Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY JACK ALMOND and
TERESA ROBERTS ALMOND
Plaintiffs
v.

RANDOLPH COUNTY,ALABAMA;
THE RANDOLPH COUNTY
COMMISSION; SHERIFF DAVID
COFIELD; LARRY CLARK,JR.;
BERNARD SHEPPARD; RANDY
MOORE; DONNIE STRAIN; KEVIN
WALKER; GREG JOHNSON;JIMMY
JOHNSON; JEAN DOT; JODY
McDANIEL; and NATHANIEL
MORROW

37A—cNoi) 195- SRAAJ
Jury Demand

Defendants

COMPLAINT
COME NOW the plaintiffs, Gregory Jack Almond and Teresa Roberts
Alrnond_and file this Complaint alleging and showing unto the Court as follows:
THE PARTIES
1) Plaintiff Gregory Jack Almond (hereinafter referred to as "Greg") is an
adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama.

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 19

2) Plaintiff Teresa Roberts Almond (hereinafter referred to as "Terese)is an
adult resident of Randolph County, Alabam .
3) Defendant Randolph County, Alabama (hereinafter referred to as "the
County") is a governmental entity created pursuant to the laws of the State of
Alabama. Its actions as a governmental entity are "state actions" within the meaning
ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
4) Defendant Randolph County Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the
Commission") is the governing body of Randolph County pursuant to the
Constitution and laws of the State of Alabama. Its actions as a governmental entity
are "state actions" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
5)

Defendant Sheriff David Cofield (hereinafter referred to as "Sheriff

Cofield")is an adult resident ofRandolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought against
him in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this
Complaint, Defendant Sheriff Cofield was the Sheriff of Randolph County and the
head ofthe Randolph County Sheriffs Department. The Randolph County Sheriffs
Department is an integral part ofthe State of Alabama, and the actions of its Sheriff
are "state actions" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. The actions of Sheriff Cofield alleged herein were taken in
response to instructions from and under the direction of the Randolph County

2

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 3 of 19

Commission and are attributable to the Randolph County Cornmission based on
general principles of agency.
6) Defendant Larry Clark, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Clark") is
an adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought against hirn in his
individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this Complaint,
Defendant Deputy Clark was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph County Sheriffs
Department.
7)

Defendant Bernard Sheppard (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy

Shepparr) is an adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought
against him in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of
this Complaint, Defendant Deputy Sheppard was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph
County Sheriffs Department.
8) Defendant Randy Moore,(hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Moore") is
an adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought against him in his
individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this Complaint,
Defendant Deputy Moore was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph County Sheriffs
Department.
9) Defendant Donnie Strain,(hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Strain") is an
adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought against him in his
individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this Cornplaint,

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 4 of 19

Defendant Deputy Strain was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph County Sheriffs
Department.
10) Defendant Kevin Walker (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Walker")is
an adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought against hirn in his
individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this Complaint,
Defendant Deputy Walker was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph County Sheriffs
Department.
11)

Defendant Greg Johnson, (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy

G. Johnson") is an adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought
against hirn in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of
this Complaint,Defendant Deputy G. Johnson was a Deputy Sheriff ofthe Randolph
County Sheriffs Department.
12)

Defendant Jirnmy Johnson, (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy

J. Johnson") is an adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought
against him in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of
this Complaint, Defendant Deputy J. Johnson was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph
County Sheriffs Department.
13) Defendant Jean Dot,(hereinafter referred to as "Deputy Dot")is an
adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought against her in her
individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this Complaint,

4

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 5 of 19

Defendant Deputy Dot was a Deputy Sheriff ofthe Randolph County Sheriff s
Department.
14)

Defendant Jody McDaniel (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy

McDaniel") is an adult resident of Randolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought
against him in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of
this Complaint, Defendant Deputy McDaniel was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph
County Sheriffs Department.
15) Defendant Nathaniel Morrow, (hereinafter referred to as "Deputy
Morrow")is an adult resident ofRandolph County, Alabama. Suit is brought against
him in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this
Complaint, Defendant Deputy Morrow was a Deputy Sheriff of the Randolph
County Sheriffs Department.
16) Deputy Clark, Deputy Sheppard, Deputy Moore, Deputy Strain, Deputy
Walker, Deputy G. Johnson, Deputy J. Johnson, Deputy Dot, Deputy McDaniel, and
Deputy Morrow, all named above, are sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively
as "the Randolph County Deputies" or "members ofthe drug task force."
JURISDICTION
17) This is an action for legal and equitable relief to redress violations of
Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. This suit is brought to secure the protection of and
to redress the deprivation of rights secured under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and

5

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 6 of 19

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S C.§1983. The
jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
18)

Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1341(3) and (4)

and the aforementioned constitutional and statutory provisions. Plaintiff further
invokes the pendant jurisdiction of this Court to herein decide claims arising out of
State Law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
19)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391 as the events in question

occurred in Randolph County, Alabama.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20) On or about the 31st day of January, 2018, Teresa was at the Almond's
residence located at 1675 County Road 71, Woodland, Alabama, which is in the
rural part of Randolph County, Alabama. At approximately 2:00 p.m., a Deputy of
the Randolph County Sheriffs Department arrived at the Almond's home and stated
that his purpose there was to serve paperwork related to a civil matter.
21) Teresa informed the Deputy that Greg was not at home but should return
in about two hours. Teresa invited the Deputy to return at that time.
22) According to the Deputy's report, he smelled marijuana inside the
residence. Based on the deputy's alleged smell, a search warrant was obtained, and

6

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 7 of 19

the Sheriffs "Drug Task Force"(hereinafter "the task force') was convened in less
than two (2) hours.
23) Later the same afternoon, Greg returned home. Soon thereafter, mernbers
of the task force, ascended upon the residence and kicked in the door of the
Almond's residence.
24) After kicking in the door, one ofthe members ofthe drug task force threw
a "shock" explosive device inside the residence. Greg Almond, who was in route to
open the door ofthe residence, was injured when the explosive device blew up at his
feet.
25) Both Greg and Teresa were then forcibly thrown to the floor. The house
was ransacked. Inside the house, the task force claimed to have found one
"roach"/partially smoked marijuana cigarette and one small plant less than one foot
tall which members of the task force believed to be marijuana. Outside in a grill,
members of the task force discovered a small baggy with a small amount of leafy
substance, which they believed to be marijuana. The total amount of marijuana
found would have had a street value of$50.00 or less. Possession ofsaid marijuana
is a misdemeanor. However, none of the marijuana seized in the raid belonged to
either Greg or Teresa.
26) No contraband was found on the person of either Greg or Teresa.
27) Inside the Almond residence were two safes that housed an extensive

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 8 of 19

collection of over 80 guns, some of which are antiques; approximately $8,000.00
cash; jewelry; and other personal items, including prescription medications. The
Almonds were directed to open the safes. Inside the safes, the members of the drug
task force claim to have found ONE LUNESTA PILL outside ofthe bottle in which
it had been prescribed. Lunesta is a non-narcotic class IV controlled substance
prescribed to aid sleep.
28) Greg and Teresa were both arrested and taken to jail. They were detained
until the following day at which time they bonded out.
29) The initial arrest report posted online had Greg and Teresa falsely and
slanderously charged with manufacturing a controlled substance. These charges
were later amended to possession of marijuana, which is a misdemeanor, and
possession of a controlled substance (the Lunesta pill), which is a felony.
30) Greg and Teresa have a 27-year-old son who went to the Randolph
County Sheriffs Office and confessed that the marijuana belonged to him and did
not belong to his parents.

Despite that fact, the Randolph County Sheriffs

Department continued to pursue prosecution, and the cases were bound over to the
August 2018 term ofthe Grand Jury. No indictment was returned during that Grand
Jury session.
31) During the spring 2019 term of Grand Jury in Randolph County,
Alabama, the Grand Jury returned indictments against Greg and Teresa, charging

8

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 9 of 19

each of them with (a) possession of marijuana in the second degree and (b)
possession of drug paraphernalia, both of which charges are misdemeanors.
32) Neither Greg nor Teresa, who have been married for nearly 30 years and
are parents and grandparents, have any criminal history or have ever been arrested
for anything in their lives prior to this incident.
33) Greg and Teresa have made numerous complaints to the Randolph
County Sheriffs Department, but no action was taken.
34) Greg and Teresa allege that after making complaints to the Sheriffs
Department, they and their family have been harassed by members of the
department.
35) The Almonds are informed and believe and upon such information and
belief charge the facts to be that it is the pattern and practice ofthe Randolph County
drug task force and Sheriffs Department to illegally seize property of defendants on
misdemeanor offenses and never file civil forfeiture proceedings.
36) Greg and Teresa allege that items of personal property seized from their
home were lost, stolen, or otherwise disposed of by members of the Randolph
County Sheriffs Department, without Plaintiffs' knowledge or permission.
37) Both Greg and Teresa were deprived of their constitutional rights to due
process, to be secure in their person from unreasonable seizure, and to be protected
from arrest without probable cause.

9

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 10 of 19

38)Because of humiliation and indignities suffered by Greg and Teresa, both
are hesitant to go into public places in and around the County of their residence.
They have both suffered great embarrassment and humiliation and continue to suffer
such embarrassment and humiliation because of the activities of the defendants as
described in this Complaint.
39) Both Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, physical and mental
pain and emotional distress from said injuries and public indignities caused by the
Defendants; and they will continue in the future to suffer mental pain and emotional
distress from said injuries caused by the Defendants.
40) As a proximate result ofthe Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs' physical
injuries and mental and emotional pain and suffering caused by the Defendants have
adversely affected the Plaintiffs' home and family life, have impaired and hindered
the Plaintiffs in the performance of their accustomed daily activities, and have
greatly restricted the Plaintiffs' ability to engage in activities to which they were
otherwise accustomed, such as visiting public places.
COUNT ONE:
VIOLATION CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION FOR EXCESSIVE FINES.
41) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.

10

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 11 of 19

42) Randolph County, and the Randolph County Cornmission are entities
created pursuant to the laws of the State of Alabama. Actions taken of seizing
property by Sheriff Cofield and the members of the drug task force, acting in their
official capacity, are actions within the meaning of the Fourteenth and Eighth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have suffered the damages
as herein above alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS BY
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS PROVIDED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF FIFTH and FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THEUNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
43)

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs ofthis complaint

as if set out here in full.
44) In order for property to be taken under the Alabama civil forfeiture
statute, CODE OF ALABAMA § 20-2-93,the county rnust file a civil action to condemn
the property . Failure to do so is lack of due process and is unconstitutional in
violation and the Fifth and Fourteenth Arnendments to the United States
Constitution. Plaintiffs have suffered the damages as hereinabove alleged.

11

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 12 of 19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS BY
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS PROVIDED BY
THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983
45) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
46) Randolph County and the Randolph County Commission are entities
created pursuant to the laws of the State of Alabama. Actions taken by Sheriff
Cofield and the Randolph County Deputies acting in their official capacity, are state
actions within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Sheriff Cofield and the members of the drug task force are sued
individually, and were acting under color of state law. The actions of defendants,
constitute a violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights. Plaintiffs have suffered the damages
as hereinabove alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.

12

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 13 of 19

COUNT FOUR
CONVERSION
47) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
48) A portion of the cash money that was taken from the home of Greg
Almond and Teresa Almond was deposited into the general account ofthe Randolph
County Commission,for which a large part of that money remains unaccounted. If
this money was seized as evidence, it should have been in the evidence room for
inspection and should not have been deposited into the general fund ofthe Randolph
County Cornmission.
49) The actions of the Defendants as alleged herein constitute conversion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive darnages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT FIVE
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS BY
USE OF UNNECESSARY AND EXCESSIVE FORCE
50) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
51) The Defendants' actions constitute a violation ofPlaintiffs' civil rights in
that the said actions constitute the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth
13

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 14 of 19

Amendment to the United States Constitution. It would have been clear to a
reasonable law enforcement officer under the same or similar circumstances that use
of force to the extent that it was used was inappropriate. As a direct and proximate
result ofthe violations ofPlaintiffs' civil rights by the defendants,the Plaintiffs have
suffered the damages as herein above alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a juiy deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT SIX
ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
52) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
53) Actions taken by Sheriff Cofield and the members ofthe drug task force,
acting in their official capacity, are state actions within the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The actions constitute a
violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights in that the said actions constitute the use of
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Plaintiffs have suffered the damages as herein above alleged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
14

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 15 of 19

plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT SEVEN
NEGLIGENT HIRING,TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION
54) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
55) That these actions constitute negligent hiring, training, and supervision.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT EIGHT
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
56) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
57) That these actions constitute malicious prosecution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury .deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.

15

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 16 of 19

COUNT NINE
SLANDER
58) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
59) That these actions constitute slander.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT TEN
OUTRAGE
60) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
61) That these actions constitute the tort of outrage.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.

16

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 17 of 19

COUNT ELEVEN
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ALABAMA CIVIL FORFEITURE
STATUTE, CODE OF ALABAMA § 20-2-93,AS WRITTEN AND APPLIED,
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
62) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs ofthis complaint
as if set out here in full.
WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs ask this court to send the issue to the Supreme Court
of Alabama as a certified question establishing parameters as to when property may
be seized by law enforcement, specifically that civil forfeiture does not apply to
misdemeanor drug offenses or drug offenses for personal use.
COUNT TWELVE
EMOTIONAL PAIN AND SLTFFERING
63) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
64) That Greg Almond and Teresa Almond have suffered emotional pain and
suffering as a result of these actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.

17

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 18 of 19

COUNT THIRTEEN
NEGLIGENCE
65) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
66) That Defendants were negligent in their conduct, resulting in damages to
the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT FOURTEEN
WANTONNESS
67) Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this complaint
as if set out here in full.
68) That Defendants were wanton in their conduct, resulting in damages to
the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in such an amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as a jury deems reasonable, and may award,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.

18

 Case 3:19-cv-00175-SRW Document 2 Filed 03/11/19 Page 19 of 19

JURY DEMAND
The plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues triable by jury as of right.

Respectfully submitted this

day of

J
-\

, 2019.

Segrest(AS
J
306-H58S)
The Segrest Law Firm
P.O. Box 780791
Tallassee, AL 36078
Telephone: 334-252-0036
Fax: 334-252-0037
Email: Mike.Segrest(c'eSegrestLaw.com

Of Counsel
Heather Newsom Leonard ASB-1152-061H
Attorney for Plaintiff
Heather Leonard,PC
2105 Devereaux Circle, Suite 111
Birmingham, AL 35243
205-977-5421
HeatherONeatherLeonardPC.corn

19