Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 9

FILED
2013 Jul-01 PM 04:04 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHANG HO LEE, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF PRATTVILLE, OFFICER STEVEN GEON, OFFICER TOM ALLEN, OFFICER JACKSLAND, OFFICER COLLIER, OFFICER RON BOLES, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

TRIAL BY JURY

COMPLAINT I. JURISDICTION 1. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, et seq. to recover civil damages arising from the violations of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff invokes the courts supplemental jurisdiction. 2. The jurisdiction for the Fourth Amendment action and state claims arise from plaintiffs facts of excessive force during the arrest of the plaintiff on to-wit, September 22, 2012. II. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Chang Ho Lee, is not a citizen of the State of Alabama but is a citizen of South Korea, who has a right to work in Alabama and was in fact, a worker in the State of

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 9

Alabama, working at HMMA (Hyundai). 4. The defendants, as stated in the caption of the complaint, were at all times, legal persons or entitles within state of Alabama. All officers listed above were state actors during the course of this incident, as more particularly described below, in that they used the power of the state to effectuate the arrest and other actions as below described. 5. The City of Prattville employed these officers as policemen, who, were working in the line and scope of their employment with the City of Prattvile. III. FACTS OF THE CASE 6. On to-wit, September 22, 2012, about 1 a.m. plaintiff was returning home. 7. He was at the turn to the street to his house. 8. Plaintiff was fatigued. 9. He arrived at the turn to his house, fatigued, at about 1 a.m. 10. He had given a right signal to drive into his neighborhood, where he owned a home and where his family lived, when, because of fatigue, he ran a red light at a deserted intersection, leading into his quiet neighborhood. 11. It was early Saturday morning. 12. He needed rest as he was scheduled to drive to Georgia the next day. 13. He knew that he had run the red light and he knew that he had been seen by a Prattville police officer. He made no attempt to elude the police or go home to bed, or resist arrest, or flee from the police, but instead turned into a parking lot and waited for them to arrive.

14. He stood outside his car and waited. 2

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 9

15. A police cruiser pulled up. 16. Another cruiser pulled up. 17. Another cruiser pulled up. 18. He stood outside his car, leaning against the door, watching the cruisers pull up.. 19. Four armed police officers left their cruisers and confronted the plaintiff for running a red light. 20. Four armed police officers confronted him over a routine traffic stop. 21. Plaintiff was surrounded by four armed police officers, cruisers with flashing lights, individual flashlights shining in his face. 22. Plaintiff was frightened. 23. They asked for his I.D. and he gave it to them. 24. They checked for weapons and he had none. 25. The officers went to his car and searched it by shining their flashlights inside and looking into the interior of the car. 26. There was nothing in the car. 27. They wanted to know if he had been drinking. 28. He exhibited no signs of intoxication or signs of being impaired to drive. 29. Yet, the officers continued to ask him if he had been drinking. He explained that he had alcohol early yesterday evening but that he was not impaired. 30. Plaintiff is on the video and he does not look impaired nor does he sound impaired. 31. He is not impaired. 32. He performed a field sobriety test and passed. 3

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 9

33. His performance of the filed sobriety is on the video. 34. The officers continued to ask him if he has been drinking, even though he is clearly not impaired. 35. The officers continually ask him why he is in this parking lot, even though it is clear he pulled over because he had run a red light. 36. He passed the field sobriety test. He is seen on the video standing one-legged and he is not swaying. 37. The officers tell him they are not satisfied and that he has to wait for them to call in a portable sobriety machine and then they would decide what to do. 38. He waits by his car. He is interrogated again, while he waits, because they are waiting on the portable sobriety machine and have nothing else to do. H 39. He is not ordered into the police car. He is allowed to stand outside and walk around while he waits for the machine because they have no probably cause that he is legally impaired. 40. Time goes by and eventually the machine arrives. 41. He was ordered to blow into the machine, which he did, and he passed that test, registering a .06. 42. The video and audio were on at the time, but, the video is not aimed at the plaintiff. 43. Nor is the plaintiff placed in front of the video. 44. The audio is on and from the audio, one can hear the plaintiff blowing into the portable machine. 45. However, the video is pointed in a spot next to the where the plaintiff is standing, just off screen, so no one can see the plaintiff blowing into the machine. 4

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 9

46. Plaintiff is not visible on the video. Plaintiff can be heard on the audio, blowing into the machine. But, on the audio, not the video, one can hear the officers claiming plaintiff is not properly blowing into the machine, as in, he wont put his mouth on the stem of the machine. 47. Even though the officers were gathering evidence, they purposely did not point the video at the plaintiff. 48. Instead, one can hear them speaking into the audio, accusing the plaintiff, basically, of refusing to obey a police officer for not blowing properly into the machine, but, the video is not showing this because it is not aimed at the plaintiff. 49. After this, an officer announces that the plaintiff registered a .06. 50. Then, even though the video was rolling (it remains blank), one can hear the officers telling plaintiff he is under arrest. 51. The officers choose not to video the arrest. 52. Plaintiff was not told what he was under arrest for, but, later, it turns out he was being arrested for P.I. 53. He was not intoxicated and he was not a danger to himself, which is not on the video. 54. Then, even though the video was rolling (it is still blank), they take plaintiff to the ground. 55. An officer calls out, lets tase the mother__________. 56. They take the plaintiff down. 57. his arms. 58. All four officers are striking the plaintiff and tasing the plaintiff. The video is still 5 There is an officer on plaintiff back. Plaintiffs arms are in his front. He laying on

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 6 of 9

rolling but, it is blank. 59. They called him a motherf_______ for no reason. Plaintiff has done nothing to be cursed at. 60. He had done nothing to be beaten and tased. 61. On the audio it can be heard, lets tase the mother_______. 62. On the audio, there are officer commands for plaintiff to stop resisting arrest, but, an officer is on his back pinning his arms underneath him. 63. This cannot be seen because the officers have either turned off the video or have pointed it into the dark. 64. Plaintiff is being struck and tased while pinned to the ground. 65. Even after he was handcuffed he was tased. 66. Even after he was handcuffed he was struck. 67. Even after he was handcuffed he was tased and struck. 68. Even after he was hurt, tased multiple times, he was struck again and again and tased, even though he was already handcuffed. 69. Plaintiff was in such agony he though he was going to die. 70. Then, suddenly, the officers turn the video back on to the plaintiff. 71. The video of the plaintiff returns and is operating again and it shows the plaintiff lying on his stomach with his hands cuffed behind his back. 72. The officers offer to call an ambulance while the video is running. 73. The officers count his money while the video is running. 6

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 7 of 9

74. All of this is videoed. None of the beating and the tasing is videoed. 75. Plaintiff was hurt, shamed and humiliated, his glasses were broken, and his digital camera was missing, after he picked his car up from the pound. EXCESSIVE FORCE UNDER SECTION 1983 IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND STATE LAW ASSAULT AND BATTERY AGAINST OFFICERS, INDIVIDUALLY 76. Plaintiff alleges the facts the same as if set forth herein. 77. Plaintiff alleges that objectively speaking, no careful, skillful, caring police officers would have used the amount of force that was used against the plaintiff to arrest him over a traffic stop in his own neighborhood, after coming home from work. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for compensatory damages and punitive damages, where appropriate, in an amount to be determined, for the excessive force used by the officers. Plaintiff alleges that because of the above that he suffered humiliation and shame. Plaintiff alleges that the officers acted unskillfully and sadistically to cause him this humiliation. Plaintiff requests attorney fees.

PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF PRATTVILE UNDER 11-47-190

UNSKILLFULNESS 78. Plaintiff re-alleges the facts set out in plaintiffs facts, the same as if set forth herein. 79. Plaintiff alleges that the City of Prattville is liable for damages for injury done to him and wrongs suffered by him through the unskilfulness of their agents, while in the line and scope of their duty as police officers. 7

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 8 of 9

80. Plaintiff alleges that objectively speaking, no careful, skillful, caring police officer would have used the amount of force that was used against the plaintiff to arrest him over a traffic stop in his own neighborhood, after coming home from work.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for compensatory damages under Section 1147-190, in an amount to be determined, for some or all of the unskillful acts of Officer White as heretofore described above. Plaintiff alleges that because of the above that he suffered humiliation and shame and mental distress.

/s/ Jeff Bennitt ______________________________ Jeffrey W. Bennitt ASB N51J BENOO4 Jeff Bennitt & Associates, LLC, 121 Edenton St. Birmingham, Al 35242 e-mail: Bennittlaw@aol.com 408-7240office 408-9236fax 213-8228cell

/s/ Yong Ui Cho Gregg _________________________ Yong Ui Cho Gregg (GRE124) Attorney for Changho Lee 2600 Vaughn Lakes Blvd # 325 Montgomery, Alabama 36117 (334) 322-8895 yonggregg@yahoo.com

Case 2:13-cv-01219-TMP Document 1 Filed 07/01/13 Page 9 of 9