IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN F. COX and KELLY FREEMAN ) Individually and on behalf of all similarly ) situated persons, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) NO. ___________________ ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CITY OF JACKSON, TENNESSEE, ) JULIEN WISER, in his official capacity ) Rule 23 Class Action as the Jackson, Tennessee Chief of Police ) and DARYL HUBBARD in his official ) capacity as City Court Clerk for Jackson, ) Tennessee, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ______________________________________________________________________________

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an individual and class action for damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, both preliminary and permanent, to redress the violation of rights secured by the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Declaratory injunctive relief is authorized
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202. All of the actions complained of herein occurred in the
City of Jackson, Madison County, Tennessee, within the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.

II. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff, Steven F. Cox, was arrested by the Jackson Police Department and
detained by the Defendants on March 1, 2018 and charged with Aggravated Assault and
Kidnapping and is and was a resident of Jackson, Tennessee, at all times relevant to the matters
at issue herein.
3. Plaintiff, Kelly Freeman, was arrested and detained by the Defendants on January
8, 2017 and charged with Driving Under the Influence and is and was a resident of Jackson,
Tennessee, at all times relevant to the matters at issue herein.
4. Defendant, City of Jackson, Tennessee, is a governmental entity duly
incorporated under the laws of the State of Tennessee. Defendant City of Jackson is responsible
for the policies, practices, and customs of its police department, City Court Clerk’s office, as
well as the training, supervision and control of its officers, deputies, clerks and officials.
Defendant City of Jackson is and was the employer of all members of the Jackson Police
Department and City Court Clerk’s Office, both named and unnamed herein. The agent for
service of process of the Defendant City of Jackson is Jerry Gist, City Mayor, who may be
served at 121 East Main Street, Suite 301, Jackson, Tennessee 38301.
5. Defendant Julian Wiser (herein “Defendant Wiser”) is and was at all times
relevant hereto the Chief of Police for the City of Jackson Tennessee and is being sued in his
official capacity as the Chief of Police for the City of Jackson Tennessee. Defendant Wiser,
along with Defendant City of Jackson, were responsible for the policies, practices, and customs
of its police department, as well as the training, supervision and control of its employees,
officers, and officials. Defendant Wiser is a person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2725 and42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is subject to suit under said statutes.

6. Defendant Daryl Hubbard (herein “Defendant Hubbard”) is and was at all times
relevant hereto the City Court Clerk for the City of Jackson and is being sued in his official
capacity as the City Court Clerk for the City of Jackson. Defendant Hubbard, along with
Defendant City of Jackson, were responsible for the policies, practices, and customs of its City
Court, as well as the training and supervision of its employees, officers, and officials. Defendant
Hubbard is a person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2725 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is subject
to suit under said statutes.
III. DUTY
7. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants in this matter
owed them a duty to realize, prevent, and/or protect Plaintiffs from the harm that City of Jackson
officials, employees, and/or agents presented to and inflicted upon them. Plaintiffs further allege
that the Defendants owed them a duty to appropriately/adequately hire, supervise, and train City
of Jackson officials, employees, and/or agents in order to prevent and protect them from the
harm inflicted in this matter.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
8. Plaintiff, Steven Cox is a resident of Jackson, Tennessee. On March 11, 2018
Plaintiff Cox was arrested by police officers employed by the Defendant City of Jackson and
charged with Aggravated Assault and Kidnapping in Jackson City Court under case numbers
2018 M 856 and 2018 M 857. After Plaintiff Cox was arrested, he remained incarcerated for one
(1) day before he was released on bond pending his next court appearance.
9. Plaintiff, Kelly Freeman is a resident of Jackson, Tennessee. On January 8, 2017
Plaintiff Kelly was arrested by police officers employed by the Defendant City of Jackson and
charged with Driving Under the Influence in Jackson City Court under case number 214350.
After Plaintiff Freeman was arrested she remained incarcerated for one (1) day before she was
released on bond pending his next court appearance.
10. At the time of Plaintiffs’ arrests and for some unknown period of time prior to and
after their arrests, the Defendant City engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to have arrest
warrants and/or Affidavits of Complaint sworn to before a magistrate or a neutral and detached
clerk upon a finding of probable cause that the accused had committed a crime as required by the
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Pursuant to said pattern
and practice, there was no finding of probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate that
Plaintiffs had committed a crime prior to their arrests and detention on the above Jackson City
Court charges, thus rendering their pre-trial detention unlawful under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
11. It is impossible to determine from the face of the arrest warrant/Affidavit of
Complaint that the Defendant City of Jackson failed to have them sworn to before a magistrate or
detached and neutral clerk and a finding of probable cause made as required by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs and the potential class members were not aware of the
12. Plaintiffs aver that according to the above-referenced press release from the
District Attorney General these deficiencies in the arrest warrant procedure have potentially been
ongoing for several years and have affected a number of putative class members prosecuted in
the Jackson City Court. The existence of the deficiency was not known to any of the potential
class members until after the press release by the District Attorney General. constitutional deficiency until the District Attorney General for the 26th Judicial District of
Tennessee issued a press release to the local media about the deficiency on January 18, 2018.
V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
13. The named Plaintiffs bring this as a Class Action pursuant to Rule(23)(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and pursuant to both Rule 23(b)(3) for monetary damages and
Rule (23)(b)(2) for injunctive relief as defined by the following:
For some time prior to January 8, 2017 and after March 11, 2018,
Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons to whom Defendants
have subjected (or intended to subject) the practice of arresting and
detaining without obtaining a properly sworn and executed arrest
warrant or Affidavit of Complaint supported by a proper finding of
probable cause by a magistrate or detached and neutral or
authorized clerk. Excluded from this Class are the named
Defendants, their agents, affiliates, and employees, the Judge
assigned to this matter, and his or her staff.
14. Numerosity: The requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) are satisfied in that there are too many class members for joinder of them all to be practicable. Upon information
and belief, Defendant City of Jackson caused numerous citizens to be arrested and
detained without meeting the requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Each of these citizens has been separately injured by Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful
policies and practices. Because each of these citizens has been injured by the imposition
of aforementioned unlawful practices, each of these citizens is entitled to assert a cause of
action against the Defendants. Upon information and belief, these citizens potentially
exceed 1,000 individuals. This Class, as defined above, meets the numerosity
requirement.
15. Commonality: The claims of the Class Members raise numerous common
issues of fact and/or law, thereby satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2). These
common legal and factual questions, which may be determined without the necessity of
resolving individualized factual disputes concerning any Class Member, include, but are
not limited to, the following questions:
QUESTIONS OF FACT
(i) Whether Defendants have adopted a policy, practice, and/or custom of failing to
meet the requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments before arresting
and/or detaining individuals prosecuted in the City Court of Jackson, Tennessee.
QUESTION OF LAW
(ii) Whether the Defendants have violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by
arresting and detaining individuals charged with crimes in the Jackson City Court
without having an arrest warrant or Affidavit of Complaint sworn to before a
magistrate or neutral and detached authorized clerk upon a finding of probable
cause.
16. Typicality: The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the unnamed
Class Members because they have a common source and rest upon the same legal and
remedial theories, thereby satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3). In this case
the named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiffs
and Class Members were all injured and/or damaged by the same wrongful practices
in which the Defendants engaged, namely the failure to have an arrest warrant or
Affidavit of Complaint sworn to before a magistrate or neutral and detached,
authorized clerk, upon a finding of probable cause, at the time of the arrest or
immediately as possible thereafter.
17. Adequacy of Representation: The requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) are
satisfied in that the named Plaintiffs have a sufficient stake in the litigation to vigorously
prosecute their claims on behalf of the Class Members and the named Plaintiffs’ interests
are aligned with those of the proposed Class. There are no defenses of a unique nature
that may be asserted against named Plaintiffs individually, as distinguished from the
other members of the Class, and the relief sought is common to the Class. Named
Plaintiffs do not have any interest that is in conflict with or is antagonistic to the interests
of the members of the Class and have no conflict with any other member of the Class.
Named Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel in the area of class litigation to
represent them and the Class Members in this action.
18. Declaratory and/or Injunctive Relief: Additionally, all the requirements
for Rule 23(b)(2) also are satisfied in that the Defendants’ actions affected all Class
Members in the same manner, making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief
with respect to the Class as a whole. For example, Plaintiffs seek with respect to the
Class as a whole a declaration that the Defendants’ practices violate the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments Amendment. Furthermore, injunctive relief is necessary to
prevent other Class Members from becoming future victims of Defendants’ unlawful
practices.
19. Predominance and Superiority: All of the requirements for Rule
23(b)(3) are satisfied because the common factual and legal issues identified above are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. In particular, the
Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered a common cause of injury, namely being
arrested and/or detained without obtaining a properly sworn and executed arrest warrant
or Affidavit of Complaint supported by a proper finding of probable cause by a
magistrate or detached and neutral, authorized clerk. The Class Members’ legal claims
arise exclusively under federal law and, therefore, do not involve the application of other
states’ laws which may have varying degrees of liability and proof. Class action
treatment is also superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this controversy, because individual litigation of the claims of all Class Members is
economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. The likelihood of individual
Class Members prosecuting separate claims is remote and, even if every Class Member
could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by
individual litigation in such cases. To Plaintiff counsel’s knowledge, no other putative
Class Member has filed an individual action or putative class action against Defendants
for any type of claim, including the allegations set forth in this Class Action Complaint.
Additionally, individual litigation would also present the potential for varying,
inconsistent or contradictory judgments while magnifying the delay and expense to all
parties and to the court system, thus resulting in multiple trials of the same legal issue and
creating the possibility of repetitious litigation. As a result, the desirability to concentrate
litigation in this forum is significantly present. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty to be
encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance of a
class action. Relief concerning Plaintiffs’ rights under the laws herein alleged and with
respect to the Class would be proper.
20. Dispositive Adjudication and/or Limited Fund: Plaintiffs reserve the
right to bring this Class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because it does appear that
adjudication of individual Class Members’ claims involving the wrongful and unlawful
practice would be, as a practical matter, dispositive of other Members not actual parties to
this matter. Additionally, individual adjudications of these allegations will substantially
impair or impede the ability of absent Class Members to protect their interest because the
unrestricted assets of the Defendants will most likely be insufficient to satisfy all claims.
Upon information and belief, there may not be any available insurance to cover the
wrongful acts and practices alleged herein. As a result, Plaintiffs hereby reserve the right
to request certification under the limited fund doctrine.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
21. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the factual statements contained in Paragraphs 1
through 20 of the Complaint.
22. Plaintiffs aver that the actions described herein of the employees and policy makers
of Defendants, acting separately and/or conspiring together, under color of law, in either or both
their individual and/or official capacities for the City of Jackson and the Jackson Police Department
amounted to a deprivation of Plaintiffs and the class members constitutional and/or statutory rights
protected under the United States Constitution, Statutes of the United States, resulting in the
damages listed below.
23. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants owed them a duty to
realize, prevent, and/or protect Plaintiffs from the harm that City of Jackson officials, employees,
and/or agents presented to and inflicted upon Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further aver that Defendants owed
them a duty to adequately and appropriately hire, supervise, discipline and train City of Jackson
officials, employees, and/or agents in order to prevent and protect Plaintiffs from the harm inflicted
in this matter.
FOURTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS
24. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the factual statements contained in Paragraphs 1
through 23 of the Complaint.
25. Plaintiffs aver that the policy makers, officers, employees, agents, and officials,
named and unnamed herein, were all employees of the Defendant City of Jackson, a municipality
and governmental entity duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Tennessee, and during
all relevant time periods, and acting under the color of state law.
26. Plaintiffs aver that the City of Jackson, acting through its agents, representatives,
officers and/or employees, including but not limited to Defendants Wiser and Hubbard, acting
under color of law, violated the Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights under the Fourth
Amendment as made applicable to the Defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution by failing to obtain a properly sworn arrest warrant and/or Affidavit of
Complaint, with a finding of probable cause prior to arresting and/or detaining the Plaintiffs and
the other class members. Plaintiffs aver that the Defendant City of Jackson, acting through its
agents, representatives, officers and/or employees, regularly engaged in the ongoing practice,
policy and custom of failing to obtain a properly sworn arrest warrant and/or Affidavit of
Complaint prior to arresting and/or detaining individuals charged with crimes in the Jackson City
Court rendering the Defendant City of Jackson liable to the Plaintiffs and class members for all
damages caused by the deprivation of their constitutional rights.
27. Plaintiffs aver that the Defendant City of Jackson, by and through its officers,
employees, agents, and officials, including but not limited to Defendants Wiser and Hubbard, in
their official capacities, performed under color of law failed to adequately/appropriately train
and/or supervise its officials, employees, and/or agents including those involved in arresting and
charging the Plaintiffs and class members in the appropriate procedures to be utilized in
obtaining arrest warrants and/or Affidavits of Complaint. As a result of this actual knowledge,
the Defendants could have taken steps to protect Plaintiffs from the harm inflicted herein which
they failed to do.
28. Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants, by and through City of Jackson’s officers,
employees, agents, and officials, including but not limited to Defendants Wiser and Hubbard, in
their official capacities, performed under color of law, because of its deliberate indifference as
set out above, failed to adequately/appropriately supervise and train its agents, officers and
employees and failed to take steps to protect Plaintiffs from the harm inflicted herein.
29. Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants, and/or its officers, agents, officials, and
employees, because of its deliberate indifference as set out above, had in place a policy, custom
or practice that caused the constitutional violations set out herein.
30. Plaintiffs aver that as a result of the deliberate indifference of the Defendants, by
and through City of Jackson’s officers, employees, agents, and officials, in their official
capacities, performed under color of law, Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ constitutional right
to be free from unlawful seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution was violated which resulted in the damages set out herein.
31. As a direct and proximate cause of the foregoing deprivations of constitutional
freedoms and statutory rights committed by Defendants and the City of Jackson’s policy makers,
officers, employees, and officials, Plaintiffs and the other class members were illegally detained by
the Defendants and have suffered, physical and mental injuries, severe emotional distress,
humiliation, inconvenience and embarrassment, other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, and have
had to retain legal counsel to defend and prosecute their rights.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
the court:
a. Issue service of process and serve each Defendant as required by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
b. Issue an Order certifying that this action may be maintained as a class
action appointing named Plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the Class, and directing that
reasonable notice of this action be given by Defendants to all Class Members;
c. Grant any reasonable request to Amend Plaintiffs’ Original Class Action
Complaint to conform to the discovery and evidence obtained in this Class Action;
d. Declare Defendants’ practices as complained of herein to be in violation
of the United States Constitution.
e. Award compensation for named Plaintiffs and Class Members suffering
for the unlawful detention;
g. Grant named Plaintiffs and Class Members any compensatory and/or
punitive damages to which he or she is entitled to as a result of the actions complained of herein,
including but not limited to damages for his or her severe embarrassment, humiliation and
emotional and physical pain and suffering;
h. Grant Plaintiffs and the Class Members a trial by jury;
i. Grant Plaintiffs and the Class Members their costs incurred herein,
including a reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988;
j. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendants’ unconstitutional
practice and policy as set forth above violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
k. Issue a prospective preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting
Defendants from future unlawful acts;
l. Grant Plaintiffs and class members such other further relief both general
and specific as the court deems necessary and proper in this case.

Dated: February 11, 2019. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael L. Weinman Michael L. Weinman, #015074 WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES 101 N. Highland P. O. Box 266 Jackson, TN 38302 Telephone (731) 423-5565 Facsimile (731) 423-5372 [email protected]

/s/J. Russ Bryant J. Russ Bryant (TN Bar No. 033830) Robert E. Morelli, III (TN Bar. No. 37004) JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 [email protected] [email protected]

/s/ J. Colin Morris J. Colin Morris LAW OFFICE OF J. COLIN MORRIS 204 W. Baltimore St. Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone (731) 424-6616. Facsimile (731) 424-2416. [email protected]

/s/ C. Mark Donahoe C. Mark Donahoe THE DONAHOE FIRM, PLLC 212 E. Lafayette Street Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 736-4422 Facsimile: (731) 736-4425 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 11th day of February, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Court’s ECF system. Service of this Complaint will be made on Defendants with summonses to be issued by the Clerk per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

s/J. Russ Bryant J. Russ Bryant