Letten v. Hall

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed by Phillip Letten against Scott Hall with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645-2492291 - Fee: $ 350. County of 1st Plaintiff: Livingston - County Where Action Arose: Wayne - [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Rossman, Jessie)

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PHILLIP LETTEN,
Hon.
Plaintiff,
Case No.
vs.
SCOTT HALL, Detroit Police Department Police
Officer, in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
Jessie J. Rossman (P72869)
Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842)
Michael J. Steinberg (P49759)
Kary L. Moss (P49759)
American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48201
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1. This is a federal civil rights action brought to protect the right of a political activist to
distribute pamphlets on a public walkway without fear of arrest, prosecution,
retaliation, or interference by the police.
2. On July 31, 2009, Plaintiff Phillip Letten was in the City of Detroit to advocate with
the non-profit organization Vegan Outreach to end animal cruelty. He and several
other activists stood on a public walkway outside of Comerica Park and distributed
informational booklets to passers-by as they left a concert. Letten remained on the
walkway, and his peaceful advocacy efforts neither impeded the flow of pedestrian
traffic nor created any other type of disturbance. Nevertheless, a police officer
ordered Letten to stop leafleting because he did not have a permit and then charged
him with a crime for allegedly violating an unspecified Detroit city ordinance.
3. In this action, Letten alleges violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforceable through 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He also brings a supplemental state-law claim for malicious
prosecution.
4. Letten seeks a declaration that his rights were violated, damages and other
appropriate relief.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this is a civil action
seeking redress for the deprivation of rights secured by the United States
Constitution. Jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claim is proper under 28
U.S.C. § 1367.
2

6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to the
claims asserted occurred in Wayne County, which is within the Eastern District of
Michigan.

PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Phillip Letten is 22 years old and a resident of Howell, Michigan. He holds a
bachelor's degree in political science from Michigan State University and is a
political activist who has been dedicated to the effort to end animal cruelty for several
years.
8. Defendant Scott Hall, is, or was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a police
officer in the Detroit Police Department. He is being sued in his individual capacity.

FACTS
9. Letten’s involvement in animal rights advocacy began when he adopted a vegetarian
diet during his final year in high school after reading a Vegan Outreach pamphlet that
changed his perspective on the treatment of animals.
10. When he enrolled at Michigan State University, Letten joined a student organization
called Students Promoting Animal Rights. It was here that Letten learned about the
efficacy of Vegan Outreach’s focus on public education.
11. Letten soon began to hand out informational pamphlets for Vegan Outreach on
campus.
12. Prior to July 31, 2009, Letten never had any problems with police, security guards, or
members of the general public while leafleting.

3

13. On July 31, 2009, the popular traveling music festival, the Warped Tour, was hosted
by Comerica Park in downtown Detroit.
14. Letten learned about an opportunity to distribute Vegan Outreach pamphlets on the
public walkways outside of the Warped Tour through Students Promoting Animal
Rights and decided to participate.
15. When Letten arrived downtown on the day of the concert, he was first instructed to
prevent confrontations, to remain on public walkways and to avoid impeding the flow
of pedestrian traffic. He then began to distribute Vegan Outreach’s pamphlets while
standing on the public walkway between Woodward and Comerica Park.
16. The Vegan Outreach pamphlet was solely for informational purposes and was not a
business solicitation. Its contents described the mistreatment of animals in modern
animal agriculture and suggested healthy alternative food options for vegans and
vegetarians.
17. For approximately two hours, Letten peacefully distributed literature to the steady
stream of individuals who were exiting the concert without any disturbances. He did
not obstruct pedestrian traffic and no one complained about his presence.
18. At approximately 7p.m., Letten moved further down the walkway to retrieve a few
pamphlets that some pedestrians had dropped on the ground. When he returned to his
original location, he saw Officer Hall speaking to another Vegan Outreach volunteer.
19. Upon information and belief, Officer Hall was not advised by anyone of a disruption
or disturbance caused by the Vegan Outreach volunteers’ presence, nor did any such
disruption or disturbance occur.

4

20. Officer Hall ordered Letten and several other Vegan Outreach volunteers to stop
pamphleting. Letten immediately stopped leafleting. He then explained to Defendant
Hall that he was on a public walkway.
21. Officer Hall stated that there was a city ordinance that required Letten to obtain a
permit in order to distribute leaflets.
22. When Letten asked if he could see this ordinance, OfficerHall said “no,” and then
demanded that Letten give him his driver's license so he could write him a ticket.
23. In response, Letten asked if he was being detained. Officer Hall only replied, “give
me your license.”
24. Letten again asked if he was being detained, and Officer Hall again asked for Letten's
license.
25. Eventually, Officer Hall stated that Letten was being detained and ordered him to
provide his license. Letten immediately complied.
26. Officer Hall wrote and signed a misdemeanor complaint against Letten and handed
Letten a copy.
27. According to the complaint Officer Hall handed to Letten, Letten had violated a city
"license ordinance" described only as "Distribute flyers w/o permit."
28. The complaint does not contain a numerical citation to the provision of the city code
that Letten allegedly violated.
29. Although Officer Hall ordered several other Vegan Outreach volunteers to stop
distributing pamphlets, Letten was the only one who questioned Hall's authority to
stop the leafleting and Letten was the only individual whom Hall ticketed for
distributing flyers without a permit.

5

30. Once Letten received his ticket, he and the other Vegan Outreach volunteers packed
up their belongings and went home.
31. As a result, they lost the opportunity to express their views to several thousand
individuals who exited Comerica Park at the conclusion of the concert.
32. The misdemeanor complaint that Officer Hall eventually filed in 36th District Court
materially differed from that which Officer Hall originally provided to Letten.
33. While the misdemeanor complaint Officer Hall handed to Letten on the street did not
cite a provision of the Detroit City Code, the complaint filed in court included a
citation to Detroit City Code § 3-2-1.
34. Furthermore, while the complaint Letten received on the street alleged only that
Letten had distributed flyers without a permit, the complaint filed in court also
alleged that had refused to comply with an “order to stop” and had interfered with
pedestrian traffic.
35. Detroit City Code § 3-2-1 provides:
a. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute or cause to be distributed any
commercial handbills, circulars or advertising cards that solicit patronage for
goods, wares, merchandize, services, real estate or any other thing within the
Loop or Loop District, which is defined in section 1-1-2 of this Code as the
area bounded on the south by the south line of East Jefferson Avenue and
West Jefferson Avenue; on the east by the east line of St. Antoine Street; on
the north by the north line of Columbia Street; and on the west by the west
line of First Street.
b. The provisions of this section shall not apply to established newspapers or
periodicals or to noncommercial circulars, handbills, or cards which do not
solicit patronage for profit.
36. Letten did not distribute any commercial pamphlets on July 31, 2009. The Vegan
Outreach pamphlets that he distributed were noncommercial, educational materials
that did not solicit patronage for profit.

6

37. At no time did Letten refuse to comply with a police officer's order to stop leafleting.
38. At no time did Letten interfere in any way with pedestrian traffic.
39. Upon information and belief, Officer Hall altered the misdemeanor complaint himself
after he realized that it is not a crime to distribute flyers without a permit.
40. Both the original and the altered misdemeanor complaint differed yet again from the
set of claims recorded in the 36th District Court's official register of actions, where
Letten was charged with allegedly soliciting trade in a public place in violation of
Detroit City Code § 50-1-13.
41. Detroit City Code § 50-1-13 provides:
No merchant, storekeeper, shopkeeper, commercial vehicle
operator or any other owner or operator of any business, calling or
pursuit shall, by himself under his direction, stand or remain in any
public street or in any doorway or other place adjacent to a public
street and, by calls, cries, ringing of bells, blowing of horns or by
the operation of any noise making, noise producing or noise
amplifying device or by reaching out into the street and using
force, solicit passers-by to enter into any store, shop, place of
business or place of commercial pursuit or any motor vehicle
carrying passengers for hire; nor shall any person stand or remain
in any public street or any doorway or other place adjacent to a
public street and seek by any of the means or methods heretofore
enumerated to detain passers-by or attract their attention or trade to
such store, shop, place of business or place of commercial pursuit
or to any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire.
42. Letten is not a merchant, storekeeper, shopkeeper, commercial vehicle operater or any
other owner or operator of any business, calling or pursuit.
43. Additionally, at no time did Letten detain pedestrians or solicit them to enter into, or
attract their attention toward, a place of commercial business or a motor vehicle
carrying passengers for hire.

7

44. On the basis of Officer Hall’s misdemeanor complaint, Letten was arraigned in 36th
District Court on September 1, 2009. Personal bond was set at $500 and a pre-trial
hearing was scheduled for November 18, 2009.
45. Upon information and belief, no prosecuting attorney independently review Officer
Hall’s criminal complaint before Letten was sent a notice to appear for arraignment or
before he was arraigned.
46. The proceedings and the charges and accusations of Officer Hall were malicious and
without probable cause, and after Letten's arraignment, the city attorney agreed to
dismiss the case with prejudice.
47. On November 17, 2009, the charges against Letten were ordered dismissed with
prejudice.
48. Letten was forced to endure the embarrassment and humiliation of being detained,
chastised and wrongly ticketed by Officer Hall on a public street in front of numerous
pedestrians. Because Officer Hall ordered Letten to stop pamphleting before the
concert was finished, Letten lost the opportunity to express his views to several
thousand individuals who exited Comerica Park at the end of the night. Letten lives
with his parents, and their initial expressions of anger and disappointment in response
to an official misdemeanor complaint from a police officer added to his already
significant anxiety and mental anguish about the pending charges. His pecuniary
damages include the day of lost wages when he was forced to miss work for his
arraignment, as well as his travel costs to attend the same.

COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
8

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
(RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE LEAFLETS IN A PUBLIC FORUM)
49. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits abridgement of the
freedom of speech, and the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment. Persons violating the First Amendment under color of state
law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
50. The First Amendment protects the right to distribute leaflets on a public walkway.
51. Officer Hall, acting under the color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established
rights under the First Amendment by ordering him to stop distributing pamphlets on a
public walkway, detaining him for distributing pamphlets on a public walkway and
charging him with a crime for distributing pamphlets on a public walkway.

COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
(RETALIATION)
52. The freedom to express disagreement with a police officer without fear of reprisal
based on that expression is protected by the First Amendment.
53. Officer Hall, acting under color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established
rights under the First Amendment because Hall’s decision to detain him and charge
him with a crime was motivated at least in part by the fact that Letten questioned his
authority to prevent him from distributing pamphlets on a public walkway, which is
constitutionally protected speech.

COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
9

RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
(DETENTION WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION/PROBABLE CAUSE)
54. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable
searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment is incorporated against the states
by the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons violating the Fourth Amendment under color
of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
55. Officer Hall, acting under color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established
right to be free from unreasonable seizures by detaining him without reasonable
suspicion that he had committed any offense and without probable cause that he had
committed any offense.

COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)

56. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibition of unreasonable
seizures encompasses the right to be free from malicious prosecution.
57. Officer Hall, acting under the color of state law, violated Letten’s clearly established
right to be free from unreasonable seizures by unlawfully and maliciously causing a
criminal prosecution to be instituted against him.
58. Officer Hall lacked probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against Letten; a
reasonable person in Officer Hall’s position would have known that the facts and
circumstances were insufficient to justify a reasonable belief that Letten had

10

committed any offense; the criminal proceedings ended in Letten’s favor; and the
criminal proceedings were the result of malice by Officer Hall.

COUNT FIVE
VIOLATION OF COMMON LAW AND M.C.L. § 600.2907
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
59. In Michigan, malicious prosecution is recognized under the common law and by
M.C.L. § 600.2907.
60. Officer Hall violated Letten’s right to be free from malicious prosecution under
common law and M.C.L. § 600.2907.
61. Specifically, Officer Hall caused the criminal proceedings against Letten to be
instituted; the proceedings terminated in Letten’s favor; there was no probable cause
to support the prosecution; and Officer Hall acted with malice.

RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
a. assert jurisdiction over this matter;
b. declare that Letten’s rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments were violated by Officer Hall;
c. declare that Letten’s rights under M.C.L. § 600.2907 were violated by Officer
Hall;
d. award Letten compensatory damages for the violation of his constitutional
rights and treble damages for malicious prosecution under M.C.L. § 600.2907;
e. award costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
f. grant or award other such relief that this Court deems just and proper.
11

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jessie J. Rossman___
Jessie J. Rossman (P72869)
Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842)
Michael J. Steinberg (P49759)
Kary L. Moss (P49759)
American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48201
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: June 2, 2010
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jessie J. Rossman___
Jessie J. Rossman (P72869)
Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842)
Michael J. Steinberg (P49759)
Kary L. Moss (P49759)
American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48201
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: June 2, 2010

13