Kohn v. Hollywood, Einhorn, Et Al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

STEVEN KOHN, RENEE LEAVY, )
REBECCA KOHN, HANNAH KOHN, )
SARA KOHN, LEAH KOHN, ) COMPLAINT
HINDA KOHN (a minor), ABRAHAM KOHN )
(a minor), SIMHA KOHN (a minor), )
CLARA KOHN (a minor), SOPHIA KOHN )
(a minor), DAVID KOHN (a minor) )
)
Plaintiffs )
vs. )
)
City of Hollywood, a municipal corporation )
Jeffrey Sheffel, Joel Cantor, )
City of Hollywood Police Department, )
Robert Knapp, Chadwick Wagner, Alexander Perez, )
Grant Einhorn, Sandra Einhorn, Peter Bober )
Richard S. Blattner )
)
Defendants )
_______________________________________/ )

COMES NOW Plaintiffs by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby sue the
above named Defendants, and in support thereof allege as follows:
I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs STEVEN KOHN (KOHN), RENEE LEAVY, REBECCA KOHN, HANNAH
KOHN, SARA KOHN, LEAH KOHN, HINDA KOHN (a minor) ABRAHAM KOHN (a minor)
SIMHA KOHN (a minor) CLARA KOHN (a minor) SOPHIA KOHN (a minor) and DAVID
KOHN (a minor), at all times material to this action, were residents of Broward County, Florida.
2. Defendant ROBERT KNAPP (Defendant Knapp), at all times material to this action,
was a Detective of the Defendant, City of Hollywood, and at all times mentioned in this
complaint was acting under color of law and color of their authority as a police detective of
Defendant City of Hollywood.
3. Defendant ALEXANDER PEREZ (Defendant Perez), at all times material to this
action, was an officer of the Defendant City of Hollywood, and at all times mentioned in this
complaint was acting under color of law and color of their authority as a police officer of
Defendant City of Hollywood.
4. Defendant CHADWICK WAGNER (Defendant Wagner), is the police chief of
Defendant City of Hollywood and at all times mentioned in this complaint was acting under
color of law and color of his authority as police chief of Defendant City of Hollywood.
5. Defendant CHADWICK WAGNER, as police chief of Defendant, City of Hollywood, is
responsible for the acts of the police officers of Defendant, City of Hollywood, while in the
performance of their duties as police officers for Defendant, City of Hollywood. Furthermore, he
is responsible for the ongoing training of the police officers of Defendant, City of Hollywood, to
ensure that those officers are competent to carry out their assigned duties.
6. Defendant JEFFREY SHEFFEL (Defendant Sheffel), at all times material to this
action, was the City Attorney for the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida.
7. Defendant JOEL CANTOR (Defendant Cantor), at all times material to this action, was
an attorney for the City of Hollywood and/or the Hollywood Police Department and was a
resident of Broward County, Florida.
8. Defendant PETER BOBER, at all times material to this action, was the Mayor for the
City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida.
9. Defendant RICHARD S. BLATTNER, at all times material to this action, was a
Commissioner for the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida
10. Defendant CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a municipal corporation (Defendant
Hollywood), at all times material to this action, was a City of Broward County, Florida.
11. Defendant HOLLYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT (Defendant HPD), at all times
material to this action, was an agency of the City of Hollywood in Broward County, Florida.
12. At all times material to this action, the applicable, aforementioned Defendants were
acting under color of state law.
13. Defendant GRANT EINHORN (Defendant Einhorn), at all times material to this
action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.
14. Defendant SANDRA EINHORN (Defendant Einhorn), at all times material to this
action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.
II. JURISDICTION

15. This is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States of America.
16. This complaint seeks, inter alia, damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and 42
U.S.C.A. 1988 for violations of Plaintiffs civil rights.
17. This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of 42 United States Code, Sections
1983, 1985, and 1988. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs common law
torts claims pursuant to 28 United States Code, Section 1367 as they arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence as Plaintiffs federal claims.
18. This action seeks monetary damages against Defendants in their official and individual
capacities in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), exclusive of costs, interest and
attorney's fees, as well as injunctive relief.
19. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been met, including, but not limited
to, a Notice of Claim setting forth the name and post office address of the claimants and of their
attorneys, the nature of the claim, the time when, the place where, and the manner in which the
claim arose, and the items of damage and injuries claimed to have been sustained so far as then
practicable, was served upon Defendants.

III. BACKGROUND
This is an action for damages sustained by citizens of the United States against
Hollywood City, Hollywood City Police Department, employee police officers of Hollywood
City, employees of Hollywood City government, the Mayor of Hollywood City, the Chief of
Police of Hollywood City, a Commissioner of Hollywood City, and two Hollywood City
residents.
On June 8, 2011, while the Plaintiffs were preparing for a religious holiday celebration
that was taking place that day, 12 armed Hollywood Police officers arrived with an unlawfully
obtained search warrant, demanding entry to the home. Entry was granted under threat of
incarceration. The officers unlawfully detained the family, and proceeded to unlawfully search
for and seize all computers, financial records, legal records, cameras, telephones, diaries,
photographs, and other papers of all of the Plaintiffs. The officers unlawfully conducted a search
for drugs as well.
The search and seizure warrant was obtained as a result of cooperative efforts undertaken
between Defendants Grant Einhorn and Sandra Einhorn, and Defendants Knapp, Perez, Sheffel,
Cantor, Wagner, Bober, Blattner, Hollywood City, and Hollywood City Police Department,
whose combined purpose was to violate the Civil Rights of the Plaintiffs under color of law.
Defendant Sandra Einhorn knowingly falsely accused Plaintiff Steven Kohn of violating
a restraining order that she knew did not exist, and then later lied about it under oath.
Defendants Perez and Knapp knowingly violated common police practices by refusing to take
reasonable efforts to determine the terms and status of the alleged restraining order, in violation
of the Plaintiff Steven Kohns civil rights. Defendant Perez knowingly violated common police
practices regarding the issuance of a subpoena by refusing to ascertain whether the evidence
sought could possibly lead to a conviction under the statute cited, in violation of Plaintiff Steven
Kohns civil rights. Defendant Perez determined that an innocent cultural and religious act
undertaken by Plaintiff Steven Kohn was an act of harassment, in violation of Plaintiff Steven
Kohns civil rights. Defendant Knapp perjured as the Affiant in order to obtain a search warrant,
in violation of the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp caused the search warrant
to be executed, violating the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp caused the
search warrant to be executed on a major religious holiday, violating the civil rights of all of the
Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp caused the search warrant to be exceeded by allowing and directing
a search for drugs, when the warrant was allegedly only for the purposes of seeking evidence of
cyber stalking, in violation of the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs. Defendants Knapp, Sheffel,
Bober, Cantor, Wagner, Hollywood City Police Department, upon being provided on at least
seven occasions with indisputable proof that the warrant was based on non-existent probable
cause, failed to return the Plaintiffs property, violating the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs.
Defendants Knapp, Sheffel, Bober, Blattner, Cantor, Wagner, Hollywood City and Hollywood
City Police Department conspired to retain Plaintiffs property in order to prevent the Plaintiffs
from being able to complete a competent defense in a lawsuit initiated by Defendants Grant
Einhorn and Sandra Einhorn, and timed the return of the property to coincide with the conclusion
of the legal proceedings of that lawsuit, in violation of the civil rights of all of the Plaintiffs.
Defendants Sheffel and Cantor conspired to maliciously file a lawsuit against Plaintiff Steven
Kohn that was to be executed during the time period when Hollywood Police Department was in
illegal possession of Plaintiffs legal and financial records, in violation of Plaintiff Steven
Kohns civil rights. Plaintiffs bring suit against Chief Chadwick Wagner as the supervisory
officer responsible for the conduct, training and supervision of police officers under his charge.
Defendant Wagner failed to properly train police officers in the appropriate methods of
determining and prosecuting violations of restraining orders and cyber stalking laws. Defendant
Wagner failed to adequately discipline and supervise officers in regards to their propensity to
allow, supervise and commit illegal searches against the citizenry and to have appropriate
policies, procedures, and practices in place regarding the appropriate methods of lawful search
and seizures.
IV. FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
20. Defendant Grant Einhorn was accused by Plaintiff Steven Kohn of placing pamphlets of
an ethnically and religiously disparaging nature on the cars of guests attending the engagement
party of Plaintiff Rebecca Kohn, which took place on November 27, 2010. The pamphlets were
entitled Are the Kohns Jewish? and questioned the Kohns Jewishness based upon some of
their culturally Arabic practices and based upon an internet based Islamic clothing business that
two of the Kohn children were engaged in, using faux Muslim Facebook personas to promote.
Twenty two of the pamphlets were recovered by the Kohns before the party ended.
21. Plaintiff Kohn called the police, who determined the pamphlets were not harassing
because they were free speech.
22. Plaintiffs, seeking a way to find peace with their neighbors while also not offering any
legitimacy to what was perceived as Einhorns anti-Muslim sentiments, presented them with a
gift.
23. Einhorn called the police, saying they thought the gift was harassing. The police
determined that the gift was an act of harassment, and opened an investigation under case
number 33-1011-187374, which is the focus of this lawsuit.
24. After the Einhorns rebuffed the Kohns gift offering, Plaintiff Steven Kohn wrote a
message to Defendant Sandra Einhorn on Facebook pleading for a peaceful resolution.
25. On December 1, 2010, Sandra Einhorn wrote a letter to Defendant Commissioner
Blattner of Hollywood City, showing him the Facebook message that Defendant Kohn sent.
(Exhibits pp1-2). The letter, signed by Sandra Einhorn in her professional capacity, both opens
and closes reminding Commissioner Blattner of their professional relationship, and then asks
him for several forms of intervention that are not legal for him to provide, after implying that a
quid pro quo is in place:
a) Language that implies that favors are being traded:
"Grant and I have gone out of our way to work with the City and Code Compliance in
order to help the situation from the City's end, with code violations and such. I would
expect the same support from the City for us."

b) Language that directly requests Commissioner Blattner use coercive influence to
cause the police to target the Defendants: "As our City Commissioner I plead for you
to please help my neighbors and I in bringing these people to justice."
c) Implied request for financial help in securing an attorney: "We have been forced to
hire an attorney we really can't afford." "Please help us!"
26. The next morning, December 2, 2010, Commissioner Blattner arranged a meeting
consisting of the Chief of Police Wagner, City Attorney Sheffel, Code Enforcement Chief Milan,
City Manager Benson, and himself, in order to find a way to help Sandra Einhorn. (Exhibits pp1,
3-7). The specific subject of the meeting was apparently the Facebook message, the context of
which is clearly not official business of the city. City Attorney Jeff Sheffel stated in an email the
morning of 12/2/2010 that I am anxious to meet to discuss an appropriate strategy. (Exhibits
p7).
27. As a result of the aforementioned meeting, Hollywood Police department opened a
criminal investigation of the gift that Kohn gave, which ultimately resulted in the illegal search
and seizure described herein.
28. Commissioner Blattner, City Manager Benson, and Code Chief Clay Milan have been
named as co-Respondents in HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8, Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6,
Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9 for their role in this matter as it relates to discriminatory
code enforcement practices. (Exhibits pp8-14).
29. Defendants Grant and Sandra Einhorn sought the removal of Kohns pets via a private
nuisance lawsuit (CACE 10-048282(18)) that was filed less than 3 weeks after the
aforementioned letter meeting, after City of Hollywood entered into a contract with Sandra
Einhorn to provide up to $55,000 worth of services to the City.
30. The Defendant Sandra Einhorn knowingly made a false report to Hollywood Police
Department, with the intent and outcome of violating Plaintiffs state and federal protection from
unreasonable search and seizure, and causing a direct interference with an injunction hearing in
Broward County Circuit Court taking place on August 3-4 2011. (CASE NO.: 10-048282)
31. Defendant Sandra Einhorn lied under oath regarding her false report to Hollywood Police
Department.
32. Hollywood City government, on 8 documented occasions, conducted searches within the
curtilage of Kohns property that were enabled or caused by the Einhorns, who allowed and
encouraged city employees to stand on objects in order to peer over the 6 foot privacy fence that
rests on the property line. The 8 occasions are 7/20/10, 8/24/10, 9/7/10, 9/16/10, 9/29/10,
11/24/10, 12/1/10, and 12/3/10.
33. Hollywood City government, acting in collusion with Defendant Sandra Einhorn,
conspired to violate Plaintiffs state and federal protection from unreasonable search and seizure
and interfered with the outcome of the aforementioned lawsuit by handicapping the Plaintiffs
ability to mount a proper defense in CACE 10048282(18).
34. This was accomplished on June 8, 2011 via an unconstitutional search and seizure of the
Plaintiffs business, legal strategies, and all evidence that was to be used in his defense in the
nuisance lawsuit.
35. The warrant was issued under Hollywood Case Number 33-1011-187374, showing that
the giving the gift to Einhorn was the genesis this action.
36. The search warrant was based upon a false report made by Defendant Sandra Einhorn,
that a valid restraining order existed against Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, and that Steven Kohn had
violated the active restraining order against her.
37. On January 7, 2011, Defendant Sandra Einhorn petitioned (DVCE 11-134) to obtain an
injunction for a protective order against Plaintiff Steven Kohn. A hearing date was set without a
temporary injunction being granted. (Exhibits p15). On January 18, 2011, the hearing was
continued until April 15, 2011. The form that was used to set the hearing was the same form that
is used to extend a temporary restraining order, had one been previously granted. Hon. Judge
Michael Kaplan explained to both parties that the order merely maintained the status quo, and
that since no temporary restraining order had been granted, there was no temporary order to
extend. (Exhibits pp16-18).
38. Defendant Sandra Einhorn understood Hon. Judge Kaplans explanation as indicated on a
January 25, 2011 Police Report authored by HPD Officer Ferguson, which reported Defendant
Sandra Einhorn stating "that she will go to court to obtain an injunction order from the judge."
(Exhibits p19).
39. On January 27, 2011, responding to concerns Plaintiff Steven Kohn expressed,
Hon.Judge Kaplan issued an order vacating the order of January 18, 2011 and set the hearing for
April 15, 2011. (Exhibits p20).
40. At the hearing on April 15, 2011, the Petition was dismissed (Exhibits p21).
41. Instantly after the hearing on April 15, 2011, Sandra Einhorn re-Petitioned on case
DVCE 11-2439. A hearing was set for May 2, 2011 without setting a temporary injunction
(Exhibit), and was dismissed on May 2, 2011 after a full hearing.
42. The allegations made in DVCE 11-2439 were far in excess of those contained within
Hollywood Case Number 33-1011-187374, and were not deemed by the Court to constitute
stalking even if true (else the temporary injunction would have been granted).
43. On April 24, 2011, Hollywood Police Officer Plummer (badge #3221) authored a report
saying that Defendant Sandra Einhorn stated that she had a temporary restraining order against
Mr. Kohn on case DVCE 11-2439. (Exhibits p85) A recording of Defendant Sandra Einhorns
call to HPD from the previous day (April 23) also exists wherein she repeats that she has a
restraining order against Mr. Kohn.
44. Sometime before February 23, 2011, Defendant Sandra Einhorn provided Hollywood
Police Department with a copy of the January 18, 2011 order, as evidenced by:
a. In January 2012, Plaintiff Steven Kohn made a public records request of
Hollywood Police Department, specifically asking for the complaint from Sandra
Einhorn stating she had a restraining order that was being violated. (Exhibits
p22, last paragraph under item 3).
b. On January 11, 2012, Hollywood Police sent an email stating Attached please
find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part of your public records
request. (Exhibits pp. 23-26).
c. Comparing Kohns copy (Exhibits p18) to the copy that Hollywood Police
provided (Exhibits p26), it is unmistakable that the court stamp is in a different
location on HPDs copy, and there is no time stamp showing it was a copy of the
one entered into the file. The only two copies of the order that lack a time stamp
are the copies given in open Court to the Petitioner (Sandra Einhorn) and
Respondent (Steven Kohn). Therefore, the only possible source of the Hollywood
Police Department copy is Defendant Sandra Einhorn.
45. On February 23, 2011, the Broward County Circuit Court held a hearing on CASE NO.:
10-048282, and elected to not grant a temporary injunction to remove Kohns pets at that time.
Immediately after the hearing, at 1:46PM, Hollywood Police Detective Alex Perez ran an NCIC
report and found the aforementioned order of January 18, 2011. (Exhibits p25).
46. The NCIC report explicitly states: "Do not search, detain, or arrest based solely on this
record. Contact entering agency to confirm status and terms of protection order." (Exhibits p27).
47. Defendant Perez took no actions to confirm the status or terms of the protection order.
Had Defendant Perez either looked at the docket in DVCE 11-134 or looked for the original
restraining order that was allegedly being extended (which would have been necessary in order
to know precisely what the terms were), he would have seen that no such order had been granted.
48. On March 30, 2011, Detective Perez visited the Einhorns at their home, and obtained
from them emails that Sandra Einhorn claimed had been sent from Kohns unsecured wireless
network.
49. On April 29, 2011, based upon materials provided by Einhorn, and without verifying the
existence or terms of a restraining order, Defendant Perez (Badge #2064) issued a subpoena to
Comcast to learn the origin of the emails, basing his request on suspected violations of a
restraining order that he knew or should have known did not exist. (Exhibits pp 28-32)
50. On June 1, 2011, in the General Affidavit and Application for Search Warrant,
Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, was accused by Officers of the City of Hollywood of violating of Florida
Statute 784.048 (1)(d)(4) entitled Aggravated Stalking in sworn testimony under oath by
Defendant Detective Robert Knapp Badge #2536.
51. The Affidavit requested that the search warrant authorize the search of emails of
Plaintiffs Rebecca Kohn, Hannah Kohn, and (14 year old) Hinda Kohn for possible violations of
felony cyber stalking after injunction. Defendant Knapp then executed an affidavit in order to
obtain a search warrant which was executed on June 8, 2011. The affidavit alleges on its face the
following:
On 01/07/2011, victim Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against
Steven Kohn, restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing,
following, interfering with, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was
approved on 01/18/2011 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this order
on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court
date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on
02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed.

(Emphasis Added) (Affidavit is attached as Exhibits pp 33-41).
52. The Affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a reckless
disregard for the truth as Sandra Einhorn stated under oath that the Hollywood Police
Department knew she had not obtained a restraining order, and simple following of standard
operating procedures would have revealed that no such order existed.
53. The Affiant, Detective Robert Knapp, blatantly disregarded the truth when Sandra
Einhorn specifically discussed with Hollywood Police that she did not have a restraining order
against Steven Kohn and yet he still made a representation that he verified the restraining order.
Supra.
54. The Affidavit lists Florida State 933.18(6) and Florida Statute 933.02 as grounds for
issuance of the Search Warrant. However, the underlying felony, aggravated stalking pursuant to
Fla. Stat. 784.048(1)(d)(4) that Defendant had been alleged to have violated, required an
injunction to be in place. Because there was no valid injunction, the warrant rested on perilous
probable cause grounds.
55. The Affidavit contained false and manufactured statements made in order to achieve a
willful and reckless violation of Steven Kohns Fourth Amendment right to be protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures
56. The Search Warrant was subject to the following requirements:
a. Must be issued by a neutral disinterested magistrate. Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175;
b. Those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate the existence of
probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension of
conviction for particular offense Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175; and
c. Warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized as well as the place to be
searched. Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979).
57. The Fourth Amendment, the Florida Constitution, and Florida Statutes ( 923.04 and
923.05) provide that no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation, in particular describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. A search warrant is issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the
legitimate object of the search is located in a particular place. Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204
(1981). The reason cited must be sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a crime has been
committed, and, as long as a neutral magistrate has a substantial basis for concluding that a
search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the probable cause requirement is satisfied.
Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1991).
58. A basic principle is that searches and seizures inside a constitutionally protected area
without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984).
59. Statutes and rules authorizing searches and seizures are strictly construed and affidavits
and warrants issued pursuant to such authority must meticulously conform to statutory and
constitutional provisions. State v. Quigg, 17 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1944).
60. The reviewing court, judge, or magistrate must make sure that a magistrate had a
substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S.
727 (1984); McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Whether an affidavit
supporting a search warrant sufficiently supports a probable cause finding must be determined
within its four corners. State v. Starks, 633 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The burden is on the
state to prove that the police had probable cause for a search and seizure. Doctor v. State, 596 So.
2d 442 (Fla. 1992).
61. A defendant in the proceeding has the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte issuance of a search warrant to challenge the
truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant. Mason v. State,
375 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Jacobs, 320 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
62. Under the circumstances in this matter, the search warrant would have been issued
pursuant to Section 933.02(3) which provides that a search warrant may be issued when any
property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.
63. Even where the search warrant can be found properly issued, an exception exists to
evidence seized which is testimonial or communicative in nature; such evidence is
considered tantamount to compelling the defendant to become a witness against himself in
violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. State v. Kircheis, 269
So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
64. The target of the affidavit and warrant in this matter were statements allegedly made in
emails by Steven Kohn which were communicative in nature showing violations of aggravated
stalking. Under Kircheis, such search would be unlawful because of the nature of the items
sought.
65. Further, regardless of whether the emails sought after by the City of Hollywoods Police
Department were of the same communicative nature of those described in Kircheis, the affidavit
is completely void of any meaningful probable cause.
66. Steven Kohn challenged the truth of the information contained in the warrant Affidavit.
67. Particularly, the Affiant left out the fact that at the time the search warrant was sought
and signed, alleged victim Einhorn and the Affiant both knew that the temporary injunction that
was the crux of the alleged law violation was denied, as Einhorn had informed the police of this
fact. This is contrary to the Affiants sworn statement in which Affiant verified that a valid
injunction existed, and was in place continuously from 1/18/11 through 4/15/11, and wherein the
Affiant implied that he knew the terms and conditions of the injunction.
68. Under oath, Sandra Einhorn stated the following:
Q: And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask
you, if you have a restraining order against Steve Kohn?
A: The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a
restraining order against Steve Kohn.
Q: So they knew that you were unsuccessful?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Did they -- did they
A: Or that's what I told them.
Q: And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid
restraining order against Mr. Kohn?
A: No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very
easily figure out for themselves one way or another.
Q: So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining
order against Mr. Kohn?
A: That is correct.
Q: In fact, you told the police you did not have valid restraining order because
it was denied?
A: I told -- I called the police and I -- actually lost when the decision was
made that I did not receive it. I did call Hollywood Police to let them know that I
did not receive the restraining order. Yes, that is correct.

Einhorn v. Kohn, 10-048282 (18) (2011). (Attached is a copy of pages 197,198 of the trial
transcript in relevant part as Exhibits pp.86-88).
69. The direct result of Detective Knapps falsely reporting that a valid restraining order
existed in his affidavit to the magistrate was the execution of an unconstitutional search and
seizure warrant against Plaintiff Steven Kohn and his entire family, conducted by 12 armed
Hollywood Police officers, causing extreme emotional distress to all members of the Kohn
family, disrupting the familys observance of a major religious holiday, causing the complete
confiscation of Mr. Kohns business, financial records, legal strategies, medical records, the
school work of his children, his adult children and minor childrens online job materials, all of
the Plaintiffs records and plans that were going to be used in his defense in the lawsuit initiated
by the Einhorns, and all of the telephones, cameras, pictures, and diaries of every member of the
household.
70. Steven Kohn was entitled to an evidentiary hearing (referred to as a "Franks hearing;"
Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667].) on this issue upon a "substantial
showing" that:
a. The affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a
reckless disregard for the truth; and
b. The affidavit's remaining contents are reevaluated after the false statements are excised
to see if, as corrected, there is still sufficient evidence to justify a finding of probable
cause. Frank v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667, 672];
precluding the cross-examination of the affiant until the necessary showing is made. See
also People v. Wilson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3rd 742, 747; Theodor v. Superior Court
(1972) 8 Cal.3rd 77, 103; People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3rd 67, 78; and People v.
Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297; People v. Lewis et al. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970,
989); and
c. The affidavit contains information that is the direct product of a Fourth Amendment
violation. (See People v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073.)

71. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were repeatedly
made aware that the search and seizure were illegal, they declined to make a decision to return
Mr. Kohns property, which included the legal defenses, strategies and evidence Mr. Kohn
intended to use in the Einhorn lawsuit (CASE NO.: 10-048282), and money-earning capability of
the Plaintiff, until the very same day that the hearing concluded in CASE NO.: 10-048282 on
August 4, 2011. Although the decision was made on that date, the property still was not
returned.
72. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were made aware
that the search and seizure were illegal, and after seeing Mr. Kohns financial status, income
earning capability, and legal strategies on the illegally seized electronic items, the City of
Hollywood on July 13, 2011 then filed a $161,487 lawsuit against Mr. Kohn (Case number:
CACE 11-016210) resting on the same or similar facts as were being litigated in the August 3-4
th

hearing in CASE NO.: 10-048282. (CACE 11-016210 was subsequently dismissed on April 2,
2012 after the Circuit Court found that even if Mr. Kohns keeping of pets had actually violated
the subject ordinance, the maximum penalty allowable by law was only $100, an amount below
the threshold of jurisdiction for the Circuit Court).
73. By filing the lawsuit on July 13, 2011, Mr. Kohn would have been expected to be served
on July 14, making his reply due on August 3, 2011; the first day of the August 3-4 hearing in
CACE 10-048282(18). This was another action by Hollywood City designed to interfere with
that proceeding.
74. On August 8, 2011, after the hearing of August 3-4 during which time Mr. Kohn did not
have access to the evidence he intended to use in his defense (due to Hollywoods unlawful
possession of it), the Circuit Court in case CACE 10-048282(18) granted an injunction against
Mr. Kohn, causing him to remove his pets. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 allows for a
Motion for Rehearing within 10 days of rendition of the order, making August 18, 2011 the last
day that such a Motion could have been filed.
75. The next business day that Detective Knapp was at work after August 18 was Tuesday
August 23, 2011, the selfsame day that the Kohns property was made available to the Kohns for
pickup. In other words, Hollywood Police Department waited until the day the hearing in the
civil case CACE 10-048282(18) was completed before deciding to return Kohns property, and
waited 19 additional days, until the day after the time had expired for a Motion for Rehearing to
actually allow the property to be retrieved.
76. On August 16, 2011 while still illegally retaining possession of Kohns property even
after having allegedly decided to return it, and with only 2 days remaining for Mr. Kohn to file a
Motion for Rehearing in CACE 10-048282(18), Hollywood City filed a Motion for Final
Summary Judgment [for $161,487] in the case they had filed on July 13, 2011, for Mr. Kohns
alleged violation of a minor city ordinance that has a $100 maximum fine built into it if violated.
77. Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, filed a Motion to Quash the search warrant as unconstitutional
due to the absolute nonexistence of probable cause, and after argument by counsel, and without
opposition from the City of Hollywood, the motion was granted by Broward County Circuit
Judge Martin J. Bidwill on December 16, 2011. (Exhibits p52-58)
78. Hollywood Police Detective Robert Knapps report of December 15, 2011, submitted as
testimony to Judge Martin J. Bidwill on December 16, 2011, stated that he had ignored the
instructions in the NCIC printout and relied exclusively on the NCIC printout in order to obtain a
search warrant (Exhibits p45):
After reading the teletype indicating the effective date of the restraining order
issued by Judge Michael G. Kaplan, I authored a search warrant of the Kohns
residence seeking any and all electronic equipment or storage devices capable of
accessing the internet and/or the sending and receiving of electronic mail.

79. Detective Knapp was fully aware that a business was being seized, stating on page 6 of
the search warrant affidavit (Exhibits p38):
"In light of concerns that might arise that the listed home business may be
hindered without the use of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination
is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that every effort will be made to
expedite the forensic examination and return any system(s) expeditiously if after
the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).

80. On the morning of June 8, 2011, Defendant, Kohns birthday and the Jewish Holiday of
Shavuot, while the Kohn family was preparing their holiday meal, 12 armed Hollywood Police
officers executed the search warrant based on the alleged violation of a non-existent restraining
order that Defendant Sandra Einhorn had presented to HPD as a valid restraining order. (Search
warrant and affidavit are shown as Exhibits pp33-44) Defendant Einhorn had claimed that the
order had been violated via the sending of emails to heremails that were sent via an open
unsecured wireless network housed in Kohns home, which Einhorn had access to due to the
close proximity of the houses. During the June 8, 2011 execution of this warrant, all records that
Kohn had which could have been used in his Defense in the Einhorn lawsuit (CACE
10048282(18)) were taken, including all backups. Also seized were Kohns entire business, all
telephones, all handheld cameras, home movies (including Kohns wedding video), and all of the
Kohn childrens school work as well as all of the personal computers, cameras, telephones, and
records (financial records, medical records, etc.) of everyone living in the house, both adults and
minors. (see Exhibits pp47-51 for inventory list).
81. The search warrant was granted on June 1 2011, and on its face indicates that the
urgency of the matter is such that "...serving this warrant and making the search in the daytime or
nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demand or require.."
82. In spite of the apparent urgency of the warrant on its face, Defendants waited an entire
week, until the first day of the major Jewish Holiday of Shavuot, to execute it. Based on prior
actions of the Defendants against the Plaintiffs cultural and religious practices, Plaintiffs allege
that this timing was intentional, designed to disrupt the family Holiday and was not coincidental.
83. The Kohn family was so accustomed to being visited by Hollywood Police or Code
Enforcement on religious holidays that Plaintiff Renee Leavy can be clearly heard on a video
recorded by the City of Hollywood Police Department during their search, very upset, shouting
before even coming to the door on June 8 that the police have been at the door every holiday,
every holiday since weve moved in!
84. Plaintiff Leavy also stated to Defendant Knapp, at the front door right after the Warrant
was read She brought her stalking charge to court and you know the judge dismissed it twice
to which Defendant Knapps companion (Sgt Bien) replied That has nothing to do with why
were here, okay? That has nothing to do with why were here.
85. A search for drugs was also conducted in an unconstitutional expansion of the warrant
even if the warrant had been valid. No drugs were found.
86. The search warrant was quashed as unconstitutional due to the absolute nonexistence of
probable cause, by the order of Broward County Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill, on December 16,
2011, without any objection from Hollywood Police department. The Motion to Quash and the
Order are both shown in full in Exhibits pp52-58. Included in the Motion is an excerpt from
Sandra Einhorns testimony from the August 3-4, 2011 hearing in CACE 10048282(18), wherein
she testified under oath in Court stating:
Q: And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask
you, if you have a restraining order against Steve Kohn?
A: The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a
restraining order against Steve Kohn.
A: Yes.
Q: And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid
restraining order against Mr. Kohn?
A: No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very
easily figure out for themselves one way or another.
Q: So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining
order against Mr. Kohn?
A: That is correct.

87. The aforementioned December 15, 2011 report authored by Detective Knapp and
presented in Court the following day, stated:
On August 04, 2011, I confirmed that the listed restraining order against Mr.
Kohn had erroneously been issued by the Courts and also that the entered teletype
confirmation had remained in the system even after an order to vacate the
restraining order had been issued. This was confirmed by Broward Clerk of
Courts Domestic Violence Manager Tonya Green. She advised that the listed
restraining order teletype information was issued in error and to prove that it was
issued in error, she showed me a copy of the listed order vacated on 01/27/2011.
Based upon this information and the fact that the listed search warrant relied on
the active restraining order, I prepared for the release of all of the listed seized
items to Mr. Kohn on 08/20/2011.

(Exhibits p45).
88. Detective Knapp, as well as Mayor Peter Bober, City Attorney Jeff Sheffel and City
Attorney Joel Cantor, had already repeatedly received the very same information (the copy of the
1/27/2011 vacating order) from Plaintiff Kohn on 6/27, 6/28, 6/29, 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, and 7/20/2011
(Exhibits pp59-77). On 7/5/2011 City Attorney Jeff Sheffel asked City Attorney Joel Cantor and
Police Chief Chadwick Wagner to show him the alleged restraining order. (Exhibits p72). The
meeting took place on 7/7/2011 (Exhibits p76).
89. Although the Defendants had the Plaintiffs computers in their possession for 8 weeks
before deciding to return them, the computers were never formally searched and no evidence was
gathered. Based on this fact, it would appear that the seizure of the property was the actual goal,
and there was no intention to actually conduct a true police investigation.
90. These are the unpleasant and indisputable facts:
a) After Hollywood officials already had the proof they would later rely upon to return
the property of the Kohn family, they waited 6 additional weeks to make the decision
to return the propertythe day that the hearing concluded on August 4, 2011 where
Sandra Einhorn and Grant Einhorn sued for an injunction against Steven Kohn.
b) The Court issued the Order granting injunction on August 8, 2011.
c) Hollywood officials elected to keep the property for almost 3 additional weeks after
deciding to return it, until exactly after the 10 day time period had expired during
which the Plaintiffs could have filed a Motion for Rehearing under Local Rule 1.530.
d) Hollywoods City Attorney, after knowing for certain that they were illegally holding
Kohns property, business, and records (including his bank records), filed a lawsuit
for $161,437.02 against Kohn on July 13, 2011, and then moved for Summary
Judgment on the $161,437.02 on August 16, 2011 (for what the court ultimately
confirmed was an offense with a maximum fine of $100), while knowingly still
illegally holding all of Kohns records.
e) Hollywood City officials, working in collusion with Sandra Einhorn, held the seized
materials for precisely the amount of time necessary to prevent the Plaintiffs from
properly defending themselves in the lawsuit initiated by the Einhorns, and to prevent
the Plaintiffs from properly defending themselves in the lawsuit initiated by the City.
91. After City Attorney Jeffrey Sheffel asked the Chief of Police, Chadwick Wagner, and
City Attorney, Joel Cantor, (on 7/5/11) to show him whether there was a restraining order in
place at the time the actions alleged in the warrant took place, after he was confronted by a
political activist by phone about the illegal search and seizure, Mr. Sheffel again asked Police
Chief Wagner and Attorney Cantor on 7/28/11 When I met with your guys to confirm the
validity of the warrant, I did not take a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order. (Exhibits p70)
Could you please have it scanned and e-mailed to me. By 7/5/11 all three people had already
seen the Vacate order of 1/27/11 at least 4 times.
92. It is simply inconceivable that two experienced attorneys, a police chief, and an
experienced detective, individually and collectively could not have understood that a vacated
injunction was not valid, and that it took them almost two months, [conveniently until the very
day proceedings ended in CASE NO.: 10-048282], to realize this fact, absent malicious intent.
Their actions and the timing thereof must have been intentional, and were obviously undertaken
to violate Plaintiffs state and federal protection from unreasonable search and seizure and
influence the outcome of the aforementioned proceedings.

V. FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(All Defendants official and individual capacity)

PLAINTIFFS repeat and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 92, and incorporate them by
reference herein.
1. Defendant Knapp, using his capacity as a ranking officer in the Hollywood Police
Department, and exploiting the City of Hollywoods policy and practice that officers do not have
to confirm the veracity of facts in order to swear to them in an affidavit, gave sworn testimony to
a Broward County Circuit Court judge in order to obtain a search warrant in violation of the
Plaintiffs 4
th
Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
2. Defendant Perez and Defendant Knapp, like any reasonable officer should have
known that when a citizen reports that a crime has been committed, the facts need to be verified
before swearing to those facts in an affidavit to obtain a search warrant, and that failing to do so
could violate the Plaintiffs constitutional rights to be protected from unreasonable search and
seizure.
3. This was done with the blessing of Defendant Wagner, who was present at the
meeting that took place on December 8, 2010, the subject of which was supporting Defendant
Sandra Einhorn in her personal fight against the Plaintiffs.
4. Defendant Wagner allowed his officers to abuse process and selectively enforce
the Florida Statute on Aggravated Stalking in order to violate the 4
th
and 14
th
Amendment rights
of the Plaintiffs, seize control of Plaintiffs business (computers) including all backups,
traumatize the family and children in order to break their spirit and will to fight, and gain
leverage for the City of Hollywood in their upcoming lawsuit against the Plaintiffs by obtaining
Plaintiffs financial position, legal strategies, and violate their right to procedural due process by
handicapping their ability to defend themselves in the August 3-4 2011 hearing.
5. This was accomplished by a raid on the Plaintiffs home on June 8, 2011 where 12
visibly armed officers of the Hollywood Police Department, including Defendant Knapp, and
some in uniform, forced their way into the Plaintiffs home, held them against their will, searched
their home, and seized their personal property.
6. The selective enforcement of the Aggravated Stalking statute is evidenced by the fact
that this was the first time that the Hollywood Police Department took such aggressive action
against a family and individual under this statute.
7. Defendant Sandra Einhorn acted in concert with Defendant Perez and Defendant
Knapp in order to cause them to violate the 4
th
Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.
8. This was done when she engaged Defendant Perez, and then Defendant Knapp at the
Hollywood Police Department in order to pursue a criminal complaint that she knew had no
merit.
9. Defendant Sandra Einhorn then led the officers to believe that she had obtained a
restraining order against Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, and the officers relied on her word in pursuing a
search warrant to prove that Plaintiff, Steven Kohn, had violated that restraining order. That
search warrant was ultimately executed on June 8, 2011.
10. The Plaintiffs were damaged by the actions of Defendants Einhorn, Perez, Knapp,
and Wagner as well as the Hollywood Police Departments custom and practice of selective
enforcement of criminal statutes and non-requirement of officers to verify facts before swearing
to them and pursuing criminal complaints, by having been subject to a search and seizure
grounded on an affidavit to obtain a search warrant that was avoidable. This scheme was
designed and executed to violate the Plaintiffs constitution rights.
11. By reason of the foregoing, all Defendants in their official capacity violated 42
U.S.C. 1985.
12. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees and cost in
addition to the damages complained of herein.
13. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs were severely and permanently injured when 12
armed officers from the Hollywood Police Department stormed into their home in execution of a
search warrant which would not have been gotten but for the coordinated effort of all of the
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against all Defendants in their individual and
official capacity, in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 ($1,000,000.00)
DOLLARS.

COUNT II
1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(Defendants City of Hollywood, Hollywood Police Department)

reference herein.
1. The City of Hollywood, and Hollywood Police Departments decision to adopt a
the course of action taken toward the Plaintiffs was directed by those who establish
governmental policy, specifically the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and both City Attorneys, as
well as the officer (Defendant Knapp) who had the responsibility under state law to obtain and
execute a search warrant under certain circumstances.
2. The City of Hollywood, and Hollywood Police Departments decision to adopt a
the course of action taken toward the Plaintiffs was ratified and respected by those who establish
governmental policy, specifically the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and both City Attorneys, as
well as the officers (Defendants Detective Knapp and Alex Perez) who had the responsibility
under state law to obtain and execute a search warrant under certain circumstances.
3. The course of action taken by the defendants was
a. Repeatedly refusing to verify that a restraining order existed;
b. Repeatedly refusing to determine what the terms of the alleged order were or
what the status of the alleged order was;
c. Repeatedly refusing to confirm whether the alleged actions attributed to
Plaintiff Steven Kohn were potentially violations of the terms of the
restraining order;
d. Drafting and then swearing to a warrant affidavit without verifying or
attempting to verify the accuracy thereof;
e. Executing the putative search warrant;
f. Intentionally executing the putative search warrant on a major religious
holiday;
g. Unconstitutionally broadening the search by conducting search for drugs;
h. Illegally seizing the property of the Plaintiffs;
i. Failing to promptly return the Plaintiffs property after repeatedly being made
aware of the fact that the requisite probable cause could not possibly exist;
j. Holding the property until precisely the same time that the hearing of August
3-4 was concluded in order to influence the outcome of that hearing; and
k. Intentionally selecting the timing of the filing of the $161,487.02 lawsuit to
coincide with the illegal seizure of the Plaintiffs property in order to
influence the outcome of that lawsuit.
4. Assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff was in fact violating a restraining order via an
electronic means, as was alleged, various alternatives to obtain the evidence existed, and the
most invasive and aggressive method was deliberately selected. For example, officers could have
obtained a warrant that would allow them to rapidly create images of hard disk drives rather than
seize them for an indefinite period of time. The city officials with policy making power united
before and after the fact to deliberately ratify and respect the course of action taken.
5. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant City of Hollywood and Defendant Hollywood
Police Department violated 42 U.S.C. 1983.
6. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees and costs in
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendants City of Hollywood and
Hollywood Police Department in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100
($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

COUNT III
1985 CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
(All Defendants official and individual capacity)

reference herein.
1. Acting upon a written request made by Defendant Sandra Einhorn, [made as a vendor
providing services to Hollywood City], on December 2, 2010, Commissioner Richard Blattner of
Hollywood City (Legislative branch), requested that a meeting be convened in order to assist the
Einhorns in their personal complaints about the Kohns. (Exhibits p1)
2. Defendant Einhorn specifically asked for Police action to be taken against the
Plaintiffs:

"As our City Commissioner I plead for you to please help my
neighbors and I in bringing these people to justice."
ExhibitDefendant Einhorn also made an implied request for legal
or financial help, stating "We have been forced to hire an attorney
we really can't afford." "Please help us!" (Exhibit p1-2)

3. Defendant Sandra Einhorn also declared that there was already a quid pro quo
arrangement in place with Hollywood City, when stating
"Grant and I have gone out of our way to work with the City and
Code Compliance in order to help the situation from the City's end,
with code violations and such. I would expect the same support
from the City for us. (Exhibit p1-2)

4. In direct violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and of Article II, Section
2.06, of the Charter of the City of Hollywood Commission (Exhibits page 78), Defendant
Blattner called a meeting consisting of Hollywood Police Department, Code Enforcement, the
City Manager, and City Attorney, for the stated purpose of aiding Einhorn and determining an
appropriate course of action to take against the Plaintiffs. (Exhibits pp1,3-7)
5. The specific subject of the meeting was the Facebook message referenced in
paragraphs 23-24 of this complaint, the context of which is clearly not official business of the
city. Defendant Sheffel stated in an email the morning of 12/2/2010 that I am anxious to meet to
discuss an appropriate strategy. (Exhibits p7)
6. The meeting was scheduled to occur on December 8, 2010 (Exhibits pp 3,4).
Plaintiffs allege that this meeting was convened to plan and execute a strategy intended to violate
the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
7. Defendants Grant and Sandra Einhorn sought the removal of Kohns pets via a private
nuisance lawsuit (CACE 10-048282(18)) that was filed less than 3 weeks after the
aforementioned letter meeting.
8. Sometime between January 18, 2011 and February 23, 2011, Defendant Sandra
Einhorn informed Defendant Perez that the Plaintiff had violated a temporary injunction against
repeat violence in case DVCE 11-134, providing Defendant Perez with a copy of an
indeterminate and erroneously entered Order Extending Injunction, which Defendant Einhorn
knew was not actually a restraining order (Exhibits pp23-26 and/or paragraph 36), and which
Defendant Einhorn also knew had been corrected and vacated on January 27, 2011.
9. Defendant Einhorn made the report with the intent of violating the civil rights of the
Plaintiffs. Defendant Perez ignored standard operating procedure, which would have required
that he determine that an injunction exists, what its terms were, and whether the alleged behavior
would be a violation. Defendant Perez was aware that notice of a restraining order had not been
sent to Hollywood Police by Broward Sheriffs Office, which is the standard practice. Defendant
Perez, from checking the docket on the case, knew that no restraining order had been granted,
and that the January 18 order had been vacated.
10. In spite of his knowledge that there was no restraining order in existence for even a
short time, Defendant Perez continued to pursue and investigate Plaintiff Steven Kohn for a
violation of FS 784.048(1)(d)(4); the felony of aggravated stalking after injunction, when both he
and the alleged victim knew that no such injunction existed. Defendant Perez continued to
pursue the investigation in order to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
11. On February 23, 2011, a hearing was held in CACE 10048282(18) wherein
Defendant Einhorn failed to obtain an injunction removing the Kohns pets. Immediately after
the hearing, Defendant Perez ran an NCIC report on Plaintiff Steven Kohn, finding the order of
January 18, 2011 had been entered. The NCIC printout explicitly informs the reader Do not
search, detain, or arrest based solely on this record. Contact entering agency to confirm status
and terms of protection order. (Exhibits p27)
12. Defendants Perez and Knapp disregarded the instructions, in order to violate the
civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
13. On April 15, 2011, DVCE 11-134 was dismissed. (Exhibits p21)
14. On April 29, 2011, Defendant Perez issued a Subpoena to Comcast Communications,
seeking personal information of the Plaintiffs, stating Crimes under investigation: Stalking, F.S.
784.048(2) and Violation of Protective Injunction F.S. 784.047(5) (Exhibits pp29-30). Both of
these felonies are dependent upon the existence of an injunction. The Subpoena was authored
with the intention of violating the civil rights of the Plaintiff both instantly (by obtaining
information about the Plaintiffs via a perjured Subpoena), and ultimately by setting the stage for
the raid of June 8, 2011.
15. The subpoena was returned on May 18, 2011, at which time Defendant Sheffel made
the decision to initiate lawsuit CACE 11016120(18) against Plaintiff Steven Kohn, seeking a
money judgment of over $161,487 for a $100 code violation. (Exhibits p 79). The timing
demonstrates a connection between the actions of Hollywood Police Department and the civil
lawsuit. [Additionally, the attorney hired by Hollywood to execute the lawsuit, made a Power
Point presentation to Hollywood City, advising her client to Bother them- Use Pressure and a
System Wide System when attempting to collect code enforcement judgments, and used the
specific case CACE 11016210(18) as the example. Relevant pages of the presentation are
attached as Exhibits pp80, 82, 84.]
16. On June 1, 2011, Defendant Knapp authored a General Affidavit and Application for
Search Warrant in order to obtain a warrant to search the Plaintiffs property and seize all of
their internet capable technology, as well as any and all papers, photographs, or other devices or
equipment that could be used for stalking purposes. (pp33-41) Defendant Knapp, having taken
over the investigation, and also responsible for following standard operating procedures,
collaborated and conspired with Defendant Perez in order to competently take over the
investigation, and therefore was aware that no injunction existed, and that the felony in question
could not possibly have been committed. By failing to verify the terms and status of a restraining
order, Defendant Knapp deliberately ignored the language in the NCIC report he allegedly relied
upon, in order to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
17. The affidavit was perjured with the intended result being the violation of the civil
rights of the Plaintiffs.
18. Based on the perjured affidavit, the search warrant was granted on June 1 2011. On
its face the warrant indicates that the urgency of the matter is such that "...serving this warrant
and making the search in the daytime or nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the
occasion may demand or require"
19. In spite of the apparent urgency of the warrant on its face, Defendant Knapp waited
an entire week, until the first day of the major Jewish Holiday of Shavuot, to execute it.
Hollywood Police Department was already providing extra police for the street crossings near
the major synagogues in town as a result of the Holiday, and was therefore fully aware that the
day was a major Jewish Holiday. It was Defendants Knapps intent to interfere with familys
religious observance and familial integrity, by selecting the morning of the Holiday as the time to
execute the warrant.
20. Defendant Knapp stated in the Affidavit that he was aware that the Plaintiffs business
was going to be seized, causing considerable hardship to all of the Plaintiffs. Defendant Knapp
intended to violate the Plaintiffs civil rights by seizing the familys sole means of support for no
lawful cause.
21. On June 8, 2011, Defendant Knapp led a team of 12 armed Hollywood Police and
executed the warrant, as described in paragraph 79, committing numerous civil rights violations.
22. Included in the group of officers that Defendant Knapp assembled was an officer
whose sole purpose was to conduct a drug search. The warrant does not specify drugs. Defendant
Knapps purpose in bringing the officer was to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
23. The search warrant was quashed as unconstitutional due to the absolute nonexistence
of probable cause, by the order of Broward County Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill, on December
16, 2011, without any objection from Hollywood Police department. The Motion to Quash and
the Order are both shown in full in Exhibits pp52-58. Included in the Motion is an excerpt from
Sandra Einhorns testimony from the August 3-4, 2011 hearing in the instant case, wherein she
testified under oath in Court stating:
Q: And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if you
have a restraining order against Steve Kohn?
A: The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining
order against Steve Kohn.
A: Yes.
Q: And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A: No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very easily figure
out for themselves one way or another.
Q: So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A: That is correct.

24. Defendant Joel Cantor represented the city at the aforementioned hearing, and offered
no objection to the statement Defendant Einhorn made, that Hollywood Police were fully aware
there was never a valid restraining order.
25. The aforementioned December 15, 2011 report authored by Detective Knapp and
presented in Court the following day, by Defendant Cantor, stated:
On August 04, 2011, I confirmed that the listed restraining order against Mr. Kohn had
erroneously been issued by the Courts and also that the entered teletype confirmation had
remained in the system even after an order to vacate the restraining order had been
issued. This was confirmed by Broward Clerk of Courts Domestic Violence Manager
Tonya Green. She advised that the listed restraining order teletype information was
issued in error and to prove that it was issued in error, she showed me a copy of the listed
order vacated on 01/27/2011. Based upon this information and the fact that the listed
search warrant relied on the active restraining order, I prepared for the release of all of
the listed seized items to Mr. Kohn on 08/20/2011.

26. Defendant Knapp, as well as Defendants Bober, Sheffel and Cantor, had already
repeatedly received the very same information (the copy of the 1/27/2011 vacating order) from
Plaintiff Kohn on 6/27, 6/28, 6/29, 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, and 7/20/2011 (Exhibits pp59-77). On
7/5/2011 Defendant Sheffel asked Defendant Cantor and Defendant Wagner to show him the
alleged restraining order. (Exhibits p72, 76). The meeting took place on 7/7/2011 (Exhibits p76).
27. Defendants Knapp, Sheffel, Wagner, and Cantor endlessly conspired to continue to
keep the Plaintiffs property, including the business of the Plaintiffs, in violation of the Plaintiffs
civil rights.
28. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were made aware
that the search and seizure were illegal, and after seeing Mr. Kohns financial status, income
earning capability, and legal strategies on the illegally seized electronic items, the City of
Hollywood on July 13, 2011 then filed a $161,487 lawsuit against Mr. Kohn (Case number:
CACE 11-016210) resting on the same or similar facts as were being litigated in the August 3-4
th

hearing in CASE NO.: 10-048282. (CACE 11-016210 was subsequently dismissed on April 2,
2012 after the Circuit Court found that even if Mr. Kohns keeping of pets had actually violated
the subject ordinance, the maximum penalty allowable by law was only $100).
29. By filing the lawsuit on July 13, 2011, Mr. Kohn would have been expected to be
served on July 14, making his reply due on August 3, 2011; the first day of the August 3-4
hearing in CACE 10-048282(18). This was another action by Hollywood City designed to
interfere with that proceeding, in violation of the Plaintiffs civil rights.
30. After the City of Hollywood and the Hollywood Police Department were
repeatedly made aware that the search and seizure were illegal, they declined to make a decision
to return the evidence and money-earning capability of the Plaintiff, until the very same day that
the hearing concluded in CASE NO.: 10-048282 on August 4, 2011. Although the decision was
made on that date, the property still was not returned.
31. On August 8, 2011, after the hearing of August 3-4 during which time Mr. Kohn did
not have access to the evidence he intended to use in his defense (due to Hollywoods unlawful
possession of it), the Circuit Court in case CACE 10-048282(18) granted an injunction against
Mr. Kohn, causing him to remove his pets. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 allows for a
Motion for Rehearing within 10 days of rendition of the order, making August 18, 2011 the last
day that such a Motion could have been filed.
32. The next business day that Defendant Knapp was at work after August 18 was
Tuesday August 23, 2011, the selfsame day that the Kohns property was made available to the
Kohns for pickup. In other words, Hollywood Police Department waited until the day the
hearing in the civil case CACE 10-048282(18) was completed before deciding to return Kohns
property, and waited 19 additional days, until the day after the time had expired for a Motion for
Rehearing to actually allow the property to be retrieved. The timing was designed by the
Defendants to violate the Plaintiffs civil rights.
33. On August 16, 2011 while still retaining possession of Kohns property even after
having made the decision to return it, and with only 2 days remaining for Mr. Kohn to file a
Motion for Rehearing in CACE 10-048282(18), Hollywood City filed a Motion for Final
Summary Judgment [for $161,487] in the case they had filed on July 13, 2011, intending to
interfere with the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
34. Although the Defendants had the Plaintiffs computers (and business) in their
possession for 8 weeks before deciding to return them, the computers were never formally
searched and no evidence was gathered. Based on this fact, it would appear that the seizure of the
property was the actual goal, and there was no intention to actually conduct a true police
investigation, and the only intent was to violate the civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
35. The Defendants intention was to obstruct justice by using force and intimidation to
prevent the Plaintiffs from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully in the court proceedings
scheduled for August 3-4 2011 in CACE 10048282(18), and affect the outcome of the
proceedings by seizing the Plaintiffs legal records, strategy, and evidence, as well as
intentionally inflicting extreme emotional and economic duress on the Plaintiffs, which would be
expected to interfere with a competent defense.
36. By initiating proceedings in CACE 11016210(18) at a time when the Defendants
were aware they were unlawfully retaining the Plaintiffs property that would be utilized in the
Plaintiffs defense, the Defendants intention was to obstruct justice by using force and
intimidation to prevent the Plaintiffs from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully in the court
proceedings in CACE 10048282(18), by intimidating the Plaintiffs into depriving themselves of
their property (pets) without due process of law, thus obstructing justice in the planned hearing
of August 3-4 2011 by rendering it moot.
37. The Defendants intention was to obstruct justice by using force and intimidation to
prevent the Plaintiffs from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully in the court proceedings in
CACE 11016210(18), and affect the outcome of the proceedings in that case by removing all of
Plaintiff Steven Kohns legal records and money earning capability that would be used to defend
himself.
38. By reason of the foregoing, all Defendants in their official capacity violated 42
U.S.C. 1985.
39. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees and cost in
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against all Defendants in their official and
individual capacity, in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 ($1,000,000.00)
DOLLARS.

COUNT IV
1983 POLICY AND PRACTICE
(Defendant Wagner Official Capacity)

reference herein.
1. When Defendant Knapp and Defendant Perez pursued and applied for a search warrant
without first verifying the veracity of the statement made by Defendant Sandra Einhorn, they
were acting pursuant to a policy, custom and practice of the Hollywood Police Department
which did not discourage officers from swearing to facts and taking them to be true without first
verifying them, without regard to citizens Constitutional rights.
2. Defendant Wagner displayed deliberate indifference to the unconstitutional actions of
Hollywood Police Departments officers including allowing them to do a favor for certain people
such as Defendant Sandra Einhorn by pursing her accusation by obtaining a search warrant
without first verifying the facts.
3. Defendant Wagner knew of and ratified the repeated constitutional violations of his
officers including the pursuit of search warrants without first verifying facts.
4. Defendant Wagner confirmed that the constitutional violations of his officers were the
policy and practice of the City of Hollywood and Hollywood Police Department by having the
policy reviewed by the City Attorneys; Defendants Sheffel and Cantor.
5. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Wagner violated 42 U.S.C. 1983.
6. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees and costs in addition
to the damages complained of here.
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Wagner in his official
capacity, in an amount in excess of ONE MILLION AND 00/100 ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS.

COUNT V
1983 IMPROPER TRAINING

reference herein.
1. Defendants Knapp and Perez received improper training in policies, procedures, and
tactics that could have caused a violation of the necessary rights of all United States citizens, and
ultimately took action to cause the abolition of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights in the instant
case.
2. Prior to June 8, 2011, Defendant Wagner did not require any or enough evidence
other than the word of a complainant to apply for a search warrant a swear to the facts.
Defendant Wagner did not require the officers to verify the facts given to them by the accuser.
3. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner failed and neglected to establish proper and
adequate guidelines, procedures or training programs for his officers.
4. After June 8, 2011, and becoming aware of the improper and unconstitutional actions
of his officers, Defendant Wagner did nothing to retrain his officers.
5. Defendant Wagner was aware of his officers training in use of police power against
constitutional rights.
6. The actions of Defendant Wagner in assigning officers to duty who were improperly
trained in the use of police power against constitutional rights evidenced a deliberate indifference
to the right of persons with whom the officers came into contact.
7. The improper training received by Defendants Knapp and Perez were a contributing
cause of the hurt they caused to the Plaintiffs.
9. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees and costs in
Defendants.

COUNT VI
1983 LACK OF TRAINING
reference herein.
1. Defendants Knapp and Perez received grossly inadequate training.
2. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner assigned officers to duty without proper
training.
3. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner implemented a policy of assigning officers
to duty who had received grossly inadequate training.
4. Prior to June 8, 2011 Defendant Wagner failed and neglected to establish proper and
adequate guidelines, procedures or training programs for his officers.
5. Defendant Wagner was aware of his officers lack or training in using police power
against constitutional rights.
6. The actions of Defendant Wagner in assigning inadequately trained officer to duty
evidenced a deliberate indifference by Defendant Wagner to the rights of persons with whom the
officers came in contact displayed by the exceptionally inadequate training offered to and
received by the officers.
7. The exceptionally inadequate training received by Defendants Knapp and Perez
was the reason the officers believed they were within their police power to swear to unverified
facts in order to obtain a search warrant.
8. The exceptionally inadequate training received by the officers also caused them to
believe that they were under no obligation to return the property seized after becoming aware
that the property was seized illegally.
10. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees and costs in
Defendants.

STATE CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT VII
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
(Defendant Knapp individual Capacity)

reference herein.
1. Defendant Knapp acted with malicious purpose and with wanton and willful
disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs in obtaining and executing a search without
probable cause.
2. Defendant Knapp used force to influence an illegal search and seizure of Plaintiffs
home and personal property by rounding up the parents and children into a closed area of the
home while the familys property was being searched and seized. Confinement to any area of the
home to accomplish this illegal search and seizure was false imprisonment.
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Knapp in his official

COUNT VIII
EXCESSIVE FORCE
(Defendant Knapp Individual Capacity)

PLAINTIFFS repeat and re-allege Paragraphs 1 through 92, and incorporate them by reference
herein.
1. If Defendant Knapp did not have probable cause to search and seize personal property
belonging to the Plaintiffs, he used excessive force in achieving his objective. A reasonable
officer would have known that 12 armed Hollywood police officers surrounding a residential
home and rounding up a family would clearly violate the rights of the Plaintiffs.
2. Defendant Knapp acted with malicious purpose and with wanton and willful
disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiffs, by executing an unconstitutional search
warrant with excessive force.
3. Any use of force was excessive to effect this illegal search and seizure.
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand damages against Defendant Knapp in his official

COUNT IX
CHIEF OF POLICES OFFICIAL CAPACITY

reference herein.
1. Defendant Wagner is the head of the Hollywood Police Department and Defendants
Knapp and Perez were under the command of Defendant Wagner at all times material to this
action and Defendant Wagner is liable via respondeat superior.
2. Alternatively, Defendants Knapp and Perez were both acting within the scope of their
employment by the Hollywood Police Department.
Defendants.

CONCLUSION
1. Hollywood City and Hollywood Police Department have a pattern, practice, and custom
of intentionally disregarding the parameters of the laws and ordinances they entrusted to enforce,
intentionally disregarding standard police procedures, intentionally disregarding Court orders,
and condones such violations of law by not disciplining employees or officers that engage in
such indiscriminate constitutional violations that are perpetrated against the public and against
Plaintiffs in particular.
2. Hollywood City and Hollywood Police Department failed to discipline or prosecute
known incidents of warrantless searches, and to overrule the conclusions within the Department
in spite of the overwhelming evidence that such incidents are unjustified and improper.
Hollywood Police Department failed to investigate or prosecute known incidents of false
reporting made to law enforcement.
3. On information and belief, the abuse to which Plaintiffs were subjected was
consistent with an institutionalized practice of Hollywood City and Hollywood Police
Department, which was known to and ratified by Defendants Wagner, Bober, Sheffel, and
Cantor, and neither took any effective action to prevent Defendants Knapp or Perez from
continuing to engage in such misconduct.
4. As a direct and proximate result of the deliberate indifference of Hollywood City or
Hollywood Police Department to prevent or change unconstitutional policies, customs and
practices, all twelve of the Plaintiffs suffered the following injuries and damages:
a. Violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure of their
person and property, to be afforded due process of law and equal protection under the law;
b. Loss of physical liberty; and
c. Government interference with religious worship
d. Disruption of familial integrity
e. Humiliation, emotional distress, and suffering
f. Loss of income and other financial damage
5. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants Hollywood City,
Hollywood Police Department, Knapp, Perez, Bober, Blattner, Wagner, Sheffel, Cantor, Grant
Einhorn and Sandra Einhorn, the following clearly established and well-settled federal
constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs were violated:
a. Freedom from an unreasonable search and seizure;
b. Equal Protection under the law;
c. Due process of law.
d. Freedom of association
e. Freedom of religious practice

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief against each and every
Defendant, jointly and severally:
1. Compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof and which is
fair, just and reasonable;
2. Punitive damages under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and Florida law against the individual
defendants in an amount according to proof and which is fair, just and reasonable;
3. All other damages, penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys fees allowed by 42
U.S.C.A. 1983 and 1988, and as otherwise may be allowed by Florida and/or federal law;
4. An order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from unlawfully interfering
with the rights of Plaintiffs and others to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and
excessive and unreasonable force;
5. An order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from engaging in racial
profiling or otherwise discriminating against Plaintiffs or others based on their nationality;
6. An order requiring Defendants to rescind any and all of their policies, practices,
procedures, and/or customs allowing police officers to engage in racial profiling and/or
discrimination based on race;
7. An order requiring Defendants to institute and enforce appropriate and lawful policies
and procedures prohibiting racial profiling, racial discrimination, and the use of excessive force;
8. An order prohibiting Defendants and their police officers from engaging in the code
of silence as may be supported by the evidence in this case;
9. An order requiring Defendants to train all Hollywood Police officers concerning racial
profiling, racial bias and discrimination, and this Courts orders concerning the issues raised in
injunctive relief requests 4 through 8 above; and
10. Such other and further relief as presented by the evidence in this case and as this
Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs in this matter hereby request trial by jury.

DAVID LOW, P.A.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
17840 W. Dixie Hwy.
North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Phone: (305) 935-8986
Fax: (305) 675-2685

BY:
_____________________
DAVID LOW, ESQ.

1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7

U.S. Department Of Housing and Urban Development
Georgia State Office
Five Points Plaza
40 Marietta Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-2806

August 12, 2011
Mr. & Mrs. Steven Kohn
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kohn:

Subject: Housing Discrimination Complaint
Kohn, Steven & Renee v. City Commission of Hollywood, FL, et al
HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8
Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6
Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9

Your complaint, alleging one or more discriminatory housing practices, was officially
filed on 08/08/2011 as a complaint under the Federal Fair Housing Law, 42 U.S.C. Sections
3601-3619. For your records, we are enclosing a copy of your complaint, and, as required by
law, a copy has been sent to the respondent(s).
Additionally, the complaint was filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VI). Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the
programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department. The HUD
regulation implementing Title VI at 24 CFR Part 1 requires that no person shall, on the ground of
race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. Further, Title VI at 24 CFR
Part 1 provides for an investigation whenever a complaint or other information indicates a
possible failure by a HUD-funded recipient to comply with the Acts. The U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will investigate this complaint under this authority.
The complaint also was filed under Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (Section 109). Section 109 requires that no person in the United States
shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex or religion be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
funded in whole or in part with community development funds.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of: 1) the rights you have during the processing
of this complaint, 2) the rights each respondent has in responding to this complaint, and 3) the
8
8
steps the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (the Department) will take to
determine whether the complaint has merit.
In order to ensure that the Department informs you properly of the law's requirements,
this notification letter contains language required by the law. A similar letter is used to notify all
parties whenever a formal complaint has been filed with the Department under the Federal Fair
Housing Law.

We are governed by federal law, which sets out what steps we must take when a formal
complaint is filed. The law also includes steps that each respondent can take to answer or refute
the allegations of this complaint.

Under federal law, a respondent can file an answer to this complaint or any amendment
made to this complaint within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Department's notification letter
to him or her. Each respondent's answer must be signed and affirmed that the response is
truthful by including the statement "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct." A respondent can, with the agreement of the Department, amend his or her answer
at any time during the investigation.

Our responsibility under the law is to undertake an impartial investigation and, at the
same time, encourage all sides to reach an agreement, where appropriate, through conciliation.
The law requires us to complete our investigation within 100 days of the date of the official
filing of the complaint. If we are unable to meet the 100-day requirement for issuing a
determination, the law requires that we notify you and the respondent(s) and explain the reasons
why the investigation of the complaint is not completed.

In handling this complaint, we will conduct an impartial investigation of all claims that
the Fair Housing Act has been violated. If the investigation indicates that there is not evidence
establishing jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. At any point, you can request that our staff
assist you in conciliating (or settling) this complaint with the respondent(s). If the case is not
resolved, we will complete our investigation and decide whether or not the evidence indicates
that there has been a fair housing violation. If the parties involved have not reached an
agreement to settle the complaint, the Department will issue a determination as to whether there
is reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice has occurred.

If our investigation indicates that there is reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful
discriminatory housing practice has occurred, the Department must issue a charge. If the
investigation indicates there is no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred,
the complaint will be dismissed. In either event, you will be notified in writing.

If the determination is one of reasonable cause, the notification will advise you and the
respondent(s) of your rights to choose, within 20 days, whether you wish to have the case heard
by an Administrative Law Judge, or to have the matter referred for trial in the appropriate U.S.
District Court.

Under federal law, even if the Department dismisses the complaint, you still have the
right to bring an individual suit under the Federal Fair Housing Law. You may file your lawsuit
9
9
in an appropriate federal, state or local court within two years of the date of the alleged
discriminatory practice or of the date when a conciliation agreement has been violated. The law
does not count, as part of the two-year period, any of the time when a proceeding is pending with
the Department. You also have the legal right to file a lawsuit in court, even if your complaint
formed the basis for a charge, as long as an Administrative Law Judge has not started a hearing
on the record with respect to the charge.

There may be other applicable federal, state or local statutes under which you and/or the
respondent(s) may initiate court action. You may consult a private attorney in this regard.

The law also requires us to notify you that section 818 of the Fair Housing Act makes it
unlawful for a respondent or anyone else to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with you in
your exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected under the Federal Fair Housing
Law. The law also makes it illegal for anyone to coerce, threaten or interfere with you for your
having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right or
protection granted to them under the Federal Fair Housing Law.

Some explanatory material on the law is enclosed for your information.
If you have any questions regarding this case, please contact Candace Tapscott at (305)
536-4479, ext. 2218. Please refer to the case number at the top of this letter in those contacts,
and keep this office advised of any change of your address or telephone number. We hope this
information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Carlos Osegueda
FHEO Region IV Director

Enclosures
10
10
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT
CASE NUMBER: 04-11-1099-8/6/9
1. Complainants
Steven Kohn
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021
Renee Kohn
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021
2. Other Aggrieved Persons
Rebecca L. Kohn
Hannah E. Kohn
Sara R. Kohn
Minor #1 Kohn
Minor #2 Kohn
Minor #3 Kohn
Minor #4 Kohn
Minor #5 Kohn
Minor #6 Kohn
Minor #7 Kohn
3. The following is alleged to have occurred or is about to occur:
Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.).
Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use.
4. The alleged violation occurred because of:
National origin and religion.
11
11
5. Address and location of the property in question (or if no property is involved,
the city and state where the discrimination occurred):
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021
6. Respondent(s)
City Commission of Hollywood, FL
P. O. Box 220945
Hollywood, FL 33022-9045
Cameron D. Benson, City Manager
City of Hollywood, FL
P. O. Box 220945
Richard Blattner, Dist 4 Commissioner
City of Hollywood, Florida
P. O. Box 220945
Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Mgr
City of Hollywood, FL
P. O. Box 220945
Clay Milan, Director, Code Enforcement
City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement
P. O. Box 220945
Irish Gardner, Code Enforcement Officer
City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement
P. O. Box 220945
7. The following is a brief and concise statement of the facts regarding the
alleged violation:
Complainants Steven and Renee Kohn own a single family home located at 3841 N
51st Ave., in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complainants identified
their religion as Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. The complainants note that their
readily observable religious practices, speech, dress, and customs are influenced by
Arabic culture. The complainants belong to a class of persons whom the Fair
12
12
Housing Act (the Act) as amended, protects from unlawful discrimination because
of religion and national origin. The complainants' property is subject to the
ordinances and restrictions of the City of Hollywood, Florida, administered by and
through the Respondent City Commission, Respondent Cameron D. Benson, the
City Manager, Respondent Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Manager,
Respondent Richard Blattner, District 4 City Commissioner, Respondent Clay
Milan, Director of Code Enforcement, and Respondent Irish Gardner, Code
Enforcement Officer. To the complainants' belief, none of the respondents practice
Sephardic Orthodox Judaism.
According to the complainants, shortly after they moved into their home in 2008,
some of their neighbors objected to their Judeo-Arabic cultural practices,
describing the complainants as "Palestinians," "Muslims," and "terrorists." The
neighbors undertook a campaign to harass the complainants by repeatedly reporting
them to the City of Hollywood Police and Code Enforcement in regard to their pets:
eight hens and two 17" Dwarf Nigerian goats. In November of 2010, the same
neighbors went so far as to circulate a pamphlet entitled, "Are the Kohns Jewish,"
pointing out Muslim influences that, in their opinion, negate their status as Jewish.
On November 24, 2010, the City of Hollywood dispatched 5 police cars, 10 armed
police officers and 2 code enforcement officers to the complainants' home to
deliver citation warnings about their pets, which Respondent Milan contends are
livestock. The complainants felt intimidated, upset, and humiliated by the City's
show of force. The complainants observed that the warnings were written and
ordered to be delivered before an inspection of their property had even occurred.
They assert that they are in compliance with the City's ordinances, dispute the
characterization of their pets as "livestock," and believe the City is selectively
enforcing these ordinances against them, based on cultural biases. In deposition
testimony on July 27, 2011, Respondent Gardner, a code enforcement officer,
admitted that other city residents with poultry have been treated differently by the
City. To the complainants' belief, these other residents are not practitioners of
Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. During their dealings with the respondents and
their neighbors, the complainants assert they have never demonstrated threatening
behavior to justify the City's show of force.
Within a few days of circulating the "Are the Kohns Jewish" pamphlet, on
December 1, 2010, the neighbor e-mailed Respondent Blattner asking for his
support in dealing with the Kohns via code compliance enforcement. Respondent
Blattner forwarded her e-mail to other City officials and convened an internal
meeting to discuss the complainants. The complainants assert that because of the
cultural bias of City officials, and as a result of the neighbor's discriminatory
influence on Respondent Blattner, the City of Hollywood has persisted in harassing
the complainants. Continually since August 23, 2010, the City of Hollywood has
fined the complainants $250/day for their pets, applying the lien retroactively to
August 18, 2009. On July 13, 2011, the City of Hollywood filed a lawsuit against
the complainants to collect over $160,000 in Code Enforcement fines.
13
13
The complainants believe the respondents are using code enforcement violations as
a pretext to discriminate against them based upon their religion and perceived
national origin. They allege that the respondents collectively have harassed and
intimidated them in violation of Section 818 of the Act. They further allege the
respondents collectively have used zoning and land use ordinances to discriminate
against them in violation of Section 810(g)(2)(C) of the Act, Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974.
8. The most recent date on which the alleged discrimination occurred:
July 13, 2011, and is continuing.
9. Types of Federal Funds identified:
Community Development Block Grant.
10. The acts alleged in this complaint, if proven, may constitute a violation of the
following:
Sections 818 and 810(g)(2)(C) or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as
amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988.
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Please sign and date this form:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this complaint (including any
attachments) and that it is true and correct.
_____________________________________________ _______________
Steven Kohn (Date)
_____________________________________________ _______________
Renee Kohn (Date)
N O T E : HUD WILL FURNISH A COPY OF THIS COMPLAINT TO THE
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION AGAINST WHOM IT IS FILED.
14
14
15
15
TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORTDA
caseNo.: ll-
l3V
Division: 5q
ORDER EXTENDING IN{UCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAII\ST:
'
H
(
)
DOMESTTC VTOLENCE (p"l nrprAT VIOLENCE (
)
DATING VIOLENCE
-n*
(
)
SEXUALVTOLET\CE
Fi"
:
)i,<
THIS CAUSE camebefore the Cour t on
{date}
f-
(
8
I
q
,
upon Petitioner's
motion for an extension of injunction for protection and it appearing to the Court as follows:
"/
E
Ex parte. The claims in the motion for extension of injunction for protection make it appear
to the Court that there is an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, or
sexual violence, as required under section 74I.30 or section 784.046, Florida Statutes. The
previously entered injunction is extended until
{date}
t{-tS'
! f . A full hearing
on the petition is scheduled for
{darc}
Va
S-{ / at t
:3O
u.*.@ i,
Room frZO
,
Broward County Courihouse,2}l S.E. 6th Street, Fort Laudildale,
Florida 33301.
NOTICE: Because this is a civil case, there is no requirement that these proceedings be
transcribed at public expense.
YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IN THIS COURT:
a. A court reporter is provided by the court.
f
{ b. Electronic audio tape recording only is provided by the court. A parly may
arrange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a written
transcript of the proceedings at thatparty's expense.
c. If this is a repeat violence, dating violence, or sexual violence action, no
.1."t oni. ,rdio tape recording or Lourt reporting ,.*i.., are provided by the court. A parfy
may afiange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a written
transcript of the proceedings at the party's expense.
A RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES A TRANSCRIPT, MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT AN
APPEAL. THE PARTY SEEKING THE APPEAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING THE
Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat
Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)
16
16
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BYA COURT REPORTER. THE TRANSCRIPT MUST BE FILED
WITH THE REVIEWTNG COURT OR THE APPEAL MAY BE DENIED.
If you are aperson with disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in
this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance.
Please contact
{name } A.D.A Information
{address}
Broward Countv Courthouse
,{telephone}
(.954)
83I-6364
,
within 2 working days of your receipt of this order. If you are hearing or voice impaired, call
Tdd 1-800-9ss-877t.
After notice and hearing. Respondent was served with a copy of the temporary injunction,
if applicable, and a notice of this hearing within the time required by Florida law and was
afforded an opportunity to be heard. The notice and opportunity to be heard were sufficient
to protect Respondent's right to due process. The following persons attended the hearing:
(
)
Petitioner (
)
Respondent.
After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent
of Respondent, the Court finds that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat violence,
dating violence, or sexual violence or reasonably fears that helshe will become a victim of
dating violence from Respondent. The previously entered injunction is extended until
{date} ,
or until fuither order of the Court.
ORDERED on
l*{
g*f
t
COPIES TO:
JUDGE I\NICHAELG. KAPIjH
by U.S. Mail
by hand delivery in open court (Petitioner must
acknowledge receipt in writing on face of the
original order
-
see below)
forwarded to sheriff for service
Sheriff of County
Petitioner (or his or her attorney):
-rF
Respondent (or his or her attorney):
--6by
hand delivery in open court (Respondent must
acknowledge receipt in writing on face of the
original order
-
see below)
by certified mail (may only be used when
Respondent is present at the hearing and
respondent fails or refuses to acknowledge the
receipt of certified copy of this injunction)
State Attorney's Office
Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat
CIRCUTT JUDGE
17
17
Other:
I CERTIFY the foregoing is a true copy of the original as it appears on file in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Couft of Broward County, Florida, and that I have fuinished
is order as indicated above.
iEAL)
r "'if,(
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I,
{Name
of Respondent}
of a certifled copy of this Injunction
.*,:'oa 11,,1, *
,
acknowledge receipt
'. ":.
r' i
,/.,'i
: _ I t"
n ,.;
'"1--'-
Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Fom 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat
18
18
Ho I lywo od P o lice Dep artment
CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: oznlt2olt t3:32
oce: 331101010821
Case Status:
INACTIT/E
Offense: INFOfuMATION
Case Mng Status:
i,/l Occured: l1/29/2010
lnvestigator: VALENTIN, D. (3240)
Supervisor: FERGUSON, W. (1841)
Contact: Reference: Follow Up
ON THE ABOVE DATE AND TIME THE COMPLAINANT RETURNED TO HOLLYWOOD POLICE
DEPARTMENT PID TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF T}IE ABOVE INCIDENT. TTM VICTIM
STATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN GETTING E-MAIL FROM HER NEIGIIBORS, COPMS THAT I OBSERVED,
PROVIDING INFORMATION OF THE COMPLAINANTS DAILY ACTTVITIES. THE COMPLAINANTS
STATED THAT SHE BELMVES THAT HER NEIGI{BORS HAS BEEN CONDUCTING BACKGROUND
INVESTIGATION OF HER. TIIE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT SHE WILL GO TO COURT TO OBTAIN AN
INJTINCTION ORDER FROM THE JUDGE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION
Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22: I4:16, Tuesday
Supervisor Review Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22:45:42, Tuesday
r supp3
Page 5
19
19
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TT{E SEVENTEE}.ITH JUDICTAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BBOVABD-_ COLINTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: DVCE 11-t34
Division: 59 Michael Kaplan
SANDRA EINEIORN
Petitioner,
and
STEVE KOTIN. ,
Respondent.
Ei
..-i
-_-
*-a
Ttrr is ord er vacates order extend in gEFi u nction
t
dated 1/[8/11. ;'r:.r:-,: :.*-
l'..1
r--:,i-.: E
t\J
<J
.-rJ
",.',1,
4!
I
a \
,'!a
r_--4.r
i
.
I
t$-
.b;*
,i*J
f)
(f|
i-rt
GR.DER SETTING EIEARING ON PETITTON FOR, ENJUNCTHOT'{
FOR PROTECTTGN,A.GAINST
(
)
DOMESTTC VTOLENCE ( X
)
REPEAT VIOLENCE (
)
DATING VIOLENCE
(
)
sExuAL VHOLENCE
WITI{OUT HSSUANCE GF AN TNTERtrM TEiUPORARY IN.TUNCTTON
The Fetition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence filed under section 741.30,
Florida Statutes, or Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence under section 784.046, Florida
Statutes, has been reviewed. This Court has
jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject rnatter. A
Ternporary Injunctiol for Protection Against Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence, pending the hearing
scheduled below, is NOT being entered at this time but an injunction may be entered after the hearing,
depending on the frndings made by the Court atthattime.
FINDTNGS
The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the rnatter, do
not demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence or that Petitioner has
reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic or dating
violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporaryt
Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence prior to a hearing. A hearing
is scheduled on the Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual
Violence in section II of this Order. Petitioner lnay amend or supplement the Petition rt any time to state
further reasons why a Temporary lnjunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing
scheduled below.
NOTICE OF EIEARING
Petitioner and Respondent are ordered to appear and testiff at a hearing on the Petition for Injunction
for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence an
{date}
84/ld,l1l,
?t
l:30
a.m./p.m.at{loca.tiorl.JudEeMichaelKaplan_,W,201'sE6thSkeet,Fort
L,auderdale, Florida, at which time the Court will consider whether a Final Judgment of Injunction fcrr
Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence should be entered. lf entered, the injunction
willremainirreffectuntilafixeddatesetbytheCourtoruntilrnodifiedordissolvedbytheCourt.Atthp
hearing, the Court will determine whether other ttrings should be ordered, including, for example, such,tnatters
:'t
Florida Supreme Court Approved Farnily Larv Form 12.980(bXl), Order Setting Hearing on Petition for Injunetion for Protection Against Dotnestic
Viotence, Repeat Violence. Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence rvithout Issuance of an Interim Ternporary In-iunction (03104)
:i
i.,:r:
f
-.)
20
20
c____)
tr<
t__-J
r___l
IT.T TIIE CIR-CUIT CCURT OF TI-,;E
iTT- J_I'DICA]L
CIRCUIT, TIT1 AND
FCR BROWAJR-D
CCLI}ITY, FLCP,']DA
case ru" / /*
/3{
CLERK,SCERTIFICAT,EoFCOIUPLIA]{CE
seciion 741.30 Florida
statutes
(Domesiic
Violence)
Section 7 84.046 Florida
Statutes
(Repeat Violence)
section 784.0+6Floric'a
Statutes @r,ing
violence)
seciicn 784.O46F1orid-a
StatL:-tes
(Sexual Violence)
I IIEREBY
CERTIFY
thal on
L--J
TernPorarY
iajunction
(----l
Final Judgment
t--j
E:lensionA{otice
of Heariag
t--_)
Vacated
t___j
rvas foiwarded
or mailed
within 24 hours from
the time of its entry to the sheriffreceiving
the original
noti-fication
of the iajunction,
to wit:
AgencyName:
l\) :._-r
-: E ,:a
,,:- i-li J; '.-..,
(J1"- *r'
.Ei*=*
-.n
-e.-ii=
F? i.::
E=:i-." T, .,')
ac'#
fr
=
ft
*n.*-
:: :;'ilj
(Jl ii
'-'-:r'
'
:'li
':iq
:': ,,. ..
-U
r.-i - q;
f*l
""it '
...j *h .:*_*:
f""
(' I
-:J.:j t
sEh $ *l
:;ii di:
[--r
c4
c]
tE,
fn
(Check one):
a copy of
'rhe
Dismissal
Other:
Pe-r-itioner
R-espondent
Address:
d C. Forman,
CLERK
Deputy Clerk
DOh'ES T VIOL i 2 3 - 5 2 CEFJIFICATE
OF CO]"PLIAN CE
21
21
Subject: Public Records help request
From: Kohn <kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1/5/2012 7:21 PM
To: jweatherford@hollywood.org
CC: David Low <dlowlaw@gmail.com>, jcantor@hollywood.org, JSHEFFEL@hollywood.org, Pat
Gleason <Pat.Gleason@myoridalegal.com>, pbober@hollywood.org, rknapp@hollywood.org
Lt. Weatherford,
Copied on this note is Pat Gleason of the Florida Attorney General's office in hopes
that Ms. Gleason can help you understand that you are required to provide the requested
records.
I received a phone call this afternoon from Alicia in records telling me the records
requested below were ready. I came and picked them up, and the complete packet of
records is attached as a PDF, with the sole exception of a DVD recording of the search
warrant being served, which was provided with the records.
When I stated "I would like to request complete copies of ALL records that relate to
this investigation, including any meeting notes, NCIC printouts, internal summaries,
photographs, inventory lists, and so forth. Every record of every kind.", I did not
think there was ambiguity.
Based on the packet you have provided, I conclude that there were no meetings, no NCIC
printouts, no investigation, no testing of materials seized, and so forth. I also
conclude that whereas your search warrant affidavit states that a subpoena existed, that
there was never a subpoena. I also conclude that the alleged victim never reported that
there was a restraining order which was violated. I also conclude that there were no
emails from the alleged victim as the affidavit states.
Please clarify if this packet is the totality of
1) what Hollywood Police used to obtain a search warrant
2) all of the investigation reports and results
3) all of the 'evidence' collected
4) all of the internal communications about this matter
If this is truly everything, I'm looking forward to a day in Federal Court where you can
explain how based on absolutely nothing other than these slim reports you obtained a
search a warrant and lied on the affidavit by saying that things existed which did not.
Assuming this is not truly everything, I once again respectfully request to be provided
with the records.
I have requested and want copies of the following:
1) ALL data of every kind that relates to this case in any way
2) that data will include all internal communications between Hollywood City employees
or contractors, and all external communications between any Hollywood City employee and
outside agencies, such as the United States Secret Service, or any third parties which
might have been consulted with regarding any aspect of this case
3) ALL information referred to in the search warrant affidavit, including but not
limited to the NCIC printout, the 88 emails, the complaint from Sandra Einhorn stating
she had a restraining order that was being violated, copies of ALL of the photos that
were allegedly only in existence on Einhorn's computer, and a timeline showing which
computers were inspected on what dates/times that will show how you complied with the
last paragraph of page 6 on the Affidavit, wherein HPD acknowledges a business is on the
computers and that every effort was indeed taken to expedite the investigations and
return the computers expeditiously one by one.
PublicRecordshelprequest imap://imap.googlemail.com:993/fetch>UID>/Lawsuit>670?heade...
1of4 7/11/20122:07PM
22
22
Subject: Copy of restraining order requested
From: Alicia Fernandez-Davis <ADAVIS@hollywood.org>
Date: 1/11/2012 10:59 AM
To: "'kohnfamily1@gmail.com'" <kohnfamily1@gmail.com>
Good morning Mr. Kohn,
Attached please find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part of your
public records request.
Thank you.
Alicia
Attachments:
Sharpscan@hollywood.org_20120111_104854.pdf 92.4 KB
Copyofrestrainingorderrequested
1of1 7/11/20122:08PM
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
I
l*oq
alsFl
u
PAGE 1
GENERAL AEEIDAVIT AND APPI.ICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
IN T}IE CIRCUIT COT]RT OF TIIE SEYENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND F'ORBROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL AT'F'IDAVIT AI\[D APPLICATIONFOR SEARCH WARRANT
STATEOF FLORTDA
)
)ss
CoUNTYoFBROWARD
)
BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, THE HONORABLE Judge Marcia Beach, Judge of
the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward Cormty, State of Florida,
personally came Detective ROBERT KNAPP #2536, of the Hollywood Police Departrnent, who
after being first duly swom, deposes and says:
DESCRIPTIOI+OF PREMISES TO BE SEARCIIED:
A residential house, any detached structues, and any registered vehicles on the property
located at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State of
Florida. The residence is a concrete biock construction single family residence. The exterior
walls are painted tan with a terra cotta barrel tile roof. The blue front exterior door faces west
between two decorative off white colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The residence
has a circular driveway $iith a two car gamge. The address number "3841" is afExed to the
exterior wall facing west above the garage doors.
The location in question can be reached from I-95, to west on Sterling Road, to south on
Sarazen Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of3841 North
51 Avenue'
'il't:' -s
All electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated periphq-BL locefr
within the residence listed above at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollyw@Qi$""Sf
'
Broward, and the State of Florida
,t,->-i
-*-
*
--s<*'
cd
i-;
-:r,, \ C.)
-.!-
-+
,--
ii
3
Page 1 of9
33
33
PAGE 2
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION
STATUTE(S) BEING VIOLATED:
Aggravated Stalking
PROPERTY SOUGHT:
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
ll-
oYs
iS(lo
F.s.s .784.048 (1) (d) (4)
Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search ofany
of tle listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.
1 . Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software and
hardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computer printers,
modems, tape drives, disk appiication programs, data disks, system disk operating
systems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and hard drive and
other computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computer photographs,
graphic interchange forrnats and/or photographs, digital cameras, slides, scanners or other
visua.l depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment which may be or are used
to visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
2. Any and all electronic equipment thalis capable of accessing the intemet and./or the
sending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones and
tablet computers, pertaining to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
3. Any and all correspondence, in elechonic, printed or any other form, pertaining
to
aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
4. Any and a"ll mziterials and photographs, either electronic, printed or any otlgq
form,
conceming aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
S; H
5rE
5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, storeffifaiffiq -r,
the evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or stdfiH :* ft
communications described in the affidavit.
S.S,i
; 5
'..-!e
-=
5
6. Files and data on the computer that show the suspect's ownership, posselffin
and;-
-{
control at time of the offense.
'-
-
-i.. [r.}
C}
7 . kry and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:
Steven Kohn kohn@ix.netcom.com, Rebecca Kohn (reUecca@amniqvseffc
),
Mike boy
(mitceyUoyg1a@hotma
),sandra.veszi@)rahoo.com,HannahKohn
(designbvhannah@hotmail.com), and Hinda Esther Kohn (estherkohn@hotmail.com).
Page2 of9
34
34
J
l-oVst
J
Ftt
PAGE 3
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
8. Encrllpted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of the
information listed in previous paragraphs.
GROUI\DS FOR ISSUANCE:
u t
. "u;t1t:If-rflitrIentalitv,
or
committed is contained therein.
Evidence relevant to proving a
therein.
means by which a felony has been
felony has been committed is contained
F.S. 933.02: (Non-Dwel1ing)
. (2) Properfy has been used as a means to commit any crime.
. (3) Property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that-a*felony has
been committed.
i--:
1l t\,
-
U
-
\)'-b
c:!' * ?
.-- ' ...*-
-\
t
-i].
: 'r'_, fq
-rr,r-,f
'l #
-T-;
a#n
-
rr*i
r\.,-
.Y
r=
..- r--,
*=-: b ;-
< !,,!
? d*t_
-1
^.F: -i
-<;:'*
-
*\
"
.r_...J
r
tt
.-;;.il (.o:l
-_i
ft
Page 3 of9
35
35
ll-cV3l
Sfia
PAGE 4
GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT
PROBA.BLE CAUSE:
Affitant's reason for his beliefthat the laws of the State ofFlorida are being violated as stated above
and the facts establishing the grounds for this Affidavit and the probable cause for believing that such facts
exist are as follows:
Detective Alex Perez is assigned as the lead investigator to t}lis case. He described that the victim,
Sandra Veszi Einlorn alleges the suspect Steven Kohn and his wife Renee Kohn have been continually
harassing her and her husband over the course ofthe past several months. She alleges the harassment
commenced on or about 1 1/2812010 when she made a complaint about the livestock they keep at the rear
of their property. Shortly afterwards, the victim began receiving harassing messages via facebook.com and
her e-mail address of sandraveszi@yahoo.com.
An 01/0712011, victirn Einhom applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,
restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interfering with, or stalking the
victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18201 1 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this
order on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court date of 04/15/201 1.
The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on
'.-l:
E
.-.=,
OZl23/2Oll and the dates listed were confirmed.
;l .f ::
*c.
:;E
a-
il
During the time period of 0l/ I 2/201 1 through 04/1 1/201 1, ar least eighty-ejght (8S
Seftronic ;11
_
".r;_i
=
=
mail messases
(e-maiD
were sent to the victim at sandraveszi@vahoo.com from various e-d6lBdreE&s.
1.
This time period was within the time period the protection order was active. Vtany of ttre}4qait messiges
c)
are addressed from Steve Kohn. Listed below are tlle email addresses (and names, if available) of the e-
mails that were sent to victim:
Fage 4 of9
36
36
ll-DY
3l
srl
a
PAGE 5
GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT
Steven Kohn kohn@A.nqllsqoo.qalq
Rebecca Kohn
(rqbpqaa@effuiih/searqh.com)
Mike boy
(lo1kq&ay&!4@hatmailpa!0)
sandra.veszi@lahoo. com
Hannah Kohn
(desipnbvhannah@hotmail.com)
Hinda Esther Kohn
(estherkohn@hotrnail.com)
Many of the e-mails from Steven Kohn
Gsb!@14aet sqra)
were regarding victim Einhom's
appearance. The remmks in the e-mai1 referred to having seen victim Einhorn on that day and included
attached pictures related to the content ofthe e-mails. The author repeatedly criticized victim Einhom's
personal appearance or attirc. Additional e-mails from the same internet potocol addrcss were regarding
the victim's vehicle (an Audi), and how some Gemans misteated the Jews during the World War tr era.
In particular, one of the e-mails wamed she had a front left flat tirc and
rJrat
"cmeful it's dangerous" and
another ten (10) e-mails with videos depicting an Audi, similar to victim Einhom's, either involved in a
crash or on fire (attached copies are provided). These e-mails in particular,
were sent durine
the. time tS
above listed protection order was in effect, which frightenerl and intimidated UcUm finhom:iile aaaAf
la
j::
(-
that many of the photographs seart to her were not publicly available on the internet ana sne$$lg6iea
$
-l
someone hacked into her computer to obtain thern.
Sib
..r-
F
F=;+F
Detective Perez and your affiant examined the header information for each of theg"Eilr.
fr
:i
-
:i:
discovered that they were all sent from the intemet protocol (IP) address of 65.34.193.158.
"This
ad$ss
was researched using the American Regisky for Intemet Numbers (ARIN). ARIN provides sen ices
related to the technical coordination and management of internet number resources. A semch on their
website of the IP address 65.34.193.15 8 revealed this was one of a set of IP addresses that belong to
Comcast Cable Comrnunications Holdings, Inc. A subpoena was drafted and approved by the Broward
county state attomey's oIEce on 04/2912011 requesting the information for some of the e-mails sent. A
request for the entire time frame was not made, due to the possibility of a great deal of subscribers assigned
to this dynamically assigned IP address. The subpoena was submitted to Comcast Communications on the
same date. On 05/18/2011, Comcast retumed the subpoena to Detective Perez indicating the IP address
Page 5 of9
37
37
tl-DLf
SlStto
PAGE 6
GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
65.34.193.158 is a dlmamically assigned IP address and that for the time period where many of the above
e-mails were sent, the IP address belonged to a commercial account registered to search affinity executive
out of 3841 n 5 1't Ave in Hollywood, Florida. This is the home address for Steve and Renee Kohn, the
suspects in question. This IP address has also been assigned to this customer, without intemrption, from
the time period of 0412912011through 0511812011. Additionally, one of the e-mail addresses,
rebecca@affinitysearch.com, specifically appears to be affiliated with the business name on the account.
Finally, one of the e-mail addresses used, sandra.veszi@)zahoo.com, is very similar to the victim's
e-mail address of sandraveszi@.vahoo.com. It appears to have been created to harass the victim and to
masquerade the identrty of the person sending the intimidating e-mails.
kr light of concerns that may arise that the iisted home business may be hindered without the use
of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that
every effort will be made to expedite the forensic examination and retum any system(s),
e_lpeditiously if
after the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).
q
*-
j-:'t
E
,5-:.-r
k
-.l-r .
nr
\k
=:,*.,,
F'j B
--':-
(
)
- r,,.1il-"1 1..)
/-'-/*
:;=,; >
JF .r
'i -F
.-+
-
ra -r*L
-\
'lw' E
,\!: ! k
,-;, r l
r-l
-':i; (-t)
'-r
c)
-J
t
\-J
Page 6 of9
38
38
t I
-
o'/sisvlo
PAGE 1
GENERAL AFF]DAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
EXPERIENCE A}{D TRAINING OF AIT'IANTS
Your affiant is a certified police officer with the City of Hollywood, Florida Police Departrnent
and has been so employed for 15 years. Your affiant has been a detective for 9 years and is cgrrently
assigned to The Economrc Crimes Unit (Specializing in Computer Crimes). Your affiant has been a swom
law enforcement officer since 1988 in the State of Florida. Your affiant's responsibilities include
rnvestigating computer crimes, conducting computer acquisitions / forensics / analysis, conducting video /
aud:ro acquisitions / forensics i analysis, and cellula phone / skinnner / pda / gps acquisitions / forensics /
analysis. Your affiant has successfully attended and completed over (1000) hours of specialized training in
the forensic anallsis of electronic digital media / computer systems, the use of colnputer systems to commit
or facilitate crimilal activity, the investigations of internet crimes, and the subsequent seizure and analysis
of those systerns. This included an (80) hour training gogram at The Federal Law Enforcernent Training
Center (FLETC) in Glenco, Georgia, a (200) hour training / certification program conducted by the
Departrnent of Defense and The United States Seoet Service titled "Electronic Crimes State and Local
Program
@CSLP)
-IRC-ENCASE" which focused on the techniques for the seizure, forepg& acquisi$on
and analysis of electronic data from computer systerns, a (80) hour training / certifcation
fd:dlr"
"E*
States Secret Semce Cellulm Phone Lab in Tulsa, OIg and an additional (80) hour rffi$t urEg I
1
*,=c)
__ l-rr
certification from The United States Secret Service Cellular Phone Lab in Tulsa, Ok whifrfi&bed 6a the
r"-''
ectonic data from c"rrfi$o*$onEr
Devices, Skrmmer Devices, and GPS Devices. Yow affiant has investigated a wrde iirfie of c&rinal
"
cases in which computer(s) and / or electronic device(s) was utilized as the means to commii feloq&?imes
as well as a means of storing relevant evidence to proving felony criminal crimes- Your afhant is a
federally deputized active member of the multi-jurisdictional Miami Electronics Crimes Task Force
CA4ECTF)
consisting of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcernent Agencies. Said Task Force is headed
by the United States Secret Service and is engaged in the investigations of electronic crimes with a focus
on computer related investigations. Your affiant has participated in the execution of numerous search
v/arrants and was an affiant or co-affiant on a number of those warrants. Your affiant has successfully
performed numerous forensic acquisition and analysis of electronic data from corputer systerns for both
State and Federal cases which vrere seized for criminal investigations.
Page 7 of9
39
39
tl'-
o\stsrl o
PAGE 8
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
THE ROLE OF TIIE COMPUTER IN THE OFF'ENSE
Your affiant knows that computer hardware, software, and electronic files may be important to a criminal
investigation in two distinct ways: (1) the objects themselves may be contraband, evidence,
instrumentalities, or fruits of crime, and/or (2) the objects may be used as storage devices that contain
contraband, evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of crime in the form of electronic data. In this case, the
warrant application requests permission to search and seize data related to aggravated stalking, including
those that may be stored on a computer. This data constitutes evidence of crime. This aftrdavit also
requests permission to seize the computer hardware that may contain the data related to aggravated
cyberstalking. Your affiant believes that, in this case, the computer hardware is a container for evidence
and also itself an instrumentality ofthe crime under investigation.
I{ECESSITY TO REMOVE COMPUTERFROM PREI\{ISES
Based upon your affiant's knowledge, training and experience, your afFlant knows that searching and
seizing information from computers often requires agerts-to seize most or all electronic storage devices
(along with related peripherals) to be searched later by a qualified computer expert in a laboratory or other
controlled environmeni. This is true because ofthe following:
.?rl ts
(
I ) The volume of evidence. Computer storage devices (like hard disk, diskettes, tapes,
,Ia.ffi
disksfran
store the equivalent of millions of pages
of information. Additionally, a suspect mayi+d
JS
copal . .
criminal evidence; he or she might store it in random order with deceptive file names. Iffi&riy r.Fire r.'i
searching authorities to examine all the stored data to determine which particular nf es
&Sfliaen6B or
I
instrumentalities of crime- This sorting process can take weeks or months, depending

ffie'irohift of U
data stored, and it would be impractical and invasive to attempt this kind of data searct onip&
=
-i
:F G)
(2) Technical Requirements. Searching computer systems for criminal evidence is a hiihly tecFnical
process requiring expert skill and a properly controlled environment. The vast array of computer hardware
and software available requires eyen computer experts to specialize in some systems and applications, so it
is difftcult to know before a search which expert is qualified to analyze the system and its data. In any
event, however, data search protocols are exacting scientific procedures designed to protect the integrity of
the evidence and to recover even
"hidden," erased, compressed, password-protected, or encrypted files.
Page 8 of9
40
40
ll
oL{
zls({r
PAGE 9
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Because computer evidence is vulnerable to inadvertent or intsntional modification or deskuction (both
from external sources or from destructive code imbedded in the system as a "booby trap"), a controlled
environment may be necessary to complete an accurate analysis. Further, such searches often require the
seizure of most or all of a computer system's input/output peripheral devices, related software,
documentation, and data security devices (including passwords) so that a qualified computer expert can
accurately retrieve the system's data in a laboratory or other conkolled enyironment.
h light of these concerns, your affiant hereby requests the Court's permission to seize the
contents of the computer hardware (and associated peripherals) that are believed to contain some
or all of the evidence described in the waffant, and to conduct an off-site search of the hardware
for the evidence described.
WHEREFORE, your AIfiant hereby makes application for a Search Warant authorizing the
Affiants, Police Officers for The Cii,- of Hollywood, Broward County, Florid4 with proper and
necessary assistance, to include but not limited to The United States Secret Service and members
of The Miami Electronic Crimes Task Force, to search the above described prertdse ing$e
dalimeinighttime or on Sunday, and to seize any and all of the aforesaid propgrft foun@y
virtue of such Search Warrant and to list the properry seized on a retum and invent#mh
$O
_
within this Judicial Circuit within ten days of this date. d-!B
rfi
0-/
/,
k"'-*oE#-rl
5
AFFIANT Detective Robgfl/Knapp#36 :*-
-''-
,=c
r-=
3
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before
me at Fort Lauderdale, p,rcward
County, Florida, this
-f
day
oRx,lttxA- . A.D. 20\t.
U
JUDGE OF THE CIRCTIIT COI'RT
Page 9 of9
41
41
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORTDA
)
couNTY oF BROWARD
)
)SS
SEARCH WARRANT
IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO ALL AND SINGULAR:
The Chief of Police of the City of Hollywood, of Broward County, Florida, and his
officers, specifically Detective Robert Knapp.
Aftidavit having been made before me by Detective Robert Knapp, of the City of
Hollywood Police Department, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida that they have
probable
cause to know and they do know that on or about the premises
described as:
A residential house, any detached structures, and any registered vehicles on the property
located at384l North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State of
Florida. The residence is a concrete block construction single family residence. The exterior
walls are painted tan with ateruacotta barrel tile roof, The blue front exterior door faces west
between two decorative offwhite colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The residenee
has a circular driveway with a two car garuge. The address numb er "3841" is affixed to the
exterior wall facing west above the garage doors.
The location in question can be reached from l-95,to west on Sterling Road, to south on Sarazen
Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841North 51
Avenue.
All electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated peripherals), located
within the residerrce, any detached skuctures, and any registered vehicles listed above at 3B4l
North 5 1 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, ffid the State of Florida.
The following grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant, as required by chapter 933,
exists, to wit: the law relating to Aggravated Stalking F.S.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4),
has been
violated, and property constituting evidence relevant to proving
that such a Felony has been
cornmitted may be found therein, to wit:
42
42
PAGE TWO
SEARCITWARRANT
Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search of
any of the listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.
1. Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software and
hardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computer
printers, modems, tape drives, disk application programs,
data disks, system disk
operating systems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and hard
drive and other computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computer
photographs, graphic interchange formats and/or photographs,
digital Gameras, slides,
scanners or other visual depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment which
may be or are used to visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
2. Any and all electronic equipment that is capable of accessing the intemet and/or the
sending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones
and
tablet computers, pertaining
to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
3. Any and all conespondence, in electronic, printed
or any other form, pertaining
to
aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
4. Any and all materials and photographs, either electronic, printed
or any other form,
concerning aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, store, or modify
the evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or store
communications described in the affidavit.
6. Files and data on the computer that show the suspeot's ownership, possession
and
control at time of the offense.
7. Any and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:
Steven Kohn kohn@ix.netcom.com, Rebecca Kohn
,
Mike boy
(m
ikevbov8 1 4@hotmai I. comt, sand ra. veszi@vahoo. com, Hannah Kohn
,
ffid Hinda Esther Kohn
8. Encrypted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of the
information listed in previous paragraphs.
43
43
NOW THEREFORE, the facts upon which the belief of said affiant is based as set out in said
Affidavit are hereby deemed sufficient to show probable
cause for the issuance of a Search
Warrant in accordance with said application of said Affiant.
And as I am satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the laws of the State of
Florida are being violated as aforesaid and that the above described property
is being
concealed within the above described residence, I expressly find probable
cause for the
issuance of this Search Warrant.
THIS lS, THEREFORE to command me, Detective Robert Knapp, Police Officer for the City of
Hollywood, Broward County, Florida, with proper and necessary assistance, to include but not
limited to The United States Secret Service and members of The Miami Electronic Crimes
Task Force, to search the above described location, serving this warrant and making the search
in the daytime or the nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demand
or require, with the proper and necessary assistance, and if the property above described be
found there, to seize it, Ieaving a copy of this warrant and a receipt for the property
taken and to
prepare a written inventory of the property seized and return this warrant and inventory and
bring the property before a court having competent
jurisdiction
of the offense within (10) days
as required by law.
DONE AND ORDERED at
4ilswstL ,
Florida,
<t
on thi= (''day
iJ-J--
,
2011 .
CIRCUIT JUDGE MARCIA BEACH
44
44

45
45
46
46
City of Hollywood Police Department
INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT
Case #
Received this warrant on
on
20 and executed the same
,
20- at
_ _m.
by delivering a true copy
thereof to and at the same time showing this original
search warrant and reading it to and explaining to
the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search
I found:
t,
,
the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the above
inventory contains a true and detailed account of all the propefi
appliances, apparatus, paraphernalia
and devices taken by me on said warrant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this
_
day of
,20
Signature
Witness to the removal of the above items
WHITE - Records YELLOW
-
Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner
22-3110,/02)
Signature
47
47
Case #
on
,
20- at
_ _m.
I found:
t, the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the above
inventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property,
this
_
day of
,2O
Signature
WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner
22-311(12102)
Signature
48
48
Case #
on
,20_and
executed the same
20_ at
_ _m.
I found:
t,
,
this
_
day of
,20
Signature
WHITE -
Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner 22-311 1AO2)
Signature
49
49
Case #
on
,
20-_ at
_ _m.
.""r.h *"rr"ntrnd r""dlng !tto
"nd "*pl"inlns
lo
I found:
t,
,
this
_
day of
,20-'
Signature
WHITE - Records YELLOW -
Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner 22-311(12n21
Signature
50
50
Case #
,20_and
executed the same Received this warrant on
on
,20-
at
_ _m.
I found:
t,
,
invenlory contains a true and detailed account of all the property,
this
_
day of
,20
Signature
WHITE - Records YELLOW
- Clerk's Office PINK - Owner
22-311('t2lO2)
Signature
51
51
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17
TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE: THE MATTER OF: CRIMINAL DIVISION
STEVEN KOHN
_________________________/
MOTION TO QUASH AND TRAVERSE SEARCH WARRANT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
COMES NOW, STEVEN KOHN, by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby
moves this Honorable Court pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution, Article I, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23 of the Constitution of the
State of Florida, and Chapter 933, Fla. Stat., to quash a certain search warrant, allow a traverse of
the Search Warrant to occur challenging the truthfulness of the affidavit in which the warrant
relies, or in the alternative, for a protective order and as ground thereof states as follows:
1. Defendant stands accused by Officers of the City of Hollywood for the alleged
violation of Florida Statute 784.048 (1)(d)(4) entitled Aggravated Stalking in sworn testimony
under oath by Detective Robert Knapp #2536.
2. The Search Warrant was subject to the following requirements:
a. Must be issued by a neutral disinterested magistrate. Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175;
b. Those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate the existence of
probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension of
conviction for particular offense Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175; and
c. Warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized as well as the place to be
searched. Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979).
52
52
3. The Fourth Amendment, the Florida Constitution, and Florida Statutes ( 923.04
and 923.05) provide that no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation, in particular describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. A search warrant is issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the
legitimate object of the search is located in a particular place. Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204
(1981). The reason cited must be sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a crime has been
committed, and, as long as a neutral magistrate has a substantial basis for concluding that a
search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the probable cause requirement is satisfied.
Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1991).
4. A basic principle is that searches and seizures inside a constitutionally protected
area without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740
(1984).
5. Statutes and rules authorizing searches and seizures are strictly construed and
affidavits and warrants issued pursuant to such authority must meticulously conform to statutory
and constitutional provisions. State v. Quigg, 17 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1944).
6. The reviewing court, judge, or magistrate, must make sure that a magistrate had a
substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S.
727 (1984); McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Whether an affidavit
supporting a search warrant sufficiently supports a probable cause finding must be determined
within its four corners. State v. Starks, 633 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The burden is on the
state to prove that the police had probable cause for a search and seizure. Doctor v. State, 596 So.
2d 442 (Fla. 1992).
53
53
7. A defendant in the proceeding has the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte issuance of a search warrant to challenge the
truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant. Mason v. State,
375 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Jacobs, 320 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
8. Under the circumstances in this matter, the search warrant would have been
issued pursuant to Section 933.02(3) which provides that a search warrant may be issued when
any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.
9. Even where the search warrant can be found properly issued, an exception exists
to evidence seized which is testimonial or communicative in nature; such evidence is
considered tantamount to compelling the defendant to become a witness against himself in
violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. State v. Kircheis, 269
So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
10. It is believed that the target of the affidavit and warrant in this matter were
statements made in emails by Defendant which were communicative in nature showing
violations of aggravated stalking. Under Kircheis, such search would be unlawful because of the
nature of the items sought.
11. Further, regardless of whether the emails sought after by the City of Hollywoods
Police Department were of the same communicative nature of those described in Kircheis, the
affidavit is completely void of any meaningful probable cause.
12. The affidavit alleges on its face the following:
On 01/07/2011, victim Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against
Steven Kohn, restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing,
following, interfering with, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was
approved on 01/18/2011 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this order
on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court
date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on
54
54
02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed.
(Emphasis Added) (Affidavit is attached as Exhibit A).
13. Defendant challenges the truth of the information contained in the warrant
Affidavit.
14. First, the Affiant left out the fact that at the time the search warrant was sought
and signed, victim Einhorn knew that the temporary injunction that was the crux of the alleged
law violation was denied. This is contrary to the Affiants sworn statement in which Affiant
verified that a valid injunction was in place at the time the search warrant was signed.
15. Under oath, Sandra Einhorn stated the following:
Q. And did the police officers of the
Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if
you have a restraining order against Steve
Kohn?
A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had
been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining
order against Steve Kohn.
Q. So they knew that you were
unsuccessful?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did they -- did they --
A. Or that's what I told them.
Q. And did you ever lead them to believe
to believe you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A. No, it would be foolish to lead police
into something that they could very easily
figure out for themselves one way or another.
Q. So your testimony is that you never
told police you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A. That is correct.
Q. In fact, you told the police you did
not have valid restraining order because it was
denied?
A. I told -- I called the police and I --
actually lost when the decision was made that I
did not receive it. I did call Hollywood
Police to let them know that I did not receive
the restraining order. Yes, that is correct.
55
55
Einhorn v. Kohn, 10-048282 (18) (2011). (Attached is a copy of page ____ of the trial transcript
in relevant part).
16. The Affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a
reckless disregard for the truth as Sandra Einhorn states under oath that the Hollywood Police
Department knew she had not obtained a restraining order.
17. The Affiant, Detective Robert Knapp, blatantly disregarded the truth when Sandra
Einhorn specifically told Hollywood Police she did not have a restraining order against Steven
Kohn and yet he still made a representation that he verified the restraining order. Supra.
18. The Affidavit lists Florida State 933.18(6) and Florida Statute 933.02 as grounds
for issuance of the Search Warrant. However, the underlying felony, aggravated stalking
pursuant to Fla. Stat. 784.048(1)(d)(4) that Defendant had been alleged to have violated, required
an injunction to be in place. Because there was no valid injunction, the warrant rested on perilous
probable cause grounds.
19. The Affidavit contained false and manufactured statements made in order to
achieve a willfull and reckeless violation of Defendants Fourth Amendment right to be
protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.
20. Because the warrant rests on perilous probable cause grounds, the warrant must
be quashed as there is no crime under which it could be issued pursuant to F.S. 933.18(6) and
F.S. 933.02. Evidence seized under it ought to be suppressed at trial as well. F.S.A. Const.
Declaration of Rights, 22. Also see Davis v. State, 113 Fla. 713, 152 So. 6 (1934).
21. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing (referred to as a "Franks
hearing;" Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667].) on this issue upon a
"substantial showing" that:
56
56
a. The affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a
reckless disregard for the truth; and
b. The affidavit's remaining contents are reevaluated after the false statements are excised
to see if, as corrected, there is still sufficient evidence to justify a finding of probable
cause. Frank v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667, 672];
precluding the cross-examination of the affiant until the necessary showing is made. See
also People v. Wilson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3rd 742, 747; Theodor v. Superior Court
(1972) 8 Cal.3rd 77, 103; People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3rd 67, 78; and People v.
Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297; People v. Lewis et al. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970,
989); and
c. The affidavit contains information that is the direct product of a Fourth Amendment
violation. (SeeP eople v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073.)
WHEREFORE, Steven Kohn prays this honorable Court quashed and/or traverse the
aforementioned warrant, or in the alternative, issue a protective order preventing the State of
Florida and the City of Hollywood Police Department from having access to, from examining,
testing, reading or otherwise using any copies of data taken from the Kohns illegally seized
items during the execution of the warrant pertaining to all items taken, described or not described
in the alleged search warrant because such search violates the protections afforded to Defendant
pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article
I 12 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the aforementioned Florida Statutes and Florida
case law because, among other things, a) there was no probable cause for the search of Steven
Kohns home; b) the probable cause was based on false, misleading or incomplete information;
c) the information on which the affidavit was made was unreliable. Defendant further requests
that this Court convene an evidentiary hearing in order to be able to determine the issues raised
by this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
DAVID LOW, ESQ.
57
57
58
58
Subject:DismissalsofSandraEinhorn'sPeonsforProtecveOrderfromJudgeKaplan
From:Kohn<kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date:6/27/20118:47PM
To:cewagner@hollywood.org,rknapp@hollywood.org,pbober@hollywood.org,
jsheel@hollywood.org
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheffel,ChiefWagner,andDetectiveKnapp,
Today,oneofmyattorneysmetwiththeStateAttorneywhoreviewedtheJune1search
warrantandattachedprobablecause.Hefounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrant
couldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorderandsuggestedthatI
makeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
AlthoughIamsurethatIprovidedthesealready,Iamcomplyingwiththesuggestionand
makingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentType:application/pdf;
name="Jan7cover.pdf"
ContentTransferEncoding:base64
ContentDisposition:attachment;
filename="Jan7cover.pdf"
Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf
attachmentwere:
name="12711CoverPage.pdf"
filename="12711CoverPage.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf
attachmentwere:
name="41511Dismissal.pdf"
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoins Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }
of PN
59
59
filename="41511Dismissal.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf
attachmentwere:
name="4152011cover.pdf"
filename="4152011cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf
attachmentwere:
name="421cover.pdf"
attachmentwere:
name="427cover.pdf"
Deleted: Dismissal.pdf
attachmentwere:
name="Dismissal.pdf"
filename="Dismissal.pdf"
Attachments:
Deleted:Jan7cover.pdf 254bytes
of PN
60
60
Deleted:12711CoverPage.pdf 268bytes
Deleted:41511Dismissal.pdf 266bytes
Deleted:4152011cover.pdf 262bytes
Deleted:Dismissal.pdf 250bytes
of PN
61
61
Date:6/28/20112:27PM
To:cewagner@hollywood.org,rknapp@hollywood.org,pbober@hollywood.org,
jsheel@hollywood.org
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheffel,ChiefWagner,andDetectiveKnapp,
Today,oneofmyattorneysmetwiththeStateAttorneywhoreviewedtheJune1search
warrantandattachedprobablecause.Hefounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrant
couldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorderandsuggestedthatI
makeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
AlthoughIamsurethatIprovidedthesealready,Iamcomplyingwiththesuggestionand
makingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
attachmentwere:
attachmentwere:
attachmentwere:
of PN
62
62
attachmentwere:
attachmentwere:
name="421cover.pdf"
attachmentwere:
name="427cover.pdf"
attachmentwere:
Attachments:
of PN
63
63
of PN
64
64
Subject:Fwd:DismissalsofSandraEinhorn'sPeonsforProtecveOrderfromJudgeKaplan
Date:6/30/20118:34AM
To:cewagner@hollywood.org,rknapp@hollywood.org,pbober@hollywood.org,jsheel@hollywood.org
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheel,ChiefWagner,andDetecveKnapp,
TheStateattorneywasconfidentthatallIhadtodowasshowyouthe1/7coverand 1/27cover,(deniedinjuctions)andthenrealizingtheerror,HPD
Thestateattorneyfounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrantcouldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorder.
HesuggestedthatIrepeatedlymakeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
IamcomplyingwiththesuggestionandmakingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.Sohereitisagain.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
name="421cover.pdf"
name="427cover.pdf"
Fwu Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoins Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei
of PN
65
65
Attachments:
Fwu Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoins Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei
of PN
66
66
Date:7/1/20118:21AM
To:cewagner@hollywood.org,rknapp@hollywood.org,pbober@hollywood.org,jsheel@holllywood.org
Needlesstosaybaseduponexperience,ourfamilygetsespeciallynervousaroundholidays.
IknowthatinthepastyouhaveonlytargetedourfamilyonJewishholidays(infactwehavenothadareligiousholidayinthenearly3yearswehavelivedin
HollywoodWITHOUTinterferencefromcodeenforcement,thepoliceorboth)butsinceAmericanJewsdocelebrateIndependenceDayIthoughtitbesttomakesure
thatyousllhavethesedismissalsjustincaseyouhaveforgoensinceyesterdaythatSandraEinhorn'smulplelingsagainstSteveKohnwereALLdeniedand/or
dismissed.
THEREWASNEVERANYINJUNCTIONAGAINSTANYMEMBEROFOURFAMILY!!!
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheel,ChiefWagner,andDetecveKnapp,
TheStateattorneywasconfidentthatallIhadtodowasshowyouthe1/7coverand 1/27cover,(deniedinjuctions)andthenrealizingtheerror,HPD
Thestateattorneyfounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrantcouldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorder.
HesuggestedthatIrepeatedlymakeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
IamcomplyingwiththesuggestionandmakingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.Sohereitisagain.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
of PN
67
67
name="421cover.pdf"
name="427cover.pdf"
Attachments:
of PN
68
68
69
69
70
70
Subject:problemIhopewecanresolvepart1
From:SteveKohn<kohn@earthlink.net>
Date:7/20/20112:55PM
To:JCANTOR@hollywood.org
Part1attachmentswarrantandcourtorders
DearMr.Cantor,
Asyoumightbeaware,HPDexecutedtheattachedsearchwarranton6/8.
Whatyoumightnotbeawareofisthattheprobablecauseisfictitious,andthereis
copiousproofthatitisfictitiousandthatDetectiveKnappknewit.
ThestatuteintheaffidavitthatwasallegedlyviolatedisF.S.S.784.048(1)(d)(4)
whichrequiresaninjunctionorcourtimposedprohibitionofconduct,andconductin
violationofthatinjunction.Sinceaninjunctionwassought,butnotgranted,the
probablecausegroundsintheaffidavitareinsufficientasamatteroflaw.
Theaffidavitinquestionreliesonthefollowinginformationtosupportprobablecause:
"01/07/2011,SandraEinhornappliedforatemporaryinjunctionagainstStevenKohn,
restraininghimfromassaulting,threatening,abusing,harassing,following,interfering
with,orstalkingthevictim.Thetemporaryorderwasapprovedon01/18/2011andsuspect
SteveKohnwasservedwiththisorderonthesamedate.Theorderwasactiveandsetto
expireontheassignedcourtdateof04/15/2011.Theprotectionorderwasverifiedvia
NCIC/FCIC02/23/2011andthedateslistedwereconfirmed."
Theaffiant,DetectiveKnapp,madeafalsestatementindeclaringthatatemporaryorder
wasapprovedon01/18/2011.Theorderof01/18/2011,executedonastandardformused
toreschedulethehearingforalaterdate,merelyextendedapriorinjunction,ifone
wasalreadyinplace.Therewasnopriorinjunctionandthereforenoinjunctionto
extend.Furthermore,on01/27/2011JudgeKaplanvacatedtheorderdated01/18/2011that
extendedthenonexistentinjunction,removinganyappearancethattherecouldpossibly
haveeverbeenaninjunction.Hadthereactuallybeenaninjunctionissuedon
01/18/2011,itwasvacatedon01/27/2011.Inotherwords,atthetimetheprotection
orderwasallegedlyverifiedviaNCIC/FCICon02/23/2011,hadsuchanorderactually
existedon01/18/2011itwasalreadyvacatedon01/27/2011.Thetemporaryinjunction
thatwasthecruxoftheallegedlawviolationwasvacated.ThisiscontrarytoKnapp's
swornstatementthatavalidinjunctionwasinplacefrom01/18/2011to04/15/2011.
ImetwithStateAttorney,BSO,FDLE,andHPDmembersonotheroccasionstoverifythat
theNCIC/FCICsystemdoesnothavetheentrythatKnappsayswasthere,andfurthermore,
accordingtothedataentryclerkattheBSO,theywouldnothavebeenabletoenteran
injunctionextensionunlesstheoriginalwascrossreferenced.(afterall,onehasto
knowwhoisbeingrestrictedfromexactlywhichactions).Thelatervacatingorder
wouldalsohavebeencrossreferencedby2/23.
YouwillfindthattheHPDsystemdoesnotshowthattherewasatemporaryinjunction
undermyname,whichwouldhavebeenrequiredbylawforBSOtodelivertoHPDuponthe
orderbeingmade.
Gettingmypossessionsbackhasproventobedifficultwithoutastatecasenumber.
MyattorneywasquitesurethatallIneedtodoismakeyouawareofthefacts
surroundingthiscaseandthatyouwillimmediatelycorrectthesituation.Heassured
methatifyouhadthisemailinyourhandsby3:00,I'dprobablyhaveallofmystuff
pioblem I hope we can iesolve pait
of PN
71
71
72
72
Subject:problemIhopewecanresolvepart1
From:SteveKohn<kohn@earthlink.net>
Date:7/20/20112:55PM
To:JCANTOR@hollywood.org
Part1attachmentswarrantandcourtorders
DearMr.Cantor,
Asyoumightbeaware,HPDexecutedtheattachedsearchwarranton6/8.
Whatyoumightnotbeawareofisthattheprobablecauseisfictitious,andthereis
copiousproofthatitisfictitiousandthatDetectiveKnappknewit.
ThestatuteintheaffidavitthatwasallegedlyviolatedisF.S.S.784.048(1)(d)(4)
whichrequiresaninjunctionorcourtimposedprohibitionofconduct,andconductin
violationofthatinjunction.Sinceaninjunctionwassought,butnotgranted,the
probablecausegroundsintheaffidavitareinsufficientasamatteroflaw.
Theaffidavitinquestionreliesonthefollowinginformationtosupportprobablecause:
"01/07/2011,SandraEinhornappliedforatemporaryinjunctionagainstStevenKohn,
restraininghimfromassaulting,threatening,abusing,harassing,following,interfering
with,orstalkingthevictim.Thetemporaryorderwasapprovedon01/18/2011andsuspect
SteveKohnwasservedwiththisorderonthesamedate.Theorderwasactiveandsetto
expireontheassignedcourtdateof04/15/2011.Theprotectionorderwasverifiedvia
NCIC/FCIC02/23/2011andthedateslistedwereconfirmed."
Theaffiant,DetectiveKnapp,madeafalsestatementindeclaringthatatemporaryorder
wasapprovedon01/18/2011.Theorderof01/18/2011,executedonastandardformused
toreschedulethehearingforalaterdate,merelyextendedapriorinjunction,ifone
wasalreadyinplace.Therewasnopriorinjunctionandthereforenoinjunctionto
extend.Furthermore,on01/27/2011JudgeKaplanvacatedtheorderdated01/18/2011that
extendedthenonexistentinjunction,removinganyappearancethattherecouldpossibly
haveeverbeenaninjunction.Hadthereactuallybeenaninjunctionissuedon
01/18/2011,itwasvacatedon01/27/2011.Inotherwords,atthetimetheprotection
orderwasallegedlyverifiedviaNCIC/FCICon02/23/2011,hadsuchanorderactually
existedon01/18/2011itwasalreadyvacatedon01/27/2011.Thetemporaryinjunction
thatwasthecruxoftheallegedlawviolationwasvacated.ThisiscontrarytoKnapp's
swornstatementthatavalidinjunctionwasinplacefrom01/18/2011to04/15/2011.
ImetwithStateAttorney,BSO,FDLE,andHPDmembersonotheroccasionstoverifythat
theNCIC/FCICsystemdoesnothavetheentrythatKnappsayswasthere,andfurthermore,
accordingtothedataentryclerkattheBSO,theywouldnothavebeenabletoenteran
injunctionextensionunlesstheoriginalwascrossreferenced.(afterall,onehasto
knowwhoisbeingrestrictedfromexactlywhichactions).Thelatervacatingorder
wouldalsohavebeencrossreferencedby2/23.
YouwillfindthattheHPDsystemdoesnotshowthattherewasatemporaryinjunction
undermyname,whichwouldhavebeenrequiredbylawforBSOtodelivertoHPDuponthe
orderbeingmade.
Gettingmypossessionsbackhasproventobedifficultwithoutastatecasenumber.
MyattorneywasquitesurethatallIneedtodoismakeyouawareofthefacts
surroundingthiscaseandthatyouwillimmediatelycorrectthesituation.Heassured
methatifyouhadthisemailinyourhandsby3:00,I'dprobablyhaveallofmystuff
of PN
73
73
backby5:00.
Ilaughedathimwhenhesaidit,butthereisalwaysthechancethatheiscorrectand
youwillindeeddotherightthing.Afterall,ifyoudon't,whathappensifaJudgeor
acuriousreporterasks"Whydidn'tyoureturnthepropertyassoonasyoulearnedthere
wasnoinjunction?"?
ItisaverybadthingthatHPDforexecutedthiswarrant,ontheJewishHolidayof
Shavuot,with12armedofficersscaringmylittlechildrenhalftodeath,basedona
phonyprobablecause.
Iamhopingyouwillimmediatelyandapologeticallyreturnmypropertyandclosethe
case.
TheattachmentsIwillsendnecessitatebreakingthisupintoacoupleofmessages.I
hopeyoucanattendtothismatterimmediately.Myrealdamagesalreadyincludehaving
replaced5cellphones,2computers,acamera,andabackupdrive,andIwillsoonbe
purchasingotherreplacementitemsifIdon'tgetmyequipmentbackimmediately.
Sincerelyandrespectfully,
SteveKohn
3841N51Ave
HollywoodFL33021
9544047358
kohn@earthlink.net
Deleted: Warrant.pdf
attachmentwere:
name="Warrant.pdf"
filename="Warrant.pdf"
Deleted: 1-07-11 Cover page.pdf
attachmentwere:
name="10711Coverpage.pdf"
filename="10711Coverpage.pdf"
Deleted: 1-18-11 Continuance.pdf
attachmentwere:
of PN
74
74
name="11811Continuance.pdf"
filename="11811Continuance.pdf"
attachmentwere:
attachmentwere:
attachmentwere:
attachmentwere:
name="421cover.pdf"
of PN
75
75
76
76
77
77
ARTICLE II. THE CITY COMMISSION
Sec. 2.06. Non-interference.
The city commission and its members shall interact with the employees of the
city's departments, offices and agencies solely through the city manager, or, in the
case of the city attorney's office, the city attorney, or the designees of the city manager
or city attorney, if any. Neither the city commission nor any of its members shall give
orders or directions to, nor make requests of, any of the employees of the city's
departments, offices and agencies, except that such orders, directions and requests
may be directed to designees, if any, of the city manager or, in the case of the city
attorney's office, the city attorney.
(Ord. O-2010-28, passed 7-21-10)

78
78
79
79
Presenter
Stacey S. Fisher, Esq.
80
80
Important Cases
81
81
Beginning The Process-
Prior to Sending Us the File
Bother them- Use Pressure and a System Wide System
Not Just One Letter Per Month
Develop A System-
AND USE IT
82
82
Sending The File To Your Attorney
1. To Begin the Suit You Need To:
A. Get All Backup Documents Together
B. Increase Balance Where Appropriate
C. Decide Which Road To Take
1. Size of Debt is a Factor
2. Do You Want to Collect or Close File?
3. Collect or File Suit?
4. File Suit Immediately?
83
83
Complaint
Form
84
84
Ho llywoo d Police D epartm ent
CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: 07 /l8l20ll 13:32
oce: 337104061998
,,
TT INFoRMATION BEIpw IS CoNFIDENTLAL FoR USE BT A\IffioRtzED
pERsoNNEL
oNLy
,,
Case Status:
INACTII/E
Offense: TRESPASSING
Case Mng Status:
INACTII/E Occured: 04/23/2011
Investigator: PLUMMER, P. (3221)
Supervisor: ANDRANIS, P. (1930)
Contact:
Reference: Follow Up
ON 0412412011, I RESPONDED TO 3821 N 51ST AVE IN REFERENCE TO A NEIGHBOR DISPUTE. I MADE
CONTACT WITH SANDRA EINHORN. Sr{E STATED THAT TODAY r{ER NEIGr{BOR (3841 N 51 AVE),
STEVE KOHN'S CHILDREN AND V/IFE WERE TRESPASSING ON I{ER PROPERTY AND RANG HER DOOR
BELL AND WERE RI]NNING AROUND IN I{ER FRONT YARD. SIIE EXPLAINED THAT SIIE DOES HAVE A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (COtrRT CASE #DVCE-I t-2439) ON STEVE KOHN, BUT NOT HrS
WIT'E OR CHILDREN. SANDRA DOES I{AVE VIDEO OF TODAY'S INCIDENT AND WILL BRING T}IE
VIDEO TO SHOW TI{E JUDGE AT T}IE FINAL I{EARING FOR TIIE RESTRAINING ORDER IN MAY. I GAVE
A VERBAL WARNING TO TIM RESIDENTS OF 3841 N 51ST AVE TO STAY OF OFF SANDRA'S PROPERTY.
Date / Time: 04/24/20 I I I 5 : 28: 3 3, Sunday
Supervisor Review Date / Time: 04/24/2bt t 20:24:35, Sunday
Page 5
85
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
162
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 10-048282 (18)
GRANT EINHORN AND SANDRA )
EINHORN, as husband and )
wife, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME II of IV (Pages 162 - 262)
DATE: August 3-4, 2011
LOCATION: Broward County Courthouse
201 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
BEFORE: Honorable Michele Towbin Singer
This cause came on to be heard at the time and place
aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were
reported by:
Carlos A. Rugel
Certified Electronic Court Reporter
Notary Public, State of Florida
Alternative Court Reporting
4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
Hollywood, FL 33021
P: 954.832.3563
F: 954.556.6607
www.AlternativeCourtReporting.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
197
MR. LOW: Okay.
THE COURT: So ask your next question.
Q. Okay, and how many times did you contact
the Hollywood Police Department in that regard?
A. Several times.
Q. I'm not talking about the time that you
called the non-emergency number for the police to
come over. I'm talking about separate and apart
from that.
A. They're all -- they're all -- they're all
in the same -- they're all in the same to me.
When I made a phone call, it was a phone call
because I was being harassed and I had the
expectation that Hollywood Police would protect me
and allow me to feel safe and secure in my home.
Q. Okay, and do you know who you were
speaking with on the phone at the Hollywood Police
Department?
A. Depended on the day.
Q. Can you give me a name?
A. That I spoke to? I mean, typically I
spoke to dispatch who would then call someone out.
And I had many officers come out to my home.
Q. And did the police officers of the
Hollywood Police Department ever ask you if you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
198
have a restraining order against Steve Kohn?
A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had been
unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining order
against Steve Kohn.
Q. So they knew that you were unsuccessful?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did they -- did they --
A. Or that's what I told them.
Q. And did you ever lead them to believe you
had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn?
A. No, it would be foolish to lead police
into something that they could very easily figure
out for themselves one way or another.
Q. So your testimony is that you never told
police you had a valid restraining order against
Mr. Kohn?
A. That is correct.
Q. In fact, you told the police you did not
have a valid restraining order because it was
denied?
A. I told -- I called the police and I --
the day that I actually lost when the decision was
made that I did not receive it. I did call
Hollywood Police to let them know that I did not
receive the restraining order. Yes, that is

Kohn v. Hollywood, Einhorn, Et Al

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kohn v. Hollywood, Einhorn, Et Al

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Anda mungkin juga menyukai