Officer Involved Shooting

Case 2:20-cv-00116-WKW-JTA Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OFAL AM
NORTHERN DIVIR MED
LISA HILL,individually,
tin Fr 4.9
CLK
P 50
<9:a0"W'011140-49
and as the Personal Representative )
of the ESTATE OF LONNIE JAMES SMITH,JL:P: .'--C.ir.MCT ALA
Plaintiff,
V.
AIRY TRIAL DEMANDED
CITY OF MONTGOMERY,ALABAMA;
JAIRUS BOOKER,individually and in his
official capacity as police officer for the
City of Montgomery;PAUL HARRIS,
individually
and in his official capacity as a police officer
for the City of Montgomery;
and ERNEST N. FINLEY,JR.,
individually and in his official Capacity as
Chief of Police for the City of Montgomery,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, LISA HILL,individually as the MOTHER of
LONNIE JAMES SMITH,JR.and as the Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF
LONNIE JAMES SMITH, JR., and complains against above-named
Defendants as follows:
I. Nature of Action,Jurisdiction, and Venue
1. This action arises out of the wrongful death of Lonnie James Smith, JR., which
was caused by the actions and omissions of the Defendants.

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.0 § 1983.
3. Subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under federal law exists
pursuant to 28 U.S.0 §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
claims arising under state law is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1357(a).
4. Defendant City of Montgomery,and upon information and belief, all individual
Defendants, resides in the Middle District ofAlabama, Northern Division. A11 acts and
omissions alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred in Montgomery County,Alabama,
within the Northern Division ofthe Middle District ofAlabama. Venue is proper in this
district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(b).
II. Parties
5. Plaintiff, Lisa Hill, is over the age ofnineteen(19) years and is a resident of
Montgomery County, Alabama. Lisa Hill is the biological mother of
Lonnie James Smith, Jr., the decedent, and is the duly appointed Personal Representative
ofthe ESTATE OF LONNIE JAMES SMITH,JR., decedent. Plaintiff brings claims in
her individual capacity for damages sustained resulting fmm the death of her son,
Lonnie James Smith, JR.; and also brings this action in her capacity as the duly appointed
Personal Representative of the ESTATE of LONNIE JAMES,JR. pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 1983 for the wrongful death of Lonnie James Smith,JR. A true and correct
copy of the Certified Letters ofAdministration granted to the Plaintiff is attached to and
incorporated by reference in this Complaint as Exhibit A.
6. Defendant City of Montgomery,Alabama is an incorporated municipality in
Montgomery County,Alabama, located within the Middle District of Alabama.
7. Defendant Jairus Booker, upon information and belief is over the age of
2
nineteen(19)and resides within the Middle District ofAlabama. At all times relevant to
the allegations contained in this Complaint, Defendant Booker was a police officer for the
City of Montgomery. Defendant Booker is sued both individually and in his official
capacity as a police officer for the City of Montgomery.
8. Defendant Paul Harris, upon information and beliefis over the age of
nineteen(19)and resides within the Middle District ofAlabama. At all times relevant to
the allegations contained in this Complaint, Defendant Harris was a police officer for the
City of Montgomery. Defendant Harris is sued both individually and in his official
capacity as a police officer for the City of Montgomery.
9. Defendant Ernest N. Finley, Jr., upon information and belief, is a resident of
Montgomery County,Alabama, located within the Middle District ofAlabama. He is over
the age ofnineteen(19) years. Defendant Finley has been Chiefof the Montgomery
Police Department since being sworn in on January 20, 2015. Defendant Finley is sued
both individually and in his official capacity as Chiefof Police for the City of
Montgomery.
10. At all times material to this Complaint, all individual defendants were acting
within the line and scope of their employment with the City of Montgomery in the
Montgomery Police Department.
11. At all times material to this Complaint, all individual defendants were acting
under color of state law and authority.
III. Material Facts
A. Lonnie James Smith,Jr.
12. Lonnie James Smith, Jr. was born on 1996.
3
13. Mr. Smith is the biological child of LISA HILL and LONNIE SMITH,SR.
14. Lonnie James Smith, JR. is the father of Lonnie James Smith, 111.
1 5. Mr. Smith graduated with honors from High School and later enlisted in the
United States Army.
16. Mr. Smith was a role model for his sisters and brothers. He was known to the
community as a helpful, and respectful gentleman who stayed to himself.
17. Mr. Smith provided his mother with financial assistance and moral support at the
time he was fatally injured.
18. Mr. Smith cared for and financially supported his son,
Lonnie James Smith, III.
19. Mr. Smith goals included enrolling in Auburn University to pursue a degree in
Mechanical Engineering.
B. Alabama Gun Laws
20. The State of Alabama is an "open carry" state. Citizens are lawfully permitted to
openly carry a gun in public where it is not hidden from public view.
21. In the State of Alabama,citizens are lawfully permitted to "conceal carry," which
is the right to carry a gun on one's person concealed from the public's view, as long as the
person has obtained an Alabama Pistol Permit.
22. During all relevant times,Mr. Smith possessed a valid Alabama Pistol Permit.
23. During all relevant times,Mr. Smith exercised his Second Amendment right and
his Alabama State law right to carry a concealed handgun.
C. Lonnie James Smith,JR.Is A Victim of A Robbery
24. On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, Mr. Smith was visiting family located
4
2046 Stephens St.in Montgomery,Alabama.
25. Mr. Smith was assaulted and robbed at gunpoint prior to Montgomery Police
Officers making contact with him on February 21, 2018.
26. Mr. Smith was assaulted and robbed at gunpoint by three(3)black males in the
neighborhood as he attempted to enter his vehicle.
27. Exercising his Second Amendment rights and the right to stand his ground,
Mr.Smith defended his life during the altercation involving the three(3)black males who
robbed him at gunpoint when attempting to enter his vehicle.
28. The males which committed the robbery at gunpoint on Mr.Smith has a history of
this type behavior. In fact, one ofthe three males would later be charged with the murder
ofanother individual only two months following the robbery at gunpoint committed on
Mr. Smith.
29. Although Mr. Smith was able to escape the confinement ofthe robbers, he would
soon encounter an incident with Defendant Paul Harris.
D.Paul Harris Confronts Mr.Smith
30. Defendant Paul Harris, while on duty, approached Mr. Smith on the corner of
Stephenson St. and Hill St. in Montgomery, AL after Mr. Smith was robbed at gunpoint.
31. Defendant Paul Harris, a white male,confronted Mr. Smith as he walked down the
sidewalk on Stephenson St. According to witnesses account, Mr. Smith walked down the
sidewalk peacefully, and was not considered a threat.
32. Defendant Paul Harris immediately turned the corner, exited a City of Montgomery
police vehicle, stopped the first black male in view, and pointed his gun at
Lonnie James Smith, Jr. as he peacefully and lawfully walked down the sidewalk on
5
Stephenson St. At the time Defendant Harris confronted Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith had not
been identified as a suspect to a crime.
33. Prior to Defendant Harris stopping and firing his handgun at Mr. Smith, in violation
ofstandard police and training, Defendant Harris did not verify that Mr. Smith actually
presented to be a physical threat to anyone in the community.
34. Paul Harris was accompanied by another police office, on duty, working for the City
of Montgomery Police Departrnent as well. Defendant Harris partner's name was
unknown at each ofthe meetings held with the District Attorney's office. This
information was one of the many details requested, however never received from the
District Attorney's Office.
35. Before Defendant Harris fired his service weapon,the police officer with Defendant
Harris observed and made contact with Mr. Smith walking down the street also, and did
not fire any bullets at Mr. Smith.
36. When meeting with Deputy Lloria James with the District Attorney's office, it was
unclear at the time if Defendant Harris gave verbal commands and activated his vehicle
patrol lights during the incident involving Mr. Smith. Deputy Lloria James was also
unable to determine at the time, who initiated the exchange of gunfire involving
Defendant Harris and Mr. Smith at each of the meetings held with Mr. Smith's family.
Deputy Lloria James stated the information requested will be determined by a Grand
Jury.
37. Although Defendant Harris was accompanied by another police officer employed
with the Montgomery Police Department as well, the exchange of gunfire only involved
Defendant Harris and Mr. Smith. The details involving the exchange of gunfire provided
6
by Deputy Lloria James in each meeting held with Mr. Smith's family were vague and
inconclusive.
38. According to witnesses account, Mr. Smith proceeded to move away from Defendant
Harris during and after the exchange ofgunfire between the two individuals. Also,
witnessed stated Defendant Harris fired shots at Mr. Smith as Mr. Smith fled away from
the altercation as well.
39. In violation of standard police procedure and training, after Defendant Harris fired
each bullet, Defendant Harris failed to stop and reassess the threat level before firing
additional bullets at Mr. Smith.
40. After the exchange cif gunfire with Mr. Smith, Defendant Harris entered his City of
Montgomery police vehicle, drove away from the scene, and proceeded to follow
Mr. Smith.
E.Defendant Booker Shoots Mr. Smith INvice In the Back During a Foot Pursuit
41. Following the incident involving Defendant Harris and Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith was
approached from behind by Defendant Booker ,a black male, as he ran away from the
altercation involving Defendant Harris.
42. Defendant Booker, while on duty and training another police officer, exited his City
of Montgomery police vehicle on Hill St. in Montgomery,AL and began chasing
Mr. Smith on foot. According to Deputy Lloria James, Defendant Booker's partner was
Demetrius Huitt on February 21, 2018.
43. Although Officer Huitt engaged in the foot pursuit involving Mr. Smith as well,
according to Deputy Lloria James, he did not fire his service weapon in his possession
during the foot pursuit.
7
44. In violation ofstandard police procedure and training, after Defendant Booker fired
each bullet, Defendant Booker failed to stop and reassess the threat level before firing
additional bullets at Mr. Smith and Mr.Smith ran away from officers.
45. According to witnesses accounts and logic, as Mr. Smith ran along a pathway on the
side of Freewill Baptist Church, located 1724 Hill St., Montgomery, AL,Defendant
Booker fired shots aiming towards Mr. Smith as he ran away from officers.
46. As reported by witnesses, Mr. Smith's blood was found on the side of Freewill Baptist
Church, not far from where he took his last breath.
47. After wounding Mr. Smith, Defendant Jairus Booker nor any other City police officer
provided Mr. Smith with emergency medical care or life sustaining techniques.
48. Instead, Defendant Booker and other City police officers allowed Mr. Smith to bleed
out on the hot pavement, in the full view of the public.
49. After fatally injuring Mr. Smith, Defendant Booker and other officers search the
neighborhood repeatedly for a weapon,according to witnesses on the scene.
F. Discrepancies in Statements
50. According to Defendant Booker's account of the shooting, five(5)shots were fired
on Jordan St., Montgomery, AL,in which two(2)of the shots fired entered Mr. Smith's
body after Mr. Smith pointed a gun at him.
51. According to Deputy Lloria James, one shot was fired into Mr. Smith's upper right
back shoulder area, and the second shot was fired into Mr. Smith's lower left back
area.
'52. According to several witnesses account, who also testified at Grand Jury, Mr. Smith
was not shot on Jordan Street and Mr. Smith DID NOT point a gun at Defendant Booker.
8
53. Witnesses also testified to the fact, there were not any shots fired on Jordan Street
during the incident involving Mr. Smith and officers.
54. Several key witnesses, which resides on Jordan Street, was able to provide statements
concerning the incident as Mr. Smith approached Jordan Street as the officers pursued
him.
55. According to Deputy Lloria James,the officers pursing Mr. Smith as he approached
Jordan Street and to initially make contact with him, was Defendant Booker and Officer
Huitt.
56. In addition, according to Deputy Lloria James Defendant Booker handcuffed
Mr. Smith while on the street pavement on Jordan Street.
57. Key witnesses were also able to provide statements concerning the apprehension of
Mt Smith. This information was provided to Deputy Lloria James for review. Please
reference Exhibit B.
G.Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker Violated State and National Training
Standards
58. A program known as the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training
("ALERRT")is a training police officers around the nation receive educating on an active
shooter scenario.
59. According to ALERRT,an "active shooter" is define as "an individual actively
engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated aree such as a
school or shopping mall.
60. Defendant Harris nor Defendant Booker never observed any fact indicating Mr.
Smith was "actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people."
9
61. As such, it was not objectively reasonable for Defendant Harris nor Defendant
Booker to conclude Mr. Smith was an "active shooter."
62. It is reported as part of the ALERRT training, police officers are taught a "Priority of
Life Scale which is supposed to govern their decision making at an active shooting
scene:
1.) Innocent civilians;
2.) First Responders;
3.) Actors / suspects; and,
4.) Property
63. When implementing the Priority of Life Scale, police officers are reportedly trained
that above all else,"innocent life must be defended."
64. Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker failed to protect and assist Mr. Smith who
was a victim ofa robbery and assault prior to them making contact with him.
65. Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker failed to verify any threats before acting
against them.
66. Defendant Booker unlawfully fatally injured Mr. Smith, because he assumed the
existence ofa threat instead of verifying the existence ofthreat during the foot pursuit.
67. Many police officers in other pOlice departments in the State ofAlabama are aware
and taught that citizens are lawfully permitted to use deadly force to protect themselves
and others from serious injury or death.
68. Therefore, even if it is true that Mr. Smith matched the description of a male in
question, Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker lacked the facts required to verify a
credible threat; let alone a deadly threat.
10
69. Therefore, any subjective fear that Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker claims to
have had was not objectively reasonable, and not a valid defense for their unlawful
conduct.
70. In addition, Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker had no regards for the safety of
citizens as they chased and fired shots at Mr. Smith during a foot pursuit in populated
area with the elderly and children.
71. Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker was more concerned about the capture of Mr.
Smith, rather than the safety of the community and others.
72. Furthermore, Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker created a dangerous, high risk,
and life-threatening situation for innocent civilians, which included young children, as
they run through the neighborhood firing their service weapon at Mr. Smith,as he runs
away from officers.
G.The Citys Deficient Policies and Training Were the Moving Force Causing
Mr,Smith's Untimely Death
73. In accordance with FED.R.CIV.P. 11(b)(3), it is believed that the following
"factual contentions have evidentiary support or ... will likely have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery":
a. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policymaker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley knew that its use of force policy was not regularly updated,
and was not in accordance with the standard in the industry, and failed to provide clear
guidance to police officers regarding the lawful use of force.
b. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policy maker,
Defendant Finley, and Defendant Finley knew that its use offorce training was not
11
regularly updated, and was not in accordance with the standard in the industry, and failed
to provide clear guidance to police officers regarding the lawful use offorce.
c. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policymaker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley are aware that its use offorce policy and training did not
acknowledge and respect the Second Amendment rights of all citizens ofthe City of
Montgomery to lawfully possess handguns.
d. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley knew that police officers were routinely required to make
quick use offorce decisions.
e. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley knew its police officers routinely made incorrect use of
force decisions which resulted in violations ofcitizens' civil rights, but have refused or
failed to take measures reasonably necessary to prevent or minimize such violations.
f. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley knew that police officers were routinely required to
evaluate facts to determine if people were credible threats.
g. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley knew police officers employed by the city incorrectly
identified persons as threats, which resulted in violations ofcitizens' civil rights.
h. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley have known or have had constructive knowledge offailing
to adopt and implement a de-escalation policy which comports with the standard in the
industry.
12
i. The Defendant City of Montgomery, through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley have known or have had constructive knowledge offailing
to adopt and implement a de-escalation training program which comports with the
standard in the industry.
j. The Defendant City of Montgomery, through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley knew police officers were routinely required to deescalate
potentially volatile situations, however did not have the skills to do so correctly.
k. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley have known or have had constructive knowledge ofthe
officers employed by the City of Montgomery were routinely failing to deescalate
potentially volatile situations, and citizens' civil rights were being violated.
1. The Defendant City of Montgomery, through its final policy maker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley are equipped with the facts conceming the widespread and
persistent practice of violations ofcitizens' rights by way ofcitizen lawsuits charging
police misconduct; citizen complaints to the Police Department, the City of Montgomery,
and elected officials regarding such misconduct; and Police Department's limited intemal
records ofindividual instances of application ofthese procedures and policies. Although
aware ofthe widespread and consistent practice of violation, Defendant City of
Montgomery and Defendant Finley have neglected and failed to take measures
reasonably necessary to prevent or minimize such repeated violations.
m. In spite ofthe fact the Defendant City of Montgomery, through its final policy
maker, Defendant Finley, and Defendant Finley is aware ofthe widespread and consistent
practice of violation ofthe citizens' rights as a result of citizen complaints, citizen
13
litigation, direct observation, the Defendant City of Montgomery and Defendant Finley
have refused to prevent or minimize such violations and provide the necessary training to
its police officers.
n. The policies(or lack thereof)of both the Defendant City of Montgomery and
Defendant Finley permitted the unlawful conduct mentioned herein.
o. The training(or lack thereof) of both the Defendant City of Montgomery and
Defendant Finley authorized the unlawful conduct mentioned herein.
p. Violations of citizens'constitutional rights, specifically the use ofdeadly force, are
the obvious or known consequences either ofthe formal City of Montgomery policies and
procedures that themselves Violate federal law, or ofa widespread and consistent practice
and custom ofsuch violations in which Defendants City of Montgomery and Defendant
Finley have allowed or which they have indirectly approved. The actions and omissions
of the Defendants City of Montgomery and Finley are a deliberate indifference on the
part ofthose defendants to such known or obvious consequences of their actions and
omissions as resulted in the deprivation of Mr. Smith's federally-protected rights.
IV. Causes of Action
COUNT I
42 U.S.c. 1983 - Fourth Amendment
(Unlawful Seizure - Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker)
74. Plaintiffs asserts and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 73, as though
set out fully herein.
75. Arrests must be supported by probable cause to comply with the Fourth
Amendment.
76. See Illinois v. Gates,462 US 213, 239(1983),the probable cause inquiry is fact
14
based.
77. The United States Supreme Court articulated the "probable cause" standard, in
Beck v State ofOhio, as followš:"Whether that arrest was constitutionally valid
depends, in turn, upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had
probable cause to make it--whether, at that moment,the facts and circumstances
within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information
were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had
committed or was committing an offense." Beck v. State ofOhio, 379 U.S. 89,91
(1964).
78. By confronting and attempting to stop Mr. Smith as he peacefully walk down the
sidewalk in the neighborhood, Defendant Harris and Defendant Booker initiated an
investigative stop and seize within the meaning ofthe Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
79. To justify an investigative stop, a law enforcement officer must be able to
articulate specific objective facts that support a reasonable suspicion the person
stopped has committed or is about to commit a criminal activity.
80. Mr. Smith's mere presence in the area during the time officers responded, did not
constitute a reasonable suspicion for Defendants Harris and Booker to pursue and
detain Mr. Smith. See, Brown v. Texas,443 U.S. 47,52(1979).
81. Defendants Harris and Booker lacked objective facts sufficient to support a
reasonable suspicion that Mr. Smith had committed, was committing, or was about to
coMmit criminal activity.
82. Defendants Harris and Booker investigative stops, pursing of Mr. Smith,and
15
shooting of Mr. Smith constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure.
83. When Defendants Harris and Booker seized Mr. Smith, probable cause did not
exist naming Mr. Smith as a suspect to any crime committed.
84. Therefore, Defendants Harris and Booker's stopping, confronting, pursuing and
seizing of Mr. Smith is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
85. Defendants Harris and Booker's actions and omissions, including shooting,
chasing, detaining, and using deadly force violated Mr. Smith's clearly-established
Fourth Amendment rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.
86. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Harris and Booker violations of
Mr. Smith's Fourth AmendMent rights, Plaintiff Lisa Hill individually has suffered,
among other things, severe emotional distress and mental anguish, including other
pain and suffering; lost of moral support, lost of the society and companionship of
her son, all of which dattages, injuries, and suffering will in reasonable probability
continue into the future and for the remainder ofthe Plaintiff Lisa Hill's life. See, e.g.
Carringer v. Rodgers, 331 F.3d 844,849(11th Cir. 2003)(policies underlying 42
U.S.C.§ 1983 in case of wrongful death require right of recovery for survivors, as
well as for damages suffered by decedent); Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.24:1401,409(5th
Cir. 1961)(same).
87. Defendants Harris and Booker's violation of Mr. Smith's Fourth Amendment
rights directly and proximately caused, Mr. Smith suffered (a)excruciating physical
pain and suffering before his death;(b)severe emotional suffering and mental
anguish, fear, embarrassment, shame, despair, hopelessness, and death;(c)funeral
and burial expenses, all which are recoverable by Mr. Smith's estate, through
16
Plaintiff Lisa Hill as the estate's duly-appointed Personal Representative of the Estate
of Lonnie James Smith, Jr. E.g. Berry v. City ofMuskogee,900 F.2d 1489, 1507
(10th Cir. 1990)(types of appropriate compensatory damages in wrongful death
action under § 1983); see, e.g., Carringer v. Rodgers,331 F.3d 844, 849
(11th Cir. 2003)(policies underlying 42 1.1.S.0 § 1983 in case of wrongful death
require right of recovery for survivors, as well as for damages suffered by decedent);
Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401,409(5th Cir. 1961)(same);see also Gilmere v. City
ofAtlanta, 864 F.2d 734, 739(11th Cir. 1989)(compensatory nature of damages in
wrongful death action under§ 1983).
88. Defendants Harris and Booker's acts and omissions were intentional, malicious,
and/or involved reckless or callous indifference to Lonnie James Smith, Jr. federally
protected rights,justifying an award of punitive damages so as to prevent a
recurrence ofsuch misconduct and to deter others from engaging in similar
misconduct.
89. Alternatively, as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants Harris and Booker's
acts and omissions caused the death of Mr. Smith, rendering Defendants Harris and
Booker liable for punitive damages pursuant to the Code of Alabama§ 6-5-410, as
applied through 42 USC § 1988. See, e.g. Gilmere v. City ofAtlanta, 864 F.2d 734,
739-740 and n.7( 11 th Cir. 1989). See also, Carringer v. Rodgers,331 F.3d 844,849
(11th Cir. 2003)(applying Georgia's wrongful death statue through 1988);
Brazier v. Cherry,293 F.2d 401,409(5th Cir. 19d1)(same).
17
COUNT II
42 U.S.C.§ 1983 - Fourth Amendment
(Use of Excessive Force Ieading to Death Defendant Harris and
Defendant Booker)
90. Plaintiffs asserts and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 89, as though
set out fully herein.
91. Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution, police officers enjoy a
privilege to utilize objectively reasonable force to effect a lawful arrest.
92. To determine "objective reasonableness," while not the determining factor, Courts
may consider state and federal law, and whether the officer acted in accordance with the
policies and training.
93. Alabama state law nor the Fourth Amendment authorizes police officers to use
excessive force while performing discretionary activities.
94. The Alabama Supreme Court has held that, while arrests and attempted arrests are
generally discretionary functions, officers will not be given discretionary-function
immunity when they act without arguable probable cause. See Borders v. City of
Huntsville, 875 So.2d 1168, 1180(Ala. 2003); 1975 Ala. Code 6-5-338.
95. Furthermore, pursuant to 1975 Ala.Code § 13A-3-27, officers are liable if they use
more than a reasonable amount offorce in making an arrest, and citizens are liable ifthey
use more than a reasonable amount offorce in protecting another person.
96. At the time Defendants Harris and Booker confronted Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith was not a
threat or considered a threat to anyone.
97. Alternatively, even if Defendants Harris and Defendant Booker had probable cause to
arrest Mr. Smith, Defendant's Harris and Defendant Booker use ofdeadly force in using
their service weapon to repeatedly shoot at Mr. Smith as he ran away from the officers
18
were each legally unjustified, excessive, and objectively unreasonable.
98. Running away from police does not warrant use ofdeadly force. Even if Defendants
Harris and Booker considered Mr. Smith to be a fleeing felon, use of deadly force was
excessive. See Tennessee v. Garner,471 U.S. 1 (1985) Under U.S. Law the fleeing felon
rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force. The justices held that deadly force "may not
be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to
believe that the suspect poses a significant threat ofdeath or serious bodily harm to the
officer or others. In Tennessee v. Garner, it was found that use ofdeadly force to prevent
escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment,in the absence of
probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.
99. Mr.Smith proceeded to run away from Defendants Harris and Booker,therefore not
posing a threat to either officer when he was shot twice(2)in the back.
100. At the time Defendant Booker fired shots in Mr. Smith back as he proceeded to run
away from officers, an objectively reasonable officer would not have concluded that
Mr. Smith presented as a physical threat to anyone, let alone a deadly threat.
101. Any attempt by Mr. Smith to get away from Defendants Harris and Booker did not
provide legal justification for Defendants Harris and Booker to use deadly force by firing
bullets into Mr. Smith.
102. Therefore the firing of bullets into Mr. Smith's body and fatally injuring him is
excessive and unlawful force.
103. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants Harlis and Booker's conduct, Mr.
Smith suffered humiliation, fear, pain, emotional injuries, physical injuries, and death.
104. Plaintiff Estate seeks declaratory, compensatory, and punitive damages,litigation
19
costs, interest, and any other relief available pursuant to Alabama State law and/or
42 USC § 1983.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. fi 1983 - Fourth / Fourteenth Amendments
Municipal Liability(Monell Claim)
Defendant City of Montgomery and Defendant Finley
105. Plaintiffs asserts and incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104, as
though set out fully herein.
106."Local governing bodies ... Can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary,
declaratory, or injunctive relief where ... the action that is alleged to be
unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or
decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers." Afone11 v. Depl'
ofSoc. Servs.,436 U.S.08,690(1978).
107. In addition, a failure to train may give rise to municipal liability, ifthe failure to
train amounts to "deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the
[ untrained employees]come into contact." Canton v. Harris,489 U.S. 378,388
(1989).
108. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policymaker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley participated in, authorized, and/or acquiesced in
unlawful conduct discussed herein; adopted, implemented, and/or enforced, policies,
practices, and training that did not align with national standards or state and federal
law; and/or failed to adopt, implement, and/or enforce policies practices and training
that comported with the national standards, or state and federal law.
109. The Defendant City of Montgomery,through its final policymaker, Defendant
Finley, and Defendant Finley maintained deficient policies, practices, and training,
20
which were the moving force that resulted in Mr, Smith's constitutional rights being
violated.
110. As a direct and proximate cause ofthe Defendant City of Montgomery and
Defendant Finley conduct, Mr. Smith suffered humiliation, physical injuries,
emotional injuries, pain, fear, and death.
111. Plaintiff's Estate seeks declaratory, compensatory, and punitive damages,
litigation costs, interest, and any other relief available pursuant to Alabama State law
and/or 42 U.S.0 § 1983.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. 1983 - Supervisory and Municipal Liability - Fourth Amendment
(Use of Excessive Force leading to Death
Defendants Finley and City of Montgomery
113. As Chiefof Police, Defendant Finley has final authority and makes policy
for the City of Montgomery. Defendant Finley establishes and implements
policies and/or procedures with respect to field interviews, investigative stops,
searches, frisks or pat-downs, other police-citizen encounters, arrests, and the
use offorce by police against citizens, to include the legal limits ofsuch
activities, for police officers employed by City of Montgomery.
114. As Chiefof Police, Defendant Finley has final authority and makes policy
for the City of Montgomery in establishing mechanisms for reporting specific
actions by City of Montgomery police officers governed by the policies and/or
procedures identified in the preceding paragraph; in monitoring both specific
incidents and patterns ofsuch incidents; in monitoring and enforcing compliance
21
with such policies and procedures; in investigating both specific incidents and
patterns ofsuch incidents; and in imposing discipline for violations ofsuch
policies and procedures.
115. Upon information and belief, as Chiefof Police, and the final policymaker
for the Defendant City of Montgomery as to these matters, Defendant Finley
established and implemented policies and procedures, and/or consented to
existing policies and procedures, regarding field interviews, investigative stops,
searches, frisks or pat-downs, or other police-citizen encounters, arrests, and the
use of force by police against citizens(including both less-lethal and deadly
force), for police officers employed by the City of Montgomery, which the
policies and procedures is a violation of the federal constitutional law.
116. Such policies and procedures which violated federal law, established or
authorized by Defendant Finley and the Defendant City of Montgomery, were
the moving force behind, and directly and proximately caused, the violation a
Mr. Smith's rights and his death. Such policies and procedures render liable
Defendant Finley in his individual capacity, based on his actions ofestablishing
and authorizing those unlawful policies and procedures; and Defendant City of
Montgomery,for having official policies and procedures that themselves violate
federal law.
117. In addition, a failure to train may give rise to municipal liability, if the
failure to train amunts to a "deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with
whom the [untrained employees]come into contact." Canton v. Harris,489, U.S.
378, 388(1989).
22
118. The Defendant City of Montgomery, through its final policymaker,
Defendant Finley, and Defendant Finley maintained deficient policies, practices,
and training, which were the absolute moving force that resulted in Mr. Smith's
constitutional rights being violated.
119. At all times material to this complaint, Defendants Finley and City of
Montgomery have known or have had constructive knowledge of the widespread
and persistent practice of violations, however have refused to take measures
reasonably necessary to prevent or minimize such violations..
120. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Defendants
Finley and the City of Montgomery causing the violation of Mr. Smith Fourth
Amendment rights, Plaintiff Lisa Hill individually has suffered, among other
things, severe emotional distress and mental anguish and other pain and
suffering, lost ofsociety and companionship of her son, all of which suffering,
injuries, and damages will in reasonable probability continue into the future and
for the remainder of the Plaintiff's Lisa Hill life. See e.g. Carringer v Rodgers,
331 F3d. 844,849(11th Cir. 2003)(policies underlying 42 USC §1983 in case of
wrongful death require the right ofrecovery for survivors, as well as for
damages suffered by the victim).
121. The actions and omissions of Defendants Finley and the City of
Montgomery that led to the violations of Mr. Smith's Fourth Amendment rights
directly and proximately caused Mr. Smith to suffer(a)excruciating physical
pain and suffering before his death;(b)severe emotional suffering and mental
anguish, fear, embarrassment,shame, despair, hopelessness, and death;(c)
23
funeral and burial expenses, all which are recoverable by Mr. Smith's estate,
through Plaintiff Lisa Hill as the estate's duly-appointed Personal Representative
of the Estate of Lonnie James Smith, Jr. E.g. Berry v. City ofMuskogee,900 F.2d
1489, 1507 (10th Cir. 1990)(types of appropriate compensatory damages in
wrongful death action under § 1983);see, e.g., Carringer v. Rodgers, 331 F.3d
844,849(11th Cir. 2003)(policies underlying 42 U.S.0§ 1983 in case of
wrongful death require right ofrecovery for survivors, as well as for damages
suffered by decedent); Bra.zier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401,409(5th Cir. 1961)
(same); see also Gilmere v. City ofAtlanta, 8454 F.2d 734,739(11th Cir. 1989)
(compensatory nature of damages in wrongful death action under§ 1983).
122. Alternatively, the actions and omissions of Defendants Finley and the City
of Montgomery directly and proximately caused the death of Mr. Smith,
rendering Defendant Finley and defendant City of Montgomery liable for
punitive damages pursuant to Code ofAlabama 6-5-410, as applied through 42
U.S.C. 1988. See, e.g., Carringer v. Rodgers, 331 F.3d 844,849(11th Cir. 2003)
(policies underlying 42 U.S.0§ 1983 in case of wrongful death require right of
recovery for survivors, as well as for damages suffered by decedent); Brazier v.
Cherry,293 F.2d 401,409(5th Cir. 1961)(same); see also Gilmere v. City of
Atlanta, 864 F.2d 734,739(11th Cir. 1989)(compensatory nature of damages in
wrongful death action under§ 1983).
24
COUNT V
Plaintiff v. All Defendants
Wrongful Death
Pursuant to Alabama Code of§6-5-410
124. There were no actions brought by the decedent on this cause ofaction in his
lifetime, and none have been brought after his death apart from the present
action.
125. Mr. Smith died intestate.
126. Defendant Booker fatally injured Mr. Smith,causing his death.
127. The deficient policies, practices, and training of the Defendant City of
Montgomery,through its final policymaker, Defendant Finley, and Defendant
Finley were the moving force that caused Defendant Booker to unlawfully to
fatally injury Mr. Smith,causing his death.
128. Plaintiff asserts this claim on behalf of herself and all beneficiaries.
129. As a direct and proximate cause ofthe Defendants; wrongful acts, Mr.
Smith suffered an untimely death.
130. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts this claim against the Defendants to recover all
damages permitted by Alabama Code §6-5-410.
WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs respectfully requests thatjudgment be entered in
her favor as follows:
a. That this Court declare that the Defendants' actions violated Mr. Smith's
constitutional rights;
b. Compensatory damages including but not limited to loss of life,
25
companionship,comfort, financial support, and guidance caused by the death;
and the survivor's emotional suffering.
c. Punitive damages (except against The City of Montgomery Monell
claim);
d. Reasonable costs, and
e. Such other financial or equitable relief as is reasonable and just.
VI
TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffrespectfully requests a trial byjury on all claims/issues in this
matter that rnay be tried to a jury.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Ate_xe., DATE: February 19, 2020
Lisa Hill / Pro-Se and as

Personal Representative of the Estate of Lonnie James Smith,Jr.
P.O. Box 250 002
Montgomery,AL 36125
334-467-3341
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DEFENDANTS ARE TO BE PERSONALLY SERVED BY SPECIAL PROCESS

SERVER AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES:
City of Montgomery
c/o Brenda Gale Blalock
City Clerk
City Clerk's Office, City Hall
103 North Perry Street
Montgomery,Alabama 36104
Ernest N. Finley, Jr.

Montgomery Police Department
320 North Ripley Street
Jairus Booker
Paul Harris
Montgomery,Alabama .36104
27
28
Case 2:20-cv-00116-WKW-JTA Document 1-1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFIED
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
THE STATE OF ALABAMA } PROBATE COURT

}
MONTGOMERY COUNTY } CASE NO. 20-00059
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION on the Estate of LONNIE JAMES SMITH, JR., Deceased, are
hereby granted to LISA HILL, who has duly qualified and given bond as Personal Representative,and is
authorized to administer such Estate.
DATED this Sth day of February,2020.
C LOVE, III
Probate Judge, Montgomery County
STATE OF ALABAMA PROBATE COURT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
J C LOVE, Ill, Probate Judge in and for the said County, in said State hereby certify that the
above is a full, true and complete copy of Letters of Administration on the Estate of LONNIE JAMES
SMITH,JR., Deceased,as fully and completely as the same appears of record in this office in Book No..
of Judicial Records, at page
Given under my hand and seal this 5th day of February,2020.
III
BATE JUDGE
To: Relevant City Personnel, State Personnel, and County
Personnel
From: Lisa Bill (Mother) & The Family of Lonnie James Smith Jr.
Case Number: 18-2968# 343
Reason: Issues and Concerns Regarding Investigation and Grand
Jury Proceedings (16 PAGES)

A
Date: February 21, 2019•
With so many inconsistencies, discrepancies, and a poory
investigated scene, how can the case involving my son,
Lonnie JaMes Smith, Jr. be deemed acceptable to present to a grand
jury for deliberation and determination? What is the evidence
in the. case? Can the family review the report and case file
involving the shooting? why was approXimately 5 shots fired by
investigators on the scene right before the conclusion of the

-Atv
investigation on February.21, 2018?_These shots were fired in
the area supposedly Jairus Tiooker fired,his fatal shots. This
information and concerned was provided to Deppty Lloria James
and district attorney Daryl Bailey in the meeting held in August,
2018. Why is the family being directed to other agencies for
answers on a case this office is presenting to a grand jury? The
district attorney's office should have enoUgh information at
this point to answer basic qUestion8 about the. shooting. For
example, the'faMily was directed to.Alabama Department of
Forensic Science to answer whether or not the wounds occurred'

. from the same service we-apon-? -What was the distance between
Lonnie James Srnith, J . and Jarius Booker / J.L. Hooks during
the time of the shooting? The only information provided thus
far are "pieces" of information gathered from the "notes" of
Deputy Lloria James. 1There are also many simple questions in
whieh the family have not been given definitely answers Such as:
Is the officer back working on the force? What were officers
initially looking for immediately following th-e shOoting- in
Mrs. Earnest yard and the side of her house? Where did the gun
come from found -on the scene? Deputy Lloria James advised the
victim's mother she did not know where the gun came from on the
scene during the brief meeting held on February 05, 2019. Why
is there audio of gun shots during the shooting (whiCh sounded
very far off), however there is no audio of any verbal commands
said to be given by the officer seconds before the shooting? Why
has there not been a determination who initiated shots between
the victim and officer. Paul Harris at this time? Why was Free
Will Church allowed to build on the crime scene during an ongOing
investigation? There was blood on the side of the church which
was not reported in SBI report. Why is there no record of witnesses
advising authorities of the victim being shot on the side of the
Free Will Church? Is Jairus Booker the same officer as J.L. Hooks?
The Victim's mother has reported to the District Attorney's
,office that it is very possible Jairus Booker /. J.L Hooks has
2
made contact. with her as a forth of reminder of his actions
involving my son; law officials have advised witnesses to engage
in illegal activity, to include but not limited to, providihg
false s.tatements regarding what was actually witnessed on the
scene; and not to engage in conversations with the Victim's
mother nor father regarding facts pertaining to the case. In
addition, there are witnesses who states Lonnie James Smith, Jr.
was not wounded on Jordan Street, which conflicts with the videos
that has been -clearly modified and edited. The victim's mother,
Lisa Hill, was present when tWo witnesses advised detective J.P.
Wilson of the victim, Lonnie James Smith, Jr. not being shot on
Jordan Street, and the encounter witnessed by themselVeS on
February 21, 2018 involving Mr.

. Smith and officers.
October 1, 2018 would be the first time after my,son's murder
in which videos would be viewed by the family; abobt eight months
a.fter the assassination. After viewing some of the available
videos, there were many questions which went unanswered. Deputy
Lloria James assured the family of having answe.rs at the next
scheduled meeting. However, the next meeting waS no more
informative than the initial meeting In addition, a bails person,
by the name of Ms. Clark attended the meeting on February 5, 2019

to argue with the victim's mother and as a form of intimidation.
During this meeting, Lisa Hill provided detective J.P Wilson with
an additional witness contaCt information; Ann Sledge who
3
resides
Initially caSe number 18-2968# 343 was set fo.r grand jury for
November of 2018. A phone call from deputy Lloria James was
received ori the morning of November 05, 2018 to ultithately
tescheduled grand jury for November •until the week of
February 25, 2019 due to a participating juror's daughter being
married during the week for November's grand jury session
according to Lloria James. Before this phone call concluded to
postpone the grand jury session, a meeting was Scheduled for
Februaty 05, 2019 to review and view additional videoš, ptovide
additional information, and it was understood dase number
18-2698 #343 would be presented tO grand jury the week of
February 25, 2019. As of FebruarY 21, 2019 I, Lisa Hill, has not
received a subpoena, not has relevant key eye witnesses been
interviewed and documented to the case file. (subpoena received
on February 22, 2019 advising grand jury for February 28, 2019)
What also disturbs the family and additional guestiont are:
1) Why is it, key witnesses to the scene and shooting Was "not"
subpoenaed for grand jury and made an official part of the record
for NoVember grand jury date nor for February scheduled g.rand
juty date? Only recently, at the request Of the victim's mother,
Lisa Hill, witnesses who proVided a statement of Mr. Smith not
being shot On Jordan Street was subpoenaed to attend grand itirry
sespion for February 28, 2019. Lonnie Jartes Smith's mother; Lisa
4
Hill, father; Lonnie James Smith,Sr., and brother; LonDale Smith
were the only witnesses known by the family to be subpoenaed for
grand jury on the victims behave. Although Lisa Hill, Lonnie
James Smith Sr., and LonDale Smith loves Lonnie James Smith, Jr.
wholeheartedly, the listed names were not witnesses to the
"actual shooting". The victim's mother and father arrived on the
scene after the officer involved shooting had occurred. We can
speak volumes about the love we share for the Victim, however
this will not provide justice, an accurate account nor fair
analysis of the incident to a grand jury. It troubles the family
the only statements noted mostly, are, statements 'from the
individuals who robbed the victim at gun point seconds prior to
the officer involved shobting and their domestic partners: The
hOodlums which robbed my son on Westcott St. has a known history
of robbery and murder in Montgomery, AL. As a matter of fact,
Quartez Luster was charged with murder as recent as June of
2018( four months following the assault and robbery Of Lonnie
James SMith, Jr.); Radarius Wheat as well as"Tweet" has also been
charged with several violent crimes as well. 2)Was there a
separate investigation performed by the District Attorney's
office? The information received by family appears to be from
an investigation conducted solely by Alabama State Bureau of
Investigation (SBI). The facts and information gathered by SBI
was clearly poorly investigated and examined. In fact, many of
5
the witnesses statements were documented and noted incorrectly,
which is misleading to a grand jury. One ekample includes a
statement provided by Mrs. Earnestine Hardy. The statement
recorded for Mrs. Hardy was noted as the witness seeing Mr. Fred
Sankey on a bike, seeing a black male running "frore police,
hearing gunshots and not witnessing the actual shooting. Tt. is
very important to note, Mrs. Earnestine Hardy is one of the many
witnesses which advised the Victim was not shot on
The reason Mrs. Hardy was unable to witness the shooting was due
to the shooting not occurring on on which t-his
witness resides. Investigators are not clear in the report as
to the reason Mrs. Hardy did not witness the shooting. Again,
Mrs. Hardy did not witness the actual shooting, because the
shooting did not take place on
Mrs. Earnestine Hardy has testimony of the events which took
place as the victim initially enters Jordan Street, while running
frOsi officers, leading up to the momeht he was handcuffed by
police. It was also not noted Mrs. Hardy stated the victim was
coMpliant, his behavior was not threatening, and he did not point
a gun at Jairus Booker / J.L Hooks. Earnestine Hardy explained
the victim did not posed a threat to her, in fact she waS more
concern about the victim's welfare when she stated "that is
someone child." Mrs. Earnestine displayed compassion for the
victim, not fear. Mrs. Hardy states she was instructed by police
6
to go back inside het residence when further attempting to
witness the scene from her front porch, however she continued
to monitor the scene for the sake of the victim. Mrs. Hardy advised
the victim's mother, he was still alive when handcuffed. Ms.
Hardy states she is sure of this because Mr. Smith raised his
head twice. Mrs. Earnestine Hardy resides at
Montgomery, Alabama and states no shots were fired on Jordan
Street.
Sheila Robinson is another witness which provided a statement
of the victim not being wounded nor shot on as the
edited and modified videos suggests. Mrs. Robinson was also not
subpoenaed - to grand jury for November of 2018, and only
subpoenaed for grand jury set for February 28, 2019 after the.
victim's mother, Lisa Hill, requested investigators come and
interview this witness as she holds vety valuable information
regarding the officer involved shooting. Mrs. Sheila Robinson
states she was not fearful of the victim, in fact she made a
request to officers to allow het to pray for Lonnie James Smith,
Jr. Mrs. Robinson also mention she deliberately was attentive
to the -scene assuring the victim was not mistreated by police.
Sheila states she was instructed several times to close her door
and curtains when attempting - to futthet witness the scene.
Sheila Robinson provided a statement of the events as the victim
approaches Jordan Street,while running from officers, to
7
detective J.P. Wilson. Sheila Robinson states when detectiv.e J.P.
Wilson return to obtain a statement, she was asked only three
questions. Sheila Robinson resides at in
Montgomery, Alabama and states no shots weie fired on Jordan
Street.
Serenthia Moore is also another witness to the scene. The
information received by th.is witness is very distUrbing. This
witness explained that an investigator atterripted to have her
provide a false statement of the victim running and shooting
backwards. She- states she explained to this detective, she was
unable tO provide a statement as such, as the events did not take
place. Serenthia also stated she did not initially see a gun on
. Smith. Serenthia Moore

the scene when attempting to approach Mr.
states she was instructed by officers to leave the scene.
According to deputy Llotia James notes, Ms. Moore also stated
she did not see anything in the victim's hand.
Ann Sledge Witness the scene as it pertains to the initial
encounter with the officer known to the family as Paul Harris.
Ms. Sledge states there was shooting between the victim and the
officer on the corner of Stephens Stfeet and Hill Street, • she
was unable to determine who fired initially. The victim
afterwards ran between the church and shots were fired by
officers during the foot pursuit of the vittit between the church.
MS. Sledge states there were several shots fired; officer Pali].
8
Harris did not appear to be wounded when he return to his patrol.
vehicle and made a decision to continue to pursue the victim;
Lonnie James Smith, Jr. Basically officers were running behind
Mr. Smith and shooting between Free Will Church and the community.
Ms. Sledge was never question nor subpoenaed as well. Ann Sledge
resides at in Montgomery, Alabama.
Joanne Steiner is another witness to the initial altercation
with officer Paul Harris and Mr Smith. She advised of the victim,
Lonnie James Smith, Jr., walking down the side walk when
approached by this officer. Mrs. Steiner states she did not feel,
threaten by the victim as he was walking down the side walk and
not harming anyone. She explained there was a brief encounter
in which shots were fired by both the victim and the officer,
she is unable to determine who fired initially. Mrs. Steiner also
mentioned the victim running away ftOm the Officer and shots were
fired while the victim was running away and someone fell. This
witness states she was unable to determine who fell because the
last set of events of this encounter was out of her view. Mrs.
Steiner states officer Paul Harris afterwards return to his
vehicle and continued to pursue the victim; Lonnie James Smith,
Jr. (Why is there no video evidence of this encounter?)Joanne
Steiner lives in Montgomery, Alabama.
There Were three shooting incidents which occurred in west
Montgomery on February 21, 2018. The first incident occurred
9
approximately 12:30 p.m. at 1617 WestOott Street when Radirus
Wheat, Quartez Luster, and an individual by the name of "Tweet"
robbed and assaulted the ViCtirn , Lonnie JaMes Smith, Jr. at gun
point. Shots were fired by Radairus Wheat, Quartez Luster and
"Tweet." The victith also discharge his fire-arm in self defense.
Lonnie James Smith, Jr. has a license to carry a weapon and was
lawfully defending himself. As a result of the fire exchange
between the victim and perpetratorS, Radairus Wheat was shot in
the shoUlderafter the robbery and assault to Lonnie James Smith,
Jr. The victim, Mr. Smith, was able to leave the scene before
being further harmed by the perpetrators: The second altercation
occurred on the corner of Stephens Street and Hill Street where
Pual Harris made contact with Mr. Smith as: he was peacefully
leaving the scene where he- was robbed by the perpetrators. -
Officer Paul Harris approached the fIrst black male in the
community with his service weapon in a threatening manner. Shot-s
were exchanged by the officer and Mr. Smith. It is very possible
Officer Paul Harris shot Mr Smith in his back while running away,
before Mr. Smith was shot in the back by Jairus Booker. It is
also a possibility if indeed Paul Harris was wounded in the foot,
he perhaps wounded himself. It. ia still unclear if Paul Harris
was shot in' the foot or not. It is also untlear if Paul Harris
provided details to Mr. Smith for the reason of the stop, and
whether there was.an aUthOrized and legal arrest progress.
10
The third incident occurred as the victim was running away from
the encounter with officer Paul Harris. This incident included
a foot pursuit which involved mainly Jairus Booker also knoWn
as J.L. Hobks, Paul Harris, Demetrius Huitt(officer in training),
and an unnamed officer(Paul Harris partner on February 21, 2O19).
Accbrding to deputy Lloria James, during this encounter and foot
pursuit fatal shots were fired only by Jairus Booker in
Mr. Smith s back while running astay frOm officers. The current
facts and investigation presented to grand jury should focus
solely on the third incident, specifically, whether Jairus
Booker should be criminally charged for the shooting of Lonnie •
James Smith, Jr., did Jairus Booker reasonably believed an
imminent threat existed during this foot pursuit while Mr.
Smith's back was to the officers, whether Jairus Booker violated
the Rules of Professional Conduct, did Jairus Booker aka J.L
Hooks commit a crime under Alabama Law when firing shots in
Mr. Smith back, and did the this individual reasonab.ly exercise
his officlal powers, duties, or functions when he assassinated
'Lonnie James Smith, Jr: by shooting him twice in the batk while
running away ftot officers: (Any other incidents require a
separate inVestigation and statement .of facts)
There is no rational explanation for Jairus Booker's actions
of running behind Mr. Smith discharging his setvice.weapon in
a populated community with the elderly people and children.
11
Jairus Booker fatally shot Mr. Smith twice in the back, acting
outside the line and scope of his duty, his training, and the
law. Jairus Booker intentionally assaSsinated Lonnie James Smith,
Jr. and put innocent citizens lives in danger by continuing to
pursue Mr. Smith while firing his service weapon in a community.
In addition, Jairus Booker failed to utilized other non-lethal
forces before resulting to gunfire. According to deputy Lloria
James, Jarius Booker was the only officer to fire his weapon,
and;she did not Xrlow the reason why. The fact itself that Jairus
Booker was the only officer on the scene to fire his service weapon
during the foot pursuit, confirms he did not act as any other
reasonable officer would have under the circumstances. There
were many other officers on the scene which engaged in this foot
pursuit of Mr. Smith. Moreover, Jairus Booker reasonableness
inquiry at issue also fails the test due to failing to act "with
due regard for the safety of all persons". Discharging a firearm
flooded with people in the neighborhood during a foot pursuit
is a total disregard for the people in the community and
"conStituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that.
a reasonable person would obserVe in the situation." See Ex parte
Podle, 497 So. 2d 537, 539 -(Ala.Crim.App.1985) Jairus Booker
actions were intentionally, reckless, and considered criminal
negligenCe: This was also not a case of an active shooting scene
when Mr. Smith was approached by PaUl Harris and Jairus Booker
12
while peacefully walking•down the sidewalk. Mr. Smith was leaving
away fram a scene in WhiCh he had been previously robbed and
assaulted. Jarius Booker was not faced with nOr forced to make
a split-second judgment when shooting Mt. Smith. Jairus Booker'
was allotted the time to assess the scene and make better
decisions_ The Code of Alabama subdivision a) of Section 13A-2-5
dictates "A person is criminally liable if the result would not
have occurred but for his conduct, opera-ting either alone or
concurrently with anothet cause, unless the concurrent cause was
sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor
clearly insufficient." In addition, Section 13A-2-3 explains
"the minimum requirement for criminal liability is the
.performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary
act or the omission to perform an act which he is physically
Capable of performing. It that conduct is all that is
required..." (emphasis added). According ta subdivision(C)of
Section-l3A-3-27, "Nothing in subdivision (a)(1) or (b)(1) or
(f)(2) ,constitutes justification for reckless or-criminally
negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting ta an offense
against or with respect to persons being arrested or to innocent'
persons whoM he is not seek-ing tO arrest or retain in custody."
(emphasis added).
The facts in this case does not demonstrate Jairus Booker
reasonably exercised his official powers, duties, or functions
13
during a foot pursuit when he assasSinated Lonnie James Smith,
Jr. With shots to the back. Thete are several witnesses which •
disputes the StateMent of Jairus Booker claims ot MT. Smith
pointing a, gun at him and shooting Mr. Smith on Jordan Street.
FurthermOre, other than only merely stating Mr. Srnith pointed
a gun at hiM, Jai.rus Booker has not been required to prove such
a statement. Informant, Fred Sankey, was recrUited to give a
siMilar statement. Jairus Booker and Fred Sankey's version of
the actual shooting differ greatly to other witnesses who have
nothing to gain or loose with this incident, According to deputy
Lloria James; there is not actual video footage of the actual
shooting. The court stated in Hawkihs 17, City of Greenville, 101
F. Supp. 2d, Police officers' entitlement, under Alabama Statue,
to immunity for force used during course of an arrest could not
be detided oh Motion to Dismiss, given that officets could be
liable if rnore force was used than necessary and if probable cause
for arrest did not exist. It is my opinion every piece of
evidence presented to the family was defebse- of Jairus Boo.k.er.
Most of the questions directed to deputy Lloria James received
answers of "that is to be determine by a jUry." My concerns are
being confident all the evidence is presented to grand jury
correctly and impartially, simply meaning no evidence is b?ing-
withheld. The state has neglected to obtain evidence to defend
Lonnie James Smith, Jr. and present evidence which would possibly
14
hold Jairus Booker for his reckless behavior. Jairus Booker was
not acting in self defense, instead he was the aggressor in this
tragedy.
THE LAST PAGE OF TH S DOCUMENT INCLUDES
WITNESSES NAMES AND ADDRESSESS THE MOTHER,
LISA HILL HAS PROVIDED TO AUTHORITIES FOR
FURTHER INVETIGATION. LISA HILL CAN BE
CONTACTED AT 334-467- 31 IF THERE ARE ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. THIS
DOCUMENT IS 16 PAGES.
*LONNIE JAMES SMITH, JR. WAS NOT SHOT ON
JORDAN STREET AS PROVI DED IN JAIRUS BOOKER
STATEMENT. MRS. HARDY AND MRS. ROBINSON CAN
ATTEST THIS STATEMENT*
Sinceely,
Lisa Hill
15
LIST OF WITNESSES PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED BY LISA HILL TO LLORIA
JAMES & DETECTIVE J.P. WILSON Case Number: 18-2968# 343
1.EARNESTINE HARDY: RESIDES AT IN
MONTGOMERY ALABAMA. MRS. HARDY WITNESS THE INCIDENT AS THE
VICTIM, LONNIE JAMES SMITH, JR. ENTERED JORDAN STREET.
2.SHEILA ROBINSON: RESIDES AT IN
MONTGOMERY ALABAMA. MRS. ROBINSON WITNESS THE INCIDENT AS
THE VICTIM ENTER ONTO JORDAN STREET. HER CONTACT NUMBER
IS 2060.
3: SERENTHIA MOORE: RESIDES ON MS. MOORE
RESIDES ON IN MONTGOMERY ALABAMA. MS. MOORE
IS ABLE TO ACCOUNT TO THE SCENE AFTER MR. SMITH WAS SHOT
AND HANDCUFFED BY OFFICERS. THIS WITNESS EXPLAINS HOW
DETECTIVES ATTEMPTS TO HAVE HER PROVIDE A FALSE STATEMENT
OF EVENTS. SHE CAN BE CONTACTED AT -6151.
4. ANN SLEDGE: RESIDES AT IN MONTGOMERY
ALABAMA. MS. SLEDGE WITNESS THE ALTERCATION WHICH OCCURRED
BETWEEN OFFICER PAUL HARRIS AND MR. SMITH ON STEPHENS
STREET. SHE CAN BE CONTACTED AT -9661.
5. JOANNE STIVER: RESIDES AT MRS.
STIVER WITNESS THE INCIDENT BETWEEN OFFICER PAUL HARRIS
AND LONNIE JAMES SMITH, JR. SHE CAN BE C
8033.
]e257
16
WECTED
Court NaMe: U S DISTRICT COURT - AL/M
Division: 2
Receipt Number: 4602056846
Cashier ID: ImccullO
Transaction Date: 02/20/2020
Payer Nama: LISA HILL
CIVIL FILING FEE
Fôr: LISA HILL
Amount: ' $400.00
CHECK
Check/Money Order Num: 0001239166
Amt Tendered: $400.00
Total Due: 1400.00
Total Tendered: 400.00
Change Amt: 0.00
2:20-cv-0116
Hill v. City of Montgomery et al

Officer Involved Shooting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Officer Involved Shooting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:20-cv-00116-WKW-JTA Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, LISA HILL,individually as the MOTHER of

LONNIE JAMES SMITH,JR.and as the Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF

LONNIE JAMES SMITH, JR., and complains against above-named

I. Nature of Action,Jurisdiction, and Venue

was caused by the actions and omissions of the Defendants.

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.0 § 1983.

pursuant to 28 U.S.0 §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs

claims arising under state law is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1357(a).

4. Defendant City of Montgomery,and upon information and belief, all individual

omissions alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred in Montgomery County,Alabama,

district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(b).

Montgomery County, Alabama. Lisa Hill is the biological mother of

ofthe ESTATE OF LONNIE JAMES SMITH,JR., decedent. Plaintiff brings claims in

Personal Representative of the ESTATE of LONNIE JAMES,JR. pursuant to

incorporated by reference in this Complaint as Exhibit A.

6. Defendant City of Montgomery,Alabama is an incorporated municipality in

Montgomery County,Alabama, located within the Middle District of Alabama.

capacity as a police officer for the City of Montgomery.

capacity as a police officer for the City of Montgomery.

9. Defendant Ernest N. Finley, Jr., upon information and belief, is a resident of

Montgomery County,Alabama, located within the Middle District ofAlabama. He is over

Montgomery Police Department.

under color of state law and authority.

III. Material Facts

A. Lonnie James Smith,Jr.

12. Lonnie James Smith, Jr. was born on 1996.

United States Army.

community as a helpful, and respectful gentleman who stayed to himself.

time he was fatally injured.

Lonnie James Smith, III.

B. Alabama Gun Laws

person has obtained an Alabama Pistol Permit.

his Alabama State law right to carry a concealed handgun.

C. Lonnie James Smith,JR.Is A Victim of A Robbery

2046 Stephens St.in Montgomery,Alabama.

Officers making contact with him on February 21, 2018.

neighborhood as he attempted to enter his vehicle.

robbed him at gunpoint when attempting to enter his vehicle.

soon encounter an incident with Defendant Paul Harris.

D.Paul Harris Confronts Mr.Smith

sidewalk peacefully, and was not considered a threat.

been identified as a suspect to a crime.

presented to be a physical threat to anyone in the community.

of Montgomery Police Departrnent as well. Defendant Harris partner's name was

District Attorney's Office.

not fire any bullets at Mr. Smith.

the altercation as well.

additional bullets at Mr. Smith.

altercation involving Defendant Harris.

of Montgomery police vehicle on Hill St. in Montgomery,AL and began chasing

Demetrius Huitt on February 21, 2018.

during the foot pursuit.

Church, not far from where he took his last breath.

out on the hot pavement, in the full view of the public.

neighborhood repeatedly for a weapon,according to witnesses on the scene.

body after Mr. Smith pointed a gun at him.

during the incident involving Mr. Smith and officers.

56. In addition, according to Deputy Lloria James Defendant Booker handcuffed

Mr. Smith while on the street pavement on Jordan Street.

59. According to ALERRT,an "active shooter" is define as "an individual actively

school or shopping mall.

Smith was "actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people."