HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV3112 - Sean Slatton V. Fort Collins Police Department, Todd Hopkins, Brandon Barnes And John Hutto - 001 - ComplaintCivil Action No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
1:1 8-cv-03112-RBJ-STV
(To be supplied by the court)
Sean Slatton
Plaintiff
\A
Todd Hopkins
Brandon Barnes
John Hutto
Fort Collins Police Department
Defendant(s).
FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
,DISTRICT Cr, COLORADO
2019 APR - 9 FM 4: 5 t
JEFFREY P. COLWELL
CLERK
BY DEP. CLK
(List each named defendant on a separate line. If you cannot fit the names of all defendants in
the space provided, please write "see attached" in the space above and attach an additional
sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names of the defendants listed in the above
caption must be identical to those contained in Section B. Do not include addresses here.)
COMPLAINT
NOTICE
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 addresses the privacy and security concerns resulting from
public access to electronic court files. Under this rule, papers filed with the court should not
contain: an individual's full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person
known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the
last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual's birth; a minor's initials;
and the last four digits of a financial account number.
Plaintiff need not send exhibits, affidavits, grievances, witness statements, or any other
materials to the Clerk's Office with this complaint.
A. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION
You must notify the court of any changes to your address where ease -related papers may be
served by filing a notice of change of address. Failure to keep a current address on file with the
court may result in dismissal of your case.
Sean Slatton, 951 20th St #8971, Denver, CO 80202
(Name and complete mailing address)
(720)926-2890, shslatton@gmail.com
(Telephone number and e-mail address)
B. DEFENDANT(S) INFORMATION
Please list the following information for each defendant listed in the caption of the complaint. If
more space is needed, use extra paper to provide the information requested The additional
pages regarding defendants should be labeled " R DEFENDANT(S) INFORMATION. "
Defendant 1: Todd Hopkins, 2221 S. Timberline Road Fort Collins, CO 80525
(Name and complete mailing address)
(Telephone number and e-mail address if known)
Defendant 2: Brandon Barnes, 2221 S. Timberline Road Fort Collins, CO 80525
(Name and complete mailing address)
(Telephone number and e-mail address if known)
Defendant 3: John Hutto, 2221 S. Timberline Road Fort Collins, CO 80525
(Name and complete mailing address)
(Telephone number and e-mail address if known)
Defendant 4: Fort Collins Police, 2221 S. Timberline Road Fort Collins, CO 80525
(Name and complete mailing address)
(970)419-3273
(Telephone number and e-mail address if known)
C. JURISDICTION
Identify the statutory authority that allows the court to consider your claim(s): (check one)
IIFederal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (claims arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States)
List the specific federal statute, treaty, and/or provision(s) of the United States
Constitution that are at issue in this case.
42 U.S.C. § 1983, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97, 519 U.S. 357,18 U.S.C. § 1503
18 U.S.C. § 242
ElDiversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a matter between individual or
corporate citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000)
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of
If Defendant 1 is an individual, Defendant 1 is a citizen of
If Defendant 1 is a corporation,
Defendant 1 is incorporated under the laws of
state or foreign nation).
Defendant 1 has its principal place of business in
state or foreign nation).
(name of
(name of
(If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach an additional page
providing the same information for each additional defendant.)
D. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS)
State clearly and concisely every claim that you are asserting in this action. For each claim,
specify the right that allegedly has been violated and state all facts that support your claim,
including the date(s) on which the incident(s) occurred, the name(s) of the specific person(s)
involved in each claim, and the specific facts that show how each person was involved in each
claim. You do not need to cite specific legal cases to support your claim(s). If additional space is
needed to describe any claim or to assert additional claims, use extra paper to continue that
claim or to assert the additional claim(s). Please indicate that additional paper is attached and
label the additional pages regarding the statement of claims as "D. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS."
CLAIM ONE: False Arrest. Civil Rights Act of 1871. (42 U.S.C. § 1983.) A section 1983 claim
alleges that the defendant, "under color of law," violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The
use of excessive force constitutes a valid claim under section 1983 because it violates the Fourth
Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable seizures."
CLAIM TWO: Excessive Force/Physical Assault. the government must, in most cases, prove
that that the law enforcement officer used more force than is reasonably necessary to arrest or
gain control of the victim. This is an objective standard dependent on what a reasonable officer
would do under the same circumstances. "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must
be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20
vision of hindsight." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989).
CLAIM THREE: False Imprisonment. Invalid Use of Legal Authority — An example of an
invalid use of legal authority is the detainment or arrest of a person without a warrant, with an
illegal warrant, or with a warrant illegally executed. So long as the person is deprived of his
personal liberty, the amount of time actually detained is inconsequential. See, e.g. Schenck v. Pro
Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
CLAIM FOUR: Obstruction of Justice: 18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an
act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication,
influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due
administration of justice."
CLAIM FIVE: Police Misconduct. The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional
limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in
relevant part: "Whoever, under color of any law, ...willfully subjects any person ... to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime]."
CLAIM SIX: Failure to Intervene: An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to
violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the
Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the
defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and
chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of
excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do
not directly participate in them.
SUPPORTING FACTS:
On December 3rd, 2016, the Plaintiff was attending his spouses' sorority event.
The Defendants instructed the Plaintiff to leave the event due to false information.
The Plaintiff calmly and immediately complied with the Defendants. The Plaintiff exited the
building and began ordering a car service to drive the Plaintiff back to the hotel where he was
staying.
Completely unprovoked, the Defendants attacked the Plaintiff as he waited next to the parking
lot of the building the event was in.
Video footage from the Defendants' body cameras, along with security camera footage from the
event building showed the unwarranted actions occurred within a single minute of the Plaintiff
being told to exit the building. The Plaintiff was absolutely compliant and non -threatening.
The Plaintiff was hospitalized after being hit with a baton and pepper sprayed.
The Plaintiff was taken from the hospital to the Urimer County Jail.
On the night of December 3rd, 2016, the Plaintiff was arrested by the Defendants and charged
with:
18-04-0504 3rd Degree Criminal Trespassing
18-08-0104 Obstructing a Peace Officer/Fireman
18-08-0103 Resisting Arrest
[Plaintiff] was released from jail in the early morning hours of December 4th, 2016.
The District Attorney filed a motion to drop all of the charges against [Plaintiff] and dismiss the
case.
The motion/proposed order was granted by the county Court Judge on September 14, 2017.
All charges against [Plaintiff] were dismissed. The actions of the Defendants on the night of
December 3rd, 2016 were extremely excessive, unwarranted, and violated the constitutional
rights of [Plaintiff].
The Defendant who caused the most offense is no longer a member of the Police Department.
Since the incident which occurred on December 3rd 2016, the main offending Defendant was
involved in an incident where questionable amounts of force was used which gained massive
amounts of public attention from news and social media. In the aforementioned incident, the
Defendant struck a short, overweight woman with his baton for several minutes as an attempt to
control her.
"After an internal affairs investigation, ([Defendants] Police Services Chief) said Thursday the
recommendation by ([officer] Defendant) chain of command was for him to be fired."
-9News.com
This incident brings forth serious concerns regarding the incident that occurred on December
3rd, 2016 with t [Plaintiff].
[Plaintiff] is a larger than average male with a very large cyst in the back of his brain. The
incident on the night of December 3rd, 2016 was completely unnecessary. The Plaintiff endured
extreme damages due to the actions of the Defendants. Due to the Plaintiff having an invisible
disability, both the Plaintiff and the Defendants are lucky the incident on December 3rd did not
result in a death.
Regarding Officer Hopkins, [Plaintiff] will subpoena any and all material and information in
FCPD possession concerning the officer —including, but not limited to that contained in
personnel, Internal Affairs and Performance Standards Unit files —related to (1) use of force and
other acts of aggression or violence; (2) noncompliance with FCPD rules, regulations and
policies or the law and (3); untruthfulness or other acts indicative of dishonesty.
1) Use of Force and Other Acts of Aggression or Violence: The Fort Collins Police
Services Policy Manual effective as of July 2014 (hereinafter FCPD Manual) and
available at http://www.fcgov.com/police/pdf/policy- manual-7-14.pdf, provides that both
the use of a police baton and the use of OC spray are "Type 1" uses of force. FCPD
Manual § 301.2.2. The manual also requires that whenever Type 1 force is used, the
involved employees are to complete an Early Intervention System (hereinafter EIS)
incident report. FCPD Manual § 1021.5. 1. Officer Hopkins used both a police baton and
OC spray against [Plaintiff] during the events preceding the charging of [Plaintiff] in the
matter at bar. In addition, Officer Hopkins was investigated for and cleared of accusations
of sexual assault by FCPD Internal Affairs. See https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3 &cad=rja&uact=8&ved=OahUKEwjO-
ubuOs3SAhUK-
mMKHb4yBLYQFggkMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcitydocs.fcgov.com%
2F%3Fcmd%3Dconvert%26vid%3D218 %26docid%3D2697059%26dt%3
DREAD%2BBEFORE%2BPACKET&usg=AFQjCNEN- gSRZDbuRwJ2Y9YPB47n-
y5Hlg&sig2=M2Mo6pHabPXJeauucvlorw&bvm=bv.149397726,d.cGc. See also Walker
at 122 (there is no distinction between sustained and unsustained complaints). As such,
there is much more than a reasonable likelihood that material and information related to
the use of force and other acts of aggression or violence by or otherwise involving Officer
Hopkins exist.
2) Noncompliance with FCPD Rules, Regulations and Policies or the Law: FCPD
Manual § 308.2 authorizes officers to use control devices such as police batons and OC
spray "to control subjects who are violent or who demonstrate the intent to be violent."
Section 308.7 explicitly states that OC Spray "should not [] be used against individuals . .
. who merely fail to disperse or do not reasonably appear to present a risk to the safety of
officers or the public." FCPD Manual § 388.2 provides that off -duty officers may take
reasonable action to minimize "an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death or
significant property damage." See also FCPD Manual § 420.2.1. Section 388.5 provides
that, when reasonably possible, an officer "shall notify and receive approval of an agency
supervisor" before taking any off -duty enforcement action. See also FCPD Manual §
420.2.L C.R.S. §§ 18-1-707 and 18-8-804 provide for the use of reasonable force by
peace officers according to adopted departmental policies. C.R.S. § 18-8-804 and FCPD
Manual § 106.1 require all FCPD employees to comply with the departmental policies in
the manual. The force used against [Plaintiff] in this matter violated all of the foregoing
provisions of the FCPD Policy Manual and Colorado law (not to mention the Plaintiff's
rights under the U.S. and Colorado constitutions). Further, FCPD Manual § 106.2.1
provides that violations of the manual form the basis for administrative action and §
1020.8 shows that administrative action records are kept on file by the FCPD.
Accordingly, it is reasonably likely that there exists material and information related to
Officer Hopkins' noncompliance with FCPD rules, regulations and policies or the law.
3) Untruthfulness or Other Acts Indicative of Dishonesty: Officer Hopkins makes several
statements in his report that are both malicious in nature and clearly contradicted by the
footage from his own and Officer Bames' point of view (body wom) cameras. Further,
while determined to be unsustained, at least one of the allegations made against Officer
Hopkins that led to his recent Internal Affairs investigation is that he lied in order to
manipulate citizens into doing his bidding. See https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3 &cad=rja&uact=8&ved=OahUKEwjO-
ubuOs3SAhUK-
mMKHb4yBLYQFggkMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcitydocs.fcgov.com%
2F%3Fcmd%3Dconvert%26vid%3D218%26docid%3D2697059%26dt%3
DREAD%2BBEFORE%2BPACKET&usg=AFQjCNEN- gSRZDbuRwJ2Y9YPB47n-
y5Hlg&sig2=M2Mo6pHabPXJeauucvlorw&bvm=bv.149397726,d.cGc. See also Walker
at 122 (there is no distinction between sustained and unsustained complaints). As such,
there is a high likelihood that material and information exists related to untruthfulness or
other acts indicative of dishonesty by or otherwise involving Officer Hopkins, exists.
Regarding Officer Barnes, [Plaintiff] will subpoena any and all material and information in
FCPD possession concerning the officer —including, but not limited to that contained in
personnel, Internal Affairs and Performance Standards Unit files —related to use of force and
other acts of aggression or violence. [Plaintiff] incorporates by reference the FCPD Manual
provisions detailed in 9 10.a.1), supra. Officer Hopkins used both a police baton and OC spray
against [Plaintiff] during the events preceding the charging of [Plaintiff] in this matter; Officer
Barnes was present and working together with Officer Hopkins at that time and was witness to
Officer Hopkins' use of force against [Plaintiff]. Officer Barnes was therefore an employee
involved in Type I use of force required to complete an EIS incident report per FCPD Manual §
1021.5.1.Officer Barnes was also involved with the shooting of a suspect by the FCPD in
January of this year. See http://kdvr.com/2017/01/21/police-shoot-burglary- suspect-in-ft-collins/.
Thus, there is a reasonable likelihood that material and information related to the use of force
and other acts of aggression or violence by or otherwise involving Officer Barnes, exists.
[Plaintiff] will limit his subpoena to material that goes to the issues of officer propensity for
violence, officer propensity for misconduct and officer credibility. Given the assertions of
excessive force, self-defense, failure to intervene, and untruthfulness, these issues are central to
the Plaintiff's defense. [Plaintiff] has laid out in the paragraphs above why he believes the
subpoenaed materials exist. They would assist his defense and he has no other way to secure
them. See 99 10.43., supra. [Plaintiff] is not asking for unfettered access to the FCPD's files in
the mere hope he might find something he could use for his defense. See Neal at *3 ("without
having seen the personnel files, the Court cannot imagine how Defendant could be more
specific"). Further, compliance with his subpoena would not unnecessarily impose on the FCPD,
or Officers Hopkins, or Barnes, nor affect the ability of either the FCPD or the officers to
perform their functions and duties, or otherwise be unreasonable or oppressive. See Spykstra at
664, 667; Crim. P. 17(c).
E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
State the relief you are requesting or what you want the court to do. If additional space is needed
to identify the relief you are requesting, use extra paper to request relief. Please indicate that
additional paper is attached and label the additional pages regarding relief as "E. REQUEST
FOR RELIEF. "
PLAINTIFF HAS REQUESTED $2,000,000. IF THE DEFENDANTS
WOULD LIKE TO SETTLE BEFORE TRIAL, DISCUSSION MAY
ENSUE. The Plaintiff understands that Defendant #1 is no longer a
police officer. The police chief of (FCPD) has since changed as well,
and likely wants this incident to be forgotten. Despite these changes,
there are numerous currently active police officers of (#3) who were
involved with the incident involving the Plaintiff on December 3,
2016. The Plaintiff wants to ensure that what happened to him, does
not happen to other innocent people.
F. PLAINTIFF'S SIGNATURE
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the plaintiff in this action, that I have read this
complaint, and that the information in this complaint is true and correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746;
18 U.S.C. § 1621.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I also certify to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not being presented for an improper
purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending or modifying
existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or
discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.
aintitf s signature
ate
(Revised December 2017)
6