RECEIVED PAUL C. WILLIAMS AUG 22 2018 35 BROAD STREET #C4 are TOMS RVER NIO7S3-6564 RECA 732.998.6707 Plaintiff; Pro Se IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY - TRENTON PAUL C. WILLIAMS, Civil Action No. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION vs. COMPLAINT RICHARD BOSLEY, individually and JURY TRIAL DEMAND in his official capacity: THEODORE KUCOWSKI, individually and in his official capacity; TREVOR CROWLEY, individually and in his official capacity; KEVIN CHESNEY, individually and in his official capacity, and EDWARD TRAVISANO, individually and in his official capacity Defendants. Plaintiff, PAUL C. WILLIAMS (“PLAINTIFF”), residing in the Township of Toms River and within the State of New Jersey, by way of complaint against Defendant’s, says: I._ INTRODUCTION 1. For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. The point of that sort of epigraph is somewhere in the facts that, as the primary interest (control) of law enforcement agencies and its agents is at odds with the fundamental interest (freedom) of individuals, the often competing interests between lawenforcement and individuals regularly intersect and, much like death, it can occur at any time, in any variety of ways, and to anyone. 2. The severity of that intersect depends, perhaps, on the level of value and respect possessed for individuals to be, fundamentally, left alone from government intrusion. For example, some individuals may have no problem at all with law enforcement prohibiting them from the lawful exercise of clearly established state and federal constitutional rights (freedom) to, lets just say, take pictures of and/or video-record (capture images) of people and events that occur in a public space, such as police activity and even a fatal motor vehicle crash scene which may happen to include the body of a deceased, and might find such image-capturing to be so morally objectionable that they support, encourage, condone, or even simply tolerate law enforcement (government) using their subjective opinion of morality to violate another person’s constitutional right to capture such images but will be the proverbial “loudest voice in the room” if law enforcement encroaches on their freedoms to do something else, lets just say have guns and ammo or to , that is also not prohibited by law but that law enforcement, by their subjective opinion of morality, deem morally objectionable. 3. The examples that could be listed and described are innumerable but, more importantly, they simultaneously bring tomind the profound and timeless sentiments expressed by Abraham Lincoln that “[t]hose who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves[] and, under a just God, can not long retain it.” (Abraham Lincoln, letter to H.L. Pierce, April 6, 1859) Therefore, it appears imperative that the exercise of Constitutional rights (freedom), even when it is arguably objectionable morally but nonetheless is lawful, to be staunchly guarded and defended not only when it may come under governmental attack personally but also when government attacks it against others. In fact, to support, encourage, condone, or even tolerate the action(s) of any government entity or agent that violates another person’s Constitutional rights, simply because it is consistent with one’s personal moral beliefs but nonetheless is not consistent with the law and violates the Constitution, leaves every person’s Constitutional rights, including those of one’s own family, neighbors, friends, and loved-ones all equally ripe to similar governmental violation and is a consummate threat to the Constitution and freedom in general. 4. Here, Plaintiff brings this is federal civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C, 1983; alleging that the named Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution and laws. More specifically, this action arises from an initial and unconstitutionalinterference with Plaintiff’s right as a person and as the press to capture images (photograph and videorecord) of people, things and activity appearing in a public space; escalated into an unconstitutional denial of, and retaliation against, Plaintiff's right as both a person and as the press to capture images of people, things and activity appearing in a public space; an unconstitutional seizure of, including excessive use of force against, Plaintiff; a false arrest, incarceration, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution against Plaintiff; and an unreasonable search and seizure of Plaintiff’s camera and cell phone. 5. Plaintiff is, among other things that he would much rather be revealing, a formerly court-involved person, with an extensive criminal record and has served an extraordinary amount of time incarcerated for crimes he committed, ostensibly, to survive; having been “state raised,” not well equipped with much in terms of life management skills, and never had a support source, advocate, or guiding hand to assist him in his numerous transitions back to the community. He was last released from a sentence of imprisonment in October of 2011 and, while making a successful transition to the community - an assimilation to whatever the definition of a “normal” life may be - has not been easy, he has not, despite some relatively minor brushes, waivered in his personal resolve to never resort back to a lifeof crime. In an effort to ensure that he lives a law-abiding life, he has desperately strived daily to live by the literal letter of the law and also has grown both cognizant and appreciative of the freedom and rights of being a citizen of the United States of America. 6. In the last couple of years, Plaintiff has done some work as an independent photographer/videographer and has had numerous images he has captured both on his own and on assignments from several news outlets (the “press”) published and televised over a dozen times. Although capturing images of what occurs in a public space is absolutely legal, he especially appreciates that he has been able to engage in this activity as a form of work, without his prior criminal history being a barrier, and that he is able to be a part of providing the general public with a visual depiction of news and events. 7. On dune 27, 2018, Plaintiff was called upon by the press to capture images of what was reported about an hour earlier as a six (6) vehicle motor vehicle crash. Accordingly, Plaintiff responded and, while operating in the capacity of both an ordinary civilian and also as the press, he eventually arrived about a half hour later in the vicinity of the motor vehicle crash. The crash appeared in the middle of the roadway and he began to capture images until, while standing away from the roadway and on the lawn of a private residence, he wasconfronted by a Sergeant of the Jackson Township Police Department, and who began by demanding that Plaintiff “stop taking pictures” and then, along with other members of the Jackson Township Police Department, hastily continued to escalate the encounter into multiple violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights and including Plaintiff being subjected to being seized, assaulted, arrested, confined and prosecuted, and having his camera and cell phone confiscated 8. As will be amply demonstrated below, there was no lawful basis to even initiate contact with Plaintiff or for the members of the Jackson Township Police Department to engage in the unconstitutional and otherwise illegal conduct they did toward Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks judicial redress of his grievances. IZ. JURISDICTION 9. The Court has original jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343(a) (3). The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law violations alleged in this matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, and Injunctive Relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2283 and 2284 and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are also sought. III. VENUE 10. The District of New Jersey is an appropriate venueunder 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2), because it is where the events giving rise to the claims herein occurred. IV. PARTIES ll. Plaintiff, PAUL C. WILLIAMS (“PLAINTIFF”), is and, at all times referred to herein, was a United States citizen and resident of the State of New Jersey, with a residence at 35 Broad Street, Toms River NJ. 12. Defendant, RICHARD BOSLEY (“BOSLEY”), was, at all times referred to herein, a duly appointed law enforcement officer, with the rank of Sergeant, within the Jackson Township Police Department, and acted under the color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. 13. Defendant THEODORE KUCOWSKI (“KUCOWSKI”) was, at all times referred to herein, a duly appointed law enforcement officer, with the rank of Sergeant, within the Jackson Township Police Department, and acted under the color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official pacity. 14. Defendant TREVOR CROWLEY (“CROWLEY”) was, at all times referred to herein, a duly appointed law enforcement officer, with the rank of Sergeant, within the Jackson Township Police Department, and acted under the color of state law. He s sued in his individual and official capacit: 15. Defendant EDWARD TRAVISANO (“TRAVISANO”) was, at all times referred to herein, a duly appointed law enforcementofficer, with the rank of Patrol Officer, within the Jackson Township Police Department, and acted under the color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. 16. Defendant KEVIN CHESNEY (“CHESNEY”) was, at all times referred to herein, a duly appointed law enforcement officer, with the rank of Patrol Officer, within the Jackson Township Police Department, and acted under the color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. 17. All of the above-named defendants may, at times, be referred to herein collectively, as indicated by the attendant circumstances, as “Defendants” and Defendants BOSLEY, KUCOWSRI, CROWLEY, TRAVISANO, and CHESNEY may, at times, be referred to herein collectively, as indicated by the attendant facts and circumstances, as “Defendant Officers.” V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 18. PLAINTIFF is a professional photographer and videographer. 19. For several years, PLAINTIFF has captured and submitted to several television, Internet, and print news outlets (the “press”) numerous and various images of things, people, and events, particularly breaking news, that appeared in a public space and such news outlets have published and televised the images over a dozen times. 20. Prior to the events at issue here, PLAINTIFF oftencovered breaking news events, usually involving situations where victim(s) would be present and/or fire, emergency medical, and/or law enforcement personnel were present, that where in a public space. 21. In 2017, PLAINTIFF was provided a “Press” identification credential, containing a headshot photograph of himself under a prominent display of the words “PRESS,” from the New Jersey Press Association (“NJPA") which administers such credentials on behalf of the New Jersey State Police and the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, and has understood that such credentials do not confer upon possessors any more rights, powers, privileges than other persons but, instead, simply signifies that he contributes to the acquiring and dissemination of information and images for professional “news” sources that the NJPA has verified as such. 22. At approximately 4:00pm on June 27, 2018, there was reported to have been a motor vehicle crash involving six vehicles in the roadway on South Hope Chapel Road, Jackson NJ, and more specifically in the vicinity of what is commonly known as the Whitesville Fire Department which is located at 81 South Hope Chapel Road and just south of a residential property that is located 64 South Hope Chapel Road. 23, PLAINTIFF was not yet aware of the crash until, at approximately 5:14pm of June 27, 2018, he received a phone callfrom a newspaper and requesting that he go to the scene and capture images for submission to the newspaper. 24. Accepting the request to go to the scene and capture images of the crash, PLAINTIFF promptly left his residence on Broad Street, Toms River NJ, and arrived in the vicinity of Bast Veterans Highway and South Hope Chapel Road, Jackson NJ, at approximately 5:45pm on June 27, 2018. 25. Upon information and belief, law enforcement had positioned police vehicles in the middle of the roadways at the intersections of East Veterans Highway, Linda Drive, and Whitesville Road, so as to close parts of South Hope Road from vehicle traffic, due to the crashed vehicles having rendered the roadway impassible. 26. Upon arriving in the vicinity of East Veterans Highway and South Hope Chapel Road, PLAINTIFF parked his vehicle, hanging his Press credential on his outer clothing so as to be prominently displayed, and proceeded to walk south and along the west side of South Hope Chapel Road. 27. As crashed vehicles and police activity began to become visible to PLAINTIFF, he then began capturing images (taking pictures) of what was occurring in a public space, using his digital camera, a Nikon 47100, and which was equipped with a 16-200mm zoom lens, and simultaneously continued walking toward the location of the crash and police activity. 1028. As PLAINTIFF proceeded to walk toward the crash and the crashed vehicles and police activity became visible, he did not notice any signs or similar markings of what was any perimeter that law enforcement may have established as the scene of any investigation they may have been conducting at that time. 29. As PLAINTIFF approached what is the northern end of a property located at 64 South Hope Chapel Road on the west side of the roadway, he noticed that, from the vantage point of the north end of South Hope Chapel Road, the first crashed vehicle and police activity that became visible was located in the middle of the roadway near the southernmost end of the property located at 64 South Hope Chapel Road. 30. As PLAINTIFF continued to walk toward the crash, he observed, inter alia, several crashed vehicles and, next to one of those vehicles, also several uniformed persons that appeared to be simply standing next to and over something, or someone, on the ground and that was partially covered in a white colored material and while one person appeared to be taking pictures of whatever was on the ground. 31. As PLAINTIFF continued to walk toward the crash, he observed that, other than the uniformed persons that appears to be simply standing next to and over something, or someone, on the ground, there was no one else and one of those persons appeared to be taking pictures. ML32. As PLAINTIFF continued to walk toward the crash, there continued to be no sidewalk and ne walked in the southern direction but now on the grassy lawn of a property at 64 South Hope Chapel Road. 33. As PLAINTIFF began to approach the southern end of the property located at 64 South Hope Chapel Road, he walked farther west and south onto the property; continuing to capture images. 34. At this time, Defendant BOSLEY, who was one of the persons standing next to one of the crashed vehicles, turned and began walking toward PLAINTIFF, and confronted PLAINTIFF by stating in an aggressive manner: “stop taking pictures.” 35. Simultaneously, everyone else that was standing next to one of the crashed vehicles turned their attention toward PLAINTIFF. 36. PLAINTIFF calmly and surely responded by stating “don’t start with me guys” and explained that he is an independent news photographer; if they don’t know why he is taking pictures, maybe they should go ask their supervisors don’t focus on him; focus on whatever they have to do there. 37. Simultaneously, BOSLEY and at least Defendants CHESNEY and CROWLEY proceeded to escalate the encounter; walking toward PLAINTIFF and onto the private property where PLAINTIFF was then located, and collectively telling PLAINTIFF to “leave the area.” 38. PLAINTIFF calmly and surely responded by stating: 2“Well, right now I am on private property.” 39, Defendant CHESNEY then demanded of PLAINTIFF: “do you live here” (the location of the residence at 64 South Hope Chapel Road). 40. PLAINTIFF calmly and surely responded by advising that he did not live there. 41. Defendant CHESNEY then proceeded toward the residence, while Defendants BOSLEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO swarmed around PLAINTIFF, and as an unidentified person, now believed to be John Dziedzic, was simultaneously stepping out of the residence’s front door and onto the porch. 42. Defendant CHESNEY then, and notably without first ascertaining who the person was or, more importantly, what, if any, lawful authority the person may possess in the property at 64 South Hope Chapel Road, inquired of Mr. Dziedzic: “Does he (pointing at PLAINTIFF) have permission to be on this property.” 43. Mr. Dziedzic then responded by simply, hesitantly, and only stating: “No ... not really.” 44. Defendant CHESNEY then immediately seized PLAINTIFF, by grabbing PLAINTIFF’s right arm, st ‘ting to PLAINTIFF “you! re trespassing” and proceeded to physically force PLAINTIFF to walk in a northerly direction, approximately 100 feet, and across the property located at 64 South Hope Chapel Road. 45. Before Defendant CHESNEY grabbed PLAINTIFF as Bdescribed above, Defendant CHESNEY did not give any verbal command or warning for PLAINTIFF to comply in order to avoid his use of physical force. 46. Simultaneously, Defendant BOSLEY then also seized PLAINTIFF, by grabbing PLAINTIFF’s left arm, and joining CHESNEY in physically forcing PLAINTIFF to walk in a northerly direction, approximately 100 feet, and across the property located at 64 South Hope Chapel Road. 47, Before Defendant BOSLEY grabbed PLAINTIFF as described above, Defendant BOSLEY also did not give any verbal command or warning for PLAINTIFF to comply in order to avoid the use of physical force. 48. Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO appeared to aid and abed Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY as they physically forced PLAINTIFF to walk in a northerly direction, approximately 100 feet, and across the property located at 64 South Hope Chapel Road; standing by and walking along as Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY grabbed PLAINTIFF and physically forced PLAINTIFF across the property. 49. During the time referred to above, PLAINTIFF did not physical resist, merely said repeatedly that he was not trespassing, and was in practical disbelief at what Defendant officers were doing to him. 50. PLAINTIFF was recording video/audio of the situation, 14using his cell phone which was in his right hand and the lens facing toward himself and Defendants CHESNEY and BOSLEY, and holding his camera in his left hand. 51. When arriving at what would seem to be the driveway of the next property located at the northern end of the property located at 64 South Hope Chapel Road, Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY released their grips on PLAINTIFF’s arms. 52. When Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY released PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF was in practical disbelief about the eve: that had then just transpired the past several moments, simply turned around and faced the southern direction of South Hope Chapel Road, and did not even attempt to walk in any direction but, instead, simply stood there. 53. Defendants CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO had appeared to walk away, while Defendant BOSLEY remained facing PLAINTIFF and, inexplicably, then proceeded to put his hands on PLAINTIFE’s chest area, pushing, several times; causing PLAINTIFF to feel like he was going to fall backwards. 54. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions prompted PLAINTIFF, still holding his camera and phone, to remove BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’ s chest area. 55. Defendant BOSLEY then yelled “You just fucking hit me” and proceeded to further escalate the situation by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously attacking and 15assaulting PLAINTIFF; grabbing and pulling PLAINTIFF, face forward, to the ground; causing PLAINTIFF’s chest and belly to be flat on the ground; and striking PLAINTIFF with fists and knees throughout the head and body areas. 56. During the time referred to above, PLAINTIFF offered no physical resistance. 57. Before Defendant BOSLEY physically attacked and assaulted PLAINTIEF as described above, Defendant BOSLEY again did not give any verbal command or warning for PLAINTIFF to comply in order to avoid the use of nysical force. 58. Defendant BOSLEY was instantly joined in his attack and assault of PLAINTIFF by several other persons, all believed to include Defendants CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, who individually and collectively proceeded to also intentionally, wil fully, recklessly, maliciously attack and assault PLAINTIFF; pushing PLAINTIFF’s face into the ground with their hand pressed against the back of his heads hearing and feeling several persons cursing at him, violently grabbing and striking him with fists, knees, and et, violently pulling his arms and hands behind his back, violently handcuffing his wrists and squeezing the handcuffs so tightly that extreme pain was felt in the area of his wrists, bending his legs up at the knees, repeatedly pressing and twisting his left leg while bent at the knee toward the left causing pain in the knee joint area, 16and all the while hearing someone, inexplicably, yelling “stop resisting” which, as he was not resisting, caused PLAINTIFF to be in fear that the commands of “stop resisting” were actually a signal that these law enforcement officers were about to use deadly force upon him and, thus, further caused PLAINTIFF to feel traumatized, terrified, and put in fear of serious and significant bodily injury and death. 59. During the time referred to above, PLAINTIFF offered no physical resistance. 60. Eventually, PLAINTIFF was stood up by several of the Defendants and escorted to a police vehicle, while Defendant BOSLEY gathered up his camera and cell phone. 61. As PLAINTIFF was stood up by several of the Defendants and about to be escorted to a police vehicle, he observed Defendant BOSLEY appear to be operating or attempting to operate the cell phone while walking away with it, out of view of PLAINTIFF, and has not yet to be seen again by PLAINTIFF. 62. After PLAINTIFF took several steps, he suddenly felt excruciating pain in the area of the knee of the leg that was described above as being repeatedly twisted and pushed; causing him to collapse to the ground. 63. As a result of the apparent injury PLAINTIFF sustained, he needed medical attention and remained on the ground while awaiting emergency medical personnel. 764. While seated on the ground, PLAINTIFF took note of a police vehicle that had been situated approximately 10-15 feet away from and immediately facing the direction of the encounter he just had with officers and that the vehicle had decals identifying it as vehicle #175. 65. After several moments, officers picked PLAINTIFF up from the ground, moved him into the above-referenced police vehicle, and then PLAINTIFF noticed that the vehicle was equipped with a dash camera and had been video-recording. 66. After another several moments, emergency medical personnel arrived and eventually transported PLAINTIFF to a hospital, with another law enforcement officer of the Jackson Township Police Department accompanying, and where PLAINTIFF was ultimately treated for the injury to his knee, issued a leg brace and a set of crutches, and advised to follow up with primary physician. 67. Upon being discharged from the hospital several hours later, PLAINTIFF was then transported to the Jackson Township Police Department, processed, and held until being transported to the Ocean County Jail in the middle of the early morning hours of June 28, 2018 and where he was then strip-searched, confined, subjected to extraordinary restrictions on his ability to communicate with his friends and loved ones and prevented from pursuing his leisure and professional endeavors; having 18been charged by Defendant BOSLEY with Obstruction of the Administration of Law, in violation of N.J.S.A, 2C:29-la, Aggravated Assault, in violation of N.J.S.A 2C:12-1b(5) (a), and Resisting Arrest, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(1). 68. As a result of the charges, the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office made a motion to the Court on June 28, 2018 for PLAINTIFF to be held indefinitely, without bail, pending final disposition of the charges and, thus, PLAINTIFF remained incarcerated pending the hearing and disposition of the motion. 69. A hearing on the motion was conducted on July 3, 2018 and, with the Court then denying the motion, PLAINTIFF was released from the jail several hours later. 70. On July 5, 2018, PLAINTIFF addressed and sent correspondence to Matthew Kunz (KUNZ), the Chief of the Jackson Township Police Department, with copies being sent to the Mayor of Jackson Township and to the Ocean County Prosecutor, as a demand for the immediate return of PLAINTIFF’s cell phone and camera. 71. On duly 5, 2018, KUNZ responded to PLAINTIFF’s correspondence for the return of the cell phone and cameras advising that it “is believed to contain evidence” and, as such, was lawfully seized and that the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office will notify if at any such time the property is deemed appropriate for release; advising further that “[a]ny subsequent 19communication, question, comment or concern by or on behalf of you, must be directed to The Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office, as this matter is now under their jurisdiction.” 72. On duly 6, 2018, PLAINTIFF again addressed and sent correspondence to KUNZ, with copy to the Mayor of Jackson Township and to the Ocean County Prosecutor, requesting “that any and all police dash camera videos be preserved as evidence * * * [and] especially preserve the dash camera recording from the Jackson Police Department vehicle that is marked as vehicle “175 * * * .” 73. On or about July 11, 2018, PLAINTIFF filed a motion with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County Vicinage, to represent himself in connection with the criminal charges. 74. If convicted of the charges, PLAINTIFF faces 2 period of up to two and a half (2-1/2) years incarceration and several thousand dollars in fines, costs, and penalties. 75. Upon information and belief, Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, individually and collectively, knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF was, as both a civilian and the press, engaged in a completely legal and constitutional activity when BOSLEY initially confronted PLAINTIFF with demands to “stop taking pictures.” 76. Upon information and belief, Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, individually and 20collectively, knew or should have known that PLAINTIFE’s presence on the property of 64 S. Hope Chapel Road, Jackson NJ was not a legitimate governmental interest or concern. 77. Upon information and belief, Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, individually and collectively, knew or should have known that any question of whether PLAINTIFF resided at the residence was not relevant to any legitimate governmental interest or concern. 78. Upon information and belief, Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, individually and collectively, knew or should have known that any inquiry to a perceived property owner of whether PLAINTIFF had “permission” to be on the property was not vant to any legitimate governmental interest or concern. 79. Upon information and belief, Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, individually and collectively, knew or should have known that the grabbing of PLAINTIFF, as both a civilian and the press, and physically forcing him to walk from the property was witho probable cause and not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental interest or concern. 80. Upon information and belief, Defendant BOSLEY knew or should have known that, after PLAINTIFF was removed from the property, continuing to put his hands on PLAINTIFF was without 21probable cause and not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental interest or concern. 81. Upon information and belief, Defendant BOSLEY yelling “You just fucking hit me” was a completely exaggerated and misleading response to PLAINTIFF simply removing BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’s chest and 82. Upon information and belief, Defendant BOSLEY yelling “You just fucking hit me,” as a completely exaggerated and misleading response to PLAINTIFF simply removing BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’s chest, was a deliberate, willful, wanton, and malicious ruse to gain assistance from his colleagues with his knowingly imminent physical attack and assault against PLAINTIFF. 83. Upon information and belief, Defendant BOSLEY knew or should have known that, after yelling “You just fucking hit me,” the further escalation of the situation, by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously attacking and assaulting PLAINTIFF, grabbing and pulling him, face forward, to the ground, causing his chest and belly to be flat on the ground, and striking PLAINTIFF with fists and knees, was without probable cause and that it was not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental purpose or concern. 84. Upon information and belief, Defendant officers knew or should have known that willfully, recklessly, maliciously 22attacking and assaulting PLAINTIFF, pushing his face into the ground with their hand pressed against the back of his head, cursing at him, violently grabbing and striking him with fists, knees, and feet, violently pulling his hands behind his back, violently handcuffing his wrists and squeezing the handcuffs so tightly that extreme pain was felt, bending his legs up at the knees, repeatedly pressing and twisting his left leg while bent at the knee toward the left causing pain in the knee joint area, and all the while, inexplicably, yelling “stop resisting” was without probable cause and that it was not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental interest or concern. 85. Upon information and belief, Defendant BOSLEY knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF had not committed any offense against the laws of the United States of America, the State of New Jersey, or of any other government entity and, thus, there was no probable cause to arrest, detain, incarcerate, or prosecute PLAINTIFF, or to confiscate and search PLAINTIFF’s camera and cell phone, and that it was not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental interest or concern. 86. Defendants stifled PLAINTIFF ability as both a civilian and the press to capture images of people, things, and events, particularly law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties at a motor vehicle crash, occurring in a public space. 2387. Defendants denied PLAINTIFF his ability to capture images of people, things, and events, particularly law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties at a motor vehicle crash, occurring in a public space. 88. Defendants retaliated against PLAINTIFF for capturing images of people, things, and events, particularly law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties at a motor vehicle crash, occurring in a public space. 89. Defendants denied PLAINTIFF his ability to fulfill his obligation to capture images of people, things, and events, particularly law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties at a motor vehicle crash, occurring in a public space, for submission to the press. 90 Defendants unreasonably seized PLAINTIFF. 91. Defendants used unnecessary and excessive force upon PLAINTIFF. 92. Defendants falsely arrested PLAINTIFF. 93. Defendants falsely incarcerated PLAINTIFF. 94. Defendants maliciously prosecuted PLAINTIFF. 95. Defendant BOSLEY unreasonably seized PLAINTIFF’s camera and cell phone. 96. Upon information and belief, Defendants actions have caused PLAINTIFF to suffer severe, disabling, and perhaps permanent physical injuries which required the care and 24treatment of physicians and has and will in the future require him to refrain from his otherwise normal daily pursuits. 97. Upon information and belief, Defendants actions have caused PLAINTIFF to suffer severe and permanent psychological and emotional distress, mental anguish, degradation and public humiliation 98. As a direct and proximate result of the above~ described facts and circumstances, Defendants actions have caused PLAINTIFF to suffer multiple constitutional violations, degradation, humiliation, embarrassment, nightmares, anxiety, depression, fear, incarceration, grievous physical injury, pain, mental anguish, loss of liberty, loss of property, loss of the enjoyment of life, loss of income, loss of other liberty interests, all to his great detriment. 25vi. LEGAL CLAIMS A. Federal Freedom of Speech Claims - 42 U.S.C. 1983 COUNT ONE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE INTERFERED WITH; U.S. CONST., Amend. I 99. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 100. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a arly established federal constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, when Defendant BOSLEY, inexplicably and suddenly, confronted PLAINTIFF with demands to stop taking pictures. 101. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions interfered with PLAINTIFF capturing images of people, things, and activity in a public space, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 102. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s 26actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as a person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 27COUNT TWO PLAINTIFF’ S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE DENIED; U.S. CONST., Amend. I 104. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 105. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established federal constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, illegally seized PLAINTIFF and removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 106. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions denied PLAINTIFF’/s federal constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a publ space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal const tutional rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 107. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 28108. As a direct ‘and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as a person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 29COUNT THREE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE RELALIATED AGAINST; CONST., Amend. I 109. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 110. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly establ. hed federal constitutional right, as @ person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 111. Defendant BOSLEY escalated a physical confrontation he initiated with PLAINTIFF into a physical assault, excessive force, false arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution against PLAINTIFF, in retaliation against PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his federal constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 112. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the 30color of state law. 113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as a person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 31COUNT FOUR PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE RETALIATED AGAINST; U.S. CONST., Amend. I 114. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 115. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established federal constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 116. Defendant BOSLEY confiscated PLAINTIFF’s camera and cell phone, in retaliation against PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his federal constitutional right, es a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 117, Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s 32actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as a person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged.COUNT _FIVE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE INTERFERED WITH; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 119. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 120. PLAINTIFF was in the course £ engaging in the exercise of a clearly established federal constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of peopl: gs, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendant BOSLEY, inexplicably and suddenly, confronted PLAINTIFF with demands that to stop taking pictures. 121. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions interfered with PLAINTIFF capturing images of people, things, and activity in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights to capture, as a person, images of people, things, and activity in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’ s federal constitutional right, , as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 122. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 123. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, i eparable harm and 34the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 35COUNT SIX PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE DENIED; U.S. CONST., Amend. I 124, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 125. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established federal constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 126. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s action denied PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFE’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 127. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI 2nd TRAVISANO’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, irreparable harm and the substantial 36damages hereinbefore alleged. a7COUNT SEVEN PLAINTIFF’ S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE RETALIATED AGAINST; U.S. CONST., Amend. I 129. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 130. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established federal constitutional right, as a2 person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 131. Defendant BOSLEY escalated a physical confrontation he initiated with PLAINTIFF into a physical assault, excessive force, false arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution against PLAINTIFI , in retaliation against PLAINTIFE’s exercise of his federal constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 132. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 38133. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 39COUNT EIGHT PLAINTIFF’ S FEDERAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE RETALIATED AGAINST; U.S. CONST., Amend. I 134. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 135. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established federal constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 136. Defendant BOSLEY confiscated PLAINTIFE’s camera and cell phone, in retaliation against PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his federal constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 137. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 138. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, irreparable harm and 40.the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 41B. State Freedom of Speech Claims ~ N.J.S.A. 10:6-1, et seq. COUNT NINE PLAINTIFF’S STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE INTERFERED WITH; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 139, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 140. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, when Defendant BOSLEY, inexplicably and suddenly, confronted PLAINTIEF with demands to stop taking pictures. 141. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions interfered with PLAINTIFF capturing images of people, things, and activity in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 142. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 143. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as 2 person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 42COUNT TEN PLAINTIFF'S STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE DENIED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 144, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 145. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 146. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions denied PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 147, Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 148. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY, BCHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKT and TRAVISANO’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as a person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 44COUNT ELEVEN PLAINTIFF’S STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE RETALIATED AGAINST; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 149. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 150. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 151. Defendant BOSLEY escalated a physical confrontation he initiated with PLAINTIFF into a physical assault, excessive force, false arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution against PLAINTIFF, in retaliation against PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his state constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 45152. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 153. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as a person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 46COUNT TWELVE PLAINTIFFS STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS A PERSON WERE RETALIATED AGAISNT; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 154, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 155. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendant: CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 156. Defendant BOSLEY confiscated PLAINTIFF’s camera and cell phone, in retaliation against PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his state constitutional right, as a person, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as quaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 157. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 47158. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as a person, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged.COUNT THIRTEEN PLAINTIFE’S STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE INTERFERED WITH; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 159. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 160. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendant BOSLEY, inexplicably and suddenly, confronted PLAINTIFF with demands that to stop taking pictures. 161. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions interfered with PLAINTIFF capturing images of people, things, and activity in a public space and, thus, olated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights to capture, as the press, images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space an thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constituti 1 rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 162. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 163. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s 49actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 50COUNT FOURTEEN PLAINTIFF'S STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE DENIED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 164, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 165. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 166. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s action denied PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 167. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 168. As a direct and proxima result of Defendant BOSLEY, 31CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 52COUNT FIFTEEN PLAINTIFF'S STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE RETALIATED AGAINST; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 169. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 170. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 171. Defendant BOSLEY escalated a physical confrontation he initiated with PLAINTIFF into a physical assault, excessive force, false arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution against PLAINTIFF, in retaliation against PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his state constitutional righ as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 33172. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 173. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged.COUNT SIXTEEN PLAINTIFFS STATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS AS THE PRESS WERE RETALIATED AGAISNT; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 6 174, PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 175. PLAINTIFF was in the course of engaging in the exercise of a clearly established state constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, in a public space, in a public space, when Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 176. Defendant BOSLEY confiscated PLAINTIFE’s camera and cell phone, in retaliation against PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his state constitutional right, as the press, to capture images of people, things, and activity, particularly law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of their duties, occurring in a public space and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 177. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law.178. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered, as the press, irreparable harm and the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 56C. Federal Unreasonable Search and Seizure Claims - Pursuant to 42 U 1983 COUNT SEVENTEEN PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; U.S. CONST., Amends. IV and XIV 179. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 180. Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, unreasonably seized PLAINTIFF and physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 181. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’ s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 182. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 183. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 37COUNT EIGHTEEN PLAINTIFE’S FEDERAL RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; U.S. CONST., Amends. IV and XIV 184. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 185. Defendant BOSLEY, after unreasonably seizing PLAINTIFF and removing PLAINTIFF from the property he was at, continued to unreasonably use force upon PLAINTIFF, pu ng his hands on PLAINTIFF, pushing PLAINTIFF’s chest area several times. 186. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions caused PLAINTIFF to feel like he was going to fall backwards and, while holding a camera in one hand and a phone in another hand, to remove BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’s chest area. 187. Defendant BOSLEY responding by yelling “You just fucking hit me” was a completely exaggerated and misleading response to PLAINTIFF simply removing BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’ s chest. 188. Defendant BOSLEY yelling “You just cking hit me,” as a completely exaggerated and misleading response to PLAINTIFF simply removing BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’s chest, was a deliberate, willful, wanton, and malicious ruse to gain assistance from his colleagues with his knowingly imminent physical attack and assault against PLAINTIFF. 58189. Defendant BOSLEY escalated his unreasonable use of force into further unreasonable and excessive force against PLAINTIFF, attacking and assaulting PLAINTIFF, as particularly described in Paragraph #55 above. 190. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 191. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 192. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 59COUNT NINETEEN PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; U.S. CONST., Amends. IV and XIV 193. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 194. Defendants CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, along with Defendant BOSLEY, used unreasonable and excessive force against PLAINTIFF, attacking and assaulting PLAINTIFF, as particularly described in Paragraph #58 above. 195. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’ s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 196. Defendants BOSLEY, CBESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 197. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 60COUNT TWENTY PLAINTIFE’S FEDERAL RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; U.S. CONST., Amends. IV and XIV 198. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 199. Defendant BOSLEY, knowing that PLAINTIFF had not committed any offense against the laws of the United States of America, the State of New Jersey, or of any other government entity, did not have probable cause to arrest PLAINTIFF and, thus, falsely arrested PLAINTIFF. 200. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional nts, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 201. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 202. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 61COUNT TWENTY-ONE PLAINTIFE’S FEDERAL RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; U.S. CONST., Amends. IV and XIV 203. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 204. Defendant BOSLEY, knowing that PLAINTIFF had not committed any offense against the laws of the United States of America, the State of New Jersey, or of any other government entity, did not have probable cause to commence a prosecution against PLAINTIFF end, thus, maliciously prosecuted PLAINTIFF. 205. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 206. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 207. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 62COUNT TWENTY-TWO PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; CONST., Amends. IV and XIV 208. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 209. Defendant BOSLEY, knowing that PLAINTIFF had not. committed any offense against the laws of the United States of America, the State of New Jersey, or of any other government entity, did not have probable cause to believe that PLAINTIFF’s camera and cell phone contained evidence of any crime and, thus, unreasonably seized PLAINTIFF’ s camera and cell phone. 210. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 211. Defendant BOSLEY’s acti were committed under the color of state law. 212. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 63D, State Unreasonable Seizure Claims - PLAINTIFF’S STATE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 7 213. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 214. Defendants BOSLEY and CHESNEY, along with Defendants CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO, unreasonably seized PLAINTIFF and physically removed PLAINTIFF from the location he was at. 215. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. 216. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 217. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged.COUNT TWENTY-FOUR PLAINTIFF’S STATE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 7 218. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 219. Defendant BOSLEY, after unreasonably seizing PLAINTIFF and removing PLAINTIFF from the property he was at, continued to unreasonably use force upon PLAINTIFF, putting his hands on PLAINTIFF, pushing PLAINTIFF’s chest area several times. 220. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions caused PLAINTIFF to feel like he was going to fall backwards and, while holding a camera in one hand and a phone in another hand, to remove BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’ s chest area. 221. Defendant BOSLEY responding by yelling “You just fucking hit me” was a completely exaggerated and misleading response to PLAINTIFF simply removing BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFE’s chest. 222. Defendant BOSLEY yelling “You just fucking hit me,” as a completely exaggerated and misleading response to PLAINTIFF simply removing BOSLEY’s hand from PLAINTIFF’s chest, was a deliberate, willful, wanton, and malicious ruse to gain assistance from his colleagues with his knowingly imminent physical attack and assault against PLAINTIFF. 65223. Defendant BOSLEY escalated his unreasonable use of force into further unreas nable and excessive force against PLAINTIFF, attacking and assaulting PLAINTIFF, as particularly described in Paragraph #55 above. 224. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. 225. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 226. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 66COUNT TWENTY-FIVE PLAINTIFF’S STATE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 7 227. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 228. Defendants CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO, along with Defendant BOSLEY, used unreasonable and excessive force against PLAINTIFF, attacking and assaulting PLAINTIFF, as particularly described in Paragraph #58 above. 229. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and RAVISANO’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. 230. Defendants BOSLEY, CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI and TRAVISANO’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 231. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CHESNEY, CROWLEY, KUCOWSKI, and TRAVISANO’ actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 67COUNT TWENTY-SIX PLAINTIFF’S STATE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 7 232. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all egations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 233. Defendant BOSLEY, knowing that PLAINTIFF had not committed any offense against the laws of the United States of America, the State of New Jersey, or of any other government entity, did not have probable cause to arrest PLAINTIFF and, thus, falsely arrested PLAINTIFF. 234. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s federal constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 235. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 236. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 68COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN PLAINTIFF'S STATE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 7 237. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 238. Defendant BOSLEY, knowing that PLAINTIFF had not committed any offense against the laws of the United States of America, the State of New Jersey, or of any other government entity, did not have probable cause to commence a prosecution against PLAINTIFF and, thus, maliciously prosecuted PLAINTIFF. 239. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF/s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. 240. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 241. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 69COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT PLAINTIFF'S STATE RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS VIOLATED; N.J. CONST., Art. I, Par. 7 242. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 243. Defendant BOSLEY, knowing that PLAINTIFF had not committed any offense against the laws of the United States of America, the State of New Jersey, or of any other government entity, did not have probable cause to believe that PLAINTIFE’s camera and cell phone contained evidence of any crime and, thus, unreasonably seized PLAINTIFF’s camera and cell phone. 244. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were unreasonable and, thus, violated PLAINTIFF’s state constitutional rights, as guaranteed by Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. 245. Defendant BOSLEY’s actions were committed under the color of state law. 246. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant BOSLEY’s actions, PLAINTIFF suffered the substantial damages hereinbefore alleged. 70VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully prays that this Court enter a judgment granting PLAINTIFF: A. A declaratory judgment stating that Defendants BOSLEY, KUCOWSKI, CROWLEY, TRAVISANO, and CHESNEY, acts and omissions, as described above, violated PLAINTIFF’s rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of New Jersey; B. Punitive Damages against all Defendants, and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial; Compensatory damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial; D. Attorney fees, interest and costs of suit incurred; E. Any such further relief as the Court may deem proper and just. FO enn UO Ato Paul C. wWiliGams~ 35 Broad Street, #C4 Toms River NJ 08753-6564 Plaintiff, Pro Se Dated: August 22, 2018 1DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury by all issues and claims. Dated: August 22, 2018 ae Tie 35 Broad St’ #4 Toms River NJ 08753-6564 Plaintiff, Pro Se VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing complaint and hereby verify that the matters alleged therein are true, except as to matters alleged on information and belief, and, as to those, I believe them to be true. I certify under perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: August 22, 2018 aul C. Wilfiams 35 Broad Street; ~#c4 Toms River NJ 08753-6564 Plaintiff, Pro Se n