Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
SARA CARPENTER,
ROBERT CARPENTER, individuals,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-04199

vs.
J.D. PERRY, individually,
R.S. MINOR, individually,
J.R. POWERS, individually,
L.G. OBRIAN, individually,
S.W. PERDUE, individually,
PAMELA INGRAM, individually,
JOHN DOE, individually,
JOHN DOE NO. 2, individually,
JOHN DOE NO. 3, individually,
JOHN DOE NO. 4, individually,
JOHN DOE NO. 5, individually,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT
This complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, arises out of the defendants commission of an unreasonable
search and seizure against the Plaintiff at her home on or about May 13, 2014 near the town of
Elkview, Kanawha County, West Virginia, within the Southern District of West Virginia.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2

PARTIES
1.

The Plaintiffs, Sara Carpenter and Robert Carpenter, are husband and wife and

were at all times relevant hereto residents of Elkview, Kanawha County, West Virginia.
2.

Defendant J.D. Perry was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West

Virginia State Police and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an
address of 2700 E. Dupont Avenue, Belle, West Virginia.
3.

Defendant R.S. Minor was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West

Virginia State Police and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an
address of 2700 E. Dupont Avenue, Belle, West Virginia.
4.

Defendant J.R. Powers was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West

Virginia State Police and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an
address of 2700 E. Dupont Avenue, Belle, West Virginia.
5.

Defendant L.G. OBrian was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West

Virginia State Police and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an
address of 2700 E. Dupont Avenue, Belle, West Virginia.
6.

Defendant S.W. Perdue was at all times relevant hereto a trooper with the West

Virginia State Police and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an
address of 2700 E. Dupont Avenue, Belle, West Virginia.
7.

Defendant Pamela Ingram was at all relevant times hereto an employee

(investigator) with the West Virginia DHHR Child Protective Services and was at all times
relevant hereto acting under the color of law, having an address of 4190 W. Washington Street,
Charleston, West Virginia.

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3

8.

Defendant John Doe No. 1 is currently unidentified. He was present with the

police officer defendants during the search and seizure described herein. He was identified to the
plaintiffs as a plain-clothed officer. However, he has been described in documents by the
defendant police officers as a ride-along.
9.

Defendant John Doe No. 2 is currently unidentified. He was present with the

police officer defendants during the search and seizure described herein. He was identified to the
plaintiffs as a plain-clothed officer. However, he has been described in documents by the
defendant police officers as a ride-along.
10.

Defendant John Does Numbers 3 through 5 are currently unidentified. They are

West Virginia State Troopers who are believed to be k-9 officers who participated in the search
and seizure of 174 Jarrett Heights Road, Elkview, West Virginia, as described below in detail.
FACTS
11.

On or about May 1, 2014, Sara Carpenters then-16 year old daughter, following

an argument with her mother, ran away from home and to the home of her paternal grandfather,
Chris Jarrett, who had been engaged in an ongoing custody dispute with the plaintiffs over
grandparent custodial rights and visitation.
12.

Plaintiff Sara Carpenter immediately contacted the West Virginia State Police, and

subsequently met with Trooper Stepp, who located the child at the home of Chris Jarrett.
13.

Chris Jarrett made accusations to Trooper Stepp that the plaintiffs were unfit

parents, and that they were drug dealers. He asked for permission to keep the child.
14.

Trooper Stepp investigated the complaints, and found no reason not to return the

child to the plaintiffs home, which he did.

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4

15.

The following day, on or about May 2, 2014, Mr. Jarrett filed a domestic violence

protective order petition against Mrs. Carpenter, which was granted on a temporary basis with a
hearing scheduled for mid-May of 2014. Mr. Jarrett then picked the child up from school,
without notification to the plaintiffs.
16.

On or about May 13, 2014, at around 10:30 p.m., one day prior to the plaintiffs

hearing on the domestic violence protective order petition, defendant West Virginia State
Troopers Minor and Powers arrived at plaintiffs residence, along with two plain-clothed (no law
enforcement uniforms) individuals, who are identified above as John Does 1 and 2.
17.

The officers identified themselves as being from the Quincy Detachment of the

West Virginia State Police.

18.

The plaintiffs home is not within the geographical vicinity of the Quincy

Detachment, but rather is in the geographic vicinity of the South Charleston Detachment of the
West Virginia State Police.
19.

Upon information and belief, Chris Jarretts nephew is a Sergeant in the West

Virginia State Police, who was at that time stationed at the Quincy Detachment. Upon
information and belief, Mr. Jarrett sought assistance from his nephew in order to gather evidence
against the plaintiffs to use in Family Court the following day. Upon information and belief,
such assistance from members of the Quincy detachment of the state police was performed with
the knowledge of, and either expressly, or tacitly, approved by supervisor defendant L.G.
OBrian.
20.

Sergeant J.D. Perry (Defendant Perry) noted in his narrative that on May 13,

2014, he received information from Chris Jarrett concerning a possible child neglect and

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5

endangerment due to the drug usage and trafficking at the residence of Sara Carpenter and
Robert Carpenter. He did not mention in his report that Mr. Jarrett was his uncle.
21.

Perry continued, Sergeant Perry was advised that Robert Carpenter was also a

registered sex offender. He continued, Corporal Abbess [of the South Charleston detachment]
was contacted concerning the offender being verified.
22.

Having been previously convicted years earlier of what is commonly referred to

as statutory rape, plaintiff Robert Carpenter is a registered sex offender and re-registers yearly,
during the month of his date of birth, with the South Charleston detachment of the West Virginia
State Police, since his residence is located in the geographical vicinity of the South Charleston
detachment. Since Roberts date of birth is May, he had recently re-registered, and has often
throughout the year updated his notification information, when necessary.
23.

West Virginia Code 15-12-10 provides that the West Virginia State Police shall

verify addresses of those persons registered . . . once a year. It further provides that the State
Police may require registrants to periodically submit to new fingerprints and photographs as part
of the verification process.
24.

Sgt. Perry wrote in his narrative that Corporal Abbess informed him that Robert

Carpenter had not yet been verified by the South Charleston detachment.
25.

Robert Carpenters residence address had not changed since his initial

registration, and had been provided on each of his yearly renewal notifications. However, he had
not knowingly been visited by the State Police at his residence on any previous year as a part of
any verification process. Neither has he been visited in the two years since this incident.

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6

26.

Sgt. Perry wrote that he contacted defendant Trooper Minor and defendant

Trooper Powers to conduct a verification of the residence and the offender registration to
determine the validity of his registration information and any immediate danger to the four year
old child who remained in the residence.
27.

Sgt. Perry wrote that he directed both Senior Trooper Powers and Trooper Minor

to only do a sex offender verification and if anything further was located in the residence to
secure the occupants and obtain a search warrant.
28.

Upon information and belief, Sgt. Perry had determined to use the sex offender

verification process as a Trojan Horse to attempt to get into the plaintiffs residence in order to
search for evidence sought by Chris Jarrett. However, neither West Virginia Code 15-12-10,
nor any other state law provides for warrantless searches of residences of sex offender
registrants. Neither does West Virginia case law indicate that sex offenders registered in West
Virginia have surrendered their rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in their
residence under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, at no relevant time
was Robert Carpenter on probation, parole or supervised release.
29.

Sgt. Perry notes in his narrative that there were two ride-a-long participants

with Powers and Minor during the verification, and notes that both subjects completed the
proper paperwork and were approved. The two individuals with Powers and Minor at the
plaintiffs residence were represented to the plaintiffs as being plain-clothed police detectives.
The two individuals are named as defendants herein as John Does 1 and 2.
30.

Upon arrival at the plaintiffs residence, the defendants knocked on the door,

which was answered by Sara Carpenters stepson. When he opened the door, one of the troopers

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7

grabbed him on the back of his neck and led him forcefully through the house into the kitchen,
where plaintiff Sara Carpenter was located, along with her nephew.
31.

Once in the kitchen, the two troopers identified themselves, as well as the plain-

clothed police detectives and represented that they were there to verify Robert Carpenters sex
offender registry.
32.

Sarah Carpenter, her stepson, and her nephew, were all forced to sit down in the

kitchen in the presence of Trooper Powers, while the others proceeded upstairs and began to
search the residence.
33.

Sara Carpenter asked to see a search warrant. Trooper Minor responded, shut up

and sit down or Ill cuff you and take you to jail.
34.

At the time of the entry, Robert Carpenter was upstairs putting their four-year-old

child to bed. He was immediately escorted to the kitchen by one of the officers, while the child
was left unattended wandering around the residence. Plaintiffs requested to be able to attend to
the child, or to allow the older child, or nephew, to be able to assist the four-year-old child. The
officers refused.
35.

The officers proceeded to search the residence, but found nothing incriminating,

and ultimately left.

36.

None of the occupants consented to the officers entering the residence. In his

narrative, Sgt. Perry notes that Sara Carpenter told these officers that they could not be in her
residence without a warrant. Perry further explains that the officers replied that the purpose of
the visit was to verify her husband Robert Scott Carpenters information on the sex offender
registry was correct and accurate. He describes that Senior Trooper Powers stood with them

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8

while Trooper Minor checked the rest of the residence for any other violations not reported on
the registry information sheet including attempting to locate secret cellular telephones not
registered.
37.

Following the search of the plaintiffs home, plaintiffs realized that the troopers

were searching for evidence on behalf of Chris Jarrett, in order to enable him to gain custody of
the plaintiffs daughter at the Family Court hearing the following day.
38.

The next morning, plaintiffs and Chris Jarrett attended the Family Court hearing

on the domestic violence protective order petition filed by Chris Jarrett. Trooper Stepp was
subpoenaed by the plaintiffs and testified that he was directed by a superior officer to lie to Sara
Carpenter regarding the location of her daughter after she was reported missing (that she was in
their custody rather than the truth, which was that she was at Chris Jarretts residence). He
further testified that there was no indication of illegal activity in plaintiffs house. The Family
Court Judge denied Chris Jarretts petition.
39.

On or about May 31, 2014, state troopers, including defendants Minor and

Perdue, obtained a search warrant for the plaintiffs residence, which at all times relevant hereto
was 172 Jarrett Heights Road, Elkview, West Virginia, for the purposes of seeking evidence of
felony delivery of controlled substances. The officers contemporaneously obtained a felony
arrest warrant for the plaintiffs for felony delivery of controlled substances.
40.

On the said date, Trooper Perdue, Minor and other troopers who are named and

identified as defendants John Doe Numbers 3 through 5, arrested Mrs. Carpenter at her home and
performed a search of 172 Jarrett Heights Road. They found no incriminating evidence. They

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9

found no evidence to support Chris Jarretts accusations that plaintiffs were drug dealers. They
found no evidence to substantiate the felony charges against the plaintiffs.
41.

After finding nothing at the plaintiffs residence, defendants Perdue, Minor and

John Does No. 3-5 sought consent to search the nearby residence of 174 Jarrett Heights Road,
Elkview, West Virginia, also owned by the plaintiffs, having been the home of Robert
Carpenters deceased mother. After being denied consent, the officers nevertheless kicked down
the door to the 174 Jarrett Heights Road residence and proceeded to perform a search of that
residence. Sara Carpenters stepson was in the residence at the time and witnessed the entry and
search. Three K-9 drug dogs were taken through the 174 Jarrett Heights Road residence, and
additional property was destroyed by the officers during their search and seizure, including
furniture and the garage door, which was also kicked-in. Again, no drugs or other incriminating
evidence was found to substantiate the felony arrest of Sara Carpenter that had just occurred.
42.

Defendant Pamela Ingram, a CPS investigator brought into the case by Defendant

Perry, also entered the 174 Jarrett Heights Road residence and participated in the search and
seizure of plaintiffs property.
43.

No police officer present on May 31, 2014 had obtained a search warrant for the

174 Jarrett Heights Road home. The search warrant they obtained was for 172 Jarrett Heights
Road, which was very clearly described, and depicted, in the search warrant. No officer had
consent to enter the 174 Jarrett Heights Road home. Nor did any officer claim to meet any
exception to the rule against warrantless searches. The officers were aware of the plaintiffs
ownership of the 174 Jarrett Heights Road home, as well as suspicions incriminating evidence
might be found inside, prior to their application for a search warrant. In fact, the search warrant

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10

affidavit mentioned the fact that plaintiffs also owned 174 Jarrett Heights Road and that they
were suspected of harboring drugs inside that home. Thus, the decision to search 174 Jarrett
Heights Road was not based on any new information or exigent circumstances.
44.

Sara Carpenter was held in jail for six hours before being released. Based on a

lack of evidence, the criminal charges against Sara Carpenter were dismissed shortly thereafter.
45.

Upon information and belief, using his relationship with his nephew state trooper,

Chris Jarrett was able to get CPS, and DHHR to investigate and file an abuse and neglect petition
for removal of the plaintiffs children, based on the same allegations that plaintiffs were drug
dealers. This was the reason that Pamela Ingram was at the plaintiffs residence.
46.

On or about June 6, 2014, a preliminary hearing on the abuse and neglect petition

was held before the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Following the ruling, the court dismissed
the action, noting that after reviewing the evidence submitted by DHHR through Pamela Ingram,
Chris Jarrett, as well as the West Virginia State Police, that the State failed to meet its burden for
the preliminary hearing; that the State failed to demonstrate that there was reasonable cause to
believe that the children were abused or neglected and that it was necessary to take them into
care to preserve their safety and well-being. The Court ordered that the children be returned
forthwith to the custody of their parents, consistent with any Family Court orders. The Special
Prosecutor appointed to the case personally apologized to Sara Carpenter for the States actions
against her.
47.

Chris Jarrett also filed a Petition for Appointment of Guardian (for minor

children) in the Family Court of Kanawha County, seeking custody of the child. A Guardian ad
Litem was appointed, who after investigation concluded that his investigation has not revealed

10

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 11

anything that would make Mrs. Carpenters home unsuitable. He continued, In fact, my main
concerns (drug and alcohol abuse . . . ) seem to have been dealt with in a recently dismissed
Abuse and Neglect proceeding. He recommended that the Infant Guardianship not be granted,
and that the child be returned to Sara Carpenter.

COUNT ONE - UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
48.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

49.

On or about May 13, 2014, the defendant police officers, under color of law, made

entry into the residence of Robert Carpenter and Sara Carpenter for the purposes of searching
their home, and seizing the occupants therein pending the search.
50.

The defendant police officers did not seek, nor did they obtain, a search warrant

for the Carpenter residence.

51.

The defendant police officers did not obtain consent to enter, or to search, the

Carpenter residence.
52.

The defendant police officers did not claim that exigent circumstances were

present as justification for their entry, or search.

53.

Defendants Minor and Powers made entry and conducted the search and seizure,

along with John Does 1 and 2. This was performed at the direction, and under the supervision of
defendant Perry and defendant OBrian - supervisors and superior officers over defendants
Minor and Powers.

11

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12

54.

Defendant Perry directed the search to be conducted under the auspices of sex

offender verification, when in reality, he was seeking evidence unrelated to sex offender
verification.
55.

West Virginia Code 15-12-10, under which Trooper Perry was acting, does not

authorize warrantless searches of the homes of sex offender registrants who are not on parole or
probation. Nor does any other state or federal law provide such authorization.
56.

Neither does West Virginia Code 15-12-10 authorize the warrantless seizure of

Sara Carpenter, Robert Carpenter, and other family members during a sex offender verification.
Sara Carpenters stepson was physically seized in his doorway and led into the kitchen. Sara
Carpenter, and her nephew, were seized inside the kitchen, and forced to remain in the kitchen.
Robert Carpenter was taken into the kitchen and forced to remain there during the search. None
of the occupants of the residence were allowed to get, or care for, the four year old child left
alone in the house by the officers.
57.

No objectively reasonable police officer would have any reason to believe they

have the authority to conduct a warrantless search and seizure of a residence to search for
evidence of drug activity under the auspices of West Virginia Code 15-12-10.
58.

The defendants actions as alleged herein were under color of law, objectively

unreasonable, willful, wanton, intentional and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the
plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
59.

Plaintiffs suffered damages and are entitled to recover for the same.
COUNT TWO - UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

12

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 13

60.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

61.

On or about May 31, 2014, the defendant police officers, under color of law, as

described above in detail, made entry into the home belonging to the plaintiffs located at 174
Jarrett Heights Road, in Elkview, West Virginia for purposes of performing a search and seizure.
62.

The defendant police officers did not seek, nor did they obtain, a search warrant

for the home located at 174 Jarrett Heights Road, in Elkview, West Virginia.
63.

The defendant police officers did not obtain consent to enter, or to search, the

Carpenter residence.
64.

The defendant police officers did not claim that exigent circumstances were

present as justification for their entry, or search.

65.

Defendants Perdue, as well as John Does 3 through 5 made entry and conducted

the search and seizure, along with their K-9 drug sniffing dogs. Defendant Pamela Ingram also
made entry and participated in the search of the said home.
66.

No objectively reasonable police officer would have any reason to believe they

have the authority to conduct a warrantless search and seizure of a residence under the
circumstances described above in detail.
67.

The defendants actions as alleged herein were under color of law, objectively

unreasonable, willful, wanton, intentional and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the
plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
68.

Plaintiffs suffered damages and are entitled to recover for the same.

13

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14

COUNT THREE - BYSTANDER LIABILITY

69.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the previous paragraphs.

70.

In the event that any of the defendant officers, or other officers, observed, or had

reason to know that a constitutional violation(s) was being committed against the plaintiffs on
May 13, 2014, and possessed a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from
occurring to the plaintiffs, and chose not to act, the plaintiffs make a claim against them pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 1983 under Randall v. Prince Georges County, Md., 302 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2002).
COUNT FOUR - SUPERVISORY LIABILITY
UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983
71.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the previous paragraphs.

72.

Supervisors Defendant Perry and Defendant OBrian had actual knowledge that

their subordinates were engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of
constitutional injury to the plaintiffs; namely that they were going to be searching the plaintiffs
residence and seizing the plaintiffs, and potentially their property without a search warrant, or
applicable exception to obtaining a search warrant, as described in the above paragraphs in
detail.
73.

The said supervisors response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show

deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, the aforesaid conduct.

74.

As a direct and proximate result of the said supervisors inaction, the plaintiffs

suffered constitutional violations and were damaged, for which they are entitled to recover.
PRAYER

14

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15

WHEREFORE, based on the above stated facts, the plaintiffs respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court award:
1.

Damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial which will

fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for all compensatory damages to be proven at
trial;
2.

Punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be determined

at trial; and
3.

Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY

SARA CARPENTER and

ROBERT CARPENTER,
By Counsel

/s John H. Bryan
John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)
JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
611 Main Street
P.O. Box 366
Union, WV 24983
(304) 772-4999
Fax: (304) 772-4998
jhb@johnbryanlaw.com
for the Plaintiff

15

JS 44 (Rev. 11/15)

Case 2:16-cv-04199 Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 16

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Kanawha

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

John H. Bryan, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 366, Union, WV 24983

(304) 772-4999

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

2

U.S. Government
Defendant

4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Kanawha

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State

1

DEF

1

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place

4

4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

2

Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State

5

5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

3

Foreign Nation

6

6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY

365 Personal Injury Product Liability

367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability

368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY

370 Other Fraud

371 Truth in Lending

380 Other Personal
Property Damage

385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:

463 Alien Detainee

510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence

530 General

535 Death Penalty
Other:

540 Mandamus & Other

550 Civil Rights

555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881

690 Other

BANKRUPTCY

422 Appeal 28 USC 158

423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS

820 Copyrights

830 Patent

840 Trademark

LABOR

710 Fair Labor Standards
Act

720 Labor/Management
Relations

740 Railway Labor Act

751 Family and Medical
Leave Act

790 Other Labor Litigation

791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)

871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION

462 Naturalization Application

465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES

375 False Claims Act

376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))

400 State Reapportionment

410 Antitrust

430 Banks and Banking

450 Commerce

460 Deportation

470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations

480 Consumer Credit

490 Cable/Sat TV

850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange

890 Other Statutory Actions

891 Agricultural Acts

893 Environmental Matters

895 Freedom of Information
Act

896 Arbitration

899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision

950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding

2 Removed from
State Court

3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

1983 action for violation of Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

42 USC 1983

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes

No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s John H. Bryan

5/5/16
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE