| Thomas
J. Woodbury
FOREST DEFENSE, P.C.
P.O. Box 7681
Missoula, MT 59807
Tele. (406) 728-5733
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN, VINCE GODBY, CHRIS MAY, MEGHAN GILL,
JOSH OSHER, GREG MARIN, VALERIE COULTER, NICHOLAS COOK, CORY
MASCIO, KRISTA HAYS, JARED MCKINNON, and RANDALL MARK
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SHANE GRUBE, ROB TIERNEY, BOB MORTON, CLAUDE E. CAIN, JERRY
BURNS, individually and in his official capacity as law enforcement
officer for the U.S. Forest Service; STEVE DIDDIER, individually
and in his official capacity as law enforcement officer for
the U.S. Forest Service; BRIAN GOOTKIN, individually and in
his official capacity as Gallatin County Deputy Sheriff; GALLATIN
COUNTY, a municipal government organized under the laws of
the State of Montana, and GALLATIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, a Department of Gallatin County, UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER X; UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Y, and UNKNOWN
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Z,
Defendants,
Cause No. CV- 03 -____-M-____COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND THE MONTANA
MEDIA CONFIDENTIALITY ACT
Jury Trial Demanded
INTRODUCTION
This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, as well as the First,
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and the Montana Media Confidentiality Act, against
Gallatin County, Montana, the Gallatin County Sheriff’s
Department, certain members of the Montana Department of Livestock
-- who are being sued in their individual capacities only
-- and federal United States Forest Service law enforcement
personnel acting under the color of state law. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory relief and injunctive relief against all
Defendants, and punitive damages against individually named
defendants, in addition to any other relief the Court may
deem appropriate. Plaintiff’s seek to vindicate and
safeguard their Constitutional and personal rights and liberties.
If Plaintiffs prevail, Plaintiffs will seek an award of costs
and attorneys' fees pursuant to The Civil Rights Attorney’s
Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §1988, against the
Defendants, as well as the State of Montana, Gallatin County,
and any responsible officials. See, e.g., Hutto v. Finney,
437 U.S. 678 (1978) (11th Amendment not a bar to fee awards).
JURISDICTION
1. This action arises under § 1983 of
Title 42, United States Code and the Constitution of the United
States. This Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as it involves federal
questions of law as well as actions for redress for alleged
violations of rights and liberties under the Constitution
of the United States. The Court has pendent jurisdiction over
the related claim under the Montana Media Confidentiality
Act.
2. An actual, ongoing, and justiciable controversy
exists between plaintiffs and defendants, and is now ripe
for judicial determination.
3. Plaintiffs are a news organization, its
staff and volunteer members, who have been attempting to document,
protest, and influence through political means the government-sanctioned
slaughter of bison that inhabit Yellowstone National Park
and surrounding public wildlands.
4. Plaintiffs engage in traditional methods
of news gathering, protest and, on occasion, non-violent civil
disobedience, to advance their cause. The Defendants characterize
the Plaintiffs as terrorists and criminals, engaging in an
escalating and systematic pattern and practice of assaults,
harassment, spying, intimidation, slander, false arrests and
detentions, abuses of process, and unnecessarily broad restraints
and restrictions on the Plaintiff’s personal movements
on public lands and in relation to public facilities. The
Defendants undertake the above with the apparent intention
and practical effect of unreasonably infringing upon the Plaintiff’s
free exercise of fundamental liberties and rights guaranteed
by the United States Constitution.
5. Based upon this pattern and practice,
together with disparate treatment and a consistent refusal
to address complaints about abuses, Plaintiffs have reason
to believe that Defendants are engaged in an ongoing and active
conspiracy to deprive them of their civil rights.
VENUE
6. The actions and incidents complained of
herein all took place within the state of Montana. Venue is
proper in the Missoula Division of this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1391, generally, and § 1391(e), specifically,
as officers or employees of the United States Forest Service
acting in their official capacity are named defendants, and
a number of the Plaintiffs reside in Missoula, Montana, which
Plaintiffs have elected, pursuant to their rights under the
FRCP, as the most convenient division to litigate this matter.
Other named defendants are joined, and venue is proper to
those defendants as well, as FRCP generally subjects them
to the jurisdiction of the District of Montana.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN (“BFC”)
is a Montana news media organization, and a project of Cold
Mountains Cold Rivers, a non-profit organization recognized
under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and
incorporated under the laws of the State of Montana. Cold
Mountains Cold Rivers maintains an office at 801 Sherwood
St. in Missoula, MT. BFC operates out of facilities near West
Yellowstone, with a mailing address of PO Box 957, West Yellowstone,
MT 59758. Individual Plaintiffs are staff and volunteer members
of BFC.
8. Defendants are Gallatin County, a municipal
government formed under the laws of the state of Montana,
and the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, a department
of Gallatin County. Individual law enforcement officers of
the Montana Department of Livestock are being sued in their
personal capacities. Jerry Burns and Steve Diddier are being
sued in their official capacity as law enforcement officers
for the U.S. Forest Service, and Brian Gootkin is being sued
in his official capacity as Gallatin County Deputy Sheriff.
However, to the extent that Officers Burns, Diddier and Gootkin
are found to have acted outside the scope of their official
authorities, or with malicious or other improper intent, they
are being sued in their individual capacities as well.
9. Plaintiffs also allege violations conducted
by certain unknown Law Enforcement Officers, whose identities
are expected to become evident during discovery. Plaintiffs
will identify those unknown officials at appropriate times.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10. BFC was founded in 1997 by Mike Mease,
of Cold Mountain Cold Rivers, and Rosalee Little Thunder,
as a project of the Seventh Generation Fund. BFC was subsequently
transferred under the auspices of CMCR. In addition to including
a commitment to non-violence in its by-laws, BFC requires
all of its new volunteers to sign a pledge, which includes
an agreement to the following guidelines for living and working
at the BFC: “BFC is a non-profit organization that works
to embody non-violent philosophy and practice. It does not
condone any property damage or act that would cause harm to
others…. This is a gun, drug, and alcohol-free environment:
no exceptions – no drugs or alcohol in the field, in
the cabins, in vehicles or on your person… Do not act
in any way that would weaken our foundation and jeopardize
our ability to defend buffalo.”
11. BFC is primarily a volunteer organization,
with limited staffing. It embraces approximately 300 volunteers
every year, and has cumulatively empowered approximately 1600
American citizens to assist in the protection of their last
herds of wild bison. These volunteers work to educate the
American public on the ways and means our government uses
to harass, capture, and slaughter wild bison in or near Yellowstone
National Park. The primary thrust of BFC’s efforts is
media outreach and public education through persistent documentation
and political action, based upon the conviction that American
citizens will demand change if they know what their taxpayer
dollars are supporting. BFC’s secondary thrust involves
protest, demonstrations, occasional civil disobedience, and
public outreach both in the community and in Yellowstone National
Park during tourist season.
12. Prior to the formation of BFC, during
the 1996-97 season when approximately 1087 bison were slaughtered,
Mike Mease was active in documenting bison capture and slaughter
operations at the Gardiner capture facility, operated by Yellowstone
NP. At the time, Mike Finley, then Park Supervisor, allowed
Mr. Mease reasonable access to government operations at the
Gardiner facility, according him the same treatment any member
of the media would receive. Due to this relatively unrestricted
access, Mr. Mease was able to make the capture and slaughter
operations national news; e.g., through a featured report
on CBS’s Evening News and numerous reports for CNN.
13. During the following season, approximately
eleven bison were killed. When Mr. Mease, with permission
from the owner of the property to do so, attempted to document
the processing of their carcasses at the Gardiner city dump,
government agents arrested him and prevented him from documenting
the processing of the carcasses. Charges against him were
subsequently dropped.
14. In the 1998-99 season, government agents
slaughtered approximately 96 bison. Mr. Mease was successful
in documenting problems experienced by bison during captivity,
including inhumane treatment. The result of the operations
included 2 bison dying after their release, and 4 bison being
badly injured before being slaughtered.
15. It was also during the 1998-99 season
that MDOL largely assumed operations of the capture facilities,
which marked the beginning of problems accessing such facilities
for the purpose of documentation, presumably in response to
Mr. Mease’s and BFC’s success in raising awareness
of such operations in the public eye on a national scale.
16. During the 1999-2000 winter season, no
bison were slaughtered, owing in part to increasing political
sensitivity and opposition from the Park Service. However,
MDOL re-situated one of the capture facilities, the “Duck
Creek facility,” in a manner that had the effect of
blocking the view of such facility from Forest Service lands,
thus effectively limiting BFC’s ability to document
capture operations at that facility.
17. During the same period in which the MDOL
severely curtailed BFC’s access to the operations, Matt
Testa, an independent filmmaker, was allowed full access for
filming the documentary “The Buffalo Wars,” which
subsequently aired nationally on public television.
18. In the 2002-03 season, government operations
returned to the Gardiner facility for the first time since
Mr. Mease documented operations there in 1996-97. This time,
however, Mr. Mease was no longer accorded the same courtesy
and respect given to other members of the media, and in fact
was not allowed access to the facility at all. When asked
why, Mr. Mease was informed that he was now considered a “public
threat.” When pressed, a National Park Service LEO informed
him that it was not the National Park Service’s call,
but rather that MDOL had insisted that he not be allowed access.
This was after having been assured for the three days leading
up to the scheduled media tour that he would be allowed in.
Even after offering to be frisked prior to entry along with
other media, who were not subject to background checks or
searches, Mr. Mease was denied access.
19. In March of 2001, Plaintiff Meghan Gill
was arrested while attempting to divert a buffalo that was
being hazed by helicopter and ATV.
20. Defendant Tierney arrested Plaintiff
Gill. Defendant Tierney, without any warning, jumped from
his moving ATV onto the back of Plaintiff Gill, violently
and with unnecessary force tackling her to the ground. Approximately
four other officers descended upon Plaintiff Gill, cuffing
her hands behind her back, and carrying her by her limbs to
a police vehicle.
21. At no point during the arrest of Plaintiff
Gill was she given any orders, informed of the authority of
the LEO(s) to arrest her, of their intention to arrest her,
or the charges against her. Plaintiff Gill was not given any
opportunity to cooperate in the arrest procedure peaceably
and without force.
22. At no point during the incidents in question
did Plaintiff Gill present a danger to herself or the officers.
Based upon the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Gill’s
arrest, there was no need for the use of any force in effecting
her arrest whatsoever, and the force actually used by Defendants
was not only unnecessary, but was also clearly excessive and
unreasonable.
23. The circumstances attending her arrest
caused Plaintiff Gill to suffer emotional and physical pain
and trauma, including the humiliation of being manhandled
by five different LEOs and treated as a dangerous criminal.
24. On March 14, 2001, Plaintiff Krista Hays
was among a group of BFC activists witnessing and protesting
by their presence bison capture operations at or near the
Horse Butte Capture Facility. Prior to the arrival of any
bison on the scene, and in anticipation of bison being herded
into the facility by MDOL personnel on snowmobiles, LEOs present
at the facility instructed Plaintiff Hays and the others,
including a film crew from Scandinavia, that they were not
to be allowed upon FS road 610, which leads into the capture
facility. At one point, officials involved in the operation
told Plaintiff Hays and the others they were free to observe
the operations from public lands directly east of the capture
facility.
25. Complying with these orders, Plaintiff
Hays and others moved freely about the unrestricted area for
approximately 30 minutes. Suddenly, the hazing operation itself
appeared in that same unrestricted area to which Plaintiffs
and others had been directed, with snowmobiles hazing several
bison directly towards the BFC activists and film crew.
26. Due to the miscalculationsm misinformation,
or miscommunications of the LEOs present at the site, as well
as the confusion and noise created by the hazing operation
itself, a relatively chaotic scene ensued. The observers exercised
their concern over the fate of the bison by attempting to
direct them into a safe zone on the other side of FS road
610. The area the observers directed the bison towards is
an area protected from human intervention for the protection
of nesting bald eagles.
27. The LEOs stationed at the facility, with
the approximately 20 citizen observers between them and the
oncoming hazing operation, together with some MDOL LEOs who
dismounted their snowmobiles, attempted to exercise control
over the observers by directing them back onto the road in
direct contradiction to previous orders to stay off the road.
28. Plaintiff Hays, while objecting to the
contradictory orders as well as asserting her rights as a
public citizen to be present on public lands and protest the
operations, nonetheless began walking towards the road(s),
as directed. While looking back over her shoulder at the approaching
bison, FS LEO Defendant Burns knocked Plaintiff Hays down
from her blindside with such force that her hat was knocked
off her head. In addition, Defendant Burns’ force was
so great that it knocked the wind out of Plaintiff Hays, making
it difficult for her to breathe and causing pain and suffering.
29. Subsequent to being blocked by Defendant
Burns, and while continuing to move towards the FS road(s)
under protest, Plaintiff Hays was apprehended by Defendant
FS LEO Burns with unnecessary and unreasonable force from
behind, and placed under arrest for interfering with a government
operation.
30. In spite of the fact that Plaintiff Hays,
along with others, was moving in the general direction ordered,
and in spite of the fact that the bison were ahead and moving
away from her, Defendant Burns made no attempt to inform her
of his authority, his intention to arrest her, or the cause
of her arrest. Instead, the Defendant Burns chose to subdue
her forcibly without need or provocation, and without probable
cause.
31. In spite of her attempts to comply with
the conflicting directions of the LEOs that day, Plaintiff
Hays was arrested, imprisoned, tried and convicted, and fined
$500. Plaintiff Hays’ ability to access public lands
for the purpose of exercising her constitutional rights was
restricted both during the time leading up to trial, and after
her conviction, resulting in considerable stress and unnecessary
suffering.
32. Also present at the capture facility
scene on March 14, 2001 was Plaintiff Christopher May, another
volunteer with the BFC. Plaintiff May was arrested, pursuant
to the direction of Defendant Sergeant Gootkin of the Gallatin
County Sheriff’s Department, while attempting to obtain
clarification of the closure order from an Officer Caldwell.
33. At the time of his arrest, Plaintiff
May was neither attempting to, nor actually, interfering with
the hazing operation in question, but was simply attempting
to obtain clarification of the authority for the closure order,
and there was no probable cause for his arrest. In fact, it
is apparent from video documentation that Plaintiff May successfully
avoided interfering with the operation by running out onto
the frozen lake as the bison turned and began moving in his
direction.
34. In spite of the absence of any obvious
interference with the hazing operation at the time of his
arrest, Plaintiff May was never informed of the arresting
officer’s authority, the officer’s intention to
arrest Plaintiff May, or the cause of his arrest.
35. As a direct and proximate cause of his
arrest, Plaintiff May was subsequently imprisoned, tried,
convicted and fined. Plaintiff May’s ability to access
public lands for the purpose of exercising his constitutional
rights, as well as his duties for BFC, was restricted both
during the time leading up to trial, and after his conviction.
36. Approximately an hour after the hazing
operation detailed in the preceding paragraphs was complete,
Plaintiffs Coulter and McKinnon, along with BFC volunteer
Jeffrey Newhard, were confronted by various LEOs at a point
far removed from the capture facility while they were attempting
to videotape the transfer of captured bison into cattle trucks
for transport to the slaughterhouse. At the same time, Plaintiffs
Coulter and McKinnon were also attempting to videotape perceived
harassment of a small group of nearby volunteers by MDOL agents
on snowmobiles, when they were confronted by the LEOs in question.
37. After being ordered to move from their
present location, Plaintiffs Coulter and McKinnon, along with
Newhard, objected on the grounds that they had a right to
be on public lands documenting the operations at the capture
facility, that they were barely able to view the facility
from their present location, and that there was no way that
they could interfere with such operations from that location.
These objections, and the LEOs refusal to explain their authority
or rationale, precipitated a vigorous discussion.
38. Plaintiff McKinnon, while videotaping
the various incidents in question, was approached from behind
by a FS LEO, believed to have been Defendant Steve Diddier,
and ordered to move back towards the road. After questioning
the LEOs authority to order him off public land, and being
answered with a threat of arrest, Plaintiff McKinnon, continuing
to videotape the whole time, informed the LEO that he was
complying with the order under protest, and began moving back
to the road.
39. While moving back to the road, Plaintiff
McKinnon heard Plaintiff Coulter screaming, and turned the
camera to capture her arrest on tape. At that point, a LEO
attempted to interfere with the taping, by grabbing Plaintiff
McKinnon’s arm. After successfully resisting the attempted
interference, Plaintiff McKinnon was jumped by a number of
LEOs, believed to include Defendants Diddier and Burns, tackled
to the ground, forcibly separated from his camera, and had
his head slammed into the very road which he had been ordered
to proceed towards, resulting in an open wound near his left
eye.
40. Plaintiff McKinnon, in spite of his obvious
attempts to comply with the questionable orders, was not informed
of the LEOs authority to arrest him, their intention to arrest
him, or even told that he was under arrest. Plaintiff McKinnon
was never given any opportunity to avoid arrest. He was simply
violently assaulted without any more provocation than exercising
his First Amendment rights. Subsequently, he was imprisoned,
charged, given restrictions, and shortly before his case came
to trial, the charges against him were dropped.
41. Incident to the false arrest of Plaintiff
McKinnon, the LEOs confiscated and retained the video camera,
and confiscated the videotape.
42. At about the same time Plaintiff McKinnon
was being harassed and assaulted, Plaintiff Coulter was ordered
to move to the road. While questioning both the authority
for the order, believing in good faith that the order was
tantamount to a closure of public land without following prescribed
procedures, as well as the purpose or underlying rationale
of the order, Plaintiff Coulter was physically accosted and
arrested for obstruction of justice.
43. At no time was Plaintiff Coulter informed
of the arresting officer’s authority to order her around,
the reason for said orders, the officer’s intention
to arrest her, or the charges she was being arrested for.
Plaintiff Coulter was subsequently imprisoned, received restrictions
upon her release that limited her access to public lands,
convicted of obstruction of justice, and fined $360.
44. On or about mid-March, 2002, Plaintiff
May and Summer Nelson were walking west on FS road 6697, approximately
100 yards west of Highway 91, in the Gallatin NF as part of
their duties with the BFC.
45. At that time, three MDOL agents approached
on snowmobiles from the opposite direction, becoming visible
to Plaintiff May and Ms. Nelson at approximately 75 yards
distance.
46. While FS road 6697 is sufficiently wide
for snowmobiles to pass in opposite directions, as well as
to accommodate snowmobiles and pedestrians, Defendant Morton
continued to proceed at high speed directly at Plaintiff May,
not attempting to slow down or alter his course in a manner
that would accommodate the pedestrians in his sights.
47. As the snowmobiles drew closer, it became
apparent to Plaintiff May that Defendant Morton was intending
to strike him with deadly force, resulting in considerable
apprehension and fear for his and possibly his companion’s
personal well-being and safety.
48. At the last moment, Plaintiff May jumped
out of the path of Defendant Morton’s oncoming vehicle.
49. After the snowmobiles passed, they stopped,
and Defendant Morton approached Plaintiff May, yelling at
him to get off Defendant’s side of the road. Plaintiff
May objected to this unnecessary direction on the stated legal
ground that there was no specified right of way on a FS road.
Defendant Morton proceeded to shove Plaintiff May towards
the edge of the road, further physically assaulting him.
50. After objecting to this treatment on
the stated grounds that Defendant had no right to physically
assault him, that he had broken no laws, and was not interfering
with any operations, Defendant Morton continued to assault
Plaintiff May and threatened to arrest him if he did not “move.”
This intimidation and invidious treatment continued until
Defendant Morton had shoved Plaintiff May entirely off the
road, at which point the agents mounted their snowmobiles,
and otherwise resumed their official duties.
51. On March 6, 2002, Plaintiff Cory Mascio
was present at a hazing operation in the vicinity of FS road
6697 along with a group of volunteers. The group was ordered
off the road, and complied with the order. After Plaintiff
Mascio voiced his concerns about the operation, Defendant
Grube commenced to violently shove Plaintiff Mascio for approximately
50 yards. There was no hazing-related reason for Defendant
Grube’s behavior.
52. On March 13, 2002, Plaintiff Mascio was
present with a number of citizens carrying signs protesting
hazing operations in the vicinity of FS road 6697. A hazing
operation passed perpendicular to the group along an intersecting
road. Without informing Plaintiff Mascio of his authority
to do so, his intention to do so, or the charges, Defendant
Grube proceeded to tackle Plaintiff Mascio, who was running
parallel to the bison, staying off the road as directed, and
arrested him.
53. On April 29, 2002, Plaintiff Meghan Gill
and BFC volunteer Emily Kodama were stationed at the north
boundary of the special closure surrounding the Horse Butte
Capture Facility for the purpose of witnessing, documenting,
and peacefully protesting (through speech only) the transport
of approximately 70 bison from the facility onto trucks to
be transported to slaughter. After one trailer had been loaded
and had left, and while the second was being loaded, they
were approached by multiple FS LEOs, out of a total of approximately
15 LEOs within the cordoned-off closure area, and ordered
to move down to the cattle guard on FR 610,another quarter
mile away from the capture facility.
54. The special closure area provided for
by the special use permit from the FS to MDOL encompasses
approximately two acres surrounding the Horse Butte Capture
Facility, and is marked by a yellow police line. Unauthorized
entrance into the closure constitutes trespass.
55. On approximately a dozen occasions prior
to April 24, 2002, during similar operations, citizens were
allowed to observe and/or document the loading of bison for
transport at the Horse Butte Capture Facility from just outside
the Special Use closure area. On approximately eight of these
occasions, Plaintiff Gill was among those observers, and there
had never been any incidents of interference with said operations
during these occasions.
56. There was no legitimate law enforcement
reason for the LEOs on the date in question to order Ms. Gill
further away from the facility than the boundaries of the
special use closure area.
57. From the cattle guard on FS road 610,
it is not possible to see the operations at the Horse Butte
Capture Facility, nor is it possible to communicate verbally
to government agents involved in the transport operations.
58. The expansion of the closure area specified
in the special use permit on the date in question, as well
as on April 24, 2002, without any imminent circumstances that
would justify such an expansion, constituted an illegal closure,
as it was without compliance with the procedures specified
by law for closing areas of the National Forests.
59. Plaintiff Gill, demonstrating her helplessness
in the process of moving back towards the cattle guard on
FS road 610, was arrested for dropping to her knees.
60. In spite of her questioning the authority
of said orders, and in spite of the absence of exigent circumstances
that would otherwise justify such omissions, Ms. Gill was
never informed of the arresting officer’s authority,
his intention to arrest her, or the reason for her arrest.
Plaintiff Gill was subsequently imprisoned, convicted, and
fined.
61. On April 30, 2002, in the vicinity of
FS road 610, Randall Mark was present along with a group of
BFC volunteers near a point in the road that had been obstructed
by fallen trees and tree-limbs. Defendant Rob Burns approached
Mark and asked him to show some identification because he
was a potential witness to a crime.
62. After being asked “are you refusing
to ID yourself?” by Defendant Burns, to which Mark responded
in the negative, Defendant Burns forcibly tackled, handcuffed,
and arrested Mark for “refusing to ID yourself,”
in spite of Mark’s protestations that he was not refusing
to ID himself, but rather that he didn’t have an ID.
63. The confrontation on the date in question
involved numerous LEOs. There were no circumstances surrounding
the events and none of the citizens present made any attempts
to flee or otherwise not cooperate with the investigation.
Defendant Burns was not influenced by any circumstances that
would have prevented from stating his authority or his intention
to arrest Mark. In addition, no circumstances existed that
would justify the forceful nature of Mark’s arrest,
including but not limited to tackling Plaintiff Mark to the
ground.
64. Based upon information and belief, as
well as Mr. Mark’s notoriety among LEOs, Defendant Burns
in fact new very well who Mr. Mark was, and had no reason
for demanding identification other than to harass Mr. Mark
and create a pretext for his arrest.
65. In spite of the arrest of Mark for not
producing proof of identity, the other LEOs present at the
site permitted the other observers to identify themselves
verbally, without providing the same kind of proof of identity
demanded of Mr. Mark.
66. On April 24, 2002, Plaintiff Nicholas
Cook and his visibly pregnant domestic partner were among
a group of BFC volunteers and employees attempting to witness
and document a bison hazing/trapping operation at the Horse
Butte facility from a designated area on FS road 610.
67. As the hazing operation approached the
capture facility, and as video cameras began recording the
operation, LEOs ordered the observers to move back further
down FS road 610.
68. While the observers were in no way interfering
or attempting to interfere with the hazing operation, and
were unclear on the reasons for having to move further away,
they did at all times comply with the directives from the
LEOs to move back, until they were approximately a quarter
mile distant from the operation.
69. Without any warning, and without being
informed of the arresting officers’ authority, intention
to arrest him, or the cause of arrest, Defendant Gootkin physically
singled Plaintiff Cook out from the group and, with the assistance
of other LEOs, dragged Plaintiff Cook away from the group
for the purpose of arrest and detention.
70. Contrary to sworn statements from Defendant
Gootkin and two other FS LEOs, and as is borne out by the
video taken of the incidents leading up to his arrest, Plaintiff
Cook was not doing anything different than the rest of the
group, which was for the most part docile and compliant. Plaintiff
Cook was not “yelling” at the LEOs, refusing to
comply with directions, or trying to “incite”
the group. Plaintiff Cook did not “bolt” away
through the group to evade arrest. Defendant Gootkin had no
probable cause to justify Plaintiff Cook’s arrest, as
Plaintiff Cook was clearly part of a group that was complying
at all times with the arguably capricious orders of the LEOs.
71. As a direct consequence and proximate
cause of said arrest, Plaintiff Cook was imprisoned and required
to post bail. Plaintiff Cook and his domestic partner were
unable to return to their respective families in Kentucky
for the purpose of delivering their child as planned. As a
result Plaintiff Cook experienced emotional pain and suffering.
72. Prior to his trial date approximately
six months after his arrest, charges against Mr. Cook were
dropped. During the time before the charges were dropped,
Plaintiff Cook suffered emotional pain and suffering.
73. Also on April 24, 2002, in the vicinity
of Duck Creek Road in the Gallatin National Forest, allegedly
in the course of an investigation into a complaint from another
LEO, Defendant Gootkin directed the physical removal and isolation
of Plaintiff Valerie Coulter from other members of BFC for
the purpose of questioning her.
74. While the ostensible purpose of detaining
Plaintiff Coulter was for questioning, she was subsequently
placed under arrest for talking, and then subsequently she
was informed that by remaining silent, she would be obstructing
justice.
75. Subsequent to her arrest, Defendant Gootkin
seized the video-tape from one of the BFC members on the site,
viewed the tape, and subsequently released Ms. Coulter without
having charged her with a crime.
76. As a direct and proximate cause of the
circumstances surrounding her detention and arrest, Ms. Coulter
suffered emotional harm and humiliation. In addition, she
was subjected to unnecessary and offensive touching.
77. On May 2, 2002, Plaintiff Vince Godby
and Joseph Strusz were parked in a parking lot near the Madison
River bridge, documenting a hazing operation from the roof
of Mr. Godby’s vehicle. While the hazing operation was
in process, Officer Gootkin of the Gallatin County Sheriff’s
Department approached and ordered Plaintiff Godby and Mr.
Strusz to leave the parking lot.
78. Plaintiff Godby asked Defendant Gootkin:
“Where exactly do you want us to go?” Defendant
Gootkin responded “Head north and you’ll see a
patrol vehicle.”
79. Plaintiff Godby and Mr. Strusz complied
with Officer Gootkin’s orders without hesitation. They
proceeded north on Highway 191 away from the hazing operation,
passing multiple patrol vehicles along the way. After traveling
approximately a half mile, they pulled over at an ATV access
trail, noting that all patrol vehicles in sight were now south
of their position, and again began documenting the hazing
operation.
80. Subsequently, Officer Gootkin re-appeared,
and without notifying Mr. Godby of his authority, his intention
to arrest him or the cause of his arrest, Defendant Gootkin
placed Plaintiff Godby under arrest, and ordered Mr. Strusz
to drive the vehicle further north until he was beyond a Forest
Service vehicle that was parked at the north end of the road.
81. At the time and place of Mr. Godby’s
arrest, traffic on the highway was moving freely in both directions,
and subsequent to his arrest, one of the attending officers
notified Mr. Strusz “OK, we’re going to shut down
the road now.”
82. After parking the vehicle and exiting
it, Mr. Strusz was informed that the FS LEOs had been instructed
by the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department to seize
the video-tape. Mr. Strusz then ejected the tape from his
camera and turned it over to the LEOs.
83. In transporting Plaintiff Godby to Bozeman
along Highway 191, Defendant Gootkin unnecessarily placed
handcuffs on Plaintiff Godby too tightly, causing extreme
discomfort and pain. Defendant Gootkin traveled at an unreasonably
high speed, passed long lines of cars in no passing zones,
and otherwise displayed an absence of concern for the safety
of other drivers, and intentionally or recklessly placed Plaintiff
Godby in fear for his life.
84. During his detainment, Plaintiff Godby
informed Officer Gootkin that he had recently undergone surgery
to remove a cyst from his back, and was supposed to be applying
triple antibiotic ointment with regular bandage changes. When
Plaintiff Godby informed Officer Gootkin of his need to change
the bandage, all Defendant Gootkin offered Plaintiff Godby
was hand soap from the sink.
85. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant
Gootkin’s failure to provide necessary medical care,
Plaintiff Godby developed an infection, which produced considerable
puss, and resulted in unnecessary pain and suffering.
86. Incident to his arrest and charges, Plaintiff
Godby was required to post $230 in bail, which represented
approximately 15% of his annual income, and make two court
appearances over a six-month period. Plaintiff Godby logged
approximately 2,000 miles of driving from his home, resulting
in extreme economic hardship and mental anguish from the prospects
of large potential fines and up to six months imprisonment.
In addition, Plaintiff Godby was subject to restrictions which
limited his ability to freely exercise his constitutional
rights and liberties, as well as his duties with BFC.
87. At approximately 4:30 p.m. the day before
his trial, the charges against Mr. Godby were dropped.
88. On the morning of May 9, 2002, Plaintiff
Joshua Osher and BFC volunteer Laura Babcock were on patrol
as part of their duties for the BFC, attending approximately
30 bison on the Horse Butte Peninsula in the Gallatin National
Forest. Later that morning, MDOL agents arrived on horseback,
and proceeded to haze the bison. At that point, Osher and
Babcock began videotaping the operation.
89. After the officials hazed the bison away
from Plaintiff Osher and Ms. Babcock, Plaintiff Osher confronted
Defendant Grube concerning hazing bison into a barbed wire
fence, and was ordered by Grube to stay 100 yards back from
the hazing operation.
90. Subsequent to being so ordered, Plaintiff
Osher and Ms. Babcock remained more than a hundred yards distant
from any of the bison at all times, while continuing to document
the hazing operation. This particular operation included the
use of a helicopter in an area arguably off limits to helicopters
due to the close proximity of a protected bald eagle nest.
91. At one point during the operation, while
Plaintiff Osher and Ms. Babcock continued to remain well behind
the flow of the hazing, the helicopter and the MDOL agents
appeared to reverse the direction of the hazing operation
in a manner that resulted in aiming the stampeding bison directly
towards Plaintiff Osher and Ms. Babcock, who were forced to
scamper towards a safe area.
92. Subsequent to escaping the oncoming bison,
and without ever intentionally, or in fact, interfering with
the operations in any way beyond video-taping the same, Defendant
Grube approached Plaintiff Osher and Ms. Babcock, and without
stating his authority or his intention, placed Plaintiff Osher
under arrest.
93. While not attempting to arrest Ms. Babcock,
who at all times was in close proximity to Plaintiff Osher,
and who was in possession of the video camera at the time
of Plaintiff Osher’s arrest, LEOs present at the scene
of the arrest confiscated the videotape from Ms. Babcock,
over her objection that such confiscation violated the Montana
Media Confidentiality Act.
94. As conditions of his bail, Plaintiff
Osher was restricted from visiting the Horse Butte and Duck
Creek capture facilities in addition to an area named “turkey
trap.” Also, the conditions of Plaintiff Osher’s
bail precluded him from being on or near FS road 610, thus
severely limiting his ability to carry out his duties for
the BFC during the approximately five months leading up to
his trial.
95. As a direct and proximate result of his
arrest and subsequent trial, Plaintiff Osher underwent considerable
inconvenience and expense, as well as mental anguish over
the prospects of facing trial and potential fines and imprisonment
for exercising his constitutional rights.
96. After a daylong trial, a jury acquitted
Plaintiff Osher of all charges.
97. On or about May 23 or 24, 2002, BFC volunteers,
including Plaintiff Greg Marin, his four-year-old son, and
Plaintiff Cory Mascio, were stationed in close proximity to
a capture facility near Dale Koelzer’s private property
for the purpose of monitoring MDOL operations. The MDOL leases
part of Mr. Koelzer’s property to conduct capture operations.
98. As the Plaintiffs Marin and Mascio were
present on public land, Defendant Shane Grube dragged the
carcass of a dead moose to an area on Koezler’s fenced
property in close proximity to Plaintiffs Marin and Mascio.
Defendant Grube did not cover or bury the carcass. Defendant
Grube knowingly left the carcass in close proximity to both
the BFC observers and a Grizzly Bear closure area of Yellowstone
National Park.
99. Earlier that same day, Plaintiff Marin
observed Defendant Grube drinking beer while operating an
ATV with his child in his lap.
100. Given the open hostility of Defendant
Grube to members of the BFC, it was readily apparent to those
who witnessed and/or became aware of Grube’s actions
that his intention was to either draw a grizzly bear out of
the park and/or to intimidate the BFC volunteers by creating
the impression that such an event was possible. It was apparent
that Defendant Grube intended to create apprehension in the
BFC volunteers that the carcass might attract a grizzly bear,
thus imperiling their life and safety.
101. It is illegal to bait a grizzly bear
or to dispose of a moose carcass in the unsanitary manner
Defendant Grube disposed of the carcass at the time in question,
a fact which Defendant Grube is well aware of.
102. As a proximate, direct, and intended
result of Defendant Grube’s actions, Plaintiff Marin
was placed in jeopardy, as well as in fear for his own and
his child’s life and safety, and Plaintiff Mascio was
also placed in jeopardy and fear for his own life and safety.
103. Also on the date in question, Defendant
Grube again accosted and arrested Plaintiff Mascio, without
authority of law to do so, and/or without following appropriate
procedures for a warrantless arrest.
104. While at all times relevant to all of
the above factual allegations, Defendant Grube represented
himself as a Law Enforcement Officer acting under the authority
of the MDOL. In fact, at no time relevant to those allegations
had Defendant Grube ever actually complied with the necessary
pre-requisites for designation by the MDOL as an LEO; including
but not limited to passing an examination pursuant to M.C.A.
81-1-201, nor did he qualify as a deputy sheriff pursuant
to M.C.A. 7-32-2104.
105. In effect, at all times relevant to
the above allegations, Defendant Grube impersonated an officer
of the law for purposes of threatening, intimidating, directing
law enforcement activities, and making arrests for alleged
violations of the law or otherwise carrying out official duties
as an LEO for the MDOL. As a result, Defendant Grube acted
outside the scope of his employ and/or authority with the
MDOL.
106. Defendants have engaged in a continuing
and coordinated campaign to monitor the activities of the
BFC, including regular surveillance of the BFC headquarters,
as well as any persons or vehicles entering said facility,
and otherwise spying on BFC and its members (infra).
107. On or about November of 2001, Stephan Fleck,
Ph.D., a doctor and Senior Manager of a Health Care company
in Granger, Indiana, was on vacation in the Yellowstone Park
area, and decided to educate himself regarding the bison issue.
Mr. Fleck began his investigation by visiting the BFC headquarters,
and meeting with some of its representatives. Based upon subsequent
conversations with police, Dr. Fleck learned that his visit
was duly noted by officers responsible for conducting surveillance
activities on the BFC.
108. On or about November 20, 2001, Dr. Fleck
was driving along Highway 191 when he happened to observe
that a buffalo hazing operation had apparently just concluded.
Hoping to learn more about such operations, Dr. Fleck stopped
his vehicle and approached what appeared to him to be the
responsible officials. Upon exiting his vehicle, Captain Halton
of the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department ordered
Dr. Fleck to step to the front of a police vehicle. Captain
Halton detained Dr. Fleck for the purpose of interrogation.
109. In spite of repeated requests for an
explanation for this treatment, Dr. Fleck was simply told
to follow instructions and to answer a series of personal
questions. Dr. Fleck was subjected to a body search and a
search of his personal effects. Throughout the interrogation
and search the officers treated Dr. Fleck with hostility.
Captain Halton physically assaulted Dr. Fleck during the search
by twisting Dr. Fleck’s arms behind him in a manner
intended to, and having the effect of, causing physical pain
and discomfort.
110. As soon as the LEOs identified Dr. Fleck
as a senior manager of a large corporation, their attitude
and treatment of him changed dramatically. The LEOs suddenly
accorded Dr. Fleck great respect and treated him with the
dignity required by any LEO towards a every law-abiding citizen.
111. On or about November 27, 2001, Dr. Fleck
visited the West Yellowstone police station for the purpose
of obtaining the names and badge numbers of the officers who
had mistreated him. On such occasion, he engaged in a lengthy
conversation with an Officer Fowler, during the course of
which Officer Fowler made the following unsubstantiated and
false comments regarding the BFC and its members:
• that the BFC was an eco-terrorist organization;
• that the BFC and its volunteers and its staff kill
dogs;
• that the BFC and its volunteers and staff slash tires
and otherwise destroy property;
• that the BFC and its volunteers and staff threaten
families;
• that the BFC and its volunteers and staff don’t
pay taxes.
112. It was during this conversation with
Officer Fowler that Dr. Fleck learned that the reason the
authorities may have subjected him to mistreatment was that
his vehicle had been subject to surveillance while he was
visiting the BFC headquarters.
113. Officer Fowler also implied in conversation
with Dr. Fleck that, since the terrorist attacks on September
11, 2001, the behavior of the BFC had changed significantly,
because the authorities now had a better handle on “these
kind of people.”
114. Subsequent to his encounters with Captain
Halton and Officer Fowler, Dr. Fleck filed a formal complaint
and request for internal investigation regarding the incidents
detailed in the preceding paragraphs, addressing his request
to Jason Jarrett of the Detective Division in Bozeman, MT.
In spite of the serious nature of the charges, Dr. Fleck never
received any formal response to his complaint.
115. The BFC has attempted to address perceived
abuses of police power by MDOL LEOs through official channels
on numerous occasions, without any success. In fact, when
complaining to the MDOL itself, the MDOL referred the BFC
to the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office or the Attorney
General’s Office. Upon inquiry, the Attorney General’s
Office referred BFC to Gallatin County. Upon inquiry with
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office, BFC was referred
back to the Attorney General’s Office.
116. Based upon inquiries from BFC and the
responses received, it appears that the MDOL LEOs are not
subject to oversight typical of other law enforcement agencies.
It appears there is no way to lodge a formal complaint against
any MDOL LEOs short of filing a lawsuit.
117. In the “Index of Withheld Documents”
filed by MDOL in Cause No. CDV-2001-475, Montana First Judicial
District Court, Lewis and Clark County, a right-to-know case
filed by BFC and others against MDOL, there are references
to 14 “Investigative Reports” compiled by various
MDOL “Officers.” Thirteen of these reports are
from a 5-month period, from January to May of 2002, and of
these, at least five do not seem to be related to arrests
of activists. Also, the list includes as withheld 121 color
photographs of BFC members, supporters, and activities.
118. According to a series of “Weekly
Report[s]” filed by MDOL agent Claude E. Cain for the
weeks ending March 22 and March 29, 2002, included among Defendant
Cain’s official activities was the task of taking approximately
137 “ID photos of Bison Activists, as new faces showed.”
Defendant Cain distributed the pictures widely to other LEOs.
In addition, Defendant Cain videotaped an “Activist
Parade” on Saturday, March 23, 2002.
119. Based upon information and belief, including
but not limited to the allegations set forth herein, Defendants
have engaged in a pattern and practice of monitoring, recording,
and keeping files on BFC and its members, supporters, and
their peaceful activities. The purpose of these monitoring
activities is based on the supposedly controversial views
held by these citizens concerning the treatment of wild bison
in and around Yellowstone NP.
120. The Defendant’s surveillance,
collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information
on BFC’s advocacy and new-gathering activities is not
grounded in any legitimate basis for law enforcement-related
background or surveillance activities. There is no constitutional,
statutory, or other legal authority for these activities,
and they are outside the scope of the authority of the agents
carrying them out. Additionally, any activities purportedly
justified by suspicion of minor misdemeanor crimes, such as
trespass, are completely out of proportion to the crimes being
investigated, evincing an intention to suppress the exercise
of constitutional rights and liberties through abuse of process.
121. It is a common tactic of Defendants
to confront suspected activists in the field, without regard
to the advent of hazing operations or suspicion of crimes,
in order to take their pictures, request personal identification,
and otherwise gather information for the purpose of monitoring
their activities. Presumably, Defendants want to ensure BFC,
its staff and volunteers, know that their activities are being
monitored.
122. Based upon information and belief, Defendants
and/or others acting in concert with Defendants regularly
conduct surveillance of the BFC headquarters, such surveillance
including, but not being limited to, noting the license plates
of any vehicle entering the premises.
123. It is the custom and practice of the
Defendants to gather information utilizing methods that have
the objective effect of chilling or deterring reasonable persons
from the exercise of their rights of expression, free press,
association, and/or petitioning the government for the redress
of grievances.
124. Individuals are less likely to visit
and/or volunteer for the BFC, or having done so, remain, when
they reasonably fear that the government LEOs will photograph
them or that their names will appear in official investigatory
files. This is especially true in the wake of September 11,
2001, and the adoption of the “Patriot Act.” The
Patriot Act curtails civil liberties and greatly increases
the government’s surveillance powers over politically
active citizens. On at least one occasion, Defendants threatened
Plaintiffs with reprisals under the Patriot Act. At the same
time, the involved governmental agencies attempt to portray
the BFC as a criminal or terrorist organization, with full
knowledge that BFC is a legitimate news organization that
has been recognized as such in litigation involving employers
of the named Defendants.
125. The actions complained of herein have
not only limited the BFC’s and its staff and member’s
ability to carry out their lawful purposes, but the actions
have deterred them and unreasonably restricted the exercise
of their rights and liberties. In addition, the actions of
the Defendants have the indirect effect of making it more
difficult for BFC to attract and/or retain volunteers for
said purposes, thus damaging their campaign.
126. The actions complained of herein have
had and continue to have the effect of damaging the personal,
political, and professional reputations of the individuals
involved.
127. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
the Defendants have acted in concert and in a coordinated
manner pursuant to either formal, informal, or other manner
of prior agreements concerning how to deal with the BFC and
its members, under color of state law. Based upon information
and belief, MDOL acts as the lead agency in requesting assistance
from the federal agencies and the County Sheriff’s Office,
which assistance is then formalized in cooperative agreements
entered into by the respective agencies.
128. Based upon information and belief, the
Defendants have conspired to treat the BFC, its staff and
volunteers, in such a manner as to discourage them from exercising
their constitutional rights and personal liberties. The Defendants
have conspired to intimidate the BFC, its staff and volunteers,
in the exercise of such rights and liberties and to prevent
them from the reasonable exercise of such rights and liberties,
including but not limited to the rights of free speech, press,
and expression of dissent. Year after year, the Defendants
have conspired to punish BFC, its staff and volunteers, for
attempting to exercise such rights and liberties.
129. Acting pursuant to this conspiracy,
Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of abusing
police power and otherwise acting in unlawful manners in order
to suppress the BFC and its members from the exercising their
constitutional rights and liberties. This pattern and practice
includes, but is not limited to: spying, assaults, slander,
and harassment. In addition, the Defendants subject the BFC,
its staff and volunteers, to unreasonable searches and seizures,
false arrests and imprisonments, and arbitrary, capricious,
and otherwise unlawful area closures of public lands. These
unlawful closures restrict the movement and access of BFC,
its staff and volunteers, on otherwise public lands in a manner
that does not apply to non-BFC members. Also in furtherance
of this apparent conspiracy, Defendants repeatedly single
out those members of the BFC who are attempting to document
official operations by videotaping them, or questioning and/or
seeking clarification of the Defendants’ orders and
their authority to issue those orders.
130. In addition, on numerous occasions,
Plaintiffs and/or members of BFC have been the subject of
harassment, assaults, and other illegal and/or criminal conduct
from members of the community, but when they attempt to solicit
protection and enforcement efforts from the Defendants, they
are not accorded the same respect, dignity, and protection
under the law that other members of the public receive, or
that citizens have a right to expect from their public servants
whose mission it is to “serve and protect” them.
Once again, this disparate treatment is motivated by an animus
towards BFC and its members from LEOs who disagree with their
political views.
131. Specifically, the actions complained
of have had the effect of suppressing and denying Plaintiffs
constitutional rights and liberties in many ways, including
but not limited to the following:
• Preventing BFC, its staff and volunteers, from accessing
public lands for the purpose of documenting the hazing, capture,
and slaughter of bison from Yellowstone NP;
• Denying BFC, its staff and volunteers, access to public
facilities for the purpose of documenting the conditions that
bison, once captured, are subject to;
• Intimidating BFC staff, volunteers, and citizens interested
in volunteering for BFC through surveillance, detention, confrontation,
slander, assault, utilization of unnecessary force, issuance
of vague and sometimes conflicting orders, warrantless arrests
without offering opportunities to comply with orders prior
to arrest, abuse of process, selective prosecution, false
arrests and imprisonments, refusal to investigate complaints,
and unnecessarily creating a general atmosphere of hostility
and derision towards public citizens on public lands due solely
to their political beliefs and convictions.
132. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ actions complained of herein, Plaintiffs
have suffered and will continue to suffer from both physical
and emotional harm, as well as unnecessary expense and inconvenience.
For example, due to limited funding and the nature of their
tasks, BFC volunteers live in close quarters near West Yellowstone.
They put in long days of hard work in extreme weather, with
few days off. Under the best of circumstances, this kind of
lifestyle would be stressful. But when one adds the constant
threat of harassment, surveillance, assault, arrest, and refusal
to investigate valid complaints, the stress levels are greatly
increased, with detrimental results to the physical and emotional
well-being of BFC staff and volunteers.
133. The actions of Defendants alleged above
were committed either on the instructions of Gallatin County
Sheriff, under the policy or custom of Gallatin County, or
with the knowledge and consent of these defendants, or were
thereafter approved and ratified by these defendants. While
MDOL acts as the lead agency in requesting assistance from
other agencies, it is Gallatin County Sheriff that provides
the primary means of legal enforcement and implementation
of cooperative agreements.
134. Each of the Defendants, individually
and in concert with others, acted under pretense and color
of state law and their official capacity, but in each and
every instance alleged herein, such acts were beyond the scope
of their jurisdiction and/or were otherwise without authorization
of law, due to the overall intent of their efforts to suppress
the lawful activities of Plaintiffs, as well as other factors,
such as Defendant Grube’s impersonating an officer under
color of state law.
135. Each Defendant, individually and in
concert with the others, acted willfully, knowingly, and with
specific and often malicious intent. The Defendants sought
to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech,
their freedom of the press, their right to freedom from illegal
searches and seizures, their right to equal protection under
the law, and of their right to be free from unlawful arrest,
detention, imprisonment, and/or cruel and unusual punishment.
The Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, and by Title 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1983 guarantees those rights to the Plaintiffs.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
137. The pattern and practice of official
intimidation engaged in by Defendants against Plaintiffs under
pretense of their official duties and color of state law –
including but not limited to: ongoing surveillance; creation,
maintenance and dissemination of files not related to legitimate
criminal investigations; confrontation of BFC volunteers in
the field for the purpose of photographing them and soliciting
information; and repeated false arrests, video-tape seizures,
detentions, imprisonments, slanders, and abuse of process
– has the effect of, and continues to pose an imminent
threat of, infringing, interfering with, suppressing, and
diminishing Plaintiffs ability to enjoy and exercise fully
and freely their rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom
to address the government for redress of grievances. In addition,
Plaintiff’s rights to freedom of travel, freedom to
enjoy public lands, their rights of privacy, due process,
and the equal protection of the law, and their rights to be
free from unreasonable search and seizures, all of which are
protected by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution have also been infringed.
138. Each of the Defendants, individually
and in concert with others, acted under pretense and color
of law and their official capacity, but such acts were beyond
the scope of their jurisdiction and without authorization
of law. Each Defendant, individually and in concert with others,
acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive
Plaintiffs of their rights and freedoms secured by the First,
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and by Title 42, U.S.C., Sections 1983.
139. Defendants collectively and individually,
both by their words and actions, have exhibited a reckless
or callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and liberties,
and/or were motivated by an improper and unlawful animus towards
the Plaintiffs, wishing to do them harm due to differences
in political beliefs and ideologies.
140. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs are entitled
to declaratory and injunctive relief, including the expungement
of surveillance files and such other relief as the Court may
deem appropriate and just. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled
to compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 plus attorney’s
fees and costs. In the alternative and/or in addition, Plaintiff
are entitled to nominal damages – and punitive damages
against individually named Defendants (e.g., excluding Gallatin
County and the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department),
jointly and severally, in the amount of $100,000.00, plus
attorneys fees and costs.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
141. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
142. The manner of arrest of Plaintiff Gill
by Defendant Tierney constituted an application of force in
excess of that which was reasonable and necessary under the
circumstances.
143. Defendant Tierney exhibited a reckless
and callous disregard for Plaintiff Gill’s safety and/or
rights when he jumped off his vehicle and tackled her from
behind, and/or he was motivated by an improper animus toward
Ms. Gill, due primarily to her membership and participation
in the BFC, intending to cause her harm under the circumstances
beyond that which would reasonably be attendant to a lawful
arrest.
144. The arrest of Ms. Gill on April 29,
2002, for protesting an order to move back to the cattle guard
on FS road 610, was without probable cause, and otherwise
constituted false arrest, imprisonment, and an abuse of process.
145. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Gill is entitled
to damages against Defendants Tierney, Gallatin County, and
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting physical pain and suffering,
and mental and emotional distress from the excessive use of
force, in the amount of $15,000.00, plus attorney’s
fees and costs. In the alternative and/or in addition, Plaintiff
Gill is entitled to nominal damages, as well as punitive damages
against Defendant Tierney in the amount of $15,000.00, plus
attorneys fees and costs. For her false arrest and imprisonment,
Ms. Gill is entitled to compensatory damages in the amount
of $10,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $15,000,
plus attorney’s fees and costs.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments)
146. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
147. The arrest and subsequent prosecution
of Plaintiff Hays was without probable cause and/or in furtherance
of an improper purpose, constituted an abuse of process, resulted
in her false imprisonment, and otherwise interfered with her
rights and liberties, including but not limited to her right
to be free from assault, unlawful arrest, detention, and imprisonment.
148. Defendant Burns exhibited an improper
animus towards Ms. Hays, due primarily to her membership and
participation in the BFC, and/or a callous disregard for her
rights and liberties, resulting in an unnecessary but intended
interference with and/or deprivation of those rights and liberties.
149. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Hays is entitled
to damages against Defendant Burns, Gallatin County, and/or
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting physical pain and suffering
and mental and emotional distress in the amount of $15,000.00,
plus attorney’s fees and costs. In the alternative and/or
in addition, Plaintiff Hays is entitled to nominal damages,
as well as punitive damages against Defendant Burns in the
amount of $15,000.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
150. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
151. The arrest and subsequent prosecution
of Plaintiff May was without probable cause and/or in furtherance
of an improper purpose, constituted an abuse of process, resulted
in his false imprisonment, and otherwise interfered with his
rights and liberties, including but not limited to his right
to be free from unlawful arrest, detention, and imprisonment.
152. Defendant Gootkin exhibited an improper
animus towards Mr. May, due primarily to his membership and
participation in the BFC, and/or a callous disregard for his
rights and liberties, resulting in an unnecessary but intended
interference with and/or deprivation of those rights and liberties.
153. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff May is entitled
to damages against Defendant Gootkin, Gallatin County, and/or
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting mental and emotional
distress in the amount of $10,000.00 plus attorney’s
fees and costs. In the alternative and/or in addition, Plaintiff
May is entitled to nominal damages, as well as punitive damages
from Defendant Gootkin in the amount of $10,000.00, plus attorney’s
fees and costs.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, and Fourteenth Amendments)
154. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
155. The vehicular and personal assault on
Plaintiff May by Defendant Morton, acting under color of state
law, exhibited a callous and reckless disregard for the law,
as well as for Mr. May’s rights and liberties, and while
he was acting under the pretense of his official capacity,
such act was clearly beyond the scope of his jurisdiction
and authority.
156. In carrying out the above-described
unlawful assault and detention, Defendant Morton acted willfully,
maliciously, and without any excuse or justification whatsoever.
157. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff May is entitled
to compensatory damages from Defendant Morton in the amount
of $10,000 for mental and emotional distress, in addition
to $50,000 in punitive damages, and attorney’s fees
and costs.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
158. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
159. The assaults on, and arrests of, Plaintiff
Mascio by Defendant Grube were without the authority of law,
constituted false arrests, imprisonments, and abuses of process,
and were carried out with an application of force in excess
of that which was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
160. Defendant Grube clearly exhibited an
improper animus toward Plaintiff Mascio on numerous occasions,
as well as a reckless or callous disregard for his rights.
In addition, Defendant Grube singled Plaintiff Mascio out
for harsh treatment based on Plaintiff Mascio’s exercise
of his rights and liberties, including but not limited to
freedom of speech, freedom to seek redress of grievances against
the government, and freedom to be free from unreasonable search
and seizure.
161. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Mascio is entitled
to damages from Defendant Grube, Gallatin County, and the
Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, in the amounts
of $20,000 for physical pain and suffering, and mental and
emotional distress plus attorney’s fees and costs. In
the alternative and/or in addition, Plaintiff Mascio is entitled
to nominal damages, as well as $50,000 in punitive damages
from Defendant Grube, and attorney’s fees and costs.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
162. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
163. The arrest and subsequent prosecution
of Plaintiff Cook by Defendant Gootkin was without probable
cause and/or in furtherance of an improper purpose, constituted
an abuse of process, resulted in his false imprisonment, and
otherwise interfered with his rights and liberties, including
but not limited to his right to be free from unlawful arrest,
detention, and imprisonment, and his right to travel.
164. Defendant Gootkin exhibited an improper
animus towards Plaintiff Cook and/or acted in callous disregard
for his rights and liberties, due primarily to his membership
and participation in the BFC, resulting in the intended unnecessary
and unlawful interference with those rights and liberties.
165. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cook is entitled
to damages against Defendant Gootkin, Gallatin County, and/or
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting physical pain and suffering,
and mental and emotional distress, in the amount of $25,000.00
plus attorney’s fees and costs. In the alternative and/or
in addition, Plaintiff Cook is entitled to nominal damages,
as well as punitive damages from Defendant Gootkin in the
amount of $25,000.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
166. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
167. The detention and arrest of Plaintiff
Coulter on April, 24, 2002 by Defendant Gootkin, as well as
the arrest of Plaintiff Coulter on March 14, 2001, was without
probable cause and/or in furtherance of an improper purpose,
constituted an abuse of process, resulted in her false imprisonment,
and otherwise interfered with her rights and liberties, including
but not limited to her right to be free from unlawful arrest,
detention, and imprisonment.
168. Defendant Gootkin exhibited an improper
animus towards Plaintiff Coulter and/or acted in callous disregard
for her rights and liberties, due primarily to her membership
and participation in the BFC, resulting in the intended unnecessary
and unlawful interference with those rights and liberties.
169. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Coulter is entitled
to damages against Defendant Gootkin, Gallatin County, and/or
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting mental and emotional
distress in the amount of $25,000.00 plus attorney’s
fees. In the alternative and/or in addition, Plaintiff Coulter
is entitled to nominal damages, as well as punitive damages
from Defendant Gootkin in the amount of $25,000.00, plus attorney’s
fees and costs.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
170. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
171. The assault and arrest, imprisonment,
and prosecution of Plaintiff McKinnon by Defendants Diddier
and Burns was without probable cause and procedure for warrantless
arrests, and/or in furtherance of an improper purpose, constituted
an abuse of process, resulted in his false imprisonment, and
otherwise interfered with his rights and liberties, including
but not limited to his right to be free from unlawful arrest,
detention, and imprisonment.
172. Defendants Diddier and Burns exhibited
an improper animus towards Plaintiff McKinnon and/or acted
in callous disregard for his rights and liberties, due primarily
to his membership and participation in the BFC, resulting
in the intended unnecessary and unlawful interference with
those rights and liberties.
173. In carrying out his assault and arrest
of Plaintiff McKinnon, Defendants Diddier and Burns acted
beyond the scope of their authority as a LEO for the U.S.
Forest Service, as they knew or should have known that there
was no probable cause which would have justified the arrest
and imprisonment of Plaintiff McKinnon.
174. The manner of arrest of Plaintiff McKinnon
was excessively and unnecessarily violent, and clearly not
appropriate under the circumstances.
175. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff McKinnon is entitled
to damages against Defendants Diddier and Burns, including
compensatory damages for the resulting mental and emotional
distress, in the amount of $25,000.00, plus attorney’s
fees. In the alternative and/or in addition, Plaintiff McKinnon
is entitled to nominal damages, as well as punitive damages
from Defendants Diddier and Burns, jointly and severally,
in the amount of $25,000.00, plus attorney’s fees and
costs.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
176. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
177. The arrest and subsequent prosecution
of Plaintiff Godby by Defendant Gootkin was without probable
cause and/or in furtherance of an improper purpose, constituted
an abuse of process, resulted in Plaintiff Godby’s false
imprisonment, and otherwise interfered with his rights and
liberties, including but not limited to his right to be free
from unlawful arrest, detention, and imprisonment.
178. Defendant Gootkin acted in a reckless
manner in transporting Plaintiff Godby to jail, including
but not limited to driving at an unnecessarily high speed
and otherwise ignoring traffic laws, which had the result
of placing Mr. Godby in fear for his life and safety.
179. The refusal of Defendant Gootkin to
provide necessary medical care for Plaintiff Godby’s
recent surgery constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and
caused needless pain and suffering.
180. Defendant Gootkin exhibited an improper
animus towards Plaintiff Godby and/or acted in callous disregard
for his rights and liberties, due primarily to his membership
and participation in the BFC, resulting in the intended unnecessary
and unlawful interference with those rights and liberties.
181. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Godby is entitled
to damages against Defendant Gootkin, Gallatin County, and/or
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting physical pain and suffering,
and mental and emotional distress, in the amount of $25,000.00
plus attorney’s fees. In the alternative and/or in addition,
Plaintiff Godby is entitled to nominal damages, as well as
punitive damages from Defendant Gootkin in the amount of $25,000.00,
plus attorney’s fees and costs.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
182. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
183. The arrest and subsequent prosecution
of Plaintiff Osher by Defendant Grube was without probable
cause and/or in furtherance of an improper purpose, constituted
an abuse of process, resulted in his false imprisonment, and
otherwise interfered with his rights and liberties, including
but not limited to his right to be free from unlawful arrest,
detention, and imprisonment.
184. Defendant Grube exhibited an improper
animus towards Plaintiff Osher and/or acted in callous disregard
for his rights and liberties, due primarily to his membership
and participation in the BFC, resulting in the intended unnecessary
and unlawful interference with those rights and liberties.
185. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Osher is entitled
to damages against Defendant Grube, Gallatin County, and/or
the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting mental and emotional
distress in the amount of $10,000.00 plus attorney’s
fees. In the alternative and/or in addition, Plaintiff Osher
is entitled to nominal damages, as well as punitive damages
from Defendant Grube in the amount of $25,000.00, plus attorney’s
fees and costs.
TWELVTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments)
186. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
187. The arrest and subsequent prosecution
of Plaintiff Mark by Defendant Burns was without probable
cause and/or in furtherance of an improper purpose, constituted
an abuse of process, resulted in his false imprisonment, including
serving a 60 day jail sentence, and otherwise interfered with
his rights and liberties, including but not limited to his
right to be free from unlawful arrest, detention, and imprisonment.
188. Defendant Burns exhibited an improper
animus towards Plaintiff Mark and/or acted in callous disregard
for his rights and liberties, due primarily to his membership
and participation in the BFC, resulting in the intended unnecessary
and unlawful interference with those rights and liberties.
189. In his arrest of Plaintiff Mark, Defendant
Burns was acting outside the scope of his authority as a LEO
for the U.S. Forest Service, as he knew or should have known
that there is no probable cause for arresting someone solely
for failure to produce proof of identity, and/or as he knew
the identity of Mr. Mark, or otherwise had no legitimate official
reason for asking for such proof of identity.
190. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mark is entitled
to damages against Defendant Burns, including compensatory
damages for the resulting physical pain and suffering, and
mental and emotional distress, in the amount of $50,000.00
plus attorney’s fees and costs. In the alternative and/or
in addition, Plaintiff Mark is entitled to nominal damages,
as well as punitive damages from Defendant Burns in the amount
of $50,000.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. 1983, First, and Fourteenth Amendments)
191. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
192. The illegal disposal of a moose carcass
by Defendant Grube in the vicinity of a BFC encampment where
Plaintiff Marin, his child, and Plaintiff Mascio were camped
was intended to draw a grizzly bear from the adjacent, active
grizzly closure area. The purpose of the unlawful disposal
was to menace and/or kill those camped there. Furthermore,
Defendant Grube either intentionally or recklessly caused
Plaintiffs Marin and Mascio to fear for their personal safety
and/or lives, as well as the safety and/or life of Mr. Marin’s
son.
193. Defendant Grube exhibited an improper
animus towards Plaintiffs Mascio and Marin, and/or acted in
callous disregard for their rights and liberties, due primarily
to their membership and participation in the BFC, resulting
in the intended unnecessary and unlawful interference with
those rights and liberties.
194. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marin Mascio are
entitled to damages against Defendant Grube, Gallatin County,
and/or the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department, including
compensatory damages for the resulting mental and emotional
distress in the amount of $30,000.00 for Plaintiff Marin,
and $15,000 for Plaintiff Mascio, as well as punitive damages
from Defendant Grube in the amount of $50,000.00 for Plaintiff
Marin, and $25,000 for Plaintiff Mascio, plus attorney’s
fees and costs.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Pursuant to Montana’s Media Confidentiality Act)
195. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference
all preceding paragraphs.
196. Defendants have repeatedly violated
Plaintiffs’ rights and privileges under the Montana
Media Confidentiality Act, MC 26-1-901 et seq., with the intent,
purpose, and effect to interfere with the newsgathering function
of the Buffalo Field Campaign, without any justification under
law.
197. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs are entitled to
compensatory damages against Defendants, jointly and severally,
in the amount of $10,000, as well as punitive, or exemplary,
damages against individual Defendants, acting outside the
scope of their authorities for improper purposes, jointly
and severally, in the amount of $100,000.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2004
By:
Thomas J. Woodbury
P.O. Box 7681
Missoula, Montana 59807
Telephone: (406) 728-5733
Attorney for Plaintiffs |
