Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
11,148 characters extracted
—
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
NICKLAUS_S,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUKABLET, in his individual
capacity; XDINOMANX, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants.
Action No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Nicklaus_s (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, seeking
all available relief, in his complaint against Defendants Soukablet (“Defendant
Soukablet”) and XDinoManX (“Defendant Dino”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleges
the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. In a jurisdiction where open-carry is lawful, a law enforcement officer may
not seize a person simply because they are exercising that right. Yet that is precisely what
happened here. Defendants Soukablet and Dino pulled Plaintiff over and detained him for
one reason alone: he was visibly carrying a firearm he was entirely and lawfully entitled
to carry. Their sole objective was to demand proof of a firearms license.
2. Because open-carry is lawful in Ridgeway, the visible presence of a
firearm, without more, does not give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. To
hold otherwise would invert constitutional logic entirely—transforming the exercise of a
1
lawful right into automatic justification for detention and subjecting every lawfully armed
person to suspicionless stops simply for being armed.
3. Plaintiff accordingly brings this action for declaratory relief establishing
that the seizure of a person solely for openly carrying a firearm—without individualized
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity—is unconstitutional under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and for damages reflecting the deprivation
of rights he suffered at the hands of the Defendants.
JURISDICTION
4. The Ridgeway Superior Court has original jurisdiction over “all civil and
criminal cases or controversies.” RID. CONST. art. 5, § 4.
5. Venue is proper as the acts and omissions which give rise to this complaint
occurred in the State of Ridgeway.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff is an individual, resident, and citizen of the State of Ridgeway.
7. Defendant Soukablet is an individual, resident, and citizen of the State of
Ridgeway. Defendant Soukablet is a Corporal in the Palmer Police Department, and is an
Operator in the Tactical Response Unit within the Special Operations Bureau of the
Palmer Police Department. Defendant Soukablet is sued in his individual capacity.
8. Defendant Dino is an individual, resident, and citizen of the State of
Ridgeway. Defendant Dino is a Sergeant in the Palmer Police Department, and is the
Commanding Officer in the Bravo Patrol Unit within the Field Patrol Bureau of the
Palmer Police Department. Defendant Dino is sued in his individual capacity.
2
FACTS
9. On or about March 15, 2026, Plaintiff was lawfully operating and driving
his vehicle on a public roadway near the Palmer Police Department in Palmer, Ridgeway.
10. Plaintiff lawfully possessed a firearm which was visible on his person.
11. Plaintiff lawfully possessed a state-issued firearms license.
12. Plaintiff had stopped his vehicle at a red traffic signal.
13. Defendant Soukablet positioned his vehicle behind Plaintiff, illuminated his
lights, and sounded his sirens, signaling Plaintiff to pull over.
14. Plaintiff continued past the traffic signal when it turned green and pulled
over near the Palmer Gas Station, with Defendant Soukablet driving behind him.
15. Defendant Soukablet did not immediately get out of his vehicle.
16. Defendant Dino appeared on scene with his lights illuminated and sirens
sounding, and pulled over behind Defendant Soukablet.
17. Defendant Soukablet and Defendant Dino exited their vehicles and walked
towards the vehicle that Plaintiff was operating.
18. Plaintiff and Defendants spoke using signs.
19. Plaintiff said “i havent done anything dawg.”
20. Defendant Soukablet responded “Show license.”
21. Plaintiff replied “license for what?”
22. Defendant Soukablet said “Gun.”
23. Defendant Dino also said “u better have an afl for that sc-5 PAL.”
24. Plaintiff responded to Defendant Soukablet and said “i need not show my
AFL. will i be arrested if i dont?”
3
25. Defendant Soukablet proceeded to handcuff Plaintiff and place him in the
passenger seat of Plaintiff’s car.
26. Defendant Soukablet proceeded to take Plaintiff out of the vehicle and
continued holding him.
27. Defendant Dino was then attacked with a bat by a third-party.
28. This attack prompted Defendant Soukablet to stop dragging Plaintiff,
leaving him handcuffed on the sidewalk.
29. Defendant Soukablet and Defendant Dino proceeded to subdue the
third-party attacker.
30. Defendant Soukablet returned to Plaintiff, told him he was “Free to go,”
and took his handcuffs off.
31. Defendant Soukablet and Defendant Dino proceeded to drive away from
the traffic stop.
32. No citation, charge, or arrest record was issued to Plaintiff at any point
during or following the stop.
33. Defendant Soukablet was operating a department-issued vehicle, wearing a
department-issued uniform, and utilizing department-issued equipment.
34. Defendant Dino was operating a department-issued vehicle, wearing a
department-issued uniform, and utilizing department-issued equipment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unreasonable Seizure, U.S. CONST. amend. IV – 1 R. Stat. § 3115)
(Defendant Soukablet)
35. Plaintiff repeats and reincorporates paragraphs 1–34 above as though fully
incorporated herein.
4
36. Defendant Soukablet was, at all times relevant, acting under the color of
state law and in the course and scope of his employment.
37. Defendant Soukablet pulled Plaintiff over solely because Plaintiff had a
firearm visible on his person.
38. Defendant Soukablet had no indication that Plaintiff was unable to possess
a firearm.
39. Defendant Soukablet had no indication that Plaintiff was dangerous or
threatening.
40. Defendant Soukablet had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
believe that Plaintiff had committed, was committing, or would commit any crime.
41. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
42. A person is seized when, “in view of all the circumstances surrounding the
incident, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave.” United
States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).
43. Plaintiff reasonably believed he was not free to leave. Any reasonable
person in his position would have reached the same conclusion after being pulled over by
multiple armed and uniformed law enforcement officers and asked to display his or her
firearms license.
44. It is clearly established that an investigatory detention of a citizen by an
officer “must be supported at least by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the
person seized is engaged in criminal activity.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968); Reid
5
v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440 (1980). The level of suspicion must be a “particularized
and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.”
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981). As such, “the officer must be able
to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences
from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21.
45. It is clearly established that in states where open-carry is legal, the mere act
of carrying a firearm—without individualized suspicion that the person is prohibited from
doing so—cannot justify an investigatory detention. See, e.g., United States v. Ubiles,
224 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir.
2013); United States v. Roch, 5 F.3d 894, 899 (5th Cir. 1993); Northrup v. Toledo Police
Department, 785 F.3d 1128, 1131–34 (6th Cir. 2015); United States v. King, 990 F.2d
1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993).
46. There was no legal basis for the seizure and investigatory detention of
Plaintiff, as described above. No objectively reasonable law enforcement officer would
have reason to believe that they have authority to conduct a seizure or investigatory
detention of a person lawfully open-carrying a firearm without reasonable suspicion.
47. The actions taken by Defendant Soukablet were objectively unreasonable,
willful, wanton, intentional, and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the
constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Intervene, U.S. CONST. amend. IV – 1 R. Stat. § 3115)
(Defendant Dino)
48. Plaintiff repeats and reincorporates paragraphs 1–34 above as though fully
incorporated herein.
6
49. Defendant Dino was, at all times relevant, acting under the color of state
law and in the course and scope of his employment.
50. Defendant Soukablet had no legal basis for the seizure and investigatory
detention of Plaintiff, as described and alleged above, and therefore violated the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
51. Defendant Dino was present when Defendant Soukablet was violating and
did violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
52. Defendant Dino knew, or should have reasonably known, that Defendant
Soukablet was violating and did violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
53. Defendant Dino had a realistic opportunity to do something to prevent harm
from occurring to Plaintiff.
54. Because Defendant Dino failed to act, Plaintiff suffered harm at the hands
of Defendant Soukablet.
55. It is clearly established that a law enforcement officer who is present during
an unlawful seizure or investigatory detention, has reason to know that the seizure lacks
legal justification, and possesses a realistic opportunity to intervene, has an affirmative
duty to do so, and that the failure to intervene under such circumstances constitutes a
violation of the Fourth Amendment.
56. Defendant Dino knew, or should have reasonably known, that failing to act
to stop or mitigate an unlawful and unreasonable seizure and investigatory detention was
unconstitutional.
7
57. The actions taken and not taken by Defendant Dino were objectively
unreasonable, willful, wanton, intentional, and done with a callous and reckless disregard
for the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the court enter judgment in his favor and
against Defendants as follows:
a. Declare that seizing a person solely for carrying a firearm, without
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, is unconstitutional under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
d. Award pre- and post-judgment interest;
e. Grant an award of the fees and costs incurred in filing this suit;
f. Grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 4, 2026
Palmer, Ridgeway Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicklaus_s
Nicklaus_s (Rid. Bar No. 10241)
NICKLAUS & ASSOCIATES LLP
1 Jackson Road
Palmer, Ridgeway 90025
(123) 456-7890
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
8
