A $10 million lawsuit has been filed by Worcester attorneys Robert Scott, Esq. and Héctor E. Piñeiro, Esq. on behalf of a “John Doe” Worcester resident, charging civil rights violations by the Worcester Police Department and others. The lawsuit, originally filed on July 17th, 2009 and amended on Oct 20th, 2009 returns us to the Summer of 2006 when the Worcester Police Department’s decision to bring the Fox TV Show “Cops” to Worcester led to a major community outcry and the eventual dis-invitation of the Cops TV film crew.
The lawsuit presents the following summary, “This is an action for money damages and other relief arising from the unjustified warrantless invasion of plaintiff’s home on the night of July 19, 2006, by officers of the Worcester Police Department and cameramen of the television show "Cops," during which the officers awakened the plaintiff & menaced him with guns as he lay naked and uncovered on his bed, and the cameramen trained bright lights and video cameras on the scene”.
Community activists originally brought this incident and allegations forward to City Manager O’Brien and Chief Gemme for review, but the community’s concerns were ignored. At that time the plaintiff was attempting to retrieve the video tape, but was stymied by the police cover-up.
The Oct 20th amended complaint calls for a jury trial. In addition to the City of Worcester, the lawsuit names the following as defendants; Fox Broadcasting Company, Langley Productions, Inc., Sergeant Thomas Needham, Cameraman Doe 1 & 2 and Officers Doe 1, 2, & 3. The lawsuit was originally filed in a Massachusetts state court but was recently transferred to US District Court in Boston.
In the coversheet the lawsuit is succinctly summarized; “Home invasion, Filmed while naked, emotional harms”.
The full complaint recounts the victim’s experiences on the night of July 19th, 2006. Sometime at approximately 10:30pm, Sgt. Needham “without warrant and for no lawful reason or purpose, entered plaintiffs apartment through an open window”, he then “opened the front door and admitted the cameramen and the other officers to plaintiffs apartment.”
The lawsuit continues, “Needham, the other officers, and the cameramen then entered the bedroom where plaintiff was sleeping. At the aforesaid time and place Needham and the other officers drew their handguns, pointed them at the plaintiff and in-loud voices ordered the sleeping plaintiff to "freeze." At the aforesaid time and place, as the officers leveled their weapons at the plaintiff, the cameramen each activated bright lights and pointed video cameras at the plaintiff. The plaintiff awakened in terror, partially blinded by the lights but able to see the muzzles of four guns pointing at him.”
Because all of the individual defendants “acted under color of law and/or under the circumstances their conduct amounted to state action” the lawsuit alleges they “violated the plaintiff’s right to privacy and the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution”.
I spoke with Assistant City Solicitor Janet McGuiggan today (Nov. 4th) and the City has not yet filed a response. For their part, Fox’s attorneys’ response repeatedly states to each item in the lawsuit that the “Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations”. Their response states the following defenses in order;
“Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.”
“John Doe is not a proper party to this action and, therefore, this action is a nullity. In addition, plaintiff did not comply with the proper impoundment procedure.”
“Plaintiff has failed to name the real party in interest as plaintiff.”
“Defendant is not a state actor for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983.”
“Defendant did not violate any constitutional right held by plaintiff.”
“Defendant lacked knowledge or intent to inflict emotional distress.”
“Defendant did not engage in conduct that was extreme or outrageous.”
And of course, they call for the lawsuit to be dismissed.
DOWNLOAD Fox Broadcasting response
Go get em John Doe
"...but the community’s concerns were ignored."
Typical, business as usual.
If the city manager can allegedly be so arrogant, what can we expect from other departments?
This may not change thanks in part to the dismally low voter turn out, which has essentially maintained the same controlling brood of hoods running this city.
Watch out for further retribution.
So much for being a John Doe
http://www.whitepages.com/search/ReverseAddress?street=92+Houghton+Stree...
If you have someone's address, you have their name and phone number.