AMENDED COMPLAINT For Violation of Civil Rights (Under 42 U.S.C. §1983) For Monetary and Injunctive Relief

IN THE XXXX DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF XXXX EASTERN DIVISION

XXXX

XXXX

Page 1 of 35

XXXXX

Page 2 of 35

XXXXX

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, along with pendent state law claims for unlawful discrimination, abuse of process, and additional claims as set forth herein. The Plaintiff articulates that the conduct by the defendants detailed herein constitutes direct and egregious infringement and violation of Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed and protected under the federal Constitution, specifically, Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. These violations arose from the Defendants’ unlawful actions on XXXX, during a traffic stop, and also the Defendant’s malicious prosecution of Plaintiff, which culminated on XXXX, the date Plaintiff prevailed in the proceedings over the false citation that the Defendants pursued against the

Plaintiff.

Considering the Defendant’s violations, the Plaintiff seeks redress and remedial action as permissible under both federal and state laws. The relief sought encompasses both compensatory and punitive damages, along with any other remedies that the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. The Plaintiff urges the Court to recognize the gravity of these violations and to grant relief that effectively addresses the infringement of his constitutionally and statutorily protected rights.

This action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and legal fees.

Page 3 of 35

AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil-rights action for violations of the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (including violations of the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution), with pendent claims for violations of Ohio law. Ohio state-law claims including false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and statutory civil liability for criminal acts that include interference with civil and statutory rights, intimidation, and tampering with records.
2. On January 3, 2021, Plaintiff, a resident of Berea, Ohio, was subjected to unlawful actions by agents of the City of Brooklyn, Ohio. While Plaintiff was driving his personal vehicle, he was followed and subsequently stopped by Officer Tony Aftim without any legal justification at the Sheetz Gas Station in Brooklyn, Ohio. Officer Aftim unlawfully constructively detained Plaintiff in his squad car. and conducted an illegal search of Plaintiff’s person and his vehicle, including searching through Plaintiff’s personal belongings, all without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. This search and seizure violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.
3. Aftim requested backup from other Brooklyn police officers Pitts, and Spisak to assist him in a failed attempt to criminalize and humiliate Plaintiff further with a false allegation of possession of illegal drugs.
4. When Aftim’s false allegation was discovered by Pitts and Spisak, they informed Aftim that the substance in which he was further investigation incorrectly to classify as PCP was not from video footage evidence and Pitts and Spisak failed to intervene Aftim.
5. After their internet research of the brown bottle, Pitts and Spisak informed Aftim that the brown bottle does not contain any illegal substance, but rather is commonly sold and recognized for use to members in the LGBTQ community.

Page 4 of 35

6. Pitts, and Spisak failed to intervene with Aftim and stop him from proceeding to further investigate Plaintiff, even after they discovered at their first look at the substance contained in the brown bottle that it was not PCP. Aftim returned back to the vehicle, obviously upset and disappointed at his failed attempt to criminalize Plaintiff; but, he was still determined to question Plaintiff further. Aftim additionally defamed and humiliated Plaintiff further with false accusations and assertions of misuse of the over-the-counter product that was Waseleski’s personal property, which could be utilized as an inhalant during recreational sex or during intimacy.
7. Furthermore, Plaintiff was subjected to harassment and discrimination due to his use of personal protective equipment and his non-conforming gender identity and sexual orientation. Despite filing complaints with various agencies, including the City of Brooklyn Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, Plaintiff faced delays in obtaining critical evidence, such as body cam footage. These delays hindered Plaintiff’s ability to timely file his initial complaint in this case, which was ultimately filed on March 16, 2023. Equitable tolling should apply, not starting the statute of limitations running until from March 25, 2021, when Plaintiff obtained the necessary information to proceed with his lawsuit.
8. The actions of the Defendants, including: Officer Aftim’s unwarranted stop, search and seizure; Chief Scott Mielke’s failure to properly supervise his officers; and Prosecutor James J. McDonnell’s lack of accountability, constitute violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and related state laws. This Amended Complaint seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for their unlawful conduct and seeks appropriate relief and compensation for the harm suffered by Plaintiff.
9. Plaintiff is seeking to recover attorney fees he paid for the trial attorney at that time for defending the criminal case brought by the defendants on August 23, 2021 before the Parma Municipal Court, citation #TR20550, TURNING AT INTERSECTION and thereto Case

Page 5 of 35

#21TRD01288, that incurred attorney fees, lost wages, economic, and non-economic damages associated with this lawsuit.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Philip M. Waseleski is a person of sound mind, aged 42, who resides at 24 Seminary Street, Unit #195, Berea, Ohio 44017.
11. Defendant, City of Brooklyn, is a duly incorporated city of the State of Ohio, located in Cuyahoga County, and within the jurisdiction of this Court. The City of Brooklyn is a “person” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12. At all relevant times, Defendant, Scott Mielke (“Mielke”) was an employee of the City of Brooklyn Police Department, serving as the Chief of Police, and is named in both his individual and official capacities.
13. At all relevant times, Defendant, Patrolman Tony Aftim (“Aftim”) was an employee of the City of Brooklyn Police Department, serving as a law enforcement officer, and is named in both his individual and official capacities.
14. At all relevant times, Defendant, Patrolman Kyle Pitts (“Pitts”) was an employee of the City of Brooklyn Police Department, serving as a law enforcement officer, and is named in both his individual and official capacities.
15. At all relevant times, Defendant, Patrolman XXXX”) was an employee of the City of XXXX Police Department, serving as a law enforcement officer, and is named in both his individual and official capacities.
16. At all relevant times, Defendant, James J. McDonnell (“McDonnell”) is named in both his individual and official capacities as the prosecutor for the City of Brooklyn, Ohio.
17. Defendants, Unknown Jane and John Does (“Defendants, Jane Doe(s)” and “John Doe(s)”), are persons or entities, presently unidentified, who are alleged to have partaken in the

Page 6 of 35

infringement of the Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights. They are implicated herein in both their individual and official capacities, and Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to specifically name said Defendants upon ascertainment of their identities and addresses.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, as this action seeks redress for violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights. Specifically, this Court has jurisdiction over claims arising under the United States Constitution, including alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, which provides a cause of action for individuals whose federal rights have been violated by state actors.
19. This Honorable Court possesses jurisdiction over the federal civil rights claims brought forth in this action under the auspices of 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(3), which confer federal question jurisdiction and jurisdiction over civil rights actions, respectively.
20. Plaintiff herein seeks redress pursuant to the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, codified at 42 U.S.C. §1983. The relief sought encompasses compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and legal fees, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988.
21. The state law claims asserted by Plaintiff are intrinsically linked to the Federal claims presented and form part of the same case or controversy. Consequently, this Court is vested with supplemental jurisdiction over said state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this District. The alleged unlawful conduct, including the traffic stop, search, and subsequent interactions, all took place within the jurisdiction of this District. Therefore, venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division.
    Page 7 of 35

22. The acts and omissions underpinning the Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the City of Brooklyn, Ohio. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. §1391, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, is the proper venue for the adjudication of this matter.
23. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been duly performed, have occurred, or have been waived, thereby fulfilling all requisite procedural formalities for the maintenance of this action. FACTS
24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior allegations set forth in this Complaint. On January 3, 2021, Plaintiff Philip M. Waseleski was driving to his residence in Berea, Ohio, after running errands in the vicinity. Upon reaching the Sheetz Gas Station located in Brooklyn, Ohio, Plaintiff stopped to refuel his vehicle. Plaintiff, who was abiding by the law and conducting himself appropriately on public roads, was subsequently stopped by Officer Aftim at the Sheetz Gas Station, located at 10315 Cascade Crossing, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144.
25. While at the gas station, Plaintiff was approached by Officer Tony Aftim of the Brooklyn Police Department, who initiated a traffic stop without any legal justification or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing on Plaintiff’s part.
26. Officer Aftim, without explaining the reason for the stop, demanded that Plaintiff exit his vehicle and subjected him to a search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This search encompassed both Plaintiff’s person and his vehicle, constituting an unwarranted intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff, adhering to the law and maintaining a cooperative demeanor, complied with the officer’s request. At this time, it is crucial to note that the Plaintiff was not impaired nor under the influence of any substances. Nonetheless, in the absence of any legal warrant or

Page 8 of 35

probable cause, Officer Aftim commenced an unlawful search and seizure of the Plaintiff’s

personal belongings.

27. Feeling intimidated and under duress, Plaintiff complied with Officer Aftim’s commands, fearing further escalation or adverse consequences if he refused to cooperate.
28. The actions of Defendant, Aftim, during this encounter included the unwarranted search of Plaintiff’s vehicle and personal effects, including his cell phone, wallet, automobile keys, and personal protective equipment (PPE). Despite Plaintiff’s compliance with all of Defendant, Aftim’s, directives and responses to his inquiries, Defendant Aftim proceeded to falsely identify a small brown bottle of oil in Plaintiff’s possession as an illegal substance, namely “PCP,” without any valid justification or proof, such as odor or other indicators typically associated with illegal drugs.
29. Plaintiff informed Defendant that the item was not an illegal drug and was, in fact, a personal belonging. Despite the Plaintiff’s contestation of the search of his vehicle, Defendant persisted in his unlawful actions, which did not fall under any lawful exceptions for searches. This conduct by Defendant, Aftim, led to Plaintiff being placed in the back of a squad car, an act constituting illegal detainment and constructively a false arrest.
30. Aftim requested backup of other Brooklyn police officers Pitts, and Spisak to assist him in a failed attempt to criminalize and humiliate Waseleski further with an illegal crime of drugs possession.
31. Later discovered by Pitts, and Spisak informed Aftim that the substance in which he was further investigation incorrectly to classify as PCP was not from video footage evidence and should have not allowed Aftim to process any further.
32. Pitts, and Spisak informed Aftim that the brown bottle is sold and recognized of use to members in the LGBTQ community after their internet research of the brown bottle.
33. Pitts, and Spisak failed to intervene with Aftim as they appeared to discover at the first look of substance contained in the brown bottle was not PCP. Aftim returned back to the vehicle Page 9 of 35

with upset and disappointment at his failed attempt to criminalize Waseleski but was still determined to question Waseleski. Even further now with defaming and humiliating him further with false accusations or assertions of misuse of over-the-counter product Waseleski’s personal property in which was a legal product.

34. Aftim questioned that Waseleski had a small brown bottle of oil that was in his jean pocket in which he declared automatically to be PCP without any justification, nor proof of the matter (no odor, or other description of illegal drugs or him physically misuse it as an inhalant).
35. Aftim unlawfully profiling of Waseleski who is perceived as part of the LGBTQ community, an openly gay male and is depicted as non-conforming straight male was one of the motivating factors for Aftim’s discriminatory behavior that night.
36. Throughout the encounter, Plaintiff expressed his discomfort and protested against the unwarranted intrusion into his privacy and his rights as a citizen. However, Officer Aftim disregarded Plaintiff’s objections and continued to assert his authority without justification.
37. Officer Aftim’s actions were motivated by bias and prejudice, as evidenced by his hostile demeanor and derogatory remarks towards Plaintiff’s gender identity and use of personal protective equipment, which Plaintiff wore due to health concerns.
38. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for clarification and justification for the detention at the scene, Officer Aftim failed to provide any legitimate reasons for his actions and instead relied on intimidation tactics to maintain control over the situation.
39. Defendant issued a citation #TR20550 in bad faith for TURNING AT INTERSECTION and used a pretext in order to cover up for Aftim, Pitts, and Spisak ‘s conduct against Plaintiff on the incident that took place on 1/03/2021.
40. Despite finding no contraband or evidence of illegal activity during the search, Officer Aftim persisted in detaining Plaintiff and interrogating him about his personal affairs, including his reasons for being at the gas station and his intended destination.

Page 10 of 35

41. Plaintiff questioned why he was unlawfully detained and Aftim began to read him the Miranda Rights. Plaintiff asked to know what he was being arrested for. Aftim refused to answer with reasons for the unlawful arrest. Instead, Aftim issued citation #TR20550, obviously in bad faith to cover up for the police misconduct and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s First Amendment speech expressions and his request for counsel, denying him that right, in violation of Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment rights. Aftim continued to ask Plaintiff a line of questions to coerce him to falsely incriminate himself regarding misuse of drugs or inhalants, misconduct in which Plaintiff never engaged. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is distinct from Fifth Amendment rights and Aftim continued interrogating Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s assertion of his right to counsel.
42. Defendant’s conduct was bereft of reasonable suspicion or any legitimate basis that would warrant further investigation of Plaintiff. The line of questioning pursued by Defendant was not only inappropriate but also served to intimidate and harass Plaintiff, clearly infringing upon his constitutional rights as protected under Ohio laws.
43. This civil rights action seeks redress for the emotional distress inflicted upon the Plaintiff, arising from the violations of his various rights under the United States Constitution and state law, in connection with the incident on January 3, 2021 and August 23, 2021. Officer Aftim’s engagement with Plaintiff was marked by bias and discriminatory motivation, particularly due to Plaintiff’s use of personal protective equipment and his non-conforming gender identity and sexual orientation.
44. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Chief of Police Mielke of the Brooklyn Police Department (BPD) via email communications and filed a complaint against Aftim with the City of Brooklyn Police Department, using a Citizen’s Complaint form. Plaintiff pursued several avenues for redress. Plaintiff filed complaints of discrimination and violations of his Constitutional Rights and received no response back about the concerns he had. The citation issued by Aftim was blatantly pretextual in order to cover up for the police Page 11 of 35

misconduct and violations of Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. The citation issued by Aftim was another way to silence him and intimidate him to not exercise his right to Free Speech, and retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment Rights and other constitutional rights expressed.

45. On January 26, 2021, Waseleski appeared before Brooklyn Mayor’s Court to contest the citation Aftim had issued in bad faith. Plaintiff protested the disparate treatment and the many violations of his Constitutional Rights.
46. Defendant McDonnell, the Prosecutor for the City of Brooklyn, was present and refused to address his concerns and complaints concerning Aftim and the erroneous citations. Plaintiff attempted to resolve matters there but was unsuccessful due to McDonnell. Vince Ruffa, city prosecutor for Broadview Heights who was present at that time issued an “apology” to Plaintiff for the other Defendants’ behavior and the Court for its failure to remedy the violations of the Due Process Clause. Plaintiff entered a NOT GUILTY plea and the case was transferred to Parma Municipal Court for further trial and resolution.
47. Even at the outset of Plaintiff’s criminal case, the prosecutor made every attempt to deprive Plaintiff of a fair trial. Plaintiff’s council filed a timely motion for discovery.
48. Although Plaintiff’s counsel at that time made several requests for discovery from the City of XXXX and XXXX, all of his legitimate requests were ignored. Even at the outset of XXXX criminal case, the prosecutor made every attempt to deprive Plaintiff of a fair trial.
49. Plaintiff had to hire additional outside council at XXXX, LLP, 1650 Lake Shore Drive, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43204 to request public records concerning citation from 1/03/2021 against XXXX #TR20550 TURNING AT INTERSECTION violation and pursuant to ORC Section 149.43, public records including police reports, citations, dash cam videos, body cam video, and any surveillance videos that the Department may have obtained.

Page 12 of 35

50. Defendant McDonnell continued to refuse to turn over discovery to Waseleski and his trial council, which refusals amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant McDonnell knowingly could not secure a conviction of Waseleski, but, nevertheless, maliciously prosecuted Waseleski due to his complaints against McDonnell, Aftim, and the City of Brooklyn.
51. The prosecutor withheld exculpatory information from Plaintiff to cause the criminal case to be delayed and to conceal the many civil rights violations by Defendants.

52. On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff prevailed in the Parma Municipal Court against Defendants and obtained a dismissal of the false citation issued by Aftim.

53. Throughout the encounter, Plaintiff expressed his discomfort and protested against the unwarranted intrusion into his privacy and his rights as a citizen. However, Officer Aftim disregarded Plaintiff’s objections and continued to assert his authority without justification.
54. Officer Aftim’s actions were motivated by bias and prejudice, as evidenced by his hostile demeanor and derogatory remarks towards Plaintiff’s gender identity and use of personal protective equipment, which Plaintiff wore due to health concerns.
55. The unlawful search and detention endured by Plaintiff lasted for an unreasonable amount of time, far exceeding what is necessary for a routine traffic stop, and caused Plaintiff significant distress, humiliation, and emotional trauma.
56. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff continues to suffer from severe emotional distress and mental anguish, which have had a detrimental impact on his daily life, his ability to work, and his overall well-being.
57. Furthermore, on June 14, 2021, the Plaintiff lodged a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, which was duly acknowledged and is currently under investigation (Report #79515-GRJ).

Page 13 of 35

58. Plaintiff also reported the incident to his local FBI office and filed grievances against the Prosecutor, James J. McDonnell, with The Office of Disciplinary Counsel and with the American Bar Association Grievance Committee.
59. The filing of this lawsuit was delayed due to Defendants’ refusal to release public records and body cam videos, which were pivotal in demonstrating to Plaintiff that he had a valid cause of action. It is contended that equitable tolling applies in this matter, and the time frame for filing this lawsuit did not commence until March 25, 2021, the date on which Plaintiff became aware of the basis of the injury forming the cause of action. Consequently, March 25, 2021, is established as the triggering date for the filing of this lawsuit.
60. A key element of any lawsuit of this nature is the identification and examination of the customs and policies that led to the incident giving rise to this litigation. Without access to the requested public records, including body cam videos, this lawsuit could not have proceeded, and any delay in its filing is not attributable to the Plaintiff.
61. The prosecutor has withheld exculpatory information from Plaintiff in order to delay the criminal case and to conceal the many civil rights violations of Defendants.
62. As a direct result of the Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff continues to suffer from severe emotional distress and mental anguish, which have had an overall detrimental impact on his daily life, his ability to work, and his overall well-being.
63. Plaintiff Philip M. Waseleski was 42 years old at the time of the incident giving rise to this Complaint. He has lived in Berea for over 15 years. He is college educated with two advanced degrees and has received high honors and awards, most recently graduating from college while working very hard maintaining full-time work; he was never on unemployment, and even has worked two jobs at times.

Page 14 of 35

CLAIM 1

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Under Ohio Common Law and
Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 2307.60, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against all the Defendants)

64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through above.
65. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants, acting individually and collectively, engaged in conduct that constituted negligent infliction of severe emotional distress upon Plaintiff. This claim is grounded in Ohio common law principles, which recognize the duty of individuals and entities to refrain from conduct that is likely to cause severe emotional distress to others. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 2307.60: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress
    This section of the Ohio Revised Code recognizes the right of individuals to seek redress for emotional distress caused by the negligent actions of others. It establishes the legal framework for pursuing claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress in Ohio courts.
66. The actions of Defendants were egregious, falling far below the standard of care expected in a civilized society founded upon principles of justice and dignity. By unlawfully detaining Plaintiff, conducting an invasive search without probable cause, and subjecting Plaintiff to harassment and discrimination based upon his gender identity and use of personal protective equipment, Defendants engaged in conduct that was utterly intolerable and shocking to the conscience. See Paugh v. Hanks, 8 Ohio St. 3d 72 (1983)1
67. There exists a direct causal link between Defendants’ reprehensible conduct and the profound emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has endured significant psychological harm, requiring professional intervention for conditions such as post- traumatic stress disorder, acute emotional distress, and major depressive disorder. Such extensive psychological trauma serves as compelling evidence of the severity of the

1 Paugh v. Hanks, 8 Ohio St. 3d 72 (1983) This landmark case established the elements necessary to prove a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress under Ohio law. It emphasized the requirement for extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant, which results in severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.

Page 15 of 35

emotional distress inflicted upon Plaintiff by Defendants’ actions. See Yeager v. Local

Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St. 3d 369 (1983)2

68. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages commensurate with the gravity of the emotional distress suffered. Furthermore, Plaintiff requests any other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances.
69. This claim is brought pursuant to Ohio common law, which recognizes the right of individuals to seek redress for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ohio courts have consistently held that individuals who engage in conduct that is extreme and outrageous, and that causes severe emotional distress to another, may be held liable for such harm. See Welling v. Weinfeld, 27 Ohio App. 3d 19 (1985)3
70. Plaintiff relies upon the precedent established by these and other relevant cases to support the assertion of this claim. Furthermore, Plaintiff reserves the right to introduce additional legal authorities and case law as may be necessary to fully and effectively prosecute this claim. CLAIM 2

Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C. §1983 – Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process in Ohio State Law
(Against all the Defendants)

71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs above.
72. Defendants, in their capacities as agents of both the City of Brooklyn and the prosecutorial office of the state, are alleged to have transgressed Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by

2 Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St. 3d 369 (1983) In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the principles set forth in Paugh v. Hanks and further clarified the standard for determining liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress. It underscored the importance of demonstrating a direct causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s emotional distress.

3 Welling v. Weinfeld, 27 Ohio App. 3d 19 (1985) This case addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff must be in the “zone of danger” to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. It provides insights into the scope of liability and the requirements for establishing a claim under Ohio law.

Page 16 of 35

instigating a criminal prosecution devoid of probable cause and infused with malicious intent. Such actions amount to a reprehensible abuse of process, constituting a flagrant violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional safeguards.

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It ensures that warrants for searches and arrests are issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized. In essence, it safeguards individuals’ privacy and prevents arbitrary government intrusion into their lives.

73. This assertion finds support in pertinent legal precedents. In Albright v. Oliver, (510 U.S. 266, 1994),4 the United States Supreme Court opined that the initiation of a baseless criminal prosecution, absent probable cause, constitutes a violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. Moreover, in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., (457 U.S. 922, 1982)5, the Court underscored that state actors, in their official capacities, are constrained by the provisions enshrined within the Fourth Amendment, which safeguard citizens against unwarranted intrusions by law enforcement agencies.
74. Plaintiff seeks redress through this count, praying for both compensatory and exemplary damages, commensurate with the injuries suffered. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment affirming the egregious violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

4 Albright v. Oliver, (510 U.S. 266, 1994): the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the initiation of a baseless criminal prosecution without probable cause violates an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. In that case, Albright, the plaintiff, alleged that his arrest and prosecution for murder were politically motivated and lacked probable cause. The Court held that the commencement of a criminal prosecution unsupported by probable cause violates an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, even if other legal avenues for redress may be available.

5 Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., (457 U.S. 922, 1982): the Supreme Court considered whether a private party’s conduct, when significantly intertwined with governmental action, could be subject to constitutional scrutiny. In that case, the Court ruled that state actors, when acting in their official capacities or under color of law, are bound by the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. This decision reaffirmed that governmental entities and their agents are subject to constitutional limitations, even when conducting activities in collaboration with private parties.

Page 17 of 35

Furthermore, injunctive relief is sought to preclude future transgressions of a similar nature. Lastly, Plaintiff asserts his entitlement to the reimbursement of all legal fees incurred throughout the course of this litigation, pursuant to the provisions delineated under 42 U.S.C. §1988.6

75. Plaintiff is seeking to recover attorney fees he paid for the trial attorney at that time for defending the criminal case brought by the defendants before the Parma Municipal Court, citation #TR20550 and thereto Case #21TRD01288, that incurred attorney fees, lost wages, economic, and non-economic damages associated with this lawsuit.

CLAIM 3
Violation of Sixth Amendment Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Denial of Right to Counsel

(Against Aftim)

76. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations.
77. After Aftim started to Mirandize him, Plaintiff stated that he wanted an attorney. Aftim responded that he couldn’t contact anyone and continued interrogation of Plaintiff.
78. Criminal defendants have a right to counsel during when Plaintiff requested the right to counsel from video footage obtained later. Plaintiff was declared as a “defendant” as Aftim denied him. .5
79. As Plaintiff tried to depart for Brooklyn, he was constructively detained, had his personal belongings included his cellphone confiscated. CLAIM 4
    Violation of Department Policies (Against all the Defendants)
80. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs above.

6 42 U.S.C. § 1988: Section 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in civil rights cases. Specifically, it allows prevailing parties in civil rights actions, including cases brought under the Fourth Amendment, to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. This provision aims to ensure that individuals who successfully vindicate their constitutional rights are not burdened with the financial costs of litigation, thereby promoting access to justice and encouraging the enforcement of civil rights laws.

Page 18 of 35

81. Plaintiff asserts that the actions of the Defendants, as detailed throughout this complaint, are indicative of systemic issues within the Brooklyn Police Department. These issues may potentially contravene established departmental policies and procedures, which are designed to safeguard the rights and well-being of individuals within the community.
82. Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ conduct demonstrates a failure to adhere to the standards set forth by the Brooklyn Police Department, thereby warranting scrutiny and remedial action. Such action should encompass comprehensive reforms aimed at addressing the systemic deficiencies within the department. This includes but is not limited to, implementing disciplinary measures against officers found to have violated departmental policies, enhancing training programs to ensure officers are adequately equipped to handle diverse situations with professionalism and respect for individual rights, 7and establishing robust oversight mechanisms to prevent future misconduct and promote accountability.
83. In City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)8, the Supreme Court held that municipalities can be held liable under § 1983 for failure to adequately train their officers if the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. Similarly, in Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 975 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1992)9, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of ensuring

7 5 See, e.g., Ohio Crim. R. 10(C)(2).

8 City of Canton v. Harris, (489 U.S. 378, 1989): the Supreme Court addressed the issue of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failure to train municipal employees. The case involved a claim against the City of Canton, Ohio, alleging that inadequate training of police officers led to a violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The Court held that a municipality could be held liable under §1983 for failure to adequately train its employees, if the failure to train reflects deliberate indifference to the rights of individuals with whom the police come into contact. This decision established that municipalities can be held accountable for constitutional violations resulting from their failure to provide proper training to their employees.

9 Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., (975 F.2d 137, 5th Cir. 1992): the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of liability under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Page 19 of 35

that school district policies and procedures are followed to protect students from

harassment and abuse.

84. Plaintiff emphasizes the necessity of enforcing departmental policies and procedures to uphold the integrity of law enforcement agencies and protect the rights of individuals within the community. Accordingly, Plaintiff demands that this Court address the systemic issues within the Brooklyn Police Department and institute measures to ensure compliance with established standards and principles of law enforcement professionalism. CLAIM 5
    Threat of Bodily Injury and Infliction of Bodily Injury (Against City Of Brooklyn and Aftim)
85. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs above.
86. Defendants, the City of Brooklyn and Officer Aftim, unlawfully and intentionally subjected Plaintiff to threats of imminent bodily harm and inflicted bodily injury upon Plaintiff without legal justification or consent, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
87. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable seizures, including the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).10

for a school district’s failure to respond adequately to allegations of sexual harassment and abuse. The case involved claims against a school district alleging that it failed to take appropriate action to address reports of sexual harassment and abuse of students by teachers and staff. The court held that school districts can be held liable under Title IX if they exhibit deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment and abuse and fail to take reasonable steps to prevent recurrence. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that school district policies and procedures are followed to protect students from harassment and abuse.

10 Graham v. Connor, (1989): the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers during an arrest constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures. The Court established that the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the totality of the circumstances. This decision emphasized the importance of assessing the objective reasonableness of law enforcement actions and

Page 20 of 35

88. Additionally, the intentional infliction of bodily harm without legal justification constitutes a violation of an individual’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998).11 Fourth Amendment Protections:
    The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable seizures, including the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court established this principle in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In this case, the Court held that the reasonableness of a law enforcement officer’s use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the totality of the circumstances. Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights:
    Additionally, the intentional infliction of bodily harm without legal justification constitutes a violation of an individual’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). In this case, the Court held that deliberate indifference to a known or obvious risk of harm to an individual’s constitutional rights can give rise to liability under §1983.
89. Defendants’ actions in threatening Plaintiff with imminent bodily injury and inflicting bodily harm were objectively unreasonable, disproportionate to any perceived threat, and lacked any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Such conduct demonstrates a deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and warrants liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
90. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the physical, emotional, and financial harm suffered as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful actions. These damages are necessary to

balancing the government’s interest in effective law enforcement with the individual’s constitutional rights.
11 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, (1998): the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of an individual’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved a tragic incident where a law enforcement officer pursued a suspect in a high-speed chase, resulting in the death of the suspect. The Court held that in situations where law enforcement actions are “deliberately indifferent” to a known or obvious risk of harm to an individual’s constitutional rights, liability under § 1983 may arise. This decision underscored the principle that deliberate indifference to the safety of individuals by government officials can give rise to substantive due process violations.

Page 21 of 35

compensate Plaintiff for the pain and suffering endured, medical and legal expenses incurred, and any other losses suffered as a consequence of Defendants’ misconduct.

CLAIM 6
Violation of Due Process Rights

(Against all the Defendants)

91. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs above.
92. Defendants’ actions deprived Plaintiff of their rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees individuals the right to fair treatment and procedural protections by the government. The unwarranted stop, search, and detention conducted by Officer Tony Aftim, Chief Scott Mielke, and other agents of the City of Brooklyn violated Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights by depriving him of liberty and property without adequate justification or legal process. Such actions contravene established legal principles and precedents safeguarding individuals against arbitrary government action. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, contains the Due Process Clause, which is found in Section 1. The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This clause serves as a cornerstone of constitutional law, ensuring that individuals are afforded fair treatment and procedural protections by the government. It guarantees that government actions, including those of law enforcement agencies, must adhere to established legal procedures and standards, such as notice, hearing, and the opportunity to be heard. The Due Process Clause applies to various aspects of law, including criminal proceedings, civil liberties, and administrative actions, and it has been interpreted and applied by the courts in numerous landmark cases throughout American history. Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16 (Due Course of Law):
    This section ensures that all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to them in their land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. It also ensures that justice shall be administered without denial or delay.
    “All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.”
    Ohio Revised Code § 2935.26 (Warrantless arrest for misdemeanor):

Page 22 of 35

This statute regulates the conditions under which law enforcement officers in Ohio can make warrantless arrests for misdemeanors. It sets forth specific criteria that must be met to ensure that due process rights are not violated during an arrest without a warrant.

Ohio Revised Code § 2921.45 (Interfering with civil rights):
This law makes it a criminal offense for a public servant, under color of office, employment, or authority, to knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
“No public servant, under color of office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.”
Ohio Revised Code § 2901.10 (Civil action for deprivation of rights):
This provision allows for civil actions against individuals who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, cause deprivation of rights secured by the Ohio Constitution or laws.
“Any person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of this state or other person within its jurisdiction to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Ohio Constitution or laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

93. This deprivation of due process is particularly egregious as it occurred without proper legal justification, warrant, or probable cause, thereby infringing upon Plaintiff’s fundamental rights without lawful basis. Supreme Court cases such as Terry v. Ohio (1968)12 and Illinois v. Wardlow, (2000)13 establish the parameters for permissible law enforcement actions and emphasize the necessity of reasonable suspicion or probable cause before engaging in stops,

12 In Terry v. Ohio, (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers can conduct a brief, investigatory stop of an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity, even if they don’t have probable cause to make an arrest. This case established the “Terry stop” or “stop-and-frisk” doctrine, allowing officers to briefly detain and pat down individuals under certain circumstances to protect themselves and others from potential danger.

13 In Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), the Supreme Court held that unprovoked flight from police in a high-crime area can contribute to reasonable suspicion, justifying a Terry stop. The Court ruled that nervous, evasive behavior, when combined with other factors, can give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This decision affirmed the principle that officers can consider a suspect’s behavior and circumstances when determining whether to conduct a stop, even if no specific crime has been observed.

Page 23 of 35

searches, or seizures. The actions of Defendants in this case fail to meet these constitutional

standards, thereby constituting a violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights.
94.Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the emotional distress, humiliation, and economic losses resulting from the violation of his due process rights. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to ensure the protection of due process rights in future interactions with law enforcement, including but not limited to the implementation of training programs emphasizing respect for constitutional rights and oversight mechanisms

to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

CLAIM 7
Failure to Train and Supervise

(Against the City of Brooklyn)

95. Plaintiff asserts that the City of Brooklyn, in its capacity as an employer and municipal entity, failed to provide adequate training and supervision to its employees, including the individual defendants named herein. This failure directly resulted in the violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as enumerated in previous counts.
96. The failure of the City of Brooklyn to ensure proper training and supervision protocols for its employees, particularly law enforcement officers, constitutes a breach of its duty to safeguard the constitutional rights of individuals within its jurisdiction. This failure contributed to the unlawful actions taken against Plaintiff during the incident in question.
97. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, municipalities can be held liable for constitutional violations caused by their policies or customs, including the failure to adequately train or supervise employees. In Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)14, the Supreme Court held that municipalities can be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where their policies or customs violate constitutional rights.

14 Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978): the Supreme Court established that local governments could be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for

Page 24 of 35

98. The City of Brooklyn’s failure to implement proper training and supervision protocols for its employees, despite knowledge of previous incidents of misconduct or inadequate performance, reflects deliberate indifference to the rights of individuals within its jurisdiction. This indifference perpetuates a culture of misconduct and undermines public trust in law enforcement.
99. As a direct and proximate result of the City of Brooklyn’s failure to train and supervise its employees, Plaintiff suffered harm, including but not limited to emotional distress, deprivation of liberty, and violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

100. Plaintiff demands injunctive relief requiring the City of Brooklyn to implement comprehensive and ongoing training programs for its employees, specifically focusing on constitutional rights, proper search and seizure procedures, non-discriminatory practices, and handling encounters with individuals of diverse backgrounds.

CLAIM 8

Conspiracy to Deprive Rights ORC § 2923.01 – Conspiracy (Against all the Defendants)

101. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants, including the City of XXXX Mielke, and Prosecutor XXXX, conspired to deprive Plaintiff of their constitutional rights through their coordinated actions. This conspiracy involved the

constitutional violations resulting from official policies or customs. The plaintiffs were female employees of the Department of Social Services and the Board of Education of New York City who alleged that they had been forced to take unpaid leaves of absence during their pregnancies. The Court ruled that municipalities and other local government units could be considered “persons” under § 1983 and thus could be sued directly for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief when the alleged unconstitutional action implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. This decision was pivotal in allowing civil rights claims to be brought against local governments and their agencies, expanding the accountability for civil rights violations.

Page 25 of 35

unlawful search and seizure, false arrest and imprisonment, and discrimination against Plaintiff based on his gender identity and use of personal protective equipment. Such coordinated actions demonstrate a concerted effort to violate Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution and Ohio law.

Ohio Revised Code (ORC) on Conspiracy and Civil Rights Violations
1. ORC §2923.01 – Conspiracy
Under Ohio law, conspiracy is defined as when a person, with purpose to commit or to promote or facilitate the commission of a specific offense, plans or agrees with one or more persons to engage in conduct that constitutes the offense. If the offense involves the deprivation of civil rights, this statute can be applied.

ORC §2923.01(A)(1): No person, with purpose to commit or to promote or facilitate the commission of aggravated murder, murder, kidnapping, compelling prostitution, promoting prostitution, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, trespassing in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present, aggravated riot, or a felony drug trafficking, manufacturing, processing, or possession offense, or to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense of violence, shall plan or aid in planning the offense, or agree with another person or persons that one or more of them will engage in conduct that facilitates the offense.

2. ORC §2921.45 – Interfering with Civil Rights
This statute directly addresses civil rights violations. It prohibits public servants from knowingly depriving, or conspiring or attempting to deprive, any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
ORC §2921.45(A): No public servant, under color of his office, employment, or authority, shall knowingly deprive, or conspire or attempt to deprive any person of a constitutional or statutory right.
Violating this statute is considered a misdemeanor of the first degree, but it underscores the legal protections in place against civil rights deprivations by public officials.
Applying Ohio Laws in Civil Rights Contexts
If individuals, whether public officials or private persons, conspire to deprive someone of their civil rights, these statutes can provide the basis for criminal prosecution. For example, if a police officer and another individual conspire to unlawfully detain someone based on discriminatory motives, both can be charged under these conspiracy statutes.
Legal Precedents and Interpretations
Ohio courts have interpreted these laws in various contexts to protect individuals’ civil rights. They look at whether the actions were deliberate and whether there was an agreement to violate the rights of others. These

Page 26 of 35

interpretations ensure that both state actors and private individuals can be held accountable for conspiracies to deprive rights.

102. Plaintiff contends that this conspiracy was formed with the specific intent to violate his rights, as evidenced by the unlawful detention, search, and harassment experienced during the traffic stop on January 3, 2021. These actions were not isolated incidents but rather part of a deliberate scheme to target Plaintiff based on his perceived characteristics and conduct.

103. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries and damages caused by the defendants’ conspiracy. Compensatory damages are warranted to compensate Plaintiff for the emotional distress, financial losses, and other harm suffered as a result of the defendants’ unlawful actions. Punitive damages are necessary to deter future misconduct and hold the defendants accountable for their egregious violation of Plaintiff’s rights. In Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (197015), the Supreme Court held that a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights can be established through concerted action by state actors. Similarly, in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971)16, the Court affirmed that individuals can be held liable under §1983 for conspiring to deprive others of their civil rights.

15 Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970): The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff could sue under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of constitutional rights if state action was involved. The case arose when a white schoolteacher, who was involved in civil rights activities, was refused service at a lunch counter and subsequently arrested. The teacher sued, alleging a conspiracy between the store employees and local police to deprive her of her civil rights. The Court held that if a state official (like a police officer) participated in a conspiracy with private individuals to deny someone their constitutional rights, this constituted state action, and the plaintiff could seek redress under §1983. The decision highlighted the importance of proving state action in civil rights lawsuits and clarified the scope of §1983.

16 Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971): the Supreme Court held that private individuals could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) for conspiring to deprive others of their civil rights. The case involved a group of African American plaintiffs who were allegedly assaulted by a group of white defendants while traveling on a public highway. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 if they could prove that the defendants conspired to interfere with their right to travel, motivated by racial animus. This decision was significant because it extended the reach of civil rights protections to include private conspiracies and affirmed the federal government’s power to intervene in private acts of discrimination.

Page 27 of 35

104. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court recognize the defendants’ conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and award appropriate damages to redress the harm caused by their unlawful actions.

CLAIM 9
Violation of Equal Protection Rights

(Against all the Defendants)

105. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, under color of state law, violated Plaintiff’s rights to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by intentionally targeting Plaintiff based on their gender identity and sexual orientation. This conduct constitutes discrimination, which is prohibited under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

106. The Equal Protection Clause mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1). To state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they were treated differently than others who were similarly situated, and that such differential treatment was based on an impermissible consideration such as race, religion, or, as in this case, gender identity and sexual orientation.

107. Defendants’ actions towards Plaintiff, including but not limited to the unlawful stop, search, and seizure, and the subsequent harassment and discriminatory remarks, were motivated by bias against Plaintiff’s gender identity and sexual orientation. This discriminatory conduct was neither rationally related to a legitimate government interest nor did it serve any lawful purpose.

Page 28 of 35

108. In Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015),17 the Supreme Court affirmed that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, in Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011)18, the Eleventh Circuit held that discrimination against an individual because of their gender nonconformity is sex- based discrimination, which is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

109. Defendants’ discriminatory actions have caused Plaintiff significant harm, including emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and a violation of their constitutional rights. Such harm is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983, which provides a federal remedy for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States by any person acting under color of state law.

110. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the emotional distress and other injuries suffered as a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent further discrimination and to ensure that Defendants are held accountable for their unconstitutional conduct. Plaintiff also requests that this Court issue declaratory relief, stating that Defendants’ conduct violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

111. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, which allows the prevailing party in an action brought under §1983 to recover reasonable legal fees as part of the costs.

CLAIM 10
Invasion of Privacy (Ohio Data Protection Act)

(Against all the Defendants)

17 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 18 Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011): The Eleventh Circuit held that discrimination against an individual because of their gender nonconformity constitutes sex- based discrimination, subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

Page 29 of 35

112. Plaintiff reasserts the factual and legal allegations as stipulated in preceding paragraphs herein, with the same veracity and pertinence as though these statements are fully articulated in this segment.

113. On XXXXX Plaintiff was followed out of a business parking lot by Officer XXXX of the Brooklyn Police Department. He was stopped at the Sheetz Gas station located at 10315 Cascade Crossing, XXXXX Despite there being no legal justification or probable cause for following or stopping Plaintiff, Officer AFTIM approached him and instructed him to exit the vehicle.

114. Officer Aftim then unlawfully searched and seized Waseleski’s personal belongings without a search warrant or probable cause. Items seized included: – small brown bottle of oil, his cell phone, wallet, automobile keys, and personal protective equipment (PPE) wear. These actions by Officer Aftim constituted an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy under United States law, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.

115. The landmark case, Katz v. United States19, established that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to all areas where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

116. The Supreme Court20 states not directly an invasion of privacy, but this decision clarified the standards for “stop and frisk” procedures. It established that police must have a reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity to conduct a limited search for weapons. This case underscores the limits on police authority to search individuals without probable cause.

117. Plaintiff has sustained damages as a consequence of the Defendants’ actions, which contravened Ohio and Federal statutes, causing harm that will be substantiated and quantified in the course of discovery and at the trial stage.

XXXX

Page 30 of 35

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff in seeking justice and redress for the numerous and grievous violations of his rights as detailed herein, respectfully requests that this Court grant judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, and award:

A. Compensatory Damages: Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and other injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ unconstitutional and discriminatory actions by a jury at trial, reflecting the full extent of the tangible and intangible losses suffered by the Plaintiff. This includes damages for the violation of

Page 31 of 35

Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and for any

economic losses incurred due to Defendants’ actions.

2. Exemplary Damages: Award of exemplary or punitive damages, in recognition of the intentional, malicious, or grossly negligent nature of the Defendants’ conduct, to serve as both punishment for the Defendants and as a deterrent against future similar violations;
3. Injunctive Relief: Issue an injunction preventing Defendants from engaging in further discriminatory actions based on gender identity and sexual orientation. This relief is necessary to ensure that Plaintiff and others similarly situated are protected from future violations of their constitutional rights by Defendants and the Brooklyn Police Department.
4. Declaratory Relief: Grant declaratory relief stating that Defendants’ conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such a declaration will affirm the unlawfulness of Defendants’ actions and serve as a public record of the constitutional rights at issue, thereby deterring similar conduct in the future.
5. Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. This statute allows the prevailing party in an action brought under §1983 to recover attorney’s fees and costs, ensuring that individuals whose civil rights have been violated can seek and obtain legal representation to redress those violations.
6. And Further Relief: Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. This may include any additional remedies necessary to fully address and rectify the harm suffered by Plaintiff and to prevent further violations of constitutional rights by Defendants.

Page 32 of 35

G. AndFurtherRelief:Awardpre-judgmentandpost-judgmentinterestatthehighestrate permissible under law, to justly compensate the Plaintiff for the time-value of the monetary damages incurred;

H. And Further Relief: Judgment for all economic and non-economic damages sustained by the Plaintiff, including but not limited to medical expenses, pain and suffering, humiliation, emotional distress, and any other compensable losses, in a total amount exceeding $1,000,000.00, as will be established at trial;

I.

And Further Relief: Award all costs associated with the prosecution of this action, recognizing the substantial financial burden borne by the Plaintiff in seeking legal redress for the wrongs suffered;

118.

119.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this petition.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY CANNOT BE ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS

Defendant cannot claim qualified immunity because they acted with unreasonableness and exceeded their powers to investigate.

PLAINTIFF VERIFICATION

Page 33 of 35

I, XXXX, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the XXXX that the foregoing First Amended Complaint is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

XXXXX

Page 34 of 35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Philip Waseleski, Pro Se Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter, hereby certify that on or about XXXX, I electronically filed Plaintiff, Philip M. Waseleski’s Amended Complaint as permitted by the Court’s Order, in The United States District Court for the Northern District of XXXX

, Eastern Division, through the Court’s electronic filing procedures using the CM/ECF system. I have also submitted the USM-285 form U.S. Department of Justice, XXXX Service to serve the Amended Complaint and Summons. I further certify that, on XXXX, I also served the following by electronic mail:

Via Email:

XXXX

XXXX, Pro Se Plaintiff

Page 35 of 35