rlA'(''ltf i";''i+i:tf;ql1'f l-12 rli.R -S PH 5: 0!r

Robert J. Campos #01 I 817ROBERT J. CAMPOS& ASSOCIATES. P.L.C.5l East Lexington AvenuePhoenix, AZ 85012'felephone (602) 222-3440'Facsirnile (602) 595-9683Emai I info@robertj campp.f . com

Attorney for Plaintiff

VS.

)MARICOPA COUNTY, a public entity: )

)MAzuCOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S )

)OFFICE, a division of Maricopa Counfy; )

)SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and AVA )

)ARPAIO, husband and wife; STEVEN I

)SEAGAL and JANE DOE SEAGAL, I

)husband and rvife; MARICOPA COUNTY )

)BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, the )

)governing body of Maricopa County; )

)FULTON BROCK and JANE DOE )

)BROCK, husband and wife; DON )

S:I'APLEY and JANE DOE STAPELY.

husband and wife; ANDREW KUNASEK

COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)

BYlffi.DEp

bt

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

JESUS SANCHEZ LLOVERA. I))))

Plaintiff

2

7

8

9

t 0

I I

t 2

I J

l 4

l 5

t 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

20

2 l

24

25

and JANE DOE KLTNASEK, husband and

wifb; MAX WILSON and JANE DOE

WILSON, husband and wife; MARY

ROSE WILCOX and JOHN DOE

WILCOX, husband and rvife; JOHN DOE

SUPERVISORS I-X; JANE DOE

SUPERVISORS I.X; JOHN DOES I.X;

.'ANE DOES I.X,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jesus Sanchez Llovera, fbr his Complaint against Defendants, alleges as

follou,s:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

l. Plaintiffbrings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. g l9S3; the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and pendent state common

law and statutory laws.

2. Plainti lf has satisfied the provisions of A.R.S. $ l2-821.01 by serving upon

Defendants a Notice of Claim more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the filing of

this Complaint. Defendants have not responded to the Notice of claim.

3. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffls federal law clairns pursuant to 28

U.S.C. $ I33l and 42 U.S.C. $ 19S8. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over

PlaintifFs state and federal clairns pursuant to Article 6. Section 14 of the Arizona

Constitution.

))))))))))I

)l

)I

)')

)

- Z -

I

J

4

6

7

8

9

t 0

l l

t 2

I J

t 4

l 5

t 6

t 7

t 8

l 9

.)n

2 l

22

23

24

25

4. Venue is initially proper in this Court pursuant ro A.R.S. $ l2-401. as the

majority of the parties are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the events

underlying this lawsuit occurred in Maricopa County. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the

right, however, to timely change venue pursuant to A.R.S. $ l2-408. because Maricopa

Countv is a party.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5' Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Cornplaint.

6- At all tirnes rnaterial herein, Plaintiff Jesus SanchezLloverarvas a legal

permanent resident of the United States, residing in the City of Laveen, located in

Mari copa County, Arizona.

7. Defendant Maricopa County (the "County") is a public entity, furmed and

designated as such pursuant to Title l1 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and. as such, is

subject to civil suit and may be held independently liable as an entity and/or municipaliry

and/or vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of its officers, employees, agenrs,

districts, and division/sub-divisions, including (without limitation) the individual

members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Arpaio, and the officers

and employees of its divisions, the Maricopa county sheriff s office.

8. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff s Office ("MCSO") is a political

subdivision of Maricopa County and the State of Arizona, and constitutes an independent

jural entity subject to civil suit.

9. At all times material herein, Defendant Joseph Arpaio ("Arpaio" or'.Sheri

Arpaio") was the duly-elected Sheriff of Maricopa County and the head of the MCSO. I

such capacity, Arpaio was an officer, agent and employee of the County and MCSO, wit

the authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, customs, procedures,

-J-

I

2

-

6

1

8

9

t 0

t l

t 2

t 4

t 5

t 6

l t

l 8

l 9

20

2 l

) 7

! 1

z>

protocols and training fbr MCSO's Tactical Operations Unit, the use of Global

Positioning Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member recruitment and training. His

wrongful actions andl/or inactions constitute actions of the County, the Board, and

MCSO. The County, the Board, and MCSO are vicariousty liable and directly liable for

his u,rongful conduct. as alleged herein.

10. At all times material herein, Defendant Steven Seagal was an agent and/or

employee of the County and MCSO, who at the tirne of the events complained herein,

was acting rvithin the course and scope of his employment by the Counfy and MCSO,

under color of law. This Defendant engaged in wrongful conduct that allowed, caused,

and contributed to the destruction of Plaintiff s property and violation of Plaintifl-s

conslitutional rights. as alleged herein. His actions constitute actions of the County,

Arpaio. and MCSO, and the County, Arpaio, and MCSO are vicariously liable fbr his

wrongful conduct.

I l. At all times material herein, Defendants Fulton Brock, Don Stapley.

Andrew Kunasek, Max Wilson, and Mary Rose Wilcox (collectively referred to as the

"Board") rvere duly-elected Supervisors of Maricopa County and the head of Maricopa

County government, with ultimate authority and responsibility for overseeing, funding.

and regulating the actions and/or inactions of Sheriff Arpaio. In such capacity, the

members of the Board were officers, agents. and employees of the County, with the

authority and responsibility to establish policy, practices, procedures, protocols, customs,

and traininglbr MCSO's Tactical Operations Unit, the use of Global Positioning

Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member recruitment and training. These

Defendants engaged in rvrongful conduct, and/or conduct. omissions, and actions not

undertaken in good faith, which allowed, caused, and/or contributed to the destruction of

Plaintiff s properfy and violation of Plaintiff s constitutional rights, as alleged herein.

-4-

I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l 0

n

t 2

I J

l 4

l 5

l 6

t 7

r 8

l 9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

The Board's actions and/or inactions, and/or the actions of each of the individually-

named Supervisors that comprises it, constitute actions of the County and the County is

vicariously liable and directly liable for their wrongful conduct, as alleged herein.

12. At all times material herein. Defendants John Doe Supervisors I-X Jane

Doe Supervisors I-X (collectively the "Board John Does") were duly-elected Supervisors

of Maricopa County and the head of Maricopa County governmcnt, with ultimate

authority and responsibility for overseeing, funding, and regulating the actions andior

inactions of SheriffArpaio. In such capacity. the Board John Does were officers, agentS,

and ernployees of the County. with the authority and responsibility to establish policy,

practices, procedures, protocols, customs, and training for MCSO's Tactical Operations

Unit, the use of Global Positioning Systems, and Qualified Armed Posse member

recruitment and training. These Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct, and/or

conduct. omissions, and actions not undertaken in good faith. which allowed. caused,

and/or contributed to the destruction of Plaintiffrs property and violation of Plaintiff s

constitutional rights, as alleged herein. The Board John Doe's actions and/or inactions,

and/or the actions of each of the individually-named Supervisors that comprises it,

constitute actions of the County and the County is vicariously liable and directly liable

for their rvrongful conduct, as alleged herein.

t3. Maricopa County and all of its subdivisions and their agents and employees

specifically named herein or named as Does are collectively referred herein as the

"County" or "Defendants."

14. The Defendants designated herein as Jane or John Doe spouses, Ava

Arpaio, Jane Doe Brock, Jane Doe Stapley, Jane Doe Kunasek, Jane Doe Wilson, John

Doe Wilcox, Jane Doe Seagal are the spouses of the respective Defendants and are so

designated because the wrongful conduct of Defendants was engaged in for the benefit of

- f -

I

z

3

4

5

6

8

9

t 0

t l

t 2

I 3

t4

l 5

l 6

t 7

t 8

1 9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

their marital communities, thereby rendering the spouses and marital communities of

Defendants liable for such conduct.

15. The true names: capacities, and relationships, whether individual. corporate

partnership, or otherwise of atl John and Jane Doe Defendants, Black Coqporations, and

White Partnerships, are unknown at the tirne of the filing of this Complaint, and are bei

designared pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. $ l0(f) and applicable federal and state law'

Plaintiffs further allege that all of the fictitiously named Defendants were jointly

responsible for the actions, events, and circumstances underlying this larvsuit, and that

they proxirnately caused the damages stated in this Complaint. Plaintiffs will amend the

Cornplaint to name the unidentified individuals once they have learned, through

discovery, the identities and acts, omissions, roles, and/or responsibilities of such

Defendants sufficient for Plaintiffs to discover the claims against them.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Summarv of Facts

16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set foflh in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

17. Prior tb the events at issue in this Complaint, the Phoenix Police

Department conducted an independent investigation at the home Jesus Sanchez Llovera

on February 4,201 1.

18. The Phoenix Police Departrnent searched Mr. Llovera's home and did

find, any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. No drugs, weapons or contraband were found

at Mr. Llovera's home.

-6-

I

2

J

4

5

6

8

9

t 0

l l

t 2

l 3

t 4

t 5

l 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

20

2 l

22

24

25

19. The Phoenix Police Department cotnmunicated with MCSO during the

February 4,20!l search of Mr. Llovera's home. MCSO Deputy Hess called Mr' Llovera

on his cell phone.

20. Deputy Hess asked Mr. Llovera to meet Phoenix Police detectives at the I-

l7 freervay and Dunlap Road ih Phoenix for questioning'

2l. Mr. Llovera, without counsel, willingly met Phoenix Police detectives at

the l- 17 freeway and Dunlap Road. Phoenix Police detectives escorted Mr' Llovera to

police headquarters for questioning. Mr. Llovera fully cooperated with the Phoenix

Police investigation.

22. Mr. Llovera was cleared of any and all alleged wrongdoing. The Phoenix

police Department investigation of Mr. Llovera did not result in the filing of any criminal

charges against Mr. Llovera'

2i.. Following their investigation, the Phoenix Police Department provided

MCSO with photographs taken at Mr. Llovera's home during the February 4,2011

search.

The photographs depicted healthy roosters and hens. The photographs did

not illustrate any evidence of cockfighting or an active cockfighting operation at Mr'

Llovera's home.

24.

- t -

I

2

4

5

6

8

9

t 0

l l

t 2

l 4

l 6

t 7

t 8

l 9

20

2 l

22

I J

24

25

' 25. In the days leading up to March 9,201l, MCSO conducted an

"investigation" of Mr. Llovera. On March 8,201l, MCSO Detective Michael Barnett

drove by Mr. Llovera's home. Detective Barnett claimed that he saw roosters and

chickens rvalking in the front yard of Mr. Llovera's home. Detective Barnett stated that

he heard other roosters crowing in the back yard of Mr. Llovera's home.

26. Detective Barnett did not see or hear any evidence that Mr. Llovera rvas

raising or actively training roosters to cockfight.

27. Armed with Detective Barnett's observations, in the early morning hours o

March g,20ll, the MCSO Tactical Operations Unit laid siege on Mr. Llovera's home

under the guise of a cockfighting investigation.

28. Pursuant to a rnedia production contract between MCSO (executed by

Sheriff Arpaio) and Steven Seagal's production company, Seagal and his producers were

embedded among MCSO's Tactical Operations Unit as they blasted onto Mr. Llovera's

property.

29. MCSO used a Lenco Bear armored truck to smash through a gated

driveway on the north end of Mr. Llovera's property. Seagal's producers and cameramen

joined MCSO deputies in the Lenco Bear armored truck.

-8-

I

2

4

f

6

8

9

l 0

t t

I L

I J

t 4

l 5

l 6

1 7

l 8

l 9

2A

2 l

1 A

?5

30. A V-150 tank pulverized a thirty-foot iron gate on the south end of Mr.

Llovera,s property. Seagal joined MCSO deputies in the V-150 tank and rvas armed with

an automatic assault rifle, along with a sidearm. Seagal's producers attached a stationary

camera inside the V-150 tank.

3 L At least thirty armored Mcso Tactical operations unit personnel rushed

Mr. Llovera's home. Each officer was outfitted in full riot gear consisting of shoulder

pads, steel plates on their chest and back, a Kevlar helmet, goggles, ear and eye

protection and a shield. Every officer also carried a weapon, either a Kimber .45 caliber

handgun or an M4 Colt Commando fully automatic rifle.

1;Z. Ear-crushing diversionary bombs were deployed by deputies as they exited

the V-150 tank. Mr. Llovera's peacocks, guineas, dogs, sheep, goats, roosters, hens and

chicks ran tbr cover. Seven K-9 units swarmed Mr, Llovera's property while the MCSO

bomb robot led the search for Mr. Llovera-an unaffned chicken farmer.

33. The MSCO Tactical Operation Unit's entry team smashed the front door of

Mr. Llovera's home rvith a door ram. The "rvindow" team entered Mr. Llovera's home

by shattering a picture windorv in the living room, as well as a rvindow in Mr. Llovera's

seven-year-old daughter's room. The "rake and break" team stood by ready to cut the

power supply to Mr. Llovera's home. MCSO deputies announced their presence over a

loudspeaker after deputies were inside Mr. Llovera's home. Seagal's production

company captured the drama, as it unfolded, from various cameras positioned outside of

Mr. Llovera's home. and inside the V-150 tank and Lenco Bear armored truck-

-9-

I

I

3

4

)

6

8

9

l 0

l l

l 2

l 3

t 4

l 5

t 6

l 7

l 8

r9

20

2 l

22

23

74

25

34. MCSO deputies found Mr. Llovera inside his home-alone and unarmed-

dialing 9l I on his cell phone. Mr. Llovera had just awoken frorn his nap to find his h

demolished and fully armed Mcso deputies pointing guns at his face' Mr' Llovera did

not resist arrest and was fully cooperative with MCSO deputies'

35. MCSO deputies hauled Mr. Llovera from his home and strategically pulled

hirn to an open area in his tront yard where deputies placed zip-tie cuffs on his rvrists'

fully within the view of Seagal's cameras.

36. Mr. Llovera was escorted across the street from his home. Still clearly dazed

and confused, Seagal's producers badgered Mr. Llovera to sign a release form so that

they could enter his property and capture footage for Lawman' lly'rr' Llovera ret'used to

sign the release form.

37. MCSO's criminal "investigation" was nothing more than a ministerial

exercise to carry out a foregone conclusion. Arpaio wanted to subject Mr' Llovera to a

very public and humiliating arrest in front of seagal's cameras' even though he knew that

Mr. Llovera had not violated any criminal statutes'

3g. Neverthetess, Arpaio launched a high-profile criminal investigation and

executed a full-scale military style attack (including tanks, diversionary bombs, guns and

an aging and ovenveight action "hero") on Mr. Llovera's home. The press attention lvas

far too attractive for Arpaio to pass up, despite the glaring problems with the case'

Within minutes of the raid's execution, a media helicopter circled above Mr' Llovera's

home.

- t 0 -

I

2

3

4

)

6

1

8

9

l 0

l t

t 2

l i

l 4

t 5

t 6

t 7

l 8

r9

2A

z l

22

23

24

25

39. Upon infbrmation and belief, MCSO placed a GPS tracking device on Mr'

Llovera,s vehicle and monitored his every movement in the days preceding the raid'

MCSO did not obtain a search warrant before placing the tracking device on Mr.

I-lovera's vehicle. More irnportantly, upon information and belief, MCSO knew that Mr'

Llovera was home alone on March g,20ll, and did not pose a threat to MCSO deputies'

MCSO deputies bragged that MCSO could have used the GPS tracking device to arrest

Mr. Llovera during a traffic stop, thereby eliminating atlneed for the massive raid of his

home. A routine traffic stop, horvever, would not have provided sensationalized footage

for Lawmarr s producers.

40. Arpaio scheduled a press conference to publicly announce Mr. Llovera's

arrest. The arrest was publicly staged in an effort to give Arpaio even more self-serving

press affention and to feed his undying mania for publicity.

41. While Arpaio portrayed himself as a champion of animal righs in front of

Mr. Llovera's house, his deputies, without larvful authority, slaughtered over one

of Mr. Llovera's roosters in the back yard. Arpaio's deputies also joked about how Mr.

Llovera's animals fled in terror during the raid.

42. Local television news stations featured Mr. Llovera's arrest as a leading

story. Media reports featured Mr. Llovera's mug shot, erroneously proclaiming that he

not only raised roosters to cockfight but also managed a cockfighting ring. Because of

Seagal's involvement in the raid, Mr. Llovera's arrest reached a global audience within

hours.

- l l -

I

2

A

5

6

7

8

9

t 0

l l

l 2

t i

t 4

t 5

t 6

l 1

l 8

l 9

20

2 l

43. Mr. Llovera suffered deeply from the humiliation of having his arrest

highly publicized.

44. Mr. Llovera'S arrest provided the necessary fodder for Arpaio's constant

hunger for publicity. At the press conference, Arpaio stood alongside Seagal to support

his self-aggrandizing claim that he is "America's toughest sheriff'and a champion of

animal rights. Arpaio proclaimed that Mr. Llovera was arrested on over one hundred

counts of cockfighting and falsely craimed that McSo found evidence of cockfighting on

Mr. Llovera's ProPertY.

45.Want ingtocapi ta l izeontheever- increasingandhighly-publ ic ized

controversy behind the investigation and arrest of Mr. Lrovera- Arpaio, using his political

power and influence pushed the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to prosecute the

case.

46. Although Mcso arrested Mr. Llovera on over one hundred counts of

cockfighting, the Maricopa county Attorney's office presented only one count of

cockfighting to the grand jury.

47. ArPaio's ulterior motives in

prosecution of Mr. Llovera had to do with

the case generated.

48. Mr. Llovera has suffered a loss of income and earnings as a result of the

events surrounding his arrest and prosecution'

49.Asaresul tof theinvest igat ion,hisarrestandprosecut ion'Mr 'L loverahas

suffered humiliation, anguish, mental and physical suffering'

investigating, pressuring and forcing the

the political and financial gain the publicity of

22

25

-12-

I

3

4

)

6

8

9

l 0

l l

t 2

t 3

t 4

l 5

l 6

1 1

l 8

l 9

20

2 l

22

23

,r..+

2 5

50. Mr. Llovera's small business has been adversely aff'ected because ol'the

actions of the Defendants and the negative publicity surrounding the Defendants'

investigation and piosecution, which has resulted in a loss of business profits and

suspension of Mr. Llovera's Arizona Lottery license.

51 . As a result of the wrongful arrest and prosecution, Mr. Llovera was forced

to hire a crirninal attorney and incurred legal fees and investigative costs in the

approximate arnount of $30,000.00. Mr. Llovera has also incurred thousands of dollars

in property damage to his home. Mr. Llovera's animals were also slaughtered without

due process of law, resulting in the loss of thousands of dollars.

Defendants' Pattern. Custom and Practice of Misusing Their Power bv A.r.restingand Prosecuting Individuals Without Probable Cause for Improper and Unlawf$l

Selfish Purposes. Including Political and Financial Gain.

52. This is not the first time these Defendants have abused their authority for

unconstitutional and improper motives and to obtain financial, political, and other

benefits. In fact, they have a custom, pattern, and practice of targeting, arresting, and

prosecuting individuals without probable cause.

53. In June 20A7, Dr. Joshua Winston, a Sun City West veterinarian was

arrested without probable cause, and publicly accused by Arpaio of punching a five

pound Chihuahua in the face, causing the dog's eye to dislodge. These allegations were

based solely upon the false accusations of disgruntled employees rvho were not present

when the alleged abuse happened. Arpaio and the MCSO knew this fact, and knew that

-l 3-

I

4

5

6

8

9

t 0

t l

l 2

l 3

t 4

l 5

l 6

1 l

l 8

t 9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

the charges were baseless, but knowingly prosecuted Dr. Winston to gain publicity and

political and financial gain.

54. Arpaio and the MCSO had the dog taken to at least three different

veterinarians prior to seeking charges, none of which saw any sign that the dog had been

punched. One veterinarian noted that a blow to the eye u'ould cause the eye to "recess"

back, not fall out, and another stated that in l7 years of practice, he had four different

dogs experience the exact same problem while in his care. Arpaio and the MCSO

ignored this information and failed to mention it to the public or to the grand jury. In

fact. Arpaio had already appeared on television to publicly accuse Dr. Winston of

punching the dog in the face. Arpaio acted in complete disregard of the truth and to the

effects on Dr. Winston, his practic'e, and reputation that the accusation and arrest would

bring. and instead acted solely for his own publicity seeking purposes'

55. The arrest of Dr. Winston by Arpaio and the MCSO without probable

was in violation of the constitutional rights of Dr. Winston, and was done solely for

Arpaio's own selfish motives, including personal and political gain and the publicity

garnered by it.

56. In October 2007, Arpaio and the MCSO arrested Michael Lacey and Jim

Larkin, the Executive Editor and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, of The Phoenix

New Times on misdemeanor charges without probable cause, in violation of the

constitutional rights of Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin, for the sole and improper purpose of

Arpaio's and the MCSO's own personal and political gain, and in an attempt to silence

their crit ics.

-14-

I

L

4

5

6

7

8

9

t 0

l l

l 2

t 3

l 4

l )

l 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

20

2 l

22

24

25

57. ln January 2006, dozens of Arpaio's armed and black-suited Mcso swA

Team metnbers, covered by three MCSO helicopters, descended upon the home of Dr'

Sandra Dowling, the then duly elected superintendent of schools of Maricopa county'

The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County had conspired with Arpaio to retaliate

against Dr. Dowling for her public positions, speech, political views, and stances with

respect to the County's obligation to fund its accommodation schools' Arpaio agreed to

investigate Dr. Dorvling and the workings of her offrce. At the time of Dr' Dowling's

arrest, Arpaio and the MCSO did not have probable cause to believe that Dr' Dowling

had committed or was colnmitting any criminal offense'

58. Arpaio repeatedly told the media that Dr. Dowling had hidden, stolen'

and/or misused $3.5 million allegedly mission from the Maricopa County Regional

School Districr. knowing that these accusations were false and that there was no evidence

or facts to support them. He did this to seek publicity, and at the behest of the Board of

59. This was done by Arpaio and the Mcso without probable cause, in

violation of the constitutional rights of Dr. Dowling, tbr the sole and improper pu{pose o

Arpaio's and the MCSO's own personal and political gain'

60. In Novemb er 2007,the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Arizona ("ACLU"), Daniel Pachoda, rvas arrested by the MCSO after identiffing

himself as being with the ACLU, an organization that Arpaio and the Mcso disapproved

of based on the ACLU's lawsuits against Arpaio and the MCSO' Mr' Pachoda rvas

attending a demonstration as a legal observer in front of an east Phoenix furniture store'

-t5-

I

j

4

)

6

7

8

9

t 0

l l

l 2

t 3

t 4

t 5

l 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

20

a l4 l

22

z1

?5

Mr. pachoda was arrested that day on a misdemeanor charge oltrespassing, which rarely

leads to anything more than a summons to appear in court' Mr' Pachoda, a constitutional

law expert rvith more than 35 years experience, was hauled off to jail and detained for

nearly 12 hours. A Maricopa County Justice of the Peace later ruled that Mr. Pachoda

did not engage in any unlawful behavior prior to his arrest by MCSO deputies'

61. Arpaio and his MCSO deputies arrested Mr. Pachoda in clear violation of

his constitutional rights and pursuant to the MCSO's custom of investigating, arresting,

and prosecuting individuals without probable cause all for political show and personal

vindictiveness.

62. In August 2A07, well-respected and highly decorated Chandler Police

Sergeant Thomas Lovejoy rvas arrested by MCSO follorving the tragic death of his K-9

partner, Bandit, a Belgian Mallinois police dog. On the moming of August I l, 2007,

after working an extended overtime assignment, Sgt. Lovejoy went home. Sgt. Lovejoy

was exhausted and wanted only to go to sleep, having had only 6 % hours of sleep in the

previous 51 hours. Bandit, also exhausted from extended shift rvork, tvas asleep in the

kennel in the back of Sgt. Lovejoy's SUV.

63. Unfortunately, family needs intervened and Sgt. Lovejoy did not get to go

to sleep. Sgt. Lovejoy learned that this stepson, Shane, had been involved in a minor

accident and needed his immediate help. Soon after, Sgt. Lovejoy's wife, Carolynn,

called and tearfully reported that she was having a personal crisis at work. After

attending the scene of Shane's accident and stopping by Carolynn's work to check on

-16-

I

J

.+

5

6

7

8

9

t 0

t l

t 2

l 3

l 4

t 5

t 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

20

2 l

z2

23

?4

z5

her, Sgt. Lovejoy returned home in the afternoon and went inside the house for a brief

nap.

64. When Sgt. Loveioy woke from his nap, he went to his SUV to grab his gear

to take inside the home. He noticed a slange smell in the SUV and opened the back

doors to air our the vehicle. Sgt. Lovejoy realized for the first tirne that Bandit had never

come out of the SUV. After pausing in disbelief for a moment, Sgt' Lovejoy came to

grips with the reality that his friend and partner, Bandit, was dead.

65, After news of Bandit's death became public, Sheriff Arpaio immediately

claimed jurisdiction. Within days, Arpaio held a press conference to announce that he

would be launching a criminal investigation into Sgt. Lovejoy's actions, which the

Chandler Police had originally and correctly deemed was unnecessary. For nearly a

month, MCSO officials interviewed witnesses and collected evidence. On September 5'

2A07, Sgt. Lovejoy received a request from an MCSO detective to meet with him. Sgt.

Lovejoy agreed to meet MCSO detectives at a police substation but was unaware that the

meeting was a ploy. Arpaio intended to arrest Lovejoy.

66. Sgt. Lovejoy was una\\,are that Arpaio had scheduled a press conference to

publicly announce Lovejoy's arrest even before the arrest happened. Arpaio would later

tell the public that Lovejoy was "behind bars" and that he could be charged with a felony

Neither were true. The arrest was publicly staged to provide Arpaio with press attention.

At a press conference, Arpaio touted himself as tough on crime and announced that the

MCSO investigation had found that, Sgt. Thomas Lovejoy violated the law by recklessly

leaving his dog in a police vehicle for 13 hours in a o'reckless manner," even though he

-t7-

I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

r0

l l

t 2

l 3

t 1

l 5

l 6

t'1

l 8

l 9

20

2 l

22

z1

25

knew and would acknowledge that there was no evidence that Sgt. Lovejoy intended to

leave Bandit in the SUV.

67. Arpaio and his MCSO deputies arrested Sgt. Lovejoy in clear violation of

his constitutional rights and pursuant to the MCSO's custom of investigating, anesting.

and prosecuting individuals without probable cause all for politibal show and personal

vindictiveness.

68. These and other instances of targeting, arresting, and prosecuting

individuals without probable cause and in violation of the Constitution demonstrate the

Defendants' pattern and practice of arresting and prosecuting individuals without

probable cause solely for the selfish and improper purposes of achieving personal and

political gain through publicity and other irnproper purposes.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. Q 1983: Failure to Train- Countv Board of Sunervisors,Sheriff Arpaio. and MCSO)

69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

70. SheriffArpaio is a policy maker of Maricopa County and MCSO. Sheriff

Arpaio has the authority and responsibility to establish policy for the MCSO Tactical

Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse, to oversee the operations of the Tactical

Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse, to evaluate applicable standards for the

Tactical Operations Unit and MSCO Volunteer Posse, and is ultimately responsible for

- 1 8 -

I

2

J

4

)

6

'l

8

9

l 0

l l

l 3

l 4

l 5

l 6

t 7

t 8

l 9

20

2 l

2?

23

24

2 5

the conduct of the Tactical Operations Unit and MCSO Volunteer Posse. His actions are

the actions of Maricopa County, the Board and the MCSO'

7l. Sheriff Arpaio and other Defendants were acting under color of law at all

times material hereto.

72. Sheriff Arpaio is named in his official capacity, as well as his individual

capacity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 19S3 direct and supervisory liability, for his conduct as

alleged herein.

73. The County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO have oversight and

supervisory responsibility over their employees and agents. They are entities and/or

municipalit ies, directly l iable under 42 U.S.C. {i 1985.

74. The County, the Board, Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO have long been on

notice and had knorvledge of the unconstitutional policies that led to the destruction of

Mr. Llovera's property.

75. Despite their knowledge of and notice, the County, the Board, Sheriff

Arpaio and MCSO were deliberately and callously indifferent in training (and/or failing

to adequately train) employees, agents and MCSO Volunteer Posse Members in (among

other things) the appropriate, lawful and constitutional policies, procedures, practices,

protocolso and customs for the assessment, use of appropriate force and execution of a

knock warrant.

76. Despite their knowledge and notice, the County, the Board, SheriffArpaio

and MCSO rvere deliberately and callously indifferent to the constitutional rights of the

targets of criminal investigations through fostering, encouraging and knowingly

- t9-

II

2

J

4

5

6

I

8

9

t 0

il

l 2

t i

t 4

t 5

t 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

20

2 l

?2

23

24

25

accepting formal and informal policies or customs condoning indifference to the use of

excessive force and racial profiling, such that the violation of Mr. Llovera's constitutiona

rights and destruction of his property was likely to occur.

77. Despite their knowledge and notice, the County, the Board, SheriffArpaio

and MCSO knerv and should have known that unconstitutional policies. procedures.

practices, protocols, customso and training (or lack thereof) existed and they failed to

address these issues, ratified thern by inaction, and/or establish and implement

appropriate policies, procedures, practices, protocols, customs, and training for using

force that conforrned to federal, state and applicable standards'

78. Despite their knorvledge and notice, Defendants permitted and/or ratified

the implementation of inappropriate, unconstitutional, de facto policies which:

authorized, condoned, and failed to provide appropriate use of force training, and failed

to adequately train and supervise volunteer posse personnel in these and other areas.

79. Defbndants' deliberate, reckless, and callous indifference in failing to train

in these (and other) areas and the condoning and/or ratiffing of such policies, practices,

procedures, protocols, and customs as described herein caused, substantially contributed

to, or was the moving force behind the destruction of Mr. Llovera's property and use of

excessive fbrce upon by MCSO deputies and volunteer posse members.

80. The wrongful conduct of Defendants. as described herein, constitutes

violations of 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, in that with deliberate and callous indifference, they

deprived Mr. Llovera of rights privileges, and immunities secured to them by the

Constitution and laws of the United States.

-20-

I

2

4

)

6

7

8

9

t 0

l l

t 2

t J

1 {

t 5

t 6

1 t

l 8

l 9

20

2 l

22

23

24

25

81. The wrongful conduct of Defendants constitutes violations of the United

States Constitution, Amendments IV, XIII. and XIV, in that Mr. Llovera was deprived of

the privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the United States; was

deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law; and denied his right

to be free of punishment.

82. The wrongt'ul conduct of Sheriff Arpaio acting in his individual capacity,

was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Mr. Llovera, and punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded against him to

punish hirn for his rvrongdoing and to deter and prevent him and others from acting in a

similar manner in the future.

83. The wrongful conduct of Steven Seagal acting in his individual capacity.

was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of Mr. Llovera, and punitive

darnages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be au,arded against him to

punish him for his wrongdoing and to deter and prevent him and others from acting in a

similar manner in the future.

84. The wrongful conduct of each of the members of the Board of Supervisors,

acting in their individual capacities, was malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights

of Mr. Llovera, given the years of notice to and knowledge of them regarding the

unconstitutional policies employed by the MCSO that led to the destruction of Mr.

Llovera's property, including (among others) the improper use of excessive force. As a

result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury should be awarded

- Z l -

I

2

J

t

)

6

1

8

I

l 0

il

l 2

l 3

t 4

t 5

l 6

l 7

r 8

t 9

20

2 l

22

L J

24

25

against each of the Supervisors to punish them for their wrongdoing and to deter and

prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of 42 U.S,C. $ 1983: Malicious and Selective Prosecution, False Arrest,and Abuse of Process - All Defendants)

85. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

86. At all times material hereto, Defendant Sheriff Arpaio was acting under

color of law.

87. The wrongful conduct of all Defendants alleged herein constitutes

violations of the United States Constitution. Amendments IV. V. and XIV, and Title 42

U.S.C. $ 1983, in that rvith deliberate and callous indifference, Mr. Llovera was subject

to malicious and selective prosecution, false arrest, and was investigated, arrested, and

prosecuted without proper cause, with an unconstitutional motive.

88. No legitimate basis existed to investigate and prosecute Mr. Llovera for

violating cockfighting sratures.

89. Arpaio and the MCSO Officers knew that there was no proper or probable

cause to investigate, arrest, and/or apply pressure to force the prosecution of Mr. Llovera.

Nevertheless, Defendants continued their investigations, which culminated in the formal

arrest and prosecution of Mr. Llovera, all accomplished without probable cause.

-22-

r J l

I

2

!+

5

6

8

9

l 0

l t

t 2

l 3

t 4

l 5

l 6

t 7

r 8

l 9

20

? l

22

z )

25

90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct,

Plaintiff s constitutional riehts were violated. and he has suffered harm and has been

injured.

91. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants alleged herein was undertaken

in malice and/or with improper and unconstitutional motives in an attempt to subject Mr.

Llovera to unsubstantiated crirninal charges with the purpose of denying hirn his

constitutional rights. Without any evidence to support a criminal investigation, Mr.

Llovera was wrongfully investigated, arrested, and his prosecution encouraged by

Defendants for improper unconstitutional motives, was subjected to improper abuse of

process and porver for improper motives, and was arrested without proper or probable

cause.

92. The baseless and unlawful investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Mr.

Llovera done solely for personal and political gain and the publicity it generated, lvere

carried out by Defendants pursuant to custom and/or practice of targeting, arresting, and

prosecuting individuals rvithout probable cause, and the constitutional deprivations and

injuries sustained by Mr. Llovera as described herein have been caused by such custom

or practice.

93. Mr. Llovera was subjected to Defendants' wrongful and unconstitutional

conduct in a particularly egregious, conscience-shocking manner.

94. The acts and omissions of Sheriff Arpaio acting in his individual capacity

and under color of lau,, were malicious, punitive, and in reckless disregard for Mr.

Llovera's riehts.

- , ! . )-

I

2

4

6

'7

8

9

l 0

il

l 2

l 3

t 4

t 5

l 6

t 7

r8

l 9

20

2 l

22

z )

24

25

95. As a result, punitive damages in an arnount to be determined by a jury

should be awarded against Sheriff Arpaio to punish him for wrongdoing and to prevent

others from acting in a similar manner in the future.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Conspiracy to Commit Violations of 42 U.S.C. S 1933)

96. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

97. The wrongful conduct of these Defendants as alleged herein was

undertaken pursuant to an agreement or meeting of the minds among these Defendants to

act in concert to violate Mr. Llovera's constitutional rights.

98. These Defendants' acts and/or omissions as alleged herein to pursue and

conduct a crirninal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Mr. Llovera were undertaken

pursuant to a conspiracy among Defendants to violate Mr. Llovera's constitutional rights.

99. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' conspiracy, Mr. Llovera's

rights were violated.

100. The acs and omissions of Arpaio and others within the MCSO in

f'urtherance of their conspiracy, acting in their individual capacities and under color of

lavr'. rvere malicious and/or in reckless disregard for Mr. Llovera's rights.

l0l. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury

should be awarded against Sheriff Arpaio and others that discovery will identifu to

punish thern for rvrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar

manner in the future.

-24-

I

2

4

5

6

1

8

9

t 0

t l

t 2

t 3

l 4

l 5

l 6

t'I

l 8

t 9

20

2 l

22

! J

24

/ )

FOURTH CLATM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of Arizona Law: False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, andAbuse of Process)

102. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth i

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

103. The rvrongful conduct of these Defendants alleged herein constit

violations of Arizona law, in that Defendants unlawfully caused the arrest, detainment

and prosecution of Mr. Llovera without Mr. Llovera's consent and without probabl

cause, unlawfully and maliciously initiated and/or encouraged or instigated the bringi

of crirninal proceedings against Mr. Llovera without probable cause that harmed him

his wife, and willfully used the judicial process and/or criminal proceedings against Mr

Llovera for a improper and ulterior purpose not proper in regular conduct of such p

and proceedings.

104. As a direct and proximate result of Del'endants' acts and omissions al

herein, Mr. Llovera has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

105. The individual Defendants' acts and omissions herein were undertaken rvi

malice, in bad faith, and with the requisite evil rnind sufficient to warrant the i

of punitive damages to deter their conduct and that of others in the future.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence- All Defendants)

106. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in

each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

, l

I

z

4

)

6

8

9

t 0

t l

l 2

t 3

t 4

t 5

t 6

l 7

l 8

l 9

20

a ta l

z4

25

rc7 ' Defendants have both a statutory and common law duty to assure that any

member of the Sheriff s volunteer posse who carries a deadly weapon without a permit

while on duty has passed firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace Officer

Standards and Training Board (..p.O.S.T.").

I08. The county, Arpaio and MCSo are legally responsible for the

management, establishrnent and irnplementation of policies, procedures and protocols

that govern the processing, handling, and management of volunteer posse members who

carry deadly weapons while on duty. Their responsibility includes making certain that

such policies, procedures and protocols satis0 all federal and state standards,

109. The County, Arpaio and MCSO are legally responsible for the screening,

hiring, training, retaining and supervision of all employees who have responsibility for

the processing, handling. and management of volunteer posse members who carry deadly

weapons while on duty. Their responsibility includes making certain that such volunteer

posse members satisfr all federal and state standards.

I 10. Defendants, directly and through their employees, were negligent, upon

information and belief, when they authorized Steven Seagal, a civilian, to commandeer a

V-I50 armored tank, to carry an assault rifle, to carry aside arm, and to authorize him

right to destroy Mr. Llovera's horne and the authority to shoot to kill. Defendants failed

to ensure that Steven Seagal lvas a qualified posse mernber and failed to ensure that

Steven Seagal had firearms training approved by P.O.S.T. before authorizing him to

a deadly assault weapon during MCSO's execution of a search warrant at Mr. Llovera,s

home on March 9,2011.

-26-

I

1

3

)

6

7

8

9

t 0

l l

t 2

t 3

l 4

t 5

r 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

2A

2 l

22

23

24

25

I 1 1. Upon information and belief, Defendants breached their duties by (among

other things) failing to assure that Steven Seagal was an actual qualifred member of the

MCSO volunteer posse before allowing him to control a V-150 tank. allowing him to

possess an assault rifle, bestowing upon him the authority to destroy Mr. Llovera's home

and the authority to shoot to kill; failing to assure that Steven Seagal passed firearms

training that is approved by P.O.S.T.. failing to require Steven Seagal to complete a

standard questionnaire, background check and psychological evaluation, which all

applicants must complete before becoming a qualified armed giosse member; and failing

to train Steven Seagal in Federal and Arizoni constitutional law, the use of deadly force

in Arizona, weapons training, defensive tactics, chemical agents, mechanical restraints.

judgmental use of force and basic firearms academy training.

112. Defendants breached the duties owed to Mr. Llovera.

I13. The negligence was the proximate cause of the destruction of Mr. Llovera's

property and the use of excessive force.

I14. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Mr.

Llovera has suffered both economic and non-economic damages, including those for pain

and suffering.

-27-

I

2

3

4

)

6

8

9

t 0

t l

t 2

I J

l 4

l 5

t 6

t 7

t 8

t 9

20

2 l

22

25

D. The costs of litieations:

E.

F.

under the circumstances.

A. Jury Trial

l 15. Plaintiff hereby requests a rrial by jury.

B. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for damages for judgment against Defendants as

follows:

A. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial:

B. Punitive damages in an amount deemed just and reasonable against

Defendants and others that discovery will identify as to the causes of action alleged

herein;

C. Costs an attorney's fees against Defendants as to the causes of

actions alleged under the Constitution and laws of the United States, pursuant to 42

u.s.c. ! i le88;

All rernedies providedby 42 U.S.C. g 1983; and

Such other and further relief which may seem just and reasonable

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6ft day of March. 2012.

J. CamposAttorney for Plaintiff

| , r . ;

2

6

8

9

t 0

il

t 2

t 3

t 4

r5

l 6

t 7

r 8

t9

20

r l

'))

. A

2s

Original filed on this 6th day of March,20l2 with:

Clerk of the CourtMaricopa County Superior Court201 W. JeffersonPhoenix, AZ 85003

Copies of the foregoing delivered/mailedthis 6th day of March, 2012, ro:

Ms. Fran McCarrollClerk ol'the Board of SupervisorsCOLI-NTY OF MARICOPA301 West Jefferson, lOth FloorPhoenix, Arizona 85003

Mr. Joseph M. Arpaio, SheriflfMaricopa County Sheriff s Office (MCSO)100 West Washington, Suite 1900Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Mr. Steven SeagalMaricopa County Sheriff s Oftice100 West Washington, Suite 1900Phoenix. Arizona 85003

-29-