Bhatt et al v. Two Unknown Named Agents of the United States Customs and Border Protection

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed by Lisa Bhatt, Meera Sidhu against Two Unknown Named Agents of the United States Customs and Border Protection with Jury Demand. No summons requested. Receipt No: 0645-3431611 - Fee: $ 350. County of 1st Plaintiff: Ontario, Canada - County Where Action Arose: Wayne - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Wienner, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LISA BHATT and MEERA SIDHU,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.

v.
Hon.
TWO UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS
OF THE UNITED STATES
CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION, jointly and severally,
Defendants.

S. Thomas Wienner (P29233)
Wienner & Gould, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
950 West University Dr., Ste. 350
Rochester, MI 48304
[phone]; Fax [phone]

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs Lisa Bhatt (“Bhatt”) and Meera Sidhu (“Sidhu”) (jointly, “Plaintiffs”), by their
counsel, Wienner & Gould, P.C., hereby complain against the above-captioned defendants and
for their cause of action allege the following:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1.

Bhatt is a Canadian citizen residing at 4853 Whitefish Crescent, Windsor, Ontario

N9G3E2.
2.

Sidhu is a Canadian citizen residing at 27 Coates Drive, Milton, Ontario L9T5R4.

At the time of the events giving rise to this action, she was unmarried and went by her maiden
name, which was Meera Beri.

3.

Plaintiffs have frequently traveled between the United States and Canada at the

Detroit border post. Plaintiffs hold Nexus cards to facilitate their border crossings.
4.

Bhatt holds a TN Visa to the United States.

5.

Sidhu formerly held an F1 student visa to the United States and was a student at

Wayne State University.
6.

Upon information and belief, the two unknown named Defendants (individually,

“Doe” and “Roe”) (jointly, “Defendants”) were at all material times employed as officers of the
United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and stationed in the office located at 3033
West Porter Street, City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan 48226.
7.

The identity of Doe is presently unknown but identifiable and within the

possession of the CBP.
8.

The identity of Roe is presently unknown but identifiable and within the

possession of the CBP.
9.

Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend their complaint once they have been able to

learn the actual names of Doe and Roe through discovery.
10.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1331.
11.

Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because

a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12.

Plaintiffs have regularly traveled between Windsor and the United States. Bhatt

holds a TN Visa; Sidhu held an F1 student visa. When crossing to the United States, their usual
route was to enter the United States by crossing the Ambassador Bridge to Detroit, Michigan.

2 

13.

On the evening of March 5, 2010, Sidhu crossed from Detroit to Ontario to meet

Bhatt and drive with her to an Alecia Keys concert in Detroit. Sidhu and Bhatt left in Sidhu’s car
at approximately 6:30 p.m. and arrived at the Ambassador Bridge shortly thereafter.
14.

The border crossing was very busy that evening, requiring Plaintiffs to sit in

traffic on the bridge.
15.

As Plaintiffs sat in their car, they were approached by two CBP officers. These

officers asked Plaintiffs where they were going and how frequently they visited the United
States.
16.

The two officials asked Plaintiffs for their passports and took them. The female

officer informed Plaintiffs that “you’re going to be pulled over.” Neither officer stated any
grounds for suspicion.
17.

At the CBP booth, Plaintiffs were instructed to enter the CBP building in order to

retrieve their passports. Plaintiffs complied.
18.

Once inside the CBP building, Plaintiffs signed in and waited for approximately

one hour.
19.

While Plaintiffs waited, they observed Defendants bring out an unknown woman

who apparently had just been searched. Plaintiffs observed that this woman was visibly upset.
20.

Defendants called Bhatt and escorted her to a holding cell.

21.

Inside the cell, Defendants instructed Bhatt to remove her shoes, socks, and top,

so that she was wearing only leggings and a tank top.
22.

At this time, Bhatt was eight months pregnant.

3 

23.

Defendant Doe asked Bhatt whether she had ever been “strip searched” or

“invasively searched.” When Bhatt answered that she had not, Doe told her, “Well, you’re about
to be. It’s very invasive.”
24.

Neither Doe nor Roe stated any grounds for their belief that a strip search or

invasive search was necessary.
25.

Defendants directed Bhatt to face the cell wall and spread her arms and legs. As

Doe watched, Roe began her search of Bhatt, starting at her feet.
26.

When Roe reached Bhatt’s groin area, she stuck her fingers into Bhatt’s anus and

vagina deeply enough that Bhatt’s leggings were pushed inside these orifices.
27.

Roe proceeded to reach under Bhatt’s bra and fondled Bhatt’s bare breasts for a

prolonged period.
28.

Defendants then searched Bhatt’s purse and instructed Bhatt to put her clothes

back on.
29.

Defendants informed Bhatt that the search was “random.”

30.

Defendants escorted Bhatt out of the cell, after which Defendants brought

Plaintiff Sidhu back to the holding cell.
31.

As with Bhatt, Defendants informed Sidhu that she was about to be subjected to a

“random,” “invasive search.”
32.

Defendants instructed Sidhu to remove all clothing other than her leggings and

33.

With Doe watching, Roe probed through Sidhu’s leggings into Sidhu’s anus and

bra.

vagina with her finger.
34.

Roe then reached under Sidhu’s bra and roughly squeezed Sidhu’s bare breasts.

4 

35.

After the search, Defendants informed Sidhu that she was “clear” and instructed

her to go outside to wait.
36.

Plaintiffs were then cleared for entry to the United States without any further

questioning or explanation.
37.

As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered violations of

their rights under the Fourth Amendment and sustained mental anguish as well as emotional pain
and suffering.
38.

Upon information and belief, Defendants were both acting in their capacities as

officers of the CBP during all relevant and material times.
LEGAL CLAIMS
Count I
Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights
39.

Plaintiffs incorporate herein paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint.

40.

Plaintiffs have significant voluntary connections with the United States which

entitle them to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
41.

During the CBP search, Doe and Roe subjected Plaintiffs to invasive personal

searches.
42.

In the course of these searches, Roe thrust her fingers inside each Plaintiff’s anus

and vagina, and fondled each Plaintiff’s bare breasts in a prolonged, deliberate manner.
43.

These searches were carried out in a windowless concrete holding cell which Doe

and Roe did not permit Plaintiffs to leave until they had completed their invasive searches.
44.

Upon information and belief, these searches were carried out contrary to standard

CBP procedure.
5 

45.

Further, Defendants’ searches were carried out in the total absence of any

reasonable suspicion that invasive personal searches were warranted by the circumstances.
46.

These unauthorized, unduly threatening and physically invasive searches violated

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
47.

As a direct result of these violations of their Fourth Amendment rights, Plaintiffs

have suffered mental anguish and emotional distress.
48.

Due to the outrageousness of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional

rights, Defendants are jointly liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages as well as compensatory
damages for their mental anguish and emotional distress in amounts to be determined at trial.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
I.

Enter its judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against each of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in whatever
amounts are found appropriate at trial;

II.

Award Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements of this suit, including, without
limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees; and

III.

Grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
/s/ S. Thomas Wienner (P29233)
Wienner & Gould, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350
Rochester, MI 48307
[phone]; Fax [phone]
Primary E-Mail: [e-mail]

Dated: March 13, 2012

6 

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of the above-captioned case.
/s/ S. Thomas Wienner (P29233)
Wienner & Gould, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
950 W. University Dr., Ste. 350
Rochester, MI 48307
[phone]; Fax [phone]
Primary E-Mail: [e-mail]
Dated: March 13, 2012

7