Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

13,287 characters extracted

—

STATE OF RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT MRPOP1034, Plaintiff, v. AZAP634 in his individual capacity and in his quasi-official capacity; IMPEDIAGE, in his individual capacity and in his quasi-official capacity. Defendants. CASE No. ## CIVIL COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS MRPOP1034 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “The Plaintiff” or “Arrestee” or “The Arrestee”) brings this civil action, by counsel, against AZAP634 (hereinafter referred to as “Azap” or “Defendant One”) and Impediage (hereinafter referred to as “Impediage” or “Defendant Two”) (collectively referred to as “the Defendants”) for the reasons and purposes stipulated henceforth within this complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. According to Article V, Section IV of the Constitution of the State of Ridgeway, this Honorable Court is vested with the authority to entertain and adjudicate “all civil or criminal cases or controversies.” Plaintiff invokes this jurisdiction by filing to this court. 2. Venue is proper as the incident giving rise to the present litigation occurred in Palmer, a geographic area situated within Ridgeway County, and thus subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the State of Ridgeway. THE PARTIES 3. MRPOP1034 is the Plaintiff in this action and is bringing forth these allegations against the Defendants. MRPOP1034 is a Resident of the State of Ridgeway and a successful Ridgeway County Firefighter. 4. AZAP634 is certified to be a peace officer courtesy of the Law Enforcement Training Center. AZAP634 is a Defendant in this action and is being sued in his individual capacity. AZAP634 is a Detective for the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office’s Criminal Investigations Division. AZAP634 is also a Resident of the State of Ridgeway. 5. IMPEDIAGE is certified to be a peace officer courtesy of the Law Enforcement Training Center. IMPEDIAGE is a Defendant in this action and is being sued in his individual capacity. IMPEDIAGE is a Supervisory Detective for the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office’s Criminal Investigations Division. FACTS 6. On or about the date of February 14, 2024, Defendant Two verbally encouraged the Plaintiff to join the State of Ridgeway game on the Fire Department team. After the Plaintiff joins on his alternate account, he is told that he will not be arrested and is requested to join the State of Ridgeway game on his primary account because it involves the Fire Department. 7. Defendant Two handcuffed the Plaintiff and put him in the rear seats of his patrol vehicle and used his emergency lights to transport the Defendant to the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office Headquarters. 8. Upon Defendant Two’s arrival at the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office Headquarters, Defendant Two informed the Plaintiff that “[he is] not under arrest” and that “[It’s] not a set up[.]” Defendant Two hastily transported the Plaintiff to the interrogation rooms of the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office Headquarters. At around timestamp 1:16 of Appendix A is when Defendant Two pulled the Plaintiff into the interrogation room in handcuffs. Throughout this very minute period of interaction, Defendant Two constantly reassured the Plaintiff that he was attempting to help the Plaintiff keep his career intact. 9. At timestamp 2:44 of Appendix A, Defendant Two informs the Plaintiff that “[a] grand jury is convening as we speak to talk about you leaving the game when you were about to be arrested, and they plan to indict [the Plaintiff] based on what I provide them.” All while constantly reassuring the Plaintiff that despite threats to have the Plaintiff indicted at Defendant Two’s behest, he is not under arrest. Defendant Two then informs the Plaintiff that “this is [the Plaintiff’s] only way out to save [his] career and job.” Afterward, at around timestamp 3:35 of Appendix A, Defendant One makes his first appearance in the interrogation room. 10. At around timestamp 4:00 of Appendix A, the Plaintiff makes his first assertion of a right by saying “I would not like to talk at this time.” At around timestamp 8:18 of Appendix A, Defendant Two mentions a character by the name of Gmuey then details the alleged reports the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office has been getting related to the Plaintiff supposedly distributing non-civilian equipment. Following the multitude of trivial criminal allegations that Defendant Two lodges against the Plaintiff, Defendant One reads the Plaintiff his Miranda warning from timestamp 12:15 to timestamp 12:60 of Appendix A and then partially reads the Miranda waiver to the Plaintiff on timestamp 13:02 before being interrupted by Defendant Two saying “Answer the question if you want to keep your positions in Ridgeway.” The Plaintiff never actually answered the waiver. 11. At around timestamp 15:02 of Appendix A, the Plaintiff informs the Defendants that “[he has] been informed not to talk”, where in response, Defendant One informs the Plaintiff that “we can just get you a warrant and you won’t be able to defend yourself [.]” For the first time at timestamp 15:43 of Appendix A, the Plaintiff said “I want my lawyer, Mr. Chen [.]” 12. At around timestamp 16:20 of Appendix A, Defendant Two continues the interrogation leading with “[y]ou want to throw away your hard work in SPS, RCFD, and Parks [sic] it is your choice. We had no intention on [sic] ruining this for you if you complied, simple as that.” Additionally, at timestamp 16:30 of Appendix A, the Plaintiff again says “I would like mr chen [sic].” 13. At around timestamp 18:40 to timestamp 18:48 of Appendix A, Defendant One acknowledges the Plaintiff’s request for an attorney when he asks the Plaintiff “where is your attorneyy [sic]” then attempts to extract a confession from the Plaintiff when convincing the Plaintiff that “if you tell us what happened” then “make our lives easier” and “give us the truth.” Moreover, at timestamp 21:21 of Appendix A, Defendant One asked the Plaintiff “what do you want to do” after an explanation of what the Sheriff’s Office could do to him if he does not comply with their investigation. 14. For the third time, still undergoing unsolicited badgering and interrogation, the Plaintiff requests his lawyer by name at timestamp 22:03 of Appendix A. Defendant One briefly exits the room and then returns at timestamp 26:01 of Appendix A where he begins to talk and is interrupted with a fourth request from the Plaintiff for his lawyer, Mr. Chen. Defendant One then says “I know” and after confronted with a fifth request for a lawyer from the Plaintiff, Defendant One says “do you really think we’d be here if there wasn't proof?” 15. Furthermore, Defendant One accuses the Plaintiff of “stashing 30 barriers at 12 am [sic]” which is when Defendant Two returns to the interrogation room and is confronted with a sixth request from the Plaintiff for his lawyer. Defendant One then tells the Plaintiff “I can promise you that the courts won’t want to help you” which is matched with a seventh request by the Plaintiff for his lawyer. 16. Defendant One proceeds to interrogate and badger the Plaintiff while he demands his lawyer who is in the building. (Rest of interrogation process omitted in facts due to attorney presence at timestamp 36:22 of Appendix A) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1 R. Stat. § 3115 (Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law) Against AZAP634 and Impediage in their individual capacity 17. For the purposes of this cause of action, all aforementioned paragraphs, statements, allegations, facts, or otherwise material content is reincorporated herein. 18. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants deprived him of his right to have an attorney present during his questioning. It was pronounced by the United States Supreme Court that “[a]n accused [...] having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused has himself initiated further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, (1981) 19. Only after seven separate requests for an attorney to be present before further interrogatory processes was his request fulfilled. Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to interrogation before the Plaintiff’s request for an attorney was fulfilled upon the seventh request. 20. Detectives are trained to strategically interrogate a person to reach a desired answer. Techniques such as this have been widely practiced among law enforcement. The questioning techniques have seemingly embedded themselves into police questioning and one of the many core principles of these techniques begins with rapport. The Plaintiff should not have been subjected to further interrogation – materially including the rapport-building processes – without his requested attorney. 21. The State of Ridgeway has declared in their legislation – and most importantly in 1 R. Stat. § 3115 – that "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the State of Ridgeway or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." 22. Additionally, Defendant One made threats of indictment which demonstrates impending prosecution. This furthers the claims made herein as the statements made to the government would conjure the government to use them in the impending criminal proceedings. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 1 R. Stat. § 3114 (Official Misconduct) Against AZAP634 and Impediage in their quasi-official capacity 23. Law enforcement – but especially Detectives – are tasked with addressing crime that occurs within the geographical bounds of their respective jurisdiction. Detectives that work under the plains of the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office have specific duties delegated to them, in fact, the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office claims that “The Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office’s Criminal Investigations Division, or CID, is responsible for neutralizing upcoming or imminent threats to the County’s [s]ecurity. This is done through active investigation and record-keeping of criminal acts and/or activity. Detectives within this section handle major criminals, any form of organized or serious crime, firearms trafficking, and occasionally corruption through Law Enforcement or County Government.” Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office Department Handbook § 202(2.2)(a) 24. Detectives elect – by virtue of their office – to involve themselves in “corruption through Law Enforcement or County Government” ibid. This includes investigations of conduct relating to corruption in that nature. Detectives are expected to conduct investigations with comprehension of what the subject of those investigations is entitled to. Detectives are charged with these very specific duties and by virtue of the nature of their office, undertook them. The Defendants therefore undertook a duty to uphold the rights they informed the Plaintiff he was entitled to. 25. The Defendants, however, neglected the very rights they specifically told the Plaintiff that he could invoke, and refrained from carrying them out. 26. In the State of Ridgeway – for what is legislated under 1 R. Stat. § 3114 – "[a]ny individual who is a public servant and commits an act relating to his office but constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office" can be held responsible under the statute at an action at law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff prays that this court: 27. Grant judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and declare that the Defendants – whether collectively or specifically – violated the Plaintiff’s rights to have an attorney present at the period of questioning. 28. Award the Plaintiff a maximum total of $3,000.00 in punitive damages in compliance with 1 R. Stat. § 3114 from each Defendant respectively. 29. Enjoin the Defendants and individuals or agencies in concert with the Defendants from disseminating the portions of the interrogation that was obtained from the time of the first invocation of counsel to the time counsel arrived for the Plaintiff. 30. Order the Ridgeway County Sheriff’s Office – regarding parts of this suit which arise in quasi-official capacity – to provide court-ordered training to Criminal Investigations Division Detectives regarding (1) counsel being present at interrogations and; (2) actions Detectives must take once the right to counsel is invoked at questioning where Detective wishes to proceed. Dated: 02/25/2024 Derogatoryyy Clarke and Associates, LLP. RBN #19119 D: @racoontimes E: [email protected] Attorney for the Plaintiff APPENDIX A - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAx5I5_ZRs4&feature=youtu.be

Complaint_%5B_Mrpop1034_v._Azap634%3B_and_Impediage_%5D.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record