0% found this document useful (0 votes)
905 views14 pagesFIRM Lawsuit Against LMPD
Lawsuit against LMPD for new protest rules
Uploaded by
Debbie HarbsmeierCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
905 views14 pagesFIRM Lawsuit Against LMPD
Lawsuit against LMPD for new protest rules
Uploaded by
Debbie HarbsmeierCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 14
NO. JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION,
F.LRM. INITIATIVE INCORPORATED PLAINTIFF
v. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
‘TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT
LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
633 W, Jefferson St.
Louisville, KY 40202
SERVE: ROBERT SCHROEDER
POLICE CHIEF
633 W. Jefferson St.
Louisville, KY 40202
AND
LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT
SERVE: GREG FISCHER, MAYOR
527 W. Jefferson Street, 4th Floor
Louisville, Kentucky 40202 DEFENDANTS
wee
IRM, Initiative, Incorporated (“FRM”), by Verification and
by counsel, and for its Complaint against Defendants, the Louisville Metropolitan Police
Department (“LMPD”) and Louisville Metro Government (“Louisville Metro”), and brings this
Lawsuit seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief regarding and relating to a directive
issued by the Defendants and advises the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION
‘The right to peacefully protest via assembly and speech found in the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution is the most fundamental and quintessential of rights guaranteed to
‘Americans and is the bedrock of our democracy. Without free speech and the right to assemble,
ie, to protest, our democracy cannot survive. This lawsuit has been brought by FIRM in an
effort to stop the Defendants from suppressing these sacrosanct rights, which attempt by
Defendants is a direct violation of Kentucky Statutory Law as well as numerous Sections of the
Kentucky Constitution,
I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE,
1. Plaintiff, FIRM, is a Kentucky not-for-profit corporation in good standing formed
for the purpose of facing, addressing and changing systemic racism and oppression, and in
particular, the systemic racism inherent in law enforcement and the culture of violence,
aggression and brutality which exists in law enforcement directed in particular against Aftican
Americans.
2. Louisville Metro is the governmental entity which encompasses Jefferson County
Kentucky and was formed by the General Assembly pursuant to KRS Chapter 67C and is the
result of the consolidation of the old City of Louisville and Jefferson County. LMPD is the law
enforcement agency of Louisville Metro and is charged with enforcing the laws of the
‘Commonwealth of Kentucky as well as Ordinances enacted by Louisville Metro,
3. This Complaint for Declaration of Rights and Temporary and Permanent
Injunctive Relief, is governed by the Kentucky Declaratory Judgment Act, KRS 418,010, et
seq.; Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 57, and CR 65; various sections of the
Kentucky Constitution, including Sections 1, 2, 4, 8 and 15; and, the common law of Kentucky. FIRM initiates this Complaint pursuant to, among other authority, KRS 418.040
which provides this Court with authority when a controversy exists to “make a binding
declaration of rights, whether or not consequential relief is or could be” requested. An actual
and justiciable controversy concerning the actions and threatened actions of Defendants as
foward FIRM and others similarly situated, which actions would constitute violations of
Kentucky constitutional and statutory law, clearly exists in this action, As per CR 65, this Court
also has authority to issue @ temporary and permanent injunction that restricts or mandatorily
directs the performance of certain acts; and, declare a certain order and/or decree issued by
LMPD and Louisville Metro in violation of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky statutory
law.
4, This Court has subject matter over the controversy, personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants, and venue is proper as the records in question are located in Jefferson County.
m1. FACTS
5. Commencing on or about May 27, 2020, protests began across the United States
against systemic racism in Iaw enforcement and other institutions. These protests were brought
about by the continued and numerous unjustified killings of Aftican Americans by police, two of
the victims having been George Floyd on May 25, 2020 in Minneapolis, MN; and Breonna
Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky by several officers employed by LMPD executing a “no-knock”
‘warrant which appears to have been based on affidavit that was not true, (hereafter, the
“Movement”) There now exists some evidence the murder of Ms. Taylor was part of a
genttification project in West Louisville, part and parce! of which wes a scheme of unlawful
aggressive and violent police actions against Aftican American residents in certain
neighbothoods designed to force them out. 6. In part because of the murder of Breonna Taylor, widespread protests began in
Louisville on ot about the date indicated in paragraph 5 above, and have continued each and
every day and night since in support of the Movement, ‘The protests in Louisville have been
widespread but center around the small park bordered by Sixth Street to the west, the former
PNC tower to the east, Liberty Street to the south and Jefferson Street to the north, known as
“Jefferson Square” (the “Square”) On a daily and nighty basis, protestors of all races and from
all walks of life congregate in and around the park and commence and conclude marches to and
from various ateas of the City from the Square.
7. FIRMis one of numerous organizations leading the Movement in Louisville and
it and its leadership often organizes and leads marches that originate and terminate at the Square.
8, The marches typically involve individual protesters on foot who are accompanied
by individuals in vehicles, The purpose of the vehicles is to protect the protesters from other
vehicular traffic and reduce the risk that one or more individuals who do not support the
Movement who might be inclined to cause hatm to those marching. (ce., driving into protestors
on foot and injuring or Killing, something that has happened around the Country on numerous
occasions duting protests, e.g., Charlottesville, VA almost three years ago to the day, August 12,
2017).
9, LMPD cannot be relied upon to protect FIRM or individual protestors during
marches of otherwise as it has demonstrated time end time again it has no interest in protecting,
protestors. Just by way of example, on June 28, 2020, LMPD apprehended two (2) snipers off
the roof of a downtown hotel parking garage who identified as “sovereign citizens” and as
members of an unidentified militia group. LMPD failed to advise FIRM or any other protest
organizations or protestors of said event and only tumed over such information after being sued by FIRM to compel same pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 ef seq.
Saturday, June 27, 2020, and “take back” downtown from the protestors. ‘To make matters
worse, not only did LMPD fail to arrest and charge the snipers in question, the snipers were
actually transported by LMPD to meet their fellow militia members who had dropped them at
the parking garage in question.
10, In addition, LMPD has fostered a culture of violence, aggression and brutality
directed at peaceful protestors, Much of the violence and civil disturbances during the time
petiod above deseribed has come at the hands of over aggressive and over-militarized police
tactics used by LMPD against peaceful protestors. Indeed, on numerous occasions, LMPD has
instigated what can only be described as “Police Riots”.
11. A Police Riot is a riot carried out by the police; a riot that the police are
responsible for instigating, escalating or sustaining as a violent confrontation; an event
characterized by widespread police brutality; a mass police action that is violently undertaken
against civilians for the purpose of political repression.
12, The term "Police Riot" was popularized after its use in the Walker Report, which
investigated the events surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago to
describe the "unrestrained and indiscriminate" violence that the police "inflicted upon persons
who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat."
13. To say that LMPD since the protests began in Louisville in late May of 2020 has
taken a page from the Chicago Police from the summer of 1968 would be an understatement,
Fortunately for FIRM, other protestors, the Louisville community as a whole, and most
importantly, the search for the truth, cell phone cameras, live-streamers and other recording
technology now exists that did not in 1968, At some point, a report similar to the Walker Report
will be issued regarding that which happened in the Movement in Louisville, Kentucky in 2020 which to say the least, will not be a flattering portrayal of LMPD, its leadership and the Mayor
of Louisville Metto,
14, Aside fiom the fact that during the protests LMPD has come to resemble a
military force occupying a foreign country exacting violence and aggression against the citizens
of that county, most of the information released by LMPD since the protests began in Louisville
in late May 2020 has been if not outright false, misleading, incomplete and inaccurate, or
otherwise untrue, There have been numerous instances of LMPD furnishing information to local
media regarding events which have occurred at and around the Square, or during marches or
caravans, that were deliberate fabrications or as noted, completely inaccurate and misleading, the
most recent of which gave rise to the event which is the subject of this Lawsuit,
15, On Sunday, August 9, 2020, LMPD/Louisville Metro issued “Rules of
Engagement” regarding continued protests in Louisville, (the “ROE") The ROE was publicized
by LMPD on social media, including on its Facebook Page as well as release publicly and to the
‘mainstream media. A copy of the ROE is appended hereto as Exhibit 1. The ROE included the
following prohibitions:
—All pedestrians must stay out of the streets— staying on sidewalks and following all laws
‘for pedestrian traffic.
— Cars and pedestrians will not be allowed to block intersections for any length of time.
Participants who refuse to comply with any law or lawful order will be eligible for citation
andlor arrest.
See, Exhibit 1, emphasis added,
16, The reasons and justifications fumished to the public by LMPD as to the
necessity of the ROE are, in keeping with LMPD’s complete and total Jack of credibility and
transparency, and were false, misleading, inaccurate, untrue and incomplete, ‘That notwithstanding, on Monday, August 10, 2020, the Mayor of Louisville Metro announced his
full support of the ROE,
17. The ROE is in direct violation of Kentucky law as enacted by the General
Assembly, to-wit, vie enactment of KRS 525.140, which provides as follows:
525.140, Obstructing a highway or other public passage.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a highway or other public passage when having no
legal privilege to do so he, alone or with other persons, intentionally or wantonly renders
any highway or public passage impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard,
(2) No person shall be convicted under this section solely because of a gathering of persons
to hear him speak or otherwise communicate or solely because of being a member of such
a gathering.
(3) An order to disperse issued by a peace officer or other public servant engaged in
executing or enforcing the law and addressed to a person whose speech or other lawful
behavior attracts an obstructing audience shall not be deemed lawful if the obstruction can
be readily remedied by police control of the size or location of the gathering,
(4) Obstructing a highway or other public passage is a Class B misdemeanor,
See, Exhibit 2, copy of KRS 525.140.
18, Thus, KRS 525.140 expressly allows protest and expression of the Rights
guaranteed under the Kentucky Constitution the right of assembly (Section 1) and the rights of
five speech (Sections 1 and 8; the right of free speech is so important in Kentucky it is covered
by two Sections of the Constitution) be carried out on the highways and other public passages
(ée., the “Street”) so long as the highway or public passage is not rendered impassable. Indeed,
said statute also implicitly protects these critical Constitutional Rights by proclaiming that an
order preventing same by LMPD is unlawful so long as the highway or public passage in
question is not rendered impassable.
19, The aforementioned notwithstanding, LMPD and Louisville Metro have
attempted to suppress the rights afforded FIRM and all other Kentucky citizens under KRS 525.140 by completely banning protests in the Street and have threatened to arrest and criminally
prosecute those who participate in order to carry out and effectuate said attempt. Said attempt is
a direct violation of KRS 525.140 and the ROE itself as well as any future order issued to FIRM
or other protestors to disperse is and/or would be unlawful as per KRS 525.1403) and would
violate the aforementioned provisions of the Kentucky Constitution as well as Sections 2
(arbitrary power denied) and 15 (laws may only be suspended by the General Assembly).
20. In addition, the actions of LMPD and Louisville Metro in banning an/or
attempting to ban protesting in the Street not only violate KRS 525.540, but constitute a crime
on the part of LMPD and/or Louisville Metro and any employee of either Defendant who
attempts to enforce the ROE as per KRS 522,020, which provides as follows:
KRS 522,020, Official misconduct in the first degree,
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when,
with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another
person of a benefit, he knowingly:
@ Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an
unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or
(b) _ Refains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly
inherent in the nature of his office; or
(©) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule ot regulation relating to
his office
@) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor,
See, Exhibit 3, copy of KRS 522,020.
21, ‘The action of LMPD and Louisville Metro as above described constitute
violations of KRS 522.020(1)(a) and (c) and is a Class A Misdemeanor Iv, RELIEF SOUGHT
COUNT ONE- DECLARATORY RELIEF- KRS 418,040
22, FIRM incorporates and zeiterates herein all prior paragraphs.
23, Based on the aforementioned facts, FIRM is among the class of persons set forth
in KRS 418.045 entitled to bring this action, seeking declaratory relief, and an actual controversy
exists between the parties entitling it to declaratory relief under KRS 418.040.
24. A justiciable controversy between the parties exists regarding the interpretation
and enforcement of the ROE in relations to KRS 525.140 exists, entitling FIRM to relief as
follows from the Court:
a, Fora declaration that the ROE is unenforceable and violates KRS 525.140 as well
as the Kentucky Constitution since it prohibits conduct clearly permitted under said statute as
‘well as Sections 1, 2, 4, 8 and 15 of the Kentucky Constitution,
b. For a declaration that any attempt by Defendants to enforce the ROE would
constitute a crime as per KRS 522,020 as well as @ violation by Defondants of Sections 1, 2, 4, 8
and 15 of the Kentucky Constitution,
©. That no enforcement action of any kind-- including civil, criminal or
administrative may be initiated or pursued by Defendants against FIRM or any other person or
entity based on the ROB,
25. FIRM is also entitled to recovery of its costs herein expended, including but not
limited to attomey fees as per KRS 418,070.
COUNT TWO- TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
26, FIRM incorporates and reiterates herein all prior paragraphs.
27, Based on the aforementioned conduct, action and threats on the part of the
Defendants, FIRM is entitled to injunctive relief, both temporary and permanent, directing as
follows: a, That Defendants shall not take any enforcement action of any kind or nature,
civil, criminal and/or administrative against FIRM or its principals or any other person or entity,
based on a claim FIRM ef al,, has violated the ROE,
b. That Defendants shall not deem FIRM or any other party to be in violation of the
ROE by virtue of marching in the Streets or driving vehicles in the Streets to accompany
protestors on foot for the purpose of protecting said protestors as above described, so long as
said protests comply with KRS 525.140(1),
c. That any order issued by the Defendants or any agent of the Defendants is
unlawful as per KRS 525.1403) so long as FIRM ef al. is/are in compliance with KRS
525.140(1).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, F.LR.M. Initiative Incorporated demands es follows:
‘A. Entry of an Order granting it the temporary and permanent injunctive relief as
above set forth;
B. Entity of an Order granting the declaratory relief above set forth, which relief may
be granted by the Court via expedited motion practice;
C. For recovery ofits costs, including attorney fees;
D. For any and all other relief to which it may be entitled,
Respectfully submitted,
Js/ David B, Mour
DAVID B, MOUR, Esq.
513 S. Second St.
Louisville, K¥ 40202
(502) 693.1968
Counsel for Plaintiff F.LR.M. Initiative Incorporated
10 VERIFICATION
I verify the statements contained in this Complaint/Petition are true and accurate to the
best of my knowledge and belief. eror020 (12) Loulevile Metro Police Daparment - Home
Tea WF _- - ®
Loulsville Metro: reiow | [ ia!
|
coe ww | Py ra
Department LMPD contous to balance ho Fst Amendment gl to pots wih tho | voor ones
euro erecarnccramtrocmamntc, if
‘tatoovee leh iatno set ones cst or cunt Lend ose
Tuctonge, Onc pinay ways ofan athasbeontelsnigiy
