Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Alcor Issue 02
CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, A Member of
GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
1925 Century Part East, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (213) 277-1981
Attorneys For Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case NO. SA CV90-021 JSL (RwRx)
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND DAMAGES
(Electronic
Communications Privacy
Act of 1986;
18 U.S.C. Section 2701,
et seq.)
H. KEITH HENSON, HUGH L. HIXON,
JR., THOMAS K. DONALDSON, NAOMI
REYNOLDS, ROGER GREGORY, MICHAEL G.
FEDEROWITCZ, STEVEN B. HARRIS,
BRIAN WOWK, ERIC GEISLINGER,
CATH WOOF, BILLY H. SEIDEL,
ALLEN J. LOPP, LEE CORBIN
RALPH MERKEL, AND KEITH LOFTSTROM
Plaintiffs,
v.
RAYMOND CARRILLO, SCOTT HILL,
DAN CUPIDO, ALAN KUNZMAN, ROWE
WORTHINGTON, RICHARD BOGAN,
REAGAN SCHMALZ, GROVER TRASK, II,
ROBERT SPITZER, LINFORD L.
RICHARDSON, GUY PORTILLO,
individuals, and the COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, a subdivision of the
State of CAlifornia, And the CITY
OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal entity,
and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs complain of defendants as follows:
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION
1. This case arises under an Act of Congress, namely
the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; U.S.C. Section
2701, et Seq., and in particular, the civil enforcement
Provisions thereof, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707. Venue is proper in this
Court in that all of the defendants reside in this district.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
2. Plaintiffs are all individuals residing in
various point and places in the United States. [except Brian
Wowk who resides in Canada.]
3. Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, Schmalz, Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley
are all employees of defendant County of Riverside, and at all
times material, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment. Defendants Richardson and Portillo are all
employees of defendant City of Riverside and at all times
material, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment. Defendant County of Riverside ["county'] is a
political subdivision of the State of California. Defendant
City of Riverside ["city'] is a municipal entity located within
California.
Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, and Schmalz are employed by defendant County
in the Office of the Riverside County Coroner. Defendants
Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are employed by the said
county in the office of the District Attorney, Defendants
Richardson and Portillo are employed by defendant City in the
Riverside Police Department.
-------------------
4. All of the events complained of herein occurred
within two years of the date of filing of the complaint.
At all times material, Alcor Life Extension
Foundation, a non-Profit corporation with its principal place of
business in Riverside County, maintained facilities at its place
of business whose purpose was to (in part) facilitate the
sending and receipt of electronic mail ["E-mail"] via computer-
driven modems and which electronic mail facility was utilized by
the plaintiffs, and each of them. The Alcor Facility is remote in
geographical location from all plaintiffs.
5. At all times material, each plaintiff had one or
more E-mail messages abiding on electron or magnetic medial at
the Alcor facility. Prior to [actually on] January 12, 1988, defendants
procured from the Riverside Superior Court a search warrant
which authorized, in general, a search of the facilities of
Alcor. A true and correct copy of that search warrant is
attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". The search warrant does
not purport to reach, nor was it intended to reach, any of the
E-mail of plaintiffs.
6. On January 12, 1988, defendant entered upon the
Alcor premisses and removed many things therefrom including the
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail.
7. Contemporaneously with the seizure of the
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail, defendants were
explicitly informed that they were seizing plaintiffs' E-mail
which was not described either generally or specifically in the
warrant hereinabove referred to.
--------------
8. No notice was given to any plaintiff by any
defendant of the impending seizure of their E-mail.
9. In the process of procuring the warrant, neither
the defendants nor anyone else made any showing that there
was reason to believe that the contents of any of plaintiffs' E-
mail was relevant to any law enforcement inquiry.
10. Subsequent to the execution of the warrant on
January 12, 1988, no notice was given to any plaintiff by any
government entity, including the defendants, nor any
defendant herein, at any time, regarding the defendants
acquisition and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail.
11. The court issuing the warrant in respect of the
Alcor facility did not, prior to the issuance of the warrant nor
at any other time, determine that notice to plaintiffs
compromised any legitimate investigation within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. section 2705(a)(2).
12. Not withstanding that defendant and each of them
were informed that they had taken, along with materials
describe in the warrant, E-mall belonging to plaintiffs, said
defendants knowingly and willfully (a) continued to access the
electronic and magnetic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail and
(b) continued to deny access to plaintiffs to such E-mail for
many months although a demand was made for the return of the
said E-mail. Defendants' wrongful access to and retention of
plaintiffs' E-mail was intentional within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. section 2707.
--------------
13. Proximately caused by the unprivileged actions of
the defendants hereinbefore described, each plaintiff has
suffered damage in an amount to be proved at trial, but in no
event less than $10,000 each.
WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray:
1. For damages according to proof;
2. For cost of suit;
3. For Attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 2707(b)(3); and
4. For such other and further relief as is required
in the circumstances.
Date: January 11, 1990
GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH, AND EPSTEIN
A Professional Corporation
(signed)
CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
--------------
Exhibit "A"
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEARCH WARRANT
To any Sheriff, Police Officer, Marshal or Peace Officer
in the County of Riverside.
Proof, by sworn statement, having been made this day
to me by Alan Kunzman and it appearing that there is
probable cause to believe that at the place and on the
persons and in the vehicle(s) set forth herein there
is now being concealed property which is:
____ stolen or embezzled property
__x__ property and things used to commit a felony
__x__ property possessed (or being concealed by another)
with intent to commit a public offense
__x__ property tending to show a felony was committed;
YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH : the
premises located at
[description of Alcor address at 12327 Doherty St.]
including all rooms attics, basements, storage areas, and
other parts therein, garages, grounds and outbuilding and
appurtenances to said premises; vehicles(s) described as
follows:
(not applicable)
and the persons of (not applicable)
for the following property:
1. All electronic storage devices, capable of storing,
electronic data regarding the above records,
including magnetic tapes, disc, (floppy or hard),
and the complete hardware necessary to retrieve
electronic data including CPU (Central Processing
Unit), CRT (viewing screen, disc or tape drives(s),
printer, software and service manual for operation
of the said computer, together with all handwritten
notes or printed material describing the
operation of the computers (see exhibit A - search
warrant no., 1 property to be seized #1)
2. Human body parts identifiable or belonging to
the deceased, Dora Kent.
3. Narcotics, controlled substances and other
drugs subject to regulation by the Drug
Enforcement Administration.
article of personal property tending to establish the identity
of person in control of premise, vehicle, storage areas,
and containers being searched, including utility company
receipts, rent receipts, address envelopes and keys and to
SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me or
this court at the courthouse of this court.
Good cause being shown this warrant my be served at any
time of the day or night as approve by my initials_________
Time of issuance _______ Time of execution __1600__
Given under my hand and dated this 12th day of January 1988
Thomas E. Hollenhorst Judge of the Superior Court
-------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
H. KEITH HENSON, see attachment "A"
PLAINTIFF(S)
vs.
RAYMOND CARRILLO, see attachment "A"
DEFENDANTS(S)
CASE NUMBER
SA CV- 90-021 JSL Rw Rx
SUMMONS
-----------------------------------------------
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S), your are hereby summoned and required to
file with this court and serv upon
Christopher Ashworth, Esq.
GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
A Professional Corporation
Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is:
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, California 90067
(213) 277-1981
an answer to the complaint which is herewith serve upon you
within __20__ days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Date Jan. 11, 1990
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
By MARIA CORTEZ
Deputy Clerk
(SEAL OF THE COURT)
