You are on page 1of 19

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Denver City & County Building 1437 Bannock Street,

Room 256 Denver, CO 80202 Court telephone: (720) 865-7800 AARON JOEL PULLER Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and Detective PAUL C. BACA, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: Case No.: David A. Lane, #16422 Siddhartha H. Rathod, #38883 Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 571-1000 Fax No.: (303) 571-1001 dlane@kln-law.com srathod@kln-law.com COURT USE ONLY

Division:

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Aaron Joel Puller (Plaintiff or Mr. Puller), by and through his attorneys, David A. Lane and Siddhartha H. Rathod of Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, respectfully alleges for his Complaint and Jury Demand as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The City and County of Denver (Defendant Denver), by and through Lead Denver Police Detective Paul C. Baca (Defendant Baca), executed a sworn Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant in response to a series of alleged racially based assaults, robberies and attacks in the lower downtown area of Denver, Colorado (LoDo assaults).
1

Defendant Bacas affidavit falsely swears and affirms that two witnesses affirmatively stated that Mr. Puller had participated in the LoDo assaults. Mr. Puller was subsequently arrested and spent 16 days in the Denver County Jail. On June 24, 2010, Denver District Court Judge Edward Bronfin dismissed all charges against Mr. Puller finding that no other justification, apart from (at least) a reckless disregard for the truth, could exist for the inclusion of [Defendant Bacas] . . . statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. . . . [T]here is simply no factual bases for the sworn assertions to the contrary. 2. Whether by Defendant Baca himself, or via unlawfully coerced statements from other witnesses, Defendant Baca exhibited egregious and outrageous police misconduct in his investigation of Mr. Puller and the crimes he was accused of. Defendant Bacas falsified Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant resulted in Mr. Pullers false arrest without probable cause, his subsequent unlawful imprisonment, and unconstitutional vindictive and malicious prosecution. Defendant Bacas misconduct represents outrageous governmental abuse of power and a disturbing violation of the publics trust. Defendant Denver acquiesced, tacitly approved, and encouraged Defendant Bacas illegal police misconduct throughout this investigation. Despite the judicial findings that Defendant Baca had falsified the application for Mr. Pullers arrest warrant, Defendant Baca remains on the Denver Police Department (DPD) as a detective. Defendant Denvers failure to train and supervise Defendant Baca led to the violation of Mr. Pullers constitutional rights, and the lack of effective discipline and other appropriate corrective action against Defendant Baca evidences a generally accepted and tolerated custom, practice and policy on the part of Defendant Denver to violate the constitutional rights of citizens like Mr. Puller. Defendants conduct was done intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously or with reckless disregard of Mr. Pullers rights. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs claim for attorney fees and costs is conferred by 42 U.S.C. 1988. 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to COLO. R. CIV. P. 98(c), in that all of the events alleged herein occurred within the City and County of Denver. 5. The Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to COLO. REV. STAT. 13-1-124, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, 1986, and other applicable law. III. PARTIES 6. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the State of Colorado. 7. 302(9). Plaintiff is a person as that term is defined by COLO. REV. STAT. 24-72-

8. Defendant Denver is a Colorado municipal corporation and is the legal entity responsible for itself and for the DPD. Defendant Denver is also the employer of Defendant Baca and is a proper entity to be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 9. Defendant Denver is properly sued directly under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for its unconstitutional decisions, policies, practice, habits, customs, usages, training and derelict supervision, ratification, acquiescence and intentional failures which were moving forces in the complained of constitutional and statutory violations and resulting injuries. 10. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Baca was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Colorado. At all times relevant to the claims against him, Defendant Baca was acting within the scope of his official duties and employment and under color of state law in his capacity as a DPD Detective. Defendant Baca is sued in his official and individual capacities. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Falsified Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant

11. On November 19, 2009, the City and County of Denver, by and through Defendant Baca, executed a sworn Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant before Denver County Court Judge Mary Celeste swearing that he had probable cause to believe that Mr. Puller had committed aggravated robbery and bias motivated crimes as part of the Lodo assaults. 12. Defendant Baca knowingly and intentionally made material misrepresentations and omissions in his sworn Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant. 13. The sole evidence that was alleged to support Defendant Bacas affidavit was from two separate police interrogations of two different witnesses, Keisha Parker and Landae Woods-King. Defendant Bacas affidavit falsely swears and affirms that the two witnesses affirmatively stated that Mr. Puller had participated in the Lodo assaults. 14. Defendant Baca swore in his Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant that: According to Mr. WOODS-KING on the date of the incident he was in the company of persons known to Your Affiant throughout this investigation as: . . . Mr. Aaron PULLER; DOB 01/24/88. 15. Defendant Baca further swore in his Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant that: Mr. WOODS-KING related that as his group walked in the area of 17th Street and Larimer Street Mr. CAMACK began "'talking stuff to the dude" and "then just took off on him." Mr, WOODS-KING stated that Mr. Rasheed TURNER, Mr. Rashad TURNER, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. PENNY, Mr. PATTON, Mr. PULLER, Mr. FORD and Mr. FRANCIS all took part in the initial attack on the victim. 16. Defendant Baca falsely stated in his Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant that during Mr. Woods-Kings October 13, 2009 interview he stated that Mr. Puller was with him
3

on the day of the assault and identified Mr. Puller as an individual who took part in the Lodo assaults. These affirmations by Defendant Baca are material misrepresentations of the truth. At no point during Mr. Woods-Kings interview is Mr. Pullers name ever mentioned. To the contrary, when Mr. Woods-King was shown a photograph of Mr. Puller, Mr. Woods-king stated, I dont know that dude. Damn, he [sic] fat as hell. 17. Defendant Baca made a material omission in his Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant, by omitting that during Ms. Parkers September 28, 2009 interview she stated that Mr. Puller had no involvement in the Lodo assaults. More specifically, Defendant Baca asked Ms. Parker, Did you see [Mr. Puller] involved in either one of those fights? To which Ms. Parker responded, No, no his grandma would kill him. 18. Mr. Puller was arrested after DPD officers executed the warrant issued on Defendant Bacas falsified affidavit. Mr. Puller was charged with four counts: (1) Bias Motivated Crime, a class four felony; (2) Robbery, a class four felony; (3) Assault in the Second Degree, a class four felony; and (4) Intimidating a Witness or Victim, a class four felony. 19. Mr. Puller spent approximately 16 days in the Denver County Jail, held on a one million dollar bond. B. Franks Hearing

20. In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) the United States Supreme Court held, [W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment required that a hearing be held at the defendants request. 21. After reviewing the interrogation tapes and comparing them to Defendant Bacas affidavit Mr. Puller moved for, and was granted, a Franks hearing to have the court determine whether Defendant Baca made false statements in the affidavit and purposely omitted material information. 22. Denver District Court Judge Edward Bronfin conducted a through review of the evidence and concluded: The Courts review of the video interviews of Ms. Parker and Mr. WoodsKing demonstrates that those interviews do not support two averments contained in the Affidavit for Arrest, which allege Defendant was involved, either directly or as a complicitor, in the attack. To the contrary, Ms. Parker affirmatively asserted that Defendant was not involved in any attack on August 23, 2009; Mr. Woods-King claimed that he did not recognize Defendant and did not identify him as one of the persons who participated in or observed the attack. The assertions contained in the Affidavit for Arrest to the contrary thus cannot be true.

Accordingly, the court concludes that there are false statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. The Court concludes that these statements are not only necessary to, but are in fact a vital sine qua non to, any finding of probable cause for concluding that Defendant was involved in the attack, or in any alleged witness intimidation of Ms. Parker. 1 23. On June 24, 2010, Judge Bronfin dismissed all charges against Mr. Puller finding that no other justification, apart from (at least) a reckless disregard for the truth, could exist for the inclusion of [Defendant Bacas] . . . statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. . . . [T]here is simply no factual bases for the sworn assertions to the contrary. 2 24. Defendant Bacas actions, as alleged herein, were intentional, willful and wanton.

25. The extreme nature of the false charges against Mr. Puller, resulting high initial bond, unlawful incarceration, and the stress associated with being charged with such serious, racially based and high publicized charges 3 have caused Mr. Puller to suffer and continue to suffer loss of employment, loss of housing, humiliation, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other significant injuries, damages and losses. C. Other Falsified and Fabricated Evidence

26. Defendant Baca further fabricated other evidence by urging Mr. Pullers alleged victim, Allen Andes, to claim that a pre-existing broken tooth injury was sustained during the attack. Defendant Baca used this coerced false statement to sustain more serious felony charges against Mr. Puller and other defendants. 4 27. On February 24, 2010, Mr. Andes recanted this claim and informed Denver District Attorney Victoria Sharp that he had felt pressured by D.P.D. Det. Paul Baca to state that the tooth was broken in the assault . . . . Michael P. Walker, Denver District Attorneys Office Gang Prosecution Investigation Report, February 25, 2011. 28. Not only did Defendant Baca coerce Mr. Andes to make false statements he further encouraged him to commit the crime of fraud. On February 25, 2011, during a follow up interview, Mr. Andes stated that Det. Baca had told him to go to the dentist and get the tooth
1

Judge Edward D. Bronfin Order, June 24, 2010, available at http://static.cbslocal.com/station/kcnc/docs/2010/06/ruling.PDF. 2 Id.
3

21 More Formally Charged in Downtown Denver Attacks, THE DENVER POST, November 25, 2009, available at http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13868357?source=pop_section_news; Denver DA News Release, April 19, 2010, available at http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Releases/2010%20Release/LoDo%20series%20update.pdf. Allan Gathright, Assault Victim: Detective Said to Lie About Broken Tooth, ABC CHANEL 7 NEWS, March 8, 2011, available at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/27516955/detail.html. 5
4

fixed and then file and [sic] Victims Compensation Report stating the tooth was broken in the assault so he could get it paid for. Mr. Andes stated he felt pressured by Det. Baca to say the tooth was broken in the assault when it actually was not. Id. 29. On January 4, 2010, five months after Defendant Baca interviewed Mr. Andes, Defendant Baca testified under oath against Rasheed Turner, one of Mr. Pullers co-defendants. The prosecutor asked Defendant Baca if Mr. Andes had suffered serious bodily injury in the attack. Defendant Baca testified that Mr. Andes had suffered serious bodily injury in the form of chipped teeth, even though Defendant Baca knew this was not the case. 30. On January 20, 2010, during the preliminary hearing of David Littlejohn, Defendant Baca again provided perjured testimony when again asked by a prosecutor if Mr. Andes suffered serious bodily injury. Defendant Baca replied, the front tooth which had not been damaged previously was damaged during this . . . broken yes . . . in [Mr. Andes] words, he said it was gone. 31. On March 15, 2010, after the Denver District Attorneys Office was informed by Mr. Andes of Defendant Bacas coercion of the evidence, Denver District Attorney Sharp filed a motion in Mr. Pullers case to amend count three, Second Degree Assault, a class four felony, to Third Degree Assault, a class one misdemeanor. Second Degree Assault carries with it a mandatory sentence to the Department of Corrections of 5 to 16 years. Third Degree Assault has no mandatory sentencing and carries a maximum sentence of 24 months in jail. 32. As part of the same LoDo assault investigation, Defendant Baca also coerced false testimony from a developmentally disabled witness, Zachery Francis, the younger brother of one of Mr. Pullers co-defendants. Mr. Francis does not read or write any language and upon arrival in the interview room Defendant Baca gave Mr. Francis several documents and told him to sign them, which he did. Defendant Baca did not read the documents to Mr. Francis and Mr. Francis had no understanding of what the documents contained. Defendant Baca also instructed Mr. Francis not to mention a conflicting account of the assault. 5 33. During a follow up interview, Defendant Baca and an unknown DPD officer came to Mr. Francis house. Defendant Baca placed Mr. Francis in a police vehicle and took him to police headquarters for questioning. The unknown officer drove the police vehicle, while Mr. Francis was placed in the rear of the vehicle. Defendant Baca also sat in the rear of the vehicle, next to Mr. Francis. There were no other parties in the car and no-one was seated in the front passenger seat. 6 34. During the drive Defendant Baca pressured Mr. Francis to provide information relative to his brothers involvement in the LoDo assaults. Defendant Bacas intimidation and pressure was so great that Mr. Francis began to cry and asked to call his mother; a request that
5

Xavier Francis Supplemental Motion for Police Department Records, April 1, 2010, available at http://completecolorado.com/newsimages2011/francisaffidavit.pdf.
6

Id.

Defendant Baca denied. Defendant Baca insisted that Mr. Francis implicate his brother even if he had to lie, if that is what you have to do. Defendant Baca further threatened Mr. Francis by telling him he would go to prison if he did not cooperate. Defendant Baca took advantage of Mr. Francis disability and weakness, coercing him to fabricate testimony and forced him to produce a signed perjured statement. 7 D. Jefferson County Grand Jury

35. Defendant Baca, as lead investigator at the time of Mr. Pullers arrest, was responsible for ensuring all documents relevant to his investigation, including evidence exculpatory of Mr. Puller, was shared with the District Attorneys Office for the Second Judicial District. Instead Defendant Baca continually proffered coerced and patently false evidence. 36. After evidence of Defendant Bacas falsification and fabrication of evidence in the Lodo assault cases surfaced, Defendant Bacas misconduct was referred to a Jefferson County grand jury. A grand jury report was prepared and pursuant to statute was reviewed by Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport to make a determination as to whether or not it should be made public. Judge Rappaport determined the grand jury report would not be made public despite the request of the grand jury to publicize the report. E. Defendant Denvers Response to Defendant Bacas Misconduct

37. Defendant Baca lied and made material misrepresentations throughout the investigation into the LoDo assaults resulting in the unlawful arrest and jailing of Mr. Puller. 38. Defendant Denver acquiesced, tacitly approved, and encouraged Defendant Bacas illegal police misconduct throughout this investigation. Despite the judicial findings that Defendant Baca had falsified the application for Mr. Pullers arrest warrant, Defendant Baca remains on the DPD as a detective. 39. Defendant Denvers failure to train and supervise Defendant Baca led to the violation of Mr. Pullers constitutional rights, and the lack of effective discipline and other appropriate corrective action against Defendant Baca evidences a generally accepted and tolerated custom, practice and policy on the part of Defendant Denver to violate the constitutional rights of citizens like Mr. Puller. F. Unconstitutional Customs, Policies, and/or Practices of Defendant Denver

40. Defendant Denver has developed and maintained law enforcement related policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices exhibiting or resulting in a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens. 41. Defendants misconduct exhibits a pattern of misrepresentations and falsification of testimony to manufacture evidence against Plaintiff and other similarly situated citizens.
7

Id. 7

42. Defendants unconstitutional misconduct is just one example of a continuing, persistent and widespread practice of unconstitutional misconduct by Defendant Denver and its police officers. 43. Prior to Defendants misconduct in Plaintiffs case, Defendant Denver exhibited similar misconduct with respect to a false arrest of Dede Davis in early 2009. Police who falsely arrested Ms. Davis were fully aware that the warrant described a 25 year old white woman who was 5 feet and 2 inches tall. Ms. Davis, on the other hand, was a 5 feet 7 inches tall 38 year old African-American woman. DPD officers who falsely arrested Ms. Davis intentionally disregarded established factual records and wantonly disregarded Ms. Daviss federally protected constitutional rights. Defendant Denver had actual and/or constructive notice of such police misconduct prior to Ms. Daviss, Ms. Borens, and other cases. The Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) described Denvers actions in response to Ms. Davis complaint as poor public policy. After a very brief investigation, Defendant Denver immediately granted the officers whose misconduct Ms. Davis complained of immunity. 8 44. In April 2009, DPD Michael DeHerrera was assaulted, deprived of his property a cell phone with video and photo recording functions, and arrested by DPD officers in an effort to cover up their misconduct. All charges were subsequently dropped against Mr. DeHerrera after a video surfaced verifying that DPD officers made false statements against Mr. DeHerrera in order to cover up their own misconduct. OIM Rosenthal called the officers initial report as to why Mr. DeHerrera was falsely arrested pure fiction. In spite of the OIMs findings and the physical and testimonial evidence showing the violation of Mr. DeHerreras constitutional rights, Defendant Denver did not terminate the officers. Despite a contrary recommendation from the DPD Chief of Police, and that one of the officers who falsely arrested Mr. DeHerrera had a history of similar misconduct, these officers were allowed to return to duty just a few days after Defendant Denver concluded a cursory investigation of the incident. 9 45. In the fall of 2008, yet another example of police lying and misconduct against citizens similarly situated to Plaintiff involved Jared Lunn, a 21 year old volunteer firefighter who attempted to report an assault to DPD Officer Eric Sellers. Officer Sellers not only ignored Mr. Lunns report, but proceeded to falsely arrest Mr. Lunn after subjecting him to unlawful excessive force for no other reason than Mr. Lunns request that the officer take down the complaint. One of Officers Sellers fellow policemen told an eyewitness at the scene that [Officer Sellers] does this sort of thing all the time, and we dont know how he gets away with it. After an investigation, it was determined that Officer Sellers was found to have lied to internal investigators, which is presumptively cause for immediate termination under Defendant Denvers established police policy. Defendant Denvers decision to ignore the written policy and to impose only a 45 day suspension upon the officer for lying, instead of terminating his

Amended Complaint, case number 08-CV-01693-MSK-KLM, available at http://oldsite.acluco.org/docket/200719/Amended_Complaint_01.05.09.pdf. Jaclyn Allen, Monitor: Officers' Story in Apparent Beating Pure Fiction, ABC CHANEL 7 NEWS, August 15, 2010, available at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24641683/detail.html.
9

employment according to DPD policy, was described by a ranking member of the oversight board as a cover-up which made no sense at all. 10 46. Officer Sellers was involved in a similar excessive force and unlawful arrest incident two months after Mr. Lunn was falsely arrested, a mere two weeks after his suspension concluded. This false arrest incident resulted in serious injury to John Crespin, yet Officer Sellers was not terminated despite the now clear pattern of conduct and disrespect for the constitutional rights of citizens. 11 47. Even after Defendants lying and false arrest of Plaintiff, Defendant Denver continues to tolerate official misconduct against citizens that are similarly situated to Plaintiff. In July 2009, DPD Officers Devine and Nixon brutally assaulted four women in front of the Denver Diner restaurant. Then in an effort to hide their misconduct, Officer Devine and Officer Nixon lied in their official police reports. Officer Devine and Officer Nixon were not terminated from their employment for nearly two years, despite the fact that Defendant Denver was in possession of video evidence that confirmed the officers misconduct. 12 48. In July 2010, a Sheriff Captain falsely reported to a supervisor that she had completed a review to ensure than rounds at the Jail were being properly conducted and documented. An Internal Affairs investigation was conducted, and the Captain again lied to Internal Affairs and to Department Command Staff during a pre-disciplinary hearing. The Captain was suspended for seventy days by the Manager of Safety. When the OIM reviewed the case, he stated, The Monitor does not understand how, after intentionally and deliberately lying to a supervisor, to Internal Affairs and at a Pre-Disciplinary Hearing (conducted by the Director of Corrections), this employee could be allowed to remain in the essential command position of a Captain or even a supervisory position as a Sergeant. The OIM believed that the Captain should have been Demoted to Deputy. Defendant Denver refused to take such disciplinary action. 13 49. Further in 2011, The Independent Monitor indicated his disagreement with a settlement decision resulting in a 40-day suspension of an officer who was determined to have used inappropriate force and committed acts of deception with respect to the inappropriate use of force. The Independent Monitor felt that the officer should have been terminated. 14
Christopher N. Osher, Second Discipline Case Erupts for Denver Safety Manager, DENVER POST, August 21, 2010, available at http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15846385.
11 10

William N. Grigg, Criminals with Badges: Denver Militarized Police, THE LIBERTARIAN STANDARD, September 6, 2010, available at http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/william-n-grigg/criminals-with-badges-denversmilitarized-police/.
12

Allan Gathright, Two More Police Officers Fired for Lying, ABC CHANEL 7 NEWS, April 12, 2011, available at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/27516955/detail.html.
13

Police and Sheriff Discipline and Critical Incident Report, First Quarter 2011, available at http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/374/documents/1Q2011_OIM_Quarterly_Report-Final.pdf.
14

Id.

50. The Officer of the Independent Monitors Police and Sheriff Discipline and Critical Incident Report for First Quarter 2011, which covers only January, February, and March, 2011, included five sustained findings of Commission of a Deceptive Act or Failure to Make or File Reports. 15 51. The high rate of un-remedied police misconduct by Defendant Denver continues to put the public in undue risk of danger. 52. As described above, numerous incidents of Denver Police misconduct and constitutional violations resulting in false arrest and/or police misrepresentation and perjury occurred prior to the misconduct complained of herein by Plaintiff. Given the many citizen complaints, civil lawsuits and widespread media coverage, Defendant Denver was fully aware of the problem of police lying and false arrest misconduct for months and/or years before Plaintiff was falsely arrested. 53. The substance and outcome of Defendant Denvers lax investigations into the aforementioned incidents of false arrest and police lying were similar: inadequate discipline, failure to train/retrain and/or to take otherwise appropriate corrective actions, a failure to follow established written policies, a failure to establish such policies, and the return of the officers involved to duty which often resulted in repeated misconduct and constitutional violations against citizens. 54. Defendant Denvers failure to terminate Defendant Baca despite their knowledge of his misconduct, demonstrates the ratification and tacit approval of an actual, implied, and/or de facto custom, policy and practice amongst leaders, officers, and employees of Defendant Denver. Defendant Baca was abiding by the established custom, policy and practice of Defendant Denver with regard to his conduct. 55. Defendant Denvers ratification and tacit approval of the widespread pattern of police misconduct, constitutes deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens like Plaintiff. Defendant Defendants misconduct is just one example of many closely analogous cases throughout the past months and years that have been tolerated by Defendant Denver, and which have resulted in the violation of many citizens constitutional rights. 56. Through its intentional and deliberate indifference to the pattern of severe police misconduct such as what Defendant Baca perpetuated against Plaintiff and many other citizens over the past months and years, Defendant Denver set in motion a series of events that Defendants knew or reasonably should have known would cause Plaintiff and others similarly situated to her to be deprived of their constitutional rights by being falsely arrested and being the subject of intentional misrepresentations by police during the course of official criminal investigations and related actions. The ensuing cover-ups, lying, and manufacture of evidence were intended by the Defendants to further the unconstitutional custom, policy or practice which deprived Plaintiff of his constitutionally protected interest.
15

Id. 10

V.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth Amendment Violation Unlawful Seizure (Against All Defendants) 57. forth herein. Plaintiff hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

58. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions which occurred at all times relevant to this action. 59. Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected right to be secure in their person against unreasonable seizures. 60. At no time did Defendant Baca have probable cause, reasonable suspicion or any other legal basis to believe that Plaintiff had committed any violation of the law prior to executing a sworn Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant based on false information resulting in the unlawful seizure and arrest of Plaintiff. 61. Defendant Bacas actions were objectively unreasonable and outrageous in light of the circumstances confronting him. 62. Denver District Court Judge Bronfin dismissed all charges against Mr. Puller finding that not only was there no probable cause for the arrest of Mr. Puller but no other justification, apart from (at least) a reckless disregard for the truth, could exist for the inclusion of [Defendant Bacas] . . . statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. . . . [T]here is simply no factual bases for the sworn assertions to the contrary. 63. Defendant Baca engaged in this conduct and was exonerated for this conduct pursuant to the municipal customs, policies and/or actual practices described herein. 64. Defendants Denver failure to train and/or supervise, as described herein, was a legal and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries. 65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other significant injuries, damages and losses. 66. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct.

11

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Violation Denial of Equal Protection (Against All Defendants) 67. forth herein. 68. Plaintiff hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

Plaintiff is an African-American male, and is identifiable by appearance as such.

69. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions which occurred at all times relevant to this action. 70. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination in law enforcement by police officers and to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. 71. Plaintiffs race was a motivating factor in the decisions to arrest and then maliciously prosecute Plaintiff with false charges. Defendant Bacas conduct was undertaken with the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of the equal protection and benefits of the law, equal privileges and immunities under the law, and due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 72. Defendant Baca issued a false Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant and arrested Plaintiff for a race hate based crime, as described herein, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed a crime. 73. Defendant Baca intentionally, willfully and wantonly issued a false Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant and seized Plaintiff, as described herein, wholly or in part due to his race. 74. Defendant Bacas actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. 75. Judge Bronfin dismissed all charges against Plaintiff finding that no other justification, apart from (at least) a reckless disregard for the truth, could exist for the inclusion of [Defendant Bacas] . . . statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. . . . [T]here is simply no factual bases for the sworn assertions to the contrary. 76. Defendant Baca engaged in this conduct and was exonerated for this conduct pursuant to the municipal customs, policies and/or actual practices described herein. 77. Defendants Denver failure to train and/or supervise, as described herein, was a legal and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries.

12

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other significant injuries, damages and losses. 79. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 th 14 Amendment Violation Manufacture of Inculpatory Evidence (Against All Defendants) 80. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 81. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions which occurred at all times relevant to this action. 82. Defendant Baca fabricated inculpatory evidence by recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully and wantonly submitting a false Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant in an effort to wrongfully arrest and convict Plaintiff. 83. Judge Bronfin dismissed all charges against Plaintiff finding that no other justification, apart from (at least) a reckless disregard for the truth, could exist for the inclusion of [Defendant Bacas] . . . statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. . . . [T]here is simply no factual bases for the sworn assertions to the contrary. 84. As described above, Denver had had long-standing, department-wide customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the acts described herein to occur. 85. The customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutional arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff, described herein, were necessarily consciously approved by Defendants and represent a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made from among various alternatives, and were the moving force behind the constitutional violation at issue. 86. Denvers failure to train, discipline and/or supervise, as described herein, was a legal and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries. 87. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other significant injuries, damages and losses. 88. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct.

13

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violation Malicious Vindictive Prosecution (Against All Defendants) 89. forth herein. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

90. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions which occurred at all times relevant to this action. 91. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from malicious and vindictive prosecution without probable cause and without due process when they worked in concert to secure and further pursue false charges against him, resulting in his unlawful confinement and prosecution. 92. Defendant Baca conspired and/or acted in concert to institute, procure and continue a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff without probable cause. 93. Defendant Baca made or caused to be made the decision to target Plaintiff for criminal charges and/or prosecution. 94. Defendant Baca engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs federally protected constitutional rights. 95. The procurement of prosecution against Plaintiff for the known to be false allegations was malicious, shocking, and objectively unreasonable in the light of the circumstances. 96. Denver District Court Judge Bronfin dismissed all charges against Mr. Puller finding that not only was there no probable cause for the arrest of Mr. Puller but no other justification, apart from (at least) a reckless disregard for the truth, could exist for the inclusion of [Defendant Bacas] . . . statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. . . . [T]here is simply no factual bases for the sworn assertions to the contrary. 97. Defendant Bacas actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. 98. Defendant Baca engaged in this conduct and were exonerated for this conduct pursuant to the municipal customs, policies and/or actual practices described herein. 99. Defendants Denver failure to train and/or supervise, as described herein, was a legal and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injuries.

14

100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other significant injuries, damages and losses. 101. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Outrageous Government Conduct Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Violations (Against All Defendants) 102. forth herein. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

103. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions which occurred at all times relevant to this action. 104. Plaintiff has a protected liberty interest in freedom from false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and vindictive and malicious prosecution except upon probable cause and due process that conforms to firmly rooted constitutional requirements. 105. By engaging in one or more of the following acts, each Defendant, individually and/or in concert, as detailed above and acting recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully and/or wantonly, played a personal and essential role in ensuring that Plaintiffs false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious/vindictive prosecution lacked fundamental fairness to a degree that shocks the universal sense of justice: (1) systematically withholding exculpatory evidence from the Second Judicial District Attorneys Office, judicial officers, expert witnesses, Plaintiff, and defense counsel; (2) systematically manufacturing inculpatory evidence that was designed to promulgate the arrest, prosecution and confinement and using this evidence against him by presenting such evidence to the District Attorney, judicial officers, witnesses, Mr. Puller, and defense counsel; (3) committing perjury on sworn affidavits and on the witness stand; (4) unduly influencing an investigation by a District Attorney; (5) refusing to investigate alternative and more viable suspects; (6) withholding or inadequately sharing information between the employees and supervisors of the DPD and the District Attorneys Office; (7) relying exclusively on the investigation of the DPD and instituting no independent investigation by the Second Judicial District in approving the arrest and prosecution of a criminal defendant; (8) attempting, and taking affirmative steps, to deny Plaintiff access to potentially exculpatory evidence; (9) actively discouraging and/or denying sharing of material exculpatory evidence with a criminal defendant; (10) conspiring to fabricate probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on a falsified affidavit for warrant, and to maliciously and vindictively prosecute wrongfully imprison Plaintiff, despite the great weight of evidence pointing to his innocence; (11) failing to train and supervise to prevent the above constitutional violations; and (12) failing to establish and/or abide by policies, customs, and/or practices to prevent the above constitutional violations. 106. Although all charges against Plaintiff have been dismissed, the actions by Defendants described herein which recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully and/or
15

wantonly caused Plaintiff to be unconstitutionally arrested, confined, and prosecuted were so egregious, and were carried out in a manner that shocks the judicial conscience, such that they constituted deprivation of Constitutional dimension. 107. Defendant Denver, as supervisor of Defendant Baca, recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully and/or wantonly, participated in, knew of, condoned and/or approved the wrongful acts of Defendant Baca, described herein, with the intent and understanding to bring about Plaintiffs unconstitutional arrest, confinement, and prosecution. 108. As described above, Defendant Denver failed to adequately train and/or supervise its subordinates including Defendant Baca to prevent the unconstitutional acts described herein. This failure inevitably led to a criminal prosecution against Plaintiff that lacked the fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. In light of the duties and responsibility of Defendant Denver to train, supervise, and exercise control over Defendant Baca, the need for scrutiny and specialized training and supervision regarding preventing the acts described herein, so as to allow for a fundamentally fair criminal process, was so obvious given the long history of closely analogous misconduct, and the inadequacy of the training and supervision provided so likely to result in the violation of Due Process rights that Defendant Denvers failure to train and supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the due process rights of Plaintiff. 109. Defendant Denver not only failed to adequately train and supervise, but also knew of, condoned and approved the wrongful acts of Defendant Baca that resulted in Plaintiffs unreasonable and wrongful arrest and imprisonment, and fundamentally unfair vindictive/malicious prosecution, and unconstitutional denial of due process. 110. Given the long-term and widespread nature of the closely analogous acts to persons similarly situated to Plaintiff, as described above, Defendant Denver knew of, and had full actual or constructive notice of a substantial risk of Plaintiffs unconstitutional arrest, imprisonment, and prosecution at the hands of Defendant Baca. 111. As described above, Defendant Denver maintained long-standing actual, implied and/or de facto customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed Plaintiff to be subjected to the unconstitutional acts described herein. 112. The customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutional arrest, confinement, and prosecution of Plaintiff, described herein, were necessarily consciously, impliedly and/or tacitly approved by Defendant Denver, and represent a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made from among various alternatives, and were the moving force behind the constitutional violations complained of herein. 113. Due to the actions of each Defendant, each and every aspect of the criminal process that Plaintiff was subjected to lacked fundamental fairness to a degree that shocks the universal sense of justice.

16

114. The false arrest, imprisonment, and procurement of prosecution against Mr. Puller for the known to be false allegations was malicious, conscious shocking, and objectively unreasonable in the light of the circumstances. 115. Recognizing the embarrassing spectacle that would be created if this case went to trial, all charges against Mr. Puller were dismissed after a Franks hearing confirmed Defendant Bacas falsified arrest warrant affidavit. 116. Denver District Court Judge Bronfin found that not only was there no probable cause for the arrest of Mr. Puller but no other justification, apart from (at least) a reckless disregard for the truth, could exist for the inclusion of [Defendant Bacas] . . . statements in the Affidavit for Arrest. . . . [T]here is simply no factual bases for the sworn assertions to the contrary. 117. Defendants actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. 118. By participating in a plan to violate Plaintiffs rights, the Defendants conduct violated the publics trust, and caused the aforementioned state actors to breach their duty owed Plaintiff. The Defendants conduct was unjustified, inexcusable, and grossly disproportionate under such circumstances, and must have been inspired by malice, so as to amount to abuse of official power that shocks the conscience of a reasonable person and offends traditional judicial notions of fairness. 119. The conduct of the Defendants was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Reciting the facts recited herein in this matter to an average person would cause resentment toward defendants and lead them to exclaim: Outrageous! 120. Plaintiff was denied substantive due process by the Defendants' outrageous government conduct. Despite the dismissal of charges against Plaintiff, the violation of a substantive constitutional right, including substantive due process, is complete irrespective of subsequent procedures accorded to the person whose rights have been violated. Thus, Plaintiffs harms exceed the false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and vindictive/malicious prosecution he suffered, and include violation of Plaintiffs liberty and privacy interests, and his sense of security and individual dignity. 121. Defendants' misconduct against Plaintiff was outrageous because they consciously, voluntarily, and with deliberate indifference failed to respond to the danger of a known risk of wanton disregard for citizens constitutional rights after being placed fully on notice over previous months and years. 122. Defendant Bacas intentional false statements while testifying made in furtherance of Defendants pursuit of a manufactured crime against Plaintiff aggravated its already outrageous conduct.

17

123. As a result of this outrageous government conduct, Plaintiff was falsely arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned, and suffered a variety of harms to clear and definite constitutionally protected interests that reasonably trained, supervised and cognizant state actors would understand as at risk of violation by their unlawful acts and omissions. 124. The deprivation of Plaintiffs substantive due process rights occurred during all aspects of the criminal investigation and prosecution against him, and resulted in his being charged with multiple crimes. As such, the Defendants whole course of conduct with respect to their dealings with Plaintiff was unreasonable in light of totality of circumstances described herein. 125. Defendant Baca's use of the falsified affidavit for Pullers arrest warrant which led to Plaintiffs false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious/vindictive prosecution was inspired by malice and/or by unwise, excessive zeal amounting to an arbitrary and illegal abuse of official power that shocks the conscience. 126. Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights and interests to be free from outrageous government conduct by Defendants such as false arrest, false imprisonment, being the subject of an intentionally falsified Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant, and vindictive and malicious prosecution were clearly established at the time of Defendants illegal official actions. 127. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other significant injuries, damages and losses. 128. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of conduct. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants, and grant: (a) (b) All appropriate declaratory and other injunctive and/or equitable relief; Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, loss of reputation, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial; All economic losses on all claims allowed by law; Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial; Attorneys fees and the costs associated with this action on all claims allowed by law; Pre and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed by law.

(c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

18

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A TRIAL TO A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of July 2011. KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP s/ David A. Lane _________________________ David A. Lane Siddhartha H. Rathod 1543 Champa Street, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: (303) 571-1000 Facsimile: (303) 571-1001 dlane@kln-law.com srathod@kln-law.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

19

You might also like