CHEIFMAST,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEV_TYP, in his individual and official
capacity as a police officer for the City of
Palmer
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIDGEWAY COUNTY
Civil Action No.
Plaintiff chiefmast, by and through his undersigned counsel, seeking all available relief,
hereby files this civil action against Defendant and alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter consistent with Art. V, Sec. IV of the
State Constitution.
2. Venue is proper because the incident set forth below took place in the City of
Palmer, Ridgeway County, a land subject to the laws of the State of Ridgeway.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff cheifmast is a citizen of the State of Ridgeway.
4. Defendant dev_Typ is a citizen of the State of Ridgeway. He is sued in his
individual and official capacity.
FACTS
5. Plaintiff is a honest and legal civilian—in fact, he is a current applicant to the
Ridgeway National Guard and has completed a substantial portion of the application process.
6. Not only this, but Plaintiff is a prospective enrollee to the Law Enforcement
Training Center.
7. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff is now potentially subject to
automatic disqualification from positions in both the National Guard and the Law Enforcement
Training Center.
The Incident
8. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff was present in at the Bloxmart supermarket located
in the City of Palmer.
9. While there, he witnessed an armed man with a crowbar swinging it at a seemingly
defenseless individual. The armed man also broke windows at the Bloxmart location.
10. In an overt attempt to defend the person being attacked, Plaintiff entered the
Bloxmart location and began firing his Salvo firearm at the assailant.
11. During the attempt to save the individual, the assailant even caused bodily harm to
Plaintiff using his crowbar.
12. Just as Plaintiff left the Bloxmart building, Defendant exited his government-
owned police cruiser, drew his firearm and began entering the building.
13. After clearing the building, Defendant left and cuffed Plaintiff then asked “[w]ho
shot.”
14. Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was him who shot, and proffered a clip as
evidence he was defending another individual.
15. Plaintiff sent the Medal clip to Defendant, who upon belief, did review the Medal
clip. After taking a brief pause in game, Defendant continued driving and told both of his
arrestees that “[they’re] both going to jai[l].”
16. Plaintiff asked why he was going to jail, and was met with a response that intended
to say that he is not a police officer.
17. Plaintiff was later issued a citation rather than arrested, under the charge of
discharging a firearm.
18. The law is abundantly clear on this topic—indeed, “[a]n individual cannot be
charged with a crime while defending another individual from significant harm.” Rid. Good
Samaritan Act, Sec. 3(a) (2022).
19. The Good Samaritan Act defines “significant harm” as “harm that can cause a
significant threat to an individual’s life and well-being.” See id., § 2(b).
20. Consistent with the Good Samaritan Act, Plaintiff cannot be charged with
defending that other person.
21. The video is inexplicably clear as well—the individual being attacked by the
assailant was at low health, he was lagging, and was being actively attacked.
22. There’s no mistake—he was in significant harm under the Good Samaritan Act,
and Plaintiff acted within the law.
23. Defendant knew this, having even watched the video himself. Yet, he justified his
illegal actions because Plaintiff isn’t a police officer. That is wrong.
COUNT I
1 R. Stat. § 3114 – Official Misconduct
24. The prior allegations in this Complaint are fully incorporated as if they were set
forth herein.
25. Defendant, who is a public servant through civil servitude with the Palmer Police
Department, did conduct a function relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized
exercise of his functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized.
26. On February 14, 2024, Defendant did issue a citation to Plaintiff for unlawful
discharge of a firearm, knowing that the Good Samaritan Act does not prohibit civilians from
coming to the aid of others who are facing “substantial harm.”
27. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff was assisting an
individual facing substantial harm—he saw a Medal video of the incident prior to issuing the
citation and additionally, he prefaced his enforcement action by noting that Plaintiff was not a
police officer.
28. Knowing these things, Defendant continued his action, causing severe harm to
Plaintiff, which could potentially affect his job prospects and offers, among many other things.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
29. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
a. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
b. Expunge the citation record against Plaintiff, namely record 20242152eb6a1168.
c. Award punitive damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.00.
d. Award attorneys’ fees and costs.
e. Grant any further relief it deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
David Clarke
Managing Partner
Clarke and Associates, LLP
Counsel of Record
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date: February 16, 2024
