John M. O Connor, Esq. ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.

John M. O Connor, Esq. ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C. Edward Barocas, Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation P.O. Box 750 Newark, NJ 07101 973-642-2084 Attorneys for Plaintiffs RANDAL and CARMEN YORKER, as parents and natural guardian of DIAMOND YORKER, a minor, RANDY REINA, and PRESTON and BARBARA ANDERSON, as parents and natural guardian of SEAN ANDERSON, a minor, vs. Plaintiffs, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MONMOUTH COUNTY DOCKET NO. TOWNSHIP OF MANALAPAN, MANALAPAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, STUART BROWN, in his capacity as Chief of the Manalapan Police Department, PETER CHAFLIN, individually and in his official capacity as Police Officer of the Manalapan Police Department, and STEVE TURNER, individually and in his capacity as Police Officer of the Manalapan Police Department, CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT, JURY DEMAND, AND DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Defendants. NYDOCS1-740711.2

For their complaint for discrimination based upon race and for improper search and detention by police officers, and seeking monetary and injunctive relief, Plaintiffs state as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Diamond Yorker ( Diamond ) is a minor and resides at Manalapan, Monmouth County, New Jersey. On or about June 21, 2003, the time of the incident described below, Diamond was a minor, 16 years old. 2. Randy Reina ( Randy ) resides at Edison, Middlesex County, New Jersey. On or about June 21, 2003, the time of the incident described below, Randy was a minor, 17 years old. He is now 18 years old. 3. Sean Anderson ( Sean ) is a minor and resides at Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey. On or about June 21, 2003, the time of the incident described below, Sean was a minor, 11 years old. 4. Randal and Carmen Yorker are Diamond s parents and reside at Manalapan, Monmouth County, New Jersey. 5. Preston and Barbara Anderson are Sean s parents and reside at Jersey City, Middlesex County, New Jersey. 6. Defendant Manalapan Police Department is a department of the defendant Township of Manalapan (collectively Manalapan ) and polices the township of Manalapan. Manalapan employed the defendants Peter Chaflin and Steve Turner on or about June 21, 2003. NYDOCS1-740711.2-2-

7. Defendant Stuart Brown is the Chief of the Manalapan Police Department and is named as a defendant in his official capacity as Chief of Police in connection with plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief. 8. Defendant Peter Chaflin ( Chaflin ) at all relevant times was a police officer employed by Manalapan. Upon information and belief, Chaflin is a resident of the State of New Jersey. 9. Defendant Steve Turner ( Officer Turner ) at all relevant times was a police officer employed by Manalapan. Upon information and belief, Turner is a resident of New Jersey, 10. Diamond, Randy, and Sean (the Minor Plaintiffs ) are black African-Americans. 11. Defendants Chaflin and Turner are white. 12. Diamond and Sean are cousins; Randy and the Reinas are family friends of the Yorkers. VENUE 13. Venue is proper in Monmouth County pursuant to R. 4:3-2(a) because the Township of Manalapan and the Manalapan Police Department are located in Monmouth County and the events giving rise to the causes of action occurred in Monmouth County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. On or about June 21, 2003, Randy and Sean were visiting Diamond in Manalapan. NYDOCS1-740711.2-3-

15. At about 9:45 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., on or about June 21, 2003, the Minor Plaintiffs, Diamond, Randy, and Sean, were with three friends - Vincent Lynch, Brett Ecker, and Nicholas Rodriguez all of whom are, or appear to be, white. 16. The Minor Plaintiffs and their three friends were standing in a group talking on a sidewalk along Park View Way near Bucks Head playground in Manalapan. 17. Two white police officers stopped their police cars across the street from where the boys standing, stepped out of the cars, and approached the plaintiffs and their friends. 18. Upon information and belief, the two white police officers were the defendants Chaflin and Turner. 19. Upon information and belief, the shorter of the two police officers was the Defendant Chaflin and the taller was the Defendant Turner. 20. At the time the officers arrived, the Minor Plaintiffs and their three friends had only been there a short time and were not making any excessive noise. 21. Upon approaching the boys, the shorter police officer asked Diamond why he had his hands in his pockets and demanded that he take his hands of his pockets. 22. Diamond questioned why he had to take his hands out of his pockets since he had done nothing wrong, but complied with the shorter police officer s demand. 23. The shorter police officer then grabbed Diamond, pushed him against the police car, and ordered him to stand against the police car with his arms and legs spread. NYDOCS1-740711.2-4-

24. Diamond complied but the shorter police officer nevertheless kicked his legs apart. 25. The shorter police officer patted down Diamond and put his hands in Diamond s pockets. 26. The shorter police officer removed the contents of Diamond s pockets, which included a mobile phone and some money. 27. The shorter police officer also placed his hand inside the rim of Diamond s under shorts, i.e., between Diamond s skin and the shorts in the front of his body. 28. While conducting the search of Diamond, the shorter police officer referred to Diamond in derogatory terms, for example, calling him a punk several times, and telling him to stop acting like a punk. 29. While Diamond was being searched by the shorter police officer, the taller police officer approached Randy. He asked Randy his name and where he was from. 30. Randy responded that he was from Edison. 31. The taller police officer said to Randy, in substance, that I better not see you in Manalapan again. 32. The taller police officer then ordered Randy to face the police car, put both his hands on the police car and spread his legs apart. 33. The taller police officer went through Randy s pockets, which were empty. NYDOCS1-740711.2-5-

34. The taller police officer patted Randy down several times and placed his hand inside the rim of Randy s under shorts, i.e., between Randy s skin and the shorts in the front of his body. 35. The taller police officer called Randy a punk several times. 36. Sean, who was 11 years old at the time, began crying. 37. Sean was crying because he was upset at the police treatment of Diamond and Randy. 38. The shorter police officer called Sean a little punk and a baby and ordered him to stop crying. 39. During the searches of Diamond and Randy, one of the defendant police officers said to the three boys who appeared to be white, in substance, You three go home. You don t have to see this. 40. The three white children did not leave. 41. The defendant police officers did not search, interrogate, or detain the three white boys who were with the Minor Plaintiffs. 42. When the police had finished searching Diamond and Randy, they shone their flashlights in their faces. 43. After he had been searched and his mobile phone was returned to him, Diamond immediately telephoned his father, Randal Yorker. 44. Diamond asked for the names of the police officers, but they refused to give their names. NYDOCS1-740711.2-6-

45. Diamond then asked again for their names and, while they continued to refuse to give their names, one of the police officers gave his badge number. 46. As the group of six children was leaving together, one or more of them commented to the police that they were racists. 47. One or both of the defendant police officers, responded, in substance, Yeah, we are. 48. After receiving Diamond s call, his parents Randal and Carmen Yorker, went to meet him, Randy, and Sean. They met on the street and returned to the Yorker house. 49. After further discussion of the incident, Diamond s parents, Randal and Carmen, along with Randy s mother, Deborah Reina, took Diamond and Randy to the Manalapan police station to lodge a complaint about the actions of the two police officers. 50. The Yorkers spoke to a sergeant at the Manalapan police station. 51. Upon information and belief, the sergeant was Kevin Dunckley ( Dunckley ). 52. Sergeant Dunckley s actions in receiving the complaint indicated a disdain for the Yorkers and for their complaint concerning the treatment of Diamond, Randy, and Sean. 53. For example, Sergeant Dunkeley took the statement written by Randal Yorker, rolled it up into a funnel shape and put it in his back pocket. NYDOCS1-740711.2-7-

54. Sergeant Dunckley s actions in receiving the Yorker s complaint would indicate to a reasonable person in the Yorkers position that their complaint would not be taken seriously. 55. The following day, i.e., on or about June 22, 2003, Preston Anderson, Sean s father, went to the Manalapan police station to lodge a complaint concerning the above-described actions of the Manalapan police officers. 56. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anderson s complaint was made to Detective Denis Brady. 57. Subsequently, Randal Yorker revisited the Manalapan police station to make an additional complaint concerning the actions of the Manalapan police in processing his and Mr. Anderson s complaints. 58. A Notice of Tort Claim was filed with the Township of Manalapan by the Yorkers, Reinas, and Andersons on or about September 8, 2003, September 17, 2003, and September 16, 2003, respectively. 59. As a result of the efforts of the parents of the plaintiffs, the Manalapan police Internal Affairs unit apparently began an investigation concerning the actions of the Manalapan police officers in dealing with the Minor Plaintiffs. 60. In the subsequent course of that apparent investigation, statements were provided by the Minor Plaintiffs to the Manalapan Police Department s Internal Affairs Unit. 61. By letter dated April 2, 2004, the defendant Brown informed Mr. Yorker that the Internal Affairs Unit of the Manalapan Police Department had NYDOCS1-740711.2-8-

completed an investigation and that its review did not disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation. COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION [Racial discrimination; against Manalapan and Chaflin and Turner] 62. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 61 as if set forth in full here. 63. The defendant Manalapan employed the defendants Chaflin and Turner at all relevant times, including on or about June 21, 2003. 64. By discriminating against the plaintiffs on the basis of race, the defendants Chaflin, Turner, and Manalapan have violated plaintiffs rights under Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. 65. The defendant Manalapan also employed Dunckley in June 2003. 66. The defendant Manalapan discriminated against the plaintiffs in the processing, including the actions of Dunckley, of plaintiffs complaint of racial discrimination and unlawful search and detention. 67. As a result of the described conduct of defendants Chaflin, Turner, and of other employees of Manalapan, the plaintiffs have suffered damages, including emotional distress. 68. The defendants Manalapan, Chaflin, and Turner have violated Article 1, sections 1 and 5 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and are liable to the plaintiffs for their resulting damages. NYDOCS1-740711.2-9-

COUNT 2: VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION [Unlawful search and detention; against Manalapan and Chaflin and Turner] 69. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 68 as if set forth in full here. 70. By searching and detaining the plaintiffs without sufficient basis, the defendants Chaflin and Turner have violated plaintiffs rights under Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 7, of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. 71. The defendant Manalapan employed the defendants Chaflin and Turner at all relevant times, including on or about June 21, 2003. 72. As a result of the described conduct of Officers Chaflin and Turner, the plaintiffs have suffered damages, including emotional distress. 73. The defendants Manalapan, Chaflin, and Turner are liable to the plaintiffs for the damages resulting from the defendants violation of Article 1, sections 1 and 7, of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. COUNT 3: LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION [Racial Discrimination; against Manalapan, Chaflin, and Turner] 74. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73 as if set forth in full here. 75. The defendant Manalapan Police Department and the Township of Manalapan are public accommodations within the meaning of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. ( LAD ). NYDOCS1-740711.2-10-

76. The defendants Chaflin and Turner unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of race and violated LAD by searching and detaining the plaintiffs without sufficient basis and by their derogatory remarks directed at plaintiffs. 77. Chaflin, Turner, and Dunckley were employed by the Manalapan Police Department at all relevant times. 78. The Manalapan Police Department discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of race and violated LAD in the search, detention, and treatment of the Minor Plaintiffs and in the processing of the complaint lodged with the defendant Manalapan Police Department concerning the search, detention, and treatment of the Minor Plaintiffs. 79. As a result of the unlawful racial discrimination and violation of LAD by the Manalapan Police Department and by Chaflin and Turner, the plaintiffs have suffered damages, including emotional distress, for which the defendants Manalapan, Chaflin, and Turner are liable. COUNT 4: NEGLIGENCE [Against Manalapan] 80. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 79 as if set forth in full here. 81. The defendant Manalapan owed a duty to the plaintiffs to properly supervise and train its police officers, including the defendants Chaflin and Turner, with respect to unlawful racial discrimination and unlawful searches and detentions. 82. The defendant Manalapan owed a duty to the plaintiffs to establish an appropriate procedure for the receipt of complaints concerning unlawful racial NYDOCS1-740711.2-11-

discrimination by Manalapan police officers and concerning unlawful searches and detentions by Manalapan police officers. 83. The defendant Manalapan owed a duty to the plaintiffs to properly supervise and train police officers to receive, record, and investigate, in an appropriate and reasonable manner, information concerning complaints of unlawful racial discrimination and unlawful searches and detentions. 84. Upon information and belief, Manalapan was negligent in that it did not properly supervise and train Officers Chaflin and Turner, did not establish a reasonable procedure for receiving complaints of unlawful discrimination and unlawful searches and detentions against Manalapan police officers, and did not properly train and supervise police officers concerning the receipt, recordation, and investigation of such complaints. 85. Because of Manalapan s negligence, the plaintiffs have been damaged, including the suffering of humiliation and emotional distress, in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT 5: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1981 [Racial discrimination; against all Defendants] 86. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 85 as if set forth in full here. 87. The Minor Plaintiffs have a right to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens. NYDOCS1-740711.2-12-

88. The Minor Plaintiffs have a right to be subject only to the punishments, penalties, and exactions that white citizens are subject to. 89. By their search of the Minor Plaintiffs Diamond and Randy and their derogatory references to the Minor Plaintiffs Diamond, Randy, and Sean, the defendants Chaflin and Turner discriminated on the basis of race and denied the plaintiffs the equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons as is enjoyed by white citizens. 90. By their search of the Minor Plaintiffs Diamond and Randy and their derogatory references to the Minor Plaintiffs Diamond, Randy, and Sean, the defendants Chaflin and Turner discriminated on the basis of race and subjected the Minor Plaintiffs to punishments, penalties, and exactions different from those that white citizens are subject to. 91. Upon information and belief, by its treatment of the complaints concerning the conduct of the police with respect to Diamond, Randy, and Sean, the defendant Manalapan discriminated on the basis of race and denied the plaintiffs the equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons as is enjoyed by white citizens. 92. By the actions of its employees, including defendants Chaflin, Turner, and Dunckley, the defendant Manalapan denied all plaintiffs the equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons as is enjoyed by white citizens and subjected the plaintiffs Diamond, Randy, and Sean to punishments penalties, and exactions different from those that white citizens are subject to. NYDOCS1-740711.2-13-

93. As a result of the described conduct of the defendants Chaflin, Turner, and Manalapan, the plaintiffs have suffered damages, including emotional distress, and are entitled to damages against the defendants Manalapan, Chaflin, and Turner, and to injunctive relief against those defendants and the defendant Brown. COUNT 6: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 [Racial discrimination; against Defendants Chaflin, and Turner] 94. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 as if set forth in full here. 95. The plaintiffs have a right, privilege, and immunity secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States to equal protection under law and to be free from racial discrimination by the police of Manalapan. 96. By their conduct in searching the Minor Plaintiffs and in referring to the Minor Plaintiffs in a derogatory manner, the defendants Chaflin and Turner denied the Minor Plaintiffs equal protection of the law and discriminated against the Minor Plaintiffs on the basis of race. 97. The defendants Chaflin and Turner acted under color of law, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of New Jersey in searching and detaining the plaintiffs Diamond and Randy. 98. The defendants Chaflin and Turner acted under color of law, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of New Jersey in stopping, questioning, NYDOCS1-740711.2-14-

detaining, addressing, and otherwise interacting with the plaintiffs Diamond, Randy, and Sean. 99. By denying the plaintiffs equal protection of law and discriminating against the plaintiffs on the basis of race, the defendants Chaflin and Turner deprived the Minor Plaintiffs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and violated section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code. 100. As a result of the above described conduct of defendants Chaflin, and Turner, the plaintiffs have suffered damages, including emotional distress. COUNT 7: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 [Unlawful search and detention; against Officers Chaflin and Turner] 101. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 100 as if set forth in full here. 102. The plaintiffs Diamond and Randy have a right, privilege, and immunity secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by the laws of the United States to be free from unlawful searches and detentions by the police of Manalapan. 103. By searching the plaintiffs Diamond and Randy and in detaining the plaintiffs Diamond, Randy, and Sean without sufficient basis, defendants Chaflin and Turner deprived the Minor Plaintiffs of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and violated section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code. NYDOCS1-740711.2-15-

104. In searching the plaintiffs Diamond and Randy and in detaining the plaintiffs Diamond, Randy, and Sean, the defendants Chaflin and Turner were acting under color of law, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of New Jersey. 105. As a result of the described conduct of defendants Chaflin and Turner, the Minor Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including emotional distress. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants as follows: (1) awarding a permanent injunction enjoining all defendants, their agents, servants, and employees from discriminating on the basis of race in violation of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and sections 1981 and 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code; and (2) awarding a permanent injunction directing: (a) the defendant Brown and (b) the defendants Manalapan Police Department, and defendant Township of Manalapan, and their directors, officers, agents, and employees, to take all affirmative steps necessary to: (a) remedy the effects of the unlawful, discriminatory conduct described in this complaint and to prevent similar occurrences in the future; and (b) establish proper and reasonable training and supervision with respect to unlawful racial discrimination and with respect to proper and reasonable procedures for the receipt, recordation, investigation, and, where warranted, remediation of complaints of unlawful racial discrimination and unlawful search and detention; and NYDOCS1-740711.2-16-

(3) awarding compensatory damages for pain, suffering and humiliation, and punitive damages against the defendants Manalapan Police Department, Township of Manalapan, Chaflin and Turner; reasonable. (4) awarding attorneys fees, interest, and costs of suit; and (5) awarding any other relief which this Court deems just and Dated: Newark, New Jersey August, 2004 ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C. By: John M. O Connor -and- Edward Barocas, Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation P.O. Box 750 Newark, NJ 07101 973-642-2084 Attorneys for Plaintiffs NYDOCS1-740711.2-17-

JURY DEMAND Demand is made for a trial by jury of all issues. ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C. August, 2004 By: John M. O Connor DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Plaintiffs hereby designate John M. O Connor as trial counsel in this matter. ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C. August, 2004 By: John M. O Connor NYDOCS1-740711.2-18-

CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH R. 4:5-1 Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, the undersigned hereby certifies that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, and no other action or arbitration is contemplated. On the basis of present knowledge, the undersigned is unaware of any other party who should be joined in this action. August, 2004 John M. O Connor NYDOCS1-740711.2-19-