30.  Defendant Evangeline Parish operates EPSO as an agency of the municipality in  Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. EPSO is responsible for patrolling all of Evangeline Parish, assisting  9  with criminal investigations in towns within the Parish, and operating the Evangeline Parish Jail  (“Parish Jail”).   31.  Defendant Ville Platte operates VPPD as an agency of the municipality in Ville  Platte, Louisiana.  It also operates the Ville Platte City Jail (“City Jail”) next to VPPD headquarters.   32.  Defendants acknowledged to the DOJ that both EPSO and VPPD work together to  address criminal activity in Ville Platte.   33.  When a detective at either EPSO or VPPD wants to question someone in connection  with an ongoing criminal investigation, the detective instructs a patrol officer to find that individual  in the community and bring him or her in for questioning.  So ordered, the patrol officer locates  the individual and commands them to ride in a patrol vehicle to either the City or Parish jail.   34.  Upon arriving at either the City or Parish jail, pursuant to the jails’ standard  procedures, the individual is strip-searched by jail personnel and then placed in a holding cell until  a detective is available to conduct questioning.   35.  At the City Jail, there are two holding cells, each equipped with a hard metal bench  and nothing else.  Neither holding cell has a mattress, running water, shower, or toilet in the cell.   36.  Similarly, at the Parish Jail, the holding cell is equipped with only a long metal  bench, and the walls are made of metal grating.  EPSO detectives and deputies colloquially refer  to the process of detaining individuals for questioning in the Parish Jail holding cell as “putting  them on ice.”  Both EPSO and VPPD officially refer to these detentions as “investigative holds.”   37.  Investigative holds initiated by VPPD often last for 72 hours – and sometimes  significantly longer, with booking logs from 2012-2014 referencing several dozen investigative  holds lasting for at least a full week.  During this time, detainees are forced to spend nights sleeping  on either a concrete floor or metal bench.  Additionally, VPPD exerts full control over the  10  detainees’ liberty: the detained individual is not permitted to make phone calls to inform family  members or employers as to their whereabouts, and have no access to bathrooms or showers unless  and until taken into the jail’s general population area.   38.  EPSO conducts similar investigative holds, which often last for three full days and  sometimes longer.  During the hold, detainees are forced to sleep on the Parish Jail’s concrete  floor.  As with VPPD, EPSO also controls the detainee’s liberty: EPSO also does not permit  detainees on investigative hold to make phone calls, and in fact, EPSO detectives have threatened  Parish Jail officers with retaliation if the officers allowed the detainees to make phone calls.   39.  Detectives of both EPSO and VPPD have acknowledged to the DOJ that they use  investigative holds specifically where they lack probable cause or sufficient evidence for an  arrest, instead using them when they have a “hunch” or a “feeling” that the individual detained  may be connected to criminal activity.   40.  Officers at both EPSO and VPPD admitted to the DOJ that they use the time that a  person is on investigative hold to develop their case, either by gathering evidence or by convincing  the detainee to confess.  However, both agencies confirmed that they used holds to detain  individuals whom they did not suspect of any involvement in criminal activity, but who instead  were related to suspects, witnessed crimes, or otherwise might have knowledge of criminal  activity.  Because officers of EPSO and VPPD are willing to arrest and detain individuals who are  merely possible witnesses in criminal investigations, literally anyone in Evangeline Parish or  Ville Platte could be arrested and placed on investigative hold at any time.   41.  For example, a woman and her family were detained in 2014 after a grocery  shopping trip in which they might have witnessed an armed robbery and shooting.  The woman  informed VPPD officers that she did not witness the crime, and therefore had no information  11  relating to it.  She was nevertheless commanded to come to the police station to answer questions,  along with her boyfriend and a juvenile who was staying at their house at the time, and was taken  into custody at the City Jail.  Officers strip-searched the woman, who was menstruating at the time,  and forced her to remove her tampon.  They then placed her in custody overnight – first in a holding  cell, and then in the Jail’s general population – without access to sanitary products.  Roughly nine  hours later, the woman was interrogated by VPPD detectives and the district attorney.  VPPD  officers also held the woman’s boyfriend overnight in a holding cell, and held the juvenile for at  least seven hours in a separate holding cell before releasing him to a family member.  None of  these individuals were suspected of having any connection to the robbery or shooting, and yet all  were detained for significant periods of time before being shown a line up or asked questions about  what they witnessed.  When the woman called VPPD the day after being released to complain  about her treatment, the VPPD Chief responded that the detention was pursuant to department  policy.   42.  EPSO and VPPD have used these unconstitutional investigative holds as standard  practice for more than two decades.   43.  Defendants intentionally placed Plaintiffs on investigative holds.   44.  During the course of Plaintiffs’ detentions on investigative holds, Defendants did  not provide Plaintiffs any opportunities to challenge their continued detention, or even to notify  anyone of the fact of their detention.   45.  In no case involving an investigative hold was there prior judicial approval given  for the use of the investigative hold practice, thereby removing any justification for said holds  under any conception of material witness detentions.  The holds are made without a warrant,  without any showing that the testimony is essential and that obtaining it via subpoena is  12  impracticable, and without any attempt to obtain prior judicial approval, or even subsequent  judicial review.   46.  Defendants have a policy, practice or custom of violating the civil rights of  detainees on investigative holds.   47.  In April 2015, defendants EPSO, VPPD and Ville Platte openly admitted that their  practice of using investigative holds is unconstitutional.   48.  Because of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of liberty,  loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, mental suffering, emotional distress, stress, and other non- economic losses in an amount to be determined at trial.  49.  This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to  Rule 23(a) as well as Rule 23(b)(2) and/or Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  This action is brought pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive or declaratory relief and Rule  23(b)(3) for money damages.    50.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a class of all  other persons similarly situated, who were forced to undergo unlawful investigative holds  propagated, maintained, and under the control of Defendants, EPSO Supervisory defendants, and  VPPD Supervisory defendants during the period January 1, 1997 through the cessation of the  Defendants’ pattern and practice of unlawful investigative holds (the “Class Period”).   51.  On information and belief, and based on the DOJ’s December 19, 2016 released  results of its investigation of VPPD and EPSO, Plaintiffs allege the investigative holds to which  they and class members were subjected were done pursuant to Defendants’ policy and practice to  13  arrest and detain citizens of Evangeline Parish and Ville Platte without regard to: (i) Probable  cause; (ii) Presence or existence of a warrant for arrest; (iii) Duration of detention; (iv) Conditions  of detention; or (v) Civil rights of detainees held on investigative holds.   52.  On information and belief, and based on the DOJ’s December 19, 2016 released  results of its investigation of VPPD and EPSO, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, EPSO  Supervisory defendants, and VPPD Supervisory defendants have a policy of maintaining these  investigative holds in direct violation of detainees’ Fourth Amendment and state law rights, as  described above.  70.  Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs.   71.  Without any basis in state law, Defendants willfully and intentionally detained  Plaintiffs in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure  without probable cause.   72.  As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were unlawfully deprived of  their liberty.   73.  A municipal government may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where a  plaintiff demonstrates that a deprivation of a federal right occurred as a result of a policy of the  local government’s legislative body, or the actions of local officials where those acts may fairly  be said to be those of the municipality.    19   74.  Investigative holds have been municipal policies for both Evangeline Parish and  Ville Platte for over two decades, as they have been used with willful disregard for the Fourth  Amendment rights of Defendants’ citizens for that entire duration, and the investigative holds are  directly causally linked to the deprivation of those rights.   75.  Given the two-decade-plus duration of EPSO and VPPD’s practice of using illegal  investigative holds, the Defendants’ policy and actions of their local officials, as well as the clear  municipal policies these investigative holds represent, make Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under  76.  Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs.   77.  Defendants arrested and imprisoned Plaintiffs in the hope of eliciting information  relating to criminal activity.   78.  Defendants did not have, nor seek to have, a judge issue warrants for Plaintiffs’  arrests.   79.  Defendants also did not attempt to subpoena Plaintiffs, nor entertain the possibility  of doing so.   80.  Accordingly, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights under Louisiana law, La. Rev.  Stat. Ann. § 15:257.  20  81.  Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all  preceding paragraphs.   82.  Defendants arrested and imprisoned Plaintiffs without warrants or probable cause.   83.  Defendants maintained Plaintiffs’ detention for longer than 48 hours without any  determination being made as to whether there was probable cause for their arrests and  incarcerations.   84.  Following the expiration of 48 hours’ detention, Plaintiffs were not released on  their own recognizance.   85.  Accordingly, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights under Louisiana law, La. Code  Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 230.2(A), (B)(1).  Fourth Amendment – 42 U.S.C. § 1983   La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 230.2   La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:257  