Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 1 of 37

CHARLES J. PATERNOSTER, OSB # 024186
cpaternoster@pfglaw.com
PARSONS FARNELL & GREIN, LLP
1030 SW Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-1812
Facsimile: (503) 274-7979
ALAN J. GALLOWAY, OSB #083290
E-mail: alangalloway@dwt.com
TIM CUNNINGHAM, OSB #100906
E-mail: timcunningham@dwt.com
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, Oregon 97201
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
Attorneys for Plaintiff Carrie Medina
on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
CARRIE MEDINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal
corporation, CITY OF GRESHAM, a
municipal corporation, TRI-COUNTY
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF
OREGON, a municipal corporation,
OFFICER TAYLOR LETSIS, as both an
individual and in his official capacity as an
officer of the Gresham Police Department,
UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS NOS.
1, 2 AND 3, both as individuals and in their
capacities as officers of the Portland Police
Bureau,
Defendants.
Page 1 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

Case No. ___________________

COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF, COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES, STATUTORY
DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEYS' FEES
(42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa et
seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 2201; ORS 28.010)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 2 of 37

Plaintiff Carrie Medina, by and through her attorneys, Charles J. Paternoster, Alan J.
Galloway, and Tim M. Cunningham, Cooperating Attorneys for the ACLU Foundation of
Oregon, Inc., does hereby state and allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This is a civil action challenging violations of (i) Ms. Medina's constitutional right to
speak and to film police conducting their activities in public, (ii) her constitutional right to be
free from unreasonable search and seizure, (iii) her statutory right to retain journalistic materials
in the absence of a subpoena under 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, et seq., and (iv) her right not to be
unlawfully detained; all arising from an incident on February 12, 2013 when, as Ms. Medina
broadcast a live report on an interaction between police and a suspect in custody, Officer Taylor
Letsis of the Gresham Police Department
(a) demanded to see the footage Ms. Medina was capturing, saying "It is not a choice,"
(b) refused her offer to provide footage in response to a subpoena,
(c) told her that if she did not allow him to search her phone that he would seize it,
(d) interrupted her live Internet broadcast,
(e) seized her smartphone, and – while other officers stood by –
(f) seized and detained her,
(g) searched her smartphone, and
(h) reviewed her footage.

Page 2 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 3 of 37

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, et seq.
3.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's first claim for relief pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1343, because plaintiff seeks redress for the deprivation of rights, privileges, and
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and this action seeks
equitable relief, and other relief under the laws of the United States protecting civil rights,
including without limitation 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, et seq.
4.
The Court has original jurisdiction over plaintiff’s fifth claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa6(h).
5.
The Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
6.
The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367 because those claims are part of the same case or controversy as Ms. Medina's claims
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
7.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants because the acts and omissions of
Page 3 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 4 of 37

the defendants from which this action arises occurred within the State of Oregon.
8.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants City of Portland, City of Gresham,
and Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon ("TriMet") because each
municipality is domiciled in the State of Oregon.
9.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Officer Taylor Letsis and Unknown Police
Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 because, on information and belief, each has engaged in substantial and
not isolated activities within the State of Oregon as members of the Gresham Police Department
or Portland Police Bureau.
10.
Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because defendants
City of Portland, City of Gresham, and TriMet are located within this district, and the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this district.
PARTIES
11.
Plaintiff Carrie Medina serves as a “camera of accountability” who has reported on topics
ranging from a bicycle accident to the pepper-spraying of a Portland high school student. Her
reporting has covered the Occupy protests, and she is a co-founder of Film the Police Portland,
an organization dedicated to advancing police accountability by filming police encounters in the
Portland area. At all times relevant to this action, Ms. Medina was a citizen of Oregon. Carrie
also works as a research assistant at Oregon Health & Sciences University, where she manages
Page 4 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 5 of 37

an employee wellness program and helps promote OHSU events on social media, among other
duties.
12.
Defendant City of Portland ("Portland") is a municipal corporation, chartered under the
laws of Oregon, and is a public body liable for the acts and omissions of members of the
Portland Police Bureau and other agents and employees acting within the scope of their agency
and/or employment. Portland is a "person" as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
13.
Defendant City of Gresham ("Gresham") is a municipal corporation, chartered under the
laws of Oregon, and is a public body liable for the acts and omissions of members of the
Gresham Police Department and other agents and employees acting within the scope of their
agency and/or employment. Gresham is a "person" as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
14.
Defendant TriMet is a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, with its headquarters
in Portland, which provides services in Multnomah, Clackamas and. Washington Counties.
Among those services are Transit Police Division ("Transit Police") services, which are provided
pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement among TriMet, Portland, and Gresham (and though
not relevant here, other municipalities). TriMet is a public body liable for the acts and omissions
of members of the Transit Police and other agents and employees acting within the scope of their
agency and/or employment. TriMet is a "person" as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
15.
The Transit Police patrols are administered, coordinated, and directed by the Portland
Page 5 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 6 of 37

Police Bureau under an agreement among TriMet, Portland and Gresham. The Transit Police
Division Commander is selected jointly by Portland and TriMet. The Transit Police patrols are
staffed by officers from the Portland Police Bureau, the Gresham Police Department, and
officers from other jurisdictions. Selection and assignment of officers and deputies to the Transit
Police are determined jointly by the command personnel of the officer's or deputy's jurisdiction
(e.g., Portland or Gresham), TriMet, and the Transit Police command personnel. Police officers
assigned to the Transit Police are subject to the General Orders and training requirements of their
respective jurisdictions, as well as the Transit Police's Standard Operating Procedures (except to
the extent that they conflict with the General Orders of the officer's respective jurisdiction).
16.
At all times material to this action, defendant Officer Taylor Letsis was an employee of
the Gresham Police Department, a subdivision of the City of Gresham, and acting within the
scope of his employment and under color of law. Upon information and belief, at all times
material to this action, defendant Officer Taylor Letsis was working as a member of the Transit
Police, and acting within the scope of his employment and under color of law.
17.
On information and belief, at all times material to this action, defendants Unknown
Police Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were police officers employed by the Portland Police Bureau, a
subdivision of the City of Portland, and acting within the scope of their respective employment
and under color of law.

Page 6 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 7 of 37

COMPLIANCE WITH ORS 30.275 - OREGON TORT CLAIMS NOTICE
18.
Plaintiff has complied with the applicable notice requirements under ORS 30.275.
19.
On or about August 5, 2013, plaintiff, through counsel, provided written notice to
defendants by delivering an Oregon Tort Claims Notice, setting forth potential claims
Ms. Medina intended to bring arising from an incident on February 12, 2013.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
20.
On February 12, 2013, Ms. Medina was riding a bus on SW 5th Avenue near the
intersection of SW Broadway in Portland. Shortly after 5 p.m., she heard someone exclaim
“Ooh, that must’ve hurt!” and observed two police officers arresting a young male rather
roughly. Sensing that there was a possible story, she exited the bus and began capturing live
video of a suspect whom the police had already taken into custody.
21.
Ms. Medina's smartphone, a Motorola "Droid" model, stored a variety of personal data.
The data stored on Ms. Medina's phone included the physical addresses, phone numbers, and
email addresses of other individuals, records of calls sent and received (including phone
numbers, times, and durations), various applications and related application data, and various
documents. These documents included personal photos and videos, as well as PDFs and
Microsoft Word documents. Thanks to a service called Ustream, Ms. Medina's smartphone was
set up to function like a live television camera.
Page 7 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 8 of 37

22.
Ustream is a service that enables anyone with a smartphone to become a live broadcaster.
The Ustream application runs on the user's phone, and gives the user the option to broadcast
what their phone's camera "sees" over the Internet. When the user initiates the broadcast, the
video captured by the user’s phone can be viewed live over the Internet using a web browser.
When the live broadcast is terminated, Ustream gives the user the option of archiving their
broadcasts for later on-demand viewing. The archiving option has to be triggered by the user by
responding "Yes" to a prompt that appears when a live broadcast stops. If (and only if) archived,
videos are stored on Ustream’s servers, and are viewable with common web browsers.
23.
On the day of the incident, Ms. Medina's footage was live-streamed over the Internet as
she captured it, in real time, such that viewers could watch see and hear events unfold live.
24.
Ms. Medina's coverage of the police activities that day began with her telling viewers
"And we are live!" Ms. Medina proceeded to narrate the scene and events to her viewers as she
broadcast both live audio and video.
25.
Initially, there were two officers at the scene with the suspect already in custody. On
information and belief, at least one of those officers was from the Portland Police Bureau.

Page 8 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 9 of 37

26.
Throughout Ms. Medina's coverage of the story, Ms. Medina crossed no police lines. She
remained at least 30 feet from the police. Her position was sufficiently far from the suspect that
she was not interfering with police activities.
27.
During Ms. Medina's reporting, she observed several vehicles at or near the scene. One
of these was a white car near the suspect marked "Transit Police." Ms. Medina also observed a
car across the street marked "Portland Police," an SUV marked "Portland Police," and a gray
unmarked SUV.
28.
Approximately 38 seconds into her report, a third officer proceeded to where the suspect
was being detained, joining the two officers already there.
29.
Approximately one minute and twenty-eight seconds into her report, another officer
arrived in the area and greeted Ms. Medina. Ms. Medina continued filming without incident, and
he did not immediately join the other officers where the suspect was being detained.
30.
Approximately 2 minutes and 34 seconds into the report, an officer proceeded to where
the suspect was being detained. That officer was wearing a vest emblazoned with "Portland
Police" on the back. At this point, there were four officers where the suspect was being
detained.

Page 9 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 10 of 37

31.
In hopes of interviewing a bystander who had witnessed the arrest, Ms. Medina moved
further south on 5th Ave, approaching the corner of SW 5th and SW Broadway, while continuing
her live report. After determining that the witness appeared to have departed, she again focused
on the vehicle containing the suspect, all the time remaining at least 30 feet from the four
officers, namely Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and Officer Letsis, who were standing near
the Transit Police vehicle containing the suspect. Ms. Medina remained far enough away from
the vehicle containing the suspect that she was not interfering with police activities.
32.
After Ms. Medina had been broadcasting for nearly four minutes without incident, she
was approached by Officer Letsis.
33.
A transcript of Ms. Medina's encounter with Officer Letsis from the time he greeted her
to the time he grabbed her smartphone out of her hands follows:
Officer Letsis

Hi.

Ms. Medina

Hi, there.

Officer Letsis

Can I see your video?

Ms. Medina

No.

Officer Letsis

Okay, I need to see your video to see if it has any evidence of a crime.

Ms. Medina

Um—

Officer Letsis

Yes. It’s not a choice, ma'am.

Ms. Medina

It’s not a choice?

Officer Letsis

It’s not a choice. Either you can show it to me right now, and we can look
over it and see if it has anything that I need, and if it doesn’t, then you can
keep it, and go on your way. If it does, if it does show something that we
need, I’m going to either have you see if you can email it to me, or we may
Page 10 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 11 of 37

have to take the phone.
Ms. Medina

OK. Well, it’s live…

Officer Letsis

OK

Ms. Medina

…on the Internet, so I don’t have access to it, so that’s one issue.

Officer Letsis

OK, well, then, why don’t you show it to me?

Ms. Medina

Show you…

Officer Letsis

Yeah

Ms. Medina

OK, so, what’s on this is, essentially, I get off the bus, I cross the street, he’s
already in custody…

Officer Letsis

OK, then show it to me.

Ms. Medina

…so there’s no evidence of…

Officer Letsis

That’s what I’m asking you to do. Is show it to me.

Ms. Medina

And if I refuse?

Officer Letsis

Then I’ll have to seize the phone.

Ms. Medina

You’re going to take my phone?

Officer Letsis

Yes.

Ms. Medina

And you have legal jurisdiction to—

Officer Letsis

Yes I do

Ms. Medina

—take my phone for not showing you—

Officer Letsis

No, no, no

Ms. Medina

So essentially I’m being searched.

Officer Letsis

No, you’re not being searched.

Ms. Medina

It’s a search of my phone.

Officer Letsis

Yes, because it could show evidence of a crime.

Ms. Medina

Right, well—

Officer Letsis

And I'm asking you to show it to me.

Ms. Medina

—if you were to subpoena that evidence, I would gladly give that to you.

Officer Letsis

Then show it to me. That's—that's what I'm asking.

Ms. Medina

I don't, I don’t have— You’re not legally asking me—

Page 11 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 12 of 37

Officer Letsis

Yes, I am, ma'am.

Ms. Medina

—with a subpoena.

Officer Letsis

I don’t need a subpoena to search your phone for evidence of a crime.

Ms. Medina

But you—you have to have some kind of … probable cause…

Officer Letsis

Ma’am, do you want to hand me the phone, or would you like to show it to
me?

Ms. Medina

I— I don’t want to show you, but—
[Noise as Officer Letsis forcibly grabs phone from Ms. Medina.]

Officer Letsis

Thank you.

Ms. Medina

—phone—at—will, however
[End of broadcast as Ms. Medina's live-stream is terminated.]
34.

A true and correct copy of the video footage that Ms. Medina broadcast during the
incident is provided herewith as Exhibit 1, and is available at
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29230171.
35.
At the time that Officer Letsis searched and seized Ms. Medina's phone, there was no
probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence of a crime. Ms. Medina had already
explained that the suspect was "already in custody" by the time she began her live video report.
36.
At the time that Officer Letsis searched and seized Ms. Medina's phone, there was no
probable cause to believe any footage on the phone was at risk of destruction or loss.
Ms. Medina had already offered to provide the video footage in response to a subpoena.

Page 12 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 13 of 37

37.
Officer Letsis' forcible seizure of Ms. Medina's smartphone halted Ms. Medina's live
broadcast.
38.
As he seized the smartphone from Ms. Medina, Officer Letsis grabbed her wrist and
jacket cuff, scratching Ms. Medina's hand with his nails and twisting her arm. As this occurred,
Officer Letsis said "Stop resisting."
39.
Unknown Officer No. 1 approached Officer Letsis and Ms. Medina while Officer Letsis
continued to hold Ms. Medina's arm. Once Officer Letsis had the phone, he continued to grip
her arm for approximately 20 seconds. Unknown Officer No. 1 made eye contact with Officer
Letsis, and shortly afterward Officer Letsis released Ms. Medina's arm.
40.
Officer Letsis proceeded to look at Ms. Medina's smartphone. During this time, another
officer, Unknown Officer No. 2, approached Ms. Medina and Officer Letsis. Because the
broadcast had been terminated, the Ustream application popped up a prompt on whether to
archive the video or not. Officer Letsis appeared poised to press the "No," button which would
have resulted in the loss of the footage that had been broadcast. In response, Ms. Medina
protested to Unknown Officer No. 2 that Officer Letsis was deleting her video. Officer Letsis
responded that he was not. Ms. Medina responded that Officer Letsis should then press the
button to archive the video. Officer Letsis did so, and asked "What's next?" Ms. Medina then

Page 13 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 14 of 37

walked him through responding "Yes" to prompts from the Ustream application asking whether
to post the video to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
41.
Officer Letsis then handed the phone back to Ms. Medina, and ordered her to show him
the video. At this point in time, anyone with access to a web browser could view the video on
the Ustream site, where it had been archived.
42.
Complying with Officer Letsis' order, Ms. Medina navigated to a public Ustream page
where the now-archived video could be viewed in the smartphone's standard web browser.
43.
As soon as Ms. Medina pressed "play," to start the video, Officer Letsis grabbed the
phone from her a second time. Officer Letsis did so without warning, and without the consent of
Ms. Medina, despite the absence of any probable cause – or any reason at all – to suspect either
that Ms. Medina had committed a crime, that the phone contained evidence of a crime, or that
the evidence (which he himself had just archived to the Ustream web server) was in any danger
of being destroyed.
44.
Officer Letsis studied the video playing on the screen of Ms. Medina's phone for
approximately 10 seconds. Ms. Medina asked "Am I free to leave?" Officer Letsis replied that
she was not. Then, while continuing to hold Ms. Medina's phone, Officer Letsis asserted that he
could take her phone at any time, and warned that if she did not comply with future demands by
police to see her video, her phone could be seized.
Page 14 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 15 of 37

45.
At the end of this lecture, Ms. Medina put out her hand and Officer Letsis returned the
phone. She then asked "Can I go?" Officer Letsis replied that she could go.
46.
Once Ms. Medina was given her phone back, she resumed her live broadcast, relating the
incident that had just occurred while also directing her camera at the police car that remained on
the scene, possibly with the suspect still inside. The follow-up segment lasted 4 minutes and 48
seconds.
47.
At the time that Officer Letsis seized and searched Ms. Medina's phone and detained her,
Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had a clear line of sight to where Ms. Medina and Officer
Letsis were standing. Although Unknown Officer No. 1 and Unknown Officer No. 2 approached
Officer Letsis, and although Unknown Officer No. 1 appeared to influence Officer Letsis to
release Ms. Medina's arm, none of Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, or 3 ordered Officer Letsis to
desist from the search and seizure of Ms. Medina's smartphone or the seizure and detention of
Ms. Medina. None otherwise made any attempt to prevent or curtail the search and seizure of
Ms. Medina's smartphone. Indeed, Unknown Officer No. 3 did not approach Ms. Medina at all.
48.
On approximately February 15, 2013, KGW television published a report on the incident.
During the report, a person identified as Gresham police spokesman Claudio Grandjean asserted
that Officer Letsis' conduct during the encounter had been legal. Officer Grandjean stated:

Page 15 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 16 of 37

“He wasn't doing something illegal. Now, was he inappropriate,
or... or or a little rough, or officious or whatever? We can look at
that, but that's not nearly as important as was he doing something
illegal."
Thus, three days after the incident, the Gresham Police Department took a clear and public
position that the actions of Officer Letsis were lawful.
49.
On March 5, 2013, barely three weeks after the incident, the Gresham Police Chief issued
a memorandum. A true and correct copy of that memorandum, obtained through a public
records request, is attached as Exhibit 2, and is hereby incorporated by reference.
50.
Upon information and belief, the March 5, 2013 memorandum was issued, at least in
part, in response to the February 12, 2013 incident with Ms. Medina.
51.
In the March 5, 2013 memorandum, the Chief stated that "I highly discourage the seizing
of property, or the arresting of persons, for simply recording your official actions without your
knowledge."
52.
In the March 5, 2013 memorandum, the Chief stated that "I support the reasonable
actions of officers to seize cell phones when there is probable cause to believe the recording
contains evidence of a crime and there are exigent circumstances to seize the cell phone to
prevent the destruction or loss of the evidence," but went on to warn that "[i]f no exigent
circumstances that place the property at risk of destruction, you must obtain a search warrant to
download the video."
Page 16 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 17 of 37

53.
In the March 5, 2013 memorandum, the Chief stated that "The practice of video/audio
recording officers is prevalent throughout the world and I believe the courts will take a very
liberal view of a citizen's right to record an officer while on duty. It is common footage on
television shows and internet videos, and we must recognize that it is part of doing business."
54.
As of February 12, 2013, it was clearly established that the public has a First Amendment
right to record and broadcast audiovisual footage of the public activities of the police, to provide
live coverage of events, and to disseminate that live coverage to the public.
55.
As of February 12, 2013, it was clearly established that under the Fourth Amendment
people have a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure of themselves and their
property, and a privacy interest in their computers and in the data contained therein, including
portable computing devices ranging from laptop computers to so-called smartphones.
56.
The need to train police officers to understand (i) the rights of persons under the First
Amendment, including the right to film police activities and broadcast such footage to the
public; (ii) the rights of persons implicated by searching and seizing smartphones under the
Fourth Amendment; (iii) the statutory limits on seizing journalistic materials, and (vi) that it is
unlawful to detain persons engaged in filming police activities; were clear at the time of, and
before, the February 12, 2013 incident with Ms. Medina.

Page 17 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 18 of 37

57.
It was clear, both before and on February 12, 2013, that failure to properly train police to
understand, preserve, and protect expression and privacy rights under the First Amendment and
Fourth Amendment would make violation of those constitutional rights likely, as would
maintenance of, or indifference to, policies, customs, or practices inconsistent with the First and
Fourth Amendments.
58.
In particular, it was predictable that improper training on the Fourth Amendment would
lead to an incorrect understanding of those rights (such as that as evidenced by Officer Letsis'
remarks to Ms. Medina), which would result in searches and seizures that, while convenient for
officers involved, were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
59.
Similarly, it was predictable that improper training as to the First Amendment could — in
an age where video footage of police is "part of doing business" — result in the silencing of
speech in a manner incompatible with the First Amendment, such as the termination of the live
broadcast here.
60.
Portland, Gresham, and TriMet failed to adequately train and supervise Officer Letsis and
the other individual defendants before and during the incident, and maintained policies that
allowed and condoned the acts and omissions of the police during the incident, and which
showed deliberate indifference to the rights of Ms. Medina under the First, Fourth, and

Page 18 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 19 of 37

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution that defendants violated on
February 12, 2013.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim for Violation of First Amendment Rights; Plaintiff against
Defendant Officer Letsis)
61.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 60 above.
62.
42 U.S.C. section 1983, originally part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13,
creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of "rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. Under the terms of the statute:
“Every person who, under color of [law] * * *causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress.”
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
63.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 specifically provides civil remedies for First and Fourth Amendment
violations, including monetary damages, attorney fees, and certain punitive damages.
64.
At all times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Officer Letsis was an on-duty
police officer acting under color of law.

Page 19 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 20 of 37

65.
With respect to Ms. Medina’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Officer Letsis is a "person"
for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
66.
Observation, recording, and live broadcasting of police activity in public is a legitimate
means of gathering information for public dissemination that is protected by the free speech and
free press clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated
through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
67.
In seizing Ms. Medina’s phone and stopping Ms. Medina’s filming and journalistic
activity, defendants violated Ms. Medina’s clearly established First Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, of which Officer Letsis knew, or of
which reasonable police officers should have known.
68.
Based on Officer Letsis' conduct, Ms. Medina is entitled to an award of damages,
injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.
69.
Officer Letsis is not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights of Ms. Medina that
were violated were clearly established at the time of the conduct, including but not limited to, the
right to record and broadcast live audiovisual footage of police activities in public.
70.
As a direct and proximate result of Officer Letsis' unconstitutional violations of
Page 20 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 21 of 37

Ms. Medina's First Amendment rights, Ms. Medina suffered injuries, including without
limitation physical and psychological injuries, the interruption of her live broadcast and
corresponding loss of footage she would have otherwise captured.
71.
Based on Officer Letsis' conduct, plaintiff is entitled at least to compensatory damages, in
the amount of twenty-one dollars.
72.
Ms. Medina is also entitled to declaratory relief, including a declaration stating that her
rights were violated, and an injunction requiring defendants to impose new policies and training
requirements to be consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and, in particular, to
recognize, uphold, and protect the right to record and broadcast live audiovisual footage of
police activities in public.
73.
Ms. Medina is further entitled to an award of all relevant attorney fees, expert fees and
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which provides: “In any action or proceeding to enforce a
provision of sections * * * 1983, * * * of this title, * * *, the court, in its discretion, may allow
the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs,
* * *. In awarding an attorney’s fee under subsection (b) of this section in any action or
proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its
discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorney’s fee.”

Page 21 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 22 of 37

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim for Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights; Plaintiff against
Defendant Officer Letsis)
74.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 65 and 73 above.
75.
Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated through
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ms. Medina has a right to be
secure in her effects and free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
76.
In repeatedly seizing and searching Ms. Medina’s phone, Officer Letsis violated Ms.
Medina’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, of
which Officer Letsis knew, or of which reasonable police officers should have known, rendering
Officer Letsis liable to Ms. Medina under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
77.
Based on Officer Letsis' conduct, Ms. Medina is entitled to an award of damages,
injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.
78.
Officer Letsis is not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights of Ms. Medina that
were violated were clearly established at the time of the conduct, including without limitation
her right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure of her property, including the smartphone
in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and of her person.
Page 22 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 23 of 37

79.
Based on Officer Letsis' conduct, plaintiff is entitled at least to compensatory damages, in
the amount of twenty-one dollars.
80.
Ms. Medina is further entitled to an award of attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim for Violation of First and Fourth Amendment Rights; Plaintiff
against defendants Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2 and 3)
81.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 80 above.
82.
Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 each had knowledge of Officer Letsis' encounter with
Ms. Medina, each had opportunities to intervene to protect Ms. Medina's First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, including without limitation her right to continue her live
broadcast, her right to privacy in her smartphone, and her right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and the use of unreasonable force.
83.
Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 each failed to intervene to prevent the violations of
Ms. Medina's First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States
Constitution, of which Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 knew, or of which reasonable police

Page 23 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 24 of 37

officers should have known, rendering Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 each liable to
Ms. Medina under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
84.
Based on the conduct of Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Ms. Medina is entitled to an award of
damages, injunctive relief, as well as declaratory relief.
85.
Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are not entitled to qualified immunity because the
rights of Ms. Medina that were violated were clearly established at the time of the conduct,
including without limitation her right to continue her live broadcast and her right to privacy in
her smartphone.
86.
As a direct and proximate result of Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3’s failure to
intervene to cease Officer Letsis' unconstitutional violations of Ms. Medina's First and Fourth
Amendment rights, Ms. Medina suffered injuries, including without limitation physical and
psychological injuries, the interruption of her live broadcast and corresponding loss of footage
she would have otherwise captured, and significant invasion of her privacy created by the
unconstitutional search of her smartphone.
87.
Based on Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 conduct, including without limitation their
failure to intervene to protect Ms. Medina's rights, plaintiff is entitled at least to compensatory
damages, in the amount of twenty-one dollars.

Page 24 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 25 of 37

88.
Ms. Medina is further entitled to an award of attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Modell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Plaintiff against the City of Gresham, the City of
Portland, and Tri-Met)
89.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 88 above.
90.
In interrupting her live broadcast, and in searching and seizing her smartphone, Officer
Letsis violated Ms. Medina's clearly-established rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
91.
TriMet, Portland, and Gresham are “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
92.
At all times relevant to this action, Officer Letsis and Unknown Officers Nos. 1, 2, and 3
were acting under color of law.
93.
On information and belief, as of February 12, 2013, Transit Police officers had a
widespread custom and practice of seizing cameras and/or recording devices and searching such
devices for video footage, in the name of searching for evidence, when persons recorded or
broadcast audiovisual footage of the police in public, even in circumstances where there was no
Page 25 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 26 of 37

reason to suspect the person capturing the footage of a crime and where no exigent
circumstances existed, and Gresham, Portland, and TriMet were, or should have been, aware of
this custom and practice.
94.
On information and belief, as of February 12, 2013, Gresham, Portland, and TriMet
maintained official policies allowing Transit Patrol officers to seize cameras and/or recording
devices and search such devices for video footage when persons recorded or broadcast
audiovisual footage of the police in public, even in circumstances where there was no reason to
suspect the person taking the footage of a crime and no exigent circumstances existed.
95.
On information and belief, as of February 12, 2013, Gresham, Portland, and TriMet
failed to train Transit Police officers about the First and Fourth Amendment rights of the public
and the press to observe, record and broadcast public scenes of police activity, displaying
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights enjoyed by all persons in the United States.
96.
On information and belief, as of February 12, 2013, Gresham, Portland, and TriMet
failed to supervise and discipline Transit Police officers for unlawfully interfering with the First
Amendment rights of the public and the press to observe, record and broadcast public scenes of
police activity, displaying deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights enjoyed by all
persons in the United States.
97.
On information and belief, the aforementioned unconstitutional policies, customs, and
Page 26 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 27 of 37

practices of the Gresham, Portland, TriMet, and the Transit Police were the moving force behind
Officer Letsis' violation of Ms. Medina's constitutional rights on February 12, 2013.
98.
As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional policies, customs, and practices
of Gresham, Portland, TriMet, and the Transit Police, Ms. Medina suffered injuries, including
without limitation physical and psychological injuries, the interruption of her live broadcast and
corresponding loss of footage she would have otherwise captured, and invasion of her privacy.
As a result of those injuries, plaintiff is entitled at least to compensatory damages in the amount
of twenty-one dollars.
99.
Ms. Medina is entitled to declaratory relief, including a declaration stating that her rights
were violated, and an injunction requiring defendants to revise policy and training requirements
to be consistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments with respect to seizure of nonsuspect bystanders and equipment used by non-suspect bystanders in the course of such
activities, and the use of force and its effect on such activities.
100.
Ms. Medina is further entitled to an award of attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Page 27 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 28 of 37

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(The Privacy Protection Act (“PPA”), 42 U.S.C. §2000aa, et seq.; Plaintiff against the City
of Gresham, the City of Portland, and Tri-Met)
101.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 60 and
Paragraphs 66 – 67 above.
102.
The Privacy Protection Act (“PPA”), 42 U.S.C. §2000aa, et seq., prohibits government
officials from searching for and seizing documentary materials or work product possessed by a
person in conjunction with a purpose to disseminate a broadcast or similar form of
communication to the public, and further prohibits searching for and seizing related work
product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate a
broadcast or similar form of communication to the public.
103.
42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b) provides that it shall be unlawful for a government officer or
employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for
or seize documentary materials possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to
disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public
communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
104.
42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a) further provides that it shall be unlawful for a government officer
or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search
Page 28 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 29 of 37

for or seize work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose
to disseminate a broadcast or similar form of communication to the public, in or affecting
interstate commerce.
105.
The PPA provides that a person aggrieved by a search for or seizure of materials in
violation of the PPA shall have a civil cause of action for damages for such search or seizure.
106.
The PPA further allows causes of action against governmental units for the actions of
their officers -- with no qualified immunity defense.
107.
The video footage that Officer Letsis sought, the Ustream software on Ms. Medina's
smartphone, and the smartphone itself constituted documentary materials and work product
possessed by Ms. Medina and Ustream. Ms. Medina's purpose was to, with the assistance of
Ustream, broadcast the video footage to the public over the Internet. Ms. Medina, in fact, had
informed Officer Letsis that the video was "live on the Internet."
108.
At no time did Officer Letsis ever have reason to believe that Ms. Medina had committed
or was committing any criminal offense, much less probable cause to believe that Ms. Medina
had committed or was committing any criminal offense related the video footage or other
materials that he seized or searched for.
109.
At no time was there ever any reason to believe that the immediate seizure of the video
Page 29 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 30 of 37

footage or other materials was necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a
human being.
110.
When Officer Letsis first seized and searched Ms. Medina’s phone there was no reason to
believe that the giving of notice pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum would result in the
destruction, alteration, or concealment of any materials, including the footage. To the contrary,
Ms. Medina had told Officer Letsis that "if you were to subpoena that evidence, I would gladly
give that to you."
111.
At the time that Officer Letsis seized and searched Ms. Medina’s phone a second time,
there was no reason to believe that the giving of notice pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum
would result in the destruction, alteration, or concealment of any materials, including the
footage. To the contrary, Officer Letsis himself had just, pursuant to Ms. Medina's instruction,
caused Ustream to archive the footage and make it publicly available on Twitter, Facebook, and
YouTube.
112.
At no time relevant to this action was there ever a court order directing compliance with a
subpoena duces tecum with respect to the materials.
113.
Under the PPA, Officer Letsis was required to obtain a subpoena before seizing and
searching Ms. Medina video and phone. Officer Letsis not only did not pursue such a subpoena,
but flatly stated that he did not need a subpoena to obtain the video.
Page 30 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 31 of 37

114.
As a result of defendants’ conduct, Ms. Medina is entitled to an award of liquidated
damages in the amount of $1000.
115.
Ms. Medina is entitled to her reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(f).
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and ORS 28.010; Plaintiff against Defendants
Officer Letsis, Portland, Gresham and TriMet)
Count 1
(Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution)
116.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 115 above.
117.
The search and seizure of Ms. Medina’s phone violated Ms. Medina’s rights under
Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
118.
Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution created a duty that Officer Letsis violated
by searching and seizing her smartphone, resulting in the interruption of her live broadcast and
physical injury to Ms. Medina.
119.
Ms. Medina is entitled to declaratory relief, including a declaration stating that her rights
Page 31 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 32 of 37

were violated, and an injunction requiring defendants to revise policy and training requirements
to be consistent with Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, with respect to persons
recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties, search and seizure of non-suspect
bystanders, and use of force.
Count 2
(Article I, § 8 of the Oregon Constitution)
120.
Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 - 119 above.
121.
The forcible interruption of Ms. Medina's live report violated Ms. Medina’s rights under
Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution
122.
Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution created a duty that Officer Letsis violated
by searching and seizing her smartphone, resulting in the interruption of her live broadcast and
creating a risk of destruction of her video footage.
123.
Ms. Medina is entitled to declaratory relief, including a declaration stating that her rights
were violated, and an injunction requiring defendants to revise policy and training requirements
to be consistent with Article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, with respect to persons
recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties, the ability to broadcast such
footage by to the public, and the right to be free from forcible termination of such broadcasts.

Page 32 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 33 of 37

Count 3
(False Arrest)
124.
Plaintiff incorporates repeats and re-alleges the facts in paragraphs 1-123 above.
125.
Officer Letsis intended to confine Ms. Medina when he grabbed her arm, seized her
phone, and searched it.
126.
Ms. Medina was aware of her confinement by Officer Letsis.
127.
Ms. Medina did not consent to the confinement.
128.
Officer Letsis' detention of Ms. Medina amounted to an arrest, without probable cause, or
indeed, any reason, to believe that Ms. Medina had committed a crime.
129.
Officer Letsis lacked probable cause, or indeed, any reason, to believe that Ms. Medina
had evidence of a crime.
130.
Officer Letsis' actions were not otherwise privileged.
131.
Officer Letsis' conduct complained of in Counts 1, 2, and 3 herein was committed within
the scope of his employment by Defendant Gresham and his assignment to the Transit Police of
Page 33 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 34 of 37

Defendant TriMet, as administered, coordinated and directed by Defendant Portland, and, on
information and belief, was ratified by superior officers of the Gresham Police Department
acting within the scope of their employment.
132.
As a direct and proximate result of Officer Letsis' actions, Ms. Medina suffered injuries,
including without limitation physical and psychological injuries, the interruption of her live
broadcast and corresponding loss of footage she would have otherwise captured, and invasion of
her privacy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Medina prays for judgment as follows:
1.

On Plaintiff’s FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF,
(a)

declaratory relief that the conduct of Officer Letsis violated Ms. Medina's

rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution with respect to
persons recording and broadcasting live audiovisual footage of police officers in the
public discharge of their duties, and with respect to the use of excessive force;
(b)

compensatory damages in the amount of twenty-one dollars,

(c)

an award of all relevant attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988, and
(d)
2.

any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

On Plaintiff’s SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF,
(a)

declaratory relief that the conduct of Officer Letsis violated Ms. Medina's

rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution with respect
Page 34 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 35 of 37

to search and seizure of non-suspects, and the use of excessive force;
(b)

compensatory damages in the amount of twenty-one dollars,

(c)

an award of all relevant attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
(d)
3.

any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

On Plaintiff’s THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF,
(a)

declaratory relief that the acts and omissions of Unknown Officers Nos. 1,

2, and 3 violated Ms. Medina's rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution with respect to persons recording police officers in the public
discharge of their duties, search and seizure of non-suspects, and excessive use of force;
(b)

compensatory damages in the amount of $twenty-one dollars,

(c)

an award of all relevant attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
(d)
4.

any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

On Plaintiff’s FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF,
(a)

declaratory relief that the acts and omissions of Defendants Portland,

Gresham, and TriMet with respect to customs and practices, policies, training, and
supervision violated Ms. Medina's rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution with respect to persons recording police officers in
the public discharge of their duties, search and seizure of non-suspects, and the use of
excessive force;
(b)

a permanent injunction requiring Defendants Portland, Gresham, and

Page 35 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 36 of 37

TriMet to revise policy and training requirements to be consistent with the First and
Fourth Amendments with respect to persons recording police officers in the public
discharge of their duties, search and seizure of non-suspects, and the use of force, and to
supervise officers to ensure that customs and practices are consistent with those rights,
including judicial supervision of Portland, Gresham, and TriMet's compliance with the
injunction for not less than five years;
(c)

compensatory damages in the amount of twenty-one dollars;

(d)

an award of all relevant attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
(e)
5.

any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

On Plaintiff’s FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF,
(a)

an award of liquidated damages arising from defendants' conduct in the

amount of one-thousand dollars pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(f);
(b)

an award of all relevant attorney fees, expert fees and costs pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(f); and
(c)
6.

any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

On Plaintiff’s SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF,
(a)

declaratory relief that the conduct of Officer Letsis violated Ms. Medina's

rights under article I, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution with respect to persons
recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties, search and seizure of
non-suspects, and the use of force;
(b)

declaratory relief that the conduct of Officer Letsis violated Ms. Medina's

Page 36 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 37 of 37

rights under article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution with respect to persons
recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties, search and seizure of
non-suspects, and the use of force;
(c)

declaratory relief that the conduct of Officer Letsis resulted in false arrest

of Ms. Medina;
(d)

a permanent injunction requiring defendants to revise policy and training

requirements to be consistent with article I, section 8 and 9 of the Oregon Constitution
with respect to persons recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties,
search and seizure of non-suspects, and the use of force;
(e)

an award of all relevant attorney fees, expert fees and costs; and

(f)

any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2014.
PARSONS FARNELL & GREIN, LLP
By:

/s/ Charles J. Paternoster____________
Charles J. Paternoster, OSB # 024186
Telephone: (503) 222-1812
Email: cpaternoster@pfglaw.com
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
Alan J. Galloway, OSB #083290
Telephone: (503) 778-5219
E-mail: alangalloway@dwt.com
Tim Cunningham, OSB #100906
Telephone: (503) 778-5219
E-mail: timcunningham@dwt.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Carrie Medina
On behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.

Page 37 – COMPLAINT
DWT 26032022v18 0200835-000001

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1-1

Filed 02/10/15

Page 1 of 1

Exhibit 1
Video to be submitted on CD

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1-2

Filed 02/10/15

Page 1 of 2

Danner, Rebecca
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Junginger, Craig
Monday, September 08, 2014 1:32 PM
Police Sworn Officers
FW: Recording of police officers and the seizure of the device

Although our most recent incident is not about the subject recording the officer's actions but, about him
interfering in a dangerous incident, it is always a good reminder to reread the parameters around the seizing
of recording devices.

Craig Junginger
Chief of Police
Gresham Police Department
1333 N. W. Eastman Parkway
Gresham, OR 97030
503-618-2313
"In the Company of Heroes"
From: Junginger, Craig

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:19PM
To: Police Sworn Officers
Subject: Recording of police officers and the seizure of the device

To all sworn members:
Almost daily, technology is changing the way we do business. An important technology that has changed all of
our lives is the use of cell phones to capture incidents coupled with the ability to immediately post the video for
world viewing. More and more people are using them for a variety of things to include the filming of police
actions. Although our laws are slowly being redefined by case law in this area, the variables of each case can
make it difficult to decide when to take action against violations of the law. When should we make an arrest
or seize property? We must balance our decisions to enforce the law with not only the letter of the law but the
spirit for which it was intended. We must be reasonable in our actions.
With this in mind, I want to outline my expectations on this topic. I support the reasonable actions of officers to
seize cell phones when there is probable cause to believe the recording contains evidence of a crime and there
are exigent circumstances to seize the cell phone to prevent the destruction or loss of the evidence. Once
seized, If no exigent circumstances that place the property at risk of destruction, you must obtain a search
warrant to download the video.
However, the nature of the crime and the significance of the evidence must also_be amongst the criteria used
when determining the importance of seizing recording equipment from someone not consenting to the
seizure. We should always strive to gain cooperation when a witness has possibly recorded elements of a
crime. Although we have the right to seize under these conditions, citizens are uncomfortable with our seizing
of their personal electronic devices. The officers involved should make every effort to gain
compliance. Remember these individuals are electronic "witnesses" to a crime. We want to gain their
cooperation with your investigation. All of you were issued recorders a few years back, you should consider
1

Exhibit 2, p. 1

 Case 3:15-cv-00232-BR

Document 1-2

Filed 02/10/15

Page 2 of 2

recording those who are non-compliant. This can assist you in building a case that the seizure was your last
resort to save the evidence.
However, I highly discourage the seizing of property, or the arresting of persons, for simply recording your
official actions without your knowledge. With few exceptions, officers should recognize that they are probably
constantly being recorded when on duty. Since I truly believe that you are polite and professional in your
contacts, and are doing nothing wrong, you should not concern yourself with a citizen who decides to record
your actions on a call. The practice of video/audio recording officers is prevalent throughout the world and I
believe the courts will take a very liberal view of a citizen's right to record an officer while on duty. It is
common footage on television shows and internet videos, and we must recognize that it is part of doing
business.
As always, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Craig Junginger
Chief of Police
Gresham Police Department
1333 N. W. Eastman Parkway
Gresham, OR 97030
503-618-2313
"In the Company of Heroes"

2

Exhibit 2, p. 2