DANIEL P. TOKAJI, SBN 182114
MARK D. ROSENBAUM, SBN 59940
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90026
(213) 977-9500 x 276; FAX (213) 250-3919
CAROL A. SOBEL, SBN 84483
YVONNE T. SIMON, SBN 176239
LAW OFFICES OF CAROL A. SOBEL
429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
Santa Monica, California 90401
(310) 393-3055; FAX (310) 393-3605
ROBERT M. MYERS, SBN 66957
NEWMAN.AARONSON.VANAMAN
14001 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, California 91423
(818) 990-7722; FAX (818) 501-1306
KARL M. MANHEIM, SBN 61999
919 S. Albany Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
(213) 737-1106; FAX (213) 380-3769
PAUL L. HOFFMAN, SBN 71244
SCHONBRUN, DESIMONE, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN
723 Ocean Front Walk
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 396-0731; FAX (310) 399-7040
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, LOS ANGELES CHAPTER; LOS ANGELES COALITION TO STOP THE EXECUTION OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL; LOS ANGELES CHAPTER OF THE OCTOBER 22nd COALITION TO STOP POLICE BRUTALITY, REPRESSION AND THE CRIMINALIZATION OF A GENERATION; and D2K CONVENTION PLANNING COALITION,
Plaintiffs
vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; BERNARD PARKS, MAURICE R. MOORE, TOM LORENZEN, GARY BRENNAN, JAMES RUBERT, RONALD McCALL, DOES 1-10, in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DECLARATORY RELIEF,
AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
[42 U.S.C. § 1983; First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article I, §§ 2, 3 and 13 of the California Constitution]
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages, to remedy policies and customs of the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") that violate the rights of Plaintiffs and others engaging in expressive and associational activities. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Article I, §§ 2, 3 and 13 of the California Constitution. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendants reside in the Central District, and the acts or omissions complained of herein have occurred or will occur in the Central District.
INTRODUCTION
3. Plaintiffs are organizations which have engaged and plan to continue engaging in marches, rallies, demonstrations, parades, and protests within the City of Los Angeles, activities that are protected by the First Amendment. They bring this action to put an end to policies and customs of the LAPD that violate the constitutional rights of people engaged in protected speech, and that have a chilling effect on the expressive and associational activities of countless people who would otherwise exercise their constitutional right to free speech in public places within the City, were it not for fear of interference by the LAPD.
4. The LAPD has adopted and currently enforces four policies and customs that operate to suppress the protected speech and association of political activists, and violate the rights of participants in such activities to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The challenged LAPD policies are: (1) improperly terminating or prohibiting lawfully permitted political demonstrations without good reason; (2) using excessive force against people engaged in protected expression who pose no threat of harm - including but not limited to the use of "rubber bullets," bean-bag guns, pepper spray, baton strikes, mounted horse units, motorcycles, and other so-called "non-lethal" force, which are nevertheless used by Defendants in a potentially lethal manner; (3) preventing people from entering or exiting permitted marches and rallies while they are in progress, and detaining participants by refusing to let them leave after the events have concluded; and (4) preventing those engaged in political demonstrations from being heard, by circling immediately above them with low-flying helicopters when there is no legitimate law enforcement justification for circling in this manner.
5. These policies and customs were used against people demonstrating at the August 2000 Democratic National Convention ("DNC"), were repeated at an October 22, 2000 demonstration against police brutality outside LAPD headquarters, and have been officially approved and/or ratified by LAPD officials at the highest level. These policies and customs will continue to be applied against people and organizations engaged in lawful, peaceable demonstrations, including those participating in a march and rally against police abuse scheduled to take place on October 22, 2001, absent judicial relief. Plaintiffs intend to continue to engage in lawful expression in the City of Los Angeles and will be subjected to these same unlawful policies and customs unless this Court enjoins them.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles Chapter ("the Guild"), is a local chapter of a 64-year-old human rights bar association. The Guild is comprised of lawyers, law students, legal workers, and jail-house lawyers who work on behalf of the principle that human rights are more sacred than property interests. To this end, the Guild is part of a number of the Plaintiff groups described herein below. Organizationally and through its individual members, the Guild monitors political protest activities, conducts seminars on human rights law, participates in protest activities and lends its services to those fighting for social, political and economic justice. It regularly provides legal observers at political demonstrations in the City of Los Angeles. Its legal observers were repeatedly shot at with rubber bullets and subjected to other forms of supposedly "non-lethal" force -- which as used by the LAPD are injurious and potentially even lethal -- during the Democratic National Convention and October 22nd march and rally. The Guild will participate in demonstrations and marches in the future and will provide legal observers at future rallies, marches, and demonstrations in the City of Los Angeles, including the march and rally against police brutality scheduled to take place on October 22, 2001. It is threatened with immediate injury to its protected activities as a direct result of the policies and customs of the LAPD set forth herein.
7. Plaintiff Los Angeles Coalition to Stop the Execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ("the Mumia Coalition") is an unincorporated association dedicated to raising awareness about the injustice and inequity of the death penalty. The Mumia Coalition applied for and obtained a parade permit and event permit to hold a march and rally on August 13, 2000, and did in fact hold that march and rally on that date. During the course of that march, the Mumia Coalition was subjected to several of the policies challenged herein. The Mumia Coalition also participated in the October 22nd march and rally. The Mumia Coalition intends to organize and participate in marches, rallies and demonstrations in the immediate future, including an October 22, 2001 march and rally against police brutality. The Mumia Coalition is threatened with immediate harm, in that individuals who participate in lawful expressive activities sponsored by the Mumia Coalition will be subjected to restrictions and violations of their rights to free speech, assembly and petition, including unjustified and excessive force, by the LAPD. The Mumia Coalition is threatened with immediate harm by the policies and customs of the LAPD which, as described herein, will discourage those who wish to support the Mumia Coalition from assembling with it because of the threat that they, too, will be subjected to the unjustified use of excessive force and other official actions that chill their protected activities.
8. Plaintiff Los Angeles Chapter of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation ("the October 22nd Coalition") is an unincorporated association of community groups and individuals formed to oppose police brutality and to increase public awareness on these issues. As part of its mission, the October 22nd Coalition organizes marches and rallies to promote its message and enlist support for its cause. The October 22nd Coalition organized the expressive activities that took place on October 22, 2000, described more fully herein. The October 22nd Coalition has organized similar expressive activities for the past five years as part of a national day of protest against police brutality. The October 22nd Coalition also participated in marches and demonstrations to protest police abuse during the DNC in Los Angeles in August 2000, including a march protesting police brutality held on August 16, 2000. It has been involved in organizing similar activities to protest police abuses, including those in LAPD's Rampart Division and other recent police shootings. The October 22nd Coalition plans to organize and participate in marches, rallies and demonstrations in the immediate future, including an October 22, 2001 march and rally, to raise public awareness of police abuse issues and to protest specific instances of police abuse by the LAPD. The October 22nd Coalition is threatened with harm, in that individuals who participate in such lawful expressive activities sponsored by the October 22nd Coalition will be subjected to restrictions and violations of their rights to free speech, assembly and petition, including unjustified and excessive force, because the LAPD disagrees with the message the October 22nd Coalition and its supporters seek to convey. The October 22nd Coalition is threatened with immediate harm as the result of the policies and customs of the LAPD which, as described more fully in the Complaint, will discourage those who wish to support the October 22nd Coalition from assembling with it because they fear that they will be subjected to the unjustified use of excessive force and other official actions that chill their protected activities.
9. Plaintiff D2K Convention Planning Coalition ("D2K") is an unincorporated nonprofit grassroots organization formed for the purpose of organizing legal, non-violent, well-planned speech activities around the 2000 DNC. It applied for and obtained a parade permit and event permit to hold a march and rally on August 14, 2000, and did in fact hold a march and rally on that date which was improperly terminated by the LAPD, as described herein. D2K has continued its activities and plans to organize and participate in marches, rallies and demonstrations in the immediate future, including the October 22, 2001 march and rally, to raise public awareness of police abuse issues. D2K is threatened with immediate harm as the result of the policies and customs of the LAPD, which, as described more fully in the Complaint, will discourage those who wish to support D2K from assembling with it because of the fear that they will be subjected to the unjustified use of excessive force and other official actions that chill their protected activities.
10. Plaintiffs bring their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of their respective organizations and their members. Plaintiffs' claims for damages are brought on behalf of the Plaintiff organizations only.
11. Defendant City of Los Angeles ("City") is a municipal entity, organized under the laws of the State of California with the capacity to sue and be sued. The City is the legal and political entity responsible for the actions of the LAPD and its officers and employees. The LAPD is a department of City government. The City is sued in its own right and on the basis of the acts of its officers, employees, and agents, which were taken pursuant to City custom and policy. At all times relevant herein, the officers, employees, and agents of the City were acting under color of state law.
12. Defendant Bernard C. Parks is the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles and is sued in his official and individual capacities. Defendant Parks is the general manager of the LAPD and is responsible for its administration and operation. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Parks was acting under color of state law.
13. Defendant Maurice R. Moore is a deputy chief of police with the LAPD and serves as special assistant to the Chief of Police and is sued in his official and individual capacities. He was tasked with supervising the DNC 2000/Planning Group. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was acting under color of state law.
14. Defendant Tom Lorenzen is a police commander with the LAPD, and is sued in his official and individual capacities. He served as the commanding officer for the DNC 2000/Planning Group. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was acting under color of state law.
15. Defendant Gary Brennan is a police captain with the LAPD, and is sued in his official and individual capacities. He served as the commander of the public assembly area on August 14, 2000, during all relevant time periods. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was acting under color of state law.
16. Defendant James Rubert is a police captain with the LAPD, and is sued in his official and individual capacities. He served as incident commander for the October 22, 2000 event. In pre-event planning for the event, he authorized the use of "rubber bullets." At all times relevant herein, Defendant was acting under color of state law.
17. Defendant Ronald McCall is a police lieutenant with the LAPD, and is sued in his official and individual capacities. He directed officers to fire "rubber bullets" at members of the public on October 22, 2000. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was acting under color of state law.
18. Defendants Does 1-10 are employees and/or agents of Defendant City, and are sued in their individual and official capacities. The true names of Does 1-10 are presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the court to amend this complaint to name these individuals upon learning their true identities and roles in the actions complained of. Currently, Plaintiffs sue Does 1-10 as fictitiously-named Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these unknown persons were involved in and are legally responsible for the wrongful actions alleged in this complaint
19. At all times mentioned herein, all City officers, employees, and agents were acting pursuant to authority delegated or conferred by Defendant City and, in doing or failing to do the things complained of herein, were acting within the scope of that authority.
20. On information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and other LAPD officers, employees, and agents have acted pursuant to the official policies and customs of the City of Los Angeles, policies and customs that have been approved of, ratified, and/or enforced by the persons and/or entities with the authority to set policy for the LAPD. This includes, without limitation, the authorization by LAPD officials of repeated violations of the LAPD's stated policy on the use of so-called "non-lethal" force.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
21. The policies and customs challenged in this case were used at demonstrations which took place around the DNC between August 13 and August 17, 2000, and were repeated during an October 22, 2000 demonstration against police brutality. These policies and customs, described more fully herein, will continue to be applied to Plaintiffs' expressive activities unless and until enjoined.
22. Before and during the DNC, Plaintiffs and thousands of political protestors who assembled to exercise their First Amendment right to voice dissent were subjected to LAPD policies and practices designed to suppress free speech and deter them from expressing their views.
23. Prior to the DNC, Defendant Chief of Police Bernard Parks and other city officials disseminated misinformation and made threats against protestors designed to deter them from expressing their views in public places. Defendants obtained approval from the Board of Police Commissioners to use a variety of weapons, justifying their request during a closed session from which the press and public were barred. On information and belief, LAPD officers were instructed to seek out locations where protestors might be meeting and infiltrate the groups planning demonstrations and meetings at which demonstrations were being planned. The objective of these efforts was to suppress political expression. 24. On information and belief, the LAPD conducted surveillance and other intelligence-gathering activities of groups and individuals involved in the demonstrations, including some of the Plaintiffs. On information and belief, Defendants were aware from these surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities that Plaintiffs were not planning to engage in violence but were instead planning only peaceful protests. Defendants nevertheless used excessive force upon Plaintiffs and other peaceful demonstrators and engaged in other law enforcement tactics designed to stifle Plaintiffs' political expression, as set forth more fully herein.
25. Also in an effort to suppress political expression, the LAPD and other city officials declared an enormous "secure zone" around the convention site, to be made off-limits to protestors. The city also designated a small official protest area 260 yards from the convention hall. Additionally, the City refused to act on numerous parade permit applications and denied groups the right to use Pershing Square Park as a protest location. Plaintiffs D2K, Mumia Coalition, and the Guild, along with others, successfully challenged the City's actions in SEIU, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, United States District Court, Case No. CV 00-07119-GAF. The United States District Court (Judge Gary A. Feess) held that the City's expansive secure zone and permitting scheme violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendants City and Chief Parks.
26. Notwithstanding the SEIU ruling, the City of Los Angeles continued its efforts to restrict free speech, acquiring a vast arsenal of weapons for use on political protestors and conducting well-publicized training exercises in an express effort to intimidate and chill protests. In response to these actions, Plaintiff Guild and others wrote the City Council of the City of Los Angeles and the Board of Police Commissioners on July 31, 2000, asserting the intent of demonstrators to engage in lawful protest activities and warning them that "[t]he use of force is an unnecessary and unlawful response to nonviolent protest." Additionally, the letter stated:
There was no need for such use of force in Seattle and there is no basis for positing such a need here. In recent years, many groups have engaged in civil disobedience through sit-ins and other activities in every part of Los Angeles. These individuals have not been sprayed with pepper spray or dispersed with tear gas. Instead, the routine practice of the Los Angeles Police Department has been to place individuals who violate the law under arrest. We demand the same treatment during the Democratic National Convention.
As the representatives of the City of Los Angeles, you are legally and morally accountable for the conduct of the Los Angeles Police Department. In recent weeks, the City Council has discussed the true costs of the Democratic National Convention. If you do not take prompt action to curtail the use of force by the Los Angeles Police Department, you would be well advised to increase your cost estimates to include the costs of defending and paying judgments in the numerous civil rights lawsuits that will surely follow from your inaction.
27. A four-story building located near MacArthur Park, referred to as the Convergence Center, was the principal site for preparation of signs, puppets, and other materials to be used in protests around the DNC. From protestors' initial occupancy of this facility in July 2000 on, the LAPD persistently engaged in surveillance and other forms of harassment directed against those preparing for First Amendment activities. On the very first date that the Convergence Center was occupied, the LAPD immediately sent in undercover Vice officers. That night, numerous Los Angeles Police Officers entered the premises without a warrant, demanded to see the lease for the premises, and sought to have the Fire Department conduct a safety inspection with the expectation that the LAPD could shut down the Convergence Center for administrative code violations, as had been done by police in Philadelphia just prior to the start of the 2000 Republican National Convention. Several other efforts were made to shut down the facility under the pretext of inspecting the premises. The Convergence Center location was the subject of continual police surveillance, and several protestors were subject to pretextual detentions and arrests by LAPD officers. This created a palpable and very reasonable fear that the LAPD would raid the facility shortly before the start of the Convention.
28. On August 10, 2000, after Defendants City and Parks refused to give assurances that the LAPD would not mount a preemptive raid on the Convergence Center, Plaintiff D2K, along with others, filed an action in United States District Court to enjoin unlawful police conduct. D2K Convention Planning Coalition v. Chief Bernard Parks, United States District Court, Case No. CV-00-08556-DDP(RZx). On August 11, 2000, the United States District Court (Judge Dean D. Pregerson) issued a temporary restraining order barring Chief Parks and the City from: (1) seizing from the Convergence Center or destroying any puppets or printed material; and (2) entering the Convergence Center on the basis of purported administrative violations in the absence of an order issued by the federal district court. Under this temporary restraining order, an order from the federal court would have been required for the LAPD or other City officials to enter the demonstrators' premises based on such purported violations.
29. Notwithstanding these legal efforts to protect free speech, the Los Angeles police deployed massive force against Plaintiffs and other protesters during the DNC. Those engaging in protected speech were confronted with, and on several occasions surrounded by, lines of police officers in full riot gear, heavily armed with weapons capable of firing rubber bullets, rubber slugs, bean bags, tear gas, and pepper spray. On information and belief, these steps were taken by Defendants in an effort to suppress and intimidate those engaging in protected speech and association.
30. The first major march occurred on Sunday, August 13, 2000, and was conducted by Plaintiff Mumia Coalition. The march started at Pershing Square Park and ended at the public assembly area adjacent to the Staples Center. Throughout the march, massive numbers of police officers prevented individuals from joining or leaving the march at selected intersections.
31. On August 14, 2000, the first night of the convention, the police used their "non-lethal" weapons during an unprecedented, police-initiated attack on lawful demonstrators. In SEIU, Plaintiff D2K had won a permit to march from Pershing Square Park to the public assembly area adjacent to the Staples Center. Its court-approved permit authorized it to use the area until 9:00 p.m. However, the LAPD unlawfully terminated D2K's gathering, declaring that the more than 10,000 people who had come to hear speeches and music were an unlawful assembly and improperly ordering everyone to disperse.
32. The pretext for the LAPD's action was to address the behavior of a handful of individuals who had gathered in a small area near the security fence dividing the public assembly area from the Staples Center, and were hurling objects over the security fence toward officers clad in full riot gear. These few individuals posed no harm to any police officers or civilians, were in an area south of the main stage away from the bulk of the demonstration, and could easily have been isolated from the peaceful protesters gathering near the main stage. Rather than isolating and dealing with the small number of people, the police forcibly terminated the entire lawful assembly. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had, even prior to the commencement of this demonstration, intended to terminate the demonstration prior to its conclusion, regardless of its lawfulness.
33. Despite the unconstitutional dispersal order, D2K organizers attempted to cooperate with the police to ensure that the event concluded peacefully. Defendants abruptly and unilaterally cut off the power to the sound system, thereby severing the organizers' communication link with the crowd. Dispersal was further slowed by concrete barriers that had been placed across the designated exit points that morning. These concrete barriers remained in place despite Plaintiff Guild's warning to the LAPD earlier that day that they presented a major safety hazard and would result in "funneling" the large crowd through narrow exits. Even as demonstrators, legal observers, and the media were attempting to leave the area, the police attacked them - trampling people with horses, showering them with chemical weapons, and shooting rubber bullets, rubber slugs, and bean bags. Officers lined the street opposite the main exit on Olympic and, without provocation, fired repeatedly at the demonstrators as they exited the assembly area. Officers deliberately fired supposedly "non-lethal" weapons at the heads and upper torsos of those present, contrary to manufacturer's warnings, but with the approval of LAPD command staff. Hundreds of men, women, and children, who had been engaged in no criminal activity - and who were attempting to comply with the LAPD's order to disperse despite the illegality of that order - were injured.
34. Every lawful, permitted march during the DNC, including those in which Plaintiffs and their members participated, was met with massive police presence that prevented individuals from joining or leaving marches. Participants were repeatedly pushed into the streets by police when they attempted to walk on public sidewalks.
35. On several occasions, large numbers of demonstrators were detained by Defendants. LAPD officers refused to allow participants to leave demonstrations, even after the conclusion of events, by surrounding them with armed officers clad in riot gear for 30 minutes or more and preventing participants from dispersing upon threat of arrest.
36. The policies and customs employed by Defendants during the DNC were also applied by the LAPD during a demonstration that took place on October 22, 2000 to protest police brutality.
37. On July 24, 2000, Plaintiff October 22nd Coalition filed a Special Event Permit Application with the Emergency Operation Section of the LAPD, seeking approval for a march and rally on October 22, 2000, to mark the National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality. Los Angeles was one of several cities across the nation in which similar protest rallies were held to protest police brutality. The demonstration was scheduled to proceed from the corner of Olympic and Broadway to a rally in front of the police headquarters, Parker Center.
38. On September 11, 2000, when no approval had been received for the permit, counsel for Plaintiff October 22nd Coalition sent a letter to the Los Angeles City Attorney's office advising Defendants that they were in violation of the Stipulated Judgment entered in the SEIU litigation for failing to issue the permit after seven weeks. The Stipulated Judgment, inter alia, permanently enjoined Defendant City's Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 103.111. The Stipulated Judgment approved an interim parade permit policy, requiring Defendant City to approve all permit applications for marches and rallies within five (5) days of receipt of the application. On September 15, 2000, the City Attorney informed Plaintiffs' counsel by letter that the permit had been approved and would issue.
39. On October 4, 2000, Plaintiffs requested a modification to the permit to allow them to march around Parker Center as part of their demonstration. Although the amended application was tentatively approved on October 17, 2000 by Sergeant Sais, on October 18, 2000 Plaintiff October 22nd Coalition was informed that Sergeant Saiza had been put in charge of the demonstration and that the amended permit would not be granted because the LAPD had decided to set up its command post on Judge John Aiso Street. That same day, Plaintiff October 22nd Coalition sent a letter to the City Attorney's office, informing Defendants that the City was in violation of the interim parade permit policy. The letter also informed Defendants of the intended amended demonstration route around Parker Center.
40. On October 20, 2000, Police Commission President Gerald Chaleff approved the revised permit over the objection of the LAPD, affirming as part of the march a route from Los Angeles Street east or west on First Street, north or south on Alameda Street, east or west on Temple Street and north or south on Los Angeles Street to the rally site in front of Parker Center. The amended permit issued by the Police Commission authorized the demonstrators to traverse this route around Parker Center twice during the course of the demonstration. The only restriction was that the demonstration had to go north on Alameda Street instead of Judge John Aiso Street, which forms the eastern boundary of the block on which Parker Center is located.
41. The majority of the demonstrators on October 22 marched to Parker Center from Olympic and Broadway. Along the entire course of the march, they were flanked by numerous LAPD officers. Individuals who attempted to join the march along the way, but who had not assembled at Broadway and Olympic at the time the march began, were prohibited from joining the group. The march remained peaceful and lawful, with October 22nd Coalition leaders urging marchers to resist the LAPD's provocations.
42. When the marchers arrived at Parker Center, they were confronted by dozens of officers assembled in full riot gear in front of Parker Center. In addition, the LAPD had blocked off access to Temple Street east of Los Angeles Street. Despite the pleas of march organizers, the LAPD refused to allow marchers to proceed east on Temple Street, in violation of the express terms of the permit issued for the event. Many of the marchers headed south on Los Angeles Street past Parker Center, and then east on 1st Street in accordance with the terms of the permit. Other marches stopped in front of Parker Center to listen to speeches, including those made by speakers from the Stolen Lives project, representing, among others, the families of individuals killed by various law enforcement agencies.
43. When the marchers on 1st Street approached Judge John Aiso Street, they found their march route blocked by a line of LAPD officers in full riot gear, again in violation of the terms of the permit issued for the event. Shortly afterwards, demonstrators set fire to a paper replica of an American flag. Almost immediately thereafter, and without warning or provocation, police opened fire on them with rubber bullets and other similar types of supposedly "non-lethal" projectiles. Officers deliberately shot these projectiles at the heads and upper torsos of demonstrators, in violation of manufacturer's warnings but with the approval of LAPD command staff. Shortly after the officers had opened fire on the demonstrators, officers mounted on horses began to advance on the demonstrators, swinging their batons indiscriminately at the demonstrators. At the same time, officers on foot moved toward the demonstrators, shooting concussion grenades and rubber bullets at the demonstrators to force them back up 1st Street to Los Angeles Street.
44. The majority of demonstrators had remained in front of Parker Center, listening to the speakers. The demonstration was entirely peaceful at the time that the LAPD charged the main assembly - trampling some of the demonstrators with horses, striking some of them with batons, shooting some of them with rubber bullets, bean bags and foam rubber projectiles, and shoving people. The police used force indiscriminately, firing at demonstrators' backs as they attempted to flee and charging at demonstrators with horses. The police also employed injurious and potentially deadly force, by striking many of the peaceful demonstrators in the head with batons in violation of LAPD policy. The police also shot in the back persons who were standing on the sound stage and speaking to those assembled, rode horses into those assembled in this area and struck them with batons. Prior to charging the demonstrators and opening fire on them, the police gave no warning and gave no dispersal order declaring an unlawful assembly. Demonstrators had no opportunity to get out of the way of the police attack.
45. The police fired at demonstrators with a variety of weapons identified as "Stingers," "Multiple Batons" and "eXact iMpacts." The casings for the various projectiles bore warnings against shooting the objects directly at people because so used they could result in serious injury or death. Despite the warning on the casings, LAPD officers deliberately aimed their rifles directly at the heads and upper torsos of demonstrators, striking many with injurious and potentially lethal force.
46. As the police charged the demonstrators, Reverend Byrd, one of the cosigners on the permit for the demonstration, exhorted demonstrators to sit down. Many demonstrators then sat down in Los Angeles Street in front of Parker Center. The police ceased their unlawful advance and the demonstration continued.
47. As demonstrators left Parker Center, marching back to the original assembly point at Olympic and Broadway, they were flanked by police in full riot gear the entire way. In addition, they were followed by officers on bicycles and motorcycles, which rammed demonstrators as they walked. At Olympic and Broadway, motorcycle officers rammed persons standing on the public sidewalk.
48. At each of the events described herein, Defendants have prevented those engaged in political demonstrations from being heard, by circling immediately above them with low-flying helicopters without any legitimate law enforcement justification. On information and belief, Defendants engage in these tactics to drown out and intimidate the speech of demonstrators.
49. In taking the actions described herein, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and in violation of clearly established law. As a consequence of Defendants' actions set forth above, Plaintiff organizations have suffered damages. These damages include the expenditure of money, time, and other resources in organizing marches and rallies that were interfered with by Defendants, and attempting to secure the largest possible participation by the public.
50. Plaintiffs were also damaged and are currently being harmed, in that they were not able to fully communicate their messages and that many members of the public were too frightened to participate in these events as a result of Defendants' actions.
51. Plaintiffs will engage in constitutionally protected demonstrations and rallies in the future, including an October 22, 2001 demonstration against police brutality in the City of Los Angeles. Absent relief from this Court, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm as the result of the application and enforcement of Defendants' policies and customs against Plaintiffs and those engaging in expressive and associational activities with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the deprivation of their rights, privileges, and immunities.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Interference with Political Marches and Rallies
For Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Damages
(First and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
52. The above allegations are incorporated into the First Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein.
53. Defendants have and enforce a policy and custom of interfering with political marches and rallies that are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including but not limited to the use of force upon those engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment.
54. Plaintiffs have engaged in speech, petition, and association activities protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and plan to engage in such activities in the future.
55. Defendants terminated or attempted to terminate lawful permitted demonstrations sponsored by D2K and October 22 Coalition without good reason, acting pursuant to Defendants' policy and custom. Absent judicial relief from this Court, Defendants will interfere with Plaintiffs' rights by terminating or attempting to terminate their lawful, permitted, and peaceful political demonstrations.
56. Defendants have and enforce a policy and custom of preventing people from exiting or entering Plaintiffs' lawful and permitted marches and rallies without cause, a policy that directly interferes with the ability of Plaintiff organizations to conduct their protected expressive activities and the ability of individuals to participate in those activities.
57. Defendants have and enforce a policy and custom of flying and circling helicopters immediately above political demonstrations at low altitude when there is no legitimate law enforcement justification for so doing, drowning out the speech of Plaintiffs and others engaged in protected speech.
58. In taking the actions set forth herein, Defendants have engaged in content-discrimination and viewpoint-discrimination. Defendants' actions have been motivated and influenced by the political content, message, and viewpoint of Plaintiffs. Defendants have treated Plaintiffs less favorably than other speakers whose speech has a different content, message and viewpoint.
59. The acts of Defendants set forth above violate Plaintiffs' clearly established rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, all rights protected by the First Amendment and made applicable to the states and local government by the Fourteenth Amendment. The acts complained of herein were directed toward intimidating Plaintiffs and their members, chilling the exercise of these protected expressive rights by, among other means, deterring persons from joining with Plaintiffs in the lawful exercise of their constitutional rights.
60. Plaintiffs plan to engage in future marches and rallies in the City of Los Angeles. As a result of the policies and customs of the City complained of herein, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their First Amendment rights. Their speech and petition rights and in particular their ability effectively to convey their message to the public will be violated. People wishing to join or exit their events, including members of Plaintiff organizations, will be prevented from doing so. Plaintiffs thus face an actual and concrete threat of imminent violation of their First Amendment rights.
61. There is an actual controversy now existing between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning the official policies and customs that may be used by Defendants during political marches and rallies. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination of their rights and duties and a declaration as to Defendants' obligations during lawfully-permitted marches and rallies.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Interference with Political Marches and Rallies
For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
(Article I, §§ 2 and 3 of the California Constitution)
62. The above allegations are incorporated into the Second Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein.
63. Plaintiffs have engaged in speech, petition, and association activities protected by the Article I §§ 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, and plan to engage in such activities in the future.
64. The acts of Defendants set forth above violate Plaintiffs' clearly established rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, all rights protected by Article I §§ 2 and 3 of the California Constitution.
65. As a result of the policies and customs of the City complained of herein, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their rights under Article I §§ 2 and 3 of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs face an actual and concrete threat of imminent violation of their rights under Article I §§ 2 and 3 of the California Constitution.
66. There is an actual controversy now existing between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning the official policies and customs that may be used by Defendants during political marches and rallies. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination of their rights and duties and a declaration as to Defendants' obligations during lawfully-permitted marches and rallies.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Use of Excessive Force
For Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Damages
(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
67. The above allegations are incorporated into the Third Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein.
68. Defendants have and enforce a policy and custom of using excessive and unreasonable force against people participating in political marches and rallies, including those that have been and will be conducted by Plaintiff organizations. The excessive force used includes, but is not limited to: the firing of rubber bullets and other supposedly "non-lethal" projectiles upon those engaging in peaceful activities who pose no threat of harm, including members of Plaintiff organizations; baton strikes to the heads and upper torsos of demonstrators; and the use of horses and motorcycles to strike demonstrators.
69. The acts by Defendants set forth above violated Plaintiffs' rights to be free from excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
70. Defendants' policy and custom of using force and the threat of force to detain people from leaving marches and rallies also violates the clearly established rights of Plaintiffs and their members under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
71. As a result of the policies and customs of the City complained of herein, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They and their members will be subjected to excessive force during future demonstrations. Plaintiffs thus face an actual and concrete threat of imminent violation of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
72. There is an actual controversy now existing between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning the official policies and customs that may be used by Defendants during political marches and rallies. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination of their rights and duties and a declaration as to Defendants' obligations.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Use of Excessive Force
For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
(Article I, § 13 of California Constitution)
73. The above allegations are incorporated into the Fourth Claim for Relief as though fully set forth herein.
74. The acts by Defendants set forth above violated Plaintiffs' rights to be free from excessive force under Article I, §13 of the California Constitution.
75. Defendants' policy and custom of using force to prevent people from leaving marches and rallies also violates the clearly established rights of Plaintiffs and their members under Article I, §13 of the California Constitution .
76. As a result of the policies and customs of the City complained of herein, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their rights under Article I, §13 of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs thus face an actual and concrete threat of imminent violation of their rights under Article I, §13 of the California Constitution.
77. There is an actual controversy now existing between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning the official policies and customs that may be used by Defendants during political marches and rallies. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination of their rights and duties and a declaration as to Defendants' obligations.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs request relief as follows:
1. A preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents and employees, from interfering with Plaintiffs' speech, assembly and petition activities.
2. A preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents and employees, from using excessive and unreasonable force upon Plaintiffs and those participating in Plaintiffs' events.
3. For a declaration that Defendants' past, present and threatened future actions violate Plaintiffs' rights to free speech, assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
4. For a declaration that Defendants' past, present and threatened future actions violate Plaintiffs' rights to be free from the use of force under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
5. For compensatory damages as permitted by law and according to proof at trial.
6. For punitive damages against the individual Defendants.
7. For costs of suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
8. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and California Code of Civil Procedure §1025.1.
9. For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: August 9, 2001 Respectfully Submitted,
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
Law Offices of Carol A. Sobel
Newman.Aaronson.Vanaman
Schonbrun, Desimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: _________________________
Daniel P. Tokaji
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
Dated: August 9, 2001 Respectfully submitted
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
Law Offices of Carol A. Sobel
Newman.Aaronson.Vanaman
Schonbrun, Desimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: _________________________
Daniel P. Tokaji