buffalo field campaign yellowstone bison slaughter Buffalo Field Campaign
West Yellowstone, Montana
Working in the field every day to stop the
slaughter of Yellowstone's wild free roaming buffalo

Total Yellowstone
Buffalo Killed
Since 1985
9,167
(past counts)

Yellowstone Bison Slaughter
About Buffalo About BFC FAQ Support the Buffalo Media Legislative Science Legal
Buffalo Field Campaign Legislative
Home
Legal
Emergency Rule
Making Petiton
APHIS FOIA Lawsuit
APHIS Bison Population Control
Bison Habitat Lawsuit
Stop the Slaughter Petition
Royal Teton Ranch Land Deal
Horse Butte Trap Documents
Horse Butte Bison Habitat Legal Action and Sign On Letter
Civil Right Complaint
Endangered Species Act
Horse Butte Bald Eagle Lawsuit
Freedom of Information Act
Right to Know Lawsuit
Get Our Weekly
Email Update

Buffalo Field Campaign PayPal

Privacy Policy

Complaint for Violations of the Civil Rights Act 4/01/04
See Press Release 4/01/04- Buffalo Advocates File Federal Suit over Civil Rights Violations

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

Top of Page
Buffalo Field Campaign West Yellowstone Montana
Home Contact Us Privacy Policy Copyright Search Sign Up for Weekly Email Updates
BFC Information or Questions:
buffalo"at"wildrockies.org

1-406-646-0070     Fax: 1-406-646-0071
PO Box 957 West Yellowstone, Montana 59758
GoodSearch: You Search...We Give!
About Buffalo About BFC FAQ Factsheets Support Media Legislative Science Legal Site Map