Open Carry event in Birmingham Michigan for protest

[cp009]

Are they planning on filing a civil suit?

 

[CathyInBlue]

FYI, Tippecanoe County Courthouse is its own block.

Risking an expansive reading of the curtilage of courthouse and contempt finding.

(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.

I see no references to curtilage. Subsection 5 must be read narrowly to exclusively refer to and restrict behaviour "in any building" proper and its internal spaces, not to exterior spaces, even if only separated from the interior spaces by the mere expedient of siding materials. If you know of a court house with an outdoor lanai that might blur interior and exterior spaces together, I wanna meet the county government that had the money to splurge on such architecture ostentaciousness and smack them upside their heads hard. Especially when the "curtilage" of the courthouse can only charitably be referred to as such, being as it is a public sidewalk, the concept of curtilage is one that refers to those spaces that can be held private and exclusive to the property. The Tippy-canoe courthouse can no more claim the public sidewalk as its curtilage than I can claim the public sidewalk and alley way in front of and behind my home as my curtilage.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I see no references to curtilage.

Right, but nothing has gone to the Court of Appeals yet.

There is also the threat of indirect contempt.

Best of stay off the block.

 

[griffin]

Are they planning on filing a civil suit?

My understanding is it's not his intent right now, but it's also not off the table.

I'd like to see a 42 U.S.C. 1983 violation lawsuit.

 

[griffin]

Here is the local story on this.

Rifle-Toting Teen Found Not Guilty; Jury Says: 'We Upheld the Law' - Birmingham, MI Patch

What is humorous are the comments from the Birmingham residents. Birmingham is a small, white, wealthy, largely liberal (er, progressive) community. Here's what one resident stated:

The pubic square is not a forum for underdeveloped fringe interests.

My reply:

Actually, Greg, the public square is the EXACT forum for ideas to be heard (or seen). Perhaps a little reading of history would help you in your endeavors to understand the issues.

 

[griffin]

Sean Combs posts on opencarry.org

Combs-Thank you all for supporting me

The Birmingham Police dropped his beautiful M1 Garand in court during the trial.

 

[griffin]

UPDATE!

Civil suit filed.

Sean Combs has filed a lawsuit against the City of Birmingham as well as Birmingham Police Lt. Michael Albrecht and officers Rebekah Springer and Gina Potts, who arrested Combs in April.

Rifle-Toting Troy Teen Sues City of Birmingham for Violating His Civil Rights - Troy, MI Patch

 

[CathyInBlue]

Go git sum! Force the B`ham authorities to make you whole, son.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Unbelievable the "trained and professional" cop that arrested him DROPPED his rifle on the ground. What a joke.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Was Ofc. Butter-Fingers from the courtroom that dropped the rifle the same cop that arrested him?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Was Ofc. Butter-Fingers from the courtroom that dropped the rifle the same cop that arrested him?

That was my understanding from the different articles as well as the picture but I'm not 100% I guess.

 

[griffin]

Was Ofc. Butter-Fingers from the courtroom that dropped the rifle the same cop that arrested him?

Yes. That is Rebekah Springer. She's not happy about the way the whole thing's worked out so far.

 

[CathyInBlue]

She has no one to blame for the whole fiasco but herself.

I know a couple of more cops that might be able to benefit from her consultation in how to deal with the humiliation in about a week.

 

[drillsgt]

Yes. That is Rebekah Springer. She's not happy about the way the whole thing's worked out so far.

What'd you find? Did she make a statement? I know her cohort Potts was once named in an excessive force case but she was dropped from it.

Here is a link to some of Rebekah Springers testimony.

Clip Syndicate Video: Police News

Her big reason for harrassing him was he didn't look old enough to have a rifle.

 

[griffin]

This is the actual lawsuit filed. Five counts of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation. Looks like he is going for over $75k plus fees.

SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, a municipal corporation, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT, in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS, in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally, Defendants.

Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this Court, nor has any such action been previously filed and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to a judge.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby complains against the above-named Defendants as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1) This is an action for monetary damages brought by the Plaintiff, Sean Combs (“Mr. Combs”), against the above-named Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983, 1988.

2) This Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Combs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.

3) Venue is properly brought in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the Defendants all reside in, and the claims all arose in, the Eastern District of Michigan.

4) The amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney fees.

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS

5) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

6) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mr. Combs was and is a resident of the State of Michigan.

7) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Birmingham was and is an organized municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Michigan.

8) At all times relevant to this Complaint, the City of Birmingham Police Department was and is a subdivision and/or department of the City of Birmingham.

9) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant Michael Albrecht (“Defendant Albrecht”), Defendant Police Officer Rebekah Springer (“Defendant Springer”), and Defendant Police Officer Gina Potts (“Defendant Potts”), collectively (“Defendant Police Officers”), were employees of the City of Birmingham through the City of Birmingham Police Department.

10) All Defendant Police Officers were acting within the scope and course of their employment and under color of law.

11) All Defendant Police Officers are being sued in their individual and official capacities.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

13) The incident complained of in this lawsuit occurred on or about April 13, 2012 in the City of Birmingham, County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

14) On that date Mr. Combs and his girlfriend, Lia Grabowski, were walking on South Old Woodward Avenue in Birmingham, MI.

15) Mr. Combs was exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by openly carrying a vintage rifle on his back.

16) Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old, and met all other legal requirements to possess and openly carry a firearm in the State of Michigan.

17) Mr. Combs was stopped while walking on South Old Woodward Avenue by Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts, who were on duty and in full Birmingham Police uniform.

18) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts stopped and detained Mr. Combs against his will, and demanded that he provide identification.

19) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts called for their supervisor, Defendant Albrecht, to come to the scene.

20) Defendant Albrecht arrived on the scene and also demanded that Mr. Combs provide identification.

21) Defendant Albrecht became loud and belligerent, and threatened Mr. Combs with arrest.

22) Mr. Combs complied with the Defendant Police Officers’ request to provide his identification.

23) Mr. Combs took his Michigan driver’s license out of his wallet and handed it to Defendant Springer.

24) After Mr. Combs provided his identification to Defendant Springer, Defendant Albrecht immediately arrested and handcuffed Mr. Combs, confiscated his rifle, and placed him in the back seat of a police car.

25) Defendant Springer informed Defendant Albrecht that Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old.

26) Defendant Albrecht nevertheless ordered that Mr. Combs be taken to the Birmingham Police Department and jailed.

27) Mr. Combs was booked and locked in a jail cell for several hours before posting bond.

28) Mr. Combs did not commit any crime, and the Defendant Police Officers did not have probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime.

29) Based upon the actions of the Defendant Police Officers and the information they provided to the Birmingham City Attorney’s Office, Mr. Combs was charged with violating the following Birmingham City ordinances: brandishing a firearm (Section 74- 211), breach of the peace (Section 74-156), and resisting a police officer (Section 74-27).

30) Defendant Police Officers provided knowingly false testimony against Mr. Combs at his jury trial in the 48th District Court.

31) Specifically, the Defendant Police Officers falsely testified that Mr. Combs never provided his identification to them, and that he was acting in a loud and unruly manner.

32) At the close of the city attorney’s case 48th District Court Judge Marc Barron directed a verdict of not guilty on the charge of obstructing a police officer.

33) The jury thereafter acquitted Mr. Combs of the remaining two charges of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace.

COUNT I

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Arrest

34) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

35) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false arrest, as guaranteed by Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by arresting him without probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT II

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Imprisonment

36) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

37) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false imprisonment, as guaranteed by Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by unlawfully imprisoning him against his will and without probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT III

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution

38) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

39) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from a malicious prosecution, as guaranteed by
Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by causing criminal proceedings to be initiated against him without probable cause to believe that he committed a crime, and by providing false testimony against him at trial; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT IV

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Second Amendment Violation

40) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

41) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendments II and XIV of the United States Constitution; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT V

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Municipal Liability

42) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of improperly training, re-training, instructing, supervising, disciplining, and/or allowing its police officers to enforce ordinances and state law without regard to the constitutional rights of citizens to be free from violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

43) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of inadequately and improperly investigating complaints of police misconduct when it was known or apparent to the City of Birmingham that its police officers have violated the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals in the manner complained of in this lawsuit.

44) Due to the above-described practices, policies, and/or customs, acts of police misconduct were tolerated by the City of Birmingham, and its police officers believed that they were free to perform their duties without regard to the rights of individuals and without fear of any consequences or discipline.

45) The above-described practices, policies, and/or customs demonstrate deliberate indifference by the City of Birmingham towards the rights of individuals in general, and Mr. Combs in particular.

46) The above-described practices, policies, customs, and deliberate indifference of the City of Birmingham were the moving force that directly and proximately caused Mr. Combs’ damages.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

DAMAGES

47) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

48) As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of all Defendants as stated within this Complaint, Mr. Combs suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited to:

a. Loss of liberty and cherished constitutional rights;

b. Emotional distress, humiliation, outrage, indignity, anguish, and shock;

c. Unwanted and offensive physical contact;

d. Damage to his reputation;

e. Lost wages;

f. Attorney fees and costs;

g. Other damages currently unascertainable.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

49) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net

Dated: October 12, 2012

SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, a municipal corporation, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT, in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS, in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally, Defendants.

Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
102:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH
Dated: October 12, 2012
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340 Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696 mattkolo@comcast.net

 

[drillsgt]

This is the actual lawsuit filed. Five counts of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation. Looks like he is going for over $75k plus fees.

SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, a municipal corporation, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT, in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS, in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally, Defendants.

Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this Court, nor has any such action been previously filed and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to a judge.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby complains against the above-named Defendants as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1) This is an action for monetary damages brought by the Plaintiff, Sean Combs (“Mr. Combs”), against the above-named Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983, 1988.

2) This Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Combs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.

3) Venue is properly brought in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the Defendants all reside in, and the claims all arose in, the Eastern District of Michigan.

4) The amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney fees.

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS

5) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

6) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Mr. Combs was and is a resident of the State of Michigan.

7) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Birmingham was and is an organized municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Michigan.

8) At all times relevant to this Complaint, the City of Birmingham Police Department was and is a subdivision and/or department of the City of Birmingham.

9) At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant Michael Albrecht (“Defendant Albrecht”), Defendant Police Officer Rebekah Springer (“Defendant Springer”), and Defendant Police Officer Gina Potts (“Defendant Potts”), collectively (“Defendant Police Officers”), were employees of the City of Birmingham through the City of Birmingham Police Department.

10) All Defendant Police Officers were acting within the scope and course of their employment and under color of law.

11) All Defendant Police Officers are being sued in their individual and official capacities.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

13) The incident complained of in this lawsuit occurred on or about April 13, 2012 in the City of Birmingham, County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

14) On that date Mr. Combs and his girlfriend, Lia Grabowski, were walking on South Old Woodward Avenue in Birmingham, MI.

15) Mr. Combs was exercising his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by openly carrying a vintage rifle on his back.

16) Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old, and met all other legal requirements to possess and openly carry a firearm in the State of Michigan.

17) Mr. Combs was stopped while walking on South Old Woodward Avenue by Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts, who were on duty and in full Birmingham Police uniform.

18) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts stopped and detained Mr. Combs against his will, and demanded that he provide identification.

19) Defendant Springer and Defendant Potts called for their supervisor, Defendant Albrecht, to come to the scene.

20) Defendant Albrecht arrived on the scene and also demanded that Mr. Combs provide identification.

21) Defendant Albrecht became loud and belligerent, and threatened Mr. Combs with arrest.

22) Mr. Combs complied with the Defendant Police Officers’ request to provide his identification.

23) Mr. Combs took his Michigan driver’s license out of his wallet and handed it to Defendant Springer.

24) After Mr. Combs provided his identification to Defendant Springer, Defendant Albrecht immediately arrested and handcuffed Mr. Combs, confiscated his rifle, and placed him in the back seat of a police car.

25) Defendant Springer informed Defendant Albrecht that Mr. Combs was eighteen (18) years old.

26) Defendant Albrecht nevertheless ordered that Mr. Combs be taken to the Birmingham Police Department and jailed.

27) Mr. Combs was booked and locked in a jail cell for several hours before posting bond.

28) Mr. Combs did not commit any crime, and the Defendant Police Officers did not have probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime.

29) Based upon the actions of the Defendant Police Officers and the information they provided to the Birmingham City Attorney’s Office, Mr. Combs was charged with violating the following Birmingham City ordinances: brandishing a firearm (Section 74- 211), breach of the peace (Section 74-156), and resisting a police officer (Section 74-27).

30) Defendant Police Officers provided knowingly false testimony against Mr. Combs at his jury trial in the 48th District Court.

31) Specifically, the Defendant Police Officers falsely testified that Mr. Combs never provided his identification to them, and that he was acting in a loud and unruly manner.

32) At the close of the city attorney’s case 48th District Court Judge Marc Barron directed a verdict of not guilty on the charge of obstructing a police officer.

33) The jury thereafter acquitted Mr. Combs of the remaining two charges of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace.

COUNT I

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Arrest

34) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

35) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false arrest, as guaranteed by Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by arresting him without probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT II

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Imprisonment

36) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

37) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from false imprisonment, as guaranteed by Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by unlawfully imprisoning him against his will and without probable cause to believe that he had committed any crime; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT III

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution

38) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

39) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to be free from a malicious prosecution, as guaranteed by
Amendments IV and XIV of the United States Constitution, by causing criminal proceedings to be initiated against him without probable cause to believe that he committed a crime, and by providing false testimony against him at trial; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT IV

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Second Amendment Violation

40) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

41) All Defendant Police Officers acted under color of law but contrary to law, and intentionally and unreasonably deprived Mr. Combs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution, laws of the United States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including:

a. Mr. Combs’ right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendments II and XIV of the United States Constitution; and

b. Mr. Combs’ right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT V

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Municipal Liability

42) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of improperly training, re-training, instructing, supervising, disciplining, and/or allowing its police officers to enforce ordinances and state law without regard to the constitutional rights of citizens to be free from violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, including false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

43) The City of Birmingham has established a practice, policy, and/or custom of inadequately and improperly investigating complaints of police misconduct when it was known or apparent to the City of Birmingham that its police officers have violated the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals in the manner complained of in this lawsuit.

44) Due to the above-described practices, policies, and/or customs, acts of police misconduct were tolerated by the City of Birmingham, and its police officers believed that they were free to perform their duties without regard to the rights of individuals and without fear of any consequences or discipline.

45) The above-described practices, policies, and/or customs demonstrate deliberate indifference by the City of Birmingham towards the rights of individuals in general, and Mr. Combs in particular.

46) The above-described practices, policies, customs, and deliberate indifference of the City of Birmingham were the moving force that directly and proximately caused Mr. Combs’ damages.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

DAMAGES

47) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

48) As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of all Defendants as stated within this Complaint, Mr. Combs suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited to:

a. Loss of liberty and cherished constitutional rights;

b. Emotional distress, humiliation, outrage, indignity, anguish, and shock;

c. Unwanted and offensive physical contact;

d. Damage to his reputation;

e. Lost wages;

f. Attorney fees and costs;

g. Other damages currently unascertainable.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

49) Mr. Combs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Combs demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages in whatever amount the jury may determine, plus costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and actual attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net

Dated: October 12, 2012

SEAN COMBS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, a municipal corporation, LIEUTENANT MICHAEL ALBRECHT, in his individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER REBEKAH SPRINGER, in her individual and official capacities, POLICE OFFICER GINA POTTS, in her individual and official capacities, jointly and severally, Defendants.

Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340
Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696
mattkolo@comcast.net

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

PLAINTIFF’S JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sean Combs, by and through his attorney, Matthew S. Kolodziejski, and hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew S. Kolodziejski
Matthew S. Kolodziejski (P71068)
Law Office of Matthew S. Kolodziejski, PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff
102:12-cv-14528-VAR-MJH
Dated: October 12, 2012
500 Griswold Street, Suite 2340 Detroit, MI 48226
(586) 909-1696 mattkolo@comcast.net

Great, thanks for posting. Hopefully the City of Birmingham is now going to be paying for his college education. Not sure 75K is enough though. Won't this arrest forever be on his record, even though he was acquitted? So now if he gets pulled over for anything or has any other LE contact this is going to forever influence their attitude. What about job applications? Joining the military? What about when he turns 21 and wants to get his MI CPL? Now he's always going to have to address this issue because of some idiots that could care less one way or the other.

 

[jon5212]

^^^ Should it not be stricken from his record if he was found not guilty? I thought charges stay only if you are found guilty?

Maybe I need a lesson on that.

 

[griffin]

^^^ Should it not be stricken from his record if he was found not guilty? I thought charges stay only if you are found guilty?

Maybe I need a lesson on that.

You can't erase history. The charges went away because one was dismissed and he was found not guilty of the other two, but the fact that he was arrested and charged and tried don't.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You can't erase history. The charges went away because one was dismissed and he was found not guilty of the other two, but the fact that he was arrested and charged and tried don't.

It depends on state law. Being from Michigan and since the subject of the OP is also in Michigan I will take your word for it but in Ind for instance, if you are arrested for carrying a handgun without a license but you later show you have a valid LTCH all record of your arrest is destroyed.

It could be different for other things but that is one example I can think of.

 

[Donnelly]

One woman wrote that although it wasn't against the law, the police still should have taken him to the edge of the city and forbid him to come back.

Whites used to do this with blacks in some counties in Indiana back in the 1940's and 1950's. Laws were passed and nationally we realized that racism is wrong and everyone's rights should be respected, including African-Americans.

Why are some rights more important than others?

Why are "civil rights" now sacrosanct but "constitutional rights" such as the right to keep and bear arms can seemingly be ignored with impunity?

Don't get me wrong; I don't wish for a return to racist attitudes or policies. I just wish all levels of government were as worried about protecting our constitutional rights as they are civil rights.