1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 1 of 12

Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
_____________________________________
JOSHUA BRENNAN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-10119

Hon.

vs.

DEPUTY JAMES DAWSON, individually and in his official capacity; and

SHERIFF JOHN WILSON, in his official capacity; and
CLARE COUNTY;
jointly and severally.
__________________________________________________________________/
Joshua A. Blanchard (P72601)
D. Todd Diederich (P57429)
MIEL & CARR, PLC
Law Offices of D. Todd Diederich PC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorney for Plaintiff
309 S Lafayette St., Ste 208
PO Box 727
PO Box 938
Harrison, MI 48625
Greenville, MI 48838
989-630-0408
989-831-5208 / fax: 989-831-8854
todd@todddiederich.com
josh@mielcarr.com
__________________________________________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Joshua Brennan, by and through counsel and
for his complaint against Defendants, jointly and severally, states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is a civil action seeking damages against defendants for
committing acts under color of law, and depriving plaintiff of rights
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
1

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 2 of 12

Pg ID 2

2. At all relevant times, Defendant James Clayton Dawson was acting in

his capacity as a duly appointed deputy sheriff for the Clare County
Sheriff, John Wilson, in the County of Clare, State of Michigan.
3. At all relevant times, Defendants were acting within the scope of their
respective employment under color of law, cloaked with the authority
which was granted to them.
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Dawson was an employee of Clare
County.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant John Wilson was the duly elected
sheriff of Clare County.
6. Defendant Clare County is a county organized under the laws of the
State of Michigan.
7. This cause of action arose in the County of Clare, State of Michigan.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
8. The Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and
under 28 U.S.C. 1343.
9. The jurisdiction of this Court is further invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331.
10.Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Michigan and a citizen
of the Unites States.
11.At all times material to this Complaint, these defendants acted toward
plaintiff under color of the statutes, ordinances, customs and usage of
the State of Michigan and County of Clare.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
12.While acting in their various capacities, the defendants deprived
plaintiff of his liberty without due process of law, used excessive
force toward plaintiff, made an unreasonable search and seizure of the
property and person of plaintiff and deprived plaintiff of his property
without due process of law, thereby depriving plaintiff of his rights,
privileges and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
2

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 3 of 12

Pg ID 3

13.The location commonly known as 2184 Oakridge Dr, Farwell,

Michigan is located in Clare County, within the jurisdiction of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
14.During the evening hours of February 21, 2015, Plaintiff was lawfully
present in his residence located at 2184 Oakridge Dr., Farwell,
Michigan (hereinafter, Plaintiffs Residence).
15.On February 21, 2015, Plaintiff was on misdemeanor probation to the
Hon. Joshua M. Farrell in the 80th District Court.
16.Defendant Dawson traveled to Plaintiffs Residence on February 21,
2015 to check on Plaintiff because Plaintiff was on misdemeanor
probation.
17.Defendant Dawson made personal contact with Plaintiff on February
21, 2015.
18.Upon information and belief, Defendant Dawson did not review a
copy of Plaintiffs probation order before making personal contact
with Plaintiff on February 21, 2015.
19.If Defendant Dawson did review a copy of Plaintiffs probation order
before making personal contact with Plaintiff, he recklessly
disregarded the contents thereof.
20.Defendant Dawson claimed in his police report that Plaintiff was
subject, as a condition of his probation, to P[reliminary ]B[reath
]T[est] on request of a police officer.
21.Plaintiff was not subject to Preliminary Breath Tests (PBT) on
request of police as a condition of his probation.
22.A reasonable officer who reviewed Plaintiffs probation order would
have known that Plaintiff was not subject to PBTs at the demand of
Defendant.
23.Defendant Dawson first approached Plaintiffs Residence.
24.As he approached, Defendant Dawson noticed several surveillance
cameras on Plaintiffs house.

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 4 of 12

Pg ID 4

25.Defendant Dawson repositioned the surveillance camera so that it

pointed directly at a wall on the building.
26.Defendant Dawson then further disabled the surveillance camera.
27.Defendant Dawson wrapped the surveillance camera in police tape of
the type normally strung around crime scenes.
28.Wrapping the camera with police tape prevented the camera from
recording video of any interactions outside.
29.Defendant Dawson did not have permission to wrap the camera in
police tape.
30.Defendant Dawson did not have permission to reposition the camera
so as to prevent it from recording.
31.Defendant Dawson knocked on the doors to Plaintiffs Residence.
32.Defendant Dawson received no response after knocking.
33.Defendant Dawson next walked around Plaintiffs Residence and
knocked on multiple windows.
34.Defendant still received no response from inside the house.
35.Defendant Dawsons patrol car was parked in Plaintiffs driveway.
36.Defendant Dawson went back to his patrol car and activated the
emergency lights and sirens.
37.There was no emergency at the time that Defendant Dawson activated
his emergency lights and sirens.
38.Defendant Dawson noticed that upon activating his lights and sirens,
lights came on at a house three doors down from Plaintiff.
39.Defendant Dawson again knocked on the windows and doors of the
house.
40.Defendant Dawson later went into the back yard of the house and
called Plaintiff on the telephone.

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 5 of 12

Pg ID 5

41.Defendant Dawson did not have permission to be in the back yard of

the house.
42.Defendant Dawson did not have a warrant exception to trespass into
the back yard of the house.
43.Defendant Dawson returned to the front of the house where he made
contact with Plaintiff.
44.Plaintiff explained that he was ill and thats why he had not
immediately answered the door.
45.Defendant Dawson demanded that Plaintiff submit to a Preliminary
Breath Test (PBT).
46.Plaintiff submitted to the PBT.
47.Plaintiffs PBT was negative for alcohol, having a result of .000
grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
48.After Plaintiff submitted to a PBT, Defendant Dawson arrested
Plaintiff for refusing to submit to a PBT.
49.Plaintiff was placed into handcuffs by Defendant Dawson.
50.Plaintiff was transported to the Clare County Jail by Defendant
Dawson.
51.Defendant Dawson alleged to the 80th District Court that Plaintiff was
in violation of the terms of his probation.
52.Plaintiff remained in the Clare County Jail until his arraignment.
53.Plaintiff was arraigned by Magistrate Karen Willing in the 80th
District Court on February 24, 2015.
54.After being arraigned, the Magistrate dismissed the probation
violation allegation that had been lodged by Defendant Dawson and
ordered Plaintiff released from the jail.
55.The Defendants are a proximate cause of Plaintiffs incarceration in
the Clare County Jail for four days.

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 6 of 12

Pg ID 6

56.Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to, pain and
suffering relating to being arrested, embarrassment, damage to
property, and loss of liberty as a result of the Defendants unlawful
conduct.
57.Plaintiff sues defendant Dawson in his individual and official
capacities.
58.Defendant John Wilson has an obligation to adequately train his
deputy sheriffs so as to avoid a policy, custom, or practice of violating
the rights of citizens.
59.Defendant Clare County has an obligation to adequately train its
deputy sheriffs so as to avoid a policy, custom, or practice of violating
the rights of citizens.
60.Clare County has failed to adequately train Defendant Dawson
regarding the Fourth Amendment.
61.Defendant Wilson has failed to adequately train Defendant Dawson.
62.A reasonable officer with adequate training would have known that
the actions of Defendant Dawson complained of herein would violate
the rights of Plaintiff.
COUNT I FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION (CURTILAGE)
63.Plaintiff alleges and realleges the preceding paragraphs with the same
force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
64.Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights include the right to be
secure in his home from unreasonable searches and seizures as
provided for by the Fourth Amendment, made actionable by 42 U.S.C.
1983.
65.Defendant Dawsons trespass onto the curtilage and looking into the
windows without the benefit of a search warrant or a valid exception
to the warrant requirement was a violation of Plaintiffs rights.
66.Reasonable police officers should have known of these rights, and
therefore, Defendants are not cloaked with qualified immunity.

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 7 of 12

Pg ID 7

67.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff

suffered a loss of his liberty, suffered humiliation, and other damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter Judgment against
Defendants, jointly and severally, in whatever amount is fair, just, and equitable
for the injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, so wrongfully sustained
by Plaintiff together with interest, costs, and attorney fees under 42 USC 1988.
COUNT II FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION (PBT)
68.Plaintiff alleges and realleges the preceding paragraphs with the same
force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
69.Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights include the right to be
secure in his person from unreasonable searches and seizures as
provided for by the Fourth Amendment, made actionable by 42 U.S.C.
1983.
70.A Preliminary Breath Test is a search for 4th Amendment purposes.
71.A Preliminary Breath Test is a search of a person for alcohol.
72.Defendant Dawsons search of Plaintiff for alcohol without the benefit
of a search warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement
was a violation of Plaintiffs rights.
73.Reasonable police officers should have known of these rights, and
therefore, Defendants are not cloaked with qualified immunity.
74.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff
suffered a loss of his liberty, suffered humiliation, and other damages
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter Judgment against
Defendants, jointly and severally, in whatever amount is fair, just, and equitable

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 8 of 12

Pg ID 8

for the injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, so wrongfully sustained
by Plaintiff together with interest, costs, and attorney fees under 42 USC 1988.
COUNT III FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION (FALSE
IMPRISONMENT)
75.Plaintiff alleges and realleges the preceding paragraphs with the same
force and effect as if fully set forth herein
76.Plaintiffs constitutionally protected rights include the right to be
secure in his home and person from unreasonable searches and
seizures as provided for by the Fourth Amendment, made actionable
by 42 U.S.C. 1983.
77.Defendant Dawson arrested Plaintiff without probable cause to
believe he had committed a crime or had violated his probation.
78.Defendant Dawson was without lawful authority to detain Plaintiff.
79.Defendant detained Plaintiff without cause.
80.The seizure of Plaintiff by Defendants was a violation of Plaintiffs
rights.
81.Reasonable police officers should have known of these rights, and
therefore, Defendants are not cloaked with qualified immunity.
82.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff
suffered a loss of his liberty, suffered humiliation, and other damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter Judgment against
Defendants, jointly and severally, in whatever amount is fair, just, and equitable
for the injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, so wrongfully sustained
by Plaintiff together with interest, costs, and attorney fees under 42 USC 1988.

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 9 of 12

Pg ID 9

COUNT IV SUPERVISORY LIABILITY / FAILURE TO TRAIN

83.

Plaintiff alleges and realleges the preceding paragraphs with the

same force and effect as if fully set forth herein

84.

Defendant Wilson, as the duly elected Clare County Sheriff,

and Defendant Clare County (hereinafter Supervisory
Defendants) have failed to adequately train Defendant Dawson
regarding the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

85.

The Supervisory Defendants have been deliberately indifferent

to the need to adequately train Defendant Dawson.

86.

The failure by Supervisory Defendant can fairly be said to

represent a policy for which they are liable for the resulting
harm to Plaintiff.

87.

Supervisory Defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable

diligence should have known that the conduct of the Defendant
Dawson was likely to occur in the absence of proper training.

88.

The Supervisory Defendants failed to take any effective

preventative or remedial measures to guard against the conduct
of Defendant Dawson more fully set forth and described herein.

89.

Had the Supervisory Defendants taken such measures, Plaintiff

would not have suffered the deprivation of his rights fully set
forth herein. The failure of the Supervisory Defendants
amounted to deliberate indifference, or deliberate misconduct,
which directly caused the deprivations suffered by Plaintiff.

90.

Supervisory Defendants failed to train, instruct, supervise, and

discipline the Defendant officers, and said failure caused
Plaintiff's damages

91.

Supervisory Defendants either knew or should have known of

the widespread and pervasive policy of their employees to
engage in unlawful searches and seizures.

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 10 of 12

Pg ID 10

92.

Supervisory Defendants either knew of should have known that

the other Defendants were likely to engage in conspiratorial
wrongs against Plaintiff and Supervisory Defendants had the
power to prevent or to aid in preventing the commission of
those wrongs, but neglected to do so. These wrongful acts were
described in Counts I, II, III, and V and these wrongful acts
could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable
diligence by Supervisory Defendants.

93.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforedescribed unlawful

and malicious acts of Supervisory Defendants, Plaintiff was
deprived of his right to be secure in his home and person,
against unlawful and unreasonable seizure of his person, right
to be free from the use of excessive force by the Government
against his person, to equal protection of the laws, and to Due
Process of Law, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42
U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1986.

94.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions,

Plaintiff suffered a loss of his liberty, experienced physical pain
and suffering, suffered humiliation, and other damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter Judgment against

Defendants, jointly and severally, in whatever amount is fair, just, and equitable
for the injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, so wrongfully sustained
by Plaintiff together with interest, costs, and attorney fees under 42 USC 1988.
COUNT V FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION (PROSECUTION
WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE)
95.

Plaintiff alleges and realleges the preceding paragraphs with the

same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

10

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 11 of 12

96.

Pg ID 11

Defendant Dawson intentionally and maliciously instituted

criminal probation violation charges against Plaintiff without
probable cause, by providing misleading information and/or by
omitting relevant and material information to the 80th District
Court.

97.

The probation violation proceeding was dismissed, resulting in

termination of the charge in Plaintiffs favor.

98.

Defendant Dawson acted maliciously and with reckless

disregard of the law and the legal rights of Plaintiff in causing
criminal probation violation charges to be instituted against
Plaintiff.

99.

Plaintiff was unreasonably and wrongfully subjected to

embarrassment, humiliation, fear, arrest and detention against
his will, criminal probation violation charges, and pain and
suffering by the illegal acts of Defendant Dawson.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter Judgment against

Defendants, jointly and severally, in whatever amount is fair, just, and equitable
for the injuries and damages, compensatory and punitive, so wrongfully sustained
by Plaintiff together with interest, costs, and attorney fees under 42 USC 1988.

11

1:16-cv-10119-TLL-PTM Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/16 Pg 12 of 12

Pg ID 12

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joshua A. Blanchard
______________________________
Joshua Blanchard (P72601)
MIEL & CARR, PLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
309 S. Lafayette St., Ste 208
PO Box 938
Greenville, MI 48838
(989) 831-5208
(989) 831-8854 (fax)
josh@mielcarr.com

Dated: January 13, 2016

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff requests a jury for all issues so triable in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joshua A. Blanchard
____________________________
Joshua Blanchard (P72601)
MIEL & CARR, PLC
309 S. Lafayette St., Ste 208
PO Box 938
Greenville, MI 48838
(989) 831-5208
(989) 831-8854 (fax)
josh@mielcarr.com

Dated: January 13, 2016

D. Todd Diederich (P57429)

Law Office of D. Todd Diederich, PC
PO Box 727
Harrison, MI 48625
(989) 630-0408
todd@todddiederich.com

12