Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------X
PAMELA HELD,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAIN"(1 AND
JURY TRIALi DEMAND

-againstP.O.
P.O.
P.O.
P.O.
THE

SEAN CHRISTIAN, Shield No. 7051,
"JOHN DOE,"
"RICHARD ROE,"
"JANE DOE" and
CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------X
'

Plaintiff, PAMELA HELD, by her attorney, RICHARD J. SOLlEYMANZADEH,
P.C., complaining of the defendants herein, respectfully alleges as tpllows:
JURISDICTION

1.

This is a civil action, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages

and attorney's fees.
2.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§198~ and 1988 and the
'

fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the Utlited States.
~nd

3.

Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343

1367.

4.

Plaintiff, invoking the pendent jurisdiction of this Court, also seeks

compensatory and punitive damages for intentional infliction of emqtional distress.
VENUE

5.

Venue is properly alleged in the Eastern District of

acts complained of herein occurred within this District.

~ew

York in that the

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
6.

'

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues in this action that are

so triable.
PARTIES
7.

At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff, PAMELA HELD, was and is a natural
1

person, resident in the County of Suffolk, State of New York.
8.

At all times relevant hereto, defendant P.O. SEAN CHIRISTIAN, Shield No.

7051 (hereinafter "CHRISTIAN") was and is a natural person, errployed as a police
officer by defendant CITY OF NEW YORK.
9.

At all times relevant hereto, defendant P.O. "JOHN DOE" was and is a

natural person, employed as a police officer by defendant CITY OF iNEW YORK.
10.

At all times relevant hereto, defendant P.O. "RICHARp ROE" was and is a

natural person, employed as a police officer by defendant CITY OF 1NEW YORK.
11.

At all times relevant hereto, defendant P.O. "JANE DOE" was and is a

natural person, employed as a police officer by defendant CITY OF 1NEW YORK.
12.

At all times relevant hereto, defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was and is a

municipal corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the law~ of the State of New
York.
13.

On or about April 16, 2013, this date being within nin~ty (90) days after the
!

claim herein sued upon accrued, plaintiff served upon the Comptrol,er of the City of New
York a verified written notice of claim setting forth the time, place, ~ature and manner in
which said claim arose.

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3

14.

More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the aforementioned verified

notice of claim was served and the Comptroller has neglected aind refused to make
payment of said claims.
15.

This action is commenced within one year and ninety days from the date

the pendent claim herein accrued.
16.

The individual defendants are sued in their individual qapacities.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION i
AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ,
(42 u.s.c. §1983)

17.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each ahd every allegation

contained in paragraphs "1" through "16" hereinabove as if more

f~lly

set forth at length

I

herein.
I

18.

On or about February 5, 2013, at approximately

9:~5

P.M., plaintiff was

i
i

lawfully traveling on Cypress Avenue in the County of Kings, City and State of New York
i

when she was pulled over and stopped by a New York City Poli~e Department motor
vehicle.
19.

There was no reasonable suspicion whatsoever for ~he stop of plaintiff's

vehicle.
20.

Present in the vehicle with plaintiff was

plainti~'s

friend, Marissa

i

McGibney, who is not a party hereto.
21.

Present at the stop location were defendants CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN

DOE" and P.O. "RICHARD ROE."
22.

The aforementioned defendants did not inform plain 'ff of their reason for

pulling her over.

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4

I

23.

However, upon approaching her vehicle, one of lthe aforementioned

defendants told plaintiff that its New York State inspection sticker w~s expired.
24.

One or more of the aforementioned defendants ord~red plaintiff and her

passenger to exit the vehicle.
25.

Once plaintiff and her passenger complied with the

a~orementioned order,
I

the aforementioned defendants arrested plaintiff and her passen~er and transported
them to the stationhouse of the 104th Precinct.
26.

While in custody at the 104th Precinct, plaintiff wals strip searched by
!

defendant P.O. "JANE DOE."
27.

Defendants questioned plaintiff as to her whereabout~ that evening.

28.

When plaintiff answered that she had been visiting

a friend in Brooklyn,

defendant P.O. "JANE DOE" requested that plaintiff provide the t~lephone number of
that individual.
I
'

29.

Plaintiff stated to the defendants that the telephone! number was in her
I

iPhone.
!

30.

Defendant P.O. "JANE DOE" brought plaintiff's iPhom~ into the holding cell
I
I

and requested that plaintiff provide the security code to unlock her iphone.
i

31.

Plaintiff refused to provide the security code and supgested that she be

allowed to unlock her iPhone and then scroll through the numbers Ito locate the contact
information.
32.

Defendant P.O. "JANE DOE" refused plaintiff's req~est and stated that,

because plaintiff's iPhone was in police custody, plaintiff could not have access to her
own phone.

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5

'

33.

Plaintiff gave the security code to her iPhone to de~endant P.O. "JANE
!

DOE" and proceeded to show defendant P.O. "JANE DOE" where the contact
information was located.
34.

Thereafter, defendant P.O. "JANE DOE" left the hold rg cell with plaintiffs

iPhone.
35.

Plaintiff then saw defendants CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JANf DOE," P.O. "JOHN
i

DOE" and P.O. "RICHARD ROE" either using or examining plaintiff'b iPhone.
i

36.

Plaintiff was released from custody on February 6, 2d13, at approximately
I
!
I

3:45A.M., with a desk appearance ticket, charging her with poss~ssion of a controlled
I
'

substance, for which she subsequently received an adjournment! in contemplation of
I

dismissal.
37.

Upon her release, defendant CHRISTIAN escortedi plaintiff to her car,
i

telling plaintiff that she was "a nice girl" and "should stop

hangin~

out with the wrong

crowd."
38.

On her way driving back home from the station rouse of the 104th
II

Precinct, plaintiff examined her iPhone and its usage.
39.

Plaintiff observed that, on or about February 6,

1:24 A.M., 1:50 A.M. and 2:11 A.M., one of the individual

20~ 3,

at approximately

defen~ants

had forwarded

I

from plaintiff's iPhone to the cell phone belonging to defendant CHRISTIAN a series of
!
I

intimate and sexually oriented photos and videos of plaintiff that

s~e

had stored on her

!

iPhone.
40.

Thus, one or more of the individual defendants, ~ithout permission or
i

authorization being granted by plaintiff, while plaintiff and her

i~hone were in policy
I

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6

custody and control, and without any legal justification therefor,

fo~arded

to defendant

I

i

CHRISTIAN, by electronic means, intimate and sexually oriented ~hotos and videos of
plaintiff saved on her iPhone.
41.

Shortly after plaintiff discovered that her intimate

a~d

sexually oriented

i
!

photos and videos of herself had been forwarded to defendant fHRISTIAN, plaintiff
'

filed a complaint with the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Police Department of defendant
CITY OF NEW YORK (hereinafter "lAB").
42.

As part of the ensuing lAB investigation, plaintiff partjcipated in controlled

telephone calls made by an lAB officer to defendant CHRISTIAN.

43.

During the first controlled telephone call, which

1

i

l~sted

approximately

twenty minutes, defendant CHRISTIAN began to flirt with plaintiff.
44.

The call was unexpectedly dropped.

45.

After approximately ten minutes had passed, de~endant CHRISTIAN

!

called plaintiff back and acknowledged his possession of the

I
afo~mentioned

intimate

!

and sexually oriented photos and videos.
i
I

46.

Defendant CHRISTIAN told plaintiff "not to worry ab~ut it" and continued
I
!

to flirt with plaintiff by asking her what she as doing that night and iflshe had a boyfriend.
47.

This second telephone call lasted approximately forty-1Five minutes.

48.

Both telephone calls were recorded by the aforementipned lAB officer.

49.

Defendants CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN DOE," P.O.

I

"~ICHARD ROE" and
I

i

P.O. "JANE DOE" violated plaintiff's right to the due process ot law and the equal
I

protection of the laws, guaranteed to her by the fourteenth amendment to the
!

!

Constitution of the United States; her right not to be stopped ~nd detained without
!

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7

reasonable suspicion, guaranteed to her by the fourth amendment 1o the Constitution of
I

the United States; and her right not to be deprived of her property iwithout due process
I

I

of law, guaranteed to her by the fifth amendment to the Consti~ution of the United
i

States; in that, acting under color of state law, they, without any ~ause or justification
i

whatsoever, stopped and detained her without having reasonable suspicion, searched
I

the contents of her iPhone without obtaining a warrant therefor,

tr~nsmitted information
i

contained on her iPhone to the private cell phone number of defbndant CHRISTIAN,
I
I

violated her privacy and bodily integrity and sexually harassed her.
50.

Because

of

the

aforementioned

acts

I

committ~d

by

defendants

CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN DOE," P.O. "RICHARD ROE" and P.O. "~ANE DOE," plaintiff
suffered a deprivation of her right to the due process of law and equal protection of the
I

laws, guaranteed to her by the fourteenth amendment to the Con~titution of the United
States; her right not to be stopped and detained without

re~sonable

suspicion,

I

guaranteed to her by the fourth amendment to the Constitution of t~e United States; and
her right not to be deprived of her property without due process

qf law,

guaranteed to

her by the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and as a result,
I

suffered a loss of her liberty, suffered a loss of her property, suffered and continues to
I

i

suffer serious and permanent emotional injuries and has inqurred expenses for
!

psychological treatment and for legal representation in a criminal prpceeding.
I
I

51.

By the reason of the unconstitutional and illegal actiqns
taken against her
I

by defendants CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN DOE," P.O. "RICHARD RpE" and P.O. "JANE
!

DOE," plaintiff demands damages in an amount sufficient to conjlpensate her for her
I
I

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8

damages as enumerated hereinabove and, in addition, seeks punitive damages against
i
!

the individual defendants, both amounts to be determined at the triall of this action.
I

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN boE,"
P.O. "RICHARD ROE, P.O. "JANE DOE" I
and THE CITY OF NEW YORK
i
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)!
!

52.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each ahd every allegation
!

contained in paragraphs "1" through "50" hereinabove as if more fylly set forth at length
herein.
53.

On or about February 6, 2013, between approximately 1:24 A.M. and 2:11
I

A.M., one or more of the individual defendants hereto transmitted! to the personal cell
I

i

phone number of defendant CHRISTIAN, intimate and sexually! oriented photos of
plaintiff that plaintiff had secured in her own personal iPhone.
I

54.

The individual defendants were able to gain access

tq the aforementioned
I

!I

photographs because defendant P.O. "JANE DOE" had, upon in~ormation and belief
I
!

acting in concert with defendants CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN DOE" pnd P.O. "RICHARD
!

ROE," compelled plaintiff to provide the security code for plaintiff's ifhone.
I

55.

The aforementioned actions taken by one or moire of the individual

defendants hereto constituted outrageous conduct against plaintiff.
56.

At the aforementioned time and place, the individ~al defendants were
i

acting within the scope of their employment by defendant CITY OF ~EW YORK.
!

I

57.

By reason of the aforementioned intentional infliction pf emotional distress
I

committed against her by the individual defendants, while they wrre acting within the
scope of their employment by defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, plaintiff suffered and
I
I

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9

I

i

continues to suffer serious and permanent emotional injuries, ha$ been shamed and
humiliated, and has incurred expenses for psychological treatment.
58.

As a result of the intentional infliction of emotiona distress committed

upon her by defendants CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN DOE," P.O. "~ICHARD ROE" and
i

P.O. "JANE DOE," while they were acting within the scope of .heir employment of
!

defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, plaintiff demands damages in ani amount sufficient to
I

compensate her for her damages as enumerated hereinabove

an~,

in addition, seeks

!

punitive damages against the individual defendants, both amounts: to be determined at
the trial of this action.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, PAMELA HELD, demands judgmenl against defendants
!

P.O. SEAN CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN DOE," P.O. "RICHARD Rod," P.O. "JANE DOE"
!

and THE CITY OF NEW YORK as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: An amount sufficient to

co~pensate

her for her

!

injuries as enumerated hereinabove and, in addition, seeks punitiye damages against
the individual defendants, both amounts to be determined at the tri~l of this action; and
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: An amount sufficient to corppensate her for her
injuries as enumerated hereinabove and, in addition, seeks

puniti~e

damages against

i

defendants CHRISTIAN, P.O. "JOHN DOE," P.O. "RICHARD RdE" and P.O. "JANE
DOE," both amounts to be determined at the trial of this action.

 Case 1:14-cv-02796-PKC-RML Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10
i

In addition, plaintiff demands the costs and

disbursem~nts

of this action,

i

including her attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

I

Dated: Kew Gardens, New York
May 2, 2014

E. MANZADEH, P.C.
orney for Plaintiff
320 Nassau Boulev$rd, Suite 7
Garden City, New Yprk 11530
(516) 538-8007
I