htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com...2020/08/10 · COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL BRANCH DIVISION NO. FILED ELECTRONICALLY LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

CIVIL BRANCH

____ DIVISION

NO. ____

FILED ELECTRONICALLY

LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY PLAINTIFF

METRO GOVERNMENT for itself and on behalf of

its Cabinets, Divisions, Departments, Officers and Employees.

v. VERIFIED COMPLAINT

LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL; DEFENDANTS

Serve:

Via Jefferson County Sheriff

Councilman David James

601 W. Jefferson Street

Louisville, KY 40202

JESSICA GREEN, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 1;

BARBARA SHANKLIN, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council

District 2;

KEISHA DORSEY, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 3;

BARBARA SEXTON SMITH, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council

District 4;

DONNA PURVIS, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 5;

DAVID JAMES, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 6;

PAULA McCRANEY, in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro Council District

7;

BRANDON COAN, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 8;

BILL HOLLANDER, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 9;

PAT MULVIHILL, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 10;

KEVIN KRAMER, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 11;

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

001

of

0001

88

2

RICK BLACKWELL, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 12;

MARK FOX, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 13;

CINDI FOWLER, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 14;

KEVIN TRIPLETT, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 15;

SCOTT REED, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 16;

MARKUS WINKLER, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 17;

MARILYN PARKER, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 18;

ANTHONY PIAGENTINI, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council

District 19;

STUART BENSON, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 20;

NICOLE GEORGE, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 21;

ROBIN ENGEL, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 22;

JAMES PEDEN, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 23;

MADONNA FLOOD, in her official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 24;

DAVID YATES, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 25; and

BRENT ACKERSON, in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 26.

Serve All Members:

Via Jefferson County Sheriff

601 W. Jefferson Street

Louisville, Kentucky 40202

** ** ** ** ** **

Comes Plaintiff, Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (the “Plaintiff” or “Metro

Government”) for itself and on behalf of its Cabinets, Divisions, Departments, Officers and

Employees by counsel, and for their Complaint against Defendants, Louisville Metro Council

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

002

of

0001

88

3

(“Metro Council”), Jessica Green (“Green”), in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro

Council District 1, Barbara Shanklin (“Shanklin”), in her official capacity as Councilwoman for

Metro Council District 2, Keisha Dorsey (“Dorsey”), in her official capacity as Councilwoman for

Metro Council District 3, Barbara Sexton Smith (“Smith”), in her official capacity as

Councilwoman for Metro Council District 4, Donna Purvis (“Purvis”), in her official capacity as

Councilwoman for Metro Council District 5, David James (“James”), in his official capacity as

Councilman for Metro Council District 6, Paula McCraney (“McCraney”), in her official capacity

as Councilwoman for Metro Council District 7, Brandon Coan (“Coan”), in his official capacity

as Councilman for Metro Council District 8, Bill Hollander (“Hollander”), in his official capacity

as Councilman for Metro Council District 9, Pat Mulvihill (“Mulvihill”), in his official capacity

as Councilman for Metro Council District 10, Kevin Kramer (“Kramer”), in his official capacity

as Councilman for Metro Council District 11, Rick Blackwell (“Blackwell”), in his official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 12, Mark Fox (“Fox”), in his official capacity

as Councilman for Metro Council District 13, Cindi Fowler (“Fowler”), in her official capacity as

Councilman for Metro Council District 14, Kevin Triplett (“Triplett”), in his official capacity as

Councilman for Metro Council District 15, Scott Reed (“Reed”), in his official capacity as

Councilman for Metro Council District 16, Markus Winkler (“Winkler”), in his official capacity

as Councilman for Metro Council District 17, Marilyn Parker (“Parker”), in her official capacity

as Councilman for Metro Council District 18, Anthony Piagentini (“Piagentini”), in his official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 19, Stuart Benson (“Benson”), in his official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 20, Nicole George (“George”), in her official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 21, Robin Engel (“Engel”), in his official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 22, James Peden (“Peden”), in his official

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

003

of

0001

88

4

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 23, Madonna Flood (“Flood”), in her official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 24, David Yates (“Yates”), in his official

capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 25, Brent Ackerson (“Ackerson”), in his

official capacity as Councilman for Metro Council District 26 (Defendants collectively are referred

to herein as the “Defendants”), hereby states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

This action addresses three distinct questions. The first two concern the interplay between

KRS 61.810 to KRS 67C.103(14). Specifically, whether the testimony the Metro Council seeks,

though its Government Oversight and Audit Committee (hereinafter the “Committee”)1 from

Metro Government’s Chief of Public Safety, Amy Hess (“Chief Hess”) (and eventually others2)

concerns pending litigation so that it must be taken in executive session, and if it does, who has

the right to waive that requirement? Further, this matter involves separation of powers and the

proper scope of any investigation initiated by the Committee.

Plaintiff has fully cooperated with, and in turn sought the cooperation of the Committee,

ever since it voted on July 14, 2020, to investigate the actions and alleged inaction of the Metro

Government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and related

protests in Louisville. Specifically, following a written request from the Committee Chairman,

the Plaintiff agreed that Chief Hess and Louisville Metropolitan Police Department (“LMPD”)

Chief Robert Schroeder (“Chief Schroeder”) would appear voluntarily before the Committee on

August 3, 2020 and testify in open session on certain enumerated subjects outlined in a July 30,

2020 e-mail from the Committee’s attorneys.

1 In certain documentation, the Committee is referred to as the GOAC. 2 Through its Government Oversight and Audit Committee, the Metro Council has the power to subpoena officers or

appointees of certain boards or commissions and any department of division of the consolidated local government.

KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2).

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

004

of

0001

88

5

On the evening of Thursday July 30, 2020, subsequent to the parties agreeing on the date,

manner, and subjects of the proposed testimony of August 3, 2020, a sweeping federal civil rights

lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against

the Metro Government, Mayor Fischer, Chief Schroeder, Assistant Chief LaVita Chavous and

seventeen LMPD officers, being specifically, Scott et al v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro

Government, et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky No. 3:20-cv-00535-

CRS (the “Scott Action”). The Scott Action seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf

of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated and seeks to enjoin Metro Government and

LMPD’s use of various tactical measures with respect to future protests.

Because the allegations and claims in the Scott Action completely subsume the topics that

were on the Committee agenda for August 3, 2020, Plaintiff communicated to the Defendants their

commitment to proceed with Chief Hess’s and Chief Schroeder’s testimony in executive session

on that date pursuant to the express mandate of KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2), or alternatively, to waive

that requirement and testify in an open session on a date in the future when doing so would not

adversely impact the newly filed pending litigation. Through counsel, Plaintiff estimated that it

would at least be prepared to waive that requirement and present Chief Hess in approximately 30

days, absent unforeseen circumstances. This proposal was made first in writing, and then again

during the August 3, 2020 special meeting of the Committee. Rather than accept either proposal,

the Committee, through its Chair, emphatically and dramatically told the witnesses where the door

was and advised them to leave. Subsequently, on August 5, 2020, the Committee issued a

Subpoena to Chief Hess and issued a separate subpoena to Chief Schroeder compelling them to

testify on August 17, 2020. Although the subpoena does not expressly indicate the testimony will

be sought in open session, that fact appears clear from all surrounding circumstances.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

005

of

0001

88

6

In an effort to continue to find common ground and avoid a legal dispute, Plaintiff renewed

its commitment to presenting Chief Hess to testify in an open meeting at a time when she could

reasonably do so without adversely impacting the pending litigation. In the renewed offer, Plaintiff

again stated this could likely be accomplished as early as the first week of September, and Plaintiff

offered to present other witnesses who could testify in open session on matters of interest to the

GOAC, but which are not covered by the pending litigation. This renewed request has been ignored

to date, and Plaintiff is left with little choice other than bring this action.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government is the executive authority

for the consolidated local government of Louisville/Jefferson County, organized under KRS

Chapter 67C. The Mayor of Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government is Greg Fischer (the

“Mayor”). The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Metro Government and, accordingly,

has all executive and administrative power of the same. The Mayor is responsible for, and has

supervisory authority over, numerous executive cabinets, departments, and divisions all of which

comprise his Administration (the “Administration”).

2. Defendant Metro Council is the legislative authority for the consolidated local

government of Louisville/Jefferson County, organized under KRS Chapter 67C. In this capacity,

the Metro Council is the legislative body for the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government.

Pursuant to CR 4.04, it may be served by serving Council President David James and Metro

Council attorney Jonathan Ricketts.

3. Defendant Jessica Green is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro

Council District 1. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

006

of

0001

88

7

4. Defendant Barbara Shanklin is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for

Metro Council District 2. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

5. Defendant Keisha Dorsey is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for


6. Defendant Barbara Sexton Smith is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman

for Metro Council District 4. Pursuant to CR 4.04, she may be served in person.

7. Defendant Donna Purvis is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro


8. Defendant David James is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro

Council District 6. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

9. Defendant Paula McCraney is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for


10. Defendant Brandon Coan is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


11. Defendant Bill Hollander is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


12. Defendant Pat Mulvihill is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


13. Defendant Kevin Kramer is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


14. Defendant Rick Blackwell is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

007

of

0001

88

8

15. Defendant Mark Fox is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


16. Defendant Cindi Fowler is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for Metro


17. Defendant Kevin Triplett is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


18. Defendant Scott Reed is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


19. Defendant Markus Winkler is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


20. Defendant Marilyn Parker is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for


21. Defendant Anthony Piagentini is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for

Metro Council District 19. Pursuant to CR 4.04, he may be served in person.

22. Defendant Stuart Benson is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


23. Defendant Nicole George is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for


24. Defendant Robin Engel is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


25. Defendant James Peden is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

008

of

0001

88

9

26. Defendant Madonna Flood is sued in her official capacity as Councilwoman for


27. Defendant David Yates is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


28. Defendant Brent Ackerson is sued in his official capacity as Councilman for Metro


29. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to KRS 23A.010 and KRS

418.040, and venue is proper pursuant to KRS 452. 405 and KRS 452.450.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

30. The Metro Council is the legislative body for the Louisville-Jefferson County

Metro Government.

31. KRS 67C.103 provides, in relevant part, that

(13) All legislative powers of a consolidated local government are vested in

the consolidated local government council. The term "legislative power" is

to be construed broadly and shall include the power to:

(f) Make independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs

of the consolidated local government and any board or commission

that:

1. Is composed of members who are appointed by the mayor

and approved by the legislative council; or

2. Has a budget that is equal to or greater than one million

dollars ($1,000,000.00), except that this subparagraph shall

not apply to any fee officer elected within the consolidated

local government.

32. KRS 67C.103(14)(a) provides that “[t]he consolidated local government council

shall establish a Government Oversight and Audit Committee.” Id.

33. This committee has the power to:

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

009

of

0001

88

10

1. Compel testimony and the submission of work papers or documents;

2. Issue subpoenas to compel any officer of or appointee to a board or

commission described in subsection (13)(f) of this section or any

department or division of the consolidated local government to

appear before the committee and to compel the submission to the

committee of any work papers or documents pertinent to an

independent audit or investigation. Any subpoenas issued or

testimony compelled shall be subject to any relevant statutes

concerning privacy. Testimony subject to KRS 61.810 shall only be

taken in executive session. The right to privacy or the requirement

that testimony be taken in executive session may be waived by the

person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify;

3. Petition the appropriate Circuit Court to compel obedience by

proceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of a

subpoena issued from the Circuit Court or a refusal to testify therein,

if any officer or appointee fails or refuses to testify or furnish the

work papers or documents subpoenaed[.]

34. Per the express terms of the statute, the powers granted to the Metro Council flow

from its “legislative power.”

35. Pursuant to these provisions, the Metro Council formed the Committee. The

Committee, at all relevant times herein, is part of and acting under the authority of, the Metro

Council.

36. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro

Government and exercises those powers set forth therein in KRS 67C.105 including the authority

to supervise, administer and control all departments and agencies

37. In her capacity as Chief of Public Safety, Chief Amy Hess is responsible for, and

has supervisory authority over, Louisville Fire, Emergency Services, Corrections, and the LMPD.

38. On or about March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor (“Taylor”) was shot and killed during

the execution of a search warrant. Taylor’s shooting garnered national attention and community

leaders called for an investigation into the shooting.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

010

of

0001

88

11

39. On or about May 25, 2020, George Floyd (“Floyd”) was killed while being arrested

by the Minneapolis Police Department. Within days of Floyd’s death, massive large-scale protests

swept through the nation.

40. The deaths of Taylor and Floyd caused significant protests in downtown Louisville

beginning on or about May 28, 2020 and continue to the present day.

41. During the protests, LMPD, Kentucky State Police (“KSP”), and members of the

Kentucky National Guard were, at various times, responsible for the safety of the public including

the large majority of protestors who were protesting peacefully.

42. Since June 1, 2020, Chief Hess has had supervisory authority and responsibility

over the LMPD.

43. Unfortunately, some individuals took the opportunity to not engage in a peaceful

protest, but instead to engage in unlawful behavior including violent confrontations with law

enforcement and the widescale destruction of property.

44. These activities led to interactions between protestors and the LMPD, KSP, and the

National Guard. During these interactions, various methods of crowd control were utilized by law

enforcement.

45. On May 31, 2020, David McAtee (“McAtee”) was shot and killed during an

encounter with law enforcement including the National Guard near Dino’s Food Mart, sparking

further protests.

46. The Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and

the KSP have each either initiated their own or assumed oversight of certain investigations of the

Taylor and McAtee deaths, and those investigations are ongoing.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

011

of

0001

88

12

47. On July 14, 2020, the Metro Council passed Order No. 003, Series 2020 entitled

An Order to Investigate the Actions and Inaction of the Administration Surrounding the Death of

Breonna Taylor, the Death of David McAtee, and Related Protests in Louisville Metro (the

“Order”). July 14, 2020 Order (attached hereto as Exhibit A.).

48. The Order references the death of Taylor, the protests, and the shooting of McAtee.

Id. at 1. The Order states that “the protests sparked law-enforcement responses and actions that

included the lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, other

chemical agents, and other techniques[.]” Id.

49. The Order alleges that “critical information about the planning, training,

communication, and execution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna Taylor’s

home and her death has been withheld from the public” and that “information surrounding the

planning, coordination, training, and execution of responses by activated National Guard personnel

working in concert with LMPD has been withheld from the public[.]” Id.

50. In part, the Order states that:

[The] Metro Council and the public at large seek to better understand these

events and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions

made by, and orders given by any officers of the consolidated local

government and any board or commission described in KRS §

67C.103(13)(f), including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, his

leadership team, and his administration (the “Administration”) and LMPD

by and through its agents[.]

51. The Order states that the “Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a

transparent, public process whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing

information is revealed to help resolve” the issues referenced in the Order. Id. at 2.

52. The Order thereby authorizes the Committee to investigate the matters and, after

the investigation, “report findings of fact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

012

of

0001

88

13

make recommendations for any changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and

processes for investigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.” Id.

53. The Order provides:

The scope of this investigation shall include, but not be limited to:

- Working with any counsel for GOAC/Louisville Metro Council,

and/or its designated investigator.

- Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions

of officers of the consolidated local government and any board or

commission described in KRS § 67C.103(13)(f), including but not limited

to Mayor Greg Fischer, his leadership team, and his administration (the

"Administration") and LMPD by and through its agents that led to the

search warrant execution and shooting death of Breonna Taylor on March

13, 2020.

- Identifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents,

policies, processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro

Government and impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and

David McAtee.

- Identifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems

that led to the execution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in

the middle of the night, and the death of Breonna Taylor.

- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best

practices, and follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD

in relation to the death of Breonna Taylor.

- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best

practices, and follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD

in relation to the death of David McAtee.

- Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD

in response to protesting occurring in Louisville Metro following the death

of Breonna Taylor.

- Interviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the

foregoing public concerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena

authority set forth in KRS 67C.103(14)(e).

Order at 2-3.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

013

of

0001

88

14

54. The Order directs that the Committee “will conduct the investigation into the

Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David

McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding to protests in Louisville Metro with the

legislative power contained in KRS §§ 67C.103(13)(f), 67C.103(14), and according to Metro

Council Rule 4A.04(b).” Id. at 3.

55. Finally, the Order provides that the Committee “Chair shall have the power to issue

subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS §§ 67C.103(14)(e) and Metro Council Rule

4A.04(b) during regular or special meetings of the Committee.” Id. at 3.

56. In furtherance of the Order, on July 17, 2020, the Chairman of the Committee,

Councilman Brent Ackerson sent a letter to Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder formally requesting

that each appear for a hearing before the Committee on or before August 5, 2020. July 17, 2020

Correspondence (attached hereto as Exhibit B). According to the July 17, 2020 correspondence,

the Committee would refrain from asking Chief Hess or Chief Schroeder to divulge “information

which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation." Id.

57. Through correspondence from counsel for the Committee on July 30, 2020, the

Committee conveyed to the Metro Government that it intended to question Chief Hess and Chief

Schroeder regarding the following topics:

A) vandalism, and the response to it;

B) the use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be

targeted or came in contact with the same;

C) the placement of snipers on rooftops;

D) the placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment;

E) the warning to and communications with protestors;

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

014

of

0001

88

15

F) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other

equipment by officers;

G) any “stand-down” order(s), directives, guidance given or passed

along to government responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.; and

H) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino’s the night David

McAtee was shot.

See July 30, 2020 E-mail (attached hereto as Exhibit C).

58. With the understanding that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder’s appearances would

not require them to divulge any information regarding ongoing investigations, the Metro

Government agreed that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would appear before the Committee on

August 3, 2020.

59. Subsequently, on July 30, 2020, the Scott Action was filed in the United States

District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. See Scott Complaint (attached hereto as

Exhibit D).

60. The Scott Action names as defendants therein: the Metro Government, the Mayor,

individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville, Chief Schroeder, individually and

in his official capacity as Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, LaVita

Chavous, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan

Police Department, Louisville Metropolitan Police Department Officer “J.” Johnson, Louisville

Metropolitan Police Department Officer John Does #1-#15, and Jane Doe #1, in their individual

capacities. Id.

61. The plaintiffs in the Scott Action assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil

rights violations and common law directly related to the topics that the Committee seeks to

question Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder regarding. The Scott Action concerns the Metro

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

015

of

0001

88

16

Government’s response to the protests throughout Louisville beginning on May 28, 2020.

Specifically, the Scott Action raises allegations of the use of tear gas and pepper balls,3 allegations

that the media was targeted or came into contact with such agents;4 the stationing of officers atop

buildings;5 the placement and use of sound equipment;6 warnings and communications with

protesters [and others];7 the use of helmets and other protective gear;8 purported stand-down

orders, directives, guidance given or passed along to government responders;9 and how or why

law enforcement came to be at Dino’s the night David McAtee was shot.10

62. The plaintiffs in the Scott Action seek compensatory and punitive damages, and

injunctive relief against the Metro Government and the LMPD.

63. The Kentucky Open Meetings Act is codified in KRS 61.800 through KRS 61.850.

The Open Meetings Act. KRS 61.810 codifies several exceptions to the requirement that public

meetings be done in open session including the litigation exception which provides that an agency

may enter a closed or executive session for “discussions of proposed or pending litigation against

or on behalf of the public agency.” KRS 61.810(c).

3 See Scott Complaint at paras. 37, 39-42, 44-47, 50, 52, 56-7, 59-60, 64, 68, 70, 74, 78-79, 81-84, 87, 90, 98, 101-

103, 106,, 122-125, 128-129, 133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187, 194-196, 216, 227, 231-233, 239,

250 and 273. 4 Id. at para. 49 alleges LMPD officers targeted journalists, and para. 107 alleges an LMPD officer shot a reporter

from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ball on June 17, 2020 5 Id. at para. 226. 6 Id. at para. 100 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. 104, 108 and 137-138, 204 and 239 all allege

the use of LRAD’s by LMPD. 7 Id. at para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs (who seek class certification on

behalf of all peaceful protesters) include “whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd

Control Weaponry;”. 8 Id. at paras. 35, 101, 142, 155, 163, 180, 208 and 227 all concern the use of helmets or other riot/protective gear by

LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters [and others]. 9 The Scott Complaint, para 94 alleges that “[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant

Fischer apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be instituting needed

reforms to the LMPD’s use of force practices. But the very next day, in response to criticism from the LMPD,

Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating that he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to “stand

down” and that Defendant Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.” 10 Id. at para. 69 alleges that on the evening of May 31, 2020, “two and a half miles from the site of the protests

downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while attempting to disperse a small

social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee’s restaurant,” which is across the street from Dino’s.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

016

of

0001

88

17

64. Through KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2), the subpoena power of the Committee is

expressly limited by the exceptions to the Open Meeting Act contained in KRS 61.810, including

the litigation exception.

65. Therefore, any testimony solicited or subpoenaed by the Committee must be taken

in executive session if it includes “discussions of proposed or pending litigation against or on

behalf of the public agency.” KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2) and KRS 61.810.

66. KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2) states that “. . . the requirement that testimony be taken in

executive session may be waived by the person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify.”

67. The subject matter and allegations allegedly supporting the plaintiffs’ claims in the

Scott Action directly relate to and are encompassed in the line of questioning that the Committee

seeks to ask Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder about. Therefore, the proposed testimony of Chief

Hess and Chief Schroeder would directly relate to and touch upon every aspect of the potential

defense, answer, strategy, and positions of the Metro Government, the LMPD, and all of the named

defendants in the Scott Action.

68. Following the filing of the Scott Action, counsel for the Metro Government, Chief

Hess and Chief Schroeder contacted the Committee and indicated that, in light of the relief sought

by the Scott plaintiffs, the fact that Chief Schroeder did not have sufficient time to confer with

personal counsel, and the congruence between the Scott Action and the Committee’s investigation,

pursuant to KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would only

testify in executive session should the Committee wish to proceed as scheduled on August 3, or

would be willing to sit for a public hearing at a date in the near future when doing so would not

adversely impact the defendants’ litigation position in the Scott action. Metro Government August

3, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit E).

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

017

of

0001

88

18

69. In response, the Committee Chairman, Counselman Brent Ackerson, indicated

through counsel that he did not intend to conduct the appearance in executive session and would

not delay or continue the August 3, 2020 hearing until a date in the future when one or both

witnesses would waive the executive session requirement set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2).

Committee August 3, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit F).

70. Specifically, the Committee Chairman has taken the position that KRS

67C.103(14)(b) does not require that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder’s testimony to be taken in

executive session as he does not believe the testimony falls within the scope of KRS 61.810. The

Committee Chairman further indicated his intent to waive the executive session requirement as he

contends it is his right to do.

71. On August 3, 2020, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder appeared before the

Committee and again conveyed that they were more than willing to answer questions regarding

the Committee’s investigation but, pursuant to KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, would only

do so on that day in an executive session in light of the Scott Action.

72. During the August 3, 2020 hearing, Chairman Ackerson responded by stating that

“my sole focus is to get the truth out to the public about what has happened and why.” Later, the

Chair said “today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chair of this body whose job it is to get

the truth out here to the public. . . .”

73. Chairman Ackerson refused to allow for testimony in executive session and

indicated that the Committee is “not going into executive session. There will be nothing hidden 5C

F9A

EE

6-75

E6-

4565

-BC

CF

-526

EE

B9F

4866

: 0

0001

8 o

f 00

0188

19

from the public regarding this matter” and went on to state “Zero. Plain and simple. So, with that

being said, if you're not going to proceed, there's the door.”11

74. As the Committee refused to respect the mandate set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2)

that it only take testimony on a matter covered by KRS 61.810 in executive session, Chief Hess and

Chief Schroeder excused themselves from the August 3, 2020 meeting.

75. On August 5, 2020, the Committee issued a Subpoena to Chief Hess and issued a

separate subpoena to Chief Schroeder. See August 5, 2020 Subpoena (attached hereto as Exhibit

G). The Subpoena demands that Chief Hess appear before the Committee on August 17, 2020 to

testify relating to the investigation authorized by the Order. The Subpoena conveys that Chief

Hess’s “failure to obey this subpoena may subject you to contempt proceedings as provided in

KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b).

76. Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder have nothing to hide and remain willing to testify

in executive session, or in an open session at a future date when doing so will not adversely impact

the Scott Action. In fact, on August 7, 2020, Plaintiff, through counsel, again reached out to the

Committee to reiterate its willingness for Chief Hess to testify in open session once a brief,

reasonable time was allowed for the Metro Government to evaluate the Scott Action. See August

7, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit H). Plaintiff further conveyed that Chief Hess would

be willing to testify in executive session on August 17, 2020 pursuant to the express language of

KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810.

77. Finally, in their correspondence, Plaintiff conveyed to the Committee its concerns

that the Committee may be exceeding the scope of its authority granted by the Kentucky General

11 It is unclear from the pubic proceedings whether the Chair sought or had the consensus of his fellow committee

members on this point, despite the fact that KRS 61.815 provides a very clear procedure for going into executive

session, which involves action by the committee as a whole, and is not vested in the Chair.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

019

of

0001

88

20

Assembly under KRS 67C.103(14)(b) based on comments from the Chair about the purpose and

objectives of the hearing, i.e., to get the truth out to the public.

78. Upon information and belief, the Committee neither intends to go into executive

session when compelling testimony from Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder on August 17, 2020,

nor intends to delay hearing from these witnesses until a later date when they would be prepared

to waive the executive session requirement.

COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO KRS CHAPTER 418

79. Plaintiff hereby incorporate the allegations of preceding paragraphs 1 through 78

as though set forth fully herein.

80. Because of the foregoing, there exists a controversy between Plaintiff and

Defendants concerning the interpretation of KRS 61.810(c) and its interplay with KRS

67C.103(14)(b) in these circumstances.

81. Further, there exists a separate controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants as to

the scope of the Committee’s authority in conducting its investigation, as parts of the Committee’s

Order investigation and the comments of the Committees’ Chairperson stray from a legislative

purpose and evidence an intent to engage in a general fact-finding mission.

82. In accordance with KRS 418.040 and KRS 418.045, this Court is empowered to

make a binding declaration of the parties’ respective rights and obligations regarding KRS

67C.103(14)(b) on the questions of whether the topics on which it intends to compel testimony

pursuant to its August 5, 2020 subpoenas concerns pending litigation so as to fall into the exception

to open meetings set out in KRS 61.810(c), and if it does, who holds the ability to waive that

requirement—i.e., the Committee or the person/agency receiving the subpoena.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

020

of

0001

88

21

83. Further, the Court is empowered to make a binding declaration of the parties’

respective rights and obligations regarding the scope of the Committee’s investigation and the

requirement that it must be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative

purpose.

COUNT II: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

84. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of preceding paragraphs 1 through 83

as though set forth fully herein.

85. The Committee is seeking to enforce KRS 67C.103(14)(b) in a manner that is in

contravention of its statutory authority.

86. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the August 5, 2020 subpoena is enforced and

Chief Hess is either required to testify in open session before the Committee, or risk being held in

contempt if she refuses. Moreover, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the Committee proceeds

in a manner that is not reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose

87. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and injunctive relief is necessary to protect

their rights.

88. Further, the questions presented in this action are capable of repetition in the future

given the class of persons subject to the Committee’s subpoena power, which further presents a

justiciable case or controversy warranting a declaration of the parties’ rights, with respect to not

only the outstanding subpoenas, but as to any subsequently served subpoenas.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:

A. Pursuant to KRS 418.050, this action be docketed for early hearing as in the case

of a motion;

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

021

of

0001

88

22

B. Upon such hearing, this Court enter its Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the

Defendants declaring that:

i. KRS 67C.103(14)(b) requires that any testimony given by Chief Hess or

other witnesses on matters that are subject to pending litigation be given in

executive session;

ii. it is the individual or agency subpoenaed who holds the privilege to waive

the requirement that testimony regarding pending litigation be taken in

executive session; and

iii. the Committee’s investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that

serve a legitimate legislative purpose;

C. For injunctive relief restraining the Metro Council from enforcing its August 5,

2020 Legislative Subpoena requiring Chief Hess to “testify [in an open session] before the

Government Oversight and Audit Committee” on August 17, 2020 at 2:30 p.m., restraining the

Metro Council from requiring Chief Hess or any other witness subject to the Committee’s

subpoena power to testify in an open session on matters concerning pending litigation unless the

witness or the agency presenting the witness waives that requirement, and requiring that the scope

of the Government Oversight and Audit Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to

matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose; and

D. For such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may appear entitled under the

circumstances. 5C

F9A

EE

6-75

E6-

4565

-BC

CF

-526

EE

B9F

4866

: 0

0002

2 o

f 00

0188

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

023

of

0001

88

oRDER NO. 0oS,SER|ES 2o2o

AN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF THEADMINISTRATION SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF BREONNATAYLOR, THE DEATH OF DAVID MCATEE, AND RELATEDPROTESTS IN LOUISVILLE METRO

SPONSORED BY: GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AUDTTCOMMITTEE CHAIR BRENT ACKERSON AND VICE CHAIR ANTHONYPIAGENTINI

WHEREAS, in the early morning hours of March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor was shotand killed inside her home by the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), part ofLouisville Metro Government, and which reports to the Mayor;

WHEREAS, during a subsequent night of protests in Louisville Metro, David McAteewas shot and killed at his place of business by a Kentucky National Guard soldierworking alongside LMPD;

WHEREAS, the protests sparked law-enforcement re$ponse$ and actions that includedthe lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, otherchemical agents, and other techniques;

WHEREI\S, rnuch critical information about the planning, training, communication, andexecution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna Taylor's homeand her death has been withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;

WHEREAS, information surrounding the planning, coordination, training, and executionof responses by activated National Guard personnel working in concert with LMPD hasbeen withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;

WHEREAS, the uncertainty of these months-long investigations with no additionalinformation afforded the families or the public has sown distrust, unrest, and damage toour social fabric, the confidence in government, and general community morale;

WHEREAS, Metro Council and the public at large seek to better understand theseevents and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions made by,and orders given by any officers of the consolidated local government and any board orcommission described in KRS S 67C,103(13X0, including but not limited to Mayor GregFischer, his leadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration") and LMPD byand through its agents; ;

1

EXHIBIT A

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

024

of

0001

88

WHEREAS, Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a transparent, publicprocess whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing informationis revealed to help resolve the aforementioned issues and omissions;

WHEREAS, under KRS $ 67C.103(13Xf), the Legislative Council of theLouisvillelJefferson County Metro Government ("Metro Council") shall have the power to"[m]ake independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs of the consolidatedlocal government";

WHEREAS, Metro Council will investigate these concerns regarding the Administrationin the Government Oversight and Audit Commiftee (.GOAC") utilizing powers set forthin KRS S 67C.103(14); and;

WHEREAS, at the completion of the GOAC investigation, GOAC will report findings offact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or make recommendations forany changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and processes forinvestigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THELOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT {"METRO COUNCIL"IAS FOLLOWST

SECTION l: Louisville Metro Council, through the Government Oversight and AuditCommittee, hereby initiates an investigation into the actions and inaction of theAdministration leading to the no-knock search warrant and subsequent shooting deathof Breonna Taylor, the shooting death of David McAtee during protests in LouisvilleMetro, and the planning and response to protests and destructive activity in LouisvilleMetro following these deaths. The scope of this investigation shall include, but not belimited to:

Working with any counsel for GOACllouisville Metro Council, andlor itsdesig nated investigator.

Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions of officersof the consolidated local government and any board or commission described inKRS $ 67C.103(13Xil, including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, hisleadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration")and LMPD by andthrough its agents that led to the search warrant execution and shooting deathof Breonna Taylor on March 13,2020.

ldentifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents, policies,

2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

025

of

0001

88

processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro Governmentand impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee.

ldentifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems that led to theexecution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of thenight, and the death of Breonna Taylor"

ldentifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, andfollow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to thedeath of Breonna Taylor.

ldentifying any error$ or omissions in following procedures, best practices, andfollow-up decisions rnade by the Administration and LMPD in relation to thedeath of David McAtee"

Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD in resporrseto protesting occurring in Louisville Metro following the death of Breonna Taylor.

lnterviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the foregoing publicooncerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena authority set forth in KRS67C.103(14Xe).

SECTION ll: The Government Oversight and Audit Commifiee will conduct theinvestigation into the Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death ofBreonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding toprotests in Louisville Metro with the legislative power contained in KRS $$67C.103(13X0, 67C.103(14), and according to Metro Council Rute 4A.04(b).

SECTION lll: The Government Oversight and Audit Committee Chair shatt have thepower to issue subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS S$ 67C.103{14)(e)and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b) during regular or special s of the Committee.

SECTION lV: This r shalltake effect upon its pas

Metro CouncilClerk Govern Oversight and AuditCommittee

3

LOUISVI LLF MFTRO COUNCIL

?sADOPTED

Approved?S)-e)

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

026

of

0001

88

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG,ALITY:

Jonathan Ricketts

BY

4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

027

of

0001

88

. \l t{*.

P^) ;)

Lor;rsv rt .t",n M.rlno Ct-llrNc: tt-

[]ru,x l'1. Ar. xti'Ls(.tr-

2 (i'r r r I ) r;s rntt:'r' C.'ot-jN-(:il..N' r\ N

luly 17,2020

Amy HessChief of Public Services527 W . Jefferson Street, Fourth FloorLouisville, KY 40202arny. hess@louisvilleky. gov

Sent via US Mail and Email

RE: Louisville Metro Council, Government Oversight and Audit CommitteeoR-004-20

Dear Chief Hess

On July 14,2020, the Louisville Metro Council, Government Oversight and Audit Committee(hereinafter "Committec"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and

inactions of the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of DavidMcAtee, and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.

To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers.

Please provide us with dates between now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the

Committee. We ask that you please block out 2-4 hours for questions and discussion with the Committee.

Please be advised that the Committee shall refrain, at this time, from asking you to divulgeinformation which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attomey General and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Ackerson, ChairmanOversight and Audit Cornmittee

(:01 \\t.l[,l,r,riRsr]N S1nr.r,r. . (502) 574-1126 . Lor.llsvlr.r.r,i, KY 40202 ' wlvrv.louisvilleky.gov 'i'1(:*;:::r"'

EXHIBIT B

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

028

of

0001

88

Louisr.,rt-t,n Mu't'no CouxcnIl rr r,*-'r''ll Ai. rrp.sr-r

"'l(ir t l l)ts'r'utc: r: C"'ouNr.tt"it.rin

Ju,ly 17,2020

Robert SchroederInterim Chief, LMPD633 W. Jefferson StreetLouisville, KY 40202robert. schroeder@louisvil leky. gov

Sent via US Mailand Email


Dear Interim Chief Schroeder:

On July 14,2020, the Louisville Metro Council, Government Oversight and Audit Committee(hereinafter "Committee"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and inactionsof the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee,and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.

To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers,Please provide us with dates befween now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the


Please be advised that the Committee shall refrain, at this time, from asking you to divulgeinformation which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and theFederal Bureau of Investigation.

Thank YOU,

. Ackerson, Chairmanent Oversight and Audit Committee

601 W .ll,t,l,l,RspN Slnr,r;r' . (-5021 574-1126 . L<)Lllsvn,.l-t, Ky40202 . 1v11'lv,lsuisvitleky.gor' -.'ii,it"

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

029

of

0001

88

From : Jonatha n Ricketts <Jonatha n, Ricketts@ rickettslawoffi ces,com>

Sent: Thursday, July 30,2020 t2:02 PM

To: Steve Amato <[email protected]>; David J. Guarnieri <[email protected]>

Cc: Ch ristopher Bush <Ch ristopher. Bush @ rickettslawoffices.com>Subject: Aug 3 GOAC Meeting follow-up between counsel

Steve and David,

This follows our call on 7 /28,ln an attempt to answer questions on behalf of your client, we had a

chance to speak with Chairman Ackerson regarding the oath, "pre-meetings", opening remarks, scope and

form or format of the meeting Monday. I will address them one at a time:

1, Oaths: Chairman Ackerson intends to administer the oath to your clients in the form previously shared

with you,

EXHIBIT C

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

030

of

0001

88

2. "Pre-meetings": The Chair was puzzled by this as he informs us that he did not request a "pre-meetingwith your clients. He would prefer for all discussions to be conducted in an open meeting. I believe you

have not objections to that.

3. Opening remarks: You clients will be permitted opening remarks, however they will be limited to 5minutes each.

4. Scope and From are addressed together: The Chair anticipates the evening will go like this: The

meeting will be called to order, your clients will be sworn, and be permitted to make their opening

remarks. The Chair will then make opening remarks. He will then ask your clients in narrative and

chronological form to generally describe in chronological order police/law enforcement response toprotests that began on the evening of May 28,2020, and take us up to current time, He expects thatas the narrative unfolds, he may interrupt them to get clarity or follow-up on the events, Specific

topics he'd like for them to be prepared to talk about throughout the chronological events are:o a) vandalism, and response to it,o b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be targeted or came in contact

with same,o c) placement of snipers on roof tops,o d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment,o e) warning to and communications with protestors,o f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,o g) any "stand-down" order(s), directives, guidance given or passed alongto government

responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.,o h) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.

I am informed that the Chair will collect questions before the meeting from other councilmembers,

will conduct the questioning, and will reserve the final 30 minutes for any follow up questions by

Councilmembers,

I believe I have answered your questions. Furthet I believe that I have been thorough enough herein

to allow your client not only to be prepared, but also to provid.e notice to you sufficient to raise concerns in

advance of the meeting so that we might address them beforehand. I also want to be clear that the form of

the hearing will be fluid and this list, while as thorough as I can be at this time, may not be exhaustive,

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, and please thank your clients for me

on behalf of the committee for voluntarily agreeing to appear before the Committee'

Thanks,

/iaaflattJonathan S. Ricketts

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

031

of

0001

88

Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC4055 Shelbyvilie RoadLouisville, KY 40207Phone: (502)896-2302Fax: (502)896-2362

htt.tr, ://www. ricl<ettslawoffj ceq,comNotice: This email is subject to provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C, SS 2510-2521 and the information contained herein and any accompanying attachment(s) are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, and include confidential and privileged matters intended only forthe limited use of the recipient to whom this email message is addressed, subject to law and court rules. lf anyreader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictlyprohibited, and may be unlawful. lntended recipients'use is limited as authorized by law or rule. lf you havereceived this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return mail, and delete the originalmessage and destroy all copies from your system, also notify the sender immediately by telephone at (502)896-2302 or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Should this email contain settlementnegotiations as intended by the sender, same shall be prohibited from use by applicable state or federal rule, and

sender does not consent to its use in a manner inconsistent with those rules. Please Note that (1) E-mailcommunication is not a secure method of communication; (2) Any e-mail sent to you by this firm, or by you to thisfirm, may be copied and held by various unauthorized computers as the communication is transmitted; and (3)

Persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your

computer or the computers of Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC, or even a computer unconnected to either of us. lf you

subsequently elect not to receive future communications from my office via e-mail, please immediately notify me at

(502)896-2302.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

032

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1 of 46 PagelD #: l-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTER}{ DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

ATTICA SCOTT, CORBIN SMITH,KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY,STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY,and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCEAGAINST RACIAL AND POUTICALREPRESSION, on behalf of themselves andall others similarly situated,

Civil Action No

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIALDEMANDPlaintiffs,

V

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERS ON COUNTYMETRO GOVERNMENT, GREGFISCHER, individually and in his officialcapacity as Mayor of Louisville, ROBERTSCHROEDER, individually and in hisofficial capacity as Interim Chief of theLouisville Metropolitan Police Department,LaVITA CHAVOUS, individually and in herofficial capacity as Assistant Chief of theLouisville Metropolitan Police Department,and LOUISVILLE METROPOLITANPOLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER "J.''JOHNSON, LOUISVILLEMETROPOLITAN POLICEDEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES#l-#15 and JANE DOE #1, in theirindividual capacities,

Defendants

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

"[O]ur constitutional command of free speech and assembly is basic and fundamental and

encompasses peaceful social protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms treasured

in a democratic society." Cox v. State of La.,379 U.S. 559, 574 (1965). Rarely before has this

principle been as readily apparent as it is today; following the senseless killings of George Floyd,

EXHIBIT D

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

033

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 2 of 46 PagelD #:2

Breonna Taylor, and countless other Black individuals at the hands of police, protesters in all

fifty states are demanding police accountability and reform.

Rather than treating its peaceful protesters as important parts of the democratic process

protected by the Constitution, the City of Louisville has chosen to forcibly silence them-often

using military-type weapons and tactics that resemble those used by authoritarian regimes to

stifle dissent. ln the days following the death of George Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis

police officers on May 25,2020, a key demand for protesters who took to the streets around the

country was justice for Breonna Taylor, who was killed by Louisville police officers in her own

home on March 13,2020. Louisville police officers sought to quell these demonstrations through

the sustained use of tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, and other forms of military-grade

technology. This combat-style response led to yet another senseless death: on May 3I,2020,

Louisville police and the National Guard fired eighteen live rounds at David McAtee, a local

Black restaurant owner, killing him. Since then, countless peaceful protesters-including elected

officials and local educators-have been shot, gassed, beaten, and arrested solely for making

their voices heard. Louisville police officers also abused the city's curfew order while it was in

effect, employing force to arrest or disperse people hours before they were required by the

curfew order to clear the streets. And to this day, both Louisville's Mayor and Kentucky's

Governor have defended the police department's conduct.

Plaintiffs are a diverse group of individuals who have come together to exercise their

rights to protest and demand change from their government. For that, Louisville police officers

have subjected them to shocking and violent levels of force, Plaintiff Corbin Smith was tear

gassed, beaten with batons, and forced to beg for his life while an officer kneeled on his neck.

2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

034

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt 1- Filed 07130120 Page 3 of 46 PagelD #: 3

Plaintiff Stevie Schauer was shoved to the ground and violently beaten by officers who saw her

recording their misconduct; friends who tried to help her were shot with pepper balls.

Their experiences are just a few examples of the sustained violence that Louisville has

unleashed on its citizens. Plaintiffs now bring this suit, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, to guarantee and protect their constitutional right to demand change from their

government at this singular moment in history.

PARTIES

l. Plaintiff Attica Scott is a citizen of the United States and cunently resides in

Kentucky. She cunently serves in the Kentucky House of Representatives, representing the 41st

District.

2. Plaintiff Corbin Smith currently resides in Indiana,

3, Plaintiff Kayla Meisner currently resides in Kentucky.

4. Plaintiff Tyler Weakley curently resides in lndiana.

5. Plaintiff Stevie Schauer currently resides in Kentucky.

6, Plaintiff Willa Tinsley currently resides in Kentucky.

7. Plaintiff Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression

("KAARPR") is a 501(c)(3) organized under the laws of Kentucky that has more than 900 dues-

paying members. Its mission is to "inform the public and provide a channel for public debate

conceming the human and constitutional rights of all people; to bring together diverse groups of

people to support those repressed for racist or political reasons; fand] to work to end racist

practices in the community and government."l The organization's work is focused on, among

other things, combating the use of excessive force by police, including against protestors;

I About Us, Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression, http://www.kentuckyalliance.org/about.html(last visited July 30, 2020).

aJ

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

035

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07rcAl2} Page 4 of 46 PagelD #'. 4

challenging cruel and unusual conditions of confinement in prisons and jails in Kentucky;

limiting the disproportionate effect of the criminal justice system on Black individuals; and

improving education access and opportunity for Black and Brown children in the greater

Louisville area.

8. Since its founding more than 40 years ago, KAARPR has, among other things,

highlighted the stories of victims of police abuse as a means of drawing attention to the larger

systemic issues discussed above. For example, over twenty years ago, KAARPR launched a

campaign around the death of Adrien Reynolds, who was subjected to excessive force during his

arrest and then killed by corectional officials.

9. KAARPR is also a leading member of Louisville Citizens Against Police Abuse,

a coalition of local organizations united to fight police brutality in Black and Brown

communities in Louisville.

10, Defendant Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government ("City of Louisville")

is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky. Defendant City

of Louisville, acting through the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department ("LMPD"), is

responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD

matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. In

addition, the City of Louisville is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring

that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.

11. Defendant Greg Fischer is the Mayor of the City of Louisville. In that capacity, he

is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, superuision, implementation, and conduct of

all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD

4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

036

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 5 of 46 PagelD #: 5

personnel, In addition, Defendant Fischer is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and

ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.

12. Defendant Robert Schroeder is the Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan

Police Department. Defendant Schroeder was appointed to this role on or about June 1, 2020.

Before his appointment as Interim Chief, Defendant Schroeder was Deputy Chief of the

Louisville Metropolitan Police Department. In his capacity as both Interim Chief and Deputy

Chief, he is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and

conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of

all LMPD personnel. In addition, Defendant Schroeder is responsible for enforcing the rules of

the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of

Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and expeditious investigations into officer

misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Schroeder was acting within the scope of his

employnent and under color of state law.

13. Defendant LaYita Chavous is an Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan

Police Department. In that capacity, she is responsible for implementing the policy, practice,

supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment,

training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. ln addition, Defendant Chavous is

responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the

laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and

expeditious investigations into officer misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Chavous was

acting within the scope of her employment and under color of state law.

14. Defendants LMPD Officer'oJ." Johnson and LMPD Officers John Does #1-15 and

Jane Doe #1, (collectively, "Defendant Officers" or ooOfftcers") are police officers employed by

5

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

037

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 6 of 46 PagelD #: 6

the City of Louisville. In this role, Defendant Officers were duly appointed and acting officers,

servants, employees and/or agents of Louisville. At all relevant times, they were acting in the

scope of their employment and under color of state law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This action arises under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, 42 U .S.C. $ I 983, and Kentucky state law.

16. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331, 1343(a)(3),

1343(a)(), and 1367,

l7 . Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C, $ 1391(b) and (e)

because at least some Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the acts and

omissions giving rise to this action took place in this district.

JURY TRJAL DEMAND

18. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.

FACTS

The Killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd Spur Nutionwide Protests

19. Over the past several months, a number of high-profile instances of police killing

unarmed Black people have shocked the nation's conscience.

20, Shortly after midnight on March 13,2020, three LMPD police officers shot and

killed Breonna Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency medical technician who lived in

Louisville,

21. The LMPD officers executed a no-knock warrant at Ms. Taylor's apartment.

Upon entry, the officers fired over twenty rounds at Ms, Taylor and her boyfriend.

6

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

038

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 7 of 46 PagelD #'.7

22. Ms. Taylor, who was unarmed and sleeping in bed, was struck eight times-but

did not die immediately. lnstead, for five or six minutes, she lay bleeding in her bed, her

boyfriend pleading unsuccessfully for the officers to help her. Ms. Taylor died from her injuries,

23, Ms. Taylor's story quickly captured national attention. Calls for justice for her

killing began to grow.

24. ln response, the LMPD opened an internal investigation into whether its officers

violated any departmental policies, The Attorney General of Kentucky has opened an

investigation into possible criminal charges against the officers. And the Federal Bureau of

Investigation has opened a separate probe into the officers' conduct.

25, To date, however, the officers who killed Breonna Taylor have not been arested,

Defendant Schroeder has initiated termination procedures against just one of the three officers

involved.

26. Less than two months later, on May 25,2020, officers from the Minneapolis

Police Department killed George Floyd while anesting him on suspicion of passing a counterfeit

twenty-dollar bill.

27. A bystander captured the killing on video; for nearly eight minutes after Mr.

Floyd had been placed in handcuffs, a police officer kneeled on Mr, Floyd's neck while three

other officers stood by and watched.

28. Mr. Floyd repeatedly begged for mercy, pleading that he could not breathe. He

called out for his mother. His last words were "please, I can't breathe."

29. Video of Mr. Floyd's murder spread almost immediately. Within days, his story

had become the defining topic of national discourse. Elected officials and public figures of all

political affiliations denounced the police officers' actions.

7

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

039

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page B of 46 PagelD #: I

30. All four of the officers involved in Mr. Floyd's killing have been arrested and

criminally charged,

31. The killings of Ms. Taylor and Mr, Floyd-emblematic of the widespread pattern

of police violence against unarmed Black people-touched a nerve in communities across the

country, sparking mass protests about how police interact with Black people.

32. Within a week of Mr. Floyd's killing, large-scale demonstrations had begun in all

fifty states. Those protests remain ongoing.

Protests Begin in Louisville, Prompting Immediate and Egregious Use of Force by LMPD

Malt 28, 2020

33. On May 28,2020, LMPD released the audio of the 911 call placed by Breonna

Taylor's boyfriend the night she was killed.

34. That evening, large-scale demonstrations began in Louisville. At approximately

8:00 p.m., protesters carrying signs reading "Justice for Breonna" and chanting "Breonna was

asleep" marched through downtown Louisville to gather near the Louisville Metro Hall,2

35. Protesters were met by a fleet of armed LMPD officers clad in riot gear.

36, At approximately l1:15 p.m., ahandful of protesters threw plastic water bottles at

the LMPD officers.

37. In response, LMPD officers fired a combination of pepper balls (pepper-spray

projectiles launched using guns or similar weapons) and live ammunition into the crowd of

protesters, nearly all of whom were protesting peacefully. Seven people were hit with live

bullets, Protesters began to disperse.

2 Tessa Duvall, Darcy Costello, Billy Kobin, Lucas Aulbach, Bailey Loosemore, Mandy Mclaren, Olivia Krauthand Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates; Protestors arcested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,CourietJoumal (May 28, 2020 at l0:56 p,m,), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsipolitics/metro-government/2020lQ5l28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52801620021 .

8

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

040

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3ol20 Page 9 of 46 PagelD #: 9

38. At least one of the injured protesters claimed that he was shot in the back of the

head by a police officer. He has sued both LMPD and the Kentucky State Police. See Albert v.

Unknown Individual Kentuclcy State Police Officers, et al.,No.3:20-cv-00418 (W.D. Ky.).

39. LMPD officers then began to launch canisters of tear gas into the crowd,

40, LMPD subsequently claimed that the tear gas and gunshots were necessary to

prevent assaults on officers. But no officers were reported as injured during the protests.3

4L The LMPD's use of tear gas against peaceful protestors on May 28,2020 was

widely reported in the media.

42. Upon information and belief, no LMPD officers have been disciplined by

Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas against

peaceful protestors on May 28,2020.

Ma:t 29. 2020

43. Demonstrations continued the next day, on May 29,2020.An even larger group

of protesters marched through downtown Louisville starting in the late aftemoon, Many of the

protesters were young teenagers,a

44. By the early evening, LMPD officers began using flash grenades, tear gas, and

pepper balls on the largely peaceful crowd.

45, Plaintiff Attica Scott and her daughter were present at this protest; both were

demonstrating peacefully but were shoved by police and then hit with tear gas,

3 Mike Baker, 7 People Shot at Louisville Protest Over the Death of Breonna Taylor, N.Y. Times (May 29,2020),https://www.nytimes.com/2020105129/usllouisville-protest-shooting-breonna-tay1or.html,4 Tessa Duvall, Darcy Costello, Billy Kobin, Lucas Aulbach, Bailey Loosemore, Mandy Mclaren, Olivia Krauthand Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arresled as Breonna Taylor rallies conlinue around Louisville,CoutierJoumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 3 l, 2020, I I :00 p.m.), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2020105/28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52807 620021 .

9

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

041

of

0001

88


46. For over four hours, flash grenades launched by LMPD "volleyed through the air

like cannon-fire" while tear gas deployed by LMPD "wafted across entire city blocks."s

47. LMPD officers fired pepper balls indiscriminately into the crowd.

48. As one newspaper reported, "[b]y l0 p.m., downtown Louisville looked like a war

zone."6

49, LMPD officers targeted journalists who were covering the chaos, flrring pepper

bullets at groups of reporters who were videotaping the scene.T

50. Upon information and belief, no LMPD officers were disciplined by Defendant

Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous as a result ofusing tear gas, flash grenades,

or pepper bullets against peaceful protestors on May 29 , 2020.

May 30. 2020

51. On May 30,2020,Mayor Greg Fischer instituted a 9:00 p.m. cityr,vide curfew and

called in the National Guard,8

52. Protesters began to gather downtown for peaceful demonstrations in the afternoon

on May 30. Some volunteers brought stockpiles of water and milk to use both as eyewash due to

LMPD's indiscriminate use of tear gas, as well as to provide essential drinking water for the

protest on a long sunny day. They stored these stockpiles in Jefferson Square Park for all

protesters to use.

5 Mandy Mclaren, A traumatized generation: Louisville's youth demand racial justice during mass protesls,

Louisville Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,5:31 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/05/30/breonna-taylor-protest-louisvilles-youth-demand-racial-justic e152910300021 .

6ld.1

@wave3news, "WAVE 3 News reporter Kaitlin Rust appeared to have been hit by rubber bullets reportedly fired

by an LMPD officer during a protest in downtown Louisville," Twitter (May 29,2020,10:23 p.m.),

https ://twitter,com/wave3 news/status/ 1 266 5 5 57 3 17 3 1 4 1 5040?s=20.8 Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer sets curfew calls in National Guardfor Breonna Taylor protests, " Louisville

Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,9:49 p.m.), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2 020l05l30lmayor-fischer-sets-breonna-taylor-protest-curfew-cal1s-national-guardl52906900021 '

10

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

042

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 11- of 46 PagelD #: It

53. At approximately 7:30 p,m., while protesters were peacefully demonstruting, a

group of plainclothes LMPD police officers began destroying the protesters' stockpiles without

explanation,e

54. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers intentionally destroyed the

protesters' supplies to discourage protesters from remaining at the demonstrations.

55. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers had decided to use tear gas on

protesters before they began to destroy the protesters' supplies,

56. At approximately 8:00 p,m.-an hour before the official curfew and thitty

minutes after destroying the protesters' stockpiles of water and milk-LMPD officers began to

launch tear gas into the crowd of peaceful protesters and beat them back with batons. At the

time, some protesters had lain down on the street while chanting for police accountability.

57. LMPD officers launched tear gas at a crowd of protesters, including former State

Representative Charles Booker, who were standing in a place several yards away from the riot

line.lo

58. Approximately 40 protesters were arrested,ll

59. When asked about LMPD's conduct, Defendant Fischer conceded that the

protesters were nonviolent, but he nonetheless defended the use of tear gas and batons by saying

e Natalie Neysa Alunda , Police officers in Louisville smash milk jugs and water bottles at Breonna Taylor protest, "

Louisville Courier Journal (May 30, 2020,9:43 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal,com/story/news/locall2020l05l30lbreonna-taylor-protest-louisville-police-smash-protesters'supplies/5295 8400021.r0 Charles Booker (@Booker4KY), "We were yards away. No one was confrontational, It was not 9p' They started

throwing gas at us anyway, I wish I could say this is unbelievable," Twitter (May 30, 2020,8:52 p.m.),

https ://twitter.com/Booker4KY I statusl 126689 52439 \33 67 5 53? s:/0,rr Rob Byers, Curfew remains in effect for Louisville for at least another night amid prolesls, Louisville Courier

Journal (May 31, 2020, I l:54 a.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsllocaV2020l05/31/breonna-taylor-prote sts Joui svi l1 e-curfew-remains-effect-s unday I 529 9 457 002 I'

11

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

043

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page L2 of 46 PagelD #: 12

the demonstration "looked like it was going to be taking a tum for the worse," and that police

used their judgment.l2

60. Upon information and beliel no LMPD officers have been disciplined by

Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas and batons on

nonviolent protestors.

Malt 31.2020

61. The next evening saw similar violent police responses to largely peaceful protests.

62. In the early evening on May 3I,2020, approximately 1,000 protesters gathered at

the Muhammad Ali Center in downtown Louisville. From there, they marched to Jefferson

Square Park, arriving shortly before 8:00 p,m.-again an hour before offrcial curfew.

63. Almost immediately, LMPD officers arived at the park and decreed that the

demonstration was an unlawful assembly without providing any further explanation.

64, Just minutes later, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs (explosive devices

commonly used by militaries, which cause temporary blindness, deafness, and loss of balance)

and tear gas into the peaceful crowd, forcing protesters out of the park and onto the surrounding

streets.

65. LMPD officers also fired projectiles at people holding innocuous objects like

umbrellas.

66. As protesters got into their cars to drive away from the protest, LMPD officers

lined up on an overpass and fired at cars, breaking the windows of several vehicles.13

t2 Darcy Costello, Breonna Taylor proteslors question police tactics used prior to Louisville's curfew time,

Louisville Courier Joumal (May 3 I , 2020, 5:50 p.m,), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2 020105/3llbreonna-taylor-protesters-question-lmpd-tactics-against-saturday-rally/53006420021 .

i, puinkill.. Gillz (@ltz5500Gil1z), "This is LMPD shooting at peoples vehicles as they tried to go home from the

protest...they was us dead in Louisville, ky," Twitter (June 1, 2020,9:52 a.m.),

https ://twitter. com/Itzs500G illzl statusl 1267 45 4024288292867 .

t2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

044

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 13 of 46 PagelD #: l-3

67. Approximately 100 protesters were arrested and held in police custody.

68. LMPD further defended the decision to use tear gas to disperse the crowd prior to

the start of the official city-wide curfew, by claiming that "people with leaf blowers fwere] in the

crowd, We know those are used for things like dispensing powder chemicals and for blowing gas

back toward police."r4 City officials also claimed, without providing any evidence, that leaf

blowers were loaded with bleach.ls

69. Later that evening, and two and a half miles from the site of the protests

downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while

attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee's restaurant,

70. Upon encountering the group, LMPD officers and the National Guard began

firing pepper balls. One of the pepper balls came dangerously close to striking Mr. McAtee's

niece in the head,

7L Mr. McAtee, in response, drew a handgun and fired a warning shot into the air.

72. Approximately eight seconds later, LMPD and National Guard officers fired

eighteen live rounds at Mr. McAtee; one bullet from a National Guard offtcer struck Mr.

McAtee, killing him.r6

ra Hayden Ristevski (@HaydenWDRB). "Metro Council President David James tells WDRB 'police saw people

approaching that had Gaf blowers loaded wth bleach that was intended to blow at police. So they sent out the tear

gu.,' lu*.r .uys police were trying to disperse the crowd because that. UPDATE: responso from @LMPDspokesperson..." Twitter (May 31, 2020,10:24 p'm.),

https ://twitter.com/HaydenWDRB/status/l 2 67 28087 9 61 4857 219? s:20't5 irooks Holton, Proiestors in Louisville question why police fired tear gas before curfew, WDRB Louisville, KY(May 3, 2020), https://www,wdrb.com/news/protesters-inJouisville-question-why-police-fired-tear-gas-before-curfew/article-50da8e76-a3 a9- I I ea-95d8-

bf6a8ed76863-html?utm_medium:social&utm-source:email&utm-campaign:user-share.r6 Billy Kobin and Kala Kachmar, Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guardfatal shooting of West End

businiss owner,Louisville Courier Journal (June 1, 2020,8:37 a'm'), https://www.courier-joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-shooting/53067 330021 .

l3

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

045

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1-4 of 46 PagelD #'. L4

73. None of the LMPD officers had turned on their body cameras, despite a mandate

to do so in LMPD's own operating policies.


Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas, flash bangs,

pepper balls, and other projectiles on peaceful protesters.

Juuel,2!2!

75. The next day, on June 1, 2l}},Defendant Schroeder was appointed as Interim

Chief of the LMPD.

76, That evening, protesters again congregated in Jefferson Square Park,

77 . The demonstration was peaceful; protesters and police officers even linked arms

at points.lT

78. Nonetheless, at 10:00 p.m., officers fired tear gas and pepper balls into the crowd

to disperse the protesters.

79, The next day, on June 2,2020, one LMPD officer, Officer Katie Crews, posted a

photo of a protester offering her flowers on her social media page and wrote, "I hope the pepper

balls that she got lit up with a little later on hurt. Come back and getya some more ole girl, I'll

be on the line again tonight."ls

r7 Lucas Aulbach, The morning after: What happened at Monday's David McAtee and Breonna Taylor prolests,

Louisville Courier Joumal (June 2, 2020,6:31 a.m.), https://www,courier-joumal.com/story/news/1ocall2020l06l02ldavid-mcatee-breonna-taylor-protests-louisville-monday-recapl53l5267002l.t8 tirtPO fficer under investigation after Facebook post about protestor, WDRB Louisville, KY (June 2,2020),

https://www.wdrb.com/news/lmpd-officer-under-investigation-after-facebook-post-about-protester/arti cle

-b29 5 d622 -a4d8 - I 7 ea-a7 a4 -93 I a2800 a02d'html'

t4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

046

of

0001

88


80. Officer Crews was one of the LMPD officers involved in the shooting death of

David McAtee just two days prior, but she was allowed to continue in her duties.le

8l. Although Officer Crews is under investigation for her social media post, upon

information and belief, no LMPD officers have been investigated or disciplined by Defendants

Fischer, Schroeder, or Chavous for using tear gas and pepper balls on peaceful protesters,

Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous Approve of und Sanction LMPD's Use of Force,

Resulting in Continued Use of Force by LMPD OfJicers

82, Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous knew

and, either explicitly, or through acquiescence, approved of LMPD's decision to use tear gas,

flash bangs, pepper balls, batons, and other forms of force on protesters between May 28,2020

and June 1,2020.

83. The version of LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures that was in effect at the

time required supervisors-including Defendants Chavous and Schroeder-to be notified any

time chemical agents, including pepper balls, were deployed'2o

84. LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures also required approval from a

commanding officer-such as Defendants Schroeder and Chavous-prior to using any chemical

agents, including pepper balls.2l

85, LMPD's conduct came under intense media scrutiny almost immediately. But

Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have done nothing to correct LMPD's illegal

course, instead acquiescing to LMPD's use of violent force on peaceful protesters.

re Billy Kobin and Kala Kachmar , Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guard fata shooting of West End

businiss owner, Louisville Courier Joumal (June I 2020, 8:37 a.m,), https://www.courier-journal.com/s tory/newsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-shooting/53067 330021 .

20 LourJvrr-B MErRo PoLrcE Dnr'r, SrexoARD OpERATING PRocEDUREs ("SoP") $ 3.1.1 (May 31,2004)'2rSOP g 9.1.8 (Nov.7,2019),

15

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

047

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed A7130120 Page 16 of 46 PagelD #: 16

86. Defendant Fischer has defended his and LMPD's prior decisions, despite the

results, and has consistently refused to take meaningful action to protect protesters from unlawful

uses offorce.

87 , On May 30,2l20,just hours after LMPD officers destroyed peaceful protesters'

stockpiles of water and milk, arbitrarily enforced curfew restrictions over an hour earlier than

announced, and launched tear gas at dispersing crowds as described above, Defendant Fischer

issued a statement thanking LMPD for "show[ing] discipline, restraint and professionalism under

exhemely volatile circumstances." He then continued "to thank the law enforcement who came

in to assist from other agencies," as well.22

88. ln the same statement, Defendant Fischer stated that although he respected the

right to protest peacefully, he instructed Louisville residents to 'ostay home,"

89. When asked at a news conference about LMPD's destruction of protesters'

supplies, Defendant Fischer defended LMPD's conduct, speculating that police may have

believed there were flammable materials hidden among milk and water.23 Defendant Fischer did

not explain, and has not explained, any basis for such a conclusion.

90, Defendant Fischer has repeatedly defended LMPD's use of tear gas on protesters.

In a statement on June 2,2020, Defendant Fischer's spokesperson, Jean Porter, said that although

the Mayor was "sorry that some peaceful protesters were caught up in that," LMPD is there "to

22 Mayor Greg Fischer's statement on May 29 prolesls, LouisvilleKY.Gov (May 30, 2020),

https://louisvilleky.gov/news/mayor-greg-fi schero/oE2Yo8)%99s-statement-may-29-protests.23 Amina Elahi, Louisville Mayor Claims, Ihthoul Details, Protestors' Seized Supplies were Hazardoas, WFPL

News Louisville (May 31,2020), https://wfpl.org/louisville-mayor-claims-without-details-protesters-seized-supplies-were-hazardous/.

16

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

048

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 1-7 of 46 PagelD #: 17

protect public safety and keep order, and they make the decision-to use tear gas when they

believe that is in jeopardy."2a

91. On June 3,2020, Defendant Fischer issued a statement praising LMPD for

"putting in long hours," while "suffering insults and assaults" in dealing with protests. The

Mayor continued: "They are frustrated . . . I absolutely respect that. That doesn't change my

appreciation of the work they are doing, as I've expressed time and time again."25

92. On June 10,2020,in response to pressure from the public and the Louisville

Metro Council, Defendant Schroeder announced that LMPD officers would no longer be

permitted to use tear gas without his approval.26

93 . The June 27 , 2020 amendments to LMPD 's Standard Operating Procedures make

no reference to this new restriction.2T

94. ln the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant Fischer

apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be

instituting needed reforms to the LMPD's use of force practices. But the very next day, in

response to criticism from the LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating that

2a Andrew Wolfson and Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer says Louisville welcomes peaceful protest' Why was one

cleared with tear gas? Louisville Courier Journal (June 2, 0202,6:36 a.m.), https://www.courier-joumal,com/storylnewsl2020l06l}2/kentucky-leaders-question-why-louisvi1le-police-tear-gassed-protesters/53 I 26650021.,5 Taylor Weiter and Heather Fountaine, Watch: Louisville police walk out on Mayor Greg Fischer, FOP conf rms,

WHASI l ABC Louisville, KY (June 3,2020,8:07 p.m.), https://www.whasl Lcom/article/news/local/louisville-police-fop-mayor-frscher/4 I 7-cddce5 93 -b5 dc-47e3-83 6b -25cai 7 3 e7 I 09'lu T"rru Duvail, Sarah Ludd and Ben Tobin, Louisville police roundup: Tear gas limits, detective sidelined,

community policing survey, Louisville Courier Joumal (June 10, 2020,11'.27 a.m.), https://www,courier-joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06ll0llouisville-police-c'ant-use-tear-gas-future-without-direct-ordetl53332750021.27 SOP $ 9,1.9 (June 27,2020) (using same language as prior version of SOP).

17

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

049

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 0713A120 Page 18 of 46 PagelD #: 18

he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to "stand down" and that Defendant

Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.28

95. Upon information and belief, since June 15,2020, Defendant Schroeder has not

implemented any changes to LMPD's use-of-force policies to better protect protesters,

96. At a media briefing on May 3I,2020, Defendant Chavous blamed the violence on

"anarchists" who intended to cause chaos---even though she identified no actual violent acts by

protesters.2e

97. At that same conference, Defendant Chavous defended the decision to,fire on

individuals carrying umbrellas, saying that umbrellas "can be used as weapons."30

98.' Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have

taken no action to reform LMPD's use-of-force policies or otherwise curtail LMPD's use of

force against peaceful protesters beyond the announcement regarding central approval oftear gas

usage.

Defendant City of Louisville's Ongoing Use of Force and Mass Arrests to Quell Protest andPrevent Recording

99. Following two weeks of relativ'e calm between police and protesters, on June 15,

2020,the LMPD officers resumed their use of aggressive tactics and potentially lethal weapons'

on protesters,

28 Ragsdale, Travis, Mayor Fischer denied claim that he's giving Louisville police 'stand down' orders at protesls,

WDRB Louisville, KY (June 16,2020), https://www.wdrb.com/news/mayor-f,rscher-denies-claim+hat-hes-giving-louisville-police-stand-down-orders-at-protests/article_4307b4b2-afe4- I I ea-83cf-23b024a8834c.htm1.2e Tessa Duvall, Darcy Costello, Billy Kobin, Lucas Aulbach, Bailey Loosemore, Mandy Mclaren, Olivia Krauth

and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arrested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,CoutierJoumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 31, 2020, ll:00 p'm.), https://www'courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-gov emmentl2020/05/28/breonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52807 62002/ .

30 Lucas Aulbach, From tense to touching moments, here's how Louisville's protests went down Sunday night,

Louisville Courier Joumal (June 1, 2020, 6:18 a.m.), https ://www.courier-joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06lOllbreonna-taylor-protest-what-happened-sundayJouisville/5305 156002/'

18

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

050

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 19 of 46 PagelD #: 19

100. Throughout that afternoon and evening, LMPD officers deployed smoke

grenades, pepper rounds, flash bangs, and a sound cannon against protesters, They also

continued to target individuals, including members of the press, who were documenting the

protests and the police response.

101. ln the late afternoon of June 15, a small group of peaceful protesters was gathered

near 9th Street and W. Chestnut Street. A line of LMPD officers in helmets, arrnor, and riot

shields moved toward the protesters, ordering them to move back. When the protesters did not

leave, the police marched north on 9th Street firing pepper balls and impact rounds toward the

crowd.

102. As the police moved down the road, they approached Plaintiff Schauer, who was

standing still on the sidewalk and was recording the officers with her cellphone. Two officers

walked over to her, threw her to the ground, and fired pepper balls at protesters who attempted to

help her. An officer then arrested Plaintiff Schauer.

103. The police eventually moved down to the area around W. Jefferson Street and 7th

Street, near LMPD headquarters, at which point the police took several steps backwards, The

protesters cheered, thinking that the police were backing off. Instead, the police fired a round of

pepper balls into the crowd,

104. Shortly thereafter, police used a long-range acoustic device ("LRAD"), a sonic

weapon that deploys a high-frequency sound wave, on peaceful protesters,

105. During the protests, a number of riot police gang-tackled a man in the middle of

the road. The officers' actions were captured by a security guard at the Hall of Justice, who

recorded it on his cellphone camera from behind a window. As the guard recorded the activity,

an officer fired a pepper ball at him, striking and cracking the window near where the guard had

I9

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

051

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 20 of 46 PagelD #'.20

been standing, LMPD confirmed that an officer had fired at the security guard. The guard told

Buzzfeed News that he had not reported the incident because he feared retaliation from the

police,3l

106, Later that night, another officer ran his car into a peaceful protester. The man told

WFPL, "I watched fthe officer] look at his back up cam and he ran right into me, literally."32

107 . Police use of force against peaceful protesters continued throughout the week. On

Ihe morning of Wednesday, June I7 ,2020, police again fired pepper balls at peaceful protesters

on multiple occasions. One officer shot a reporter from the Courier Journal, who was recording

the protests, with a pepper ball.

108. On Thursday, June 18,2020, the police used both peppers balls and LRADs

against peaceful protesters again, The police reportedly shot one protester in the eye with a

pepper ball. Another protester, who was sleeping in the park, awoke to an officer pointing a

Glock firearm in his face.

109. LMPD officers have also continued to engage in mass arrests of protesters, many

of whom have had charges subsequently dropped. ln total, between May 28,2020 and July 24,

2020, over 500 protesters have been arrested.33

3r Amber Jamieson, Police Shot At A Man Who Filmed Them Tackling Protestors in Louisville, BuzzFeed News

(June 17,2020,8:50 p.m,), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/louisville-shot-fired-security-guard-video,It Stafl (Iser of Pepper Balls Resumes At Downtown Louisville Protests, WFPL News Louisville (June 15, 2020),

https://wfpl,org/use-of-pepper-balls-tear-gas-resumes-at-downtown-louisville-protests/.33 Hayes Gardier, 49 diys and 435 arrests; Protestors in Breonna Taylor movement unfazed by charges, Louisville

Courier Joumal (July 16, 2020, l:13 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/storylnewsl2020l0Tll6lbreonna-taylot-

protesters-arrests-show-we-mean-business/5 4349470021; https://www.wdrb.com/news/76-demonstrators-arrested-

after-shutting-down-market-street-as-part-of-breonna-taylor-protests/article-4f0f/000-cde5- I I ea-b69 I -

cf4c20dff0d I .html.

20

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

052

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 21 of 46 PagelD #,2L

I 10. In conducting these affests, LMPD has continued to target those recording or

livestreaming the police response to protesters.3a

I 1 1. Many protesters were initially charged with serious offenses, including felony

offenses that cary possible prison time.

112. For instance, on Tuesday, July 14,2020, more than 100 protesters arrived at

Attorney General Daniel Cameron's residence in Louisville to protest the Attorney General's

Office's delay in investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor,35 Eighty-seven of the protesters

were ultimately arrested and charged with Intimidating a Participant in the Legal Process, a

felony.

113. Three days later, the County Attorney for Jefferson County, Mike O'Connell,

announced that "in the interest of justice and the promotion of the free exchange of ideas," his

office was dismissing all of the 87 felony charges brought against the peaceful protesters.36

ll4. ln response to an isolated and random shooting on June 27,2020, LMPD began

enforcing an 1 1:00 p.m. curfew at Jefferson Square Park, the main site for organized

demonstrations.

3a Lucas Aulbach, Livestreaers at Breonna Taylor protests believe Louisville police are targeting them, Louisville

Courier Joumal (July 5, 2020,3:23 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/news/local/2020l07l05llouisville-breonna-taylor-protesters-say-police-target-live-streametsl5380284002/ .

3s87 charged withfelony after protest on AG Daniel Cameron's lawn in Louisville, WLKY News, Louisville KY(July 14, 2020,8:46 p.m.), https://www.wlky.com/article/protesters-march-through-east-louisville-to-ag-daniel-camerons-homel333 1387 l.36 County attorney dismissingfelony chargesfor protestors involved in sit-in at Cameron's home,WDRBLouisville, KY (July 17,2020), https://www.wdrb,com/news/county-attorney-dismissing-felony-charges-for-protesters-involved-in-sit-in-at-camerons-home/article 2a3ce3d2-c851-llea-bd89-d7f2aba6blb9.html'

2I

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

053

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 22 of 46 PagelD #:22

1 15. LMPD officers also violently tore down encampments that protesters had erected

in the park, destroying protesters' property. Defendant Schroeder recognized that LMPD

officers' actions were "less than our standards" and apologi zedforthe officers' actions.3T

116. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers' actions in destroying protesters'

property was motivated in part by a desire to punish protesters for exercising their First

Amendment rights.

Il7. The curfew at Jefferson Square Park remains in effect, despite no further

instances of violent conduct,

1 1 8. Protests have continued nearly daily through downtown Louisville as of the date

of this filing.

119. The Kentucky Attorney General's investigation into the killing of Breonna Taylor

remains pending. The conclusion of that investigation is likely to trigSer larger protests and more

aggressive police responses.

120. On July 16,2020, the Louisville Metro Council opened an investigation into

whether Defendant Fischer and LMPD's conduct in response to the peaceful protests warranted

Defendant Fischer's removal from office.38

The Dangers of "Less-than-Lethal" Force

I2l. Although termed "nonlethal" or "less-than-lethal" force, military-grade crowd

control devices expose targets to serious risks of injury, and even death.

37 Kelli Dugan and Cox Media National Content Desk, Police identify victirn infatal Louisville protest shooting;

suspect in custody,Fox 23 News Louisville KY, (June 28,2020), https://www,fox23.com/news/trending/police-identify-victim-fatal-louisville-protest-shooting-suspect-custody/5BE6L63XLJGRHHDTMHQHPQYVBA/.38 Madeline Holcombe, Mima Alsharif and Elizabeth Joseph, Louisville mayor to be investigated for handling orprotestors and Breonna Taylor's case, CNN (July 16, 2020,6:38 a.m'),

https://www.cnn.com/2020107/16/us/louisville-investigation-mayor-taylor-protest/index.html,

22

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

054

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 23 of 46 PagelD #.23

I22. The Sixth Circuit has recognized the significant damage done by using a chemical

irritant such as tear gas: the gas "burns the face [and] nostrils, restricts breathing passages, and

causes blindness. It causes a burning sensation that causes mucus to come out of the nose, an

involuntary closing of the eyes, a gaggingreflex, and temporary paralysis of the larynx ." (Jnited

States v. Mosley,635 F.3d 859,862 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted)

I23, Studies have found that individuals exposed to tear gas can continue to experience

significant adverse health consequences up to one month after exposure.3e

I24. Despite being frequently described as non-lethal technology, tear gas can result in

death. Recently, a protester in Ohio who was exposed to tear gas and pepper spray died from

cardiac arrest,

I25, The use of tear gas during the ongoing Novel Coronavirus -2019 ("COVID-19")

pandemic creates additional risks for those exposed. COVID-19 is spread tlrrough respiratory

droplets, which are spread by coughing, sneezing, and talking.40 ln addition to burning of the

eyes, nose, and mouth, exposure to tear gas can cause increased nasal secretions, immediate

coughing, and sneezing.al

126. Public health experts unanimously agree that wearing a respiratory mask is one of

the most important ways of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

3e Y.G, Karagama,J.R. Newton, and C.J,R. Newbegin. "Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to

CS spray." Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J'R' Soc, Med' April 2003.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539444/.a0 Comoavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/faq.html#Spread.4r y.G. kurugu*,J.R, Newton, and C,J.R. Newbegin, Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to CS

spray, Ioumal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J.R. Soc' Med. (April 2003)'

https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539 4441 .

23

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

055

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 24 of 46 PagelD #'. 24

I27 . Many protesters taking parl in the nationwide demonstrations have thus made sure

to don masks before leaving their homes

I28. Because tear gas creates respiratory problems, however, many individuals

exposed to tear gas cannot keep their masks on, When large groups of people congregate,

remove their masks, and cough or sneeze, the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19

skyrockets.

I29. Because tear gas covers an entire area,it cannot be targeted at specific people. It

inherently injures everyone exposed to'it.

130, Flash bangs can also cause serious injury, and even death, Flash bangs detonated

too close to a person can cause burns, loss of limbs, and lasting partial hearing loss. ln extreme

cases, flash bangs can cause asphyxiation, heart attacks, and internal bleeding.

131, When detonated around gravel or loose glass, flash bangs can send shrapnel

flying with enough force to wound those nearby

I32. Because flash bangs cover entire areas, they cannot be targeted at specific people.

Flash bangs inherently place everyone exposed to them at risk of serious physical harm,

133. Pepper balls and rubber bullets can cause significant injuries, and even death, if

they hit a person's face, neck, or torso. Because such projectiles are often fired at velocities

similar to live ammunition, they cause severe damage upon impact.

134. A survey ofthose sffuck by such projectiles found that they prove fatal

approximately 3%of the time, and cause permanent disability approximately 15% of the time.a2

42 Rohini J,Haar,Vincent Lacopino, Nikhil Ranadive, Madhavi Dandun, Sher D, Wesier, Death, iniury and

disabilityfrom kinetic impacl projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review, BMJ Joumals Open, Vol.7,I ssue I 2, (20 l7), https : //bmj open. bmj. com/con tent/ 7 I I 2 I e0 1 8 I 5 4' fu I l.

24

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

056

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 25 of 46 PagelD #'.25

Seventy-one percent of those struck with rubber bullets or pepper balls suffered severe injuries

that required medical intervention.a3

135. Although rubber bullets and pepper balls can be targeted, their use at longer

ranges is "likely to be inaccurate and indiscriminate."aa

136. LMPD's own Standard Operating Procedures recognize that "[t]he potential exists

for [such types of ammunition] to inflict injury or death when they strike the face, eyes, and

neck,"45

137 . LRADs are sonic weapons that deploy a high-frequency sound wave at atargel.

138, LRADs, developed by the military for use in the Iraq War in 2004,46 have been

found to cause significant harm to individuals' ear drums and can cause perrnanent hearing loss.

Named Plaintffi Are Injured by LMPD's Use of Force

I39. All Named Plaintiffs have been victims of LMPD's disproportionate and violent

response to protests.

Attica Scott

140. Plaintiff Scott first attended demonstrations on May 29,2020. She and her

teenage daughter joined a group of protesters at approximately 5:30 p,m. at 6th Street and W.

Jefferson Street.

I4l. Plaintiff Scott attended the demonstrations both to protest the killing of Breonna

Taylor and, in her capacity as a Member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, to document

what was happening in her community.

43 Id.aa Physical Human Rights. International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, https://www.inclo.net/pdf/lethal-in-disguise.pdf.45 soP $ 9.1,10.46 Eric Niiler, Sonic Weapons' Long, Noisy History, History Stories (August27,2018)'https ://www.history.com/news/sonic-weapons-warfare-acoustic'

25

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

057

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 26 of 46 PagelD #:26

I42, Shortly before aniving at the protest, she saw footage online of dozens of LMPD

officers in riot gear lined up in front of the YUM! Center.

143. For several hours after Plaintiff Scott anived, she observed no violence by other

protesters. Instead, members of the group participated in die-ins, marches, and chanting; some

protesters chanted "hands up don't shoot."

I44. After approximately three hours, Plaintiff Scott observed a small number of

people in the crowd throw plastic water bottles. Other demonshators immediately denounced the

behavior,

145. Without warning, the line of LMPD officers began advancing quickly with batons

drawn, pushing the crowd back.

146. Defendant Officer J. Johnson noticed Plaintiff Scott recording the scene and

approached her, shoving her backward, While backing away, Plaintiff Scott tripped on a box

behind her, fell to the ground, and injured her knee.

I47 . Plaintiff Scott was able to meet up with her daughter, who informed her she was

bleeding and needed medical attention. Plaintiff Scott found a medic tent set up by protesters to

get first aid for her knee.

148. As she received medical attention at the tent, LMPD officers deployed tear gas.

An immediate cloud covered the area. Plaintiff Scott saw a thick cloud of smoke. Plaintiff Scott

couldn't see anything through the smoke. Her eyes started burning badly, and she used her

facemask to help act as a barrier between her face and the smoke.

149. . Plaintiff Scott ran from the tear gas. She ultimately met up with her daughter and

her friend, and the three went to their car, where they stayed nearby the protest for another

twenty or so minutes.

26

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

058

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurment 1 Filed 07130120 Page 27 of 46 PagelD #'.27

150. Plaintiff Scott was also present at the protest on June 15, where she witnessed

LMPD using pepper balls indiscriminately against protesters,

l5l, On June 18,2020, Plaintiff Scott filed a formal complaint with LMPD, asking the

department to investigate its officers' inappropriate use of tear gas,

I52. LMPD responded by letter dated June 29,2020, stating that her complaint was

being investigated,

153. She has received no further contact from LMPD since that letter.

Corbin Smith and T)tler Weaklett

154. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley drove into downtown Louisville to go to dinner on

the evening of May 31,2020, but they decided to first stop by the demonstrations to show

support for the community.

155. They anived downtown and, wearing face masks, began walking towards

Broadway Street, where the protest was taking place. On their way, Plaintiffs Smith and

Weakley walked past a group of police officers in riot gear who said nothing about a curfew in

effect.

156. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley saw the group of protesters at approximately 8:30

p.m,, thirty minutes before the official curfew that had just been implemented was schedule to

begin.

157. For fifteen minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley observed protesters marching

and chanting peacefully

158. Then, without warning or justification, LMPD officers began deploying flash

bangs and tear gas into the crowd, causing a panicked stampede away from the police line.

27

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

059

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2A Page 28 of 46 PagelD #:28

159. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley were close to a tear gas cannister that exploded.

Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both inhaled the gas and immediately began choking. For several

minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both felt as if they were suffocating.

160. Plaintiff Weakley observed a police car drive into the crowd of protesters on a

street perpendicular to Broadway Street, fuither exacerbating the chaos.

1 61 . Tear gas began filling the air, obscuring visibility in the area. Nonetheless,

officers began firing pepper balls and rubber bullets indiscriminately.

162. Plaintiff Smith felt a pepper ball fly close to his ear, prompting him and Plaintiff

Weakley to start running back to their car.

163. On the way, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley encountered a line of approximately 40

LMPD officers in riot gear.

164. Plaintiff Smith begged the officers to let them get to their car. The officers

responded by drawing and training their weapons on both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley.

165, Both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley then slowly raised their hands above

their heads and kneeled on the ground. Both feared that they were about to be shot, perhaps

fatally.

166, Although both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley had already submitted,

LMPD Officers John Does #1-5 charged and tackled Plaintiff Smith to the ground, slamming

him into the road. LMPD Officers John Does #6-9 andLMPD Officer Jane Doe #l tackled

Plaintiff Weakley and pinned her to the ground.

167 . Plaintiff Smith, surprised by the use of force, asked why they were being placed

under arrest. Defendant Officer John Doe #l responded by calling him a domestic terorist and

pressing him further into the ground,

28

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

060

of

0001

88


168. Defendant Officer John Doe #2 placed his knee at the base of Plaintiff Smith's

neck and pushed down, fuither limiting Plaintiff Smith's ability to breathe. Echoing the haunting

words of George Floyd, Plaintiff Smith began pleading that he could not breathe,

169. Defendant Officers John Does #1,3,4, and 5 then began to beat Plaintiff Smith

with their batons, striking his back and his legs.

170, Plaintiff Smith feared that he would be killed by LMPD Officers John Does #1-5,

joining the ranks of countless unarmed Black people killed by aggressive policing.

l7l. After a few minutes, Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer

Jane Doe #1 pulled up Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley and placed them on the sidewalk

curb, Defendant Officer John Doe #3 pulled Plaintiff Smith's face mask off without explanation.

172. Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer Jane Doe #l then

placed both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley under arrest. Neither Plaintiff was told on what

basis they were being arrested.

173, Plaintiff Smith was ultimately charged with one count of misdemeanor unlawful

assembly and one count of misdemeanor curfew violation. Plaintiff Weakley was charged with

one count of felony rioting,

174. LMPD's conduct profoundly impacted both Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley.

l7 5 . As a result of the attack, Plaintiff Smith sustained cuts and bruises to his knees,

legs, and back,

17 6, Plaintiff Smith, fearful of further police misconduct, did not attend any further

protests for approximately one week. He has since returned to protests in Louisville.

177. At every protest he has attended since, he remains afraid that LMPD officers will

react as violently as they did on May 31,2020.

29

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

061

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7l30l2o Page 30 of 46 PagelD #: 30

178. Plaintiff Weakley has been traumalizedby the events of that night; she has

refused to attend any fuilher demonstrations out of fear. She attended one celebration on June 19,

2020,but she began to feel anxious as the sun went down; she left the event early for fear of

police crackdown.

Willa Tinslev

179, Plaintiff Tinsley first joined the protests on May 28,2020. She had learned about

the demonstrations on social media, and drove downtown to join at approximately 10:00 p.m.

180. When Plaintiff Tinsley arrived at the protests, she observed LMPD officers in riot

gear advancing on the protesters. Almost immediately, she saw flash bangs exploding by her and

heard pepper balls being fired,

181. A tear gas cannister exploded near Plaintiff Tinsley, who immediately could not

open her eyes or breathe because of the pain. Disoriented, she began to run in the direction of the

crowd, attempting to leave the area and find her car.

182. Eventually, another protester who saw Plaintiff Tinsley helped wash out her eyes.

Plaintiff Tinsley then began to search for her car to go home.

183. As she searched, she encountered another protester who was also looking for his

vehicle. As they walked, they encountered LMPD Officers John Does #10-13'

184. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 began yelling at Plaintiff Tinsley and the

other protester to clear the area, Plaintiff Tinsley responded that they were looking for her car.

The other protester told the officers that they were on a public sidewalk'

185. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 responded by firing pepper balls at Plaintiff

Tinsley and the other protester-from just a few feet away. Plaintiff Tinsley was shot in the arm,

torso, and leg at close range,

30

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

062

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 31 of 46 PagelD #: 31

186. Plaintiff Tinsley and the other protester turned and began to run away. Defendant

Officers John Does #10-13 continued to fire pepper balls at them, hitting Plaintiff Tinsley on the

back and on her legs.

187. In total, Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 discharged approximately 30

rounds of pepper balls at Plaintiff Tinsley and her friend, striking Plaintiff Tinsley approximately

l0 times.

188. She sustained significant bruising on her back and legs from the shots.

189, For several days following the incident, Plaintiff Tinsley could not use her arm

because ofsevere pain,

190. Plaintiff Tinsley joined a demonstration on the evening of May 31,2020. She had

learned about the event on social media.

191. She joined the march downtown around 7:00 p.m. When she arrived, the scene

was wholly peaceful; protesters were chanting and marching with signs'

I92. The protesters were not causing any damage to surrounding property'

193. Despite the peaceful nature of the protesters, Plaintiff Tinsley heard LMPD

officers stating that the demonstration was an unlawful gathering.

194. Plaintiff Tinsley then heard the explosion of tear gas cannisters and saw clouds of

smoke filling the air, She saw a flash bang detonate near her.

195, The tear gas blinded her and burned her nose and throat, while the flash bang

impaired her hearing and caused her to grow disoriented'

196. Through the cloud of smoke, pepper balls began whizzingby her. Plaintiff

Tinsley was struck multiple times in the arms and legs with projectiles, causing significant

bruising.

31

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

063

of

0001

88


I97, Disoriented, and unable to see or hear well, Plaintiff Tinsley stumbled onto a side

street. Other protesters poured milk in her eyes to alleviate the burning.

198. Eventually, scared to be alone in the midst of the widespread police violence, she

found her way to a group of approximately 40 other protesters.

199. A group of LMPD officers found the protesters and began beating them with

batons, ultimately arresting the whole group.

200. Plaintiff Tinsley was held in jail for approximately 30 hours and ultimately

charged with one count of misdemeanor curfew violation.

' 201 While Plaintiff Tinsley was in jail, an LMPD officer told her, in sum and

substance: "We're trying to arrest you guys so you have to spend a night in jail and learn your

lesson."

202. At another point, an LMPD officer told her directly: "This is to teach you a

lesson."

203, Since then, Plaintiff Tinsley has been wary of attending further demonstrations.

She has only attended a handful of protests, and never stays after sunset, out of a fear of further

police force.

204, For example, Plaintiff Tinsley ptunn.d on attending protests on June 15 , 2020.

After she learned LMPD was using an LRAD, however, Plaintiff Tinsley, who has hearing

problems, decided not to attend the protest.

Stevie Schauer

205. Plaintiff Schauer joined a small group of young people on the afternoon of June

15,2020 for a march through downtown Louisville.

32

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

064

of

0001

88


206. Immediately, Plaintiff Schauer noticed that the police presence at the gathering

was much more aggressive than on prior days of protests she had attended---even though there

were only approximately 50 people protesting, a smaller gathering than the previous protests she

had attended.

207 , Plaintiff Schauer observed an LMPD helicopter circling protesters from above.

208, As the group of protesters, including Plaintiff Schauer, moved south on 9th Street

from W. Jefferson Street towards W. Chestnut Street, they encountered a line of LMPD officers

in riot gear-with their batons out-blocking off the street.

209. LMPD officers yelled that the crowd needed to move back.

2IO. Plaintiff Schauer immediately left the street and got onto the sidewalk, where no

officers were present. Other individuals-who, upon information and belief, had not participated

in the demonstrations-were also standing on the sidewalk without issue'

2ll, ln an effort to document what was happening, Plaintiff Schauer took out her cell

phone and began to record the LMPD officers.

212. Almost immediately after she began recording, LMPD Officers John Does #14-15

broke from the line of.riot officers and approached her quickly'

213. Defendant Officer John Doe #14 yelled "move back" and immediately shoved

Plaintiff Schauer to the ground with enough force to bruise her shoulder and twist her ankle.

2I4, The shove also caused PlaintiffSchauer's cell phone and eyeglasses to shatter.

215. Plaintiff Schauer-who has a chronic condition that causes joint sensitivity-

feared that she had badly injured her shoulder or ankle.

216. Plaintiff Schauer's friend, who was also at the demonstration, tried to walk over

to Plaintiff Schauer to check on her. LMPD officers began firing pepper balls at the friend's feet,

JJ

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

065

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7130120 Page 34 of 46 PagelD #:34

217 , Defendant Officers John Does #14-15 then pushed Plaintiff Schauer to the ground

and used a plastic tie to bind her wrists.

218. The plastic tie was coiled tightly enough to bruise her wrists.

219. Plaintiff SchauerwasplacedunderarrestatapproximateLyT:30 p.m. Shewaskept

in jail for 10 hours and ultimately charged with one count of felony rioting and one count of

misdemeanor unlawful assembly.

220. At the precinct, an LMPD officer asked her "Was it worth it? You dirtied your

record for this."

221. Plaintiff Schauer had to keep her ankle wrapped in an elastic bandage for a week

to heal the injury she sustained in the course ofher arrest.

222, Since this experience, Plaintiff Schauer has been too afraid to participate in

further protests. Though she wishes to continue marching in support of the movement for police

accountability, she fears further physical violence if she participates in any additional

demonstrations.

223. To date, she feels nervous and anxious around police officers.

Kavla Meisner

224. Plaintiff Meisner attended a demonshation on the evening of May 29,2020.

225. The group of protesters was peacefully chanting and marching through

downtown. As she marched, Plaintiff Meisner saw tanks lined up along the Second Street

Bridge.

226. The protest continued down to the courthouse. After marching around the

courthouse several times, Plaintiff Meisner saw police officers stationed on top of buildings, and

she saw that police had set up banicades and brought out tanks and police vans.

34

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

066

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07l3ol20 Page 35 of 46 PagelD #: 35

227 . Then, protesters were met by a phalanx of approximately 200 LMPD officers in

riot gear and armed with batons, guns, and tear gas.

228. LMPD officers began erecting baricades to prevent people from leaving the area.

22g. LMPD officers then threatened to fire into the trapped crowd unless the group sat

down.

230. With no options, the group-including Plaintiff Meisner-sat down.

231. Nonetheless, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs and pepper balls and

launching tear gas indiscriminately into the seated crowd, prompting a panicked retreat.

232. The wave of tear gas hit Plaintiff Meisner; she was instantly unable to see or

breathe from the pain of the irritant.

233. Plaintiff Meisner had to be led away from the scene by a friend; together, they hid

in a parking gam;ge nearby as LMPD officers continued to launch tear gas into the dispersing

crowd,

234. Plaintiff Meisner then observed LMPD offiders open fire on a group of local

journalists who were covering the event.

235. Though she continues to attend demonstrations, Plaintiff Meisner fears further

police use of force against peaceful demonstrators, She feared for her life during the events of

May 29, and no longer has any trust for public officials or LMPD, She believes that LMPD will

rctaliateagainst protesters who are trying to stand up for what is right.

Kentuclqt Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression

236. As part of its work combatting racial discrimination in policing, Plaintiff

KAARPR has been involved in coordinating and attending many of the recent demonstrations in

Louisville.

35

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

067

of

0001

88


237. Earlier this spring, Plaintiff KAAPR launched a campaign related to the killing of

Breonna Taylor calling for the arrest of those officers responsible for her death, as well as

systemic reforms that will prevent excessive use of police force in the future. These include

reforms to LMPD's use of force policies, as well as systems that allow for meaningful

community oversight of the LMPD.

238, Plaintiff KAARPR's members have attended demonstrations and peacefully

protested in Louisville between May 28,2020 and the present.

239, Many of Plaintiff KAARPR's members themselves been victims of police abuse

during the protests; members who were protesting peacefully have been tear-gassed, shot with

rubber bullets, pushed and hit with batons, and experienced flash bangs and LRAD usage.

240. As a result, Plaintiff KAARPR has been forced to divert resources into purchasing

first aid supplies, as well as milk and water to treat those injured at protests. Additionally,

Plaintiff KAARPR has hired individuals to provide security, and purchased security goggles,

food, masks, and cleaning supplies for members attending protests,

24L On at least one occasion, during the course of a protest, LMPD directed sanitation

officials to collect Plaintiff KAARPR's supplies, thus preventing Plaintiff KAARPR from using

them and requiring Plaintiff KAARPR to purchase additional supplies'

242. Altogether, Plaintiff I(AARP.R has spent over $10,000 dollars in these and other

purchases for protests responding to police violence.

243. Plaintiff KAARPR has also had to expend significant staff time responding to the

excessive use offorce by police at the protests'

244. Plaintiff KAARPR has expended time and money to organize additional protests

directed towards addressing police use of force at previous protests.

36

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

068

of

0001

88


245 . Plaintiff KAARPR has also spent staff time participating in various public

education events related to the excessive use of police force at the protests. For example, on

several occasions, Plaintiff KAARPR's leadership has responded to local press inquiries

regarding the use of excessive force against protestors. Likewise, Plaintiff KAARPR has

launched a campaign, encouraging protestors to live stream marches and demonstrations, as a

means of recording acts of police violence,

246. The money and staff time Plaintiff KAARPR has spent on responding to

excessive police violence has prevented it from conducted other activities it had planned to

engage in.

247. At the beginning of the year, Plaintiff KAARPR had planned to conduct public

education events, including various panels and speakers, and organize public rallies related to the

lack of adequate education for children attending schools in Louisville's West End, as well as the

need for additional money in the City Budget for the education of Black and Brown children in

Louisville.

248. As a result of the increased staff time need to treat protestors injured by police

violence, purchase supplies to treat these protestors after they have been injured, respond to

media and public inquiries regarding the use of police force, as well as organize additional

protests in response to LMPD's excessive use of force against protestors, Plaintiff KAARPR has

been unable to organize these events or otherwise work towards improving education access and

education funding,

249. LMPD's use of force against peaceful protesters to shut down demonstrations has

also fiustrated Plaintiff KAARPR's mission to (a) ensure that public fora for free speech and

debate regarding issues of human and constitutional rights remain available to all people; (b)

JI

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

069

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3)l20 Page 38 of 46 PagelD #: 38

eliminate police abuse against peaceful, private civilians; and (c) bring together community

members to speak out on issues related to abusive police practices.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

250. Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly

situated individuals under Rule 23(bxlXA) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

("Plaintiff Class"). The Plaintiff Class comprises all individuals who peacefully participated in

any day of protests between May 28,2020 andJuly 30, 2020 onwhich LMPD officers utilized

tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, rubber bullets, impact rounds, batons, or other comparable

crowd control weaponry ("Crowd Control Weaponry") and were actually exposed to Crowd

Control Weaponry at those protests.

251, All of the members of the Plaintiff Class were injured in largely the same ways as

a result of Louisville's conduct-all of their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest in a

public forum and their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from the use of excessive force were

violated.

252. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members would

be impracticable. Thousands of peaceful protesters have been subjected to the Crowd Control

Weaponry that the LMPD has deployed from May 28, 2020 to July 30, 2020. Hundreds of

peaceful protesters have been arrested during that time.

253. The questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs are common to all members

of the Plaintiff Class. Among others, the questions common to the Plaintiff Class include:

a. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters

caused an immediate end to peaceful demonstrations and actually stifled

38

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

070

of

0001

88


free speech and peaceful assembly on matters of significant public

importance;

b. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters is

likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from fuither protests or

demonstrations;

c, Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters

creates a significant risk ofserious bodily injury;

d. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters was

unnecessary and/or excessive to maintaining public safety;

e. Why LMPD chose to use Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful

protesters;

f. Whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd

Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;

g. Whether LMPD attempted to use other forms of crowd control before

resorting to Crowd Control Weaponry; and

h. Whether the City of Louisville has ratified the LMPD's conduct, either

through its express statements or by acquiescence.

254. Common issues of law and fact predominate any individual issues.

255. All members of the Plaintiff Class were subject to the same practices and policies

of the City of Louisville.

256. The violations suffered by Plaintiffs are typical of the Plaintiff Class. Plaintiffs

were peacefully protesting when LMPD employed Crowd Control Weaponry on them. The

injuries they suffered as a result of Crowd Control Weaponry, as well as the chilling effect of

39

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

071

of

0001

88


these uses of force on their willingness to peacefully assemble to protest, are identical to the

injuries sustained by the rest of the Plaintiff Class.

257 . The entire Plaintiff Class will benefit from the injunctive relief sought herein.

258. Plaintiffs have no conflict of interest with any members of the Plaintiff Class, are

committed to vigorous prosecution of all claims on behalf of the Plaintiff Class, and will fairly

and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class,

25g. A class action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient resolution

of this legal dispute, as joinder of all members of the Plaintiff Class is impracticable. Further, the

prosecution of thousands of individual actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class

would create the substantial risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish

potentially incompatible standards of; conduct for Defendant City of Louisville.

260. The Plaintiff Class is represented by competent counsel.

COUNT IFirst Amendment Free Speech and Assembly - 42 U.S.C. $ 1933

(Against All Defendants)

261. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260

by reference as if fully set forth herein.

262. At all relevant times, Defendant Officers, Defendant Fischer, Defendant

Schroeder, and Defendant Chavous have acted-and continue to act-under color of state law'

263. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class engaged in constitutionally protected speech and

assembly by participating in peaceful protests about the killings of unarmed Black people at the

hands of police officers.

264. Defendant Officers engaged in use of Crowd Conhol Weaponry, and the other

forms of excessive force detailed above, causing injuries to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.

40

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

072

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 41- of 46 PagelD #.41-

265. Defendants Schroeder, Fischer, and Chavous approved ofand ratified the conduct

of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such Crowd Control Weaponry or

other forms of excessive force.

266. Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous are final policymakers for all

matters related to LMPD's conduct. Their decisions regarding LMPD matters constitute the

official policies of Defendant City of Louisville.

267 , Defendants' conduct is sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from

participating in further protests for fear of being subject to similar force, and did in fact actually

deter Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class from participating in further demonstrations.

268. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class reasonably fear the continued use of such

weaponry at future protests.

269. Upon information and belief, certain Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class

have been actually chilled in their exercise of protected First Amendment rights.

270. LMPD officers have continued to use Crowd Control Weaponry on protesters,

including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020'

27L Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to

approve LMPD's use of force, both expressly and by acquiescence'

272. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have sustained

the physical and emotional damages detailed above'

273. As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of tear gas and flash

bangs as approved by Defendant City of Louisville, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class continue to

fear participating in peaceful protests.

4l

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

073

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent l- Filed 07130120 Page 42 of 46 PagelD #: 42

COUNT IIFourth Amendment Excessive Force - 42 U.S.C. $ 1983




27 5. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were peaceful and

nonviolent protesters who did not disobey or refuse any police order.

276. Defendant Officers nonetheless Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class,

277 , By using Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs, and physically striking and

tackling Plaintiffs, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs to excessive force.


of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such force.





the injuries detailed above.


including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020.

282. Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to


283. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class remain active advocates against police brutality

and intend to peacefully protest again within the coming weeks.

42

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

074

of

0001

88


284, As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of Crowd Control

Weaponry, and other forms of physical force as approved by Defendants City of Louisville,

Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class will likely be fuither harmed

if they participate in peaceful protests.

COUNT IIICommon Law Battery

(Against Defendant City of Louisville and Defendant Officers)

285, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260


286. By deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live ammunition, and other projectiles at

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

to a forcible physical touching.

287. At no point did Plaintiffs or the Plaintiff Class consent, acquiesce, or otherwise

agree to the touching as detailed above.

288. The forcible touching as detailed above was in no other way privileged.

289. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers' forcible touching,

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class suffered the damages herein alleged.

290. Defendant City of Louisville, as the employer of all LMPD officers, is responsible

and liable for torts committed by all LMPD officers under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

COUNT IVCommon Law Assault


2gl. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260


43

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

075

of

0001

88


292. By threatening to deploy and in fact deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live

ammunition, and other projectiles at Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers

threatened to subject Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to a forcible physical touching,







PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class respectfully request that this Court

certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:

a. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and

Chavous, as well as LMPD's officers, employees, and agents, from the use of

Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;

b. Requiring Defendant City of Louisville to promulgate official policies

restricting the use of Crowd Control Weaponry to situations when a police

officer or other person faces an imminent risk of serious physical danger;

c. Awarding such damages to Plaintiffs as will fully compensate them for their

loss of rights, as well as their physical and emotional injuries, owing to

Defendants' conduct;

44

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

076

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535:CRS Document 1 Filed O7l3Ol2O Page 45 of 46 PagelD #: 45

d, Awarding punitive damages against the Officer Defendants and Defendants

Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous;

e. Awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuanlto 42 U.S.C. $ 1988;

Sndo

f. Granting such other relief as may be just and proper.

45

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

077

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 46 of 46 PagelD #'.46

Dated July 30, 2020Louisville, KY

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heather Gatnarek

Ashok Chandran*Christopher Kemmitt*Ajmel Quereshi*Kristen Johnson*NAACP Lncar Dsnuusp &EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

40 Rector St., 5th FloorNew York, NY 10006

Tel.: (212) 96s-2200Fax,: (212) 226-7592achandr an@n aacpl df. or g

ckemmitt@naacpldf. orgaquereshi@naacpldf, orgkj ohnson@naacpldf. org

Corey ShapiroHeather GatnarekMashayla HaysAaron TucekfACLU oF KENTCKY FouuoartoN, INc.

325 W. Main St. Suite 2210Louisville, KY 40202(s02) [email protected]@[email protected]@aclu-ky.org

Earl S. Ward*O. Andrew F. Wilson*Samuel Shapiro*Andrew K. Jondahl*EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFFABADY WARD &MAAZELLLP600 Fifth Avenue, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10020(212) [email protected]@[email protected]@ecbawm.com

* pro hac vice application forthcomingI application for admission forthcoming

46

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

078

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt l--l- Filed 07130120 Page 1- of 2 PagelD #: 47

rs44 (Rev.o8/r8) CIVI COVER SHEETTheJS44civilcoversheetandtheinformationcontainedhereinneitherreplacenorsupplementthefilingandserviceofpleadingsorotherpapersasrequiredbylaw, exceptasprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Confi:rence of th6 United Slates in September I 974, is required for the use ol the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFSRep. Attica Scott, Corbin Smith, Kayla Meisner, Tyler Weakley, StevieSchauer, Willa Tinsley, KY Alliance Against Racist & Political Bepression

(b) county of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Jefferson(EXCEPT IN U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attomeys (Firn Nuntc, Adtlress, ontl Telephone Nunber) 1q"U1hef Gatnafek,ACLU of Kentucky Foundation, S25 W. Main St. Suite 2210, Louisville,KY 40202, (502) 581-9746

DEFENDANTS Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government,Mayor Greg Fischer, Robert Schroeder, LaVita Chavous, LMPDOfficer "J." Johnson, LMPD Ofiicers John Doe #1-15 & Jane Doe #1

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Jefferson(]N U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (tf Known) sarah Martin, Jefferson county Attorney's office,Civil Division, 531 Court Place, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION fa,ce n n "X" in one Box onty)

O I U.S. covemment d 3 Federal Question

Plaintiff (U.5. Governnent Nol a Pqrly)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Ptqce an "x" in one Boxfor Ptaintill(For Diversil)) Cqses Only) and One Boxfor Defendanl)

PTF DEF

ol oPTFn4

DEF04

D 2 U.S, GovenrnentDefendant

OF SUIT on "X" in One Box

D I l0 lnsuranceO 120 MarineO 130 Miller ActD 140 Negotiable InslrumenlD 150 Recovery ofOverpaynent

& Enforcernent of JudgmentD l5l Medicare Act0 152 Recovery ofDefaulted

Student Loans(Excludes Veterans)

0 153 Recovery ofOverpaynentofVeteran's Benefits

D 160 Stockholders' SuitsO I 90 Other ContractD 195 Contract Product LiabilityO 196 Franchise

D 210 Land CondemnationO 220 Foreclosure

D 230 Rent Lease & EjectmentO 240 Torts to LandO 245 Tort Product LiabilityO 290 All Other Real Property

V. ORIGIN (Pluce an "X" in one Box only)

O 4 Diversity(lndicate Citizenship of Pcn'ties in Irem III)

Remanded fromAppellate Court

Citizen ofThis State

Citizen of Another SJate

Citizen or Subject of a

I Incorporated or Principal Place

ofBusiness In This State

2 Incorporated aurl Principal Place

ofBusiness In Another State

3 Foreign Nation

o2 0

D3 D

o 5 0.5

o 6 tr6

X I originalProceeding

D 2 Removed fromState Court

D 4 Reinstated orReopened

MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer

o3

Click

0 5 Transferred from D 6District

D 375 False Claims ActD 376 Qui Tarn (31 USC

3729(a))O 400 State Reapportionment0 410 Antitrust0 430 Banks and BankingO 450 Commerce0 460 DeportationO 470 Racketeer Influenced and

Corupt OrganizationsD 480ConsurnerCreditD 485 Telephone Consumer

Protection ActO 490 Cable/Sat TVO 850 Securities/Cornmodities/

ExchangeO 890 Other Statutory ActionsO 891 Agricultural Acts

D 893 Environrnental Mattere

O 895 Freedorn oflnfonnationAct

O 896 ArbitrationO 899 Adminislrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal ofAgency Deoision

O 950 Constitutionality ofState Statutes

O 8 MultidistrictLitigation -

Direct File

Cite the U.S42 U.S.C.

Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do nol cile iurisdictional slatutes unle$s diversit!):1 983

of causeto Delendants' violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment and Fourth Amendment ri hts; d

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONsou ht

VII, REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

E CttgCt< IF THIS rS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P, JURYDEMAND: X Y". DNO

RANKPIIPT'VTETR A.-TO 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

O 423 Withdrawal28 USC l5?

O 625 Drug Related Seizure

ofPropefiy 2l UsC 88 I

O 690 Other

0 820 CopyrightsO 830 Patent

D 835 Patent - Abbr€viatedNew Drug Application

D 840 TradernarkSN'IAI. SN..IIRIT\/

D 86r HrA(r395ff)O 862 Black Lung (923)

0 863 DIwC/DIww (a05(e))

0 864 SSID Title XVIO 86s Rsl (40s(g))

PERSONAL INJURYO 3 l0 AirplaneO 315 Airplane Product

LiabilityO 320 Assault, Libel &

SlanderO 330 Federal Employers'

Liability0 340 MarineO 345 Marine Product

LiabilityD 350 Motor VehicleO 355 Motor Vehicle

Product LiabilityD 360 Other Personal

InjuryO 362 Personal Injury -

Medical MalDractice

PERSONAL INJURYD 365 Personal Injury -

Product LiabilityD 367 Health Care/

PhannaceuticalPersonal InjuryProduct Liability

O 368 Asbestos PersonalInjury ProductLiability

PERSONAL PROPERTYD 370 Other Fraud

D 371 Truth in LendingO 380 Other Personal

Property DamageO 385 Property Damage

Product Liability

NNDNRAI- TAX SIIITSDPICANFIl Ptr'TITIr)NSpApIlp'tv ctvil, RtcH'I's

D ?10 Fair Labor StandardsAct

O 720 Labor/ManagementRelations

0 740 Railway Labor ActO 751 Falnily and Medical

Leave ActO 790 Other Labor Litigation

D 791 Employee Retirementlncome security Act

IMMIGRATIONO 462 Naturalization ApplicationO 465 Other hnmigration

Actions

O 870 Tdes (U.S. Plaintiffor Defendant)

O 871 IRS-Third Party26 USC 7609

D( 440 other civil Rights

O 441 VotingO 442 EmploymentD 443 Housing/

AccommodationsO 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -

EmploymentD 446 Arner. rv/Disabilities -

OtherO 448 Education

Habeas Corpus:O 463 Alien Detainee

O 510 Motions to VacateSentence

0 530 GeneralO 535 Death Penalty

Other:O 540 Mandamus & OtherO 550 Civil Rights

O 555 Prison conditionO 560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions ofConfinement

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

l'oR olnc!; usu 0NLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT

(See inslruclions):

APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

DATE

0712912020 Heather GatnarekSIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

079

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l--l- Filed O7l30/20 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 48JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service ofpleading or other papers as

required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September I 974, is

required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil cornplaint filed. The attomey filing a case should cornplete the form as follows:

I.(a) Ptaintiffs-Defendants. Enter narnes (last, first, rniddle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a govemment agency, use

only the full narne or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identifu first the agency and

then the official, giving both narne and title.(b) CountyofResidence. Foreachcivil casefiled,exceptU.S.plaintiffcases,enterthenameofthecountywherethefirstlistedplaintiffresidesatthe

tirne of filing, In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the narne of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land

condemnation cases, the county ofresidence ofthe "defendant" is the location ofthe tract ofland involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the finn name, address, telephone number, and attomey of record. If there are several attomeys, list them on an attachment, noting

.in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F,R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C, 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers ofthe United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3)Thisreferstosuitsunder23U,S,C. l33l,wherejurisdictionarisesundertheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,anamendment' totheConstitution,anactofCongressoratreatyoftheUnitedStates. IncaseswheretheU,s,isaparty,theU.S.plaintiffordefendantcodetakes

precedence, and box I ot'2 should be rnarked.

biversityofcitizenship. (4)Thisreferstosuitsunder28U.S.C. l332,wherepartiesarecitizensofdifferentstates. WhenBox4ischecked,the

citizenship of the dillerent parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity

cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this

section for each principal Party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code

that is most applicable. Click here for: @

V

VII.

VIII.

Origin. Place an "X" in one ofthe seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. ( I ) Cases which originate in the United States district coufis.

Removed frorn State Court, (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts rnay be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.

Regranded frorr Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing

date.Reinstated or Reopened, (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening ddte as the filing date.

Transferred frorn Another District. (5) For cases transfened under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or

rnultidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C'

Section 1407.Multidistrict Litigation - Dir.ect File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in

statue.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional

statutesunlessdiversity. Exarnple: U.S.Civil Statute: 47USC553 BriefDescription: Unauthorizedreceptionofcableservice

Requested in Complaint. Class Action, Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Defirand. check the appropriatc box to indicate whether or not a jw'y is being demanded.

Related Cases, This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, inseft the docket

numbers and the correspondingjudge names for such cases.

VI.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

080

of

0001

88

DAV]DJ. GIJARNIERI

ilq"tn&$slelisu.eQsALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS

MEBRAYER201 EAsr MAIN SrREEr, SutrE 900

LExTNGToN, K€NTUcKY 40507(859) 231-8780 EXT. 218

Fax: (8s9) 231-6518t

August 3,2020

Via mail a[d-email

,[rt Lt..t tb' rrllljs&stl:&d-c& stlu:liws i-f"'.rsg*gq,n:

C !-r ri s t npher, B u S h(# l'itk u t s I arv o tli ccs, cf:lr r

Hon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushRicketts Law Offices, PLLC4055 Shelbyville RoadLouisville, Kentucky 40207

Re: Louisville Metro Council Investigation

Dear Jonathan and Christopher,

In followup to our call, we write to continue the dialogue regarding the appearances ofInterim LMPD Chicf Robert Schroeder and Chief of Public Services Amy Hess before the

Govemrnent Ovcrsight and Audit Committee. As you know, on July 14,2020, that Committee

voted to "conduct an investigation into the Administration, its actions and falleged] inaction

regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions

reiponding to protests in Louisville Metro." In furtherance of this investigation, Chairman

Aclerson wrote to Chief Schroeder and to Chief Hess on July 17,2020, formally requesting their

appearances before the Cornmittee on or before August 5,2020 for 2-4 hours so they could answer

quistions and have a discussion with the Committee. In his July 17 letters, Chairman Ackerson

expressly advised each witness that at this time the Committee would refrain from asking either

from "divulging information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky

Attomey Geneial and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Consistent with that understanding,

Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear before the Committee on August 3, 2020, and it is

our understanding based on Mr. Rickett's July 30, 2020 email that the topics the Committee intends

to inquire about ire a) vandalism, and response to it, b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and

how media came to be targeted or came in contact with same, c) placement of snipers on roof tops,

d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment, c) warning to and communications with

piotestors, f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,

g) any 'ostand-down" order(s), dircctives, guidance given or passed along to govemment

i"rponArrr relative to protests, vandalism, etc., and h) how or why law enf,orcement came to be at

Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.

With the understanding that their appearance would not require them to divulge

information which could compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General,

Law Olfises: Lexlngton i Lorliriville

GnvsrnrilBrlt Aifaira; FronLJorl; I Wi:shington' D'C.

mcbrSyecfirm.oom

EXHIBIT E

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

081

of

0001

88

n\4 q h? r: i.\Y#.w )Hon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushAugust 3,2420

or the FBI, Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear and testify, and they still plan to do so.

However, on July 30,2020 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western

District of Kentucky styled Scott, et., al., v. Louisttille/Jefferson County Metro Government, et. al,,

3:20-CV-535 (the "scott Action"). The allegations and claims asserted therein concern the same

subject matters Chiefs Schroeder and Hess have been asked to address on August 3. Specifically,

the gravamen of the Complaint in the Scott Action concems LMPD's response to protests

throughout Louisville beginning on May 28,2020 and continuing to present day, and it specifically

concems: the use of tear gas and peppff balls;l allegations that the media was targeted or came

into contact with such agents;2 the stationing of officers atop buildings;3 the placement and usc ofsound equipment;a wamings and communications with protesters fand others];s the use of helmets

and other protective gear;6 purported stand-down orders, directives, guidance given or passed

along to government responders;7 and how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night

1 Complaint? paras, 37 ,39-42, 44-47, 50,52, 56-7,59-60,64,68,70,74,78-79,81-84, 87, 90, 98,

l0t-103, 106,,122-125,128-129,133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187,194-196,216,227,231-233,239,250 aniJ273 all allege the use and/or improper use of tear gas and/orpepper balls.2 Complaint,pata.4g alleges LMPD officers targeted joumalists, and para, 107 alleges an LMPDofficer shot a repoder from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ballon June 17,20203 Complaint,para.226.a Complaint, ptro. I 00 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. I 04, 1 08 and 137 -

138,204 and239 all allege the use of LRAD's by LMPD.5 Complaint, para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs (who

seek class certification on behalf of all peaceful protesters) include "whether LMPD officers issued

any waming before employing Crowd Control Weaponry;".6 Complaint, paras. 35, 101, 142,155,163, 180,208 and227 all concern the use of helmets orother rioVprotective gear by LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters fand others].7 Complaint,para 94 alleges that "[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 75,2020,Defendant Fischer apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result,

he would be instituting needed refonns to the LMPD's use of tbrce practices, But the very nextday, in responss to criticism from ths LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating

that he had not instructed and would not instruct offrcers to o'stand down'o and that Defendant

Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action,"

2

t

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

082

of

0001

88

MEBRAYERHon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushAugust 3,2020

David McAtee was shot.8 The Plaintiffs in the ,Scott Action aro wcll aware of the Committeeinvestigation and in fact, specifically mention it in their Complaint.e

Because of the significant, if not corrplete, overlap between this now pending litigationand Monday's scheduled agerrda, much, if not the entirety, of Monday's Committee hearing willhave to take place in executive session per the mandate of the Kentucky Ceneral Assembly.

Specifically, KRS 67C.103(14)(b), which is expressly referenced in the Cornmittee's OR-004-20,

requires that "[t]estimony subject to KRS 61.810 shall only be taken in executive session." As you

know, KRS 61.810(c) exempts discussions of proposed or pending litigation llom open meetings.

On July 31,202A, we contacted the two of you to ensure that the Cornmittee was aware ofthe Scott suit, and to inquire whether it affects whether the Committee plans to proceed as

scheduled, or believes a continuance is in order. While Mr, Bush had not hacl an opportunity toconfer with the Committee and/or its leadership to determine whether this newly filed lawsuit

alters its planned course of action, Mr. Bush did indicate a preliminary assessment that thisdevelopment would unlikely change the timing of things. Given the Committee's expressed

demand for "a transparent, public process" as stated in the eighth recital in OR-004-20, it seems

your client should reconsider proceeding forward on Monday.

The Administration is committed to participating in the Committee's investigation, as itshares the same goals of bringing to light the truth of these events not only so that the community

can get answers to the questions it has surrounding them, but also so that any resulting policy

changes can be made in an effective, substantive way. However, just as the Committee already

recognized the need to balance the integrity of the AG and FBI investigations with its audit and

oversight authority, we ask that the Cornmittee also recognize the need to balance the importantinterests the General Assembly protected when enacting KRS 61.810 (which is carried over intoits enactment of KRS 67C.I03) with the mutual goals and objectives our clients have for an open,

transparent process, Accordingly, rather than proceed on Monday under the unsatisfactory

constraints of executive session, we encourage the Committee to reschedule the appearances ofChiefs Schroeder and Hess to a time whcn they can reasonably and prudently testifli about the

above referenced matters in an open, rather than closed setting.

KRS 67C.103(14Xb) permits an agency or witness to waive the requirement that the

testirrony be taken in executive session. If we proceed forward on Monday, neither witness can

reasonably be expected to do so, and will not do so given: ( 1 ) that the Scott lawsuit was just filedtwo business days ago; (2) Chief Schroeder is named as an individual defendant and has not had

8 Complaint, para, 69 alleges that on thc evening of May 31,2020, "two and a half miles from the

site of the protests downtown, LMPD offioers and the National Guard shot and killed DavidMcAtee while attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee'srestaurant," which is across the street from Dino's.e Cornplaint,palaT20,

3

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

083

of

0001

88

Hon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushAugust 3,2420

MgBRAYER

an opportunity to confer with personal counsel, and most significantly, (3) the lawsuit not only

seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but it also seeks injunctive relief that could result in

limitations on LMPD's ability to effectively and lawfully manage future protests in a way that

recognizes the First Amendment rights associated with peaceful protests without impairing

LMPD's ability to protect and serve, by effoctively policing those whose objective is not topeacefully protest, but to vandalize or destroy property, loot businesses or otherwise make

mayhem.

While we have shared the essential components of this letter in our call of this morning,

we look forward to hearing from you once you have had a chance to confer with your client about

whether it plans to proceed Monday in executive session, or prefers to delay the hearing for a

sufficient amount of time to allow for the witnesses to testiff in an open meeting without adverse

impact on pending litigation.

Sincerely,

{

-\2JlDAVID J. GUARNIERISTEPHEN G. AMATOAttorneys For Louisville Metro Government

L, Kl .-C. KLAUSING

Attomey for LMPD Chief Schroeder =*e

4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

084

of

0001

88

JONATHAN S, RICKETTSAlso Admitted: U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces

RTcrnrTS LAW OPNCNS, PLLCATToRNEYS lr Law

THE RICKETTS BUILDING+oss SHEI-SyVILLE ROAD

LoUISVTLLE, KENTUcKY 40207Phone (502) 896-2303Fax (502)896-2362

OF COUNSEL:

CHARLES E, RICKETTS, JR,Also Admitted: District of Columbia

A. CARL PLATTAlso Admitted: lndiana

CHRISTOPHER D. BUSHAugust 3,2020

Hon. David GuarnieriHon. Stephen AmatoHon. Joseph Klausing

Via Email Only

Dear Counsel,

Thank you for our conversation this morning and your subsequent letter of today's date.

I apologize that this letter does not conform to customary conespondence format, and may

contain typographical errors; however, in an attempt to answer your letter as efficiently and

quickly as possible, please accept this letter in the spirit of expeditious communications intended

for the benefit of our clients,

I understand from our call that Mr, Klausing is now representing Chief Schroeder. Mr,Amato and Mr. Guarnieri remain counsel for Chief Hess.

ln speaking with Councilman Ackerson after our call, please know that he intends to

proceed today as scheduled and previously agreed,

With respect to the new concerns raised in your letter this afternoon, we understand them

to be that be the "pending litigation exceptiono'contained in KRS 61.810(1)(c) and KRS

67C.I03(I4)(b) require today's meeting to occur in executive session, or be delayed until an

open and public meeting can be had at some unidentified point in the future. The Chair does not

agree and does not see any mandate or support for a continuance or a closed meeting. The crux

of the position set forth in your letter and previous discussions appears to be that the topics slated

for today's meeting are now subsumed by the litigation referenced in your letter, filed last week

in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, and therefore the "pending litigation"exception applies to the testimony of your clients. By our analysis, this exception would not

apply to the topics slated for today's discussion. As you know, the Open Meetings Act and

developing caselaw make clear that the exceptions under 61 .8 I 0 are to be construed nanowly.With respect to the pending litigation exception, caselaw is clear that it is to be narrowlyimplemented. See eg Floyd County v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (KY 1997)(the pending litigationexceptions "would apply to matters commonly inherent to litigation, such as preparation, strategy

or tactics.... And must "not be expanded to include general discussions of everything tangential

to the topic."). Based on this caselaw, we believe no basis for going into closed session exists if

EXHIBIT F

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

085

of

0001

88

the council asked your clients about topics other than litigation strategy, which it has no intent todo, and it would be unlawful to invoke the exception so broadly.

While your clients may find it personally unpleasant and untimely to discuss these topics

in the open, "[t]he exceptions to the open meetings laws are not to be used to shield the agency

from unwanted or unpleasant public input, interference or scrutiny." Ratlffi 955 S.W.2d at924."The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what isgood for the public to know and what is not good for them to know" 1974Ky. Acts Chap. 377,

HB 100.

Finally, the Open Meeting Act exceptions are a "shield," not a "shackle," The General

Assembly did not intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption

applies. See eg Lawson v. OAG 415 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2013)("The General Assembly did not

intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption applies".)Accordingly, the Committee is free to waive any exemption that may apply, at any time.

For the forgoing reasons, we respectfully communicate the Committee's intent to proceed

today, as no authority cited in your letter would appear to compel them to cancel or continue

today's meeting.

Thanking you for your continued understanding in accepting the fluid and hunied nature

of these communications among counsel for the benefit of our clients and the public's right to

know about matters most important to them, I remain,

Very truly yours,

/s/ Jonathan RickettsJonathan S. Rickettsi ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces. com

JSR

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

086

of

0001

88

COMMOITWEALTH OF KENTUCKYLOUSVILLE METRO COUNCIL

GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AI]DIT COMMITTEE

IN RE: II\T\{ESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF TIIE ADMINISTRATION SURROT]ND-ING THE DEATH OF BREONNA TAYLOR, TIIE DEATII OT'DAVID MCATEE, AI\ID RELATED PROTESTS

IN LOUISVILL METRO

(AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION PER LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL ORDER Nb. OO3, SERIES 2O2O)

LEGISLATwE ( x.) SUBPOENA ( ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

To: Amy Hess, Chief of Public Services, 527 W,Jefferson Street, Fourth Floor, Louisville, l{Y 40202

Pursuant to KRS 67C.IA304) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b), and a majority vote of the Government Oversight andAudit Committee,you are commanded to appear before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee at Historic CityHall, 601 West Jefferson Sfreet, Louisville, KY 40202 on the lTth day of AuAust , 2020 atthe hour of 2:30 pm.

.-X To testiff before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee, relative to the above referenced independentaudit or investigation.

To produce work papers or documents described on Attachment A hereto

Your failure to obey this subpoenamay subject you to contemptCouncil Rule 4A.04(b).

as provided in KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro

Issued by:Title: Presiding Government Oversight and Audit Committee

601 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202Date:

t*t't)ttf *'|.** ** rl.**'t****'t**'t**+* ****************1.,t** 'l*****,i****TO BE COMPLETED WHEN TrrE WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGES SERVTCE OF T{E SUBPOENAI hereby acknowledge receipt of a true copy of this subpoena:Signed Date:

'1.{.i. {. ****d.**t**+,f t* t,t***********f ** **** ++*****'i+*'F***+*+**t*

I, being first duly swom state that I am over l8 years ofage and that theI personally delivered a true copy ofthis subpoena today of 20-----

who is known to me.Signed:

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKYcounty of

-

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by20-.

this day of

Signed: Title:My commission expires:

,1.*{.t*f,* ****,F***+t,1.********rl.*+*** {< *+************+*,1.d,+****** tTO BE COMPLETED. WHEN SUBPOENA IS SERVED BY AN 9FFICERThis subpoena was served by delivery of a true copy to , this _ day of

20Signed: Title:

EXHIBIT G

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

087

of

0001

88

- -- -'-Aiubpo.enashatbe,rrrJ;#ffi;H####ilr;#'#H###;T;#;#'u'poe,iasmaybeservedby an officer by whom a summons might be served, or by any person over l8 years ofage whose affidavit is endorsed above, or awitness may acknowledge service by his signature above. An exact, signed duplicate must be filed with the Government Oversightand Audit Conomittee at or prior to the appearance scheduled above.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

088

of

0001

88

DAVID J, GUAI{NIERIdguarn ieri@mcbraycrfi rm. conr }MilffiI${AYffiR 201 EAST MAIN STREEI', SUITE 9OO

LEXINGTON, KY 40507859,231.8780 Ex',l- l218

FAX: 859.960.2917

August 7,2020

vIA MAIL.{Np E}{ArLJon athan.Ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces.comChri stopher. B ush(@ri ckettslawot'fices. comJonathan Ricketts, Esq.Christopher Bush, Esq.Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC4055 Shelbyville RoadLouisville, Kentucky 4A207

RE: Louisville Metro Council Investigation


We are in receipt of the subpoena the Louisville Metro Council Government Oversight and

Audit Committee has issued for Chief of Public Safety Amy Fless, and we are awars that the

Comnrittee has also subpoenaed Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder. We herebyaccept service of the subpoena to Chief }Iess as indicated by our signatures on the subpoenaenclosed herewith.

'I'he subpoena does not speci$ whether the testin:ony requested for August 17,2020 willbe in open or closed session, but based on the comments the Committee's Chair made at the Augnst3, 2020 Special Meeting, and the vote that was taken afterward, we are proceeding on the

unde rstanding that the Committee is seeking Cliief Hess to testify in an open session on the same

t<lpics delineated in your July 30 email. I write to again notify the Committee tliat our positionremains turchanged that if it wishes to proceed at this time, it must do so in executive session, and

to also reiterate our position that Chief Hess is not prepared to waive the executive session

requirement and testifr in open session until it is reasonably clear that shc can do so withoutadversely impacting Metro Government's interests in the pencling ACLU litigation.

We continue to believe that Chief l{ess could appear to testi$ in open session hy the firstweek of Septernber. By that time, the defendants in the ACLU suit will likely have been served,

retained cormsel and responded to the allegations in the cornplaint, Also, we will likely have abetter idea by then whether any temporary injunctive relief will be sought related to LMPD'smanaging of future protests. Given the imporlant role that peacet'ul protests play in our democraticsociety, it is critical that LMPD not be constrained in those instances where coutter prctesters

attempt to engage the peaceful protesters, and it is equally critical that LMPD maintain the abilityto effectively police those whose intention it is not to peacefully protest, but to engage in unlawful

i.r;t li::.,:t:: I ii),i:ij:,rir I i ,,r ,.,..:t:;.

ir:::,iiii irili:t:i:, ..:ii;;::.: !::: t::1. ..r; , I il:j:,ri'!riir-irii ,.: r'.

rno tiri)y{)r{irm.roin

EXHIBIT H

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

089

of

0001

88

t lt4U) ffi14.b"Ytr"W

Jonathan Ricketts, Esq.Chlistopher Bush, Esq.Ricketts Law Offices, PLLCAngust 7,2A20Page2

behavior. We would hope the Committee, too, shares these goals. In a similar vein, the Chair saidon August 3 that he doesn't care about lawsuits and damages, Given the austerc times state andlocal governments are facing due to the impact COVID-19 has and continues to have, my clientdoes not have the same viewpoint as the Chair, and perhaps the rest of the Cornmittee in this regard,

Accordingly, rather than disobey the Committee's subpoena by refusing to appear, orrvasting the Committee's time by appearing and insisting that the Committee go into executivesession, my client plans to file a declaratory judgment action early next week in order to resolvethe current disagreement it has with your client on the application of KRS 61.S10(c) to theseproceedings. Based on comments made by some of the Committee members after we excusedourselves fi'om Monday's special meeting, i,ve think there is a common desire by many involvedfor a clear resolution so any further work by the Committee is in accordance with established law.As a practioal matter, however, it is unlikely a cirouit court action can result in a tinal, non-appealable declaratory judgment befbre August 17, so absent an ogreement to postpone thescheduled appearances, we will have no choice but to seek ir{urrctive relief under CR 65.03 andcR 65.04.

While our differing opinions on the application oi'KRS 61.810(c) to the Committee'sinvestigation make a legal action inevitabJe, we do not believe it necessary for each party to devotethe substantial time and resources that would be required in an injunction hearing, and would liketo seek an agreement on the most ef{icient, and expcdient way to proceed, Specifically, my clientproposes that Mary Ellen Wiederwohl, Chief of Louisville Forward, and select members ofLouisville Forward appear on August 17 in lieu of Chiefs Hess and Schroeder to discuss andeducate the Committee on that department's activity on Elliott Avenue in regards to vacant andabandoned propefiy and public nuisances. Comments flom your members at the meeting onAugust 3'd indicated that they would like to hear testimony on this topic as well, and so long as thequestioning does not encroach on the Attorney General or FBI investigations, they can appear in"open session". This resolution allows the Committee to holcl the soheduled session on the 17th

tvith testimony that would likely have occurred anyway at a later date, and allows the parlies andthe circuit court time to work through the legal question in a more prudent, but still, expeditiousman.ner.

One other issue I want to raise with you at this time in an effort to avoid a similar, andhopefully avoidable impasse as the one that occun'ed on August 3 in regard to the open meetingconcetns, is that under the separation of powers principles embodied in the Kentucky Constitution,the Committee's investigation has to heive as its focus a legislative purpose, and cannot merely bea fact finding mission that is unrelated to current or possibly future legislation. Based on that partof the eleventh recital of Order No. 003, Series 2020 that the Council adopted on July 14,2020,

Lt :, iliiit,t:::. i. ;::.:l :i:l l,:': i I ; ; :l r,,;i i i i;

,..i:r,... ,.i ,1.:: :.::, . ,1 :: rjl:r i.. : ii..,:1:: !''j . ,i :; "

rr;t:lit'',yltr'lir tr l:,ttit

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

090

of

0001

88

MgBRI\YERJonathan Ricketts, Esq.Christopher Bush, Esq.Ricketts Law Oftlces, PLLCAugnst 7,2A2APage 3

stating that the Committee will make findings of fact so that "the Metro Council may takelegislative action," we are proceeding with the good fuith understanding that there is consensus onthis point. Howevero some of the comments from the Chair and others suggest that the purpose ofthe investigation may simply be an open ended, fact finding mission that is not oonfined to existingordinances or ordinances that are being contemplated, instead.l

We are available the remainder of today, tluoughout the weekend and first thing Mondayif you wish to discuss orr above proposal or any other aspect of this letter. Otherwise, we will keepyou apprised of any filing in circuit court.

Sincerely,

\t

DAVID J. GUARNIERI

DJG:dmp

4837-1862-0615, v. 1

I At the August 3 Special Meeting, in his opening remalks, the Chair said, "my sole focus is to get the truth out to thepublic about what has happened and why." Later, the Chair said "today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chairof this body whose job it is to get the truth out here to the public. , , ,"

Invr illiulri: Inrin0tun I huisrrilln

liovn'rnnrrrl A[[irirs: Irirrrkfcri I Wi:shinllnn, 0 I].

nrnblirynriilnr r:nnr

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

091

of

0001

88



CIVIL BRANCH

____ DIVISION

NO. ____



METRO GOVERNMENT, for itself and on behalf of


v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND

TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL, et al. DEFENDANTS

** ** ** ** ** **

Comes Plaintiff, Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (the “Plaintiff” or “Metro

Government”), by counsel and hereby respectfully requests, for the reasons set forth herein, the

Court enter a Restraining Order pursuant to CR 65.03 and a Temporary Injunction pursuant to CR

65.04, restraining Defendants, Louisville Metro Council (“Metro Council”) and the named

individual Metro Council Members1 (collectively, “Defendants”), from enforcing the August 5,

2020 Legislative Subpoena (“Subpoena”) requiring Chief Hess to “testify [in open session] before

the Government Oversight and Audit Committee” on August 17, 2020 at 2:30 p.m., restraining

Defendants from seeking testimony from Chief Hess or any other witness on matters related to

pending litigation without first going into executive session, and requiring the scope of the

1 The named Metro Council Members are Jessica Green (District 1), Barbara Shanklin (District 2), Keisha Dorsey

(District 3), Barbara Sexton Smith (District 4), Donna Purvis (District 5), David James (District 6), Paula McCraney

(District 7), Brandon Coan (District 8), Bill Hollander (District 9), Pat Mulvihill (District 10), Kevin Kramer (District

11), Rick Blackwell (District 12), Mark Fox (District 13), Cindi Fowler (District 14), Kevin Triplett (District 15),

Scott Reed (District 16), Markus Winkler (District 17), Marilyn Parker (District 18), Anthony Piagentini (District 19),

Stuart Benson (District 20), Nicole George (District 21), Robin Engel (District 22), James Peden (District 23),

Madonna Flood (District 24), David Yates (District 25), and Brent Ackerson (District 26).

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

092

of

0001

88

2

Government Oversight and Audit Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to matters that

serve a legitimate legislative purpose. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

The Metro Government faces a level of uncertainty and turmoil that has been rarely seen

in history. In the midst of a global, once in a century pandemic that has altered every aspect of the

Metro Government’s operations, significant domestic unrest has developed regarding law

enforcement and its interactions with the African American community. This unrest has led to

months long large-scale protests, and disruptive interactions with law enforcement have occurred

throughout the city. The Metro Government faces litigation in federal court regarding its handling

of these protests, and the Kentucky Attorney General, the FBI, and the Kentucky State Police

(“KSP”) are involved in investigations into the shooting of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee

during encounters with law enforcement.

In this backdrop, the Metro Council’s Government Oversight and Audit Committee (the

“Committee”) initiated an investigation into its executive counterparts’ handling of a number of

issues which, pertinent to this motion, include LMPD’s policies and procedures. In furtherance of

the Committee’s investigation, Chief Amy Hess (“Chief Hess”), the Metro Government’s Chief of

Public Safety, and Louisville Metropolitan Police Department (“LMPD”) Chief Robert Schroeder

(“Chief Schroeder”) agreed to appear and testify in open session before the Committee on August

3, 2020 on certain delineated subjects. However, less than two business days before they were

scheduled to testify, the Metro Government, the Mayor, Chief Schroeder, and others were sued in

an action filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky styled Scott,

et al., v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, et al., 3:20-CV-535 (the “Scott Action”)

for alleged civil rights abuses.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

093

of

0001

88

3

The subject matter addressed in the Scott Action is the same subject matter of the proposed

questioning by the Committee. As such, so as not to adversely impact the Defendants’ positions

in the newly filed Scott Action, and consistent with the express directives of KRS 67C.103(14),

the Metro Government, Chief Hess, and Chief Schroeder requested their testimony either be taken

in executive session on August 3, 2020, or delayed until they could testify in an open session

without adversely impacting the Scott Action. Not satisfied with their proposal, the Committee

demanded Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder either testify then and there in open session or leave.

Perched on the horns of this dilemma, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder excused themselves from

the special meeting and the Committee has now subpoenaed Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder to

give testimony in open session on August 17, 2020.

Chief Hess, Chief Schroeder, and Mayor Greg Fischer (the “Mayor”) and his

Administration want nothing more than to share with the public and the Committee their

experiences and thoughts related to LMPD’s policies and procedures and the related matters,

provided the Committee respects the express language of KRS 67C.103(14) and the legislative

purpose that underlies the investigatory powers the General Assembly conferred on it when

enacting KRS 67C.103(13) and (14). To that end, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder have offered,

on numerous occasions, to testify in executive session now, or to testify at an open session when

doing so will not unreasonably impact the Scott Action. This procedure would balance the

Committee’s rights to get the information it seeks with the protections the General Assembly has

afforded public agencies involved in pending litigation.

Despite the attempts at cooperation, Defendants insisted upon ignoring the plain language

of KRS 67C.103(14) and intend to attempt to compel Chief Hess to testify in open session on

August 17, 2020, going even so far as to incorrectly assert the closed session is the Committee’s

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

094

of

0001

88

4

privilege to waive. As detailed herein, the Metro Council is acting in violation of KRS

67C.103(14) and the Metro Government and Chief Hess will be irreparably harmed if injunctive

relief is not granted.

Accordingly, this Court should restrain Defendants from enforcing the Subpoena requiring

Chief Hess to testify in open session before the Committee on August 17, 2020, restrain

Defendants from seeking testimony from Chief Hess or any other witness on matters related to

pending litigation without first going into executive session, and require the scope of the

Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative

purpose.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The Metro Council is the city council, organized under KRS Chapter 67C, for the

Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government.2 In this capacity, the Metro Council is the

legislative body for the Metro Government. Pursuant to KRS 67C.103(13), the Metro Council

formed the Committee.3

2. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro

Government and, accordingly, has all executive and administrative power of the government. The

Mayor is responsible for, and has supervisory authority over, numerous executive cabinets,

departments, and divisions all of which comprise his Administration (the “Administration”) and

exercises those powers set forth therein in KRS 67C.105.

2 Each of the named individual Defendants are current elected members of the Metro Council. 3 The current members of the Committee are Ackerson, Piagentini, Smith, Hollander, Coan, Fowler, Purvis, Kramer,

Flood, Blackwell, and Benson.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

095

of

0001

88

5

3. As part of the Administration, Chief Hess is the Chief of the department of Public

Safety. In this capacity, Chief Hess is responsible for, and has supervisory authority over,

Louisville Fire, Emergency Services, Corrections, and the LMPD.

4. On or about March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor (“Taylor”) was shot and killed during

the execution of a search warrant. Taylor’s shooting garnered national attention and community

leaders called for an investigation into the shooting.

5. On or about May 25, 2020, George Floyd (“Floyd”) was killed while being arrested

by the Minneapolis Police Department. Within days of Floyd’s death, massive large-scale protests

swept through the nation.

6. The deaths of Taylor and Floyd caused significant protests in downtown Louisville

beginning on or about May 28, 2020 which continue to the present day. During the protests,

LMPD, KSP, and members of the Kentucky National Guard were, at various times, responsible

for the safety of the public including the large majority of protestors who were protesting

peacefully.

7. Since June 1, 2020, Chief Hess has had supervisory authority and responsibility

over the LMPD.

8. Unfortunately, some individuals took the opportunity to not engage in a peaceful

protest, but instead to engage in unlawful behavior including violent confrontations with law

enforcement and the widescale destruction of property. These activities led to interactions between

protestors and the LMPD, KSP, and the National Guard. During these interactions, various

methods of crowd control were utilized by law enforcement.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

096

of

0001

88

6

9. On May 31, 2020, David McAtee (“McAtee”) was shot and killed during an

encounter with law enforcement including the Kentucky National Guard near Dino’s Food Mart,

sparking further protests.

10. The Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and

the KSP have each either initiated their own or assumed oversight of certain investigations of the

Taylor and McAtee deaths, and those investigations are ongoing.

11. On July 14, 2020, the Metro Council passed Order No. 003, Series 2020 entitled

An Order to Investigate the Actions and Inaction of the Administration Surrounding the Death of

Breonna Taylor, the Death of David McAtee, and Related Protests in Louisville Metro (the

“Order”). July 14, 2020 Order (attached hereto as Exhibit A.).

12. After referencing the death of Taylor, the protests, and the shooting of McAtee,

the Order states that “the protests sparked law-enforcement responses and actions that included the

lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, other chemical agents,

and other techniques[.]” Id. at 1. The Order alleges that “critical information about the planning,

training, communication, and execution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna

Taylor’s home and her death has been withheld from the public” and that “information surrounding

the planning, coordination, training, and execution of responses by activated National Guard

personnel working in concert with LMPD has been withheld from the public[.]” Id.

13. In part, the Order states the “Metro Council and the public at large seek to better

understand these events and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions made

by, and orders given by any officers” of the Metro Government, any board or commission

described in KRS § 67C.103(13)(f), including the Mayor and his administration, and by LMPD.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

097

of

0001

88

7

Id. at 1. The Order further states the “Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a

transparent, public process whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing

information is revealed to help resolve” the issues referenced in the Order. Id. at 2.

14. The Order authorizes the Committee to investigate these matters and, after the

investigation, “report findings of fact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or make

recommendations for any changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and processes

for investigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.” Id. The Order provides that the scope of

the investigation shall include:

Working with any counsel for GOAC/Louisville Metro Council, and/or its

designated investigator.

- Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions of officers

of the consolidated local government and any board or commission described in

KRS § 67C.103(13)(f), including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, his

leadership team, and his administration (the "Administration") and LMPD by and

through its agents that led to the search warrant execution and shooting death of

Breonna Taylor on March 13, 2020.

- Identifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents, policies,

processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro Government and

impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee.

- Identifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems that led to

the execution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of the

night, and the death of Breonna Taylor.

- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the death

of Breonna Taylor.

- Identifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, and

follow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to the death

of David McAtee.

- Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD in response

to protesting occurring in Louisville Metro following the death of Breonna Taylor.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

098

of

0001

88

8

- Interviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the foregoing public

concerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena authority set forth in KRS

67C.103(14)(e).

Order at 2-3.

15. The Order directs that the Committee “will conduct the investigation into the

Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David

McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding to protests in Louisville Metro with the

legislative power contained in KRS §§ 67C.103(13)(f), 67C.103(14), and according to Metro

Council Rule 4A.04(b).” Id. at 3. Finally, the Order provides that the Committee “Chair shall

have the power to issue subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS §§ 67C.103(14)(e) and

Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b) during regular or special meetings of the Committee.” Id. at 3.

16. In furtherance of the Order, on July 17, 2020, the Chairman of the Committee,

Councilman Brent Ackerson sent a letter to Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder formally requesting

each appear for a hearing before the Committee on or before August 5, 2020. July 17, 2020

Correspondence (attached hereto as Exhibit B). According to the July 17, 2020 correspondence,

the Committee would refrain from asking Chief Hess or Chief Schroeder to divulge “information

which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation." Id.

17. On July 30, 2020, through correspondence from its counsel, the Committee

conveyed that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would be questioned on the following topics:

A) vandalism, and the response to it;

B) the use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be targeted

or came in contact with the same;

C) the placement of snipers on rooftops;

D) the placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment;

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

099

of

0001

88

9

E) the warning to and communications with protestors;

F) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment

by officers;

G) any “stand-down” order(s), directives, guidance given or passed along to

government responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.; and

H) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino’s the night David McAtee

was shot.

See July 30, 2020 E-mail (attached hereto as Exhibit C).

18. With the understanding that Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder’s appearances would

not require them to divulge any information regarding ongoing investigations, the Metro

Government agreed both would appear before the Committee on August 3, 2020.

19. Subsequently, however, on July 30, 2020, the Scott Action was filed in federal

court. See Scott Complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit D). The Scott Action names as defendants

the Metro Government, the Mayor, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville,

Chief Schroeder, individually and in his official capacity as Interim Chief of the Louisville

Metropolitan Police Department, LaVita Chavous, individually and in her official capacity as

Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, Louisville Metropolitan Police

Department Officer “J.” Johnson, Louisville Metropolitan Police Department Officer John Does

#1-#15, and Jane Doe #1, in their individual capacities. Id. The plaintiffs in the Scott Action assert

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations and common law directly related to the

topics that the Committee seeks to question Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder regarding, and seek

compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the LMPD.

20. The Scott Action concerns the Metro Government’s response to the protests

throughout Louisville beginning on May 28, 2020. Specifically, the Complaint in the Scott Action

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

100

of

0001

88

10

raises allegations of the use of tear gas and pepper balls;4 allegations that the media was targeted

or came into contact with such agents;5 the stationing of officers atop buildings;6 the placement

and use of sound equipment;7 warnings and communications with protesters [and others];8 the use

of helmets and other protective gear;9 purported stand-down orders, directives, guidance given or

passed along to government responders;10 and how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino’s

the night David McAtee was shot.11

21. As such, the subject matter and allegations allegedly supporting the plaintiffs’

claims in the Scott Action directly relate to and are encompassed in the line of questioning that the

Committee seeks to ask Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder about. Therefore, the proposed testimony

of Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would directly relate to and touch upon every aspect of the

potential defense, answer, strategy, and positions of the Metro Government, the LMPD, and all of

the named defendants in the Scott Action.

4 See Scott Complaint at paras. 37, 39-42, 44-47, 50, 52, 56-7, 59-60, 64, 68, 70, 74, 78-79, 81-84, 87, 90, 98, 101-

103, 106,, 122-125, 128-129, 133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187, 194-196, 216, 227, 231-233, 239,

250 and 273. 5 Id. at para. 49 alleges LMPD officers targeted journalists, and para. 107 alleges an LMPD officer shot a reporter

from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ball on June 17, 2020 6 Id. at para. 226. 7 Id. at para. 100 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. 104, 108 and 137-138, 204 and 239 all allege

the use of LRAD’s by LMPD. 8 Id. at para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by plaintiffs (who seek class certification on

behalf of all peaceful protesters) include “whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd

Control Weaponry;”. 9 Id. at paras. 35, 101, 142, 155, 163, 180, 208 and 227 all concern the use of helmets or other riot/protective gear by

LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters [and others]. 10 Complaint, para 94 alleges that “[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant Fischer

apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be instituting needed reforms

to the LMPD’s use of force practices. But the very next day, in response to criticism from the LMPD, Defendant

Fischer walked back his promise, stating that he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to “stand down”

and that Defendant Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.” 11 Id. at para. 69 alleges that on the evening of May 31, 2020, “two and a half miles from the site of the protests

downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while attempting to disperse a small

social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee’s restaurant,” which is across the street from Dino’s.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

101

of

0001

88

11

22. Following the filing of the Scott Action, counsel for the Metro Government

contacted the Committee and indicated that, in light of the relief sought by the Scott plaintiffs, the

fact that Chief Schroeder did not have sufficient time to confer with personal counsel, and the

congruence between the Scott Action and the Committee’s investigation, pursuant to KRS

67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder would only testify in executive

session should the Committee wish to proceed as scheduled on August 3, or would be willing to

testify in an open meeting at a date in the near future when doing so would not adversely impact

the litigation position in the Scott Action. Metro Government August 3, 2020 Letter (attached

hereto as Exhibit E).

23. In response, the Committee Chairman, Counselman Brent Ackerson, indicated

through counsel that he did not intend to conduct the appearance in executive session and would

not delay or continue the August 3, 2020 hearing until a date in the future when one or both

witnesses would waive the executive session requirement set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2).

Committee August 3, 2020 Letter (attached hereto as Exhibit F). Specifically, the Committee

Chairman has taken the position that KRS 67C.103(14)(b) does not require that Chief Hess and

Chief Schroeder’s testimony to be taken in executive session as he does not believe the testimony

falls within the scope of KRS 61.810 and that he intends to waive the executive session

requirement.

24. On August 3, 2020, Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder appeared before the

Committee and again conveyed they were more than willing to answer questions regarding the

Committee’s investigation but, pursuant to KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810, would only do

so on that day in an executive session in light of the Scott Action.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

102

of

0001

88

12

25. During the August 3, 2020 hearing, Chairman Ackerman responded that “my sole

focus is to get the truth out to the public about what has happened and why.” Later, the Chairman

said “today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chair of this body whose job it is to get the

truth out here to the public. . . .” Chairman Ackerman refused to allow for testimony in executive

session and indicated the Committee is “not going into executive session. There will be nothing

hidden from the public regarding this matter” and went on to state “Zero. Plain and simple. So, with

that being said, if you're not going to proceed, there's the door.”12

26. As the Committee refused to respect the mandate set out in KRS 67C.103(14)(b) that

it only take testimony on a matter covered by KRS 61.810 in executive session, Chief Hess and

Chief Schroeder excused themselves from the August 3, 2020 meeting. On August 5, 2020, the

Committee issued the Subpoena to Chief Hess and issued a separate subpoena to Chief Schroeder.

See August 5, 2020 Subpoena (attached hereto as Exhibit G). The Subpoena demands that Chief

Hess appear before the Committee on August 17, 2020 to testify relating to the investigation

authorized by the Order and conveys that “failure to obey this subpoena may subject you to

contempt proceedings as provided in KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b).”

27. Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder have nothing to hide and remain willing to testify

in executive session, or in an open session at a future date when doing so will not adversely impact

the Scott Action. In fact, on August 7, 2020, Plaintiff, through counsel, again reached out to the

Committee to reiterate its willingness for Chief Hess to testify in open session once a brief,

reasonable time was allowed for the defendants to be served, to retain and confer with counsel,

and to respond to the allegations in the Scott Action. See August 7, 2020 Letter (attached hereto

12 It is unclear from the pubic proceedings whether the Chair sought or had the consensus of his fellow committee

members on this point, despite the fact that KRS 61.815 provides a very clear procedure for going into executive

session, which involves action by the committee as a whole, and is not vested in the Chair.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

103

of

0001

88

13

as Exhibit H). Plaintiff further conveyed Chief Hess would be willing to testify in executive

session on August 17, 2020 per the language of KRS 67C.103(14)(b). Finally, Plaintiff conveyed

its concerns that the Committee is exceeding the scope of its authority granted by the Kentucky

General Assembly under KRS 67C.103(14)(b).

28. Upon information and belief, the Committee neither intends to go into executive

session when compelling testimony from Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder on August 17, 2020,

nor does it intend to delay hearing from these witnesses until a later date, and it does not plan to

confine its questions to matters related to a legislative purpose.

29. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint in this matter seeking a

declaratory judgment that the Committee is acting in violation of KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and that

the Committee’s investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate

legislative purpose.

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed without the injunctive relief requested herein as

Defendants seek to enforce the Subpoena against Chief Hess prior to the time that a final judgment

can be entered in this matter, the Defendants will not be prejudiced by the requested injunctive

relief, and there is more than enough to conclude that Plaintiff will likely prevail on the claims

asserted in its Verified Complaint. The reality is injunctive relief will ensure the rights of all

affected will be fairly decided by this Court and protect the public interest.13

13 Various members of the Committee expressed a like desire for these unresolved issues to be adjudicated by the

Court.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

104

of

0001

88

14

I. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A RESTRAINING ORDER UNTIL IT CAN

CONDUCT A FULL HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

CR 65.03 provides a restraining order may be entered without notice to the other party at

the commencement of an action only if:

(a) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by verified complaint or affidavit

that the applicant's rights are being or will be violated by the adverse party and the

applicant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage before the

adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and

(b) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which

have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claims that notice

should not be required.

CR 65.03(1). Here, Plaintiff meets the requirements for the issuance of a restraining order pursuant

to CR 65.03. As detailed herein and in the Verified Complaint,14 the Subpoena and actions of the

Defendants are and will violate the Plaintiff’s rights as Defendants are acting in violation of the

express mandates of KRS 67C.103(14). The Metro Council, through the Committee, has conveyed

its intent to enforce the Subpoena and require open session testimony despite the limitation placed

upon it via KRS 67C.103(14)(b) and KRS 61.810. If the Court does not restrain the Metro Council

from enforcing the Subpoena, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed as Chief Hess will be forced to

comply or face contempt proceedings, and no judgment of this Court will be able to remedy its

damages. Moreover, there will be little to no prejudice to Defendants through the issuance of the

requested restraining order as notice of this motion will be served upon the Metro Council’s

attorney. The Metro Council will be free to file a motion to dissolve the restraining order and any

response in opposition to the Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief.

Accordingly, the Court should enter a restraining order restraining Defendants from

enforcing the Subpoena requiring Chief Hess to testify before the Committee on August 17, 2020,

14 The Verified Complaint is hereby incorporated herein for the purposes of meeting the requirements of CR 65.03.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

105

of

0001

88

15

until such time that the Court can conduct a hearing and consider Plaintiff’s requested temporary

injunctive relief restraining the Defendants from enforcing the Subpoena, restraining the Metro

Council from requiring Chief Hess to testify in an open session, and requiring the scope of the

Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative

purpose. 15

II. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

1) Legal standard relating to the issuance of temporary injunctive relief.

CR 65.04 authorizes temporary injunctive relief if it is clearly shown the movant’s rights

are being or will be violated by an adverse party and the movant will suffer immediate and

irreparable injury, loss or damage pending a final judgment. “Under this rule, the circuit court

may grant injunctive relief when it finds ‘(1) that the movant’s position presents ‘a substantial

question’ on the underlying merits of the case, i.e. that there is a substantial possibility that the

movant will ultimately prevail; (2) that the movant’s remedy will be irreparably impaired absent

the extraordinary relief; and (3) that an injunction will not be inequitable, i.e. will not unduly harm

other parties or disserve the public.’” SM Newco Paducah, LLC v. Kentucky Oaks Mall Company,

499 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Ky. 2016) (quoting Price v. Paintsville Tourism Commission, 261 S.W.3d

482, 484 (Ky. 2008)). Here, each of these factors favor entry of temporary injunctive relief and

will be considered in turn.

15 Pursuant to CR 65.03(5), a restraining order is effective and binding at the time of service and “shall remain in force

until, and not after, (a) the time set for a hearing on a motion to dissolve the restraining order unless there is then

pending a motion for a temporary injunction, or (b) the entry of an order on a motion for a temporary injunction, or

(c) the entry of a final judgment, whichever is earlier.” As such, prior to the Court’s order on the requested temporary

injunctive relief, the restraining order must remain in effect.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

106

of

0001

88

16

2) There is a substantial possibility Plaintiff will ultimately prevail.

In its Verified Complaint, Plaintiff alleges there is a dispute between itself and Defendants

regarding the interpretation of KRS 67C.103 and requests the Court enter a declaratory judgment,

pursuant to KRS Chapter 418, finding Defendants cannot require Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder,

or any other witnesses, to testify in open session on matters concerning pending litigation, and that

the Committee’s investigation has to be reasonably tailored to matters serving a legitimate

legislative purpose. There is a substantial possibility Plaintiff will prevail on its claims.

A) Defendants are acting in contravention of KRS 67C.103(14).

Defendants, through the Committee and the Subpoena issued thereby, are acting in

contravention of KRS 67C.103(14) as they are attempting to force Chief Hess to testify in open

session despite the testimony including discussion of information related to pending litigation

against the Metro Government. KRS 67C.103 provides, in relevant part:

(13) All legislative powers of a consolidated local government are vested in the

consolidated local government council. The term "legislative power" is to be

construed broadly and shall include the power to:

(f)Make independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs of the

consolidated local government and any board or commission that:

1. Is composed of members who are appointed by the mayor and approved by the

legislative council; or

2. Has a budget that is equal to or greater than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00),

except that this subparagraph shall not apply to any fee officer elected within the

consolidated local government.

KRS 67C.103(13)(f)(1)-(2). Further, KRS 67C.103(14) provides, in relevant part, the Metro

Council shall establish the Committee which shall have the power to:

1. Compel testimony and the submission of work papers or documents;

2. Issue subpoenas to compel any officer of or appointee to a board or commission

described in subsection (13)(f) of this section or any department or division of the

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

107

of

0001

88

17

consolidated local government to appear before the committee and to compel the

submission to the committee of any work papers or documents pertinent to an

independent audit or investigation. Any subpoenas issued or testimony compelled

shall be subject to any relevant statutes concerning privacy. Testimony subject to

KRS 61.810 shall only be taken in executive session. The right to privacy or

the requirement that testimony be taken in executive session may be waived

by the person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify;

3. Petition the appropriate Circuit Court to compel obedience by proceedings for

contempt as in the case of disobedience of a subpoena issued from the Circuit Court

or a refusal to testify therein, if any officer or appointee fails or refuses to testify or

furnish the work papers or documents subpoenaed[.]

KRS 67C.103(14)(a)-(b) (emphasis added). Thus, per the express terms of KRS 67C.103(14)(a)-

(b), the Committee has the power to subpoena witnesses to testify in furtherance of their

“legislative power.” However, that power is qualified by the requirement that, if the testimony is

subject to KRS 61.810, then it shall only be taken in executive session, unless waived by the person

or entity being compelled to testify. See KRS 67C.103(14)(b)(2) (“the requirement that testimony

be taken in executive session may be waived by the person or entity being subpoenaed or

compelled to testify”).

KRS 61.800 through KRS 61.850 codifies Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). The

OMA provides that “formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in

secret” and, to further that policy, any exceptions to the OMA must be “strictly construed.” KRS

61.800. KRS 61.810 codifies several exceptions to the OMA, including the litigation exception

which provides an agency may enter a closed session for “discussions of proposed or pending

litigation against or on behalf of the public agency.” KRS 61.810(c). The litigation exception

covers “strategy, tactics, possible settlement and other matters pertaining to the case.” Carter

v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414,419 (Ky. 2012) (emphasis added). The exception does not apply where

the threat of litigation is remote or simply because the agency’s attorney is present. Id. at 419.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

108

of

0001

88

18

There is little doubt the matters sought to be the subject of questioning by the Committee

“pertain” to the Scott Action. As detailed herein, the list of subject matters the Committee

committed to mirrors that of the allegations in the Scott complaint and will necessarily require

Chief Hess and Chief Schroeder testify regarding these allegations. The Committee is not seeking

a general discussion of the LMPD’s policies and procedures, and is instead seeking a pointed,

express questioning relating directly to the allegations asserted in the Scott Action.

This is the exact scenario that is encompassed by the litigation exception contained in the

OMA. In enacting the statutory litigation exception, the General Assembly recognized that public

discussions related to pending litigation can and often will prejudice the ability of a governmental

agency to effectively prosecute or defend its legal interests. That principal is especially true when

the governmental body in which the executive session is entered into is not the governmental body

that has been sued. Here, it would be a meeting of the Committee going into executive session to

discuss the Plaintiff’s pending litigation and matters relating thereto. It is simply not up to the

Committee as to when the Plaintiff is entitled to protection from KRS 61.810.

This is not a situation where there is an “insufficient threat or possibility of litigation” or

“where the possibility of litigation is remote or unsubstantiated.” Carter, 366 S.W.3d at 419-20.

Instead, the Scott Action is an active, pending matter in which many of the defendants have not

been served, and most of them have not had time to confer with counsel or respond to the

allegations. If this were a matter where members of the Administration wanted to learn more about

the facts underpinning the lawsuit from those with information pertaining to it, it would clearly

meet the exception to the OMA for the executive branch, and the fact that the request comes from

a competing branch of government does nothing to change this analysis.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

109

of

0001

88

19

The reading of the litigation exception that has been put forward by Defendants is far too

narrow of a reading. Defendants have posited that the litigation exception only applies if litigation

strategy is being directly discussed. However, that is not consistent with the language of KRS

61.810, which does not limit the litigation exception to times in which the governmental agency

seeks the advice of its attorney. Instead, the litigation exception applies much more broadly. Had

the General Assembly wanted to limit the scope of the litigation exception it could have done so

similar to the manner in which multiple other states crafted their open meetings act. See, e.g., Tex.

Gov't Code Ann. § 551.071 (exception to Texas Open Meetings Act “when the governmental body

seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation; or (B) a settlement

offer”); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 121.22 (g)(3) (exception to Ohio Open Meetings Act for

“conferences with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body

that are the subject of pending or imminent court action”); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-431.03(A)(4)

(exception to Arizona Open Meetings Act for “discussion or consultation with the attorneys of the

public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's

position… in pending or contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to

avoid or resolve litigation.”); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 286.011(8)(c) (Florida government entities “may

meet in private with the entity's attorney to discuss pending litigation to which the entity is

presently a party before a court or administrative agency” provided three conditions are met

including the attorney advising the entity that they have advice regarding the litigation). Instead

of doing so, the General Assembly chose to leave it to matters pertaining to the litigation.

The purpose in which the Committee can undertake the investigation illustrates the fallacy

of Defendants’ narrow reading of the statute. The argument that the litigation exception applies

only if litigation strategy is being directly discussed simply disregards the Committee’s limitation

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

110

of

0001

88

20

to matters in furtherance of a legislative purpose. Committees formed under KRS 67C.103 do not

have it in their power to invade into matters in which testimony would involve litigation strategy

or legal advice as they are confined to legislative related inquiries. Therefore, the incorporation

of the litigation exception in the statute, in a manner put forward by the Defendants, is nonsensical

as it would not serve to limit the Committee’s power in any way.

Further illustrating the Defendants’ misunderstanding of KRS 67C.103(14)(b) is their

position that they have the ability to waive the closed meeting exception. Again, the statute

provides “[t]he right to privacy or the requirement that testimony be taken in executive session

may be waived by the person or entity being subpoenaed or compelled to testify.” KRS

67C(14)(b)(2) (emphasis added). It is not Defendants that are being protected by the statute, but

instead it is the Plaintiff. Defendants have no power to waive the Plaintiff’s right to an executive

session and their position to the contrary fails.

The reality is there is no harm to Defendants in respecting the rights given to the Plaintiff

by the statute. Defendants can only have a legislative purpose in seeking the testimony as their

goal is to gather information to effectuate legislative change. Plaintiff has offered to give the

Committee that information in executive session on any day, or in open session after it has time to

fully evaluate the Scott Action. Not satisfied with this option, Defendants have chosen to violate

the statute instead.

As this situation is the exact situation in which the litigation exception is intended to apply,

there is a substantial possibility that Plaintiff will prevail on this claim.

B) The Committee’s investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that

serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

KRS 67C.103(13)(f) expressly conditions the power of the Metro Council to create the

Committee upon its legislative power and the scope of its authority is thereby limited to that

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

111

of

0001

88

21

delegation of legislative power from the General Assembly. See Bruner v. City of Danville, 394

S.W.2d 939, 942 (Ky. 1965) (A city’s “legislative body can neither delegate nor exercise in its

own right a power it does not have, to-wit, an arbitrary power.”). “[A] city possess only those

powers expressly granted by the Constitution and statutes plus such powers as are necessarily

implied or incident to the expressly granted powers and which are indispensable to enable it to

carry out its declared objects, purposes, and expressed powers.” City of Bowling Green v. T & E

Elec. Contractors, 602 S.W.2d 434, 435 (Ky. 1980). Accordingly, the only legitimate purpose the

Committee could have in conducting its investigation is in furtherance of its legislative power.

As the legislative power is to “make the laws, and to alter and repeal them,” the Committee

must only be conducting its investigation in the pursuit of making, altering, or repealing law.

Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear v. Bevin, 575 S.W.3d 673, 682 (Ky. 2019). Consistent therewith,

the Order qualifies the investigation as the Metro Council “may take legislative action and/or make

recommendations for any changes in Administration or LMPD policies.” Order at 2. Despite

this, there is evidence the Committee may not in fact be acting for a legislative purpose. As

Chairman Ackerman represented at the August 3, 2020 hearing, the “sole focus is to get the truth

out to the public about what has happened and why.” The purpose that is sought to be achieved

by the Subpoena is to inquire of the Administration’s response to the protests and other issues

attendant thereto. These types of proceedings are more appropriately in the province of the

executive and judicial branches.16 As such, to the extent the Committee is acting for something

other than a legislative purpose, there is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.17

16 Moreover, it appears questionable as to how the Metro Council could dictate any changes to the Administration or

the LMPD’s policies. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government

and in that capacity has the executive power over the departments in his Administration, including the LMPD. It is

the Administration, not the Metro Council or the Committee, which has the supervisory authority over the LMPD and

the attendant power to implement its policies and procedures. 17 These issues are concerning given the important role the doctrine of separation of powers plays in Kentucky’s

system of governance. See Sibert v. Garrett, 246 S.W. 455, 457 (Ky. 1922) (“[p]erhaps no state forming a part of the

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

112

of

0001

88

22

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment that the Committee’s

investigation must be reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose has

a substantial possibility of success.

3. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed absent temporary injunctive relief.

Similarly, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the requested temporary injunctive relief

is not issued. Under Kentucky law, an injury is “irreparable if there is no adequate remedy for it

existing at law.” Wallace v. Jackson, 3 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Ky. 1928). In other words, “an injury

is irreparable if there exists no certain pecuniary standard for the measurement of damages.”

United Carbon Co. v. Ramsey, 350 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Ky. 1961) (internal citations omitted).

“[T]he clearest example of irreparable injury is where it appears that the final judgment would be

rendered completely meaningless should the probable harm alleged occur prior to trial.” Maupin

v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Ky. App. 1978).

Plaintiff and its claims present a clear example of irreparable harm. Specifically, the harm

Plaintiff seeks to redress in its Verified Complaint is the actions of the Committee in violation of

KRS 67C.107(14). If the requested injunctive relief is not entered, Plaintiff will be unable to

appropriately prepare for its response in the Scott Action and will directly have its interests in that

action impacted. The Subpoena requires Chief Hess to appear before the Committee on August

17, 2020 to testify in open session. Without injunctive relief, Chief Hess will be faced with the

dilemma of complying with the subpoena and testifying despite the Committee’s violation of KRS

67C.103(14) or face the threat of contempt proceedings. Thus, without injunctive relief, a

national government of the United States has a constitution whose language more emphatically separates and

perpetuates what might be termed the American tripod form of government than does ... [the Kentucky]

Constitution....”); In re Appointment of Clerk of Court of Appeals, 297 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Ky. 1957) (“[t]he doctrine

of the separation of governmental powers…runs like a golden thread throughout the fabric of our government.”).

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

113

of

0001

88

23

judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor will be meaningless as Chief Hess will have been forced to

make this decision and the violative conduct of the Committee will be completed. There will no

judgment this Court could enter to remedy this damage. See Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d

695, 699 (Ky. App. 1978) (forced compliance with a subpoena, without injunctive relief, would

render a final judgment meaningless).

Finally, Plaintiff, will be irreparably harmed if the scope of the Committee’s investigation

is not reasonably tailored to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose. Certain actions of

the Committee appear to be exceeding their proper legislative purpose and necessarily invading

the executive branch’s province. If the Court does not enter the requested temporary injunctive

the Committee’s invasion of the executive branch will continue.

4. The equities and public interests weigh in favor of issuing temporary injunctive relief.

The need for the issuance of temporary injunctive relief is even more clear when

considering the equities of doing so. The Court must weigh the absence of any commensurate

harm to the interests of a defendant against the immediate and irreparable harm the plaintiff will

suffer from the defendant’s conduct. Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Ky. App. 1978).

“It is only where an injunction will operate oppressively and the benefit to the complainant is slight

that an injunction will be denied to balance the convenience of the parties.” Pike County Bd. of

Ed. v. Belfry Coal Corp., 346 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Ky. 1961). In deciding this element, Kentucky courts

consider numerous factors including, but not limited to, (i) the possible detriment to public interest,

(ii) the harm to the defendant, and (iii) whether the injunction will merely preserve the status quo.

Maupin, 575 S.W.2d at 699. In this case, the equities clearly favor the issuance of the requested

temporary injunctive relief.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

114

of

0001

88

24

As established herein, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the event that temporary

injunctive relief is not entered as a judgment in its favor would be meaningless. When this harm

is weighed against the potential prejudice to the Defendants, the equities clearly favor issuance of

the requested temporary injunctive relief as there will be little to no harm to the Defendants. Again,

Plaintiff has conveyed to the Committee, on multiple occasions, Chief Hess’s willingness to testify

immediately in executive session, or in the future in an open session.

The only potential prejudice Defendants can put forward is that the issuance of temporary

injunctive relief will delay hearing the testimony in an open hearing.18 This is simply insufficient

to change the equities analysis here. The only purpose the Committee could have in conducting

its investigation is to fulfill a legislative goal. To assert Defendants will be prejudiced by a brief

delay in their proceedings is in contravention to the system of governance that is in place. To the

Plaintiff’s knowledge, there is no emergency legislation under consideration by the Metro Council,

and there is no pending legislation under consideration to which Committee’s investigation relates.

Further, the Defendants are able to proceed immediately, so long as they abide by the

express mandates of KRS 67C.103(14)(b) that testimony covered by KRS 61.810 be taken in

closed session. The requested temporary injunctive relief will do nothing but preserve the status

quo while protecting Plaintiff from irreparable harm and equities favor the issuance of temporary

injunctive relief.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff hereby requests the Court enter a Temporary

Restraining Order pursuant to CR 65.03 and a Temporary Injunction pursuant to CR 65.04,

18 In a similar scenario, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in Maupin v. Stansbury, found the detriment of delay to the

defendant Board of Aldermen was insufficient to shift the equities against the issuance of a temporary injunction.

Maupin v. Stansbury, 575 S.W.2d at 699.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

115

of

0001

88

25

restraining Defendants from enforcing the Subpoena requiring Chief Hess to testify in open session

before the Committee on August 17, 2020, restraining Defendants from seeking testimony from

Chief Hess or any other witness on matters related to pending litigation without first going into

executive session, and requiring the scope of the Committee’s investigation be reasonably tailored

to matters that serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

NOTICE

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court set this matter for a hearing at its earliest

convenience.


McBRAYER PLLC

201 E. Main Street, Suite 900

Lexington, KY 40507-1361

(859) 231-8780

BY: /s/ David J. Guarnieri

DAVID J. GUARNIERI

STEPHEN G. AMATO

CYNTHIA L. EFFINGER

JASON R. HOLLON

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

4830-8568-6471, v. 2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

116

of

0001

88

oRDER NO. 0oS,SER|ES 2o2o

AN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF THEADMINISTRATION SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF BREONNATAYLOR, THE DEATH OF DAVID MCATEE, AND RELATEDPROTESTS IN LOUISVILLE METRO

SPONSORED BY: GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AUDTTCOMMITTEE CHAIR BRENT ACKERSON AND VICE CHAIR ANTHONYPIAGENTINI

WHEREAS, in the early morning hours of March 13, 2020, Breonna Taylor was shotand killed inside her home by the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), part ofLouisville Metro Government, and which reports to the Mayor;

WHEREAS, during a subsequent night of protests in Louisville Metro, David McAteewas shot and killed at his place of business by a Kentucky National Guard soldierworking alongside LMPD;

WHEREAS, the protests sparked law-enforcement re$ponse$ and actions that includedthe lethal use of force, projectile weapons, rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, otherchemical agents, and other techniques;

WHEREI\S, rnuch critical information about the planning, training, communication, andexecution of no-knock search warrants that led to the raid of Breonna Taylor's homeand her death has been withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;

WHEREAS, information surrounding the planning, coordination, training, and executionof responses by activated National Guard personnel working in concert with LMPD hasbeen withheld from the public citing ongoing investigations;

WHEREAS, the uncertainty of these months-long investigations with no additionalinformation afforded the families or the public has sown distrust, unrest, and damage toour social fabric, the confidence in government, and general community morale;

WHEREAS, Metro Council and the public at large seek to better understand theseevents and surrounding circumstances by examining the role of, decisions made by,and orders given by any officers of the consolidated local government and any board orcommission described in KRS S 67C,103(13X0, including but not limited to Mayor GregFischer, his leadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration") and LMPD byand through its agents; ;

1

EXHIBIT A

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

117

of

0001

88

WHEREAS, Metro Council and the citizens of Louisville demand a transparent, publicprocess whereby the truth of these events comes to light and critical missing informationis revealed to help resolve the aforementioned issues and omissions;

WHEREAS, under KRS $ 67C.103(13Xf), the Legislative Council of theLouisvillelJefferson County Metro Government ("Metro Council") shall have the power to"[m]ake independent audits and investigations concerning the affairs of the consolidatedlocal government";

WHEREAS, Metro Council will investigate these concerns regarding the Administrationin the Government Oversight and Audit Commiftee (.GOAC") utilizing powers set forthin KRS S 67C.103(14); and;

WHEREAS, at the completion of the GOAC investigation, GOAC will report findings offact so the Metro Council may take legislative action and/or make recommendations forany changes in Administration or LMPD policies, procedures, and processes forinvestigations, reporting, and disciplinary action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THELOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT {"METRO COUNCIL"IAS FOLLOWST

SECTION l: Louisville Metro Council, through the Government Oversight and AuditCommittee, hereby initiates an investigation into the actions and inaction of theAdministration leading to the no-knock search warrant and subsequent shooting deathof Breonna Taylor, the shooting death of David McAtee during protests in LouisvilleMetro, and the planning and response to protests and destructive activity in LouisvilleMetro following these deaths. The scope of this investigation shall include, but not belimited to:

Working with any counsel for GOACllouisville Metro Council, andlor itsdesig nated investigator.

Exploring the documented and undocumented actions and inactions of officersof the consolidated local government and any board or commission described inKRS $ 67C.103(13Xil, including but not limited to Mayor Greg Fischer, hisleadership team, and his administration (the "Adrninistration")and LMPD by andthrough its agents that led to the search warrant execution and shooting deathof Breonna Taylor on March 13,2020.

ldentifying, requesting, and publishing all relevant documents, policies,

2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

118

of

0001

88

processes, and practices which were in place at Louisville Metro Governmentand impacted or described the death of Breonna Taylor and David McAtee.

ldentifying any shortcomings in training, policy, or control systems that led to theexecution of a no-knock warrant at Breonna Taylor's home in the middle of thenight, and the death of Breonna Taylor"

ldentifying any errors or omissions in following procedures, best practices, andfollow-up decisions made by the Administration and LMPD in relation to thedeath of Breonna Taylor.

ldentifying any error$ or omissions in following procedures, best practices, andfollow-up decisions rnade by the Administration and LMPD in relation to thedeath of David McAtee"

Exploring the actions and inaction of the Administration and LMPD in resporrseto protesting occurring in Louisville Metro following the death of Breonna Taylor.

lnterviewing persons and obtaining information relevant to the foregoing publicooncerns, utilizing where necessary, the subpoena authority set forth in KRS67C.103(14Xe).

SECTION ll: The Government Oversight and Audit Commifiee will conduct theinvestigation into the Administration, its actions and inaction regarding the death ofBreonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions responding toprotests in Louisville Metro with the legislative power contained in KRS $$67C.103(13X0, 67C.103(14), and according to Metro Council Rute 4A.04(b).

SECTION lll: The Government Oversight and Audit Committee Chair shatt have thepower to issue subpoenas and compel testimony pursuant to KRS S$ 67C.103{14)(e)and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b) during regular or special s of the Committee.

SECTION lV: This r shalltake effect upon its pas

Metro CouncilClerk Govern Oversight and AuditCommittee

3

LOUISVI LLF MFTRO COUNCIL

?sADOPTED

Approved?S)-e)

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

119

of

0001

88

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG,ALITY:

Jonathan Ricketts

BY

4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

120

of

0001

88

. \l t{*.

P^) ;)

Lor;rsv rt .t",n M.rlno Ct-llrNc: tt-

[]ru,x l'1. Ar. xti'Ls(.tr-

2 (i'r r r I ) r;s rntt:'r' C.'ot-jN-(:il..N' r\ N

luly 17,2020

Amy HessChief of Public Services527 W . Jefferson Street, Fourth FloorLouisville, KY 40202arny. hess@louisvilleky. gov

Sent via US Mail and Email


Dear Chief Hess

On July 14,2020, the Louisville Metro Council, Government Oversight and Audit Committee(hereinafter "Committec"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and

inactions of the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of DavidMcAtee, and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.

To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers.

Please provide us with dates between now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the


Please be advised that the Committee shall refrain, at this time, from asking you to divulgeinformation which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attomey General and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Ackerson, ChairmanOversight and Audit Cornmittee

(:01 \\t.l[,l,r,riRsr]N S1nr.r,r. . (502) 574-1126 . Lor.llsvlr.r.r,i, KY 40202 ' wlvrv.louisvilleky.gov 'i'1(:*;:::r"'

EXHIBIT B

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

121

of

0001

88

Louisr.,rt-t,n Mu't'no CouxcnIl rr r,*-'r''ll Ai. rrp.sr-r

"'l(ir t l l)ts'r'utc: r: C"'ouNr.tt"it.rin

Ju,ly 17,2020

Robert SchroederInterim Chief, LMPD633 W. Jefferson StreetLouisville, KY 40202robert. schroeder@louisvil leky. gov

Sent via US Mailand Email


Dear Interim Chief Schroeder:

On July 14,2020, the Louisville Metro Council, Government Oversight and Audit Committee(hereinafter "Committee"), voted to initiate an investigation, per KRS 67C.103, into the actions and inactionsof the consolidated local government surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee,and related protests in Louisville. The vote was bipartisan and unanimous.

To further this investigation, you are requested to appear, in person, at the Metro Council chambers,Please provide us with dates befween now and August 5,2020 in which you are available to meet with the


Please be advised that the Committee shall refrain, at this time, from asking you to divulgeinformation which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General and theFederal Bureau of Investigation.

Thank YOU,

. Ackerson, Chairmanent Oversight and Audit Committee

601 W .ll,t,l,l,RspN Slnr,r;r' . (-5021 574-1126 . L<)Lllsvn,.l-t, Ky40202 . 1v11'lv,lsuisvitleky.gor' -.'ii,it"

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

122

of

0001

88

From : Jonatha n Ricketts <Jonatha n, Ricketts@ rickettslawoffi ces,com>

Sent: Thursday, July 30,2020 t2:02 PM

To: Steve Amato <[email protected]>; David J. Guarnieri <[email protected]>

Cc: Ch ristopher Bush <Ch ristopher. Bush @ rickettslawoffices.com>Subject: Aug 3 GOAC Meeting follow-up between counsel

Steve and David,

This follows our call on 7 /28,ln an attempt to answer questions on behalf of your client, we had a

chance to speak with Chairman Ackerson regarding the oath, "pre-meetings", opening remarks, scope and

form or format of the meeting Monday. I will address them one at a time:

1, Oaths: Chairman Ackerson intends to administer the oath to your clients in the form previously shared

with you,

EXHIBIT C

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

123

of

0001

88

2. "Pre-meetings": The Chair was puzzled by this as he informs us that he did not request a "pre-meetingwith your clients. He would prefer for all discussions to be conducted in an open meeting. I believe you

have not objections to that.

3. Opening remarks: You clients will be permitted opening remarks, however they will be limited to 5minutes each.

4. Scope and From are addressed together: The Chair anticipates the evening will go like this: The

meeting will be called to order, your clients will be sworn, and be permitted to make their opening

remarks. The Chair will then make opening remarks. He will then ask your clients in narrative and

chronological form to generally describe in chronological order police/law enforcement response toprotests that began on the evening of May 28,2020, and take us up to current time, He expects thatas the narrative unfolds, he may interrupt them to get clarity or follow-up on the events, Specific

topics he'd like for them to be prepared to talk about throughout the chronological events are:o a) vandalism, and response to it,o b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and how media came to be targeted or came in contact

with same,o c) placement of snipers on roof tops,o d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment,o e) warning to and communications with protestors,o f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,o g) any "stand-down" order(s), directives, guidance given or passed alongto government

responders relative to protests, vandalism, etc.,o h) how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.

I am informed that the Chair will collect questions before the meeting from other councilmembers,

will conduct the questioning, and will reserve the final 30 minutes for any follow up questions by

Councilmembers,

I believe I have answered your questions. Furthet I believe that I have been thorough enough herein

to allow your client not only to be prepared, but also to provid.e notice to you sufficient to raise concerns in

advance of the meeting so that we might address them beforehand. I also want to be clear that the form of

the hearing will be fluid and this list, while as thorough as I can be at this time, may not be exhaustive,

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, and please thank your clients for me

on behalf of the committee for voluntarily agreeing to appear before the Committee'

Thanks,

/iaaflattJonathan S. Ricketts

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

124

of

0001

88

Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC4055 Shelbyvilie RoadLouisville, KY 40207Phone: (502)896-2302Fax: (502)896-2362

htt.tr, ://www. ricl<ettslawoffj ceq,comNotice: This email is subject to provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18 U.S.C, SS 2510-2521 and the information contained herein and any accompanying attachment(s) are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, and include confidential and privileged matters intended only forthe limited use of the recipient to whom this email message is addressed, subject to law and court rules. lf anyreader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictlyprohibited, and may be unlawful. lntended recipients'use is limited as authorized by law or rule. lf you havereceived this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return mail, and delete the originalmessage and destroy all copies from your system, also notify the sender immediately by telephone at (502)896-2302 or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Should this email contain settlementnegotiations as intended by the sender, same shall be prohibited from use by applicable state or federal rule, and

sender does not consent to its use in a manner inconsistent with those rules. Please Note that (1) E-mailcommunication is not a secure method of communication; (2) Any e-mail sent to you by this firm, or by you to thisfirm, may be copied and held by various unauthorized computers as the communication is transmitted; and (3)

Persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your

computer or the computers of Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC, or even a computer unconnected to either of us. lf you

subsequently elect not to receive future communications from my office via e-mail, please immediately notify me at

(502)896-2302.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

125

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1 of 46 PagelD #: l-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTER}{ DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

ATTICA SCOTT, CORBIN SMITH,KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY,STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY,and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCEAGAINST RACIAL AND POUTICALREPRESSION, on behalf of themselves andall others similarly situated,

Civil Action No

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIALDEMANDPlaintiffs,

V

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERS ON COUNTYMETRO GOVERNMENT, GREGFISCHER, individually and in his officialcapacity as Mayor of Louisville, ROBERTSCHROEDER, individually and in hisofficial capacity as Interim Chief of theLouisville Metropolitan Police Department,LaVITA CHAVOUS, individually and in herofficial capacity as Assistant Chief of theLouisville Metropolitan Police Department,and LOUISVILLE METROPOLITANPOLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER "J.''JOHNSON, LOUISVILLEMETROPOLITAN POLICEDEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES#l-#15 and JANE DOE #1, in theirindividual capacities,

Defendants

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

"[O]ur constitutional command of free speech and assembly is basic and fundamental and

encompasses peaceful social protest, so important to the preservation of the freedoms treasured

in a democratic society." Cox v. State of La.,379 U.S. 559, 574 (1965). Rarely before has this

principle been as readily apparent as it is today; following the senseless killings of George Floyd,

EXHIBIT D

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

126

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 2 of 46 PagelD #:2

Breonna Taylor, and countless other Black individuals at the hands of police, protesters in all

fifty states are demanding police accountability and reform.

Rather than treating its peaceful protesters as important parts of the democratic process

protected by the Constitution, the City of Louisville has chosen to forcibly silence them-often

using military-type weapons and tactics that resemble those used by authoritarian regimes to

stifle dissent. ln the days following the death of George Floyd, who was killed by Minneapolis

police officers on May 25,2020, a key demand for protesters who took to the streets around the

country was justice for Breonna Taylor, who was killed by Louisville police officers in her own

home on March 13,2020. Louisville police officers sought to quell these demonstrations through

the sustained use of tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, and other forms of military-grade

technology. This combat-style response led to yet another senseless death: on May 3I,2020,

Louisville police and the National Guard fired eighteen live rounds at David McAtee, a local

Black restaurant owner, killing him. Since then, countless peaceful protesters-including elected

officials and local educators-have been shot, gassed, beaten, and arrested solely for making

their voices heard. Louisville police officers also abused the city's curfew order while it was in

effect, employing force to arrest or disperse people hours before they were required by the

curfew order to clear the streets. And to this day, both Louisville's Mayor and Kentucky's

Governor have defended the police department's conduct.

Plaintiffs are a diverse group of individuals who have come together to exercise their

rights to protest and demand change from their government. For that, Louisville police officers

have subjected them to shocking and violent levels of force, Plaintiff Corbin Smith was tear

gassed, beaten with batons, and forced to beg for his life while an officer kneeled on his neck.

2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

127

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt 1- Filed 07130120 Page 3 of 46 PagelD #: 3

Plaintiff Stevie Schauer was shoved to the ground and violently beaten by officers who saw her

recording their misconduct; friends who tried to help her were shot with pepper balls.

Their experiences are just a few examples of the sustained violence that Louisville has

unleashed on its citizens. Plaintiffs now bring this suit, on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, to guarantee and protect their constitutional right to demand change from their

government at this singular moment in history.

PARTIES

l. Plaintiff Attica Scott is a citizen of the United States and cunently resides in

Kentucky. She cunently serves in the Kentucky House of Representatives, representing the 41st

District.

2. Plaintiff Corbin Smith currently resides in Indiana,

3, Plaintiff Kayla Meisner currently resides in Kentucky.

4. Plaintiff Tyler Weakley curently resides in lndiana.

5. Plaintiff Stevie Schauer currently resides in Kentucky.

6, Plaintiff Willa Tinsley currently resides in Kentucky.

7. Plaintiff Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression

("KAARPR") is a 501(c)(3) organized under the laws of Kentucky that has more than 900 dues-

paying members. Its mission is to "inform the public and provide a channel for public debate

conceming the human and constitutional rights of all people; to bring together diverse groups of

people to support those repressed for racist or political reasons; fand] to work to end racist

practices in the community and government."l The organization's work is focused on, among

other things, combating the use of excessive force by police, including against protestors;

I About Us, Kentucky Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression, http://www.kentuckyalliance.org/about.html(last visited July 30, 2020).

aJ

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

128

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07rcAl2} Page 4 of 46 PagelD #'. 4

challenging cruel and unusual conditions of confinement in prisons and jails in Kentucky;

limiting the disproportionate effect of the criminal justice system on Black individuals; and

improving education access and opportunity for Black and Brown children in the greater

Louisville area.

8. Since its founding more than 40 years ago, KAARPR has, among other things,

highlighted the stories of victims of police abuse as a means of drawing attention to the larger

systemic issues discussed above. For example, over twenty years ago, KAARPR launched a

campaign around the death of Adrien Reynolds, who was subjected to excessive force during his

arrest and then killed by corectional officials.

9. KAARPR is also a leading member of Louisville Citizens Against Police Abuse,

a coalition of local organizations united to fight police brutality in Black and Brown

communities in Louisville.

10, Defendant Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government ("City of Louisville")

is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky. Defendant City

of Louisville, acting through the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department ("LMPD"), is

responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD

matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. In

addition, the City of Louisville is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring

that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.

11. Defendant Greg Fischer is the Mayor of the City of Louisville. In that capacity, he

is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, superuision, implementation, and conduct of

all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD

4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

129

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 5 of 46 PagelD #: 5

personnel, In addition, Defendant Fischer is responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and

ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky.

12. Defendant Robert Schroeder is the Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan

Police Department. Defendant Schroeder was appointed to this role on or about June 1, 2020.

Before his appointment as Interim Chief, Defendant Schroeder was Deputy Chief of the

Louisville Metropolitan Police Department. In his capacity as both Interim Chief and Deputy

Chief, he is responsible for implementing the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and

conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of

all LMPD personnel. In addition, Defendant Schroeder is responsible for enforcing the rules of

the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the State of

Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and expeditious investigations into officer

misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Schroeder was acting within the scope of his

employnent and under color of state law.

13. Defendant LaYita Chavous is an Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan

Police Department. In that capacity, she is responsible for implementing the policy, practice,

supervision, implementation, and conduct of all LMPD matters, including the appointment,

training, supervision, and conduct of all LMPD personnel. ln addition, Defendant Chavous is

responsible for enforcing the rules of the LMPD and ensuring that LMPD personnel obey the

laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky, including by conducting thorough and

expeditious investigations into officer misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant Chavous was

acting within the scope of her employment and under color of state law.

14. Defendants LMPD Officer'oJ." Johnson and LMPD Officers John Does #1-15 and

Jane Doe #1, (collectively, "Defendant Officers" or ooOfftcers") are police officers employed by

5

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

130

of

0001

88


the City of Louisville. In this role, Defendant Officers were duly appointed and acting officers,

servants, employees and/or agents of Louisville. At all relevant times, they were acting in the

scope of their employment and under color of state law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This action arises under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, 42 U .S.C. $ I 983, and Kentucky state law.

16. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331, 1343(a)(3),

1343(a)(), and 1367,

l7 . Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C, $ 1391(b) and (e)

because at least some Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the acts and

omissions giving rise to this action took place in this district.

JURY TRJAL DEMAND

18. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.

FACTS

The Killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd Spur Nutionwide Protests

19. Over the past several months, a number of high-profile instances of police killing

unarmed Black people have shocked the nation's conscience.

20, Shortly after midnight on March 13,2020, three LMPD police officers shot and

killed Breonna Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency medical technician who lived in

Louisville,

21. The LMPD officers executed a no-knock warrant at Ms. Taylor's apartment.

Upon entry, the officers fired over twenty rounds at Ms, Taylor and her boyfriend.

6

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

131

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurrrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 7 of 46 PagelD #'.7

22. Ms. Taylor, who was unarmed and sleeping in bed, was struck eight times-but

did not die immediately. lnstead, for five or six minutes, she lay bleeding in her bed, her

boyfriend pleading unsuccessfully for the officers to help her. Ms. Taylor died from her injuries,

23, Ms. Taylor's story quickly captured national attention. Calls for justice for her

killing began to grow.

24. ln response, the LMPD opened an internal investigation into whether its officers

violated any departmental policies, The Attorney General of Kentucky has opened an

investigation into possible criminal charges against the officers. And the Federal Bureau of

Investigation has opened a separate probe into the officers' conduct.

25, To date, however, the officers who killed Breonna Taylor have not been arested,

Defendant Schroeder has initiated termination procedures against just one of the three officers

involved.

26. Less than two months later, on May 25,2020, officers from the Minneapolis

Police Department killed George Floyd while anesting him on suspicion of passing a counterfeit

twenty-dollar bill.

27. A bystander captured the killing on video; for nearly eight minutes after Mr.

Floyd had been placed in handcuffs, a police officer kneeled on Mr, Floyd's neck while three

other officers stood by and watched.

28. Mr. Floyd repeatedly begged for mercy, pleading that he could not breathe. He

called out for his mother. His last words were "please, I can't breathe."

29. Video of Mr. Floyd's murder spread almost immediately. Within days, his story

had become the defining topic of national discourse. Elected officials and public figures of all

political affiliations denounced the police officers' actions.

7

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

132

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page B of 46 PagelD #: I

30. All four of the officers involved in Mr. Floyd's killing have been arrested and

criminally charged,

31. The killings of Ms. Taylor and Mr, Floyd-emblematic of the widespread pattern

of police violence against unarmed Black people-touched a nerve in communities across the

country, sparking mass protests about how police interact with Black people.

32. Within a week of Mr. Floyd's killing, large-scale demonstrations had begun in all

fifty states. Those protests remain ongoing.

Protests Begin in Louisville, Prompting Immediate and Egregious Use of Force by LMPD

Malt 28, 2020

33. On May 28,2020, LMPD released the audio of the 911 call placed by Breonna

Taylor's boyfriend the night she was killed.

34. That evening, large-scale demonstrations began in Louisville. At approximately

8:00 p.m., protesters carrying signs reading "Justice for Breonna" and chanting "Breonna was

asleep" marched through downtown Louisville to gather near the Louisville Metro Hall,2

35. Protesters were met by a fleet of armed LMPD officers clad in riot gear.

36, At approximately l1:15 p.m., ahandful of protesters threw plastic water bottles at

the LMPD officers.

37. In response, LMPD officers fired a combination of pepper balls (pepper-spray

projectiles launched using guns or similar weapons) and live ammunition into the crowd of

protesters, nearly all of whom were protesting peacefully. Seven people were hit with live

bullets, Protesters began to disperse.

2 Tessa Duvall, Darcy Costello, Billy Kobin, Lucas Aulbach, Bailey Loosemore, Mandy Mclaren, Olivia Krauthand Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates; Protestors arcested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,CourietJoumal (May 28, 2020 at l0:56 p,m,), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsipolitics/metro-government/2020lQ5l28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52801620021 .

8

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

133

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3ol20 Page 9 of 46 PagelD #: 9

38. At least one of the injured protesters claimed that he was shot in the back of the

head by a police officer. He has sued both LMPD and the Kentucky State Police. See Albert v.

Unknown Individual Kentuclcy State Police Officers, et al.,No.3:20-cv-00418 (W.D. Ky.).

39. LMPD officers then began to launch canisters of tear gas into the crowd,

40, LMPD subsequently claimed that the tear gas and gunshots were necessary to

prevent assaults on officers. But no officers were reported as injured during the protests.3

4L The LMPD's use of tear gas against peaceful protestors on May 28,2020 was

widely reported in the media.


Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas against

peaceful protestors on May 28,2020.

Ma:t 29. 2020

43. Demonstrations continued the next day, on May 29,2020.An even larger group

of protesters marched through downtown Louisville starting in the late aftemoon, Many of the

protesters were young teenagers,a

44. By the early evening, LMPD officers began using flash grenades, tear gas, and

pepper balls on the largely peaceful crowd.

45, Plaintiff Attica Scott and her daughter were present at this protest; both were

demonstrating peacefully but were shoved by police and then hit with tear gas,

3 Mike Baker, 7 People Shot at Louisville Protest Over the Death of Breonna Taylor, N.Y. Times (May 29,2020),https://www.nytimes.com/2020105129/usllouisville-protest-shooting-breonna-tay1or.html,4 Tessa Duvall, Darcy Costello, Billy Kobin, Lucas Aulbach, Bailey Loosemore, Mandy Mclaren, Olivia Krauthand Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arresled as Breonna Taylor rallies conlinue around Louisville,CoutierJoumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 3 l, 2020, I I :00 p.m.), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2020105/28lbreonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52807 620021 .

9

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

134

of

0001

88


46. For over four hours, flash grenades launched by LMPD "volleyed through the air

like cannon-fire" while tear gas deployed by LMPD "wafted across entire city blocks."s

47. LMPD officers fired pepper balls indiscriminately into the crowd.

48. As one newspaper reported, "[b]y l0 p.m., downtown Louisville looked like a war

zone."6

49, LMPD officers targeted journalists who were covering the chaos, flrring pepper

bullets at groups of reporters who were videotaping the scene.T

50. Upon information and belief, no LMPD officers were disciplined by Defendant

Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous as a result ofusing tear gas, flash grenades,

or pepper bullets against peaceful protestors on May 29 , 2020.

May 30. 2020

51. On May 30,2020,Mayor Greg Fischer instituted a 9:00 p.m. cityr,vide curfew and

called in the National Guard,8

52. Protesters began to gather downtown for peaceful demonstrations in the afternoon

on May 30. Some volunteers brought stockpiles of water and milk to use both as eyewash due to

LMPD's indiscriminate use of tear gas, as well as to provide essential drinking water for the

protest on a long sunny day. They stored these stockpiles in Jefferson Square Park for all

protesters to use.

5 Mandy Mclaren, A traumatized generation: Louisville's youth demand racial justice during mass protesls,

Louisville Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,5:31 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/05/30/breonna-taylor-protest-louisvilles-youth-demand-racial-justic e152910300021 .

6ld.1

@wave3news, "WAVE 3 News reporter Kaitlin Rust appeared to have been hit by rubber bullets reportedly fired

by an LMPD officer during a protest in downtown Louisville," Twitter (May 29,2020,10:23 p.m.),

https ://twitter,com/wave3 news/status/ 1 266 5 5 57 3 17 3 1 4 1 5040?s=20.8 Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer sets curfew calls in National Guardfor Breonna Taylor protests, " Louisville

Courier Joumal (May 30, 2020,9:49 p.m.), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2 020l05l30lmayor-fischer-sets-breonna-taylor-protest-curfew-cal1s-national-guardl52906900021 '

10

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

135

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 11- of 46 PagelD #: It

53. At approximately 7:30 p,m., while protesters were peacefully demonstruting, a

group of plainclothes LMPD police officers began destroying the protesters' stockpiles without

explanation,e

54. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers intentionally destroyed the

protesters' supplies to discourage protesters from remaining at the demonstrations.

55. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers had decided to use tear gas on

protesters before they began to destroy the protesters' supplies,

56. At approximately 8:00 p,m.-an hour before the official curfew and thitty

minutes after destroying the protesters' stockpiles of water and milk-LMPD officers began to

launch tear gas into the crowd of peaceful protesters and beat them back with batons. At the

time, some protesters had lain down on the street while chanting for police accountability.

57. LMPD officers launched tear gas at a crowd of protesters, including former State

Representative Charles Booker, who were standing in a place several yards away from the riot

line.lo

58. Approximately 40 protesters were arrested,ll

59. When asked about LMPD's conduct, Defendant Fischer conceded that the

protesters were nonviolent, but he nonetheless defended the use of tear gas and batons by saying

e Natalie Neysa Alunda , Police officers in Louisville smash milk jugs and water bottles at Breonna Taylor protest, "

Louisville Courier Journal (May 30, 2020,9:43 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal,com/story/news/locall2020l05l30lbreonna-taylor-protest-louisville-police-smash-protesters'supplies/5295 8400021.r0 Charles Booker (@Booker4KY), "We were yards away. No one was confrontational, It was not 9p' They started

throwing gas at us anyway, I wish I could say this is unbelievable," Twitter (May 30, 2020,8:52 p.m.),

https ://twitter.com/Booker4KY I statusl 126689 52439 \33 67 5 53? s:/0,rr Rob Byers, Curfew remains in effect for Louisville for at least another night amid prolesls, Louisville Courier

Journal (May 31, 2020, I l:54 a.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/newsllocaV2020l05/31/breonna-taylor-prote sts Joui svi l1 e-curfew-remains-effect-s unday I 529 9 457 002 I'

11

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

136

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page L2 of 46 PagelD #: 12

the demonstration "looked like it was going to be taking a tum for the worse," and that police

used their judgment.l2

60. Upon information and beliel no LMPD officers have been disciplined by

Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas and batons on

nonviolent protestors.

Malt 31.2020

61. The next evening saw similar violent police responses to largely peaceful protests.

62. In the early evening on May 3I,2020, approximately 1,000 protesters gathered at

the Muhammad Ali Center in downtown Louisville. From there, they marched to Jefferson

Square Park, arriving shortly before 8:00 p,m.-again an hour before offrcial curfew.

63. Almost immediately, LMPD officers arived at the park and decreed that the

demonstration was an unlawful assembly without providing any further explanation.

64, Just minutes later, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs (explosive devices

commonly used by militaries, which cause temporary blindness, deafness, and loss of balance)

and tear gas into the peaceful crowd, forcing protesters out of the park and onto the surrounding

streets.

65. LMPD officers also fired projectiles at people holding innocuous objects like

umbrellas.

66. As protesters got into their cars to drive away from the protest, LMPD officers

lined up on an overpass and fired at cars, breaking the windows of several vehicles.13

t2 Darcy Costello, Breonna Taylor proteslors question police tactics used prior to Louisville's curfew time,

Louisville Courier Joumal (May 3 I , 2020, 5:50 p.m,), https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2 020105/3llbreonna-taylor-protesters-question-lmpd-tactics-against-saturday-rally/53006420021 .

i, puinkill.. Gillz (@ltz5500Gil1z), "This is LMPD shooting at peoples vehicles as they tried to go home from the

protest...they was us dead in Louisville, ky," Twitter (June 1, 2020,9:52 a.m.),

https ://twitter. com/Itzs500G illzl statusl 1267 45 4024288292867 .

t2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

137

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 13 of 46 PagelD #: l-3

67. Approximately 100 protesters were arrested and held in police custody.

68. LMPD further defended the decision to use tear gas to disperse the crowd prior to

the start of the official city-wide curfew, by claiming that "people with leaf blowers fwere] in the

crowd, We know those are used for things like dispensing powder chemicals and for blowing gas

back toward police."r4 City officials also claimed, without providing any evidence, that leaf

blowers were loaded with bleach.ls

69. Later that evening, and two and a half miles from the site of the protests

downtown, LMPD officers and the National Guard shot and killed David McAtee while

attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee's restaurant,

70. Upon encountering the group, LMPD officers and the National Guard began

firing pepper balls. One of the pepper balls came dangerously close to striking Mr. McAtee's

niece in the head,

7L Mr. McAtee, in response, drew a handgun and fired a warning shot into the air.

72. Approximately eight seconds later, LMPD and National Guard officers fired

eighteen live rounds at Mr. McAtee; one bullet from a National Guard offtcer struck Mr.

McAtee, killing him.r6

ra Hayden Ristevski (@HaydenWDRB). "Metro Council President David James tells WDRB 'police saw people

approaching that had Gaf blowers loaded wth bleach that was intended to blow at police. So they sent out the tear

gu.,' lu*.r .uys police were trying to disperse the crowd because that. UPDATE: responso from @LMPDspokesperson..." Twitter (May 31, 2020,10:24 p'm.),

https ://twitter.com/HaydenWDRB/status/l 2 67 28087 9 61 4857 219? s:20't5 irooks Holton, Proiestors in Louisville question why police fired tear gas before curfew, WDRB Louisville, KY(May 3, 2020), https://www,wdrb.com/news/protesters-inJouisville-question-why-police-fired-tear-gas-before-curfew/article-50da8e76-a3 a9- I I ea-95d8-

bf6a8ed76863-html?utm_medium:social&utm-source:email&utm-campaign:user-share.r6 Billy Kobin and Kala Kachmar, Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guardfatal shooting of West End

businiss owner,Louisville Courier Journal (June 1, 2020,8:37 a'm'), https://www.courier-joumal.com/s torylnewsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-shooting/53067 330021 .

l3

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

138

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 1-4 of 46 PagelD #'. L4

73. None of the LMPD officers had turned on their body cameras, despite a mandate

to do so in LMPD's own operating policies.


Defendant Fischer, Defendant Schroeder, or Defendant Chavous for using tear gas, flash bangs,

pepper balls, and other projectiles on peaceful protesters.

Juuel,2!2!

75. The next day, on June 1, 2l}},Defendant Schroeder was appointed as Interim

Chief of the LMPD.

76, That evening, protesters again congregated in Jefferson Square Park,

77 . The demonstration was peaceful; protesters and police officers even linked arms

at points.lT

78. Nonetheless, at 10:00 p.m., officers fired tear gas and pepper balls into the crowd

to disperse the protesters.

79, The next day, on June 2,2020, one LMPD officer, Officer Katie Crews, posted a

photo of a protester offering her flowers on her social media page and wrote, "I hope the pepper

balls that she got lit up with a little later on hurt. Come back and getya some more ole girl, I'll

be on the line again tonight."ls

r7 Lucas Aulbach, The morning after: What happened at Monday's David McAtee and Breonna Taylor prolests,

Louisville Courier Joumal (June 2, 2020,6:31 a.m.), https://www,courier-joumal.com/story/news/1ocall2020l06l02ldavid-mcatee-breonna-taylor-protests-louisville-monday-recapl53l5267002l.t8 tirtPO fficer under investigation after Facebook post about protestor, WDRB Louisville, KY (June 2,2020),

https://www.wdrb.com/news/lmpd-officer-under-investigation-after-facebook-post-about-protester/arti cle

-b29 5 d622 -a4d8 - I 7 ea-a7 a4 -93 I a2800 a02d'html'

t4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

139

of

0001

88


80. Officer Crews was one of the LMPD officers involved in the shooting death of

David McAtee just two days prior, but she was allowed to continue in her duties.le

8l. Although Officer Crews is under investigation for her social media post, upon

information and belief, no LMPD officers have been investigated or disciplined by Defendants

Fischer, Schroeder, or Chavous for using tear gas and pepper balls on peaceful protesters,

Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous Approve of und Sanction LMPD's Use of Force,

Resulting in Continued Use of Force by LMPD OfJicers

82, Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous knew

and, either explicitly, or through acquiescence, approved of LMPD's decision to use tear gas,

flash bangs, pepper balls, batons, and other forms of force on protesters between May 28,2020

and June 1,2020.

83. The version of LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures that was in effect at the

time required supervisors-including Defendants Chavous and Schroeder-to be notified any

time chemical agents, including pepper balls, were deployed'2o

84. LMPD's Standard Operating Procedures also required approval from a

commanding officer-such as Defendants Schroeder and Chavous-prior to using any chemical

agents, including pepper balls.2l

85, LMPD's conduct came under intense media scrutiny almost immediately. But

Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have done nothing to correct LMPD's illegal

course, instead acquiescing to LMPD's use of violent force on peaceful protesters.

re Billy Kobin and Kala Kachmar , Investigation launched into LMPD. National Guard fata shooting of West End

businiss owner, Louisville Courier Joumal (June I 2020, 8:37 a.m,), https://www.courier-journal.com/s tory/newsl2020/06/0 I /beshear-authorizes-investigation-intoJouisville-police-national-guard-shooting/53067 330021 .

20 LourJvrr-B MErRo PoLrcE Dnr'r, SrexoARD OpERATING PRocEDUREs ("SoP") $ 3.1.1 (May 31,2004)'2rSOP g 9.1.8 (Nov.7,2019),

15

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

140

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed A7130120 Page 16 of 46 PagelD #: 16

86. Defendant Fischer has defended his and LMPD's prior decisions, despite the

results, and has consistently refused to take meaningful action to protect protesters from unlawful

uses offorce.

87 , On May 30,2l20,just hours after LMPD officers destroyed peaceful protesters'

stockpiles of water and milk, arbitrarily enforced curfew restrictions over an hour earlier than

announced, and launched tear gas at dispersing crowds as described above, Defendant Fischer

issued a statement thanking LMPD for "show[ing] discipline, restraint and professionalism under

exhemely volatile circumstances." He then continued "to thank the law enforcement who came

in to assist from other agencies," as well.22

88. ln the same statement, Defendant Fischer stated that although he respected the

right to protest peacefully, he instructed Louisville residents to 'ostay home,"

89. When asked at a news conference about LMPD's destruction of protesters'

supplies, Defendant Fischer defended LMPD's conduct, speculating that police may have

believed there were flammable materials hidden among milk and water.23 Defendant Fischer did

not explain, and has not explained, any basis for such a conclusion.

90, Defendant Fischer has repeatedly defended LMPD's use of tear gas on protesters.

In a statement on June 2,2020, Defendant Fischer's spokesperson, Jean Porter, said that although

the Mayor was "sorry that some peaceful protesters were caught up in that," LMPD is there "to

22 Mayor Greg Fischer's statement on May 29 prolesls, LouisvilleKY.Gov (May 30, 2020),

https://louisvilleky.gov/news/mayor-greg-fi schero/oE2Yo8)%99s-statement-may-29-protests.23 Amina Elahi, Louisville Mayor Claims, Ihthoul Details, Protestors' Seized Supplies were Hazardoas, WFPL

News Louisville (May 31,2020), https://wfpl.org/louisville-mayor-claims-without-details-protesters-seized-supplies-were-hazardous/.

16

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

141

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 1-7 of 46 PagelD #: 17

protect public safety and keep order, and they make the decision-to use tear gas when they

believe that is in jeopardy."2a

91. On June 3,2020, Defendant Fischer issued a statement praising LMPD for

"putting in long hours," while "suffering insults and assaults" in dealing with protests. The

Mayor continued: "They are frustrated . . . I absolutely respect that. That doesn't change my

appreciation of the work they are doing, as I've expressed time and time again."25

92. On June 10,2020,in response to pressure from the public and the Louisville

Metro Council, Defendant Schroeder announced that LMPD officers would no longer be

permitted to use tear gas without his approval.26

93 . The June 27 , 2020 amendments to LMPD 's Standard Operating Procedures make

no reference to this new restriction.2T

94. ln the face of mounting public pressure, on June 15, 2020, Defendant Fischer

apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result, he would be

instituting needed reforms to the LMPD's use of force practices. But the very next day, in

response to criticism from the LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating that

2a Andrew Wolfson and Darcy Costello, Mayor Fischer says Louisville welcomes peaceful protest' Why was one

cleared with tear gas? Louisville Courier Journal (June 2, 0202,6:36 a.m.), https://www.courier-joumal,com/storylnewsl2020l06l}2/kentucky-leaders-question-why-louisvi1le-police-tear-gassed-protesters/53 I 26650021.,5 Taylor Weiter and Heather Fountaine, Watch: Louisville police walk out on Mayor Greg Fischer, FOP conf rms,

WHASI l ABC Louisville, KY (June 3,2020,8:07 p.m.), https://www.whasl Lcom/article/news/local/louisville-police-fop-mayor-frscher/4 I 7-cddce5 93 -b5 dc-47e3-83 6b -25cai 7 3 e7 I 09'lu T"rru Duvail, Sarah Ludd and Ben Tobin, Louisville police roundup: Tear gas limits, detective sidelined,

community policing survey, Louisville Courier Joumal (June 10, 2020,11'.27 a.m.), https://www,courier-joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06ll0llouisville-police-c'ant-use-tear-gas-future-without-direct-ordetl53332750021.27 SOP $ 9,1.9 (June 27,2020) (using same language as prior version of SOP).

17

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

142

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 0713A120 Page 18 of 46 PagelD #: 18

he had not instructed and would not instruct officers to "stand down" and that Defendant

Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action.28

95. Upon information and belief, since June 15,2020, Defendant Schroeder has not

implemented any changes to LMPD's use-of-force policies to better protect protesters,

96. At a media briefing on May 3I,2020, Defendant Chavous blamed the violence on

"anarchists" who intended to cause chaos---even though she identified no actual violent acts by

protesters.2e

97. At that same conference, Defendant Chavous defended the decision to,fire on

individuals carrying umbrellas, saying that umbrellas "can be used as weapons."30

98.' Upon information and belief, Defendants Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have

taken no action to reform LMPD's use-of-force policies or otherwise curtail LMPD's use of

force against peaceful protesters beyond the announcement regarding central approval oftear gas

usage.

Defendant City of Louisville's Ongoing Use of Force and Mass Arrests to Quell Protest andPrevent Recording

99. Following two weeks of relativ'e calm between police and protesters, on June 15,

2020,the LMPD officers resumed their use of aggressive tactics and potentially lethal weapons'

on protesters,

28 Ragsdale, Travis, Mayor Fischer denied claim that he's giving Louisville police 'stand down' orders at protesls,

WDRB Louisville, KY (June 16,2020), https://www.wdrb.com/news/mayor-f,rscher-denies-claim+hat-hes-giving-louisville-police-stand-down-orders-at-protests/article_4307b4b2-afe4- I I ea-83cf-23b024a8834c.htm1.2e Tessa Duvall, Darcy Costello, Billy Kobin, Lucas Aulbach, Bailey Loosemore, Mandy Mclaren, Olivia Krauth

and Sarah Ladd, Sunday updates: Protestors arrested as Breonna Taylor rallies continue around Louisville,CoutierJoumal (May 28, 2020, 10:56 p.m., updated May 31, 2020, ll:00 p'm.), https://www'courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-gov emmentl2020/05/28/breonna-taylor-shooting-what-know-louisville-protest/52807 62002/ .

30 Lucas Aulbach, From tense to touching moments, here's how Louisville's protests went down Sunday night,

Louisville Courier Joumal (June 1, 2020, 6:18 a.m.), https ://www.courier-joumal.com/story/news/locall2020l06lOllbreonna-taylor-protest-what-happened-sundayJouisville/5305 156002/'

18

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

143

of

0001

88


100. Throughout that afternoon and evening, LMPD officers deployed smoke

grenades, pepper rounds, flash bangs, and a sound cannon against protesters, They also

continued to target individuals, including members of the press, who were documenting the

protests and the police response.

101. ln the late afternoon of June 15, a small group of peaceful protesters was gathered

near 9th Street and W. Chestnut Street. A line of LMPD officers in helmets, arrnor, and riot

shields moved toward the protesters, ordering them to move back. When the protesters did not

leave, the police marched north on 9th Street firing pepper balls and impact rounds toward the

crowd.

102. As the police moved down the road, they approached Plaintiff Schauer, who was

standing still on the sidewalk and was recording the officers with her cellphone. Two officers

walked over to her, threw her to the ground, and fired pepper balls at protesters who attempted to

help her. An officer then arrested Plaintiff Schauer.

103. The police eventually moved down to the area around W. Jefferson Street and 7th

Street, near LMPD headquarters, at which point the police took several steps backwards, The

protesters cheered, thinking that the police were backing off. Instead, the police fired a round of

pepper balls into the crowd,

104. Shortly thereafter, police used a long-range acoustic device ("LRAD"), a sonic

weapon that deploys a high-frequency sound wave, on peaceful protesters,

105. During the protests, a number of riot police gang-tackled a man in the middle of

the road. The officers' actions were captured by a security guard at the Hall of Justice, who

recorded it on his cellphone camera from behind a window. As the guard recorded the activity,

an officer fired a pepper ball at him, striking and cracking the window near where the guard had

I9

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

144

of

0001

88


been standing, LMPD confirmed that an officer had fired at the security guard. The guard told

Buzzfeed News that he had not reported the incident because he feared retaliation from the

police,3l

106, Later that night, another officer ran his car into a peaceful protester. The man told

WFPL, "I watched fthe officer] look at his back up cam and he ran right into me, literally."32

107 . Police use of force against peaceful protesters continued throughout the week. On

Ihe morning of Wednesday, June I7 ,2020, police again fired pepper balls at peaceful protesters

on multiple occasions. One officer shot a reporter from the Courier Journal, who was recording

the protests, with a pepper ball.

108. On Thursday, June 18,2020, the police used both peppers balls and LRADs

against peaceful protesters again, The police reportedly shot one protester in the eye with a

pepper ball. Another protester, who was sleeping in the park, awoke to an officer pointing a

Glock firearm in his face.

109. LMPD officers have also continued to engage in mass arrests of protesters, many

of whom have had charges subsequently dropped. ln total, between May 28,2020 and July 24,

2020, over 500 protesters have been arrested.33

3r Amber Jamieson, Police Shot At A Man Who Filmed Them Tackling Protestors in Louisville, BuzzFeed News

(June 17,2020,8:50 p.m,), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/louisville-shot-fired-security-guard-video,It Stafl (Iser of Pepper Balls Resumes At Downtown Louisville Protests, WFPL News Louisville (June 15, 2020),

https://wfpl,org/use-of-pepper-balls-tear-gas-resumes-at-downtown-louisville-protests/.33 Hayes Gardier, 49 diys and 435 arrests; Protestors in Breonna Taylor movement unfazed by charges, Louisville

Courier Joumal (July 16, 2020, l:13 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/storylnewsl2020l0Tll6lbreonna-taylot-

protesters-arrests-show-we-mean-business/5 4349470021; https://www.wdrb.com/news/76-demonstrators-arrested-

after-shutting-down-market-street-as-part-of-breonna-taylor-protests/article-4f0f/000-cde5- I I ea-b69 I -

cf4c20dff0d I .html.

20

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

145

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 21 of 46 PagelD #,2L

I 10. In conducting these affests, LMPD has continued to target those recording or

livestreaming the police response to protesters.3a

I 1 1. Many protesters were initially charged with serious offenses, including felony

offenses that cary possible prison time.

112. For instance, on Tuesday, July 14,2020, more than 100 protesters arrived at

Attorney General Daniel Cameron's residence in Louisville to protest the Attorney General's

Office's delay in investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor,35 Eighty-seven of the protesters

were ultimately arrested and charged with Intimidating a Participant in the Legal Process, a

felony.

113. Three days later, the County Attorney for Jefferson County, Mike O'Connell,

announced that "in the interest of justice and the promotion of the free exchange of ideas," his

office was dismissing all of the 87 felony charges brought against the peaceful protesters.36

ll4. ln response to an isolated and random shooting on June 27,2020, LMPD began

enforcing an 1 1:00 p.m. curfew at Jefferson Square Park, the main site for organized

demonstrations.

3a Lucas Aulbach, Livestreaers at Breonna Taylor protests believe Louisville police are targeting them, Louisville

Courier Joumal (July 5, 2020,3:23 p.m.), https://www.courier-joumal.com/story/news/local/2020l07l05llouisville-breonna-taylor-protesters-say-police-target-live-streametsl5380284002/ .

3s87 charged withfelony after protest on AG Daniel Cameron's lawn in Louisville, WLKY News, Louisville KY(July 14, 2020,8:46 p.m.), https://www.wlky.com/article/protesters-march-through-east-louisville-to-ag-daniel-camerons-homel333 1387 l.36 County attorney dismissingfelony chargesfor protestors involved in sit-in at Cameron's home,WDRBLouisville, KY (July 17,2020), https://www.wdrb,com/news/county-attorney-dismissing-felony-charges-for-protesters-involved-in-sit-in-at-camerons-home/article 2a3ce3d2-c851-llea-bd89-d7f2aba6blb9.html'

2I

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

146

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 22 of 46 PagelD #:22

1 15. LMPD officers also violently tore down encampments that protesters had erected

in the park, destroying protesters' property. Defendant Schroeder recognized that LMPD

officers' actions were "less than our standards" and apologi zedforthe officers' actions.3T

116. Upon information and belief, LMPD officers' actions in destroying protesters'

property was motivated in part by a desire to punish protesters for exercising their First

Amendment rights.

Il7. The curfew at Jefferson Square Park remains in effect, despite no further

instances of violent conduct,

1 1 8. Protests have continued nearly daily through downtown Louisville as of the date

of this filing.

119. The Kentucky Attorney General's investigation into the killing of Breonna Taylor

remains pending. The conclusion of that investigation is likely to trigSer larger protests and more

aggressive police responses.

120. On July 16,2020, the Louisville Metro Council opened an investigation into

whether Defendant Fischer and LMPD's conduct in response to the peaceful protests warranted

Defendant Fischer's removal from office.38

The Dangers of "Less-than-Lethal" Force

I2l. Although termed "nonlethal" or "less-than-lethal" force, military-grade crowd

control devices expose targets to serious risks of injury, and even death.

37 Kelli Dugan and Cox Media National Content Desk, Police identify victirn infatal Louisville protest shooting;

suspect in custody,Fox 23 News Louisville KY, (June 28,2020), https://www,fox23.com/news/trending/police-identify-victim-fatal-louisville-protest-shooting-suspect-custody/5BE6L63XLJGRHHDTMHQHPQYVBA/.38 Madeline Holcombe, Mima Alsharif and Elizabeth Joseph, Louisville mayor to be investigated for handling orprotestors and Breonna Taylor's case, CNN (July 16, 2020,6:38 a.m'),

https://www.cnn.com/2020107/16/us/louisville-investigation-mayor-taylor-protest/index.html,

22

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

147

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 23 of 46 PagelD #.23

I22. The Sixth Circuit has recognized the significant damage done by using a chemical

irritant such as tear gas: the gas "burns the face [and] nostrils, restricts breathing passages, and

causes blindness. It causes a burning sensation that causes mucus to come out of the nose, an

involuntary closing of the eyes, a gaggingreflex, and temporary paralysis of the larynx ." (Jnited

States v. Mosley,635 F.3d 859,862 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted)

I23, Studies have found that individuals exposed to tear gas can continue to experience

significant adverse health consequences up to one month after exposure.3e

I24. Despite being frequently described as non-lethal technology, tear gas can result in

death. Recently, a protester in Ohio who was exposed to tear gas and pepper spray died from

cardiac arrest,

I25, The use of tear gas during the ongoing Novel Coronavirus -2019 ("COVID-19")

pandemic creates additional risks for those exposed. COVID-19 is spread tlrrough respiratory

droplets, which are spread by coughing, sneezing, and talking.40 ln addition to burning of the

eyes, nose, and mouth, exposure to tear gas can cause increased nasal secretions, immediate

coughing, and sneezing.al

126. Public health experts unanimously agree that wearing a respiratory mask is one of

the most important ways of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

3e Y.G, Karagama,J.R. Newton, and C.J,R. Newbegin. "Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to

CS spray." Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J'R' Soc, Med' April 2003.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539444/.a0 Comoavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/faq.html#Spread.4r y.G. kurugu*,J.R, Newton, and C,J.R. Newbegin, Short-term and long-term physical effects of exposure to CS

spray, Ioumal of The Royal Society of Medicine. J.R. Soc' Med. (April 2003)'

https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles 1PMC539 4441 .

23

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

148

of

0001

88


I27 . Many protesters taking parl in the nationwide demonstrations have thus made sure

to don masks before leaving their homes

I28. Because tear gas creates respiratory problems, however, many individuals

exposed to tear gas cannot keep their masks on, When large groups of people congregate,

remove their masks, and cough or sneeze, the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19

skyrockets.

I29. Because tear gas covers an entire area,it cannot be targeted at specific people. It

inherently injures everyone exposed to'it.

130, Flash bangs can also cause serious injury, and even death, Flash bangs detonated

too close to a person can cause burns, loss of limbs, and lasting partial hearing loss. ln extreme

cases, flash bangs can cause asphyxiation, heart attacks, and internal bleeding.

131, When detonated around gravel or loose glass, flash bangs can send shrapnel

flying with enough force to wound those nearby

I32. Because flash bangs cover entire areas, they cannot be targeted at specific people.

Flash bangs inherently place everyone exposed to them at risk of serious physical harm,

133. Pepper balls and rubber bullets can cause significant injuries, and even death, if

they hit a person's face, neck, or torso. Because such projectiles are often fired at velocities

similar to live ammunition, they cause severe damage upon impact.

134. A survey ofthose sffuck by such projectiles found that they prove fatal

approximately 3%of the time, and cause permanent disability approximately 15% of the time.a2

42 Rohini J,Haar,Vincent Lacopino, Nikhil Ranadive, Madhavi Dandun, Sher D, Wesier, Death, iniury and

disabilityfrom kinetic impacl projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review, BMJ Joumals Open, Vol.7,I ssue I 2, (20 l7), https : //bmj open. bmj. com/con tent/ 7 I I 2 I e0 1 8 I 5 4' fu I l.

24

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

149

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2O Page 25 of 46 PagelD #'.25

Seventy-one percent of those struck with rubber bullets or pepper balls suffered severe injuries

that required medical intervention.a3

135. Although rubber bullets and pepper balls can be targeted, their use at longer

ranges is "likely to be inaccurate and indiscriminate."aa

136. LMPD's own Standard Operating Procedures recognize that "[t]he potential exists

for [such types of ammunition] to inflict injury or death when they strike the face, eyes, and

neck,"45

137 . LRADs are sonic weapons that deploy a high-frequency sound wave at atargel.

138, LRADs, developed by the military for use in the Iraq War in 2004,46 have been

found to cause significant harm to individuals' ear drums and can cause perrnanent hearing loss.

Named Plaintffi Are Injured by LMPD's Use of Force

I39. All Named Plaintiffs have been victims of LMPD's disproportionate and violent

response to protests.

Attica Scott

140. Plaintiff Scott first attended demonstrations on May 29,2020. She and her

teenage daughter joined a group of protesters at approximately 5:30 p,m. at 6th Street and W.

Jefferson Street.

I4l. Plaintiff Scott attended the demonstrations both to protest the killing of Breonna

Taylor and, in her capacity as a Member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, to document

what was happening in her community.

43 Id.aa Physical Human Rights. International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, https://www.inclo.net/pdf/lethal-in-disguise.pdf.45 soP $ 9.1,10.46 Eric Niiler, Sonic Weapons' Long, Noisy History, History Stories (August27,2018)'https ://www.history.com/news/sonic-weapons-warfare-acoustic'

25

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

150

of

0001

88


I42, Shortly before aniving at the protest, she saw footage online of dozens of LMPD

officers in riot gear lined up in front of the YUM! Center.

143. For several hours after Plaintiff Scott anived, she observed no violence by other

protesters. Instead, members of the group participated in die-ins, marches, and chanting; some

protesters chanted "hands up don't shoot."

I44. After approximately three hours, Plaintiff Scott observed a small number of

people in the crowd throw plastic water bottles. Other demonshators immediately denounced the

behavior,

145. Without warning, the line of LMPD officers began advancing quickly with batons

drawn, pushing the crowd back.

146. Defendant Officer J. Johnson noticed Plaintiff Scott recording the scene and

approached her, shoving her backward, While backing away, Plaintiff Scott tripped on a box

behind her, fell to the ground, and injured her knee.

I47 . Plaintiff Scott was able to meet up with her daughter, who informed her she was

bleeding and needed medical attention. Plaintiff Scott found a medic tent set up by protesters to

get first aid for her knee.

148. As she received medical attention at the tent, LMPD officers deployed tear gas.

An immediate cloud covered the area. Plaintiff Scott saw a thick cloud of smoke. Plaintiff Scott

couldn't see anything through the smoke. Her eyes started burning badly, and she used her

facemask to help act as a barrier between her face and the smoke.

149. . Plaintiff Scott ran from the tear gas. She ultimately met up with her daughter and

her friend, and the three went to their car, where they stayed nearby the protest for another

twenty or so minutes.

26

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

151

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docurment 1 Filed 07130120 Page 27 of 46 PagelD #'.27

150. Plaintiff Scott was also present at the protest on June 15, where she witnessed

LMPD using pepper balls indiscriminately against protesters,

l5l, On June 18,2020, Plaintiff Scott filed a formal complaint with LMPD, asking the

department to investigate its officers' inappropriate use of tear gas,

I52. LMPD responded by letter dated June 29,2020, stating that her complaint was

being investigated,

153. She has received no further contact from LMPD since that letter.

Corbin Smith and T)tler Weaklett

154. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley drove into downtown Louisville to go to dinner on

the evening of May 31,2020, but they decided to first stop by the demonstrations to show

support for the community.

155. They anived downtown and, wearing face masks, began walking towards

Broadway Street, where the protest was taking place. On their way, Plaintiffs Smith and

Weakley walked past a group of police officers in riot gear who said nothing about a curfew in

effect.

156. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley saw the group of protesters at approximately 8:30

p.m,, thirty minutes before the official curfew that had just been implemented was schedule to

begin.

157. For fifteen minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley observed protesters marching

and chanting peacefully

158. Then, without warning or justification, LMPD officers began deploying flash

bangs and tear gas into the crowd, causing a panicked stampede away from the police line.

27

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

152

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3Ol2A Page 28 of 46 PagelD #:28

159. Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley were close to a tear gas cannister that exploded.

Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both inhaled the gas and immediately began choking. For several

minutes, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley both felt as if they were suffocating.

160. Plaintiff Weakley observed a police car drive into the crowd of protesters on a

street perpendicular to Broadway Street, fuither exacerbating the chaos.

1 61 . Tear gas began filling the air, obscuring visibility in the area. Nonetheless,

officers began firing pepper balls and rubber bullets indiscriminately.

162. Plaintiff Smith felt a pepper ball fly close to his ear, prompting him and Plaintiff

Weakley to start running back to their car.

163. On the way, Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley encountered a line of approximately 40

LMPD officers in riot gear.

164. Plaintiff Smith begged the officers to let them get to their car. The officers

responded by drawing and training their weapons on both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley.

165, Both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley then slowly raised their hands above

their heads and kneeled on the ground. Both feared that they were about to be shot, perhaps

fatally.

166, Although both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley had already submitted,

LMPD Officers John Does #1-5 charged and tackled Plaintiff Smith to the ground, slamming

him into the road. LMPD Officers John Does #6-9 andLMPD Officer Jane Doe #l tackled

Plaintiff Weakley and pinned her to the ground.

167 . Plaintiff Smith, surprised by the use of force, asked why they were being placed

under arrest. Defendant Officer John Doe #l responded by calling him a domestic terorist and

pressing him further into the ground,

28

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

153

of

0001

88


168. Defendant Officer John Doe #2 placed his knee at the base of Plaintiff Smith's

neck and pushed down, fuither limiting Plaintiff Smith's ability to breathe. Echoing the haunting

words of George Floyd, Plaintiff Smith began pleading that he could not breathe,

169. Defendant Officers John Does #1,3,4, and 5 then began to beat Plaintiff Smith

with their batons, striking his back and his legs.

170, Plaintiff Smith feared that he would be killed by LMPD Officers John Does #1-5,

joining the ranks of countless unarmed Black people killed by aggressive policing.

l7l. After a few minutes, Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer

Jane Doe #1 pulled up Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley and placed them on the sidewalk

curb, Defendant Officer John Doe #3 pulled Plaintiff Smith's face mask off without explanation.

172. Defendant Officers John Does #l-9 and Defendant Officer Jane Doe #l then

placed both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Weakley under arrest. Neither Plaintiff was told on what

basis they were being arrested.

173, Plaintiff Smith was ultimately charged with one count of misdemeanor unlawful

assembly and one count of misdemeanor curfew violation. Plaintiff Weakley was charged with

one count of felony rioting,

174. LMPD's conduct profoundly impacted both Plaintiffs Smith and Weakley.

l7 5 . As a result of the attack, Plaintiff Smith sustained cuts and bruises to his knees,

legs, and back,

17 6, Plaintiff Smith, fearful of further police misconduct, did not attend any further

protests for approximately one week. He has since returned to protests in Louisville.

177. At every protest he has attended since, he remains afraid that LMPD officers will

react as violently as they did on May 31,2020.

29

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

154

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7l30l2o Page 30 of 46 PagelD #: 30

178. Plaintiff Weakley has been traumalizedby the events of that night; she has

refused to attend any fuilher demonstrations out of fear. She attended one celebration on June 19,

2020,but she began to feel anxious as the sun went down; she left the event early for fear of

police crackdown.

Willa Tinslev

179, Plaintiff Tinsley first joined the protests on May 28,2020. She had learned about

the demonstrations on social media, and drove downtown to join at approximately 10:00 p.m.

180. When Plaintiff Tinsley arrived at the protests, she observed LMPD officers in riot

gear advancing on the protesters. Almost immediately, she saw flash bangs exploding by her and

heard pepper balls being fired,

181. A tear gas cannister exploded near Plaintiff Tinsley, who immediately could not

open her eyes or breathe because of the pain. Disoriented, she began to run in the direction of the

crowd, attempting to leave the area and find her car.

182. Eventually, another protester who saw Plaintiff Tinsley helped wash out her eyes.

Plaintiff Tinsley then began to search for her car to go home.

183. As she searched, she encountered another protester who was also looking for his

vehicle. As they walked, they encountered LMPD Officers John Does #10-13'

184. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 began yelling at Plaintiff Tinsley and the

other protester to clear the area, Plaintiff Tinsley responded that they were looking for her car.

The other protester told the officers that they were on a public sidewalk'

185. Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 responded by firing pepper balls at Plaintiff

Tinsley and the other protester-from just a few feet away. Plaintiff Tinsley was shot in the arm,

torso, and leg at close range,

30

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

155

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent 1 Filed 07130120 Page 31 of 46 PagelD #: 31

186. Plaintiff Tinsley and the other protester turned and began to run away. Defendant

Officers John Does #10-13 continued to fire pepper balls at them, hitting Plaintiff Tinsley on the

back and on her legs.

187. In total, Defendant Officers John Does #10-13 discharged approximately 30

rounds of pepper balls at Plaintiff Tinsley and her friend, striking Plaintiff Tinsley approximately

l0 times.

188. She sustained significant bruising on her back and legs from the shots.

189, For several days following the incident, Plaintiff Tinsley could not use her arm

because ofsevere pain,

190. Plaintiff Tinsley joined a demonstration on the evening of May 31,2020. She had

learned about the event on social media.

191. She joined the march downtown around 7:00 p.m. When she arrived, the scene

was wholly peaceful; protesters were chanting and marching with signs'

I92. The protesters were not causing any damage to surrounding property'

193. Despite the peaceful nature of the protesters, Plaintiff Tinsley heard LMPD

officers stating that the demonstration was an unlawful gathering.

194. Plaintiff Tinsley then heard the explosion of tear gas cannisters and saw clouds of

smoke filling the air, She saw a flash bang detonate near her.

195, The tear gas blinded her and burned her nose and throat, while the flash bang

impaired her hearing and caused her to grow disoriented'

196. Through the cloud of smoke, pepper balls began whizzingby her. Plaintiff

Tinsley was struck multiple times in the arms and legs with projectiles, causing significant

bruising.

31

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

156

of

0001

88


I97, Disoriented, and unable to see or hear well, Plaintiff Tinsley stumbled onto a side

street. Other protesters poured milk in her eyes to alleviate the burning.

198. Eventually, scared to be alone in the midst of the widespread police violence, she

found her way to a group of approximately 40 other protesters.

199. A group of LMPD officers found the protesters and began beating them with

batons, ultimately arresting the whole group.

200. Plaintiff Tinsley was held in jail for approximately 30 hours and ultimately

charged with one count of misdemeanor curfew violation.

' 201 While Plaintiff Tinsley was in jail, an LMPD officer told her, in sum and

substance: "We're trying to arrest you guys so you have to spend a night in jail and learn your

lesson."

202. At another point, an LMPD officer told her directly: "This is to teach you a

lesson."

203, Since then, Plaintiff Tinsley has been wary of attending further demonstrations.

She has only attended a handful of protests, and never stays after sunset, out of a fear of further

police force.

204, For example, Plaintiff Tinsley ptunn.d on attending protests on June 15 , 2020.

After she learned LMPD was using an LRAD, however, Plaintiff Tinsley, who has hearing

problems, decided not to attend the protest.

Stevie Schauer

205. Plaintiff Schauer joined a small group of young people on the afternoon of June

15,2020 for a march through downtown Louisville.

32

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

157

of

0001

88


206. Immediately, Plaintiff Schauer noticed that the police presence at the gathering

was much more aggressive than on prior days of protests she had attended---even though there

were only approximately 50 people protesting, a smaller gathering than the previous protests she

had attended.

207 , Plaintiff Schauer observed an LMPD helicopter circling protesters from above.

208, As the group of protesters, including Plaintiff Schauer, moved south on 9th Street

from W. Jefferson Street towards W. Chestnut Street, they encountered a line of LMPD officers

in riot gear-with their batons out-blocking off the street.

209. LMPD officers yelled that the crowd needed to move back.

2IO. Plaintiff Schauer immediately left the street and got onto the sidewalk, where no

officers were present. Other individuals-who, upon information and belief, had not participated

in the demonstrations-were also standing on the sidewalk without issue'

2ll, ln an effort to document what was happening, Plaintiff Schauer took out her cell

phone and began to record the LMPD officers.

212. Almost immediately after she began recording, LMPD Officers John Does #14-15

broke from the line of.riot officers and approached her quickly'

213. Defendant Officer John Doe #14 yelled "move back" and immediately shoved

Plaintiff Schauer to the ground with enough force to bruise her shoulder and twist her ankle.

2I4, The shove also caused PlaintiffSchauer's cell phone and eyeglasses to shatter.

215. Plaintiff Schauer-who has a chronic condition that causes joint sensitivity-

feared that she had badly injured her shoulder or ankle.

216. Plaintiff Schauer's friend, who was also at the demonstration, tried to walk over

to Plaintiff Schauer to check on her. LMPD officers began firing pepper balls at the friend's feet,

JJ

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

158

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed A7130120 Page 34 of 46 PagelD #:34

217 , Defendant Officers John Does #14-15 then pushed Plaintiff Schauer to the ground

and used a plastic tie to bind her wrists.

218. The plastic tie was coiled tightly enough to bruise her wrists.

219. Plaintiff SchauerwasplacedunderarrestatapproximateLyT:30 p.m. Shewaskept

in jail for 10 hours and ultimately charged with one count of felony rioting and one count of

misdemeanor unlawful assembly.

220. At the precinct, an LMPD officer asked her "Was it worth it? You dirtied your

record for this."

221. Plaintiff Schauer had to keep her ankle wrapped in an elastic bandage for a week

to heal the injury she sustained in the course ofher arrest.

222, Since this experience, Plaintiff Schauer has been too afraid to participate in

further protests. Though she wishes to continue marching in support of the movement for police

accountability, she fears further physical violence if she participates in any additional

demonstrations.

223. To date, she feels nervous and anxious around police officers.

Kavla Meisner

224. Plaintiff Meisner attended a demonshation on the evening of May 29,2020.

225. The group of protesters was peacefully chanting and marching through

downtown. As she marched, Plaintiff Meisner saw tanks lined up along the Second Street

Bridge.

226. The protest continued down to the courthouse. After marching around the

courthouse several times, Plaintiff Meisner saw police officers stationed on top of buildings, and

she saw that police had set up banicades and brought out tanks and police vans.

34

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

159

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07l3ol20 Page 35 of 46 PagelD #: 35

227 . Then, protesters were met by a phalanx of approximately 200 LMPD officers in

riot gear and armed with batons, guns, and tear gas.

228. LMPD officers began erecting baricades to prevent people from leaving the area.

22g. LMPD officers then threatened to fire into the trapped crowd unless the group sat

down.

230. With no options, the group-including Plaintiff Meisner-sat down.

231. Nonetheless, LMPD officers began firing flash bangs and pepper balls and

launching tear gas indiscriminately into the seated crowd, prompting a panicked retreat.

232. The wave of tear gas hit Plaintiff Meisner; she was instantly unable to see or

breathe from the pain of the irritant.

233. Plaintiff Meisner had to be led away from the scene by a friend; together, they hid

in a parking gam;ge nearby as LMPD officers continued to launch tear gas into the dispersing

crowd,

234. Plaintiff Meisner then observed LMPD offiders open fire on a group of local

journalists who were covering the event.

235. Though she continues to attend demonstrations, Plaintiff Meisner fears further

police use of force against peaceful demonstrators, She feared for her life during the events of

May 29, and no longer has any trust for public officials or LMPD, She believes that LMPD will

rctaliateagainst protesters who are trying to stand up for what is right.

Kentuclqt Alliance Against Racial and Political Repression

236. As part of its work combatting racial discrimination in policing, Plaintiff

KAARPR has been involved in coordinating and attending many of the recent demonstrations in

Louisville.

35

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

160

of

0001

88


237. Earlier this spring, Plaintiff KAAPR launched a campaign related to the killing of

Breonna Taylor calling for the arrest of those officers responsible for her death, as well as

systemic reforms that will prevent excessive use of police force in the future. These include

reforms to LMPD's use of force policies, as well as systems that allow for meaningful

community oversight of the LMPD.

238, Plaintiff KAARPR's members have attended demonstrations and peacefully

protested in Louisville between May 28,2020 and the present.

239, Many of Plaintiff KAARPR's members themselves been victims of police abuse

during the protests; members who were protesting peacefully have been tear-gassed, shot with

rubber bullets, pushed and hit with batons, and experienced flash bangs and LRAD usage.

240. As a result, Plaintiff KAARPR has been forced to divert resources into purchasing

first aid supplies, as well as milk and water to treat those injured at protests. Additionally,

Plaintiff KAARPR has hired individuals to provide security, and purchased security goggles,

food, masks, and cleaning supplies for members attending protests,

24L On at least one occasion, during the course of a protest, LMPD directed sanitation

officials to collect Plaintiff KAARPR's supplies, thus preventing Plaintiff KAARPR from using

them and requiring Plaintiff KAARPR to purchase additional supplies'

242. Altogether, Plaintiff I(AARP.R has spent over $10,000 dollars in these and other

purchases for protests responding to police violence.

243. Plaintiff KAARPR has also had to expend significant staff time responding to the

excessive use offorce by police at the protests'

244. Plaintiff KAARPR has expended time and money to organize additional protests

directed towards addressing police use of force at previous protests.

36

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

161

of

0001

88


245 . Plaintiff KAARPR has also spent staff time participating in various public

education events related to the excessive use of police force at the protests. For example, on

several occasions, Plaintiff KAARPR's leadership has responded to local press inquiries

regarding the use of excessive force against protestors. Likewise, Plaintiff KAARPR has

launched a campaign, encouraging protestors to live stream marches and demonstrations, as a

means of recording acts of police violence,

246. The money and staff time Plaintiff KAARPR has spent on responding to

excessive police violence has prevented it from conducted other activities it had planned to

engage in.

247. At the beginning of the year, Plaintiff KAARPR had planned to conduct public

education events, including various panels and speakers, and organize public rallies related to the

lack of adequate education for children attending schools in Louisville's West End, as well as the

need for additional money in the City Budget for the education of Black and Brown children in

Louisville.

248. As a result of the increased staff time need to treat protestors injured by police

violence, purchase supplies to treat these protestors after they have been injured, respond to

media and public inquiries regarding the use of police force, as well as organize additional

protests in response to LMPD's excessive use of force against protestors, Plaintiff KAARPR has

been unable to organize these events or otherwise work towards improving education access and

education funding,

249. LMPD's use of force against peaceful protesters to shut down demonstrations has

also fiustrated Plaintiff KAARPR's mission to (a) ensure that public fora for free speech and

debate regarding issues of human and constitutional rights remain available to all people; (b)

JI

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

162

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07l3)l20 Page 38 of 46 PagelD #: 38

eliminate police abuse against peaceful, private civilians; and (c) bring together community

members to speak out on issues related to abusive police practices.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

250. Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief on behalf of a class of similarly

situated individuals under Rule 23(bxlXA) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

("Plaintiff Class"). The Plaintiff Class comprises all individuals who peacefully participated in

any day of protests between May 28,2020 andJuly 30, 2020 onwhich LMPD officers utilized

tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, rubber bullets, impact rounds, batons, or other comparable

crowd control weaponry ("Crowd Control Weaponry") and were actually exposed to Crowd

Control Weaponry at those protests.

251, All of the members of the Plaintiff Class were injured in largely the same ways as

a result of Louisville's conduct-all of their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest in a

public forum and their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from the use of excessive force were

violated.

252. The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members would

be impracticable. Thousands of peaceful protesters have been subjected to the Crowd Control

Weaponry that the LMPD has deployed from May 28, 2020 to July 30, 2020. Hundreds of

peaceful protesters have been arrested during that time.

253. The questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs are common to all members

of the Plaintiff Class. Among others, the questions common to the Plaintiff Class include:

a. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters

caused an immediate end to peaceful demonstrations and actually stifled

38

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

163

of

0001

88


free speech and peaceful assembly on matters of significant public

importance;

b. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters is

likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from fuither protests or

demonstrations;

c, Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters

creates a significant risk ofserious bodily injury;

d. Whether the use of Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters was

unnecessary and/or excessive to maintaining public safety;

e. Why LMPD chose to use Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful

protesters;

f. Whether LMPD officers issued any warning before employing Crowd

Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;

g. Whether LMPD attempted to use other forms of crowd control before

resorting to Crowd Control Weaponry; and

h. Whether the City of Louisville has ratified the LMPD's conduct, either

through its express statements or by acquiescence.

254. Common issues of law and fact predominate any individual issues.

255. All members of the Plaintiff Class were subject to the same practices and policies

of the City of Louisville.

256. The violations suffered by Plaintiffs are typical of the Plaintiff Class. Plaintiffs

were peacefully protesting when LMPD employed Crowd Control Weaponry on them. The

injuries they suffered as a result of Crowd Control Weaponry, as well as the chilling effect of

39

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

164

of

0001

88


these uses of force on their willingness to peacefully assemble to protest, are identical to the

injuries sustained by the rest of the Plaintiff Class.

257 . The entire Plaintiff Class will benefit from the injunctive relief sought herein.

258. Plaintiffs have no conflict of interest with any members of the Plaintiff Class, are

committed to vigorous prosecution of all claims on behalf of the Plaintiff Class, and will fairly

and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Class,

25g. A class action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient resolution

of this legal dispute, as joinder of all members of the Plaintiff Class is impracticable. Further, the

prosecution of thousands of individual actions by individual members of the Plaintiff Class

would create the substantial risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, which would establish

potentially incompatible standards of; conduct for Defendant City of Louisville.

260. The Plaintiff Class is represented by competent counsel.

COUNT IFirst Amendment Free Speech and Assembly - 42 U.S.C. $ 1933




262. At all relevant times, Defendant Officers, Defendant Fischer, Defendant

Schroeder, and Defendant Chavous have acted-and continue to act-under color of state law'

263. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class engaged in constitutionally protected speech and

assembly by participating in peaceful protests about the killings of unarmed Black people at the

hands of police officers.

264. Defendant Officers engaged in use of Crowd Conhol Weaponry, and the other

forms of excessive force detailed above, causing injuries to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class.

40

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

165

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document 1 Filed 07130120 Page 41- of 46 PagelD #.41-


of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such Crowd Control Weaponry or

other forms of excessive force.




267 , Defendants' conduct is sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from

participating in further protests for fear of being subject to similar force, and did in fact actually

deter Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class from participating in further demonstrations.

268. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class reasonably fear the continued use of such

weaponry at future protests.

269. Upon information and belief, certain Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class

have been actually chilled in their exercise of protected First Amendment rights.


including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020'

27L Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to



the physical and emotional damages detailed above'

273. As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of tear gas and flash

bangs as approved by Defendant City of Louisville, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class continue to

fear participating in peaceful protests.

4l

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

166

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Docunrent l- Filed 07130120 Page 42 of 46 PagelD #: 42

COUNT IIFourth Amendment Excessive Force - 42 U.S.C. $ 1983




27 5. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were peaceful and

nonviolent protesters who did not disobey or refuse any police order.

276. Defendant Officers nonetheless Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class,

277 , By using Crowd Control Weaponry on Plaintiffs, and physically striking and

tackling Plaintiffs, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs to excessive force.


of Defendant Officers and other LMPD officers who used such force.





the injuries detailed above.


including members of the Plaintiff Class, as recently as June 15,2020.

282. Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous have continued to


283. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class remain active advocates against police brutality

and intend to peacefully protest again within the coming weeks.

42

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

167

of

0001

88


284, As a direct and proximate result of LMPD's continued use of Crowd Control

Weaponry, and other forms of physical force as approved by Defendants City of Louisville,

Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class will likely be fuither harmed

if they participate in peaceful protests.

COUNT IIICommon Law Battery


285, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260


286. By deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live ammunition, and other projectiles at

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers subjected Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

to a forcible physical touching.



288. The forcible touching as detailed above was in no other way privileged.





COUNT IVCommon Law Assault


2gl. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1-260


43

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

168

of

0001

88


292. By threatening to deploy and in fact deploying Crowd Control Weaponry, live

ammunition, and other projectiles at Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, Defendant Officers

threatened to subject Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to a forcible physical touching,







PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class respectfully request that this Court

certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:

a. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of Louisville, Fischer, Schroeder, and

Chavous, as well as LMPD's officers, employees, and agents, from the use of

Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful protesters;

b. Requiring Defendant City of Louisville to promulgate official policies

restricting the use of Crowd Control Weaponry to situations when a police

officer or other person faces an imminent risk of serious physical danger;

c. Awarding such damages to Plaintiffs as will fully compensate them for their

loss of rights, as well as their physical and emotional injuries, owing to

Defendants' conduct;

44

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

169

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535:CRS Document 1 Filed O7l3Ol2O Page 45 of 46 PagelD #: 45

d, Awarding punitive damages against the Officer Defendants and Defendants

Fischer, Schroeder, and Chavous;

e. Awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuanlto 42 U.S.C. $ 1988;

Sndo

f. Granting such other relief as may be just and proper.

45

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

170

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l- Filed 07130120 Page 46 of 46 PagelD #'.46

Dated July 30, 2020Louisville, KY


/s/ Heather Gatnarek

Ashok Chandran*Christopher Kemmitt*Ajmel Quereshi*Kristen Johnson*NAACP Lncar Dsnuusp &EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

40 Rector St., 5th FloorNew York, NY 10006

Tel.: (212) 96s-2200Fax,: (212) 226-7592achandr an@n aacpl df. or g

ckemmitt@naacpldf. orgaquereshi@naacpldf, orgkj ohnson@naacpldf. org

Corey ShapiroHeather GatnarekMashayla HaysAaron TucekfACLU oF KENTCKY FouuoartoN, INc.

325 W. Main St. Suite 2210Louisville, KY 40202(s02) [email protected]@[email protected]@aclu-ky.org

Earl S. Ward*O. Andrew F. Wilson*Samuel Shapiro*Andrew K. Jondahl*EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFFABADY WARD &MAAZELLLP600 Fifth Avenue, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10020(212) [email protected]@[email protected]@ecbawm.com

* pro hac vice application forthcomingI application for admission forthcoming

46

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

171

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Documerrt l--l- Filed 07130120 Page 1- of 2 PagelD #: 47

rs44 (Rev.o8/r8) CIVI COVER SHEETTheJS44civilcoversheetandtheinformationcontainedhereinneitherreplacenorsupplementthefilingandserviceofpleadingsorotherpapersasrequiredbylaw, exceptasprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Confi:rence of th6 United Slates in September I 974, is required for the use ol the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFSRep. Attica Scott, Corbin Smith, Kayla Meisner, Tyler Weakley, StevieSchauer, Willa Tinsley, KY Alliance Against Racist & Political Bepression

(b) county of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Jefferson(EXCEPT IN U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attomeys (Firn Nuntc, Adtlress, ontl Telephone Nunber) 1q"U1hef Gatnafek,ACLU of Kentucky Foundation, S25 W. Main St. Suite 2210, Louisville,KY 40202, (502) 581-9746

DEFENDANTS Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government,Mayor Greg Fischer, Robert Schroeder, LaVita Chavous, LMPDOfficer "J." Johnson, LMPD Ofiicers John Doe #1-15 & Jane Doe #1

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Jefferson(]N U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (tf Known) sarah Martin, Jefferson county Attorney's office,Civil Division, 531 Court Place, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION fa,ce n n "X" in one Box onty)

O I U.S. covemment d 3 Federal Question

Plaintiff (U.5. Governnent Nol a Pqrly)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Ptqce an "x" in one Boxfor Ptaintill(For Diversil)) Cqses Only) and One Boxfor Defendanl)

PTF DEF

ol oPTFn4

DEF04

D 2 U.S, GovenrnentDefendant

OF SUIT on "X" in One Box

D I l0 lnsuranceO 120 MarineO 130 Miller ActD 140 Negotiable InslrumenlD 150 Recovery ofOverpaynent

& Enforcernent of JudgmentD l5l Medicare Act0 152 Recovery ofDefaulted

Student Loans(Excludes Veterans)

0 153 Recovery ofOverpaynentofVeteran's Benefits

D 160 Stockholders' SuitsO I 90 Other ContractD 195 Contract Product LiabilityO 196 Franchise

D 210 Land CondemnationO 220 Foreclosure

D 230 Rent Lease & EjectmentO 240 Torts to LandO 245 Tort Product LiabilityO 290 All Other Real Property

V. ORIGIN (Pluce an "X" in one Box only)

O 4 Diversity(lndicate Citizenship of Pcn'ties in Irem III)

Remanded fromAppellate Court

Citizen ofThis State

Citizen of Another SJate

Citizen or Subject of a

I Incorporated or Principal Place

ofBusiness In This State

2 Incorporated aurl Principal Place

ofBusiness In Another State

3 Foreign Nation

o2 0

D3 D

o 5 0.5

o 6 tr6

X I originalProceeding

D 2 Removed fromState Court

D 4 Reinstated orReopened

MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer

o3

Click

0 5 Transferred from D 6District

D 375 False Claims ActD 376 Qui Tarn (31 USC

3729(a))O 400 State Reapportionment0 410 Antitrust0 430 Banks and BankingO 450 Commerce0 460 DeportationO 470 Racketeer Influenced and

Corupt OrganizationsD 480ConsurnerCreditD 485 Telephone Consumer

Protection ActO 490 Cable/Sat TVO 850 Securities/Cornmodities/

ExchangeO 890 Other Statutory ActionsO 891 Agricultural Acts

D 893 Environrnental Mattere

O 895 Freedorn oflnfonnationAct

O 896 ArbitrationO 899 Adminislrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal ofAgency Deoision

O 950 Constitutionality ofState Statutes

O 8 MultidistrictLitigation -

Direct File

Cite the U.S42 U.S.C.

Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do nol cile iurisdictional slatutes unle$s diversit!):1 983

of causeto Delendants' violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment and Fourth Amendment ri hts; d

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

VI. CAUSE OF ACTIONsou ht

VII, REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

E CttgCt< IF THIS rS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P, JURYDEMAND: X Y". DNO

RANKPIIPT'VTETR A.-TO 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

O 423 Withdrawal28 USC l5?

O 625 Drug Related Seizure

ofPropefiy 2l UsC 88 I

O 690 Other

0 820 CopyrightsO 830 Patent

D 835 Patent - Abbr€viatedNew Drug Application

D 840 TradernarkSN'IAI. SN..IIRIT\/

D 86r HrA(r395ff)O 862 Black Lung (923)

0 863 DIwC/DIww (a05(e))

0 864 SSID Title XVIO 86s Rsl (40s(g))

PERSONAL INJURYO 3 l0 AirplaneO 315 Airplane Product

LiabilityO 320 Assault, Libel &

SlanderO 330 Federal Employers'

Liability0 340 MarineO 345 Marine Product

LiabilityD 350 Motor VehicleO 355 Motor Vehicle

Product LiabilityD 360 Other Personal

InjuryO 362 Personal Injury -

Medical MalDractice

PERSONAL INJURYD 365 Personal Injury -

Product LiabilityD 367 Health Care/

PhannaceuticalPersonal InjuryProduct Liability

O 368 Asbestos PersonalInjury ProductLiability

PERSONAL PROPERTYD 370 Other Fraud

D 371 Truth in LendingO 380 Other Personal

Property DamageO 385 Property Damage

Product Liability

NNDNRAI- TAX SIIITSDPICANFIl Ptr'TITIr)NSpApIlp'tv ctvil, RtcH'I's

D ?10 Fair Labor StandardsAct

O 720 Labor/ManagementRelations

0 740 Railway Labor ActO 751 Falnily and Medical

Leave ActO 790 Other Labor Litigation

D 791 Employee Retirementlncome security Act

IMMIGRATIONO 462 Naturalization ApplicationO 465 Other hnmigration

Actions

O 870 Tdes (U.S. Plaintiffor Defendant)

O 871 IRS-Third Party26 USC 7609

D( 440 other civil Rights

O 441 VotingO 442 EmploymentD 443 Housing/

AccommodationsO 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -

EmploymentD 446 Arner. rv/Disabilities -

OtherO 448 Education

Habeas Corpus:O 463 Alien Detainee

O 510 Motions to VacateSentence

0 530 GeneralO 535 Death Penalty

Other:O 540 Mandamus & OtherO 550 Civil Rights

O 555 Prison conditionO 560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions ofConfinement

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

l'oR olnc!; usu 0NLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT

(See inslruclions):

APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

DATE

0712912020 Heather GatnarekSIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

172

of

0001

88

Case 3:20-cv-00535-CRS Document l--l- Filed O7l30/20 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 48JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/18)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service ofpleading or other papers as

required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September I 974, is

required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet, Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil cornplaint filed. The attomey filing a case should cornplete the form as follows:

I.(a) Ptaintiffs-Defendants. Enter narnes (last, first, rniddle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a govemment agency, use

only the full narne or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identifu first the agency and

then the official, giving both narne and title.(b) CountyofResidence. Foreachcivil casefiled,exceptU.S.plaintiffcases,enterthenameofthecountywherethefirstlistedplaintiffresidesatthe

tirne of filing, In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the narne of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land

condemnation cases, the county ofresidence ofthe "defendant" is the location ofthe tract ofland involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the finn name, address, telephone number, and attomey of record. If there are several attomeys, list them on an attachment, noting

.in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F,R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C, 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers ofthe United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3)Thisreferstosuitsunder23U,S,C. l33l,wherejurisdictionarisesundertheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,anamendment' totheConstitution,anactofCongressoratreatyoftheUnitedStates. IncaseswheretheU,s,isaparty,theU.S.plaintiffordefendantcodetakes

precedence, and box I ot'2 should be rnarked.

biversityofcitizenship. (4)Thisreferstosuitsunder28U.S.C. l332,wherepartiesarecitizensofdifferentstates. WhenBox4ischecked,the

citizenship of the dillerent parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity

cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this

section for each principal Party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code

that is most applicable. Click here for: @

V

VII.

VIII.

Origin. Place an "X" in one ofthe seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. ( I ) Cases which originate in the United States district coufis.

Removed frorn State Court, (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts rnay be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.

Regranded frorr Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing

date.Reinstated or Reopened, (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening ddte as the filing date.

Transferred frorn Another District. (5) For cases transfened under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or

rnultidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C'

Section 1407.Multidistrict Litigation - Dir.ect File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in

statue.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional

statutesunlessdiversity. Exarnple: U.S.Civil Statute: 47USC553 BriefDescription: Unauthorizedreceptionofcableservice

Requested in Complaint. Class Action, Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Defirand. check the appropriatc box to indicate whether or not a jw'y is being demanded.

Related Cases, This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, inseft the docket

numbers and the correspondingjudge names for such cases.

VI.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

173

of

0001

88

DAV]DJ. GIJARNIERI

ilq"tn&$slelisu.eQsALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS

MEBRAYER201 EAsr MAIN SrREEr, SutrE 900

LExTNGToN, K€NTUcKY 40507(859) 231-8780 EXT. 218

Fax: (8s9) 231-6518t

August 3,2020

Via mail a[d-email

,[rt Lt..t tb' rrllljs&stl:&d-c& stlu:liws i-f"'.rsg*gq,n:

C !-r ri s t npher, B u S h(# l'itk u t s I arv o tli ccs, cf:lr r

Hon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushRicketts Law Offices, PLLC4055 Shelbyville RoadLouisville, Kentucky 40207

Re: Louisville Metro Council Investigation


In followup to our call, we write to continue the dialogue regarding the appearances ofInterim LMPD Chicf Robert Schroeder and Chief of Public Services Amy Hess before the

Govemrnent Ovcrsight and Audit Committee. As you know, on July 14,2020, that Committee

voted to "conduct an investigation into the Administration, its actions and falleged] inaction

regarding the death of Breonna Taylor, the death of David McAtee, and law enforcement actions

reiponding to protests in Louisville Metro." In furtherance of this investigation, Chairman

Aclerson wrote to Chief Schroeder and to Chief Hess on July 17,2020, formally requesting their

appearances before the Cornmittee on or before August 5,2020 for 2-4 hours so they could answer

quistions and have a discussion with the Committee. In his July 17 letters, Chairman Ackerson

expressly advised each witness that at this time the Committee would refrain from asking either

from "divulging information which would compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky

Attomey Geneial and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Consistent with that understanding,

Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear before the Committee on August 3, 2020, and it is

our understanding based on Mr. Rickett's July 30, 2020 email that the topics the Committee intends

to inquire about ire a) vandalism, and response to it, b) use of tear gas and/or pepper balls, and

how media came to be targeted or came in contact with same, c) placement of snipers on roof tops,

d) placement and use of lighting, and sound equipment, c) warning to and communications with

piotestors, f) directives and any confusion relative to use of helmets or other equipment by officers,

g) any 'ostand-down" order(s), dircctives, guidance given or passed along to govemment

i"rponArrr relative to protests, vandalism, etc., and h) how or why law enf,orcement came to be at

Dino's the night David McAtee was shot.

With the understanding that their appearance would not require them to divulge

information which could compromise ongoing investigations by the Kentucky Attorney General,

Law Olfises: Lexlngton i Lorliriville

GnvsrnrilBrlt Aifaira; FronLJorl; I Wi:shington' D'C.

mcbrSyecfirm.oom

EXHIBIT E

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

174

of

0001

88

n\4 q h? r: i.\Y#.w )Hon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushAugust 3,2420

or the FBI, Chiefs Schroeder and Hess agreed to appear and testify, and they still plan to do so.

However, on July 30,2020 a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western

District of Kentucky styled Scott, et., al., v. Louisttille/Jefferson County Metro Government, et. al,,

3:20-CV-535 (the "scott Action"). The allegations and claims asserted therein concern the same

subject matters Chiefs Schroeder and Hess have been asked to address on August 3. Specifically,

the gravamen of the Complaint in the Scott Action concems LMPD's response to protests

throughout Louisville beginning on May 28,2020 and continuing to present day, and it specifically

concems: the use of tear gas and peppff balls;l allegations that the media was targeted or came

into contact with such agents;2 the stationing of officers atop buildings;3 the placement and usc ofsound equipment;a wamings and communications with protesters fand others];s the use of helmets

and other protective gear;6 purported stand-down orders, directives, guidance given or passed

along to government responders;7 and how or why law enforcement came to be at Dino's the night

1 Complaint? paras, 37 ,39-42, 44-47, 50,52, 56-7,59-60,64,68,70,74,78-79,81-84, 87, 90, 98,

l0t-103, 106,,122-125,128-129,133-135, 148-151, 158-159, 161, 180-181, 185-187,194-196,216,227,231-233,239,250 aniJ273 all allege the use and/or improper use of tear gas and/orpepper balls.2 Complaint,pata.4g alleges LMPD officers targeted joumalists, and para, 107 alleges an LMPDofficer shot a repoder from the Courier Journal who was recording the protests, with a pepper ballon June 17,20203 Complaint,para.226.a Complaint, ptro. I 00 addresses the deployment of a sound cannon, and paras. I 04, 1 08 and 137 -

138,204 and239 all allege the use of LRAD's by LMPD.5 Complaint, para. 253(f) asserts that the questions of law and fact presented by Plaintiffs (who

seek class certification on behalf of all peaceful protesters) include "whether LMPD officers issued

any waming before employing Crowd Control Weaponry;".6 Complaint, paras. 35, 101, 142,155,163, 180,208 and227 all concern the use of helmets orother rioVprotective gear by LMPD officers during their encounters with protesters fand others].7 Complaint,para 94 alleges that "[i]n the face of mounting public pressure, on June 75,2020,Defendant Fischer apologized for the use of tear gas against protesters, and stated that, as a result,

he would be instituting needed refonns to the LMPD's use of tbrce practices, But the very nextday, in responss to criticism from ths LMPD, Defendant Fischer walked back his promise, stating

that he had not instructed and would not instruct offrcers to o'stand down'o and that Defendant

Schroeder was responsible for determining the appropriate course of action,"

2

t

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

175

of

0001

88

MEBRAYERHon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushAugust 3,2020

David McAtee was shot.8 The Plaintiffs in the ,Scott Action aro wcll aware of the Committeeinvestigation and in fact, specifically mention it in their Complaint.e

Because of the significant, if not corrplete, overlap between this now pending litigationand Monday's scheduled agerrda, much, if not the entirety, of Monday's Committee hearing willhave to take place in executive session per the mandate of the Kentucky Ceneral Assembly.

Specifically, KRS 67C.103(14)(b), which is expressly referenced in the Cornmittee's OR-004-20,

requires that "[t]estimony subject to KRS 61.810 shall only be taken in executive session." As you

know, KRS 61.810(c) exempts discussions of proposed or pending litigation llom open meetings.

On July 31,202A, we contacted the two of you to ensure that the Cornmittee was aware ofthe Scott suit, and to inquire whether it affects whether the Committee plans to proceed as

scheduled, or believes a continuance is in order. While Mr, Bush had not hacl an opportunity toconfer with the Committee and/or its leadership to determine whether this newly filed lawsuit

alters its planned course of action, Mr. Bush did indicate a preliminary assessment that thisdevelopment would unlikely change the timing of things. Given the Committee's expressed

demand for "a transparent, public process" as stated in the eighth recital in OR-004-20, it seems

your client should reconsider proceeding forward on Monday.

The Administration is committed to participating in the Committee's investigation, as itshares the same goals of bringing to light the truth of these events not only so that the community

can get answers to the questions it has surrounding them, but also so that any resulting policy

changes can be made in an effective, substantive way. However, just as the Committee already

recognized the need to balance the integrity of the AG and FBI investigations with its audit and

oversight authority, we ask that the Cornmittee also recognize the need to balance the importantinterests the General Assembly protected when enacting KRS 61.810 (which is carried over intoits enactment of KRS 67C.I03) with the mutual goals and objectives our clients have for an open,

transparent process, Accordingly, rather than proceed on Monday under the unsatisfactory

constraints of executive session, we encourage the Committee to reschedule the appearances ofChiefs Schroeder and Hess to a time whcn they can reasonably and prudently testifli about the

above referenced matters in an open, rather than closed setting.

KRS 67C.103(14Xb) permits an agency or witness to waive the requirement that the

testirrony be taken in executive session. If we proceed forward on Monday, neither witness can

reasonably be expected to do so, and will not do so given: ( 1 ) that the Scott lawsuit was just filedtwo business days ago; (2) Chief Schroeder is named as an individual defendant and has not had

8 Complaint, para, 69 alleges that on thc evening of May 31,2020, "two and a half miles from the

site of the protests downtown, LMPD offioers and the National Guard shot and killed DavidMcAtee while attempting to disperse a small social gathering in the parking lot of Mr. McAtee'srestaurant," which is across the street from Dino's.e Cornplaint,palaT20,

3

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

176

of

0001

88

Hon. Jonathan RickettsHon. Christopher BushAugust 3,2420

MgBRAYER

an opportunity to confer with personal counsel, and most significantly, (3) the lawsuit not only

seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but it also seeks injunctive relief that could result in

limitations on LMPD's ability to effectively and lawfully manage future protests in a way that

recognizes the First Amendment rights associated with peaceful protests without impairing

LMPD's ability to protect and serve, by effoctively policing those whose objective is not topeacefully protest, but to vandalize or destroy property, loot businesses or otherwise make

mayhem.

While we have shared the essential components of this letter in our call of this morning,

we look forward to hearing from you once you have had a chance to confer with your client about

whether it plans to proceed Monday in executive session, or prefers to delay the hearing for a

sufficient amount of time to allow for the witnesses to testiff in an open meeting without adverse

impact on pending litigation.

Sincerely,

{

-\2JlDAVID J. GUARNIERISTEPHEN G. AMATOAttorneys For Louisville Metro Government

L, Kl .-C. KLAUSING

Attomey for LMPD Chief Schroeder =*e

4

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

177

of

0001

88

JONATHAN S, RICKETTSAlso Admitted: U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces

RTcrnrTS LAW OPNCNS, PLLCATToRNEYS lr Law

THE RICKETTS BUILDING+oss SHEI-SyVILLE ROAD

LoUISVTLLE, KENTUcKY 40207Phone (502) 896-2303Fax (502)896-2362

OF COUNSEL:

CHARLES E, RICKETTS, JR,Also Admitted: District of Columbia

A. CARL PLATTAlso Admitted: lndiana

CHRISTOPHER D. BUSHAugust 3,2020

Hon. David GuarnieriHon. Stephen AmatoHon. Joseph Klausing

Via Email Only

Dear Counsel,

Thank you for our conversation this morning and your subsequent letter of today's date.

I apologize that this letter does not conform to customary conespondence format, and may

contain typographical errors; however, in an attempt to answer your letter as efficiently and

quickly as possible, please accept this letter in the spirit of expeditious communications intended

for the benefit of our clients,

I understand from our call that Mr, Klausing is now representing Chief Schroeder. Mr,Amato and Mr. Guarnieri remain counsel for Chief Hess.

ln speaking with Councilman Ackerson after our call, please know that he intends to

proceed today as scheduled and previously agreed,

With respect to the new concerns raised in your letter this afternoon, we understand them

to be that be the "pending litigation exceptiono'contained in KRS 61.810(1)(c) and KRS

67C.I03(I4)(b) require today's meeting to occur in executive session, or be delayed until an

open and public meeting can be had at some unidentified point in the future. The Chair does not

agree and does not see any mandate or support for a continuance or a closed meeting. The crux

of the position set forth in your letter and previous discussions appears to be that the topics slated

for today's meeting are now subsumed by the litigation referenced in your letter, filed last week

in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, and therefore the "pending litigation"exception applies to the testimony of your clients. By our analysis, this exception would not

apply to the topics slated for today's discussion. As you know, the Open Meetings Act and

developing caselaw make clear that the exceptions under 61 .8 I 0 are to be construed nanowly.With respect to the pending litigation exception, caselaw is clear that it is to be narrowlyimplemented. See eg Floyd County v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (KY 1997)(the pending litigationexceptions "would apply to matters commonly inherent to litigation, such as preparation, strategy

or tactics.... And must "not be expanded to include general discussions of everything tangential

to the topic."). Based on this caselaw, we believe no basis for going into closed session exists if

EXHIBIT F

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

178

of

0001

88

the council asked your clients about topics other than litigation strategy, which it has no intent todo, and it would be unlawful to invoke the exception so broadly.

While your clients may find it personally unpleasant and untimely to discuss these topics

in the open, "[t]he exceptions to the open meetings laws are not to be used to shield the agency

from unwanted or unpleasant public input, interference or scrutiny." Ratlffi 955 S.W.2d at924."The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what isgood for the public to know and what is not good for them to know" 1974Ky. Acts Chap. 377,

HB 100.

Finally, the Open Meeting Act exceptions are a "shield," not a "shackle," The General

Assembly did not intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption

applies. See eg Lawson v. OAG 415 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2013)("The General Assembly did not

intend to mandate an iron rule of non-disclosure whenever an exemption applies".)Accordingly, the Committee is free to waive any exemption that may apply, at any time.

For the forgoing reasons, we respectfully communicate the Committee's intent to proceed

today, as no authority cited in your letter would appear to compel them to cancel or continue

today's meeting.

Thanking you for your continued understanding in accepting the fluid and hunied nature

of these communications among counsel for the benefit of our clients and the public's right to

know about matters most important to them, I remain,

Very truly yours,

/s/ Jonathan RickettsJonathan S. Rickettsi ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces. com

JSR

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

179

of

0001

88

COMMOITWEALTH OF KENTUCKYLOUSVILLE METRO COUNCIL

GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AND AI]DIT COMMITTEE

IN RE: II\T\{ESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIONS AND INACTION OF TIIE ADMINISTRATION SURROT]ND-ING THE DEATH OF BREONNA TAYLOR, TIIE DEATII OT'DAVID MCATEE, AI\ID RELATED PROTESTS

IN LOUISVILL METRO

(AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION PER LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL ORDER Nb. OO3, SERIES 2O2O)

LEGISLATwE ( x.) SUBPOENA ( ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

To: Amy Hess, Chief of Public Services, 527 W,Jefferson Street, Fourth Floor, Louisville, l{Y 40202

Pursuant to KRS 67C.IA304) and Metro Council Rule 4A.04(b), and a majority vote of the Government Oversight andAudit Committee,you are commanded to appear before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee at Historic CityHall, 601 West Jefferson Sfreet, Louisville, KY 40202 on the lTth day of AuAust , 2020 atthe hour of 2:30 pm.

.-X To testiff before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee, relative to the above referenced independentaudit or investigation.

To produce work papers or documents described on Attachment A hereto

Your failure to obey this subpoenamay subject you to contemptCouncil Rule 4A.04(b).

as provided in KRS 67C.103(14) and Metro

Issued by:Title: Presiding Government Oversight and Audit Committee

601 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, KY 40202Date:

t*t't)ttf *'|.** ** rl.**'t****'t**'t**+* ****************1.,t** 'l*****,i****TO BE COMPLETED WHEN TrrE WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGES SERVTCE OF T{E SUBPOENAI hereby acknowledge receipt of a true copy of this subpoena:Signed Date:

'1.{.i. {. ****d.**t**+,f t* t,t***********f ** **** ++*****'i+*'F***+*+**t*

I, being first duly swom state that I am over l8 years ofage and that theI personally delivered a true copy ofthis subpoena today of 20-----

who is known to me.Signed:

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKYcounty of

-

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by20-.

this day of

Signed: Title:My commission expires:

,1.*{.t*f,* ****,F***+t,1.********rl.*+*** {< *+************+*,1.d,+****** tTO BE COMPLETED. WHEN SUBPOENA IS SERVED BY AN 9FFICERThis subpoena was served by delivery of a true copy to , this _ day of

20Signed: Title:

EXHIBIT G

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

180

of

0001

88

- -- -'-Aiubpo.enashatbe,rrrJ;#ffi;H####ilr;#'#H###;T;#;#'u'poe,iasmaybeservedby an officer by whom a summons might be served, or by any person over l8 years ofage whose affidavit is endorsed above, or awitness may acknowledge service by his signature above. An exact, signed duplicate must be filed with the Government Oversightand Audit Conomittee at or prior to the appearance scheduled above.

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

181

of

0001

88

DAVID J, GUAI{NIERIdguarn ieri@mcbraycrfi rm. conr }MilffiI${AYffiR 201 EAST MAIN STREEI', SUITE 9OO

LEXINGTON, KY 40507859,231.8780 Ex',l- l218

FAX: 859.960.2917

August 7,2020

vIA MAIL.{Np E}{ArLJon athan.Ricketts@rickettslawoffi ces.comChri stopher. B ush(@ri ckettslawot'fices. comJonathan Ricketts, Esq.Christopher Bush, Esq.Ricketts Law Offices, PLLC4055 Shelbyville RoadLouisville, Kentucky 4A207

RE: Louisville Metro Council Investigation


We are in receipt of the subpoena the Louisville Metro Council Government Oversight and

Audit Committee has issued for Chief of Public Safety Amy Fless, and we are awars that the

Comnrittee has also subpoenaed Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder. We herebyaccept service of the subpoena to Chief }Iess as indicated by our signatures on the subpoenaenclosed herewith.

'I'he subpoena does not speci$ whether the testin:ony requested for August 17,2020 willbe in open or closed session, but based on the comments the Committee's Chair made at the Augnst3, 2020 Special Meeting, and the vote that was taken afterward, we are proceeding on the

unde rstanding that the Committee is seeking Cliief Hess to testify in an open session on the same

t<lpics delineated in your July 30 email. I write to again notify the Committee tliat our positionremains turchanged that if it wishes to proceed at this time, it must do so in executive session, and

to also reiterate our position that Chief Hess is not prepared to waive the executive session

requirement and testifr in open session until it is reasonably clear that shc can do so withoutadversely impacting Metro Government's interests in the pencling ACLU litigation.

We continue to believe that Chief l{ess could appear to testi$ in open session hy the firstweek of Septernber. By that time, the defendants in the ACLU suit will likely have been served,

retained cormsel and responded to the allegations in the cornplaint, Also, we will likely have abetter idea by then whether any temporary injunctive relief will be sought related to LMPD'smanaging of future protests. Given the imporlant role that peacet'ul protests play in our democraticsociety, it is critical that LMPD not be constrained in those instances where coutter prctesters

attempt to engage the peaceful protesters, and it is equally critical that LMPD maintain the abilityto effectively police those whose intention it is not to peacefully protest, but to engage in unlawful

i.r;t li::.,:t:: I ii),i:ij:,rir I i ,,r ,.,..:t:;.

ir:::,iiii irili:t:i:, ..:ii;;::.: !::: t::1. ..r; , I il:j:,ri'!riir-irii ,.: r'.

rno tiri)y{)r{irm.roin

EXHIBIT H

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

182

of

0001

88

t lt4U) ffi14.b"Ytr"W

Jonathan Ricketts, Esq.Chlistopher Bush, Esq.Ricketts Law Offices, PLLCAngust 7,2A20Page2

behavior. We would hope the Committee, too, shares these goals. In a similar vein, the Chair saidon August 3 that he doesn't care about lawsuits and damages, Given the austerc times state andlocal governments are facing due to the impact COVID-19 has and continues to have, my clientdoes not have the same viewpoint as the Chair, and perhaps the rest of the Cornmittee in this regard,

Accordingly, rather than disobey the Committee's subpoena by refusing to appear, orrvasting the Committee's time by appearing and insisting that the Committee go into executivesession, my client plans to file a declaratory judgment action early next week in order to resolvethe current disagreement it has with your client on the application of KRS 61.S10(c) to theseproceedings. Based on comments made by some of the Committee members after we excusedourselves fi'om Monday's special meeting, i,ve think there is a common desire by many involvedfor a clear resolution so any further work by the Committee is in accordance with established law.As a practioal matter, however, it is unlikely a cirouit court action can result in a tinal, non-appealable declaratory judgment befbre August 17, so absent an ogreement to postpone thescheduled appearances, we will have no choice but to seek ir{urrctive relief under CR 65.03 andcR 65.04.

While our differing opinions on the application oi'KRS 61.810(c) to the Committee'sinvestigation make a legal action inevitabJe, we do not believe it necessary for each party to devotethe substantial time and resources that would be required in an injunction hearing, and would liketo seek an agreement on the most ef{icient, and expcdient way to proceed, Specifically, my clientproposes that Mary Ellen Wiederwohl, Chief of Louisville Forward, and select members ofLouisville Forward appear on August 17 in lieu of Chiefs Hess and Schroeder to discuss andeducate the Committee on that department's activity on Elliott Avenue in regards to vacant andabandoned propefiy and public nuisances. Comments flom your members at the meeting onAugust 3'd indicated that they would like to hear testimony on this topic as well, and so long as thequestioning does not encroach on the Attorney General or FBI investigations, they can appear in"open session". This resolution allows the Committee to holcl the soheduled session on the 17th

tvith testimony that would likely have occurred anyway at a later date, and allows the parlies andthe circuit court time to work through the legal question in a more prudent, but still, expeditiousman.ner.

One other issue I want to raise with you at this time in an effort to avoid a similar, andhopefully avoidable impasse as the one that occun'ed on August 3 in regard to the open meetingconcetns, is that under the separation of powers principles embodied in the Kentucky Constitution,the Committee's investigation has to heive as its focus a legislative purpose, and cannot merely bea fact finding mission that is unrelated to current or possibly future legislation. Based on that partof the eleventh recital of Order No. 003, Series 2020 that the Council adopted on July 14,2020,

Lt :, iliiit,t:::. i. ;::.:l :i:l l,:': i I ; ; :l r,,;i i i i;

,..i:r,... ,.i ,1.:: :.::, . ,1 :: rjl:r i.. : ii..,:1:: !''j . ,i :; "

rr;t:lit'',yltr'lir tr l:,ttit

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

183

of

0001

88

MgBRI\YERJonathan Ricketts, Esq.Christopher Bush, Esq.Ricketts Law Oftlces, PLLCAugnst 7,2A2APage 3

stating that the Committee will make findings of fact so that "the Metro Council may takelegislative action," we are proceeding with the good fuith understanding that there is consensus onthis point. Howevero some of the comments from the Chair and others suggest that the purpose ofthe investigation may simply be an open ended, fact finding mission that is not oonfined to existingordinances or ordinances that are being contemplated, instead.l

We are available the remainder of today, tluoughout the weekend and first thing Mondayif you wish to discuss orr above proposal or any other aspect of this letter. Otherwise, we will keepyou apprised of any filing in circuit court.

Sincerely,

\t

DAVID J. GUARNIERI

DJG:dmp

4837-1862-0615, v. 1

I At the August 3 Special Meeting, in his opening remalks, the Chair said, "my sole focus is to get the truth out to thepublic about what has happened and why." Later, the Chair said "today I wear the cap of a councilman, and the chairof this body whose job it is to get the truth out here to the public. , , ,"

Invr illiulri: Inrin0tun I huisrrilln

liovn'rnnrrrl A[[irirs: Irirrrkfcri I Wi:shinllnn, 0 I].

nrnblirynriilnr r:nnr

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

184

of

0001

88



CIVIL BRANCH

____ DIVISION

NO. ____



METRO GOVERNMENT for itself and on behalf of


v. PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS

LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL et. al DEFENDANTS

** ** ** ** ** **

Comes Plaintiff, by and through counsel and for its initial discovery requests pursuant to

CR 33 and 34 hereby propounds the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

Documents upon Defendants:

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO.1: Please identify the individual answering these discovery

requests or contributing the documents or information in connection with the responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the legislative purpose for the adoption of

Louisville Metro Council Order No.003, Series 2020, adopted July 14, 2020.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

REQUEST NO. 1: Any and all lists of questions prepared in anticipation of hearings scheduled

pursuant to Louisville Metro Council Order No. 003, Series 2020, adopted July 14, 2020 (the

“Investigation Order”);

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

185

of

0001

88

2

REQUEST NO. 2: Paper or electronic (emails or texts) communications by and between

members of the Louisville Metro Council pertaining to the Investigation Order or the hearings

scheduled pursuant to same;

REQUEST NO. 3: Document reflecting a legislative purpose for the adoption of the

Investigation Order; and

REQUEST NO. 4: Documents pertaining to the contemplation or passage of the Investigation

Order.


McBRAYER PLLC

201 East Main Street, Suite 900

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

(859) 231-8780

BY: /s/ David J. Guarnieri

DAVID J. GUARNIERI

STEPHEN G. AMATO

CYNTHIA L. EFFINGER

JASON R. HOLLON

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

4811-7105-1463, v. 3

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

186

of

0001

88



CIVIL BRANCH

____ DIVISION

NO. ____________

LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY PLAINTIFFS

METRO GOVERNMENT, et al.

v. RESTRAINING ORDER

LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL, et al. DEFENDANTS

** ** ** ** ** **

The matter having come before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Restraining Order

and the Court, being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Restraining Order is GRANTED. The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants are

hereby restrained from enforcing the August 5, 2020 Legislative Subpoena requiring Amy Hess to

“testify [in open session] before the Government Oversight and Audit Committee” on August 17,

2020 at 2:30 p.m.

The Court further ORDERS that this matter is set for a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for

temporary injunctive relief on _________, 2020 at the hour of _______ at the Jefferson County

Judicial Center, 700 W. Jefferson St., Louisville, Kentucky 40202.

_________________________________

JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

187

of

0001

88

2

CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this pleading was filed Jefferson Circuit

Court and copies were served U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, this _____ day of _______, 2020, upon

the following:

David J. Guarnieri, Esq.

McBrayer PLLC

201 East Main Street, Suite 900

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

Charles E. Ricketts, Esq.

Jonathan S. Ricketts, Esq.

Ricketts Law Offices PLLC

4055 Shelbyville Road

Louisville, KY 40207

_________________________________________

JEFFERSON CIRCUIT CLERK

4830-8522-5415, v. 2

5CF

9AE

E6-

75E

6-45

65-B

CC

F-5

26E

EB

9F48

66 :

000

188

of

0001

88

Documents

htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com...2020/08/10 · COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL BRANCH ____ DIVISION NO. ____ FILED ELECTRONICALLY LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY

htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com...2020/08/10 · COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL BRANCH DIVISION NO. FILED ELECTRONICALLY LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY