Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI
LARMORE MACLIN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS,
Serve: Mayor Francis Slay
1200 Market Street
St. Louis, Missouri, 63103,
JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICER I
Serve: Hold Service
Defendants.
force arising from an incident whereby City of St. Louis Police Officers approached Plaintiff
while Plaintiff was lawfully walking on Washington Avenue and intentionally searched his
genitalia using violent force, causing physical injury to Plaintiff.
2.
Plaintiff Larmore Maclin is an individual over the age of 18, and currently and at
4.
Defendant City of St. Louis operates and controls a police department, commonly
1522-CC10129
Defendant John Doe Police Officer I is one of two officers involved in the
Venue is proper in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis because all acts
On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff presented to the IMOs Pizza located at 1828
Washington Avenue.
8.
Officer Matthew Burle and Officer Marco Moreno-Christlieb, of the St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department, were in IMOs at the time Plaintiff entered the restaurant.
9.
Plaintiff was not arrested and eventually was allowed to leave the scene.
11.
Officers Burle and Moreno-Christlieb are officers in the 304 4th District.
12.
with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department pertaining to the April 10, 2015 incident.
13.
1:00 a.m.
14.
15.
16.
Suddenly, Plaintiff was approached by a police vehicle with two officers inside
the vehicle.
17.
18.
5.
While searching Plaintiff, this officer, John Doe Police Officer I, intentionally and
During this encounter the officers were also verbally abusive towards Plaintiff.
21.
Plaintiff was not arrested, and eventually was allowed to leave the scene.
22.
The Department refused to identify the names of the officers involved; however,
the Report form indicates that the officers were part of the 304 4th District, the same unit as
Officers Burle and Moreno-Christlieb.
Count I Excessive Force/Battery (Plaintiff v. John Doe Police Officer I)
24.
Defendants use of force on May 12, 2015, was excessive because it was not
reasonably necessary, for the following reasons, including but not limited to:
a. Plaintiff was not posing any threat to public safety or to the safety of
Defendant because he was lawfully walking on Washington Avenue when he
was approached by Defendant;
b. Plaintiff did not pose a threat to public safety or to the safety of Defendant
because Defendant had no reason to suspect Plaintiff had committed a crime
involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm when
he assaulted him; and
19.
because Plaintiff was unarmed and did not have any weapon in his possession
when he was assaulted by Defendant.
26.
harm and personal injuries, as well as pain and suffering and emotional distress, and will
continue to endure pain and suffering into the future.
27.
The acts of Defendant were intentional, done with malice, and in reckless or
conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff so as to entitle Plaintiff to an award of punitive
damages against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court enter its Judgment against Defendant for
such sums that are fair and reasonable and in excess of $25,000, and for punitive damages in
such sums that are fair and reasonable, for costs expended herein, and for other such relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Count II Negligent Training and Supervision
(Plaintiff v. City of St. Louis)
28.
Defendant John Doe Police Officer was at all times relevant acting as an
employee\agent under the direction and control, and pursuant to the policies, practices, and
customs of Defendant City of St. Louis.
30.
and with deliberate indifference to the safety of Plaintiff and others by failing to properly train,
supervise, control, direct, monitor, and/or discipline its officers, including John Doe Police
Officer I.
4
c. Plaintiff did not pose a threat to public safety or to the safety of Defendant
Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to adequately supervise and train
its officers, including John Doe Police Officer I, with respect to avoiding using excessive force,
the proper use of force, and other proper methods of use of force and investigation.
32.
suffered severe bodily harm and personal injuries, as well as pain and suffering and emotional
distress, and will continue to endure pain and suffering into the future.
33.
The acts of Defendant were intentional, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and
Respectfully submitted,
PONDER ZIMMERMANN LLC
By
31.