2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 1 of 31

Pg ID 83

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALONZO BULLMAN; JOEL CASTRO; and
NICOLE MOTYKA;
Case No. 16-cv-12581
Plaintiffs,
Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
CITY OF DETROIT; a political Subdivision of the
State of Michigan; MATTHEW BRAY (Badge
2545), Individually and in his Official Capacity as
Detroit Police Officer; IAN SEVERY (Badge S 23),
Individually and in his Official Capacity as Detroit
Police Officer; CHERYL MUHAMMAD, (Badge
4050), Individually and in her Official Capacity as
Detroit Police Officer; SAMUEL GALLOWAY,
(Badge 4184), Individually and in his Official
Capacity as Detroit Police Officer; NICO HURD
(Badge 4121), Individually and in his Official
Capacity as Detroit Police Officer; JOHNNY FOX
(Badge 2563), Individually and in his Official
Capacity as Detroit Police Officer; ALANNA
MITCHELL (Badge 2586), Individually and in his
Official Capacity as Detroit Police Officer; John
Doe, Individually and in his Official Capacity as
Detroit Police Officer; Jointly and Severally,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
SOLOMON M. RADNER (P73653)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
(248) 291-9712
sradner@excololaw.com
____________________________________________/

1

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 2 of 31

Pg ID 84

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiffs Alonzo Bullman (“Plaintiff Bullman”), Joel
Castro (“Plaintiff Castro”), and Nicole Motyka (“Plaintiff Motyka”), (hereinafter
collectively referred as “Plaintiffs”) by and through their attorney, Solomon M.
Radner of EXCOLO LAW, PLLC, and state the following for their Complaint
against Defendants the City of Detroit, (“Defendant City of Detroit”), Matthew
Bray (“Officer Bray”), Sergeant Ian Severy (“Sergeant Severy”), Cheryl
Muhammad (“Officer Muhammad”), Samuel Galloway (“Officer Galloway”),
Nico Hurd (“Officer Hurd”), Johnny Fox (“Officer Fox”), Alanna Mitchell
(“Officer Mitchell”), and John Doe (“Officer John Doe”) (hereinafter collectively
referred as “Defendants”).
1.

This is a civil action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan

law for recovery for deprivations of Plaintiffs’ rights.
2.

Now, Plaintiff Bullman amends this Complaint by including

additional Plaintiffs, Castro and Motyka, who have been aggrieved by the same
Defendants on the same day and relating to the same incident.
3.

Plaintiff Castro’s home was unlawfully raided by Defendants and his

legally maintained marijuana plants were seized. After the Defendant Officers
forced their entry to the house, they shot and killed two of Plaintiffs Castro’s and
Motyka’s three dogs. Meanwhile, Plaintiff Castro’s friend, Plaintiff Bullman, was
2

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 3 of 31

Pg ID 85

on his way to Castro’s house to pick up his cousin. Seeing Defendant Police
Officers, Plaintiff Bullman, circled the block a few times and was pulled over by
Officer Bray and Officer John Doe who conducted an illegal search and seizure
of his person and vehicle.
4.

Plaintiffs sue the individual Defendants in their individual capacities

as well as in their official capacities as Detroit police officers.
JURISDICTION
5.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

28 U.S.C. §1343(3) and (4), and 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).
VENUE
6.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as the illegal and

unconstitutional acts alleged to have been committed by Defendants occurred
wholly within Wayne County, Michigan.
PARTIES
7.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Castro resided at 5437 and

5441, Springwells Street, Detroit, Michigan (herein “The Home”), and was a
citizen of the City of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan. Plaintiff Castro was a
licensed medical marijuana caregiver and owned three dogs as pets in his house.
8.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Motyka resided in and was a

citizen of the City of Dearborn Heights, Wayne County, Michigan. Plaintiff
3

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 4 of 31

Pg ID 86

Motyka was the co-owner of the three dogs along with Plaintiff Castro.
9.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Bullman resided in and was a

citizen of the City of Gibraltar, Wayne County, Michigan. Plaintiff Bullman had
come to the Home to pick up his cousin Chris Bullman and was pulled over by
Defendant Police Officers outside Plaintiff Castro’s residence.
10.

Defendant City of Detroit is a political subdivision of the State of

Michigan acting under the color of State law, and is a person for the purposes of
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
11.

Defendants Officer Bray, Officer Muhammad, Officer Galloway,

Officer Hurd, Officer Fox, and Officer Mitchell were at all relevant times police
officers employed by the City of Detroit. Defendants Officer Bray, Officer
Muhammad, Officer Galloway, Officer Hurd, Officer Fox and Officer Mitchell
are being sued in their individual and official capacity.
12.

Defendant Sergeant Severy was at all relevant times a Sergeant

employed by the City of Detroit and is being sued in his individual and official
capacity.
13.

Defendant Officer John Doe was at all relevant times a police officer

employed by the City of Detroit. Officer John Doe is being sued in his individual
as well as in his official capacity as Detroit police officer.

4

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 5 of 31

Pg ID 87

COLOR OF STATE LAW
14.

At all times relevant herein, Defendants Officer Bray, Officer

Muhammad, Officer Galloway, Officer Hurd, Officer Fox, Officer Mitchell,
Sergeant Severy, and Officer John Doe were acting under the color of state law.
15.

Particularly, Officer Bray, Officer Muhammad, Officer Galloway,

Officer Hurd, Officer Fox, Officer Mitchell, Sergeant Severy and Officer John
Doe acted under the color of law, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies,
customs and usages of the State of Michigan, and its political subdivisions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
16.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Castro rented and resided at

5437 and 5441, Springwells Street, Detroit, Michigan and he was a citizen of the
City of Detroit, Michigan.
17.

Plaintiff Castro is a medical marijuana caregiver licensee and is a

person designated through the departmental registration process of the
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs as the primary caregiver for two
registered qualifying patients for whom the marijuana plants are grown.
18.

Plaintiff Castro is also assigned plant possession for his own medical

marijuana use.
19.

Marijuana plants were grown indoors at 5441, Springwells Street,

Detroit, Michigan, in an enclosed, locked facility where only Plaintiff Castro
5

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 6 of 31

Pg ID 88

himself had access.
20.

Plaintiff Castro had planted 26 marijuana plants to care for these

patients lawfully, as well as for his own lawful use.
21.

Being designated as a plant possessor for his two patients as well as

for himself, under M.C.L. § 333.26424(b)(2) Plaintiff Castro is entitled to possess
a total of 36 marijuana plants.
22.

At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs Castro and Motyka had three

dogs in their home as pets.
23.

Plaintiffs Castro and Motyka had a strong emotional bond and

affectionate relationship with their pet dogs, namely, Blanca, Junior, and Yayo.
24.

On January 27, 2016, at about 12:40 p.m. Plaintiff Castro was at the

Home, playing video games in his living room with a friend, Chris Bullman
(“Chris”). Chris is the cousin of Plaintiff Alonzo Bullman. Plaintiff Motyka was
not at the Home at this time.
25.

At that time, Crew Code 2968 of the Detroit Police arrived at Plaintiff

Castro’s home at 5437 Springwells Street, Detroit, Michigan and, at the orders of
Sergeant Severy, forced entry into the home.
26.

Immediately upon arriving at Plaintiff Castro’s home, Defendants

disabled the surveillance cameras that were visible to them, for no lawful reason,
causing irreparable damage to the wiring of the surveillance system, all of which
6

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 7 of 31

Pg ID 89

needed to be replaced.
27.

When Defendants entered the home, Plaintiff Castro was in the living

room standing next to his television stand.
28.

Officer Bray ordered Plaintiff Castro and his friend, Chris to the

ground, and they both immediately complied.
29.

While on the ground, Plaintiff Castro observed Officer Bray with his

shotgun drawn and Plaintiff shouted out loud that neither he nor his dogs were
dangerous and pleaded with the Defendant officers not to harm his dogs.
Specifically, he told the Defendant officers, “All I got is some weed upstairs.
Please don’t kill my dogs!”
30.

The dogs were not vicious and were cowering in the corner of the

kitchen which was separated by a secured half door. Attached hereto as Exhibit A
is a photograph depicting the half door separating the kitchen from the living
room.
31.

The dogs were not attacking the Defendant officers in any way. They

were barricaded in the kitchen area, completely separated from the rest of the
home.
32.

However, without provocation, Officer Bray reached over the half

door, and shot two of the three dogs, Blanca and Junior, both of whom were afraid
and cowering in the corner of the kitchen; all the while Plaintiff Castro was
7

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 8 of 31

Pg ID 90

begging and pleading for Officer Bray to leave his dogs alone.
33.

Officer Bray fired six shotgun shots in all, killing Blanca and Junior.

34.

Defendants wrongfully and unlawfully raided Plaintiff Castro’s

home, seized Plaintiff Castro’s legally maintained medical marijuana plants and
murdered two his three dogs, all of whom were confined behind a five-foot tall
half-door.
35.

The warrant to conduct the January 27, 2016 raid was obtained

without good cause. The testimony of one Officer Fox was what formed the basis
of the warrant. Officer Fox testified via Affidavit that on January 26, 2016 a
controlled buy was attempted by the police, but Plaintiff Castro refused to sell
marijuana to the undercover informant identified as “SOI #3030.”
36.

According to Officer Fox’s affidavit, being unhappy with the result

of the attempted controlled buy, he conducted surveillance of The Home and
observed two people arrive at The Home independently of each other. Officer Fox
maintains that Plaintiff Castro then went from The Home to 5441 Springwells
before returning to The Home, and the two people left shortly thereafter.
37.

Officer Fox and his team did not stop, search, or arrest these two

people or even ask them if they had just recently purchased marijuana from
Plaintiff Castro.
38.

Surely, the Court that granted this warrant exercised an abuse of
8

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 9 of 31

Pg ID 91

discretion based on the foregoing facts. The subject search warrant and affidavit
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
39.

Additionally, Crew Code 2968 forced entry immediately upon

arriving at the door without giving Plaintiff Castro a chance to open the door, and
immediately began ripping down all of the surveillance cameras from the exterior
of the house.
40.

Officer Hurd falsely testified at a preliminary examination that they

had knocked and announced themselves and gave Plaintiff Castro an opportunity
to answer before forcing entry. He further testified that they did not force entry
until after they announced themselves, there was no answer, and Sergeant Severy
gave the order to force entry.
41.

This testimony is false because, in reality, Defendants forced entry

immediately upon reaching the door without giving Plaintiff Castro an
opportunity to open the door, all of which was caught on the surveillance cameras.
42.

Defendants’ claim that the dogs were attacking them and therefore

needed to be neutralized by means of six gunshot shells is not only false but
outright absurd.
43.

In fact, the Defendants made numerous false statements not only in

their Reports but also in their testimony at Plaintiff Castro’s preliminary
examination in which he was being charged with two counts of delivery and
9

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 10 of 31

Pg ID 92

manufacture of marijuana, as a result of the wrongful conduct Defendants’
complained of herein.
44.

Defendant Officers involved in this incident made false reports on

what happened, which Plaintiffs intend to disprove through discovery or at trial.
45.

With regards to the raid of The Home, Officer Bray made the

following false statements in his report stamped “PRE-EXAM” and titled
“Investigator’s Report”:
a. The crew announced its presence and purpose, received no
answer, received orders from Sergeant Severy to force entry at
which time they forced entry; and
b. He was encountered by two vicious pit bulls that charged the
crew requiring him to shoot them; and
c. Officer Hurd recovered only 26 marijuana plants.
46.

Officer Bray referred to himself as “PO Bray” in his own report,

which suggests that his report, and all the others reports in this matter, were all
authored by the same person or people and simply signed by each officer.
47.

The following false statements are made in the report attributed to

Officer Muhammed:
a. The crew announced its presence and purpose, received no
answer, received orders from Defendant Severy to force entry
10

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 11 of 31

Pg ID 93

at which time they forced entry; and
b. PO Bray encountered two large pit bulls in the kitchen
attempting to attack him and the crew required him to shoot
them; and
c. He observed only 26 marijuana plants.
48.

The following false statements are made in the report attributed to

Defendant Galloway:
a. He observed Officer Bray encounter two large vicious pit bulls
in the kitchen attempting to attack him and crew members.
49.

The following false statements are made by Officer Bray in the

Report titled “Preliminary Complaint Record”:
a. Officer Bray continued to clear the location when he
encountered two large vicious pit bulls running at him and
attempting to attack the crew; and
b. He observed only 26 marijuana plants.
50.

Sergeant Severy has the following false statements in his report:
a. Officer Bray encountered two large vicious pit bulls in the
kitchen attempting to attack him and crew members; and
b. Sergeant Severy observed only 26 marijuana plants.

51.

Officer Hurd has the following false statements in his Report:
11

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 12 of 31

Pg ID 94

a. The crew announced its presence and only after receiving no
response and being ordered by Sergeant Severy to force entry
did they force entry; and
b. Officer Bray encountered two large vicious pit bulls in the
kitchen attempting to attack him and crew members; and
c. He observed and recovered only 26 marijuana plants.
52.

Officer Fox has the following false statements in his Report:
a. The crew announced its presence and only after receiving no
response and being ordered by Sergeant Severy to force entry
did they force entry; and
b. Officer Bray encountered two large vicious pit bulls in the
kitchen attempting to attack him and crew members; and
c. He observed only 26 marijuana plants.

53.

Officer Mitchell has the following false statement in his Report:
a. The crew announced its presence and only after receiving no
response and being ordered by Sergeant Severy to force entry
did they force entry.

54.

In addition to the false statements in the Reports, Officer Hurd and

Officer Galloway also made false statements during their testimony at the March
14, 2016 preliminary examination held in the 36th District Court.
12

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 13 of 31

55.

Pg ID 95

Officer Hurd’s false testimony included the following:
a. When asked why the police killed two pit bulls but not the
third, he testified, “Because the first two dogs began to come
through the board that was separating the kitchen and the
living room.”
b. When asked why the dogs had to be killed if the board was
separating the rooms, he falsely testified, “They (the dogs)
were trying to move the board and coming viciously.”

56.

Officer Galloway’s false testimony included the false claim that

Officer Bray moved the board separating the two rooms, leaving nothing but open
space between himself and the two pit bulls, and that the pit bulls charged at
Officer Bray leaving him with no choice but to shoot them six times.
57.

Officer Galloway’s testimony is not only false, but also contradicts

Officer Hurd’s testimony.
58.

Defendants’ conduct is indicative of a larger problem in Detroit:

Cops who seemingly enjoy shooting dogs for no reason.
59.

Defendants, thereafter, seized 27 marijuana plants from the Home,

5441, Springwells Street, Detroit, Michigan.
60.

Defendants reported that they recovered only 26 plants.

61.

Defendants also seized $4,683.00 from Plaintiffs Castro and Motyka.
13

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 14 of 31

62.

Pg ID 96

Defendants refused to review Plaintiff Castro’s medical marijuana

caregiver license documentation, despite Plaintiff Castro repeatedly offering to
provide it to them, and took the plants without performing the due diligence
necessary to confirm whether Plaintiff’s cultivation of marijuana was truly
illegitimate.
63.

Plaintiff Castro was a medical marijuana provider to two patients

plus himself and had documentation supporting his care provider relationship with
each of them.
64.

On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff Castro filed three motions, including a

Motion to Dismiss in relation to the criminal case based on Plaintiff Castro’s
compliance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.
65.

On May 23, 2016, the Wayne County Circuit Court granted Plaintiff

Castro’s Motion to Dismiss the criminal case, and did not hear the other two
motions since the matters were moot upon the matter being dismissed.
66.

On the same day, on January 27, 2016 at approximately 1:40 pm,

Plaintiff Bullman was driving toward the Home of his friend, Plaintiff Castro, to
pick up his cousin Chris and together, Plaintiff Bullman and Chris intended to go
pick up their young nephew from school.
67.

When Plaintiff Bullman first arrived at Plaintiff Castro’s home, he

observed several police officers outside of Castro’s home wearing what appeared
14

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 15 of 31

Pg ID 97

to be SWAT gear, including full face masks and some of whom had their guns inhand.
68.

Plaintiff Bullman was confused and concerned by the sight of these

officers’ presence so he decided to circle the block a few times and call Chris’
brother to attempt to find out why there were police officer’s at Plaintiff Castro’s
house.
69.

Plaintiff Bullman circled the block around Plaintiff Castro’s house

twice, then on a third time, when Plaintiff Bullman was in front of Plaintiff
Castro’s house, he was stopped by one of the police officers, now known to be
Officer Bray.
70.

Officer Bray claimed that when he approached Plaintiff Bullman’s

car, Officer Bray could smell marijuana in Plaintiff Bullman’s car.
71.

Plaintiff Bullman understands that, before stopping him, Officer

Bray and his fellow police officers including Officer John Doe, had just chopped
down 26 large marijuana plants inside Plaintiff Castro’s home and carried them
outside to the very area where he was being stopped. Thus, if Officer Bray indeed
smelled marijuana, the smell likely came from himself, his clothing or the air
outside Joel’s home where the marijuana plants were destroyed.
72.

Officer Bray then ordered Plaintiff Bullman to get out of his car, and

when Plaintiff Bullman stepped out of his car, Officer Bray patted him down,
15

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 16 of 31

Pg ID 98

searched his pockets and then put him in handcuffs.
73.

Thereafter, Officer Bray had another officer, Officer John Doe,

search Plaintiff Bullman’s car.
74.

Ultimately, Defendants found nothing illegal in the car or on Plaintiff

Bullman’s person.
75.

Thereafter, Officer Bray began questioning Plaintiff Bullman about

his presence near Plaintiff Castro’s house.
76.

Officer Bray said, “You’re not under arrest, I am detaining you . . .

why do you keep circling the block?”
77.

Plaintiff Bullman replied explaining “I saw the cops and was curious.

I’m just driving around.”
78.

Officer Bray was not convinced and yelled, “Stop lying! Tell me

what you’re doing circling the block.”
79.

To that Plaintiff Bullman replied, “I don’t have to tell you anything.”

80.

Officer Bray became agitated, and asked Plaintiff Bullman to give

his name and ID. Officer Bray had another officer, Officer John Doe, run Plaintiff
Bullman’s name through LEIN.
81.

After a short period of time, Officer Bray said, “Oh, that’s your

brother in there?”
82.

Plaintiff Bullman replied in the negative, as Chris is his cousin, not
16

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 17 of 31

Pg ID 99

his brother.
83.

When Plaintiff Bullman replied in the negative, Officer Bray said,

“Oh, you’re gonna be a smart ass, huh?!” Bullman replied to this by saying “No,
I’m just not talking to you. You have no right to do this.”
84.

Officer Bray became aggressive in his words, and yelled, “Shut the

fuck up before I take you in the house and fuck you up!” and continued “I’m gonna
give you a Detroit ass-whooping!”
85.

Officer Bray and Plaintiff Bullman went back and forth on the issue

of whether Plaintiff Bullman had to speak to Officer Bray. When Plaintiff
Bullman continued to insist that he had a right to not speak to Officer Bray, Officer
Bray threatened to call Plaintiff Bullman’s probation officer and tell his probation
officer that he had violated probation.
86.

Plaintiff Bullman concedes that at the time, he was on probation for

having a house party, where alcohol was provided to minors. Plaintiff Bullman
plead under Michigan’s HYTA statute.
87.

After finding that there was absolutely no cause to charge Plaintiff

Bullman with a crime, Officer Bray begrudgingly released Plaintiff Bullman from
his handcuffs and ordered him to leave and to not return.
88.

Only after this incident did Plaintiff Bullman come to understand that

on January 27, 2016, Plaintiff Castro’s house was raided by Detroit Police Crew
17

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 18 of 31

Pg ID 100

Code 2968.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND
THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
89.

Plaintiffs re-allege all prior allegations and incorporate them here by

reference as if fully stated herein.
90.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and

seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the denial of life, liberty or
property without due process of the law.
91.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits

the government from unreasonably destroying or seizing a citizen’s property.
92.

The killing of a dog is a destruction recognized as a seizure under the

Fourth Amendment and can constitute a cognizable claim under § 1983.
93.

The emotional attachment to one's dog is not comparable to a

possessory interest in furniture.
94.

Indeed, Plaintiffs Castro’s and Motyka’s Fourth Amendment

interests involved are substantial because the bond between a dog owner and his
pet can be strong and enduring, and Plaintiffs think of Blanca and Junior in terms
of an emotional relationship, rather than a property relationship.
95.

In circumstances where, as here, the dogs did not pose an imminent

threat, and Officer Bray was not surprised by the dog and had time to make
18

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 19 of 31

Pg ID 101

alternate plans to control the dogs, other than killing it, the shooting of the dogs
was an unreasonable seizure.
96.

Defendants’ actions described herein were intentional, grossly

negligent, amounted to reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights.
97.

Defendants’ intentional and malicious shooting and killing of

Plaintiffs’ two dogs, was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances and
therefore constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
98.

Defendants’ intentional and willful shooting and killing of Blanca

and Junior was more intrusive than necessary.
99.

No governmental interest justifies the intrusion involved in this case.

100. Officer Bray’s shooting and killing of Plaintiffs’ dogs was
objectively unreasonable because Plaintiffs’ dogs did not charge at the police
officers and because there was a five-foot tall half-door separating the dogs from
the Defendant officers, and because the dogs were in a corner of the kitchen and
not attempting to charge Defendants or jump over the board.
101. The individual Defendants acted in concert together to kill Blanca
and Junior, which is bolstered by the fact that all the reports on this matter contain
the same lie, i.e. that the dogs attacked the police, and Officers Hurd and Galloway
even lied about it under oath during the preliminary examination.
19

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 20 of 31

Pg ID 102

102. A stop and frisk is a search within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. Therefore, a police officer conducting such a stop and frisk must
have a reasonable belief that the suspected citizen was or is currently engaged in
criminal activity or intends to commit a crime.
103. Defendants had no such reasonable belief with regards to Plaintiff
Bullman because he did not display any disruptive or threatening conduct,
shouting, or anything that posed a risk of public disturbance. Moreover, there was
no reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff Bullman was engaged in criminal
activity either.
104. Officer Bray and Officer John Doe by their conduct, as described
above, and acting under the color of state law sought to search and handcuff
Plaintiff Bullman without any reasonable cause because of his mere presence in
the locality.
105. After Defendants conducted a pat down search of Plaintiff Bullman,
there was no reason for Officer Bray or Officer John Doe to believe that Plaintiff
Bullman engaged in any criminal activity, warranting a subsequent warrantless
search of his car.
106. Officer Bray claimed that Plaintiff Bullman’s car smelled of
marijuana, when the marijuana smell could have come from him, his own clothes
or the very air around the Home of Plaintiff Castro in which 26 large marijuana
20

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 21 of 31

Pg ID 103

plants were just destroyed. Officer Bray and Officer John Doe, along with
Defendant City of Detroit violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment rights when they conducted a warrantless search of Plaintiff without
a reasonable cause.
107. There was Fourteenth Amendment violation when search and seizure
was conducted by the Officer Bray and Officer John Doe without due process of
law.
108. As a direct and proximate result of unlawful actions of individual
Defendants, Plaintiffs has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including
physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering,
humiliation, and embarrassment.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND THE
FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF DETROIT
109. Plaintiffs re-allege all prior allegations and incorporate them here by
reference as if fully stated herein. A municipality is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
if the acts that violated a person’s right were undertaken pursuant to the
municipality’s policies and customs.
110. As the first alternate basis for liability against Defendant City of
Detroit, the policy maker for Defendant, the mayor, or someone else in a policy
making position, delegated full authority and/or empowered the individual
21

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 22 of 31

Pg ID 104

Defendants.
111. That delegation of authority by the actual policy maker of Defendant
City of Detroit placed the individual Defendants in a policy making position, and
the acts of the individual Defendants may fairly be said to be those of the
municipality.
112. Those acts therefore subject Defendant City of Detroit to liability for
the constitutional violations of the individual Defendants.
113. Defendant City of Detroit directly caused the constitutional
violations suffered by Plaintiffs, and is liable for the damages caused as a result
of the conduct of the individual Defendants. The conduct of the defendant officers
was a direct consequence of the policies and practices of Defendant City of
Detroit.
114. At all times relevant in this complaint, Defendant City of Detroit,
acting through Detroit Police Crew Code 2968, which included all individual
Defendants, had in effect policies, practices, and customs that condoned and
fostered the unconstitutional conduct of the individual defendants.
115. At all times relevant in this complaint, direct and proximate cause of
the damages and injuries complained of were caused by policies, practices and /or
customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by
Defendant City of Detroit, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and
22

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 23 of 31

Pg ID 105

train its officers and agents, including individual Defendants, thereby failing to
adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police
officers; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers,
including individual Defendants; and (c) to adequately and properly investigate
citizen complaints of police misconduct and instead, acts of misconduct were
tolerated by the Defendant City of Detroit.
116. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Detroit has, acting
through Crew Code 2968, which included all individual Defendants, developed,
implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a defacto policy, practice,
and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or searching without reasonable
suspicion.
117. At all relevant times, Defendants unlawful actions were done
willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs Bullman,
Castro and Motyka of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
118. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the
constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the acts as
stated herein by each of the Defendants, each of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights
have been violated.
119. As a proximate result of Defendants illegal and unconstitutional acts,
23

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 24 of 31

Pg ID 106

Plaintiffs suffered physical, mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental
anguish, suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment.
COUNT III
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR LIABILITY OF THE CITY OF
DETROIT
120. Plaintiffs re-allege all prior allegations and incorporate them here by
reference as if fully stated herein. Defendant City of Detroit is liable under a
theory of respondent superior for the constitutional violations against Plaintiffs.
121. At all relevant times, the conduct of Individual Defendants occurred
while they were on duty and in uniform, in and during the course and scope of
their duties and functions as Detroit Police Officers and while they were acting as
agents and employees of the Defendant City of Detroit.
122. Therefore, Defendant City of Detroit is liable for the wrongful
conduct of Individual Defendants under the law of vicarious liability, including
the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior.
123. Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment for damages, exemplary
damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief that the Court
deems just and equitable.
COUNT IV
ALTERNATIVE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL LIABILITY – FAILURE TO
TRAIN, SUPERVISE, CONTROL
124. Plaintiffs re-allege all prior allegations and incorporate them here by
24

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 25 of 31

Pg ID 107

reference as if fully stated herein.
125. As the second alternative basis for liability against Defendant City of
Detroit, it is the policy and practice of City of Detroit not to properly train its
police officers.
126. Defendant City of Detroit failed to properly hire, train, supervise,
control and/or discipline the individual Defendants with respect to the treatment
of dogs as the property of citizens.
127. Further, the City of Detroit failed to properly train and supervise its
officers to not break down doors unnecessarily and to not destroy people’s
surveillance equipment unnecessarily.
128. Additionally, the City of Detroit failed to properly train and supervise
its officers not to subject any person to searches and seizures without any
reasonable cause.
129. This lack of proper training claim is bolstered by the incredibly high
percentage of search warrants that include the Detroit police breaking down
people’s doors, and the callousness and indifference of Detroit police officers in
general and these Defendants specifically. Moreover, individual Defendants not
only destroyed the surveillance equipment but also lied about it.
130. Defendant City of Detroit was thus deliberately indifferent to the
rights of others in adopting its hiring and training practices, and in failing to
25

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 26 of 31

Pg ID 108

supervise, control and/or discipline the individual Defendants such that those
failures reflected a deliberate or conscious choice by Defendant City of Detroit
made from among various alternatives.
131. Those deficiencies were the moving force that caused Plaintiffs’
damages.
132. Defendant City of Detroit is well aware that its police officers
constantly shoot dogs and break down doors seemingly for fun, even when such
force is not necessary, and falsify their Reports and testimony to support such
shootings, and yet chooses to fail to train, supervise, and/or discipline its officers.
133. Defendant City of Detroit is also aware that frequently the citizens
are subjected to unreasonable and illegal searches and seizures and choses to
willfully ignore to train, supervise, and/or discipline its officers.
134. In light of the fact that it was the individual Defendants who engaged
in the constitutional violations, the need to correct the deficiencies is so obvious,
and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that
the policymakers of Defendant City of Detroit can reasonably be said to have been
deliberately indifferent to the need to respect dogs as the property of their owners.
135. If Defendant City of Detroit had properly hired, trained, supervised,
controlled and/or disciplined the individual Defendants, the constitutional
violations committed by the individual Defendants would not have occurred.
26

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 27 of 31

Pg ID 109

136. These failures by Defendant City of Detroit to hire, train, supervise,
control and/or discipline the individual Defendants subject Defendant City of
Detroit to liability for the constitutional violations committed by the individual
Defendants.
137. On information and belief, Defendant City of Detroit had no policy
or training in place regarding the handling of a barking dog, which was evident
from Defendants’ actions alleged herein, and which is evident from the hundreds
of dogs that have been murdered by DPD officers unnecessarily and without
justification. However, the City of Detroit did have policies in place that permitted
its officers to force entry into people’s home armed with weapons to kill the
people’s dogs, yet still failed to implement training and guidelines for when
deadly force is and is not necessary and when doors should and should not be
broken down. Plaintiffs assert that City of Detroit did not have any policy in place
relating to stop and search of vehicle.
138. Plaintiffs are entitled, per 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988, to judgment
against Defendant City of Detroit for compensatory damages in a fair and
reasonable amount, for reasonable attorney’s fees, and expenses, for costs and
such other relief as may be just under the circumstances and consistent with the
purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF MI CONST Art. 1, § 11
27

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 28 of 31

Pg ID 110

139. Plaintiffs re-allege all prior allegations and incorporate them here by
reference as if fully stated herein.
140. Michigan Constitution too protects a person from unreasonable
searches. MI CONST Art. 1, § 11.
141. Bullman did not display any disruptive or threatening conduct that
caused a public disturbance, nor did Plaintiff engage in any actions indicating that
he was, had been, or would be engaged in criminal activity. Thus, Defendants had
no reasonable suspicion to believe that he was engaged or aiding in any criminal
activity.
142. Subsequently, the warrantless search conducted of Bullman’s car by
Officer Bray and Officer John Doe was done without reasonable suspicion and
violated CONST Art. 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution.
143. When Officer Bray and Officer John Doe conducted a search without
warrant without reasonable suspicion, or exigent circumstances, such search was
unreasonable and violated MI CONST Art. 1, § 11.
COUNT VI
CONVERSION OF PLAINTIFF CASTRO’S AND MOTYKA’S
PROPERTY AND MONEY
144. Plaintiffs re-allege all prior allegations and incorporate them here by
reference as if fully stated herein.
145. Conversion is any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over
28

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 29 of 31

Pg ID 111

another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein.
146. Defendants’ killing of Plaintiffs’ dogs was a distinct act of dominion
wrongfully exerted over Plaintiffs’ dogs in denial of or inconsistent with his rights.
147. Defendants’ taking of Plaintiff Castro’s and Motyka’s money in the
amount of $4,683.00 was a distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over
Plaintiffs’ money in denial of or inconsistent with their rights.
148. Defendant’s taking of Plaintiff Castro’s marijuana was a distinct act
of dominion wrongfully exerted over Plaintiff Castro’s marijuana in denial of or
inconsistent with his rights.
149. Plaintiff Castro and Motyka are entitled to relief under applicable law
or in equity, including, without limitation, a judgment and an award of statutory
treble damages and all reasonable costs, interest and attorney fees. M.C.L.§
600.2919a.
COUNT VII
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
150. Plaintiffs re-allege all prior allegations and incorporate them here by
reference as if fully stated herein.
151. Defendants’ conduct described herein was extreme and outrageous
conduct because it was beyond all possible bounds of decency. The act of killing
the pet dogs without any provocation and cause could be regarded as atrocious
and utterly intolerable in a civilized community and would (and in fact has) caused
29

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 30 of 31

Pg ID 112

an average member of the community to exclaim, “Outrageous!”
152. Defendants actions described herein were intentional or reckless.
153. Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress so
severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it, including without
limitation, severe horror, grief and anger over the loss of their dogs.
154. Plaintiffs Castro and Motyka are entitled to judgment for damages,
exemplary damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief that
the Court deems just and equitable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray of this Honorable Court that this
Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants as follows:
a. Compensatory damages; and
b. Punitive damages; and
c. Attorneys fees, costs and expenses in bringing this action;
and
d. Any other relief, equitable or otherwise, that is fair and just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
demands trial by jury in this action of all issues so triable.

30

 2:16-cv-12581-AJT-EAS Doc # 7 Filed 08/03/16 Pg 31 of 31

Pg ID 113

Dated: August 3, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
By: /S/ Solomon M. Radner
Solomon M. Radner (P73653)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
(248) 291-9712
sradner@excololaw.com

31