UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA A. ANDWAN, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF GREENHILLS, OHIO and THOMAS E. DOYLE, and ANDREW MOORE, and ROBERT DEAN, and ANNE WARD

: : : : : : : : : : : : : COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Defendants.

Now comes Patricia A. Andwan, Plaintiff in the above-styled action, and for her Complaint against Defendants alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the deprivation of her

rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, alleging that Defendants, acting under color of law, arrested her without probable cause to do so; pro-

W:cases/andwan, pat/pleadings/complaint

secuted her without probable cause to do so; and abused the process of the court system in violation of both under federal and state law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal questions alleged in this lawsuit pur-

suant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. It has supplemental jurisdiction over the Ohio claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) since the incidents giving rise to all claims took place in this district. PARTIES 3. hills, Ohio. 4. Defendant Village of Greenhills is a political entity organized and operating under Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Village of Green-

the laws of Ohio. Defendant Doyle was, at all pertinent times, Chief of Police of the Village. Defendants Moore, Dean and Ward were, at all pertinent times, police officers serving the Village. FACTS 5. From 2007, Plaintiff has had serious disagreements with the Village of Greenhills

over many of its policies. In July 2007, while working as a property management consultant for the Village, she engaged in a dispute with the Village Municipal Manager, David B. Moore, over the removal of exterior siding from a historic four-family building on Plaintiffs street. Mr. Moore eventually told her, It is me and me alone that decides what gets demolished in this town. If you dont keep your mouth shut you will be losing out on your work and your sons work with the Village of Greenhills. That was the last day Plaintiff worked for the Village. (See Exhibit A, true copies of letters and notices dated August 20, 2007, August 23, 2007, and September 5, 2007, from the Village Municipal Manager)
2

6.

In August 2007 Plaintiff reported to the Internal Revenue Service Criminal

Investigative Unit that the Village Municipal Manager was violating local, state and federal tax law by allowing the Defendant Doyle to live rent-free in Village-owned housing and by paying his utilities with public funds. At the same time she reported tax evasion involving Defendant Doyle to the IRS. She also reported this and other financial irregularities to the Ohio State Auditor. (See Exhibit B, a true copy of the Ohio State Auditors letter dated April 8, 2008, p. 2, informing Defendant Village that such compensation was a taxable fringe benefit not reflected on the Police Chiefs W-2 form.) Defendant Village was well aware of Plaintiffs other financial-abuse accusations as well. 7. In September 2007 Plaintiff filed candidacy papers allowing her to run as a write-

in candidate for Village Council. Shortly thereafter, in a recorded conversation, Defendant Doyle personally threatened her with arrest if she did not cease watering roses on Village property, even though other Village residents were watering flower pots and landscaping without any reaction by the Village. 8. Plaintiff routinely appeared at the 1st and 3rd Tuesday Village Council meetings

starting in June 2007. During the Citizen Comment portion of the agenda, she often raised issues which disturbed the incumbent Village Administration. For example, at the September 4, 2007, meeting, when she was running for Council, she commented on a lack of Sunshine Law Open Meeting compliance; on Ohio Ethics Commission violations regarding hiring conflicts of interest; on the inclusion of the wife of Village Municipal Manager on a 1988 charter-drafting committee; on the lack of a financial system of checks and balances regarding Village finances; on a violation of the Ohio Ethics Commission bulletin regarding nepotism; on methods by which Village officials could be removed from office under the Charter; on the failure of the Village to

accept competitive bids for municipal garbage collection; on the removal of asbestos siding from occupied dwellings without notice to residents; and on the selling of Village real estate without advertising and without permission from the electorate as required by the Charter. 9. During the 2007 Greenhills Council election campaign, vandals stole over seventy

political yard signs supporting Plaintiffs candidacy, bragged about the thefts online, and posted photographs of them on a blog site. Despite Plaintiffs urging, the Village Police Chief, while providing names of suspects, refused to prosecute. (See Exhibit C, photograph of signs in dumpster) 10. Following the election of November 2007, the Village of Greenhills Mayor, Oscar

Hoffmann, stated in a public speech at the Greenhills Journal annual dinner that he intended to get even with those who ran against the incumbents; he also stated that people would be surprised at his method of doing so. 11. In January 2008, Plaintiff spoke out at a Housing Stock Open Public Meeting

against Village actions which had resulted in the Hamilton County Auditors devaluation of 219 properties, including Plaintiffs home. 12. On March 1, 2008, Michelle Knight, the wife of a Greenhills firefighter, threat-

ened Plaintiff and her family with violence on a blog website closely associated with the Village of Greenhills. Plaintiff reported these threats to Village authorities on March 3, 2008. When the Village Police Chief took no meaningful action, Plaintiff sought a judicial restraining order and filed an Internet Crime Complaint with the FBI. (See Exhibit D, email dated March 18, 2008, from Plaintiff to Defendant Doyle) Ms. Knight was eventually found guilty of telecommunication harassment in Hamilton County Municipal Court, Case No. C/08/CRB/9601.

13.

On March 18, 2008, Plaintiff complained to the Ohio Department of Public Safety

that the Village Mayor, Oscar Hoffmann, who was also Assistant Fire Chief and Treasurer of the Volunteer Fire Department, had appointed his son Medical Director of the latter organization. (See Exhibit E, a true copy of this document) 14. On April 23, 2008, Village Building Inspector Thomas Eberle threatened Plaintiff

with a pocketknife as she photographed him removing with that knife several 3 by 5 sticker labels from the homes of Plaintiffs neighbors. The labels stated HANDS OFF MY HOME, a reference to a continuing controversy over eminent domain issues in the Village. Neither Defendant Doyle nor any other Village authority took action with respect to this assault. (See Exhibit F, a true copy of Plaintiffs April 23, 2008, email to Hamilton County authorities, indicating that a copy was sent to Defendant Doyle) 15. On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff reported another theft from her house, as well as

vandalism, both related to the real estate controversy, to Hamilton County authorities and to Defendant Doyle. Again, neither the Village nor the Chief took any action. (See Exhibit G, a true copy of an email dated April 25, 2008) 16. On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff wrote to Hamilton County Commissioner Portune

asserting incompetence and wrongdoing by Village officials to rob Hamilton County of tax revenue and then set about to create bogus blight. The letter also details numerous other improprieties on the part of the Village concerning real estate matters. (See Exhibit H, a true copy of this document) 17. On September 14, 2008, a hurricane caused major tree damage near Plaintiffs

home, blocking the sidewalk. On September 17, 2008, Plaintiff wrote to the Village Manager, to Defendant Doyle, and to other Village officials concerning this hazard. (See Exhibit I, a true

copy of this email) The Village ignored the problem for eight days. When Plaintiff used a leaf blower to clear storm damage a Greenhills Police Officer informed her that she must stay off Village property or face arrest. 18. In September 2008, the Village entered into a contract with the law firm of Frost

Brown Todd LLC, under which that firm was engaged to advise the Village in connection with a harassment investigation regarding Patricia Andwan. Over the next six months a lawyer from this firm wrote certified letters to Plaintiff in which he made the following assertions: a. He [the attorney] had reviewed her communications and activities in order to offer an illustrative summary of your behaviors directed toward the Villages officials and staff. b. She [Plaintiff] had sent in excess [of] 100 separate e-mails about the Village to various state and local agencies. c. She had told the ex-Village Manager that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. d. She had accused Village officials of voter intimidation and fraudulent property devaluation schemes. e. She had demanded answers . . . to no less than 50 individual questions.

f. She had demanded that Village officials cease and desist removing signage or threatening any Villagers who are legally expressing their First Amendment Rights. g. She had accused Village officials of terrorizing the elderly. h. She had photographed Village officials in public. i. Her continued intimidation of Village officials can no longer be tolerated.

j. If she did not cease her behavior, Village officials would stop talking to her except through the Village Manager or its lawyer and might institute criminal and/or civil prosecution against her as well. k. On November 11, 2008, she had intimidated Village officials regarding a public records request and the Village intended to have her forcibly removed by police if it happened again. l. On November 20, 2008, she had disrupted a committee meeting, and the Village intended to have her forcibly removed by police if it happened again. (See Exhibit J, a true copy of the engagement letter dated September 18, 2008, and law firm letters dated October 29, 2008, November 19, 2008, and March 20, 2009) m. It is illegal in Ohio to rake leaves and debris on public streets or sidewalks. Plaintiffs continued raking was not safe for you or the general public. If she didnt cease all such unlawful behaviors . . . you will be arrested. n. Plaintiff broke the law by failing to remove all debris from the public street when an officer ordered her to do so. In the future [you] will be arrested for such behavior. o. Plaintiff refused to sit down after finishing her allotted two minute public comment period at a Village Council meeting. When she finally did she nearly pushed the Village police officer who was coming toward her. One more incident of this conduct will result in you being arrested on the spot and charged for multiple criminal violations.

19.

On March 18, 2009, while Plaintiff was sweeping trash and tree debris from the

street curbs and collecting it in trash cans on Chalmers Lane, where she resides, Village Police Officer Schleuter and Defendant Ward threatened to arrest her for being on Village property. Officer Schleuter told her she was not dressed in appropriate attire to work in the street. He insisted she stand on a certain spot. He stood close to her and told her she could not leave until she repeated back to him his exact words. He stated that if she walked away he would charge her with interfering with public business. 20. 21. In April 2009 Plaintiff filed papers to run for mayor of the Village of Greenhills. On September 14, 2009, after Defendant Village refused to produce documents

responsive to Plaintiffs public records request regarding properties scheduled for demolition, Plaintiff filed a mandamus action against the Village in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. A0908739. The Village eventually produced the requested documents after demolition was underway. 22. In October 2009 a Village Police Officer, Tony Patton, twice prevented Plaintiff

from passing out flyers supporting her election campaign, falsely asserting that her flyers and yard signs did not conform to the Ohio Elections law. 23. Beginning in the fall of 2007, Plaintiff and other Village home owners began

placing signs in their yards reading NOT FOR SALE, an allusion to a continuing dispute between the Village and these residents over eminent domain issues. On many occasions these signs were stolen, but Village authorities, despite being notified, never took action against the perpetrators. In December 2009 various Village police officers, one of whom wore a ski mask over his face, issued Plaintiff and another citizen six citations each on six different nights. Each

citation described the crime as did display more than one sign of a protected speech message on property. (See Exhibit K, true copies of these citations) 24. The Village eventually dismissed these criminal charges. On March 17, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action against the Village of Greenhills; Jane A. Berry, the Municipal Manager; and John Hester, the Building Official/Service Department Foreman, alleging that they violated her First Amendment rights by prosecuting her for the speech written on the signs. Pursuant to a settlement agreement dated June 25, 2010, the Village paid Plaintiff and her co-litigant $21,000 in damages and attorney fees. (See Exhibit L, a true copy of the complaint, and Exhibit M, a true copy of the settlement agreement) 25. In October 2010, Plaintiff distributed a flyer door-to-door urging voters to reject

the Villages proposed Police Tax Levy and New Recreation Tax Levy and to disband the Police Department. (See Exhibit N, a true copy of the flyer) 26. 27. On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed to run for Village Council. On May 23, 2011, a contractor hired by the Village engaged in a tree-cutting

operation on public property across the street from Plaintiffs home. In the course of his work the contractor discarded three pieces of tree-support cables on public property, on or near a sidewalk, in violation of Village Ordinance 521.04(a). Plaintiff, believing the cables were a danger to children playing in the area and to pedestrians walking by, removed them and placed them in her fenced yard. (See photographs of those cables, attached hereto as Exhibit O) 28. On June 9, 2011, Defendants Ward and Dean came to Plaintiffs home to recover

what they said was stolen property. Plaintiff showed them the cables and asked them to leave the premises. Defendant Ward threatened to arrest Plaintiff if she did not sign citations charging her with theft and criminal mischief. Plaintiff refused and went back into her home.

29.

Plaintiff returned the cables to Defendant Doyle at the Greenhills Police Depart-

ment less than an hour later. The Village subsequently dismissed the theft charge. However, despite the fact that the cables had no value, that they had been abandoned, that they constituted a hazard to the public, and that Plaintiff had left them in plain sight in her yard, the Village prosecuted Plaintiff for criminal mischief under Ohio Revised Code 2909.07, forcing her to obtain counsel and endure a full criminal trial on May 23, 2012. 30. Defendants Ward, Dean and Doyle initiated, influenced and/or aided the afore-

mentioned criminal prosecution with full knowledge that Plaintiff had committed no crime, and with full knowledge that there was no probable cause for a criminal prosecution. Defendant Doyle explained to the person who accompanied Plaintiff to the Village police station that he was charging Plaintiff with criminal mischief because her arrogance is out of control. 31. On May 23, 2012, a Hamilton County municipal judge granted Plaintiffs motion

for acquittal after a bench trial. See Case No. C/11/CRB/17623. 32. On November 2, 2011, six days prior to the Village Council election, a private

contractor engaged by Defendant Village prepared to remove trees from public property located up the street from Plaintiffs home. Plaintiff, who disagreed with the tree removal, began photographing the operation from private property across the street from where the work was being done. Neither she nor anyone else was in any danger at any time. Street and pedestrian traffic was flowing freely through the work area. There were no safety cones or barricades. There was no caution tape. There was no crew or anyone else assigned to traffic control. 33. Nevertheless, the tree contractor called the Village Police Department and De-

fendant Moore arrived shortly thereafter. Despite the fact that Defendant Moore observed no danger to Plaintiff or to anyone else, he ordered Plaintiff to leave the area. When Plaintiff

10

instead began photographing Defendant Moore, he physically restrained her, told her she was under arrest, handcuffed her and shoved her face onto the trunk of his patrol car. 34. Defendant Moore then called for assistance. Six police cruisers from jurisdictions

other than Greenhills soon appeared; the officers drew their weapons and swarmed around the scene of the arrest. 35. At no time did Defendant Moore or anyone else observe Plaintiff committing a

crime or about to commit a crime. 36. Defendant Moore, through his subsequent testimony and report to Village auth-

orities, initiated, influenced and/or aided Plaintiffs criminal prosecution after her arrest with full knowledge that Plaintiff had committed no crime, and with full knowledge that there was no probable cause for such a criminal prosecution. On information and belief, Defendant Doyle also participated in the decision to prosecute Plaintiff for this phantom offense, even though he also knew that Plaintiff had committed no crime and that there was no probable cause for such a prosecution 37. On September 19, 2012, a Hamilton County municipal judge granted Plaintiffs

motion for acquittal after a bench trial. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: UNREASONABLE PROSECUTORIAL SEIZURE (MALICIOUS PROSECUTION) (Defendants Ward, Dean and Doyle) 38. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if

fully rewritten herein. 39. Defendants Ward, Dean and Doyle initiated, influenced and/or aided in the

decision to prosecute Plaintiff for criminal mischief based upon the above-described incidents

11

occurring in May and June 2011 and involving the tree cables, without probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed a crime. 40. This prosecution deprived Plaintiff of her liberty, including but not limited to the

restraint on her liberty incident to her criminal trial 41. 42. Plaintiffs criminal proceeding resolved in her favor. Defendants Ward, Dean and Doyles conduct violated Plaintiffs rights under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and were taken in reckless disregard of those rights. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants Ward, Dean and

Doyle, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: FALSE ARREST (Defendant Moore) 44. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if

fully rewritten herein. 45. Defendant Moore arrested Plaintiff on November 2, 2011, as described above,

without probable cause to believe that she had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime. 46. Defendant Moores conduct violated Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth and Four-

teenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and was taken in reckless disregard of those rights. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Moore, Plaintiff

suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

12

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: UNREASONABLE PROSECUTORIAL SEIZURE (MALICIOUS PROSECUTION) (Defendant Moore) 48. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if

fully rewritten herein. 49. Defendant Moore initiated, influenced and/or aided in the decision to prosecute

Plaintiff for disorderly conduct, based upon the above-described incident of November 2, 2011, without probable cause. 50. The prosecution deprived Plaintiff of her liberty apart from the original seizure of

her person, including but not limited to forcing her to choose between community service and her original fine, and causing her to endure two criminal trials in order to prove her innocence which was obvious to any reasonable observer. 51. 52. Plaintiffs criminal proceeding resolved in her favor. Defendant Moores conduct violated Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth and Four-

teenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and was taken in reckless disregard of those rights. 53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Moores conduct, Plaintiff suffered

damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including being subjected to a strip search, fingerprinting, and confinement with criminals for over seven hours. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FEDERAL ABUSE OF PROCESS (All Defendants ) 54. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if

fully rewritten herein.

13

55.

As described above, Plaintiff was in ongoing conflict with numerous officials of

Defendant Village for many years prior to the above-described events of May and June, 2011, and of November, 2011. 56. As described above, Plaintiff actively attempted to have Village officials censured

and prosecuted; she reported tax and other financial irregularities on the part of Village officials; she reported unethical behavior and nepotism on the part of those officials; and she ran for office in an attempt to effect changes in the Village to the detriment of those officials. 57. Defendant Village, through its chief policymaker, Defendant and then Police

Chief Doyle, set in motion the legal proceedings described in 36-38, 42 and 46-48 above. To the extent those proceedings are held to have been supported by probable cause, Defendants perverted them in an attempt to accomplish the ulterior purpose of punishing Plaintiff for opposing Defendant Village in the manner described above. 58. Defendants conduct violated Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and were taken in reckless disregard of those rights. 59. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff suffered dam-

ages in an amount to be determined at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: COMMON LAW ABUSE OF PROCESS (ALL DEFENDANTS) 60. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if

fully rewritten herein. 61. As described above, Plaintiff was in ongoing conflict with numerous officials of

Defendant Village for many years prior to the above-described events of May and June, 2011, and of November, 2011.
14

62.

As described above, Plaintiff actively attempted to have Village officials censured

and prosecuted; she reported tax and other financial irregularities on the part of Village officials; she reported unethical behavior and nepotism on the part of those officials; and she ran for office in an attempt to effect changes in the Village to the detriment of those officials. 63. Defendant Village, through its chief policymaker, Defendant and then Police

Chief Doyle, set in motion the legal proceedings described in 36-38 and in 46-48 above. To the extent those proceedings are held to have been supported by probable cause, Defendants perverted them in an attempt to accomplish the ulterior purpose of punishing Plaintiff for opposing Defendant Village in the manner described above. 64. Defendants conduct was tortious under Ohio law and was taken in reckless dis-

regard of Plaintiffs rights. 65. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff suffered dam-

ages in an amount to be determined at trial. WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment for: (a) compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (b) punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (c ) an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing to pervert the justice system; (d) attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; (e) such other relief at law and in equity to which she is deemed entitled.

15

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen R. Felson Stephen R. Felson (0038432) 215 E. Ninth St., Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-4900 (513) 639-7011 (fax) Stevef8953@aol.com Robert B. Newman (0023484) Lisa T. Meeks (0062074) NEWMAN & MEEKS 215 East Ninth St. Ste. 650 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 513-639-7000 robertnewman@newman-meeks.com Counsel for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

/s/ Stephen R. Felson

16