39.  Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  the named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons who were  wrongfully arrested and charged with at least one count of disorderly conduct on  September 15, 16 or 17, 2012 by police officers while they were engaged in expressive  speech activity in connection with Occupy Wall Street activities.    40.  The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder  impracticable.  Based on information made publicly available by the NYPD, at least 220  people had their First Amendment rights interfered with and were arrested without  articulable criminal conduct.   43.  The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class.  Like the other  members of the class, the Plaintiffs were victims of the NYPD’s policy, practice, and/or  custom of arresting individuals engaged in expressive speech activity absent actual  criminal conduct.   44.  The legal theories under which the Plaintiffs seek relief are the same or  similar to those on which all members of the class will rely, and the harms suffered by the  Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.   45.  The Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome of this action,  have no conflicts of interests with members of the class, and will fairly and adequately  protect the interests of the class.  The Plaintiffs have all been arrested for expressive  speech activities absent actual criminal conduct and are members of, or otherwise  participated in, the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Furthermore, they are engaged  citizens interested in utilizing and protecting their First Amendment rights as guaranteed  under the United States Constitution.    47.  The Plaintiff class should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Defendants have acted on grounds  generally applicable to class members, the interests of the Plaintiffs and potential class  members are aligned, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly  and efficiently adjudicating the case.  48.  The Plaintiffs were participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement.   49.  OWS, among other things, protests the institutionalized inequality that  funnels political power, wealth, and resources to a tiny fraction of people and their  corporations, and denies the vast majority of ordinary Americans and people their fair  share.  In particular, OWS sought, and seeks, to bring attention to the unfair way in which  ordinary people are allowed to suffer terrible hardship due to mortgage debt, student loan  debt, or lack of affordable healthcare, as politicians and businessmen blame these people  for “irresponsibility,” while huge banks were rescued from any consequences of their  own decision-making and actions by government bailouts funded by those same ordinary  people’s taxes.     51.  During this period, the NYPD continually arrested members of OWS for  peaceful protest activity.  For example, on September 19, 2011, individuals associated  with OWS marched from Zuccotti Park to the financial center area and back to Zuccotti  Park.  During this march, NYPD Inspector Edward Winski reached across a police  barricade and tried to drag an individual over the barricade.  The New York Times wrote  about this arrest and the police statements regarding the conduct underlying this arrest:  Another man was arrested, and the police initially said he  was charged with jumping a police barrier and resisting  arrest. But a reporter and a photographer for the [NY  T]imes who witnessed and documented the episode  between the man in the orange hat and the police did not  see him attempting to jump a barrier. Late in the afternoon,  the police said the man was charged with committing  disorderly conduct by impeding pedestrian traffic, not with  jumping a barrier.   52.  The following day, September 20, 2011, a slightly rainy morning,  Inspector Edward Winski, along with other officers, entered Zuccotti Park and unlawfully  ordered the OWS media team to remove protective tarps from its computers and video- gear.   53.  Approximately three (3) individuals were arrested on that date, and sued  Inspector Edward Winski and the City of New York, for the unlawful arrests.   54.  Initially, Inspector Edward Winski reported that the tarps had been  hanging from trees and this allegation was part of the criminal complaint.  However, after  the District Attorney of New York was alerted to video of the incident, a superseding  complaint was filed removing the allegation that the tarps were tied to trees.     56.  Over the course of the following year, numerous similar altercations  occurred between the police and OWS, many resulting lawsuits for improper arrests and  the improper actions of the police towards protesters, including, among other things,  pepper spraying individuals engaged in expressive speech activities.4   57.  Despite the numerous altercations and resulting arrests, most of the arrests  culminated in dismissals, ACD’s, or declined prosecutions.  For example, on October 14,  2011 the City of New York sought to physically remove Occupy Wall Street from  Zuccotti Park.  Hundreds of people flocked to the park to defend it from this physical  eviction.  After an announcement that the NYPD would stand down and that the park  would not be cleared, fifteen (15) individuals were arrested but the arrests ultimately  resulted in twelve (12) dismissals, ACD’s, or declined prosecutions.   59.  There were twenty-one (21) arrests on this date that resulted in fifteen (15)  dismissals, ACD’s, declined prosecutions and/or acquittals.   62.  As the dismissal record of the cases against OWS protestors shows, the  majority of the people arrested had not done anything wrong.     63.  Indeed, further proof of the improper policing of members of Occupy Wall  Street can be seen by the voluminous litigation that has arisen related to the improper  policing of the constitutionally protected expressive speech activity.   64.  Since 2011, more than eighty (80) separate litigations have been filed in  the Southern District of New York alone.  Approximately fifty (50) of these litigations  have been settled at a cost in excess of $1,500,000 dollars, not including the defense costs  associated with these matters.   65.  Seventeen (17) of these litigations were filed before September 15, 2012,  and the First Anniversary of OWS.    FALSE ARREST  169.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the  above paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.  170.  Plaintiffs were arrested by the members of the NYPD without probable  cause, without a warrant, and without the Plaintiff’s consent.  171.  As a result of the above constitutionally impermissible conduct, Plaintiffs  and the class suffered violations of their civil rights, loss of liberty, and other special  damages.  172.  As a result of the police officers’ impermissible conduct, the Plaintiffs  demand judgment against the City of New York and the Chief Defendants in an amount  to be determined at trial, along with punitive damages, together with attorney’s fees and  costs.    OCCUPY WALL STREET  