Username: NiaLiviaus
Select the type of case you wish to file with the court:
CIVIL CASES AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT
Plaintiff:
Skai Slade [botskai]
Defendant:
S-221 Alexandr Nolan
LT-129 Quintin Johnson
I. Statement of Claim
On the November 3rd, 2023, Mr. Slade was present at Spanish Avenue when the defendants were dispatched in response to a 32 call. Upon arrival, Mr. Slade was found lying on the ground alongside another individual. It is important to note that Mr. Slade was not armed, nor was he brandishing any weapon at the time.
However, the other individual on the ground was observed to be in possession of a firearm, which could have prompted the 32 call.
In accordance with the precedent established in Terry v. Ohio, an officer may conduct a "stop and frisk" on a suspect when they possess reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed, is committing, or may be about to commit a crime, and when the suspect is deemed armed and dangerous.
We contend that Mr. Slade's Fourth Amendment rights were egregiously violated during this incident. It is uncertain if he was subjected to an unwarranted GSR (Gunshot Residue) test but Mr. Slade was subjected to a frisk without any reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed and dangerous. It is crucial to highlight that the police officers were fully aware of the presence of a firearm on the other individual, and their inaction in addressing that threat should have eliminated any reasonable suspicion regarding Mr. Slade.
Again, we contend that the presence of a weapon in plain sight on the other person at the scene, coupled with the knowledge and awareness of the police officers, should have nullified any reasonable suspicion that Mr. Slade posed a threat to the officers or others at the location.
Mr. Slade was subjected to an illegal search and seizure, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The actions of Police Officers S-221 Alexandr Nolan and LT-129 Quintin Johnson were not based on specific and articulable facts, as required by Terry v. Ohio, but rather appeared to be a baseless and unwarranted intrusion into Mr. Slade's privacy.
II. Relief
We are seeking appropriate legal remedies and damages for the violation of Mr. Slade's constitutional rights.
$10,000 Attorney Fees
$10,000 for pain and suffering
We are also requesting that the officers involved be re-educated in case law to prevent this from happening again.
III. Representative
Nia Liviaus [selliee]
IV. Evidence
N/A
V. Witnesses
We hold the right to add any witnesses up until the end of discovery.
Select the type of case you wish to file with the court:
CIVIL CASES AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT
Plaintiff:
Skai Slade [botskai]
Defendant:
S-221 Alexandr Nolan
LT-129 Quintin Johnson
I. Statement of Claim
On the November 3rd, 2023, Mr. Slade was present at Spanish Avenue when the defendants were dispatched in response to a 32 call. Upon arrival, Mr. Slade was found lying on the ground alongside another individual. It is important to note that Mr. Slade was not armed, nor was he brandishing any weapon at the time.
However, the other individual on the ground was observed to be in possession of a firearm, which could have prompted the 32 call.
In accordance with the precedent established in Terry v. Ohio, an officer may conduct a "stop and frisk" on a suspect when they possess reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed, is committing, or may be about to commit a crime, and when the suspect is deemed armed and dangerous.
We contend that Mr. Slade's Fourth Amendment rights were egregiously violated during this incident. It is uncertain if he was subjected to an unwarranted GSR (Gunshot Residue) test but Mr. Slade was subjected to a frisk without any reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed and dangerous. It is crucial to highlight that the police officers were fully aware of the presence of a firearm on the other individual, and their inaction in addressing that threat should have eliminated any reasonable suspicion regarding Mr. Slade.
Again, we contend that the presence of a weapon in plain sight on the other person at the scene, coupled with the knowledge and awareness of the police officers, should have nullified any reasonable suspicion that Mr. Slade posed a threat to the officers or others at the location.
Mr. Slade was subjected to an illegal search and seizure, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The actions of Police Officers S-221 Alexandr Nolan and LT-129 Quintin Johnson were not based on specific and articulable facts, as required by Terry v. Ohio, but rather appeared to be a baseless and unwarranted intrusion into Mr. Slade's privacy.
II. Relief
We are seeking appropriate legal remedies and damages for the violation of Mr. Slade's constitutional rights.
$10,000 Attorney Fees
$10,000 for pain and suffering
We are also requesting that the officers involved be re-educated in case law to prevent this from happening again.
III. Representative
Nia Liviaus [selliee]
IV. Evidence
N/A
V. Witnesses
We hold the right to add any witnesses up until the end of discovery.
