Arpaio Seagal complaint

8/2/2019 Arpaio Seagal complaint

1/29

-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Robert J. Campos #011817ROBERT J. CAMPOS& ASSOCIATES, P.L.C.51 East Lexington AvenuePhoenix, AZ 85012Telephone (602) 222-3440Facsimile (602) [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

JESUS SANCHEZ LLOVERA,

Plaintiff

vs.

MARICOPA COUNTY, a public entity;

MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFFS

OFFICE, a division of Maricopa County;

SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA

ARPAIO, husband and wife; STEVEN

SEAGAL and JANE DOE SEAGAL,

husband and wife; MARICOPA COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, the

governing body of Maricopa County;

FULTON BROCK and JANE DOE

BROCK, husband and wife; DON

STAPLEY and JANE DOE STAPELY,

husband and wife; ANDREW KUNASEK

))))))))))))))))))))))))

)))))))

Case Number: ____________________

COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/29

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and JANE DOE KUNASEK, husband and

wife; MAX WILSON and JANE DOE

WILSON, husband and wife; MARY

ROSE WILCOX and JOHN DOE

WILCOX, husband and wife; JOHN DOE

SUPERVISORS I-X; JANE DOE

SUPERVISORS I-X; JOHN DOES I-X;

JANE DOES I-X,

Defendants.

)))))))))))))))))

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jesus Sanchez Llovera, for his Complaint against Defendants, alleges as

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and pendent state common

law and statutory laws.

2. Plaintiff has satisfied the provisions of A.R.S. 12-821.01 by serving upon

Defendants a Notice of Claim more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the filing of

this Complaint. Defendants have not responded to the Notice of Claim.

3. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs federal law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 42 U.S.C. 1988. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs state and federal claims pursuant to Article 6, Section 14 of the Arizona

Constitution.


3/29

-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4. Venue is initially proper in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. 12-401, as the

majority of the parties are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the events

underlying this lawsuit occurred in Maricopa County. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the

right, however, to timely change venue pursuant to A.R.S. 12-408, because Maricopa

County is a party.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

6. At all times material herein, Plaintiff Jesus Sanchez Llovera was a legal

permanent resident of the United States, residing in the City of Laveen, located in

Maricopa County, Arizona.

7. Defendant Maricopa County (the County) is a public entity, formed and

designated as such pursuant to Title 11 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and, as such, is

subject to civil suit and may be held independently liable as an entity and/or municipality,

and/or vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of its officers, employees, agents,

districts, and division/sub-divisions, including (without limitation) the individual

members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Arpaio, and the officers

and employees of its divisions, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.

8. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) is a political

subdivision of Maricopa County and the State of Arizona, and constitutes an independent

jural entity subject to civil suit.

9. At all times material herein, Defendant Joseph Arpaio (Arpaio or Sheriff

Arpaio) was the duly-elected Sheriff of Maricopa County and the head of the MCSO. In

such capacity, Arpaio was an officer, agent and employee of the County and MCSO, with

the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, customs, procedures,


4/29

-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

protocols and training for MCSOs Tactical Operations Unit, the use of Global

Positioning Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member recruitment and training. His

wrongful actions and/or inactions constitute actions of the County, the Board, and

MCSO. The County, the Board, and MCSO are vicariously liable and directly liable for

his wrongful conduct, as alleged herein.

10. At all times material herein, Defendant Steven Seagal was an agent and/or

employee of the County and MCSO, who at the time of the events complained herein,

was acting within the course and scope of his employment by the County and MCSO, and

under color of law. This Defendant engaged in wrongful conduct that allowed, caused,

and contributed to the destruction of Plaintiffs property and violation of Plaintiffs

constitutional rights, as alleged herein. His actions constitute actions of the County,

Arpaio, and MCSO, and the County, Arpaio, and MCSO are vicariously liable for his

wrongful conduct.

11. At all times material herein, Defendants Fulton Brock, Don Stapley,

Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson, and Mary Rose Wilcox (collectively referred to as the

Board) were duly-elected Supervisors of Maricopa County and the head of Maricopa

County government, with ultimate authority and responsibility for overseeing, funding,

and regulating the actions and/or inactions of Sheriff Arpaio. In such capacity, the

members of the Board were officers, agents, and employees of the County, with the

authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, procedures, protocols, customs,

and training for MCSOs Tactical Operations Unit, the use of Global Positioning

Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member recruitment and training. These

Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct, and/or conduct, omissions, and actions not

undertaken in good faith, which allowed, caused, and/or contributed to the destruction of

Plaintiffs property and violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, as alleged herein.


5/29

-5-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The Boards actions and/or inactions, and/or the actions of each of the individually-

named Supervisors that comprises it, constitute actions of the County and the County is

vicariously liable and directly liable for their wrongful conduct, as alleged herein.

12. At all times material herein, Defendants John Doe Supervisors I-X Jane

Doe Supervisors I-X (collectively the Board John Does) were duly-elected Supervisors

of Maricopa County and the head of Maricopa County government, with ultimate

authority and responsibility for overseeing, funding, and regulating the actions and/or

inactions of Sheriff Arpaio. In such capacity, the Board John Does were officers, agents,

and employees of the County, with the authority and responsibility to establish policy,

practices, procedures, protocols, customs, and training for MCSOs Tactical Operations

Unit, the use of Global Positioning Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member

recruitment and training. These Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct, and/or

conduct, omissions, and actions not undertaken in good faith, which allowed, caused,

and/or contributed to the destruction of Plaintiffs property and violation of Plaintiffs

constitutional rights, as alleged herein. The Board John Does actions and/or inactions,

and/or the actions of each of the individually-named Supervisors that comprises it,

constitute actions of the County and the County is vicariously liable and directly liable

for their wrongful conduct, as alleged herein.

13. Maricopa County and all of its subdivisions and their agents and employees

specifically named herein or named as Does are collectively referred herein as the

County or Defendants.

14. The Defendants designated herein as Jane or John Doe spouses, Ava

Arpaio, Jane Doe Brock, Jane Doe Stapley, Jane Doe Kunasek, Jane Doe Wilson, John

Doe Wilcox, Jane Doe Seagal are the spouses of the respective Defendants and are so

designated because the wrongful conduct of Defendants was engaged in for the benefit of


6/29

-6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

their marital communities, thereby rendering the spouses and marital communities of

Defendants liable for such conduct.

15. The true names, capacities, and relationships, whether individual, corporate,

partnership, or otherwise of all John and Jane Doe Defendants, Black Corporations, and

White Partnerships, are unknown at the time of the filing of this Complaint, and are being

designated pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 10(f) and applicable federal and state law.

Plaintiffs further allege that all of the fictitiously named Defendants were jointly

responsible for the actions, events, and circumstances underlying this lawsuit, and that

they proximately caused the damages stated in this Complaint. Plaintiffs will amend the

Complaint to name the unidentified individuals once they have learned, through

discovery, the identities and acts, omissions, roles, and/or responsibilities of such

Defendants sufficient for Plaintiffs to discover the claims against them.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Summary of Facts



17. Prior to the events at issue in this Complaint, the Phoenix Police

Department conducted an independent investigation at the home Jesus Sanchez Llovera

on February 4, 2011.

18. The Phoenix Police Department searched Mr. Lloveras home and did not

find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. No drugs, weapons or contraband were found

at Mr. Lloveras home.


7/29

-7-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19. The Phoenix Police Department communicated with MCSO during the

February 4, 2011 search of Mr. Lloveras home. MCSO Deputy Hess called Mr. Llovera

on his cell phone.

20. Deputy Hess asked Mr. Llovera to meet Phoenix Police detectives at the I-

17 freeway and Dunlap Road in Phoenix for questioning.

21. Mr. Llovera, without counsel, willingly met Phoenix Police detectives at

the I-17 freeway and Dunlap Road. Phoenix Police detectives escorted Mr. Llovera to

police headquarters for questioning. Mr. Llovera fully cooperated with the Phoenix

Police investigation.

22. Mr. Llovera was cleared of any and all alleged wrongdoing. The Phoenix

Police Department investigation of Mr. Llovera did not result in the filing of any criminal

charges against Mr. Llovera.

23. Following their investigation, the Phoenix Police Department provided

MCSO with photographs taken at Mr. Lloveras home during the February 4, 2011

search.

24. The photographs depicted healthy roosters and hens. The photographs did

not illustrate any evidence of cockfighting or an active cockfighting operation at Mr.

Lloveras home.


8/29

-8-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MCSO Investigation and Staged Arrest for Steven Seagals Television Show: Steven

Seagal Lawman.

25. In the days leading up to March 9, 2011, MCSO conducted an

investigation of Mr. Llovera. On March 8, 2011, MCSO Detective Michael Barnett

drove by Mr. Lloveras home. Detective Barnett claimed that he saw roosters and

chickens walking in the front yard of Mr. Lloveras home. Detective Barnett stated that

he heard other roosters crowing in the back yard of Mr. Lloveras home.

26. Detective Barnett did not see or hear any evidence that Mr. Llovera was

raising or actively training roosters to cockfight.

27. Armed with Detective Barnetts observations, in the early morning hours of

March 9, 2011, the MCSO Tactical Operations Unit laid siege on Mr. Lloveras home

under the guise of a cockfighting investigation.

28. Pursuant to a media production contract between MCSO (executed by

Sheriff Arpaio) and Steven Seagals production company, Seagal and his producers were

embedded among MCSOs Tactical Operations Unit as they blasted onto Mr. Lloveras

property.

29. MCSO used a Lenco Bear armored truck to smash through a gated

driveway on the north end of Mr. Lloveras property. Seagals producers and cameramen

joined MCSO deputies in the Lenco Bear armored truck.


9/29

-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30. A V-150 tank pulverized a thirty-foot iron gate on the south end of Mr.

Lloveras property. Seagal joined MCSO deputies in the V-150 tank and was armed with

an automatic assault rifle, along with a sidearm. Seagals producers attached a stationary

camera inside the V-150 tank.

31. At least thirty armored MCSO Tactical Operations Unit personnel rushed

Mr. Lloveras home. Each officer was outfitted in full riot gear consisting of shoulder

pads, steel plates on their chest and back, a Kevlar helmet, goggles, ear and eye

protection and a shield. Every officer also carried a weapon, either a Kimber .45 caliber

handgun or an M4 Colt Commando fully automatic rifle.

32. Ear-crushing diversionary bombs were deployed by deputies as they exited

the V-150 tank. Mr. Lloveras peacocks, guineas, dogs, sheep, goats, roosters, hens and

chicks ran for cover. Seven K-9 units swarmed Mr. Lloveras property while the MCSO

bomb robot led the search for Mr. Lloveraan unarmed chicken farmer.

33. The MSCO Tactical Operation Units entry team smashed the front door of

Mr. Lloveras home with a door ram. Thewindow team entered Mr. Lloveras home

by shattering a picture window in the living room, as well as a window in Mr. Lloveras

seven-year-old daughters room. The rakeandbreak team stood by ready to cut the

power supply to Mr. Lloveras home. MCSO deputies announced their presence over a

loudspeaker after deputies were inside Mr. Lloveras home. Seagals production

company captured the drama, as it unfolded, from various cameras positioned outside of

Mr. Lloveras home, and inside the V-150 tank and Lenco Bear armored truck.


10/29

-10-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34. MCSO deputies found Mr. Llovera inside his homealone and unarmed

dialing 911 on his cell phone. Mr. Llovera had just awoken from his nap to find his home

demolished and fully armed MCSO deputies pointing guns at his face. Mr. Llovera did

not resist arrest and was fully cooperative with MCSO deputies.

35. MCSO deputies hauled Mr. Llovera from his home and strategically pulled

him to an open area in his front yard where deputies placed zip-tie cuffs on his wrists,

fully within the view of Seagals cameras.

36. Mr. Llovera was escorted across the street from his home. Still clearly dazed

and confused, Seagals producers badgered Mr. Llovera to sign a release form so that

they could enter his property and capture footage forLawman. Mr. Llovera refused to

sign the release form.

37. MCSOs criminal investigation was nothing more than a ministerial

exercise to carry out a foregone conclusion. Arpaio wanted to subject Mr. Llovera to a

very public and humiliating arrest in front of Seagals cameras, even though he knew that

Mr. Llovera had not violated any criminal statutes.

38. Nevertheless, Arpaio launched a high-profile criminal investigation and

executed a full-scale military style attack (including tanks, diversionary bombs, guns and

an aging and overweight action hero) on Mr. Lloveras home. The press attention was

far too attractive for Arpaio to pass up, despite the glaring problems with the case.

Within minutes of the raids execution, a media helicopter circled aboveMr. Lloveras

home.


11/29

-11-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39. Upon information and belief, MCSO placed a GPS tracking device on Mr.

Lloveras vehicle and monitored his every movement in the days preceding the raid.

MCSO did not obtain a search warrant before placing the tracking device on Mr.

Lloveras vehicle. More importantly, upon information and belief, MCSO knew that Mr.

Llovera was home alone on March 9, 2011, and did not pose a threat to MCSO deputies.

MCSO deputies bragged that MCSO could have used the GPS tracking device to arrest

Mr. Llovera during a traffic stop, thereby eliminating all need for the massive raid of his

home. A routine traffic stop, however, would not have provided sensationalized footage

forLawmans producers.

40. Arpaio scheduled a press conference to publicly announce Mr. Lloveras

arrest. The arrest was publicly staged in an effort to give Arpaio even more self-serving

press attention and to feed his undying mania for publicity.

41. While Arpaio portrayed himself as a champion of animal rights in front of

Mr. Lloveras house, his deputies, without lawful authority, slaughtered over one hundred

of Mr. Lloveras roosters in the back yard. Arpaios deputies also joked about how Mr.

Lloveras animals fled in terror during the raid.

42. Local television news stations featured Mr. Lloveras arrest as a leading

story. Media reports featured Mr. Lloveras mug shot, erroneously proclaiming that he

not only raised roosters to cockfight but also managed a cockfighting ring. Because of

Seagals involvement in the raid, Mr. Lloveras arrest reached a global audience within

hours.


12/29

-12-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43. Mr. Llovera suffered deeply from the humiliation of having his arrest

highly publicized.

44. Mr. Lloveras arrest provided the necessary fodder for Arpaios constant

hunger for publicity. At the press conference, Arpaio stood alongside Seagal to support

his self-aggrandizing claim that he is Americas toughest sheriff and a champion of

animal rights. Arpaio proclaimed that Mr. Llovera was arrested on over one hundred

counts of cockfighting and falsely claimed that MCSO found evidence of cockfighting on

Mr. Lloveras property.

45. Wanting to capitalize on the ever-increasing and highly-publicized

controversy behind the investigation and arrest of Mr. Llovera, Arpaio, using his political

power and influence pushed the Maricopa County Attorneys Office to prosecute the

case.

46. Although MCSO arrested Mr. Llovera on over one hundred counts of

cockfighting, the Maricopa County Attorneys Office presented only one count of

cockfighting to the grand jury.

47. Arpaios ulterior motives in investigating, pressuring and forcing the

prosecution of Mr. Llovera had to do with the political and financial gain the publicity of

the case generated.

48. Mr. Llovera has suffered a loss of income and earnings as a result of the

events surrounding his arrest and prosecution.

49. As a result of the investigation, his arrest and prosecution, Mr. Llovera has

suffered humiliation, anguish, mental and physical suffering.


13/29

-13-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50. Mr. Lloveras small business has been adversely affected because of the

actions of the Defendants and the negativepublicity surrounding the Defendants

investigation and prosecution, which has resulted in a loss of business profits and

suspension of Mr. Lloveras Arizona Lottery license.

51. As a result of the wrongful arrest and prosecution, Mr. Llovera was forced

to hire a criminal attorney and incurred legal fees and investigative costs in the

approximate amount of $30,000.00. Mr. Llovera has also incurred thousands of dollars

in property damage to his home. Mr. Lloveras animals were also slaughtered without

due process of law, resulting in the loss of thousands of dollars.

Defendants Pattern, Custom and Practice of Misusing Their Power by Arresting

and Prosecuting Individuals Without Probable Cause for Improper and Unlawful

Selfish Purposes, Including Political and Financial Gain.

52. This is not the first time these Defendants have abused their authority for

unconstitutional and improper motives and to obtain financial, political, and other

benefits. In fact, they have a custom, pattern, and practice of targeting, arresting, and

prosecuting individuals without probable cause.

53. In June 2007, Dr. Joshua Winston, a Sun City West veterinarian was

arrested without probable cause, and publicly accused by Arpaio of punching a five

pound Chihuahua in the face, causing the dogs eye to dislodge. These allegations were

based solely upon the false accusations of disgruntled employees who were not present

when the alleged abuse happened. Arpaio and the MCSO knew this fact, and knew that


14/29

-14-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the charges were baseless, but knowingly prosecuted Dr. Winston to gain publicity and

political and financial gain.

54. Arpaio and the MCSO had the dog taken to at least three different

veterinarians prior to seeking charges, none of which saw any sign that the dog had been

punched. One veterinarian noted that a blow to the eye would cause the eye to recess

back, not fall out, and another stated that in 17 years of practice, he had four different

dogs experience the exact same problem while in his care. Arpaio and the MCSO

ignored this information and failed to mention it to the public or to the grand jury. In

fact, Arpaio had already appeared on television to publicly accuse Dr. Winston of

punching the dog in the face. Arpaio acted in complete disregard of the truth and to the

effects on Dr. Winston, his practice, and reputation that the accusation and arrest would

bring, and instead acted solely for his own publicity seeking purposes.

55. The arrest of Dr. Winston by Arpaio and the MCSO without probable cause

was in violation of the constitutional rights of Dr. Winston, and was done solely for

Arpaios own selfish motives, including personal and political gain and the publicity

garnered by it.

56. In October 2007, Arpaio and the MCSO arrested Michael Lacey and Jim

Larkin, the Executive Editor and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, ofThe Phoenix

New Times on misdemeanor charges without probable cause, in violation of the

constitutional rights of Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin, for the sole and improper purpose of

Arpaios and the MCSOs own personal and political gain, and in an attempt to silence

their critics.


15/29

-15-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57. In January 2006, dozens of Arpaios armed and black-suited MCSO SWAT

Team members, covered by three MCSO helicopters, descended upon the home of Dr.

Sandra Dowling, the then duly elected Superintendent of Schools of Maricopa County.

The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County had conspired with Arpaio to retaliate

against Dr. Dowling for her public positions, speech, political views, and stances with

respect to the Countys obligation to fund its accommodation schools. Arpaio agreed to

investigate Dr. Dowling and the workings of her office. At the time of Dr. Dowlings

arrest, Arpaio and the MCSO did not have probable cause to believe that Dr. Dowling

had committed or was committing any criminal offense.

58. Arpaio repeatedly told the media that Dr. Dowling had hidden, stolen,

and/or misused $3.5 million allegedly mission from the Maricopa County Regional

School District, knowing that these accusations were false and that there was no evidence

or facts to support them. He did this to seek publicity, and at the behest of the Board of

Supervisors.

59. This was done by Arpaio and the MCSO without probable cause, in

violation of the constitutional rights of Dr. Dowling, for the sole and improper purpose of

Arpaios and the MCSOs own personal and political gain.

60. In November 2007, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Arizona (ACLU), Daniel Pachoda, was arrested by the MCSO after identifying

himself as being with the ACLU, an organization that Arpaio and the MCSO disapproved

of based on the ACLUs lawsuits against Arpaio and the MCSO. Mr. Pachoda was

attending a demonstration as a legal observer in front of an east Phoenix furniture store.


16/29

-16-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Pachoda was arrested that day on a misdemeanor charge of trespassing, which rarely

leads to anything more than a summons to appear in court. Mr. Pachoda, a constitutional

law expert with more than 35 years experience, was hauled off to jail and detained for

nearly 12 hours. A Maricopa County Justice of the Peace later ruled that Mr. Pachoda

did not engage in any unlawful behavior prior to his arrest by MCSO deputies.

61. Arpaio and his MCSO deputies arrested Mr. Pachoda in clear violation of

his constitutional rights and pursuant to the MCSOs custom of investigating, arresting,

and prosecuting individuals without probable cause all for political show and personal

vindictiveness.

62. In August 2007, well-respected and highly decorated Chandler Police

Sergeant Thomas Lovejoy was arrested by MCSO following the tragic death of his K-9

partner, Bandit, a Belgian Mallinois police dog. On the morning of August 11, 2007,

after working an extended overtime assignment, Sgt. Lovejoy went home. Sgt. Lovejoy

was exhausted and wanted only to go to sleep, having had only 6 hours of sleep in the

previous 51 hours. Bandit, also exhausted from extended shift work, was asleep in the

kennel in the back of Sgt. Lovejoys SUV.

63. Unfortunately, family needs intervened and Sgt. Lovejoy did not get to go

to sleep. Sgt. Lovejoy learned that this stepson, Shane, had been involved in a minor

accident and needed his immediate help. Soon after, Sgt. Lovejoys wife, Carolynn,

called and tearfully reported that she was having a personal crisis at work. After

attending the scene of Shanes accident and stopping by Carolynns work to check on


17/29

-17-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

her, Sgt. Lovejoy returned home in the afternoon and went inside the house for a brief

nap.

64. When Sgt. Lovejoy woke from his nap, he went to his SUV to grab his gear

to take inside the home. He noticed a strange smell in the SUV and opened the back

doors to air out the vehicle. Sgt. Lovejoy realized for the first time that Bandit had never

come out of the SUV. After pausing in disbelief for a moment, Sgt. Lovejoy came to

grips with the reality that his friend and partner, Bandit, was dead.

65. After news of Bandits death became public, Sheriff Arpaio immediately

claimed jurisdiction. Within days, Arpaio held a press conference to announce that he

would be launching a criminal investigation into Sgt. Lovejoys actions, which the

Chandler Police had originally and correctly deemed was unnecessary. For nearly a

month, MCSO officials interviewed witnesses and collected evidence. On September 5,

2007, Sgt. Lovejoy received a request from an MCSO detective to meet with him. Sgt.

Lovejoy agreed to meet MCSO detectives at a police substation but was unaware that the

meeting was a ploy. Arpaio intended to arrest Lovejoy.

66. Sgt. Lovejoy was unaware that Arpaio had scheduled a press conference to

publicly announce Lovejoys arrest even before the arrest happened. Arpaio would later

tell the public that Lovejoy was behind bars and that he could be charged with a felony.

Neither were true. The arrest was publicly staged to provide Arpaio with press attention.

At a press conference, Arpaio touted himself as tough on crime and announced that the

MCSO investigation had found that, Sgt. Thomas Lovejoy violated the law by recklessly

leaving his dog in a police vehicle for 13 hours in a reckless manner, even though he


18/29

-18-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

knew and would acknowledge that there was no evidence that Sgt. Lovejoy intended to

leave Bandit in the SUV.

67. Arpaio and his MCSO deputies arrested Sgt. Lovejoy in clear violation of

his constitutional rights and pursuant to the MCSOs custom of investigating, arresting,

and prosecuting individuals without probable cause all for political show and personal

vindictiveness.

68. These and other instances of targeting, arresting, and prosecuting

individuals without probable cause and in violation of the Constitution demonstrate the

Defendants pattern and practice of arresting and prosecuting individuals without

probable cause solely for the selfish and improper purposes of achieving personal and

political gain through publicity and other improper purposes.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: Failure to Train- County Board of Supervisors,

Sheriff Arpaio, and MCSO)



70. Sheriff Arpaio is a policy maker of Maricopa County and MCSO. Sheriff

Arpaio has the authority and responsibility to establish policy for the MCSO Tactical

Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse, to oversee the operations of the Tactical

Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse, to evaluate applicable standards for the

Tactical Operations Unit and MSCO Volunteer Posse, and is ultimately responsible for


19/29

-19-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the conduct of the Tactical Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse. His actions are

the actions of Maricopa County, the Board and the MCSO.

71. Sheriff Arpaio and other Defendants were acting under color of law at all

times material hereto.

72. Sheriff Arpaio is named in his official capacity, as well as his individual

capacity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 direct and supervisory liability, for his conduct as

alleged herein.

73. The County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO have oversight and

supervisory responsibility over their employees and agents. They are entities and/or

municipalities, directly liable under 42 U.S.C. 1985.

74. The County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO have long been on

notice and had knowledge of the unconstitutional policies that led to the destruction of

Mr. Lloveras property.

75. Despite their knowledge of and notice, the County, the Board, Sheriff

Arpaio and MCSO were deliberately and callously indifferent in training (and/or failing

to adequately train) employees, agents and MCSO Volunteer Posse Members in (among

other things) the appropriate, lawful and constitutional policies, procedures, practices,

protocols, and customs for the assessment, use of appropriate force and execution of a

knock warrant.

76. Despite their knowledge and notice, the County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio

and MCSO were deliberately and callously indifferent to the constitutional rights of the

targets of criminal investigations through fostering, encouraging and knowingly


20/29

-20-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

accepting formal and informal policies or customs condoning indifference to the use of

excessive force and racial profiling, such that the violation of Mr. Lloveras constitutional

rights and destruction of his property was likely to occur.

77. Despite their knowledge and notice, the County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio

and MCSO knew and should have known that unconstitutional policies, procedures,

practices, protocols, customs, and training (or lack thereof) existed and they failed to

address these issues, ratified them by inaction, and/or establish and implement

appropriate policies, procedures, practices, protocols, customs, and training for using

force that conformed to federal, state and applicable standards.

78. Despite their knowledge and notice, Defendants permitted and/or ratified

the implementation of inappropriate, unconstitutional, de facto policies which:

authorized, condoned, and failed to provide appropriate use of force training, and failed

to adequately train and supervise volunteer posse personnel in these and other areas.

79. Defendants deliberate, reckless, and callous indifference in failing to train

in these (and other) areas and the condoning and/or ratifying of such policies, practices,

procedures, protocols, and customs as described herein caused, substantially contributed

to, or was the moving force behind the destruction of Mr. Lloveras property and use of

excessive force upon by MCSO deputies and volunteer posse members.

80. The wrongful conduct of Defendants, as described herein, constitutes

violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that with deliberate and callous indifference, they

deprived Mr. Llovera of rights privileges, and immunities secured to them by the

Constitution and laws of the United States.


21/29

-21-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81. The wrongful conduct of Defendants constitutes violations of the United

States Constitution, Amendments IV, XIII, and XIV, in that Mr. Llovera was deprived of

the privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States; was

deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law; and denied his right

to be free of punishment.

82. The wrongful conduct of Sheriff Arpaio acting in his individual capacity,

was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Mr. Llovera, and punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded against him to

punish him for his wrongdoing and to deter and prevent him and others from acting in a

similar manner in the future.

83. The wrongful conduct of Steven Seagal acting in his individual capacity,

was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Mr. Llovera, and punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded against him to

punish him for his wrongdoing and to deter and prevent him and others from acting in a

similar manner in the future.

84. The wrongful conduct of each of the members of the Board of Supervisors,

acting in their individual capacities, was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights

of Mr. Llovera, given the years of notice to and knowledge of them regarding the

unconstitutional policies employed by the MCSO that led to the destruction of Mr.

Lloveras property, including (among others) the improper use of excessive force. As a

result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded


22/29

-22-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

against each of the Supervisors to punish them for their wrongdoing and to deter and

prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983: Malicious and Selective Prosecution, False Arrest,

and Abuse of ProcessAll Defendants)



86. At all times material hereto, Defendant Sheriff Arpaio was acting under

color of law.

87. The wrongful conduct of all Defendants alleged herein constitutes

violations of the United States Constitution, Amendments IV, V, and XIV, and Title 42

U.S.C. 1983, in that with deliberate and callous indifference, Mr. Llovera was subjected

to malicious and selective prosecution, false arrest, and was investigated, arrested, and

prosecuted without proper cause, with an unconstitutional motive.

88. No legitimate basis existed to investigate and prosecute Mr. Llovera for

violating cockfighting statutes.

89. Arpaio and the MCSO Officers knew that there was no proper or probable

cause to investigate, arrest, and/or apply pressure to force the prosecution of Mr. Llovera.

Nevertheless, Defendants continued their investigations, which culminated in the formal

arrest and prosecution of Mr. Llovera, all accomplished without probable cause.


23/29

-23-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct,

Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and he has suffered harm and has been

injured.

91. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants alleged herein was undertaken

in malice and/or with improper and unconstitutional motives in an attempt to subject Mr.

Llovera to unsubstantiated criminal charges with the purpose of denying him his

constitutional rights. Without any evidence to support a criminal investigation, Mr.

Llovera was wrongfully investigated, arrested, and his prosecution encouraged by

Defendants for improper unconstitutional motives, was subjected to improper abuse of

process and power for improper motives, and was arrested without proper or probable

cause.

92. The baseless and unlawful investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Mr.

Llovera done solely for personal and political gain and the publicity it generated, were

carried out by Defendants pursuant to custom and/or practice of targeting, arresting, and

prosecuting individuals without probable cause, and the constitutional deprivations and

injuries sustained by Mr. Llovera as described herein have been caused by such custom

or practice.

93. Mr. Llovera was subjected to Defendants wrongful and unconstitutional

conduct in a particularly egregious, conscience-shocking manner.

94. The acts and omissions of Sheriff Arpaio acting in his individual capacity

and under color of law, were malicious, punitive, and in reckless disregard for Mr.

Lloveras rights.


24/29

-24-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury

should be awarded against Sheriff Arpaio to punish him for wrongdoing and to prevent

others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Conspiracy to Commit Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983)

96. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in


97. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants as alleged herein was

undertaken pursuant to an agreement or meeting of the minds among these Defendants to

act in concert to violate Mr. Lloveras constitutional rights.

98. These Defendants acts and/or omissions as alleged herein to pursue and

conduct a criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Mr. Llovera were undertaken

pursuant to a conspiracy among Defendants to violate Mr. Lloveras constitutional rights.

99. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants conspiracy, Mr. Lloveras

rights were violated.

100. The acts and omissions of Arpaio and others within the MCSO in

furtherance of their conspiracy, acting in their individual capacities and under color of

law, were malicious and/or in reckless disregard for Mr. Lloveras rights.

101. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury

should be awarded against Sheriff Arpaio and others that discovery will identify to

punish them for wrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar

manner in the future.


25/29

-25-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of Arizona Law: False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, and

Abuse of Process)



103. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants alleged herein constitutes

violations of Arizona law, in that Defendants unlawfully caused the arrest, detainment,

and prosecution of Mr. Llovera without Mr. Lloveras consent and without probable

cause, unlawfully and maliciously initiated and/or encouraged or instigated the bringing

of criminal proceedings against Mr. Llovera without probable cause that harmed him and

his wife, and willfully used the judicial process and/or criminal proceedings against Mr.

Llovera for a improper and ulterior purpose not proper in regular conduct of such process

and proceedings.

104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts and omissions alleged

herein, Mr. Llovera has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

105. The individual Defendants acts and omissions herein were undertaken with

malice, in bad faith, and with the requisite evil mind sufficient to warrant the imposition

of punitive damages to deter their conduct and that of others in the future.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence- All Defendants)




26/29

-26-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

107. Defendants have both a statutory and common law duty to assure that any

member of the Sheriffs volunteer posse who carries a deadly weapon without a permit

while on duty has passed firearms training that is approved by the Arizona Peace Officer

Standards and Training Board (P.O.S.T.).

108. The County, Arpaio and MCSO are legally responsible for the

management, establishment and implementation of policies, procedures and protocols

that govern the processing, handling, and management of volunteer posse members who

carry deadly weapons while on duty. Their responsibility includes making certain that

such policies, procedures and protocols satisfy all federal and state standards.

109. The County, Arpaio and MCSO are legally responsible for the screening,

hiring, training, retaining and supervision of all employees who have responsibility for

the processing, handling, and management of volunteer posse members who carry deadly

weapons while on duty. Their responsibility includes making certain that such volunteer

posse members satisfy all federal and state standards.

110. Defendants, directly and through their employees, were negligent, upon

information and belief, when they authorized Steven Seagal, a civilian, to commandeer a

V-150 armored tank, to carry an assault rifle, to carry a side arm, and to authorize him the

right to destroy Mr. Lloveras home and the authority to shoot to kill. Defendants failed

to ensure that Steven Seagal was a qualified posse member and failed to ensure that

Steven Seagal had firearms training approved by P.O.S.T. before authorizing him to carry

a deadly assault weapon during MCSOs execution of a search warrant at Mr. Lloveras

home on March 9, 2011.


27/29

-27-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111. Upon information and belief, Defendants breached their duties by (among

other things) failing to assure that Steven Seagal was an actual qualified member of the

MCSO volunteer posse before allowing him to control a V-150 tank, allowing him to

possess an assault rifle, bestowing upon him the authority to destroy Mr. Lloveras home

and the authority to shoot to kill; failing to assure that Steven Seagal passed firearms

training that is approved by P.O.S.T., failing to require Steven Seagal to complete a

standard questionnaire, background check and psychological evaluation, which all

applicants must complete before becoming a qualified armed posse member; and failing

to train Steven Seagal in Federal and Arizona constitutional law, the use of deadly force

in Arizona, weapons training, defensive tactics, chemical agents, mechanical restraints,

judgmental use of force and basic firearms academy training.

112. Defendants breached the duties owed to Mr. Llovera.

113. The negligence was the proximate cause of the destruction of Mr. Lloveras

property and the use of excessive force.

114. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants wrongful conduct, Mr.

Llovera has suffered both economic and non-economic damages, including those for pain

and suffering.


28/29

-28-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Jury Trial

115. Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury.

B. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages for judgment against Defendants as

follows:

A. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial;B. Punitive damages in an amount deemed just and reasonable against

Defendants and others that discovery will identify as to the causes of action alleged

herein;

C. Costs an attorneys fees against Defendants as to the causes ofactions alleged under the Constitution and laws of the United States, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 1988;

D. The costs of litigations;E. All remedies provided by 42 U.S.C. 1983; andF. Such other and further relief which may seem just and reasonable

under the circumstances.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of March, 2012.

_________________________________Robert J. CamposAttorney for Plaintiff


29/29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Original filed on this 6th day of March, 2012 with:

Clerk of the CourtMaricopa County Superior Court201 W. Jefferson

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Copies of the foregoing delivered/mailedthis 6th day of March, 2012, to:

Ms. Fran McCarrollClerk of the Board of SupervisorsCOUNTY OF MARICOPA301 West Jefferson, 10th FloorPhoenix, Arizona 85003

Mr. Joseph M. Arpaio, SheriffMaricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO)100 West Washington, Suite 1900Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Mr. Steven SeagalMaricopa County Sheriffs Office100 West Washington, Suite 1900Phoenix, Arizona 85003

By: ___________________________

Documents

Arpaio Seagal complaint