lawsuit against deputy vernell johnson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

TRAEE DARAN LEE, P.O. Box 142 Grasonville, Maryland 21638 *Jury Trial Demanded* Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. ____________ QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY, MD, a municipal corporation Serve: Patrick E. Thompson, Esq., County Attorney 102 East Main St., Suite 203 Stevensville, Maryland 21666 and DEPUTY VERNELL JOHNSON Individually and in his Official Capacity as a former Queen Anne’s County Deputy Sheriff Queen Anne’s County Office of the Sheriff 505 Railroad Avenue Centreville, Maryland 21617 and STATE OF MARYLAND Serve: Nancy K. Kopp State of Maryland Treasurer's Office 80 Calvert Street Goldstein Treasury Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Defendants.

Case 1:13-cv-00672-RDB Document 1 Filed 03/04/13 of 42

2

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND COMES NOW, Plaintiff Traee Daran Lee, by and through his attorney, Cary J. Hansel

and the law firm of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., and sues Defendants, Queen Anne’s

County, Maryland, Deputy Sheriff Vernell Johnson, and the State of Maryland, and as cause

therefor states the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages

against the Defendants for violating Plaintiff’s civil rights. Because of the Defendants’

egregious wrongdoing, Traee Daran Lee was forced to spend more than forty days in jail for a

crime that he did not commit.

2. Plaintiff Traee Daran Lee also seeks damages against the Defendants for

intentional wrongdoing and acts of negligence under common law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and the

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events giving rise to this

action occurred in Queen Anne’s County in the District of Maryland.

5. The instant action is filed within three years of the cause of action.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Traee Daran Lee (“Mr. Lee”) is an adult Maryland citizen.

7. Defendant Queen Anne’s County, Maryland is a municipal corporation organized

under the provisions of Art. XI-A of the Maryland Constitution. At all times mentioned,


3

Defendant Queen Anne’s County employed Defendant Deputy Vernell Johnson as a Queen

Anne’s County deputy sheriff.

8. Defendant Deputy Vernell Johnson (“Deputy Johnson”) was employed by Queen

Anne’s County as a deputy sheriff and at all times relevant hereto was acting in his individual

capacity and in his official capacity as a Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriff.

9. Defendant State of Maryland has waived any applicable sovereign immunity in

accordance with the Maryland State Tort Claims Act.

10. All other unidentified Queen Anne’s County sheriff deputies whose conduct is

referred to herein were at all times relevant hereto employed by Queen Anne’s County as

deputies, acting in their official capacities as Queen Anne’s County sheriff deputies.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

11. The amount in controversy exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).

12. On or about March 4, 2010, Deputy Johnson stopped a motor vehicle for driving

through a stop-sign in Grasonville, Maryland.

13. Even though Plaintiff was not driving this vehicle, Deputy Johnson testified under

oath that Plaintiff was driving the vehicle and that the vehicle drove through a stop-sign. Each of

these assertions was unequivocally false.

14. On or about April 5, 2010, a warrant was improperly issued for Plaintiff’s arrest.

After learning of the arrest warrant, Plaintiff promptly surrendered to the authorities.

15. Plaintiff was incarcerated and released on or about April 7, 2010.

16. During the next two months, Deputy Johnson continually harassed Plaintiff and

his family. This harassment culminated in Plaintiff’s arrest on or about June 14, 2000.


4

17. On June 17, 2010, Deputy Johnson provided false testimony during a trial on the

charges for which Plaintiff had been arrested.

18. Based on this false testimony, the judge found Plaintiff guilty of fraud, failure to

stop, and driving while revoked. Relying on Deputy Johnson’s false testimony, the judge

pronounced, in open court, that the Plaintiff’s conduct had been “pretty low.” The judge

sentenced Plaintiff to two months in the Queen Anne’s County jail.

19. As result of Deputy Johnson’s false testimony, Plaintiff was maliciously

prosecuted, falsely convicted, and unlawfully incarcerated.

20. After his second malicious prosecution, Plaintiff’s mother, Roberta Roy,

requested an investigation of these two incidents. The resulting investigation revealed material

inconsistencies in the State’s case against Plaintiff. Dashboard video camera evidence suggests

that Deputy Johnson perjured himself in the criminal trial.

21. On July 28, 2010, as a result of these inconsistencies, the Queen Anne’s County

State’s Attorney entered an order of nolle prosequi for each charge against Plaintiff (Case

Number: 0M00018795).

22. During that hearing, the State’s Attorney is quoted as saying that the dashboard

camera revealed that the recorded events were “contrary to what the officer testified to in his

police report.” The State’s Attorney also states that “there was actually no probable cause for the

traffic stop.” Given this new evidence, the State’s Attorney concedes, “the State would not have

proceeded with the matter.”

23. Plaintiff was finally released from custody on or about July 28, 2010, meaning

that he had been unlawfully incarcerated for approximately 41 days.


5

24. As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to

suffer, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and financial loss.

25. Defendants’ actions were outrageous and beyond the bounds of decency.

26. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted without legal justification or

excuse.

27. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted with an evil and rancorous motive,

influenced by hate, the purpose being to deliberately and willfully injure Mr. Lee.

28. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted deliberately, with ill will, improper

motive, and actual malice.

29. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted under color and pretense of law,

and under color of statutes, customs, and usages of the State of Maryland.

30. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted within the scope of his employment

as a Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriff. Queen Anne’s County is therefore vicariously liable

for the tortious conduct of its officers.

31. Queen Anne’s County is vicariously liable for the tortious actions of Deputy

Johnson. Deputy Johnson is liable for his own constitutional and common law torts, including

but without limitation: violations of Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights;

false arrest; malicious prosecution; false imprisonment; civil conspiracy; invasion of privacy;

abuse of process; intentional infliction of emotional distress; gross negligence; and general

negligence. Mr. Lee additionally has been receiving medical treatment from the psychiatrist for

anxiety and depression, including but not limited to prescription therapy and counseling. Mr.

Lee struggles with sleeping and avoids socializing with other people due to his emotional distress

from Defendants’ conduct.


6

32. In the alternative, at all times relevant hereto, the Defendants acted with

negligence and/or gross negligence in violation of the lawful duties owed Mr. Lee.

33. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct, actions, and inactions of

Defendants, as well as those stated elsewhere herein, Mr. Lee was caused to suffer and continues

to suffer physical pain and mental pain and suffering, including but not limited to, undue

emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of respect, loss of society,

shame, and loss of enjoyment of life. Mr. Lee was caused to suffer and continues to suffer from

economic damages, including, but not limited to, lost time and wages from work, lost earning

capacity, tuition expenses, and medical bills, all to his great detriment.

34. Plaintiff further alleges that all of his injuries, losses and damages – past, present,

and prospective – were caused solely by the actions of Defendants, as set forth above, without

any negligence, want of due care, or provocation on the part of Plaintiff, either directly or

indirectly.

COUNT I (Violation of the 4th Amendment to the

United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – as against all Defendants)

35. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained

elsewhere herein verbatim with the same effect as if herein fully set forth.

36. Mr. Lee has, and at all relevant times had, a legitimate claim of entitlement to the

rights in question under the United States Constitution.

37. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an


7

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

38. At all times relevant to this matter, Defendants acted under color of law.

39. Mr. Lee was in fear of his safety and life as a result of Defendants’ acts.

40. A reasonable person in Mr. Lee’s position would not have believed that he was

able to the leave the encounter.

41. Defendants’ acts abused their power and were used to oppress Mr. Lee.

42. Defendants’ acts shocked the conscience and amounted to an inhumane abuse of

power, thereby subjecting Mr. Lee to a deprivation of his rights and privileges as secured by the

U.S. Constitution.

43. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly under the

provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under federal law,

particularly the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

44. Defendants deprived Mr. Lee of rights and privileges secured by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, including his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

45. Defendants engaged in activity that violated Plaintiff’s rights as protected under

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Lee had a right to ignore unlawful

orders given by the Defendant Deputy. Defendants’ actions without probable cause infringed

those rights.

46. By the actions detailed herein, including, but not limited to, the excessive force

against Plaintiff, the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause, and the malicious prosecution of

Plaintiff, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.


8

47. Through the conduct described above, Defendants interfered with Mr. Lee’s

exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the laws and Constitution of the United States.

48. Defendants and/or any other unnamed officers described above deprived Mr. Lee

of his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by

arresting him without probable cause, searching him without probable cause, and subjecting him

to excessive and unreasonable force.

49. Defendants and/or any other unnamed officers described above committed each of

the wrongful acts alleged in this complaint, and they committed these wrongful acts under the

color and pretense of state law, including statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages

of the United States and Maryland, and under the apparent authority of their office as deputy

sheriffs and agents for the Sheriff’s Office.

50. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants and/or any other unnamed officers

described above were, as part of their regular and official employment, officers of the Sheriff’s

Office.

51. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants subjected Mr. Lee to the deprivation of

his rights with actual or implied malice, in an unreasonable and unnecessary fashion.


Defendants, Mr. Lee was caused to suffer and continues to suffer mental pain and suffering,

including but not limited to, undue emotional stress, mental anguish, humiliation,

embarrassment, loss of respect, shame, loss of enjoyment of life and liberty, economic damages

including, but not limited to, past and future medical bills and expenses, past and future lost time

and wages from work, past and future lost earning capacity, and unnecessary attorneys’ fees, all

to his great detriment.


9

53. As a direct and proximate result of the false arrest made in front of Mr. Lee’s

girlfriend and a large group of bystanders, Mr. Lee suffered extreme embarrassment,

degradation, and emotional anguish.

54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional acts, Mr. Lee

suffered humiliation and extreme mental and post-traumatic emotional distress.


suffered physical injury, pain, and anguish.

56. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional acts, Mr. Lee

incurred expenses, and lost income as a result of his inability to transact his usual business.

57. Defendants’ acts were a foreseeable cause of the injuries sustained by Mr. Lee.

58. The Sheriff’s Office is vicariously liable for the constitutional violations of its

deputy sheriffs.

59. At no time did Mr. Lee cause or contribute to his injuries, search, seizure,

imprisonment, or abuse.

60. All of Mr. Lee’s injuries, losses, and damages – past, present and prospective –

were caused solely by the conduct, actions, inactions of Defendants, as set forth herein, without


indirectly.

61. Defendants and/or any other unnamed officers described above committed each of

the acts knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously. As a result, Mr. Lee is entitled to an award of

compensatory and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mr. Lee demands judgment against Defendants, individually,

jointly and severally, in an amount of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) plus


10

interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial,

but not less than TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS ($20,000,000.00), and such other and further

relief as the nature of the case requires.

COUNT II (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – 14th Amendment – Due Process – as against all Defendants)


in the forgoing paragraphs verbatim with the same effect as if herein fully set forth.

63. This cause of action is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the

deprivation of his constitutional rights, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

64. The Defendants deprived Lee of rights and privileges secured by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unconstitutional acts, Lee

suffered deprivations of his civil rights, mental and emotional damages, and financial damages.

66. Through the conduct described above, the Defendants interfered with Lee’s

exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the laws and Constitution of the United States.


provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under federal

law, particularly the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

68. The Defendants deprived Lee of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution by arresting him without probable cause,

maliciously prosecuting him, harassing him, and falsely imprisoning him for more than forty

days, depriving him of due process of law.

69. The Defendants described above committed each of the wrongful acts alleged in

this complaint, and they committed these wrongful acts under the color and pretense of state law,


11

including statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the United States and the

State of Maryland, and under the apparent authority of their office as officers and agents of

Queen Anne’s County.

70. At no time did Traee Daran Lee cause or contribute to his arrest, seizure, or

imprisonment.

71. Queen Anne’s County and the State of Maryland are vicariously liable for the

constitutional violations of its law enforcement officers.

72. Deputy Johnson committed each of the acts knowingly, intentionally, and

maliciously. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory and punitive damages.

73. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct, actions and inactions of

Defendants, as well as those stated elsewhere herein, Plaintiff was caused to suffer and continues

to suffer the mental, emotional and economic damages described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Traee Daran Lee, demands judgment against Defendants,

Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, Deputy Johnson, and the State of Maryland, jointly and

severally, in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in compensatory damages and

Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees, interest and

costs.

COUNT III (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Monell Claim – as against all Defendants)



75. The Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office failed to adequately train, supervise,

and discipline its officers. The Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office failed to adequately train

and supervise its officers in proper conduct.


12

76. The failure to properly train, supervise, and discipline officers demonstrates a

gross disregard for the constitutional rights of the public and those of Traee Daran Lee, and was

a proximate cause of Mr. Lee’s injuries.

77. The Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office has instituted and maintained formal

and informal customs, policies, and practices that foster, promote and encourage deputies to

engage in misconduct and to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. Without any

limitation whatsoever, among the facts supporting a pattern and practice of the type of unlawful

behavior here are the following statements and examples:

a. On May 12, 2011, Queen Anne’s County deputy John Dennis Hofmann pled guilty to second-degree assault after groping a woman inside his patrol car in August 2009. Deputy Hofmann is the brother of the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff, Gary Hofmann. Hofmann remains employed by the Queen Anne’s Sheriff’s Office. b. In August 2007, the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office suspended three deputies for misconduct that occurred during a traffic stop. The misconduct concerned violations of departmental policies and procedures having to do with vehicle searches. After the investigation, all three deputies were reinstated even though two deputies had been found to have violated policies and procedures. c. On March 17, 2004, Queen Anne’s County Deputy Sheriff Mark Barbre shot and paralyzed Andrew Pope, III during a traffic stop. Deputy Barbre had signaled for Pope to stop and pull over, but Pope continued to drive his vehicle until he reached his house, where he exited his vehicle and raised his hands in surrender. Deputy Barbre shot his firearm at Pope, striking him in the neck, paralyzing him.

78. The policies and customs of the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office, as set

forth herein, demonstrate a gross disregard for the constitutional rights of the public and Traee

Daran Lee. At the time of the injury to Traee Daran Lee, the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s

Office was operating under unconstitutional customs, policies, and procedures. These customs,

policies, and procedures were a direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages at issue

in this Complaint.


13

79. Traee Daran Lee spent over forty days in jail for a crime he never committed, and

was subjected to continuing harassment by a deputy of the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s

Office. These actions were a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ misconduct as

detailed herein, which misconduct was in keeping with the policies, as evidenced by the pattern

and practice outlined above, of the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office.








costs.

COUNT IV (42 U.S.C. § 1985 - Conspiracy – as against all Defendants)



82. The Defendants each conspired with the other to violate the constitutional rights

of Traee Daran Lee, and to directly and proximately cause his injuries and violate his

constitutional rights, as well as the other damages at issue here.

83. The Defendants each took affirmative steps towards the conspiracy by unlawfully

arresting, harassing, maliciously prosecuting, and wrongfully imprisoning Lee based upon

discriminatory animus.


14

84. Queen Anne’s County and the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Office took

affirmative steps towards the conspiracy by failing and refusing to properly train and supervise

its officers, creating an environment in which the conspiracy here was permitted.

85. This conspiracy denied the Plaintiff his due process rights, equal protection and

equal privileges and immunities under the law.








costs.

COUNT V (42 U.S.C. § 1986 – Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy – as against all Defendants)



88. Defendants conspired with others to violate the constitutional rights of Mr. Lee

and to directly and proximately cause his injuries, as well as the other damages at issue here.

89. Defendants and other officers had knowledge that failing to discipline, properly

train, and/or fire the Defendant Deputy Sheriff for his propensity to escalate petty slights into

violent confrontations, thereby created an environment in which the conspiracy was permitted.

90. The Sheriff’s Office had knowledge that its officers requested a warrant under

false pretenses, that they physically assaulted Mr. Lee, that they conducted a false arrest, that


15

they falsely imprisoned Mr. Lee for more than 40 days, that they permitted the application of

false charges, and finally, that they attempted to cover up the entire affair.

91. The Sheriff’s Office had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the conspiracy

through proper training, hiring, and retention policies for employees.

92. The Sheriff’s Office neglected or refused to prevent or aid in preventing the

conspiracy.

93. This conspiracy denied Mr. Lee equal protection and equal privileges and

immunities under the law.


Defendants, Mr. Lee was caused to suffer and continues to suffer mental pain and suffering,

including but not limited to, undue emotional stress, mental anguish, humiliation,

embarrassment, loss of respect, shame, loss of enjoyment of life and liberty, economic damages

including, but not limited to, past and future medical bills and expenses, past and future lost time

and wages from work, past and future lost earning capacity, and unnecessary attorneys’ fees, all

to his great detriment.







16

COUNT VI (Violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights – Article 24 – as against all

Defendants)



96. Defendants engaged in activity that violated Mr. Lee’s rights as protected under

the Maryland Constitution.

97. Defendants unlawfully seized Plaintiff without legal justification or excuse,

thereby injuring Plaintiff by depriving him of his liberty, without due process of law, in violation

of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

98. By the actions detailed herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under

Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, including, but not limited to:

(a) freedom from imprisonment and seizure of freehold, liberty and privilege

without due process, and without judgment of her peers;

(b) freedom from the deprivation of liberty without due process of the law,

and without the judgment of her peers;

(c) freedom from the deprivation of property without due process of the law,

and without the judgment of his peers;

(d) freedom from the abuse of power by the police; and

(e) freedom from summary punishment.

99. Mr. Lee has a protected property and liberty interest in his freedom, his ability to

exercise his free will and domain over his person, his ability to free from unlawful and excessive

police force, and his ability to practice his chosen profession and earn a living thereby.


17

100. Defendants deprived Mr. Lee of numerous protected property and liberty

interests.

101. Defendants afforded Mr. Lee less process than was due under law by depriving

him of the rights in question.

102. Plaintiff was deprived of numerous protected property interests by Defendants.

103. Plaintiff was afforded less process than was due under law by Defendants in

depriving him of the rights in question.

104. Defendants falsely arrested Mr. Lee for a crime he did not commit thus depriving

him of his constitutional rights under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights,

including, but not limited to, freedom from abuse of power by the police.

105. Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, acted under the color of State law and in

a manner which was not objectively reasonable.


interests.

107. Defendants afforded Mr. Lee less process than was due under the law by


108. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Lee suffered the

emotional injuries, physical injuries, and financial damages described above.




indirectly.


18






COUNT VII (Violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights – Article 26 – as against all

Defendants)





112. Defendants unlawfully searched and seized Plaintiff in violation of Mr. Lee’s

rights under Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights to be free from unlawful seizures.



114. Defendants’ actions, including, but not limited to, the use of excessive force and

the impounding of Plaintiff’s vehicle, deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the Maryland

Declaration of Rights, including, but not limited to:

(a) freedom from imprisonment and seizure of freehold, liberty and privilege

without due process, and without judgment of his peers;

(b) freedom from the deprivation of liberty without due process of the law,



19

(c) freedom from the deprivation of property without due process of the law,


(d) freedom from the abuse of power by the police; and

(e) freedom from summary punishment.

115. Mr. Lee has a protected property and liberty interest in his freedom, his ability to

exercise his free will and domain over his person, his ability to be free from unlawful and

excessive police force, and his ability to practice his chosen profession and earn a living thereby.

116. Defendants falsely arrested Mr. Lee for a crime he did not commit thus depriving

him of his constitutional rights under Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights,

including, but not limited to, freedom from abuse of power by the police.

117. Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, acted under the color of State law and in

a manner which was not objectively reasonable.


interests.

119. Defendants afforded Mr. Lee less process than was due under the law by







indirectly.


20






COUNT VIII (False Arrest – as against all Defendants)



123. Deputy Johnson caused an arrest warrant to be improperly issued on or about

April 5, 2010. Upon learning of this warrant, Plaintiff promptly surrendered to the authorities.

124. On or about June 14, 2010, Plaintiff was arrested without probable cause to

support the arrest.

125. Each of these two actions amounted to the false arrest of Plaintiff.

126. The conduct of the individual defendant, Deputy Johnson, was extreme and

outrageous and beyond the bounds of decency in society.

127. The Defendants’ conduct was willful and intentional.

128. Each of the two arrests unlawfully caused the false imprisonment of Plaintiff.

129. The above-described false arrests were an abuse of the privilege of detention, and

Deputy Johnson and/or other state and county officials, acting within the scope of his/their

employment, acted in detaining Plaintiff without the proper right to do so.

130. Plaintiff was forced by agents, servants, officers and employees of Queen Anne’s

County and the State of Maryland, through the action of Deputy Johnson, to submit to such arrest

and detention, as well as the indignities and humiliations described above.


21

131. Defendants failed to follow normal and accepted police practices and procedures

in the false arrest of Plaintiff.

132. Defendants intentionally and unlawfully restrained Plaintiff and deprived him of

his liberty.

133. Plaintiff did not consent to the restraint of his liberty.

134. The deprivation of Plaintiff’s liberty was without any legal justification and was

done deliberately.

135. The Defendants’ aforesaid acts were undertaken deliberately.








costs.

COUNT IX (False Imprisonment – as against all Defendants)



138. Defendants restrained Plaintiff’s liberty by acts including, but not limited to,

physically taking hold of his person, applying handcuffs to him, and arresting and imprisoning

him.


22

139. Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty on

two separate occasions. First, on or about April 7, 2010. Second, from June 17, 2010, until July

28, 2010.

140. Plaintiff did not consent to the deprivation of his liberty by Defendants on either

occasion.

141. Plaintiff was conscious of and harmed by the unlawful restriction of his liberty on

each occasion.

142. Defendants’ confinement of Plaintiff was complete on each occasion.

143. Defendants acted with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff of his physical

freedom and liberty and to imprison him on each occasion.

144. Defendants had no legal authority to arrest Plaintiff on either occasion.








costs.

COUNT X (Malicious Prosecution – as against all Defendants)




23

147. Defendants initiated and continued a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff without

proper justification.

148. The criminal case terminated in favor of Plaintiff. On July 28, 2010, the Queen

Anne’s County State’s Attorney entered an order of Nolle Prosequi for each charge against

Plaintiff.

149. There was no probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest, detention or the criminal case

against him.

150. The prosecution of Plaintiff in the criminal case was undertaken with malice

and/or a purpose other than bringing Plaintiff to justice.

151. Defendants caused the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff by falsely asserting that

he had committed various crimes, which Defendants knew that Plaintiff had not committed.

152. Defendants relied on perjured testimony in their criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.

153. Defendants’ actions constituted malicious prosecution.

154. Defendants’ aforesaid acts were undertaken deliberately.








costs.


24

COUNT XI (Abuse of Process – as against all Defendants)



157. Deputy Johnson took advantage of the ordinary criminal process to harass

Plaintiff and his family, for a period of two months.

158. Deputy Johnson’s actions were willful.

159. This type of harassment is not contemplated by law.

160. Deputy Johnson engaged in this harassment for ulterior motives and out of ill will.

161. Plaintiff was damaged by Deputy Johnson’s perverted use of the criminal process

by being subject to unwanted harassment over a two-month period.








costs.

COUNT XII (Invasion of Privacy – as against all Defendants)




25

164. Deputy Johnson invaded Plaintiff’s privacy by continually harassing him and his

family over a two-month period.

165. This harassment constituted an unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion and

private affairs of Plaintiff and his family.

166. Defendant Johnson’s actions were intentional.

167. Defendant Johnson’s harassing conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable

person.








costs.

COUNT XIII (Civil Conspiracy – as against all Defendants)



170. Defendants, by agreement and understanding, agreed to and did jointly commit

the unconstitutional, unlawful and tortious conduct described herein by unlawful and tortious

means, including but not limited to: conducting a traffic stop without probable cause to support

the stop, using false testimony to swear out an arrest warrant, harassing P and his family for two

continuous months, arresting Plaintiff without probable cause, maliciously prosecuting Plaintiff


26

with false charges filed against him, using Deputy Johnson’s perjured testimony at trial, and

convicting and incarcerating Plaintiff under false pretenses.

171. Each Defendant took at least one unlawful action in knowing furtherance of the

conspiracy.

172. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, actual legal damage as a direct and

proximate result of Defendants’ actions.








costs.

COUNT XIV (Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress – as against all Defendants)



175. Deputy Johnson and/or other state and county officials arrested Plaintiff under

false pretenses, engaged in malicious prosecution, provided perjured testimony during trial,

falsely convicted Plaintiff, falsely imprisoned Plaintiff, and harassed Plaintiff and his family over

a two-month period, violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. This conduct was intentional or

reckless. These tortious acts and egregious violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights are

certain or substantially certain to result in severe emotional distress.


27

176. Defendants’ conduct in assaulting, harassing, falsely arresting, maliciously

prosecuting, falsely convicting, falsely and pretextually imprisoning Plaintiff, and violating

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, was extreme and outrageous. Defendants’ conduct is beyond all

possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

177. Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional distress of a severe nature, as

demonstrable by continuing physical and emotional symptoms.

178. There is a causal connection between the Defendants’ and/or other state and

county officials’ wrongful conduct and the Plaintiff’s emotional distress.








costs.

COUNT XV (Negligent Hiring)



181. At all times relevant hereto, Deputy Johnson was employed by Queen Anne’s

County as a deputy sheriff, and was acting in his official capacity as a Queen Anne’s County

deputy sheriff.


28

182. Defendant Queen Anne’s County owed the Plaintiff a duty to hire competent

deputies.

183. Defendant Queen Anne’s County breached its duty to hire competent deputy

sheriffs who would not violate citizens’ civil rights. Deputy Johnson’s and/or other Queen

Anne’s County deputy sheriffs’ violation of Plaintiff’s and other citizens’ civil rights

demonstrated that they were incompetent to provide law enforcement services. Defendant

Queen Anne’s County hired Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs that would violate citizens’

civil rights.

184. Defendant Queen Anne’s County knew or should have known, at the time of

hiring Deputy Johnson and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs who violated

Plaintiff’s rights, of these individuals’ propensity to violate citizens’ civil rights.





Queen Anne’s County, Maryland and the State of Maryland, jointly and severally, in the amount

of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in compensatory damages and Five Million Dollars

($5,000,000.00) in punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.

COUNT XVI (Negligent Training and Supervision)



187. At all times relevant hereto, Deputy Johnson and/or other Queen Anne’s County

deputy sheriffs were employed by Queen Anne’s County as deputy sheriffs.


29

188. Defendant Queen Anne’s County had a duty to train and supervise competent

deputy sheriffs.

189. Defendant Queen Anne’s County breached its duty to train and supervise

competent deputy sheriffs such that they would not violate Plaintiff’s and other citizens’ civil

rights and/or commit tortious acts against them. Deputy Johnson’s and/or other Queen Anne’s

County deputy sheriffs’ violations of Plaintiff’s and other citizens’ civil rights and the

commission of tortious acts against Plaintiff and other citizens demonstrated that they were

improperly trained and supervised to provide law enforcement services. Defendant Queen

Anne’s County trained and supervised Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs such that these

deputies would violate citizens’ civil rights.

190. The State has failed and refused to properly train and supervise Deputy Johnson

and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs regarding the rights of Maryland citizens to

be secure from false arrest, malicious prosecution, perjured testimony, false conviction, and false

imprisonment.

191. The State has failed and refused to properly train and supervise Deputy Johnson

and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs not to commit the wrongs alleged elsewhere

herein.

192. The State has a duty to individuals such as Plaintiff to properly train and supervise

deputies such that they do not violate the rights of citizens.

193. The State breached its duty to Plaintiff and others by failing and refusing to

properly train and supervise Deputy Johnson and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs.

194. As a direct and proximate result of the State’s negligent training and supervision

of Deputy Johnson and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs, Deputy Johnson and/or


30

other Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs committed the other wrongs alleged in this case

against Plaintiff.








COUNT XVII (Negligent Retention)



197. At all times relevant hereto, Deputy Johnson and/or other Queen Anne’s County

deputy sheriffs were employed by Queen Anne’s County as deputy sheriffs.

198. Defendant Queen Anne’s County had a duty to retain only competent deputy

sheriffs.

199. Defendant Queen Anne’s County breached its duty to retain only competent

deputies. Defendant Queen Anne’s County knew or should have known of Deputy Johnson’s

and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs’ propensity to commit tortious acts and/or

violate citizens’ civil rights. Deputy Johnson’s and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy

sheriffs’ propensity to commit tortious acts and/or violate citizens’ civil rights rendered them

incompetent to act as Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs. Defendant Queen Anne’s County

was negligent in failing to discharge officers it knew or should have known had a propensity to


31

violate citizens’ civil rights and commit tortious acts such that Deputy Johnson’s and/or other

Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs’ would not violate Plaintiff’s civil rights and/or commit

tortious acts against him.








COUNT XVIII (Unlawful Custom, Pattern, or Practice of Improper Conduct – as against all Defendants)



202. The false arrest, malicious prosecution, use of perjured testimony during criminal

trials, false conviction, and false imprisonment of detainees occurs so frequently that it has

become accepted manner by Defendants. This is a result of the Defendants’ failure to establish

effective procedures, rules, orders, guidelines and practices to ensure that such actions will not

occur and to ensure that allegations of wrongdoing will be thoroughly investigated and

appropriately punished when found to have occurred. As a result of this failure, there has been a

regular pattern and practice of false arrest, malicious prosecution, use of perjured testimony

during criminal trials, false conviction, and false imprisonment of detainees. This pattern and

practice has been manifested in other prior incidents with Queen Anne’s County deputy sheriffs.


32

203. Queen Anne’s County has failed to effectively instruct officers that they have a

duty to prevent and report false arrests, malicious prosecutions, the use of perjured testimony

during criminal trials, false convictions, and the false imprisonment of detainees when it occurs.

204. The policies and customs of Queen Anne’s County, as set forth herein,

demonstrate a gross disregard for the constitutional rights of the public and the Plaintiff. At the

time of the injury to Plaintiff, Deputy Johnson and/or other Queen Anne’s County deputy

sheriffs were operating under unconstitutional customs, policies, and procedures of Queen

Anne’s County. These customs, policies, and procedures were a proximate cause of the

Plaintiff’s injuries.








costs.

COUNT XIX (Gross Negligence – as against all Defendants)



207. Deputy Johnson acted with a wanton and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s civil

rights by conducting an illegal traffic stop, causing an improper warrant to issue, harassing


33

Plaintiff and his family during a two-month period, by committing perjury during Plaintiff’s

criminal trial, and by causing Plaintiff to be falsely convicted and imprisoned.

208. Deputy Johnson intentionally failed to perform his duties as a deputy sheriff by

conducting an illegal traffic stop, causing an improper warrant to issue, by harassing Plaintiff and

his family during a two-month period, by committing perjury during Plaintiff’s criminal trial,

and by causing Plaintiff to be falsely convicted and imprisoned.

209. Deputy Johnson’s conduct demonstrated a thoughtless disregard of the

consequences of his actions and he showed no effort to avoid these consequences.

210. Deputy Johnson’s conduct demonstrated an indifference to Plaintiff’s civil rights

to the point where he acted as if such rights did not exist.

211. Deputy Johnson intentionally inflicted injuries on Plaintiff through his wrongful

conduct.








costs.

COUNT XX (General Negligence – as against all Defendants)




34

214. Deputy Johnson owed Plaintiff a duty of care.

215. Deputy Johnson breached that duty of care by conducting an illegal traffic stop,

causing an improper warrant to issue, harassing Plaintiff and his family during a two-month

period, by committing perjury during Plaintiff’s criminal trial, and by causing Plaintiff to be

falsely convicted and imprisoned.

216. Plaintiff suffered damages as a direct result of Deputy Johnsons’ breach of his

duty of care.








costs.

COUNT XXI (Negligent Entrustment)


in the foregoing paragraphs verbatim with the same effect as if herein fully set forth.

219. Defendant Queen Anne’s County had a duty to use reasonable care to select

officers who are competent and fit to perform the duties of a Queen Anne’s County Deputy

Sheriff.

220. The Defendant Deputy Sheriff was an employee of Queen Anne’s County at the

time of the events described herein.


35

221. Defendant Queen Anne’s County armed the Defendant Deputy Sheriff by

supplying him with weapons and the authority to arrest.

222. The Defendant Deputy Sheriff, armed by Queen Anne’s County, employed those

weapons against Plaintiff in an unlawful, unconstitutional, and tortious manner.

223. Defendant Queen Anne’s County had constructive and/or actual knowledge of

Defendants’ tendencies for violence and unlawful and unconstitutional behavior.

224. Because of his tendencies and conduct, Queen Anne’s County knew or reasonably

should have known that the Defendant Deputy Sheriff would be likely to use those that authority

in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to the public and to Mr. Lee.

225. Defendant Queen Anne’s County knew or reasonably should have known that the

public and Mr. Lee would be endangered by arming the Defendant Deputy Sheriff with the

weapons and authority supplied to them by Queen Anne’s County.

226. Defendant Queen Anne’s County knew or reasonably should have known of

Defendants’ propensity for violence, lack of control, and dangerous behavior.

227. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions in this

case, Mr. Lee was caused to sustain injuries including, but not limited to temporary and

permanent physical injuries, physical pain and suffering, mental pain and suffering, including but

not limited to, undue emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of

respect, shame, loss of enjoyment of life and disability, and economic damages.

228. Had Defendant’s employer, Queen Anne’s County, exercised reasonable diligence

and care, it would have known that the Defendant Deputy Sheriff were capable of inflicting this

type of harm on the unsuspecting public, including Mr. Lee.


36

229. Queen Anne’s County failed to use proper care in entrusting the Defendant

Deputy Sheriff with weapons and the authority to arrest.

230. Furthermore, since Queen Anne’s County knew and/or reasonably should have

known that the Defendant Deputy Sheriff would come into contact with the public, it should

have made reasonable inquiry before supplying the Defendant Deputy Sheriff with weapons and

the authority to arrest in order to ascertain his fitness to carry his duties in a lawful and proper

manner.

231. Defendants’ aforesaid acts were undertaken deliberately.

232. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted with ill will and actual malice.






indirectly.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mr. Lee demands judgment against Defendant Queen Anne’s

County, MD and the State of Maryland in an amount of TEN MILLION DOLLARS

($10,000,000.00) plus interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages, in an amount to

be determined at trial, but not less than TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS ($20,000,000.00), and

such other and further relief as the nature of the case requires.


37

COUNT XXII (Violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – as

against all Defendants)



236. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.


provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under federal law,

particularly the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

238. Defendants deprived Mr. Lee of rights and privileges secured by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, including his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

239. Mr. Lee’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was subjected to

interrogation, while in custody, before and after he received his Miranda rights.

240. Through the conduct described above, Defendants interfered with Mr. Lee’s

exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the laws and Constitution of the United States

241. The Defendant Deputy Sheriff and/or any other unnamed officers described above

deprived Mr. Lee of his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution by depriving him of due process of law.


committed each of the wrongful acts alleged in this complaint, and they committed these


38

wrongful acts under the color and pretense of state law, including statutes, ordinances,

regulations, customs, and usages of the United States and the State of Maryland, and under the

apparent authority of their office as Deputy Sheriffs and agents for the Queen Anne’s County

Office of the Sheriff.

243. At the above time and place, the Defendant Deputy Sheriff and/or any other

unnamed officers described above were, as part of their regular and official employment, officers

of the Queen Anne’s County Office of the Sheriff.


suffered humiliation and extreme mental and post-traumatic emotional distress.

245. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct and actions, Mr. Lee will

continue to endure mental anguish in the future.

246. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional acts, Mr. Lee

incurred expenses, and lost income as a result of his inability to transact his usual business.

247. At no time did Mr. Lee cause or contribute to his injuries, search, seizure,

imprisonment, or abuse.


committed each of the acts knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously. As a result, Mr. Lee is

entitled to an award of compensatory and punitive damages.




indirectly.


39






COUNT XXIII (Reckless Endangerment – as against all Defendants)



251. Defendants recklessly acted with intent to seriously injure Mr. Lee.

252. Defendants’ actions were taken in reckless disregard for Mr. Lee’s health, safety,

and welfare.

253. Defendants’ action of recklessly assaulting Mr. Lee and the actions of the Queen

Anne’s County Office of the Sheriff employees who allowed this to occur placed Mr. Lee in

imminent fear for his life.

254. Defendants’ actions and those of the actors complicity involved who allowed this

to occur were intentional, reckless, and done with a callous disregard for the safety of Mr. Lee.

255. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and actions of Defendants,

Plaintiff was caused to lose considerable time and wages from work, and to suffer great mental

anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of respect, shame, loss of enjoyment of life, disability

and loss of earning capacity, all to his detriment.

256. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct and actions, Plaintiff will

continue to endure mental anguish in the future.


40

257. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct and actions of Defendants,

Plaintiff suffered, and will continue to suffer, severe and extreme emotional distress, lost time

and wages from work, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of respect, shame, loss

of enjoyment of life, disability and loss of earning capacity, all to his detriment.




indirectly.






JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all claims so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. ______/s/______________________________ Cary J. Hansel (Bar No. 14722) 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 (301) 220-2200 (O) (301) 220-1214 (F) [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff


41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

TRAEE DARAN LEE, P.O. Box 142 Grasonville, Maryland 21638 *Jury Trial Demanded* Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. ____________ QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY, MD, a municipal corporation Serve: Patrick E. Thompson, Esq., County Attorney 102 East Main St., Suite 203 Stevensville, Maryland 21666 and DEPUTY VERNELL JOHNSON Individually and in his Official Capacity as a former Queen Anne’s County Deputy Sheriff Queen Anne’s County Office of the Sheriff 505 Railroad Avenue Centreville, Maryland 21617 and STATE OF MARYLAND Serve: Nancy K. Kopp State of Maryland Treasurer's Office 80 Calvert Street Goldstein Treasury Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Defendants.


42

LINE REGARDING SUMMONSES

SIR/MADAM CLERK: Kindly accept the attached Complaint and Jury Demand for filing, issue summonses

thereon, and return to undersigned counsel for service by private process.

Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.

______/s/________________________ Cary J. Hansel (Bar No. 14722) 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 (301) 220-2200 (O) (301) 220-1214 (F) [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff


lawsuit against deputy vernell johnson

Documents

times relevant hereto

forgoing paragraphs verbatim

queen annes county

municipal corporation serve

traee daran lee

undue emotional stress

future medical bills

twenty million dollars