Alsaada v. City of Columbus
| Citation | 536 F.Supp.3d 216 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:20-cv-3431 |
| Parties | Tamara K. ALSAADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Chanda L. Brown, Sean L. Walton, Jr., Walton + Brown, LLP, Frederick Martin Gittes, Jeffrey Paul Vardaro, The Gittes Law Group, Helen M. Robinson, Edward Reilley Forman, John Spenceley Marshall, Madeline Jean Rettig, Samuel Micah Schlein, Marshall and Forman LLC, James Donald McNamara, Columbus, OH, Louis Abraham Jacobs, Marshall and Morrow LLC, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs Tamara Alsaada, Demetrius Burke, Bernadette Calvey, Stephanie Garlock, Andrew Fahmy, Talon Garth, Randy Kaigler, Rebecca Lamey, Nadia Lynch, Aleta Mixon, Darrell Mullen, Heather Wise, Mahir Ali, a minor, Jennifer Eidemiller, Holly Hahn, Bryan Hazlett, Justin Horne, Kurghan Horn, Terry D. Hubby, Jr., Elizabeth Koehler, Mia Mogavero, Leeanne Pagliaro, Torrie Ruffin, Amanda Weldon, Summer Schultz.
Westley Matthew Phillips, Alana Valle Tanoury, Andria C. Noble, Michael R. Halloran, Stephen Jeffrey Steinberg, Janet R. Hill Arbogast, Columbus City Attorney, Civil Division, Columbus, OH, for Defendants City of Columbus, Chief Thomas Quinlan, Sergeant David Gitlitz, Officer Shawn Dye, Officer Thomas Hammel, Officer Holly Kanode, Officer Kenneth Kirby, Officer Michael Eschenburg.
Alana Valle Tanoury, Columbus City Attorney's Office, Columbus, OH, for Defendants Duane Mabry, David B. Griffith, Lowell F. Rector, Lawrence Yates, Scott Bray, Brian Bruce, Christopher Capretta, Officer Caroline Castro, Brian Steele, Paul Szabo, Paul Badois, Michael Dunlevy, Benjamin Mackley, Benjamin Messerly, Gary Patterson, Robert Reffitt, Amber Rich, Officer Shannon Schmid, Phillip Walls.
II. BACKGROUND...226
I. INTRODUCTION
But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights.1
The document to which Nobel Laureate, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, some of the members of the Columbus Police Department had no regard for the rights secured by this bedrock principle of American democracy. This case is the sad tale of police officers, clothed with the awesome power of the state, run amok.
Because cell phones captured last year's police killing of George Floyd, the world stopped. Last year's protests in the aftermath of Mr. Floyd's death reignited the flashpoint around which this case revolves—the accessibility and protection of constitutional rights. Dr. King's words serve as a reminder that progress is not linear and that history is both a collective diary and a mirror. As this Court will explore in detail below, the march continues.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 6). Defendants oppose. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiffs are twenty-six individuals who joined protests or were proximate to protests during summer 2020.2 Defendants are the City of Columbus, Deputy Chief of Police Thomas Quinlan, Sergeant David Gitlitz, Officer Shawn Dye, Officer Thomas Hammel, Officer Holly Kanode, Officer Kenneth Kirby, Officer Michael Eschenburg, and John and Jane Does #1-30—i.e., officers whose identities are not yet known.
Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction:
This Court held a preliminary injunction hearing, which lasted from February 22 to March 2, 2021. Subsequently, the parties submitted their post-hearing briefing and replies. (ECF Nos. 59, 61, 63, 64). Defendants oppose injunctive relief, asserting lack of standing, mootness, and a failure to meet the familiar four preliminary injunction prongs. For the reasons that follow, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 6).
II. BACKGROUND
An 1871 New York Times article on the history of policing wrote: "The personnel of the force is an excellent one, though there are of course some decided exceptions, as in all large bodies of men."3 The history of policing in the United States presents, as history is wont to do, uncomfortable truths upon which this Court pauses to reflect.
As the nascent colonies matured, a concerted effort to surveil society's goings-on developed. Night watches, constables, and sheriffs were a mix of ad hoc vigilante groups and those with more institutional legitimacy.4 It was 1631 Boston that created the idea of the so-called Boston Watch (also known as "The Court"; "Town Watch"; and "citizen Watchmen"). These citizen Watchmen were organized as a "military guard" to surveil and punish infractions. Everything from wearing "extravagant boots," to northeastern Indian tribes engaging in sacred cultural traditions, to infamous accusations of witchcraft, became punishable at the hands of the Town Watch.5 New York followed suit in 1845, establishing a police force of 800 men.6 The recruits were told that "the prevention of crime [was] the most important object."7 And "[b]y the late 1880s, all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place."8
In the Antebellum South, formal policing took its earliest form in slave patrols. By 1822, the slave patrol system in South Carolina was 100-members strong.9 During the 1830s, New Orleans adopted a militaristic police force to control slaves.10 These slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated plantation rules.11
After the Civil War, chattel slavery ended formally, but the legal and economic subjugation of Black Americans endured, as slave codes gave way to Black Codes.12 The two codes were so similar it is a wonder that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dundon v. Kirchmeier
...pepper spray, tear gas, and physical force, to disperse—rather than detain—activists, protestors, and congregants?" 536 F.Supp.3d 216, 261 (S.D. Ohio 2021), modified sub nom. Alsaada v. City of Columbus, Ohio, No. 2:20-CV-3431, 2021 WL 3375834 (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2021). The court recognized......
-
Hensley v. Wester Chester Twp.
...authority and a duty to know and act upon unconstitutional conduct fails to investigate or correct the unconstitutional conduct.”). Id. at 270-71. Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he commissioners are a duly-constituted body, legislative in nature, that have the final authority to set policy of t......
-
Woodall v. Wayne Cnty.
...not to act amounts to a policy of deliberate indifference toward the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights." Alsaada v. City of Columbus , 536 F.Supp.3d 216, 272 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (emphasis added) (quoting Doe v. Claiborne Cnty., Tenn. By and Through Claiborne Cnty. Bd. of Edu. , 103 F.3d 495, 5......
-
Huffman v. City of Bos.
......D.C., No. 21-cv-806, 2022 WL. 123894, at *11 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2022); Molina, 2021. WL 1222432, at *7; Alsaada v. City of Columbus, 536. F.Supp.3d 216, 269 (S.D. Ohio April 30, 2021), modified. sub nom. Alsaada v. City of Columbus, Ohio, No. ......
-
The 'weaponized' First Amendment at the Marble Palace and the Firing Line: Reaction and Progressive Advocacy Before the Roberts Court and Lower Federal Courts
...Amendment claim remains alive, id. at *26, the case was coded as one in which the claimant prevailed.72. Alsaada v. City of Columbus, 536 F. Supp. 3d 216, 251 (S.D. Ohio 2021).73. In addition, Burbridge v. City of St. Louis, 2 F.4th 774, 778 (8th Cir. 2021), was separately coded to reflect ......