Re: 12/7/01 - Complaint: James Van de Velde vs. Melvin Wearing et al. (part 1 of 2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JAMES VAN DE VELDE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MELVIN WEARING, BRIAN SULLIVAN,
THOMAS TROCCHIO, EDWARD KENDALL,
ESTATE OF ANTHONY DILULLO, by Lisa
Bull DiLullo, Legal Representative,
and JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
DECEMBER 7, 2001
COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, against the defendants, individually and collectively, for the deprivation of rights guaranteed to the plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also seeks relief under Connecticut law.
2. This case arises because the defendants, acting individually and collectively, wrongfully and repeatedly named the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a suspect in the December 4, 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin, a Yale University student, in New Haven, Connecticut.
3. As discussed below, the repeated public branding of the plaintiff as a suspect in the Jovin murder has resulted in enormous negative publicity -- locally, nationally, and worldwide. Defendants' wrongful conduct has damaged plaintiff's reputation, his job status, his present and future career, and his health and well-being. Defendants' conduct has destroyed the life plaintiff enjoyed before December 1998.
4. The effect of the repeated public "suspect" brandings, coupled with defendants' other actions with respect to the plaintiff during their investigation, has been to proclaim to the world plaintiff's guilt in a heinous murder.
5. The plaintiff has never been charged with the murder of Suzanne Jovin, and has consistently maintained his innocence. All evidence points overwhelmingly to his innocence.
6. Despite mounting evidence proving plaintiff's lack of involvement in the Jovin murder, and an utter absence of evidence of his involvement, defendants have refused to retract the "suspect" label from him and clear his name. Instead, they have continued to brand him a suspect, and to single him out as the only named suspect.
7. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and money damages, for the wrongful invasion of his right to privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; for violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unconstitutional seizure; for violation of his constitutionally-protected liberty and property interests under the Fourteenth Amendment; for violation of his right under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws; and for violation of Connecticut law.
II. JURISDICTION
8. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1441(a),(b), and (c), as well as the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.
9. Plaintiff also invokes the jurisdiction of the Court under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
10. Plaintiff also invokes the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 with respect to causes of action arising under the laws of the State of Connecticut.
11. The value of the rights in question exceeds $100,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
III. PARTIES
12. Plaintiff James Van de Velde is an American citizen, and a resident of the State of Virginia.
13. Defendant Melvin Wearing was, at all relevant times, the Chief of Police for the City of New Haven. At all relevant times, defendant Wearing was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity.
14. Defendant Brian Sullivan was, at all relevant times, a detective for the police department of the City of New Haven. At all relevant times, defendant Sullivan was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity.
15. Defendant Edward Kendall was, at all relevant times, a detective for the police department of the City of New Haven. At all relevant times, defendant Kendall was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity.
16. Defendant Thomas Trocchio was, at all relevant times, a detective for the police department of the City of New Haven. At all relevant times, defendant Trocchio was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacity.
17. Defendant Lisa Bull Dilullo is the legal representative of the Estate of Anthony Dilullo, who, prior to his death and at all relevant times, was a detective for the police department for the City of New Haven acting under color of state law. For ease of reference, defendant's decedent, Anthony Dilullo, will be referred to as a "defendant" herein, along with the other defendants. Defendant DiLullo is sued in his individual and official capacity.
18. Defendants "John Does" were and/or are other police officers engaged in the investigation of the December 4, 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin, acting under color of state law. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.
19. All defendants were, at all relevant times, engaged in the investigation of the December 4, 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin, acting within the scope of their employment, in the performance of their duties, and under color of state law.
20. All defendants are residents of the State of Connecticut.
21. At all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendants acted jointly and in concert with each other. Each defendant had the duty and the opportunity to protect the plaintiff from the unlawful actions of the other defendant(s), but each defendant failed and refused to perform that duty, thereby proximately causing plaintiff's injuries.
IV. FACTS
A. Overview
22. As discussed above, the defendants have caused the plaintiff to be branded as the only named "suspect" in the murder of Suzanne Jovin. This has been done in a series of stages: (1) In December 1998, defendants anonymously caused plaintiff's name to be leaked to the press as the "prime suspect" in the case; (2) In January 1999, defendants officially caused plaintiff to be named and identified as a "suspect", singling him out from a pool of suspects, and naming only him; (3) defendants have continued to identify only the plaintiff as a "suspect" in the case, while declining to reveal the identities of other suspects and making affirmative statements clearing other potential suspects; (4) defendants have engaged in various activities designed to convey to the public that plaintiff was guilty of the Jovin murder, and which did in fact convey that message; and (5) defendants have consistently refused to retract the destructive "suspect" label from the plaintiff, notwithstanding a complete lack of evidence linking him to the murder, and affirmative evidence establishing his innocence.
B. Background
23. Plaintiff James Van de Velde is currently 41 years of age.
24. In December 1998, plaintiff was employed as a lecturer in Political Science at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. He had been so employed since the Summer of 1998.
25. At that time, plaintiff enjoyed an excellent reputation, and had an excellent professional and educational background. After attending and graduating from Amity Regional High School in Woodbridge, Connecticut, where he excelled as a student and otherwise, the Plaintiff attended Yale University. He graduated from Yale College, with honors, in 1982. He then attended the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he received two scholarships for academic excellence. He received a graduate degree from the Fletcher School, with honors in American and Japanese Diplomatic history, in 1988.
26. Upon graduation from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, the Plaintiff secured a position as an arms control diplomat with the United States Department of State.
27. At age twenty-nine, the plaintiff became a White House appointee under then-President George H.W. Bush. The plaintiff served in Geneva, Switzerland as the executive secretary of a strategic arms control delegation. Id.
28. The plaintiff joined the United States Naval Intelligence Reserves and served in various assignments in Panama, Naples, Singapore, Washington, D.C., Brussels, and Bosnia. The plaintiff now holds the rank of Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Intelligence Reserves. He holds a "top secret" security clearance.
29. In 1993, the plaintiff returned to Yale University to become Dean of Yale University's Saybrook College. While Dean of Saybrook College, he lectured on a part-time basis in the Political Science Department.
30. In 1997, the plaintiff left Yale University and accepted a position at Stanford University as Executive Director of the Asia Pacific Research Center, which was part of the Stanford University Institute for International Studies.
31. After a nine-month period, plaintiff left Stanford, by mutual agreement between the plaintiff and Stanford, because the plaintiff missed, in part, teaching university students -- a function not included in his position at Stanford University.
32. In August, 1998, the plaintiff returned to Yale University, and accepted a one-year contract as a lecturer in the Political Science Department.
33. During the Fall of 1998, in addition to teaching at Yale, the plaintiff was enrolled in a master's degree program in broadcast journalism at Quinnipiac College in Hamden, Connecticut.
C. The Jovin Murder
34. On Friday, December 4, 1998, Suzanne Jovin, a 21-year-old Yale University senior, was found murdered in the East Rock section of New Haven. Ms. Jovin's body was found in the vicinity of Edgehill and East Rock roads, at approximately 10 p.m. According to published reports, she was alive when discovered, but died later at a local hospital.
35. According to published reports, Ms. Jovin was last seen on the Yale campus less than 45 minutes prior to her discovery. The distance from where she was last seen, and where her body was recovered, was approximately two miles.
36. According to published reports, Ms. Jovin died from multiple stab wounds.
37. The news that a Yale student had been brutally murdered in a quiet residential section of New Haven generated great publicity and concern, both in the New Haven community and on the Yale campus. Ms. Jovin was the first Yale student murdered in New Haven since 1991, and the second since 1976.
38. As a result, the Jovin murder immediately became a "high profile" case, with the media and the public intently focused on the circumstances surrounding Ms. Jovin's death, and the progress of the search for her killer.
39. Because of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the Jovin murder, the police officials responsible for the murder investigation, including the defendants, were subject to great pressure to solve the crime quickly, or at minimum to demonstrate progress toward identifying the individual responsible for Ms. Jovin's brutal slaying.
D. December 1998 - Plaintiff's Name is Leaked as The "Prime Suspect"
40. Prior to her death, Ms. Jovin had been a student in one of plaintiff's Fall 1998 classes. Plaintiff had also served as her senior thesis advisor.
41. Plaintiff's residence at the time, 305 St. Ronan Street in New Haven, was approximately one-half mile from where Ms. Jovin's body was found. Numerous other Yale faculty and administrators resided in the same residential neighborhood.
42. On Monday afternoon, December 7, 1998, plaintiff met briefly with members of the police task force investigating the Jovin murder. The investigating officers asked plaintiff for a copy of Ms. Jovin's senior thesis draft, which she had left with him on the afternoon of December 4, 1998. They also asked for, and received, a copy of a brief cover note from Ms. Jovin to the plaintiff that accompanied the draft, indicating that she had incorporated changes based on plaintiff's comments on a prior draft.
43. On December 8, 1998, the New Haven Register published a front-page article on the Jovin murder investigation, over a banner headline announcing that Suzanne Jovin "KNEW HER KILLER." See Exhibit 1. The article quoted defendant Wearing as saying that the police did not have a suspect. Defendant Wearing also stated, however, that the police believed that "the victim was known to the assailant."
44. In the same article, plaintiff was identified by name as a lecturer in Yale's Political Science department, and Ms. Jovin's senior thesis advisor. It was also reported that Ms. Jovin had seen plaintiff on the day of her death, when she dropped off her draft paper. Plaintiff was quoted as lauding Ms. Jovin and lamenting her tragic death.
45. Plaintiff had previously offered similar comments at the request of WVIT-Channel 30, a Connecticut television station at which plaintiff had recently concluded an internship. Plaintiff was requested to speak briefly about Ms. Jovin when officials at the station -- his former employer -- learned that he had been her thesis advisor.
46. On Tuesday December 8, in the early evening, New Haven police officers again visited plaintiff, and requested that he accompany them to New Haven Police Headquarters to view photographs, and answer additional questions. Plaintiff agreed.
47. The December 8, 1998 interview turned into an interrogation spanning several hours. Defendants Trocchio and DiLullo conducted this interrogation. During the course of the interrogation, defendants asked plaintiff if he had killed Ms. Jovin. The tone of the interrogation was accusatory, offensive, and distressing.
48. Plaintiff voluntarily submitted to this interrogation -- even after it became apparent that the defendants had misrepresented their intent in asking him to submit to questioning. He flatly denied murdering Ms. Jovin. Plaintiff explained that he had seen her very briefly on the afternoon of December 4th, when she dropped off her revised thesis draft at his office, in the Political Science department on Prospect Street in New Haven.
49. During the interrogation, plaintiff offered the defendant officers the opportunity to search his vehicle, search his residence, subject him to a polygraph examination, and take blood and/or other DNA evidence from him. The officers searched plaintiff's vehicle with his consent, but otherwise declined plaintiff's offers of assistance.
50. Plaintiff left the interrogation with the defendant officers after approximately four hours, when the officers stated they had no further questions for him. Plaintiff voluntarily answered every question put to him, and never sought legal advice or assistance.
51. The next morning, December 9, 1998, the New Haven Register announced, in a 1.5 inch bold-face headline, "YALE TEACHER GRILLED IN KILLING." See Exhibit 2. A sub-heading read, "Prime suspect lives near where slain student found, sources say". The article, citing "city and university sources close to the case", stated that a Yale "educator" who taught Ms. Jovin was the "lead suspect" in the police investigation into her murder. It also stated a "male Yale teacher" had been questioned "Monday and again Tuesday night."
52. Defendant Sullivan stated, on the record, that the police did not have any suspects. Defendant Wearing issued similar on-the-record denials. However, the information regarding plaintiff's interviews, and the statement that plaintiff had been interviewed on Monday and Tuesday night and was the "prime suspect" or "lead suspect," could only have come, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants.
53. Indeed, in an interview published more than two years later in the Hartford Courant, defendant Wearing admitted that "you can blame the police to some extent" for the leaked publication and identification of the plaintiff -- and only the plaintiff -- as the lead suspect in the Jovin murder investigation. Defendant Wearing conceded that it is "not a good thing for someone's name to get out there."
54. Although plaintiff was not identified by name in the December 9th Register article, it was apparent that Van de Velde was the individual to whom the article referred. One day earlier, plaintiff had been identified by name as a Yale lecturer who taught Ms. Jovin -- in an article that proclaimed, according to the police, that Ms. Jovin "knew her killer." Likewise, the December 9th article identified the "prime suspect" as a Yale "educator" or "teacher" -- a label that applied correctly to a lecturer such as the plaintiff, but not to a professor. Plaintiff had been identified as a Yale "lecturer" in the December 8th Register article. Read in context, the December 9th "Prime Suspect" article effectively identified plaintiff.
55. Subsequent events demonstrated that plaintiff had effectively been identified. On the morning of December 9th, while approaching his dentist's office, a television news reporter ambushed plaintiff on the street, with cameras rolling, and asked if he was the individual referred to in that morning's newspaper story. The reporter asked plaintiff if he was responsible for Ms. Jovin's death. After this report aired, plaintiff was approached by numerous print and television news media, asking about his possible involvement in the Jovin murder.
56. The public identification of plaintiff as the "prime suspect" in the Jovin murder investigation generated a frenzy of publicity -- locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.
57. One television news outlet specifically requested that anyone with information about the plaintiff come forward -- further reinforcing defendants' view that plaintiff was the "lead suspect" in the Jovin murder case.
58. The plaintiff suffered immediate and irreparable harm from the defendants conduct. For instance, shortly after being identified as a suspect in the Jovin investigation, he was suspended from the Quinnipiac College Masters in Broadcast Journalism Program. The leaked disclosure cemented the plaintiff in the public eye as the focus of the Jovin murder investigation, and as the person likely responsible for the crime. It spawned intense public scrutiny of plaintiff's background and personal life, and triggered public speculation, which continues to this day, as to whether he killed Ms. Jovin.
59. The defendants' disclosure branded plaintiff as the "lead" suspect in the Jovin murder case, even though there was not a shred of forensic or other evidence to link the plaintiff to the murder; there was no credible motive evidence; there was no evidence of any improper relationship between plaintiff and Ms. Jovin; and there was no credible evidence regarding the plaintiff's background to link him to such a terrible crime.
60. Defendants' actions were undertaken with knowledge that there was no evidence that would even approach the legally-defined level of "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" to believe that the plaintiff was responsible for the murder of Ms. Jovin.
61. Nevertheless, defendants anonymously caused plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, to be identified as the "lead suspect" or "prime suspect" in the case.
62. The leaked disclosure of plaintiff as the "prime suspect" served defendants' interest in showing progress in the Jovin murder investigation, and in quelling public fear that a Yale student had been brutally murdered in a random act of violence in one of New Haven's most exclusive residential neighborhoods. It alleviated the pressure on the defendants connected with the Jovin murder investigation, which had arisen in the immediate aftermath of Ms. Jovin's death.
E. January 1999 - Plaintiff Is Named An "Official" Suspect In An Otherwise-Anonymous Pool
63. For approximately one month after the December 1998 leak of plaintiff's name as the "prime suspect", defendants adopted an "official" position, in on-the-record comments regarding the Jovin murder investigation, that the inquiry was not focused on any individual in particular, and that there were no "suspects" in the case.
64. During this time, from approximately December 7, 1998 to January 11, 1999, Yale University classes were in recess for the Christmas break.
65. On January 10, 1999, on the eve of the start of Yale University's spring semester, Yale University officials informed plaintiff that the two classes he was scheduled to teach had been cancelled. Plaintiff was advised that he could continue in his job performing "research," but was denied the opportunity to teach in the classroom, or to serve as a senior essay advisor or directed reading tutor for any students during the Spring 1999 semester.
66. Prior to January 10, 1999, the defendants informed Yale University officials that plaintiff was among a "pool of suspects" in the Jovin murder investigation, and that police would be questioning Yale students in the coming weeks.
67. On January 11, 1999, Yale University issued a statement that, based on information furnished by the police, Van de Velde was among a "pool of suspects" in the Jovin homicide investigation. This statement repeated information provided by defendant Wearing and/or the other defendants, and was publicly confirmed by police officials.
68. The January 11, 1999 statement was the first official public disclosure of plaintiff's "suspect" status, and, when read in context with prior events, confirmed the "prime suspect" information that had been leaked in December 1998.
69. No other individual in the "pool of suspects" was publicly named and identified in January 1999. To date, no other member of the "pool of suspects" has been identified.
70. By contrast, the defendants have specifically announced that Ms. Jovin's boyfriend, as well as an adult she was mentoring in a "Best Buddies" program on the evening she died, were not and are not suspects.
71. There was, and still is, no rational basis for the defendants to have identified the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a suspect, and not to have published the identities of the others in the "pool of suspects."
72. The defendants' formal announcement that plaintiff was a suspect in the Jovin homicide investigation triggered another, more intense, frenzy of publicity. National television news organizations, among others, aired stories about the Jovin murder, and the fact that plaintiff, a respected former teacher of Ms. Jovin's, had been singled out as a suspect.
73. A common theme has infected virtually all media coverage that ensued in the wake of the January 1999 announcement -- the Jovin murder case was a tantalizing mystery, with a Yale faculty member as the prime suspect in that mystery. The common question underlying the media frenzy was, "Is James Van de Velde a murderer?" The defendants' announcement legitimized and caused such debate and speculation -- and further cemented Van de Velde's link to the Jovin murder. See Exhibit 3 (February 14, 1999 New Haven Register article summarizing media coverage of plaintiff and Jovin murder; "Their pictures always appear together").
74. For instance, prior to the January 11, 1999 official "pool of suspects" announcement, the Hartford Courant had declined to publish plaintiff's name, and had only reported that a Yale teacher had been questioned in the Jovin investigation.
75. After the January 11, 1999 announcement, the Courant determined such restraint was no longer necessary, and began printing plaintiff's name. On January 13, 1999 the newspaper published a front-page article entitled "From Pillar to Pariah - Yale Lecturer Combats Suspicions He Killed 'Inspiring' Senior". See Exhibit 4. The article discussed plaintiff's stellar background and teaching record, but, citing "sources", claimed that he had been the subject of police complaints by television reporters. The implication of this report was that plaintiff may have had some character flaw that made him capable of murder.
76. On information and belief, the anonymous "source" statements in the January 13, 1999 Courant article were provided by one or more of the defendants. They were another part of a calculated campaign by the defendants to portray plaintiff as an individual capable of murder, and to further the public perception that he, the lone named "suspect," was guilty of murder.
77. Indeed, in a June 29, 1999 Courant article summarizing the state of the investigation, it was reported that "Police have mostly declined to speak on the record for months, and instead have leaked information to the media."
78. The publicity frenzy that ensued from the January 11, 1999 official branding of plaintiff as a "suspect" cemented plaintiff in the public eye as the Jovin murder suspect. In effect, as a result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff was charged, tried and convicted in the media, and therefore in the minds of much of the public -- without regard to facts, logic, legal standards, or the rule of law.
(continued...) |
