Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JONATHAN B. GUESSFORD
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff

vs.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
CORPORAL STEPHEN
OF THE 1st, 4TH, AND 14th
DOUGLAS, TROOPER
AMENDMENTS OF THE
NICHOLAS GALLO, and
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
MASTER CORPORAL
STATES AND SECTION 1983 OF
ALFONSO JONES, individually
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
and in their official capacities as
members of the Delaware State
Police,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Jonathan Guessford, by way of Complaint against defendants

Corporal Stephen Douglas, Trooper Nicholas Gallo, and Master Corporal Alfonso

Jones and says:

INTRODUCTION

1. This case seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental constitutional

rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution. Through the statutory vehicle 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Guessford

alleges that on March 11, 2022, Defendants Douglas, Gallo, and Jones deprived

him of liberty in retaliation for exercising the constitutional right to freedom of

speech and expression.

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2

2. Plaintiff Guessford seeks a money judgment against Defendants

Douglas, Gallo, and Jones and a declaration that while acting under color of state

law, their unconstitutional conduct—preventing him from peaceful protest, seizing

his person and motor vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspicion

because he was protesting against the police’s use of a radar to detect speeding and

when he visibly displayed his raised middle finger in protest while driving away

from the first stop—would chill others from exercising First Amendment

freedoms.

3. Plaintiff Guessford further seeks declaratory, preliminary, and

permanent injunctive relief against Defendants Douglas, Gallo, and Jones to stop

them from arbitrarily exercising state power for no legitimate governmental reason

but to interfere with his fundamental liberty interests and chill First Amendment

freedoms.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. Plaintiff Guessford incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs

one through three, as set forth fully here.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant cause of

action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.

6. Plaintiff Guessford’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are

further authorized by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R Civ. P”) 57 and
 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3

65, and by the general legal and inherent equitable powers of this Court. Title 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 authorizes Plaintiff Guessford’s claims for damages.

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants

Douglas, Gallo, and Jones reside, and the events occurred in the District of

Delaware.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, Jonathan Guessford, is an adult individual and citizen of the

State of Delaware, residing in Smyrna, Delaware.

9. Defendant Corporal Stephen Douglas was at all times relevant an

employee of the State of Delaware as a State Trooper. At all times herein

mentioned, defendant Douglas was acting under the color of law in his individual

capacity as a Corporal for the Delaware State Police.

10. Defendant Trooper Nicholas Gallo was at all times relevant an

employee of the State of Delaware as a State Trooper. At all times herein

mentioned, defendant Gallo was acting under the color of law in his individual

capacity as a Trooper for the Delaware State Police.

11. Defendant Master Corporal Alphonso Jones was at all times relevant

an employee of the State of Delaware as a State Trooper. At all times herein

mentioned, defendant Jones was acting under the color of law in his individual

capacity as a Master Corporal for the Delaware State Police.

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Prior to March 11, 2022, Plaintiff Guessford became an informal

advocate against police abuse.

9. As a result of prior encounters with the police, Guessford decided to

stage protests whenever he saw police officers stopping unsuspected vehicles using

a radar gun.

10. Guessford’s protest are simple: he simply parks in a safe area at the

intersection where the police are using radar technology and holds up a handmade

cardboard sign that reads “Radar Ahead! (written in magic marker)”

11. On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff Guessford was driving on Rt. 13

(northbound) in Cheswold, Delaware when he observed Corporal Douglas and

other State Troopers engaged in using a radar gun to arrest drivers for speeding.

12. Plaintiff Guessford found a safe area on the side of the highway to

display his sign ahead of the speed trap.

13 Plaintiff Guessford held the sign on the side of the road.

14. Plaintiff Guessford did not obstruct traffic.

15. Subsequently, Corporal Douglas arrived in an unmarked police

vehicle and confronted Guessford. Corporal Douglas shut down Guessford’s

protest and threatened to confiscate his sign.

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5

16. Subsequently, Trooper Gallo arrived in a marked police vehicle and

shut down Guessford’s protest, and threatened to confiscate his sign. A video of

the incident can be viewed below:

17. Trooper Gallo and Corporal Douglas falsely stated that Guessford was

obstructing traffic and needed to stop his protest.

18. Corporal Douglas physically restrained Guessford from holding his

sign in peaceful protest.

19. Eventually, Trooper Gallo grabbed Plaintiff Guessford’s sign and

ripped it up.

20. After Trooper Gallo and Corporal Douglas confiscated Plaintiff’s sign

and shut down his protest, Plaintiff Guessford returned to his vehicle and began to

drive off.

21. As one last act of protest against Trooper Gallo and Corporal

Douglas’ abusive conduct, Plaintiff Guessford drove by the officers and displayed

a raised extended middle finger.

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6

22. In retaliation for Plaintiff Guessford’s exercise of First Amendment

rights, Corporal Douglas and Master Corporal Alphonso Jones executed a traffic

stop on his motor vehicle. A video of the incident can been viewed here:

23. Master Corporal Jones announced himself as Douglas’ supervisor and

that Guessford’s act of raising his extended middle finger was criminal conduct.

Douglas’ contradicted Jones’ announced reason for the stop stating that Guessford

was being pulled over for a “improper hand signal”.

24. Corporal Douglas and Master Corporal Jones’ traffic stop was an

adverse action taken against Guessford for exercising his First Amendment right to

express disapproval of, and disagreement with, Douglas and Gallo’s initial

violation of Plaintiff’s first amendment right to peacefully protest.

25. Defendants Douglas and Jones threatened to lock up Guessford, tow

Guessford’s vehicle, and have child services take away Guessford’s minor child.

26. In addition, Douglas and Jones violated Guessford’s constitutionally

protected First Amendment right to freedom of expression for visibly displaying

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7

his raised extended middle finger out of the driver’s side window toward Corporal

Jones and Trooper Gallo.

27. Douglas and Jones manufactured a charge against Guessford for

exercising his first amendment right to peacefully protest.

28. Plaintiff was maliciously charged with a violation of 21 Del. Code

§4157(2), failure to give a right-hand turn signal. A video of Corporal Jones

issuing the citation can be viewed.

29. The charge was not supported by any facts.

30. The traffic stop and criminal charges was an adverse action taken

against Guessford for exercising his First Amendment right to express disapproval

of, and disagreement with, the Plaintiff raising his extended middle finger in

protest of the Corporal Douglas, Trooper Gallo, and Master Corporal Jones’

unconstitutional actions.

31. On June 29, 2022, the charge against Plaintiff was dismissed by the

State.
 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8

Count One—First Amendment Retaliation

(42 U.S.C § 1983)

32. Plaintiff Guessford incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs

one through thirty-one, as set forth fully here.

33. Defendants Douglas and Jones acted under color of state law by

prohibiting Guessford from engaging in peaceful protest and destroying

Guessford’s sign.

34. Defendants Douglas and Jones acted under the color of law by

stopping Guessford’s vehicle and issuing him a traffic citation.

35. Plaintiff Guessford’s peaceful protest of holding up a sign saying

“Radar Ahead!” was entitled to First Amendment protection as an expression of

speech.

36. Plaintiff Guessford’s display of his raised middle finger extended

toward Corporal Douglas and Trooper Gallo as he drove away was a symbolic

gesture entitled to First Amendment protection as an expression of speech.

37. Plaintiff Guessford had a clearly established constitutional right to

express his disapproval of, and disagreement with, Corporal Douglas and Trooper

Gallo’s shutting down his protest and destroying his sign.

38. Defendants Douglas and Jones initiation of the traffic stop, and

issuance of a bogus traffic ticket to Plaintiff Guessford, was an adverse action

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9

taken in retaliation for his exercise of constitutionally protected symbolic speech

and expression.

39. Defendants Douglas and Jones motive for the traffic stop and issuance

of a traffic ticket was to punish Plaintiff Guessford for exercising rights secured

under the constitution.

40. The adverse actions taken against Plaintiff Guessford—stopping his

motor vehicle without reasonable suspicion or probable cause—would

substantially interfere with the exercise of First Amendment freedoms by deterring

a person of ordinary firmness from further expressing disapproval and

disagreement with police conduct in the State of Delaware, through speech and

symbolic gesture.

41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the First

Amendment, Plaintiff Guessford has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss

of his clearly established fundamental constitutional right to free speech and

expression, entitling him to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Count Two—Fourth Amendment

(42 U.S.C. § 1983; Unlawful Detention and Seizure)

42. Plaintiff Guessford incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs

one through forty-one, as set forth fully here.

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10

43. Defendants Douglas and Jones stopped Plaintiff Guessford’s motor

vehicle, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe a traffic

violation had occurred or criminal conduct was afoot.

44. The traffic stop by Defendants Douglas and Jones acting under color

of state law, was an unlawful detention and seizure under the Fourth Amendment

that interfered with Plaintiff Guessford’s liberty interests—restraining his freedom

of movement—, further causing him physical injury and property damage.

45. Defendants Douglas and Jones’s traffic stop by activating emergency

lights on a state-owned police vehicle directly behind Plaintiff Guessford’s motor

vehicle was a show of authority for an unlawful reason.

46. Plaintiff Guessford’s Fourth Amendment rights were sufficiently clear

that Douglas and Jones knew his detention and seizure of his person and motor

vehicle, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, was unconstitutional

arbitrary, and oppressive conduct.

47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Douglas and Jones’

unlawful detention and seizure of Guessford’s person and motor vehicle, Plaintiff

Guessford has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of his fundamental

liberty interests entitling him to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11

Count Three—Substantive Due Process

(42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fundamental Liberty)

48. Plaintiff Guessford incorporates by reference complaint paragraphs

one through thirty-seven., as set forth fully here.

49. This count is cumulative and raised in the alternative, to the preceding

First and Fourth Amendment claims made applicable to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

50. The fundamental right to liberty without arbitrary governmental

interference is a protected right, deeply rooted in our country’s concepts of

decency, history, and tradition.

51. Defendants Gallo and Douglas’ prohibition of Guessford’s peaceful

protest and confiscation of his sign was an arbitrary abuse of state power that

served no government interest but did interfere with fundamental rights implicit in

the concept of ordered liberty.

52. The traffic stop where Defendants Douglas and Jones seized Plaintiff

Guessford and his motor vehicle was an arbitrary abuse of state power that served

no government interest but did interfere with fundamental rights implicit in the

concept of ordered liberty.

53. As a result of Defendants Douglas, Gallo, and Jones’ arbitrary abuse

of state power, Plaintiff Guessford lost his freedom of movement, suffered physical

injury, and property damage.

 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12

54. Defendants Gallo and Douglas had no legal or legitimate right to stop

Plaintiff Guessford from peacefully protesting nor confiscating his sign.

55. Defendants Jones and Douglas had no legitimate right to stop Plaintiff

Guessford in his vehicle and so this exercise of police power was egregious official

misconduct that not only derogated a fundamental right but also shocks the

conscience.

ATTORNEY FEES

56. It was necessary for the plaintiff to hire the undersigned attorney to

file this lawsuit. Upon judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney

fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b).

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

57. The above paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by

reference as if set in full.

58. Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants Douglas, Gallo, and

Jones individually, jointly, and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages,

punitive damages, attorney fees, interest and costs of suit, and such relief as the

Court may deem just and equitable.

59. Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants Douglas, Jones, and

Gallo jointly and/or in the alternative for compensatory damages, attorney fees,

interest and costs of suit, and such relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
 Case 1:23-cv-00185-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/17/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

60. Plaintiff asserts his rights under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution and demands, in accordance with Federal Rule 38, a trial by jury on

all issues.

THE POLIQUIN FIRM, LLC

By: /s/ Ronald G. Poliquin

Ronald G. Poliquin, Esquire
Delaware Bar ID No. 4447
1475 S. Governors Ave.
Dover, DE 19904
(302) 702-5501

Attorney for Plaintiff Jonathan Guessford

Date: February 17, 2023