Portje Et Al V Sausalito City of Et Al Candce-22-01029 0001.0

Case 3:22-cv-01029 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 51
CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413

1
A. CABRAL BONNER, ESQ. SB# 247528
2 LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
475 GATE FIVE RD, SUITE 211
3 SAUSALITO, CA 94965
TEL: (415) 331-3070
4
FAX: (415) 331-2738
5 charles@bonnerlaw.com
cabral@bonnerlaw.com
6
7 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES D. DRESOW
RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP
8 1101 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901
9 TELEPHONE: (415) 453-9433
FACSIMILE: (415) 453-8269
10 cdresow@rflawllp.com
11
12 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
13
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18
JEREMY PORTJE AND COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
19 AMY PORTJE, VIOLATIONS; ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
20
Plaintiffs,
21 FEDERAL CLAIMS
vs.
22 1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) FIRST
23 CITY OF SAUSALITO, SAUSALITO AMENDMENT-Freedom of Press,
24 POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF JOHN Speech, Retaliation;
ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE DAVIN 2. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
25 ROSE, POLICE OFFICERS’ THOMAS (42 U.S.C. § 1983) FOURTH
GEORGES, SEAN SMAGALSKI, NICK AMENDMENT-False Arrest,
26 WHITE, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Excessive Force, Seizure of
27 Property;
28 Defendants.
JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 1

3. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

1
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) Conspiracy to
2 Interfere with Civil Rights;
3 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Equal Protection;
4
5 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Municipal Liability;
6 6. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
7 (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3));
8 (42 U.S.C. § 1986);
9 (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT)
10 Retention of Property;
9. VIOLATION OF Section 2000aa
11 Privacy Protection Act of 1980
12 STATE CLAIMS
13
10. BANE ACT Cal. Civ. Code Section
14 52.1;
11. RALPH ACT Cal. Civ. Code
15 Section 51.7;
16 12. FALSE ARREST/FALSE
IMPRISONMENT.
17 13. ASSAULT/BATTERY;
14. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
18
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
19 15. NEGLIGENCE;
16. CONVERSION;
20 17. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM;
18. DECLARATORY RELIEF;
21
19. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
22
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RULING, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

1
ACTUAL DAMAGES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES; JURY
2 TRIAL DEMANDED
3
Plaintiffs, JEREMY PORTJE (“MR. PORTJE” “PLAINTIFF’) and AMY PORTJE, by and
4
through undersigned counsel, submits this Complaint against Defendants, THE CITY OF
5
SAUSALITO(“CITY”); THE SAUSALITO POLICE DEPARTMENT (“SPD”); JOHN
6
ROHRBACHER (“CHIEF ROHRBACHER”), Acting Chief of the City of Sausalito Police
7
Department; Sausalito Police Department Officers THOMAS GEORGES, SEAN SMAGALSKI,
8
and NICK WHITE(“DEFENDANT OFFICERS”); Sausalito Police Department DETECTIVE
9
DAVIN ROSE(“DETECTIVE ROSE”); Police Department Police Officers and Officials JOHN
10
DOES 1- 10, whose identities MR. PORTJE anticipates discovering in connection with this action.
11
In support of his claims, MR. PORTJE alleges as follows:
12
13
INTRODUCTION
14
1. The First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and of the press give journalists
15
and citizens the right to take still or moving photographs from locations open to the public of
16
events occurring in public settings, including any related police presence and activity. This well-
17
established legal principle has been recently reaffirmed and strengthened with the passage of
18
California Penal Law 409.7 on October 21, 2021. Such principles and laws exist to curb the
19
unfortunate occurrence that “when wrongdoing is underway, officials have great incentive to
20
blindfold the watchful eyes of the Fourth Estate.” Leigh v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir.
21
2012).
22
2. In too many instances, the police have swept up newsgatherers and photojournalists as part
23
of arrests, typically made without probable cause, for purposes of quelling legitimate protest
24
activity, along with the press’ coverage of it. Journalists covering public demonstrations convened
25
to protest government policies, including public outrage over police misconduct and racial, social
26
and economic injustice have been subjected to arrest, seizures, detention, and physical
27
mistreatment, simply for practicing their profession.
28

1 3. Courts have often had to remind the police that the “right to film government officials,
2 including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic,
3 vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.” Redmond v. San Jose
4 Police Dep't, 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 190087, at *34(N.D.Cal. Nov. 16, 2017), citing, Glik v.
5 Cuniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011). Gathering information about government officials in a
6 form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in
7 protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’ Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S.
8 214, 218 (1966) 1; Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir.1995)(the First Amendment
9 protects the rights to gather information about what public officials do and to record matters of
10 public interest) 2.
11 4. This case involves the unlawful unsolicited provocation, arrest, beating and seizure of
12 photographic equipment, recordings, and media storage of an African American journalist, MR.
13 JEREMY PORTJE, by SPD Defendant Police Officers’ GEORGES, SMAGALSKI, WHITE, and
14 DOES 1-10(“DEFENDANT OFFICERS”) wherein DEFENDANT OFFICERS intentionally and
15 violently suppressed MR. PORTJE from documenting police activity at Sausalito’s Marinship
16 Park, the site of ongoing resistance and protest in response to the CITY OF SAUSALITO and
17 Marin County’s seizure and destruction of anchor-out boats in Richardson Bay.
18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI1kv5BIdM; https://youtu.be/DVtcftDiVYY
19 Such seizure and destruction has resulted in rendering its boat owners homeless and without shelter
20 having taken up temporary residence at Marinship Park. Despite having had countless prior
21
22 1
Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that excluding the media from public fora can have particularly
deleterious effects on the public interest, given journalists' role as "surrogates for the public," Richmond
23 Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73(1980); Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 492(1975)
("without the information provided by the press most of us and many of our representatives would be unable to vote
24 intelligently or to register opinions on the administration of government generally.").
25 2
In fact, the United States Department of Justice has reinforced this by proclaiming, “the right to record police
officers while performing duties in a public place, as well as the right to be protected from the warrantless seizure
26 and destruction of those recordings, are not only required by the Constitution,” they “are consistent with our
fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of our government officers, and instill public confidence
27 in the police officers who serve us daily.” Statement of Interest of the United States, Sharp v. Baltimore City Police
Dep’t, No. 1:11-cv-02888-BEL (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2012) at 1(www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_SOI_1-
28 10-12.pdf)

1 exposure to MR. PORTJE’s ongoing engagement as a journalist when covering the events and
2 ramifications of the CITY and County’s heavy handed campaign against the anchor-out
3 community, DEFENDANT OFFICERS blatantly conspired to silence and ‘black out’ MR.
4 PORTJE’s journalistic coverage by forcefully subjecting him to an intentionally executed
5 provocation purposefully designed to provoke MR. PORTJE’s arrest and thereby excuse for
6 applying excessive force. In connection with MR. PORTJE’s arrest, DEFENDANT OFFICERS
7 seized his video camera and storage media which, despite the District Attorney’s refusal to pursue
8 criminal charges against MR. PORTJE, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and SPD
9 DOES 1-10 joined and ratified DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conspiracy by furthering its ends of
10 incapacitating MR. PORTJE’s ability to perform as a journalist in continuing to expose the CITY
11 OF SAUSALITO’s contribution to the City’s homeless population and otherwise utter disregard
12 for its municipal obligations.
5. In taking these actions, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER,
13
DETECTIVE ROSE and SPD DOES 1-10 consciously and deliberately violated MR. PORTJE’s
14
constitutional and statutory rights by intentionally obstructing his journalistic reporting on official
15
police actions, undertaking an unprovoked and intentionally predetermined physical assault
16
motivated primarily by MR. PORTJE’s race, fabricating criminal charges that were patently
17 rejected by the District Attorneys’ office, conditioning a baseless and unwarranted ten hour
18 detention, ordering a retaliatory retention of his video camera and protected recordings, and
19 subjecting him to defend against a legally deficient and constitutionally infirm search warrant.
20 DEFENDANTS violations of law have not only run roughshod over MR. PORTJE’s constitutional
21 and statutory rights, but have also heavily inflicted upon him physical, emotional and economic
22 damages, as well as conterminous damages to his wife, AMY PORTJE by diminishing her
consortium.
23
24 6. Accordingly, this civil rights action seeks redress for the violation of MR. PORTJE’s rights
25 under the United States and California’s Constitutions and Federal and State law. It challenges the
26 SPD and CITY OF SAUSALITO’s policy, custom and practice of obstructing First, Fourth, and
27 Fourteenth Amendment rights of the press to gather, record, and disseminate news and information
28 about events of public interest and of related police activity in public places. This case presents a

1 blatantly disturbing example of the type of police misconduct directed at journalists that courts,
2 the U.S. Justice Department, and state legislatures have repeatedly condemned.
3
PARTIES
4
5
7. PLAINTIFF JEREMY PORTJE is an independent journalist who, over the past twenty five
6
years, has been covering Marin County and Northern California for, in addition to other outlets,
7
the Marin Independent Journal, Santa Rose Press Democrat, the Associated Press, and the Mercury
8
News and is a resident of Novato, California.
9
8. PLAINTIFF AMY PORTJE is the legal spouse of JEREMY PORTJE and is a resident of
10
Novato, California.
11
9. DEFENDANT JOHN ROHRBACHER is the Acting Chief of Police for the Sausalito
12
Police Department, a position he assumed in 2016 and was at all times herein, Chief of Police for
13
the Sausalito Police Department. ROHRBACHER is responsible in whole and/or part, for
14
promulgating, implementing, and enforcing the policies, practices and/or customs complained of,
15
including but not limited to those that prevented MR. PORTJE from engaging in lawfully protected
16
and peaceful journalistic activity. The actions of the Chief, as final policymaker, as alleged in this
17
Complaint were taken under color of the laws of the state of California. He is sued in his individual
18
capacity.
19
10. DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to
20
the laws of the United States with the authority to sue and be sued. It is authorized by law to
21
maintain a Police Department that acts through its Chief, DEFENDANT JOHN ROHRBACHER,
22
currently serving in an acting capacity, and through the Sausalito Police Department officers and
23
officials that he oversees.
24
11. At all times relevant herein, DEFENDANT CITY OF SAUSALITO among other things
25
was responsible for operation of the Defendant Sausalito Police Department, an agency of the local
26
government, with the City of Sausalito responsible for the policies, procedures, rules, regulations,
27
28

1 and customs set forth and utilized for the supervision of the Sausalito Police Department and all
2 its officers.
3 12. DEFENDANT THOMAS GEORGES at all times relevant to this complaint was a duly
4 appointed police officer with the Sausalito Police Department. holding the rank of Sergeant. His
5 actions alleged in this complaint were taken under color of the laws of the State of California and
6 within the course and scope of his employment. He is sued in his individual capacity.
7 13. DEFENDANT NICK WHITE at all times relevant to this complaint was a duly appointed
8 police officer with the Sausalito Police Department. His actions alleged in this complaint were
9 taken under color of the laws of the State of California and within the course and scope of his
10 employment. He is sued in his individual capacity.
11 14. DEFENDANT SEAN SMAGALSKI at all times relevant to this complaint was a duly
12 appointed police officer with the Sausalito Police Department. His actions alleged in this complaint
13 were taken under color of the laws of the State of California and within the course and scope of
14 his employment. He is sued in his individual capacity.
15 15. DEFENDANT DAVIN ROSE at all times relevant to this complaint was a detective with
16 the Sausalito Police Department. His actions alleged in this complaint were taken under color of
17 the laws of the State of California and within the course and scope of his employment. He is sued
18 in his individual capacity.
19 17. DEFENDANT DOES 1-10, who are sued in their individual and official capacities, are
20 duly licensed police officials, supervisors, and employees of the City of Sausalito and the Sausalito
21 Police Department, and were such at all times relevant herein, and effectuated MR. PORTJE’s
22 arrest and detention, and/or the seizure and/or retention of his personal property and whose liability
23 could include their own culpable action or inaction in, or their acquiescence to, the constitutional
24 deprivations alleged here, and/or in conduct showing a reckless or callous indifference to the rights
25 of MR. PORTJE. MR. PORTJE anticipates learning their identities through discovery in this
26 action.
27 18. MR. PORTJE is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the
28 DEFENDANTS was at all material times an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-

1 conspirator, and/or alter ego of the remaining DEFENDANTS, and in doing the things herein
2 alleged, were acting within the course and scope of that relationship.
3 19. Mr. PORTJE is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the
4 DEFENDANTS herein gave consent, aid, and assistance to each of the remaining DEFENDANTS,
5 and ratified and/or authorized the acts or omissions of each DEFENDANTS as alleged herein,
6 except as may be hereinafter otherwise specifically alleged.
7
8 JURISDICTION & VENUE
9 20. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(a), and the First,
10 Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has subject
11 matter jurisdiction over all federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3), and
12 supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
13 21. All prerequisites to bringing suit, if any, including those imposed by California
14 Government Code, §§ 945.4, 950.6(a), have been satisfied.
15 22. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part
16 of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this District and because a
17 defendant reside in this District.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
18
BACKGROUND
19
20 23. For decades, Sausalito’s Richardson Bay has been the home to not only ‘hippie’ and million
21 dollar houseboats in the marinas but to sailboats and live-aboards anchored out in the midst of the
22 Bay. Residents of these ‘anchored-out’ vessels live a rustic existence that necessitates traveling to
23 and from the bay to the mainland for food, supplies and other basic necessities. While the
24 community of anchored-out vessels have consistently caused the otherwise upscale interests of
25 Sausalito some concern on account of their ‘bohemian’ and ‘lower class’ presentation when
26 considered against Sausalito’s outwardly wealthy and luxurious exterior gloss, the CITY OF
27 SAUSALITO’s (“CITY”) long standing and festering abhorrence of the anchored-out community
28 took an affirmative turn in or around 2021. At that time, the CITY decided that it would begin to

1 actively enforce their intentionally long disregarded regulation requiring boats to move off anchor
2 within 72 hours. Subsequently, the CITY has undertaken efforts to tag the anchored-out vessels
3 threatening to confiscate and destroy them if their owners failed to remove them from their anchors
4 within 10 days. While resistance to the CITY’s enforcement has ensued, many anchor-out residents
5 have been rendered homeless on account of having to abandon their boats while others remain
6 defiant barricading themselves on board their vessels.
7 24. With nowhere left to reside, on or about January 2021, a community of ex-anchor-outs had
8 relocated to Sausalito’s Dunphy Park overlooking Richardson Bay and set up an encampment of
9 tents and other would-be shelters. Thereafter, on or about June 29, 2021, the CITY dismantled that
10 encampment and again with nowhere left to live on account that their homes and community had
11 been confiscated, the anchor-out community moved to Sausalito’s Marinship Park where they
12 presently continue to fight and advocate for their rights.
13 25. On or about, November 30, 2021, MR. PORTJE, a Marin county journalist who had been
14 covering Marin county and the State of California for twenty five years and who has consistently
15 published with such outlets as the Marin Independent Journal, Santa Rose Press Democrat, the
16 Associated Press, and the Mercury News, received a phone call from Timothy Logan, an anchor-
17 out boat owner living at the homeless encampment at Marinship Park whose boat was facing
18 imminent destruction by the CITY. As part of an ongoing documentary film project that was telling
19 the stories of three Marin County residents experiencing homelessness in the County, MR.
20 PORTJE was capturing documentary footage of Mr. Logan’s navigation into homelessness in
21 Sausalito on account of the CITY’s eviction of anchor out boat owners in Richardson Bay.
22 26. MR. PORTJE gathered up his video recording gear consisting of his Canon C300 Mark 2
23 video camera, zoom lenses, tripod, extended batteries, SD storage cards, wireless receiver, and
24 lavalier microphones and proceeded to meet Mr. Logan at Sausalito’s Army Corp Debris Yard,
25 the site of Sausalito’s campaign of crushing and destroying the confiscated anchor-out boats. Such
26 footage was integral in telling Timothy Logan’s story of the CITY’s complicity in rendering him
27 homeless.
28

1 27. Ever since the anchor-out community was rendered homeless on account of the CITY’s
2 uncompromising policy of eviction and confiscation of the anchor-out community’s boats and
3 vessels, the community has been staging demonstrations and engaging in advocacy for their cause
4 from their temporary encampment at Marinship Park. In covering this issue, both for his
5 documentary as well as for various news outlets in Marin County, MR. PORTJE has reported from
6 Marinship Park on many occasions.
7 28. At approximately 4:30 p.m., Timothy Logan and MR. PORTJE, with camera at hand,
8 arrived at Sausalito’s Army Corp Debris Yard and upon Mr. Logan’s request to access the yard
9 and attempt to legally forestall the destruction of his boat, the Debris Yard’s officials barred both
10 MR. PORTJE and Mr. Logan’s entry.
11 29. Thereafter, in walking over to Marinship Park which is in close proximity to the Debris
12 Yard and hearing screaming and yelling, MR. PORTJE and Mr. Logan observed ongoing police
13 activity at the park. As part of his journalistic coverage of the unfolding events with the anchor-
14 out homeless community and its resulting adverse relationship with the CITY and the SPD, MR.
15 PORTJE assembled his camera and tripod in order to record the police’s activity and unfolding
16 events.
17 30. Throughout his twenty-five years of journalistic reporting at the site of law enforcement
18 activities, MR. PORTJE held a firm understanding as a journalist of where to position himself to
19 both respect law enforcements’ required perimeter and provide for his own safety. As police
20 presence at the park involved an encampment member whose story MR. PORTJE had been
21 previously following, MR. PORTJE directed his camera at law enforcement while they were
22 engaging with that member. MR. PORTJE moved throughout the area capturing footage from
23 different locations and angles while safely and respectfully keeping his distance from law
24 enforcement’s activities. Without any reason to admonish or redirect MR. PORTJE’s position or
25 location, DEFENDANT OFFICERS made no contact with MR. PORTJE. This was especially the
26 case given that DEFENDANT OFFICERS were well familiar with MR. PORTJE’s journalistic
27 presence as they had observed him on more than several occasions at protests and other events in
28 relation to the anchor-out community, as well as other ensuing homeless issues in the CITY.

1 31. In fact, MR. PORTJE had many previous positive encounters with OFFICER WHITE and
2 cordial respectful encounters with OFFICER SMAGALSKI having been present along with other
3 members of the media at events and/or law enforcement calls where the two officers were
4 undertaking their duties. Both OFFICERS WHITE and SMAGALSKI were thereby well apprised
5 of MR. PORTJE’s status as a journalist, particularly given that MR. PORTJE was arguably the
6 only African American journalist in Marin County and one who consistently covered Marin and
7 Sonoma Counties on issues of homelessness, poverty and mental health. MR. PORTJE however
8 kept his distance from SERGEANT GEORGES having been apprised of SERGEANT GEORGES
9 racially insensitive and intolerant sentiments and proclivities as exhibited and directed towards
10 people of color in and among the homeless community.
11 32. Given his otherwise cordial relationship with OFFICERS’ WHITE and SMAGALSKI, at
12 some point after the events on that early evening quieted down, MR. PORTJE walked over to
13 OFFICER SMAGALSKI and engaged him in an amicable conversation with respect to a prior
14 incident involving the towing of another homeless person’s vehicle in Sausalito. MR. PORTJE has
15 preciously covered the towing as a news item pertaining to homelessness in the CITY. In
16 discussing the equitableness of the OFFICER SMAGALSKI’s decision, the conversation led to
17 political ideology wherein MR. PORTJE politely asked OFFICER SMAGALSKI if he supported
18 or was a member of the Oathkeepers, an organization comprised of former and furtively current
19 military and law enforcement members who claim to defend the U.S. Constitution and who were
20 integral in assisting in opposing the Black Lives Matter protests after the murder of George Floyd.
21 OFFICER SMAGALSKI expressed annoyance at MR. PORTJE’s accusation and exposure of law
22 enforcements complicity with such white supremacist organizations.
23 33. Nevertheless, having been on the scene for approximately one hour moving in and around
24 the location capturing footage of DEFENDANT OFFICERS and their interaction with the
25 encampment members without a single instance of DEFENDANT OFFICERS questioning MR.
26 PORTJE’s intention or ordering him to stop filming and/or to move his location, MR. PORTJE
27 withdrew some 100 yards away to capture a long shot and obtain a moment of calm and silence.
28

1 34. While looking through both his zoom lens and with unmediated sight, MR. PORTJE noted
2 DEFENDANT OFFICERS huddled together in front of their squad car looking over and pointing
3 in his direction.
4 35. Soon thereafter, DEFENDANT OFFICERS broke their huddle with OFFICER GEORGES
5 setting off determinedly in a straight line in MR. PORTJE’s direction. Observing that OFFICER
6 GEORGES was approaching him with an officious and aggressive gate, as well as with a facial
7 expression projecting anger and belligerence, MR. PORTJE was confused as why OFFICER
8 GEORGES was approaching him with such a demeanor, as he had done nothing to upset
9 DEFENDANT OFFICERS. MR. PORTJE was reasonably fearful, as an armed Caucasian police
10 officer with a gun was approaching him, an African American man, with rage upon his face.
11 36. Upon reaching the location of MR. PORTJE’s camera and tripod, OFFICER GEORGES
12 turned his back towards MR. PORTJE and his camera with a firmly communicated intention of
13 blocking the camera’s lens and thus ‘shuttering’ the camera’s ability to capture footage. OFFICER
14 GEORGE pushed his back against the camera lens prompting MR. PORTJE to exclaim, “what’s
15 going on. What are you doing, Officer? OFFICER GEORGES failed to answer, smirking and
16 chewing his gum.
17 37. With extreme bafflement and fear for his safety and the safety of his camera, as well as
18 trying to avoid OFFICER GEORGES obvious and transparent provocation and incitement to elicit
19 a physical response from MR. PORTJE, MR. PORTJE lifted his camera and tripod and moved it
20 to the left in order to free himself and the camera from the backward pressure exerted by OFFICER
21 GEORGES.
22 38. In response to MR. PORTJE’s stepping away and to the side of OFFICER GEORGES,
23 OFFICER GEORGE also took a step to the left in order to resume blocking and pushing against
24 MR. PORTJE’s camera. MR. PORTJE again asked OFFICER GEORGE “why are you doing
25 this?” Again, OFFICER GEORGES was silent while his intention of provoking MR. PORTJE into
26 an altercation was being clearly physically communicated. MR. PORTJE again responded by
27 lifting his camera and tripod and stepping to the right to again, free himself and the camera lens
28 from being blocked by OFFICER GEORGES.

1 39. After completing this absurd ‘dance’ of provocation, OFFICER GEORGES turned and
2 positioned himself to the front and side of MR. PORTJE, pressing his body against MR. PORTJE
3 who exclaimed, “why are you doing this…there’s no reason to stand next to me and watch me
4 shooting.”
5 40. In response, OFFICER GEORGES turned full frontal and directly lunged at MR. PORTJE,
6 who responded by grabbing hold of his tripod and back peddled a few steps. In lunging at MR.
7 PORTJE and grabbing onto the camera’s tripod, OFFICER GEORGES struck his face against the
8 camera causing a laceration. Simultaneously, OFFICER GEORGE reached up and grabbed MR.
9 PORTJE’s dreadlocks and began throwing punches, yelling, “stop resisting.’ Immediately,
10 OFFICERS’ WHITE and SMAGALSKI arrived with one of the two Officers or DOES 1-10
11 commanding and reassuring MR. PORTJE to let go of his camera as the officer had a hold of it.
12 Thereafter, OFFICER GEORGES moved behind MR. PORTJE and applied a shoulder lock
13 maneuver shouting, “stop resisting” to which MR. PORTJE replied, “I’m not resisting…you’re
14 not ordering me what to do?
15 41. In response to OFFICER GEORGES’ applying upward pressure on the shoulder lock
16 tearing into his rotator cuff, MR. PORTJE immediately dropped to his knees. With two of the
17 DEFENDANT OFFICERS by his side and the other behind him applying the shoulder lock, MR.
18 PORTJE was on his knees firmly subdued.
19 42. By this time, a crowd from the encampment stood by filming and berating DEFENDANT
20 OFFICERS for attacking an innocent journalist. MR. PORTJE spoke to the crowd questioning the
21 reasonableness of DEFENDANT OFFICER’s provocation and attack. In speaking to the crowd,
22 for some reason, OFFICER GEORGES, or whomever was behind him at that point, released the
23 shoulder lock permitting MR. PORTJE to move his arms and hands in front him which allowed
24 him to gesticulate with his words. Thereafter, OFFICER GEORGES or whomever was behind
25 him, reclaimed MR. PORTJE’s arms and placed them behind him, reapplying the shoulder lock.
26 This release of MR. PORTJE’s arms occurred a second time allowing for MR. PORTJE to
27 gesticulate a second time when further addressing the crowd by calling out DEFENDANT
28

1 OFFICERS’ intentional provocation and blatant violation of his First Amendment rights as a
2 journalist.
3 43. After allowing MR. PORTJE to sit on his knees in full display of the encampment as a
4 clear and unequivocal warning to them, as well as striking an all too frequent pose of an African
5 American defendant seized by a cadre of Caucasian police(clearly the modern embodiment of the
6 gruesome history of slave catchers in the South), DEFENDANT OFFICERS firmly applied two
7 sets of handcuffs on MR. PORTJE and after lifting him to his feet, paraded him to the squad car.
8 44. While walking, MR. PORTJE again asked in bewilderment, “what’s going on. Am I going
9 to jail, am I under arrest?” Concerned with his camera, he asked the OFFICERS what will happen
10 to which they replied, “it will be going with you. You’ll be able to retrieve it after.”
11 45. With excruciating pain in his shoulder, MR. PORTJE was placed in DEFENDANT
12 OFFICERS’ squad car and after fifteen minutes, drove to the SPD’s stationhouse. In complaining
13 about the pain to his shoulder and his wrists on account of the tightness of the handcuffs, OFFICER
14 WHITE loosened the cuffs and apprised him that they would be going to the hospital shortly.
15 46. While at the SPD stationhouse, CHIEF ROHRBACHER was actively engaged in MR.
16 PORTJE’s processing having first stood guard over him while OFFICER GEORGES prepared to
17 compile the arrest paperwork, and thereafter assisting OFFICER GEORGES with preparing that
18 paperwork.
19 47. CHIEF ROHRBACHER was well acquainted with MR. PORTJE having fielded questions
20 from MR. PORTJE as part of media press conferences and interactions as a representative of the
21 press on more than several occasions. As MR. PORTJE is the only African American journalist
22 covering the City of Sausalito, CHIEF ROHRBACHER was all too familiar with MR. PORTJE
23 and upon his arrest, which he had reason to know was without probable cause, took no remediative
24 action but rather ratified and thereby, perpetuated and joined the conspiracy that his DEFENDANT
25 OFFICERS had undertaken with the sole aim of silencing MR. PORTJE’s journalist rights and
26 privileges.
27 48. After processing his arrest, OFFICER WHITE took MR. PORTJE to Marin General
28 hospital’s emergency room to determine the extent of the injuries that DEFENDANT OFFICERS

1 inflicted upon him. At the hospital, MR. PORTJE necessitated assistance in removing his shirt on
2 account of the severity of pain he experienced in his shoulder. Although x-rays revealed that there
3 had existed no fracture, MR. PORTJE’s rotator cuff was severally injured.
4 49. After arriving at the Marin County Courthouse, MR. PORTJE was charged with crimes
5 whose specificity was not revealed to him, while additionally required to post a bail amount of
6 $15,000 despite having not appeared before a judge. At approximately 12:00 a.m., MR. PORTJE
7 called his now panicking spouse, Plaintiff AMY PORTJE and informed her of the events that
8 transpired as well requesting assistance in contacting a bailbondsman in order to post bail.
9 50. At approximately 1:30 a.m., AMY PORTJE arrived at the Marin County Courthouse to
10 pick up her spouse, MR. PORTJE to place an end, at least for the moment, to the horrendous
11 nightmare that MR. PORTJE had been subjected to at the hands of DEFENDANTS. Despite
12 requesting the return of his camera and video equipment, DEFENDANT DOES 1-10 refused
13 stating that it was being held as ‘evidence.’ MR. PORTJE was charged with two misdemeanor
14 counts of battery and one felony count of obstructing an executive officer.
15 51. Thereafter, on account of the abuses sustained at the hands of DEFENDANTS, MR.
16 PORTJE, in addition to experiencing severe and unceasing chronic pain in his shoulder, also
17 exhibited symptoms reflective of severe depression including excessive sleep(18 hours per day),
18 lack of appetite, unreasonable fear of police reprisals, apprehension and anxiety spurred on by
19 passing police sirens and police vehicles, and an overall depletion of interest and energy in
20 engaging in his journalistic pursuits.
21 52. MR. PORTJE additional incurred extensive financial hardship on account of the injuries
22 he sustained including the inability to earn income from his images as his camera and video and
23 still footage had been unreasonably withheld by DEFENDANTS. As such, MR. PORTJE has been
24 forced to seek rental assistance and other forms of assistance to survive. MR. PORTJE has also
25 faced reprisals and threats having received death threats on his life from police supporters for being
26 a ‘cop hater,’ as well as being lambasted in the press by adversaries on the Novato Police Advisory
27 Board who have sought his removal as vice chair of the Board.
28

1 53. On or about December 7, 2020, after learning of MR. PORTJE’s arrest and SPD’s intention
2 of seeking a search warrant, David Snyder, Executive Director of the First Amendment Coalition
3 sent a letter to the CITY’s Mayor Jill Hoffman, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and Marin County
4 District Attorney Lori Frugoli, informing them that California law strictly prohibited law
5 enforcement from using search warrants to review journalists’ unpublished materials. The six-page
6 letter also asserted that the police violated the California Shield Law protecting journalists, the
7 First Amendment and the Federal Privacy Protection Act, in seizing MR. PORTJE’s camera and
8 media storage during his arrest and refusing to return it upon his release. The letter informed them
9 that California Penal Code § 1524(g) prohibits the issuance of a warrant for information protected
10 under California’s journalist Shield Law which is enshrined in the California Constitution, Art. I,
11 Sec. 2(b). California’s Shield Law protects journalists from being held in contempt of court if they
12 refuse to reveal “unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or
13 processing of information or communication to the public.”
14 54. Despite such law prohibiting the issuance of a warrant for ‘unpublished information’
15 against a journalist, on or about December 9, 2021, SPD Detective DAVIN ROSE sought a search
16 warrant seeking permission to allow police to review materials stored on MR. PORTJE’s camera,
17 two memory cards, and an iPhone confiscated from MR. PORTJE during his arrest. As grounds
18 for their warrant, DETECTIVE ROSE and the SPD relied upon the unsubstantiated ruse of
19 investigating whether MR. PORTJE was a part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. Upon
20 information and belief, CHIEF ROHRBACHER ordered and expressly ratified such blatant
21 disregard of rights afforded MR. PORTJE as a journalist under state, federal and constitutional
22 law. On Dec. 9, 2021 Marin County Superior Court Judge Mark Talamantes approved the search
23 warrant. On or about Dec. 13, 2021, DETECTIVE ROSE sent a letter to MR. PORTJE informing
24 him of the issued warrant and that MR. PORTJE’s camera and storage cards had indeed been
25 searched.
26 55. On or about Dec. 17, 2021, District Attorney Lori Frugoli postponed MR. PORTJE’s
27 arraignment scheduled for Dec. 20, 2021 on account of a ‘pending investigation.’ In response, MR.
28 PORTJE’s defense counsel, Charles Dresow sent a letter to DA Frugoli informing her that MR.

1 PORTJE was intending to file a Motion to Quash the SPD’s warrant on account of well established
2 journalist privileges protected under state, federal and constitutional law.
3 DA Frugoli responded the following day that the evidence had not been reviewed and that no
4 action regarding the evidence would be taken until further notice from her office. However,
5 attached to DA Frugoli’s Dec. 21, 2021 letter was memo from an investigator at the Northern
6 California Computer Crimes Task Force indicating the contents of the cell phone had been
7 downloaded onto his computer, though no one had viewed the data from any of MR. PORTJE’s
8 devices. This affirmation however was expressly contradicted by DETECTIVE ROSE’s letter of
9 Dec. 13, 2021 wherein DETECTIVE ROSE informed MR. PORTJE that his camera and storage
10 cards had indeed been searched!
11 56. On or about December 27, 2021, MR. PORTJE’s defense counsel filed a Motion to Quash
12 SPD’s warrant raising inadequacies with respect to the contents of the warrant itself, prohibition
13 against disclosure supported by California’s Shield Law, violation of precedent underlying Press
14 freedoms and rights under the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution, and violations of both the
15 Reporter’s Privilege recognized under the California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 2(a) and the Federal
16 Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 2000aa et seq.
17 57. Immediately thereafter and in response, the District Attorneys’ office dropped its three
18 charges against MR. PORTJE. Incensed at D.A. Frugoli’s dropping the charges against MR.
19 PORTJE, CHIEF ROHRBACHER issued a statement pronouncing, “I am disappointed to learn
20 that the Marin County District Attorney has decided not to file charges against a man accused of
21 striking a police officer with his camera…I am concerned that the DA’s decision will encourage
22 the continuing aggressive behavior of Jeremy Portje toward police.”
23 58. MR. PORTJE’s Motion to Quash was heard by Superior Court judge Geoffrey Howard
24 on Dec. 29, 2021 wherein Judge Howard ordered the two parties to draft a stipulation to return
25 MR. PORTJE’s camera, media memory cards, and IPhone and that any copies made therefrom by
26 the SPD must be destroyed and erased. The stipulation was signed by Judge Howard on January
27 18, 2022 allowing for MR. PORTJE to reclaim his damaged camera and memory cards.
28

1 59. Thus, as inferred from the above narrative of events, DEFENDANTS illegal conduct
2 toward MR. PORTJE, both with respect to obstructing MR. PORTJE’s engagement in journalistic
3 newsgathering on a matter of public concern, as well as subjecting him to an intentionally
4 calculated and unprovoked violent assault, arrest, detention, and property confiscation of his
5 constitutionally protected journalistic work product, resulted from SPD policies and/or customs
6 that patently disregarded the clearly established rights afforded journalists like MR. PORTJE.
7 60. Such policies and customs blatantly reflect the CITY, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and SPD’s
8 indifference and ratification of (1) misconduct by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 with
9 respect to their engagement with journalists in the field, as well as the mishandling of journalistic
10 workproduct thereafter; (2) misconduct by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and other SPD officers with
11 respect to their engagement with African American journalists in the field and (3) failures of
12 training and supervision to require police officers to follow the law and established departmental
13 policies.
14 61. Primarily, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE, and DEFENDANT OFFICERS
15 and DOES 1-10’s treatment of MR. PORTJE was in clear violation of SPD Policy section 322.1
16 which provide guidelines, albeit rather broad and amorphous, for media access to police activity.
17 See SPD Policy Manual. https://www.sausalito.gov/home/showdocument?id=27354.
18 62. SPD Policy 322.3 requires that ‘authorized’ members of the media producing ‘valid press
19 credentials worn in areas otherwise closed to the public’ shall be provided access to scenes of
20 disasters, criminal investigations, emergencies and other law enforcement activities and that
21 reasonable effort[s] should be made to provide a safe staging area for the media that is near the
22 incident and that will not interfere with emergency or criminal investigation operations. SPD
23 Policy 322.3(2)(1).
24 63. Additionally, SPD Policy 322.1 et seq was not only patently disregarded with respect to
25 how DEFENDANT OFFICERS handled MR. PORTJE’s coverage of the November 30, 2021
26 events at Marinship Park, but that, as drafted, the policy itself was facially deficient and well out
27 of compliance with Section two of California Penal Law 409.7 signed into law on or about October
28

1 21, 2021 and thus applicable to DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ encounter with MR. PORTJE on
2 November 30, 2021.
3 64. California Penal Law 409.7 prevents police from blocking journalists covering events
4 wherein “individuals are engaged in activity that is protected pursuant to the First Amendment to
5 the United States Constitution or Article I of the California Constitution” Section 509.7(a)(1) and
6 ensures that reporters can be in these areas without being arrested. Section 509.7(a)(3). The law
7 expressly prohibits police from “intentionally assaulting, interfering with, or obstructing”
8 journalist’s news gathering. Section 509.7(a)(2).
9 65. As such, not only had DEFENDANT OFFICERS patently disregarded their own internal
10 SPD journalist policies, but even more egregious, they violated Penal Law 409.7 et seq., which
11 was in full force and effect on November 30, 2021, the date of DEFENDANT OFFICER’s
12 encounter with MR. PORTJE.
13 66. Additionally, DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conduct directed at MR. PORTJE was by no
14 means motivated by MR. PORTJE interfering with DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ police activities
15 on the scene, intrusion upon and within DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ police perimeter, refusal to
16 comply with DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ orders or commands, inciting and/or provoking
17 DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ with obscenities or criticisms, or any other reasonable basis but rather
18 plainly that MR. PORTJE was an African American journalist who had been actively covering the
19 plight and protests of Sausalito’s anchor-out community who were unceremoniously forced into
20 homelessness in one of the wealthiest cities in Marin County. As a continuous presence at police
21 encounters involving DEFENDANT OFFICERS, MR. PORTJE, an articulate and professional
22 African American journalist was simply too much for DEFENDANT OFFICERS to bear.
23 67. Thus, in blatant violation of SPD policy, as well as of state, federal and constitutional law,
24 DEFENDANT OFFICERS and CHIEF ROHRBACHER conspired to teach MR. PORTJE a lesson
25 and put him in his place, as the ‘uppity black man’ that he was, by conspiring to blatantly violate
26 his journalistic rights, as well as to incite and provoke a physical response in order instill a beating
27 and prosecution designed to silence his spirit and journalistic advocacy for the disempowered in
28 the City of Sausalito.

1 68. Thus, on or about November 30, 2021, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, without any
2 reasonable, lawful, or evidentially supportable rationale for asserting any suspicion or probable
3 cause that MR. PORTJE had violated any policy, regulation, or criminal law, made a conscious
4 and intentional decision to obstruct his newsgathering activities and provoke and incite a physical
5 altercation with DEFENDANT OFFICERS in order to provide a justifiable excuse for
6 DEFENDANT OFFICERS to effectuate a physical beating, i.e., “horse whipping” and thereafter
7 charges sufficient for an arrest and prosecution. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT
8 OFFICERS conspired to undertake such action based predominantly upon MR. PORTJE’s race.
9 69. Despite SPD policy and CITY resolutions 3 prohibiting treating citizens differently on
10 account of their race, as well as federal state and constitutional law vehemently prohibiting such
11 conduct, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DET. ROSE and DOES 1-10
12 relied upon MR. PORTJE’s race as a motivating factor in (1) disregarding and violating MR.
13 PORTJE’s rights as a journalist; (2) inciting and provoking MR. PORTJE to physically push or
14 strike DEFENDANT OFFICERS in order to substantiate an excuse for a beating and subsequent
15 charges for an arrest; (3) effectuating an arrest; (3) placing him in custody; (4) detaining him prior
16 to arraignment; (5) retaining his camera, video footage, and smart phone; and (6) seeking a search
17 warrant to review his constitutionally protected unpublished journalistic work product.
18 70. Here, MR. PORTJE was subjected to a similar response as had African American CNN
19 journalist Omar Jiminez who, in 2020 was arrested in Minneapolis during protests against the
20 murder of George Floyd where Jiminez was arrested while his white CNN colleague reporter, Josh
21 Campbell standing in the same location was free to remain on the scene. 4 Here, in light of the
22 plethora of clearly established protections afforded journalists that were well acknowledged and
23 disseminated throughout the SPD, a strong inference exists that DEFENDANT OFFICERS’
24 motivation for patently disregarding MR. PORTJE’s journalistic privilege by inciting and
25 provoking him to physically respond to OFFICER GEORGES provocation, and thereafter,
26
3
On July 7, 2020, The CITY OF SAUSALITO passed Resolution No. 5957 condemning, among other things,
27 systemic and institutional racism and pledged to take affirmative steps to address the on-going abuses and violations
of equal protection directed at the African American community. See,
28 https://www.sausalito.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=29079
4
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cnn-reporting-crew-arrested-camera-police-minneapolis-n1217651

1 effectuating his beating, arrest, detention, and retention of property was based primarily on MR.
2 PORTJE’s race.
3 71. DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conduct and CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10’s
4 assent and facilitation thereof was in patent violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth
5 Amendments of the US Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution.
6 72. CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-10 similarly turned an
7 intentionally blind eye to their requirements under Federal and State law which expressly required
8 them to respect journalistic work product by prohibiting such from being subject to a search
9 warrant. Specifically, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIV ROSE and DOES 1-10 customarily
10 ignored and disregarded California’s Shield Law, Cal. Constitution Art. I, Sect. 2(b) 5, the
11 Reporter’s Privilege, Cal. Constitution Art. I, Sec. 2(a) 6, the Federal Privacy Protection Act 42
12 USC 2000aa et seq. 7, and press freedoms and rights under the First Amendment to the U.S
13 Constitution.
14 73. Thus, at the time of MR. PORTJE’s unlawful arrest, as well as the subsequent deprivations
15 he incurred therefrom, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DET. ROSE and
16 SPD DOE Officials failed to apply and respect the forementioned rights, laws, and SPD policies.
17 74. On information and belief, and based upon strong inferences of how DEFENDANT
18 OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DET. ROSE and DOES 1-10 patently ignored SPD policies
19 and State, Federal, and constitutional law, the CITY OF SAUSALITO, at all times relevant to this
20 complaint, has had a policy, custom and practice of failing to supervise and discipline officers who
21
22 5
The Shield Law provides that a journalist “shall not be adjudged in contempt .... for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for
23 communication to the public.” Cal. Const., Art. I § 2(b); Evid. Code § 1070.
24 6
The Reporter’s Privilege, as grounded in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2(a)
of the state constitution prohibits compelled disclosure of unpublished editorial information deriving from
25 confidential sources. The privilege applies to all individuals who “gather, select, and prepare, for purposes of
publication to a mass audience, information about current events of interest and concern to that audience.”
26
27 7
Federal Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 2000aa et seq. prohibits law enforcement from seizing "any work product
materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper,
28 book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication.”

1 (1) subject its citizens to provocation and incitement to engage in conduct that would lead them
2 to arrest and/or incur excessive force, (2) effectuate an arrest without probable cause, and (3)
3 obstruct and prevent members of the press and public from recording public events and associated
4 police activity conducted in public view. In addition, the CITY’s failure to supervise and discipline
5 officers who engage in the above conduct when such conduct is substantially motivated and
6 directed at a citizen based on a protected category such as race.
7 75. Similarly, based upon the same strong inferences of how both DEFENDANT OFFICERS,
8 CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-10 patently disregarded SPD policies
9 and state, federal, and constitutional law, the CITY failed to either provide or enforce training for
10 its officers of (1) the unlawfulness of a police officer inciting and provoking a citizen to engage in
11 conduct that subjects him or her to arrest and/or incurring excessive force, (2) how First
12 Amendment rights pertain to the press and public’s ability to record public events and associated
13 police activity taking place in public locations, and (3) the rights held in implements and outputs,
14 i.e., camera, digital storage media, of First Amendment activity. In addition, the CITY failed to
15 provide or enforce training as to the unlawfulness of engaging in the above conduct when such
16 conduct is substantially motivated and directed at a citizen based on a protected category such as
17 race.
18 76. Upon information and belief, current training of SPD officers continues to be insufficient
19 to put an end to these ongoing constitutional violations, and it is reasonable to expect the
20 aforementioned violations to reoccur.
21 78. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the CITY and SPD have also failed to train its
22 police recruits and active-duty officers that, according to its own general orders in the SPD Patrol
23 Guide and under Federal and California law, members of the media may not be excluded from
24 areas open to the general public, and that officers may not detain, arrest or retaliate against
25 individuals for filming or photographing police activity in public.
26 79. Upon information and belief, repeated failure to supervise and discipline illustrates the
27 CITY and the SPD’s deliberate indifference to the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
28

1 of the press and public to be free from false arrest and the unimpeded ability to conduct journalistic
2 activities including the recording of police conduct in public.
3 80. The CITY and SPD’s policy of retaining press-member MR. PORTJE’s camera and storage
4 media post-release and seeking a search warrant to investigate its contents shows deliberate
5 indifference to First Amendment rights and the exercising of First Amendment activity.
6 81. The constitutional violations MR. PORTJE suffered at the hands of SPD, DEFENDANT
7 OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-10 were caused by (a)
8 the CITY’s unconstitutional practices and policies; (b) the CITY’s failure to provide and/or enforce
9 training to its officers of: (1) the unlawfulness of a police officer inciting and provoking a journalist
10 and/or citizen to engage in conduct that subjects him or her to arrest and/or excessive force, as well
11 as (2) the First Amendment rights of journalists to record public events and associated police
12 activity from public locations, and (3) the rights held in cameras, phones and storage units as
13 appendages of First Amendment activity; and (c) the CITY’s failure to supervise and discipline
14 officers to prevent them from (1) engaging in unlawful and unconstitutional conduct of inciting
15 and provoking a journalist and/or citizen to engage in conduct that subjects him or her to arrest
16 and/or excessive force and (2) improperly and unlawfully obstructing and/or preventing journalists
17 and individuals from recording public events and associated police activity in public locations. In
18 addition, the CITY’s failure to provide or enforce training as the unlawfulness of engaging in the
19 above conduct when such conduct is substantially motivated and directed at a citizen based on a
20 protected category such as race.
21 82. DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-
22 10 callously disregarded MR. PORTJE’s rights – and their own sworn obligation to uphold the
23 law – and knowingly deprived him of his First Amendment rights as a journalist, as well as his
24 rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
25 83. As a direct result of the illegal arrest, seizure, and refusal to return his camera and video
26 equipment, MR. PORTJE has been forced to forego journalistic assignments and/or the ability to
27 sell still photographs or video footage on account that he is without his camera and media. All of
28

1 these disruptions directly affected MR. PORTJE’s income as a freelance journalist and infringed
2 upon his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
3 84. As a result of DEFENDANT OFFICERS November 30, 2021’s beating, arrest and
4 detention of MR. PORTJE, MR. PORTJE has suffered severe and chronic unceasing pain in his
5 shoulder, symptoms of severe chronic depression including excessive sleep(18 hours per day), lack
6 of appetite, fear of police reprisals, apprehension and anxiety spurred on by passing police sirens
7 and police vehicles, and an overall depletion of interest and energy in engaging in his journalistic
8 pursuits.
9 85. Similarly, MR. PORTJE’s wife, AMY PORTJE has incurred harms on account of
10 DEFENDANTS inexcusable and callous violations of her husband’s well established rights, both
11 as a journalist and an African American walking the streets in Marin County where AMY
12 PORTJE’s harms have manifested in physical, psychological, economic, spiritual, and social
13 damages.
14
FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS
15
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16 Violation Of Civil Rights Laws
17 42 U.S.C. §1983
First Amendment
18 Freedom of Press, Speech, and Retaliation
(Against ALL DEFENDANTS)
19
20
86. MR. PORTJE repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully
21
set forth herein.
22
87. As applied to the State of California under the Fourteenth Amendment, the observation and
23
recording of police activity in public is fully protected by the free speech and free press clauses of
24
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
25
88. By arresting MR. PORTJE, a journalist without probable cause, and thereafter detaining
26
him on account of his recording a protest and police activity in public, DEFENDANT OFFICERS,
27
28

1 each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another and acting under color
2 of state law, violated MR. PORTJE’s clearly established First Amendment rights.
3 89. The seizure of and prolonged failure to return MR. PORTJE’s video equipment, storage
4 media, recordings, and cellphone violated MR. PORTJE’s clearly established First Amendment
5 rights and has resulted in obstructing MR. PORTJE’s ability to further engage in his journalistic
6 endeavors.
7 90. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT OFFICERS attacked, arrested, detained, and
8 withheld property in retaliation for MR. PORTJE’s First-Amendment-protected activity.
9 DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ actions would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
10 engaged in protected activity.
11 88. In the manner described more fully above, DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ actions were
12 substantially motivated in response to MR. PORTJE’s constitutionally protected activity.
13 DEFENDANTS would not have provoked, attacked, arrested, detained, and withheld MR.
14 PORTJE’s property but for his protected activity, as well as on account of his African American
15 race.
16 91. DEFENDANTS violated clearly established constitutional rights of which all
17 DEFENDANTS knew, or of which reasonable law enforcement officers should have known,
18 rendering them liable to MR. PORTJE under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without recourse to qualified
19 immunity.
20 92. DEFENDANTS acted with reckless and callous indifference to MR. PORTJE’s First
21 Amendment rights.
22 93. The denial of constitutional rights is irreparable injury per se, and MR. PORTJE is entitled
23 to declaratory and injunctive relief.
24 94. As a direct and proximate result of all of the violations of MR. PORTJE’s First Amendment
25 rights, he suffered damages, including: Damage to his personal and professional reputation; Loss
26 of earnings and earning capacity; Psychological and emotional injury, past and future; and
27 degradation, humiliation, mental anguish, suffering and embarrassment.
28

1 95. MR. PORTJE is further informed and believe that the acts and/or omissions of the
2 individual DEFENDANTS were intentional, malicious, oppressive and/or done with a conscious
3 or callous disregard for MR. PORTJE’s safety and/or constitutional rights which thereby justifies
4 an award of punitive or exemplary damages in amounts to be determined according to proof.
5
6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation Of Civil Rights Laws
7 42 U.S.C. §1983
Fourth Amendment
8 False Arrest, Excessive Force, Seizure of Property
9 (Against ALL DEFENDANTS)
10
11
set forth herein.
12
97. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, MR. PORTJE has a right
13
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
14
98. DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE, and DOES 1-
15
10, each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another, did act under color
16
of state law to deprive and violate MR. PORTJE’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to
17
be free from unreasonable seizures by arresting and detaining him without probable cause to
18
believe that MR. PORTJE was engaged in any criminal activity.
19
99. DEFENDANT OFFICERS violated MR. PORTJE’s established Fourth Amendment right
20
to be free from unreasonable seizures by subjecting him to objectively unreasonable and thereby
21
excessive force including, but not limited to, the yanking and pulling of MR. PORTJE’s hair,
22
punching and beating, twisting his arms and applying a shoulder lock maneuver and/or subjecting
23
him to other objectively unreasonable and thereby, excessive force.
24
100. DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-
25
10 violated MR. PORTJE’s established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable
26
seizures when they confiscated and retained MR. PORTJE’s camera, video equipment, storage
27
28

1 media, and footage after he was released, without probable cause and/or any legal justification to
2 retain his property.
3 101. The conduct of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE
4 and DOES 1-10 violated clearly established constitutional rights of which all DEFENDANT police
5 officers, supervisors, and chief of police knew, or of which reasonable police officers, supervisors,
6 and chief of police should have known, rendering them liable to MR. PORTJE under 42 U.S.C. §
7 1983 without recourse to qualified immunity.
9 10 acted with reckless and callous indifference to MR. PORTJE’s First and Fourth Amendment
10 rights.
11 103. The denial of constitutional rights is irreparable injury per se, and MR. PORTJE is entitled
12 to declaratory and injunctive relief.
13 104. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of DEFENDANTS, MR. PORTJE suffered
14 severe chronic and unceasing pain in his shoulder, symptoms of chronic depression including
15 excessive sleep(18 hours per day), lack of appetite, fear of police reprisals, apprehension and
16 anxiety spurred on by passing police sirens and police vehicles, and an overall depletion of interest
17 and energy in engaging in his journalistic pursuits.
18 105. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of all of the violations of MR. PORTJE’s
19 Fourth Amendment rights, MR. PORTJE suffered damages, including: Damage to his personal
20 and professional reputation; Loss of earnings and earning capacity; Psychological and emotional
21 injury, past and future; and degradation, humiliation, mental anguish, suffering and
22 embarrassment.
27
28 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation Of Civil Rights Laws

42 U.S.C. §1983
1
Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
2 (Against DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DOES 1-10)
3
107. MR. PORTJE hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the
4
foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
5
108. DEFENDANT OFFICERS, DETECTIVE ROSE, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, and DOES 1-
6
10 plotted, coordinated, reached, and entered into a specific agreement, express or implied, with
7
the specific common purpose to deprive MR. PORTJE of his First Amendment rights of freedom
8
of the press. DEFENDANT OFFICERS plotted, coordinated, reached, and entered into a specific
9
agreement, express or implied, with the specific common purpose to deprive MR. PORTJE of his
10
Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, false arrest and unreasonable seizures.
11
109. To that end, DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 acted jointly with the specific
12
common purpose of silencing and ‘shuttering’ MR. PORTJE’s journalistic endeavors on or about
13
November 30, 2021 by inciting and provoking MR. PORTJE to engage in conduct that would have
14
subjected him to arrest and/or incur excessive force by DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and in so
15
doing, curtail his ability as a journalist to further cover the stories and record public events and
16
associated police activity in the City of Sausalito and beyond.
17
110. CHIEF ROHRBACHER joined DEFENDANT OFFICERS common purpose of silencing
18
and ‘shuttering’ MR. PORTJE’s journalistic endeavors when he assisted, facilitated and
19
unequivocally ratified MR. PORTJE’s arrest by helping to create and compile MR. PORTJE’s
20
arrest reports, supporting documents, etc., thereby committing overt acts in furtherance of the
21
conspiracy to interfere with MR. PORTJE’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press as
22
initially set into motion by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10. CHIEF ROHRBACHER’s
23
reiterated his participation in the conspiracy when he publically expressed his consternation with
24
D.A. Frigali’s dismissal of MR. PORTJE’s criminal charges by reiterating, despite viewing
25
footage that wholly contradicted his accusations, that he was “disappointed to learn that the Marin
26
County District Attorney has decided not to file charges against a man accused of striking a police
27
officer with his camera…[and] concerned that the DA’s decision will encourage the continuing
28

1 aggressive behavior of Jeremy Portje toward police.” Thus, CHIEF ROHRBACHER publically
2 branded MR. PORTJE a cop-hater with the intention of further imposing harm on MR. PORTJE.
3 111. CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DETECTIVE ROSE further perpetuated said conspiracy by
4 taking the overt act of intentionally disregarding MR. PORTJE’s First Amendment journalistic
5 rights as clearly enumerated under federal, state, and constitutional law by (1) refusing to turn over
6 MR. PORTJE’s camera and external storage units when MR. PORTJE was released from detention
7 on December 1, 2021 and/or on December 28, 2021 when the District Attorney dismissed the
8 criminal charges against MR. PORTJE, and (2) in seeking a search warrant to scrutinize MR.
9 PORTJE’s constitutionally protected video and still footage located in both MR. PORTJE’s
10 camera and external memory cards.
11 112. As a direct result of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE
12 ROSE, and DOES 1-10’s conspiracy to interfere with MR. PORTJE’s First Amendment freedom
13 of the press and Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure, MR. PORTJE has
14 suffered damages, including: Damage to his personal and professional reputation; Loss of earnings
15 and earning capacity; Psychological and emotional injury, past and future; and degradation,
16 humiliation, mental anguish, suffering and embarrassment.
18 DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-10 were
19 intentional, malicious, oppressive and/or done with a conscious or callous disregard for MR.
20 PORTJE’s safety and/or constitutional rights which thereby justifies an award of punitive or
21 exemplary damages in amounts to be determined according to proof.
22
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Civil Rights Law
24 42 U.S.C. §1983
Equal Protection
26
27
28

1 115. On November 30, 2021, DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 huddled together and
2 conspired to carry out a series of events intentionally designed to silence and ‘shutter’ MR.
3 PORTJE’s journalistic reporting of events at Marinship Park and other homeless issues throughout
4 the CITY, and to place him in fear of said DEFENDANT OFFICERS during future interactions
5 with them.
6 116. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 conspired to incite and provoke MR. PORTJE
7 to engage in conduct that would have subjected him to arrest and/or incur excessive force by
8 DEFENDANT OFFICERS. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10’s intention was fulfilled
9 with DEFENDANT OFFICERS physically assaulting MR. PORTJE and placing him under arrest
10 despite any articulable probable cause. Similarly, in conjunction with subjecting MR. PORTJE to
11 arrest, DEFENDANT OFFICERS confiscated MR. PORTJE’s video and digital files and sought
12 to investigate such in order to concoct other more potentially serious crimes against MR. PORTJE.
13 117. Additionally, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, when apprised of the arrest of MR. PORTJE and
14 the circumstances of his arrest, as well as having had personal knowledge of MR. PORTJE
15 professional character, temperament and professionalism, should have refused pursuing charges
16 against MR. PORTJE inferring that MR. PORTJE’s arrest was not based upon probable cause, but
17 more likely occurred on account of his officers exceeding their discretion with a probability that
18 MR. PORTJE’s press credential and race was a motivating factor. By ratifying and assisting with
19 DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ false arrest that was substantially motivated by MR. PORTJE’s race,
20 CHIEF ROHRBACHER was equally liable for violating MR. PORTJE’s equal protection rights
21 under the Fourteenth Amendment.
22 118. The entirety of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER’s and DOES 1-10’s
23 scheme was substantially motivated by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10’s animus
24 directed at MR. PORTJE’s race as an African-American.
25 119. As such, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10’s
26 conduct directed at MR. PORTJE was in express violation of the Equal Protection Clause
27 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
28

1 120. Equally so, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10’s
2 constitutional abuses were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or
3 customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the SPD and the CITY.
4 121. Thus, DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER DOES 1-10, the SPD,
5 and the CITY acted with deliberate indifference to MR. PORTJE's Fourteenth Amendment
6 rights. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and omissions of the above
7 DEFENDANTS and each of them, MR. PORTJE’s Fourteenth Amendment rights have been
8 violated. By their acts and omissions, DEFENDANTS have acted under color of state law to
9 deprive M R . P O R T J E of his Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
10 122. As a result of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10’s
11 discrimination against MR. PORTJE on account of his race, MR. PORTJE has suffered damages,
12 including: Damage to his personal and professional reputation; Loss of earnings and earning
13 capacity; Psychological and emotional injury, past and future; and degradation, humiliation,
14 mental anguish, suffering and embarrassment.
19
20 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 42 U.S.C. §1983
Municipal Liability
22 (Against CITY OF SAUSALITO)
23
24
set forth herein.
25
125. In both inciting and provoking MR. PORTJE to engage in conduct that would have
26
subjected him to arrest and/or incur excessive force by DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and falsely
27
arresting and detaining him thereafter all primarily motived by MR. PORTJE’s race,
28

1 DEFENDANT OFFICERS had violated MR. PORTJE’s clearly established rights under the First,
2 Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
3 126. At all times relevant to this complaint, DEFENDANT OFFICERS were acting under color
4 of the laws of the State of California.
5 127. At the time of MR. PORTJE’s unlawful arrest, the SPD’s “official” policy required
6 DEFENDANT OFFICERS to allow journalist access to ‘law enforcement activities’ as long as
7 they did not interfere with emergency or criminal investigation operations.” SPD Policy
8 322.3(2)(1).
9 128. However, the broad and permissive language of SPD Policy 322.3 et seq was otherwise
10 further narrowed with the enactment of California Penal Law 509.7 on October 21, 2021which
11 was thus the applicable standard on November 30, 2021, the day of MR. PORTJE’s arrest. Section
12 509.7(a)(1) affords journalists with wide latitude to be present in areas of police activities and to
13 engage in photography and recording without being arrested. Section 509.7(a)(3). Section 509.7
14 prohibits law enforcement from (1) detaining journalists demanding that they produce
15 identification, and (2) “intentionally assaulting, interfering with, or obstructing” journalist’s news
16 gathering. Section 509.7(a)(2).
17 129. Nonetheless, DEFENDANT OFFICERS grossly interfered with and prevented MR.
18 PORTJE’s activities as a journalist and documentarian by (1) inciting and provoking MR. PORTJE
20 DEFENDANT OFFICERS, (2) falsely arresting and detaining him thereafter, confiscating and
21 retaining his camera, storage media, and video footage, and (3) undertaking the above conduct on
22 account of MR. PORTJE’s race.
23 130. At all times relevant to this complaint, notwithstanding its written policies on the subject,
24 the SPD permitted a practice of allowing its Officers and Officials’ discretion to obstruct and/or
25 prevent members of the media and public from recording protest and police activity in public
26 locations, in violation of the First Amendment. Such is glaringly evidenced by the actions of
27 DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 whose conduct the SPD Officials, including CHIEF
28 ROHRBACHER effectively sanctioned and endorsed.

1 131. On information and belief, the CITY failed to supervise and discipline its SPD Officers
2 and Officials, including DEFENDANT OFFICERS and CHIEF ROHRBACHER for unlawfully
3 interfering with the First Amendment right of the press and public to record public scenes of police
4 activity, where such absence displayed deliberate indifference to its citizens’ constitutional rights.
5 Similarly, as reflected by DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conduct, the CITY patently failed to
6 supervise and discipline its officers and officials to ensure compliance with the incontrovertible
7 rights of its citizens to receive equal protection under the law.
8 132. At the time of MR. PORTJE’s unlawful arrest, a plethora of constitutional and statutory
9 prohibitions 8 restricted SPD’s warrantless seizure of property such as MR. PORTJE’s camera,
10 video footage and storage media.
11 133. In fact, SPD’s “official” policy required that when a decision is made to not file formal
12 charges, as was the case with MR. PORTJE, personal property of the arrestee is to be returned.
13 Such policy is even more imperative where an arrestee is a journalist whose work product is
14 immeasurably protected.
15 134. Nevertheless, contrary to SPD’s “official” policy, SPD’s actual custom and practice
16 apparently permits the Department to retain such First Amendment-protected property despite its
17 owner’s release from custody without being criminal charged.
18 135. At all times relevant to this complaint, notwithstanding its written policies on the subject,
19 the CITY had a custom and practice of allowing SPD officers to seize photographic equipment
20 and recordings, in violation of the First Amendment, as is evidenced by the actions of
21 DEFENDANT OFFICERS whose conduct the SPD and CHIEF ROHRBACHER effectively
22 sanctioned and endorsed.
23 136. On information and belief, the CITY, in displaying deliberate indifference to its citizens’
24 constitutional rights, failed to adequately inform, let along train its officers and officials as to the
25 First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the press to both capture and photograph police
26
27 8 DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ power to seize is immeasurably curtailed by California’s Shield Law, Cal.
Constitution Art. I, Sect. 2(b), the Reporter’s Privilege, Cal. Constitution Art. I, Sec. 2(a), the Federal Privacy
28 Protection Act 42 USC 2000aa et seq., and press freedoms and rights under the First Amendment to the U.S
Constitution.

1 activity, as well as the right to retain possession of their video equipment, storage media,
2 recordings and footage without threat or occurrence of seizure. Similarly, as reflected by
3 DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conduct, the CITY patently failed to inform and train its officers and
4 officials as to the incontrovertible rights of its citizens to equal protection under the law.
5 137. The failure to train and supervise officers and employees on how to treat reporters in light
6 of state, federal and constitutional law is reflective of the CITY’s unconstitutional custom and
7 policy of deliberate indifference to MR. PORTJE’s and journalists’ safety, well-being, and
8 constitutional rights.
9 138. On information and belief, the CITY, in displaying deliberate indifference to its citizens’
10 constitutional rights, failed to supervise and discipline its officers for unlawfully interfering with
11 the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the press and public to both capture and
12 photograph police activity, and to do so with equal protection under the law, as well as to retain
13 possession of their video equipment, storage media, recordings and footage without threat or
14 occurrence of seizure.
15 139. These unconstitutional policies, customs and practices of the CITY were the moving force
16 behind the violation of MR. PORTJE’s constitutional rights violated by the SPD and its
17 DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10.
18 140. As a direct and proximate result of the CITY’s failure to supervise, discipline and train,
19 MR. PORTJE has suffered damages, including: Damage to his personal and professional
20 reputation; Loss of earnings and earning capacity; Psychological and emotional injury, past and
21 future; and degradation, humiliation, mental anguish, suffering and embarrassment.
22
23 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 42 U.S.C. §1985(3)
Conspiracy to Deprive Rights
25 (Against DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10)
26
27
28

1 142. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 conspired together to deprive MR. PORTJE
2 of his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
3 143. The conspiracy was comprised of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, DOES 1-10, and CHIEF
4 ROHRBACHER who, after permitting MR. PORTJE unfettered journalistic access to film
5 DEFENDANT OFFICERS activities when undertaking their duties and interfacing with members
6 of the Marinship Park encampment on or about November 30, 2021, huddled together and
7 conspired to carry out a series of events intentionally designed to silence and ‘shutter’ MR.
8 PORTJE’s journalistic reporting at the Park, as well as on other homeless issues throughout the
9 CITY, and to place him in fear of said DEFENDANT OFFICERS during future interactions with
10 them.
11 144. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-5 conspired to incite and provoke MR. PORTJE
13 DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and in so doing, curtail his ability as a journalist to further cover
14 stories and record public events and associated police activity taking place in Marinship Park, as
15 well as other public locations in Sausalito on account of detention and having to face and defend
16 against criminal charges. Similarly, in conjunction with subjecting MR. PORTJE to arrest,
17 DEFENDANT OFFICERS confiscated MR. PORTJE’s video and still digital files and upon
18 investigating their content, concoct other more potentially serious crimes against MR. PORTJE.
19 145. As an educated African American journalist who had been following the story of the
20 anchor-out community for close to a year, DEFENDANT OFFICERS and CHIEF
21 ROHRBACHER were well aware of MR. PORTJE’s identity and had several personal interactions
22 with him. Again, as the only African American journalist in Marin County, MR. PORTJE’s race
23 was significantly noted and stood out from others in the journalist and press pool in Sausalito and
24 Marin County.
25 146. Thus, in the late afternoon on November 30, 2021, MR. PORTJE engaged in conversation
26 with OFFICER SMAGALSKI querying OFFICER SMAGALSKI as to previous events that
27 MR. PORTJE was covering. At some point, the conversation devolved into a political discussion
28 leading MR. PORTJE to query whether OFFICER SMAGALSKI was a member of the white

1 supremacist organization, the Oathkeepers. OFFICER SMAGALSKI was visibly angered by MR.
2 PORTJE’s question. Upon information and belief, MR. PORTJE’s exchange with OFFICER
3 SMAGALSKI served as an impetus for DEFENDANT OFFICERS to create and undertake its
4 conspiracy to provoke and incite MR. PORTJE to commit a crime in order to rough him up and
5 arrest him. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ were substantially motivated
6 to carry out said conspiracy based upon MR. PORTJE’s race.
7 147. Such motivation is given further credence on account that, upon information and belief,
8 OFFICER GEORGES also held racist and white supremacist inclinations based upon interactions
9 and expressed viewpoints that he had with other anchor-out encampment members. For example,
10 OFFICER GEORGES gleefully expressed and repeated that the Black Lives Matter movement
11 was similar in kind to the Ku Klux Klan.
12 148. Thus DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conspiracy targeted an African American journalist who
13 was asserting his press and speech rights protected under the First Amendment. The racial class in
14 which MR. PORTJE belongs is unequivocally protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
15 149. As a result of DEFENDANT OFFICRS and DOES 1-10’s conspiracy to discriminate
16 against MR. PORTJE on account of his race, MR. PORTJE has suffered damages, including:
17 Damage to his personal and professional reputation; Loss of earnings and earning capacity;
18 Psychological and emotional injury, past and future; and degradation, humiliation, mental anguish,
19 suffering and embarrassment.
20 150. MR. PORTJE is further informed and believe that the acts and/or omissions of
21 DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10 were intentional, malicious,
22 oppressive and/or done with a conscious or callous disregard for MR. PORTJE’s safety and/or
23 constitutional rights which thereby justifies an award of punitive or exemplary damages in amounts
24 to be determined according to proof.
25
26 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Civil Right Law
27 42 U.S.C. §1986
Failure to Prevent a Conspiracy to Deprive Rights
28 (Against DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10)

1
2 151. MR. PORTJE hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the
3 foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
4 152. DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10 violated 42 U.S.C.
5 § 1986 by failing to meet their duty to prevent or aid in preventing a conspiracy to deprive civil
6 rights.
7 153. Given that on account of MR. PORTJE’s race, DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-
8 10 conspired to incite and provoke MR. PORTJE to engage in conduct that would have subjected
9 him to arrest and/or incur excessive force by DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and in so doing, curtail
10 his ability as a journalist to cover stories and record public events and associated police activity,
11 DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 were readily aware that a Section 1985 violation was
12 about to occur or was occurring, had the power to decide differently and prevent or aid in
13 preventing it, and willfully neglected or refused to prevent or aid in preventing it.
14 154. DEFENDANT OFFICERS could have and should have refused (1) to issue or comply
15 with such a blatant and unlawful design, (2) refused to use unlawful force, false arrest and detention
16 against MR. PORTJE, (3) refused to permit fellow officers to carry out said unlawful acts against
17 MR. PORTJE, and/or attempt to appeal to superiors to take a different course of action.
18 155. Additionally, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, when apprised of the arrest of MR. PORTJE and
19 the circumstances of his arrest, particularly with having had personal knowledge of MR. PORTJE
20 professional character, temperament and professionalism, should have refused pursuing charges
21 against MR. PORTJE inferring instead that MR. PORTJE’s arrest was not based upon probable
22 cause but more likely occurred on account of his officers exceeding their discretion with a
23 probability that MR. PORTJE’s press credential and race was a motivating factor for the arrest.
24 156. As a result of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, and DOES 1-10’s
25 conspiracy to discriminate against MR. PORTJE on account of his race and said Defendants failure
26 to prevent its fruition, MR. PORTJE has suffered damages, including: Damage to his personal and
27 professional reputation; Loss of earnings and earning capacity; Psychological and emotional
28

2 embarrassment.
3 157. MR. PORTJE is further informed and believes that the acts and/or omissions of
4 DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10 were intentional, malicious,
5 oppressive and/or done with a conscious or callous disregard for MR. PORTJE’s safety and/or
6 constitutional rights which thereby justifies an award of punitive or exemplary damages in amounts
7 to be determined according to proof.
8
9 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Civil Right Law
10 Due Process Fourteenth Amendment
Retention of Property
11 (Against CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-10)
12
158. MR. PORTJE re-alleges and incorporates all previous and following paragraphs as if fully
13
set forth herein.
14
159. The continuing seizure of MR. PORTJE’s camera, storage media, recordings and footage
15
without a warrant or judicial review of any kind, is depriving MR. PORTJE of his property in
16
violation of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendments.
17
160. Therefore, MR. PORTJE is entitled to recover compensatory damages proximately caused
18
by the property seizures, as against the SPD, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE, and
19
DOES 1-10. The acts alleged herein were the product of a policy or custom of the SPD wherein
20
the SPD seeks to obstruct and/or prevent members of the media and public from recording protest
21
and police activity in public locations. The withholding of cameras and storage media after falsely
22
arresting journalists is a component of that policy and custom, as is violating federal state and
23
constitutional law that protects a journalist’s workproduct including photographs and video
24
footage.
25
161. As a result of CHIEF ROHRBACHER’s ratification and SPD’s continued withholding of
26
MR. PORTJE’s property in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, MR. PORTJE has
27
suffered actual damages, including the inability to utilize his cameras and newsgathering materials
28

1 to obtain and convey vital information for dissemination to the public in a timely manner, as well
2 as incurring a loss of licensing fees from his inability to license time-sensitive footage to news
3 organizations.
4 162. In addition, MR. PORTJE has incurred damage to his personal and professional reputation;
5 loss of earnings and earning capacity; psychological and emotional injury, past and future; and
7 163. MR. PORTJE is further informed and believe that the acts and/or omissions of CHIEF
8 ROHRBACHER, DETECTIVE ROSE and DOES 1-5 were intentional, malicious, oppressive
9 and/or done with a conscious or callous disregard for MR. PORTJE’s safety and/or constitutional
10 rights which thereby justifies an award of punitive or exemplary damages in amounts to be
11 determined according to proof.
12
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
Violation of 42 U.S. Code §2000aa
14 Privacy Protection Act of 1980
15
16 164. MR. PORTJE repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully
17 set forth herein.
18 165. With knowledge that MR. PORTJE was a journalist engaged in journalistic activities, the
19 seizure of MR. PORTJE’s camera, storage media, recordings, and footage by DEFENDANT
20 OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 without probable cause constituted a search and/or seizure of MR.
21 PORTJE’s work product and documentary materials.
22 166. This seizure of MR. PORTJE’s work product and documentary materials by
23 DEFENDANT OFFICERS and retention of said materials by CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES
24 1-10 violated the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa.
26 10 who had access to MR. PORTJE’s camera, storage media, recordings, and footage acted with
27 reckless and callous indifference to MR. PORTJE’s federally protected rights.
28

1 168. By reason of these seizures of MR. PORTJE’s camera, storage media, recordings and
2 footage, MR. PORTJE has suffered actual damages, including the inability to utilize his cameras
3 and newsgathering materials to obtain and convey vital information for dissemination to the public
4 in a timely manner, as well as incurring a loss of licensing fees from his inability to license time-
5 sensitive footage to news organizations.
6 169. In addition, MR. PORTJE has incurred damage to his personal and professional reputation;
7 loss of earnings and earning capacity; psychological and emotional injury, past and future; and
13
STATE LAW CLAMS
14
15
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 Violation of Bane Act-
17 Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.1
18
19
20
set forth herein.
21
172. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 interfered, through threat, intimidation, or
22
coercion with MR. PORTJE’s state and federal constitutional rights, i.e., First Amendment,
23
Fourteenth Amendment; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §§ 2, 7. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10
24
interfered, through threat, intimidation, or coercion with MR. PORTJE’s ability to gather news for
25
dissemination to the public on important matters of public interest and to photograph peace officers
26
in the performance of their duties by arresting MR. PORTJE without probable cause,
27
173. DEFENDANTS further interfered with state and federal laws, i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa;
28
Cal. Pen. Code §509.7 designed to protect journalists such as MR. PORTJE, against seizures of

1 newsgathering materials, even with a warrant, where no rational reason exists to suspect the
2 materials seized will contain evidence of a crime committed by the journalist. DEFENDANTS
3 interfered with these rights and laws by seizing MR. PORTJE’s camera, storage media, recordings,
4 and footage as a result of their commission of an unlawful arrest without probable cause, and by
5 holding these materials as evidence without any rational basis to believe these materials would
6 contain any evidence since no crime was committed by MR. PORTJE.
7 nor charged by the District Attorneys’ office.
8 174. These acts of intimidation and coercion were done in violation of these state and federal
9 laws and in retaliation for MR. PORTJE’s exercise of his state and federal constitutional rights to
10 gather news as a journalist and to photograph peace officers in the performance of their duties.
11 175. At all times relevant herein, CHIEF ROHRBACHER knew of the harassment and
12 intimidation that was being carried out by his subordinates against the press performing their duties
13 on public property and in public spaces and for gathering information about important events of
14 public interest. CHIEF ROHRBACHER knew or reasonably should have known that these actions
15 were depriving the press, and MR. PORTJE in particular, of clearly established statutory and
16 constitutional rights, or would lead to the deprivation of these statutory and constitutionally
17 protected rights by his subordinates.
18 176. CHIEF ROHRBACHER failed to act to prevent his subordinates from engaging in such
19 conduct, including by failing to train, supervise and adequately control his subordinates; and, that
20 he ratified, condoned, acquiesced, authorized and/or directed officers under his charge to engage
21 in conduct that he knew, or reasonably should have known, would lead to the deprivation of
22 constitutionally protected rights.
23 177. The above acts committed by all DEFENDANTS caused actual harm to MR. PORTJE,
24 including physical pain and suffering, emotional injury, degradation, humiliation, mental anguish,
25 embarrassment, reputational harm, and loss of earning capacity, and loss of the ability to convey
26 time sensitive, newsworthy information for publication.

3
4 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Ralph Act
5 Cal. Civ. Code Section 51.7
(Against DEFENDANT OFFICERS, DOES 1-10)
6
7
8
set forth herein.
9
180. In undertaking the acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, DEFENDANT OFFICERS and
10
DOES 1-10 through violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, caused MR. PORTJE to be
11
subjected to force or violence because of his race. California Civil Code Section 51.7 guarantees
12
the "right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence" committed against
13
their person or property because of their…race…”Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51.7, 51(b).
14
181. As a result, MR. PORTJE is entitled to relief under California Civil Code Section 51.7,
15
including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
16
attorneys’ fees and costs in amounts to be determined according to proof.
17
182. As the acts or omissions of DEFNDANT OFFICERS, and each of them, were within the
18
course and scope of their employment for the CITY, the CITY is therefore liable as respondeat
19
superior.
20
183. The above acts committed by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 caused actual
21
harm to MR. PORTJE, including physical pain and suffering, emotional injury, degradation,
22
humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, reputational harm, and loss of earning capacity, and
23
loss of the ability to convey time sensitive, newsworthy information for publication.
24
184. MR. PORTJE is further informed and believe that the acts and/or omissions of the
25
individual DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 were intentional, malicious, oppressive
26
and/or done with a conscious or callous disregard for MR. PORTJE’s safety and/or constitutional
27
28

1 rights which thereby justifies an award of punitive or exemplary damages in amounts to be

2 determined according to proof.
3
4 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
False Arrest/False Imprisonment
5 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Against DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, DOES 1-10)
6
7
8
set forth herein.
9
186. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 individually and/or acting in concert with one
10
another, arrested and imprisoned the MR. PORTJE without reasonable or probable cause to believe
11
that he committed any crime. DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-5 intended to confine MR.
12
PORTJE when they arrested him and placed him in police custody. MR. PORTJE was aware of
13
his confinement by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 and did not consent to the
14
confinement. 
15
187. The actions of DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10were flagrant, willful, wanton
16
and reckless, and displayed a high degree of moral culpability. 
17
188. The acts and/or omissions of said DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 were done
18
within the course and scope of their employment for the CITY. The CITY is therefore liable for
19
said false arrest and/or false imprisonment as respondeat superior.
20
189. As a result of the false arrest and/or false imprisonment by said DEFENDANT OFFICERS
21
and DOS 1-10, and each of them, MR. PORTJE has suffered damages and injuries including
22
physical pain and suffering, emotional injury, degradation, humiliation, mental anguish,
23
embarrassment, reputational harm, and loss of earning capacity.
24
190. The conduct of DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOS 1-10 and/or each of them, as alleged
25
herein was intentional, malicious, and/or oppressive. As a result, MR. PORTJE is entitled to an
26
award of punitive and exemplary damages against said DEFENDANTS and/or each of them, in
27
amounts to be determined according to proof.
28

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1
Assault/Battery
2 (Against DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10)
3
4
set forth herein
5
192. In undertaking the actions alleged in this Complaint, DEFENDANT OFFICERS and
6
DOES 1-10 intended to cause MR. PORTJE harmful or offensive contact and with DEFENDANT
7
OFFICERS’ threats, was put in imminent apprehension of such contact.
8
193. Thereafter when DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ conspired and determined to subject MR.
9
PORTJE to excessive force and arrest, they perpetrated a non-consensual, non- privileged,
10
offensive touching of MR. PORTJE’s head and body.
11
194. As said battery was caused by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 within the
12
course and scope of heir employment, the CITY is therefore liable for said battery as respondeat
13
superior.
14
195. As a result of the assault and battery by DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10, and
15
each of them, MR. PORTJE has suffered damages and injuries including physical pain and
16
suffering, emotional injury, degradation, humiliation, mental anguish, embarrassment, reputational
17
harm, and loss of earning capacity.
18
196. The conduct of DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 and/or each of them, as alleged
19
herein was intentional, malicious, and/or oppressive. As a result, MR. PORTJE is entitled to an
20
award of punitive and exemplary damages against said DEFENDANTS and/or each of them, in
21
amounts to be determined according to proof.
22
23
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10)
25
26 197. MR. PORTJE re-alleges and incorporates all previous and following paragraphs as if fully
27 set forth herein.
28

1 198. In addition to CHIEF ROHRBACHER’s ratification thereafter, DEFENDANT OFFICERS

2 and DOES 1-10’s intentional and abominable scheme and successful undertaking thereof to incite
3 and provoke MR. PORTJE to engage in conduct that would have subjected him to arrest and/or
4 excessive force by DEFENDANT OFFICERS was unequivocally extreme and outrageous,
5 particular so given that DEFENDANT OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 were substantially motivated
6 to engage in such unconscionable conduct based upon MR. PORTJE’s race and with purposeful
7 intention of categorically obstructing MR. PORTJE’s ability as a journalist to continue covering
8 stories in the public interest and to record public events and associated police activity within the
9 CITY.
10 199. As a direct and proximate result of these actions of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, MR.
11 PORTJE suffered severe and unceasing chronic pain in his shoulder, chronic depression as
12 expressed by excessive sleep(18 hours per day), lack of appetite, fear of police reprisals,
13 apprehension and anxiety spurred on by passing police sirens and police vehicles, and an overall
14 depletion of interest and energy in engaging in his journalistic pursuits.
15 200. Additionally, as a result of DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ and DOES 1-10’s infliction of
16 emotional distress, MR. PORTJE has suffered damages, including: Damage to his personal and
17 professional reputation; Loss of earnings and earning capacity; Psychological and emotional
19 embarrassment.
20 201. MR. PORTJE is further informed and believe that the acts and/or omissions DEFENDANT
21 OFFICERS and DOES 1-10 were intentional, malicious, oppressive and/or done with a conscious
24
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Negligence: Personal Injuries
27
28

1 202. MR. PORTJE realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
2 here.
3 203. At all times, each DEFENDANT owed MR. PORTJE the duty to act with due care in the
4 execution and enforcement of any right, law, or legal obligation.
5 204. At all times, each DEFENDANT owed MR. PORTJE the duty to act with reasonable care.
6 205. These general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to MR. PORTJE by all
7 DEFENDANTS include but are not limited to the following specific obligations:
8 a. to refrain from inciting and provoking MR. PORTJE to engage in conduct that would have
9 subjected him to arrest and/or incur excessive force by DEFENDANT OFFICERS, and falsely
10 arresting and detaining him thereafter all primarily motived by MR. PORTJE’s race;
11 b. to refrain from using or tolerating the use of excessive and/or unreasonable force against MR.
12 PORTJE;
13 c. to refrain from tactics and conduct that led to the otherwise unnecessary seizure of and use of
14 force against MR. PORTJE;
15 d. to refrain from abusing their authority granted them by law;
16 e. to refrain from violating MR. PORTJE’s rights guaranteed by the United States and California
17 Constitutions, as set forth above, and as otherwise protected by law.
18 206. Additionally, these general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to MR. PORTJE
19 by the SPD, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, CITY and DOES 1-10, include, but are not limited to, the
20 following specific obligations:
21 a. to properly and reasonably hire, investigate, train, supervise, monitor, evaluate, and discipline
22 their employees, agents, and/or SPD officers, including but not limited to DEFENDANT
23 OFFICERS, to ensure that those employees/agents/deputies act at all times in the public interest
24 and in conformance with law;
25 b. to make, enforce, and at all times act in conformance with policies, training, and customs that
26 are lawful and protective of individual rights, including MR. PORTJE’s; and
27 c. to refrain from making, enforcing, and/or tolerating the wrongful policies, training, and customs
28 set forth above throughout this complaint.

1 207. DEFENDANTS, through their acts and omissions, breached each and every one of the
2 aforementioned dutis owed to MR. PORTJE.
3 208. The CITY is vicariously liable, under California Government Code § 815.2, for the
4 violations of state law and tortious conduct of its SPD officers.
5 209. As a result of DEFENDANTS negligence MR. PORTJE has suffered damages, including:
6 Damage to his personal and professional reputation; Loss of earnings and earning capacity;
7 Psychological and emotional injury, past and future; and degradation, humiliation, mental anguish,
8 suffering and embarrassment.
9 210. The conduct of said DEFENDANTS and/or each of them, as alleged herein was
10 intentional, malicious, and/or oppressive. As a result, MR. PORTJE is entitled to an award of
11 punitive and exemplary damages against said DEFENDANTS and/or each of them, in amounts to
12 be determined according to proof.
13
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 Conversion
16
17
set forth herein. 
18
212. DEFENDANT OFFICERS who arrested MR. PORTJE seized personal property consisting
19
of his camera, storage media, recordings, and footage, all of which were in MR. PORTJE’s rightful
20
possession.
21
213. DEFENDANT OFFICERS’ November 30, 2021 seizure of MR. PORTJE’s camera,
22
storage media, recordings, and footage constituted unlawful exercise of control and dominion over
23
same, thereby depriving MR. PORTJE of his rights to his property.
24
214. CHIEF ROHRBACHER and DOES 1-10 wrongfully retained MR. PORTJE’s camera,
25
storage media, recordings, and footage upon his release from custody on December 1, 2021,
26
refused to surrender the equipment to him upon his release, thus depriving MR. PORTJE of his
27
rights to his property.
28

1 215. The SPD’s seizure of MR. PORTJE’s property and subsequent retention of it was and
2 continues to be a substantial deprivation of chattel of which DEFENDANTS are in wrongful
3 possession.
4 216. By reason of these seizures of MR. PORTJE’s camera, storage media, recordings and
5 footage, MR. PORTJE has suffered actual damages, including the inability to utilize his cameras
6 and newsgathering materials to obtain and convey vital information for dissemination to the public
7 in a timely manner, as well as incurring a loss of licensing fees from his inability to license time-
8 sensitive footage to news organizations; loss of earnings and earning capacity; and costs incurred
9 to replace the equipment in order to allow for continued functioning in his occupation as a
10 photojournalist.
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11
Loss of Consortium
13
217. MR. PORTJE realleges all prior allegations as though fully stated herein.
14
218. Due to defendant’s tortious, negligent and constitutionally violative conduct as set forth
15
herein, PLAINTIFF AMY PORTJE has suffered the loss of her husband’s consortium, love,
16
society, case, services and assistance. AMY PORTJE makes her claim for the loss of MR.
17
PORTJE’s "services", including household services such as cooking, cleaning, lawn work as well
18
as loss of love, companionship, affection and sexual relations, disposition and temperament. MR.
19
PORTJE suffers post-traumatic stress syndrome, including anxiety, fear, insomnia, and severe
20
mental and emotional distress, all of which divert and steal his attention from his wife, AMY
21
PORTJE andon account of such, has sustained a great loss. MR. PORTJE is not the person he has
22
been for since this incident due to his daily and continuing suffering from injuries he incurred at
23
the hands of DEFENDANTS, and each of them.
24
219. As a result of the loss of consortium, AMY PORTJE has suffered damages and injuries
25
including physical pain and suffering, emotional injury, degradation, humiliation, mental anguish,
26
embarrassment, reputational harm, and loss of earning capacity
27
28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1
2 220. Federal Rule 65, Injunctions and Restraining Orders, provides:
3
(a) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
4
(1) Notice. The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse
5 party.
6 (2) Consolidating the Hearing with the Trial on the Merits. Before or after beginning the
hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits
7 and consolidate it with the hearing. Even when consolidation is not ordered, evidence that is
received on the motion and that would be admissible at trial becomes part of the trial record
8 and need not be repeated at trial. But the court must preserve any party's right to a jury trial.
9 (b) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.
10 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written
or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
11
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and
12
irreparable injur, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be
13 heard in opposition; and
14 222. As proven hereinabove, DEFENDANTS have engaged in, and are continuing to engage in,
15 the unlawful unsolicited provocation, arrest, beating and seizure of photographic equipment,
16 recordings, and media storage of journalists who seek to document police activity in the CITY OF
17 SAUSALITO, particularly with respect to the ongoing resistance and protest of the anchor-out
18 community responding to the CITY’s seizure and destruction of anchor-out boats in Richardson
19 Bay.
20 223. DEFENDANTS violated Journalist MR. JEREMY PORTJE constitutional rights under the
21 First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing a policy, practice and pattern of prior restraint on
22 the exercise of MR. JEREMY PORTJE’S, as well as other journalists’ First Amendment rights to
23 freedom of press.
24 224. DEFENDANTS’ illegal conduct has caused, and is causing irreparable injury, loss and
25 damage to MR. JEREMY PORTJE, including damage to his reputation and standing in the
26 community, as well as his ability to continue to practice his journalistic livelihood. Thus, money
27 damages are insufficient to cure the harms, damages and injuries MR. JEREMY PORTJE has
28 suffered and continues to suffer.

1 225 Injunctive relief is required to prevent the SPD from subjecting MR. JEREMY PORTJE to
2 future arrests, beatings, and seizure of his photographic equipment, recordings, and media storage
3 pending the trial on the merits in this matter. MR. JEREMY PORTJE will suffer irreparable injury
4 or injuries for which there are no adequate remedies at law for the loss of his ability to freely and
5 without restraint exercise his incontrovertible rights as a journalist without
6 fear and apprehension of arrest, beating and seizure of his photographic equipment, recordings,
7 and media storage.
8 226. Request is hereby made of an Order to Show Cause issued to DEFENDANTS to show cause
9 why a permanent injunction should not be issued that prevents the SPD from persisting in their
10 threat of continued harassment, arrest, beating, and seizure of photographic equipment, recordings,
11 and media storage African American journalist, MR. JEREMY PORTJE, as well as other members
12 of the press and media who seek to document police activity in the CITY OF SAUSALITO.
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14
15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mr. Portje requests relief as follows:
16
(a) A declaratory judgment that MR. PORTJE’s arrest for recording public protest and
17
police activity in a public location, and seizure of his equipment, violated his clearly
18
established constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
19
the United States Constitution and sections 2(a)(b) and 7 of the California Constitution;  
20
(b) A declaratory judgment that the confiscation and retention of MR. PORTJE’s camera,
21 storage media, recordings, and footage violated his clearly established constitutional rights
22 under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
23 Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, and sections 2(a)(b) of the California
24 Constitution;  
25 (c) An award of compensatory damages against defendants jointly and severally, in an
26 amount of $12 MILLION against the CITY for damages MR. PORTJE suffered in the form
27 of deprivation of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; diminished personal
and professional reputation; lost earnings and earning capacity; psychological and
28

emotional injury; and degradation, humiliation, mental anguish, suffering and

1
embarrassment.
2
. (d) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-(6)(a) and (f), an award against the defendants jointly
3
and severally of actual damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury at trial,
4
including attorneys’ fees, as suffered by MR. PORTJE as result of the unlawful seizure
5
of his camera, storage media, recordings, and footage;  
6
. (e) Punitive damages in an amount of $3 MILLION against SGT GEORGES, $3
7 MILLION against OFFICER SMAGALSKI and $3 MILLION against OFFICER
8 WHITE.  
9 . (f) Statutory damages pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 51.7, 52, and/or 52.1;
10 Attorneys' fees pursuant to statutes; Costs of suit;
11 . (f) Injunctive relief (i) barring the CITY from arresting, detaining, obstructing or otherwise
12 interfering with journalists and members of the public who are engaged in recording
13 protest and police activity in public places; and (ii) directing the CITY to develop and
implement, with the Court’s oversight, appropriate training and procedures to test its
14
effectiveness on the ground and for appropriately disciplining those who breach their
15
training;  
16
. (g) Injunctive relief (i) barring the CITY from improperly and unconstitutionally seizing,
17
retaining and/or searching property that comprises implements or outputs of First
18
Amendment activity; and (ii) directing the CITY to develop and implement, with the
19 Court’s oversight, an effective, comprehensive policy to protect the First and Fourth
20 Amendment rights of the press when property is seized from them in connection with
21 arrests and/or detention;  
22 . (h) Such other relief that this Court may deem just, proper, and appropriate.
23
24 DATED: February 18, 2022
25 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
26
/ s/Charles A. Bonner
27
Charles A. Bonner Attorney for
28 JEREMY PORTJE and AMY PORTJE

Portje Et Al V Sausalito City of Et Al Candce-22-01029 0001.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Portje Et Al V Sausalito City of Et Al Candce-22-01029 0001.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:22-cv-01029 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 51

CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413

15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 1

3. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 2

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RULING, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 3

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 4

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 5

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 6

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 7

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 8

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 9

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 10

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 11

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 12

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 13

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 14

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 15

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 16

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 17

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 18

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 19

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 20

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 21

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 22

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 23

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 24

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 25

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 26

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 27

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 28

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 29

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 30

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 31

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 32

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 33

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 34

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 35

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 36

3 foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

24 156. As a result of DEFENDANT OFFICERS, CHIEF ROHRBACHER, and DOES 1-10’s

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 37

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 38

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 39

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 40

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 41

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 42

1 rights which thereby justifies an award of punitive or exemplary damages in amounts to be

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 43

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 44

1 198. In addition to CHIEF ROHRBACHER’s ratification thereafter, DEFENDANT OFFICERS

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 45

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 46

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 47

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 48

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 49

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 50

emotional injury; and degradation, humiliation, mental anguish, suffering and

JEREMY and AMY PORTJE COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS- 51

You might also like