1 2 3 4 5

Robert J. Campos #011817 ROBERT J. CAMPOS & ASSOCIATES, P.L.C. 51 East Lexington Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone (602) 222-3440 Facsimile (602) 595-9683 Email [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

JESUS SANCHEZ LLOVERA,

) ) Case Number: ____________________ Plaintiff ) ) vs. ) ) COMPLAINT MARICOPA COUNTY, a public entity; ) ) (Jury Trial Demanded) MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFFS ) ) OFFICE, a division of Maricopa County; ) ) SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA ) ) ARPAIO, husband and wife; STEVEN ) ) SEAGAL and JANE DOE SEAGAL, ) ) husband and wife; MARICOPA COUNTY ) ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, the ) ) governing body of Maricopa County; ) ) FULTON BROCK and JANE DOE ) ) BROCK, husband and wife; DON ) ) STAPLEY and JANE DOE STAPELY, ) ) husband and wife; ANDREW KUNASEK ) )

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and JANE DOE KUNASEK, husband and ) ) wife; MAX WILSON and JANE DOE ) ) WILSON, husband and wife; MARY ) ) ROSE WILCOX and JOHN DOE ) ) WILCOX, husband and wife; JOHN DOE ) ) SUPERVISORS I-X; JANE DOE ) ) SUPERVISORS I-X; JOHN DOES I-X; ) ) JANE DOES I-X, ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Jesus Sanchez Llovera, for his Complaint against Defendants, alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and pendent state common law and statutory laws. 2. Plaintiff has satisfied the provisions of A.R.S. 12-821.01 by serving upon

Defendants a Notice of Claim more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint. Defendants have not responded to the Notice of Claim. 3. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs federal law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 42 U.S.C. 1988. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state and federal claims pursuant to Article 6, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution.

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4.

Venue is initially proper in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. 12-401, as the

majority of the parties are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the events underlying this lawsuit occurred in Maricopa County. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right, however, to timely change venue pursuant to A.R.S. 12-408, because Maricopa County is a party. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 6. At all times material herein, Plaintiff Jesus Sanchez Llovera was a legal

10

permanent resident of the United States, residing in the City of Laveen, located in
11

Maricopa County, Arizona.

12

7.
13 14

Defendant Maricopa County (the County) is a public entity, formed and

designated as such pursuant to Title 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and, as such, is subject to civil suit and may be held independently liable as an entity and/or municipality,
15

and/or vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of its officers, employees, agents,
16

districts, and division/sub-divisions, including (without limitation) the individual

17

members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Arpaio, and the officers
18 19

and employees of its divisions, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office. 8. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) is a political

20

subdivision of Maricopa County and the State of Arizona, and constitutes an independent
21

jural entity subject to civil suit.

22

9.
23 24

At all times material herein, Defendant Joseph Arpaio (Arpaio or Sheriff

Arpaio) was the duly-elected Sheriff of Maricopa County and the head of the MCSO. In such capacity, Arpaio was an officer, agent and employee of the County and MCSO, with

25

the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, customs, procedures,

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

protocols and training for MCSOs Tactical Operations Unit, the use of Global Positioning Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member recruitment and training. His wrongful actions and/or inactions constitute actions of the County, the Board, and MCSO. The County, the Board, and MCSO are vicariously liable and directly liable for his wrongful conduct, as alleged herein. 10. At all times material herein, Defendant Steven Seagal was an agent and/or

employee of the County and MCSO, who at the time of the events complained herein, was acting within the course and scope of his employment by the County and MCSO, and under color of law. This Defendant engaged in wrongful conduct that allowed, caused, and contributed to the destruction of Plaintiffs property and violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, as alleged herein. His actions constitute actions of the County, Arpaio, and MCSO, and the County, Arpaio, and MCSO are vicariously liable for his wrongful conduct. 11. At all times material herein, Defendants Fulton Brock, Don Stapley,

Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson, and Mary Rose Wilcox (collectively referred to as the Board) were duly-elected Supervisors of Maricopa County and the head of Maricopa County government, with ultimate authority and responsibility for overseeing, funding, and regulating the actions and/or inactions of Sheriff Arpaio. In such capacity, the members of the Board were officers, agents, and employees of the County, with the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, procedures, protocols, customs, and training for MCSOs Tactical Operations Unit, the use of Global Positioning Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member recruitment and training. These Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct, and/or conduct, omissions, and actions not undertaken in good faith, which allowed, caused, and/or contributed to the destruction of Plaintiffs property and violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, as alleged herein.

-4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The Boards actions and/or inactions, and/or the actions of each of the individuallynamed Supervisors that comprises it, constitute actions of the County and the County is vicariously liable and directly liable for their wrongful conduct, as alleged herein. 12. At all times material herein, Defendants John Doe Supervisors I-X Jane

Doe Supervisors I-X (collectively the Board John Does) were duly-elected Supervisors of Maricopa County and the head of Maricopa County government, with ultimate authority and responsibility for overseeing, funding, and regulating the actions and/or inactions of Sheriff Arpaio. In such capacity, the Board John Does were officers, agents, and employees of the County, with the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, procedures, protocols, customs, and training for MCSOs Tactical Operations Unit, the use of Global Positioning Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member recruitment and training. These Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct, and/or conduct, omissions, and actions not undertaken in good faith, which allowed, caused, and/or contributed to the destruction of Plaintiffs property and violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, as alleged herein. The Board John Does actions and/or inactions, and/or the actions of each of the individually-named Supervisors that comprises it, constitute actions of the County and the County is vicariously liable and directly liable for their wrongful conduct, as alleged herein. 13. Maricopa County and all of its subdivisions and their agents and employees

specifically named herein or named as Does are collectively referred herein as the County or Defendants. 14. The Defendants designated herein as Jane or John Doe spouses, Ava

Arpaio, Jane Doe Brock, Jane Doe Stapley, Jane Doe Kunasek, Jane Doe Wilson, John Doe Wilcox, Jane Doe Seagal are the spouses of the respective Defendants and are so designated because the wrongful conduct of Defendants was engaged in for the benefit of

-5-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

their marital communities, thereby rendering the spouses and marital communities of Defendants liable for such conduct. 15. The true names, capacities, and relationships, whether individual, corporate,

partnership, or otherwise of all John and Jane Doe Defendants, Black Corporations, and White Partnerships, are unknown at the time of the filing of this Complaint, and are being designated pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 10(f) and applicable federal and state law. Plaintiffs further allege that all of the fictitiously named Defendants were jointly responsible for the actions, events, and circumstances underlying this lawsuit, and that they proximately caused the damages stated in this Complaint. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to name the unidentified individuals once they have learned, through discovery, the identities and acts, omissions, roles, and/or responsibilities of such Defendants sufficient for Plaintiffs to discover the claims against them.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Summary of Facts 16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 17. Prior to the events at issue in this Complaint, the Phoenix Police

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Department conducted an independent investigation at the home Jesus Sanchez Llovera on February 4, 2011. 18. The Phoenix Police Department searched Mr. Lloveras home and did not

find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. No drugs, weapons or contraband were found at Mr. Lloveras home.

-6-

1 2 3

19.

The Phoenix Police Department communicated with MCSO during the

February 4, 2011 search of Mr. Lloveras home. MCSO Deputy Hess called Mr. Llovera on his cell phone.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

20.

Deputy Hess asked Mr. Llovera to meet Phoenix Police detectives at the I-

17 freeway and Dunlap Road in Phoenix for questioning. 21. Mr. Llovera, without counsel, willingly met Phoenix Police detectives at

the I-17 freeway and Dunlap Road. Phoenix Police detectives escorted Mr. Llovera to police headquarters for questioning. Mr. Llovera fully cooperated with the Phoenix Police investigation.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

22.

Mr. Llovera was cleared of any and all alleged wrongdoing. The Phoenix

Police Department investigation of Mr. Llovera did not result in the filing of any criminal charges against Mr. Llovera. 23. Following their investigation, the Phoenix Police Department provided

MCSO with photographs taken at Mr. Lloveras home during the February 4, 2011 search.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

24.

The photographs depicted healthy roosters and hens. The photographs did

not illustrate any evidence of cockfighting or an active cockfighting operation at Mr. Lloveras home.

-7-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MCSO Investigation and Staged Arrest for Steven Seagals Television Show: Steven Seagal Lawman. 25. In the days leading up to March 9, 2011, MCSO conducted an

investigation of Mr. Llovera. On March 8, 2011, MCSO Detective Michael Barnett drove by Mr. Lloveras home. Detective Barnett claimed that he saw roosters and chickens walking in the front yard of Mr. Lloveras home. Detective Barnett stated that he heard other roosters crowing in the back yard of Mr. Lloveras home.

8 9 10 11 12 13

26.

Detective Barnett did not see or hear any evidence that Mr. Llovera was

raising or actively training roosters to cockfight. 27. Armed with Detective Barnetts observations, in the early morning hours of

March 9, 2011, the MCSO Tactical Operations Unit laid siege on Mr. Lloveras home under the guise of a cockfighting investigation.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

28.

Pursuant to a media production contract between MCSO (executed by

Sheriff Arpaio) and Steven Seagals production company, Seagal and his producers were embedded among MCSOs Tactical Operations Unit as they blasted onto Mr. Lloveras property. 29. MCSO used a Lenco Bear armored truck to smash through a gated

driveway on the north end of Mr. Lloveras property. Seagals producers and cameramen joined MCSO deputies in the Lenco Bear armored truck.

-8-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

30.

A V-150 tank pulverized a thirty-foot iron gate on the south end of Mr.

Lloveras property. Seagal joined MCSO deputies in the V-150 tank and was armed with an automatic assault rifle, along with a sidearm. Seagals producers attached a stationary camera inside the V-150 tank. 31. At least thirty armored MCSO Tactical Operations Unit personnel rushed

Mr. Lloveras home. Each officer was outfitted in full riot gear consisting of shoulder pads, steel plates on their chest and back, a Kevlar helmet, goggles, ear and eye protection and a shield. Every officer also carried a weapon, either a Kimber .45 caliber handgun or an M4 Colt Commando fully automatic rifle.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

32.

Ear-crushing diversionary bombs were deployed by deputies as they exited

the V-150 tank. Mr. Lloveras peacocks, guineas, dogs, sheep, goats, roosters, hens and chicks ran for cover. Seven K-9 units swarmed Mr. Lloveras property while the MCSO bomb robot led the search for Mr. Lloveraan unarmed chicken farmer. 33. The MSCO Tactical Operation Units entry team smashed the front door of

Mr. Lloveras home with a door ram. The window team entered Mr. Lloveras home
18 19 20 21 22 23

by shattering a picture window in the living room, as well as a window in Mr. Lloveras seven-year-old daughters room. The rake and break team stood by ready to cut the power supply to Mr. Lloveras home. MCSO deputies announced their presence over a loudspeaker after deputies were inside Mr. Lloveras home. Seagals production company captured the drama, as it unfolded, from various cameras positioned outside of

24 25

Mr. Lloveras home, and inside the V-150 tank and Lenco Bear armored truck.

-9-

1 2 3

34.

MCSO deputies found Mr. Llovera inside his homealone and unarmed

dialing 911 on his cell phone. Mr. Llovera had just awoken from his nap to find his home demolished and fully armed MCSO deputies pointing guns at his face. Mr. Llovera did

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

not resist arrest and was fully cooperative with MCSO deputies. 35. MCSO deputies hauled Mr. Llovera from his home and strategically pulled

him to an open area in his front yard where deputies placed zip-tie cuffs on his wrists, fully within the view of Seagals cameras. 36. Mr. Llovera was escorted across the street from his home. Still clearly dazed and confused, Seagals producers badgered Mr. Llovera to sign a release form so that they could enter his property and capture footage for Lawman. Mr. Llovera refused to sign the release form. 37. MCSOs criminal investigation was nothing more than a ministerial

exercise to carry out a foregone conclusion. Arpaio wanted to subject Mr. Llovera to a very public and humiliating arrest in front of Seagals cameras, even though he knew that Mr. Llovera had not violated any criminal statutes.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

38.

Nevertheless, Arpaio launched a high-profile criminal investigation and

executed a full-scale military style attack (including tanks, diversionary bombs, guns and an aging and overweight action hero) on Mr. Lloveras home. The press attention was far too attractive for Arpaio to pass up, despite the glaring problems with the case. Within minutes of the raids execution, a media helicopter circled above Mr. Lloveras home.

-10-

1 2 3

39.

Upon information and belief, MCSO placed a GPS tracking device on Mr.

Lloveras vehicle and monitored his every movement in the days preceding the raid. MCSO did not obtain a search warrant before placing the tracking device on Mr.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Lloveras vehicle. More importantly, upon information and belief, MCSO knew that Mr. Llovera was home alone on March 9, 2011, and did not pose a threat to MCSO deputies. MCSO deputies bragged that MCSO could have used the GPS tracking device to arrest Mr. Llovera during a traffic stop, thereby eliminating all need for the massive raid of his home. A routine traffic stop, however, would not have provided sensationalized footage for Lawmans producers. 40. Arpaio scheduled a press conference to publicly announce Mr. Lloveras

arrest. The arrest was publicly staged in an effort to give Arpaio even more self-serving press attention and to feed his undying mania for publicity. 41. While Arpaio portrayed himself as a champion of animal rights in front of

Mr. Lloveras house, his deputies, without lawful authority, slaughtered over one hundred of Mr. Lloveras roosters in the back yard. Arpaios deputies also joked about how Mr.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Lloveras animals fled in terror during the raid. 42. Local television news stations featured Mr. Lloveras arrest as a leading

story. Media reports featured Mr. Lloveras mug shot, erroneously proclaiming that he not only raised roosters to cockfight but also managed a cockfighting ring. Because of Seagals involvement in the raid, Mr. Lloveras arrest reached a global audience within hours.

-11-

1 2 3

43.

Mr. Llovera suffered deeply from the humiliation of having his arrest

highly publicized. 44. Mr. Lloveras arrest provided the necessary fodder for Arpaios constant

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

hunger for publicity. At the press conference, Arpaio stood alongside Seagal to support his self-aggrandizing claim that he is Americas toughest sheriff and a champion of animal rights. Arpaio proclaimed that Mr. Llovera was arrested on over one hundred counts of cockfighting and falsely claimed that MCSO found evidence of cockfighting on Mr. Lloveras property. 45. Wanting to capitalize on the ever-increasing and highly-publicized

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

controversy behind the investigation and arrest of Mr. Llovera, Arpaio, using his political power and influence pushed the Maricopa County Attorneys Office to prosecute the case. 46. Although MCSO arrested Mr. Llovera on over one hundred counts of

cockfighting, the Maricopa County Attorneys Office presented only one count of cockfighting to the grand jury.

18 19 20 21 22 23

47.

Arpaios ulterior motives in investigating, pressuring and forcing the

prosecution of Mr. Llovera had to do with the political and financial gain the publicity of the case generated. 48. Mr. Llovera has suffered a loss of income and earnings as a result of the

events surrounding his arrest and prosecution.

24 25

49.

As a result of the investigation, his arrest and prosecution, Mr. Llovera has

suffered humiliation, anguish, mental and physical suffering.

-12-

1 2 3

50.

Mr. Lloveras small business has been adversely affected because of the

actions of the Defendants and the negative publicity surrounding the Defendants investigation and prosecution, which has resulted in a loss of business profits and

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

suspension of Mr. Lloveras Arizona Lottery license. 51. As a result of the wrongful arrest and prosecution, Mr. Llovera was forced

to hire a criminal attorney and incurred legal fees and investigative costs in the approximate amount of $30,000.00. Mr. Llovera has also incurred thousands of dollars in property damage to his home. Mr. Lloveras animals were also slaughtered without due process of law, resulting in the loss of thousands of dollars.

11 12 13 14

Defendants Pattern, Custom and Practice of Misusing Their Power by Arresting and Prosecuting Individuals Without Probable Cause for Improper and Unlawful Selfish Purposes, Including Political and Financial Gain. 52. This is not the first time these Defendants have abused their authority for

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

unconstitutional and improper motives and to obtain financial, political, and other benefits. In fact, they have a custom, pattern, and practice of targeting, arresting, and prosecuting individuals without probable cause. 53. In June 2007, Dr. Joshua Winston, a Sun City West veterinarian was

arrested without probable cause, and publicly accused by Arpaio of punching a five pound Chihuahua in the face, causing the dogs eye to dislodge. These allegations were based solely upon the false accusations of disgruntled employees who were not present when the alleged abuse happened. Arpaio and the MCSO knew this fact, and knew that

-13-

1 2 3

the charges were baseless, but knowingly prosecuted Dr. Winston to gain publicity and political and financial gain. 54. Arpaio and the MCSO had the dog taken to at least three different

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

veterinarians prior to seeking charges, none of which saw any sign that the dog had been punched. One veterinarian noted that a blow to the eye would cause the eye to recess back, not fall out, and another stated that in 17 years of practice, he had four different dogs experience the exact same problem while in his care. Arpaio and the MCSO ignored this information and failed to mention it to the public or to the grand jury. In fact, Arpaio had already appeared on television to publicly accuse Dr. Winston of

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

punching the dog in the face. Arpaio acted in complete disregard of the truth and to the effects on Dr. Winston, his practice, and reputation that the accusation and arrest would bring, and instead acted solely for his own publicity seeking purposes. 55. The arrest of Dr. Winston by Arpaio and the MCSO without probable cause

was in violation of the constitutional rights of Dr. Winston, and was done solely for Arpaios own selfish motives, including personal and political gain and the publicity

18 19 20 21 22 23

garnered by it. 56. In October 2007, Arpaio and the MCSO arrested Michael Lacey and Jim

Larkin, the Executive Editor and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, of The Phoenix New Times on misdemeanor charges without probable cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin, for the sole and improper purpose of

24 25

Arpaios and the MCSOs own personal and political gain, and in an attempt to silence their critics.

-14-

1 2 3

57.

In January 2006, dozens of Arpaios armed and black-suited MCSO SWAT

Team members, covered by three MCSO helicopters, descended upon the home of Dr. Sandra Dowling, the then duly elected Superintendent of Schools of Maricopa County.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County had conspired with Arpaio to retaliate against Dr. Dowling for her public positions, speech, political views, and stances with respect to the Countys obligation to fund its accommodation schools. Arpaio agreed to investigate Dr. Dowling and the workings of her office. At the time of Dr. Dowlings arrest, Arpaio and the MCSO did not have probable cause to believe that Dr. Dowling had committed or was committing any criminal offense.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

58.

Arpaio repeatedly told the media that Dr. Dowling had hidden, stolen,

and/or misused $3.5 million allegedly mission from the Maricopa County Regional School District, knowing that these accusations were false and that there was no evidence or facts to support them. He did this to seek publicity, and at the behest of the Board of Supervisors. 59. This was done by Arpaio and the MCSO without probable cause, in

18 19 20 21 22 23

violation of the constitutional rights of Dr. Dowling, for the sole and improper purpose of Arpaios and the MCSOs own personal and political gain. 60. In November 2007, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Arizona (ACLU), Daniel Pachoda, was arrested by the MCSO after identifying himself as being with the ACLU, an organization that Arpaio and the MCSO disapproved

24 25

of based on the ACLUs lawsuits against Arpaio and the MCSO. Mr. Pachoda was attending a demonstration as a legal observer in front of an east Phoenix furniture store.

-15-

1 2 3

Mr. Pachoda was arrested that day on a misdemeanor charge of trespassing, which rarely leads to anything more than a summons to appear in court. Mr. Pachoda, a constitutional law expert with more than 35 years experience, was hauled off to jail and detained for

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

nearly 12 hours. A Maricopa County Justice of the Peace later ruled that Mr. Pachoda did not engage in any unlawful behavior prior to his arrest by MCSO deputies. 61. Arpaio and his MCSO deputies arrested Mr. Pachoda in clear violation of

his constitutional rights and pursuant to the MCSOs custom of investigating, arresting, and prosecuting individuals without probable cause all for political show and personal vindictiveness.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

62.

In August 2007, well-respected and highly decorated Chandler Police

Sergeant Thomas Lovejoy was arrested by MCSO following the tragic death of his K-9 partner, Bandit, a Belgian Mallinois police dog. On the morning of August 11, 2007, after working an extended overtime assignment, Sgt. Lovejoy went home. Sgt. Lovejoy was exhausted and wanted only to go to sleep, having had only 6 hours of sleep in the previous 51 hours. Bandit, also exhausted from extended shift work, was asleep in the

18 19 20 21 22 23

kennel in the back of Sgt. Lovejoys SUV. 63. Unfortunately, family needs intervened and Sgt. Lovejoy did not get to go

to sleep. Sgt. Lovejoy learned that this stepson, Shane, had been involved in a minor accident and needed his immediate help. Soon after, Sgt. Lovejoys wife, Carolynn, called and tearfully reported that she was having a personal crisis at work. After

24 25

attending the scene of Shanes accident and stopping by Carolynns work to check on

-16-

1 2 3

her, Sgt. Lovejoy returned home in the afternoon and went inside the house for a brief nap. 64. When Sgt. Lovejoy woke from his nap, he went to his SUV to grab his gear

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

to take inside the home. He noticed a strange smell in the SUV and opened the back doors to air out the vehicle. Sgt. Lovejoy realized for the first time that Bandit had never come out of the SUV. After pausing in disbelief for a moment, Sgt. Lovejoy came to grips with the reality that his friend and partner, Bandit, was dead. 65. After news of Bandits death became public, Sheriff Arpaio immediately

claimed jurisdiction. Within days, Arpaio held a press conference to announce that he
11 12 13 14 15 16 17

would be launching a criminal investigation into Sgt. Lovejoys actions, which the Chandler Police had originally and correctly deemed was unnecessary. For nearly a month, MCSO officials interviewed witnesses and collected evidence. On September 5, 2007, Sgt. Lovejoy received a request from an MCSO detective to meet with him. Sgt. Lovejoy agreed to meet MCSO detectives at a police substation but was unaware that the meeting was a ploy. Arpaio intended to arrest Lovejoy.

18 19 20 21 22 23

66.

Sgt. Lovejoy was unaware that Arpaio had scheduled a press conference to

publicly announce Lovejoys arrest even before the arrest happened. Arpaio would later tell the public that Lovejoy was behind bars and that he could be charged with a felony. Neither were true. The arrest was publicly staged to provide Arpaio with press attention. At a press conference, Arpaio touted himself as tough on crime and announced that the

24 25

MCSO investigation had found that, Sgt. Thomas Lovejoy violated the law by recklessly leaving his dog in a police vehicle for 13 hours in a reckless manner, even though he

-17-

1 2 3

knew and would acknowledge that there was no evidence that Sgt. Lovejoy intended to leave Bandit in the SUV. 67. Arpaio and his MCSO deputies arrested Sgt. Lovejoy in clear violation of

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

his constitutional rights and pursuant to the MCSOs custom of investigating, arresting, and prosecuting individuals without probable cause all for political show and personal vindictiveness. 68. These and other instances of targeting, arresting, and prosecuting

individuals without probable cause and in violation of the Constitution demonstrate the Defendants pattern and practice of arresting and prosecuting individuals without probable cause solely for the selfish and improper purposes of achieving personal and political gain through publicity and other improper purposes.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: Failure to Train- County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Arpaio, and MCSO) 69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 70. Sheriff Arpaio is a policy maker of Maricopa County and MCSO. Sheriff

Arpaio has the authority and responsibility to establish policy for the MCSO Tactical Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse, to oversee the operations of the Tactical

22 23 24 25

Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse, to evaluate applicable standards for the Tactical Operations Unit and MSCO Volunteer Posse, and is ultimately responsible for

-18-

1 2 3

the conduct of the Tactical Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse. His actions are the actions of Maricopa County, the Board and the MCSO. 71. Sheriff Arpaio and other Defendants were acting under color of law at all

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

times material hereto. 72. Sheriff Arpaio is named in his official capacity, as well as his individual

capacity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 direct and supervisory liability, for his conduct as alleged herein. 73. The County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO have oversight and

supervisory responsibility over their employees and agents. They are entities and/or
11 12 13 14 15 16 17

municipalities, directly liable under 42 U.S.C. 1985. 74. The County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO have long been on

notice and had knowledge of the unconstitutional policies that led to the destruction of Mr. Lloveras property. 75. Despite their knowledge of and notice, the County, the Board, Sheriff

Arpaio and MCSO were deliberately and callously indifferent in training (and/or failing
18 19 20 21 22 23

to adequately train) employees, agents and MCSO Volunteer Posse Members in (among other things) the appropriate, lawful and constitutional policies, procedures, practices, protocols, and customs for the assessment, use of appropriate force and execution of a knock warrant. 76. Despite their knowledge and notice, the County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio

24 25

and MCSO were deliberately and callously indifferent to the constitutional rights of the targets of criminal investigations through fostering, encouraging and knowingly

-19-

1 2 3

accepting formal and informal policies or customs condoning indifference to the use of excessive force and racial profiling, such that the violation of Mr. Lloveras constitutional rights and destruction of his property was likely to occur.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

77.

Despite their knowledge and notice, the County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio

and MCSO knew and should have known that unconstitutional policies, procedures, practices, protocols, customs, and training (or lack thereof) existed and they failed to address these issues, ratified them by inaction, and/or establish and implement appropriate policies, procedures, practices, protocols, customs, and training for using force that conformed to federal, state and applicable standards.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

78.

Despite their knowledge and notice, Defendants permitted and/or ratified

the implementation of inappropriate, unconstitutional, de facto policies which: authorized, condoned, and failed to provide appropriate use of force training, and failed to adequately train and supervise volunteer posse personnel in these and other areas. 79. Defendants deliberate, reckless, and callous indifference in failing to train

in these (and other) areas and the condoning and/or ratifying of such policies, practices,
18 19 20 21 22 23

procedures, protocols, and customs as described herein caused, substantially contributed to, or was the moving force behind the destruction of Mr. Lloveras property and use of excessive force upon by MCSO deputies and volunteer posse members. 80. The wrongful conduct of Defendants, as described herein, constitutes

violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that with deliberate and callous indifference, they
24 25

deprived Mr. Llovera of rights privileges, and immunities secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

-20-

1 2 3

81.

The wrongful conduct of Defendants constitutes violations of the United

States Constitution, Amendments IV, XIII, and XIV, in that Mr. Llovera was deprived of the privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States; was

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law; and denied his right to be free of punishment. 82. The wrongful conduct of Sheriff Arpaio acting in his individual capacity,

was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Mr. Llovera, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded against him to punish him for his wrongdoing and to deter and prevent him and others from acting in a

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

similar manner in the future. 83. The wrongful conduct of Steven Seagal acting in his individual capacity,

was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Mr. Llovera, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded against him to punish him for his wrongdoing and to deter and prevent him and others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

84.

The wrongful conduct of each of the members of the Board of Supervisors,

acting in their individual capacities, was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Mr. Llovera, given the years of notice to and knowledge of them regarding the unconstitutional policies employed by the MCSO that led to the destruction of Mr. Lloveras property, including (among others) the improper use of excessive force. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded

-21-

1 2 3

against each of the Supervisors to punish them for their wrongdoing and to deter and prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 5 6

(Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983: Malicious and Selective Prosecution, False Arrest, and Abuse of Process All Defendants) 85. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 86. color of law. 87. The wrongful conduct of all Defendants alleged herein constitutes At all times material hereto, Defendant Sheriff Arpaio was acting under

violations of the United States Constitution, Amendments IV, V, and XIV, and Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that with deliberate and callous indifference, Mr. Llovera was subjected

14 15 16 17 18 19

to malicious and selective prosecution, false arrest, and was investigated, arrested, and prosecuted without proper cause, with an unconstitutional motive. 88. No legitimate basis existed to investigate and prosecute Mr. Llovera for

violating cockfighting statutes. 89. Arpaio and the MCSO Officers knew that there was no proper or probable

20

cause to investigate, arrest, and/or apply pressure to force the prosecution of Mr. Llovera.
21 22 23 24 25

Nevertheless, Defendants continued their investigations, which culminated in the formal arrest and prosecution of Mr. Llovera, all accomplished without probable cause.

-22-

1 2 3

90.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct,

Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and he has suffered harm and has been injured.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

91.

The wrongful conduct of these Defendants alleged herein was undertaken

in malice and/or with improper and unconstitutional motives in an attempt to subject Mr. Llovera to unsubstantiated criminal charges with the purpose of denying him his constitutional rights. Without any evidence to support a criminal investigation, Mr. Llovera was wrongfully investigated, arrested, and his prosecution encouraged by Defendants for improper unconstitutional motives, was subjected to improper abuse of

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

process and power for improper motives, and was arrested without proper or probable cause. 92. The baseless and unlawful investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Mr.

Llovera done solely for personal and political gain and the publicity it generated, were carried out by Defendants pursuant to custom and/or practice of targeting, arresting, and prosecuting individuals without probable cause, and the constitutional deprivations and

18 19 20 21 22 23

injuries sustained by Mr. Llovera as described herein have been caused by such custom or practice. 93. Mr. Llovera was subjected to Defendants wrongful and unconstitutional

conduct in a particularly egregious, conscience-shocking manner. 94. The acts and omissions of Sheriff Arpaio acting in his individual capacity

24 25

and under color of law, were malicious, punitive, and in reckless disregard for Mr. Lloveras rights.

-23-

1 2 3

95.

As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury

should be awarded against Sheriff Arpaio to punish him for wrongdoing and to prevent others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Conspiracy to Commit Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983) 96. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 97. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants as alleged herein was

undertaken pursuant to an agreement or meeting of the minds among these Defendants to

11 12 13 14 15 16

act in concert to violate Mr. Lloveras constitutional rights. 98. These Defendants acts and/or omissions as alleged herein to pursue and

conduct a criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Mr. Llovera were undertaken pursuant to a conspiracy among Defendants to violate Mr. Lloveras constitutional rights. 99. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants conspiracy, Mr. Lloveras

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

rights were violated. 100. The acts and omissions of Arpaio and others within the MCSO in

furtherance of their conspiracy, acting in their individual capacities and under color of law, were malicious and/or in reckless disregard for Mr. Lloveras rights. 101. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury

should be awarded against Sheriff Arpaio and others that discovery will identify to
24 25

punish them for wrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future.
-24-

1 2 3 4 5 6

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of Arizona Law: False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process) 102. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 103. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants alleged herein constitutes

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

violations of Arizona law, in that Defendants unlawfully caused the arrest, detainment, and prosecution of Mr. Llovera without Mr. Lloveras consent and without probable cause, unlawfully and maliciously initiated and/or encouraged or instigated the bringing of criminal proceedings against Mr. Llovera without probable cause that harmed him and his wife, and willfully used the judicial process and/or criminal proceedings against Mr. Llovera for a improper and ulterior purpose not proper in regular conduct of such process

14 15 16 17 18 19

and proceedings. 104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts and omissions alleged

herein, Mr. Llovera has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. 105. The individual Defendants acts and omissions herein were undertaken with

malice, in bad faith, and with the requisite evil mind sufficient to warrant the imposition
20

of punitive damages to deter their conduct and that of others in the future.
21 22 23 24 25

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence- All Defendants) 106. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

-25-

1 2 3

107.

Defendants have both a statutory and common law duty to assure that any

member of the Sheriffs volunteer posse who carries a deadly weapon without a permit while on duty has passed firearms training that is approved by the Arizona Peace Officer

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Standards and Training Board (P.O.S.T.). 108. The County, Arpaio and MCSO are legally responsible for the

management, establishment and implementation of policies, procedures and protocols that govern the processing, handling, and management of volunteer posse members who carry deadly weapons while on duty. Their responsibility includes making certain that such policies, procedures and protocols satisfy all federal and state standards.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

109.

The County, Arpaio and MCSO are legally responsible for the screening,

hiring, training, retaining and supervision of all employees who have responsibility for the processing, handling, and management of volunteer posse members who carry deadly weapons while on duty. Their responsibility includes making certain that such volunteer posse members satisfy all federal and state standards. 110. Defendants, directly and through their employees, were negligent, upon

18 19 20 21 22 23

information and belief, when they authorized Steven Seagal, a civilian, to commandeer a V-150 armored tank, to carry an assault rifle, to carry a side arm, and to authorize him the right to destroy Mr. Lloveras home and the authority to shoot to kill. Defendants failed to ensure that Steven Seagal was a qualified posse member and failed to ensure that Steven Seagal had firearms training approved by P.O.S.T. before authorizing him to carry

24 25

a deadly assault weapon during MCSOs execution of a search warrant at Mr. Lloveras home on March 9, 2011.

-26-

1 2 3

111.

Upon information and belief, Defendants breached their duties by (among

other things) failing to assure that Steven Seagal was an actual qualified member of the MCSO volunteer posse before allowing him to control a V-150 tank, allowing him to

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

possess an assault rifle, bestowing upon him the authority to destroy Mr. Lloveras home and the authority to shoot to kill; failing to assure that Steven Seagal passed firearms training that is approved by P.O.S.T., failing to require Steven Seagal to complete a standard questionnaire, background check and psychological evaluation, which all applicants must complete before becoming a qualified armed posse member; and failing to train Steven Seagal in Federal and Arizona constitutional law, the use of deadly force

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

in Arizona, weapons training, defensive tactics, chemical agents, mechanical restraints, judgmental use of force and basic firearms academy training. 112. 113. Defendants breached the duties owed to Mr. Llovera. The negligence was the proximate cause of the destruction of Mr. Lloveras

property and the use of excessive force. 114. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants wrongful conduct, Mr.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Llovera has suffered both economic and non-economic damages, including those for pain and suffering.

-27-

1 2 3

A. 115.

Jury Trial

Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury. B. Prayer for Relief

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages for judgment against Defendants as follows: A. B. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial; Punitive damages in an amount deemed just and reasonable against

Defendants and others that discovery will identify as to the causes of action alleged herein;

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

C.

Costs an attorneys fees against Defendants as to the causes of

actions alleged under the Constitution and laws of the United States, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; D. E. F. The costs of litigations; All remedies provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983; and Such other and further relief which may seem just and reasonable

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

under the circumstances.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of March, 2012.

_________________________________ Robert J. Campos Attorney for Plaintiff

-28-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Original filed on this 6th day of March, 2012 with: Clerk of the Court Maricopa County Superior Court 201 W. Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85003 Copies of the foregoing delivered/mailed this 6th day of March, 2012, to: Ms. Fran McCarroll Clerk of the Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF MARICOPA 301 West Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Mr. Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) 100 West Washington, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Mr. Steven Seagal Maricopa County Sheriffs Office 100 West Washington, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 By: ___________________________

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

-29-