Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARCIA CHACON; WILFRIDO

MATUTE; Fr. JAMES MANSHIP;
SEGUNDO AGUAYZA;
JOSE LUIS ALBARRACIN;
WELINTON SALINAS; JOHN
ESPINOSA; GUIDO XAVIER CRIOLLO;
EDGAR TORRES; and
YADANNY GARCJA;

Plaintiffs,

VS. Civil Action No.

EAST HAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT;

TOWN OF EAST HAVEN,
CHIEF LEONARD GALLO, individually
and in his official capacity;
OFFICER DENNIS SPAULDING,
individually and in his official capacity;
OFFICER DAVID CARI, individually and
in his official capacity; OFFICER JASON
ZULLO, individually and in his
official capacity; OFFICER VINCENT
FERRARA, individually and in his official
capacity; OFFICER DAVID OLSON,
individually and in his official capacity;
SERGEANT FRANK MONTAGNA,
individually and in his official capacity;
SERGEANT EDWARD LENNON,
individually and in his official capacity;
OFFICER MICHAEL SORBO, individually
and in his official capacity;
OFFICER CHERYL CONYERS,
individually and in her official capacity;
JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and in
their official capacity,
Defendants. October 26, 2010
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 2 of 28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Introduction

1. The Town of East Haven and its police department have engaged in a campaign of

racial profiling against Latino men and women, singling them out for harassment and worse, and

then retaliating against those who dared to oppose or even investigate their misconduct. This is

an action to enforce the rights of the targets of that campaign. As this complaint details, the

profiling has included not only hundreds of traffic stops but also more aggressive and violent

conduct such as beatings, use of Tasers, false and illegal arrests, conspicuous shows of force

designed to disrupt commerce, and even raids of legitimate business, all for the purpose of

intimidating the Latino community. These practices have continued for years without the Town

or Police Department acting to check them; just the reverse, the Town and Police Department

have promoted continued profiling and have refused to adopt even basic policies - used by police

departments large and small throughout the nation - necessary to assure evenhanded law

enforcement. Plaintiffs are only a few of the many victims of this campaign. They seek damages

for their individual injuries and injunctive relief to require the Town and the Police Department

to stop the profiling campaign and to comply with basic principles of American law enforcement

that they have systematically ignored for years.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. Plaintiffs bring this case pursuant to the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d, el seq., and the Constitution and laws of the State of

Connecticut. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343 and 42
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 3 of 28

U.S.C. § 1983; supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §

1367.

Parties

3. Plaintiffs Marcia Chacon, Wilfrido Matute, Jose Luis Albarracin, Welinton

Salinas, John Espinosa, Guido Xavier Criollo, Yadanny Garcia, Segundo Aguayza, and Edgar

Torres are Latinos whom the defendants targeted on account of their race and ethnicity. Plaintiff

Fr. James Manship, a Roman Catholic priest, was targeted by Defendants because of his

advocacy on behalf of Latinos in East Haven.

4. At all times relevant to this complaint, all the individual defendants were sworn

members of the East Haven Police Department.

5. Defendant Leonard Gallo was the Chief of the Department. As such, he was

at all times relevant to this complaint the administrative head of the Department, responsible for

administering, coordinating and controlling the operations of the Department and for the overall

supervision and direction of all its activities. Chief Gallo was specifically responsible, either

directly or in a supervisory capacity, for: (a) the supervision, training, discipline and control of

persons working for the Department, including the other individual defendants; (b) the

establishment and enforcement of policies and practices concerning the fair and equal treatment

of all members of the public; and (c) ensuring in particular that the Department's conduct was

free from discrimination or profiling based on race or ethnicity.

6. At all times relevant to this complaint, defendants Frank Montagna and Edward

Lennon were sergeants in the Department. As such, they were responsible not only for

complying with the law but also for (a) the supervision and control of officers under their
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 4 of 28

command, including other defendants; (b) the enforcement of policies and practices concerning

the fair and equal treatment of all members of the public; and (c) ensuring in particular that the

conduct of officers under their command was free from discrimination or profiling based on race

or ethnicity.

7. Defendants Dennis Spaulding, Jason Zullo, David Cari, Vincent Ferrara, David

Olson, Michael Sorbo, and Does 1 -10 were sworn members of the East Haven Police

Department.

8. The true names and capacities of Defendants Does 1-10 are presently unknown

to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs therefore sue Defendants Does 1 - 10 by fictitious names and will seek

leave to amend this complaint to add their true names and capacities.

9. Defendant Town of East Haven ("the Town") is a Connecticut municipality

organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut. At all relevant times, it employed,

supervised, and directed the conduct of individual defendants.

10. Defendant East Haven Police Department ("the Department") employs and is

responsible for the conduct of all the individual defendants. It has been and is now a recipient of

financial assistance from the federal government, and is therefore subject to the

nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI").

11. At all times relevant to this complaint, each of the individual defendants was

acting in the course and scope of his employment with the Town and under color of law.

FACTS

Overview - East Haven's Police Department Is in a Shambles

12. East Haven is a town bordering a city, New Haven, which has a large Latino and
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 5 of 28

African-American population. East Haven itself has a much lower proportion of minority

residents, and it has a history of violent, race-based lawlessness directed at racial minorities. In a

case that is still pending, the Town has been held liable for a policy and custom of deliberate

indifference to the rights of people of color that led to the fatal police shooting of an African-

American man named Malik Jones near East Haven's border with New Haven. More recently,

East Haven's Latino population has begun to grow, sparking resentment and lawlessness in its

police department.

13. In response to the legal finding more than seven years ago that the Department's

own policy and custom caused the death of an African-American man on the basis of his race, the

Town did nothing to reform the Department. On the contrary, as the Latino population of East

Haven has grown, that community has become a focus of police profiling. The United States

Department of Justice is conducting an investigation into racial profiling of Latinos and has now

notified the Town that the Department is in a shambles, with no modern rules of conduct for

officers, no check on their use of force, inadequate training, and no functioning citizen complaint

system.

Statistical Evidence of Large Scale Racial Profiling

14. A review of traffic stops points to both wholesale racial profiling and either an

equally widespread effort to cover it up or a complete breakdown of systems for preventing the

practice. A review of the 376 tickets issued on Route 80 and Main Street in East Haven between

June 1, 2008 and February 28, 2009 shows that while Latinos constitute just six percent of all

East Haven residents, nearly 60 percent of tickets were issued to drivers with Hispanic names.

This difference of more than 50 percentage points between the number of presumptively Latino
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 6 of 28

drivers being stopped and their representation in the East Haven population is well outside the

five-point rate of disproportionality considered acceptable by Connecticut's Chief State's

Attorney.

15. Connecticut has laws designed to identify and deter racial profiling. Since the

year 2000, the Connecticut legislature has imposed reporting requirements in order to combat

racial profiling and pretextual traffic stops. Police departments are required by state law to

submit reports to the Chief State's Attorney, who in turn must provide a report to the Governor

and General Assembly to ensure that law enforcement agencies are proactively monitoring the

activities of individual officers in order to guard against the possibility that enforcement

decisions are being based on race or ethnicity.

16. The Town and the Police Department have systematically violated that law in

order to mask the racial profiling that the law was designed to detect. While nearly 60 percent of

the group of 376 tickets referred to in paragraph 14 above were given to persons with Hispanic

names, the Department recorded that fewer than five percent of those persons were Hispanic.

"They Can Park in New Haven and Walk"

17. Plaintiffs Wilfrido Matute and Marcia Chacon own My Country Store, a small

grocery on Main Street in East Haven. They started the store in 1999 with their life savings.

Since the store opened for business they have each worked approximately 80-90 hours per week

in the store. The store primarily serves the Latino community of East Haven and New Haven.

Like such small local stores everywhere, it is not only a commercial establishment but also a

neighborhood center where people talk and visit. It is an important institution in the Latino

community.
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 7 of 28

18. In or around early September 2008, defendant Spaulding began parking outside

My Country Store and stopping Latino customers, ticketing Latino customers, and removing

license plates from cars belonging to Latino customers.

19. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff Matute spoke to Officer Spaulding, telling him that the

conduct described above was driving away Latino would-be customers because people were

afraid of being randomly stopped or detained while shopping.

20. Spaulding told Mr. Matute that driving people away was just what he had in mind,

telling them that he did not want Mr. Matute's customers parking at the store. Instead, he said,

"they can park in New Haven and walk." The New Haven border is a mile away from My

Country Store.

21. Between September 2008 and the Summer of 2009, Spaulding staked out My

Country store many times - stopping, harassing, and ticketing Latino drivers and customers in an

effort to drive away Latino shoppers and destroy the Chacon-Matute family business.

"I'll Tell You What I'm Going To Do with That Camera."

22. Like many owners of small stores, plaintiffs Chacon and Matute put numerous old

license plates on the back wall of their store as decoration. On February 19,2009, defendants

Spaulding, Cari, and Does 1 -3 entered the store. With no warning or legitimate reason, and

without a warrant or the consent of plaintiffs Chacon and Matute, they ordered Matute to remove

all the license plates from the wall and subsequently confiscated them.

23. Defendants Cari and Spaulding gave plaintiffs Chacon and Matute citations

charging four counts of Failure to Return Cancelled or Abandoned plates, a misdemeanor

offense.
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 8 of 28

24. During the raid, plaintiff Fr. Manship received a phone call that members of the

Police Department, including defendants Cari and Spaulding, were involved in some kind of

incident at My Country Store.

25. Fr. Manship went to the store with a video camera and began to film the

defendants' activities.

26. Defendant Cari asked Fr. Manship why he was filming. When Fr. Manship

replied that he was taking a video of what was going on. Cari responded, "Well, I'll tell you

what I'm going to do with that camera."

27. The defendants then confiscated the camera and handcuffed and arrested Fr.

Manship. They detained and interrogated him about his allegedly criminal conduct. They later

charged him with Disorderly Conduct and Interfering with a Police Officer.

28. As they were leaving the store, Defendants Spaulding, Cari, and Does 1-3 realized

that their illegal activities had been recorded on the store's surveillance video. The defendants

returned to My Country Store and, again with no warrant or consent from the store owners, rifled

through the store's backroom office, searching for the surveillance camera footage.

29. The defendants' plan failed, though not for lack of trying; they were unable to

figure out how to remove or destroy the surveillance video, and in fact the video had captured

their illegal activity.

30. Defendant Cari then covered up the defendants' conduct. In the police report he

filed about the incident, he wrote that he did not know that Fr. Manship had a camera. He even

referred to the camera as an "unknown, shiny silver object," implying that he acted because the

camera may have been a weapon. In fact, Cari knew perfectly well that the camera was a camera

8
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 9 of 28

and said so - on camera.

31. The charges against plaintiffs Chacon and Matute were all nolled.

32. The charges against Fr. Manship were all dismissed.

33. Defendants' conduct toward plaintiff Fr. Manship described in paragraphs 26-30

above was intended to punish and deter his observing and reporting on their activities and his

efforts to oppose official misconduct committed against the Latino community. These activities

are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

34. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Fr. Manship suffered distress and anxiety, and

he was forced to defend himself against baseless criminal charges.

35. Shortly after the February 19 raid, Plaintiffs Chacon and Matute met with the

press and federal investigators to tell them about what was happening to their business and

specifically about the raid.

36. After they did so, a group of East Haven police patrol cars spent hours one

evening circling back and forth in front of the store. Plaintiffs Matute and Chacon closed the

store, went to their car, and pulled out onto the street. Defendant Zullo immediately stopped and

questioned them. His reason for doing so was to intimidate them in retaliation for speaking out

about the raid.

37. The Defendants' conduct described in paragraphs 18-34 and 36 above was

based on the race and ethnicity of plaintiffs Chacon and Matute and their customers.

38. Shortly after the February 19 raid, defendant Gallo, the Town, and the Department

were well aware of what had occurred and the unlawful and unconstitutional misconduct of

defendants Spaulding, Cari, Zullo, and Does 1-3. Nevertheless, they took no action to address
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 10 of 28

the defendants' misconduct or to prevent the recurrence of similar misconduct based on race and

ethnicity.

39. As a result of having their business targeted by this race-based harassment

campaign, plaintiffs Chacon and Matute have been damaged; they have lost customers and

revenue, and their store's ability to serve as a community destination has been harmed. They

have also suffered emotional distress and anxiety about the threatened destruction of the family

business they have worked years to build.

"Too Many Immigrants Living Here Brings Down the Value of Houses."

40. At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff Segundo Aguayza has owned a small

multi-family house in East Haven.

41. Aguayza lives on the first floor of that house with his wife and children, while

renting out the two floors above.

42. At all times relevant to this complaint, the tenants in the apartments were Latino.

43. Between March 2008 and January 2009, East Haven police officers, including

defendants Spaulding and Zullo, repeatedly came through the Aguayza family's front door,

sometimes without even announcing their presence or asking permission to enter. They came

during the day while plaintiff Aguayza was at work, demanding identification of whomever they

could find at home. On each of these occasions, the officers entered without a warrant, the

consent of the residents, or the presence of exigent circumstances.

44. Spaulding and Zullo kept coming to the house in order to drive plaintiff Aguayza

and his Latino tenants out of their house and out of town.

45. The officers gave pretextual reasons for barging into the house, sometimes

10
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 11 of 28

claiming that the neighbors complained about noise from Mr. Aguayza's cocker spaniel,

sometimes claiming that there were too many cars in the driveway. At no time did the officers

display a warrant or secure the consent of the residents to search the home.

46. During one of these illegal intrusions, one of the officers told plaintiff Aguayza's

wife, in front of their children, to "go back to your country."

47. Plaintiff Aguayza's family and tenants were frightened by these intrusions.

48. On January 9, 2009, Defendant Spaulding drove his car into Mr. Aguayza's

backyard, where other cars were parked. An animal control officer pulled up at the same time,

purportedly because of the cocker spaniel.

49. Defendant Spaulding told Mr. Aguayza that there were too many cars in the back

yard and that they would be towed. He added that having too many immigrants living there

brings down the value of the houses. On his way off the property at the end of the encounter,

Spaulding told Mr. Aguayza to "get a lawyer."

50. Despite Spaulding's threat, no tow trucks came to the property; the animal control

officer did not issue a citation; and the cocker spaniel stayed quietly in the basement throughout

the episode.

51. The defendants' conduct described in paragraphs 43 - 49 above was based on

the race and ethnicity of plaintiff Aguayza, his family, and his tenants.

52. As a result of this harassment, Plaintiff Aguayza has suffered emotional distress,

both on account of the defendants' treatment of him and because of his fear of what the

defendants and other members of the Department might do to him or his wife and children.

11
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 12 of 28

"F ing Spanish"

53. On January 21,2009, at around 10:00 p.m., Plaintiffs John Espinoza, Welinton

Salinas, Jose Luis Albarracin, and Guido Xavier Criollo were traveling in Plaintiff Salinas1 car to

get dinner at La Bamba Restaurant on Main Street in East Haven.

54. The four drove down High Street and stopped at the intersection of Forbes Place

and Main for a red light.

55. Defendant Spaulding was a well-known figure on Main Street, especially to

Latinos, and for good reason: among other actions, some of which are detailed in this complaint,

75 percent of Spaulding's citations during that January and February were given to people with

Hispanic names, in a town with a six-percent Latino population.

56. A patrol car containing Spaulding and Defendant Doe 4 passed Plaintiffs

as they were stopped at the intersection, and Spaulding took a long look at Plaintiffs and

identified them as Latino.

57. Plaintiffs' car signaled and turned onto Main Street toward the restaurant.

58. Spaulding's patrol car then swerved, made a u-turn, and sped up to closely follow

Plaintiffs' car.

59. When plaintiff Salinas, the driver, signaled and turned into the restaurant's parking

lot, Spaulding's patrol car switched on its lights and pulled up behind their parked car.

60. Spaulding approached the car and asked plaintiff Salinas for a driver's license.

Plaintiff Salinas told Spaulding he didn't have a license.

61. Plaintiff Criollo offered to show Spaulding his license. Spaulding grabbed it,

exclaimed "F ing Spanish," and threw the license back in Criollo's face.

12
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 13 of 28

62. Another patrol car pulled up. Defendant Doe 4 came out of the second car,

banged on plaintiff Criollo's window, and told him to get out of the car. Doe 4 frisked plaintiff

Criollo, then took his license and threw it on the ground.

63. When plaintiff Albarracin asked Doe 4 why he had thrown Criollo's license on the

ground, Doe 4 responded by arresting Albarracin.

64. Doe 4 told plaintiff Criollo to go home. When Criollo told Doe 4 he wanted his

license back and started searching on the ground for it, Doe 4 handcuffed and arrested him.

When Plaintiff Espinoza asked Doe 4 why he had arrested Criollo, Spaulding and Doe 4 arrested

him. Plaintiff Salinas said nothing, but Spaulding and Doe 4 arrested him anyway.

"But Who Saw You Get Hit?"

65. Defendants Does 5 and 6 drove plaintiff Criollo to the police station. When

Criollo asked why he was arrested, Doe 5 sprayed him in the face with Cap-Stun, a Mace-like

substance. When they arrived at the police station, Doe 5 opened the back door and punched

Criollo in the face. Defendant Doe 5 continued to punch Criollo as he dragged him to the cell.

Does 6, 7, and 8 watched these attacks take place and could have intervened, but instead did

nothing.

66. Does 5, 6, 7, and 8 took Plaintiff Albarracin to a cell, separately from plaintiff

Criollo. Albarracin told the officers he did not understand why he had been arrested. Doe 5,

clutching Albarracin's hair and collar, hit Albarracin's head against the concrete wall twice.

When Albarracin fell to the floor and cried out for help, Doe 5 asked him if he was a baby.

67. Defendant Doe 9 came into the room and told Doe 5 to stop what he was doing.

Doe 9 picked Albarracin up off the floor. Albarracin told Doe 9 that Doe 5 had hit him and

13
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 14 of 28

thrown him against the wall. Doe 9 replied "But who saw you get hit?" and Doe 5 and Doe 9

laughed.

68. Plaintiff Albarracin asked Defendant Doe 10 to send a doctor because his head

hurt. Doe 10 said "[a]migo, that is impossible." When Albarracin asked why, Doe 10

responded, in effect, "because you're in jail."

69. When Albarracin then grabbed the cell bars and called out that he wanted to see a

doctor, Doe 5 turned off the light that illuminated Albarracin's cell, came toward him and

gestured as if he was going to punch him. Doe 5 then grabbed the front of Albarracin's shirt and

ripped it completely open, telling him to "shut the f up!"

70. Soon thereafter, Spaulding entered the room, exclaimed loudly in broken Spanish,

roughly, "Que bonita la siesta amigos tonight" [approximately translated: "What a nice nap you

are going to have tonight, my friends"], and laughed.

71. Plaintiff Criollo, nose bleeding, was placed in a cell close enough to plaintiff

Albarracin to hear the police beating Albarracin, to hear him calling on them to stop, and to hear

Spaulding mock Albarracin in broken Spanish.

72. Plaintiff Salinas was eventually placed in a cell at the police station after the

police took his shoes and jacket. Plaintiff Criollo was already there with a bloody nose. Salinas

also heard Albarracin's cries and Spaulding mocking them. Salinas feared he was next.

73. Plaintiff Espinoza was also placed in a cell at the police station. When Albarracin

was crying for help, Espinoza saw Doe 5 move towards Albarracin's cell and turn off the lights.

Espinoza then heard Spaulding mock them in broken Spanish. Espinoza too feared he was next.

74. Defendants' conduct, described above, was based on the race and ethnicity of

14
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 15 of 28

plaintiffs Albarracin, Criollo, Espinoza, and Salinas.

75. Plaintiffs were seriously injured, physically and emotionally, by Defendants'

conduct.

"Go Back to Your Country"

76. On March 1, 2009, plaintiff Edgar Torres was at Las Barras, a cafe" in East Haven,

after work.

77. Defendants Spaulding, Ferrara, Conyers, and Olson came into Las Barras and told

everyone to leave.

78. Plaintiff Torres asked the police why everyone had to leave the bar.

79. Spaulding told Torres to "shut the f up."

80. When Torres asked Spaulding why Latinos are treated badly by the East Haven

police, Spaulding called Torres a "f ing wetback" and told Torres he should go back to his

country.

81. Spaulding then handcuffed Torres and tasered him so that he fell to the floor.

While Torres lay prostrate, Spaulding tasered him twice more and kicked him.

82. Defendants Ferrara, Conyers, and Olson stood by, doing nothing, although they

could readily have prevented Spaulding from assaulting and injuring Torres.

83. Torres, in pain and mostly immobilized, rolled on the floor; Conyers

then tasered him a fourth time.

84. Meanwhile, Spaulding, Ferrara, and Olson stood by, doing nothing, although they

could readily have prevented Conyers from assaulting and injuring Torres.

85. Spaulding and the other officers put Torres in the patrol car. Torres told

15
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 16 of 28

Spaulding that he was going to tell others what Spaulding had done. After the other officers had

walked away from the vehicle, Spaulding warned Torres that Spaulding would kill him if Torres

complained or told anyone what happened that night.

86. Defendants' conduct, described above, was based on the race and ethnicity of

plaintiff Torres.

87. Plaintiff Torres was seriously injured, physically and emotionally, by Defendants'

conduct.

Four Officers, Three Taser Shots, and a Phantom Arrest

88. On or about August 8, 2009, Plaintiff Yadanny Garcia was riding as a passenger

in a car driven by his cousin Edgar Perez. When they pulled over at a restaurant to use the

bathroom, Garcia encountered four defendants, who were about to do to him what other

defendants had earlier done to Edgar Torres.

89. Garcia went into the restaurant with Mr. Perez but then stepped outside to wait for

him. At that point, Garcia saw Defendants Zullo, Montagna, Sorbo, and Lennon come running at

him, yelling for him to get on the ground.

90. Garcia put his hands on his head and started going down to the ground as

instructed. Defendant Zullo arrived first. While Garcia cried, "what are you doing?" defendant

Zullo tasered him three times on the ground.

91. Zullo then punched Garcia multiple times, called him a "[fj ing Ecuadorian,"

and told him to go back to his country.

92. Defendants Montagna, Lennon, and Sorbo stood by, doing nothing, although they

could readily have prevented Zullo from assaulting and injuring Garcia .

16
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 17 of 28

93. After being arrested and taken to the East Haven Police Department, Garcia was

taken to the hospital for treatment of the injuries that the defendants had inflicted.

94. None of the defendants ever admitted arresting Garcia. In fact, Zullo, Montagna

and Lennon, under oath at a DMV hearing, all denied making the arrest.

95. Defendants' conduct, described above, was based on the race and ethnicity of

plaintiff Garcia.

96. Plaintiff Garcia was seriously injured, physically and emotionally, by Defendants'

conduct.

"This Investigation is Going Nowhere."

97. In response to the defendants' pattern of misconduct, and at the request of the

Pastoral Council of St. Rose of Lima Church, the United States Department of Justice opened an

investigation into the Department. The defendants are well aware that they are now under the

scrutiny of a federal law enforcement agency.

98. On April 30,2010, at about 11 p.m., Plaintiff Fr. Manship was driving east on

Main Street in East Haven, on his way to the local Stop & Shop, when defendant Spaulding

spotted him. Spaulding made a u-turn and followed Fr. Manship, at a distance of less than a car

length, into the Stop & Shop parking lot.

99. Spaulding then parked his police vehicle in the fire lane near the store entrance

and waited for Fr. Manship to approach on his way into the store. When Fr. Manship was passing

Spaulding's vehicle, Spaulding stopped him.

100. Spaulding then proceeded to question Fr. Manship about the ongoing Department

of Justice investigation and Fr. Manship's participation in it. In the course of the exchange,

17
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 18 of 28

Spaulding accused Fr. Manship of telling half-truths and claimed that others had lied. "This

investigation," Spaulding said, "is going nowhere."

101. By telling Fr. Manship that the investigation would fail, and by detaining and

interrogating him, defendant Spaulding intended to intimidate Fr. Manship, discourage him from

participating as a witness in the Department of Justice investigation, and deter him from opposing

and encouraging others to oppose the defendants' misconduct.

102. As a result of being detained and retaliated against for exercising his

constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights, Fr. Manship has suffered harm and emotional

distress.

THE TOWN AND THE DEPARTMENT'S ILLEGAL POLICIES. PRACTICES. AND

CUSTOMS

103. The Town, the Department, and Defendant Gallo have developed and maintained

policies, practices, and customs evincing deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

persons in East Haven, and these unlawful policies, practices, and customs caused the violations

of Plaintiffs' rights described above. They include the following.

104. It was the policy and/or custom of the Town and the Department not to adequately

supervise and train police officers, including the defendant officers, thereby encouraging them to

violate the rights of the plaintiffs and others.

105. Chief Gallo, the Department, and the Town did not require appropriate in-service

training or retraining of officers who were known to have engaged in police misconduct.

106. It was the policy and custom of Chief Gallo, the Department, and the Town to

conduct inadequate investigations of civilian complaints, discourage the filing of complaints, and

18
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 19 of 28

conclude that officers had behaved appropriately despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

107. A long list of other policy deficiencies combined to encourage the unlawful

conduct of individual defendants described above. Among the deficiencies identified by the

United States Department of Justice are the following:

a. Outdated written policies and procedures: a significant number of the

Police Department's policies are outdated and not consistent with contemporary legal standards

and police practices. The Police Department also lacks updated rules of conduct, which set forth

specific prohibitions on officer actions and the affirmative requirements that officers must follow.

b. Insufficient guidance on the application of force: the Police Department

does not have clear policies and other written guidance on the application of force by its officers.

For instance, it has no comprehensive policy that incorporates all force implements that are

available to officers and that delineates the factors that should be considered in determining

appropriate levels of force.

c. Lack of formal requirements for reporting and reviewing use of force: the

Police Department apparently does not require its officers to thoroughly report all uses of force to

provide for adequate supervisory review. In addition, it does not conduct comprehensive

administrative reviews of critical incidents, such as firearm discharges by officers, to identify

necessary corrective action, both disciplinary and non-disciplinary, to prevent or minimize

unlawful or improper use of force by officers.

d. Inadequate citizen complaint and internal investigation processes: the

Police Department's policies and practices do not provide for the effective resolution of citizen

complaints and internal investigations. Citizen complaint processes, including complaint forms,

19
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 20 of 28

are not readily accessible to the public, including individuals with limited English proficiency;

there are no objective guidelines concerning the initiation of thorough and timely internal

investigations; the department requires notarized statements and limited forms of identification,

which discourages some individuals from reporting police misconduct; and current procedures

apparently do not require that investigators issue findings and recommendations in all internal

investigations.

e. Lack of an early identification or warning system: the Police Department

does not have a uniform and integrated system that allows supervisors to proactively detect

potential patterns of at-risk conduct by officers.

f. Fragmented community engagement: the Police Department does not

engage all of the communities it serves on policing priorities and collaborative approaches to law

enforcement. Nor has it developed any formal or written guidance on requesting language

assistance, initiating immigration status inquiries, or requiring identification from individuals,

failures that impede the full participation of members of the East Haven community in the Police

Department's policing efforts. This lack of written policies and internal mechanisms to ensure

adherence to such policies encourages unlawful conduct like that described in this complaint.

g. Limited training: the Police Department's failure to re-train existing

officers leaves them without guidance or leadership necessary to deter unlawful conduct like that

described in this complaint.

108. As a result of the policies and/or customs of Chief Gallo, the Town and the Police

Department, including but not limited to those mentioned above, the other individual defendants

expected that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and that

20
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 21 of 28

misconduct would be tolerated and encouraged, and this belief was a substantial factor causing

their unlawful conduct.

CLAIMS

109. The allegations of paragraphs 1 -108 are incorporated into the allegations of each

claim below the same as if fully set forth therein.

First Claim: Equal Protection Violations

110. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, engaged,

and continue to engage, in profiling and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and other Latino

individuals based on the race and ethnicity of Plaintiffs (or, in the case of Fr. Manship, his

support of persons of this race and ethnicity), and for that reason violated the rights of Plaintiffs to

the equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article First, Section Twenty of the Connecticut Constitution.

Second Claim: Conspiracy to Commit Equal Protection Violations

111. Defendants by their conduct described above conspired for the purpose of

depriving Latinos and those who supported them, including Plaintiffs, of the equal protection of

the laws.

112. Defendants' conspiracy was motivated by, and Defendants acted with, race-based

invidious discriminatory animus.

113. Defendants engaged in all of the overt acts alleged in this complaint in

furtherance of the conspiracy.

114. The overt acts engaged in by Defendants are evidence of an agreement among

them, and they were related to the promotion of the conspiracy.

21
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 22 of 28

115. The conspiracy violated the rights of Plaintiffs to the equal protection of the laws

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §

1985(3) and was an unlawful conspiracy under Connecticut law.

Third Claim: Neglect to Prevent Wrongs

116. Defendants had knowledge that the wrongs conspired to be done were about to be

committed by other defendants and other employees of the Department.

117. Defendants had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the

wrongs.

118. Defendants neglected or refused to prevent or aid in the preventing of the wrongs.

119. The wrongful acts were committed.

120. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered violation of their equal protection rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and all of the other harms, damages and

injuries described in this complaint.

121. Defendants' conduct violated Plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986.

Fourth Claim: Violations of Speech and Petition Rights

122. The retaliatory conduct of Defendants Cari, Spaulding, Does 1 -3, Zullo and

Conyers described above violated the rights of plaintiffs Manship, Chacon, Matute and Torres to

freedom of speech and to petition their government for redress protected by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article First,

Section Four of the Connecticut Constitution.

Fifth Claim: Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

123. Defendants Cari, Spaulding, and Does 1-3 conspired for the purpose of impeding,

22
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 23 of 28

hindering, obstructing, and defeating the due course ofjustice, with the intent to injure Fr.

Manship for his attempt to enforce the rights of Latinos to the equal protection of the laws.

124. Defendants engaged in all of the overt acts alleged in paragraphs 18-34, 36, and 38,

above, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

125. The overt acts engaged in by Defendants are evidence of an agreement among

them, and they were related to the promotion of the conspiracy.

126. The conspiracy violated the rights of plaintiff Manship protected by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985(2).

Sixth Claim: Illegal Search and Seizure

127. The conduct of Defendants Spaulding, Cari, Zullo, and Does 1-3 described in

paragraphs 18-34,36, and 43-49, above, violated the rights of Plaintiffs Chacon, Matute,

Manship, and Aguayza not to be subjected to illegal search or seizure provided by the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article First,

Sections Seven and Nine of the Connecticut Constitution.

Seventh Claim: Due Process Excessive Force Violations

128. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and violated the rights of

Plaintiffs Albarracin, Criollo, Garcia, and Torres, all Connecticut residents, not to be subjected to

excessive force protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article First, Sections Seven and Nine of the Connecticut

Constitution.

Eighth Claim: Due Process Deliberate Indifference Violations

129. Defendants Spaulding, Does 4-10, Ferrara, Conyers, Olson, Sorbo, Montagna, and

23
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 24 of 28

Lennon recklessly or intentionally failed to stop the use of excessive force against Plaintiffs

Albarracin, Criollo, Torres, and Garcia. Defendants Doe 5-10 recklessly or intentionally denied

access to medical care to Plaintiff Albarracin. Defendants' actions constituted deliberate

indifference to plaintiffs' rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article First, Sections Seven and Nine of the

Connecticut Constitution.

Ninth Claim; Assault and Battery

130. The assaults by Doe 5, Zullo, Spaulding, and Conyers towards

Plaintiffs Albarracin, Criollo, Garcia, and Torres described above put Plaintiffs in reasonable fear

of imminent bodily harm and resulted in such harm, and therefore constituted unlawful assault

and battery under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

Tenth Claim: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

131. The conduct of Defendants Cari, Spaulding, Does 1-10, Ferrara, Conyers, Olson,

Zullo, Sorbo, Montagna, and Lennon towards all Plaintiffs described above constituted intentional

infliction of emotional distress under the laws of the State of Connecticut because Defendants

knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of that conduct, the

conduct was extreme and outrageous, and the conduct caused severe emotional distress to

Plaintiffs.

Eleventh Claim: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

132. The conduct of Defendants Cari, Spaulding, Does 1-10, Ferrara, Conyers, Olson,

Zullo, Sorbo, Montagna, and Lennon towards all Plaintiffs described above constituted negligent

infliction of emotional distress under the laws of the State of Connecticut because Defendants

24
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 25 of 28

should have realized that such conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing illness or bodily

injury and such conduct caused emotional distress to Plaintiffs.

Twelfth Claim: False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution

133. The conduct of Defendants Spaulding, Cari, and Does 1-3, toward plaintiff

Manship described above constituted false arrest and malicious prosecution under the laws of the

state of Connecticut because Defendants arrested Plaintiff without probable cause and for an

improper purpose.

Thirteenth Claim: Tortious Interference With Business Relation

134. The conduct of defendants Spaulding, Cari, and Does 1-3 toward plaintiffs Matute

and Chacon described above was malicious, involved intimidation and misrepresentation, and

interfered with the business relations of the plaintiffs with their customers, to their loss.

Fourteenth Claim: Supervisory Liability

135. Defendant Gallo knew that members of the Department were violating the equal

protection rights of Latinos, including Plaintiffs. Defendant Gallo could have taken action to

investigate, address, and prevent violations of the plaintiffs' rights, but he knowingly and

deliberately failed and refused to do.

136. As a result of defendant Gallo's knowing and deliberate failure to investigate,

address, prevent, or punish discrimination, such conduct became an accepted custom and practice

in the Department.

137. By his acts and omissions, defendant Gallo knowingly and intentionally

disregarded repeated, pervasive, and ongoing violations of the rights of Latinos and knowingly

and intentionally failed to protect Latino members of the public, thus subjecting them, including

25
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 26 of 28

Plaintiffs, to violation of their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986.

Fifteenth Claim: Municipal (Monell) Liability

138. The policies and customs promulgated by the Town described above

demonstrated deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of all plaintiffs and caused the

violations of Plaintiffs' rights described above, in violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the First,

Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

1985(3), and 1986.

Sixteenth Claim: Muncipal Liability Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. Section 7-465

139. On or about July 21,2009, plaintiffs Albarracin, Criollo and Espinoza, served

notice on the Town Clerk of the Town pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465 of their intention to

commence this action. Pursuant to that statute, the Town is liable for the negligence or violations

of these plaintiffs' civil rights by the individual defendants, insofar as those violations are found,

as to the individual defendant concerned, not to be the product of any wilful or wanton act by the

defendant.

Seventeenth Claim: Title VI violation

140. Through the conduct described above, defendant East Haven Police Department, a

program or activity that receives federal funding, has violated plaintiffs' rights under Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. by utilizing policies and methods which

intentionally discriminate against Plaintiffs based on their race, color, and/or ethnicity.

26
 Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 27 of 28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request a jury trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, and request

the following relief:

1. Compensatory damages;

2. Punitive damages;

3. Costs, including reasonable attorney's fees;

4. Injunctive relief adequate to prevent the continuation and recurrence of the

defendants' unlawful conduct; and

5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

27
Case 3:10-cv-01692 Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 28 of 28

THE PLAINTIFFS

David N. Rosen (ctOOl 96)

James Bhandary-Alexandcr (ct28135)
400 Orange Street
New Haven. Connecticut 06511
(203)787-3513

Michael Wishnie (ct27221)

Susan Hazeldean (ct28403)
Manuel Giner. Law Student Intern
Tafari Lumumba. Law Student Intern
Dermol Lynch, Law Student Intern
Yaman Salahi, Law Student Intern
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
Yale Law School
P.O. Box 209090
New Haven, CT 06520
(203)432-4800
Their Attorneys

28