the need to charge him with a DWI. This will effect Trevor Titman's future employment,

relationships, etc.

VIII.

Attorney Fees

Plaintiff Trevor Titman request compensation for Attorney fees from all litigation and from fighting unjust

criminal charges and for civil litigation.


Page 6 of 6
LexisNexis(R) Forms FORM 712-92.100.1

IX.

Defamation

Plaintiff Trevor Titman due to his unjust arrest and detention had a booking photo published showing an
arrest for driving while intoxicated. This will cause lifelong reputation damage and distress.

Request for Relief

Wherefore, Plaintiff. Trevor Titman respectfully requests that the court grant the following relief:

A. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for the acts described above.

B. Award Punitive damages against the Defendants.

C. Enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and award attorney fees, litigation costs and pre- and
post-trial interest against the Defendants.

D. Grant such other and further relief in law or in equity to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________

Trevor Titman

2413 Pemberton Place

Austin TX, 78703

512-786-5342

End of Document