Prescott Police, Prescott Prosecutor, City of Prescott, et al Officers Casey Cook & Dan Murray; Sgt. Chad Slocum; Prosecutor Glenn Savona; City Atty Gary Kidd; former police chief Randy Oaks; etc. Federal Civil Right S1983/1985 suit: Unlawful seizure, Conspiracy to deprive of civil rights/due process, Retaliation. Prescott, Arizona

The City of Prescott settled this suit with the plaintiff. Go to the Prescott Daily Courier newspaper's website (dcourier) and search for "City of Prescott settles in 4th Amendment suit" for the story. (Note: you have to go to Advanced search and set the date to include May 30, 2011.)

You attorneys should have taken the case. You could have won a bunch in legal fees. Maybe you can make money in this guy's other two cases, one which is bound to make national headlines with Mitt Romney running for President, since it's about a Mormon judge who conspired against the victim, a Christian evangelist who Mormons call an "Anti-Mormon." There is prima facie evidence to prove a Prescott JP tampered with a court file (a felony in Arizona - search here for Mary Hamm). The victim moved the judge to recuse because Mormons are taught he is paid by the devil and he didn't believe he could get a fair trial from a judge with that mindset. (And he was right.)

The other suit is against Prescott Prosecutor Glenn Savona who withheld exculpatory evidence in a bogus charge of "criminal faxing," where Savona wrote in a withheld document that the victim didn't  have willful intent, a necessary element of the law. (Thus proving this was malicious prosecution all along.) Search the ROR for this complaint.

In addition to the religious discrimination above, these civil right violations appear to be small town politics, retaliation for this guy reporting Prescott judge Howard Hinson, who, as a result, resigned for judicial misconduct. (Also reported in the ROR.)

Admittedly my original civil right complaint (and original post here on the ROR) was "inartful." Since then, I've been to the law library, studying. Apparently I'm doing better, as now Defendants Prescott are only moving to dismiss 3 out of 7 counts. (Count Three, Six (A or B) and Seven.) As a reminder, this was caught on tape. I have the police reports and 911 tapes. I've done much of the legwork.

I'm still soliciting an attorney to pick up this case and run with it. It's a Title 42 1983 case filed in Arizona District federal Court. It has SB 1070 and State Open Record law implications. Pacer for 10CV0813 in Arizona for the docket and Prescott's latest motion. Please contact me if interested or you wish to advise me along the way. Media also welcome.

Here's the body of my improved amended complaint.
===========================
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
16.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.
17.    I am a long time family friend of the Bodines, who were (and still are) going through a divorce. (It continues on appeal as of this writing.) Mrs. Melody Bodine (nka "Melody Thomas-Morgan") had filed papers on husband on or about September 2006. I have been diligent to attend their divorce trial. I have also been diligent to not have any contact with Mrs. Bodine since she left her husband.
18.    Nevertheless, after their first court hearing on October 12, 2006, Mrs. Bodine sent me an unsolicited letter, telling me to "mind my own business" and that I appeared to be "polarizing" with her husband. Indeed, she sinned against him I have tried to be a good friend during this horrible time, driving back and forth to Prescott occasionally to encourage and pray with Mr. Bodine.
19.    Unknown to me, in mid-December Mrs. Bodine had obtained paperwork  against me for a civil Injunction Against Harassment
20.    Mrs. Bodine does not talk to Mr. Bodine and Mr. Bodine had not informed his wife I would be visiting him on Friday, January 23, 2009. But he told his children. The police report says Mrs. Bodine contacted Officer Murray (her personal police officer in Prescott - she does all her reporting to him) at 9:50 a.m. that day telling him that she "discovered" my plans to be at her ex-husband's house outside the city limit at noon. Officer Murray subsequently informed patrol Officer Cook.
21.    On that fateful Friday, I drove from Phoenix to visit Mr. Bodine at his residence outside the city limits of Prescott, Arizona.
22.    I eventually obtained an audio CD from the Prescott PD of dispatch radio traffic for that afternoon. At about 13:45 local time, Dispatch asks Officer Cook to call Melody Bodine at a private phone number in the 928 area code. Dispatch says Cook is "expecting her call." Officer Cook is next heard on the radio asking "how far outside the city limits" Mr. Bodine's address is. Officer Cook is never officially dispatched to Mr. Bodine's house.
23.    About an hour after I arrived at Mr. Bodine's (approximately 14:00), a Prescott police patrol car drove up the driveway. An officer knocked at the door. Mr. Bodine answered the door and then told me an officer was asking to speak to me. Mr. Bodine is a witness to all that happened before and after this incident.
24.    I locked my voice recorder in the RECORD mode and put it in my shirt pocket.
25.    I came to the threshold of the door, but I did not cross over to the outside.
26.    The officer, who identified himself as Officer Cook, badge # 271, asked me if I would step outside as he would like to ask me a few questions.
27.    I asked the officer if I was under arrest.
28.    He said, "No."
29.    I said, "No consent, then."
30.    He was shocked and taken aback.
31.    He then asked for ID. Specifically, he told me that "by law, I had to provide him with ID."
32.    I told him I didn't think that was the law in Arizona (for a consensual stop) and offered that if I was wrong, he could arrest me for not showing ID.
33.    He did not arrest me but told me I could avoid arrest by giving him my name and address. The demand for certain information would change over time, from "name and address," to "name, address and phone number," and finally, "name and DOB." I again told him "No consent. Thank you," and started to close the door.
34.    Whereupon, he shoved his foot in the door! This began the unlawful seizure.
35.    I realized that, even if I was within my Constitutional right, closing the door on an officer's foot would not bode well for me. Again I offered that if I was doing something wrong by not showing ID, that he should arrest me.
36.    He did not arrest me.
37.    He then informed me I was being "detained" and told me to come outside.
38.    Again, not wishing to waive my Fourth Amendment right, I declined to step across the threshold of the door.
39.    Officer Cook claimed that he needed to find out who I was. I now realize this was a pretext because he came to the door knowing my name. Also, according to police reports prior to this incident, Officer Murray had already run my name through ACJIS and already had a physical description of me. Office Cook should have known that. Therefore, he must have had an ulterior motive for demanding personal information from me.
40.    Officer Cook stated he needed information for future contact. That is not required by law and I had already told him "no consent" and said I would continue to exercise my right to remain silent.
41.     Nevertheless, being a Christian man commanded to "submit to the governing authorities," I told Officer Cook that I could be wrong about this. If he could show me the law, I would do what the law required. He did not have a citation.
42.    Using his personal cell phone, Cook called his supervisor, Sgt. Slocum. Sgt. Slocum did not know the cite either. Mr. Bodine did a search on the Internet and we finally found A.R.S. 13-2412. Mr. Bodine printed it out and Officer Cook and I read it aloud together.
"It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer."
43.    Officer Cook and I also discussed the timeliness requirements for a "Terry Stop." I specifically asked him if there was any crime he suspected I committed within the immediate time frame, even in the past 24 hours. He said, "No." He did not give any specific and articuable facts for stopping me.
44.    I reviewed with him the different type of police stops: Consensual, Terry, and "Stop and Frisk."
45.    I challenged whether I was "lawfully" detained, per Terry. But I eventually acquiesced and gave Officer Cook my full legal name. Whereupon he immediately insisted, "Date of Birth?"
46.    Now, up until this point, I would have forgiven him his sin and not made a Federal Case out of the seizure. If Officer Cook was truly ignorant of the law beforehand, he certainly wasn't ignorant now. But we had just read the law together which says after giving one's full legal name, one "shall not be compelled to answer ANY OTHER INQUIRY of a peace officer." Extremely frustrated, I reminded Officer Cook of the law.
47.    Even though I complied fully with the law, Officer Cook still would not release me. He claimed he couldn't know if the name I gave him was my real name. I told him if he thought I was lying about my name, he should arrest me for that. (Again, Prescott had already run an ACJIS inquiry on me.)
48.    He did not arrest me.
49.    At this point, I considered simply walking away from the door to assert my constitutional right. But I was fearful that Officer Cook might overreact as officers sometimes do (especially since he was overreacting so far) and make a warrantless entry under the guise of "officer safety" injuring me in the process. (Mrs. Bodine knows I cherish our Second Amendment right and often carry, although I do not carry in Mr. Bodine's house with his children present. Still, Mrs. Bodine may have falsely told Officer Cook I had a weapon.) Again I said that if I was breaking the law, he should arrest me. So that Officer Cook couldn't destroy evidence, I emptied my pockets on my own anticipating arrest. When Officer Cook saw the recorder, he asked, "Is that a recorder?" He looked crestfallen.
50.    When Sgt. Slocum arrived, Officer Cook briefed him on the situation. Instead of correcting Officer Cook, Sgt. Slocum agreed with him and said I had to give my DOB or I would be arrested and taken to jail. He was very serious.
51.    At 50 plus years old and somewhat good at reading people, I thought at the time that Sgt. Slocum seemed to have a personal vested interest in this matter. That he was not detached. I confirmed my observation later by reading the police reports written prior to this incident. Sgt. Slocum, as a supervisor, had signed a report Officer Murray wrote for Mrs. Bodine mentioning me. But Sgt. Slocum was unusually intimate with the details of Mrs. Bodine's report. He recited some allegations to me, which I learned later were Mrs. Bodine's allegations.
52.    I am sad to say that while men I do not know died to guarantee us these freedoms, I did not stand up for our rights at that time. Stating "under duress" and being threatened with arrest and incarceration (perhaps through the weekend as it was a Friday afternoon and I have seen police "lose" paperwork on my Christian brothers when the police want to be vindictive), I gave them my DOB.
53.    But even then they did not release me. It was not until Dispatch gave a physical description which matched me that the unlawful detention ended. The officers left the scene, although not without taking one last shot.
54.    They made an unauthorized ACJIS query on Mr. Bodine's car. They suspected it was my car. But I had already given them information that correctly proved who I was and no vehicle was involved in this matter. Thus the query was unnecessary and had no rational basis. There must have been another purpose for their action.
55.    I subsequently called a criminal attorney about this incident who confirmed my understanding of the law, that if they had taken me to jail for not giving my DOB, "We would have gone federal."
56.    Naturalized citizens are required to swear an oath stating that "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That duty must necessarily extend to naturally born citizens as well. Therefore, as a proximate result of Officer Cook's and Sgt. Slocum's actions, I am compelled to expend my time and resources to pursue this federal civil rights suit to defend the Constitution.
57.    Officer Cook called Dispatch on the police radio, announcing he was going off duty. But apparently more personal cell phone calls were made. Upon information and belief, Officer Cook called Mrs. Bodine on his personal cell phone and gave her my physical description so that Mrs. Bodine could call a process server. (Or, in the alternative, Officer Cook called the process server directly. Or he called both or did a "three way" call.)
58.    Approximately 30 minutes later a process server stopped at Mr. Bodine's house, also asking for me. I noticed she was intently staring into my eyes, presumably checking eye color, having been given my previously radioed in physical description. When she identified herself as an officer of the court, I confirmed my name and was served with Mrs. Bodine's civil Injunction Against Harassment.
59.    Officer Murray subsequently reported in a supplemental police report that during this incident I "felt" my Fourth Amendment right was violated. But typical of his biased reporting against me, he inaccurately represents and diminishes my rationale.
60.    Days after this incident, on February 2nd, I sent Lt. Gill a State Open Records request via Certified Mail (with Return Receipt) requesting disciplinary records for Officer Cook and Sgt. Slocum.
61.    A month passed without any required response. Arizona law says "Access to a public record is deemed denied if a custodian fails to promptly respond to a request for production of a public record or fails to provide to the requesting person an index of any record or categories of records that are withheld."
62.    By way of contrast, I have obtained disciplinary records from the highest  sanctioning agency of police officers in Arizona, the Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board (POST) and from the Phoenix Police Departments within a week of request and have been able to inspect disciplinary reports of Mesa Police officers within a few days of request.
63.    So in March I wrote Chief Oaks, renewing my Open Record request. Sometime after that I finally received a large packet from the Prescott PD.
64.    It turns out that Sgt. Slocum had been sanctioned a year before this incident by the Prescott Police for a Fourth Amendment violation and was on notice that any further Fourth Amendment violations would result in stiffer sanctions. Lt. Morely noted that Sgt. Slocum was "out of control."
65.    The Injunction Against Harassment against me, issued by a JP court, seemed to Mr. Bodine and me to infringe on Mr. Bodine's custodial rights regarding the children and me on Mr. Bodine's visitation days, as set by a superior court. Mr. Bodine even conferred with his attorney about this who advised it was an infringement. On February 3, 2009, I filed an Expedited Motion to Clarify and Amend the Injunction with the Prescott justice court.
66.    Pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which is binding on our justice courts, I served Mrs. Bodine a copy of the pleading by mail. Also, as is common practice and courtesy with expedited motions, a professional attorney faxed the pleading to Mrs. Bodine on my behalf and I noted such in the Certificate of Service section of the pleading.
67.    The Injunction paperwork allows for "legal process." It also allows for contact "though attorneys." As Mrs. Bodine and I were our own attorneys in this particular matter, I wrote "Legal Process" as a courtesy on the envelope. Furthermore, harassment is defined in Arizona in part as conduct that serves "no legitimate purpose." Clearly, complying with the Rules of Civil Procedure by sending requisite copies of pleadings is legitimate.
68.    Nevertheless, on February 4, 2009 Mrs. Bodine delivered an unopened envelope to Office Murray's office claiming I harassed her by mailing something to her. Had she opened it, she would have known it contained nothing more than a copy of my Motion to the Court, as allowed by law. Even though she had not opened the envelope and therefore had no basis for a charge of harassment, she conspired with Officer Murray and he took it upon himself, as a personal favor for Mrs. Bodine, to open the envelope for her to try to fabricate a charge against me absent a formal complaint from her.
69.    Arizona law for violating an Injunction requires willfulness. Specifically, it requires "knowingly interfering with judicial proceedings." Yet without any evidence, based only on Mrs. Bodine's say so, Officer Murray stated unequivocally in his police report that I "knowingly interfered with the judicial proceedings of the Prescott Justice Court" by sending a copy of a pleading to Mrs. Bodine.
70.    It is a Biblical principle as well as a common sense principle that absent any statement from me, Officer Murray cannot know what I know.
71.    Furthermore, instead of simply quoting in his report what I said in my Motion, Officer Murray took the liberty of spinning my words his way in an attempt to d**n me. Sgt. Slocum approved the report.
72.    On or about February 11, 2009, with no rational basis for it, of his own volition, Officer Murray contacted Mrs. Bodine and Mrs. Bodine's coworker for more gossip about the faxed pleading, again reporting their baseless imaginations as fact about what I must have known.
73.    He even ends his report with an irrelevant, somewhat incorrect statement that "in 2007, Palmer had sent letters and a CD disk to church leaders condemning their sin of supporting Melody Bodine." What I wrote in private letters to church leadership cannot be harassment of Mrs. Bodine by definition (not an act directed at her). This is an obvious infringement on my First Amendment right to freedom and exercise my religion as an Evangelical Christian and is meant to d**n me. Sgt. Slocum approved the report.
74.    As a proximate result of Officer Murray's personal favor to Mrs. Bodine, I was charged by the Prescott Prosecutor for "Criminal faxing." The charge was bogus (malicious), dismissed by the Prosecutor days before trial, but not after  the expense of hiring a criminal attorney and suffering much emotion distress for simply obeying the Rules of Civil Procedure.
75.    Ironically, the charge of "Criminal faxing" was based on an alleged violation of Rule 5(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. It's a rather obscure Rule, a surprise to many attorneys. It's odd that Officer Murray could know Rule 5(c) when he so aptly demonstrates he doesn't know Rule 5(a). Especially since "A" comes before "C" in the alphabet and in the Rules.
76.    Before I was charged with "criminal faxing," I had also faxed an Emergency Motion to Mrs. Bodine as is usual practice and courtesy in such time-critical matters. This time, because my lawyer was on vacation, I wasn't able to fax through a professional attorney.
77.    Once again Mrs. Bodine ran to her personal police officer, Officer Murray. She delivered a sealed envelope with a cozy, handwritten note to him saying "Obviously, I have not read this. If I need to act or take anything to my lawyer, please let me know." Thus she had every expectation that Officer Murray would not only gin up a complaint on his own for her, absent any complaint of hers, but he would also offer her legal advice as to how she could prosecute me civilly.
78.    So once again Officer Murray conspired with Mrs. Bodine to falsify a second police report in an attempt to incriminate me. (Report dated March 26, 2009.) Again he claims I "knowingly interfered with the judicial proceedings." Specifically he says I violated the Injunction by faxing an Emergency Motion to Mrs. Bodine. Sgt. Slocum approved the report.
79.    Again, only God knows the heart. But if you don't believe God, perhaps you'll believe the Prescott Prosecutor. He denied to prosecute this second report. Even the Prosecutor stated I did not, because I could not have, knowingly interfered with the Injunction by faxing pleadings.
80.    In late June 2009 I sent a complaint citing Sgt. Slocum and Officer Cook to the AZ POST. The POST Executive Director, Lyle Mann, wrote back on June 25 informing me he had forwarded my complaint to then Prescott Police Chief Oaks.
81.    After allowing time for such an investigation to proceed, I filed an Open Record request in mid-October for disciplinary records on Sgt. Oaks and Officer Cook.
82.    I received a carefully crafted letter from Lt. Gill dated October 26, 2009 stating that "The Prescott Police Department does not hold any further records that pertain to your request." Taking a lesson from former President Clinton, I read this to allow that "there may have been discipline, but we're not going to tell you about it and we are purposely not holding those records." Note that I had filed a Notice of Claim against Prescott prior to this, essentially putting the Prescott PD on notice of an impending lawsuit. (Mr. Podracky is the City's liaison attorney with the Prescott PD.)
83.    When I pressed the issue and cited the complaint I sent to the POST pointing out there should have been a letter from Mr. Mann to Chief Oaks as a "hit" in my request, Lt. Gill then dribbled out an "Administrative Control Form," documenting the complaint received from POST. But he did not supply POST Director Mann's letter to Chief Oaks.
84.    To test my theory that Lt. Gill was pulling a "Bill Clinton" and that the City Attorney's office might be holding/hiding the damning records for the PD, in early December 2009 I filed a State Open Record request with Mr. Kidd, asking for disciplinary records on Sgt. Slocum and Officer Cook. Perhaps naively, but trustingly, I explaining the possible subterfuge by Lt. Gill to hide records from me.
85.     I did not receive any response yea or nay as required by law. Mr. Kidd had suffered a heart attack shortly before then, so I was willing to be gracious and give him some extra time, even though, technically, his subordinate, Mr. Podracky could (and did) eventually handle the matter.
86.    Having received no reply after two months, I renewed my request in February 2010. In March I finally received copies of all correspondence regarding my complaint, which included POST Director Mann's letter to Chief Oaks along with a carefully worded cover letter from Mr. Podracky's saying "We have nothing more to give you."
87.    I know Mr. Podracky to be an exacting man with his written word and I note he did not say there were no other records, but only that "we have nothing more to give you."
88.    Nevertheless, based on the information I have, as of this filing, neither Chief Oaks, Lt. Gill or Lt. Morely have been diligent to investigate Sgt. Slocum or Officer Cook for an unlawful Fourth Amendment seizure, despite documentation within the Prescott PD from internal and external sources giving notice that an unlawful seizure took place.
89.    In the alternative, these officers have been disciplined but various actors within the Prescott PD and the City Attorney's office have conspired to obstruct justice (this lawsuit) by impeding access to public records so as to not admit guilt.
90.    Furthermore, the response from Mr. Podracky to my record request was dated March 9, 2010. Since I had filed a Notice of Claim, both Mr. Podracky and Mr. Kidd could have, and would have known of an impending lawsuit. As the unlawful seizure occurred in January 2009, by purposely delaying a response until this suit was presumably time barred, it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Podracky and Mr. Kidd conspired to obstruct justice by impeding access to public records until after they believed they would not be sued.
COUNT ONE
42 U.S.C. 1983 - UNLAWFUL SEIZURE
(Defendant Cook)
91.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
92.    By telling me he was detaining me after I declined a "Consensual Stop," Officer Cook unlawfully and maliciously seized me, depriving me of my Fourth Amendment right. His claim that he needed "I.D." was unlawful and false and there was no rational basis for it, especially since records show the Prescott PD had already run me through the State ACJIS system before this contact and already knew who I was. Further, since Officer Cook acknowledged that he had no reason to believe I "had committed a crime, was committing a crime, or was about to commit a crime" within the past 24 hours, this could not be a constitutional seizure under Terry.
93.    Worse, Officer Cook was not dispatched to the scene. He drove out of the Prescott City limits in response to a personal phone call from a private party. As such, Officer Cook was doing a personal favor for a private citizen under color of law.
94.    As a result of Officer Cook's proximate conduct, Plaintiff incurred economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
95.    The actions of Officer Cook were premeditated and entered into with an evil mind and therefore punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT TWO
42 U.S.C. 1983 - UNLAWFUL DETENTION
(Defendants Cook and Slocum)
96.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
97.    Even if my seizure somehow lawfully morphed into a lawful detention after I asserted my right to decline a consensual stop, it was a unlawful detention the moment I satisfied Arizona law on detention by stating my full legal name. As soon as we read the law together Officer Cook knew the law. Yet Officer Cook continued to threaten me with incarceration if I didn't answer his further inquiries. But Arizona law is clear that once a person states their name they "shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer." Officer Cook deprived me of my Fourth Amendment Right.
98.    Sgt. Slocum did not correct Officer Cook and wrongly affirmed Officer Cook's false representation that I had to answer more questions before being released.
99.    Even after I acquiesced to their demand for DOB, the unlawful detention continued until they contacted Dispatch and confirmed my physical description matched their record.
100.    As a result of Officer Cook's and Sgt. Slocum's conduct, I incurred economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
101.    Officer Cook's actions were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate. As Sgt. Slocum is a supervisor and is presumed to know this basic law and was briefed by Officer Cook on the law, his actions were entered into with an evil mind. Especially considering he just had remedial training on search and seizure law as part of his sanction for a similar Fourth Amendment violation within the past year. Therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
    COUNT THREE
42 U.S.C. 1983 - FIFTH AMENDMENT
(Cook and Slocum)
102.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
103.    The Fifth Amendment is colloquially known as "the right to remain silent." Even Miranda warnings from police officers represent it as such. Furthermore, this right to remain silent is codified in Arizona State law. A.R.S. 13-2412 says that after stating one's true full name, a person "shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer." Nevertheless I was compelled to answer other inquiries of a peace officer or face arrest and jail.
104.    As a result of Officer Cook's and Sgt. Slocum's conduct, I incurred economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
105.    This right to remain silent is such a fundamental right, repeated every day by police officers under Miranda, that there is no way a police officer could not be aware of this right. Therefore, their actions were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT FOUR
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
(Defendant Slocum)
106.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
107.    Sgt. Slocum is Officer Cook's supervisor. He is a long time police officer. He had to have known the Arizona law on detention, especially because he had remedial training in search and seizure law less than a year before this incident, part of his sanction for previously violating the Fourth Amendment! And yet he did not intervene to correct his subordinate's unlawful actions. He was not merely indifferent (passive), but actively condoned his subordinate's unlawful actions.
108.    Sgt. Slocum is also Officer Murray's supervisor and signed off on most of Officer Murray's prejudicial, inaccurate (falsified) reports about me. As already alleged, these reports were intended to d**n me as a favor to Mrs. Bodine, the poor "damsel in distress."
109.    As a result of Sgt. Slocum's conduct, I incurred economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
110.    His actions were entered into with an evil mind and therefore punitive damages are appropriate.            
 COUNT FIVE
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
(Defendants City of Prescott, Oaks, Gill, Morely)
111.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
112.    Given that both Office Cook and his Supervisor, Sgt. Slocum, both represented that they had a right to violate plain State law and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, it is reasonable to conclude there is a policy or custom within the Prescott PD to allow such violations, especially since there's been no discipline or investigation after all the light that's been shined on this incident.
113.    If there has been no discipline of Slocum and/or Cook, as represented by the various Defendants in their responses to my numerous Open Records requests, then the above-named defendants are grossly negligent for not acting to correct or investigate this behavior. Even an investigation with no finding has a potential salvatory effect. But no investigation implies such behavior is tolerated.
114.    These policies and customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the part of the above-named Defendants which caused the violations of Plaintiff's rights.
115.    The above-named Defendants were duly notified about the Fourth Amendment violations of Sgt. Slocum and Officer Cook, not only via the highest police authority of the State, the Arizona POST, but also internally, by Officer Murray's internal report documenting the incident. And also via a Notice of Claim. Therefore, they all have knowledge of the incident. But to date, no record has been found that the above-named Defendants acted to discipline, let alone investigate, Slocum and Cook. This despite Prescott PD's knowledge that Slocum was "out of control," had already been found by Prescott PD Internal Affairs to have violated a citizen's Fourth Amendment right and that if he did it again, the consequences would be more severe.
116.    Therefore, it must be that these Defendants entered into this decision with an evil mind and therefore punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT SIX (A)
1985(2) - CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
(Defendants City of Prescott, Oaks, Gill, Kidd, Podracky)
117.     Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
118.    The above-named Defendants conspired to impede access to my request for public records regarding any discipline of Sgt. Slocum and Officer Cook. By refusing to respond in a "timely matter" to my various requests or by not responding with an index of material when past due, then according to State law, it is deemed they denied my request.
119.    Of particular note is the validation of my theory that Oaks and Gill of the Prescott PD were playing a "shell game" with police  records in collusion with City Attorneys Kidd and Podracky, making me guess who the "holder" of the records was. This was demonstrated when the City Attorneys, Defendants Kidd and Podracky revealed, in a record request, that they were in fact holding some of the police records I sought. But prior to this game, a prior public request proved that police records are held by the Prescott PD, not the City Attorney.
120.    This pattern and practice of not complying with State Open Record law, coupled with their shell game, were intended to thwart a civil suit they knew was planned. (Since they had foreknowledge from a Notice of Claim.) As they entered into this premeditated decision to thwart a corrective civil right lawsuit, they entered this decision with an evil mind and therefore punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT SIX (B)
1985(2) - CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
(Defendants City of Prescott, Oaks, Gill, Kidd, Podracky)
121.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
122.    If, in the alternative, it is discovered that Sgt. Slocum and Officer Cook were disciplined (or there was an investigation) but a record of such was not released to me per my State Open Record request, this is defacto evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. By willfully impeding access to the public record, they have in essence prevented discovery for this civil right suit, such discovery which would bolster my case and make them more culpable.
123.    In fact, as in Count Six (A) above, it has already been demonstrated the Defendants entered into a shell game, playing "Guess who's holding the record now?"
124.    The reason for delaying the last record request was a premeditated move to only supply records after they believed this lawsuit would be time barred, to deny my right of access to the courts, so they would be "free and clear."
125.    Given that some records kept popping up as I discovered their game, it stands to reason they my still be playing the game of "Guess who's holding the record?"
126.    The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
COUNT SEVEN
42 U.S.C. 1983 - CONSPIRACY
(Defendants Murray, Cook, Slocum)
127.    Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
128.    Before the Fourth Amendment violation involving Officer Cook and Sgt. Slocum in late January, unknown to me but known to Officer Murray, Mrs. Bodine had obtained the paperwork for an Injunction Against Harassment against me a month before, in mid-December. But it had not been served on me as 1) I don't live in Prescott and 2) being a poor missionary, I am somewhat transient without house or home.
129.    Prior to the January violation, Mrs. Bodine had contacted Officer Murray in the morning telling him she had "discovered" I would be at her ex-husband's house later that day. Officer Murray passed that information onto Officer Cook, who was expecting Mrs. Bodine to call him on his private cell phone number after I arrived at Mr. Bodine's house. Mrs. Bodine's motive was to have her friends at the Prescott Police help serve her Injunction on me. They were willing accomplices.
130.    Dispatch called Officer Cook, telling him to call Mrs. Bodine. Officer Cook placed a private call to a private individual while on duty. Without being given any address information from Dispatch, Officer Cook asks Dispatch for directions "out of town" to an address which matches Mr. Bodine's house. He is not officially dispatched nor responding to a call for service at that address. (Calls for service there are handled by the Yavapai County Sheriff.)
131.    Being frustrated by my refusal to have no consensual contact with him and not being able to get an address or phone number from me for Mrs. Bodine (although the Prescott PD had my address and phone number as Officer Murray correctly reported in his DR), he wouldn't be able to help Mrs. Bodine serve her Injunction on me. Hence, Officer Cook concocted a reason to "detain" me in an effort to get information for, as he said, "future contact" as a favor for a private individual. (Wink, wink.)
132.    Sgt. Slocum, who is Cook's and Murray's supervisor, who signed off on Mrs. Bodine's DR's, is also interested in doing a favor for Mrs. Bodine. He aids and abets Officer Cook to deprive me of my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
133.    After the incident, Mrs. Bodine again came to her personal police officer, Officer Murray, with an unopened envelope claiming harassment by me. Being my own attorney, I had written "Legal Process" as a courtesy on the envelope. Had she opened the envelope herself, Mrs. Bodine would have seen it contained a pleading, required to be sent to her by law. Yet, absent any valid claim of any violation, with no rational basis, Officer Murray voluntarily opened the envelope for Mrs. Bodine and tried to make a case out of a lawful, court ordered mailing. He tried, but the Prosecutor knew better.
134.    An attorney had also faxed a copy of the pleading to Mrs. Bodine. This is allowed in plain English in the Injunction paperwork itself. At that time, Officer Murray did not think that the fax pleading was a violation of law either.
135.    It wasn't until February 11 that Officer Murray and Sgt. Slocum decided to try for a second bite of the apple.
136.    Now, as in all conspiracies, timing is important. Shortly after the Fourth Amendment incident with Officer Cook and Sgt. Slocum in late January, almost immediately afterward, on February 2, 2009, I sent Lt. Gill a request for disciplinary records regarding Sgt. Slocum and Officer Cook. Prescott is a small town and its police department even smaller. Everyone knows everyone there and everyone knows everything. By February 11, Sgt. Slocum knew of my record request on him and he knew he had something to hide. Namely, his prior Fourth Amendment violation and the promise of a stiffer sanction if it happened again. Thus he had economic and personal motive to stop me.
137.    So to prevent me from acting and/or as payback, they furthered their conspiracy with another violation of my Constitutional rights. On February 11, with no rational basis for it, Officer Murray contacted Mrs. Bodine and her co-worker for more information about the faxed pleading.
138.    Amazingly, even though Officer Murray demonstrated his ignorant of Rule 5(a) of Civil Procedure (which requires "every written motionshall be served upon each of the parties,") somehow he knows Rule 5(c), an obscure Rule that no attorney I tell this story to knows. The fact is, Mrs. Bodine's scumbag divorce lawyer is the one who steered Officer Murray onto this obscure rule, passing this information to Officer Murray through Mrs. Bodine.
139.    Slocum and Murray forwarded their new found information to the Prescott Prosecutor, even citing Rule 5(c) in their information!
140.    As a proximate result of this conspiracy I was charged with "criminal faxing," a laughable charge, proved to be malicious as it was dismissed by the Prosecutor days before trial. (But not without extreme emotional distress to me.) This constitutes a separate violation of my Constitutional rights in the furtherance of their conspiracy. 
141.    Mrs. Bodine would later ask Officer Murray to prosecute one more matter, once again giving him nothing more than a sealed envelope and another faxed pleading. Having had success with his compliance before, she wrote him a note saying "If I need to act on anything or take anything to my lawyer, please let me know." Thus she demonstrates the existence of a past and ongoing defacto conspiracy (even involving her attorney) between Officer Murray and herself. And by extension, and shown by motive, Murray's supervisor, Slocum.
142.    As a direct result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
143.    The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
    A.    For compensatory and/or nominal damages, plus special and incidental damages in such a sum as may be proven at trial;
    B.    For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
    C.    For costs for the suit;
    D.    For other such relief as this Court deems just and proper, to include a         Permanent Injunction requiring Defendant City of Prescott to adopt appropriate policies related to the hiring and supervision of its police officers and to fully comply with Arizona's Open Record law.    

From the OP's first sentence: "I'm soliciting an attorney to champion a Title 42 S1983 & S1985 complaint (conspiracy to deprive due process), already filed..." If this is already filed why are you just now looking for an attorney to handle the case? The proper order would be to engage the attorney and let them file the case. Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm not sure there'd be very many attorneys that would want to take this case as it's already been filed which would limit the time they have to find the facts and prepare for the court. So good luck with this. And what's that old saying about a person representing themselves...?

M.P. from Glendale, AZ:  Why doesn't he tell readers why he sent a woman a sympathy card for her death (knowing full well that she was alive?)  This may explain why these officers acted the way they did. They were doing their job.

I suggest that any woman who values her life and who values the lives of her children, call or e-mail the officers mentioned by name (as well as the city prosecutor, again,  mentioned by name) and thank them for taking a stand against abuse. In this case, it abuse of women and children in the name of "God".  These officers did their job and now are being maligned in a public way.

My thanks to these men for taking a stand against males who hide behind anonymity and initials.

What is the REAL story - what were you stopped for? What were you arrested for?? Stop the pity party