IN  THE  TWENTY-­‐FIRST  JUDICIAL  CIRCUIT   ST.  LOUIS  COUNTY   STATE  OF  MISSOURI       Michael  Brown,  Sr.  and  Lesley   McSpadden,                                                                                            Plaintiffs,     v.     City  of  Ferguson,  Missouri,   Serve  at:    110  Church  Street                                      Ferguson,  MO  63135   and       Former  Police  Chief  Thomas  Jackson,   Serve  at:    HOLD  FOR  SERVICE  IN                                      SAINT  LOUIS  COUNTY,  MO   and     Former  Police  Officer  Darren  Wilson   Serve  at:    HOLD  FOR  SERVICE  IN                                      SAINT  LOUIS  COUNTY,  MO                                                                                                                                                                              Defendants.                                                 Cause  No:           Division  No:           JURY   TRIAL   DEMANDED   ON   ALL   COUNTS   PETITION  FOR  WRONGFUL  DEATH   COME  NOW  Plaintiffs,  by  and  through  their  undersigned  counsel,  and  hereby  state  the   following  in  support  of  their  Petition  for  Wrongful  Death  against  the  above-­‐named  Defendants:   INTRODUCTION     This   is   a   civil   action   filed   pursuant   to   section   537.080   et   seq.   R.S.Mo.   (1979),   which   is   commonly   referred   to   as   the   state   of   Missouri’s   Wrongful   Death   Statute.     Plaintiffs,   Lesley   McSpadden   and   Michael   Brown,   Sr.   (“Plaintiffs”),   are   the   surviving   natural   parents   of   1   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 15SL-CC01367 eligible  to  advance  this  suit.    MBJ  was  an  unarmed,  eighteen  year-­‐old,  African-­‐American  male   who   sustained   fatal   gunshot   wounds   to   his   head   and   body   on   August   9,   2014.     Defendant   Police   Officer   Darren   Wilson   (“Defendant   Wilson”   or   “Wilson”)   unjustifiably   shot   and   killed   MBJ,   using   an   unnecessary   and   unreasonable   amount   force   in   violation   of   MBJ’s   constitutionally  guaranteed  right  to  life.    Defendant  Wilson  was  employed  by  Defendant  City   of  Ferguson,  Missouri  (“Defendant  City”  or  “FPD”)  at  the  time  that  he  shot  and  killed  unarmed   eighteen  year-­‐old  MBJ.         Defendant   Police   Chief   Thomas   Jackson   (“Defendant   Jackson”   or   “Jackson”)   maintained  general  supervision  of  Defendant  Wilson,  and  was  also  responsible  for  his  hiring,   training,   and   retention,   along   with   Defendant   City.     Acting   under   color   of   law,   Defendant   Wilson   deprived   MBJ   of   his   well-­‐established   civil   rights   protected   both   by   the   United   States   Constitution   and   the   state   of   Missouri   Constitution.     Plaintiffs   seek   compensatory   and   exemplary   damages,   declaratory   and   injunctive   relief,   and   attorneys’   fees   and   costs,   in   addition   to   any   other   relief   this   Honorable   Court   deems   just   and   proper   under   the   circumstances.   PARTIES   1) Plaintiffs  are  the  natural  parents  of  decedent  MBJ.       2) At   all   material   times   herein,   Plaintiffs   and   MBJ   resided   in   St.   Louis   County,   Missouri.   3) Defendant   City   at   all   pertinent   times   herein   was   a   duly   chartered   municipality   of   St.  Louis  County,  Missouri.       2   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM Michael  O.  D.  Brown,  Jr.  (“MBJ”).    Plaintiffs  are  the  only  members  of  the  wrongful  death  class   The  Ferguson  Police  Department  is  an  official  division  of  Defendant  City.   5)   At   all   relevant   times   herein,   Defendant   City   employed   Defendants   Jackson   and   Wilson,  identified  more  fully  infra,  including  at  the  time  Defendant  Wilson  shot  and  killed  MBJ.   6)   Defendant  Wilson  at  all  pertinent  times  herein  was  acting  within  the  course  and   scope  of  his  employment  with  Defendant  City  and  was  acting  under  color  of  law.       7)   Defendant  Wilson  is  being  sued  in  both  his  individual  and  official  capacities.   8)   Defendant  Jackson  at  all  pertinent  times  herein  was  acting  within  the  course  and   scope   of   his   employment   with   Defendant   City   and   was   acting   under   color   of   law   as   the   supervisor  of  Defendant  City’s  police  officers,  including  Defendant  Wilson.       9)   Defendant  Jackson  was  responsible  for  and  had  express  and  implied  authority  to   make  policies  for  Defendant  City.       10)   Defendant  Jackson  also  had  the  authority  to  hire,  train,  supervise,  discipline,  and   effect  the  retention  determination(s)  in  regard  to  Defendant  City’s  law  enforcement  officers.       11)   Defendant  Jackson  is  being  sued  in  his  individual  and  official  capacities.       VENUE   12) Venue  is  proper  in  this  judicial  circuit  because  all  acts  or  omissions  complained  of   occurred  herein.    Venue  is  also  proper  pursuant  to  V.A.M.S.  §  508.010  and  the  Constitution  of   the   state   of   Missouri.     Plaintiffs   are   the   proper   parties   to   bring   this   action   for   the   wrongful   death  of  their  son,  MBJ.     SUBJECT-­‐MATTER  JURISDICTION   3   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 4)   This  Court  has  subject-­‐matter  jurisdiction  over  the  claims  herein  pursuant  to  MO   Const.  Art.  V,  §  14.   COMMON  FACTUAL  ALLEGATIONS   14) On   August   9,   2014,   at   approximately   12:00   p.m.,   MBJ   and   Mr.   Dorian   Johnson   (“Witness   Johnson”),   two   African-­‐American   males,   were   walking   on   Canfield   Drive,   a   public   street   located   in   the   city   of   Ferguson,   Missouri.     While   walking,   the   two   males   crossed   the   street  at  a  slight  angle  in  an  eastward  direction  toward  the  Canfield  Apartments  complex.     15) The  weather  in  the  area  on  this  Saturday  afternoon  was  clear,  sunny,  and  dry.   16) At   the   relevant   time   period   germane   to   the   events   giving   rise   to   this   suit,   a   limited  amount  of  vehicle  traffic  was  present  on  Canfield  Drive.    MBJ  and  Witness  Johnson  were   not  impeding  or  slowing  the  traffic  by  crossing  the  street.           17) As  MBJ  and  Witness  Johnson  reached  the  center  of  the  street,  Defendant  Wilson   approached  them  from  the  west  side  of  Canfield  Drive  in  a  marked  patrol  vehicle.   18)  Defendant   Wilson   stopped   his   patrol   vehicle   within   inches   of   MBJ   and   Witness   Johnson  and  ordered  them  to  “Get  the  f*&k”  out  of  the  street  or  on  the  sidewalk.     19) The   use   of   such   aggressive   profanity   caused   an   unnecessary   and   unwarranted   escalation  of  this  interaction.   20) Such  use  also  is  indicative  of  the  aggressive  mindset  of  Defendant  Wilson  toward   some  citizens  in  situations  that  begin  as  non-­‐threatening  or  innocuous.       4   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 13) Ordering   them   to   “Get   the   f*&k”   out   of   the   street,   or   on   the   sidewalk,   is   consistent  with  Defendant  Wilson’s  pattern  of  unprofessional  speech  and  is  commonly  known   to   set   the   stage   for   an   aggressive   encounter   with   him   and/or   the   excessive   use   of   force   that   followed  herein.   22) Without   the   use   of   such   unnecessary   and   unwarranted   profane   language   by   Defendant   Wilson,   the   initial   encounter   with   MBJ   and   Witness   Johnson   would   have   been   uneventful.       23) But  instead,  Defendant  Wilson’s  aggressive,  disrespectful,  and  profane  language   escalated  this  encounter  into  an  event  that  has  garnered  worldwide  attention.     24) MBJ   was   closer   to   Defendant   Wilson’s   car   door   than   was   Witness   Johnson   as   Defendant  Wilson’s  vehicle  passed  them.   25)    Even   though   MBJ   could   have   easily   attacked   Defendant   Wilson   while   standing   within   inches   from   his   police   vehicle,   MBJ   made   no   attempt   to   physically   engage   Defendant   Wilson  in  any  manner  whatsoever.     26) Defendant   Wilson   then   proceeded   west   on   Canfield   Drive   after   shouting   the   aforementioned  profane  order  at  both  MBJ  and  Witness  Johnson.   27) Defendant   Wilson   traveled   several   yards   westward,   away   from   MBJ   and   Witness   Johnson,  when  he  suddenly  stopped  his  vehicle,  placed  it  in  reverse,  and  drove  back  to  where   MBJ  and  Witness  Johnson  were  continuing  to  walk.   28) Defendant   Wilson   turned   his   vehicle   at   an   angle,   or   semi-­‐perpendicular   to   the   street,  using  his  vehicle  as  a  weapon  of  unjustified  force  and  thereby  causing  it  to  impede  the   walking  path  of  MBJ  and  Witness  Johnson.       5   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 21) Defendant  Wilson’s  vehicle  stopped  only  inches  from  MBJ’s  body.   30) The   use   of   his   vehicle   as   an   intimidating   weapon   or   act   of   threatening   force   constituted  yet  another  unnecessary  and  unwarranted  escalation  of  this  encounter.       31) At   that   moment,   Defendant   Wilson   unjustifiably   and   unreasonably   stopped   and/or  detained  MBJ.       32) Defendant   Wilson   did   not   offer   any   lawful   reason   or   explanation   for   stopping   and/or  detaining  MBJ.   33) Nor  did  he  offer  any  lawful  reason  or  explanation  for  using  his  vehicle  as  a  large   and  threatening  weapon  to  block  and  halt  their  progress  toward  walking  home.     34) Defendant   Wilson   unreasonably   and   unjustifiably   used   force   again,   when,   without  warning,  provocation,  or  justification,  he  pushed  his  car  door  open  with  such  force  that   it  struck  MBJ’s  body.   35) When  the  door  struck  MBJ’s  body  it  ricocheted  back  upon  Defendant  Wilson.       36) Appearing   highly   upset   by   the   ricochet   of   his   door,   Defendant   Wilson,   again,   used   unwarranted   physical   force   when   he   reached   through   the   car   window,   grabbing   MBJ’s   clothing  and  body.   37) In   the   midst   of   grabbing   MBJ’s   clothing   and   body,   Defendant   Wilson   drew   his   weapon  and  pointed  it  at  MBJ.   38) MBJ   desperately   attempted   to   break-­‐free   from   Defendant   Wilson’s   unlawful   encounter   in   an   effort   to   protect   himself   from   further   physical   force   by   Defendant   Wilson,   including  being  shot.       6   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 29) During  MBJ’s  frantic  effort  to  remain  alive,  Defendant  Wilson  fired  one  unlawful   and   unjustified   gunshot   from   inside   of   his   patrol   vehicle,   during   which   time   MBJ   sustained   a   significant  gunshot  wound  to  his  right  hand.   40)  MBJ   eventually   broke-­‐free   from   Defendant   Wilson,   only   after   being   shot,   and   began  to  flee  on  foot  in  an  attempt  to  preserve  both  his  life  and  to  seek  safety.       41) Defendant  Wilson  fired  at  least  one  more  shot  as  MBJ  and  Witness  Johnson  were   fleeing  from  the  police  vehicle.     42) With   his   gun   drawn,   Defendant   Wilson   began   to   chase   a   fleeing   and   wounded   MBJ  on  Canfield  Drive.   43) At  one  point,  MBJ’s  body  seemed  to  suddenly  jolt  either  from  receiving  and/or   hearing   an   additional   shot(s),   which   rang   out   as   he   was   fleeing   with   his   back   to   Defendant   Wilson.     44) After   running   for   several   yards,   MBJ   appeared   to   realize   that   he   was   badly   bleeding  and  vulnerable  to  imminent  death  or  more  bodily  harm  by  Defendant  Wilson.   45)    In  a  final  attempt  to  protect  himself,  and  prevent  additional  bodily  harm  and/or   imminent  death,  MBJ  turned  around  and  raised  his  hands  in  a  non-­‐threatening  manner.     46) Upon   information   and   belief,   MBJ   conveyed   the   following   statement   to   Defendant  Wilson:  “Don’t  shoot.    I  don’t  have  a  gun.    I’m  unarmed.”     47) Throughout  the  entire  ordeal,  Defendant  Wilson  never  ordered  MBJ  to  “stop”  or   “freeze.”       48) Defendant   Wilson   issued   no   verbal   commands,   other   than   his   initial   order   to   “Get  the  f**k”  on  the  sidewalk.   7   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 39) According   to   several   eye-­‐witnesses,   MBJ   did   not   pose   any   threat   to   Defendant   Wilson.   50) These   eye-­‐witness   accounts   are   corroborated   by   the   fact   that   MBJ   was   unarmed   throughout   the   entire   incident,   badly   bleeding,   and   attempting   to   flee   for   safety   moments   before  being  gunned  down  by  Defendant  Wilson.     51) While   unarmed   and   showing   no   threat   by   a   deadly   weapon,   Defendant   Wilson   fired  a  volley  of  shots  at  MBJ  that  struck  him  in  the  body,  face,  and  head.       52) Defendant   Wilson   shot   approximately   twelve   times   throughout   the   incident   in   violation   of   MBJ’s   constitutionally   guaranteed   rights   to   (1)   be   free   from   the   use   of   excessive   force,   (2)   the   right   to   life,   (3)   due   process   under   the   law,   and   (4)   equal   protection   under   the   law.       53) The   six   to   eight   shots   that   struck   MBJ’s   body,   including   two   shots   to   the   head,   actually  and  proximately  caused  his  death.       54)                              Prior   to   his   death,   MBJ   endured   a   substantial   amount   of   conscious   pain   and   suffering   from   the   moment   he   was   first   shot   by   Defendant   Wilson   until   his   body   ultimately   succumbed  to  death  by  six  to  eight  fatal  bullets.   55) MBJ’s  lifeless  body  remained  on  the  ground  in  an  undignified  manner  for  hours   as  blood  streamed  from  his  head,  arm,  and  torso  onto  Canfield  Drive  while  his  family,  including   Plaintiffs,  and  the  community  watched  in  despair  and  disbelief.       56) Defendant   Wilson’s   supervisor   arrived   at   the   scene   shortly   after   unarmed   MBJ   was  shot  and  killed.   8   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 49) While  on  the  scene,  Defendant  Wilson’s  supervisor  inquired  into  the  details,  to   which  Defendant  Wilson  provided  the  supervisor  a  first-­‐hand  account  of  what  led  to  the  killing   of  MBJ.   58) Consistent  with  multiple  witnesses,  Defendant  Wilson  told  his  supervisor,  among   other  things,  that  MBJ  had  his  arms  up  moments  before  he  shot  and  killed  him.   59) While  at  the  scene,  Defendant  Wilson  never  told  his  supervisor  that  MBJ  placed   his  right  hand  in  his  waistband,  suggesting  that  MBJ  had  a  weapon.   60) While   at   the   scene,   Defendant   Wilson   never   told   his   supervisor   that   he   suspected  MBJ  of  any  prior  incidents  other  than  walking  “in  the  street.”     61) Defendant  Wilson’s  supervisor  allowed  Defendant  Wilson  to  leave  the  scene  of   the  shooting  unescorted  and  unaccompanied.   62) Defendant  Wilson  returned  to  the  police  station  and  began  destroying  evidence   and  interfering  with  the  investigation.       63) Defendant  Wilson  washed  blood  off  his  hands.   64) Defendant  Wilson  cleared  and  bagged  the  gun  he  used  to  shoot  and  kill  MJB.     65) Defendant   Wilson   did   some   of   these   things   in   the   presence   of   his   former   supervising  and  training  officer,  who  also  was  his  fiancé.   66) As   such,   Defendant   Wilson   tampered   with   critical   pieces   of   evidence   by   destroying   potential   gun   residue   on   his   hands,   blood,   and/or   DNA   evidence,   as   well   as   compromising  the  integrity  of  his  weapon,  which  had  significantly  probative  evidentiary  value.       67) Defendant   Wilson   failed   to   undergo,   and   Defendant   City   failed   to   conduct,   a   proper,  fair,  and  impartial  investigation  into  the  killing  of  MBJ.       9   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 57) Defendant   City   ratified   Defendant   Wilson’s   misconduct   by   failing   to   reprimand   him   for   (1)   interfering   with   an   internal   investigation,   (2)   tampering   with   evidence,   and/or   (3)   destroying  evidence,  as  well  as  not  reprimanding  his  fiancé  for  failing  to  intervene  due  to  her   having  witnessed  the  destruction  of  and/or  tampering  with  physical  evidence.   69) During   the   course   of   the   FPD   investigation,   Defendant   Wilson   attempted   to   justify   and   rationalize   the   unlawful   killing   of   teenager   MBJ   by   stating   that   he   “looked   like   a   demon”   or   the   “Incredible   Hulk,”   and   that  MBJ   had   the   “most   intense  [and]   aggressive   face   I   have  ever  seen”  and  that  MBJ  made  a  “grunting  noise.”       70) The   linguistic   choices   uttered   by   Defendant   Wilson   indicate   that   he   perceived   MBJ   to   be   subhuman   or   animal-­‐like,   or,   at   times,   to   possess   nonsensical   and   stereotypic   superhuman  powers.       71) Plaintiffs   contend   that   it   is   never   objectively   reasonable   to   perceive   a   human   being  as  anything  less  than  human.       72) Defendant   Wilson’s   verbal   choices   reflect   both   the   pervasive   racial-­‐animus   and   the  racially-­‐biased  mentality  and  culture  promulgated  and  ratified  by  Defendant  City,  its  police   officers,  supervisory,  and  support  staff.   73) As   discussed   more   fully,   infra,   such   racial-­‐animus   and   racially-­‐biased   mentality   was  frequently  manifested  in  both  thought  and  ideology,  and  in  both  verbal  and  written  forms.       74) This   racial-­‐animus   and   racially-­‐biased   ideology   was   also   manifested   in   actions   such  as  unconstitutional  stops  and/or  detentions  and  the  excessive  use  of  force  against  African-­‐ American  citizens.       10   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 68) The   prominence   of   racial-­‐animus   and   -­‐bias   in   decision-­‐making   and   actions   levied   against   African-­‐American   citizens   is   supported   by   factual   analysis   of   anecdotal   individual   incidents  and  statistical  evidence.   76) For   example,   Defendant   Wilson’s   actions   and   linguistic   patterns   support   the   United  States  Department  of  Justice’s  (hereinafter  USDOJ)  finding  that  Defendant  City,  and  in   particular  its  police  department,  had  a  pattern,  practice  or  custom,  as  well  as  a  policy,  of  racial   bias   aimed   at   African-­‐American   citizens   that   deprived   them   of   their   constitutional   rights;   namely,   to   be   free   of   racism   manifesting   in   acts   of   excessive   force   against   their   persons   and   depriving  them  of  the  most  fundamental  of  all  constitutionally  guaranteed  rights:  the  right  to   life.   77) Moreover,   the   USDOJ   conducted   an   investigation   into   the   circumstances   surrounding  the  death  of  MBJ  and  found  that  Defendant  City  engaged  in  a  pattern  or  practice   of   racial   bias   and   that   avoidable   harms   were   levied   against   African-­‐American   citizens   in   a   disproportionate  number.   78) The   USDOJ   concluded   that   a   pattern   and   practice   of   unconstitutional   stops,   detentions,   uses   of   force,   and   unfair   policing   in   general   permeated   throughout   the   Ferguson   Police  Department  (FPD).       79) Furthermore,   the   USDOJ   concluded   that   the   FPD’s   practices   are   due   partly   to   insidious   discrimination,   evidenced   by   racial   bias   and   racial   stereotyping   utilized   by   Ferguson   police  officers  toward  African-­‐American  citizens.       11   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 75) The   USDOJ   concluded   further   that   the   FPD’s   pattern   of   racial   bias   results   in   unconstitutional   violations   of   African-­‐Americans,   including   vehicle   stops   without   reasonable   suspicion,   arrests   without   probable   cause,   unequal   treatment,   and   the   use   of   unreasonable   force,   all   in   violation   of   the   Fourth   Amendment   and   the   Fourteenth   Amendment   of   the   U.S.   Constitution.   Defendant  City  Engages  in  A  Pattern  and  Practice  of  Unconstitutional  Stops,  Detentions,   and  Arrests  in  Violation  of  the     Fourth  Amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution     81) Defendant   City   engages   in   a   pattern   and   practice   of   unreasonable   stops   and   detentions  lacking  reasonable  suspicion  and  unconstitutional  arrests  lacking  probable  cause  in   violation  of  the  Fourth  Amendment  of  the  U.S  Constitution.     82) Such   pattern   and   practices   created   a   culture   of   unjustified   police   conduct   within   the  City,  which  led  directly  to  the  unjustified  killing  of  MBJ.   83)    For   example,   in   July   2013,   FPD   officers   encountered   an   African-­‐American   man   in   a  parking  lot  while  on  their  way  to  arrest  a  different  person  at  an  apartment  building.    Police   knew  that  the  man  they  encountered  was  not  the  person  they  sought  to  arrest.       84) Nonetheless,  without  reasonable  suspicion,  police  officers  handcuffed  the  man,   placed  him  in  the  back  of  a  patrol  car,  and  conducted  a  criminal  background  check  of  his  record.       85) The  FPD  officers  discovered  that  man  was  the  arrestee’s  landlord.    The  landlord   assisted   officers   in   entering   the   person’s   unit   to   conduct   the   arrest   but   he   later   filed   a   complaint   alleging   racial   discrimination   and   unlawful   detention.     An   FPD   sergeant   vigorously   defended   the   officers’   actions,   characterizing   the   detention   as   minimal,   despite   the   fact   that   12   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 80) Fourth  Amendment.   86) In   October   2012,   FPD   officers   pulled   over   an   African-­‐American   man   who   had   lived  in  the  city  of  Ferguson  for  sixteen  years,  claiming  that  his  passenger-­‐side  brake  light  was   broken.     The   driver   happened   to   have   had   recently   replaced   the   light   and   knew   it   to   be   functioning  properly.       87) Nonetheless,  according  to  the  man’s  written  complaint,  one  officer  stated,  “Let’s   see  how  many  tickets  you’re  going  to  get,”  while  a  second  officer  tapped  his  electronic  weapon   on   the   roof   of   the   man’s   car.     The   officers   cited   the   man   for   “tail   light/reflector/license   plate   light   out.”     FPD   officers   refused   to   allow   the   man   to   demonstrate   that   his   car’s   equipment   functioned  properly,  warning  him,  “Don’t  you  get  out  of  that  car  until  you  get  to  your  house.”     The  man  went  to  the  police  station  that  night  to  show  a  sergeant  that  his  brakes  and  license   plate  light  worked  properly  and  to  report  that  he  believed  he  had  been  racially  profiled.     88) In   another   incident,   an   African-­‐American   man   was   seated   at   a   bus   stop   near   Canfield  Drive  when  an  FPD  patrol  car  pulled  up  abruptly  in  front  of  him  and  a  FPD  Lieutenant   in   the   vehicle   told   him   to   “Get   over   here.”     The   bus   patron   questioned,   “Me?”     This   FPD   Lieutenant   responded:   “Get   the   f**   over   here.     Yeah,   you.”     The   bus   patron   responded,   “Why?   What  did  I  do?”    The  officer  proceeded  to  demand  that  the  man  show  him  identification,  and   when   he   again   questioned   why   he   needed   to   provide   identification   to   the   officer,   the   FPD   Lieutenant   said,   “Stop   being   a   smart   ass   and   give   me   your   ID.”     The   lieutenant,   who   had   a   supervisory  role  in  the  FPD,  ran  the  man’s  name  for  warrants.    Finding  none,  he  returned  the   identification  and  said,  “Get  the  hell  out  of  my  face.”       13   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM even  temporary  detention  constitutes  a  deprivation  of  liberty  and  must  be  justified  under  the   During   its   investigation,   the   USDOJ   discovered   that   this   particular   lieutenant   had   several  racially  charged  allegations  filed  against  him.   90) The   FPD   also   has   a   pattern   and   practice   or   custom   and   a   policy   of   unconstitutional   stops   lacking   the   requisite   legal   suspicion   described   colloquially   by   FPD   as   “ped.  checks”  or  “pedestrian  checks.”       91) At   times,   FPD   officers   use   the   aforementioned   term   to   refer   to   reasonable   suspicion   based   pedestrian   stops   (i.e.,   “Terry   stops”)   but   officers   refer   to   the   same   terminology   when  stopping  a  person  with  no  objectively  reasonable  articulable  suspicion.       92) The   USDOJ   concluded   that   the   FPD   officers   invoke   the   term,   “ped.   check,”   as   though  it  has  some  constitutional  legitimacy;  however,  it  has  no  legal  authority  because  officers   may  not  detain  a  person,  even  briefly,  without  articulable  reasonable  suspicion.       93) Because   the   FPD   failed   to   track   or   analyze   “ped.   checks,”   or   “Terry   Stops,”   it   made   that   particular   use   of   authority   susceptible   to   a   pattern   of   racial   discrimination   and   unlawful  detentions.   94) One   night   in   December   2013,   FPD   officers   decided   to   “ped.   check”   those   “wandering  around”  in  Ferguson’s  apartment  complexes.       95) In   another   December   2013   case,   officers   responded   to   a   call   about   a   man   selling   drugs  by  stopping  a  group  of  six  African-­‐American  youths  who  did  not  match  the  facts  of  the   call.    The  youths  were  “detained  and  ped  checked.”     96) The   FPD,   as   cited   supra,   has   a   pattern   and   practice   of   effectuating   arrests   without  probable  cause  in  violation  of  the  Fourth  Amendment.       14   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 89) Frequently,   officers   arrest   people   for   conduct   that   plainly   does   not   meet   the   elements  of  the  cited  offense.       98) For   example,   in   November   2013,   an   officer   approached   five   African-­‐American   teenagers  listening  to  music  in  a  vehicle.    FPD  officers  claimed  to  have  smelled  marijuana  and   placed   them   under   arrest   for   disorderly   conduct   based   upon   “gathering   in   a   group   for   the   purposes  of  committing  illegal  activity.”    The  officers  detained  and  charged  the  minors  and  took   some  of  them  to  jail,  despite  having  found  no  marijuana  after  searching  the  vehicle.   99) Moreover,  in  February  2012,  an  FPD  officer  wrote  an  arrest  notification  ticket  for   peace  disturbance  for  “loud  music”  ostensibly  emanating  from  a  vehicle.    Under  the  law,  a  third   party   that   was   disturbed   by   the   music   is   a   requisite   element   of   the   underlying   offense.     The   officer   writing   the   ticket   did   not   assert,   nor   was   there   any   indication,   that   a   third   party   was   disturbed;  nonetheless,  a  supervisor  approved  the  arrest  ticket.    Because  the  FPD  officers  failed   to  base  the  arrests  on  probable  cause,  they  violated  the  citizens’  Fourth  Amendment  rights.         100) While   the   record   demonstrates   a   pattern   of   stops   that   are   improper   from   the   beginning,   including   Defendant   Wilson’s   stop   of   MBJ   on   August   9,   2014,   it   also   exposes   encounters   that   start   as   constitutionally   defensible   but   become   unconstitutional   as   officers   unnecessarily  escalate  the  encounters.       101) For  instance,  in  the  summer  of  2012,  an  officer  detained  a  32-­‐year-­‐old  African-­‐ American   man   who   was   sitting   in   his   vehicle   cooling   off   after   playing   basketball.     The   officer   arguably  had  grounds  to  stop  and  question  the  man,  since  his  windows  appeared  more  tinted   than  permitted  under  the  city  of  Ferguson’s  code.    However,  the  officer  proceeded  to  accuse   the  man  of  being  a  pedophile  without  cause,  prohibited  the  man  from  using  his  cell  phone,  and   15   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 97) armed  or  a  legally  justifiable  reason  to  conduct  a  search  of  his  vehicle.     102) When   the   man   refused,   citing   his   constitutional   rights,   the   officer   reportedly   pointed  a  gun  at  his  head  and  arrested  him.    The  officer  charged  the  man  with  eight  different   counts,   including   making   a   false   declaration   for   initially   providing   the   short   form   of   his   first   name  (e.g.,  “Mike”  instead  of  “Michael”)  and  an  address  that,  though  legitimate,  differed  from   the  one  on  his  driver’s  license.    The  officer  also  charged  the  man  both  with  having  an  expired   operator’s  license  and  with  having  no  operator’s  license  in  his  possession.       103) In   addition,   the   FPD   officers   routinely   abused   the   “Failure   to   Comply”   and/or   “Failure  to  Obey”  charges  in  violation  of  the  Fourth  Amendment  of  the  U.S.  Constitution.    FPD   officers  unconstitutionally  ordered  citizens  to  “stop”  when  they  are  engaging  in  lawful  activity.     The   order   to   stop   is   not   a   “lawful   order”   when   an   officer   lacks   reasonable   suspicion   that   criminal   activity   is   afoot.     Nonetheless,   when   individuals   do   not   stop   in   those   situations,   FPD   officers   treat   that   conduct   as   a   failure   to   comply   with   a   lawful   order   and   effectuate   arrests   lacking   probable   cause   by   using   the   pretext   of   “Failure   to   Comply”   in   violation   of   the   Fourth   Amendment.   104) In   an   incident   around   August   2010,   an   FPD   officer   broke   up   an   altercation   between  two  minors  and  sent  them  back  to  their  homes.    The  officer  ordered  one  to  stay  inside   her  residence  and  the  other  not  to  return  to  the  other  one’s  residence.       105) Later   that   day   the   two   minors   engaged   in   another   altercation   outside   of   the   first   minor’s   residence   and   the   FPD   officer   arrested   the   minors   for   failure   to   comply   with   his   previous   order.     However,   issuance   of   a   “Failure   to   Comply”   order   did   not   empower   the   officer   16   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM ordered  the  man  out  of  his  vehicle  for  a  pat-­‐down,  despite  having  no  reason  to  believe  he  was   from   certain   locations,   and,   as   such,   the   order   and   arrest   violated   their   Fourth   Amendment   constitutional  rights.                         106) In   an   October   2011   incident,   an   FPD   officer   arrested   two   sisters   who   were   backing   their   car   into   their   driveway.     The   officer   claimed   that   the   car   had   been   idling   in   the   middle   of   the   street,   warranting   investigation,   while   the   women   claim   they   had   pulled   up   outside   their   home   to   drop   someone   off   when   the   officer   arrived.     In   any   event,   the   officer   arrested   one   sister   for   failing   to   provide   her   identification   when   requested.     He   arrested   the   other  sister  for  getting  out  of  the  car  after  being  ordered  to  stay  inside.    The  two  sisters  spent   the  next  three  hours  in  jail  in  violation  of  their  Fourth  Amendment  constitutional  rights.   107) In  December  2011,  FPD  police  officers  approached  two  people  sitting  in  a  vehicle   on  a  public  street  and  asked  the  driver  for  identification.    When  the  driver  balked,  insisting  that   he  was  on  a  public  street  and  should  not  have  to  answer  questions,  the  officers  ordered  him   out   of   the   vehicle,   ultimately   charging   him   with   Failure   to   Comply   while   clearly   violating   his   Fourth  Amendment  constitutional  rights.                       108) In   March   2013,   FPD   officers   responded   to   the   police   station   to   take   custody   of   a   person  wanted  on  a  state  warrant.    When  they  arrived,  they  encountered  a  man  who  was  not   the  subject  of  the  warrant  but  who  happened  to  be  leaving  the  station.    Officers  did  not  have   evidence   to   connect   the   man   to   the   warrant   subject,   other   than   his   presence   at   the   station.     Nonetheless,  the  officers  stopped  him  and  instructed  him  to  identify  himself.    The  man  asserted   his  rights,  asking  the  officers  “Why  do  you  need  to  know?”  and  declining  to  be  frisked.    When   the   man   then   extended   his   identification   toward   the   officers   per   their   request,   the   officers   17   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM with   the   ability   to   verbally   confine   the   girls   to   their   respective   homes   or   to   keep   them   away   articulating   reasonable   suspicion,   or   any   other   justification   for   the   initial   detention,   the   officers   arrested  the  man  on  two  counts  of  Failure  to  Comply  and  two  counts  of  Resisting  Arrest.                           109) Even  more  shocking  during  the  USDOJ  investigation  was  an  FPD  officer  admitting   that  when  he  conducts  a  traffic  stop  he  asks  for  identification  from  all  passengers  as  a  matter  of   course.     If   any   person   refuses   his   request,   he   considers   the   refusal   to   be   “furtive   and   aggressive”  conduct  and  typically  arrests  the  person  for  Failure  to  Comply.    The  FPD  officer  thus   expressly  acknowledged  that  he  regularly  exceeds  his  authority  under  the  Fourth  Amendment   by  arresting  passengers  who  refuse,  as  is  their  right,  to  provide  identification.       110)   The  FPD  officer  later  revealed  that  he  was  trained  to  arrest  for  this  violation.   Defendant   City   Engages   in   a   Pattern   and   Practice   of   the   Use   of   Excessive   Force   Against   African-­‐Americans   in   Violation   of   the   Fourth   Amendment   of   the   United   States  Constitution   111) Defendant   City’s   officers,   including   Defendant   Wilson,   have   a   pattern   and   practice   of   using   unreasonable   and   excessive   force   against   African-­‐Americans,   including,   but   not   limited   to,   shooting,   deploying   electronic   weapons,   and   the   use   of   canines   as   sordid   mechanisms  to  inflict  force  against  African-­‐Americans  in  violation  of  the  Fourth  Amendment’s   right  to  be  free  from  excessive  force  and  Fourteenth  Amendment’s  right  to  equal  protection.       112) The   FPD   often   escalate   encounters   with   African-­‐Americans,   as   did   Defendant   Wilson   against   MBJ,   when   they   perceive   African-­‐Americans   to   be   disobeying   their   orders   or   resisting  arrest.   113) Such   repeated   habits   created   a   culture   of   unjustified   police   conduct   within   the   City,  which  led  directly  to  the  unjustified  killing  of  MBJ.   18   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM interpreted  his  hand  motion  as  an  attempted  “assault”  and  took  him  to  the  ground.    Without   For  example,  by  using  profanity  like  “get  the  f**K”  out  of  the  street,  using  police   vehicles   as   weapons   of   aggression,   and   unreasonably   releasing   canines   on   unarmed   subjects   and/or   by   using   deadly   force   before   attempting   to   use   force   less   likely   to   cause   death,   FPD   officers  unnecessarily  escalated  encounters.       115) FPD   officers   frequently   use   this   unconstitutional   escalation   for   punitive   and   retaliatory   purposes,   and   in   response   to   behavior   that   may   be   annoying   or   distasteful   but   does   not  pose  a  threat.       116) African-­‐American   citizens   encountering   police   under   these   circumstances   are   rightfully  confused  to  find  themselves  being  detained.    They  therefore  refuse  to  stop  or  try  to   walk   away,   pull   away   incredulously,   or   respond   with   anger,   believing   that   their   constitutional   rights  are  being  violated.       117) FPD   officers,   on   the   other   hand,   tend   to   respond   with   force   as   punishment   for   non-­‐compliance  with  an  order  that  lacked  legal  authority.    Even  where  FPD  officers  have  legal   authority  to  stop,  to  detain,  or  to  arrest,  they  frequently  take  actions  that  escalate  tensions  to  a   point  that  they  believe  the  use  of  force  is  necessary.       118) FPD   officers   use   unconstitutional   force   in   instances   in   which   African-­‐Americans   express   their   First   Amendment   rights   to   freedom   of   speech   and   of   expression,   which   an   officer   may   find   personally   offensive   but   does   not   violate   the   law.     FPD   officers   frequently   violate   individuals’   First   Amendment   rights,   arresting,   and/or   using   unnecessary   and   excessive   force   against  citizens  for  legally  protected  conduct  such  as  talking  back  to  officers,  including  the  use   of  foul  language  (as  MBJ  was  accused),  recording  public  police  activities,  and  lawfully  protesting   perceived   injustices.     FPD   officers   have   a   pattern   and   practice   of   making   law   enforcement   19   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 114) force   to   verbal   challenges   or   slights,   resulting   in   FPD   police   officers   typically   charging   citizens   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM decisions   based   on   what   citizens   say   or   how   they   say   it   and   overreact   with   unlawful   uses   of   with  Failure  to  Comply,  Disorderly  Conduct,  Interference  with  Officer,  or  Resisting  Arrest.                                                                               119) The   statistics   are   startling   and   corroborate   the   fact   that   Defendant   Wilson’s   actions   were   excessive.     For   example,   90%   of   all   use   of   force   by   the   FPD   is   levied   against   African-­‐American  citizens.    One  hundred  percent  (100%)  of  the  canine  bite  incidents  for  which   racial   identity   was   available   included   an   African-­‐American   subject.     Statistical   analysis   of   the   FPD  reveals,  more  fully  infra,  and  establishes  in  this  case  (and  others),  a  clear  racial  bias  against   African-­‐Americans.       120) The   following   incidents   are   illustrative   of   FPD   officers’,   such   as   Defendant   Wilson’s,   use   of   unnecessary   and   excessive   force   and/or   unconstitutional   use   of   authority   against  African-­‐Americans  resulting  from  unlawful  stops,  arrests,  or  from  officers’  escalation  of   incidents  in  violation  of  citizens’  First,  Fourth,  and  Fourteenth  Amendment  rights:                     a. In   November   2011,   officers   stopped   a   car   for   speeding.     Two   African-­‐American   women   inside   exited   the   car   and   vocally   objected   to   the   stop.   They   were   told   to   get  back  in  the  car.      When  the  woman  in  the  passenger  seat  got  out  a  second   time,   an   officer   announced   she   was   under   arrest   for   Failure   to   Comply.     This   decision   escalated   into   a   use   of   force.     According   to   the   officers,   the   woman   swung   her   arms   and   legs,   although   apparently   not   at   anyone,   and   then   stiffened   her   body.     An   officer   responded   by   stunning   her   in   the   leg.     The   woman   was   charged  with  Failure  to  Comply  and  Resisting  Arrest.       b. In   December   2011,   FPD   officers   found   a   fourteen-­‐year-­‐old   African-­‐American   boy   in  an  abandoned  house  and  allowed  a  dog  to  bite  him  several  times.    While  the   dog  bit  the  boy  on  the  ground,  FPD  officers  struck  the  child  and  one  officer  put  a   boot   on   the   side   of   his   head.     The   child   reported   that   the   officers   laughed   about   the  incident.       c. In  July  2012,  a  police  officer  arrested  a  business  owner  on  charges  of  Interfering   in   Police   Business   and   Misuse   of   911   because   she   objected   to   the   officer’s   detention  of  her  employee.    The  officer  had  stopped  the  employee  for  “walking   20   d. In   September   2012,   an   officer   stopped   a   20-­‐year-­‐old   African-­‐American   man   for   dancing   in   the   middle   of   a   residential   street.   The   officer   obtained   the   man’s   identification  and  ran  his  name  for  warrants.    Finding  none,  he  told  the  man  he   was   free   to   go.     The   man   responded   with   profanities.     When   the   officer   told   him   to   watch   his   language   and   reminded   him   that   he   was   not   being   arrested,   the   man   continued   using   profanity   and   was   arrested   for   Manner   of   Walking   in   Roadway.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 e. In   September   2012,   a   FPD   officer   stunned   a   handcuffed   African-­‐American   woman  who  he  had  placed  in  the  back  of  his  patrol  car,  because  she  stretched   out  her  leg  to  block  him  from  closing  the  door.       f. In   October   2012,   an   FPD   officer   purportedly   sought   to   check   on   an   African-­‐ American  pedestrian’s  well-­‐being,  and  then  took  him  to  the  ground,  stunned  him   twice,   and   arrested   him   for   Manner   of   Walking   in   Roadway   and   Failure   to   Comply.    The  African-­‐American  man  was  walking  after  midnight  in  the  outer  lane   of   West   Florissant   Avenue   when   an   officer   asked   him   to   stop.     The   officer   reported  that  he  believed  the  man  might  be  under  the  influence  of  an  “impairing   substance.”      When  the  man  kept  walking,  the  officer  grabbed  his  arm;  when  the   man   pulled   away,   the   officer   forced   him   to   the   ground.     Then,   for   reasons   not   articulated  in  the  officer’s  report,  the  officer  decided  to  handcuff  him,  applying   his   electronic   weapon   in   stun   mode   twice,   reportedly   because   he   would   not   submit  his  hands  for  cuffing.    The  FPD  officer  arrested  the  man,  but  the  report   failed   to   indicate   that   he   was   in   fact   impaired   or   doing   anything   other   than   walking  down  the  street  when  approached  by  the  officer.       g. In   December   2012,   a   sixteen-­‐year-­‐old   African-­‐American   boy   suspected   of   stealing  a  car  fled  from  an  officer,  jumped  several  fences,  and  ran  into  a  vacant   house.    The  officers  released  a  canine,  and  as  the  suspect  struggled  with  the  dog   biting  him  on  the  ground,  the  first  officer  deployed  his  electronic  weapon  against   the   suspect   three   times.     The   offense   reports   provided   only   minimal   explanation   for   why   apprehension   by   dog   bite   was   necessary;   officers   claimed   the   suspect   had,  “reached  into  the  front  section  of  his  waist  area.”                                                                         21   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM   unsafely  in  the  street”  as  he  returned  to  work  from  the  bank.    According  to  FPD   records,   the   owner   “became   verbally   involved,”   came   out   of   her   shop   three   times  after  being  asked  to  stay  inside,  and  called  911  to  complain  to  the  Police   Chief.     The   officer   characterized   her   protestations   as   interference   and   arrested   her   inside   her   shop.     The   arrest   violated   the   First   Amendment,   which   does   not   allow  such  speech  to  be  made  a  crime.    The  decision  to  arrest  the  woman  after   she  tried  to  contact  the  Police  Chief  suggests  that  he  may  have  been  retaliating   against  her  for  reporting  his  conduct.   22   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM h. In   January   2013,   a   patrol   sergeant   stopped   an   African-­‐American   man   after   he   saw   the   man   talk   to   an   individual   in   a   truck   and   then   walk   away.   The   sergeant   detained  the  man,  although  he  did  not  articulate  any  reasonable  suspicion  that   criminal   activity   was   afoot.     When   the   man   declined   to   answer   questions   or   submit  to  a  frisk  which  the  sergeant  sought  to  execute  despite  articulating  any   reason  he  believed  the  man  was  armed,  he  grabbed  the  man  by  the  belt,  drew   his   electronic   weapon,   and   ordered   the   man   to   comply.     The   man   crossed   his   arms  and  objected  that  he  had  not  done  anything  wrong.    Video  captured  by  the   electronic   weapon’s   built-­‐in   camera   shows   that   the   man   made   no   aggressive   movement   toward   the   officer.     The   sergeant   fired   the   electronic   weapon,   applying   a   five-­‐second   cycle   of   electricity   and   causing   the   man   to   fall   to   the   ground,  and  he  immediately  fired  again  which  he  later  justified  in  his  report  by   claiming   that   the   man   tried   to   stand   up.     The   video   capturing   the   incident   showed   that   the   man   never   tried   to   stand   but   writhed   in   pain   on   the   ground.     The   video   depicted   a   twenty   second   cycle   of   electricity,   as   opposed   to   five   seconds   cited   in   his   report.     The   man   was   charged   with   Failure   to   Comply   and   Resisting  Arrest,  but  no  independent  criminal  violation.                                                                                                                                                                                               i. In  May  2013,  officers  stunned  a  handcuffed  African-­‐American  man  and  punched   him   in   the   face   and   the   head,   because   he   verbally   refused   to   get   out   of   the   back   seat  of  a  police  car.  The  man  did  not  physically  resist  arrest  or  attempt  to  assault   the   officers.     The   allegation   was   neither   reported   by   the   involved   officers   nor   investigated  by  their  supervisor,  who  summarily  dismissed  the  allegation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         j. In   November   2013,   a   FPD   correctional   officer   fired   an   electronic   weapon   at   an   African-­‐American  woman  because  she  did  not  follow  his  verbal  commands;  her   conduct   amounted   to   verbal   noncompliance   or   passive   resistance   at   most.     Instead  of  attempting  hand  controls  or  seeking  assistance  from  a  fellow  officer,   the  correctional  officer  deployed  an  electronic  weapon  because  the  woman  was,   “not  doing  as  she  was  told.”     k. In  November  2013,  an  African-­‐American  male  was  walking  down  the  street,  and   an   officer   deemed   him   suspicious   because   he   appeared   to   walk   away   when   he   saw   the   officer.     The   officer   stopped   him   and   frisked   him,   finding   no   weapons,   and  then  ran  his  name  for  warrants.  When  the  man  heard  the  dispatcher  state   over   the   police   radio   that   he   had   outstanding   warrants   he   ran.   The   officer   followed  him  and  released  his  dog  despite  knowing  he  was  unarmed,  which  bit   the   man   on   both   arms.   The   officer’s   supervisor   found   the   force   justified   because   the  officer  released  the  dog  “fearing  that  the  subject  was  armed,”  even  though   the  officer  had  already  determined  the  man  was  unarmed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     l. In   February   2014,   officers   responded   to   a   group   of   African-­‐American   teenage   girls  “play  fighting”  in  an  intersection  after  school.    When  one  of  the  schoolgirls   gave  the  middle  finger  to  a  White  witness  who  had  called  the  police,  an  officer   121) Defendant  City’s  law  enforcement  practices  are  directly  shaped  and  perpetuated   by   both   racial   animus   and   racial   bias   in   violation   of   the   Fourteenth   Amendment’s   Equal   Protection  Clause  prohibiting  discriminatory  policing  on  the  basis  of  race.       122) The  FPD  practices  disproportionately  harm  African-­‐Americans.       123) Such   practices   created   a   culture   of   unjustified   police   conduct   within   the   City,   which  led  directly  to  the  unjustified  killing  of  MBJ.   124) In   particular,   the   FPD   actions   impose   a   disparate   impact   on   African-­‐Americans   in   virtually   every   aspect   of   law   enforcement,   to   wit:   from   the   initial   police   contact   to   the   final   disposition  of  a  case.    Although  the  FPD’s  data  collection  and  retention  practices  are  deficient  in   many   respects,   the   available   data   collected   by   the   USDOJ   in   its   investigation   is   sufficient   to   allow  for  reliable  analysis  evidencing  racial  disparities  that  cannot  be  explained  away  by  chance   or  by  any  difference  in  the  rates  upon  which  people  of  different  races  adhere  to  the  law.   23   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM   ordered  her  over  to  him.    One  of  the  girl’s  friends  accompanied  her,  the  officers   ordered  her  to  leave  and  then  attempted  to  arrest  her  when  she  refused  though   she  posed  no  threat  and  had  a  right  to  be  there.    Officers  used  force  to  arrest  the   friend  as  she  pulled  away.    When  the  first  girl  grabbed  an  officer’s  shoulder,  they   used   force   to   arrest   her,   as   well.     Officers   charged   the   two   teenagers   with   a   variety  of  offenses,  including:  Disorderly  Conduct  for  giving  the  middle  finger  and   using  obscenities;  Manner  of  Walking  for  being  in  the  street;  Failure  to  Comply   for  staying  to  observe;  Interference  with  Officer;  Assault  on  a  Law  Enforcement   Officer;   and   Endangering   the   Welfare   of   a   Child   (themselves   children)   by   resisting   arrest   and   being   involved   in   disorderly   conduct.     This   incident   underscores   how   officers’   unlawful   response   to   activity   protected   by   the   First   Amendment   can   quickly   escalate   to   physical   resistance,   resulting   in   additional   force,   additional   charges,   and   increasing   the   risk   of   injury   to   officers   and   members  of  the  public.                             Defendant   City   Engages   in   A   Pattern   and   Practice   of   Perpetuating   Racial   Bias   Against   African-­‐Americans   in   Violation   of   the   Equal   Protection   Clause   of   the   Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution   African-­‐Americans   in   the   city   of   Ferguson   bear   the   overwhelming   burden   of   FPD’s  pattern  of  unlawful  stops,  searches,  and  arrests  with  respect  to  these  highly  discretionary   ordinances.       126) Despite   making   up   67%   of   the   population,   African-­‐Americans   accounted   for   85%   of  FPD’s  traffic  stops,  90%  of  FPD’s  citations,  and  93%  of  FPD’s  arrests  from  2012  to  2014.       127) Furthermore,   African-­‐Americans   account   for   95%   of   Manner   of   Walking   charges;   94%   of   all   Failure   to   Comply   charges;   92%   of   all   Resisting   Arrest   charges;   92%   of   all   Peace   Disturbance  charges;  and  89%  of  all  Failure  to  Obey  charges.       128) In   addition,   African-­‐Americans   are   2.00   times   more   likely   to   receive   a   citation   during   a   vehicle   stop,   2.37   times   more   likely   to   be   arrested,   and   are   more   likely   to   receive   multiple  citations  during  a  single  incident.       129) From  October  2012  through  July  2014,  African-­‐Americans  received  four  or  more   citations  on  73  occasions,  whereas  non-­‐African-­‐Americans  received  four  or  more  citations  only   twice  during  that  period.    African-­‐Americans  are  2.07  times  more  likely  to  be  searched  during  a   vehicular  stop  but  are  26%  less  likely  to  have  contraband  found  on  them  during  a  search.    The   lower  rate  at  which  officers  find  contraband  when  searching  African-­‐Americans  indicates  either   that  officers’  suspicion  of  criminal  wrongdoing  is  less  likely  to  be  accurate  when  interacting  with   African-­‐Americans   or   that   officers   are   more   likely   to   search   African-­‐Americans   without   any   suspicion   of   criminal   wrongdoing,   suggesting   either   explicit   or   implicit   racial   animus   and/or   racial  bias.   130) In   addition,   the   FPD   uses   force   against   African-­‐American   citizens   at   disproportionately   high   rates,   accounting   for   88%   of   all   cases   from   2010   to   August   2014   in   24   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 125) biting,  100%  were  African-­‐American  victims.   131) The  racially  disparate  impact  of  Defendant  City’s  practices  are  driven,  at  least  in   part,   by   intentional   discrimination   in   violation   of   the   Equal   Protection   Clause   of   the   Fourteenth   Amendment.    Evidence  of  racial  bias  and  stereotyping  is  made  apparent  by  the  consistency  and   magnitude  of  the  racial  disparities  throughout  the  FPD’s  enforcement  actions;  the  selection  and   execution   of   police   practices   that   disproportionately   harm   African-­‐Americans   do   little   to   promote   public   safety;   the   persistent   exercise   of   discretion   to   the   detriment   of   African-­‐ Americans;  the  apparent  consideration  of  race  in  assessing  threat;  and  the  historical  opposition   to  having  African-­‐Americans  reside  in  the  city  of  Ferguson.       132) Historically,   the   city   of   Ferguson   was   a   “sundown”   city   in   the   1960’s   in   which   physical   barriers   were   erected   each   night   to   prevent   African-­‐Americans   from   leaving   certain   parts  of  the  city  and  entering  others,  with  the  exception  of  maids  and  people  that  serviced   the   wealthier  surrounding  areas.       133) The   remnants   of   historical   racial   bias   and   hostility   toward   African-­‐Americans   continue  to  manifest  itself  at  the  FPD.       134) In   addition   to   systemic   or   institutionalized   racist   practices,   and   the   lingering   effects  of  historical  racism,  many  FPD  officers,  such  as  Defendant  Wilson,  and  officials  harbor   explicit   racial   animus   and   racial   bias   as   evidenced   by   communications   among   officers   demonstrating  racial  stereotypes.    Several  email  messages,  USDOJ  interviews,  and  statements   made   by   FPD   supervisors   and   officers   exhibit   unequivocal   derogatory,   dehumanizing,   and   impermissible  animus  and  bias  based  on  race.   25   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM which  an  FPD  officer  reported  using  force.    Of  the  reported  uses  of  canines  which  resulted  in   Defendant   City,   through   its   officials,   including   Defendant   Wilson’s   supervisors   and   commanders,   all   of   whom   were   employed   at   the   time   of   the   incident,   transmitted   messages   through   their   official   email   accounts   during   work   hours   that   provide   unequivocal   evidence  of  pervasive  racism  that  permeated  throughout  the  FPD.       136) The  following  emails  illustrate  the  sordid  racial  mindset  that  permeated  the  FPD:     a. A   November   2008   email   stated   that   President   Barack   Obama   would   not   be   President   for   very   long   because:   “what   African-­‐American   man   holds   a   steady   job   for  four  years.”       b. An  April  2011  email  depicted  President  Barack  Obama  as  a  chimpanzee.       c. A   May   2011   email   stated:   “An   African-­‐American   woman   in   New   Orleans   was   admitted   into   the   hospital   for   a   pregnancy   termination.   Two   weeks   later   she   received  a  check  for  $5,000.  She  phoned  the  hospital  to  ask  who  it  was  from.  The   hospital  said,  ‘Crimestoppers.’”     137) d. An   October   2011   email   included   a   photo   of   a   bare-­‐chested   group   of   dancing   women,   apparently   in   Africa,   with   the   caption,   “Michelle   Obama’s   High   School   Reunion.”       Defendant   City,   through   its   officials,   transmitted   many   additional   email   communications   that   exhibited   racial   or   ethnic   bias.     No   employee   was   ever   disciplined   for   generating   or   for  disseminating   the   racist   material.     Nor   did   any   recipient   of   a   racist   email   ever   report   the   correspondence   or   ask   the   sender   to   refrain   from   sending   such   emails,   usually   forwarding  the  email  to  others  using  government  equipment  and/or  property.       138) After  the  USDOJ  published  its  report  detailing  the  overtly  racist  correspondence   found   throughout   Defendant   City,   several   law   enforcement   officers   and   city   officials   were   fired   or  resigned  within  days  of  its  release,  including  the  city  of  Ferguson’s  City  Manager  and  Chief  of   Police,  evidencing  the  apparent  validity  of  the  report’s  conclusions.   26   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 135) FPD   officers   not   only   exchange   emails   using   racial   epithets,   but   they   blatantly   used  racial  epithets  when  addressing  members  of  the  public.     140) For  example,  in  August  2014,  an  African-­‐American  man,  after  being  pulled  out  of   his  apartment  by  force,  told  an  officer,  “you  don’t  have  a  reason  to  lock  me  up,”  and  he  claimed   the   officer   responded:   “N*****,   I   can   find   something   to   lock   you   up   on.”     When   the   man   responded,  “good  luck  with  that,”  the  officer  slammed  his  face  into  the  wall,  and  after  the  man   fell  to  the  floor,  the  officer  said,  “don’t  pass  out  motherf****r  because  I’m  not  carrying  you  to   my  car.”     141) In   July   2014,   just   one   month   before   Defendant   Wilson   gunned   down   MBJ,   another   young   man   described   walking   with   friends   past   a   group   of   FPD   officers   who   shouted   racial  epithets  at  the  young  man  and  his  friends  as  they  passed  the  officers.   The  Defendant  City  Has  A  Pattern  and  Practice  of  Failing  to  Properly  Supervise  Officers,  of   Failing  to  Conduct  Fair  and  Impartial  Investigations  of  Alleged  Officer  Misconduct,  and  of   Failing  to  Properly  Train  Officers     142) The  FPD  routinely  failed  to  properly  supervise  its  officers  and  failed  to  conduct   fair   and   impartial   investigations   into   allegations   of   the   use   of   excessive   force   by   officers,   thereby   breeding,   fostering,   and   supporting   an   environment   that   directly   led   to   Defendant   Wilson’s  unconstitutional  use  of  force  against  MBJ.       143) The   FPD’s   use-­‐of-­‐force   review   system   is   particularly   ineffectual   as   officers   frequently   failed   to   report   the   use-­‐of-­‐force   and   supervisors   performed   perfunctory   or   no   investigation.     144) Further,   the   perfunctory   investigation   that   supervisors   do   perform   is   rarely   meaningful.     27   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 139) Specifically,  in  the  event  that  a  supervisor  does  investigate  use-­‐of-­‐force  reports,   they   either   (1)   failed   to   comprehend   or   consciously   disregard   the   FPD’s   use-­‐of-­‐force   policy   in   analyzing  officer  conduct,  (2)  rarely  corrected  officer  misconduct  when  it  was  identified,  and/or   (3)  failed  to  see  the  patterns  of  abuse  that  are  evident  when  one  reviews  the  incidents  in  the   aggregate.       146) In  fact,  the  USDOJ  revealed  that  in  151  incident  reports  it  reviewed,  FPD  first-­‐line   supervisors   and   the   command   staff   found   all   but   one   of   the   151   incident   within   policy,   and   the   FPD   Chief   of   Police   stated   to   the   USDOJ   that   he   never   overturned   a   supervisor’s   determination   of  whether  a  use  of  force  fell  within  FPD  policy.       147) The   FPD   did   not   implement   an   early   intervention   system   to   identify   officers   who   tended  to  use  excessive  force  or  the  need  for  more  training  or  better  equipment  choices.   148) The   aforementioned   deficiencies   in   FPD’s   use-­‐of-­‐force   review   created   legally   deficient   gaps   in   properly   supervising   FPD   officers,   rendering   it   less   likely   that   officers   will   be   held   accountable   for   excessive   force   and   more   likely   that   constitutional   violations   will   occur,   as   unfortunately  illuminated  in  the  unjustifiable  killing  of  MBJ  by  Defendant  Wilson.     149) The   deficiency   gaps   also   resulted   in   a   police   department   that   does   not   give   its   officers  the  supervision  they  need  to  do  their  jobs  safely,  effectively,  and  constitutionally.     150) An  example  of  this  was  evident  in  2010.      During  that  time,  a  senior  police  official   complained  to  supervisors  that  every  week  use  of  force  reports  go  unwritten  and  hundreds  of   reports   remain   unapproved.     He   urged   the   supervisors   that,   “It   is   time   for   you   to   hold   your   officers  accountable.”       28   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 145) Later   in   2014,   this   same   senior   police   official   voiced   the   same   complaint.     This   time   he   exclaimed   that   600   reports   had   not   been   approved   over   a   six-­‐month   period.     A   FPD   supervisor   retorted   that   coding   errors   in   the   new   records   management   system   is   set   up   “to   hide,  do  away  with,  or  just  forget  reports.”       152) FPD   supervisors   apparently   adopted   a   practice   of   justifying   any   level   of   force   against  citizens,  primarily  African-­‐Americans,  and  routinely  relied  upon  boilerplate  language  to   do   so,   such   as   the   subject   took   “a   fighting   stance”   or   “had   a   look   on   his   face”   or   “made   a   threatening  noise  or  sound,”  etc.     153) As  in  this  case,  FPD  officers  regularly  reported,  without  supervisory  scrutiny,  that   a  subject’s  hands  were  near  his  waist  where  he  might  have  a  weapon  as  a  justification  for  using   deadly  force.     154) Further  facts  evidencing  FPD’s  failure  to  properly  train  its  officers  include,  but  is   not  limited  to:         a. A  failure  to  properly  train  in  constitutional  detentions,  seizures,  and  arrests;       b. A  failure  to  properly  train  in  de-­‐escalation  techniques  to  avoid  or  minimize  force;     c. A  failure  to  properly  train  on  the  timely  and  proper  reporting  of  uses  of  force;     d. A   failure   to   properly   train   on   racial   sensitivity   in   constitutional   policing   which   requires  equal  treatment  on  the  basis  of  race  in  law  enforcement,  especially  in  a   community  with  a  large  minority  population;  and       e. A  failure  to  properly  train  supervisors  on  how  to  review  officer  uses  of  force  to   detect   patterns   of   misconduct   and   (1)   to   determine   whether   officers   are   behaving  in  racially  biased  manners,  (2)  to  identify  problematic  officers,  and  (3)   to   know   when   to   implement   additional   and/or   new   training   to   prevent   constitutional  violations.       29   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 151) Defendants   City   and   Jackson   allowed   FPD   to   develop   and   promulgate   customs,   policies,  and/or  practices  of  unconstitutional  conduct  in  violation  of  the  Fourth  Amendment  of   the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  including  but  not  limited  to:   a. Conducting  stops  and/or  detentions  without  reasonable  suspicion;     b. Affecting  arrests  without  probable  cause;         c. The  use  of  unnecessary  and  unreasonable  excessive  force  against  its  citizens;         d. Creating  an  atmosphere  reminiscent  of  a  police  state,  wherein  officers  felt  free   to  confront  citizens  at  their  discretion  and  without  any  lawful  authority,  i.e.,  for   simply  crossing  the  street,  for  speaking  in  a  manner  in  which  an  officer  did  not   approve,  etc.;  and           156) e. Frequently  escalating  routine  matters  by  issuing  unlawful  orders,  using  profane   language   toward   citizens,   physically   and/or   geographically   restraining   individuals’   movement,   unlawfully   demanding   identification,   and   retaliating   against  individuals  with  the  excessive  use  of  force  when  citizens  remind  officers   of  their  constitutional  rights  to  freedom  of  speech  and  to  bodily  integrity.         The   disproportionate   frequency   upon   which   Defendants   used   various   forms   of   excessive   force   against   members   of   the   African-­‐American   community   violated   the   Equal   Protection  Clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.    Such  forms  included  but  are  not  limited  to:     a. Shooting  citizens  with  guns;     b. Shooting  them  with  electronic  weapons;       c. Deploying  canines;  and         d. Combine  subparagraphs  a-­‐c  with  the  fact  that  supervisors  almost  unequivocally   approved   or   ratified   unconstitutional   uses   of   force,   the   FPD   fostered   an   environment   that   empowered   officers   like   Defendant   Wilson   to   act   as   judge,   jury,  and  executioner.   157) When   Defendant   Wilson   confronted   MBJ   using   the   pretext   that   he   did   not   like   the  way  he  was  walking  in  the  street,  he  did  so  under  the  influence  of  pervasive  constitutional   30   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 155) conduct  would  be  ratified  and  promulgated  by  his  supervisors.       158) Defendant  Wilson  used  the  same  unlawful  techniques  utilized  by  his  fellow  FPD   officers  when  he  escalated  the  initial  contact  with  MBJ  and  Witness  Johnson  by  using  profane   language  toward  them  for  simply  crossing  the  street  the  “wrong  way.”    This  escalation  directly   contributed  to  MBJ  being  gunned  down  in  broad  daylight  by  Defendant  Wilson.       159) In   fact,   before   being   gunned   down,   MBJ   was   simply   attempting   to   break-­‐free   from  Defendant  Wilson’s  unlawful  contact.    But  yet,  Defendant  Wilson  escalated  the  situation   by  drawing  his  weapon  and  pointing  it  directly  at  MBJ.       160) Even  after  being  shot  and  badly  bleeding,  MBJ  attempted  to  flee  for  his  safety,   not   as   an   act   of   unlawful   resistance   but   rather   in   a   failed   attempt   to   preserve   his   constitutionally  guaranteed  right  to  life.       161) The  law  does  not  require  MBJ  (or  any  citizens)  to  stand  still  while  being  profanely   addressed,  unnecessarily  assaulted,  and  unlawfully  shot  at  or  by  Defendant  Wilson.   162)      Defendants   City   and   Jackson   ratified   Defendant   Wilson’s   conduct,   as   is   customary,   by   failing   to   reprimand   him   for   abusing   and   violating   MBJ’s   constitutional   rights;   namely,  his  right  to  life.       163)        As   a   direct   and   proximate   cause   of   Defendants   City   and   Jackson’s   pervasive   unconstitutional   policing,   which   frequently   and   disproportionately   denied   African-­‐Americans   of   their   Fourth   and   Fourteenth   Amendment   constitutional   rights,   as   well   as   Defendant   Wilson’s   unlawful  detention  and  use  of  excessive  force,  MBJ  lost  his  life,  and  his  parents,  Plaintiffs,  lost   their  son  and  will  continue  to  suffer  damages  for  the  remainder  of  their  lives.   31   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM violations  and  racial-­‐animus  and  racial-­‐bias  existing  within  the  FPD,  as  well  as  knowing  that  his   164) Plaintiffs  re-­‐allege  and  incorporate  the  foregoing  paragraphs  as  if  fully  set  forth   herein.   165) The  actions  of  Defendant  Wilson  as  described  above  violated  and  deprived  MBJ   of  his  clearly  established  and  well-­‐settled  civil  rights  to  be  free  from  unlawful  detention  and  the   use  of  excessive  and  deadly  force,  as  well  as  the  deprivation  of  liberty  without  due  process  of   law  and  equal  protection  of  the  law.   166) The   death   of   MBJ   was   directly   and   proximately   caused   by   the   aforementioned   violations   and   deprivation   of   his   constitutional   rights   by   Defendant   Wilson,   as   Defendant   Wilson   unlawfully   detained   and   then   used   profane   language   and   deadly   force   against   MBJ   when  it  was  blatantly  unwarranted  and  unjustified  to  do  so.   167) As   a   direct   and   proximate   result   of   the   violations   and   deprivation   of   his   rights,   MBJ  suffered  severe,  painful,  and  fatal  injuries.       168) As   a   direct   and   proximate   result   of   these   actions,   Plaintiffs   lost   the   love,   care,   companionship,  comfort,  guidance,  services,  and  support  of  MBJ.   169) As   a   direct   and   proximate   result   of   the   injuries   to   MBJ,   Plaintiffs   have   become   obligated  for  necessary  funeral  and  burial  expenses.   COUNT  II   Failure  To  Properly  Hire,  Train,  Supervise,  Retain,  and  Conduct  A  Fair  and  Impartial   Investigation   (Defendant  City  and  Defendant  Jackson)       170) Plaintiffs  re-­‐allege  and  incorporate  the  foregoing  paragraphs  as  if  fully  set  forth   herein.   32   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM COUNT  I   Civil  Rights  Violation   (Defendant  Wilson)   Defendants   City   and   Jackson   have   a   duty   to   provide   responsible   and   effective   operations  of  its  police  department.       172) Defendants   also   have   a   duty   to   establish   proper   policies,   customs,   and   regulations  of  the  police  department.   173)     Upon   information   and   belief,   prior   to   the   death   of   MBJ,   Defendants   City   and   Jackson   had   a   custom   or   policy   of   negligently   hiring   and   retaining   officers,   failing   to   properly   train   and/or   supervise   officers   in   the   use   of   deadly   force   in   areas   of   the   city   of   Ferguson   predominately   populated   by   African-­‐Americans,   and   in   failing   to   conduct   fair   and   impartial   investigations.     174) Upon   information   and   belief,   prior   to   the   death   of   MBJ,   Defendants   City   and   Jackson  had  a  custom  or  policy  of  negligently  failing  to  train  or  supervise  officers  regarding  how   to  treat  and  properly  serve  in  areas  of  the  city  of  Ferguson  predominately  populated  by  African-­‐ Americans.     175)  Upon   information   and   belief,   prior   to   the   death   of   MBJ,   Defendants   City   and   Jackson   had   a   custom   or   policy   of   negligently   failing   to   train   or   supervise   officers   in   cultural   diversity  in  an  effort  to  eliminate  the  potential  of  unjustified  deadly  force  in  areas  of  the  city  of   Ferguson  predominately  populated  by  African-­‐Americans.     176)  Upon   information   and   belief,   Defendants   City   and   Jackson   have   not   formally   amended  its  training  and/or  policies  to  eradicate  similar  instances  of  unjustified  use  of  deadly   force.     33   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 171)     The  wrongful  death  of  MBJ  was  directly  and  proximately  caused  by  the  failures,   negligence,   and   carelessness   of   Defendants   City   and   Jackson   because   it   produced   or   contributed  to  police  officers’  devaluation  of  African-­‐American  life  in  the  city  of  Ferguson.     COUNT  III   Civil  Rights  Violations   (Defendant  Jackson)   178) Plaintiffs  re-­‐allege  and  incorporate  the  foregoing  paragraphs  as  if  fully  set  forth   herein.   179)     Upon   information   and   belief,   Defendant   Jackson,   in   his   individual   and   official   capacity,  with  knowledge  and  deliberate  indifference  to  and/or  reckless  disregard  for  the  rights   of  the  citizens  of  the  city  of  Ferguson,  has  tolerated,  permitted,  failed  to  correct,  promoted,  or   ratified   a   custom,   pattern,   and   practice   on   the   part   of   city   of   Ferguson   police   officers   who   engage  in  unjustified,  unreasonable,  and  illegal  use  of  excessive  force,  including  deadly  force.   180)     Defendant  Jackson  knew  or  should  have  known  that  the  inadequate  training  and   supervision   would   result   in   the   use   of   deadly   force   by   Defendant   Wilson   and   others   and   that   such   inadequate   training   and   supervision   was   substantially   likely   to   result   in   other   unauthorized,   unconstitutional,   and   illegal   actions   against   the   citizens   of   Ferguson,   Missouri,   including  MBJ.   181)     Defendant  Jackson  has  not  formally  introduced  training  or  supervision  policies  to   eradicate   similar   instances   of   mistreatment,   unlawful   stop   and/or   detention,   and   unjustified   use  of  deadly  force.     182)        The  wrongful  death  of  MBJ  was  directly  and  proximately  caused  by  the  failures,   negligence,  and  carelessness  of  Defendant  Jackson  as  set  forth  herein.     34   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 177)     183) herein.       184)       Plaintiffs  hereby  incorporate  all  above  paragraphs  as  though  fully  set  forth   This  Count  is  being  brought  against  Defendant  City  and  Defendant  Wilson  in  his   individual   and   official   capacities,   pursuant   to   the   United   States   Constitution   Amendments   IV   and  XIV  and  42  U.S.C.  §  1983  and  §  1988.   185)     At   all   times   material   hereto,   Defendant   Wilson   was   an   employee   Defendant   City   and  acting  within  the  course  and  scope  of  his  employment  with  same  and  acting  under  color  of   law.   186)     187) On  August  9,  2014,  Defendant  Wilson  unlawfully  detained  and/or  seized  MBJ.    Defendant  Wilson  used  unnecessary  and  excessive  force  on  MBJ  depriving  him  of   bodily  integrity,  life,  liberty,  and  due  process  of  law.       188) Upon   information   and   belief,   the   decision   to   approach   MBJ   and   to   violate   his   constitutional  rights  was  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  MBJ  was  African-­‐American.   189)     Defendant  Wilson  initially  encountered  MBJ  because  he  did  not  like  the  manner   in  which  he  was  walking  in  the  road.       190) Such   dislike   did   not   provide   Defendant   Wilson   with   the   lawful   authority   to   conduct  a  stop  or  to  detain  MBJ.       191) Defendant   Wilson   escalated   the   situation   by   using   profanity   toward   MBJ   and   Witness  Johnson  when  it  was  unnecessary  unjustified.       35   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM   COUNT  IV   Unconstitutional  Stop  and/or  Detention  and  Use  Of  Excessive  Force  in  Violation  of   Amendments  IV  And  XIV  of  the  United  States  Constitution  and  42  U.S.C.  §  1983     (Defendant  Wilson)   Defendant   Wilson   further   escalated   the   situation   by   (1)   throwing   his   car   in   reverse   and   using   his   motor   vehicle   as   a   physical   barricade   against   MBJ,   (2)   striking   MBJ’s   body   with  his  door,  (3)  physically  engaging  MBJ  from  inside  the  vehicle,  and  then  (4)  shooting  MJB   while  inside  the  vehicle.       193) This   unlawful   interaction   culminated   with   Defendant   Wilson   firing   a   total   of   twelve   shots   at   MBJ,   either   as   MBJ   was   attempting   to   flee,   in   the   process   of   fleeing,   surrendering  with  his  hands  up  or  with  his  body  falling  to  the  ground.       194) Of  the  twelve  shots  fired,  Defendant  Wilson  shot  MBJ’s  body  six  to  eight  times,   including  twice  in  the  head.       195) The   use   of   force   exhibited   by   Defendant   Wilson   against   Plaintiff   MBJ   was   unreasonable  and  excessive.     196)     As  a  direct  and  proximate  result  of  said  Defendant  City’s  and  Defendant  Wilson’s   acts,   omissions,   and   use   of   excessive   force,   MBJ   was   deprived   of   his   rights   to   be   free   from   unreasonable  detention,  due  process  of  law,  equal  protection,  and  the  right  to  life  guaranteed   to  him  by  the  Fourth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments  of  the  United  States  Constitution.   COUNT  V   Defendant  City’s  Custom/Policy/Pattern  Practice  of  Unreasonable  Stops  and  Detentions  and   Use  of  Excessive  Force  in  Violation  of  the  IV  and  XIV  Amendments  Of  The  United  States   Constitution  and  42  U.S.C.  §  1983       197) Plaintiffs  hereby  incorporate  all  above  paragraphs  as  though  fully  set  forth   herein.       198)     This  Count  is  being  brought  against  Defendant  City  pursuant  to  the  United  States   Constitution  Amendments  IV  and  XIV  and  42  U.S.C.  §  1983  and  §  1988.   36   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 192) Prior   to   August   9,   2014,   Defendant   City   developed   and   maintained   policies,   customs   or   practices   exhibiting   deliberate   indifference   to   the   constitutional   rights   of   persons   in   the   community,   including   systemic   deprivation   of   Fourth   and   Fourteenth   Amendment   rights,   which  caused  the  violation  of  MBJ’s  constitutional  rights.   200)       Defendant   City   maintained   a   policy,   custom,   or   practice   of   (1)   conducting   unconstitutional  stops  or  detentions,  (2)  using  of  excessive  force,  (3)  engaging  in  discriminatory   conduct  aimed  at  the  African-­‐American  community  resulting  in  disparate  treatment,  (4)  failing   to  properly  supervise  and  train  officers  on  lawful  detentions  and  uses  of  force,  as  well  as  the   constitutional   requirement   of   equal   treatment,   (5)   failing   to   conduct   fair   and   impartial   investigations  into  officers’  use  of  excessive  force,  and  (6)  failing  to  punish  officers  engaging  in   constitutional  violations,  thereby  ratifying  such  conduct.     201)       Defendant  City  was  aware  of  problems  with  employees’,  acting  under  the  color   of   law,   use   of   excessive   force,   and,   as   an   employer,   it   failed   to   investigate   and/or   reprimand   such  behavior  and  failed  to  discharge  said  officers  for  their  misconduct,  thereby  ratifying  such   conduct.       202)     Defendant   City   maintained   a   policy,   custom,   or   practice   of   failing   to   properly   train  its  police  officers,  including  but  not  limited  to,  how  to  use  appropriate  levels  of  force;  how   to  properly  assess  levels  of  threat;  and  how  to  properly  issue  verbal  commands.       203)     Defendant  City  also  maintained  a  policy,  custom,  or  practice  of  failing  to  conduct   fair   and   impartial   investigations   into   officer   misconduct,   use   of   excessive   force,   and   police   shootings.     37   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 199)     Additionally,  Defendant  City  maintained  a  policy,  custom,  or  practice  of  treating   African-­‐American  citizens  differently,  including  the  use  of  excessive  force.       205)     The   above   said   acts   of   misconduct   were   perpetuated,   tolerated,   and   not   reprimanded  by  Defendant  City.    Thus,  Defendant  City  inadequately  discouraged  constitutional   violations  perpetrated  by  its  police  officers.    As  such,  MBJ’s  constitutional  rights  were  violated   pursuant   to   the   United   States   Constitution   Amendments   IV   and   XIV,   and   he   was   ultimately   deprived  of  his  bodily  integrity;  namely,  his  right  to  life.   206)     As   a   result   of   the   above-­‐mentioned   polices,   customs,   and   practices,   Defendant   City  fostered  an  environment  wherein  police  officers  believed  that  their  inappropriate  actions   would   not   be   subject   to   proper   monitoring   by   supervisors.       They   also   believed   that   their   inappropriate   actions   would   not   be   subject   to   proper   investigations   or   lead   to   any   kind   of   sanction,  but  would  instead  be  tolerated  by  Defendant  City.   207)     The  above  facts  denote  a  deliberate  indifference  on  the  part  of  Defendant  City  to   uphold  the  constitutional  rights  of  some  citizens  of  the  city  of  Ferguson,  as  well  as  those  visiting   it.   COUNT  VI   Substantive  Due  Process  Deprivation  in  Violation  of  the  Amendment  XIV  of  the  United  States   Constitution  and  42  U.S.C.  §  1983   Defendant  Wilson   Plaintiffs  Michael  Brown,  Sr.  And  Lesley  McSpadden     208) Plaintiffs  hereby  incorporate  all  paragraphs  above  as  though  fully  set  forth   herein.       38   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 204)     This   Count   is   being   brought   against   Defendant   Darren   Wilson   in   his   individual   and   official   capacities,   pursuant   to   the   United   States   Constitution   Amendments   XIV   and   42   U.S.C.  §  1983  and  §  1988.   210)     At   all   times   material   hereto,   Defendant   Wilson   was   an   employee   of   Defendant   City   and   acting   within   the   course   and   scope   of   his   employment   with   same,   as   well   as   acting   under  color  of  law.   211)     Plaintiffs   Michael   Brown,   Sr.   and   Lesley   McSpadden   had   a   cognizable   interest   under  the  due  process  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution   in   being   free   from   state   actions   that   cause   an   unwarranted   interference   with   their   right   to   a   familial  relationship  with  Decedent,  MBJ.   212)     Defendant  Wilson  deprived  Plaintiffs  of  their  right  to  a  familial  relationship  with   their  son  MBJ  in  a  manner  that  shocked  the  conscience  of  the  community.   213)     Namely,  when  MBJ  had  his  hands  up,  Wilson  fired  shots  at  him  ultimately  killing   him.     214) Defendant  City  left  MBJ’s  lifeless  body  in  the  streets  for  hours  for  the  community   to   stare,   spectate,   and   gawk.     In   so   doing,   Defendant   Wilson   acted   with   deliberate   indifference   to  the  constitutional  rights  of  decedent  and  Plaintiffs  without  any  legitimate  law  enforcement   objective.     215)     As  a  direct  and  proximate  result  of  said  Defendant  Wilson’s  acts,  omissions,  and   deliberate  indifference  to  Plaintiffs’  constitutional  right  to  their  familial  relationship  with  their   son,   Plaintiffs   have   been   deprived   of   the   life-­‐long   love,   companionship,   comfort,   support,   39   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 209)     of  their  natural  lives.       216) Plaintiffs  loved  MBJ,  their  natural  son,  and  Plaintiffs  have  suffered  extreme  and   severe  mental  anguish  and  pain  and  have  been  injured  both  in  mind  and  in  body.   217)     Plaintiffs  have  ongoing  and  continuous  permanent  damages  and  injuries,  and  as   such  are  entitled  to  recovery  of  damages.   COUNT  VII   Defendant  City’s  Unconstitutional  Custom/Policy/Pattern  Practice  of  Substantive  Due  Process   in  Violation  Amendment  XIV  of  the  United  States  Constitution  and  42  U.S.C.  §  1983     Plaintiffs  Michael  Brown,  Sr.  and  Lesley  McSpadden     218) Plaintiffs  hereby  incorporate  the  above  paragraphs  as  though  fully  set  forth   herein.       219)     This  Count  is  being  brought  against  Defendant  City  pursuant  to  the  United  States   Constitution  Amendment  XIV  and  violation  of  42  U.S.C.  §  1983  and  §  1988.   220)     Prior   to   August   9,   2014,   Defendant   City   developed   and   maintained   policies,   customs,  or  practices  exhibiting  deliberate  indifference  to  the  constitutional  rights  of  persons  in   the   community,   which   caused   the   violation   of   Plaintiffs’   constitutional   rights   under   the   due   process  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution,  which  protects   individuals  from  unwarranted  state  interference  of  their  right  to  familial  relationship.       221)     Defendant   City   maintained   a   policy,   custom,   or   practice   of   excessive   force   against  citizens  including  inadequately  and  improperly  investigating  citizen  complaints  of  police   misconduct,  and  failing  to  properly  hire,  train,  and  supervise  Ferguson  officers.     40   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM society,  care  and  sustenance  of  decedent,  and  will  continue  to  be  so  deprived  for  the  remainder   Defendant  City  was  aware  of  problems  with  employees’  uses  of  excessive  force,   yet  effectively  ratified  such  conduct  by  failing  to  investigate  and/or  reprimand  such  behavior,   and  by  failing  to  discharge  said  officers  for  their  misconduct.   223)     Defendant   City   maintained   a   policy,   custom,   or   practice   of   failing   to   properly   train   Ferguson   officers,   including   but   not   limited   to   how   to   properly   respond   to   situations,   how   to   evaluate   threat   and   appropriate   uses   of   force,   and   how   to   conduct   themselves   without   employing  racial  bias.       224)     Defendant   City   maintained   a   policy,   custom,   or   practice   of   treating   African-­‐ Americans  differently,  including  excessive  use  of  force.   225)     The   above   said   acts   of   misconduct   were   perpetuated,   tolerated,   and   not   reprimanded  by  Defendant  City.    Thus,  Defendant  City  inadequately  discouraged  constitutional   violations   perpetrated   by   its   law   enforcement   officers   but   instead   ratified   such   misconduct,   including  the  use  of  excessive  force.     226)     The  above  facts  denote  a  deliberate  indifference  on  the  part  of  Defendant  City  to   uphold   the   constitutional   rights   of   citizens   of   the   city   of   Ferguson,   including   Plaintiffs.     Namely,   when   MBJ   had   his   hands   up,   Defendant   Wilson   fired   shots   at   him   that   ultimately   struck   MBJ   twice  in  the  head.     227) Defendant  City  left  MBJ’s  lifeless  body  in  the  streets  for  hours  for  the  world  to   stare,  spectate,  and  gawk.       228)     Defendant  City’s  aforementioned  actions  and  inactions  directly  and  proximately   denied  Plaintiffs  substantive  due  process  and  caused  the  violation  of  Plaintiffs’  right  to  a  familial   relationship  with  their  son,  MBJ.   41   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 222)     As   such,   Plaintiffs’   constitutional   rights   were   violated   pursuant   to   the   United   States  Constitution  Amendment  XIV.   230)     As  a  result  of  the  above-­‐mentioned  polices,  customs  and/or  practices,  Defendant   City’s   police   officers   believed   that   their   inappropriate   actions   would   not   be   subject   to   proper   monitoring   by   supervisors,   and   that   misconduct   would   not   be   subject   to   investigation   or   sanctions,  but  would  instead  be  tolerated  by  Defendant  City.   231)     As   a   direct   and   proximate   result   of   said   Defendant   City’s   acts,   omissions,   and   deliberate  indifference  to  Plaintiffs’  constitutional  right  to  their  familial  relationship  with  their   son,   Plaintiffs   have   been   deprived   of   the   life-­‐long   love,   companionship,   comfort,   support,   society,  care  and  sustenance  of  decedent,  and  will  continue  to  be  so  deprived  for  the  remainder   of  their  natural  lives.       232)                          Plaintiffs  loved  MBJ,  their  natural  son,  and  Plaintiffs  have  suffered  extreme  and   severe  mental  anguish  and  pain  and  have  been  injured  both  in  mind  and  in  body.       233)     Plaintiffs  have  ongoing  and  continuous  permanent  damages  and  injuries,  and  as   such  are  entitled  to  recovery  of  damages.   PRAYER  FOR  RELIEF   WHEREFORE,   for   all   of   the   foregoing   reasons,   Plaintiffs   respectfully   request   that   this   Court   award   damages,   jointly   and   severally,   against   Defendants   Wilson,   City,   and   Jackson   pursuant   to   the   Missouri   Constitution   and   statutes   and   the   United   States   Constitution,   and   any   and  all  other  and  further  relief  as  this  Court  may  deem  just  and  appropriate,  including  but  not   limited  to  the  following:     (a) Loss  of  love,  companionship,  affection,  care,  and  society;   42   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM 229)         (f)     (g)     (h)     (i)     Loss  of  future  support;     Conscious  pain  and  suffering;   Punitive  damages;   Compensatory   damages,   including   medical   treatment   for   psychological   damages,  in  an  amount  in  excess  of  SEVENTY-­‐FIVE  THOUSAND  DOLLARS   ($75,000.00),  together  with  post  judgment  interest  and  costs;   Award  reasonable  attorneys’  fees  and  costs  to  Plaintiffs;   An   Order   preliminarily   and   permanently   enjoining   the   Defendant   City’s   utilization  of  patrol  techniques  that  demeans,  disregard,  or  underserve  its   African-­‐American  population;  and   An   Order   appointing   a   compliance   monitor   over   the   City   of   Ferguson’s   use  of  force  practices  and  procedures  for  a  period  of  five  (5)  years  or  until   such  time  as  the  Court  determines  that  the  City  of  Ferguson  has  fully  and   effectually   trained   all   of   its   police   officers   on   the   constitutional   requirements  of  the  use  of  deadly  force.   TRIAL  BY  JURY                              WHEREFORE,  Plaintiffs  hereby  demand  a  trial  by  jury  on  all  issues  so  triable.   Dated  this  _________day  of  April,  2015.                             Respectfully  submitted,                   Johnson  Gray  LLC                 /s/Anthony  D.  Gray                 Anthony  D.  Gray,  51534   7710  Carondelet  Ave,  suite  303   Clayton,  MO  63105   Phone  (314)  385-­‐9500   Fax  (314)  594-­‐2052   agray@johnsongraylaw.com   43   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM   (b)     (c)     (e)   Parks  &  Crump,  LLC                     /s/Benjamin  Crump                 Benjamin  Crump                 Appearing  Pro  Hac  Vice  for  Plaintiffs                 240  N.  Magnolia  Drive   Tallahassee,  FL  32301                 Phone  (850)  222-­‐3333                 Fax  (850)  224-­‐6679                             /s/  Daryl  D.  Parks   Daryl  D.  Parks   Appearing  Pro  Hac  Vice  for  Plaintiffs   240  N.  Magnolia  Drive   Tallahassee,  FL  32301   Phone  (850)  222-­‐3333   Fax  (850)  224-­‐6679           44   Electronically Filed - St Louis County - April 23, 2015 - 12:06 AM