) SS:
COUNTY OF MARION )                      CAUSE NO.     49D05-1007-CT-032451


MELISSA HARRIS, individually and as   
natural parent and natural guardian of      
and on behalf of JANE DOE, a minor   
                                                               
                                                Plaintiffs,
                                                              
                                                    v.       
                                                              
Deputy JOEY SMITH; Chief MICHAEL
T. SPEARS, individually and in his          
representative and official capacities as   
the Chief of the Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department; and INDIANAPOLIS
METROPOLITAN POLICE                   
DEPARTMENT,                                      
                                                                 
                                            Defendants.  



    Plaintiffs, Melissa Harris, individually and as natural parent and natural

guardian of and on behalf of Jane Doe, a minor, for their Complaint against

Defendants Deputy Joey Smith, Chief of Police Michael T. Spears, individually

and in his representative and official capacities as the Chief of the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police

Department, state as follows:


    1.    This is an action at law and in equity for damages, declaratory relief, and

injunctive relief by Plaintiffs against Defendants to redress injuries to Plaintiffs’

persons, income, property and lives caused by the intentional misconduct of

Defendants which deprived Plaintiffs of rights, privileges, and immunities

secured by the Constitution of the United States, the State of Indiana, and state

and federal law, when Defendants subjected Plaintiff Jane Doe to an

unreasonable search and seizure of Jane Doe’s person, invaded her privacy and

deprived her of liberty without cause.

    2.    This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988, and

Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the

United States Constitution. The constitutional violations alleged herein were

committed as a result of the customs, policies, and practices of the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department.

3.    Venue is proper in this Court because the events giving rise to this action

occurred in, and the defendants are residents of, Marion County, Indiana.  This

case is timely filed.

    4.    Plaintiffs Melissa Harris and Jane Doe were, at all times relevant hereto,

residents of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana.

    5.    Defendant Joey Smith was, at all relevant times, a Special Deputy at the

Marion County Jail employed by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police

Department.  At all relevant times Deputy Smith (hereinafter “Smith”) acted

pursuant to the official policies, practices, customs and usages of the

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, and his acts and edicts may fairly

be said to represent those policies, practices, customs and usages.

    6.    Defendant former Chief of Police Michael T. Spears (hereinafter “Chief

Spears”) was, at all relevant times, employed by the Indianapolis Metropolitan

Police Department as Chief.  In that capacity, Chief Spears implemented and

executed official governmental policy that caused injury to Plaintiffs.  Chief

Spears acted under color of and pursuant to authority vested in him by

Defendant Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.  His acts and/or edicts

may fairly be said to represent the official policy of Marion County and of the

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.  At all times material hereto,

former Chief Spears acted under and pursuant to the laws, ordinances, policies,

practices, customs, regulations, and usages of Marion County and of the

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. 

    7.    Defendant, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter

“IMPD”) provides police services to Marion County, Indiana.  It is the public

police department for Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, and was, at all

relevant times, the public employer of Defendant Smith. 

    8.    Plaintiff Melissa Harris is the natural parent and guardian of Jane Doe.

    9.    Plaintiff Jane Doe is now and was at the time of the incident that gave

rise to this action, a minor under eighteen (18) years of age.

    10.    On or about August 7, 2008, Jane Doe and a friend were walking in or

near the Burton Crossing subdivision in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. 

Neither Jane Doe nor her friend were violating any laws.

    11.    Jane Doe and her friend were approached by Defendant Smith, who was

dressed in police uniform and was driving a vehicle owned by the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department. 

    12.    Defendant Smith approached Jane Doe and her friend and advised the

girls, falsely, that he was looking for girls who had been reported “flashing” in

the area.

    13.    Under this pretext, Defendant Smith proceeded to demand that Plaintiff

and her friend remove their clothing so that he could look for a scar.

    14.    Upon information and belief, IMPD officials and others at IMPD had

known for up to three (3) years that Officer Smith had engaged in similar

conduct in the past and knew or should have expected he would do so again.

    15.    IMPD officials intentionally, negligently, and with reckless disregard for

the rights of others and the consequences of their actions, failed to take proper

action to avoid this incident and, in fact, affirmatively continued policies,

practices, customs and usage, which caused the resulting emotional distress,

loss, and damage to Jane Doe and her mother, Melissa Harris.

    16.    As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Jane Doe

suffered the following injuries and damages: 

        a.    Violation of her constitutional rights under the fourth and fourteenth

amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable

search and seizure of her person;

        b.    Loss of privacy by arbitrary intrusion by police amounting to a

deprivation of liberty without due process of the law under the Fourteenth

amendment to the United States Constitution; and

        c.    Violation of her basic right of privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth

amendments to the United States Constitution. 

    17.    The actions of Defendants violated the following clearly established and

well-settled federal constitutional rights of Plaintiff:

        a.    the right to freedom from the unreasonable search and seizure of her

person;

        b.    the right to freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of

law; and

        c.    the basic right of privacy under the due process clause of the

Fourteenth amendment.

    18.    As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions and the

deprivation of Jane Doe’s rights, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including

but not limited to, severe and ongoing emotional distress and other damages.

    19.    At all relevant times, Defendants Joey Smith and former Chief Spears

were acting under color of state law and under color of authority as a police

officer and Chief, respectively, as employees and agents or servants of the

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department of the City of Indianapolis, Marion

County, Indiana, and as agents of the State of Indiana acting within the scope

and course of their employment.

    20.    Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

19 above.

    21.    Plaintiffs claim damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for the injuries set forth

above against Defendants Smith for violation of Jane Doe’s constitutional rights

under color of state law.  Defendants’ actions described herein violated Plaintiff

Jane Doe’s right, secured by the fourth amendment to the United States

Constitution, to be secure in her person against unreasonable seizures.  The

violation of Jane Doe’s rights also directly damaged Plaintiff Harris, causing her

great emotional distress and other damages.

    22.    Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

21 above.

    23.    Prior to August 7, 2008, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police

Department developed and maintained practices, policies and/or customs

exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the

City of Indianapolis, which caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.

    24.    It was the policy and/or custom of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police

Department to fail to exercise reasonable care in hiring, supervision, and

retention its police officers, including Defendant Smith, thereby failing to

adequately prevent constitutional violations on the part of its police officers.

    25.    It was the policy and/or custom of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police

Department to inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including

Defendant Smith, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional

violations on the part of its police officers.

    26.    As a result of the above-described practices, policies and customs,

police officers of the City of Indianapolis, including Defendant Smith, believed

that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and

that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.

    27.    The above-described policies and customs demonstrate a deliberate

indifference on the part of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to

the constitutional rights of persons within the City of Indianapolis, and were the

cause of violations of Jane Doe’s rights alleged herein.  Accordingly,

Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ rights, secured by the fourteenth

amendment to the United States Constitution, not to be deprived of life, liberty,

or property without due process of law, as well as the right to be free from

unreasonable searches and seizures. 

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to:

    a.    enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants;

    b.    enter an order declaring Defendants’ misconduct unconstitutional;

    c.    award Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants;

    d.    award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1988 and any other applicable provision of law;

    e.    enter a permanent injunction, upon proper motion, requiring Defendant

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to adopt appropriate policies

related to the hiring and supervision of its police officers; and

    f.    grant to Plaintiffs such other and further relief as may be just and proper

under the circumstances, including but not limited to, appropriate injunctive

relief.

                                                                 Respectfully submitted,


                                                                 By:____________________________
                                                                         Michael L. Schultz (20361-49)
                                                                         Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen
                                                                           & Patterson LLP
                                                                         225 W. Main Street
                                                                         P. O. Box 668
                                                                         Lebanon, IN  46052
                                                                         Telephone:    (765) 482-0110
                                                                         Facsimile:      (765) 482-6585
                                                                         E-mail:    mschultz@parrlaw.com







    Plaintiffs, by counsel, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Indiana Trial Rules, hereby

demand trial by jury of the allegations of this Complaint.


                                                      ___________________________________
                                                                         Michael L. Schultz