Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PHYLLIS SALAZAR, Individually, and
as the surviving spouse of
Craig J. McKinnis

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNIFED GOVERNMENT OF
)
WYANDOTT COUNTY, KANSAS CITY )
KANSAS, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
)
POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND KANSAS )
CITY POLICE OFFICERS
)
JERMEY SHEPARD, ANDREW
)
WILCOX. ABIGAIL FITHIAN, LUCAS
)
GRAVES, KENNETH HICKERSON,
)
WALTER JONES, KATHLEEN HILL,
)
SCOTT LADISH,
)
STEVEN SHELDON, JOHN DOE
)
DET. HOWARD, AND JOHN DOE
)
DET. WARCZAKOSKI in both their
)
Individual and official capacities.
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Phyllis Salazar, individually and as the surviving
spouse of Craig J. McKinnis, and states the following causes of action:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff, Phyllis Salazar is a resident of Wyandotte County, Kansas.

Plaintiff is the surviving spouse of Craig J. McKinnis through common law
marriage.
2.

Defendant Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 23

City, Kansas (hereinafter “Unified Government”), was created by and established
under the laws of the State of Kansas. The Unified government is in charge of
and implements the polices, procedures, rules, regulations and guidelines of the
Kansas City Kansas Police Department. It is authorized to sue and be sued in its
own name.
3.

Defendant Kansas City Kansas Police Department is an agency of

the Unified Government (hereinafter “KCKPD”).
4.

Defendants Jeremy Shepard, Andrew Wilcox, Abigail Fithian, Lucas

Graves, Kenneth Hickerson, Walter Jones, Kathleen Hill, Scott Ladish and Steve
Sheldon, John Doe Det. Warczakoski badge #1617 and John Doe Det. Howard
badge #1561 are, and were, at all times relevant to this Complaint, police officers
in the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department (hereinafter collectively defendant
“Officers”). Each is being sued in her/his individual and official capacity.
5.

Defendant Terry Ziegler (hereinafter defendant “Ziegler”) is the

Chief of Police for the Unified Government, and as such, is responsible for the
policies, practices, and customs of the KCKPD. As the Chief of Police for the
KCKPD, defendant Ziegler has supervisory and training responsibilities for the
defendant Officers.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
6.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1343 inasmuch as Plaintiff presents federal claims arising under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42

2

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 23

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Further, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1367 to hear Plaintiff’s state law wrongful death claims in that all claims made
herein are so related to each other that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
7.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
occurred in, and, at the time of this action was commenced, at least one of the
Defendants was subject to personal jurisdiction in, Kansas City, Wyandotte
County, Kansas, which lies within the District of Kansas.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
8.

Plaintiff is the common law surviving spouse of the decedent Craig

J. McKinnis (hereinafter “Husband”).
9.

On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff and her Husband were lawfully driving

down the road,
10.

Upon information and belief, at approximately 6:00 pm, Plaintiff and

her Husband were stopped by Officers Shepard and Wilcox at the 500 block of
Stewart Ave. in Kansas City, Wyandotte County, Kansas.
11.

Two officers approached Plaintiff’s car. One officer asked Plaintiff

for her identification, while the other officer asked by her Husband’s identification.
12.

Both officers then briefly retreated from the sides of Plaintiff’s

vehicle.
13.

The officers shortly returned to the vehicle, both of them on the

3

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 4 of 23

passenger side where her Husband was seated.
14.

The officers asked her Husband to exit Plaintiff’s car.

15.

Shortly after Plaintiff’s Husband exited the car, he was then tackled

by the police officers.
16.

Plaintiff exited her car a witnessed officers subduing her Husband.

17.

About the time Plaintiff’s Husband was tackled, additional officers

began to arrive at the scene. Upon information and belief, officers Fithian arrived
at the scene and assisted officers Shepard and Wilcox in arresting her Husband.
18.

Upon information and belief, officer Hickerson arrived on the scene,

and assisted Shepard, Wilcox and Fithian in arresting Plaintiff’s Husband.
19.

Upon information and belief, officer Jones arrived on the scene and

assisted officers Shepard, Wilcox, Fithian and Hickerson in arresting Plaintiff’s
Husband.
20.

Upon information and belief, officer Graves arrived on the scene.

Officer Graves assisted officers Shepard, Wilcox, Fithian, Hickerson and Jones in
arresting Plaintiff’s Husband.
21.

Upon information and belief, officer Hill arrived at the scene, where

he observed officers Shepard, Wilcox, Fithian, Hickerson and Graves arresting
Plaintiff’s Husband.
22.

Upon information and belief, officer Hill heard Plaintiff’s Husband

exclaiming repeatedly that he could not breath during the arrest, but did nothing
to address the cries of Plaintiff’s Husband.

4

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 5 of 23

23.

Upon information and belief, officer Ladish arrived at the scene at

witnessed the arrest of Plaintiff’s Husband by officers Shepard, Wilcox, Fithian,
Hickerson and Jones.
24.

Upon information and belief, officer Ladish heard Plaintiff’s

Husband exclaiming repeatedly that he could not breath during the arrest, but did
nothing to address the cries of Plaintiff’s Husband.
25.

Upon information and belief, officer Sheldon arrived at the scene at

witnessed the arrest of Plaintiff’s Husband by officers Shepard, Wilcox, Fithian,
Hickerson and Jones.
26.

Upon information and belief, officer Sheldon heard Plaintiff’s

Husband exclaiming repeatedly that he could not breath during the arrest, but did
nothing to address the cries of Plaintiff’s Husband.
27.

Upon information and belief, none of the officers on the scene did

anything to address the pleas of Plaintiff’s husband that he could not breath.
28.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s Husband was restrained by

the officers face down, handcuffed behind his back and in a prone position on the
street, with officers holding down his lower body and two officers holding his
upper body, while Plaintiff’s husband cried “I can’t breath”.
29.

Defendant police officers Shepard, Wilcox, Fithian, Hickerson,

Graves, Hill, Ladish, and Sheldon (“Arresting Officers”) did nothing to release the
pressure being applied to Plaintiff’s Husband’s body, which prevented him from
breathing, and thereafter, the officers failed to obtain and/or provide appropriate,

5

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 6 of 23

timely and immediate medical attention and/or assistance for Plaintiff’s Husband,
all of which caused and/or resulted in Plaintiff’s Husband’s death.
30.

During this time, Plaintiff was ordered to officers at the scene to sit

on the sidewalk next to her car.

Plaintiff responded to the demands of the

officers and sat down.
31.

Plaintiff could hear her Husband tell the officers that were holding

him that he could not breath. Plaintiff recalls the one of the officers saying in
response to her Husband’s complaints, “if you can talk, you can breath!”.
32.

Plaintiff recalls her Husband telling the officers that he could not

breath on numerous occasions while the police officers were on top of her
Husband.
33.

During the process of the police officers killing her Husband,

Plaintiff overheard one of the officers telling another officer to “get her out of her
before the press gets here!” An officer immediately thereafter escorted Plaintiff to
a police car at the end of the block and to be placed into the back seat of the
police car.
34.

Plaintiff asked the officer placing her in the police car if she was

under arrest. The officer responded no.
35.

Prior to being seated in the back seat of the police car, Plaintiff

asked the officer if she was then free to go. The officer responded no and placed
her in the police car.
36.

Plaintiff could no longer see or hear her Husband while in the police

6

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 7 of 23

car.
37.

After what seemed to be 20-30 minutes an officer came back to the

police car to tell Plaintiff that they were taking her to the police station for
questioning.
38.

Upon arrival at the police station, Plaintiff again asked the officer if

she was under arrest. The officer said no.
39.

Plaintiff again asked the officer if she was free to leave. The officer

said no and led her to a room for questioning.
40.

Plaintiff asked any police officer that she could speak with how her

Husband was doing and where he could be found.

At not time during her

questioning did the officers inform her of the death of her Husband or where he
had been taken from the scene of the incident.
41.

During the questioning, Plaintiff was deprived of her liberty to leave

the room or answer her cell phone, which was ringing from calls from the family
of her Husband, including his mother.
42.

Plaintiff demanded to speak with her cousin that is an officer with

the KCKPD to find out what happened to her Husband and to get her released
from the police.

Upon speaking to her cousin, Plaintiff was informed of the

passing of her Husband.
43.

Only then was Plaintiff allowed to leave the police station.

44.

The police officers of the KCKPD deprived Plaintiff of her civil rights

by detaining her against her will.

7

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 8 of 23

45.

Any minimally competent, reasonable, trained police officer

understands that holding a person face-down and applying pressure to his arms,
legs, or torso can result in positional (or restraint) asphyxia, in which a person’s
ability to move his chest, abdomen, and diaphragm are restricted causing a
person injury and death by asphyxia.
46.

Any minimally competent, reasonable and trained police officer

knows the risks of asphyxia is particularly acute for person’s the size and build of
Plaintiff’s Husband (244 pounds with a protruding abdomen).
47.

Accepted police practices prohibit the practice of facedown restraint

because of the well-known danger and high risk of this method of restraint.
48.

Plaintiff’s Husband’s death was caused by compression of the

chest and the prone positioning of Plaintiff’s Husband during the physical
restraint by the police causing him to be unable to breath.
49.

Defendant KCKPD officers negligently, recklessly and with

excessive force battered and choked Plaintiff’s Husband by striking him about his
face, wrestling him to the ground and placing pressure on his body causing him
to be unable to breath and causing his death by asphyxiation.
50.

The death of Plaintiff’s Husband was as a direct result of the

negligence, recklessness, carefulness and use of excessive force of the KCKPD,
their agents, servants, and/or employees.
51.

The Arresting Officers did not use the appropriate level of force

given the circumstances described above, and the use of excessive force was

8

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 9 of 23

not necessary or reasonable under those circumstances.
52.

Defendants Unified Government and KCKPD failed to properly train

the Arresting Officers on the appropriate use of force in arresting Plaintiff’s
Husband.
53.

Defendants Unified Government and KCKPD are responsible for

implementing the policies, procedures, practices and customs that condone the
use of excessive force when it is not necessary or reasonable and permitted
under the law in violation of citizen’s rights.
54.

The use of excessive force against Plaintiff’s Husband, Craig J.

McKinnis, was a result of the policy(s), practices, and customs implemented and
condoned by Defendants Unified Government and KCKPD in that they failed to
adequately train, supervise, and discipline officers in the sue of excessive force.
55.

The inadequate supervision, training and discipline of police officers

by Defendants Unified Government and KCKPD has led to the unnecessary and
illegal use of excessive force against citizens, including Plaintiff’s Husband, by
KCKPD officers in violation of the citizen’s constitutional rights.
56.

Plaintiff has suffered substantial harm as a result of the actions of

the officer of the KCKPD.
57.

The officers did not use the appropriate level of force given the

circumstances and deadly force was not necessary or reasonable under the
circumstances.
58.

Defendant Armstrong and the Unified Government failed to property

9

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 10 of 23

train the defendant officers on the appropriate use of force, the use of deadly
force, and officer safety positions as the defendant officers were allowed to work
in the field as patrol officers without having sufficient training as to when the use
of force and deadly force is necessary and permissible under the law.
59.

Upon information and belief, the above polices, procedures and

customs implemented, condoned and ratified by the defendants has resulted in a
culture of violence in which the use of excessive force is an accepted and
customary part of the police work in the KCK Police Department where officers
using excessive force are not disciplined or criminally prosecuted for the use of
excessive and deadly force.
60.

The actions of the defendants were willful, wanton, reckless,

malicious, outrageous, and further, show a compete and deliberate indifference
to, and conscious disregard for the rights of plaintiff.
61.

Upon information and belief, Decedent, Craig McKinnis, was killed

as a result of suffocation from chocking by the defendant officers, and Mr.
McKinnis has sustained the following damages:
a) Pain, suffering, fear, anxiety, emotional distress, and anguish prior to
his death;
b) Physical pain and suffering from being chocked to death;
c) The loss of income, filial care, attention, services guidance, advice and
companion ship to his wife (Plaintiff); and
d) The loss of his life.

10

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 11 of 23

62.

Plaintiff’s civil rights were violated by her witnessing of the killing of

her Husband at the hands of the defendants, plaintiff has sustained the following
damages:
a) Pain, suffering, fear, anxiety, emotional distress from witnessing the
death of her Husband;
b) Pain, suffering, fear, anxiety, emotional distress from being held against
her will by defendants.
COUNT I
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count I of her Complaint against
Defendants, jointly and severally, states:
63.

Plaintiff repleads, realleges, and incorporates by reference all the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 62.
64.

Plaintiff brings Count I of this cause of action against Defendants

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages for Defendants’ deprivation of
Decedent’s constitutionally protected liberty rights by reason of Defendants’
violation of Decedent’s substantive and due process rights pursuant to the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.
65.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from the use of excessive

66.

The Fourth Amendment provides that citizens of the United States

force.

are to be free from unreasonable search and seizures of their person.
67.

Defendants knew or should have know that the Fourth Amendment

11

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 12 of 23

prohibits the use of excessive force.
68.

Defendants failed to act under the color of state law at relevant

times herein.
69.

Defendant officers used excessive force in apprehending Craig

McKinnis.
70.

The degree of force used by the defendant officers was excessive

because it was not reasonably necessary to arrest Craig McKinnis or take him
into custody.
71.

The defendant officers knew or should have know that the alleged

excessive force set forth above violated the constitutional rights of Craig J.
McKinnis to be free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force.
72.

No reasonable officer in the position of the defendant officers would

have used deadly force in arresting Craig J. McKinnis.
73.

Had the defendant officers taken proper restraining actions, the

death of Craig McKinnis would not have occurred.
74.

The acts of the defendant officers were wanton, malicious, evil,

oppressive, or involved reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
decent, Craig McKinnis, thus entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damages
against the defendant officers.
75.

The conduct of the defendants has caused plaintiff damages

including but not limited to:
a) Pain, suffering, fear, anxiety, emotional distress prior to the death of Mr.

12

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 13 of 23

McKinnis;
b) Physical pain and suffering from the chocking prior to the death of Mr.
McKinnis;
c) The loss of income, filial care, attention, services, guidance, advice care
and companionship, and
d) The loss of life.
76.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendants reasonable attorney

fees and expenses provided by 42 U.S.C. §1988.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court, after a trial by jury of the
claims, enter judgment against defendants, for her actual damages or nominal
damages, for punitive or exemplary damages, for attorneys fees and expenses
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, her costs, and for any other relief the Court deems
just and necessary.
COUNT II
(42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Violative Policies, Procedures, Practices and Customs)

77.

Plaintiff repleads, realleges, and incorporates by reference all the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 76.
78.

Upon information and belief, there exists within the Unified

Government and KCKPD, as authorized by Defendant Ziegler, policies,
procedures or customs, practices, or usages that are so pervasive, that they
constitute the policy of the department, such that all KCKPD policies, procedures,
practices and customs that are moving force behind, and thereby caused the

13

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 14 of 23

constitutional deprivations of decedent Craig J. McKinnis and caused damages
as previously stated.
79.

Upon information and belief, the policies, practices, procedures,

customs and usages that exist are:
a.

That officers of the KCKPD use excessive force, including deadly
force, without regard for the need for the use of force, or without
regard for the legality of its use.

b.

That officers of the KCKPD conspire with one another to cover for
and protect one another from criminal an/or civil sanctions that
might arise from the violation of constitutional rights of a citizen;

c.

That officers of the KCKPD can use excessive fore when it is not
necessary and warranted where the Unified Government, KCKPD,
and defendant Ziegler fail to take action or adequately punish
officers that violate the constitutional rights of citizens as more fully
described above;

d.

That officers of the KCKPD engage in conduct that is violative of the
constitutional rights of its citizens of the United States, with whom
they come in contact, including but not limited to: unjustifiably
asphyxiating people in violation of the Constitution of the United
States;

e.

That KCKPD willfully and deliberately fail to supervise and train its
officers when excessive and lethal force can and should be used,

14

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 15 of 23

and allows its officers to use deadly force when it is not warranted
or called for in violation of citizen’s constitutional rights.
80.

Defendant Ziegler and KCKPD are and were vested wit the

authority to train, supervise, discipline, and otherwise control the officers of the
KCKPD. Defendant KCKPD failed to change its policies, procedures, practices,
customs and usages of the KCKPD by failing to train, supervise, discipline, and
control the officers of the KCKPD including failing to act in the

face of

transgressions, deficiencies, and unconstitutional conduct of its officer of which
they knew or should have known.
81.

As the lawfully designated policy making body for the KCKPD,

defendant Ziegler the Unified Government and the KCKPD have the power and
responsibility to prevent the existence of policies, procedures, practices and
customs which violate the constitutional rights of citizens of the United States,
and have failed to and refused to do so, and, therefore, has been and continues
to deliberately indifferent to the rights of the citizens of the United States, with
whom the police officers of the KCKPD come into contact. The failure of the
KCKPD to act in the face of constitutionally violative conduct caused the
constitutional deprivations that have been suffered by decedent Craig J.
McKinnis.
82.

Defendants Unified Government, KCKPD and defendant Ziegler as

the policy maker for the KCKPD enacted and allowed policies, procedures,
practices, customs and usages set above which caused or contributed to cause

15

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 16 of 23

the unconstitutional violations and death of Craig J, McKinnis, and the damages
sustained by Craig J. McKinnis.
83.

In their failures, policies, procedures, practices, customs and

usages, as previously described, the Unified Government, KCKPD and defendant
Ziegler intentionally disregarded known facts or alternatively, was deliberately
indifferent to a risk of constitutional violation which they knew or should have
known, and their culpability caused the constitutional violations to decedent Craig
J. McKinnis in causing his death and damages to Plaintiff.
84.

The policies, procedures, practices, customs and usages and

conduct of defendants has caused Plaintiff damages including but not limited to:
a) Pain, suffering, fear, anxiety, emotional distress prior to the death of Mr.
McKinnis;
b) Physical pain and suffering from the chocking prior to the death of Mr.
McKinnis;
c) The loss of income, filial care, attention, services, guidance, advice care
and companionship, and
d) The loss of life.
85.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendants reasonable attorney

fees and expenses provided by 42 U.S.C. §1988.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court, after a trial by jury of the
claims, enter judgment against defendants, for her actual damages or nominal
damages, for punitive or exemplary damages, for attorneys fees and expenses

16

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 17 of 23

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, her costs, and for any other relief the Court deems
just and necessary.
COUNT III
(Wrongful Death K.S.A 60-1901)
COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count III of her Complaint against
Defendants, jointly and severally, states:
86.

Plaintiff repleads, realleges, and incorporates by reference all the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 85, exclusive of prayer.
87.

Plaintiff brings Count II of this cause of action against Defendants,

and she does so individually as the surviving spouse of decedent, pursuant to
K.S.A. 60-1901.
88.

Defendant officers used excessive force in apprehending Craig

McKinnis.
89.

The degree of force used by the defendant officers was excessive

because it was not reasonably necessary to arrest Craig McKinnis or take him
into custody.
90.

No reasonable officer in the position of the defendant officers would

have used deadly force in arresting Craig J. McKinnis.
91.

Had the defendant officers taken proper restraining actions, the

death of Craig McKinnis would not have occurred.
92.

Defendants owed Plaintiff and her Husband a duty of care. The

Defendants breached that duty do to the Arresting Officers negligent conduct
and/or negligent failure to act as set forth above.

17

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 18 of 23

93.

The acts of the defendant officers were wanton, malicious, evil,

oppressive, or involved reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
decent, Craig McKinnis, thus entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damages
against the defendant officers.
94.

The conduct of the defendants has caused plaintiff damages

including but not limited to;
e) Pain, suffering, fear, anxiety, emotional distress prior to the death of Mr.
McKinnis;
f) Physical pain and suffering from the chocking prior to the death of Mr.
McKinnis;
g) The loss of income, filial care, attention, services, guidance, advice care
and companionship, and
h) The loss of life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment herein in favor
of Plaintiff and against Defendants and each of them, as follows:
•

Compensatory and non-economic damages in a reasonable amount to be
determined by a jury;

•

Punitive and aggravating circumstances damages in an amount sufficient
to deter Defendants and others from like conduct; and

•

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, together
with costs and interest.

18

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 19 of 23

COUNT IV
(False Arrest)
95.

Plaintiff repleads, realleges, and incorporates by reference all the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 94, exclusive of prayer.
96.

At the direct orders of the Officers, Plaintiff sat on the curb while

listening to Arresting Officers choke and improperly restrains her husband.
97.

Plaintiff could hear her husband tell the Arresting Officers that he

could not breath. Plaintiff heard the Arresting Officers respond that “if you can
talk, you can breath”.
98.

Hearing this discussion, Plaintiff would rise to see what was

happening to her husband. Each time the Arresting Officers ordered her to sit
down.
99.

Shortly after strangling her husband to a point were he could no

longer be heard, Plaintiff overheard one of Arresting Officers exclaim, “Get her
outta here before the press get’s here!”. With that, upon information and belief,
one of the Arresting Officers demanded that Plaintiff move from the curb adjacent
to her car to a police car located at the end of the block.
100.

Plaintiff asked if she was being placed under arrest, which the

police officer stated “No, but you are not free to leave”.
101.

Upon information and belief, one of the Arresting Officers then

informed Plaintiff that she would be taken to the Police Station for questioning.
Again, Plaintiff asked if she was being put under arrest, the officer again said
“No”. Plaintiff again asked if she was then free to leave, the officer again stated

19

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 20 of 23

“No.
102.

Plaintiff was then taken to the Police Station where she was

questioned about the circumstances of the death of her husband at the hands of
the Defendants.
103.

Plaintiff again asked if she was under arrest, which either John Doe

Det. Warczakoski badge #1617 and/or John Doe Det. Howard badge #1561
stated “No”.

Again, Plaintiff asked if she was free to leave, John Doe Det.

Warczakoski badge #1617 and/or John Doe Det. Howard badge #1561 said “No”.
104.

After hours of being held against her will, John Doe Det.

Warczakoski badge #1617 and/or John Doe Det. Howard badge #1561 informed
Plaintiff that she was now free to leave.
105.

Defendants’ restraint of the personal freedom of Plaintiff without

legal excuse by any words, acts, threats, or personal violence that under the
circumstances the one being restrained fears to disregard.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff
and against Defendants and each of them, as follows:
•

Compensatory and non-economic damages in a reasonable amount to be
determined by a jury;

•

Punitive and aggravating circumstances damages in an amount sufficient
to deter Defendants and others from like conduct; and

•

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, together
with costs and interest.

20

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 21 of 23

COUNT IV
Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress To Family
Member
106.

Plaintiff repleads, realleges, and incorporates by reference all the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 105, exclusive of prayer.
107.

Defendants extreme and outrageous conduct in killing her common

law husband in her presence.
108.

Defendants conduct was directed at Craig McKinnis, the immediate

family of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was present to witness the cries of Craig McKinnis
that he could not breath, while being choked to death by Defendants.
109.

Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional

distress as a result of the conduct of Defendants.
110.

Defendants, by their conduct, intentionally or recklessly caused

severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff
and against Defendants and each of them, as follows:
•

Compensatory and non-economic damages in a reasonable amount to be
determined by a jury;

•

Punitive and aggravating circumstances damages in an amount sufficient
to deter Defendants and others from like conduct; and

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, together
with costs and interest.

21

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 22 of 23

COUNT V
Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress
(In the alternative to Count IV)
111.

Plaintiff repleads, realleges, and incorporates by reference all the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 110, exclusive of prayer.
112.

Defendants acted intentionally, or in reckless disregard of the

Plaintiff.
113.

The Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous conduct in

killing Craig McKinnis in her presence, while Plaintiff was hearing his cries that
he could not breath.
114.

The Defendants conduct caused the Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

115.

Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme and severe

emotional distress as a result of the conduct of Defendants.
116.

Defendants, by their conduct, intentionally or recklessly caused

severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff
and against Defendants and each of them, as follows:
•

Compensatory and non-economic damages in a reasonable amount to be
determined by a jury;

•

Punitive and aggravating circumstances damages in an amount sufficient
to deter Defendants and others from like conduct; and

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, together
with costs and interest.

22

 Case 2:15-cv-09895-JWL-JPO Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 23 of 23

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
117.

Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues.

Respectfully submitted,

THE FRIDKIN LAW FIRM, LLC

/s/ Joseph M. Fridkin
Joseph M. Fridkin KS 18625
10620 Johnson Drive, Ste. 105
Shawnee, KS 66203
Tel: 913.248.9100
Fax: 913.248.9111
jfridkin@fridkinlaw.com

23