Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PORTLAND DIVISION
Plaintiff,
vs. COMPLAINT
(Civil Rights / State Law / Damages)
JOHN DOES 1-6, as individuals, and CITY
OF PORTLAND,
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The City of Portland has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Portland
Police Association (PPA) for provision of police services. The terms of the new contract
negotiated before the end of Mayor Charlie Hales term of office, when released to the public,
were controversial, drawing strenuous community objections, and sparked public opposition at a
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 1 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 2 of 11
level rarely seen at City Hall: rallies, demonstrations, a camp-out and even two lockouts from
City Council proceedings. On or about October 12, 2016, the Portland City Council met to
consider and approve the CBA. The morning of the Council hearing to vote on the CBA,
objectors filled the Council chambers. Mayor Hales recessed the Council meeting and
reconvened the meeting that afternoon in a smaller conference room on the floor above at City
Hall, where the Council met behind closed doors to approve the CBA. Police officers blocked
members of the public from access to the reconvened Council meeting. About an hour after the
vote, the mayor ordered police officers to remove the public from City Hall. Members of the
public, including activists and journalists, were warned that anyone who remained would be
arrested, and were then forcibly pushed to the exit doors by a line of police officers. Plaintiff
Allyson Drozd (Drozd) had been inside City Hall, but left the building when instructed to do
so. While standing outside of City Hall, observing and filming the goings-on inside through a
window, and safely out of the flow of foot traffic, Drozd was sprayed in the face with pepper
spray by a Portland Police Officer. While attempting to leave the scene, Drozd was sprayed
again from behind with a blast of pepper spray by a Portland Police Officer.
Plaintiff brings this action for damages against the individual officers and the City of
2. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs federal claims by virtue of 28 USC
1331 and 1343, and over plaintiffs state law claims by virtue of 28 USC 1367.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 2 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 3 of 11
4. Plaintiff has filed this action within 180 days of the incident, and has thereby
satisfied the requirements of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, as specified in ORS 30.275(3)(c).
III. PARTIES
6. At all material times herein, defendants JOHN DOE 1-6 were City of Portland
Police Officers acting within the course and scope of their employment. Each JOHN DOE
a. JOHN DOES 3 and 4 were the Incident Commander (IC) and supervisor,
who were responsible to ensure that all orders given to the crowd were consistent, lawful, and
appropriate for the circumstances and to make the final decision as to what control actions were
taken to address the crowd event, and were thus responsible for the conduct of JOHN DOES 1
and 2.
(CCICs), who had the authorization and responsibility for all police actions at the crowd event
described herein, and were responsible for the conduct of JOHN DOES 1-4.
and is a public body in the State of Oregon responsible under state law for the acts and omissions
of its law enforcement officers, agents, and other employees, including those whose conduct is at
issue herein.
IV. FACTS
9. On or about October 12, 2016, the Portland City Council met to consider and
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 3 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 4 of 11
approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) it had negotiated with the Portland
Police Association (PPA). The CBA was a matter of intense controversy and a matter of
10. The morning of the council hearing to vote on the CBA, members of the public
filled the Council chambers. Mayor Hales recessed the Council after objectors made noise, and
reconvened council on the floor above at City Hall, where the council met behind closed doors to
approve the CBA. Police officers blocked protesters and other members of the public from
access to the reconvened council meeting. Shortly after the Council adopted the CBA, police
11. Drozd was one of the protesters inside City Hall, but left the building when
12. At approximately 3:00 p.m., Drozd was standing outside and to the side of the
doorway at City Hall, observing and taking pictures through a window next to the door of the
ongoing activities involving protestors and police officers inside the building and taking pictures.
Drozd was standing behind the open glass door, plainly visible from both inside and outside the
building, was out of the way of foot traffic, and was not in any way blocking the doorway or
defendant DOE 1, opened the door, reached around the open door and sprayed Drozd in the face
with pepper spray. Defendant DOE 1 had neither probable cause to believe nor a reasonable
suspicion that Drozd had committed or was about to commit a crime, nor any reason to believe
that Drozd had been or was about to be causing or attempting to cause physical harm to any
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 4 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 5 of 11
person or threatening imminent physical injury to any person, or engaging in looting or the
physical resistance to a lawful order of any law enforcement officer or other officer, official or
agent of Portland.
14. Upon being sprayed in the face, Drozd promptly left their position behind the
glass door and attempted to depart the scene, walking down the stairs of City Hall, away from
the door and the throng of officers standing there in riot gear, when Drozd was sprayed a second
time by JOHN DOE 1 or 2. Said Defendant DOE had neither probable cause to believe nor a
reasonable suspicion that Drozd had committed or was about to commit a crime, nor any reason
to believe that Drozd had been or was about to be causing or attempting to cause physical harm
to any person or threatening imminent physical injury to any person, or engaging in looting or
resistance or physical resistance to a lawful order of any law enforcement officer or other officer,
injuries.
distress.
18. On information and belief, City of Portlands polices and practices, as applied to
19. A reasonable officer in the individual defendants position should have known
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 5 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 6 of 11
that the above-described conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established rights under the First,
V.
(42 USC 1983 - Fourth Amendment - Excessive Force, Against Individual Defendants)
20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
21. As described above, defendants DOE 1-6 violated Drozds right not to be
subjected to excessive physical force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United
22. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non-
23. Drozd should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs
VI.
(42 U.S.C. 1983 United States Constitution, First Amendment, Against Defendants
John Doe 1-6)
24. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
25. By the acts described above, the JOHN DOE defendants retaliated against Drozd
for the exercise of their rights to free expression, association, and assembly, in violation of the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the State of Oregon and
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 6 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 7 of 11
26. As a direct and proximate result of said defendants unlawful acts, Drozd has
suffered significant emotional distress, public humiliation, damage to reputation, depression, loss
of dignity and self esteem, anxiety, and loss of enjoyment of life, all in amounts to be determined
29. Drozd is entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable attorneys fees and costs
VII.
30. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
contact with Drozd, and were acting in the course and scope of their employment when they
32. Defendant City of Portland is responsible for the tortious conduct of its officers,
34. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non-
35. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert fees, against defendants.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 7 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 8 of 11
VIII.
36. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set
forth.
37. Defendants actions as alleged above violated the standard of care required of law
Drozd.
40. As a result of the above, Drozd is entitled to an award of economic and non
41. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert fees against defendants.
IX.
42. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
43. As described above, the officers, agents and employees of City of Portland
intentionally and/or with reckless disregard inflicted severe emotional distress on Drozd.
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 8 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 9 of 11
45. As a result of the above, defendants caused Drozd severe emotional distress.
46. As a result of the above, plaintiff is entitled to an award of economic and non-
47. Drozd should be awarded their costs, including expert witness fees, against
Defendants.
X.
48. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
49. Prior to October 12, 2016, defendant City of Portland developed and maintained
whom their law enforcement officers would respond, which caused the violation of plaintiffs
rights.
50. It was the policy and/or custom of defendant City of Portland to inadequately
supervise and train its officers and deputies, including the defendants, thereby failing to
adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its officers and deputies.
City of Portland did not require appropriate in-service training or retraining of officers and
51. As described above and at least in part, one or more of City of Portlands policies,
official well-established practices or acts caused the violation of Drozds right not to be
subjected to excessive physical force and their resulting injuries, as guaranteed by the Fourth
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 9 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 10 of 11
54. Drozd should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs
XI.
55. Paragraphs 1 through 19 and 49-50 are incorporated by reference as though fully
56. As described above and at least in part, one or more of City of Portlands policies,
official well-established practices or acts caused the violation of plaintiffs right not to be
subjected to retaliation for the exercise of their rights to free expression, assembly and
association, and their resulting injuries, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
59. Drozd should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 10 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com
Case 3:17-cv-00556-PK Document 1 Filed 04/07/17 Page 11 of 11
amounts to be determined at trial in accordance with the allegations set forth above;
s/ Michael E. Rose
MICHAEL E. ROSE, OSB #753221
mrose@civilrightspdx.com
BETH CREIGHTON, OSB #97244
beth@civilrightspdx.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CREIGHTON ATTORNEYS
&ROSE, PC AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill St #300
Portland, OR 97204
T. (503) 221-1792
PAGE 11 COMPLAINT F. (503) 223-1516
Z:\rose\Acases\drozd\Drozd complaint.FINAL.wpd mrose@civilrightspdx.com