Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MASON DILLON, individually,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action No. : 3:21-cv-00435

BRIAN D. HALL, individually,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

This complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, arises out of the unlawful and

unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force which occurred at a residence

located in Putnam County, on or about early-August of, 2019 in Putnam County, West

Virginia, within the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Mason Dillon was at all times relevant hereto a Lincoln County,

West Virginia.

2. Defendant Brian D. Hall is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident

of Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive, Suite 8,

1
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2

Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and is employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s

Department. He is named in his individual capacity.

3. Defendant Xerxes Rahmati is and was at all times relevant hereto a

resident of Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive,

Suite 8, Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and is employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s

Department. He is named in his individual capacity.

4. Defendant Scott A. Lowther is and was at all times relevant hereto a

resident of Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive,

Suite 8, Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and is employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s

Department. He is named in his individual capacity.

5. Defendant Kenny Davis was at all times relevant hereto a resident of

Putnam County, West Virginia, with an address of 236 Courthouse Drive, Suite 8,

Winfield, West Virginia 25213 and was employed by the Putnam County Sheriff’s

Department. He is named in his individual capacity. His current address is presently

unknown.

6. Defendant Putnam County Commission (“PCC”) is a political subdivision

of the State of West Virginia. See West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and

Insurance Reform Act, W. Va. Code § 29-12A-1, et seq.

7. Defendant John Doe is named herein in his official capacity. His identity is

currently unknown. He is the supervisor of the defendant police officers. He is a sworn

law enforcement officer for the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department. He is named in his

individual capacity.

2
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3

FACTS

8. On January 15, 2020, a video was uploaded to YouTube showing several

police officers, most of whom were not wearing uniforms, unlawfully entering the

Putnam County, West Virginia residence of Dustin Elswick. The officers cut the wires to

an outside surveillance camera prior to illegally entering the residence and searching it.

However, unbeknownst to them, hidden cameras inside the residence filmed their

actions.

9. Acting without a search warrant, and in violation of the Fourth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution, the officers illegally entered the home by removing an air

conditioner from a window and climbing through the window into the home. The plain-

clothed officers then illegally searched the home, presumably looking for drugs.

10. Though they did not find drugs or any other illegal item inside Mr. Elswick’s

home, the officers removed his firearms from their storage cases in the closet and took

photographs of them. The officers also found the cremated ashes of Mr. Elswick’s

friend, and believing them to be drugs, submitted them to a field drug test kit. After

testing negative, the kit with bits of human bone therein, were thrown on the floor of the

residence by the defendant officers.

11. The officers left the Elswick residence ransacked, with Mr. Elswick’s

firearms still laying out in the open where they had been photographed. They found no

illegal drugs in the Elswick’s home. Upon information and belief, had the defendant

officers found illegal drugs in Mr. Elswick’s home, they would have taken the firearms,

and other items, out of the home and seized them.

3
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4

12. The officers in the Elswick search video were all members of the Putnam

County Sheriff’s Office’s Special Enforcement Unit (“SEU”). All of the defendant police

officers herein, with the exception of Defendant Kenny Mann, appear in the Elswick

video, and were at all times relevant hereto members of the SEU.

13. Following the Elswick video going viral on social media and being featured

on the television news, other victims of the SEU began to come forward, including the

Plaintiff herein, as well as the Johnson family, who are plaintiffs in the now-pending case

against the defendants, in civil action no. 3:21-cv-00242.

14. Upon information and belief, the SEU would obtain tips about individuals

who may be in possession of marijuana, or who may be selling marijuana. They would

then make warrantless entry into the residence of the suspected individual in

possession of marijuana, or other suspected illegal drugs. Upon finding the marijuana

that was the subject of the tip, the SEU would then threaten and pressure the suspect to

give them another tip, or to identify another individual who was in possession of

marijuana, in exchange for not being arrested or charged. The SEU members would

then leave, taking the marijuana they seized, along with any cash money or firearms

they located in their illegal search and seizure. The SEU would then repeat the process

at the new target residence. They would leave no paper trail, such as police reports,

warrant applications, charging documents, search and seizure inventory, etc. The

seized marijuana, cash money, and even firearms seized, would thereafter disappear

into the possession of the SEU members without ever being properly documented.

4
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5

15. Prior to entering the Dustin Elswick home on August 21, 2019, the SEU

visited the home of Plaintiff’s friend, C.R.,” in Putnam County, West Virginia at a time

when Plaintiff was present.

16. On or about early August, 2019, the Plaintiff traveled to his friend, C.R.’s

home in order to meet up with him to go fishing. The friend’s home was located in

Putnam County, West Virginia. Plaintiff did not reside at the home, but was an occupant

of the residence as an invited visitor.

17. While Plaintiff was waiting for his friend, C.R., to finish getting ready,

Plaintiff began to play a video game on a television and gaming console inside his

friend’s home.

18. While Plaintiff was playing the video game inside the house, C.R. was in

the kitchen preparing food to bring on the fishing trip.

19. Suddenly the defendant police officers, acting as the SEU, began to knock

on the exterior door of the home. The officers demanded to come in. Plaintiff’s friend

answered the door and declined to allow the officers to enter his home without a

warrant. Plaintiff was inside the home and observing.

20. The officers forcibly entered the home anyways, without a warrant and

without consent to enter.

21. Plaintiff was surprised at the officers’ actions, which placed him in fear. He

immediately put both hands up, to where his hands were visible to the officers.

22. Plaintiff began to ask questions about what was going on. His hands were

kept in the air, where the officers could see that he did not pose a threat to anyone’s

safety.

5
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6

23. Defendant Kenny Davis then drew a firearm and pointed it at the Plaintiff.

24. In apparent response to the questions asked by the Plaintiff, defendants

Davis, Hall and Rahmati then grabbed the Plaintiff and forcibly and violently jerked and

threw him out the front door and slammed him into a wall outside C.R.’s home, causing

Plaintiff’s face to impact the wall. They immediately handcuffed the Plaintiff, with

Defendant Davis using an unnecessary amount of physical force in twisting Plaintiff’s

arm, for the sole reason of causing Plaintiff pain. Plaintiff was not resisting and was

compliant with all orders directed at him.

25. Plaintiff was then handcuffed by the defendant officers and placed outside

the home for an extended period of time.

26. Meanwhile, the defendant officers began to search the home.

27. The defendant officers found a small amount marijuana belong to C.R.

inside the home and confiscated the same. They also confiscated all cash found in the

residence, which amounted to a couple of hundred dollars.

28. During the incident, which lasted approximately an hour and a half, the

Plaintiff was kept handcuffed outside the residence.

29. Plaintiff was eventually released without being arrested. Prior to leaving,

however, the defendant officers each circulated Plaintiff’s ID and each photographed the

ID on their cell phones, threatening Plaintiff that they could cause him harm in the

future, should they choose to do so.

30. The defendant officers eventually left the residence without providing any

paperwork to either the Plaintiff or his friend. There was no warrant provided. Nor was

there an inventory of seized property provided, nor any other documentation.

6
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7

31. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was not charged with any criminal violation. Upon

information and belief, nor was Plaintiff’s friend charged with any criminal violation.

32. Thereafter, Plaintiff served a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request

on the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department, requesting documentation that the event

had transpired. However, the FOIA response indicated that no such documentation

existed. There was no record of any sheriff’s deputies ever having come into contact

with the Plaintiff, according to their records.

COUNT ONE - UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

34. On or early August, 2019, the defendant police officers forcibly entered the

residence of Plaintiff’s friend, C.R., which was then occupied by the Plaintiff, who had

been playing a video game inside the home at the time the officers knocked on the door.

35. The Plaintiff’s friend declined to consent to the defendant officers’ entry

into the home, instead demanding to see a warrant. Nevertheless, the defendant

officers forcibly entered the residence without the consent of any occupant or resident of

the home.

36. Upon information and belief, the defendant officers did not have a search

warrant authorizing them to enter and search the Plaintiff’s friend’s home. A subsequent

FOIA request to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that there is no

record of a warrant.

37. The officers did not have exigent circumstances to justify entering and

searching the Plaintiff’s friend’s home - nor did exigent circumstances objectively exist.

7
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8

38. No objectively reasonable police officer would believe that they possessed

the legal justification or authority to enter and/or search the Plaintiff’s friend’s home as

described above, without a warrant, without consent, and without exigent circumstances

justifying entry, for the purposes of searching the home for contraband.

39. During the search, Plaintiff remained seized for a period of approximately

an hour and a half, remaining in handcuffs the entire time, while the officers performed a

warrantless search and seizure in the home of the Plaintiff’s friend.

40. The seizure of the Plaintiff as described herein was unreasonable by

virtue of the fact that the search being conduct was without legal justification under the

Fourth Amendment.

41. The seizure of the Plaintiff as described herein was additionally

unreasonable by virtue of the fact that the treatment of the Plaintiff during the search

was unreasonable, in that Plaintiff was kept handcuffed for a prolonged and

unnecessary period of time, inflicted with violating and unnecessary physical force and

otherwise mistreated by the defendant officers, including being threatened and having

his ID photographed.

42. The defendant officers possessed no legal justification for the forcible

entry, search and seizure, as described above. They did not possess a search warrant.

They did not possess voluntary consent. Nor did exigent circumstances exist to justify

their entry into the home and the ensuing search and seizure.

43. Rather, the defendant officers, acting as the SEU, were engaging in a

pattern and practice of performing warrantless entries and seizures, as described above

8
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9

and as illustrated in the Elswick video, as also describe and alleged in Count Three

below, for a Monell Claim.

44. There existed no reasonable suspicion, nor probable cause to support the

seizure of the Plaintiff as occurred and as is described above. Plaintiff was not

suspected of having engaged in any illegal activity.

45. The defendant officers seized the Plaintiff from inside the home of his

friend, without a warrant, and without probable cause that Plaintiff had committed any

criminal offense.

46. At the time of Plaintiff’s seizure, the facts and circumstances within the

defendants’ joint knowledge, as well as those available to the defendants individually,

were not sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe in the

circumstances shown that Plaintiff had violated any criminal statute or offense.

47. The defendants’ actions as alleged herein were performed under color of

law, objectively unreasonable, willful, wanton, intentional and done with a callous and

reckless disregard for the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from

unreasonable search and seizure.

48. Plaintiff suffered damages and is entitled to recover for the same.

COUNT TWO - USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE IN VIOLATION

49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

50. Defendants Davis, Hall and Rahmati used excessive force against the

Plaintiff as described above when they violently grabbed him inside the home of

Plaintiff’s friend, threw him outside and slammed him into a wall. Additionally, Defendant

Davis used excessive force when he thereafter used an unnecessary amount of force

9
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10

twisting Plaintiff’s arm unnecessarily when handcuffing the Plaintiff, immediately after

slamming him into the wall.

51. At the time this violent physical force was performed by the said

defendants, no objectively reasonable police officer could have perceived the Plaintiff as

posing an immediate threat to the safety of any person. Plaintiff was unarmed,

compliant, with his hands up and visible at the time the violent force was inflicted.

52. At the time Plaintiff was attacked by the officers, Plaintiff was not

suspected of having committed any crime. Nor was Plaintiff resisting in any way. Plaintiff

was entirely cooperative.

53. At the time Plaintiff was attacked by the officers, he was inside his friend’s

house, which the defendant officers had no legal right to enter.

54. Defendants Davis, Hall and Rahmati’s actions were objectively

unreasonable, unlawful, unwarranted, and taken in violation of the Plaintiff’s clearly

established procedural and substantive rights, including the Fourth Amendment of the

U.S. Constitution to be free from having an excessive amount of physical force used

against him; namely being violently grabbed and thrown against a wall unnecessarily

and having his arm unnecessarily twisted in a painful manner.

55. Defendants Davis, Hall and Rahmati’s actions were willful, wanton,

intentional, malicious, and done with a callous and reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment rights to be free from excessive force.

56. Plaintiff suffered harm, including personal injury, extreme emotional

distress, severe pain, and is entitled to recover damages for the same.

10
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11

COUNT THREE - MONELL CLAIM

57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

58. The PCC, through the establishment and operation of the Special

Enforcement Unit, or SEU, adopted and implemented an official policy, custom and

practice of violating the rights of homeowners in Putnam County, West Virginia. The

SEU engaged and a pattern and practice of warrantless searches and seizures under

the auspices of fighting against illegal drug use and crime. They wore no law

enforcement uniforms and generally gave the appearance that they were acting outside

of the law, with no documentation, no warrants, and no paperwork in most cases. They

used intimidation and a perceived lawlessness to more effectively and efficiently acquire

information and sources. However, they were acting under color of law and with the

approval of their supervisors and the PCC.

59. Defendants Hall, Rahmati, Lowther, and Davis, acted in furtherance of that

said official policy, custom and practice when they deprived the Plaintiff of his Fourth

Amendment rights on or about early-August of 2019, as described herein. They made a

warrantless entry into the Plaintiff’s friend’s home and seized him, inflicted violent force

upon him, leaving him handcuffed for approximately an hour and a half, ultimately

leaving no paper trail of their civil rights violations against Plaintiff.

60. The said defendants have also committed other similar civil rights

violations against other victims in Putnam County, West Virginia, including the incident

captured on video inside the home of Dustin Elswick in August of 2019.

61. As a direct and proximate result of the said policy, custom and practice,

the plaintiffs were damaged, for which they are entitled to recover.

11
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12

COUNT THREE - SUPERVISORY LIABILITY

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the previous paragraphs.

63. Supervisor of the defendant police officers - the SEU - had actual

knowledge that his subordinates were engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and

unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to the plaintiffs; namely that they were going to

be searching the plaintiffs’ residence and seizing the plaintiffs, and potentially their

property without a search warrant, or applicable exception to obtaining a search

warrant, as described in the above paragraphs in detail.

64. The said supervisors’ response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to

show deliberate indifference to, or tacit authorization of, the aforesaid conduct.

65. As a direct and proximate result of the said supervisors’ inaction, the

plaintiffs suffered constitutional violations and were damaged, for which they are entitled

to recover.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, based on the above stated facts, the plaintiffs respectfully

requests that this Honorable Court award:

1. Damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial

which will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for all compensatory damages

to be proven at trial;

2. Punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be

determined at trial; and

3. Reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

12
 Case 3:21-cv-00435 Document 1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY

MASON DILLON,
By Counsel

/s John H. Bryan
John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)
JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 366
Union, WV 24983
(304) 772-4999
Fax: (304) 772-4998
jhb@johnbryanlaw.com

13