Eric Brandt V City of Westminster
Eric Brandt V City of Westminster
Eric Brandt V City of Westminster
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff ERIC BRANDT by and through his attorney David Lane, brings this
action for legal and equitable relief. The plaintiff hereby complains of defendants and
alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
This is a civil rights action for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief
as well as fees and costs arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988 and 28 U.S.C. Section
2201 et seq. due to defendants current and imminent violations of plaintiffs rights
guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.
2.
August 11, 2014 when he was permitted to address the Westminster City Council and
his speech regarding a matter of great public concern- police abuses in Westminster,was cut short by the Defendant Mayor who ordered Defendant Officer to arrest Plaintiff
Brandt because he objected to the content of Mr. Brandts message. Mr. Brandt was
arrested and removed from the City Council chambers. He was jailed and charged with
crimes. As such, he was denied his rights under the First Amendment as he was arrested
in retaliation for his protected speech and he was also denied the right to petition his
government for redress of grievances. Mr. Brandt was denied his rights under the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the Mayor ordered the
Officer to arrest Mr. Brandt in retaliation for his protected speech, despite the fact that
Mr. Brandt had committed no crime giving rise to probable cause to believe that he had
violated any law. The entire episode was captured on audiotape and possibly on
videotape.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. l33l
and l343.
4.
5.
both citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Colorado. The Mayor is
the chief executive of Westminster and thus he sets custom, practice and policy for the
municipality.
7.
maker is the Defendant Mayor, who sets official municipal custom, policy and
practices.
8.
All defendants acted under color of state law at all times relevant to this
Complaint.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8.
On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Eric Brandt was attending a public meeting
Eric Brandt has had numerous problems with the Westminster police
department. Many officers have arrested him due to their personal dislike of him
stemming from the fact that wherever he goes in Westminster, he carries a very large,
handmade sign that reads Fuck the Cops.
10.
Mr. Brandt, along with everyone else at the public City Council meeting,
was afforded a five-minute opportunity to address the City Council at its regularly
scheduled meeting on any issues of importance to the speaker.
11.
Mr. Brandts turn to address the council occurred and he began to speak
When the Defendant Mayor realized what Mr. Brandt was talking about,
he interrupted Mr. Brandt and told him to stop talking about police brutality in
Westminster.
13. Mr. Brandt would not stop his speech regarding the matter of serious public
concern regarding police abuses despite the Mayors repeated entreaties.
14.
abuses in Westminster, in an effort to silence this vocal critic of the City and the police,
the Mayor ordered the Defendant Officer to arrest Mr. Brandt.
15.
Mr. Brandt was placed in handcuffs and was not free to leave the custody
to the Adams County jail on charges of Obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest.
17.
All charges against Mr. Brandt were dismissed on August 21, 2014.
All statements of fact set forth previously are hereby incorporated into
The arrest of Plaintiff Brandt was a denial of his right to free speech
By having Mr. Brandt removed forcibly from the podium, the Defendants,
acting in concert with one another, prevented Eric Brandt from speaking out on a matter
of public concern.
21.
The actions of defendants occurred while each was acting under color of
State law.
21.
As the chief policy maker for the City of Westminster, based upon the
unlawful actions of Defendant Mayor, it is the custom, practice and policy of the City
of Westminster to deny unpopular speakers the right to speak out on matters of public
concern at City Council meetings in violation of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
22. Eric Brandt was prevented by the Defendants from delivering his speech
regarding the problem of police abuses of citizens and the routine denial of the civil
rights of Westminster citizens by the Police Department, in violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation First Amendment
Retaliation for Free Speech)
23.
All statements of fact set forth previously are hereby incorporated into
Defendants stopped his speech based upon the content of his message, in violation of
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
25.
unlawfully arrested him in violation of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and in retaliation for the content of the message he was attempting to
deliver regarding police abusing the civil rights of citizens in Westminster.
26.
All defendants were acting under color of State law when they unlawfully
retaliated against Mr. Brandt for the message he was attempting to deliver to the
Westminster City Council.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth Amendment Violation)
27.
All statements of fact set forth previously are hereby incorporated into
The Defendants, acting in concert with one another, arrested Eric Brandt
29.
The arrest of Eric Brandt was motivated simply by the Defendants desire
to deny Plaintiff his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
30.
The Defendants were all acting under color of State law when they
arrested Plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a. Declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as appropriate;
b. Actual economic damages as allowed by law and as established at trial;
c. Compensatory damages as allowed by law, including, but not limited to
those for past and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, emotional
pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,
medical bills, and other non-pecuniary losses;
d. Punitive damages for all claims as allowed by law in an amount to be
determined at trial;
e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
f. Attorneys fees and costs; and
g. Such further relief as justice requires.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
DATED this 4 th day of November, 2014.
K ILLMER , L ANE & N EWMAN , LLP
s/ David Lane
__________________________
David Lane
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 571-1000
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF