Hamtramck Police Tire Dumping Lawsuit

UNITEDSTATESFEDERALCOURT
EASTERNDISTRICT
RASOULJOUMAAH,anindividualGAYLE
JOUMAAH,anindividualAMJADSABER,
anindividualYOUSRAJALAL,anindividual
andSAMSTIRESHOP,aMichiganCorporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CaseNo.
Honorable:
DETECTIVEJAMESMCMAHON,
Inhisindividualandofficialcapacity
DETECTIVEMICHAELSTOUT,
ANNEMOISE,ChiefofPoliceHamtramck,
Inherindividualandofficialcapacity
THECITYOFHAMTRAMCK
THECITYOFHIGHLANDPARKand
THE MICHIGAN AUTO THEFT PREVENTION
AUTHORITY(ATPA)aprivateentity
JointlyandSeverally,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
STEVENA.HANEY,SR.(P63947)
HaneyLawGroup,PLLC
AttorneyforPlaintiffs
811SouthBlvd.,Suite210
RochesterHills,MI48037
(517)614.2304
steve@haneygroup.net
MuneebM.Ahmad,Esq(P70391)
S.HussainAkbar,Esq(P67967)
AHMAD&AKBARLAW,PLLC
AttorneysforPlaintiff
900WilshireDrive,Suite202
Troy,Michigan48084
Tel:(248)5192313
Fax:(248)5192399
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINTANDJURYDEMAND
NOW COME
, Plaintiffs, Rasoul Sam Joumaah, an individual Gayle Joumaah, an
individual Amjad Saber, an individual Yousra Jalal, an individual and Sams Tire Shop, a
Michigan Corporation, through their attorneys, Steven A. Haney, Sr. of the Haney Law Group,
PLLC, and Muneeb M. Ahmad and Syed Hussain Akbar, of Ahmad & Akbar Law, PLLC, and
statefortheirComplaint
asfollows:
THEPARTIES
1.
Plaintiff, Sams Tire Shop, Inc., is a Michigan Corporation doing business as
Sams Tire Shop, [hereinafter Sams Tire Shop],withitsprincipalplaceofbusinesslocatedin

theCityofHamtramck,Michigan.
2.
Plaintiff, Rasoul Joumaah [hereinafter Plaintiff R. Joumaah],anindividual,isa
residentoftheStateofMichigan,intheCountyofWayne.
3.
Plaintiff, Gayle Joumaah, [hereinafter Plaintiff G. Joumaah], anindividual, isa
residentoftheStateofMichigan,intheCountyofWayneandthewifeofPlaintiffR.Joumaah.
4.
Plaintiff, Amjad Saber [hereinafter Plaintiff Saber], an individual, is a resident
oftheStateofMichigan,intheCountyofWayneandthefatherofPlaintiffR.Joumaah.
5.
Plaintiff, Yousra Jalal [hereinafter Plaintiff Jalal], anindividual,isaresidentof
theStateofMichigan,intheCountyofWayneandthemotherofPlaintiffR.Joumaah.
6.
Defendant, Michael Stout [hereinafter Defendant Stout], an individual, is a
police officer with the Hamtramck Police Departmentandisdomiciled inthe State ofMichigan.
DefendantStoutisbeingsuedinhisindividualandofficialcapacity.
7.
Defendant, Anne Moise [hereinafter Defendant Moise], an individual, is the
Chief of Police of the City of Hamtramck and domiciled in the State of Michigan. Defendant
Moiseisbeingsuedinherindividualandofficialcapacity.
8.
Defendant, City of Hamtramck [hereinafter Defendant Hamtramck], is a
municipal corporation, and is organized and exists under thelawsoftheStateofMichigan,with

its principal office located at 3401 Evaline, Hamtramck, Michigan. All current and former
employees identified herein as Defendants are being named in their individual and official
capacities.
9.
Defendant, James McMahon [hereinafter Defendant McMahon], an individual,
is a police officer with the Highland Park Police Department and is domiciled in the State of
Michigan.DefendantMcMahonisbeingsuedinhisindividualandofficialcapacity.
10.
Defendant, City of Highland Park [hereinafter Defendant Highland Park], is a
municipal corporation, and is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan,
with its principal offices located at 12050 Woodward Blvd., Highland Park, Michigan. All
current and former employees identified herein as Defendants are being named in their
individual and official capacities. [Collectively Defendant Hamtramck and Defendant Highland
ParkshallbehereinafterreferredtoasDefendantCities.]
11.
Defendant, Michigan Auto Theft Prevention Authority (MATPA) [hereinafter
Defendant MATPA], is a administered by the Miichigan State Police, and is organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal offices located at 333 South
GrandAvenue,Lansing,Michigan48909.
12.
Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA is privately funded by the
insurance industryandisasupervisoryagencyfortheC.O.B.R.AAutoTheftTaskForce,aswell
as for Defendants McMahon and Stout. Defendant MATPA utilizes a $1 per policy insurance
premium for the purpose of funding and supporting the actions andconductofitsgrantees,of
which includes the C.O.B.R.A auto theft task force, as well as MATPA Wayne County
Prosecutor Dennis Doherty. Given its supervisory role and relationship to the C.O.B.R.A
Taskforce and Defendants McMahon and Stout, Defendant MATPA is vicariously liable for
Defendant McMahon, Stout and Moises actions or lack thereof. [Defendants Stout, Moise,
McMahonandMATPAshallhereinaftercollectivelybereferredtoasDefendantOfficers.]
JURISDICTIONANDVENUE
13.
Jurisdiction is proper and based on 28 U.S.C. 1331 as United States District
Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arisingundertheConstitution,laws,or

treaties of the United States. Further, this Court has jurisdiction over the companion state law
claimsunder28U.S.C.1367.
14.
The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and
attorneyfees.
15.
VenueisproperinthisJudicialDistrictunder28U.S.C.1391.
FACTUALBACKGROUND
16.
Plaintiff R. Joumaah, also known as Sam, is the principal owner of Plaintiff
Sams Tire Shop, located at 9500 Conant DriveinHamtramck,Michigan,whichhasoperatedin

the community since 2008. Plaintiff Sams Tire Shops primary source of business is in the
retailandwholesalebusinessofbuyingandsellingusedtires.
17.
Plaintiff G. Joumaah is the wife of Plaintiff RasoulJoumaahandresideswithher
husband, as well as his father, Plaintiff Amjed Saber, and his mother, Plaintiff Yousra Jalal, at
theirresidencelocatedat7830NormileStreetinDearborn,Michigan,CountyofWayne,Stateof
Michigan.
18.
Upon information and belief, Defendant James McMahon, a Detective with the
Highland Park Police Department, is a police officer and member of a multijurisdictional auto
theft task force named C.O.B.R.A. This task force is funded by the Auto Theft Prevention
Authority, which receives $1 premiums on auto policies throughout the state to grant fund
specialized auto theft teams and prosecutors. ThedelegatedWayneCountyMATPAProsecutor
is WayneCountyAssistantProsecutingAttorneyDennis Doherty,who isnotedtohavereviewed
thesearchwarrantsatissueinthiscase.
19.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Michael Stout, a Detective with the
Hamtramck City Police Department, is a police officer and also a member of the
multijurisdictionalC.O.B.R.AautothefttaskforcewithhispartnerDefendantMcMahon.
20.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Moise, the Chief of Police of
Hamtramck, was at all times the Supervising authority with personal knowledge as to the
conduct and allegations of misconduct and racial discrimination of her subordinate Defendant
Stout. Defendant Moise woefully failed to engage in any appropriate steps in addressing the
illegal conduct of City of Hamtramck police officer Defendant Stout, for which she had a duty,
and in fact violated that duty when she was observed to be conspiring anddirectlybenefitingin
the illegal conduct and abuse of power by DefendantStoutandhispartnerDefendantMcMahon
(SeeEx.AJohnDoev.DetectiveMcMahonet.alparagraph90).
21.
At all times relevant, Defendants McMahon, Stout and Moise, as officers acting
under the color orauthorityoflaw,hadadutytoprotect,serveandensure theclearlyestablished
constitutionalandcivilrightsofthecitizensofthemunicipalitiesinwhichtheypoliced.
22.
Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck, a municipal
corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal
office located at 3401 Evaline, Hamtramck, Michigan, at all times employed both Defendant
Stout and Defendant Moise and owed a duty to the citizensandcommunityofallmunicipalities
in which they policed, to adequately train or supervise its employees so as to ensure that,
Defendant Stout and Defendant Moise,wouldnotintentionallyand/ornegligentlyandrecklessly
abuse their police power under the color or authority of law by engaging actions that would
violate the clearly established constitutional and civil rights of citizens of any municipality in
2
whichtheseDefendantspoliced.
23.
Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Highland Park, a municipal
corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal
office located at 12050 Woodward Blvd., Highland Park, Michigan, at all times employed
Highland Park Detective James McMahon and owed a dutytothecitizensandcommunityofall
municipalities in which they policed, to adequately train or supervise its employee so as to
ensure that, Defendant McMahon, would not intentionally and/or negligently and recklessly
abuse hispolicepowerunderthecolororauthorityoflawbyengagingactionsthat would violate
the clearly established constitutional and civil rights of citizens of any municipality inwhichhe
3
policed.
24.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Michigan Auto Theft Prevention
th
th
Poev. Haydon
, 853 F.2d 418,425(6
Cir. 1988)seealso
Graweyv.Drury
,567F.3d302, 309 (6
Cir.2009)see
also
Pearsonv.Callahan
,555U.S.223(2009)
2
th
Ellisexrel.Pendergrassv.ClevelandMun.Sch.Dist.
,455F.3d690,700(6
Cir.2006)
3
th
,455F.3d690,700(6
Cir.2006)
1
Authority (MATPA), is a privately funded organization, administered by the Michigan State

Police, organized and existing under the laws of the State ofMichigan,withitsprincipaloffices
located at 333 South Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48909
. MATPA serves as a privately
Insurance fundedfundingsourceandagencyfortheC.O.B.R.A AutoTheftTaskForce,andwas
directlyresponsibleandowed adutyto thecitizensandcommunityofallmunicipalitiesinwhich
C.O.B.R.A operated or policed, to adequately train, supervise, administer, manage and provide
safeguards to prevent the racially vile and unconstitutional thievery ofDefendantpoliceofficers
4
McMahonandStout.
25.
Upon information and belief, on or about the date of August 15th, 2015, a John
Doe informant agreed to assist Defendants McMahon and Stout (C.O.B.R.A Task Force) in an
investigationofPlaintiffSamsTireShopanditsprincipalownerPlaintiffR.Joumaah.
26.
Upon information and belief, that during the initial briefing of the investigation,
Defendants McMahon and Stout advised the confidential informant that they were targeting
Sams Tire Shop because they wanted to rid the Hamtramck community of
these fucking
Arabs.
(SeeEx.AJohnDoev.DetectiveMcMahonet.alparagraph
22).
27.
Upon information and belief, that during this initial August 2015 briefing,
Defendants McMahon and Stouttoldtheconfidentialinformant,
wewanttogetridofSamand
everybody like him.

(See Ex. A John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al paragraph 23)
.
The reference to getting rid of
Sam and everybody like him

was with respect to Plaintiff R.
Joumaah, an Arab American, also known as Sam, the principal owner of Plaintiff Sams Tire
Shop.
th
,455F.3d690,700(6
Cir.2006)
28.
Upon information and belief, that during the course of the investigation and
racially targeted mission to rid the Hamtramck community of

these fucking Arabs
and
Sam
and everybody like him
, Defendant police officers Stout and McMahon habitually referenced

members of the Arab American business community, including Plaintiff R. Joumaah, an Arab
American, as
towel heads
,
rag heads
,
sand niggers
and
camel jockeys
.
(See Ex.A
JohnDoev.DetectiveMcMahonet.alparagraphs3643)
.
29.
Upon information and belief, that as a factual basis tofabricateprobablecauseto
procure a search warrant, and initiate a raid upon Plaintiff SamsTireShopandtheresidenceof

Plaintiffs R. Joumaah, the confidential John Doe informant was directed by Defendants
McMahon and Stout to present himself to Plaintiff R. Joumaah, asapurchaserofmarijuanaand
guns.
30.
That or about the latter part of August 2015, the confidential informant solicited
the purchase of marijuana from Plaintiff R. Joumaah, but was refused, as Plaintiff R. Joumaah
informed the confidential informant he was not a drug, or gun dealer, and couldnotprovidethe
confidential informant with either
(See Ex. A John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al
paragraph90).
31.
Upon information and belief, that on or about the month of September 2015,
Defendants McMahon and Stout advised the confidential informant to further ingratiate himself
with Plaintiff R. Joumaahandinformhimthatforonedollarpertire,hecoulddisposeoftireson
behalf of Plaintiff Sams Tire Shop.
paragraph27).
32.
Upon informationandbelief,thatunbeknownsttoPlaintiffR. Joumaah,aswellas
his company, Plaintiff Sams Tire Shop, Defendant McMahon rented a UHaul truck for the
confidential informant, as well as a secured unmarked police van, which was then used to
illegally dump the tires in the City of Detroit. Defendants McMahon and Stout selected to
illegally dump the tiresinDetroitbyvirtueofDefendantStouttellingtheconfidentialinformant,
an African American male,
you must be out of your nigger mind if you think we are dumping
those tires in Hamtramck.

(See Ex. A John Doe v. Detective McMahon et. al paragraph
3032).
33.
Upon information and belief, that while illegally dumping the tiresfromPlaintiff
Sams Tire Shop in the city of Detroit, Defendants McMahon and Stout acted as lookouts and
escorts and were armed while the confidential informant was illegally dumping the tires from
Plaintiff Sams Tire Shop in Detroit.
paragraph29).
34.
Upon information and belief, that on or about October 6th, 2015, Defendant
McMahon prepared a falsified Search Warrant and Affidavit, attesting under oath that probable
cause existed alleging Plaintiff R. Joummahs involvementincrimesassociatedwithconducting
a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), insurance fraud, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud
and using a computer to commit a felony
(See Ex. B October 6th, 2015 Search Warrant
andAffidavit)
.
35.
That pursuant to the October 6th, 2015 Search Warrant and Affidavit, Defendant
McMahon alleged probable causeofsuchcriminalactivitynecessitatedasearchofthefollowing

locations 9500 Conant Street, the business of Plaintiff Sams Tire Shop, in the city of
Hamtramck, County of Wayne 16800 West Warren Avenue, the business name of Soboh
Insurance Agency, in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne 7830 Normile Street, singlefamily
residence of Plaintiffs R. Joumaah, G. Joumaah and their parents, Plaintiffs Amjad Saber and
YousraJamal.
(SeeEx.BOctober6th,2015SearchWarrantandAffidavit)
.
36.
That pursuant to the October 6th, 2015 Search Warrant and Affidavit, Defendant
McMahon allegedprobablecauseofsuchcriminalactivitynecessitatedtheseizureattheareasto
besearchedofsubstantialpersonalandbusinessproperty.
37.
That despite what fabricated information was sworn to in the October 6th, 2015
Search Warrant and Affidavit, which included such entirely irrelevant information as vehicle
sales, when Plaintiff R. Joumaah sells no vehicles, upon execution of the Search Warrant,
Detective McMahon advised Plaintiff R. Joumaah, owner of Plaintiff Sams Tire Shop, the
factual basis for the raid was predicated upon allegations that Plaintiff R. Joumaah, and his
father, Plaintiff Saber, somehow assisted and conspired with the same illegal tire dumpingJohn
Doe confidential informant for the purchase of a falsified insurance policy from an insurance
agency somewhere in Dearborn, Michigan.
(See Ex. C Witness Affidavit of Rasoul
Joumaah).
38.
That at no point in time did Plaintiff R. Joumaah ever have any contact with the
alleged seller ofthefalsifiedinsurance,haveanyideawhothe personevenwas,orhaveanyidea

whatsoever what was alleged to be the factual basis of any criminal nexus between the conduct
of himself, or his business, with the manufactured criminal investigation by Defendants
McMahonandStoutandtheirillegaltiredumpingConfidentialInformant.
39.
That on October6th,2015,basedonthisblatantlyfalsifiedcriminalinvestigation,
Defendants McMahon andStoutraidedthePlaintiffsDearbornresidence,andintheirsearchfor
10
cash, ripped panels and cabinets off walls, overturned furniture and summarily seized such
personal effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaahs mothers (Plaintiff Yousra Jamal) jewelry box and
family immigration records, as wellasPlaintiffR.Joumaahspassport,greencardandhiswifes
(Plaintiff Gayle Joumaah)birthcertificate,marriagelicenseandnumerousvehicletitles. Despite
numerous requests of both Defendants McMahon and Stout, none of the seized property was
ever returned to any of the rightful Plaintiffs possession.
(See Ex. C Witness Affidavit of
RasoulJoumaah).
40.
During this October 6th, 2015 raid at the Plaintiffs Dearborn residence, the
confidential informant noted he was being apprised telephonically as theeventswereunfolding,

as to the seizure and successful efforts of locating nearly$30,000inU.S.Currency
(SeeEx.A
John Doe v. Detective McMahon et.al).Tothisday,noneoftheseizedcashhasbeenreturned
to the possession of Plaintiff R. JoumaahandthereexistsnoknownrecordsoftheU.S.currency
beingtabulatedandplacedintoevidence.
41.
Immediately following the October 6th, 2015 raid, at approximately 4:00 p.m.,
Defendants McMahon and Stout Imprisoned Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and SaberintheHamtramck

City Jail. On October 9th, 2015, three days later, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Plaintiffs R.
Joumaah and Saber were releasedfromcustodywithnoexplanationastothebasisfortheirfalse
imprisonment and at no pointintimewereevercriminallychargedwithanyconduct whatsoever
that led ride to the events of the October 6th, 2015 raids.
(See Ex. C Witness Affidavit of
RasoulJoumaah).
42.
As a result of the October 6th, 2015 raid uponthePlaintiffsDearbornresidence,
as well as Plaintiff Sams Tire Shop,

neither Plaintiff R. Joumaah, nor his father, Plaintiff
11
Amjed Saber, were ever criminally charged with any wrongdoing and at no point was a
civil in rem forfeiture proceeding ever initiated by the Wayne CountyProsecutorsOffice.
Despite repeated demands, at the time of this Federal Complaint, all Plaintiffs to this action
remaindeprivedoftheircashandpersonalpropertystolenbytheseDefendantpoliceofficersand
Defendantmunicipalities.
(SeeEx.CWitnessAffidavitofRasoulJoumaah).
43.
That DefendantsMcMahonandStoutknowinglyfalsifiedevidenceandfabricated
an alleged conspiracy between Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and his father, PlaintiffSaber,fornoother

reason thantoridtheHamtramckcommunityof
thesefuckingArabs
andSamandeverybody
like him
and steal under the color of authority of law, tens of thousands of dollars in cash and
property fromthevery
ragheads,sandniggersandtowelheadstheysoughtto eliminatefrom
theverycommunitytheywereobligatedtoprotect.
44.
Upon informationandbelief,DefendantCityofHamtramck,kneworshouldhave
known that Defendant Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly established
constitutionalcivilrightsofthecitizensandcommunityofallmunicipalitiesinwhichhepoliced,
as Defendant Hamtramck knew or should have known that that Defendant Stout previously
engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false affidavits,
obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete information,andfalselyarrestingpeople
ofArabicdescentorotherminorityethnicities.
45.
known that Defendant Stout and Moise acted in concert andconspiredtoengageinconduct that
violated the clearly established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all
municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant Hamtramckkneworshouldhaveknownthat
12
that Defendants Stout and Moise previously engaged in a patternofpractice orconduct offiling
false police reports, false affidavits, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete
information,andfalselyarrestingpeopleofArabicdescentorotherminorityethnicities.
46.
Defendant City of Hamtramcks failure to take corrective action, or its tacit
authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendants Stouts and

Moises actions, which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the
citizens and community of all municipalities in which they policed, established adefactopolicy
of deliberate indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant Hamtramck is
liable.
47.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Highland Park, knew or should have
known that Defendant McMahon Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly
established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all municipalities in
which he policed, as Defendant Highland knew or should have knownthatthatDefendantStout
previously engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false
affidavits, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete information, and falsely
arrestingpeopleofArabicdescentorotherminorityethnicities.
48.
Defendant Highland Parks failure to take corrective action, or its tacit
authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendant McMahons

actions, whichviolatedthe clearlyestablishedconstitutionallyprotectedrightsofthe citizensand
community of all municipalities in which he policed, established a defacto policy of deliberate
indifferencetoindividualssuchasPlaintiffforwhichDefendantHighlandParkisliable.
49.
Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA, knew or should have known
13
that Defendants McMahon and Stout, both of whom belong to the C.O.B.R.A. task force, for
which Defendant MATPA is charged with administering and managing and supervising, were
engaging in conduct that violated the clearlyestablishedconstitutionalcivilrightsofthecitizens
and community of all municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant MATPA knew or
should have known that that Defendants McMahon and Stout previouslyengagedinapatternof
practice or conduct of filingfalsepolicereports,falseaffidavits,obtainingsearchwarrantsbased
on false or incomplete information, and falsely arresting people of Arabic descent or other
minorityethnicities.
50.
Defendant MATPAs failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization,
toleration, ratification, permission,oracquiescenceofDefendantsMcMahonandStoutsactions,

which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the citizens and
indifferencetoindividualssuchasPlaintiffforwhichDefendantMATPAisliable.
51.
In addition to the relief requested by Plaintiffs below, Plaintiffs seeks a
declaratory judgment that Defendants Hamtramck, Highland Park and MATPA have a policy,
custom, or practice of acquiescence in, inadequate training of or supervision regarding
unconstitutional conduct of its officers in general, and Defendants McMahon and Stout in
particular, to wit: their failure to investigate in good faith, their falsification of evidenceagainst
an accused or others, and conduct amounting to unlawful search and seizure, false arrest, false
imprisonment without probable cause, as well as cruel and unusual punishment, failure to
disclose exculpatory evidence or material, all, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly
established constitutional rights and liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of
14
theUnitedStates.
COUNTIFEDERALCLAIM
VIOLATIONOFTHEFEDERALCIVILRIGHTSACTOF1871
42U.S.C1983FOURTHANDFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTVIOLATIONSFALSE
ARREST,FALSEIMPRISONMENT,ANDUNREASONABLESEARCHANDSEIZURE
ASTODEFENDANTOFFICERS
52.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set
forth,herein.
53.
Plaintiffs clearly established constitutionally protected rights that Defendant
Officersviolatedincludethefollowing:
a. their rights to liberty protected in a substantive component of the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which includes personal safety, privacy,
liberty,andfreedomfromcaptivity
b. their rights to free and equal treatment guaranteed and protected by the Equal
ProtectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentand
c. the right to be secure in his person, papers and effects against unreasonable
searchesandseizuresundertheFourthAmendment.
54.
Defendant Officers acting under color and authority of law, violated Plaintiffs
above referenced clearly established Constitutionally protected rights, when despite thefactthat
there was no evidence or probable cause to demonstrate that Plaintiffs had committed, or were
committing, anycrime,fabricatedsuchinformationandwrongfullydetained Plaintiffs,depriving
them of their freedom, freedom of movement, and subjecting them to a wrongful and
unreasonablesearchandseizure.
55.
Specifically, Defendant Officers acting under color and authorityoflaw,violated
Plaintiffs above referencedclearlyestablishedConstitutionallyprotectedrights,whendespitethe

fact that there was no evidence or probable cause to demonstrate that Plaintiffs had committed,
15
or were committing, any crime, on October 6, 2015,

based on a blatantly falsified criminal
investigation, they raided the Plaintiffs Dearborn residence, and in their search for cash,
ripped panels and cabinets off walls, overturned furniture and summarily seized such personal
effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaahs mothers (Plaintiff Yousra Jamal) jewelry box and family
immigration records, as well as Plaintiff R. Joumaahs passport, green card and Plaintiff Gayle
Joumaahs birth certificate, marriage license and numerous vehicletitles.
Theconductofthese
officers was tantamount toanarmedrobbery. DespitenumerousrequeststobothDefendants
McMahon and Stout, none of the seized property was ever returned to any of the rightful
Plaintiffspossession.
56.
The search conducted on Plaintiffs persons and property was without their
consent.
57.
Defendant Officers, acting under color and authority of law, violated Plaintiffs
committing, any crime, they handcuffed, arrested, and unlawfully searched, and unlawfully
imprisonedPlaintiffsR.JoumaahandSaber,resultingintheirincarceration.
58.
Defendant Officers, acting under color and authority of law, violated Plaintiffs
committing, any crime, on October 6, 2015, basedonablatantlyfalsifiedcriminalinvestigation,
they imprisoned Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber in the Hamtramck City Jail, and then
subsequently three days later released them from custody with no explanationastothebasisfor
16
theirfalsearrestorfalseimprisonment.
59.
Neither Plaintiff R. Joumaah, nor his father, Plaintiff A. Saber, were ever
criminally charged with any wrongdoing and at no point was any civil in rem forfeiture
proceedingeverinitiatedbytheWayneCountyProsecutorsOffice.
60.
In addition to the initial restraint and deprivation of personal libertyandfreedom
of movement being unreasonable, the continued detention was unreasonable, as Defendant

Officers,didnothaveanyprobablecausetoarrestPlaintiffs.
61.
At the time, DefendantOfficersexecutedthesearchwarrantandraidedPlaintiffs
residence, and arrested Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber, Defendant Officers were acting in an
administrativeorpolicecapacity.
62.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Officers egregious conduct was
motivatedbecauseofPlaintiffsethnicity,nationaloriginand/orreligiousbackground.
63.
PlaintiffsaremembersofaprotectedclassasdefinedbyStateandFederallaws.
64.
Plaintiffs were also denied equal protection of the law because of their ethnicity,
national origin and/or religious background. DefendantOfficers,jointlyandindividually,acting

under color of law, authorized, tolerated, ratified, permitted or acquiesced in the creation of
policies, practices and customs, establishing a defacto policy of deliberate indifference to
individualssuchasPlaintiffsandtheirclearlyestablishedconstitutionallyprotectedrights.
65.
Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA, knew or should have known
that Defendants McMahon and Stout, both of whom belong to the C.O.B.R.A. task force, for
which Defendant MATPA is charged with administering and managing and supervising, were
engaging in conduct that violated the clearlyestablishedconstitutionalcivilrightsofthecitizens
17
and community of all municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant MATPA knew or
should have known that that Defendants McMahon and Stout previouslyengagedinapatternof
practice or conduct of filingfalsepolicereports,falseaffidavits,obtainingsearchwarrantsbased
on false or incomplete information, and falsely arresting people of Arabic descent or other
minorityethnicities.
66.
Defendant MATPAs failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization,
toleration, ratification, permission,oracquiescenceofDefendantsMcMahonandStoutsactions,

which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the citizens and
indifferencetoindividualssuchasPlaintiffforwhichDefendantMATPAisliable.
67.
Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPAs systemic deficienciesinclude
but are not limited to awarding grants to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors offices,
whichDefendantMATPAkneworshouldhaveknown:
a.
hire and employ police personnel who are suspected or known to have
conspired with other individuals and entities in order to deprive individuals of their
clearlyestablishedconstitutionallyprotectedcivilrights
b.
falselyarrestindividualswithoutprobablecause
c.
detainandfalselyimprisonindividualsagainsttheirwill,andwithoutprobablecause
d.
withhold and/or suppress evidence from individuals or defendants that is favorable to
them
e.
conspire with other individuals andentitiesinordertodepriveindividualsoftheirclearly
establishedConstitutionallyprotectedcivilrights
f.
Inadequately train, supervise and discipline police personnel, whom the
18
law enforcement agencies knew or should have known to falsely arrest individuals
withoutprobablecause
g.
law enforcement agencies knew or should have known to detain and falsely imprison
individualsagainsttheirwill,andwithoutprobablecause
h.
law enforcement agencies knew or should have known to withhold and/or suppress
evidencefromindividualsordefendantsthatisfavorabletothem
i.
Fail to train police personnel properly on arrest management and
applicable law, where such failure amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of
personswithwhomthepolicecomeintocontact
j.
Fail to adequately investigate citizens complaintsastopolicemisconduct
andpursueproperremedialmeasuresand
k.
Otheractsandomissionswhichwillbedeterminedduringdiscovery
68.
Upon information and belief, the policymakers of Defendant MATPA have
through its failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization, toleration, ratification,
permission, or acquiescence created a defacto policy of deliberate indifference to the clearly
established constitutional rights of individuals by (1) failed to implement or enforce policies
regarding unconstitutional conduct, including ethnic harassment, violation of Constitutional
rights, and false imprisonment by failing to properly investigate such conductafterbeingputon
notice of facts in support of a claim that unconstitutional acts occurred and (2) failing to have
adequateproceduresinplacetoinvestigateandtrainagainstpolicemisconduct.
69.
Each of the aforementioned customs, policies and practices of failure to train,
superviseanddisciplinepolicepersonnelincluding,DefendantsMcMahonandStout,aswelland
others, was known to Defendant MATPA as highly likely and probable to cause violations of
constitutionalrightsofmembersofthepublicinparticularPlaintiffherein.
19
70.
As a result of Defendant MATPAs conduct as outlined above, Defendant
MATPAisvicariouslyliablefortheactionsofDefendantsStoutandMcMahon.
71.
Defendant Officers policies, customs, and practices were carried out with
deliberate indifference, willful and wanton disregard and withthespiritofgrossnegligence,and

were the direct and deliberate cause of the deprivation of Plaintiffs clearly established
Constitutionally protected rights of liberty, due process, and were the direct cause of Plaintiffs
unreasonablesearchandseizure,falsearrest,falseimprisonment.
72.
As a result of their conduct described above, DefendantOfficersare,also,jointly
andseverallyliableunder42U.S.C.1983.
73.
As a result of Defendant Officers actions, Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber
sufferedlossoflibertyincarcerationandimprisonment.
74.
As a result of Defendant Officers actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss of tens of
thousandsofdollarsincashandproperty.
75.
Plaintiffs further suffer and continue to suffer economic and noneconomic
damages including but not limited to: embarrassment, indignation, anxiety, mental anguish,
nightmares, emotional distress, discomfort, pain, loss of weight, humiliation, outrage, shame,
fear, loss of income, damage to their professional reputation, damage to their reputation in the
community, denial of constitutional rights, and other injuries, damages or consequences related
totheincidentandDefendantOfficersunlawfulconduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests declaratory relief from this Honorable
Court as outlined above, and further requests judgment against Defendant Officers, jointly and
severally, for compensatory damages for whatever amount the jury finds necessary, and further
20
demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in whatever
amount the jury finds necessary, in addition to all costs, interest, and actual attorney fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just, and
equitableunderthecircumstances.
76.
COUNTIIFEDERALCLAIM
42U.S.C.1983MONELLCLAIM
(AGAINSTDEFENDANTCITIESONLY)
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set
77.
forth.
known that Defendant Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly established
constitutionalcivilrightsofthecitizensandcommunityofallmunicipalitiesinwhichhepoliced,
as Defendant Hamtramck knew or should have known that that Defendant Stout previously
engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false affidavits,
fabricating evidence, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete information, and
falselyarrestingpeopletargetingthoseofArabicdescent,orotherminorityethnicities.
78.
known that Defendant Stout and Moise acted in concert andconspiredtoengageinconduct that
violated the clearly established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all
municipalities in which they policed, as Defendant Hamtramckkneworshouldhaveknownthat
that Defendants Stout and Moise previously engaged in a patternofpractice orconduct offiling
false police reports, false affidavits, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete
21
79.
Defendant City of Hamtramcks failure to take corrective action, or its tacit
authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendants Stouts and

Moises actions, which violated the clearly established constitutionally protected rights of the
citizens and community of all municipalities in which they policed, established adefactopolicy
of deliberate indifference to individuals such as Plaintiff for which Defendant Hamtramck is
liable.
80.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Highland Park, knew or should have
known that Defendant McMahon Stout was engaging in conduct that violated the clearly
established constitutional civil rights of the citizens and community of all municipalities in
which he policed, as Defendant Highland knew or should have knownthatthatDefendantStout
previously engaged in a pattern of practice or conduct of filing false police reports, false
affidavits, fabricating evidence, obtaining search warrants based on false or incomplete
81.
Defendant Highland Parks failure to take corrective action, or its tacit
authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendant McMahons

actions, whichviolatedthe clearlyestablishedconstitutionallyprotectedrightsofthe citizensand
indifferencetoindividualssuchasPlaintiffforwhichDefendantHighlandParkisliable.
82.
At all times material to this complaint, Defendant Cities by and through their
police departments, pursued de facto policies, practices and customs that were a direct and
proximate cause of the unconstitutional arrest and unreasonable search and seizure of Plaintiffs
and the other deprivations of Constitutional rights alleged herein, including the Fourth and
22
FourteenthAmendmentsoftheConstitution.
83.
Defendant Cities permitted, encouraged, tolerated and ratified a practice of
unjustified, unreasonable, and illegal arrests by policeofficersinthatDefendantCitiesandState

Agency failed to properly supervise, monitor, discipline, transfer, counsel or otherwise control
police officers who are known or who should have been known to violate their established
department policies, and procedures for arrest management, and where said failure amountedto
deliberateindifferencetotherightsofpersonswithwhomthepolicecomeintocontact.
84.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Cities systemic deficiencies include but
arenotlimitedto:
a.
Hiring and/or retaining as police personnel whom the aforementioned
Defendants knew or should have knowntoconspirewithotherindividualsandentitiesin
order to deprive individuals of their clearly established constitutionally protected civil
rights
b.
Hiring and/or retaining as police personnel, whom the aforementioned
Defendants knew or should have known to falsely arrest individuals without probable
cause
c.
Defendantsknew orshould haveknowntodetainandfalselyimprisonindividualsagainst
theirwill,andwithoutprobablecause
d.
Defendant knew or should have known to withhold and/or suppress evidence from
individualsordefendantsthatisfavorabletothem
e.
Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining police personnel,
whom the aforementionedDefendantskneworshouldhaveknowntoconspirewithother
individuals and entities in order to deprive individuals of their clearly established
Constitutionallyprotectedcivilrights
f.
Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining police personnel,
whom the aforementioned Defendants knew or should have known to falsely arrest
individualswithoutprobablecause
g.
Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining personnel, whom the
23
aforementioned Defendants knew or should have known to detain and falsely imprison
individualsagainsttheirwill,andwithoutprobablecause
h.
Inadequately training, supervising and disciplining personnel, whom the
aforementioned Defendant knew or should have known to withhold and/or suppress
evidencefromindividualsordefendantsthatisfavorabletothem
i.
Failing to train police personnel properly on arrest management and
applicable law, where such failure amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of
personswithwhomthepolicecomeintocontact
j.
Failing to adequately investigate citizens complaints as to police
misconductandpursueproperremedialmeasuresand
k.
Otheractsandomissionswhichwillbedeterminedduringdiscovery.
85.
The municipal policymakers of Defendant Cites have (1) failed to enforce
departmental policies regarding, inter alia, the duties of apublicsafetyofficer,abuseofprocess,
and conformance to laws (2) have acquiesced in or ratified unconstitutional conduct, including
ethnic harassment, violation of Constitutional rights, and false imprisonment, by failing to
properly investigate such conduct after being put on notice of facts in support of a claim that
unconstitutional acts occurredand (3)failingtohaveadequateproceduresinplacetoinvestigate
andtrainagainstpolicemisconduct.
86.
Each of the aforementioned customs, policies and practices of failure to train,
supervise and discipline the Defendants McMahon and Stout and others, was known to
Defendant Cities as highly likely and probable to cause violations of constitutional rights of
membersofthepublicinparticularPlaintiffherein.
87.
Asaresultoftheirconductdescribedabove,Defendantsare,also,jointlyand
severallyliableunder42U.S.C.1983.
88.
As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber sufferedloss
24
oflibertyincarcerationandimprisonment.
89.
As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs suffered loss oftensofthousandsof
dollarsincashandproperty.
90.
totheincidentandDefendantsunlawfulconduct.
Court as outlined above, and further requests judgment against all Defendants, jointly and
demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in
whatever amount the jury finds necessary, in addition to all costs, interest, and actual attorney
fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and such otherrelief asthisHonorableCourtdeemsjust,and
91.
COUNTIIIFEDERALCLAIM
VIOLATIONSOF42U.S.C.1985
AGAINSTALLDEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set
forth,herein.
92.
Defendants conspired to prevent and deprive Plaintiffs through force, violence
and intimidation of their entitled equal protection of the laws and from enjoying and exercising
25
their entitled rights and privileges, including but not limited to, their right to be secure in their
persons,papersandeffectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,includingbeingsubjected
totheuseofexcessiveforce.
93.
Defendants egregious conduct was motivated because of Plaintiffs ethnicity,
nationaloriginand/orreligiousbackground.
94.
PlaintiffsaremembersofaprotectedclassasdefinedbyStateandFederallaws.
95.
Plaintiffs were intentionally discriminated against because of their ethnicity and
nationalorigin.
96.
Upon information and belief, Defendants, further conspired to conceal the
incident that took place as described in this complaint, by preparing untimely, false and
inaccuratepolicereports,tocoverupwhatactuallytookplace.
97.
By their conspiracy, Defendants have willfully and maliciously, directly and
indirectly, prevented Plaintiffs from enjoying and exercising their rights and privilegesafforded
tothemundertheFourthandFourteenthAmendments.
98.
As a result of Defendants conspiracy, Plaintiffs were deprived of rights and
privilegesofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesandwereinjuredintheirpersonsandproperty.
99.
Defendantsareliableunder42U.S.C.1985(3).
100.
101.
102.
26
totheincidentandDefendantsunlawfulconduct.
103.
COUNTIVSTATECLAIM
ETHNICINTIMIDATIONUNDERMCLA750.147b
forth,herein.
104.
That this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations contained inthiscountunder
the equitable doctrine ofpendentandsupplementaljurisdiction,asthestatetortclaimsallegedin

this count arise from the same facts and circumstances underpinning Plaintiffs federal cause of
action.
105.
Under MCLA 750.147b, a person is liable for ethnic intimidation if that person
maliciously and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another because of that persons
27
national origin and causes physical contact withanotherpersonordamages,destroysordefaces

anyrealorpersonalpropertyofanotherperson.
106.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Officers maliciously and with specific
intent caused physical contact with Plaintiffs for no other reason than those based on their
articulatedracialhatredtowardsArabs.
107.
Defendants Defendant Officers intimidated and harassed Plaintiffs because of
theirethnicity,nationaloriginand/orreligiousbackground.
108.
Defendants Defendant Officers also took, defaced, destroyed and damaged
Plaintiffs personal property, which included ransacking Plaintiffs store and home as further
discussed above and plead as to particularity as to time, placeandmannerbytheaccompanying
witnessAffidavits..
109.
Based on the conduct described above, Defendant Officers are liabletoPlaintiffs
forethnicintimidation.
110.
Defendant Officers are also liable for three times the actual damages pursuant to
MCLA750.147(b)(3)(a)andcostsandattorneysfeesforengaginginethnicintimidation.
111.
112.
113.
28
114.
COUNTVSTATECLAIM
FALSEARREST
ASTODEFEDANTOFFICERS
Plaintiff incorporates by referencealloftheforegoingparagraphs,asthoughfully
setforthherein.
115.

action.
116.
On or about October 6, 2015, Defendant Officers falsely, unlawfully and
wrongfully, and without Plaintiffs consent and against his will, caused his arrest and deprived
Plaintiffs of their liberty, plead with particularity as to time, place and manner through the
accompanyingwitnessAffidavits.
29
117.
As corroborating acts to falsely arrest Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs specifically reallege
thefactualallegationsassetforthandoutlinedabove,asthoughfullysetforthherein.
118.
As a corroborating act to falsely arrest Plaintiffs, despite the fact that Defendant
Officers had no evidenceorprobablecausetodemonstratethatPlaintiffs hadcommitted,orwere

committing any crime, Defendant Officers placed Plaintiffs under arrest and handcuffed them,
andkeptthemincustody.
119.
This false arrest was malicious, willful, wanton, and demonstrated a reckless
disregard for Plaintiffs rights and was motivated by unmitigated racial hatred and a desire to
rid
theHamtramckcommunityofArabs..
120.
sufferedlossoflibertyincarcerationandfalseimprisonmentandwrongfulincarceration.
121.
AsaresultofDefendantOfficersillegalactions,Plaintiffssuffered lossoftens of
122.
30
fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just, and equitable under the
circumstances.
123.
COUNTVISTATECLAIM
FALSEIMPRISONMENT
ASTODEFEDANTOFFICERS
forth,herein.
124.

action.
125.
On or about October 6, 2015, Defendant Officers falsely, unlawfully and
wrongfully, and without Plaintiffs consent and against theirwill,causedthearrestanddeprived

Plaintiffsoftheirlibertyforaperiodofthree(3)days
126.
Upon information and belief, Defendants egregious conduct was motivated
becauseofPlaintiffsethnicity,nationaloriginand/orreligiousbackground.
127.
Defendant Officers physically restrained Plaintiffs and deprived them of their
personallibertyandfreedomofmovement.
128.
Defendant Officers caused Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and Saber to beheldintheCity
ofHamtramckJailforfour(4)dayswithoutcharge.
129.
TheimprisonmentandrestraintswereagainstPlaintiffswill.
31
130.
Defendant Officers, accomplished the imprisonment and restraint by actual
physical force and the deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty and freedom was intentional, unlawful
and unprivileged and motivated solely based on articulated racial hatred towards
ArabAmericans..
131.
In addition to the initial restraint and deprivation of personal libertyandfreedom
ofmovementbeingunreasonable,thecontinueddetentionwasexcessiveandunreasonable.
132.
133.
134.
32
circumstances.
135.
COUNTVIISTATECLAIM
ASSAULTANDBATTERY
forth,herein.
136.

action.
137.
The abovedescribedconductofDefendantOfficersconstitutesassaultand battery
onPlaintiffsasfurtherdiscussedabove.
138.
Defendant Officers, caused physical contact to be inflicted on plaintiffs without
Plaintiffsconsentasfurtherdiscussedabove.
139.
140.
141.
33
circumstances.
142.
COUNTVIIISTATECLAIM
GROSSNEGLIGENCEOFDEFENDANTOFFICERS
forth,herein.
143.

action.
144.
Defendant Officers conduct, as described above, which proximately caused
Plaintiffs injuries and damages, was grossly negligent because it was so reckless that it
demonstratedasubstantiallackofconcernforwhetherPlaintiffswouldbeinjured.
145.
No magistrate or competent judicial authority had issued a warrant for plaintiffs
arrest and detention, and Defendant Officers actions were perpetrated without having any
physical evidence or any probable cause that Plaintiff had committed, or was committing any
crime.
34
146.
Defendant Officers are also liable for plaintiffs injuries and damages under
MCLA691.1407(2).
147.
148.
149.
circumstances
35
150.
COUNTIXSTATELAWCLAIM
ABUSEOFPROCESS
setforthherein.
151.

action.
152.
Defendant Officers abused the criminal investigatory process by usingitfortheir
ulterior motives or personal reasons for the purpose of causing: Vexation Harassment Ethnic
and religious intimidation and suggested genocide Damage to Plaintiffs personal reputation
Damage to Plaintiffs community reputation andto enrichthemselvesthroughinappropriateuse
of State forfeiture laws Plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested and detained against his will and
Plaintifftobedeprivedofhisconstitutionallyprotectedrightsoffreedomandliberty.
153.
As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers improper purpose, Plaintiff
specifically realleges the factual allegations as set forth and outlined above, as though fullyset
forthherein.
154.
The allegations and misuse of the criminal investigatory process was improper
since Defendant Officers knew, or should have known, that the allegations and testimony
regarding Plaintiffs alleged actions were false and was falsified due to their articulated racial
hatredtowardsArabAmericans..
155.
As a direct result of Defendant Officers abuse of process in making knowingly
36
false and fabricated allegations that initiated the criminal investigations, and as a direct and
proximate result of the conduct ofDefendantOfficers,referredtomorefullyabove,PlaintiffsR.
JoumaahandSabersufferedlossoflibertyincarcerationandimprisonment.
156.
thousandsofdollarsincashandpropertystolenfromtheirresidence.
157.
circumstances
158.
COUNTXSTATECLAIM
CONCERTOFACTION
setforthherein.
37
159.

action.
160.
At all relevant times, Defendant Officers engaged in concerted activitieswiththe
intent to, and for the illegal or unlawful purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly
established constitutionally protected civil rights, as outlined above, by express or implied
agreement.
161.
Plaintiff may not be able toidentifyalloftheactivitiesofDefendantOfficersdue
to the generic similarity of such activities as produced and promoted by these Defendant
Officers.
162.
As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers concerted activities, Plaintiffs
specifically reallege the factual allegations as set forth and outlined above, as though fully set
forthherein.
163.
As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers concerted activities, two ormoreof
the Defendant Officers, acted in concert to have Plaintiffs arrested without probable cause and
arrestedbasedonknowinglyfalsifiedandfabricatedevidence.
164.
As corroborating acts of Defendant Officers concerted activities, two ormoreof
the Defendant Officers, actedinconcerttowrongfullyarrestandimprisonPlaintiffsagainsttheir

will, thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly establishedconstitutionallyprotectedrightsand
liberties.
165.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers concerted activities as
38
outlined above, Plaintiffs Constitutionally protected rights were violated when Plaintiffs were
unlawfully subjected to an illegal search and seizure, wrongfully arrested, and wrongfully
imprisonedtherebydeprivingthemoftheirfreedomofmovement.
166.
167.
168.
Defendant Officers are jointly, severally and/oralternativelyliable toPlaintifffor
allofhisdamages.
circumstances. Due totheconcertofactionamongallofthevariousDefendants,eachisliableto
Plaintiff for these damages even if there was no direct relation to the activity conducted by that
particularDefendant.
39
169.
COUNTXISTATECLAIM
CIVILCONSPIRACY
ASTOALLDEFENDANTS
setforthherein.
170.

action.
171.
At all relevant times,allDefendantsconspiredwithoneanotherwiththeintentto,
and for the illegal or unlawful purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly established
constitutionallyprotectedcivilrights,asoutlinedabove,byexpressorimpliedagreement.
172.
Plaintiff may not be able to identify all of the activities of Defendants due to the
genericsimilarityofsuchactivitiesasproducedandpromotedbytheseDefendants.
173.
As corroborating acts of Defendants civil conspiracy activities, Plaintiffs
specifically reallege the factual allegations as set forth and outlined above, as though fully set
forthherein.
174.
As corroborating acts of Defendants civil conspiracy, two or more of the
Defendants,conspiredtogethertohavePlaintiffsarrestedwithoutprobablecause.
175.
As corroborating acts of Defendants concerted activities, two or more of the
Defendants, conspired together to wrongfully arrest and imprison Plaintiffs against their will,
thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their clearly established constitutionally protected rights and
liberties.
40
176.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants civil conspiracy as outlined
above, Plaintiffs ConstitutionallyprotectedrightswereviolatedwhenPlaintiffswereunlawfully

subjected to an illegal search and seizure, wrongfully arrested, and wrongfully imprisoned
therebydeprivingthemoftheirfreedomofmovement.
177.
178.
179.
Defendants are jointly, severally and/or alternatively liable to Plaintiff for all of
hisdamages.
circumstances. Due totheconcertofactionamongallofthevariousDefendants,eachisliableto
Plaintiff for these damages even if there was no direct relation to the activity conducted by that
particularDefendant.
180.
COUNTXIISTATECLAIM
STATUTORYCONVERSION
ASTOALLDEFENDANTS
41
setforthherein.
181.

action.
182.
On October 6, 2015, Defendants, and/or their agents, representatives or
employees unlawfully accessed Plaintiffs residence and business and removed Plaintiffs
personal property, business property, and other items under the authorityofanallegedwarrant,
unlawfully obtained without having any physical evidence or any probable cause that Plaintiff
hadcommitted,orwascommittinganycrime.
183.
While on the property Defendants removed Plaintiffs property which shouldnot
havebeensubjecttotheallegedwarrant.
184.
Specifically, October 6th, 2015, based on this blatantly falsified criminal
investigation, Defendants McMahon and Stout raided the Plaintiffs Dearbornresidence,and in

their search for cash, ripped panels andcabinetsoffwalls,overturnedfurnitureandsummarily
seized such personal effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaahs mothers (PlaintiffYousraJamal) jewelry
box and family immigration records, as well as Plaintiff R. Joumaahs passport, green card and
his wifes (Plaintiff Gayle Joumaah) birth certificate, marriage license and numerous vehicle
titles. Despite numerous requests of both Defendants McMahon and Stout, none of the seized
property was ever returned to any of the rightful Plaintiffs possession.
(See Ex. C Witness
AffidavitofRasoulJoumaah).
185.
Defendants and/or their agents, representatives and/or employees unlawfully
42
asserted dominion over all of the items found in Plaintiffs residence and business regardlessof
whowastheactualowner.
186.
187.
Defendants and/or their agents, representatives or employees actions amount to
statutoryconversionunderMCL600.2919a.
circumstances.
188.
COUNTXIIISTATECLAIM
COMMONLAWCONVERSION
ASTOALLDEFENDANTS
setforthherein.
189.

action.
190.
On October 6, 2015, Defendants, and/or their agents, representatives or
43
employees unlawfully accessed Plaintiffs residence and business and removed Plaintiffs
personal property, business property, and other items under the authorityofanallegedwarrant,
unlawfully obtained without having any physical evidence or any probable cause that Plaintiff
hadcommitted,orwascommittinganycrime.
191.
While on the property Defendants McMahon and Stout removed Plaintiffs
propertywhichshouldnothavebeensubjecttotheallegedwarrant.
192.
Specifically, October 6th, 2015, based on this blatantly falsified criminal
investigation, Defendants McMahon and Stout raided the Plaintiffs Dearbornresidence,and in

their search for cash, ripped panels andcabinetsoffwalls,overturnedfurnitureandsummarily
seized such personal effects as Plaintiff R. Joumaahs mothers (PlaintiffYousraJamal) jewelry
box and family immigration records, as well as Plaintiff R. Joumaahs passport, green card and
his wifes (Plaintiff Gayle Joumaah) birth certificate, marriage license and numerous vehicle
titles. Despite numerous requests of both Defendants McMahon and Stout, none of the seized
property was ever returned to any of the rightful Plaintiffs possession.
(See Ex. C Witness
AffidavitofRasoulJoumaah).
193.
Defendants and/or their agents, representatives and/or employees unlawfully
asserted dominion over all of the items found in Plaintiffs residence and business regardlessof
whowastheactualowner.
194.
195.
Defendants actions, as outlined above, amount to conversion under Michigan
44
commonlaw.
196.
The acts described above constitute an unlawful conversion of Plaintiffs
property.
circumstances.
COUNTXIVSTATECLAIM
FRAUDANDMISREPRESENTATIONBYDEFENDANTOFFICERS
197. Plaintiff incorporates by referencealloftheforegoingparagraphs,asthoughfully

setforthherein.
198.

action.
199.
Defendant Officers made representations, representations to Plaintiffs regarding
Plaintiff'slegalrights.
200.
DefendantOfficersrepresentationstoPlaintiffswerefalse.
Thomav.TracyMotorSales,Inc
, 360 Mich434,104N.W.2d360(1960)
RoheScientificCorp. V. NationalBank
of Detroit
, 133 Mich.App. 462, 350 N.W.2d 280
on rehg135Mich. App 777, 355 N.W2d 883 (1984)
Miller v.
Green,
37MichApp132,194N.W.2d491(1971).
5
45
201.
When making the representations to Plaintiffs, Defendant Officers knew, or
shouldhaveknown,thattheirrepresentationswerefalse,ormadetherepresentationsrecklessly.
202.
Defendant Officers made the representations to Plaintiffs with the intention that
Plaintiffsrelyonthem.
203.
Plaintiffs, acted in reliance of the representationsmadebyDefendant Officers,so
astosufferinjuryanddetriment.
circumstances.
Respectfullysubmitted,
_/s/StevenA.Haney____________
StevenA.Haney(P63947)
HaneyLawGroup,PLLC
RochesterHills,Michigan48037
517.614.2304
_/s/MuneebAhmad
____________
AHMAD&AKBARLAW,PLLC
Troy,Michigan48084
Tel:(248)5192313
46
Fax:(248)5192399
May18,2016
UNITEDSTATESFEDERALCOURT
EASTERNDISTRICT
RASOULJOUMAAH,anindividualGAYLE
JOUMAAH,anindividualAMJADSABER,
anindividualYOUSRAJALAL,anindividual
andSAMSTIRESHOP,aMichiganCorporation,
Plaintiffs,
CaseNo.
Honorable:
vs.
DETECTIVEJAMESMCMAHON,
DETECTIVEMICHAELSTOUT,
ANNEMOISE,ChiefofPoliceHamtramck,
Inherindividualandofficialcapacity
THECITYOFHAMTRAMCK
THECITYOFHIGHLANDPARKand
THE MICHIGAN AUTO THEFT PREVENTION
AUTHORITY(ATPA)aprivateentity
JointlyandSeverally,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
STEVENA.HANEY,SR.(P63947)
HaneyLawGroup,PLLC
RochesterHills,MI48037
(517)614.2304
AHMAD&AKBARLAW,PLLC
Troy,Michigan48084
Tel:(248)5192313
Fax:(248)5192399
47
______________________________________________________________________________
DEMANDFORJURYTRIAL
NOW COME
, Plaintiffs, Rasoul Sam Joumaah, an individual Gayle Joumaah, an
individual Amjad Saber, an individual Yousra Jalal, an individual and Sams Tire Shop, a
Michigan Corporation, through their attorneys, Steven A. Haney, Sr. of the Haney Law Group,
PLLC, and Muneeb M. Ahmad and Syed Hussain Akbar, of Ahmad & Akbar Law, PLLC, and
herebydemandsaTrialbyJuryoftheabovereferencedcauseofaction
Respectfullysubmitted,
_/s/StevenA.Haney____________
StevenA.Haney(P63947)
HaneyLawGroup,PLLC
RochesterHills,Michigan48037
517.614.2304
_/s/MuneebAhmad
____________
AHMAD&AKBARLAW,PLLC
Troy,Michigan48084
Tel:(248)5192313
Fax:(248)5192399
May18,2016
48

Hamtramck Police Tire Dumping Lawsuit

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

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

Hamtramck Police Tire Dumping Lawsuit

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

UNITEDSTATESFEDERALCOURT

Plaintiff, Sams Tire Shop, Inc., is a Michigan Corporation doing business as

Sams Tire Shop, [hereinafter Sams Tire Shop],withitsprincipalplaceofbusinesslocatedin

Plaintiff, Rasoul Joumaah [hereinafter Plaintiff R. Joumaah],anindividual,isa

Plaintiff, Gayle Joumaah, [hereinafter Plaintiff G. Joumaah], anindividual, isa

Plaintiff, Amjad Saber [hereinafter Plaintiff Saber], an individual, is a resident

Plaintiff, Yousra Jalal [hereinafter Plaintiff Jalal], anindividual,isaresidentof

Defendant, Michael Stout [hereinafter Defendant Stout], an individual, is a

Defendant, Anne Moise [hereinafter Defendant Moise], an individual, is the

Defendant, City of Hamtramck [hereinafter Defendant Hamtramck], is a

municipal corporation, and is organized and exists under thelawsoftheStateofMichigan,with

Defendant, James McMahon [hereinafter Defendant McMahon], an individual,

Defendant, City of Highland Park [hereinafter Defendant Highland Park], is a

Defendant, Michigan Auto Theft Prevention Authority (MATPA) [hereinafter

Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPA is privately funded by the

Jurisdiction is proper and based on 28 U.S.C. 1331 as United States District

Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arisingundertheConstitution,laws,or

The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and

Plaintiff R. Joumaah, also known as Sam, is the principal owner of Plaintiff

Sams Tire Shop, located at 9500 Conant DriveinHamtramck,Michigan,whichhasoperatedin

Plaintiff G. Joumaah is the wife of Plaintiff RasoulJoumaahandresideswithher

Upon information and belief, Defendant Moise, the Chief of Police of

under the color orauthorityoflaw,hadadutytoprotect,serveandensure theclearlyestablished

Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Hamtramck, a municipal

Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Highland Park, a municipal

Upon information and belief, Defendant Michigan Auto Theft Prevention

Authority (MATPA), is a privately funded organization, administered by the Michigan State

Defendants McMahon and Stouttoldtheconfidentialinformant,

Sam and everybody like him

racially targeted mission to rid the Hamtramck community of

, Defendant police officers Stout and McMahon habitually referenced

Upon information and belief, that as a factual basis tofabricateprobablecauseto

procure a search warrant, and initiate a raid upon Plaintiff SamsTireShopandtheresidenceof

Upon informationandbelief,thatunbeknownsttoPlaintiffR. Joumaah,aswellas

McMahon alleged probable causeofsuchcriminalactivitynecessitatedasearchofthefollowing

alleged seller ofthefalsifiedinsurance,haveanyideawhothe personevenwas,orhaveanyidea

Defendants McMahon andStoutraidedthePlaintiffsDearbornresidence,andintheirsearchfor

confidential informant noted he was being apprised telephonically as theeventswereunfolding,

Defendants McMahon and Stout Imprisoned Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and SaberintheHamtramck

As a result of the October 6th, 2015 raid uponthePlaintiffsDearbornresidence,

as well as Plaintiff Sams Tire Shop,

an alleged conspiracy between Plaintiffs R. Joumaah and his father, PlaintiffSaber,fornoother

Defendant City of Hamtramcks failure to take corrective action, or its tacit

authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendants Stouts and

Defendant Highland Parks failure to take corrective action, or its tacit

authorization, toleration, ratification, permission, or acquiescence of Defendant McMahons

Defendant MATPAs failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization,

toleration, ratification, permission,oracquiescenceofDefendantsMcMahonandStoutsactions,

In addition to the relief requested by Plaintiffs below, Plaintiffs seeks a

Plaintiffs clearly established constitutionally protected rights that Defendant

Specifically, Defendant Officers acting under color and authorityoflaw,violated

Plaintiffs above referencedclearlyestablishedConstitutionallyprotectedrights,whendespitethe

or were committing, any crime, on October 6, 2015,

In addition to the initial restraint and deprivation of personal libertyandfreedom

of movement being unreasonable, the continued detention was unreasonable, as Defendant

At the time, DefendantOfficersexecutedthesearchwarrantandraidedPlaintiffs

Upon information and belief, Defendant Officers egregious conduct was

national origin and/or religious background. DefendantOfficers,jointlyandindividually,acting

Defendant MATPAs failure to take corrective action, or its tacit authorization,

toleration, ratification, permission,oracquiescenceofDefendantsMcMahonandStoutsactions,

Upon information and belief, Defendant MATPAs systemic deficienciesinclude

Upon information and belief, the policymakers of Defendant MATPA have

Each of the aforementioned customs, policies and practices of failure to train,

As a result of Defendant MATPAs conduct as outlined above, Defendant