AlaFile E-Notice

01-CV-2023-900611.00

To: WILLIAM MONROE DAWSON JR.

[email protected]

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA

ANYL PASCAL V. TOWN OF BROOKSIDE ET AL

01-CV-2023-900611.00

The following complaint was FILED on 2/21/2023 3:02:19 PM

Notice Date: 2/21/2023 3:02:19 PM

JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH

CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
716 N. RICHARD ARRINGTON BLVD.
BIRMINGHAM, AL, 35203

205-325-5355
[email protected]
 DOCUMENT 1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2/21/2023 3:02 PM
01-CV-2023-900611.00
State of Alabama Case Number: CIRCUIT COURT OF
COVER SHEET JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
Unified Judicial System
CIRCUIT COURT - CIVIL CASE 01-CV-2023-900611.00
JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH, CLERK
(Not For Domestic Relations Cases) Date of Filing: Judge Code:
Form ARCiv-93 Rev. 9/18
02/21/2023

GENERAL INFORMATION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
ANYL PASCAL v. TOWN OF BROOKSIDE ET AL

First Plaintiff: Business Individual First Defendant: Business Individual

Government Other Government Other

NATURE OF SUIT: Select primary cause of action, by checking box (check only one) that best characterizes your action:

TORTS: PERSONAL INJURY OTHER CIVIL FILINGS (cont'd)

WDEA - Wrongful Death MSXX - Birth/Death Certificate Modification/Bond Forfeiture Appeal/
TONG - Negligence: General Enforcement of Agency Subpoena/Petition to Preserve

TOMV - Negligence: Motor Vehicle CVRT - Civil Rights

TOWA - Wantonness COND - Condemnation/Eminent Domain/Right-of-Way

TOPL - Product Liability/AEMLD CTMP - Contempt of Court

TOMM - Malpractice-Medical CONT - Contract/Ejectment/Writ of Seizure

TOLM - Malpractice-Legal TOCN - Conversion

TOOM - Malpractice-Other EQND - Equity Non-Damages Actions/Declaratory Judgment/

Injunction Election Contest/Quiet Title/Sale For Division
TBFM - Fraud/Bad Faith/Misrepresentation
CVUD - Eviction Appeal/Unlawful Detainer
TOXX - Other:
FORJ - Foreign Judgment
FORF - Fruits of Crime Forfeiture
TORTS: PERSONAL INJURY
MSHC - Habeas Corpus/Extraordinary Writ/Mandamus/Prohibition
TOPE - Personal Property
PFAB - Protection From Abuse
TORE - Real Properly
EPFA - Elder Protection From Abuse
OTHER CIVIL FILINGS QTLB - Quiet Title Land Bank
ABAN - Abandoned Automobile FELA - Railroad/Seaman (FELA)
ACCT - Account & Nonmortgage RPRO - Real Property
APAA - Administrative Agency Appeal WTEG - Will/Trust/Estate/Guardianship/Conservatorship
ADPA - Administrative Procedure Act COMP - Workers’ Compensation
ANPS - Adults in Need of Protective Service CVXX - Miscellaneous Circuit Civil Case

ORIGIN: F INITIAL FILING A APPEAL FROM O OTHER

DISTRICT COURT

R REMANDED T TRANSFERRED FROM

OTHER CIRCUIT COURT

Note: Checking "Yes" does not constitute a demand for a

HAS JURY TRIAL BEEN DEMANDED? YES NO jury trial. (See Rules 38 and 39, Ala.R.Civ.P, for procedure)

RELIEF REQUESTED: MONETARY AWARD REQUESTED NO MONETARY AWARD REQUESTED

ATTORNEY CODE:
DAW002 2/21/2023 3:02:14 PM /s/ WILLIAM MONROE DAWSON JR.
Date Signature of Attorney/Party filing this form

MEDIATION REQUESTED: YES NO UNDECIDED

Election to Proceed under the Alabama Rules for Expedited Civil Actions: YES NO
 DOCUMENT 2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2/21/2023 3:02 PM
01-CV-2023-900611.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA

ANYL PASCAL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. )
)
THE TOWN OF BROOKSIDE, ) Jury Trial Demanded
ALABAMA; and MICHAEL JONES, )
individually and in his capacity as Chief of )
Police of the Town of Brookside; JAMES )
SAVELLE; AGENT M.W.; and )
A, B, and C, being those persons )
committing the acts complained of )
whose names are unknown but who
will be added by amendment when
ascertained,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff brings this action for appropriate declaratory and monetary relief against the above

defendants, and as grounds:

PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT

1. The Plaintiff, Anyl Pascal, is an adult resident of Jefferson County, Alabama.

2. The Town of Brookside (“Brookside”) is a municipal corporation located within

the Birmingham Division of Jefferson County, Alabama.

3. Defendant Michael Jones was the Chief of police of Brookside at all times relevant

to the facts of this litigation and is over 19 years of age and was a resident of Jefferson County,

Alabama at such times. He was the chief executive officer of the police department of Brookside,

directing law enforcement by Brookside’s police force.

4. Defendant James Savelle was a Brookside police officers who participated with

1
 DOCUMENT 2

Defendant Jones in the commission of the acts complained of against Plaintiff. He is a resident of

the State of Alabama.

5. Defendant M. W. was a Brookside police officer who participated in the acts

complained of herein. His proper name and that of the other Brookside officers will be added by

amendment when ascertained. Rather than listing their proper names on citations or warrants, they

used only initials like “Agent MW”.

JURISDICTION

6. Plaintiff brings this civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S.

Constitution. Plaintiff also seeks supplemental jurisdiction over state causes of action.

FACTS

7. Plaintiff was driving on I-22 past Brookside at around 10:00 p.m. on February 24,

2021 when he was stopped by Defendant Agent M.W. of Brookside P.D. Plaintiff was told that he

was speeding. Other Brookside officers arrived at the scene and proceeded to search Plaintiff, his

female passenger and their automobile.

8. Plaintiff was pulled from the automobile and handcuffed. He remained outside of

the vehicle while an extensive search was conducted. He and the passenger were then taken to the

Brookside jail.

9. Plaintiff was driving the vehicle of his mother-in-law which was properly insured

and titled. Defendants had the vehicle towed by the private wrecker Brookside customarily used.

The owner came later and had to pay$175 to Brookside and $165 to Jett’s Towing for its release.

10. Plaintiff has suffered for years from an anxiety disorder which has been

2
 DOCUMENT 2

successfully controlled by medication. During his entire stay in the Brookside jail, he was not

allowed to take his medication and he suffered as a result, not being allowed to make a phone call

for three days. His inability to cope with his treatment by Defendants worsened his mental anguish.

They observed Plaintiff’s distress and took actions to make it worse.

11. Plaintiff was taken by Defendants to a medical clinic in Gardendale where over his

objection, blood was withdrawn from his arm, allegedly for a DUI test. This process was most

disturbing to Plaintiff. He received no medical care for the next five days in custody.

12. Plaintiff was left in jail and his many requests to call his family were denied.

Though someone had called the mother-in-law to come get the vehicle, he was not allowed to talk

with her. She was told by Defendants that Plaintiff could not be released without payment of a

restitution bond of $11,000 in cash or by credit card.

13. Plaintiff remained totally naked in the cold cell and was told that he could not have

a blanket because of Covid restrictions. As his anxiety increased, Plaintiff banged on the cell

door in an effort to be able to phone for help or get relief.

14. By his third day in the jail Plaintiff’s anxiety had increased as he had never been

officially told what he was charged with nor had access to a phone. He was placed in a metal chair

in an open hallway, naked and cuffed in view of men and women for four to six hours. Plaintiff

had been exercising in an effort to keep warm and Defendants said that was strange behavior.

15. Plaintiff’s wife was able to get in touch with a lawyer who came to the jail on

Sunday, March 1, 2021. The lawyer was rudely treated by police officers who responded that the

charges against Plaintiff were confidential. He waited for over an hour and was finally handed

seven unsigned citations and complaints. The magistrate got the Brookside judge on the phone

3
 DOCUMENT 2

and appearance bonds were discussed.

16. At that bond discussion by telephone, counsel was advised that there were seven

charges with bail set at a total of $5,500. Defendants claimed restitution for alleged damage to

the metal door of Plaintiff’s cell. A professional bondsman was hired to post that amount sought

and Plaintiff was finally released from jail, having been held from 2/24/21 to 3/1/21.

17. On April 8, 2021 Plaintiff and his attorney appeared for the trial date. In order to

appeal to Circuit Court, the lawyer stipulated the claims and prepared to file appeal bonds for those

seven cases. The Judge set fines at $7,210 and required appeal bonds of twice that amount,

$14,420. By Alabama law, the appeals must be filed within 14 days for a trial de novo.

18. Plaintiff and his attorney appeared at the Brookside office on 4/22/21 to perfect the

appeals by filing the bonds for the seven cases. A clerk told them that the appeal bonds had been

changed, no longer being $14,420 but that they had been reduced to $12,000.

19. Also on 4/22/21 the clerk informed Plaintiff and counsel that the Court had found

him guilty of nine additional charges after he had left court on 4/8/21.

20. The fines and court costs were no longer $7,210 but had been increased to $15,828.

21. One of the charges, disorderly conduct in CC-2021-750, was written by Defendants

as occurring at the medical facility in Gardendale, a separate city miles from Brookside. Yet

Defendants fined Plaintiff $1,242 and required a costly appearance bond and appeal bond.

22. That initial criminal complaint, CC-2021-750, and eight others list the court as the

“Municipal Court of Jefferson County” a non-existent entity. Plaintiff had paid thousands of

dollars to a bonding company to get out of jail and to appeal the initial seven cases which were

presented and handled in open court. Two weeks later with court not in session, the clerk

4
 DOCUMENT 2

presented nine new cases with some from the non-court Municipal Court of Jefferson County.

(CC-2021-750; 752; 753; 754; 758; 759; 760; 761; and 762)

23. The Brookside court had a lack of jurisdiction to hear any of the sixteen charges as

none were properly executed. Notwithstanding the failure of the charging person to swear and

sign before a magistrate, his or her name is nowhere on the documents. Only “Agent MW” is

written in the space for “Officer Name”. Only the meaningless Officer ID of 2709 and Agency

ORI of AL0012700 appears. All charges should have been invalided at the inception under Ex

parte Dison, 469 So.2d 662 (Ala. 1984). In addition, most of the complaints fail to give notice of

what conduct Plaintiff allegedly committed in violation of the law.

24. Brookside is a town of less than 1,300 citizens, having only two-lane roads, no red

lights and is separated from Interstate-22 by unincorporated land with at best a tiny connection of

land along the road touching the interstate. Yet Brookside had over 8 full-time and some part-

time police officers who also worked overtime. It had only one business, no schools and a volunteer

fire department.

25. The police jurisdiction of Brookside is limited by Alabama law to 1.5 miles due to

its limited population. There was nothing marked to delineate where the police jurisdiction of

Brookside might be and Brookside Police go onto I-22 to stop motorists who are just passing by

with no intention of entering the Town of Brookside.

26. Brookside operates a municipal court which imposes fines and court costs for

violations within the town limits and within its police jurisdiction. State law prohibits towns the

size of Brookside from issuing speeding tickets on interstate highways. [Code of Ala. 32-5A-

171(8)] yet Plaintiff was told that he was stopped for speeding.

5
 DOCUMENT 2

27. For an extended period, hundreds of motorists were stopped and prosecuted for

violating a code section which was not made a violation unless prescribed actions were taken by

the state law enforcement agency and the Alabama Department of Transportation. (Code of Ala.

32-5-77). Such preliminary steps were not taken, yet over 400 motorists continued to be stopped,

often searched, with vehicles towed and fined.

28. Brookside has operated its police and court system with the primary objective of

obtaining revenue from motorists travelling on or near Interstate-22. It has had a continued practice

of stopping and searching scores of vehicles daily, doing so without probable cause or reasonable

suspicion of wrongdoing. In the year 2020, Brookside issued over 3,000 citations, gave over 2,000

traffic warnings and made 1,273 misdemeanor arrests.

29. One example of the thirst for revenue is the standard fee of $175 for merely signing

a form which would authorize the Town’s contracted wrecker to release an impounded vehicle to

its owner. That charge is in addition to the $165 and $35 per day towing charges. Between 2018

and 2020 the yearly vehicles impounded by Brookside increased from 50 to 789, with traffic

citations increasing from 382 to 3024.

30. Defendant Jones was the Chief of Police of Brookside and directed the department

and set its policies and practices. He has been personally involved in the stopping and searching

of motorists, doing so along with the police officers under his direction. He has allowed and

fostered the sort of actions complained of herein. In a similar case also in 2020, a Brookside

officer and Lieutenant agreed that “the Chief is wanting to tow in these incidents” and towed her

vehicle, leaving the driver on the side of the Interstate.

31. The appeals to Circuit Court of Jefferson County were for trial de novo. The filing

6
 DOCUMENT 2

of the appeal voids the guilty finding. All 16 charges were dismissed by Circuit Judge Owens on

February 13, 2022.

32. The stopping of vehicles and removal and search of motorists without probable

cause or reasonable suspicion is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and of Alabama’s non-

custodial arrest statute, Ala. Code § 32-1-4.

33. Scores of motorists were stopped on the Interstate and hailed to court, having to

attend sessions where dozens of defendants were required to give a cell phone number and wait

for hours in their vehicles until room would be available in the Town’s courtroom. Revenues

were channeled back into police use for more officers.

34. Defendant Jones was the chief policymaker for Brookside’s police, being hired as

Chief in March 2018. In the preceding year, fiscal 2017, the Town amassed $51,473 in revenue

from fines, fees, forfeitures and jail fees. Under Jones, that income increased during the 2019 fiscal

year to $187,445. Brookside more than tripled that in the fiscal year from 10/1/19 to 9/30/20,

amassing $610,307, and $710,025 in fiscal 2021. By 2020 these court and forfeiture fees made

up almost half of Brookside’s annual revenue.

35. None of the massive increases in revenue are coincidental. They are not the result

of population increase or driver behavior nor meaningful increases in serious crime around

Brookside. Chief Jones was personally involved in the charging and detention of Plaintiff here.

36. Instead, the massive increases in revenue after 2018 are the result of deliberate

policies, practices and customs instituted by Brookside’s policymakers to generate as much

revenue as possible, almost all of which goes to the police, with additional windfalls to the town

prosecutor and municipal court. According to Mayor Bryan, after the police got their cut,

7
 DOCUMENT 2

Brookside “only profited $70,886” in 2020 from what the Town designated its “fines and

forfeitures”.

37. Brookside’s policymakers, including Chief Jones, the Mayor and town council

knew and approved of Jones’ abusive revenue-generating policies, practices and customs. In an

interview in late 2021, Chief Jones said (with Mayor Mike Bryan present and agreeing) that

Brookside’s policing is “a positive story” and that “a 600% increase” in annual revenue within two

years is “a failure,” because according to Chief Jones, “with more officers and more productivity

you’d have more” revenue generation and increases.

38. Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and pain by the manner in which he was treated

by Brookside and its officers and employees. The stopping by an unmarked black SUV with

tinted windows frightened Plaintiff as did his arrest and detention. Defendants intentionally

refused to allow him to make a phone call for days, in violation of Rule 4.2, Ala. R. Crim. P. They

also denied Plaintiff access to his medication, thereby substantially increasing his mental anguish

and depression. Holding Plaintiff totally naked in a cell for days and for hours handcuffed to a

chair in a common area caused mental anguish. His detention without reasonable bail or access to

legal counsel or a probable cause determination damaged Plaintiff.

39. Defendants caused Plaintiff financial harm by the imposition of the unreasonable

fee for release of the vehicle, the towing fees, the unreasonable charges for bail bond fees for his

release from jail, the unreasonable charges for bail bond fees demanded in order for Plaintiff to

appeal, plus legal fees for his defense and the appeal to Circuit Court.

CAUSES OF ACTION

8
 DOCUMENT 2

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF

PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations contained herein in pgf. ¶¶ 1-39.

40. Plaintiff has suffered a seizure by the actions of Defendants who

detained him in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments, with such having been done under color of state law in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The said action was without just cause.

42. The vehicle stop was done to subject Plaintiff and his vehicle to

illegal and improper search and seizure. There was no reason for the detainment of Plaintiff in

handcuffs and the search of his person and vehicle. The initial seizure was made more intolerable

by Plaintiff being held for days while totally nude and not allowed to have access to his medicine

or a phone to call for help.

43. Plaintiff claims actual and punitive damages from Defendants for the harm

outlined and alleged in Paragraphs 38 and 39 herein.

COUNT II. FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY

DEFENDANTS
[STATE LAW CLAIMS]

Plaintiff incorporates herein the factual allegations of this complaint Pgf. ¶¶ 1-39.

44. Plaintiff was falsely arrested and detained by the Defendants, being detained on

the roadside and then incarcerated for days in the Brookside jail without just cause and in

violation of his statutory and constitutional rights. He was denied his personal liberty by being

detained without being granted access to call for help or to have bail properly set. The manner of

his detention by Defendants was unlawful, being intentionally punitive and directed at causing

9
 DOCUMENT 2

harm to Plaintiff and a means of securing revenue from his family. The Defendant officers were

acting in accord with the policy and practice approved by Brookside

45. Plaintiff claims actual and punitive damages from Defendants for the harm

outlined and alleged in Paragraphs 38 and 39 herein.

COUNT III. FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT BY DEFENDANTS IN

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Plaintiff incorporates herein the factual allegations of Pgf. ¶¶.1-39.

46. Plaintiff was falsely arrested and detained by Defendants, being denied his

personal liberty, being handcuffed on the roadside and then being incarcerated for days in the

Brookside jail without just cause and in violation of his constitutional rights. The Defendants

jailed Plaintiff as his seizure was part of the pattern of seizing vehicles in order to create revenue

for Brookside. Once Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped, Defendants proceeded to stack and create

charges with the intention of harvesting revenue for Brookside. He was convicted and heavily

fined for matters not presented to Plaintiff and his lawyer in court. This was in violation of his

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. 1983. The accumulation of

these 16 offenses was done in order to punish Plaintiff and require the posting of cash bonds and

the ultimate exorbitant fines and costs of $15,828, plus extending his detention unlawfully.

47.. Defendants sought to punish Defendant by detaining him unlawfully

pursuant to Brookside’s policy and/or practice of allowing its police officers to stop and seize

motorists. Defendants went further and imprisoned Plaintiff in violation of his constitutional

rights, keeping him detained incommunicado for days under conditions which constituted cruel

and unusual punishment. Defendants intentionally sought to punish Plaintiff.

10
 DOCUMENT 2

48. Plaintiff claims actual and punitive damages from Defendants for the

harm outlined and alleged in Paragraphs 38 and 39 herein.

COUNT IV. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS BY DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff incorporates herein the factual allegations of Pgf. ¶¶ 1-39.

49.. Defendants denied Plaintiff due process by prosecuting him without justification or

jurisdiction. None of the sixteen misdemeanors or traffic citations were properly sworn before a

magistrate, yet Defendants proceeded to detain and prosecute Plaintiff despite that lack of

jurisdiction to proceed. [¶ 23]

50.. The documents upon which the detention and prosecution of Plaintiff were based

were legally insufficient in addition to not being sworn. Eight listed a fictitious court as the

charging jurisdiction. [¶ 22] Yet Defendants proceeded to detain and prosecute Plaintiff despite

that lack of jurisdiction, doing so in violation of due process.

51. Defendants intentionally made up nine more charges against Plaintiff and

Brookside’s judge entered findings of guilty even though neither Plaintiff nor his lawyer knew of

the new charges. Only while being at the office of the town clerk two weeks later to post appeal

bonds on the seven cases did Plaintiff learn that he had been found guilty of the nine more

charges by the Brookside court. [¶¶ 17-20] That prosecution violates due process.

52. Defendants further violated Plaintiff’s due process rights by intentionally

charging and convicting him of an offense that occurred in a distant city and not in Brookside. [¶

21] Though the complaint stated a lack of jurisdiction on its face, Defendants proceeded to

prosecute Plaintiff, causing him the expense of filing an appeal bond and defending the charge.

53.. The actions of defendants in the preceding paragraphs [¶¶ 49-52] violated

11
 DOCUMENT 2

Plaintiff’s rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff was charged and

convicted without any notice or opportunity to be heard.

54. Plaintiff claims actual and punitive damages from Defendants for the

harm outlined and alleged in Paragraphs 38 and 39 herein.

COUNT V. DETENTION IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Plaintiff incorporates herein the factual allegations of Pgf. ¶¶ 1-39.

55. Defendants kept Plaintiff in the Brookside jail from February 24,2021 until

his release on March 1,2021 under conditions that violated the Constitutional prohibition against

cruel and unusual punishment.

56. Defendants kept Plaintiff totally naked in a stark metal cell without even a

blanket for days during the winter month, refusing to allow him a phone call to seek release or to

be given his prescribed medicine. Plaintiff pleaded to be allowed to receive his medicine for

anxiety disorder but Defendants refused, allowing his mental anguish to worsen. At times he was

handcuffed to the jail bars.

57. When Plaintiff sought to warm himself by exercising in his cell, Defendants

responded by handcuffing him to a metal chair and placing him in a common hallway in view of

persons of both sexes for over four hours. This was done with punitive intention, seeking to

degrade and humiliate Plaintiff. Given the small size of the confinement facilities at Brookside,

being two cells, this action against Plaintiff was not something done negligently or wantonly but

was a deliberate constitutional violation imposing cruel and unusual punishment.

58. Plaintiff claims actual and punitive damages from Defendants for the

harm outlined and alleged in Paragraphs 38 and 39 herein.

12
 DOCUMENT 2

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully prays that the Court will take jurisdiction of this

cause and upon the final hearing grant him the following relief:

A. An award of appropriate monetary damages, both actual and punitive, to compensate

Plaintiff for the harm complained of herein;

B. An award of all costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and

expenses.

C. Grant any other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED ON ALL APPLICABLE CLAIMS

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

/s/ W. M. Dawson
William M. Dawson
Dawson Law, LLC
1736 Oxmoor Road, #101
Birmingham, Alabama 35209
Telephone: 205-795-3512
E-Mail: [email protected]

Address of Plaintiff:
% Atty William Dawson
1736 Oxmoor Road
Birmingham, AL 35209

Address of all Defendants for service:

% Town of Brookside
City Hall
Brookside, AL 35036

13