|
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by
and through their attorneys, the law firm of Sanders,
Crochet & Chism, L.L.P., Tegtmeier, Frank &
Jones, L.L.C., and the law offices of
Dennis W.
Chang, A Professional Corporation, and for cause to
complain against
the Defendants, state and allege
as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND
VENUE
1. Plaintiffs allege and complain
against the Defendants, and each and every one
of
them as follows:
A. City of Los Angeles, a municipal
corporation;
B. Bernard Parks, (referred to
at material times as Parks) individually and in
his official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles
Police Department;
C. Bayan Lewis (referred
to at material times as Lewis), individually and
in his official capacity as Chief of the Los
Angeles Police Department;
D. Willie
Williams (referred to at material times as
Williams), individually and in his official
capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police
Department;
E. David Mack, (referred to at
material times as Mack) individually and in his
official capacity as a police officer employed by
the Los Angeles Police Department;
F. Amir
Muhammad a/k/a Harry Billups, (referred to at
material times as Muhammad) individually and as a
joint actor with David Mack and The City of Los
Angeles.
G. Certain unknown persons
identified as DOES 1 through 25 whose actions have
been consciously concealed by the aforementioned
Defendants. 2. Competent subject matter
jurisdiction and venue exist, in whole or in part,
pursuant to the following federal statutes:
A. 42 U.S.C. §1983;
B. 42 U.S.C.
§1985(2)
C. 42 U.S.C. §1985(3);
D.
Federal Civil Rights Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C.
§§1343(1) - (5);
E. Federal Question
Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §1331;
F. Federal
Supplemental Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §1367(b);
and
G. Federal General Venue: 28 U.S.C.
§1391(b). 3. The Plaintiffs allege that
compliance with California Government Code §§ 900, et
seq., is preempted by invocation of Federal Question
Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §1331, and application of
Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal. 3rd 834, 129 Cal. Rpt.
453 (1976), and County of Los Angeles v. Superior
Court, 92 Cal. Rep 2nd 668, 78 Cal. App. 4th 212
(2000). Plaintiffs have alleged claims for relief
arising under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America.
4. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the
United States.
A. The Plaintiff, Faith Evans, at all material
times mentioned herein, was an individual residing
in the city of Matawan, County of Monmouth, State
of New Jersey. Plaintiff, Faith Evans, sues as an
individual in her own right and pursuant to her
status as the surviving spouse of the decedent,
Christopher G. L. Wallace, as defined by Section
377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
as personal Representative of the Estate of
Christopher G. L. Wallace as defined by Section
377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
and as a successor in interest, heir and legal
representative of the decedent to seek redress for
the deprivation of the decedent’s
rights;
B. Plaintiff Voletta Wallace, at
all times mentioned herein, was an individual
residing in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New
York, County of Kings, State of New York. The
Plaintiff, Voletta Wallace, is the dependant
mother of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace
as defined by Section 377.60 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, Voletta
Wallace relied, to the extent required for
standing under California law, on the decedent
Christopher G. L. Wallace, for financial support
for the necessities of life. The Plaintiff,
Voletta Wallace, sues as an individual in her own
right, and as the Personal Representative of the
Estate of Christopher G. L. Wallace, as defined by
Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure, as a successor in interest, heir, and
personal legal representative of the decedent to
seek redress for the deprivation of the decedent’s
rights and for those damages that the decedent
sustained and incurred before death, that the
decedent would have been entitled to recover, had
he lived as defined by Section 377.34 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure;
C. The
Plaintiff, Christopher Jordan Wallace, at all
times mentioned herein, was a minor child residing
in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York,
County of Kings, State of New York. The Plaintiff,
Christopher Jordan Wallace, is the child of the
decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as defined by
Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure. The Plaintiff, Christopher Jordan
Wallace, sues as an individual in his own right
through his mother and Guardian ad Litem, Faith
Evans, and as a successor in interest, heir, and
legal representative of the decedent to seek
redress for the deprivation of the decedent’s
rights;
D. The Plaintiff, T’Yanna Dream
Wallace, at all times mentioned herein, was a
minor child residing in the Borough of Brooklyn,
City of New York, County of Kings, State of New
York. The Plaintiff, T’Yanna Dream Wallace, is the
child of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace,
as defined by Section 377.60 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, T’Yanna
Dream Wallace, sues as an individual in her own
right through her mother and Guardian ad Litem,
Florence Jackson, and as a successor in interest,
heir, and legal representative to seek redress for
the deprivation of the decedent’s rights; 5.
Plaintiffs allege that at all times material hereto,
the City of Los Angeles was a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the Constitution of the
State of California and operating and subject to the
laws and statutes as codified within the California
Code, maintaining its principle place of business at
the Office of the Mayor, City Hall, City of Los
Angeles. Plaintiffs further allege that the City of
Los Angeles, pursuant to statutes and laws promulgated
by the State of California, provides law enforcement
to protect and serve persons within the City of Los
Angeles.
6. Plaintiffs allege that at all
times material hereto, the Los Angeles Police
Department [LAPD] was a governmental agency created
and existing under the Constitution of the State of
California and operating and subject to the laws and
statutes as codified within the California Code
annotated, maintaining its principle place of business
at the Office of the Chief of Police, City of Los
Angeles.
7. Plaintiffs allege that at times
material herein, Bernard Parks was the Chief of Police
of the Los Angeles Police Department, and is sued in
both his individual capacity and in his official
capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police
Department. Parks became the Chief of the Los Angeles
Police Department on or about August 12, 1997.
Defendant Lewis was Chief of the Los Angeles Police
Department from May 18, 1997 to August 12, 1997 and is
sued in both his individual and official capacity as
Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Defendant
Williams was Chief of the Los Angeles Police
Department from June 30, 1992 to May 17, 1997 and is
sued in both his individual and official capacity as
Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiffs
further allege that Parks occupies, and Lewis and
Williams occupied, a position of managerial and
directorial command at the LAPD and is or was
responsible for the administration, design,
implementation, and execution of policies, orders,
directives, commands, and instructions relative to
police investigations of criminal activities, the
behavior and employment of officers, the off-duty
conduct of officers, acquisition, accumulation, and
preservation of evidence obtained in conjunction with
conducting criminal investigations. Plaintiffs further
allege that Parks, Lewis and Williams directly and/or
through their agents are or were responsible for the
lawful and proper conduct and activities of detectives
engaged in criminal investigations and to prevent
abuse and excesses committed by police
officers.
8. Plaintiffs allege that at all
times material hereto, David Mack was a Los Angeles
Police Department officer and engaged in the conduct
alleged herein under color of State Law, and through
the auspices of the City of Los Angeles and the Los
Angeles Police Department. Plaintiffs further allege
that Mack acted at all times herein under the
auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or
control of the Los Angeles Police Department and
Defendants Parks, Lewis and/or Williams.
9.
Amir Muhammad a/k/a Harry Billups, is a person
residing within the City and County of Los Angeles. By
information and belief at all times pertinent hereto,
he acted jointly and in concert with Mack, in his
official capacity as an officer of the City of Los
Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police
Department.
10. Plaintiffs allege that DOES 1
through 25 were or may have been involved in the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and/or the Los
Angeles Police Department’s internal failure to
investigate the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
Plaintiffs further allege that the identities and
actions of these DOES 1 through 25 have been
consciously concealed by the aforementioned
Defendants.
11. Plaintiffs allege that venue is
proper within this jurisdictional district pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in as much as all Defendants
transact business and can be found within this
district and that a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this
district.
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. Each and every allegation set forth
in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by
this reference with the same effect as if realleged
herein.
13. Christopher G. L. Wallace was
killed at approximately 12:49 a.m. on March 9, 1997
within the City and County of Los Angeles. On the
evening of the homicide, Christopher G. L. Wallace and
numerous witnesses to his murder were attending a
party at the Peterson Automotive Museum. At
approximately 12:04 a.m. the Los Angeles City Fire
Department called the Los Angeles Police Department
requesting assistance with a large crowd that had
gathered in the parking structure near the Museum.
Numerous Los Angeles Police Department officers
responded to assist with the crowd. At approximately
12:36 a.m. there was a report of shots fired in the
vicinity of the Peterson Automotive Museum. Again,
police responded. Sometime before 12:42 a caravan of
three vehicles carrying Christopher G. L. Wallace and
his group left the Peterson Automotive Museum.
Numerous uniformed and undercover Los Angeles Police
Department officers were present in the area of the
Peterson Automotive Museum. The Los Angeles Police
Department and its officers, including Defendant
Parks, had specific knowledge Christopher G.L. Wallace
would be, and was, present at the party at the
Peterson Automotive Museum.
14. As the vehicle
in which Christopher G. L. Wallace was riding stopped
at a traffic control signal, a black Chevy Impala SS
pulled along side. The driver of the black Impala SS
fired several shots from a firearm, hitting and
killing Christopher G. L. Wallace. This shooting
occurred just moments after shots were reported fired
on the other side of the Peterson Automotive Museum.
Despite the significant police presence, on duty
police officers asserted they did not observe the
shooter and he was not apprehended.
15. Prior
to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, the Los
Angeles Police Department knew or reasonably should
have known: (a) there was an atmosphere of violence
and alleged criminality surrounding an organization
called Death Row Records and certain street gangs
associated with Death Row Records and its agents,
employees and/or representatives; (b) officers of the
Los Angeles Police Department were also working along
side of suspected and convicted criminals for Death
Row records and/or were socializing with or affiliated
with a certain street gang; (c) certain persons
intimately associated with Death Row Records and an
affiliated street gang had consistently exhibited
significant animosity toward Christopher G. L. Wallace
and his record label and blamed Christopher G. L.
Wallace and his record label for the death of Tupac
Shakur, a popular Death Row Recording Artist killed in
September 1996, in Las Vegas, Nevada; and (d) that
given the atmosphere of violence and criminality there
was a foreseeable risk to Christopher G. L. Wallace
posed by persons aligned with Death Row Records and a
certain street gang, including members of the Los
Angeles Police Department.
16. Among the facts
known to the Los Angeles Police Department at the time
of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace included
without limitation the following :
A. In September of 1993, Calvin Broadus, a/k/a
Snoop Dog, a Death Row Records recording artist
was charged, along with two others associated with
Death Row Records, in the Murder of a gang member
in Los Angeles. Forensic and ballistic evidence
crucial to the case in the possession of the Los
Angeles Police Department became missing from the
Los Angeles Police Department Pacific Division. At
the time the evidence became missing, Kevin
Gaines, a Los Angeles Police Department officer,
was living with Sharitha Knight of Death Row
Records. At the time the evidence disappeared,
Sharitha Knight was the producer for Calvin
Broadus. Calvin Broadus was acquitted.
B.
On October 1, 1993, Tupac Shakur was arrested for
allegedly shooting an off-duty Atlanta Police
Officer. The charges were subsequently dropped.
C. On November 1, 1993, Tupac Shakur was
charged with sexually abusing a fan at a hotel in
Midtown, New York. He was convicted.
D. On
August 1, 1994, Andre Young “Dr. Dre” a Death Row
Records recording artist was sentenced for
violating his probation on a 1993 battery
conviction when he pled no contest to a drunk
driving charge.
E. On November 1, 1994,
Tupac Shakur was shot five times during a robbery
in the lobby of Quad Recording Studios, in the
area of Times Square New York City. Christopher G.
L. Wallace, and persons associated with
Christopher G. L. Wallace, were inside the studio
during the incident. Without evidence, Tupac
Shakur and persons close to Death Row Records
believed Christopher G. L. Wallace had knowledge
or involvement in the shooting.
F. On March
13, 1995 a gang member was murdered at a Death Row
Records event at the El Rey Theatre. The police
report states “Many of the security people at the
party were off duty police officers, from Long
Beach P.D., Compton P.D., Inglewood P.D.,
Hawthorne P.D., Los Angeles Police Department, all
working for Wrightway Security. The victim was
beaten by numerous Blood gang members while the
off duty police officers watched. When the police
arrived the off duty officers left the scene
without giving a statement.”
G. At the 1995
Source Awards Show, Marian Suge Knight of Death
Row Records, made certain antagonistic remarks
towards Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records, the label
for which Christopher G. L. Wallace
performed.
H. On November 1, 1995, one
month after the Source Award Show, it was reported
that Suge Knight, of Death Row Records, accused
Sean Combs, of being responsible for the Atlanta
murder of Jai Robles.
I. On November 1,
1995, Christopher G. L. Wallace was named rap
artist of the year by Billboard Magazine. During
this time, Tupac Shakur was recovering from the
1994 shooting and was charged with rape.
J.
On November 5, 1995, Officer R. McCaully of the
Los Angeles Police Department was investigated by
the Los Angeles Police Department for working for
Death Row Records.
K. Recording Artist
Randy Stretch Walker, believed to be of Death Row
Records, was murdered in a drive-by shooting in
Queens, New York.
L. During the winter of
1995, shots were fired at a trailer being used to
record a video by Calvin Brodus, a/k/a Snoop Dog,
a Death Row Records recording artist .
M.
Bad Boy Records released a recording performed by
Christopher G. L. Wallace titled, “Who Shot Ya”.
Death Row Records personnel believe the song was a
reference to the November, 1994 shooting of Tupac
Shakur of Death Row Records at Quad
Studio.
N. On December 18, 1995, following
the MTV Awards, an individual named Mark Anthony
Bell was reported to have been assaulted by
members of Death Row Records seeking information
on the whereabouts of Sean Combs. Mr. Bell
reported on the tension and violence between Death
Row Records and Bad Boy Records. Mr. Bell reports
hearing radio communication, and was subsequently
released. Upon his release, Los Angeles County
Police Officers were present on the scene. Two
off-duty officers were present at the Death Row
Party during the reported assault of Mr. Bell.
O. On December 18, 1995, following the
Mark Bell assault, it was reported by the Los
Angeles Police Department that Sean Combs
requested certain well known individuals to
arrange a meeting with Suge Knight of Death Row
Records. Reportedly Suge Knight refused to meet.
Sean Combs added additional bodyguards to his
entourage.
P. In May 1996, Death Row
Records was investigated for zoning violations
associated with numerous crimes of violence.
Investigating officers report “There are armed
security guards at this location in plain clothes
and in security uniforms. These security officers
are off-duty police officers and retired officers
which are [Sic] employed by “Death Row Records.””
Q. On March 7, 1996 a fight broke out
between Death Row records personnel and Bad Boy
Records personnel in the VIP area at the 1996 Soul
Train Awards. Guns were reportedly brandished.
R. Officers responding to Death Row
Records note: “Snoop-Doggie-Dog was present at the
location with 15-20 additional gang members.
t[sic]here was also armed security guards present
at the location in security uniforms. Also present
were off duty black police officers from Hawthorne
P.D. and other unk[sic] agencies. I was informed
by the manager of the studio and other security
officers that were present at the location that a
[sic] O[sic]fficer from Metro/ Los Angeles Police
Department was also employed at this location.
They further stated that they work directly for
Snoop-Doggie-Dog as his body guard service.”
S. On June 1, 1996, the Los Angeles Police
Department was informed that the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was conducting a
federal investigation of Death Row Records
concerning firearms violations and that the IRS
was conducting a simultaneous investigation for
tax evasion.
T. On June 2, 1996, a meeting
was held between the Los Angeles Police Department
and Death Row Records to discuss dissatisfaction
with armed security personnel and the possibility
of armed confrontations with Police and security
personnel or gang members who frequent the
location.” Issues of off-duty Police Officers
working at the location were also discussed.
U. In August of 1996, police respond to a
call at the home of Sharitha Knight. Los Angeles
Police officer Kevin Gaines was present and had a
confrontation with the responding police officers.
V. On August 18, 1996, four identified
gang members were arrested as they left Death Row
Records. A semi-automatic handgun and two ski
masks are recovered at the time of the arrest.
W. On September 7, 1996, Orlando Anderson,
a/k/a Baby Lane, purportedly a recording artist
with Bad Boy Records, was assaulted in the MGM
Grand Hotel in Las Vegas on the night of the Tyson
v. Holifield fight. Marian “Suge” Knight, Tupac
Shakur, and other Death Row Records personnel
allegedly committed the assault in response to the
continuing tensions between the two record
companies.
X. On September 7, 1996, Los
Angeles Police Department officers David Mack and
Kevin Gains, were present in Las Vegas for the
Tyson v. Holifield fight.
Y. On September
7, 1996, Tupac Shakur of Death Row Records was
shot in Las Vegas in the car driven by Marian Suge
Knight after he left the MGM Grand Hotel. Shakur
died 6 days later.
Z. On September 9, 1996
the Los Angeles Police Department reported:
“[S]ources close to Death Row Records indicated
there was an East coast rivalry and recording
power struggle between “Bad Boy Entertainment:
from New York headed by Sean “Puffy” Combs,
affiliated with Los Angeles Crips connection Mike
Conception; against Suge Knight, Tupac Shakur and
Death Row Records.”
AA. On September 9,
1996, according to a Compton Police Department
Search Warrant Affidavit of a gang associated with
Death Row Records, gang members met at Leuders
Park to discuss retaliation against south side
Cripps Gang members for the Tupac Shakur shooting.
BB. The Los Angeles Police Department
learned that Leslie Gaulden, an Inglewood School
Police Officer was working for Death Row Records.
CC. Purported Death Row Records recording
artists T-Cox, Malcolm R. Greenidge, and Asinia
Adigun Tyehimba were arrested for attempted
robbery of a liquor store. The suspects were armed
with a Llama .45 caliber handgun.
DD. On
October 22, 1996, Marian “Suge” Knight was
incarcerated in the LA County Jail for probation
violation stemming from a 1992 assault conviction.
EE. On October 23, 1996, while the Los
Angeles Police Department was interviewing Death
Row Records employees, the interview was disrupted
by Alwyn Gittens, a San Bernaino County Sheriffs
reserve officer working security for Death Row
Records.
FF. On November 4, 1996, the FBI
received a call from an Los Angeles Police
Department officer identifying himself as Officer
R. McCauley inquiring as to whether the FBI had an
ongoing investigation on Death Row Records, and
pleaded with the FBI to contact him on a pager
number. McCaully was investigated for ties to
Death Row Records in November 1995.
GG.
The Los Angeles Times reported that after joining
Death Row Records in 1995, Tupac Shakur escalated
verbal attacks against Bad Boy Records and
Christopher G. L. Wallace.
HH. On March 9,
1997, Christopher G. L. Wallace was murdered.
II. On March 15, 1997, Terran Ferguson, an
employee of Death Row Records, called the Los
Angeles Police Department and said he heard Knight
brag about killing Christopher G. L. Wallace.
JJ. Shortly after the murder of
Christopher Wallace, an anonymous person placed a
telephone call to the Plaintiff Voletta Wallace
and stated that a person identified as “D. Mack”
was involved in the murder of Christopher Wallace.
The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace spoke with the Los
Angeles Police Department, gave them the
information she had received from the anonymous
caller, and requested they investigate. The
Plaintiff Voletta Wallace was told by the Los
Angeles Police Department that there were over 500
“D. Mack’s” in the phone directory. No other
follow up on this clue was made by the Los Angeles
Police Department. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace
did not learn that there was a Los Angeles Police
officer named “D. Mack” until reading the June 7,
2001, article in Rolling Stone Magazine. 17.
Despite possessing the knowledge stated herein, the
Los Angeles Police Department failed to take
objectively reasonable steps to investigate,
discipline, or prosecute those officers involved with
Death Row Records or an affiliated street gang.
18. Despite knowing that Christopher G. L.
Wallace would be present at the party at the Peterson
Automotive Museum, and that persons affiliated with
Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang
including, and in particular, Officer David Mack and
other police officers, posed a risk of danger to
persons affiliated with Bad Boy Records and
Christopher G. L. Wallace in particular, the Los
Angeles Police Department took no extra precautions to
secure the party venue, no steps to investigate,
discipline, or prosecute those officers involved with
Death Row Records or an affiliated street gang.
19. Based on information and knowledge in the
possession of the Los Angeles Police Department, David
Mack and Amir Muhammad and certain unknown persons
conspired to murder Christopher G. L. Wallace. The Los
Angeles Police Department’s intentional failure to
investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace
has deprived the Plaintiffs of additional information
relating to culpability or nonculpability of the
Defendants David Mack and Amir Muhammad as well as the
involvement and culpability of unknown persons who may
be culpable in the murder of Christopher G. L.
Wallace.
20. Based on information and
knowledge in the possession of the Los Angeles Police
Department, Defendants Amir Muhammad and David Mack
and certain unknown persons murdered Christopher G. L.
Wallace.
21. The facts of this murder relating
to Amir Muhammad include, without limitation, the
following:
A. Witnesses observed a light skinned African
American male with a receding hair line and an
angular face dressed in a suit with a bow tie (the
type of dress Los Angeles Police Department
officers describe as favored by members of a
certain religious organization) standing in the
parking lot watching them prior to leaving the
museum.
B. Witnesses saw this same man
walk toward the area where the shooting would
occur.
C. Prior to the shooting witnesses
observed a Black Chevy Impalla SS parked across
the street from the Peterson Automotive Museum and
in the direction the man dressed in the suit and
bow tie was walking.
D. The shooter was
driving a black Chevy Impalla SS.
E. The
shooter was wearing a bow tie.
F.
Immediately after the shooting the Los Angeles
Police Department employed a professional sketch
artist to render a sketch of the person the
witnesses described as having shot Christopher G.
L. Wallace. Witnesses stated that the Los Angeles
Police Department composite matches the man
observed prior to the shooting who was dressed in
the suit and bow tie.
G. A confidential
informant told police the shooter’s name was “Amir
or Ashmir” or "Abraham" and that he was a member
of a certain religious organization that the Los
Angeles Police Department describes as favoring
suits with bow ties.
H. A witness
positively identified Amir Muhammad as the person
with the suit and bow tie present on the night of
the murder and indicated he was the person
sketched by the police artist.
I.
Surveillance video from the night of the murder
showed a man in a bow tie present on the property
who is the same height and of the same build as
Amir Muhammad.
J. The Los Angeles Police
Department Composite sketch bears a positive
resemblance to Amir Muhammad.
K. Despite
having knowledge of the above stated evidence, the
Los Angeles Police Department does not investigate
Amir Muhammad for the murder of Christopher G. L.
Wallace. 22. The facts of this murder
relating to David Mack include, without limitation,
the following:
A. At all times pertinent hereto, David Mack
was a member of the Los Angeles Police Department.
B. David Mack was recruited onto the Los
Angeles Police Department directly by Police Chief
Parks.
C. At all times pertinent hereto,
David Mack was a member of a violent street gang
associated with Death Row Records. The Los Angeles
Police Department and Chief Parks in particular
knew or should have known Mack was involved with
this gang. Membership in this gang was in conflict
with his duties as a police officer.
D. At
all times pertinent hereto, David Mack, was
associating socially with and was working as a
covert agent for Death Row Records. Said company
was being investigated for multiple crimes of
violence. The owner of this company is a convicted
felon who is a member of a certain street gang.
The Los Angeles Police Department and Chief Parks
in particular knew or should have known Mack was
involved with this company. Association with and
employment with this company was in conflict with
Mack’s duties as a police officer.
E. Mack
was a member of the same religious organization as
Amir Muhammad and which the Los Angeles Police
Department described as favoring suits with bow
ties.
F. Mack was accused of and
ultimately convicted of bank robbery. During a
search of his home the police discovered evidence
linking him to the murder of Christopher G. L.
Wallace.
G. Mack was the registered owner
of a Black 95 Impala SS, the exact type of vehicle
used in the murder.
H. Mack had life-sized
posters of Tupac Shakur in his garage. Los Angeles
Police Department reports call it a “shrine.”
I. The first person to visit Mack in Jail
after the bank robbery was Amir Muhammad.
J. A witness identified Mack as having
been present at the Peterson Automotive Museum
party on the night of the murder.
K. The
manner in which the bank robbery was committed
demonstrates a pattern of conduct or modus
apperandi used by Mack to commit crimes, to wit:
i) Mack took “FI” (family illness) days off
immediately before and after the shooting of
Christopher G. L. Wallace.
ii) Mack took
“FI” days off immediately before and after bank
robbery.
iii) Mack used a Black '95
Impala SS as a third get away car on bank heist.
iv) A black '95 Impala SS was used in
the shooting of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
v) Witnesses recalled hearing police
radio traffic coming from suspects in the bank
getaway. The Los Angeles Police Department
thought this evidence was sufficiently
indicative of police officer involvement that it
was used in obtaining a search warrant for
Mack’s home in the robbery investigation.
vi) Mack told an accomplice he had
police radios and knew how everything would work
out.
vii) Mack had access to police
communications on the night of Christopher G. L.
Wallace’s murder. Police communication equipment
was found in the search of his home.
viii) A day after the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace, Los Angeles Police
Department officers interviewed a confidential
informant who implicated Officer Mack.
L. Christopher G. L. Wallace was killed
in a very efficient, organized and professional
manner suggesting that a high degree of
coordination and planning preceded his murder.
There were numerous police officers and witnesses
in the vicinity of the murder. Police had just
been called to the front of the building due to
shots having been fired in the air. No on duty LA
police officers were in the vicinity of the
Murder. The murderers had access to equipment
(police radio) and knowledge of police tactics,
which would allow them to strike at precisely the
right time. This follows the pattern demonstrated
by Mack during the bank robbery.
M. It was
well known to the Los Angeles Police Department
that Defendant Mack is closely associated with
Officers Perez and Gaines. The Los Angeles Police
Department knew that Gaines, Perez and Mack were
conducting coordinated efforts involving serious
criminal conduct. Mack had access to numerous
items of Police property, including police
scanners, taken illegally by Officer Perez.
Approximately $700,000.00 is still missing from
Mack’s bank robbery.
N. Shortly after the
murder of Christopher Wallace, an anonymous person
placed a telephone call to the Plaintiff Voletta
Wallace and stated that a person identified as “D.
Mack” was involved in the murder of Christopher
Wallace. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace spoke with
the Los Angeles Police Department, gave them the
information she had received from the anonymous
caller, and requested they investigate. The
Plaintiff Voletta Wallace was told by the Los
Angeles Police Department that there were over 500
“D. Mack’s” in the phone directory. No other
follow up on this clue was made by the Los Angeles
Police Department. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace
did not learn that there was a Los Angeles Police
officer named “D. Mack” until reading the June 7,
2001, article in Rolling Stone Magazine.
O. Despite having knowledge of the above
stated evidence the Los Angeles Police Department
did not investigate David Mack for the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace. 23. The actions
of the Defendants Muhammad and Mack and certain
unknown persons were committed under color of
California State Law and subjected the Plaintiffs
named herein to deprivation of their rights under the
United States Constitution and the Constitution and
Laws of the State of California. The actions of the
Defendants, as described herein, have damaged the
Plaintiffs as hereinafter stated and they should be
allowed to recover their damages as provided in 42
U.S.C. §1983 and 1985.
24. The majority of the
facts demonstrating the actions of the Defendants were
under color of state law are in the possession of the
Defendants stated herein and have been intentionally
and fraudulently concealed from the Plaintiffs in an
attempt to frustrate or prevent the Plaintiffs from
fully discovering their causes of actions. The
information discovered by the Plaintiffs to date is as
follows:
A. Los Angeles Police Department policy
provides that LA police officers are always
clothed with official authority to prevent crimes
occurring in their presence. Specifically,
off-duty officers have peace officer authority as
to any public offense committed in his presence to
which there is an immediate danger to person or
property. Off duty officers are to give first
consideration in ensuring the appropriate action
be taken by the responsible law enforcement
agency. Such officers should then act only after
consideration of “their possible liability and
that of the city of LA. " At all times pertinent
to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, David
Mack was clothed with “peace officer authority”
and had a duty to prevent or report crimes
occurring in his presence.
B. Los Angeles
Police Department policy provides that an employee
engaged in outside employment shall conduct
himself in the same manner as if on duty with
particular emphasis on attention to duty and
prevention of violations by his employer. David
Mack had a duty to prevent or report crimes
occurring in his presence.
C. Los Angeles
Police Department Policy provides that an officer,
while engaged in outside employment, shall take
proper action on any offense that would normally
require police attention. Crimes relating to the
Murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace are the type
of crimes that would normally require police
attention.
D. A concealed firearm carried
by an off-duty officer shall be limited to those
approved by the department.
E. As stated
previously herein, the Los Angeles Police
Department knew or reasonably should have known
its officers provided security for street gangs
and other criminal organizations during various
criminal activities. The officers accompanied the
members during drug deals and acted as lookouts
and advisors. The officers monitored police
frequencies, assisted in choosing locations for
drug transactions, and gave information on police
tactics.
F. Defendant Mack’s modus
operendi for committing crimes required access to
and knowledge of police communications equipment
and police tactics. During the bank robbery
committed by Mack, witnesses recalled hearing
police radio traffic coming from suspects in the
bank getaway. Mack told his accomplice in the bank
robbery he had police radios and would know the
position and timing of police response. Mack’s
position with the Los Angeles Police Department
allowed him to know the position of law
enforcement personnel on March 9, 1997, the night
of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace;
G. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace
involved precision timing and occurred in front of
numerous police officers and other witnesses. The
manner in which the crime was committed suggests a
high degree of sophistication, access to police
communications and knowledge of police tactics,
all of which Defendant Mack possessed as the
result of his position as a Los Angeles police
officer;
H. Former police officers were
used by Death Row Records to avoid the need to
obtain gun permits.
I. The Los Angeles
Police Department policy and procedures manual
demonstrates a clear intent to govern the off duty
conduct by police officers. 25. The actions
of the Defendants as above described far exceeded the
authority given them by law. The Defendants’ training
was inadequate and lacking as evidenced by their
actions and as will be shown at the time of trial.
26. The Defendants acted in consort and
conspired to deprive the public and the Plaintiffs of
protected rights.
27. The acts of the officers
were done knowingly and were reckless and conscious
violations of the rights of the Plaintiffs named
herein.
28. The Defendants intentionally,
willfully, and recklessly prevented a full and
thorough investigation regarding the murder of the
Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace. Defendant Parks
intentionally, willfully and recklessly delayed and
stopped the investigation of the murder of the
Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as soon as it
became apparent officers employed by the Los Angeles
Police Department were involved in the murder. This
delay and preemption of the investigation into the
murder of the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, was
intended to protect the Los Angeles Police Department,
the City of Los Angeles, and the individual Defendants
named herein.
29. Facts associated with the
Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to investigate
the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace include, but
are not limited to the following:
A. In 1996, Detective Russell Poole of
the Los Angeles Police Department was assigned to
the robbery/homicide division of the Los Angeles
Police Department. He was loaned to the
robbery/homicide task force and was assigned to
investigate Los Angeles Police Department officers
including, but not limited to, Los Angeles Police
Department Officers Brian Hewett, David Mack,
Kevin Gains, and Raphael Perez of the Rampart
Division. He was likewise assigned to investigate
Rampart Los Angeles Police Department Officers
Daniel Lujon, and Ethan Kohan.
B. During
the course and scope of Detective Poole’s
investigation he learned that the above-referenced
officers, including officer David Mack, were
involved in conduct and activities that
constituted the commission of criminal offenses
and individual federal civil rights violations.
His investigation likewise revealed that these
officers, including Officer David Mack,
established and maintained relationships with
known felons and that certain of these officers,
including Officer Mack, had been closely
associated with Death Row Records.
C.
Shortly after the murder of Christopher Wallace,
an anonymous person placed a telephone call to the
Plaintiff Voletta Wallace and stated that a person
identified as “D. Mack” was involved in the murder
of Christopher Wallace. The Plaintiff Voletta
Wallace spoke with the Los Angeles Police
Department, gave them the information she had
received from the anonymous caller, and requested
they investigate. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace
was told by the Los Angeles Police Department that
there were over 500 “D. Mack’s” in the phone
directory. No other follow up on this clue was
made by the Los Angeles Police Department. The
Plaintiff Voletta Wallace did not learn that there
was a Los Angeles Police officer named “D. Mack”
until reading the June 7, 2001, article in Rolling
Stone Magazine.
D. In February of 1998,
Detective Poole interviewed a confidential
informant regarding the murder of Christopher
Wallace. Detective Poole showed the confidential
informant numerous photographs of Los Angeles
Police Department officers. The confidential
informant identified David Mack as being present
at numerous Death Row Records events.
E.
In May 1998, Detective Pool again met with the
confidential informant and showed him a video tape
of the party at the Peterson Automotive Museum
that was taken just before the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace. The confidential
informant identified a number of persons present
on the videotape. At this time, the confidential
informant told Detective Poole that he had
knowledge regarding the murder of Christopher G.
L. Wallace and requested to speak with the
Assistant District Attorney of Los Angeles County.
F. In September of 1998, Detective Poole
forwarded the reports of his various
investigations to his superiors, including
Defendant Parks. Detective Poole requested
permission to write a detailed report, conduct
further investigations, and expand his
investigation to include the murder of Christopher
G. L. Wallace. In response to Detective Poole’s
request, Defendant Parks explicitly, and
unequivocally prohibited Detective Poole from
conducting further investigation of Detective
Mack’s involvement in the murder of Christopher G.
L. Wallace.
G. Detective Poole stated that
in his opinion it was apparent to him that in
September or October of 1998, Defendant Parks did
not want him to pursue a more expansive
investigation that would in all likelihood expose
or implicate the Los Angeles Police Department,
certain Los Angels Police Department officers and
detectives, and the City of Los Angeles, for not
properly investigating or disciplining officer
involvement in criminal activity including,
without limitation, the murder of Christopher G.
L. Wallace.
30. The Defendants as stated
herein intentionally concealed their failure to
investigate as set forth herein, and willfully and
intentionally, prevented the public, and the
Plaintiffs in particular from discovering the
culpability or non-culpability of Defendants Mack and
Muhammed, the culpability, or non-culpability of
certain unknown Defendants, and the role of the Los
Angeles Police Department in failing to properly
investigate the role of the Los Angeles Police
Department in the murder of the decedent, Christopher
G. L. Wallace.
31. Defendants Parks, Lewis and
Williams, individually and as current or former Chiefs
of the Los Angeles Police Department, were charged
with the responsibility of supervising the operations
of their personnel and were obligated to ensure that
their personnel were adequately trained so that they
may carry out their duties without violating the
Constitutional Rights of United States Citizens. The
manner in which the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs
rights, as stated herein, constitute proof that the
level of training or supervision received by the Los
Angeles Police Department was so poor as to constitute
a deliberate indifference to the rights of the Persons
within Los Angeles, California. The manner in which
Defendants Parks, Lewis, and Williams trained and
supervised the officers under their command was so
grossly negligent, reckless and willfully wanton so as
to demonstrate a deliberate indifference to persons
within Los Angeles, California.
32. On or
about March 1, 2000, in a public report regarding the
Board of Inquiry into the Rampart Area corruption
incident, the Los Angeles Police Department
acknowledged itself as an organization that provided
Los Angeles police officers opportunities to violate
the civil rights of citizens of the United States. The
Los Angeles Police Department particularly
acknowledged a failure to carefully review reports, a
failure to examine events closely to identify
patterns, and a failure to provide effective oversight
and auditing, all of which created an opportunity for
members of the Los Angeles Police Department to
violate the civil rights of United States citizens.
These aforementioned admitted failures were a cause of
the injuries, damages, and losses suffered by the
Plaintiffs.
33. There have been numerous cases
filed against the City of Los Angeles relating to
corruption and civil rights violations. These cases
are generically referred to as “The Rampart” cases.
These cases show a pattern or practice of civil rights
violations so ingrained as to constitute a policy of
the Los Angeles Police Department. These cases
demonstrate a policy, custom, and practice in respect
to the failure on the part of the Los Angeles Police
Department to adequately train and supervise. Failure
to train, as demonstrated by the Rampart cases,
suggests a level of a deliberate indifference of the
rights of persons. As a result of repeated civil
rights abuses, the Los Angeles Police Department is
now operating under a federal consent decree in
respect to their law enforcement activities and is
under federal supervision.
34. At all times
pertinent hereto, all Defendants have conspired to,
and have actively taken steps to conceal the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the death of Christopher
G. L. Wallace. These steps of active concealment have
included, but are not limited to, ordering police
investigators to not investigate the role of David
Mack and Amir Muhammed in the death of Christopher G.
L. Wallace, failing to disclose to the public that
investigators had been ordered not to investigate the
role of David Mack or Amir Muhammed in the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace, failing to disclose to the
public, and the Plaintiffs in particular, the state of
the investigation into the death of the decedent,
Christopher G. L. Wallace, failing to disclose to the
public and the Plaintiffs in particular, information
implicating David Mack, Amir Muhammed and certain
unknown persons in the death of the decedent,
Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in all ways concealing
from the public and the Plaintiffs in particular,
those facts which were required to allow the
Plaintiffs, in the exercise of reasonable care, to
have that base of knowledge upon which to determine
that a civil action was appropriate, and the persons
against whom such action should be brought. The steps
of active concealment undertaken by all Defendants
herein have substantially deprived the Plaintiffs of
an opportunity to discover the facts and circumstances
surrounding the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace,
and to discover potential and specific causes of
action against each Defendant. The Defendants continue
to take active steps to conceal the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the death of Christopher
G. L. Wallace. The Plaintiffs only became aware of the
facts and circumstances set forth herein in this
Complaint when investigative articles were published
on or about June, 2001.
III. FIRST CLAIM FOR
RELIEF
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE
COURT
AND A FAIR TRIAL14TH AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C.
§1983
35. Each and every allegation
set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated
herein by this reference with the same effect as if
realleged herein.
36. At all times pertinent
hereto, the Defendants, City and County of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, and Parks,
Williams and Lewis, had a duty to investigate the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in the
alternative, had a duty not to interfere with the
Plaintiffs’ investigation of the murder of Christopher
G. L. Wallace.
37. The Defendants referenced
herein, and Chief Parks in particular, intentionally,
and willfully, failed to investigate the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace, intentionally, and
fraudulently, concealed information regarding the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and tortiously
interfered with the Plaintiffs’ ability to discover
persons involved with the murder of Christopher G. L.
Wallace, and to prove same.
38. The Defendants
intentionally, willfully and recklessly refused a full
and thorough investigation regarding the murder of the
Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace. Defendant Parks
intentionally, willfully and recklessly delayed and
stopped the investigation of the murder of the
Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as soon as it
became apparent officers employed by the Los Angeles
Police Department were associated or involved in the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. This delay and
preemption of the investigation into the murder of the
Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, was intended to
protect the Los Angeles Police Department, the City of
Los Angeles, and the individual Defendants named
herein.
39. Facts associated with the Los
Angeles Police Department’s failure to investigate
include, but are not limited to the following:
A. In 1996, Detective Russell Poole of the Los
Angeles Police Department was assigned to the
robbery/homicide division of the LAPD. He was
loaned to the robbery/homicide task force and was
assigned to investigate Los Angles Police
Department officers including, but not limited to,
Los Angeles Police Department Officers Brian
Hewett, David Mack, Kevin Gains, and Raphael Perez
of the Rampart Division. He was likewise assigned
to investigate Rampart Los Angeles Police
Department Officers Daniel Lujon and Ethan Kohan.
B. During the course and scope of
Detective Poole’s investigation he learned that
the above-referenced officers, including officer
David Mack, were involved in conduct and
activities that constituted criminal offenses and
individual federal civil rights violations. His
investigation likewise revealed that these
officers, including Officer David Mack,
established and maintained relationships with
known felons and that certain of these officers,
including Officer Mack, had been intimately
associated with Death Row Records.
C.
Shortly after the murder of Christopher Wallace,
an anonymous person placed a telephone call to the
Plaintiff Voletta Wallace and stated that a person
identified as “D. Mack” was involved in the murder
of Christopher Wallace. The Plaintiff Voletta
Wallace spoke with the Los Angeles Police
Department, gave them the information she had
received from the anonymous caller, and requested
they investigate. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace
was told by the Los Angeles Police Department that
there were over 500 “D. Mack’s” in the phone
directory. No other follow up on this clue was
made by the Los Angeles Police Department. The
Plaintiff Voletta Wallace did not learn that there
was a Los Angeles Police officer named “D. Mack”
until reading the June 7, 2001, article in Rolling
Stone Magazine.
D. In February of 1998,
Detective Poole interviewed a confidential
informant regarding the murder of Christopher
Wallace. Detective Poole showed the confidential
informant numerous photographs of Los Angeles
Police Department officers. The confidential
informant identified David Mack as being present
at numerous Death Row Records events.
E.
In May 1998, Detective Pool again met with the
confidential informant and showed him a video tape
of the party at the Peterson Automotive Museum
that was taken just before the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace. The confidential
informant identified a number of persons present
on the videotape. At this time, the confidential
informant told Detective Poole that he had
knowledge regarding the murder of Christopher G.
L. Wallace, and requested to speak with the
Assistant District Attorney of Los Angeles County.
F. In September of 1998, Detective Poole
reported the reports of his various investigations
to his superiors, including Defendant Parks.
Detective Poole requested permission to write a
detailed report, conduct further investigations,
and conduct his investigation to include the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. In response
to Detective Poole’s request, Defendant Parks
explicitly, and unequivocally prohibited Detective
Poole from conducting further investigation of
Detective Mack’s involvement in the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace.
G. Detective
Poole stated that in his opinion that it was
apparent to him that in September or October of
1998, Defendant Parks did not want him to pursue a
more expansive investigation that would in all
likelihood expose or implicate the Los Angeles
Police Department, certain LAPD officers and
detective, and the City of Los Angeles, for not
properly investigating or disciplining officer
involvement in criminal activity including the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
H.
The Los Angeles Police Department failed to
interview material witnesses relating to the death
of Christopher G. L. Wallace, including, but not
limited to, persons present on the scene and
potential suspects themselves.
I. The Los
Angeles Police Department failed to investigate or
interview David Mack in relation to the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace.
J. The Los
Angeles Police Department failed to interview Amir
Muhammad in relation to the death of Christopher
G. L. Wallace.
K. The Los Angeles Police
Department failed to conduct forensics
examinations on the black Impalla automobile owned
by David Mack.
L. The Los Angeles Police
Department failed to determine whether the
ammunition found during the search warrant of
David Mack’s home matched the ammunition used in
the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
M. The Los Angeles Police Department
failed to conduct a full and complete financial
background check on David Mack.
N. The Los
Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a full
investigation regarding David Mack’s contacts with
Amir Muhammad.
O. The Los Angeles Police
Department failed to conduct a full investigation
regarding David Mack’s involvement with street
gangs, or his involvement with Amir Muhammad.
P. The Los Angeles Police Department
failed to conduct a background investigation
regarding Amir Muhammad’s relationship with a
street gang affiliated with Death Row Records.
Q. Chief Parks specifically instructed
detectives assigned to investigate the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace to not investigate David
Mack.
R. The Los Angeles Police Department
was informed the day after the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace as to the possible
involvement of Defendant Mack. The Los Angeles
Police Department failed to follow up on this
information.
S. The Los Angeles Police
Department was informed by a confidential
informant that he could “deliver the murderer of
Christopher G. L. Wallace” to the police. Los
Angeles Police Department failed to take steps to
follow up on this potential lead regarding the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
T.
Defendants as stated herein, acting in their
official capacity, were reckless and grossly
negligent, and breached their duty to the
Decedent, and the Plaintiffs in this action, to
properly investigate circumstances of the
Decedent’s death, failing to investigate
circumstances which would be obviously suspicious
to any well-trained law enforcement officer, and
to intentionally conceal information implicating
officers with the Los Angeles County Police
Department in the death of Christopher G. L.
Wallace. 40. The Defendants have actively
concealed their failure to investigate the murder of
Christopher G. L. Wallace, and have further actively
concealed those steps they have taken to frustrate the
Plaintiffs’ attempts to prove who murdered Christopher
G. L. Wallace.
41. Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs of
their due process right to access to the court and a
fair trial under the 14th Amendment. Such
conspiratorial agreement and concerted conduct
committed thereunder constitutes actionable federal
civil rights conspiracy in contravention of 42 U.S.C.
§1985(3) and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
42. The
aforementioned Defendants in this claim for relief are
conspiratorially liable as co-conspirators based upon
the following: (a) Defendants are members of a
conspiracy intended to violate the Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights; (b) Defendants engaged in
activities in furtherance of advancing or promoting
their conspiracy designed and intended to violate the
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; (c) Defendants were
and are members of a conspiracy during the time frame
that fraudulent activities were committed that
constitute a violation of the Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights; and (d) the offense fell within
the scope of the unlawful agreement and could
reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessarily or
natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.
43. In committing the above-described acts,
the Defendants, and each of them, have deprived the
Plaintiffs of an opportunity to prove the facts and
circumstances relating to the death of Christopher G.
L. Wallace and Defendants Mack's and Muhammad’s and
certain unknown persons’ involvement therein. In
committing the above-described acts, the Defendants
conspired for the purpose of impeding or injuring the
Plaintiff’s rights of equal protection under the laws,
thereby giving rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C.
1985(2). See Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205,
1261 (7th Cir. 1984).
44. These violations of
the Plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment Rights by the
Defendants, have caused the Plaintiffs injuries,
damages and losses as stated herein.
IV. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE
CONDUCT OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
DEMONSTRATES A LACK OF TRAINING AND SUPERVISION RISING
TO THE LEVEL OF DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THE RIGHTS
OF PERSONS IN LOS ANGELES IN VIOLATION OF THE 14th
AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C. §1983
45. Each and every allegation
set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated
herein by this reference with the same effect as if
realleged herein.
46. On March 9, 1997, there
existed a clearly established federal right protecting
citizens of the United States from failures of
training or supervision of police officers which rise
to the level of a deliberate indifference to rights of
Citizens in violation of the due process requirements
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
47. Parks, Lewis,
and Williams, current or former Chiefs of the Los
Angeles Police Department, are charged with the
responsibility of supervising the operations of their
personnel and are obligated to assure that their
personnel are adequately trained and supervised so
that they may carry out their duties without violating
the Constitutional Rights of United States Citizens.
48. Parks, Lewis, and Williams knew to a moral
certainty, that their employees would confront
situations wherein police officers may be compromised
by organizations involved in criminal conduct. Such
circumstances require close and proper training and
supervision by police officials.
49. Parks,
Lewis, and Williams, knew to a moral certainty, that
their employees would confront situations wherein
police officers might be involved in criminal conduct.
Such circumstances require close and proper training
and supervision by police officials.
50. In
matters regarding an off-duty police officer engaging
in criminal conduct or associating with organizations
actively involved in criminal activity, lack of proper
supervision and investigation of the officer and
his/her activities will frequently cause a deprivation
of a citizen’s constitutional rights and at all times
pertinent hereto, it was foreseeable that said
deliberate indifference would cause harm to the
decedent Christopher G. L. Wallace.
51. The
Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to intervene
in its officers known association with organizations
involved in criminal activity including Death Row
Records and an affiliated street gang demonstrated a
deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens of
the United States and gave rise to a reasonably
foreseeable violation of the rights of Christopher G.
L. Wallace.
52. The Los Angeles Police
Department’s failure to intervene in its officers
known association with organizations involved in
criminal activity including Death Row Records and an
affiliated street gang was so entrenched or ingrained
in the Los Angeles Police Department so as to
constitute a policy of the Los Angeles Police
Department and the City of Los Angeles.
53.
Prior to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, the
Los Angeles Police Department knew: 1) there was an
atmosphere of violence and criminality surrounding an
organization called Death Row Records and certain
street gangs which associated with Death Row Records
and its agents, employees or representatives; 2)
officers of the Los Angeles Police Department were
working for Death Row records and/or were socializing
with or affiliated with the street gang; 3) certain
persons close to Death Row Records and the affiliated
street gang had significant animosity toward
Christopher G. L. Wallace and his record label and
blamed Christopher G. L. Wallace and his record label
for the death of Tupac Shakur, a popular Death Row
Artist; and 4) that given the atmosphere of violence
and criminality there was a foreseeable risk to
Christopher G. L. Wallace posed by persons aligned
with Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang,
including members of the Los Angeles Police
Department.
54. Among the facts known to the
Los Angeles Police Department at the time of the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace include, without
limitation, the following:
A. In September of 1993, Calvin Broadus, a/k/a
Snoop Dog, a Death Row Records was recording
artist charged, along with two others associated
with Death Row Records, in the Murder of a gang
member in Los Angeles. Forensic and ballistic
evidence crucial to the case in the possession of
the Los Angeles Police Department became missing
from the Los Angeles Police Department Pacific
Division. At the time the evidence became missing,
Kevin Gaines, a Los Angeles Police Department
officer, was living with Sharitha Knight of Death
Row Records. At the time the evidence became
missing Sharitha Knight was the producer for
Calvin Broadus. Calvin Broadus was acquitted.
B. On October 1, 1993, Tupac Shakur was
arrested for allegedly shooting an off-duty
Atlanta Police Officer. The charges were
subsequently dropped.
C. On November 1,
1993, Tupac Shakur was charged with sexually
abusing a fan at a hotel in Midtown, New York. He
was convicted.
D. On August 1, 1994, Andre
Young a/k/a “Dr. Dre.” a Death Row Records
recording artist was sentenced for violating his
probation on a 1993 battery conviction when he
pled no contest to a drunk driving charge.
E. On November 1, 1994, Tupac Shakur was
shot five times during a robbery in the lobby of
Quad Recording Studios, Times Square, New York.
Christopher G. L. Wallace, and persons associated
with Christopher G. L. Wallace, were inside the
studio during the incident. Without evidence,
Tupac Shakur and persons close to Death Row
Records believed Christopher G. L. Wallace had
knowledge or involvement in the shooting.
F. On March 13, 1995 a gang member was
murdered at a Death Row Records event at the El
Rey Theatre. The police report states “Many of the
security people at the party were off duty police
officers, from Long Beach P.D., Compton P.D.,
Inglewood P.D., Hawthorne P.D., Los Angeles Police
Department, all working for Wrightway Security.
The victim was beaten by numerous Blood gang
members while the off duty police officers watched
and failed to make arrests. When the police
arrived the off duty officers left the scene
without giving a statement.”
G. At the
1995 Source Awards Show in New York City, Suge
Knight, of Death Row Records, made certain
antagonistic remarks towards Sean Combs, CEO and
owner of Bad Boy Records, the label for which
Christopher G. L. Wallace performed.
H. On
November 1, 1995, one month after the Source Award
Show, it was reported that Suge Knight, of Death
Row Records, accused Sean Combs, of Christopher G.
L. Wallace’s label of being responsible for the
Atlanta murder of Jai Robles.
I. On
November 1, 1995, Christopher G. L. Wallace was
named rap artist of the year by Billboard
Magazine. During this time, Tupac Shakur was
recovering from the 1994 shooting and was charged
with rape.
J. On November 5, 1995, Officer
R. McCaully of the Los Angeles Police Department
was investigated for working for Death Row
Records.
K. Recording Artist Randy Stretch
Walker, believed to be of Death Row Records, was
murdered in a drive-by shooting in Queens, New
York.
L. During the winter of 1995, shots
were fired at a trailer being used to record a
video by Calvin Brodus, a/k/a Snoop Dog, a Death
Row Records recording artist.
M. Bad Boy
Records released a recording performed by
Christopher G. L. Wallace titled, “Who Shot Ya”.
Death Row Records personnel believe the song was a
reference to Tupac Shakur of Death Row Records
being shot at Wallace’s recording studio in
November 1994.
N. On December 18, 1995,
following the MTV Awards in New York City, an
individual named Mark Anthony Bell was assaulted
by members of Death Row Records seeking
information on the whereabouts of Sean Combs. Mr.
Bell reported on the tension and violence between
Death Row Records and Bad Boy Records. Mr. Bell
reports hearing radio communication, and was
subsequently released. Upon his release, Los
Angeles County Police Officers were present on the
scene. Two off-duty officers were present at the
Death Row Party during the reported assault of Mr.
Bell.
O. On December 18, 1995, following
the Mark Bell assault, it was reported by the Los
Angeles Police Department Sean Combs requested
certain well known individuals to arrange a
meeting with Suge Knight of Death Row Records.
Reportedly Suge Knight refused to meet. Sean Combs
added additional bodyguards to his entourage.
P. In May 1996, Death Row Records was
investigated for zoning violations associated with
numerous crimes of violence. Investigating
officers report “There are armed security guards
at this location in plain clothes and in security
uniforms. These security officers are off-duty
police officers and retired officers which [sic]
are employed by “Death Row Records.””
Q.
On March 7, 1996, a fight broke out between Death
Row Records personnel and Bad Boy Records
personnel recording artists in the VIP area at the
1996 Soul Train Awards. Guns were reportedly
brandished.
R. Officers responding to
Death Row Records note: “Snoop-Doggie-Dog was
present at the location with 15-20 additional gang
members. t[sic]here was also armed security guards
present at the location in security uniforms. Also
present were off duty black police officers from
Hawthorne P.D. and other unk[sic] agencies. I was
informed by the manager of the studio and other
security officers that were present at the
location that a [sic] O[sic]fficer from Metro/ Los
Angeles Police Department was also employed at
this location. They further stated that they work
directly for Snoop-Doggie-Dog as his body guard
service.”
S. On June 1, 1996, the Los
Angeles Police Department was informed that the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was
conducting a federal investigation of Death Row
Records concerning firearms violations along with
the IRS for tax evasion.
T. On June 2,
1996, a meeting was held between the Los Angeles
Police Department and Death Row Records to discuss
“dissatisfaction with armed security personnel and
the possibility of armed confrontations with
Police and security personnel or gang members who
frequent the location.” Issues of off-duty Police
Officers working at the location were also
discussed.
U. In August of 1996, police
respond to a call at the home of Sharitha Knight.
Los Angeles Police officer Kevin Gaines was
present and had a confrontation with the
responding police officers.
V. On August
18, 1996, four identified gang members were
arrested as they left Death Row Records. A
semi-automatic handgun and two ski masks are
recovered at the time of the arrest.
W. On
September 7, 1996, Orlando Anderson, a/k/a Baby
Lane, purportedly a recording artist with Bad Boy
Records, was assaulted in the MGM Grand Hotel on
the night of the Tyson v. Holyfield fight. Marian
“Suge” Knight, Tupac Shakur, and other Death Row
Records personnel in response to the continuing
tensions between the two record companies.
X. On September 7, 1996, Los Angles Police
Department officers David Mack and Kevin Gains,
were present in Las Vegas for the Tyson v.
Holyfield fight.
Y. Tupac Shakur of Death
Row Records was shot in Las Vegas in the car
driven by Marian "Suge" Knight after he left the
MGM Grand Hotel. Shakur died 6 days later.
Z. On September 9, 1996 Los Angeles Police
Department reported: “[S]ources close to Death Row
Records indicated there was an East coast rivalry
and recording power struggle between Bad Boy
Entertainment: from New York headed by Sean
“Puffy” Combs, affiliated with Los Angeles Crips
connection Mike Conception; against Suge Knight,
Tupac Shakur and Death Row Records. “
AA.
On September 9, 1996, according to a Compton
Police Department Search Warrant Affidavit of a
gang associated with Death Row Records, gang
members met at Leuders Park to discuss retaliation
against south side Cripps Gang members for the
Tupac Shakur shooting.
BB. The Los Angeles
Police Department learned that Leslie Gaulden, an
Inglewood School Police Officer was working for
Death Row Records.
CC. Purported Death Row
Records recording artists T-Cox, Malcolm R.
Greenidge, and Asinia Adigun Tyehimba were
arrested for attempted robbery of a liquor store.
The suspects were armed with a Llama .45 caliber
handgun.
DD. On October 22, 1996, Marian
“Suge” Knight was incarcerated in the LA County
Jail for probation violation stemming from a 1992
assault conviction.
EE. On October 23,
1996, while police were interviewing Death Row
Records employees, the interview was disrupted by
Alwyn Gittens, a San Bernaino County Sheriffs
reserve officer working security for Death Row
Records.
FF. On November 4, 1996, the FBI
received a call from an Los Angeles Police
Department officer identifying himself as Officer
R. McCauley and inquiring as to whether the FBI
had an ongoing investigation on Death Row Records,
and to please contact him on a pager number.
McCaully was investigated for ties to Death Row
Records in November 1995.
GG. The Los
Angeles Times reported that after joining Death
Row Records in 1995, Tupac Shakur escalated verbal
attacks against Bad Boy Records and Christopher G.
L. Wallace.
HH. On March 9, 1997,
Christopher G. L. Wallace was murdered.
II. On March 15, 1997, Terran Ferguson, an
employee of Death Row Records, called the police
and said he heard Knight brag about killing
Wallace. 55. Despite possessing the
knowledge stated herein, the Los Angeles Police
Department took no steps to investigate, discipline,
or prosecute those officers involved with Death Row
Records or its affiliated street gang.
56.
Despite knowing that Christopher G. L. Wallace would
be present at the party at the Peterson Automotive
Museum and that persons affiliated with Death Row
Records and an affiliated street gang, including, and
in particular, police officers, posed a risk of danger
to persons affiliated with Bad Boy Entertainment and
Christopher G. L. Wallace in particular, the Los
Angeles Police Department took no steps to increase
security or secure the safety of the venue, or to
investigate, discipline, or prosecute those officers
involved with Death Row Records or an affiliated
street gang
57. The Los Angeles Police
Department’s failure to fully and fairly investigate
the criminal activity of its officers constituted a
deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens of
the United States and gave rise to a reasonably
foreseeable violation of the rights of Christopher G.
L. Wallace, including, but not limited to a violation
of his rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,
in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
58. The Los
Angeles Police Department’s failure to investigate the
criminal activity of its officers was so entrenched or
ingrained in Los Angeles Police Department so as to
constitute a policy of the Los Angeles Police
Department.
59. The Los Angeles Police
Department and Defendants Parks, Lewis, and Williams
purposefully, and intentionally, cultivated an
atmosphere whereby officers would not report their own
wrongful conduct, would not report other officers’
wrongful conduct, and wherein officers would be
severely disciplined and retaliated against for
reporting the wrongful conduct of other officers. This
atmosphere was so entrenched, or ingrained in Los
Angeles Department so as to constitute a policy of the
Los Angeles Police Department. Said policy was a
violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth
Amendment.
60. The Los Angeles Police
Department purposefully and intentionally retaliated
against officers reporting wrongful conduct of other
officers in order to stop, or prevent reports of
wrongful conduct from being made to Department
Personnel. It was reasonably foreseeable to the
Defendants that such a policy would lead to an
atmosphere wherein numerous officers, including
Defendant Mack herein, could engage in wrongful
conduct and whereby otherwise good and law abiding
officers would not report wrongful conduct of other
officers due to fear and retaliation. Under such a
circumstance it was reasonably foreseeable that
officers, and Defendant Mack in particular would
commit crimes, including murder, and in particular,
the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. Said policy
was a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth
Amendment.
61. By information and belief, the
murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace by David Mack, and
Amir Muhammad, was proximately caused by the policy of
the Los Angeles Police Department which fostered
illegal activity of its officers and retaliating
against officers who made reports, or complaints of
wrongful conduct.
62. The Los Angeles Police
Department has failed to conduct thorough
investigations, failed to release vital information to
prosecutors and tipped off fellow officers.
63. At all times pertinent hereto, the
policies and procedures of the Los Angeles County
Police Department were not sufficient to prevent
substantial and continuing civil rights abuses by its
officers.
64. The Defendants violated the
Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights
as previously stated herein in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
65. Each of the aforementioned
deprivations of its citizens’ constitutional rights
demonstrates an objectively unreasonable failure to
train or supervise on the part of the Defendants,
Parks, Lewis and Williams, which constitutes a
deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens
of the State of California, and the Plaintiffs in
particular.
66. This violation of the
Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by
Defendants caused the Plaintiffs injuries, damages,
and losses, including, but not limited to, a
deprivation of constitutionally protected rights, and
such other and further damages as are listed herein.
V. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
DEPRIVATION OF FAMILIAL COMPANIONSHIP AND SOCIETY 14th
AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
67. Each and every allegation
set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated
herein by this reference with the same effect as if
realleged herein.
68. As of March 9, 1997,
there existed a clearly recognized Federal right
pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution to be free from unwarranted state
interference in familial companionship and society.
69. The Plaintiff, Faith Evans is, and at all
times mentioned herein, the spouse of the decedent,
Christopher G. L. Wallace. The Plaintiff, Faith Evans
|
