Prison Phone Justice

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 1 of 50

UNITEDSTATES
STATES DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT
COURT
UNTED
FOR THE
OFOF
MINNESOTA
FOR
THEDISTRICT
DISTRICT
MISOTA

FOURTH DIVISION

Kenneth E. Andersen, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly
himself
situated,

))

Case No. ----------------------

))
))

and
WilliamK.
K. Bulmer,
Bulmer, II, On behalf of
Wiliam
himself
and
all others similarly
himself
situated,

))
))
))
))

Plaintiffs ))
Plaintif
))

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL
TRIAL DEMANDED
DEMANDED

vs.

))
))
The
County
of Becker, Minnesota,
The
County
of
))
Tim Gordon, in his capacity as
as Sheriff ))
of
Becker County, and Joseph H.
))
of
McArthur,
in his
his capacity
capacity as
as Captain
))
McArhur, in
Sheriff
in the Becker County Sheriffs
))
Sheriff s
Department,
))
Deparment,
))
Defendants. ))

Bulmer, II bring
bring this class
class action
action
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Kenneth
Kenneth E.
E. Andersen
Andersen and
and William
Wiliam K. Bulmer,
on behalf
similarly situated,
situated, and state as follows:
and all
all others
others similarly
behalf ofthemselves
ofthemselves and

I.
I.

INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1.
1.

action
fordamages
damages
reliefisis brought
class
injunctive
brought pursuant
pursuant to
to
ThisThis
class
action
for
andand
injunctive
relief

42
plaintiffs' rights,
rights, and those
those of
of the
the classes
classes the
the
42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. § 1983
1983 for
for violations
violations of
of the
the plaintiffs'
plaintiffs
represent (collectively,
plaintiffs represent
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"),
"Plaintiffs"), under
under the
the First,
First, Fourth,
Fourth, Fifth,
Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments
Amendments to
to the
the United
United States
States Constitution;
Constitution; under
underArticle
Aricle I, Sections 6, 7
of the
the Minnesota
Minnesota Constitution;
Constitution; pursuant
pursuant to
18 U.S.C.
U.S.C. § 2510,
seq., for
and
10 of
and 10
to 18
2510, et
et seq.,
for

80136
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 2 of 50

Crime Control
Control and
Streets Act of
violations
Omnibus Crime
of 1968
1968 (Title
(Title III);
III); for
violations of the Omnibus
and Safe Streets
§§§ 481.10
violations of
of Minnesota
Minnesota Statutes
Statutes §§§
ofPlaintiffs'
Plaintiffs'
violations
violations of
481.10 and
and 626A;
626A; and for violations

rights under both federal and Minnesota common law.
2.
2.

of, and
and redress
redress for,
Plaintiffsseek
seekinjunction
injunctionof,
for, defendants'
Plaintiffs
defendants' unlawful
unlawful and
and

unconstitutional
of recording privileged and confidential
confidential
unconstitutional policy,
policy, custom and/or practice of
and!or
including investigative
investigative
telephone calls between attorneys
attorneys and!
and!or
or the
the attorneys'
attorneys' agents - including
agents
and their
and!or incarcerated
their clients
clients who
who have
have been
been and/or
and/or are
are detained
detained and/or
and!or
incarcerated in the
agents - and
Becker
Plaintiffs also
also seek
seek injunction
injunction of,
of, and
and redress
redress for,
for,
Becker County
County Jail
Jail ("Jail").
("Jail"). Plaintiffs
defendants'
unconstitutional policy,
practice of
defendants'unlawful
unlawful and
and unconstitutional
policy, custom
custom and/or
and/or practice
affirmatively
attorneys/attorneys' agents
detainees/inmates that
that
affirmatively informing
informing attorneys/attorneys'
agents and
and detainees/inmates
and via
via
attorney/client
Inmate Handbook
Handbook and
attorney/client telephone
telephone calls
calls are
are not recorded
recorded via the Jail's Inmate
signs
at the
the facilty,
facility, when
all such
such calls
calls are
are recorded
recorded unless
unless the
the attorney's
attorney's
signs posted
posted at
when all
Finally, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs seek
seek
telephone
telephone number
number is
is placed
placed on
on the
the Jail's "Do Not Record" list. Finally,
injunction
of, and
redress for,
for, defendants'
failure to
attorneys/attorneys' agents
injunction of,
and redress
defendants' failure
to inform
inform attorneys/attorneys'
agents
of either the Jail's
Jail's internal
internal procedure
procedure by
by which
which attorneys'
attorneys' landline
landline
and detainees/inmates of
telephone
Record" list in order to arrange
arrange for
telephone numbers
numbers may
may be
be placed
placed on
on the
the "Do Not Record"
privileged and confidential attorney/client telephone calls, or of the fact that it refuses to
privileged and confidential attorney/client telephone calls, or of

of attorneys or any phone numbers of
of attorneys'
attorneys' agents
agents
place the cellular phone numbers of
on the "Do Not Record" list.

2
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 3 of 50

II.
PARTIES
II.
PARTIES

3. Plaintiff
Plaintiff Kenneth
Kenneth E.E. Andersen
Andersen("Andersen")
("Andersen") isis ananinmate
inmatecurrently
currently
3.
incarcerated inin the
Correctional Facility
City, Minnesota.
Minnesota.
incarcerated
the Minnesota
Minnesota Correctional
Facilty located
located in
in Rush
Rush City,
Andersen was a detainee/inmate at the Becker
Becker County
County Jail from
from June 2007
2007 to June 2008.
2008.
4. Plaintiff
PlaintiffWiliam
William
Bulmer,
("Bulmer")
individualresiding
residing in
in
4.
K. K.
Bulmer,
II II
("Bulmer")
is is
an an
individual
Bulmer is
is an
an attorney
attorney currently
currently licensed
licensed to practice in, and in
St. Louis
Louis Park,
Park, Minnesota.
Minnesota. Bulmer
Bulmer practices
practices in the
the area
area of
criminal
good standing
good
standingwith,
with, the
the State
State of
of Minnesota.
Minnesota. Bulmer
of criminal
defense and represented
represented clients,
clients, including
including Andersen, who were
were detained/incarcerated
detained/incarcerated in
defense
June 2007
2008. During
DuringAndersen's
Andersen's incarceration
incarceration
the Becker County Jail from June
2007 to
to January
Januar 2008.

at the Becker County Jail, Bulmer contacted Andersen via telephone to discuss privileged
and confidential aspects of
of his/her case on a number of
of occasions.
5.
Defendant
Becker
County
and
wasatatallallrelevant
relevanttimes
times herein,
herein, aa political
5. Defendant
Becker
County
is, is,
and
was
personnel of
of the
the Becker
Becker County
County
entity
charged with
control and supervision
supervision of all personnel
entity charged
with the control
Sheriffs
Departmentand
and the
the Becker
BeckerCounty
CountyJaiL.
Sheriff
Jail.
Sheriff ss Department
6.
Defendant
Gordon
("Gordon")
and
wasatatallallrelevant
relevanttimes
timesherein,
herein,
6. Defendant
TimTim
Gordon
("Gordon")
is, is,
and
was
Gordon is,
the duly appointed
appointed and
and acting
acting sheriff of
of Becker
Becker County.
County. As such, Gordon
is, and was,
was, a
authorized to enforce the law, and was
duly
appointed agent
County and was authorized
duly appointed
agent of Becker County
acting
at all
all times
times material
material to the
the allegations
allegations set forth
forth in this
this
acting under
under the
the color
color of law at
Complaint.
All causes
causes of
ofaction
action brought
brought against
against Gordon
Gordon are brought
brought in his
his official
official
Complaint. All
capacity as the sheriff of Becker
Becker County.
County.
capacity as the sheriff of

3
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 4 of 50

andwas
was atatall
7.
DefendantJoseph
Joseph H.
H. McArhur
McArthur("McArhur")
("McArthur")is,is,and
allrelevant
relevant
7. Defendant
times herein,
and acting
acting law enforcement
officer in the
herein, aa duly appointed
enforcement officer
the Becker
Becker County
times
appointed and

Sheriff's
of Becker
Becker
such, McArhur
McArthur is,
is, and
and was,
was, aa duly
duly appointed
appointed agent
agent of
Sheriff s Department.
Department. As such,
of law at all
County and was authorized to enforce the law, and was acting under the color of

to the allegations
set forth
forth in
in this
this Complaint.
Complaint. All
All causes
causes of
times material
material to
allegations set
of action
action brought
against
are brought
of the
the Becker
Becker County
County
brought in
in his
his official
official capacity
capacity as an
an officer
officer of
against McArthur
McArhur are
Sheriff's
Sheriff s Department.

III.
III. JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
8.
8.

This
Court
originaljurisdiction
jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§ 1331
1331 to
to hear
hear the
the
This
Court
hashas
original
under 28

claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
1983 and 18
18 V.S.C.
U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.
Court
has
originaljurisdiction
jurisdictionover
overseveral
severalofofthe
9.
Because
theclaims
claims and
and
9. Because
thisthis
Court
has
original
the claims arising under state
state law
law are
are so related
related to
to the
the federal
federal claims
claims as
as to
to form
form part
part of

controversy, this
the same case
case or
or controversy,
this Court
Court has
has supplemental
supplemental jurisdiction over those state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367.
1367.
becausedefendant
10.
Venuein in
Districtofof
Minnesotaisisproper
properbecause
defendant Becker
Becker
10. Venue
thethe
District
Minnesota
District, the
the individually
individually named defendants
County
defendants reside
County is located in this District,
reside in
in and are
employed in this District, and the unconstitutional
unconstitutional and unlawful activities alleged herein
occurred in this District.

IV.

IV. FACTUAL

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Interaction
Jail
A. Kenneth
Andersen's
Interaction
with
A.
Kenneth
Andersen's
withthe
theBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJail

11. OnOn
June
2007,
11.
June11,11,
2007,Andersen
Andersenwas
wasarrested
arrested and
and detained
detained in the
the Becker
Becker

County Jail.
JaiL. Upon
County
Upon arriving
arriving at
at the
the Jail,
Jail, Andersen
Andersen was
was provided
provided with
with an
an "Inmate
"Inmate
4
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 5 of 50

Handbook"for
for the
the facilty.
facility. A
copy of
of the
the Inmate
providedto
to Andersen
Andersen is
is
Handbook"
A copy
Inmate Handbook
Handbook provided
Exhibit 1.
1.
attached hereto as Exhibit
12. The
TheInmate
InmateHandbook
Handbooksets
sets forth
forth the
the Jail's
Jail's policy
policy ofofmonitoring
monitoring and/or
and/or
12.
Specifically, Section
Section D under
recording "all non-attorney/client privileged
privileged phone
phone calls."
calls." Specifically,
Programs" is
is entitled
entitled "Telephones,"
"Telephones," and
and subsection
subsection D(3) states
states "Any
"Any
the heading "Jail Programs"
non-attorney/client privileged
be
non-attorney/client
privilegedphone
phonecalls
callsmade
madefrom
fromBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJail
Jailwill
wil be
See Exhibit
Exhibit 1,
1, p. 99 (emphasis added).
and/or recorded." See
monitored and!or

doesnot
notprovide
providethe
thedetainee/inmate
detainee/inmate with any
any
13.
TheInmate
InmateHandbook
Handbookdoes
13. The
information regarding
distinguishes between
information
regarding how
how the
the Jail distinguishes
between standard
standard telephone
telephone calls
calls -monitoring and!or
and/or recording
recording - and
and attorney/client
attorney/client privileged
privileged and
and
which are
are subject
subject to monitoring
bemonitored
monitoredand!
and/or
confidential calls which
which are
are not
not to
to be
or recorded.
evenmention
mention -- the
theprocess
process by
14.
Nor
does
InmateHandbookset
Handbooksetforth
forth- -ororeven
14. Nor
does
thetheInmate
which an attorney
attorney and/or detainee/inmate
detainee/inmate isis able
private,
able to request and arrange for aa private,
privileged attorney/client
attorney/client telephone
call.
privileged
telephone calL.
15.
Neither
Andersennor
norhis
hisattorneys,
attorneys,including
includingBulmer,
Bulmer,were
were informed
informed that
that a
15. Neither
Andersen
process
attorney and/or detainee/inmate
detainee/inmate could
process existed
existed whereby
whereby an
an attorney
could request
request aa privileged
and confidential attorney/client telephone call.
16.
16.

addition,after
afterbeing
beingadmitted
admittedto
signs posted
to the
the Jail,
In In
addition,
Jail,Andersen
Andersen observed
observed signs
posted

near
telephones reiterating
telephone policy
forth in
in the
the
near the telephones
reiterating the
the Jail's telephone
policy which
which was
was set forth
Inmate
"All phone
phone calls
calls and
and messages
messages to and
and from
from the
the Becker
Becker County
County Jail
Inmate Handbook:
Handbook: "All
are
Exceptions are phone
are monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded.
recorded. This includes the visiting
visiting booths.
booths. Exceptions
See Exhibit
Exhibit 2 attached hereto (emphasis added).
calls made to an attorney." See
5
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 6 of 50

17. Shortly
Shortlyafter
afterbeing
beingbrought
broughttotothe
theJail,
Jail, Andersen
retained attorney
attorney Rory
17.
Andersen retained
Rory
locatedininAnoka,
Anoka,Minnesota
Minnesota
Durkin'slaw
lawoffice
officeisislocated
Durkin ("Durkin") to represent him. Durkin's
approximately 200
200 miles
miles from
from Detroit
Detroit Lakes,
Lakes, Minnesota
Minnesota where
where Andersen
Andersen was
- approximately
was In
II
in the
the Becker
BeckerCounty
CountyJaiL.
Jail.
custody in
18. Durkin
Durkin
began
investigateAndersen's
Andersen'scase
caseand
andhired
hiredinvestigator
investigatorGlen
Glen
18.
began
to toinvestigate
Fladmark ("Fladmark")
investigation. Throughout
Throughout the
the summer
summer and
and
Fladmark
("Fladmark") to
to assist
assist with
with the
the investigation.
of 2007,
2007, both
both Durkin
Durkin and
and Fladmark
Fladmark contacted
contacted Andersen at the Becker
Becker County
County
early fall of
case -- including
including potential
potential
Jail by
by telephone
telephone regularly
regularly to discuss
discuss key
key aspects
aspects of
of the
the case
and to
to prepare
prepare Andersen's
Andersen's defense.
defense.
witnesses and exculpatory evidence - and
19.
19.

oneinformed
informedDurkin,
Durkin,Fladmark
FladmarkororAndersen
Andersenthat
thattheir
their
During
thistime,
time,nonoone
During
this

privileged attorney/client telephone calls were being monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded.
recorded. Nor did
anyone inform them that the Becker County Jail had an internal policy whereby a request
to the Jail was required
required to have a telephone
telephone number placed on the "Do Not Record" list
in order to ensure the confidentiality of
of attorney/client telephone calls.
20.
20.

Andersenbegan
begantotosuspect
of 2007,
2007, Durkin,
Durkin, Bulmer
and Andersen
suspect that
that
thefall
fall of
In In
the
Bulmer and

their telephone calls and the telephone calls between Fladmark and Andersen were being
of Becker County law enforcement.
listened to by members of
Andersendiscussed
Andersen informed
informed
21.
When
Durkin
discussedtheir
theirsuspicions,
suspicions,Andersen
21. When
Durkin
andand
Andersen
"running joke"
joke" among
was aa "running
among the
the Becker
Becker County
County inmates
inmates
Durkin
Durkin that he learned that it was
that Becker County
County law
law enforcement
enforcement listened
listened to the
the inmates'
inmates' attorney/client
attorney/client telephone
telephone
calls.

6
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 7 of 50

Handbookand
andthe
thesigns
signsposted
postedby
bythe
the telephones
telephones in
22. Based
onon
thethe
Inmate
22.
Based
InmateHandbook
the
Becker County
County Jail,
Jail, Andersen
Andersen and
and Durkin
Durkin believed
believed that
that their
theirattorney/client
attorney/client
the Becker
telephone calls
calls had
had been
been confidentiaL.
confidential.
23.
23.

After
and disturbing
disturbing 'joke,"
'joke,"Andersen
Andersen and
and Durkin
Durkin
Afterhearing
hearingthis
thisstartling
startling and

investigated the issue and discovered an even more alarming
alarming reality
reality -- the Becker County
Jail had in fact been monitoring and/or recording their attorney client telephone calls and
the privileged calls between Andersen and Fladmark.
24.
24.

Only
thistime,
time, after
after Durkin,
Only
at at
this
Durkin,Bulmer,
Bulmer,Fladmark
Fladmark and
and Andersen
Andersen had
had been
been

Jail's internal
internal
communicating
of the Jail's
communicating via
via telephone
telephone for
for over
over four
four months,
months, did
did they
they learn of
policy regarding attorney/client telephone calls.

and/or
is monitor
to monitor
recordallalldetainee/inmate
detainee/inmatetelephone
telephone
25.
Jail's
policy
25. TheThe
Jail's
policy
is to
and/or
record
detainee/inmate or
or attorney
attorney specifically
specifically requests
requests that
that certain
certain telephone
telephone
calls
unless aa detainee/inmate
calls unless
numbers
This was
was the
the first
first time
time that
that Durkin,
Durkin,
numbers be
be placed
placed on
on the
the "Do
"Do Not
Not Record"
Record" list.
list. This
This policy
policy is
Bulmer, Fladmark or Andersen had heard of the
is not
the "Do Not Record"
Record" list.
list. This
Bulmer, Fladmark or Andersen had heard of

Jail.
set forth anywhere
anywhere in the
the Inmate
Inmate Handbook
Handbook nor
nor isis ititdisplayed
displayedanywhere
anywhere ininthe
theJaiL.
followed by
Instead,
Instead, it is an "unwritten" policy followed
by the Becker County
County Jail
Jail personnel
personnel -- but
not disclosed to detainees/inmates or attorneys.
26.
Until mid-2007,
mid-2007, to
to have
have aa telephone
telephone number
26. Until
number placed
placed on
on the
the "Do
"Do Not
request that a specific
specific number
number be
Record"
list, a detainee/inmate
detainee/inmate or
Record" list,
or attorney
attorney had
had to
to request
added
list. InInmid-2007,
mid-2007, the
the process
process changed
changed slightly
added to
to the
the list.
slightlydue
duetoto some
somesoftware
softare
upgrades by
by the
the private
private company
company managing
managing the
theBecker
Becker County
County Jail
Jail telephone
telephonesystemssystemsupgrades

Reliance Telephone Systems, Inc. ("Reliance").
7
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 8 of 50

Under
current
procedures,a detainee/inmate
a detainee/inmateororattorney
attorneygenerally
generally must
must
27. Under
thethe
current
procedures,
or the Jail to request
in the
request that specific
specific telephone numbers be placed
placed in
call either Reliance or
made,Reliance
Reliancepersonnel
personnel investigate
investigate whether
whether
Record" list.
list. Once
Onceaarequest
requestisismade,
"Do Not Record"
are satisfied
satisfied that
the Reliance
Reliance personnel
personnel are
the telephone number is an attorney number.
number. IfIfthe
proper attorney
attorney telephone number,
number, it is placed on the "Do Not Record"
Record"
the number is aa proper
Reliance then
then places
places the
the number
number in
in aa "free
"free status"
status" in
in its
its computer
computer system
system and
and the
the
list. Reliance
telephone number
blocked from
Becker County
County Jail
Jail
telephone
number is
is blocked
from being
being monitored
monitored or
or recorded.
recorded. Becker
personnel make the final
final determination
determination regarding whether a telephone number is placed
on and/or remains on the "Do Not Record" list.

28. After
Afterlearning
learningofofthe
the"Do
"DoNot
NotRecord"
Record"list
listpolicy
policyand
andprocedures,
procedures, aa
28.
telephone
the Jail to
to request
request that the
the office
office and
and cellular
cellulartelephone
telephone
telephone call
call was
was made
made to
to the
of Durkin, Bulmer, Fladmark and several other attorneys in Durkin's office
office be
be
numbers of
placed on the "Do Not Record" list at the beginning of December 2007.
placed on the "Do Not Record" list at the beginning of

ofthe
the telephone
telephone
29.
initially
compliedwith
withthe
therequest
requestand
andplaced
placedall
allof
29. TheThe
JailJail
initially
complied
the "Do Not
Not Record"
Record" list on
numbers
even the cellular
cellular telephone
telephone numbers
numbers-- even
numbers- - on
on the
December
December 3,2007.
3,2007.
30.
30.

Approximatelythree
three months
monthslater,
later, however,
Approximately
however, Durkin
Durkin and
and Bulmer
Bulmer learned
leared

that many
many of the telephone
telephone numbers
numbers were
were no
no longer
longer on
on the
the "Do
"Do Not
Not Record"
Record" list
list-- and
had not been
been on
on the
the list
list since
since December
December 5,2007.
5,2007.
31.
UnbeknownsttotoDurkin,
Durkin,
Bulmer,Fladmark
FladmarkororAndersen
Andersen--because
because the Jail
31. Unbeknownst
Bulmer,
anomaly - the
Jail's internal
the Jail's
internal policy
policy prevents
prevents cellular
had
them of
had failed
failed to
to inform them
of this anomaly
even when
when the
telephone
telephone numbers
numbersfrom
frombeing
beingplaced
placedon
onthe
the "Do
"Do Not
Not Record"
Record" list,
list, even
88
80136
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 9 of 50

Similarly, the
the telephone
telephone
cellular number
is that
that of
of aa detainee's/inmate's
detainee's/inmate's attorney.
cellular
number is
attorney. Similarly,
investigator hired by an attorney
attorney -- are
are not
of agents of an attorney -- such
such as
as an
an investigator
numbers of
5, 2007,
2007, the
the cellular
cellular
December 5,
"Do Not
Not Record"
Record" list.
list. Accordingly,
Accordingly, on
on December
placed on the "Do
of Durkin, Bulmer and
and their attorney
attorney colleagues
colleagues were removed
removed from
from
telephone numbers of
l

"DoNot
NotRecord"
Record"list.
list.1
the "Do
32. Although
AlthoughDurkin's,
Durkin's,Bulmer's
Bulmer'sand
andtheir
their
attorneycolleagues'
colleagues'cellular
cellular
32.
attorney
list, Becker County Jail
telephone numbers had been removed from the "Do Not Record" list,
of this until
until approximately
approximately three
personnel failed to inform Durkin, Bulmer or Andersen of
months later.
later. During
During that
thatentire
entireperiod,
period, Durkin,
Durkin, Bulmer
Bulmer and
and their
their colleagues
colleagues contacted
contacted
months
Andersen regularly from their cellular telephones and conversed with him at length
length and
the upcoming
upcoming Omnibus
Omnibus hearing and
and his
his overall
overall defense
defense
in detail
detail regarding
regarding his case,
case, the
strategy.
33.
33.

Allof of
these
cellulartelephone
telephoneattorney/client
attorney/client telephone
telephone calls
calls were
All
these
cellular
were

monitored
and/or recorded
recorded by
by the
the Becker
BeckerCounty
CountyJaiL.
Jail.
monitored and/or
April14,
attorney/clientprivilege
privilegeatatan
an April
14, 2008
2008
34.
Durkin
raised
violationsofof
34. Durkin
raised
thethe
violations
attorney/client
Omnibus hearing,
hearing, the
the
Atthe
theOmnibus
Omnibus hearing ("Omnibus
("Omnibus hearing")
hearing") in Andersen's case. At
facts
unconstitutional and
and unlawful
unlawful policy
policy regarding
regarding the
the monitoring
monitoring
facts concerning the Jail's
Jail's unconstitutional
of attorney/client telephone calls set forth above came to light.
and/or recording of

not removed
removed from
Fladmark's telephone number was not
from the "Do
"Do Not
Not Record"
Record" list
list because
because
Fladmark's
the Becker County Attorney had informed Becker County Jail personnel that Fladmark's
telephone number could be placed
This was an
an exception to
placed on
on the
the "Do
"Do Not
Not Record"
Record" list.
list. This
Becker
policy. April
April14,
14,2008
2008Omnibus
OmnibusHearing
Hearing Transcript,
Transcript, p.
p. 133,
133,
Becker County
County Jail's
Jail's policy.
Ins.
Relevant portions
portions of
of the
the Omnibus
Omnibus Hearing
Hearing Transcript are attached
attached hereto as
Ins. 17-25.
17-25. Relevant
Exhibit 3.
1

1

9
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 10 of 50

35. During
Duringthethe
Omnibushearing,
hearing,Durkin
Durkinstated
stated that
that isisseemed
seemed that
that Becker
Becker
35.
Omnibus
us" in
in the
theinvestigation
investigation
County law enforcement
enforcement was
County
was always
always "one
"one step
step ahead
ahead of
of us"
3, p.
p. 110,
110, Ins.
Ins. 16-25.
16-25. "We
"Wetalk
talkon
onthe
thephone
phoneand
and we
we
Exhibit3,
regarding Andersen's case. Exhibit
State will
have interviewed
interviewed that
that
talk about
about witnesses
witnesses that
thatwe're
we're going
going to
to go
go see.
see. The State
wil have
Id.
witness like an hour beforehand."
beforehand." Id.

36. Durkin
Durkin
stated
that
becamesosoconcerned
concernedwith
withthe
the possibilty
possibilitythat
that Becker
Becker
36.
stated
that
bebebecame

County law enforcement were listening to privileged attorney/client telephone calls that
calling Andersen
Andersen and
and informing
he arranged
arranged aa"test."
This test
test consisted
consisted of
he
"test." This
of Fladmark callng

him that the next time Durkin visited Andersen, Durkin would "sneak him some drugs."
Id. at
at p.
p. 111,
111, Ins.
Ins. 9-16.
9-16. Durkin
Durkininformed
informed the
the Court
Court of
ofthe
the results
results of
of the
the "test"
"test" after
after
Id.

Fladmark
call: "And I tell
tell you,
you, Your
Your Honor,
Honor, the
the very
very next
next day
day deputies
deputies
Fladmark had
had made
made the
the call:
Andersen and
and asking
asking him,
hey, when is (the)
[the] other
other lawyer,
lawyer,
started
started coming
coming up
up to
to Mr. Andersen
him, hey,
Rory Durkin, coming up
Id. at
at p. 111,
111, Ins. 16-20.
16-20. Durkin
Durkin went
went on
on to admit that
up to
to you?"
you?" Id.
he couldn't
couldn't prove
prove that
that the
the telephone
telephone calls
calls were
weremonitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded
recorded and
and actually
actually
the "test"
"test" were
were "very
"very
used
against Andersen,
used against
Andersen,but
but concluded
concludedthat
thatthe
the results
results of
of the
suspicious."
suspicious." Id.
37.
37.

during the
concerns regarding
regarding the
the
Laterduring
the Omnibus
Omnibushearing,
hearing,Durkin's
Durkin's concerns
Later

monitoring
of his
his and
and Andersen's
Andersen'sattorney/client
attorney/clientprivileged
privileged telephone
telephone
monitoring and/or recording of
confirmed by
calls
were confirmed
Becker County
County law
law enforcement
enforcement officer,
Joe McArthur.
calls were
by Becker
officer, Joe
McArhur.
stated that
ofthe
the Jail's
Jail'stelephone
telephone system
system and
and admitted
admitted that
that
McArthur
that he
he was
was in
in charge
charge of
McArhur stated
the Inmate Handbook does not disclose that attorney/client telephone calls are monitored
and/or recorded.
at pp. 118,
118, 134.
134.
recorded. Id. at
10
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 11 of 50

38. McArhur
McArthur
furtheradmitted
admittedthat
thatallallBecker
BeckerCounty
County Jail
Jail inmate
inmate calls
calls are
are
38.
further
Not
automatically recorded
automatically
recorded unless
unlessthe
the telephone
telephonenumbers
numbersof
ofthe
the calls
calls are
are on
on the "Do Not
Id. at
at p.
p. 122
122 (emphasis
(emphasis added).
added).
Record" list. Id.

39. McArhur
McArthuralso
also
admittedthat
thatneither
neitherAndersen
Andersen nor
norany
anyofofAndersen's
Andersen's
39.
admitted
attorneys were
ever informed
informed by
by Becker
Becker County
County law
law enforcement
enforcement personnel
personnel that
that
attorneys
were ever
being monitored
monitored and
and
attorney/client calls
attorneys were being
attorney/client
calls between
between Andersen
Andersen and
and his
his attorneys
Id. at
at p.
p. 134.
134.
recorded. Id.
recorded.

hewas
wasthe
theindividual
individual who
who made
made the
the
40. McArhur
McArthurfurther
furtheradmitted
admitted that
that he
40.
decision to remove
remove Durkin's
Durkin's and
and his
hisattorney
attorneycolleagues'
colleagues'cellular
cellulartelephone
telephonenumbers
numbers
decision
decision was
was based
based
and that
that this
this decision
from the "Do Not Record" list on December 5, 2007
from
2007 - and
on the "policy of the jail."
jaiL." Id.
Id. at pp. 134-36.
on the "policy of

41.
McArthur
admitted
that
this
decision,attorney/client
attorney/clienttelephone
telephone calls
calls
41. McArhur
admitted
that
duedue
to to
this
decision,
between Andersen
attorneys' cellular
been recorded
recorded by
by the
cellular telephones
telephones had been
the
between
Andersen and
and his
his attorneys'
Becker County Jail since
since December 5,
at p. 136-37.
136-37.
5, 2007.
2007. Id. at
42.
42.

wasalso
alsodisclosed
disclosed during
during the
the Omnibus
hearing that
that Special
It Itwas
Omnibus hearing
SpecialAgent
Agent Dan
Dan

Baumann
Criminal Apprehension
Apprehension -- who was
was aa lead
lead
Baumann ("Baumann")
("Baumann")of
of the
the Bureau
Bureau of
of Criminal
investigator
State in the prosecution
prosecution of
was provided
provided with audio
audio
investigator for
for the
the State
of Andersen
Andersen-- was
and the
Andersen's telephone
McArthur and
theBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJaiL.
Jail.
copies
copies of Andersen's
telephonecalls
calls by
by McArhur
Exhibit
3, p.
Exhibit 3,
p. 139-40.
139-40.
admitted that
he listened
43.
Baumann admitted
that he
listened totothe
therecordings
recordings ofofAndersen's
Andersen's
43. Baumann
of telephone calls
telephone calls, and at times, heard at the very least, the initial portions of
between
admitted that
that he
betweenAndersen
Andersenand
andhis
hisattorneys.
attorneys.Id.Id.atatp.p.140.
140.Baumann
Bauman further
fuher admitted
11
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 12 of 50

downloaded copies
telephone calls
the hard
hard drive
drive on
on his
his laptop
laptopcomputer,
computer,
downloaded
copies of
of the
the telephone
calls to
to the
reviewed the calls, and
and then copied
copied the non-privileged calls that
that were
were relevant
relevant to
to the
the
reviewed
Andersen investigation
investigation and
provided those
those calls
calls to
to the
thecounty
countyattorney.
attorney·prosecuting
prosecuting
Andersen
and provided
Mr. Zdrazil. Id.
Id. atat143-47.
143-47.
Andersen - Mr.

Jail's
44. AtAtthetheconclusion
conclusionofofthethetestimony
testimonyregarding
regarding Becker
Becker County
CountyJail's
44.
monitoring and/or recording
recording of
of Andersen's
Andersen's attorney/client
attorney/client privileged
privileged telephone
telephone calls,
calls,
monitoring
Judge Irvine castigated
castigated Becker
enforcement for its
its unconstitutional
unconstitutional and
and
Judge
Becker County
County law enforcement
unlawful policy and issued a cease
"Mr. Durkin,
Durkin, I can
cease and
and desist
desist order
order from
from the
the Bench:
Bench: "Mr.
numbers or land
ofthose
those cell
cell phone
phone numbers
land
willbe
berecorded
recorded again
again on
on any
any of
tell you that no call wil
stop doing
doing that
that
attorneys, regardless
lines to
lines
to his attorneys,
regardlessof
ofwhat
whathappens
happenshere.
here. The
The jail
jail will
wil stop
immediately."
Id. at
at p. 149.
149.
immediately." Id.
andbelief,
belief, the
themonitoring
monitoring and/or
and/or recording
recording of
45.
Uponinformation
informationand
all
45. Upon
of all
County Jail
Jail
privileged attorney/client
of Becker
Becker County
Andersen's privileged
attorney/client telephone
telephone calls,
calls, the failure
failure of
of the
the internal
internal process
process
personnel
inform Andersen
attorneys and their agents of
personnel to
to inform
Andersen or his attorneys
number placed
placed on
and/or procedure to have an attorney's telephone number
on the "Do
"Do Not
Not Record"
Record"
list, and the removal of the cellular telephone numbers of Andersen's attorneys
attorneys from
from the
the
list, and the removal of

"Do
Record" list,
list, were
were performed
performed pursuant
pursuant to
to the
the customs,
customs, practices
practices and!or
and/or
"Do Not Record"
County JaiL.
Jail.
procedures of the Becker County
procedures of

46.
46.

admitted
Becker
County
law
enforcement
officerJoe
Joe McArhur,
McArthur,itit is
is
As As
admitted
byby
Becker
County
law
enforcement
officer

the
of agents
the policy of the Becker County Jail to refuse to place the telephone numbers of
of
attorneys -- including
including investigators
investigators hired
by attorneys
attorneys to
to investigate
investigate the
the
of attorneys
hired by
detainee's/inmate's
case -- on
onthe
the"Do
"DoNot
NotRecord"
Record"list.
list.
detainee's/inmate's case
12
12
80136
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 13 of 50

continue to follow
47. Upon
Upon
information
andbelief,
belief,defendants
defendants continue
follow and
and abide
abide by
by
47.
information
and
these unlawful and
and unconstitutional
unconstitutional policies,
policies, customs
customs and/or
and/or practices
practices at the
the Becker
Becker
these
2

CountyJaiL.
Jail.2
County

B. Wiliam
William
K. Bulmer,
Interaction
with
BeckerCounty
CountyJail
Jail
B.
K. Bulmer,
II'sII's
Interaction
with
thetheBecker
48. Bulmer
Bulmer
was
a colleagueof of
Durkin's
assistedininrepresenting
representingAndersen
Andersen
48.
was
a colleague
Durkin's
andand
assisted
from June
June 2007 to January 2008 while
Andersen was
was in
in custody
custody in
inBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJaiL.
Jail.
from
while Andersen
49. During
During
time
Andersenwas
wasinincustody
custodyininthe
theJail,
Jail,Bulmer
Bulmercontacted
contacted
49.
thethe
time
Andersen
Andersen via telephone at the Jail on
on numerous
numerous occasions to discuss his case
case and defense
defense
strategy.

calls
50. Upon
Uponinformation
informationand
andbelief,
belief,attorney/client
attorney/clientprivileged
privileged telephone
telephone calls
50.
between
Andersen were monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded
recorded by
law enforcement
enforcement
and Andersen
by law
between Bulmer
Bulmer and
personnel at the Becker
Becker County
CountyJaiL.
Jail.
Andersen's
incarcerationininthe
theBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJail
Jaildid
did Jail
Jail
51.
time
during
51. At At
no no
time
during
Andersen's
incarceration
personnel inform
or Andersen
Andersen that
that their
theirprivileged
privilegedattorney/client
attorney/client
personnel
inform Bulmer,
Bulmer, Durkin or
telephone calls were being monitored and/or recorded. 3
telephone calls were being monitored and/or recorded.

52.
time
during
Andersen's
incarcerationininthe
theBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJail
Jaildid
did Jail
Jail
52. At At
no no
time
during
Andersen's
incarceration
personnel inform Bulmer or Andersen that the Jail's
Jail's internal
internal policy
policy was
was to
to monitor
monitor and/or
and/or

2 With
With the
the possible
possible exception
exception of
of Andersen
Andersen after
after Judge
Judge Irvine's
Irvine's reprimand
reprimand from
from the
the bench
bench

2

during
Omnibus hearing.
Andersen has
has since
since been
been transferred
transferred from
from the
the Becker
Becker
during the
the Omnibus
hearing. Andersen
County
Jail.
County JaiL.
3 Durkin's and Andersen's suspicion that their attorney/client telephone calls were being
3 Durkin's and Andersen's suspicion that their attorney/client telephone calls were being
monitored were initially corroborated by other inmates in the Becker County
County JaiL.
Jail. Later,
aa jail
to Andersen
Andersen that
that the
the Jail
Jail was
indeed monitoring
monitoring and/or
and/or
jail employee
employee confirmed
confirmed to
was indeed
recording attorney/client privileged telephone calls.
13
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 14 of 50

record all telephone
telephone calls -- regardless
regardless of
ofwhether
whether the
the calls
callsconstituted
constituted attorney/client
attorney/client
record
privileged communications
unless the
the inmate
inmate or
orattorney
communications -- unless
attorney requested
requested that
that specific
specific
privileged
list.
telephone numbers be placed on the "Do Not Record" list.
53. At At
time
during
Andersen's
incarcerationininthe
theBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJail
Jaildid
didJail
Jail
53.
no no
time
during
Andersen's
incarceration
cellular telephone
personnel inform Bulmer or Andersen that telephone calls made using aa cellular
were not protected under
under the attorney/client
attorney/client privilege.
54. At At
time
during
Andersen's
incarcerationininthe
theBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJail
Jaildid
didJail
Jail
54.
no no
time
during
Andersen's
incarceration
personnel inform Bulmer or
or Andersen
Andersen that telephone
telephone calls
calls between
between detainees/inmates
detainees/inmates and
attorney/client privilege.
investigators hired by their attorneys were not protected by the attorney/client
incarcerationininthe
theBecker
BeckerCounty
CountyJail
Jaildid
didJail
Jail
55. At At
time
during
Andersen's
55.
no no
time
during
Andersen's
incarceration
list even existed.
personnel inform Bulmer or Andersen that a "Do Not Record" list

v.
v.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS
ALLEGATIONS
CLASS
56.
56.

Plaintiffsseek
seektotomaintain
maintainthis
this action
action as
as aa class
class action
action pursuant
to Fed.
Plaintiffs
pursuant to
Fed. R.
R.

Civ.
P. 23.
23. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs bring
this action,
andall
all others
others similarly
similarly
Civ. P.
bring this
action, on
on behalf
behalf of
of themselves
themselves and
situated, as the representative members of the following classes:
situated, as the representative members of

All detainees/inmates
detainees/inmates who
and/or incarcerated in the
who were held in custody and!or
Becker County Jail located in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota,
Minnesota, and who had their
attorney/client communications
communications monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded
recorded without their or
their attorney's knowledge,
knowledge, at
any
time
in
the
four
at any time in the four years
years prior
prior to
to the
the filing
fiing
court, and all
all
of this Complaint
Complaint through
determined by
through aa date
date to be determined
by the court,
detainees/inmates
during the course
course of
of this
this litigation
litigation
detainees/inmateswho
whocurrently
curently are or during
will
beheld
heldinincustody
custodyand/or
and/orincarcerated
incarceratedininthat
thatjaiL.
jail.
wil be
Becker County Jail

and
All attorneys who represented a detainee/inmate in custody or incarcerated
located in
in Detroit
Detroit Lakes,
Lakes, Minnesota,
in the Becker County
Minnesota, and
County Jail
Jail facility
facilty located
who
their attorney/client
attorney/client communications
communications monitored and/or recorded
recorded
who had their
14
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 15 of 50

knowledge, at any time in
in the
the four
four years
years
without
without their
their or their attorney's knowledge,
of this Complaint through a date to be determined by the
prior to the filing of
court,
of this litigation
court, and all attorneys who currently or during the course of
will
representpersons
personsheld
heldinincustody
custodyand/or
and/orincarcerated
incarceratedininthat
thatjaiL.
jail.
wil represent
narrow or
or expand
expand these
Plaintiffs reserve
reserve the
the right
Plaintiffs
right to narrow
these class
class definitions
definitions following
following the
the
discovery period.
57.
57.

Prerequisites
ClassAction
Action- -Fed.
Fed.R.R.Civ.
Civ.P.P. 23(a).
23(a). The
Theprerequisites
prerequisites to
to
Prerequisites
to to
a aClass

class action are
are satisfied
satisfied as alleged
alleged in Paragraphs
Paragraphs 58 through
maintaining
maintaining this
this action as a class
63 below.
58.
58.

exactnumber
numberofofthe
Numerosity.While
While
theexact
the members
membersofofthe
the two
two proposed
proposed
Numerosity.
the

inmates are
monitored and!or
at this
this time,
time,the
thetelephone
telephone calls
calls of
ofall
allinmates
are monitored
and/or
classes
classesisisunknown
unkown at
regardless of
of whether
whether the calls
calls are
are attorney/client
attorney/client privileged
recorded
recorded -- regardless
privileged calls
calls -- unless an
inmate or attorney specifically
specifically requests
requests that
that a number
number be placed
placed on the "Do Not Record"
classes is
list.
on this,
this, the
of individuals
individuals in
of the
the two
proposedclasses
is
list. Based
Based on
the number
number of
in each
each of
two proposed
impracticable to
estimated to be in the hundreds,
It would be impracticable
hundreds, and may
may be
be in
in the
the thousands.
thousands. It
persons before the Court
Court as
even aa substantial
substantial percentage
percentage of
of such
such persons
as individual
individual
bring all, or even

plaintiffs through traditional joinder.
59.
Commonality.There
There
questionsofoflaw
lawororfact
factcommon
common to
to all
all members
members of
59. Commonality.
areare
questions
of
each
The common
common overarching
overarching question
and fact is
is whether
whether
each proposed
proposedclass.
class. The
questionof
of law
law and
defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights
rights and
and the
the attorney/client
attorney/client privilege
privilege by
by monitoring
monitoring and/or
and/or
recording
attorney/client privileged
recording attorney/client
privileged telephone
telephone calls
calls without
without the
the knowledge
knowledge of either the
attorney or the client.

15
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

60.

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 16 of 50

Typicality. The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members
members of

60. Typicality. The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of

the claims of

their class because: (a) each had their right to the attorney/client privilege and their right to
privacy
claims are
same legal
legal theory as other
other class
class
privacy violated;
violated; and
and (b)
(b) their
their claims
are based
based on the same
members.

61. Adequacy
Representation.
61.
Adequacyofof
Representation. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsare
areadequate
adequaterepresentatives
representatives of the
and able
able to
to represent
represent their
their respective
respective classes and
two classes because:
because: (1)
(1) they
they are
are willing
wiling and
have every incentive to pursue this action to a successful conclusion; (2) their interests are
not
any way
way antagonistic
antagonistic to
not in any
to those
and (3)
the other
other class
class members;
members; and
(3) they
they are
are
those of the
represented by counsel experienced in litigating complex class actions in federal court.
court.

62.
Class
Actions
Maintainable
- Fed.
Civ.
23(b)(2).Class
Classaction
actionstatus
status is
is
62. Class
Actions
Maintainable
- Fed.
R. R.
Civ.
P.P.
23(b)(2).
appropriate
defendants have
and/or refused
on grounds
grounds
appropriate in
in this
this case because defendants
have acted and/or
refused to act on
generally
classes, thereby making appropriate
appropriate final
final injunctive
injunctive relief or
generally applicable
applicable to
to the classes,
corresponding declaratory relief
relief with respect to the classes as a whole.

63.
Class
ActionsMaintainable
Maintainable- Fed.
- Fed.
Civ.
23(b)(3).Class
Classaction
actionstatus
status
63. Class
Actions
R.R.
Civ.
P. P.
23(b)(3).
and fact identified
identified above
above
also
appropriate because
because the
also is appropriate
the common
common questions
questionsof
of law
law and
class action is superior
superior
predominate over questions
questions affecting
affecting only
only individual
individual members.
members. A class
to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
adjudication of
of this
this litigation.
litigation. Because
monetary value
individual claim,
of the relatively
relatively small monetary
claim, few,
few, if
if
value of each class member's individual
any,
prosecution of
of separate
any, class members have an interest in individually
individually controlling
controllng the prosecution

actions. To
ofPlaintiffs
Plaintiffs and
and their
their counsel,
counsel, no
no class
class members
members have
have
actions.
Tothe
theknowledge
knowledge of
commenced litigation against defendants based on the same or similar allegations as stated

above. ItItisisdesirable
in this
this District
District because
because
desirabletotoconcentrate
concentrate the
the litigation
litigation of
ofthe
the claims
claims in
above.
16
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 17 of 50

defendants are
are located
located here.
here. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs and
their counsel
not anticipate
anticipate encountering
defendants
and their
counsel do
do not
encountering
action as
Finally,
class action.
any unique
unique difficulties
the management
management of
any
difficulties in the
of this
this action
as aa class
action. Finally,
classes to
members of
the two classes
would entail
entail
requiring members
of the
to pursue
pursue their
their claims
claims individually would
needless duplication and would waste the resources of all parties
involved and
and the
the Court.
Court.
paries involved

CAUSE OF ACTION I
Violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Violation of

the First Amendment of

64. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
allegations contained
in
64.
contained in
the Complaint as if
if set forth
forth separately
separately in this Cause of
of Action.
actingunder
have monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded
recorded
65. Defendants,
Defendants,acting
underthe
thecolor
color of
of law,
law, have
65.
detainee/inmate telephone
attorneys and their
detainee/inmate
telephone calls
calls at
at the
the Becker
Becker County
County Jail
Jail with their attorneys
customs and/or
and/or practices
attorneys' agents,
agents, pursuant
pursuant to
to policies,
policies, customs
practices established
established by
by the
the Becker
Becker
County
Jail.
County JaiL.
66.
Whendetainees/inmates,
detainees/inmates, including
including Andersen,
Andersen, have
have come
come to believe
believe that
that
66. When
County Jail
Jail personnel
personnel are
are monitoring
monitoring and/or
and/or recording
recording their
their attorney/client
attorney/client
Becker
Becker County
privileged
privileged telephone
telephone conversations,
conversations,itithas
hasproduced
producedaa serious
serious chilling
chiling effect upon what
they are
attorneys via
are able
able to
to communicate
communicate to
to their attorneys
via telephone
telephone for
for fear
fear that Becker County
Jail
ultimately law
Jail personnel
personnel -- and ultimately
law enforcement
enforcementpersonnel
personneland
andthe
theprosecution
prosecution- -will
wil be
privy to their attorney/client privileged communications.
proximateresult
resultofofseverely
detainees/inmates from
from
67.
a direct
severelyimpeding
impedingdetainees/inmates
67. AsAs
a direct
andand
proximate
fully
fully and
and openly communicating with their attorneys, defendants directly and substantially
freedom of
speech of plaintiffs
plaintiffs and
have
First Amendment
Amendment right
have violated
violated the
the First
right of
of freedom
of speech
and the
members of both putative
This violation is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
putative classes.
classes. This
members of

17
17
80136
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 18 of 50

CAUSE OF ACTION II
Violation of the
theFourth
Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Amendment of
Article
I, Section
10 of the Minnesota Constitution
Article
I. Section
10 of

Violation of

68. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsreallege
reallege and
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
allegations contained
contained in
in
68.
if set forth
forth separately in this Cause of
of Action.
the Complaint as if
69. Based
Based
theInmate
InmateHandbook,
Handbook,ononthe
thesigns
signs regarding
regarding
languageininthe
69.
on on
thethe
language
telephone calls
telephone
calls posted
posted in the Jail, and the protections generally afforded attorney/client
privilege, detainees/inmates
detainees/inmates have
believe that telephone
telephone calls with their
privilege,
have had
had reason
reason to
to believe
agents would
would not
not be
be monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded,
recorded, at
at least
least until
until
attorneys or their attorneys' agents
occurring.
they became aware that such monitoring and/or recording was occurring.
their
70. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs have
havenot
notconsented
consentedtotothe
the monitoring
monitoringand/or
and/orrecording
recording ofoftheir
70.

privileged attorney/client telephone calls.
71.
71.

of law,
law, have
monitored and/or
and/or recorded
Defendants,
actingunder
underthe
thecolor
colorof
Defendants,
acting
have monitored
recorded

detainee/inmate
Becker County
County Jail
Jail with their
their attorneys
attorneys and/or
and/or
detainee/inmate telephone
telephonecalls
calls at
at the
the Becker
their attorneys'
attorneys' agents
agents pursuant
pursuantto
to defendants'
defendants'policies,
policies,customs
customsand/or
and/orpractices.
practices.
72.
Defendants
therebyhave
havedirectly
directlyand
andsubstantially
substantiallyviolated
violatedthe
the right
right against
against
72. Defendants
thereby
the detainee/inmate
detainee/inmate putative
unreasonable
unreasonable searches
searchesof
of Anderson
Anderson and
and the
the members
members of
of the
class protected by the Fourth Amendment
Amendment to
to the
the United
United States
States Constitution
Constitution and
andArticle
Aricle I,
Minnesota Constitution.
Constitution. The
The former
former violation
violation is
is actionable
actionable under
under
Section
Section 10
10 of the Minnesota
42
42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §
§ 1983.
1983.

18
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 19 of 50

CAUSE OF ACTION III
III
Constitution
Violation of the
theFifthFifth
Amendment
of the United
United States Constitution
Amendment
of

Violation of

73. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
allegations contained
contained in
in
73.
in this
this Cause
Cause of
the Complaint
Complaint as
as ififset
set forth
forth separately
separately in
ofAction.
Action.
74. Based
Based
languageininthe
theInmate
InmateHandbook,
Handbook,ononthe
thesigns
signs regarding
regarding
74.
on on
thethe
language
telephone calls posted
posted in the Jail, and
and the protections generally afforded attorney/client
attorney/client
telephone
privilege, detainees/inmates
detainees/inmates have
believe that telephone
telephone calls with their
their
privilege,
have had
had reason
reason to
to believe
attorneys or their attorneys'
attorneys' agents
agents would
would not
notbe
be monitored
monitored and/or
and/orrecorded,
recorded, atatleast
leastuntil
until
that such
such monitoring and!or
and/or recording has been occurring.
they have become aware that
75. Through
Through
75.

these

privileged

attorney/client

communications,

their attorneys
attorneys and/or
and/or
detainees/inmates
detainees/inmates have
have discussed
discussed all
all aspects
aspects of their
their cases with their
their attorneys'
attorneys' agents,
agents, including
including evidentiary
evidentiary issues,
issues, potential
potential witnesses
witnesses and
and defense
defense
strategies.
76.
76.

of law,
law, have
monitored and!or
and/or recorded
Defendants,
actingunder
underthe
thecolor
colorof
Defendants,
acting
have monitored
recorded

detainee/inmate
County Jail
their attorneys
attorneys and/or
and/or
detainee/inmatetelephone
telephonecalls
calls atat the
the Becker
Becker County
Jail with their
their attorneys' agents,
agents, pursuant
pursuant to
to defendants'
defendants'policies,
policies,customs
customsand/or
and/orpractices.
practices.
77.
Upon
information
andbelief,
belief,information
informationobtained
obtainedfrom
fromthese
these monitored
monitored
77. Upon
information
and
and/or
and/or recorded
recorded privileged
privileged attorney/client
attorney/clienttelephone
telephonecalls
callshas
hasbeen
beenutilized
utilzed by Becker
County
County Jail personnel,
personnel, or provided to Becker County law enforcement personnel, for the
detainees' /inmates'
/inmates' criminal
of assisting in the prosecution
prosecution of
ofthe
the detainees'
detainees'/inmates'
criminalcases.
cases.
purpose of
defendants'policies,
policies,customs
customs and!or
and/or
78.
a direct
and
proximateresult
resultofof
78. AsAs
a direct
and
proximate
defendants'
practices,
practices, Andersen
Andersen and the members of the detainee/inmate putative class have suffered
19
19
80136
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 20 of 50

violations of their
Fifth Amendment
Amendment right
right against
direct and
and substantial
substantial violations
their Fifth
against selfselfdirect
is actionable
actionable under
under 42
42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§1983.4
1983. 4
incrimination which
which is
incrimination

CAUSE OF ACTION IV
I,
Violation of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.
U.S. Constitution
Constitution and Article I.
Section 66 of the
the Minnesota
Minnesota Constitution

79. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
allegations contained
contained in
in
79.
in this Cause
Cause of
as if
if set
set forth
forth separately
separately in
ofAction.
Complaint as
the Complaint
80. Based
Based
Inmate
handbookprovisions
provisionsand
andthe
thesigns
signs posted
posted in
in the
the Jail
Jail
80.
onon
thethe
Inmate
handbook
attorney/client telephone
failure of Becker County Jail personnel to
regarding attorney/client
telephone calls,
calls, the
the failure

provide detainees/inmates with any information regarding
regarding the "Do Not Record" list, and
attorney/client communications,
communications,
the basic precepts
precepts of
of American jurisprudence regarding attorney/client
reasonable expectation
privacy in
their
the
detainee/inmate plaintiffs
the detainee/inmate
plaintiffshad
had aa reasonable
expectationof
of privacy
in their
attorney/client telephone calls.
81.
81.

underthe
Defendants,acting
acting under
the color
color of
of law,
law, monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded
recorded
Defendants,

County Jail with
their attorneys
attorneys and!or
and/or
detainee/inmate
with their
detainee/inmate telephone
telephone calls
calls at
at the
the Becker County
their attorneys'
agents, pursuant
pursuant to
to defendants'
defendants'policies,
policies,customs
customsand/or
and/orpractices.
practices.
attorneys' agents,
82.
a direct
proximateresult
resultofof
defendants'policies,
policies,customs
customs and/or
and/or
82. AsAs
a direct
andand
proximate
defendants'
of the detainee/inmate putative class have suffered
practices, Andersen and the members of
violations
the attorney/client
attorney/client privilege
their right
violations of
of the
privilege and
and their
right to
to the
the effective
effective assistance
assistance of
of
counsel
counsel protected
protected by
by the
the Sixth Amendment
Amendment to
to the
the United
United States
States Constitution
Constitution and
andArticle
Aricle

4 Defendants'
also constitutes
Defendants' policy,
policy, custom
custom and!or
and/or practice
practice also
constitutes aa violation
violation of
of

4

detainees'/inmates'
detainees' /inmates'
Thisclaim
claim
/inmates' right
right of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This
will
be addressed
addressed in
in the
the portion
portion of
dealing with
defendants' Fourteenth
wil be
of the
the Complaint
Complaint dealing
with defendants'
Fourteenth
Amendment violations set forth below.

20
80136
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 21 of 50

Section 6 of
Minnesota Constitution.
Constitution. The
The former
former violation
violation isis actionable
I, Section
of the
the Minnesota
actionable under
under
42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §
1983.
42
§ 1983.

CAUSE OF ACTION V

Process Violations
Violations under
under the
the Fifth
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
Due Process
of the
Article I.
I, Section
United States Constitution and Article
Section 7 of
the Minnesota Constitution
83.
83.

Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
allegations contained
in
Plaintiffs
contained in

if set forth separately in this Cause of
of Action.
the Complaint as if
84.
Defendants'policies,
policies,customs
customsand/or
and/orpractices
practices set
set forth
forth in
in this
this Complaint,
Complaint,
84. Defendants'
including in Counts I through IV above, have deprived Andersen and the members of
of the
have their
their innocence
innocence or guilt
guilt fairly
fairly
detainee/inmate
detainee/inmateputative
putativeclass
classofofthe
the ability
abilty to have
determined.
This deprivation
deprivation violates
violates their
their privileges
privileges and
and immunities
immunities protected
protected by the
the
determined. This
Fourteenth Amendment
due process of
of law
law under
under the
the Fourteenth
Amendment of
of the
the United
United States
States Constitution
Constitution
and
libertyinterest
interestunder
underthe
theFourth,
Fourth, Fifth
Fifthand
United
andSixth
Sixth Amendments
Amendments of
of the
the United
and their libert
States Constitution protected by the Fifth Amendment of
United States
States Constitution.
Constitution.
of the United
These violations of their due process rights
rights are
are actionable
actionable under
under 42
42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§ 1983.
1983. This
These violations of

deprivation also violates their due process rights protected
of the
protected by Article I, Section 7 of
Minnesota Constitution.
CAUSE OF ACTION VI

Title III
III of the
the Omnibus
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
Violation of Title
18 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§ 2510.
1968 - 18
2510, et
et seii.
seq.
85.
85.

Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
allegations contained
in
Plaintiffs
contained in

the Complaint as if
if set forth
forth separately
separately in
in this Cause
Cause of
of Action.

21
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 22 of 50

86. Defendants,
calls of
86.
Defendants,acting
actingunder
underthe
the color
colorofoflaw,
law,intercepted
intercepted telephone
telephone calls

detainees/inmatesatat the
the Becker
Becker County
Jail to their
detainees/inmates
County Jail
their attorneys
attorneys and/or
and/or their
their attorneys'
attorneys'

agents, without
without the
the consent
consent or
or knowledge
of either
either participant
participanttoto the
the calls
calls and
agents,
knowledge of
and in
in
violation of their reasonable expectations.
violation of

87. Defendants'
violated the
rights of
87.
Defendants'actions
actionsviolated
the rights
ofplaintiffs
plaintiffsand
and the
the members
members of

both putative classes under Title III of
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 - 18
18 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§ 2510,
2510, et
et seq.
seq.

CAUSE OF ACTION VII
CAUSE

Federal Common Law
Violation of Federal
88.
88.

Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
allegations contained
in
Plaintiffs
contained in

the Complaint as if
if set forth separately in this Cause of
of Action.
89.
89.

underthe
thecolor
colorofoflaw,
Defendants,
actingunder
law, automatically
automatically monitored
and/or
Defendants,
acting
monitored and/or

calls at
at the
the Becker
Becker County
CountyJaiL.
Jail.
ofdetainee/inmate
detainee/inmate telephone
telephone calls
recorded a large number of
90.
Uponinformation
informationand
andbelief,
belief,defendants
defendants listened
listened to the
the recordings
recordings of
90. Upon
detainees'
detainees'/inmates'
telephonecalls.
calls.
detainees' /inmates'
/inmates' telephone
91.
Upon
information
and
belief,
a numberof of
theserecorded
recordedtelephone
telephone calls
calls
91. Upon
information
and
belief,
a number
these

included statements
statements by either the detainees/inmates
included
detainees/inmates or the individuals with whom they
detainees' /inmates'
were
speaking that were
were favorable
favorable to
tothe
thedetainees'
detainees'/inmates'
criminal defense,
defense, were
were
were speaking
/inmates' criminal

material to either the guilt
material
guilt or
or punishment
punishment of
of the
the detainee/inmate,
detainee/inmate, were relevant to the
detainees' /inmates'
cases and!or
and/or
credibilty of
of aa witness
/inmates' criminal
criminal cases
witness involved
involved ininthe
thedetainees'
detainees'/inmates'
credibility
contained exculpatory
contained
exculpatory evidence.
evidence.

22
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 23 of 50

92. Defendants
Defendantsprovided
providedrecordings
recordings ofofrelevant
relevant telephone
telephone calls
calls to
to the
the
92.
criminal cases
cases against
against the
the detainees/inmates,
detainees/inmates, except
except
of the
the criminal
prosecution in
in furtherance
furtherance of
prosecution
allegedly destroyed any recordings
recordings of
of telephone calls that were deemed to be
be
that they allegedly
calls.
attorney/client privileged
privileged telephone
telephone calls.
attorney/client
detainees'/inmates'
/inmates'
93. Neither
Neither
defendants
prosecution
any
detainees'/inmates'
93.
defendants
nornor
thethe
prosecution
in in
any
of of
thethe
detainees'
criminal cases
cases provided
the relevant,
relevant, non-privileged
non-privileged recorded
recorded calls
the
provided copies
copies of the
calls to the
detainees/inmatesoror their
their counsel.
detainees/inmates
counseL.
94. AsAs
a direct
proximate
resultof of
defendants'policies,
policies,customs
customs and!or
and/or
94.
a direct
andand
proximate
result
defendants'
practices, the
Anderson and
the members
members of the
the
practices,
the federal
federal common
commonlaw
law right
right of Anderson
and the
detainee/inmate putative
in defendants'
defendants' or
or the
the
detainee/inmate
putativeclass
classtotoreceive
receiveany
any evidence
evidence in
defense, and/or
and/or is
prosecution's
that is
is favorable
favorable or
or material
material to
to their
their defense,
is
prosecution's possession
possession that
exculpatory, has been violated.
CAUSE
CAUSE OF
OF ACTION
ACTION VIII
Violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 481.10.
481.10, subd. 2.
Violation of

95.
95.

andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
all allegations
allegations contained
in
Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
referenceall
Plaintiffs
contained in

the Complaint as if set forth separately in this Cause of
of Action.
the

96.
Defendants' policies,
policies, customs
customs and!or
and/or practices,
this
96. Defendants'
practices,asasset
setforth
forth in
in this
Complaint,
above, have
have deprived
deprived Anderson
Anderson and the
Complaint, including
includinginin Counts
Counts II through
through IV
iv above,
detainee/inmate putative
confidential
members
members of the detainee/inmate
putative class
class of their right to private and confidential
by
as guaranteed
guaranteed by
telephone
attorneys and/or
and/or their attorneys'
attorneys' agents
agents as
telephone calls
calls with
with their attorneys
Minnesota law.
97.

Minn. Stat.
Stat. § 48l.10.
Defendants' actions constitute a direct violation of Minn.
481.10.

97. Defendants' actions constitute a direct violation of

23
23
8Q136
8Q136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 24 of 50

CAUSE OF ACTION IX
Violation of
of Minn. Stat.
Stat. §§ 626A.02.
626A.02.

allegations contained
in
98. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporatebybyreference
referenceall
all allegations
98.
contained in
of Action.
if set forth separately
separately in this Cause of
ofAction.
the Complaint as if
colorofoflaw,
99. Defendants,
Defendants,
actingunder
under
law,intercepted
intercepted telephone
telephone calls
calls of
99.
acting
thethe
color
of

detainees/inmates at
Becker County
County Jail to
to their
their attorneys
attorneys and/or
and/or their
their attorneys'
attorneys'
detainees/inmates
at the
the Becker
agents, without
consent or
knowledge of
and in
in
agents,
without the
the consent
or knowledge
of either
either participant
participanttoto the
the calls
calls and
violation of their reasonable expectations.

violation of

100.
Defendants' policies,
policies, customs
customs and/or
and/or practices
right of
of
practices violated
100. Defendants'
violated the
the right
plaintiffs and
members of
free from
from ilegal
illegal wiretaps,
wiretaps, and
and
plaintiffs
and members
of both
both putative
putative classes
classes to
to be
be free
violated Minn. Stat. §§ 626A.02.
CAUSE
CAUSE OF ACTION X
Violation of Minnesota
Minnesota Common Law

101.
Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporate by
byreference
reference all
all allegations
allegations contained
contained in
101. Plaintiffs
the Complaint as if
if set forth separately in this Cause of
of Action.

Defendants, acting
acting under
the color
of law,
law, monitored
monitored and/or
and/or recorded
recorded
102.
under the
color of
102. Defendants,
detainees'
/inmates'
attorney/client privileged
the Becker
Becker County
County Jail
Jail
detainees'/inmates'
/inmates' attorney/client
privileged telephone
telephone calls at the
with neither the knowledge nor the consent of
of the participants to the call.
not informed
informedof
103.
Plaintiffs and
were not
ofthe
the processes
processes or
or
103. Plaintiffs
and other
other class
classmembers
members were
procedures
Not
procedures whereby
whereby attorney
attorney telephone
telephone numbers
numbers could
could be
be placed
placed on
on the
the Jail's "Do Not

Record" list, nor were they informed by Jail personnel that such a list existed.

24
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 25 of 50

104. Upon
104.
Uponinformation
informationand
andbelief,
belief,Becker
BeckerCounty
County Jail
Jail personnel
personnel do
do not inform

even the existence
plaintiffs and other class members of the processes
processes or procedures
procedures -- or even
of the "Do Not Record" list either in
in writing or verbally.
of

105. Based
105.
Based on
on the
theprotections
protectionsgenerally
generallyafforded
affordedattorney/client
attorney/client
communications,
inform plaintiffs
plaintiffs and
and other
other class
class
communications,and
and because
because defendants
defendantsdid
did not
not inform

members of the processes
regarding the
the "Do
"Do Not
Not Record"
members
processes and
and procedures
procedures regarding
Record" list,
list, it was
was
reasonable for attorneys and detainees/inmates
detainees/inmates to believe that their telephone calls with
monitored and/or recorded, at least
clients held in the Becker County Jail would not be monitored
until
would have
have become
become aware
aware that
that such
suchmonitoring
monitoring and
and or/recording
or/recording was
was
until they would
occurrmg.
occurrIlg.
106.
Defendants' policies,
policies, customs
customs and/or
and/or practices,
practices, as
as set
set forth
forth in
in this
this
106. Defendants'
Complaint
gross intrusion
intrusion upon
upon the
the attorney/client
attorney/client privilege and
and the
the fundamental
fundamental
Complaint are a gross
seclusion of
of plaintiffs
plaintiffs and
and the
the members
members of
of both
both putative
putative classes
classes
right
privacy and
and seclusion
right to privacy
guaranteed by Minnesota law.
107.
Defendants' actions
actions shock
shock the
the conscience,
conSCIence, are
are patently
patently offensive
offensive to
to
107. Defendants'
of society and are actionable pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 466.02.
reasonable members of
CAUSE OF ACTION XI
Violation
Violation of
of Minnesota
Minnesota Common
CommonLaw
Law-- Misappropriation
Misappropriation of
Attornev Work Product
Attorney
108.
Plaintiffsreallege
reallegeand
andincorporate
incorporate by
byreference
reference all
all allegations
allegations contained
contained in
108. Plaintiffs
of Action.
if set forth separately
separately in this Cause of
ofAction.
the Complaint as if

25
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 26 of 50

109. Telephone
communications between
between the attorney
attorney plaintiffs
plaintiffs and
and their clients
clients
109.
Telephonecommunications

held
in custody
or incarcerated
incarcerated in
Jail contained
held in
custody or
in the
the Becker
Becker County
County Jail
contained attorney
attorney work
work
product information,
information, including
limited to, legal
analysis and
legal analysis
and advice
advice regarding
regarding
product
including but
but not
not limited
to
evidence,
defense strategies
strategies relevant
relevant to
evidence, testimony,
testimony, potential
potential witnesses
witnessesand
and defense
detainees'
detainees'/inmates'
criminalcases.
cases.
detainees' /inmates'
/inmates' criminal
attorneywork
informationisistrade
110.
Thisattorney
workproduct
productinformation
trade secret
secret information in that it
110. This
not known
had independent
economic value
value and
and was
was not
had
independent economic
known or
or readily
readily ascertainable
ascertainable by
by
detainees' /inmates'
/inmates' criminal
defendants, the prosecution
prosecution in
in the
the detainees'
detainees'/inmates'
criminalcases,
cases,or
oranyone
anyonewho
whowas
was
not privy to the telephone conversation.
111.
Attorneyplaintiffs
plaintiffs and
and other
other members
members of
oftheir
their putative
putative class
class made
made every
every
111. Attorney
ofthis
attorney work
work product
product information.
information.
effort to maintain the confidentiality of
this attorney

112. Upon
112.
Uponlosing
losingits
itsconfidential
confidential and
and privileged
privileged status,
status, the
the value
value of
ofattorney
attorney
criminal
This is
is especially
especially true in
in the
the criminal
work product information
information is
is severely
severely diminished.
diminished. This
defense context when attorney work product information is disclosed to law enforcement
personnel and!or
and/or the prosecution involved in the case.

113.
Uponinformation
informationand
andbelief,
belief,attorney
attorney work
workproduct
product information
information obtained
obtained
113. Upon
monitoring and/or
and/orrecording
recordingprivileged
privileged
from
defendants' improper
improper policy
policy ofofmonitoring
from defendants'
attorney/client telephone
by Becker
Becker County
County Jail personnel, or provided
telephone calls
calls was
was utilized
utilzed by
to
Becker County
County law
law enforcement
enforcement personnel,
purpose of assisting
assisting in the
the
to Becker
personnel,for
for the
the purpose
prosecution of
of criminal cases of
of detainees/inmates represented by the attorney plaintiffs.
114. Defendants'
114.
Defendants' policies,
policies, customs
customs and/or
and/or practices,
practices, as
as set
set forth
forth in
in this
this

Complaint caused
caused the misappropriation
attorney plaintiffs' work
work product,
product, severely
severely
Complaint
misappropriation of attorney
26
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 27 of 50

the attorney
attorney plaintiffs'
plaintiffs' abilty
limited the
ability to
to prepare
prepare aa defense
defense on
on behalf
behalfof
oftheir
their clients
clients and
and
value ofthe
of
ofthe
the attorney
efforts.
attorney plaintiffs'
plaintiffs' efforts.
substantially lessened the value
115. Defendants'
Defendants'actions
actionshave
havecaused
caused the wrongful acquisition,
acquisition, misappropriation
115.

of attorney work product information obtained from privileged attorney/client
and/or use of
damaged plaintiff attorneys
attorneys by devaluing their work product
telephone
calls, and have damaged
telephone calls,
both substantively and economically.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE,
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs,
plaintiffs, individually
individually and
and on
on behalf of the proposed classes, pray
for judgment as follows:
A.
Court
certify
two
proposedclasses
classesand
andappoint
appointnamed
named plaintiffs
plaintiffs
A. ThatThat
thisthis
Court
certify
thethe
two
proposed
counsel be
be designated
designated
as representatives of the two classes respectively, and that plaintiffs' counsel
as representatives of

as Class Counsel for both classes;
B.
That
defendants'
policies,
customsand/or
and/orpractices,
practices,asasset
setforth
forthabove,
above, be
be
B. That
defendants'
policies,
customs
determined and adjudged to be in violation of
of the Constitution of
of the United States and the
Minnesota Constitution;
C.
That
defendants'
policies,
customsand/or
and/orpractices,
practices,asasset
setforth
forthabove,
above, be
be
C. That
defendants'
policies,
customs
determined and adjudged to be in violation of
of federal and Minnesota wiretap statutes;
be
D.
That
defendants'
policies,
customsand/or
and/orpractices,
practices,asasset
setforth
forth above,
above, be
D. That
defendants'
policies,
customs
of Minnesota statutes regarding attorney/client
determined and adjudged to be in violation of
communications with individuals
individuals in custody
custody in
in Minnesota
Minnesota correctional
correctional facilities;
facilties;

27
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

E.
E.

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 28 of 50

defendants'
ThatThat
defendants'
policies,
and!or
practices,
above, be
be
policies,customs
customs
and/or
practices,asas set
set forth
forth above,

determined and
and adjudged
adjudged toto be
be in
determined
in violation
violation of
of federal
federal and
and Minnesota
Minnesota common
common law
law
regarding invasion of
of an individual's
individual's right
right to
to privacy;
privacy;
F.
F.

Court
entera temporary
a temporaryrestraining
and preliminary
That
this
restraining order
order and
preliminary and
That
this
Court
enter
and

permanent
from continuing
the policy
policy of
of
permanent injunctions
injunctions ordering
ordering defendants
defendants to
to refrain
refrain from
continuing the

monitoring and/or recording
recording attorney/client
attorney/client telephone
telephone calls
calls as
as set forth
improperly monitoring
forth in this
Complaint;
andpermanent
G. That
thisthis
Court
alsoalso
enter
preliminary
G.
That
Court
enter
preliminaryand
permanentinjunctions
injunctions ordering
ordering
defendants
facility to
to properly
properly
defendants to
to revise
revise the
the Inmate
Inmate Handbook
Handbookand
and the
the signage
signage in
in the
the facilty
whereby. ..attorneys'
attorneys' and
and
the processes
processes and
andprocedures
procedures whereby
inform
detainee/inmates of
inform detainee/inmates
of the
attorneys'
attorneys' agents'
agents' telephone
telephonenumbers
numbersare
areplaced
placedon
onthe
the"Do
"DoNot
NotRecord"
Record"list,
list,and
andordering
ordering
defendants
of these
these
defendants to
to properly
properly inform
informattorneys
attorneyscalling
callng the
the Jail
Jail or
or entering
entering the
the facility
facilty of
same processes and procedures verbally and in writing;
H.
H.

andmembers
classes be
plaintiffsand
members
thetwo
twoclasses
be awarded
such other
other and
ThatThat
the the
plaintiffs
ofof
the
awarded such
and

further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem
Just
Just or
or equitable;
equitable;
I.
That
plaintiffs and
of the
the two
classes bebeawarded
i. That
thethe
plaintiffs
and members
members of
two classes
awardedmonetary
monetar

damages, including presumed, special and general damages to be determined at trial;
J.

awarded all applicable
applicable
That the plaintiffs and members of the two classes be awarded

J. That the plaintiffs and members of

pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

28
80136

Case 0:08-cv-05687-ADM-RLE

Document 1

Filed 10/15/2008

Page 29 of 50

classes their
their
K. That
thisthis
Court
award
plaintiffs
K.
That
Court
award
plaintiffsand
andthe
themembers
members of
ofthe
thetwo
two classes
class
action contingency
contingency attorneys'
fees, expenses
expenses and
class action
attorneys' fees,
and costs, or in
in the
the alternative,
alternative, their
their
attorneys' fees,
fees, expenses
expenses and
and costs
costs pursuant
pursuant to
to 42
42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§ 1988;
1988; and
and
L.
L.

award
plaintiffs and
and members
membersofofthe
ThatThat
thisthis
Court
award
plaintiffs
Court
thetwo
twoclasses
classes such
such other
other

and further relief
relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DATED: October
DATED:
October 15,2008

Respectfully
Respectfully submitted,
submitted,
SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC

s/
Jetfev A.
A. Abrahamson
sf Jeffrey
Mara R. Thompson (MN No. 196125)
196125)
Dan Bryden (MN No. 302284)
Jeffrey A.
A. Abrahamson
Abrahamson (MNNo.
(MNNo. 338187)
SPRENGER &
& LANG, PLLC
310 Fourth Avenue S.
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 871-8910
Fax: (612) 871-9270
Steven M.
M. Sprenger (DC No. 418736)
SPRENGER &
& LANG, PLLC
1400 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 265-8010
Fax: (202)332-6652
Attorneys J for
Attorneys'
for Plaintiffs
Plaintif

29
80136