Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.

1 Page 1 of 67

Jared Allebest, #13485 (UT) #034640 (AZ) #325086 (CA)

Allebest Law Group PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
212 East Crossroads Blvd #207
Saratoga Springs, UT 84045
Cell: (949) 322-3991
Videophone: (801) 204-9055
Email: [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

IAN COOPERSTEIN, an individual and COMPLAINT

ROES I-X
Civil No. 2:23-cv-00468
Plaintiffs,
Judge
vs.
Jury Trial Requested
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a
government entity, SALT LAKE CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, a government
entity, POLICE CHIEF MIKE BROWN, a
government employee, OFFICER
ANDERSON, a government employee,
and OFFICER WEST, a government
employee, and ROES I-X.

Defendants.

IAN COOPERSTEIN (hereinafter “Mr. Cooperstein”), by and through his attorney

JARED M. ALLEBEST of Allebest Law Group PLLC, hereby submit the following:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the laws of the State of

Utah to hold the City of Salt Lake, via its policymaker, the Chief of Police, and two of its

officers accountable for their unreasonable, unlawful, malicious violations of the

Plaintiff’s rights.

2. On August 15th, 2022, an individual named Ms. Williams contacted the police
1
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.2 Page 2 of 67

on the false claim that Mr. Cooperstein was withholding her possessions in Mr.

Cooperstein’s garage. In reality, the items in Mr. Cooperstein’s garage belonged to Mr.

Cooperstein. Two officers unlawfully entered Mr. Cooperstein’s home and assisted in

carrying out Mr. Cooperstein's possessions and gave it to Ms. Williams.

3. After the August 15th, 2022, incident, Mr. Cooperstein met with the Internal

Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department on September 26, 2022 in the lobby of

the Public Safety Building to hear his complaint regarding the incident that occurred on

August 15th, 2022 and was documented as Salt Lake City Police Case Number 2022-

157556. Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department issued a letter to Mr.

Cooperstein on October 28, 2022, informing him that in IA Case #C-2022-0141, they

have determined that “the officers involved in this case should have remained impartial

and considered all sides of the involved parties.” As a result, “the involved officers have

received additional training specific to SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes.” (See Exhibit

#1).

4. The Plaintiff now turns to this Honorable Court in pursuit of justice.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Complaint seeks remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988,

alleging violations of the Fourth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of

America, as well as the Utah State Constitution as well as the laws of the State of Utah.

6. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C

§§1331,1343, and 1367.

7. Venue is proper before this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

2
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.3 Page 3 of 67

8. On August 15th, 2022, an individual named Ms. Williams contacted the police

on the false claim that Mr. Cooperstein was withholding her possessions in Mr.

Cooperstein’s garage. In reality, the items in Mr. Cooperstein’s garage belonged to Mr.

Cooperstein. Two officers unlawfully entered Mr. Cooperstein’s home and assisted in

carrying out Mr. Cooperstein's possessions and gave it to Ms. Williams.

9. After the August 15th, 2022, incident, Mr. Cooperstein met with the Internal

Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department on September 26, 2022, in the lobby of

the Public Safety Building to hear his complaint regarding the incident that occurred on

August 15th, 2022, and was documented as Salt Lake City Police Case Number 2022-

157556. Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department issued a letter to Mr.

Cooperstein on October 28, 2022, informing him that in IA Case #C-2022-0141, they

have determined that “the officers involved in this case should have remained impartial

and considered all sides of the involved parties.” As a result, “the involved officers have

received additional training specific to SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes.” (See Exhibit

#1).

10. On March 20th, 2023, Mr. Cooperstein’s filed a Notice of Claim regarding the

Salt Lake Police Department with the State of Utah by sending the Notice of Claim letter

to Rebecca Lee to the following email address [email protected]. (See Exhibit

#2).

11. On March 30th, 2023, the Utah Attorney General’s Office notified Mr.

Cooperstein’s attorney that his Notice of Claim was not the proper place to file the

Notice of Claim. (See Exhibit #3).

12. Mr. Cooperstein’s attorney subsequently sent a Notice of Claim to Salt Lake

3
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.4 Page 4 of 67

City to the following email address [email protected]. (See Exhibit #4) on April

10th, 2023.

13. On April 11th, 2023, the Office of the City Attorney sent an email to Mr.

Cooperstein’s attorney that contained a letter attached that acknowledged receipt of the

Mr. Cooperstein's Notice of Claim. (See Exhibit #5)

14. ON June 6th, 2023, The Office of The City Attorney sent an email to Mr.

Cooperstein’s attorney in which she provided a letter that provided the results of their

investigation in which they denied his claim. (See Exhibit #6).

THE PARTIES

15. IAN COOPERSTEIN is an entrepreneur who is involved in several

business enterprises and resides in Salt Lake County.

16. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION is governed by a full-time mayor and

part-time city council, is Utah's capital city and premiere public employer with over 3,500

employees. One of the government entities is oversees and is responsible for the Salt

Lake City Police Department and its officers who work for the police department. It is

located within the City & County Building located 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,

Utah 84111.

17. SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT is a government organization.

The Salt Lake City Police Department’s vision statement is that “we will build upon the

noble traditions of integrity and trust to foster a culture of service, respect, and

compassion toward our employees and the communities we serve” and that their

mission statement is that “We will serve as guardians of our community to preserve life,

maintain human rights, protect property, and promote individual responsibility and

4
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.5 Page 5 of 67

community commitment.” The Salt Lake City Police Department is located within the

Salt Lake City Public Safety Building which is found at 475 South 300 East Salt Lake

City, Utah 84111.

18. POLICE CHIEF MIKE BROWN has served in the Salt Lake City Police

Department since 1991. He was appointed Chief of Police on May 3, 2016, and prior to

that was the Interim Police Chief from June 11, 2015. He has held many positions

throughout the department during his 28-year career, and most recently was the

Commander for the Special Operations Bureau. As the Interim Police Chief, he

implemented a Civilian Advisory Board (CAB) in 2015. Chief Brown completed the FBI’s

National Executives Institute and the Major Cities Chiefs Association’s Police Executive

Leadership Institute. Chief Brown is the Second Vice President of MCCA, has been an

active member of the MCCA Intelligence Commanders Group and Drug Commanders

Group, and currently serves on the MCCA Forensic Science Committee. He was

recently selected to serve on the National Law Enforcement Exploring Committee. Chief

Brown holds a B.S. in General Studies from Columbia College. Chief Brown’s

experience has been focused on a number of specialty functions to address community

needs, participation and management of special events and demonstrations, serious

collision investigations, and coordination with federal and municipal agencies. As the

Special Operations Bureau commander, he oversaw SWAT, Safe Streets Gang FBI

Task Force, DEA Metropolitan Narcotic Task Force, Organized Crime Unit, Hazardous

Device Unit, Motorcycle Squad, Public Order Unit and Accident Investigation.

19. OFFICER ANDERSON is a police officer employed with the Salt Lake City

Police Department.

5
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.6 Page 6 of 67

20. OFFICER WEST is a police officer employed with the Salt Lake City Police

Department.

FACTS

21. In September 2021, Heidi Williams asked Mr. Cooperstein if she could rent

the upstairs portion of his home for herself and her children. Mr. Cooperstein

subsequently rented the upper floor of his home to Ms. Williams, her two children, and

her dog. Ms. Williams informed Mr. Cooperstein that she wanted to rent the upstairs

floor temporarily for a period of nine to twelve months in order to attempt to stabilize her

mental health, find gainful steady employment, and save money.

22. Ms. Williams and her family lived separately in Mr. Cooperstein’s home from

October 1st, 2021, until July 14th, 2022. Mr. Cooperstein's rental agreement with Ms.

Williams was month-to-month and included utilities. The rental agreement was

amended in March 2022 from $700/month to $800/month when it became apparent that

the utility costs had gone up significantly after Ms. Williams' family moved upstairs. Ms.

Williams knew that Mr. Cooperstein was temporarily living in his home because he

planned to sell his home in Fall/Winter of that year, 2022, in order to leave the State of

Utah entirely.

23. After Ms. Williams moved upstairs of Mr. Cooperstein’s home at the end of

September 2021, her behavior became immediately erratic, hostile, and volatile. Within

days after moving in, she quit her job and then refused to honor their rental agreement,

thus becoming delinquent on her payments by over two thousand dollars in a very short

time frame. In fact, Ms. Williams did not make her first rent payment until January 15th,

2022, which was 106 days late. Mr. Cooperstein tried to evict Ms. Williams in December

6
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.7 Page 7 of 67

2021 for non-payment, but she guilted him into letting her stay, claiming that he would

be making her children homeless. This became a common excuse as she paid late,

only partially paid, or didn't pay at all.

24. It was later discovered that Ms. Williams is a severely mentally ill 36-year-old

woman, who has been institutionalized multiple times over the past few years, including

just two weeks after two SLCPD officers came to the Plaintiff’s home and unlawfully

came into his house without a warrant on August 15th, 2022. Her erratic behavior over

the past two years has required her ex-husband to call the police on her on multiple

occasions, in Salt Lake and Tooele Counties, as a result of multiple serious issues,

such as attempted kidnapping, resulting in her being banned from entering her

children’s school by the Tooele Police during the 2020-2021 school year. During the first

half of 2022, Ms. Williams expressed on numerous occasions that she wanted to have

her ex-husband killed and would do so if she had the resources.

25. In 2022, Ms. Williams' behavior became significantly more hostile. She often

talked at length about wanting to pay to have her ex-husband killed. She threatened

suicide regularly and often demanded that Mr. Cooperstein take off entire days of work

to "console" her. She also admitted to having physically and verbally abused her dog,

something that a family member of hers told Mr. Cooperstein wasn't the first time she

had done that. When Mr. Cooperstein began to speak up about rent being paid late or

not at all, Ms. Williams told him that she was having trouble restraining herself from

punching him in the face on multiple occasions. Her children even began to express that

they were scared of her. In addition to the thousands of dollars in delinquent and late

rent that she owed, Ms. Williams had also borrowed thousands of dollars from Mr.

7
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.8 Page 8 of 67

Cooperstein for "her children" but was refusing to pay him back. She also caused

$1,000 in damage to Mr. Cooperstein’s home. For the past three years, Ms. Williams

has refused to participate in the intensive mental health treatment recommended by

multiple doctors as being necessary for her condition and to help her hold a job.

26. Heidi Williams was evicted from Mr. Cooperstein's home on July 14th, 2022.

On August 15th, 2022, Ms. Williams contacted the police on the false claim that Mr.

Cooperstein was withholding her possessions in his garage. In reality, the items in Mr.

Cooperstein's garage belonged to him.

27. Officer Anderson and Officer West met with Ms. Williams in front of Mr.

Cooperstein's home. During the police officers' conversation with Ms. Williams, it

becomes clear that she was repeatedly lying to the police officers. Unfortunately, her

lies were blatantly obvious, but the police officers did not challenge her dishonest

statements. They took her lies at face value and did not get Mr. Cooperstein's version of

events or facts. To make matters worse, the officers refused to speak with Mr.

Cooperstein. Based on the false statements made by Ms. Williams, the SLCPD officers

forced their way into Mr. Cooperstein's home without probable cause and/or a warrant

and, under the threat of arrest, removed Mr. Cooperstein's property. In essence, the

SLCPD officers assisted in Ms. Williams' theft of the Plaintiff’s property.

28. The Plaintiff believes that the following items, which includes their estimated

value, were taken by Ms. Williams with the assistance of Officer Anderson and/or

Officer West:

A. Two blenders [$80]

B. Bullet handheld food processor [$25]

8
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.9 Page 9 of 67

C. Spatulas, spoons, cookware, etc. [$40]

D. End table [$75]

E. Bicycle pump [$20]

F. Crockpot [$50]

G. Wine opener [$10]

H. Ice packs [$10]

I. Entire spice rack with 25 bottles, expensive olive oil balsamic vinegar [$75]

J. High end dish set that was a wedding gift (green/brown/grey squares) [$100]

K. High end cutlery that was a wedding gift- [$90]

L. Inherited family silverware set which has significant sentimental value to the

Plaintiff. [$150]

M. A box with childhood mementos, keepsakes collected from years traveling,

and sensitive paperwork including medical documents with sensitive personal

information, and legal documents [$5,000]

29. Mr. Cooperstein was able to get the body cam footage from that encounter,

which documents several lies that Ms. Williams told the police officers. In that video,

Officer West can be heard raising some issues with how the call went and questioning

the facts that resulted in him showing up to assist Officer Anderson. The video also

shows Ms. Williams making statements that suggest she knew that she was doing

something unlawful and/or improper since she states that Mr. Cooperstein was unaware

that she was at his house or that the police were there to assist her. This should have

raised some additional flags for the police officers and should have resulted in the police

officers terminating her efforts to obtain Mr. Cooperstein's property. You can hear on the

9
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.10 Page 10 of 67

body cam that Officer Anderson admitted to Officer West that Ms. Williams had not

given him any notice that she was coming to collect her things.

30. Moreover, there were other red flags that the police officers should have

noticed which would suggest that that Ms. Williams was not being truthful. She makes

an allegation of abuse yet is seen laughing and smiling while discussing her allegations.

The contradictions in her words and behavior should have raised the officers' suspicions

as to the veracity of her claims and/or request to assist her in moving items out of the

Plaintiff’s home. Moreover, they may have been deceived by her because of the false

belief that an attractive person is an honest person.

31. The video also shows Ms. Williams making critical and key false statements

about when she had moved out of Mr. Cooperstein's home. The officers failed to verify

her claims, resulting in the SLCPD officers making the unfounded and unlawful

conclusion that she still had a right to enter the Plaintiff’s property. Based on that

erroneous conclusion, they entered Mr. Cooperstein's home without probable cause

and/or a warrant, violating Mr. Cooperstein's 4th amendment right to be free from

warrantless searches of his home and seizures of his property. Moreover, there was no

civil or domestic court order authorizing Ms. Williams to collect property she allegedly

believed was hers.

32. The facts indicate that the last night Ms. Williams had resided in Mr.

Cooperstein's home was July 13th, 2022. She subsequently moved to her mother's

home in Taylorsville. She then signed a new rental agreement on July 25th and legally

changed her address. Mr. Cooperstein received notice from the United States Postal

Service during the first week of August 2022, indicating that Ms. Williams had changed

10
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.11 Page 11 of 67

her address. By the time the officers showed up at Mr. Cooperstein's house on August

15th, 2022, Ms. Williams had been out of the home for more than 30 days.

33. Additionally, Ms. Williams returned Mr. Cooperstein's keys, but not without

considerable trouble, as she refused to return them to him after she was evicted.

However, Mr. Cooperstein learned that she had stolen a large number of items from his

home on August 8th and told her that if she did not return the key immediately, then he

had no choice but to reach out to her ex-husband. Only then did she return the keys.

34. It is worth pausing here to point out that in the police body cam video, Ms.

Williams mentions that Mr. Cooperstein had relocated the garage door opener after she

had moved out. Ms. Williams could not have known this fact since Mr. Cooperstein had

moved the garage door opener on August 9th, 2022, while he was cleaning out his

garage after Ms. Williams had already collected what was supposed to be the very last

bit of her belongings. Despite having been evicted from Mr. Cooperstein's home, she

chose to leave some of her possessions behind in the garage for a lengthy period of

time. Yet, she claimed that these items were so critically important to her that she

couldn't wait a few days to retrieve them.

35. This means that Heidi trespassed onto Mr. Cooperstein's property at least

once, if not more, between August 9th and August 15th. As a result, you can hear Ms.

Williams' subtle admission that she had accessed Mr. Cooperstein's property without his

permission on the police body cam video.

36. On top of that, Mr. Cooperstein had found a new tenant for the upstairs

portion of the home where Ms. Williams had been living. The new tenant was also afraid

of Ms. Williams based on their interactions with her and the statements Ms. Williams

11
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.12 Page 12 of 67

made to them.

37. Based on the information above, it is clear that by the time the officers

showed up at Mr. Cooperstein's house on August 15th, 2022, Ms. Williams had been

out of the home for more than 30 days. During that time, Mr. Cooperstein was in the

process of finalizing the eviction process and making efforts to collect $3200 in

delinquent rent, as well as the cleaning and repair costs to the property.

38. Since the SLCPD took Ms. Williams’ lies at face value, the SLCPD police

officers refused to get Mr. Cooperstein's side of the story and became unjustifiably and

unreasonably hostile towards Mr. Cooperstein when they confronted him. Officer West

told Mr. Cooperstein that his statement about her being a former tenant was "bullshit,"

and Officer Anderson threatened to take him to jail immediately. The SLCPD officers

then forced Mr. Cooperstein to allow Ms. Williams to steal his property, resulting in the

loss of his possessions, including irreplaceable keepsakes from his childhood.

39. Mr. Cooperstein filed an Internal Affairs Complaint and GRAMA request and

subsequently met with Sargent Wind on August 15th, 2023. Sergeant Wind was

assigned to investigate Mr. Cooperstein’s complaint. Sergeant Wind had obtained the

body camera footage and reviewed it in his Internal Affairs (IA) investigation.

40. On August 29th, 2022, Mr. Cooperstein spoke with Sgt. Wind on the phone.

Sgt. Wind attempted to dismiss Mr. Cooperstein’s IA complaint, even after reviewing the

body camera footage. Instead, Sgt. Wind attempted to blame the situation on both the

Plaintiff and Ms. Williams. He repeatedly denies that the officers threatened him in order

to coerce the Plaintiff so that the SLPD officers could unlawfully enter the Plaintiff’s

property. Sgt. Wind also denies that the Officers cursed at the Plaintiff, which can be

12
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.13 Page 13 of 67

heard on the body camera footage, stating "bullshit" in response to Mr. Cooperstein’s

claim that Ms. Williams no longer lived in his home. As can be heard in the Plaintiff’s

phone call with Sgt. Wind, he seemed intent on dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint

regardless of the strength of the evidence against the SLCPD officers. Sgt. Wind also

refused to release the bodycam videos to Mr. Cooperstein even though the law requires

it to be released 10 days after the incident, even though Sgt. Wind told Mr. Cooperstein

during the phone call that the investigation into the Plaintiff’s complaint had been

completed. As a result, the body camera footage should have been released by

approximately on August 30th, 222.

41. On September 20th, 2022, Mr. Cooperstein contacted Chief Brown to get the

body cam footage which was withheld from Mr. Cooperstein. (See Exhibit #7. He

received the body camera immediately afterwards. (See Exhibit #8)

42. On September 26th, 2022, Mr. Cooperstein attempted to get a hold of Sgt.

Wind but he was difficult to get a hold of. The Plaintiff then went to the SLCPD

headquarters where he met with Lt. Lowe in the lobby of the Public Safety Building to

make his complaint regarding the incident that occurred on August 15th, 2022. After

hearing Mr. Cooperstein’s complaint, Lt. Lowe, informed Mr. Cooperstein that he would

be taking over the Internal Affairs investigation for Sargent Wind and would not be

closing the case as Sgt. Wind threatened to do. This complaint was documented as Salt

Lake City Police Case Number 2022-157556.

43. Lt. Lowe called the Plaintiff on October 27th, 2022, and informed him that his

complaint has been "sustained" at the conclusion of his investigation, which was

separated from Sgt. Wind's, despite no new evidence having been introduced. He

13
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.14 Page 14 of 67

informed the Plaintiff that a letter certifying that the Officers were found guilty and

reprimanded.

44. Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department issued a letter to Mr.

Cooperstein on October 28, 2022, informing him that in IA Case #C-2022-0141, they

have determined that "the officers involved in this case should have remained impartial

and considered all sides of the involved parties." As a result, "the involved officers have

received additional training specific to SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes." (See Exhibit

#1).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

42 U.S.C. §1983 - Violation of the 4th Amendment of

the United States Constitution.

45. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-45, as if fully set forth herein.

46. The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “the right of the

people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place

to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This helps secure peoples’

right to have their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” safe from unreasonable

search and seizure. The Constitution and/or case law generally requires the

government to get a warrant and to have probable cause before the search can take

place.

47. Officer Anderson and Officer West while acting under the color of the law,

14
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.15 Page 15 of 67

violated Mr. Cooperstein’s constitutional rights by entering Mr. Cooperstein’s home

without probable cause and/or a warrant and unreasonably seizing Mr. Cooperstein’s

property and giving it to Ms. Williams.

48. Officer Anderson and Officer West’s actions violated the constitutional rights

guaranteed to Mr. Cooperstein by the Fourth Amendment of the United States

Constitution.

49. Officer Anderson and Officer West actions were not taken in good-faith and

were in violation of clearly established law.

50. Officer Anderson and Officer West’s actions were unnecessary,

unreasonable, unlawful, and.or unjustified.

51. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unreasonable and

unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and

future damages, both compensatory and general, including, but not limited to, loss of

income, loss of property, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment,

humiliation, and suffering.

52. Because of Officer Anderson and Officer West’s actions, and possibly other

employees, agents, and/or representatives of the SLCPD, were “motivated by evil

motive or intent” and/or “involve[d] a reckless or callous indifference to the federally

protected rights of [the Plaintiff],” an award of punitive damages is appropriate to the

fullest extent permitted by law. See Morning v. Dillon Cty., No.: 4:15-cv-03349-RBH-

TER, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163072, at *12 (D. S.C. Jun. 12, 2018) (quoting Smith v.

Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983)).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

15
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.16 Page 16 of 67

42 U.S.C. §1983- Failure to Intervene in Violation of the 4th Amendment of

the United States Constitution.

53. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-53, as if fully set forth herein.

54. The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “the right of the

people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place

to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This helps secure peoples’

right to have their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” safe from unreasonable

search and seizure. The Constitution and/or case law generally requires the

government to get a warrant and to have probable cause before the search can take

place.

55. Defendant Officer Anderson had a duty to intervene when Defendant Officer

West was violating Mr. Cooperstein’s constitutional rights, which resulted in the

unreasonable search and seizure of Mr. Cooperstein’s home.

56. Defendant Officer Anderson observed and/or had reason to know that the

entry into Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a Court Order and/or Warrant was a violation

of his Constitutional rights.

57. Defendant Officer Anderson had the opportunity and means to prevent the

violations of Mr. Cooperstein’s constitutionally protected rights from occurring.

58. Not only was Defendant Officer Anderson deliberately indifferent to

Defendant to Mr. Cooperstein’s rights, he assisted Officer West in threating Mr.

16
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.17 Page 17 of 67

Cooperstein and/or entering Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a Court Order or warrant.

59. “The concept of bystander liability is premised on a law officer's duty to

uphold the law and protect the public from illegal acts, regardless of who commits

them.” See Randall v. Prince George's Cty., Md., 302 F.3d 188, 203 (4th Cir. 2002).

“[A]n officer may be liable under § 1983, on a theory of bystander liability, if he: (1)

knows that a fellow officer is violating an individual's constitutional rights; (2) has a

reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm; and (3) chooses not to act.” Id. at 204

(internal footnote omitted).

60. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unreasonable and

unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial past and

future damages, both compensatory and general, including, but not limited to, loss of

income, loss of personal property, severe emotional distress, mental anguish,

embarrassment, humiliation, and suffering.

61. Because the Defendants’ actions, and possibly other employees, agents,

and/or representatives of the SLCPD, were “motivated by evil motive or intent” and/or

“involve[d] a reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of [the

Plaintiff],” an award of punitive damages is appropriate to the fullest extent permitted by

law. See Morning v. Dillon Cty., No.: 4:15-cv-03349-RBH-TER, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

163072, at *12 (D. S.C. Jun. 12, 2018) (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983)).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

42 U.S.C. §1983 – Monell Liability.

62. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-62, as if fully set forth herein.

17
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.18 Page 18 of 67

63. The SLCPD is the law enforcement agency in the City of Salt Lake, Salt Lake

County, Utah.

64. The Chief of the SLCPD is the “policymaker” with respect to SLCPD, as a law

enforcement agency. See e.g., Revene v. Charles County Comm’rs, 882 F. 2d 870, 874

(4th Cir. 1989).

65. Municipal liability can attach under Monell v. Department of Social Services,

436 U.S. 658 (1978), for even a single decision made by a final policymaker in certain

circumstances, regardless of whether or not the action is taken once or repeatedly. See

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 89 L. Ed. 2d 452

(1986). If an authorized policymaker approves a subordinate’s decision and the basis

for it, such ratification would be chargeable to the municipality under Monell. See City of

St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988).

66. The SLCPD has outlined their custom, pattern, practice, and/or procedure for

Standby Assists in their Policy Manual. 1 Policy #430: Civil Disputes provides SLCPD

police officers with “with guidance for addressing conflicts between persons when no

criminal investigation or enforcement action is warranted (e.g., civil matters), with the

goal of minimizing any potential for violence or criminal acts.” Specifically, Policy

#430.4.1 and Policy #430.5 outlines the policy, practice, and procedures for Standby

Assists as well as Standby requests for vehicle and personal property.

67. Defendant Mike Brown, as the chief of police of the SLCPD, and a

policymaker for the City of Salt Lake, has a custom, pattern, practice, and/or procedure

1
Salt Lake City Police Department: SLCPD Policy Manual. June 9, 2020.
https://www.slcpd.com/ass3ts/uploads/2020/06/RELEASE_20200609_T174313_Salt_Lake_City_Police_Departme
nt_Policy_Manual.pdf. Accessed on July 19, 2023.

18
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.19 Page 19 of 67

of hiring police officers who he knows have committed acts of violence and/or have a

propensity to do so.

68. When these officers inevitably commit acts of violence while working for the

SLCPD, Defendant Mike Brown would ratify their unconstitutional acts and assist in

covering up the officer’s bad actions by initially withholding the police body cam and/or

attempting to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint with Internal Affairs.

69. As evidence of the above-stated custom, pattern, practice, and/or procedure,

the SLCPD knew or should have known that Officer West was not properly trained on

how to conduct a Civil Standby and that another Police Officer Anderson was sent to

assist Officer West on how to properly carryout a Civil Standby. However, Officer

Anderson also did not comply with the SLCPD’s policies, practices, and/or procedures

regarding a Civil Standby.

70. Following unlawful entrance into Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a court

order or warrant, Officers Anderson and Officer West conducted an unreasonable

search and seizure of Mr. Cooperstein’s possessions and Defendant Officer Anderson

publicly ratified the actions of Defendants Officer West by assisting in the unreasonable

search of Mr. Cooperstein’s home and unreasonable seizure of his personal property.

71. Moreover, Defendant Officer Mike Brown was aware that civil rights

violations, criminal acts, and other egregious misconduct had been carried out by his

officers.

72. Consistent with and as a result of SLCPD’s customs, patterns, practices,

and/or procedures, Officer Anderson and Officer West conducted an unreasonable

search and seizure of Mr. Cooperstein’s home.

19
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.20 Page 20 of 67

73. As a direct and proximate result of the SLCPD’s customs, patterns, practices,

and/or procedures, as stated herein above, the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed to him by

the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution were violated.

74. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unreasonable and

unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and

future damages, both compensatory and general, including, but not limited to, loss of

income, loss of personal property, severe emotional distress, mental anguish,

embarrassment, humiliation, disfigurement, and suffering.

75. Pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S.

658 (1978), the City of Salt Lake and the SLCPD, through its policymaker, Defendant

Mike Brown (and possibly other policymakers whose identities are not yet known) is

liable for the harms and losses sustained by Mr. Cooperstein.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution

76. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-76, as if fully set forth herein.

77. Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution states that “the right of the

people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable

searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon

probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”

78. Officer Anderson and Officer West while acting under the color of the law,

violated Mr. Cooperstein’s constitutional rights by entering Mr. Cooperstein’s home

20
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.21 Page 21 of 67

without a warrant and unreasonably seizing Mr. Cooperstein’s property and giving it to

Ms. Williams.

79. Officer Anderson and Officer West’s actions violated the constitutional rights

guaranteed to Mr. Cooperstein by Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution.

80. Officer Anderson and Officer West actions were not taken in good-faith and

were in violation of clearly established law.

81. Officer Anderson and Officer West’s actions were unnecessary,

unreasonable, unlawful, and unjustified.

82. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unreasonable and

unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and

future damages, both compensatory and general, including, but not limited to, loss of

income, loss of property, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment,

humiliation, and suffering.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL

83. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-83, as if fully set forth herein.

84. Officers Anderson and Officer West are police officers with the Salt Lake City

Police Department (SLCPD) The SLCPD is the law enforcement agency in the City of

Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah.

85. The SLCPD has outlined their custom, pattern, practice, and/or procedure for

Standby Assists in their Policy Manual. 2 Policy #430: Civil Disputes provides SLCPD

2
Id.
21
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.22 Page 22 of 67

police officers with “with guidance for addressing conflicts between persons when no

criminal investigation or enforcement action is warranted (e.g., civil matters), with the

goal of minimizing any potential for violence or criminal acts.” Specifically, Policy

#430.4.1 and Policy #430.5 outlines the policy, practice, and procedures for Standby

Assists as well as Standby requests for vehicle and personal property.

86. Officers Anderson and Officer West breached their fiduciary duties as

government employees by engaging in misconduct as a public officer and/or public

employee during the period of their public employment by violating the Plaintiff’s 4th

Amendment rights and/or violating the SLCPD’s Policy Manual which outlines the

SLCPD’s custom, pattern, practice, and/or procedure for Standby Assists when they

unlawfully and unreasonably entered into Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a Court Order

and/or Warrant to assist in the taking of the Plaintiff’s personal property.

87. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unreasonable and

unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and

future damages, both compensatory and general, including, but not limited to, loss of

income, loss of personal property, severe emotional distress, mental anguish,

embarrassment, humiliation, and suffering.

88. The actions of Defendants Officer Anderson and Officer West against the

Plaintiff were conducted with (a) actual malice and/or (b) a conscious, reckless, and

outrageous indifference to the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights and/or in violation of

SLCPD’s Policy Manual thereby justifying an award of punitive damages to the fullest

extent permitted by law.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.23 Page 23 of 67

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

89. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1-83, as if fully set forth herein.

90. By conducting an unreasonable search and seizure of Mr. Cooperstein’s

home, Officer Anderson and Officer West engaged in actions that were atrocious,

intolerable, and so extreme and outrageous as to exceed the bounds of decency.

91. Defendants Officer Anderson and Officer West acted with the intent to inflict

emotional distress or acted recklessly when it was certain or substantially certain that

emotional distress would result from his outrageous conduct.

92. Defendant Officer Anderson and Officer West’s actions caused Mr.

Cooperstein to suffer severe emotional distress as he was being beaten for no reason.

93. The emotional distress Mr. Cooperstein experienced was so severe, no

reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

94. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unreasonable and

unlawful actions, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial past and

future damages, both compensatory and general, including, but not limited to, loss of

income, loss of personal property, severe emotional distress, mental anguish,

embarrassment, humiliation, and suffering.

94. The actions of Defendants Officer Anderson and Officer West against the

Plaintiff were conducted with (a) actual malice and/or (b) a conscious, reckless, and

outrageous indifference to the health, safety, and welfare of others, thereby justifying an

award of punitive damages to the fullest extent permitted by law.

RELIEF

23
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.24 Page 24 of 67

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Ian Cooperstein, demands judgment against the

Defendants for:

a) Compensatory damages for all past and future economic losses and expenses

incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants’ misconduct;

b) General damages for all past and future physical pain, mental suffering, and

emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff;

c) Punitive damages to the fullest extent permitted by law;

d) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

e) Declare that the Defendants’ acts, taken in their official capacities, as alleged

above, violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

f) Declare that the Defendants’ acts, taken in their individual capacities, as

alleged above, violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

g) Declare that the Defendants’ acts, taken in their individual capacities, as

alleged above, violate Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution;

h) Immediately terminate Defendant Officer Anderson and Defendant Officer

West’s employment relationship with the SLCPD, without severance;

i) Enjoin Defendants from engaging in hiring practices that result in the hiring of

police officers without proper vetting or review;

i) Order the Defendants to adopt and implement policies, training, accountability

systems, and practices to remedy the constitutional and statutory violations described

herein;

k) Costs incurred in this action and reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.

§1988; and

24
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.25 Page 25 of 67

l Such other further specific and general relief may become apparent from

discovery as this matter matures for trial.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff through his undersigned attorneys, hereby demands a trial by jury on all

issues so triable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38.

DATED this this 19th day of June 2023.

/s/: Jared Allebest

Jared Allebest,
#13485 (UT), #034640 (AZ), #325086 (CA)
Allebest Law Group
Attorney for Plaintiffs

25
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.26 Page 26 of 67

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 19, 2023, I have made service of the foregoing on the
party/ies listed below via Hand Delivery and/or Electronically via USDC CM/ECF
system.

Salt Lake City Corporation

451 South State Street, Room 505A
P.O. BOX 145478,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5478

Salt Lake City Police Department

475 South 300 East
Salt Lake City Utah

DATED this 19th day of July 2023.

/s/ Jared Allebest
Allebest Law Group PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff

26
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.27 Page 27 of 67

Exhibit #1

27
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.28 Page 28 of 67

28
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.29 Page 29 of 67

Exhibit #2

29
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.30 Page 30 of 67

ALLEBEST LAW GROUP PLLC

212 E. Crossroads Blvd #207 Saratoga Springs, UT 84045 | 949.322.3991 | [email protected]

March 20, 2023

Rebecca Lee
Administrative Assistant
350 N. State Street, Suite 230
Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County
Utah 84114

RE: Notice of Claim

Dear Shelley Exeter,

Our office represents Ian Cooperstein regarding the Salt Lake City Police
Department’s (SLCPD) potential violation of Mr. Cooperstein’s civil rights and
Constitutional rights. My client believes that the actions, or omissions, of officers or agents
representing the above named agencies and acting under color of law, individually and
collectively, represent violations of his civil rights, including real damages. Mr. Cooperstein
belies that officers from the Salt Lake Police Department have violated his 4th Amendment
by conducting a warrantless search of his garage in his home and for violating his rights
under Section 1983 (42 U.S. Code § 1983) by using their position as law enforcement
officers to deprive Mr. Cooperstein of his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure of his home. Furthermore, it appears that the police officers have violated
the SLCPD’s internal policy regarding civil disputes in SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes.

Please accept this letter as notice of our intent to file a complaint in United States
Federal District Court on Mr. Cooperstein’s behalf in 60 days. Accordingly, please direct all
future communication and correspondence regarding our client to our office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In September 2021, Heidi Williams asked Mr. Cooperstein if she could rent the
upstairs portion of his home for her and her children. Mr. Cooperstein subsequently rented
the upper floor of his home to Ms. Williams, her two children, and her dog. Ms. Williams
informed Mr. Cooperstein that she wanted to rent they upstairs floor temporarily for a
period of nine to twelve months in order to attempt to stabilize her mental health, find
gainful steady employment, and save money.

Ms. Williams and her family lived separately in Mr. Cooperstein’s home from
October 1st, 2021, until July 14th, 2022. Ms. Cooperstein’s rental agreement was month-to-
month and included utilities. The rental agreement was amended in March 2022 from

1
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.31 Page 31 of 67

$700/month to $800/month when it became apparent that the utilities costs had gone up
significantly after Ms. William’s family moved upstairs. Ms. Williams knew that Mr.
Cooperstein was temporarily living in his home because he planned to sell his home in
Fall/Winter of this year, 2022, in order to leave the State of Utah entirely.

After Ms. Williams moved into the upstairs of Mr. Cooperstein’s home at the end of
September 2021, her behavior became immediately erratic, hostile, and volatile. Within days
after moving in, she quit her job and then refused to honor our rental agreement and thus
became delinquent on her payments by over two thousand dollars in a very short span. In
fact, Heidi did not make her first rent payment until January 15th, 2022, which was 106 days
late. Mr. Cooperstein tried to evict Ms. Williams in December 2021 or non-payment, she
guilted him into let her staying claiming that he would be making her children homeless
which was the common excuse as she paid late, only partially paid, or didn’t pay at all.

Ms. Williams is a severely mentally ill 36-year-old woman, who has been
institutionalized multiple times over the past few years, including just two weeks after the
event captured on the bodycam footage. Her erratic behavior over the past two years has
required her ex-husband to call the police on her on multiple occasions, in Salt Lake and
Tooele Counties as a result of multiple serious issues, such as attempted kidnapping,
resulting in her being banned from entering her children’s school by the Tooele Police
during the 2020-2021 school year. During the first half of 2022, Heidi expressed on
numerous occasions that she wanted to have her ex-husband killed and would do so if she
had the resources.

In 2022, her behavior became even significantly more hostile; she often talked at
length about wanting to pay to have her ex-husband killed. She threatened suicide regularly
and often demanded that Mr. Cooperstein take off entire days of work in order to ‘console’
her. During that time, she also admitted to having physically and verbally abused her dog;
something that a family member of hers told Mr. Cooperstein that this wasn’t the first dog
that she had done that to. When Mr. Cooperstein began to speak up about rent being paid
late or not at all, Heidi told Mr. Cooperstein that she was having trouble restraining herself
from punching him in the face on multiple occasions. Her children even began to express to
him that they were scared of her. In addition to the thousands of dollars in delinquent and
late rent that she owed, Heidi had also borrowed thousands of dollars from Mr. Cooperstein
for “her children”, that she was refusing to pay back. For the past three years, Heidi has
refused to participate in the intensive mental health treatment recommended by multiple
doctors as being necessary for her condition and so she can hold a job.

Heidi Williams was evicted from Mr. Cooperstein’s home on July 14th, 2022. On
August 15th, 2022, Ms. Williams contacted the police on the false claim that Mr. Cooperstein
was withholding her possessions in Mr. Cooperstein’s garage. In reality, many of the items in
Mr. Cooperstein’s garage belonged to Mr. Cooperstein and only a few items belonged to Ms.
Williams.

2
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.32 Page 32 of 67

Officer Anderson and Officer West met with Ms. Williams in front of Mr.
Cooperstein’s home. During the police officer’s conversation with Ms. Williams, it became
clear that Ms. Williams was repeatedly lying to the police officers. Unfortunately, her lies
were blatantly obvious but the police officers did not challenge her dishonest statements.
They took her lies at face value and did not get Mr. Cooperstein’s version of events of facts.
To make matters worse, the officers refused to speak with Mr. Cooperstein. Based on the
false statements made by Ms. Williams, the SLCPD officers forced their way into Mr.
Cooperstein’s home and into his garage by unlawfully threating him with jail if he did not
allow the police officer’s into his home. As a result, the SLCPD entered into Mr.
Cooperstein’s garage without a warrant, and under the threat of arrest, removed Mr.
Cooperstein’s property. In essence, the SLCPD officers assisted in Mr. Williams’ theft of Mr.
Cooperstein's property.

After much obstruction by the SLCPD, Mr. Cooperstein was able to get the body
cam footage from that encounter which documents several lies that she told the police
officers. In that video, Officer West can be heard raising some issues with how this call
went and questioning the facts that resulted him in showing up to assist Officer Anderson.
The video also shows Ms. Williams’ making statements that suggested she knew that she was
doing something unlawful and/or improper since she states that Mr. Cooperstein was
unaware that she was at his house or that the police was there to assist her. This should have
raised some additional flags for the police officers and should have resulted in the police
offers terminating her efforts to obtain Mr. Cooperstein’s property. You can hear on the
body cam that Officer Anderson admitted to Officer West that Heidi had not given me any
notice that she was coming to collect her things.

Moreover, there were other red flags that the police officers should have made them
aware that Ms. Williams was not being truthful. She makes an allegation of abuse yet is seen
laughing and smiling while discussing her allegations. The contradictions in her words and
behavior should have raised the officer’s suspicions. However, they may have been
bamboozled by her because of the false belief that an attractive person is an honest person.

The video also shows Ms. Williams also making critical and key false statement about
when she had moved out of Mr. Cooperstein’s home. The officers failed to verify her claims
which resulted in the SLCPD officers making the unfounded and unlawful conclusion that
she still had a right to enter the property. Based on that erroneous conclusion, they entered
Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a warrant in violation of Mr. Cooperstein’s 4th amendment
right to be free from warrantless searches of his home and seizures of his property.

The facts indicate that the last night Ms. Williams had resided in Mr. Cooperstein’s
home was July 13th, 2022. She subsequently moved to her mother’s home in Taylorsville.
She then signed a new rental agreement on July 25th and legally changed her address. Mr.
Cooperstein received notice from the United States Postal Service during the first week of
August 2022 indicating that Ms. Willliams had changed her address.

3
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.33 Page 33 of 67

Additionally, Ms. Williams returned Mr. Cooperstein’s keys, but not without
considerable trouble, since she refused to return them to him after she was evicted.
However, Mr. Cooperstein learned that she had stolen a large number of items from his
home on August 8th, and told her that if she did not return the key immediately, then he had
no choice but to reach out to her ex-husband. Only then, did she return the keys.

It is worth pausing here to point out that in the police body cam video, Ms. Williams
mentions that Mr. Cooperstein had relocated the garage door opener after she had moved
out. Essentially, this is an admission that she had illegally entered Mr. Cooperstein’s home.
Ms. Williams could not have known this fact since Mr. Cooperstein had moved the garage
door opener on August 9th, 2022 while he was cleaning out his garage after Ms. Williams had
already collected what was supposed to be the very last bit of her belongings. Despite having
been evicted from Mr. Cooperstein’s home, she chose to leave some of her possessions
behind in the garage for a lengthy period of time. Yet, she claimed that these items were so
critically important to her that she couldn’t wait a few days to retrieve them.

This means that Heidi trespassed on to Mr. Cooperstein’s property at least once
between August 9th and August 15th. As a result, you can hear Ms. William’s subtle
admission that she had accessed Mr. Cooperstein’s property without his permission on the
police video.

On top of that, Mr. Cooperstein had found a new tenant for the upstairs portion of
the home where Ms. Williams had been formally living by August. The new tenant was also
afraid of Ms. Williams based on his interactions with her and the statements Ms. Williams
made to the new tenant.

Finally, one of the police officers made a disturbing comment that can be heard on
the body cam. After the first officer took the report from Ms. Williams and finished flirting
with her, you can see him enter his squad car, sit down, and then said, “Ahhh….I needed
that.” This occurred right before the second police officer arrived.

Based on the evidence above, it is clear that by the time the officers showed up at Mr.
Cooperstein’s house on August 15th, 2022, Ms. Williams had been out of the home for more
than 30 days. During that time, Mr. Cooperstein was in the process of finalizing the eviction
process and making efforts to collect $3200 in delinquent rent, as well as the cleaning and
repair costs to the property.

However, since the SLCPD took her lies at face value, they refused to get Mr.
Cooperstein’s side of the story and became unjustifiably and unreasonably hostile towards
Mr. Cooperstein when they confronted him. Officer West told Mr. Cooperstein that his her
statement about her being a former tenant was “ bullshit” and Officer Anderson threatened
to him to take him to jail immediately. They then forced Mr. Cooperstein to allow Ms.
Williams to steal his property which resulted in the loss of his possessions, including

4
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.34 Page 34 of 67

irreplaceable keepsakes from his childhood and help Ms. Williams with the theft of his
property.

Mr. Cooperstein initially made a complaint to Internal Affairs which was rejected on
false grounds. On September 26, 2022, Mr. Cooperstein had to physically go to the police
department and make a petition to reopen his complaint. He then subsequently met with the
Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department on September 26, 2022 in the
lobby of the Public Safety Building to hear his complaint regarding the incident that
occurred on August 15th, 2022 and was documented as Salt Lake City Police Case Number
2022-157556. During his conversation with Internal Affairs, Sargent Wind offered Mr.
Cooperstein to have the police arrested and Mr. Cooperstein accepted that request.

Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department issued a letter to Mr.
Cooperstein on October 28, 2022 informing him that in IA Case #C-2022-0141, they have
determined that “the officers involved in this case should have remained impartial and
considered all sides of the involved parties.” As a result, “the involved officers have received
additional training specific to SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes.”

THE 4TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory
decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section,
any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to
be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

SLCPD POLICY 430-CIVIL DISPUTES

Section 430.2 states that “the Salt Lake City Police Department recognizes that a law
enforcement presence at a civil dispute can play an important role in the peace and safety of
the community. Subject to available resources, members of this department may assist at the
scene of civil disputes with the primary goal of safeguarding persons and property,

5
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.35 Page 35 of 67

preventing criminal activity and maintaining the peace. When handling civil disputes,
members will remain impartial, give consideration to all sides, and refrain from giving legal
advice.”

Under Section 430.3, it states that “when appropriate, members handling a civil
dispute should encourage the involved parties to seek the assistance of resolution services or
take the matter to the civil courts. Members must not become personally involved in
disputes and shall at all times remain impartial. While not intended to be an exhaustive list,
members should give considerations to the following when handling civil disputes: Civil
disputes tend to be confrontational and members should be alert that they can escalate to
violence very quickly. Members shall not provide legal advice, however, when appropriate,
members should inform the parties when they are at risk of violating criminal laws. Members
are reminded that they shall not enter a residence or other non-public location without legal
authority including valid consent.”

Section 430.4 explains that “disputes involving court orders can be complex. Where
no mandate exists for an officer to make an arrest for a violation of a court order, the matter
should be addressed by documenting any apparent court order violation in a report. If there
is a question regarding the need for enforcement action, the investigating officer should
consult a supervisor prior to making any arrest. If a person appears to be violating the terms
of a court order but is disputing the validity of the order or its applicability, the investigating
officer should document the following: the person’s knowledge of the court order or
whether proof of service exists. Any specific reason or rationale the involved person offers
for not complying with the terms of the order. A copy of the court order should be attached
to the report when available.”

Section 430.4.1 explains that “Officers responding to a call for standby assistance to
retrieve property should meet the person requesting assistance at a neutral location to
discuss the process. The person should be advised that items that are disputed will not be
allowed to be removed. The member may advise the person to seek private legal advice as to
the distribution of disputed property. Members should accompany the person to the location
of the property. If the other party is uncooperative, the person requesting standby assistance
should be instructed to seek private legal advice and obtain a court order to obtain the items.
Officers should not order the other party to allow entry or the removal of any items. If the
other party is not present at the location, officers will advise the person requesting assistance
that they may contact police at another time.”

Under Section 430.5, “Officers may be faced with disputes regarding possession or
ownership of vehicles or other personal property. Officers may review documents provided
by parties or available databases (e.g., vehicle registration), but should be aware that legal
possession of vehicles or personal property can be complex. Generally, officers should not
take any enforcement action unless a crime is apparent. The people and the vehicle or
personal property involved should be identified and the incident documented.”

6
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.36 Page 36 of 67

PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

This letter is notice of an impending action. Please take all necessary measures to
preserve any and all evidence regarding the above-referenced claims.

Please be advised that Mr. Cooperstein believes electronically stored information to

be an important and irreplaceable source of discovery and/or evidence in what transpired on
August 15th, 2022. The lawsuit requires preservation of all information from the
Defendant’s (which includes the State of Utah, the City of Salt Lake City, the Salt Lake
Police Department) and/or third party’s computer systems, removable electronic media, and
other locations. This includes, but is not limited to, email and other electronic
communication, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases, calendars, telephone
logs, contact manager information, Internet usage files, police reports, Internal Affairs
reports, and network access information.

The Defendant should also preserve the following platforms in the possession of the
Defendants or a third party under the control of the Defendants (such as an employee or
outside vendor under contract): databases, networks, computer systems, including legacy
systems (hardware and software), servers, archives, backup or disaster recovery systems,
tapes, discs, drives, cartridges and other storage media, laptops, personal computers, internet
data, personal digital assistants, handheld wireless devices, mobile telephones, paging
devices, and audio systems (including voicemail).

DAMAGES

The acts or omissions of the agents and agencies listed, caused Mr. Cooperstein to
suffer actual financial loss arising from the deprivation of his personal property which
includes irreplaceable keepsakes from his childhood, attempting to recover his personal
property in civil court, spending personal funds to travel to meet with his attorney which she
would not have otherwise had to spend had the SLCPD not violated his civil rights and
internal SLCPD policy.

Mr. Cooperstein has been forced to engage the services of an attorney. Therefore, she
is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Furthermore, he has suffered irreparable harm in the nature of psychological injury,

humiliation, limitation of freedom, and other forms of intangible injuries to his dignity
interests. Each of the discriminatory conditions identified above presents a palpable and
substantial deprivation of a degree of his Constitutional rights. He also suffered from severe
emotional distress (much more than a typical person could be expected to endure) as a direct
result of the acts or omissions the Salt Lake Police Department (or their respective agents or
employees).

7
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.37 Page 37 of 67

Mr. Cooperstein is demanding changed in the policies and practices of the Agencies
involved and believes that he is entitled to compensation for actual losses. Furthermore, if he
does prevail at trial he may be entitled to legal fees as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

Had either Officer actually bothered to get the details from Mr. Cooperstein, the
situation would have turned out differently since he would have gladly worked out a time for
Ms. Williams to come at a time that worked for all parties to recover items that she believes
was hers. However, the officers did not give Mr. Cooperstein the same curtesy in hearing his
side of things in contrast with the considerable amount of time they gave in listening to Ms.
William’s version of her story. Moreover, the SLCPD officers failed to work out a more
convenient time for the Standby Assist where Ms. Williams could pick up items that she
believed were hers in the garage that she left behind for a month after moving out.

It is clear from the true facts of this matter as well as the false statements made on
the body cam video that Ms. Williams was using the police officers to obtain property that
did not belong to her which resulted in the two police officers to become instruments of
theft of Mr. Cooperstein’s property.

As result, the police officers entered Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a civil or
criminal court order authorizing Ms. Williams to enter Mr. Cooperstein’s home to collect
things that she alleges are hers. The SLCPD officers entered his home without a warrant
issued by a federal or state court authorizing the officers to enter onto his property to search
and seize property that Ms. Williams to collect things that she alleges are hers.

The SLCPD officers failed to follow SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes, which is the
internal policy regarding civil disputes which states that where officers are to be neutral in a
Standby Assist call and prohibits them from aiding in carrying property without a court
order. The October 28th, 2022 letter from Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police
Department can be construed as an admission and/or evidence that the SLCPD did violate
Mr. Cooperstein’s civil rights.

Sincerely,

Jared Allebest, #325086 (CA), #034640 (AZ), #13485 (UT)

CC: Ian Cooperstein

8
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.38 Page 38 of 67

Exhibit #3

30
Allebest Family Mail - Notice of Claims - Ian Cooperstein https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.39 Page 39 of 67

Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

Notice of Claims - Ian Cooperstein

2 messages

Fielding Pratt <[email protected]> Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:13 AM

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Combe <[email protected]>

Please see the attached letter in response to your notice of claim.

Best regards,

R. Fielding Pratt
Legal Secretary
Litigation Division
email: [email protected]
tel: 801-366-0100

This electronic transmission may contain confidential and privileged information. This
message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is exempt from disclosure under applicable federal or state
law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. if you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by telephone and destroy the original message received by you.

Cooperstein, Ian NOC - Receipt Letter.pdf

169K

Jared Allebest <[email protected]> Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:08 PM

To: Fielding Pratt <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Combe <[email protected]>
Bcc: Jared Allebest <[email protected]>, [email protected]

1 of 2 3/30/2023, 12:08 PM
Allebest Family Mail - Notice of Claims - Ian Cooperstein https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.40 Page 40 of 67

Mr.

Good morning.

I already did a search on The Utah Division of Corporations and Commercial Code in order to find the address and
contact information of all governmental entities prior to mailing out the notice of claim.

I feel that the State of Utah intentionally makes it difficult for people to find the accurate address and contact
information of who and where to send the notice to claim. When I do a search for where to deliver the Notice of Claim
to the Salt Lake City Police Department, nothing comes up. I also spoke with Government officials prior to sending out
the notice of claim to make sure that I was sending it to the right place and that the address I was given was the
correct one.

I can find the name and address for the agent (Harry Souvall) for the Unified Police Department but not for the Salt
Lake Police Department.

Please provide me with the correct name and address of where to send this notice of claim.

Best,

Jared

JARED M. ALLEBEST, JD, Esq.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

Licensed to practice law in California (#325086), Arizona (#034640), and Utah (#13485).

Mail: 212 E. Crossroads Blvd. #207 Saratoga Springs, Utah 84045

949/322-3991-cell 801/204-9055-videophone e-mail: [email protected]

Your referrals are the cornerstone of our business success. They are both welcomed and most sincerely
appreciated.

We specialize in:

• DISABILITY RIGHTS LITIGATION: Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc. for: disabled individuals who have encountered discrimination or
denial of public access in violation of the ADA.

• DEAF RIGHTS: Education, Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc.. for: deaf or hard of hearing individuals to ensure reasonable accommodations
in employment, medical care, and housing.

• ESTATE PLANNING: Living Trusts, Insurance Trusts, Family Partnerships, Residence Trusts, etc. for: Probate Avoidance, Estate Tax Avoidance, and
Creating an Orderly Plan Of Distribution.

• BUSINESS PLANNING: Partnerships, Corporations, LLCs, Contract Negotiations, Mergers, Acquisitions, Buy-Sell Agreements, etc. for: Entity Creation,
Problem Solving, Business Expansion and Continuation.

This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the

communication and destroy all copies.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

[Quoted text hidden]

2 of 2 3/30/2023, 12:08 PM
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.41 Page 41 of 67

STATE OF UTAH
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SEAN D. REYES
ATTORNEY GENERAL
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Spencer E. Austin Daniel Burton Ric Cantrell Melissa A. Holyoak Brian L. Tarbet
Chief Criminal Deputy General Counsel Chief of Staff Solicitor General Chief Civil Deputy

March 30, 2023

Via Electronic Mail

Jared M. Allebest
Allebest Law Group
212 E. Crossroads Blvd., #207
Saratoga Springs, UT 84045
[email protected]

Re: Notice of Claim

Dear Mr. Allebest:

Your notice of claim submitted on behalf of Ian Cooperstein has been received by the
Utah Attorney General’s Office. Please be aware that this office is not the correct governmental
entity with which your notice should have been filed. For your information, the Utah Division
of Corporations and Commercial Code maintains a searchable database that provides address
and contact information of all governmental entities for the purpose of delivering a notice of
claim. The database is located at http://corporations.utah.gov/gia/.

Sincerely,

STEVEN A. COMBE
Assistant Utah Attorney General
Deputy Director, Litigation Division

160 EAST 300 SOUTH • P.O. BOX 140856, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
PHONE: (801) 366-0100 • FAX: (801) 366-0101
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.42 Page 42 of 67

Exhibit #4

31
Allebest Family Mail - Notice of Claim Regarding the Salt Lake City Po... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.43 Page 43 of 67

Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

Notice of Claim Regarding the Salt Lake City Police Department

1 message

Jared Allebest <[email protected]> Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:32 PM

To: [email protected]
Bcc: [email protected], Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

To Whom It May Concern:

Good afternoon.

Our office represents Ian Lee in the upcoming lawsuit against the Salt Lake Police Department in federal court.

Attached is the notice of claim in PDF format as well as the Notice of Claim Form.

Best,

Jared

JARED M. ALLEBEST, JD, Esq.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

Licensed to practice law in California (#325086), Arizona (#034640), and Utah (#13485).

Mail: 212 E. Crossroads Blvd. #207 Saratoga Springs, Utah 84045

949/322-3991-cell 801/204-9055-videophone e-mail: [email protected]

Your referrals are the cornerstone of our business success. They are both welcomed and most sincerely
appreciated.

We specialize in:

• DISABILITY RIGHTS LITIGATION: Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc. for: disabled individuals who have encountered discrimination or
denial of public access in violation of the ADA.

• DEAF RIGHTS: Education, Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc.. for: deaf or hard of hearing individuals to ensure reasonable accommodations
in employment, medical care, and housing.

• ESTATE PLANNING: Living Trusts, Insurance Trusts, Family Partnerships, Residence Trusts, etc. for: Probate Avoidance, Estate Tax Avoidance, and
Creating an Orderly Plan Of Distribution.

• BUSINESS PLANNING: Partnerships, Corporations, LLCs, Contract Negotiations, Mergers, Acquisitions, Buy-Sell Agreements, etc. for: Entity Creation,
Problem Solving, Business Expansion and Continuation.

This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the

communication and destroy all copies.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

1 of 2 4/10/2023, 12:34 PM
Allebest Family Mail - Notice of Claim Regarding the Salt Lake City Po... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.44 Page 44 of 67

2 attachments
04102023_AC_Notice of Claim_SLC Recorder.pdf
164K
SLC Recorder ClaimForm- COOPERSTEIN V SLCPD vF.pdf
214K

2 of 2 4/10/2023, 12:34 PM
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.45 Page 45 of 67

ALLEBEST LAW GROUP PLLC

212 E. Crossroads Blvd #207 Saratoga Springs, UT 84045 | 949.322.3991 | [email protected]

April 10, 2023

Salt Lake City Recorder

P.O. Box 145515
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5515
(801) 535-7671
[email protected]

RE: Notice of Claim

To Whom It May Concern,

Our office represents Ian Cooperstein regarding the Salt Lake City Police
Department’s (SLCPD) potential violation of Mr. Cooperstein’s civil rights and
Constitutional rights. My client believes that the actions, or omissions, of officers or agents
representing the above named agencies and acting under color of law, individually and
collectively, represent violations of his civil rights, including real damages. Mr. Cooperstein
belies that officers from the Salt Lake Police Department have violated his 4th Amendment
by conducting a warrantless search of his garage in his home and for violating his rights
under Section 1983 (42 U.S. Code § 1983) by using their position as law enforcement
officers to deprive Mr. Cooperstein of his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure of his home. Furthermore, it appears that the police officers have violated
the SLCPD’s internal policy regarding civil disputes in SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes.

Please accept this letter as notice of our intent to file a complaint in United States
Federal District Court on Mr. Cooperstein’s behalf in 60 days. Accordingly, please direct all
future communication and correspondence regarding our client to our office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In September 2021, Heidi Williams asked Mr. Cooperstein if she could rent the
upstairs portion of his home for her and her children. Mr. Cooperstein subsequently rented
the upper floor of his home to Ms. Williams, her two children, and her dog. Ms. Williams
informed Mr. Cooperstein that she wanted to rent they upstairs floor temporarily for a
period of nine to twelve months in order to attempt to stabilize her mental health, find
gainful steady employment, and save money.

Ms. Williams and her family lived separately in Mr. Cooperstein’s home from
October 1st, 2021, until July 14th, 2022. Ms. Cooperstein’s rental agreement was month-to-
month and included utilities. The rental agreement was amended in March 2022 from

1
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.46 Page 46 of 67

$700/month to $800/month when it became apparent that the utilities costs had gone up
significantly after Ms. William’s family moved upstairs. Ms. Williams knew that Mr.
Cooperstein was temporarily living in his home because he planned to sell his home in
Fall/Winter of this year, 2022, in order to leave the State of Utah entirely.

After Ms. Williams moved into the upstairs of Mr. Cooperstein’s home at the end of
September 2021, her behavior became immediately erratic, hostile, and volatile. Within days
after moving in, she quit her job and then refused to honor our rental agreement and thus
became delinquent on her payments by over two thousand dollars in a very short span. In
fact, Heidi did not make her first rent payment until January 15th, 2022, which was 106 days
late. Mr. Cooperstein tried to evict Ms. Williams in December 2021 or non-payment, she
guilted him into let her staying claiming that he would be making her children homeless
which was the common excuse as she paid late, only partially paid, or didn’t pay at all.

Ms. Williams is a severely mentally ill 36-year-old woman, who has been
institutionalized multiple times over the past few years, including just two weeks after the
event captured on the bodycam footage. Her erratic behavior over the past two years has
required her ex-husband to call the police on her on multiple occasions, in Salt Lake and
Tooele Counties as a result of multiple serious issues, such as attempted kidnapping,
resulting in her being banned from entering her children’s school by the Tooele Police
during the 2020-2021 school year. During the first half of 2022, Heidi expressed on
numerous occasions that she wanted to have her ex-husband killed and would do so if she
had the resources.

In 2022, her behavior became even significantly more hostile; she often talked at
length about wanting to pay to have her ex-husband killed. She threatened suicide regularly
and often demanded that Mr. Cooperstein take off entire days of work in order to ‘console’
her. During that time, she also admitted to having physically and verbally abused her dog;
something that a family member of hers told Mr. Cooperstein that this wasn’t the first dog
that she had done that to. When Mr. Cooperstein began to speak up about rent being paid
late or not at all, Heidi told Mr. Cooperstein that she was having trouble restraining herself
from punching him in the face on multiple occasions. Her children even began to express to
him that they were scared of her. In addition to the thousands of dollars in delinquent and
late rent that she owed, Heidi had also borrowed thousands of dollars from Mr. Cooperstein
for “her children”, that she was refusing to pay back. For the past three years, Heidi has
refused to participate in the intensive mental health treatment recommended by multiple
doctors as being necessary for her condition and so she can hold a job.

Heidi Williams was evicted from Mr. Cooperstein’s home on July 14th, 2022. On
August 15th, 2022, Ms. Williams contacted the police on the false claim that Mr. Cooperstein
was withholding her possessions in Mr. Cooperstein’s garage. In reality, many of the items in
Mr. Cooperstein’s garage belonged to Mr. Cooperstein and only a few items belonged to Ms.
Williams.

2
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.47 Page 47 of 67

Officer Anderson and Officer West met with Ms. Williams in front of Mr.
Cooperstein’s home. During the police officer’s conversation with Ms. Williams, it became
clear that Ms. Williams was repeatedly lying to the police officers. Unfortunately, her lies
were blatantly obvious but the police officers did not challenge her dishonest statements.
They took her lies at face value and did not get Mr. Cooperstein’s version of events of facts.
To make matters worse, the officers refused to speak with Mr. Cooperstein. Based on the
false statements made by Ms. Williams, the SLCPD officers forced their way into Mr.
Cooperstein’s home and into his garage by unlawfully threating him with jail if he did not
allow the police officer’s into his home. As a result, the SLCPD entered into Mr.
Cooperstein’s garage without a warrant, and under the threat of arrest, removed Mr.
Cooperstein’s property. In essence, the SLCPD officers assisted in Mr. Williams’ theft of Mr.
Cooperstein's property.

After much obstruction by the SLCPD, Mr. Cooperstein was able to get the body
cam footage from that encounter which documents several lies that she told the police
officers. In that video, Officer West can be heard raising some issues with how this call
went and questioning the facts that resulted him in showing up to assist Officer Anderson.
The video also shows Ms. Williams’ making statements that suggested she knew that she was
doing something unlawful and/or improper since she states that Mr. Cooperstein was
unaware that she was at his house or that the police was there to assist her. This should have
raised some additional flags for the police officers and should have resulted in the police
offers terminating her efforts to obtain Mr. Cooperstein’s property. You can hear on the
body cam that Officer Anderson admitted to Officer West that Heidi had not given me any
notice that she was coming to collect her things.

Moreover, there were other red flags that the police officers should have made them
aware that Ms. Williams was not being truthful. She makes an allegation of abuse yet is seen
laughing and smiling while discussing her allegations. The contradictions in her words and
behavior should have raised the officer’s suspicions. However, they may have been
bamboozled by her because of the false belief that an attractive person is an honest person.

The video also shows Ms. Williams also making critical and key false statement about
when she had moved out of Mr. Cooperstein’s home. The officers failed to verify her claims
which resulted in the SLCPD officers making the unfounded and unlawful conclusion that
she still had a right to enter the property. Based on that erroneous conclusion, they entered
Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a warrant in violation of Mr. Cooperstein’s 4th amendment
right to be free from warrantless searches of his home and seizures of his property.

The facts indicate that the last night Ms. Williams had resided in Mr. Cooperstein’s
home was July 13th, 2022. She subsequently moved to her mother’s home in Taylorsville.
She then signed a new rental agreement on July 25th and legally changed her address. Mr.
Cooperstein received notice from the United States Postal Service during the first week of
August 2022 indicating that Ms. Willliams had changed her address.

3
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.48 Page 48 of 67

Additionally, Ms. Williams returned Mr. Cooperstein’s keys, but not without
considerable trouble, since she refused to return them to him after she was evicted.
However, Mr. Cooperstein learned that she had stolen a large number of items from his
home on August 8th, and told her that if she did not return the key immediately, then he had
no choice but to reach out to her ex-husband. Only then, did she return the keys.

It is worth pausing here to point out that in the police body cam video, Ms. Williams
mentions that Mr. Cooperstein had relocated the garage door opener after she had moved
out. Essentially, this is an admission that she had illegally entered Mr. Cooperstein’s home.
Ms. Williams could not have known this fact since Mr. Cooperstein had moved the garage
door opener on August 9th, 2022 while he was cleaning out his garage after Ms. Williams had
already collected what was supposed to be the very last bit of her belongings. Despite having
been evicted from Mr. Cooperstein’s home, she chose to leave some of her possessions
behind in the garage for a lengthy period of time. Yet, she claimed that these items were so
critically important to her that she couldn’t wait a few days to retrieve them.

This means that Heidi trespassed on to Mr. Cooperstein’s property at least once
between August 9th and August 15th. As a result, you can hear Ms. William’s subtle
admission that she had accessed Mr. Cooperstein’s property without his permission on the
police video.

On top of that, Mr. Cooperstein had found a new tenant for the upstairs portion of
the home where Ms. Williams had been formally living by August. The new tenant was also
afraid of Ms. Williams based on his interactions with her and the statements Ms. Williams
made to the new tenant.

Finally, one of the police officers made a disturbing comment that can be heard on
the body cam. After the first officer took the report from Ms. Williams and finished flirting
with her, you can see him enter his squad car, sit down, and then said, “Ahhh….I needed
that.” This occurred right before the second police officer arrived.

Based on the evidence above, it is clear that by the time the officers showed up at Mr.
Cooperstein’s house on August 15th, 2022, Ms. Williams had been out of the home for more
than 30 days. During that time, Mr. Cooperstein was in the process of finalizing the eviction
process and making efforts to collect $3200 in delinquent rent, as well as the cleaning and
repair costs to the property.

However, since the SLCPD took her lies at face value, they refused to get Mr.
Cooperstein’s side of the story and became unjustifiably and unreasonably hostile towards
Mr. Cooperstein when they confronted him. Officer West told Mr. Cooperstein that his her
statement about her being a former tenant was “ bullshit” and Officer Anderson threatened
to him to take him to jail immediately. They then forced Mr. Cooperstein to allow Ms.
Williams to steal his property which resulted in the loss of his possessions, including

4
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.49 Page 49 of 67

irreplaceable keepsakes from his childhood and help Ms. Williams with the theft of his
property.

Mr. Cooperstein initially made a complaint to Internal Affairs which was rejected on
false grounds. On September 26, 2022, Mr. Cooperstein had to physically go to the police
department and make a petition to reopen his complaint. He then subsequently met with the
Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department on September 26, 2022 in the
lobby of the Public Safety Building to hear his complaint regarding the incident that
occurred on August 15th, 2022 and was documented as Salt Lake City Police Case Number
2022-157556. During his conversation with Internal Affairs, Sargent Wind offered Mr.
Cooperstein to have the police arrested and Mr. Cooperstein accepted that request.

Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police Department issued a letter to Mr.
Cooperstein on October 28, 2022 informing him that in IA Case #C-2022-0141, they have
determined that “the officers involved in this case should have remained impartial and
considered all sides of the involved parties.” As a result, “the involved officers have received
additional training specific to SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes.”

THE 4TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory
decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section,
any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to
be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

SLCPD POLICY 430-CIVIL DISPUTES

Section 430.2 states that “the Salt Lake City Police Department recognizes that a law
enforcement presence at a civil dispute can play an important role in the peace and safety of
the community. Subject to available resources, members of this department may assist at the
scene of civil disputes with the primary goal of safeguarding persons and property,

5
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.50 Page 50 of 67

preventing criminal activity and maintaining the peace. When handling civil disputes,
members will remain impartial, give consideration to all sides, and refrain from giving legal
advice.”

Under Section 430.3, it states that “when appropriate, members handling a civil
dispute should encourage the involved parties to seek the assistance of resolution services or
take the matter to the civil courts. Members must not become personally involved in
disputes and shall at all times remain impartial. While not intended to be an exhaustive list,
members should give considerations to the following when handling civil disputes: Civil
disputes tend to be confrontational and members should be alert that they can escalate to
violence very quickly. Members shall not provide legal advice, however, when appropriate,
members should inform the parties when they are at risk of violating criminal laws. Members
are reminded that they shall not enter a residence or other non-public location without legal
authority including valid consent.”

Section 430.4 explains that “disputes involving court orders can be complex. Where
no mandate exists for an officer to make an arrest for a violation of a court order, the matter
should be addressed by documenting any apparent court order violation in a report. If there
is a question regarding the need for enforcement action, the investigating officer should
consult a supervisor prior to making any arrest. If a person appears to be violating the terms
of a court order but is disputing the validity of the order or its applicability, the investigating
officer should document the following: the person’s knowledge of the court order or
whether proof of service exists. Any specific reason or rationale the involved person offers
for not complying with the terms of the order. A copy of the court order should be attached
to the report when available.”

Section 430.4.1 explains that “Officers responding to a call for standby assistance to
retrieve property should meet the person requesting assistance at a neutral location to
discuss the process. The person should be advised that items that are disputed will not be
allowed to be removed. The member may advise the person to seek private legal advice as to
the distribution of disputed property. Members should accompany the person to the location
of the property. If the other party is uncooperative, the person requesting standby assistance
should be instructed to seek private legal advice and obtain a court order to obtain the items.
Officers should not order the other party to allow entry or the removal of any items. If the
other party is not present at the location, officers will advise the person requesting assistance
that they may contact police at another time.”

Under Section 430.5, “Officers may be faced with disputes regarding possession or
ownership of vehicles or other personal property. Officers may review documents provided
by parties or available databases (e.g., vehicle registration), but should be aware that legal
possession of vehicles or personal property can be complex. Generally, officers should not
take any enforcement action unless a crime is apparent. The people and the vehicle or
personal property involved should be identified and the incident documented.”

6
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.51 Page 51 of 67

PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

This letter is notice of an impending action. Please take all necessary measures to
preserve any and all evidence regarding the above-referenced claims.

Please be advised that Mr. Cooperstein believes electronically stored information to

be an important and irreplaceable source of discovery and/or evidence in what transpired on
August 15th, 2022. The lawsuit requires preservation of all information from the
Defendant’s (which includes the State of Utah, the City of Salt Lake City, the Salt Lake
Police Department) and/or third party’s computer systems, removable electronic media, and
other locations. This includes, but is not limited to, email and other electronic
communication, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases, calendars, telephone
logs, contact manager information, Internet usage files, police reports, Internal Affairs
reports, and network access information.

The Defendant should also preserve the following platforms in the possession of the
Defendants or a third party under the control of the Defendants (such as an employee or
outside vendor under contract): databases, networks, computer systems, including legacy
systems (hardware and software), servers, archives, backup or disaster recovery systems,
tapes, discs, drives, cartridges and other storage media, laptops, personal computers, internet
data, personal digital assistants, handheld wireless devices, mobile telephones, paging
devices, and audio systems (including voicemail).

DAMAGES

The acts or omissions of the agents and agencies listed, caused Mr. Cooperstein to
suffer actual financial loss arising from the deprivation of his personal property which
includes irreplaceable keepsakes from his childhood, attempting to recover his personal
property in civil court, spending personal funds to travel to meet with his attorney which she
would not have otherwise had to spend had the SLCPD not violated his civil rights and
internal SLCPD policy.

Mr. Cooperstein has been forced to engage the services of an attorney. Therefore, she
is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Furthermore, he has suffered irreparable harm in the nature of psychological injury,

humiliation, limitation of freedom, and other forms of intangible injuries to his dignity
interests. Each of the discriminatory conditions identified above presents a palpable and
substantial deprivation of a degree of his Constitutional rights. He also suffered from severe
emotional distress (much more than a typical person could be expected to endure) as a direct
result of the acts or omissions the Salt Lake Police Department (or their respective agents or
employees).

7
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.52 Page 52 of 67

Mr. Cooperstein is demanding changed in the policies and practices of the Agencies
involved and believes that he is entitled to compensation for actual losses. Furthermore, if he
does prevail at trial he may be entitled to legal fees as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

Had either Officer actually bothered to get the details from Mr. Cooperstein, the
situation would have turned out differently since he would have gladly worked out a time for
Ms. Williams to come at a time that worked for all parties to recover items that she believes
was hers. However, the officers did not give Mr. Cooperstein the same curtesy in hearing his
side of things in contrast with the considerable amount of time they gave in listening to Ms.
William’s version of her story. Moreover, the SLCPD officers failed to work out a more
convenient time for the Standby Assist where Ms. Williams could pick up items that she
believed were hers in the garage that she left behind for a month after moving out.

It is clear from the true facts of this matter as well as the false statements made on
the body cam video that Ms. Williams was using the police officers to obtain property that
did not belong to her which resulted in the two police officers to become instruments of
theft of Mr. Cooperstein’s property.

As result, the police officers entered Mr. Cooperstein’s home without a civil or
criminal court order authorizing Ms. Williams to enter Mr. Cooperstein’s home to collect
things that she alleges are hers. The SLCPD officers entered his home without a warrant
issued by a federal or state court authorizing the officers to enter onto his property to search
and seize property that Ms. Williams to collect things that she alleges are hers.

The SLCPD officers failed to follow SLCPD Policy 430-Civil Disputes, which is the
internal policy regarding civil disputes which states that where officers are to be neutral in a
Standby Assist call and prohibits them from aiding in carrying property without a court
order. The October 28th, 2022 letter from Internal Affairs for the Salt Lake City Police
Department can be construed as an admission and/or evidence that the SLCPD did violate
Mr. Cooperstein’s civil rights.

Sincerely,

Jared Allebest, #325086 (CA), #034640 (AZ), #13485 (UT)

CC: Ian Cooperstein

8
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.53 Page 53 of 67

SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

RISK MANAGEMENT

NOTICE OF CLAIM FORM

Please Complete One Notice of Claim for Each Claimant

Claimant’s Last Name: Cooperstein

Claimant’s First Name: Ian

Claimant’s Full Address: 2714 S. McClelland Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Claimant’s Telephone No(s): (215) 300-2024

Claimant’s Email Address: [email protected]

Date of Incident: Monday, August 15th, 2022 Time of Incident: 6:15pm

Address of Incident: 2700-2800 Block of McClelland Street, 84106

Claimant’s Vehicle Information: 2011 Audi A4 Avant

(Year) (Make) (Model)

Police Case Number: IA Case C 2022-0141 Police Department: Salt Lake City

City Department/Employee Involved: SLCPD Patrol: Officers Anderson & West

City Vehicle Involved: Standard White SLCPD SUV Cruisers

(Make) (Model) (License Plate Number)

Brief Statement of Facts:

Officers West & Anderson took a false Police Report from Heidi Williams, a former renter of my property

Officers were there for a standby assist but instead showed extreme bias and broke my 4th amendment rights by forcing their
way into my property to provide the outcome Ms. Williams requested from them
Officers entered the property by threatening malicious prosecution and imprisonment and proceeded to become an accessory
to theft by Ms. Williams

IMPORTANT! This information is provided as a service to the citizens of Salt Lake City and is not intended to substitute for legal
advice. You are responsible for compliance with the current requirements of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. Salt Lake City
Corporation makes no warranty as to the correctness or completeness of this information. This information is not to be construed
as a waiver of any provision of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah § 63G-7, et seq.

Mailing Address: Recorder’s Office, P.O. Box 145515, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5478
Page 1 of 2 Recorder’s Office (801) 535-7671 Risk Management (801) 535-7788
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.54 Page 54 of 67

SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

RISK MANAGEMENT

Nature of Claim Asserted: My 4th amendment civil rights were violated by both Officers West and Anderson

when they threatened me in order to gain access to my property on behalf of Heidi Williams- failed to remain neutral

Officers West and Anderson aided Ms. Williams in stealing over $1000 of my personal property

Officers West and Anderson helped Ms. Williams steal irreplaceable childhood mementos in addition to household items

Damages Incurred So Far as They are Known:

Approximately $1200 of household items stolen by Ms. Williams with the direct help of the police officers

1 box of irreplaceable childhood mementos

Injuries Incurred So Far as They are Known:

Ongoing distrust of SLCPD and pressing desire to sell my home to leave the juristiction ASAP

04/01/2023
Claimant’s Signature Date Signed

IMPORTANT! This information is provided as a service to the citizens of Salt Lake City and is not intended to substitute for legal
advice. You are responsible for compliance with the current requirements of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. Salt Lake City
Corporation makes no warranty as to the correctness or completeness of this information. This information is not to be construed
as a waiver of any provision of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah § 63G-7, et seq.

Revised June 10, 2021

Mailing Address: Recorder’s Office, P.O. Box 145515, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5478
Page 2 of 2 Recorder’s Office (801) 535-7671 Risk Management (801) 535-7788
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.55 Page 55 of 67

Exhibit #5

32
Allebest Family Mail - Acknowledgement LAW2023010219 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.56 Page 56 of 67

Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

Acknowledgement LAW2023010219
3 messages

Mitra, Michelle <[email protected]> Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 5:09 PM

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Please see the attached letter.

Kind regards,

MICHELLE MITRA

Sr. Claims Adjuster

OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

Office: (801) 535-7190

Email: [email protected]

WWW.SLC.GOV

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you received this message in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.

Ack Ltr.pdf
228K

Jared Allebest <[email protected]> Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 1:28 PM

To: [email protected]
Bcc: Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

Ian,

Good afternoon.

I am forwarding you the email I received from the City of Salt Lake Regarding your Notice of Claim.

Best,

Jared

1 of 3 7/19/2023, 2:21 PM
Allebest Family Mail - Acknowledgement LAW2023010219 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.57 Page 57 of 67
JARED M. ALLEBEST, JD, Esq.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

Licensed to practice law in California (#325086), Arizona (#034640), and Utah (#13485).

Mail: 212 E. Crossroads Blvd. #207 Saratoga Springs, Utah 84045

949/322-3991-cell 801/204-9055-videophone e-mail: [email protected]

Your referrals are the cornerstone of our business success. They are both welcomed and most sincerely
appreciated.

We specialize in:

• DISABILITY RIGHTS LITIGATION: Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc. for: disabled individuals who have encountered discrimination or
denial of public access in violation of the ADA.

• DEAF RIGHTS: Education, Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc.. for: deaf or hard of hearing individuals to ensure reasonable accommodations
in employment, medical care, and housing.

• ESTATE PLANNING: Living Trusts, Insurance Trusts, Family Partnerships, Residence Trusts, etc. for: Probate Avoidance, Estate Tax Avoidance, and
Creating an Orderly Plan Of Distribution.

• BUSINESS PLANNING: Partnerships, Corporations, LLCs, Contract Negotiations, Mergers, Acquisitions, Buy-Sell Agreements, etc. for: Entity Creation,
Problem Solving, Business Expansion and Continuation.

This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the

communication and destroy all copies.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

[Quoted text hidden]

Ack Ltr.pdf
228K

Jared Allebest <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 9:02 PM

To: "Mitra, Michelle" <[email protected]>
Bcc: Jared Allebest <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Michelle,

Good evening.

I am following up on this matter to see if the City of Salt Lake, or its agents, has completed its investigation into my
client's claims. Its been more than 60 days since my client filed his complaint. What were the results of the
investigation?

Best,

Jared

JARED M. ALLEBEST, JD, Esq.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

2 of 3 7/19/2023, 2:21 PM
Allebest Family Mail - Acknowledgement LAW2023010219 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.58 Page 58 of 67
Licensed to practice law in California (#325086), Arizona (#034640), and Utah (#13485).

Mail: 212 E. Crossroads Blvd. #207 Saratoga Springs, Utah 84045

949/322-3991-cell 801/204-9055-videophone e-mail: [email protected]

Your referrals are the cornerstone of our business success. They are both welcomed and most sincerely
appreciated.

We specialize in:

• DISABILITY RIGHTS LITIGATION: Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc. for: disabled individuals who have encountered discrimination or
denial of public access in violation of the ADA.

• DEAF RIGHTS: Education, Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc.. for: deaf or hard of hearing individuals to ensure reasonable accommodations
in employment, medical care, and housing.

• ESTATE PLANNING: Living Trusts, Insurance Trusts, Family Partnerships, Residence Trusts, etc. for: Probate Avoidance, Estate Tax Avoidance, and
Creating an Orderly Plan Of Distribution.

• BUSINESS PLANNING: Partnerships, Corporations, LLCs, Contract Negotiations, Mergers, Acquisitions, Buy-Sell Agreements, etc. for: Entity Creation,
Problem Solving, Business Expansion and Continuation.

This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the

communication and destroy all copies.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

[Quoted text hidden]

3 of 3 7/19/2023, 2:21 PM
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.59 Page 59 of 67

Exhibit #6

33
Allebest Family Mail - Claim Outcome LAW2023010219 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.60 Page 60 of 67

Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

Claim Outcome LAW2023010219

1 message

Mitra, Michelle <[email protected]> Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 12:44 PM

To: Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

Please see the attached letter.

Kind regards,

MICHELLE MITRA

Sr. Claims Adjuster

OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

Office: (801) 535-7190

Email: [email protected]

WWW.SLC.GOV

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you received this message in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.

From: Jared Allebest <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 9:02 PM
To: Mitra, Michelle <[email protected]>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re: Acknowledgement LAW2023010219

Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments.

Michelle,

Good evening.

1 of 3 6/6/2023, 6:06 PM
Allebest Family Mail - Claim Outcome LAW2023010219 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.61 Page 61 of 67

I am following up on this matter to see if the City of Salt Lake, or its agents, has completed its investigation into my
client's claims. Its been more than 60 days since my client filed his complaint. What were the results of the
investigation?

Best,

Jared

JARED M. ALLEBEST, JD, Esq.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

Licensed to practice law in California (#325086), Arizona (#034640), and Utah (#13485).

Mail: 212 E. Crossroads Blvd. #207 Saratoga Springs, Utah 84045

949/322-3991-cell 801/204-9055-videophone e-mail: [email protected]

Your referrals are the cornerstone of our business success. They are both welcomed and most sincerely
appreciated.

We specialize in:

• DISABILITY RIGHTS LITIGATION: Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc. for: disabled individuals who have encountered discrimination or
denial of public access in violation of the ADA.

• DEAF RIGHTS: Education, Negotiations, Arbitration, Mediation, Litigation, etc.. for: deaf or hard of hearing individuals to ensure reasonable accommodations
in employment, medical care, and housing.

• ESTATE PLANNING: Living Trusts, Insurance Trusts, Family Partnerships, Residence Trusts, etc. for: Probate Avoidance, Estate Tax Avoidance, and
Creating an Orderly Plan Of Distribution.

• BUSINESS PLANNING: Partnerships, Corporations, LLCs, Contract Negotiations, Mergers, Acquisitions, Buy-Sell Agreements, etc. for: Entity Creation,
Problem Solving, Business Expansion and Continuation.

This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the
communication and destroy all copies.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Allebest Law Group PLLC

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 5:09 PM Mitra, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Please see the attached letter.

Kind regards,

2 of 3 6/6/2023, 6:06 PM
Allebest Family Mail - Claim Outcome LAW2023010219 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=1fc406239a&view=pt&search=al...
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.62 Page 62 of 67

MICHELLE MITRA

Sr. Claims Adjuster

OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

Office: (801) 535-7190

Email: [email protected]

WWW.SLC.GOV

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you received this message in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.

Denial.pdf
224K

3 of 3 6/6/2023, 6:06 PM
 Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.63 Page 63 of 67

ERIN MENDENHALL KATHERINE LEWIS

Mayor Office of the City Attorney

June 6, 2023

Allebest Law Group

212 E Crossroads Blvd #207
Saratoga Springs, UT 84045

Re: Claimant: Ian Cooperstein

Date of Loss: 08/15/2022
Event Location: 2714 S McClelland St
Our File: LAW2023010219

Dear Jared Allebest:

We appreciate your continued patience during our investigation of your claim. Based on our
investigation, we have determined there is no legal liability against Salt Lake City Corporation.

Given the facts as presented, we respectfully deny your claim.

Sincerely,

Michelle Mitra
Sr. Claims Adjuster
This letter is not to be construed as a waiver of any provision of the
Governmental Immunity Act of Utah; Utah Code § 63G-7.

451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505A WWW.SLCGOV.COM

P.O. BOX 145478, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5478 TEL 801-535-7788 FAX 801-535-7640
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.64 Page 64 of 67

Exhibit #7

34
2/20/23, 7:07 PMCase 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document
Gmail1 Filed
- CAO 07/19/23
GRAMA PageID.65 Page 65 of 67
APPEAL P115881-081522

Ian Cooperstein <[email protected]>

CAO GRAMA APPEAL P115881-081522

Ian Cooperstein <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 2:39 PM

To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Bcc: Paul Amann <[email protected]>, Allan Cooperstein <[email protected]>, Judith Zimmerman <[email protected]>

Chief Brown,
I would like to appeal a GRAMA request, P115881-081522, for which is delinquent. The request was submitted on Monday August 15th, 2022 and a
response was due within 10 business days. It has now been 27 working days, and I still have not received the records requested.

The records I seek are bodycam footage from two police officers who came to my home on August 15th, 2020, for a "standby assist". I have been told by
Sergeant Wynn(?) from IA, on a recorded phone call, that he already retrieved and reviewed the body camera footage. 

The Sergeant from IA was able to confirm to me that the bodycamera footage shows two officers threaten me in order to access my property without a
warrant. The Sergeant from IA also confirmed that the bodycamera footage shows the two officers assisting the complainant (a former tenant) in stealing
property from me, by carrying multiple items for the caller that belonged to me. However, the IA Sergeant somehow missed the portion of the video where
both officers curse at and insult me prior to threatening me with bogus charges- the reason why I let them onto my property without a warrant or judge's
order in the first place. 

I would appreciate the SLCPD turning over the bodycamera footage in a timely fashion, which has already been retrieved, so I can address the issue of
having my property, including irreplaceable childhood mementos, stolen by two SLPC Officers who crossed the boundaries of the "standby assist" call. I
don't understand what the delay is in releasing this footage since the IA already has had it in their possession since approximately August 25th. 

I have attached my phonecall with the IA that confirms multiple ethical violations by the two officers, which I hope is not the reason for the hold-up in
getting these records. 

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Ian Cooperstein
 Sergeant Wind IA (8-29-22).mp3

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=ce81de9843&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar8234273428346786203&simpl=msg-a%3Ar8234273428346786203 1/1
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.66 Page 66 of 67

Exhibit #8

35
2/20/23, 7:03 PMCase 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document
Gmail -1Service
Filed 07/19/23
Request PageID.67 Page 67 of 67
Updated :: P115881-081522

Ian Cooperstein <[email protected]>

Service Request Updated :: P115881-081522

Salt Lake City Corporation <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:43 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

--- Please respond above this line ---

Mr. Cooperstein - 
  SLCPD received your email and has coordinated with Internal Affairs regarding the release of the body cam video for SLCPD Case No. 22-157556.  You
will be receiving a separate email from AXON Evidence.Com containing the body cam video from Officer Anderson.  This is the only video on this matter
and was the video viewed by Sgt. Wind. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me or you may contact Sgt. Wind. 
 
You are being granted a fee waiver for the body cam video at this time.  Please be advised that any future request for the same record will be assessed
the normal fee if $27.00. 
 
Sincerely,
Candee Allred
GRAMA Coordinator
SLCPD

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=ce81de9843&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1744598290366640999&simpl=msg-f%3A1744598290366640999 1/1
Case 2:23-cv-00468-DBP Document 1-1 Filed 07/19/23 PageID.68 Page 1 of 1