Complaint
Complaint
Complaint
Sykes (#3180)
C. Peter Sorensen (#16728)
SYKES MCALLISTER LAW OFFICES, PLLC
311 S. State Street, Suite 240
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone No. (801) 533-0222
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is a civil rights action in which Plaintiff seeks relief for Defendants’ violations
of his rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, specifically the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, which rights are further secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and § 1988. Plaintiff seeks damages, both compensatory and punitive; affirmative and equitable
relief; an award of attorney fees, costs, and interest; and other and further relief as is available under
law and as this Court deems just and equitable. This is further an action at law to redress a
deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a right, privilege, and
immunity secured to Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States, and by the law, statutes, and Constitution of the State of Utah.
1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and federal law,
particularly under the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, and claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
2. This action seeks redress for violations of the civil rights laws of the United
3. The claims made in this Complaint occurred and arose in the State of Utah,
in this District, and in the Central Division of this Court. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C.
4. Plaintiff is seeking damages under federal law pursuant to the claims for relief
5. This Court has authority to award costs and attorney fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1988.
6. This Court also has jurisdiction over any pendent State claims Plaintiff may
wish to bring, or has brought, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Among the pendent claims may be a
2
PARTIES
8. Defendant Officer Kevin Spencer, at all times relevant herein, was employed
by the Taylorsville Police Department operating under the Unified Police Agency. At all times
relevant to this complaint, he was working in the United States of America within Salt Lake County,
State of Utah.
which is a subdivision of the State of Utah, and is operating within Salt Lake County, State of Utah.
10. Defendant John and Jane Does 1-10 are believed to be employees of the
Taylorsville Police Department, operating within their official capacities. Their true identities are
yet unknown but will be discovered during the discovery period. At all relevant times, they are
believed to be operating within the United States of America, and within Salt Lake County, State of
Utah.
11. Plaintiff may serve notice of his pendent State claims against Defendants
pursuant to Utah law. These claims may be amended into this Complaint at a later time. However,
Plaintiff denies that notice of such State claims is required of any of the current claims in this
Complaint since all current claims deal with constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
3
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. On August 25, 2016, at approximately 7:45am, Lopeti was driving his
14. They left their home located at approximately 2300 West 4450 South,
Taylorsville, Utah. They headed east toward 2200 West, and then turned right or south out of their
15. At the time, an area of 4700 South near 2200 West and I-215 was under
construction and the northbound I-215 on-ramps were closed for traffic entering on the south side
16. As a result of this closure, there was a temporary No U-Turn sign in place at
the next intersection, 2200 West and 4700 South, on the EB lanes.
17. Many vehicles were driving east to the intersection at 2200 West and 4700
South, and flipping an illegal U-turn to enter I-215 Northbound. See Exhibit 1, map of the area.
18. Lopeti, however, did not make a U-turn. He simply turned right, or west, at
20. Lopeti was approaching the 4700 South NB on-ramp to I-215 when he saw
Officer Spencer of the Unified Taylorsville Police Department (UTPD) up ahead, parked on the
sidewalk, on the north side of 4700 South and just prior to the 4700 South and I-215 NB on-ramp.
4
21. Officer Spencer was standing in the road motioning for the west-bound
vehicles behind Lopeti to pull to the side of the road, apparently for making an illegal U-turn at 2200
22. Lopeti slowed down to a crawl as he saw Officer Spencer walking out into
the road.
23. Officer Spencer continued walking further into the lanes of traffic as Lopeti
approached.
24. As he was driving past the officer, Officer Spencer reached out and slapped
26. Lopeti then pulled his vehicle over just a few feet past Officer Spencer’s
parked police truck. He then rolled his window down and waited for the officer to come speak with
him.
27. Officer Spencer then walked around to Lopeti’s driver’s side door, opened it,
and yelled, “YOU HIT ME, GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE CAR!”
28. Without waiting for compliance and after Lopeti had begun to move, Officer
Spencer grabbed Lopeti by the arm and forcibly removed him from the car.
29. Officer Spencer wheeled Lopeti around and pushed him up against the
31. Officer Spencer then asked Lopeti why he did not pull over.
5
33. Officer Spencer claimed that Lopeti had hit him and then asked why he had
34. Lopeti responded that he did not hit Officer Spencer. And then remarked that
35. Officer Spencer then left Lopeti and walked to the open driver's door of the
Audi A-4.
36. Officer Spencer then asked Mr. Sengamanichanh for his identification.
37. Officer Spencer also asked Mr. Sengamanichanh where Lopeti’s identification
was.
38. Lopeti responded from the back of the vehicle that it was in his back pocket.
39. Officer Spencer then walked to the rear of the vehicle and asked Lopeti, "Why
41. Officer Spencer then said, “ You should have pulled over in front of my
truck.”
44. Lopeti informed the officer that he had not made any U-turn.
47. Officer Spencer then asked, “ How did you get through the intersection?”
6
49. Officer Spencer interjected, “You mean left?”
51. Officer Spencer then asked where they were coming from.
52. Lopeti responded, “From my house. I turned right off 2200 West” and told
54. After looking at the licenses and realizing that he made a mistake, Officer
55. He then hurriedly removed the handcuffs from Lopeti, handed back their IDs
56. Lopeti climbed back into his car and proceeded on his way to the airport.
58. No citation of any kind was issued by Officer Spencer at the time of the
incident.
59. As they were getting onto I-215, the pair noticed that the passenger-side mirror
of Lopeti’s vehicle, the one struck by Officer Spencer, was broken off and dangling only by the
electrical wires.
60. Lopeti dropped Mr. Sengamanichanh off at the airport and drove to work.
61. The next morning, August 26, 2016, he called the UTPD office to see what
he should do about getting his mirror fixed and report the mistreatment and embarrassment he
experienced.
7
62. He spoke with Sergeant Montgomery who informed him that Officer Spencer
had already called the office and admitted that he had “lost his cool” and “made a mistake” in pulling
63. Lopeti then inquired about how to get his mirror fixed and was informed he
would have to file a complaint and that the office would handle it after that.
64. A couple days later, on August 29, 2016, Lopeti went in to the police station
THE PROSECUTIONS
65. On December 5, 2016, more than three months after the incident, Lopeti
received a phone call from pre-trial services informing him that he was going to be arrested for
66. Lopeti was informed that he had been charged with a 3rd degree felony and
that he had outstanding warrants for his arrest, arising out of the incident.
67. Apparently, Officer Spencer, after learning of Lopeti's complaint about the
mirror, had falsely filed charges accusing Lopeti of failing to yield to a signal to stop and attempting
68. Lopeti retained Attorney Steven Dubreuil originally and then Wade Taylor
to represent him at the court appearance that he was informed about over the phone.
69. When he appeared at the Third District Court in West Jordan on December
22, 2016, he was informed that there had been attempts to serve him with criminal charges.
8
70. The service had been conducted months earlier and was sent to an address in
71. He learned that due to the actions of Officer Spencer, he had been formally
charged with a) Failure to Yield to Officer’s Signal to Stop and b) Attempting to Flee or Elude a
72. The judge was baffled at the deficiencies in the service process and would not
73. Lopeti then self-reported to the jail on January 1, 2017, for processing.
74. After months of negotiations and showing the inconsistencies in the Officer's
statements, the felonies were eventually dismissed by the Court on June 21, 2017.
75. Lopeti then called to see the status of the internal investigation into Officer
Spencer and spoke with Sgt. David Soper with internal affairs.
76. He was informed that the department couldn’t talk about it, but that he would
77. In March of 2018, Lopeti received a phone call informing him that he needed
78. When he inquired the purpose, he was informed by a Deputy Johnson, that
he was being formally served with misdemeanor charges relating to the same incident in August of
2016.
79. Lopeti was forced again to retain Wade Taylor in his defense against another
set of false charges instituted against him by Officer Spencer, after the dismissal of the felonies.
9
80. He was now being charged criminally with three (3) misdemeanors, a)
Interference with Arresting Officer, b) Reckless Driving, and c) Negligent Collision, all
misdemeanors.
81. Lopeti then went before the court to again successfully show the insufficiency
of the evidence against him and the inconsistencies of Officer Spencer’s account of the erroneous
traffic stop.
83. Lopeti had been forced, twice, to successfully defend himself from fabricated
85. Defendants are liable for the constitutional torts of malicious prosecution and
false arrest because they knowingly and intentionally supplied false and misleading information to
86. Based on information and belief, Officer Spencer filed false and malicious
charges out of spite and in retaliation for Lopeti filing a complaint for the way he was treated on the
roadside, and a claim for the damaged mirror, for which Spencer did not want to pay.
87. These false and misleading statements and omissions caused the false arrest
10
88. Lopeti has a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures
90. A malicious prosecution claim under §1983 includes the following elements:
prosecution;
Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008). See also, Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 258
and 265 (2006), and Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994).
a. They claimed that Lopeti failed to yield to an officer's commands, when in fact
he did not;
b. They claimed that Lopeti hit Officer Spencer, when in fact he did not;
c. They omitted material and exculpatory facts such as the true make and model
11
92. Defendants caused Lopeti to be twice prosecuted even though all charges were
dismissed.
93. Defendants acted with malice when Spencer made the statements to
persecutors, as set forth above. Specifically, out of spite and retribution for Lopeti’s complaint for
the way he was treated on the roadside and his complaint about the loss of his mirror, Spencer
knowingly instituted two (2) false and malicious prosecutions involving five (5) separate criminal
charges.
94. The prosecution of Lopeti terminated in his favor twice when the charges
96. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other allegations set forth herein.
97. Officer Spencer was the police officer levying false and malicious allegations
about the incident, and who provided false information which caused Lopeti to be prosecuted.
98. Officer Spencer provided to prosecutors the only factual account in this
99. Officer Spencer was familiar with the true facts, including all the exculpatory
facts, and still falsified all of them when he filed charges against Lopeti.
12
100. Officer Spencer caused the false arrest and malicious prosecution of Lopeti
by falsely reporting facts in charging documents used by prosecutors. Officer Spencer also failed
to exercise control, direction, and supervision to ensure that the exculpatory evidence that had been
101. Officer Spencer knowingly and wrongfully supplied false, incomplete, and
misleading facts to the investigator, which caused wrongful prosecution, as set forth in the First
implement the policies of the Unified Taylorsville Police Department, which required that the
evidence be fairly and accurately presented, and it required that he tell the full truth, without omitting
103. Because of the actions of Officer Spencer, there were lies and failure to
disclose exculpatory evidence to the investigators and prosecutors, which led to a false arrest and a
104. At the time of Defendant Officer Spencer’s wrongful conduct, it was clearly
established that officers were required to disclose exculpatory evidence in their possession and
105. Objectively reasonable supervisors would have known that they had a duty
to disclose all such evidence relating to the Lopeti investigation. Officer Spencer did not do so.
106. Officer Spencer’s supervisors knew or should have known and/or discovered
Spencer’s false reporting, particularly since Spencer had earlier reported to a sergeant or other
supervisors that he had made a mistake and “lost it.” See Paragraph 62 above.
13
107. Officer Spencer caused Lopeti to be prosecuted, even though he was knew
108. UTPD failed to properly supervise Spencer and allowed the false arrest and
109. The prosecution of Lopeti terminated in his favor when the charges were
dismissed, twice.
110. No probable cause supported either prosecution, since Officer Spencer lied,
misrepresented and/or omitted material facts that caused the prosecutors to seek criminal charges.
111. Officer Spencer acted with malice, in that he intended to cause the prosecution
out of spite or animus for Lopeti’s claim for the damaged mirror, even though Spencer knew or
should have known there was no evidence of improper or criminal conduct. For example, Spencer
stated that he pulled over a silver Ford Mustang. Lopeti’s car was a blue Audi A-4. Officer Spencer
claimed that Lopeti failed to stop, but the evidence proved that he did in fact stop. Officer Spencer
also admits he mistakenly pulled over the wrong vehicle and released Lopeti in his report. Officer
Spencer further alleged that Lopeti hit him with his vehicle when, in fact, it was Officer Spencer who
forcibly struck the car with his hands. Officer Spencer had this knowledge and still filed criminal
charges based on his false account of events. This led to the false arrest and illustrates the malice
mortification, loss of status within the community, and severe opprobrium from the tight knit
community in which he lives, which he still encounters, due to the false charges created by Officer
14
113. Lopeti also had damages in that he was forced to pay two criminal law
DAMAGES SUMMARY
114. In addition to other damages set forth or implied herein, the actions of
a. Loss of Income. Lopeti had to take time off work to attend to court
procedures.
premium and paid attorney fees to defend himself against the false charges.
Lopeti suffered extreme pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of face, damage to reputation, and
irreparable pain, suffering and grief. As one example, Lopeti was handcuffed behind his vehicle
while wearing his work scrubs just blocks from his home. Many people who live around him saw
or could have seen him. Lopeti has suffered great mental anguish wondering who saw him on the
d. Lost Mirror. Lopeti paid about $1,000 to replace the mirror that Officer
JURY DEMAND
15
1. For general compensatory damages for Plaintiff in an amount to be determined
at trial;
4. For pre-judgment interest on the damages assessed by the verdict of the jury,
as allowed by law;
5. For Plaintiff's costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred herein, pursuant to
6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
16
EXHIBIT 1