Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 1 of 40.

PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EVAN LAMBERT, CASE NO. 4:23-cv-2200

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
v. DAMAGES
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, CITY OF
EAST PALESTINE, JOHN C.
HARRIS, JR., BRIAN DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
MCLAUGHLIN, JENNIFER
TUCKER, JAMES BROWN, III, AND
DANIEL HAUETER, in their personal
capacities.

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
1. “[T]he press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote

to any abuses of power by governmental officials and as a constitutionally chosen

means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people

whom they were selected to serve.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966).

In that role, Evan Lambert (“Mr. Lambert”), a journalist for NewsNation, travelled

to East Palestine, Ohio to cover the derailment of a train carrying toxic chemicals.

2. On February 8, 2023, Mr. Lambert attended a news conference held

by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. For his coverage of that event, Mr. Lambert

would be arrested, assaulted, and charged with offenses that he did not commit.

1
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 2 of 40. PageID #: 2

3. The incident began when Major General John C. Harris, Jr. of the

Ohio National Guard—without authorization from the Governor and without

justification—ordered Mr. Lambert to stop his live reporting on the press

conference, became enraged, and instigated a one-sided physical confrontation.

4. Rather than intervene to protect Mr. Lambert’s First Amendment

rights, officers of the Columbiana County Sheriff’s Office (the “Sheriff’s Office”)

and East Palestine Police Department (“EPPD”) opted to punish him for his lawful

newsgathering, with the approval and personal participation of the decisionmakers

responsible for law enforcement policy in East Palestine and Columbiana County.

5. As Governor DeWine made clear the same day, “[T]hat was wrong.”

6. Everything Mr. Lambert did that day, Ohio Attorney General Dave

Yost explained in dismissing the charges against him, “was consistent with the

event and his role as a reporter” at an event for which he was “lawfully present.”

7. That Mr. Lambert was nevertheless arrested, assaulted, and faced with

meritless criminal charges was a product of EPPD and the Sheriff’s Office’s

inadequate policies and training on the rights of journalists and the use of force.

8. Mr. Lambert brings this action to redress his injuries and to ensure

that he and other journalists covering matters of public concern in Ohio in the

future can gather the news and inform the public safely, without fear that they will

experience the same unlawful mistreatment that Mr. Lambert suffered that day.

2
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 3 of 40. PageID #: 3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Lambert’s federal

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and supplemental jurisdiction

over his Ohio state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims

form part of the same case or controversy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Mr.

Lambert’s claims occurred in this District.

PARTIES

11. Mr. Lambert is an Emmy-nominated and award-winning journalist

with NewsNation, a subscription television news network owned by the Nexstar

Media Group. Mr. Lambert has worked for NewsNation since 2021.

12. At all relevant times, Defendant Columbiana County (the “County”)

was and is a political subdivision as defined in Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.01 and a

“person” subject to suit within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The County is

charged with the administration and operation of the Sheriff’s Office, responsible

for the employment, control, supervision, training, and discipline of Sheriff’s

Office personnel and employees. It is also charged with the formulation of the

policies, practices, and customs of Sheriff’s Office personnel and employees.

3
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 4 of 40. PageID #: 4

13. At all relevant times, Defendant City of East Palestine (the “City”)

was and is a municipal corporation under Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution,

and a “person” subject to suit within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City is

charged with the administration and operation of the EPPD, responsible for the

employment, control, supervision, training, and discipline of EPPD’s personnel

and employees. It is also charged with the formulation of the policies, practices,

and customs of EPPD’s personnel and employees.

14. Defendant Major General John C. Harris, Jr. is the Adjutant General

of the Ohio National Guard. He is sued here in his personal capacity.

15. Defendant Brian McLaughlin has served as Sheriff of the Columbiana

County Sheriff’s Office since his election in 2020. Under Ohio law, Sheriff

McLaughlin acts as a final policymaker for the County “with respect to decisions

to prosecute, charge, and arrest.” Ghaster v. City of Rocky River, 913 F. Supp. 2d

443, 470 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469,

483 (1986)). The Sheriff’s Office policies at issue in Mr. Lambert’s unlawful

mistreatment include Sheriff McLaughlin’s signature, expressly identifying him as

the source of authority for approval. He is sued here in his personal capacity.

16. Defendant Jennifer Tucker is the Chief Deputy of the Columbiana

County Sheriff’s Office. She is sued here in her personal capacity.

4
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 5 of 40. PageID #: 5

17. Defendant James Brown, III, has served as Chief of the East Palestine

Police Department since 2017. Under Ohio law and City custom, Chief Brown

acts as final policymaker for the City with respect to EPPD practices around

arrests, training, and discipline, including “policing at the individual level.”

Jackson v. City of Cleveland, 622 F. Supp. 3d 636, 643 (N.D. Ohio 2022).

18. All of the relevant EPPD policies at issue in Mr. Lambert’s unlawful

mistreatment were initialed by Chief Brown as the approving policymaker;

EPPD’s policy on the use of force indicates that Chief Brown is the City

policymaker charged with making a final determination whether a use of force

complied with EPPD policy and the law; and the City’s official statement on Mr.

Lambert’s arrest was communicated by Chief Brown. No records produced to Mr.

Lambert in response to a request under Ohio’s Public Records Act indicate that any

City official other than Chief Brown played a role in promulgating the relevant

EPPD policies or in approving Mr. Lambert’s unlawful arrest and prosecution.

19. Chief Brown is sued here in his personal capacity.

20. Defendant Daniel Haueter is a detective in the East Palestine Police

Department. He is sued here in his personal capacity.

5
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 6 of 40. PageID #: 6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Mr. Lambert’s Reporting Leads to His Unlawful Arrest.

21. On February 8, 2023, Mr. Lambert attended a news conference held

by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine in connection with the high-profile toxic

chemical train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Governor DeWine was

scheduled to speak at the East Palestine Elementary School gymnasium to address

when residents living near the site of the derailment would be able to return home.

22. Mr. Lambert had attended prior press conferences about the

derailment earlier that week in the same space. Those events were open to all

members of the press; at no point did any state or local official communicate

restrictions on the manner in which journalists could cover those conferences.

23. Journalists attending the February 8 press conference were originally

told the Governor’s remarks would begin at 3:00PM, but by 5:00PM the event had

not yet begun. Whether or not the conference had started, Mr. Lambert was due to

appear for a live report at 5:00PM in his role as a correspondent for NewsNation.

24. Live shots are a conventional practice in broadcast journalism, and it

is routine for live reports to be conducted before, after, or during a press

conference. Mr. Lambert had witnessed other journalists conducting live shots

during media availabilities related to the derailment before the day in question.

6
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 7 of 40. PageID #: 7

25. The Governor and his office had not restricted the use of live shots.

As the Governor later explained, “It has always been my practice that if I’m doing

a press conference, someone wants to report out there and they want to be talking

back to the people back on channel, whatever, they have every right to do that.”

26. The EPPD and Sheriff’s Office had not imposed—and had no

authority to impose—restrictions on how the reporters in attendance could cover

the Governor’s remarks. As an EPPD investigative report on Mr. Lambert’s arrest

would later explain, “local law enforcement were not tasked with the setting up of

the press conference or the design of who was permitted to be in attendance.”

27. Just as the Governor walked out to begin his remarks, Mr. Lambert’s

host let him know through his earpiece that he was to begin the live report.

28. Mr. Lambert began his appearance just as the Governor started

speaking on the opposite side of the room. As publicly available video of the

appearance shows, Mr. Lambert spoke in an ordinary conversational tone to avoid

disrupting the press conference. He planned to keep his live report brief so that he

would be able to hear the Governor and report any news coming from his remarks.

29. Mr. Lambert would not have that opportunity. Instead, as Mr.

Lambert was giving his report, several law enforcement officers approached him.

Major General John C. Harris, Jr., commanding general of the Ohio National

Guard, began motioning at Mr. Lambert and the videographer with him to stop

7
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 8 of 40. PageID #: 8

broadcasting. As General Harris became visibly exercised, Mr. Lambert signed

off, explaining to viewers that he was being ordered to stop his live reporting.

30. After Mr. Lambert signed off, General Harris began to shout at Mr.

Lambert and his videographer, at first directing his ire at Mr. Lambert’s colleague.

Mr. Lambert quietly explained that the live shot had been scheduled before the

Governor was delayed and could not have been cancelled at the last minute.

31. General Harris continued to yell, calling it “rude” and a “shitty move”

to broadcast while the Governor was speaking. One of the other officers present,

Sergeant Bridget Matt of the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”), put her hand

on General Harris’s shoulder in an effort to get him to back away and calm down.

32. Instead, without provocation, General Harris walked up to Mr.

Lambert and pushed him in the chest. In response, Mr. Lambert continued to

explain that he was doing his job as a journalist by covering the press conference.

33. Other officers had now gathered around Mr. Lambert and General

Harris. As body camera footage shows, Sergeant Matt stepped between General

Harris and Mr. Lambert and told General Harris to “stop” several times; General

Harris instead walked around her. Sergeant Matt urged General Harris to step

back, repeatedly saying, “Sir, please,” in an effort to prevent him from escalating.

34. Sergeant Matt was finally forced to put her hands on General Harris’s

chest to prevent him from “going for” Mr. Lambert, as she later explained in a

8
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 9 of 40. PageID #: 9

statement to EPPD that was recorded on body camera footage. After she separated

General Harris from Mr. Lambert, Sergeant Matt returned to the front of the gym.

35. Shaken by General Harris’s unprovoked aggression, Mr. Lambert

commented to the other officers that had gathered there that General Harris had

assaulted him, and that he was allowed to be at the Governor’s press conference.

36. Sheriff McLaughlin then told Mr. Lambert he needed to leave the

press conference because he had been “told to shut it down and [he] continued on.”

37. When Mr. Lambert did not leave the event, Sheriff McLaughlin

became visibly upset and repeatedly yelled at Mr. Lambert to “Go. Now.”

38. Getting closer and closer to Mr. Lambert’s face, Sheriff McLaughlin

asked twice if Mr. Lambert “wanted to go to jail for criminal trespassing.”

39. In a calm voice, Mr. Lambert responded that he was still “trying to

listen” to the Governor’s press conference and asked Sheriff McLaughlin if he

knew “how quickly our lawyers will get me out” of jail for an unlawful arrest.

40. Sheriff McLaughlin responded, “I don’t care.”

41. Detective Haueter nodded in agreement and echoed, “We don’t care.”

42. Even at the time, as Detective Haueter explained in an investigative

report provided to Mr. Lambert in response to a public records request, the

arresting officers knew that General Harris’s order to Mr. Lambert and his assault

9
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 10 of 40. PageID #: 10

on Mr. Lambert were unlawful. As Detective Haueter wrote, “In fact, reporting

officer would recommend charges against the General based on my investigation.”

43. Still, as Detective Haueter’s report explained, the arresting officers

believed that Mr. Lambert and his videographer could be arrested for declining to

obey General Harris’s order even “[i]f they were wrongfully told to do so.”

44. As the Supreme Court has said, “Obviously, however, one cannot be

punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself

violative of the Constitution.” Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291–92 (1963).

45. After Sheriff McLaughlin and Detective Haueter explained that they

didn’t care whether Mr. Lambert’s arrest would stand up to scrutiny, an OSHP

officer asked Mr. Lambert to “talk outside.” Mr. Lambert explained that he was

“trying to listen and [General Harris] escalated with me,” insisting, “I am doing my

job; this is covered by the First Amendment.” At that point, a man who identified

himself as a building supervisor joined the crowd and asked Mr. Lambert to leave.

46. “There you have it,” Sheriff McLaughlin said to Mr. Lambert,

pointing at the door. “You’re going to make me stand right there?” Mr. Lambert

asked, pointing to a room between the doors to the outside and the doors to the

gym where his videographer was standing with a member of OSHP. “You’re

going to stand outside,” Sheriff McLaughlin said, “or you are going to jail.”

10
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 11 of 40. PageID #: 11

47. Detective Haueter then grabbed Mr. Lambert by his right arm, Deputy

Jennifer Tucker grabbed him by his left arm, and the pair forcibly pushed him out

of the door while Mr. Lambert repeatedly objected, “Please do not touch me.”

48. Mr. Lambert objected verbally but offered no physical resistance.

49. Despite Mr. Lambert’s lack of resistance, Detective Haueter and

Deputy Tucker bent Mr. Lambert’s hands behind his back, took hold of the collar

of his shirt, and abruptly shoved him to the ground. While the officers would later

claim that Mr. Lambert had attempted to pull away before the takedown, body

camera footage instead shows Detective Haueter and Deputy Tucker swinging Mr.

Lambert around, without provocation, when they had already seized his arms.

50. With Mr. Lambert pinned to the ground, the officers yelled

contradictory commands—telling Mr. Lambert both to get on his knees and to lay

flat—with which he could not comply. Detective Haueter and Deputy Tucker

continued to shout for Mr. Lambert to get on the ground when body camera

footage shows that he was already on the ground. On video, Mr. Lambert can be

heard asking, “I am on the ground, what are you talking about?” The officers

likewise yelled “stop resisting” even as Mr. Lambert offered no resistance.

51. Detective Haueter and Deputy Tucker then tightly handcuffed Mr.

Lambert, while he repeatedly identified himself as a reporter for NewsNation.

11
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 12 of 40. PageID #: 12

II. Mr. Lambert Is Detained for Five Hours.

52. After his arrest, the officers walked Mr. Lambert to a squad car.

53. Mr. Lambert again repeatedly identified himself as a journalist and

asked that he be allowed to continue doing his job covering an important story.

54. Instead, Mr. Lambert was driven to the East Palestine Police

Department, where he was put into metal handcuffs and leg shackles, before he

was placed in a Sheriff’s deputy’s car and transported to Columbiana County Jail.

55. At the jail, Mr. Lambert was put in an orange jumpsuit, had a mugshot

taken, and was forced to turn over all items on his person. He sat in the reception

area for several hours while he was booked for alleged violations of Ohio Rev.

Code § 2911.21, which prohibits trespass, and Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.33, which

prohibits resisting arrest. Employees at the jail seemed confused and incredulous

at the charges, asking Mr. Lambert to confirm several times that he was a reporter.

56. Eventually, Mr. Lambert was placed in a small holding cell off the

reception area until a representative of NewsNation was able to pay his bond.

57. All told, Mr. Lambert spent approximately five hours in detention.

58. After his release, Mr. Lambert had abrasions and bruises on his wrists

from his handcuffing and scratches on his neck from the officers’ use of force.

59. Mr. Lambert suffered significant distress as a result of the incident,

including weeks of nightmares featuring violent assaults by authority figures.

12
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 13 of 40. PageID #: 13

III. Mr. Lambert Is Charged with Offenses He Had Not Committed.

60. While Mr. Lambert was in detention, the Defendants began spreading

a false narrative about Mr. Lambert’s actions and his arrest, pushing to have Mr.

Lambert prosecuted for offenses that he had not committed. On information and

belief, that campaign was an effort to retaliate against Mr. Lambert for having

exercised his right to gather the news and for objecting to their illegal orders.

61. As a result, Mr. Lambert was charged in Columbiana County

Municipal Court with trespass and resisting arrest, even though—as Ohio Attorney

General Dave Yost later explained in dismissing the case, on the basis of the same

evidence available to Defendants at the time—Mr. Lambert was “lawfully present”

at the event, “[h]is conduct was consistent with the purpose of the event and his

role as a reporter,” and the charges were “unsupported by sufficient evidence.”

62. In false statements to the press and local police about the encounter,

General Harris laid the foundation for Mr. Lambert’s wrongful prosecution. In a

public statement, General Harris claimed that he told Mr. Lambert to stop

recording because his live report was “disrupting the event”; that Mr. Lambert

“became enraged” in response and began “aggressively lurching” at him; and that

he “instinctively put [his] hands on [Mr. Lambert’s] chest” in self-defense. The

statement went on to accuse Mr. Lambert of orchestrating “a contrived event.”

13
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 14 of 40. PageID #: 14

63. That narrative was false. Mr. Lambert’s live report posed no risk of

disruption, as video shows and the Governor confirmed. What’s more, General

Harris never suggested at the time that Mr. Lambert’s live shot was interfering

with the function of the press conference—only that he found it “rude” and a

“shitty move” for a journalist to be broadcasting while the Governor was speaking.

64. Further, as captured on video of the incident, it was General Harris,

not Mr. Lambert, who became enraged and instigated a one-sided physical

confrontation. As Sergeant Matt explained to EPPD, she was forced to place her

hands on General Harris’s chest to stop him from “going for” Mr. Lambert.

Surveillance footage likewise confirms that General Harris stepped forward to

shove Mr. Lambert, who was standing still at the time. And as Detective Haueter’s

investigative report explained, he believed that criminal charges against General

Harris would have been warranted for General Harris’s unlawful misconduct.

65. Finally, Mr. Lambert repeatedly attempted to explain to law

enforcement personnel before, during, and after his arrest that he was trying to do

his job as a journalist and planned to resume listening to the Governor’s remarks.

Mr. Lambert did not intend to draw the attention of law enforcement; spoke at an

ordinary conversational tone to avoid disrupting the event; and maintained a

professional demeanor even after the Defendants had instigated a confrontation.

14
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 15 of 40. PageID #: 15

66. In a sworn affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint against

Mr. Lambert on February 8, 2023, the day of his arrest, Detective Haueter used

General Harris’s false statement that Mr. Lambert instigated the encounter to

obtain charges against Mr. Lambert. On information and belief, Detective Haueter

knew or should have known that the key elements of General Harris’s statement

were false because he was present for—and witnessed first-hand—the incident.

67. To support the charge of resisting arrest, Detective Haueter also

falsely asserted that Mr. Lambert “attempted to pull away” and “was attempting to

sit up once on the ground.” Mr. Lambert did neither: He offered no resistance and

attempted to comply, but could not have complied, with contradictory commands.

68. The day after the incident, on February 9, 2023, EPPD issued a press

release signed by Chief Brown that amplified General Harris’s false account and

attempted to justify Mr. Lambert’s prosecution. The press release claimed that Mr.

Lambert’s reporting was “loud” and had disrupted the event, and that General

Harris had only “pushed [Mr. Lambert] away” because Mr. Lambert was “coming

at him.” The press release further claimed that Detective Haueter and Deputy

Tucker “attempted to escort” Mr. Lambert from the building after “all reasonable

means to deescalate” had been exhausted and that, “[w]hile on the ground,” Mr.

Lambert “was not listening to the officers and was attempting to get up.”

15
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 16 of 40. PageID #: 16

69. Chief Brown knew or should have known that General Harris’s

recounting of events was false. For one, by the time of the press release, a member

of the EPPD had already spoken with Sergeant Matt, who said she was forced to

put her hands on General Harris’s chest to stop him from “going for” Mr. Lambert.

70. Moreover, as Detective Haueter’s investigative report explains, EPPD

had already obtained footage from the gym—showing that General Harris stepped

toward Mr. Lambert to shove him—on February 9, the day the statement issued.

71. And, as captured on video likewise in EPPD’s possession at the time

of the press release, in response to Mr. Lambert’s explanations that he was

attempting to do his job as a reporter, officers immediately escalated the situation

by ordering Mr. Lambert out of the gym and threatening him with prosecution.

72. Finally, as captured on video in EPPD’s possession at the time of the

press release, Mr. Lambert offered no resistance and had attempted to comply—but

could not have complied—with the Defendant officers’ contradictory commands.

73. As a result of Defendants’ retaliatory efforts, Mr. Lambert was

charged with trespass and resisting arrest in Columbiana County Municipal Court.

74. On a motion by the Prosecuting Attorney of Columbiana County, the

charges against Mr. Lambert were referred to the Special Prosecutions Section of

the Office of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. That office quickly concluded the

charges were meritless and moved for their dismissal in full on February 15, 2023.

16
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 17 of 40. PageID #: 17

75. As a memo that Senior Assistant Attorney General Anthony D. Cillo

prepared—and which was made available in response to a public records request—

explained, the charges against Mr. Lambert had “legal deficits.” For one, Cillo

observed, Ohio law makes clear that an individual’s refusal to leave when ordered

cannot support a trespass charge “where, subject to certain time, place, and manner

of use restrictions, the defendant is lawfully exercising his or her First Amendment

rights.” City of Cleveland v. Dickerson, 60 N.E.3d 686, 692 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).

76. What’s more, Cillo observed, a trespass prosecution can only lie

where the individual who ordered a defendant to leave “was authorized to preclude

[the defendant’s] presence” in the first place. State v. McGroarty, No. 96-L-158,

1999 WL 703376, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 31, 1997). But Governor DeWine—

who had invited the press and established the ground rules for the press

conference—explained in public statements that he had not authorized anyone to

prohibit live shots at the event or to remove Mr. Lambert for conducting one.

77. In remarks that day, the Governor explained that “a reporter should be

allowed to report live or to tape, or whatever they want to do anywhere in this

press conference.” He went on to say Mr. Lambert “had a right to be reporting”

and “if [he was] in any way hampered from reporting that, that certainly is wrong

and it’s not anything that I approve of. In fact I vehemently disapprove of it.”

17
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 18 of 40. PageID #: 18

78. The Governor reiterated as much on February 13, saying “the initial

contact” with Mr. Lambert “never should have occurred,” telling reporters, “I have

the same opinion I had the first day and that is I hope charges will be dropped.”

79. Following a one-on-one interview on February 21, 2023, Governor

DeWine likewise told Mr. Lambert that he was sorry for what had happened.

80. On February 15, 2023, Attorney General Yost announced that all of

the charges would be dismissed. In a press release, Yost emphasized that Mr.

Lambert was “lawfully present” and “[h]is conduct was consistent with the purpose

of the event and his role as a reporter.” Attorney General Yost went on to

underline that “Ohio protects a free press under its constitution” and admonished

officials to “exercise a heightened level of restraint” in interacting with journalists.

IV. The Violation of Mr. Lambert’s Rights Was the Product of Inadequate
Policies, Inadequate Training, and the Personal Participation of Key
Policymakers in the Decision to Arrest and Charge Mr. Lambert.

81. As Attorney General Yost’s statement indicated, law enforcement

interactions with journalists require care to avoid infringing on a free press.

82. Federal courts have likewise explained in similar contexts that

“failures to navigate interactions with reporters properly could frequently cause

deprivation of constitutional rights,” and that effective policies and training are

essential because satisfying the Constitution “calls for more than common sense.”

18
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 19 of 40. PageID #: 19

Martinez v. City of Asbury Park, No. 20-8710, 2021 WL 1343837, at *6 (D.N.J.

Mar. 5, 2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

83. The County’s and City’s policies and training are inadequate, as the

experience of Mr. Lambert’s arrest—as well as records provided to Mr. Lambert in

response to a series of requests under the Ohio Public Records Act—makes clear.

84. The problem starts at the top. As set forth above, Sheriff McLaughlin

personally participated in ejecting Mr. Lambert and ordering his illegal detention.

85. Chief Brown, for his part, endorsed the arresting officers’ “decision

[to arrest Mr. Lambert] and the basis for it.” Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, 14 F.3d

1115, 1118 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). For one, by the time Chief Brown

issued his statement, the same evidence that would later lead Attorney General

Yost to conclude that Mr. Lambert’s arrest was baseless was available to EPPD.

86. What’s more, EPPD’s policies on the use of force would have

required the arresting officers to immediately notify an EPPD supervisor of Mr.

Lambert’s violent arrest and generate a detailed report on the circumstances, which

would promptly pass up the chain to Chief Brown for review. EPPD policy further

requires Chief Brown or his designee to investigate incidents of force and make a

final determination whether an arrest complied with departmental policy and the

law. Chief Brown’s statement makes clear that he approved the arrest all the same.

19
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 20 of 40. PageID #: 20

87. What’s more, in response to a request for records for any disciplinary

records involving Detective Haueter, Chief Brown responded on April 26, 2023

that none exist—a clear sign that Chief Brown “fail[ed] to meaningfully investigate

and punish allegations of unconstitutional conduct” in connection with Mr.

Lambert’s detention. Wright v. City of Euclid, 962 F.3d 852, 882 (6th Cir. 2020).

88. Likewise, in response to a request for records for any disciplinary

records involving Deputy Tucker, the Columbiana County Sheriff’s Department

furnished no records in connection with Mr. Lambert’s arrest, evincing the same

failure to “investigate and punish allegations of unconstitutional conduct.” Id.

89. Policy and training records produced to Mr. Lambert underscore the

issue.

90. For instance, nothing in EPPD’s arrest, use-of-force, and media

policies informs officers that the First Amendment limits their authority to arrest

journalists or issue orders restricting newsgathering in public spaces—even though

the law is clear that officials cannot “arbitrarily shroud genuinely newsworthy

events in secrecy,” S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit Cnty., 499 F.3d 553,

560 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), including through the use of police orders.1

1
See, e.g., Enoch v. Hogan, 728 F. App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2018) (orders
that limit newsgathering must comply with the First Amendment); Reed v.
Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017) (same); Turner v. Lieutenant
(Cont’d on next page)

20
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 21 of 40. PageID #: 21

91. For just that reason, other agencies have policies expressly prohibiting

officers from arresting journalists or issuing orders that limit newsgathering in

spaces where reporters are lawfully present, with narrowly defined exceptions.2

92. The U.S. Department of Justice has likewise repeatedly warned

agencies that “First Amendment violations are the predictable consequence” of a

failure to train on “the scope of First Amendment protections” for the press.3

93. EPPD’s lack of any policy on the issue, despite the obvious need for

one, predictably led to Mr. Lambert’s unlawful arrest. Detective Haueter’s report

makes express that he believed he could arrest Mr. Lambert for failing to comply

with orders restricting his newsgathering even if he was “wrongfully told to do so.”

94. EPPD’s policies on the use of less-than-lethal force are likewise

inadequate. They offer minimal guidance on use of the takedown maneuver that

Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017) (same); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78,
83–84 (1st Cir. 2011) (same). Ohio law reflects the same principle. See Ohio
Rev. Code § 2917.13 (duty to obey lawful orders at emergency scenes shall not
be “construed to limit access or deny information” to members of the press).
2
See, e.g., L.A. Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, Policy 3-01/080.16 – Photography,
Audio, and Videotaping by the Public and the Press,
https://pars.lasd.org/Viewer/Manuals/10008/Content/10397 (last accessed Aug.
3, 2023).
3
See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Investigation of the City of Minneapolis and
the Minneapolis Police Department at 54 (June 16, 2023),
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1587661/download; Consent
Decree at 27, United States v. City of Ferguson, No. 4:16-cv-000180-CDP
(E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833431/download.

21
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 22 of 40. PageID #: 22

was gratuitously deployed against Mr. Lambert, authorizing officers to “use their

knees or shins to control a subject while on the ground . . . consistent with current

standards and duty of care” with no elaboration on what those standards in fact are.

95. That level of detail is deficient for a serious use of force. The Action

Response Continuum included within the policy places takedown maneuvers in the

same category of severity as use of a Taser. But where multiple provisions guide

officers’ use of Tasers to ensure compliance with the law and the safety of

arrestees, no such guidance exists for the takedown that was used on Mr. Lambert.

96. Those deficits are compounded by the City’s inadequate training.

EPPD provided responsive records to Mr. Lambert’s request under the Ohio Public

Records Act for, among other things, all use-of-force training records involving

Detective Haueter. Although these records include a certification and brief

assessment Detective Haueter completed as part of a training on the use of lethal

force, there are no records that Detective Haueter was assessed on the policies on

less-than-lethal force, including the takedown that was employed on Mr. Lambert.

97. In principle, Clause 102.64 of EPPD’s policy on less-than-lethal force

requires EPPD officers to receive annual training and testing on the policies and

complete an acknowledgement of them. EPPD’s disclosures contain no indication

that Detective Haueter fulfilled this requirement or that EPPD in fact enforces it.

22
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 23 of 40. PageID #: 23

98. Chief Brown’s response to Mr. Lambert’s request also explained that

the City’s existing (inadequate) media policy “requires no annual or recurring

training.” There is no indication from EPPD’s disclosures that Detective Haueter

has received any training or fulfilled any requirements on media relations policy.

99. The Sheriff’s Office’s policies on media relations and the use of force,

produced in response to Mr. Lambert’s request, have the same defects as EPPD’s.

100. The Sheriff’s Office media relations and use-of-force policies offer no

guidance on First Amendment limits on deputies’ authority to arrest journalists or

issue orders that limit newsgathering in areas where reporters are lawfully present.

101. Furthermore, the Sheriff’s Office’s policies on the use of force are

even more deficient on their face than EPPD’s policies are, providing no guidance

on the use of the takedown that Deputy Tucker employed on Mr. Lambert.

102. The Sheriff’s Office compounds these defects with inadequate

training.

103. There is no indication from its disclosures that the Sheriff’s Office

requires or enforces training on media relations or the use of less-than-lethal force.

Nor does it appear that Deputy Tucker has ever received training in these areas.

23
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 24 of 40. PageID #: 24

104. Mr. Lambert has continued to cover the aftermath of the derailment.

He has written several stories since his arrest,4 and he traveled to East Palestine

two weeks after his arrest for a one-on-one interview with the Governor.5 On that

beat, he may be asked to attend future events at which officers of EPPD or the

Sheriff’s Office are likely to be present. But in light of EPPD and the Sheriff’s

Office’s inadequate policies and trainings, as well as the involvement of key

policymaking officials in the decision to arrest and charge him, Mr. Lambert fears

that—absent reform—he will again suffer unlawful interference with his rights.

COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of the First Amendment
(Retaliation)
Against Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker, Detective Haueter,
and Chief Brown in their personal capacities

105. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

4
See, e.g., Joe Khalil & Evan Lambert, Schumer: NTSB Should Expand
Norfolk Southern Investigation, NewsNation (Mar. 15, 2023),
https://perma.cc/2JNH-DFA3; Evan Lambert, Cassie Buchman & Jeanene Splitt,
East Palestine Cleanup Expected to Take 3 Months: EPA, NewsNation (Mar. 17,
2023), https://perma.cc/43X5-ZX9Q; Evan Lambert, States Beginning to Raise
Concerns About Ohio Toxic Waste, NewsNation (Mar. 21, 2023),
https://perma.cc/YF5J-5Z6L.
5
Evan Lambert & Caitlyn Shelton, ‘Drink the Water’: Gov. Mike DeWine on
Ohio Derailment Concerns, NewsNation (Feb. 21, 2023), https://perma.cc/K9GF-
5FV4.

24
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 25 of 40. PageID #: 25

106. Mr. Lambert was engaged in activity protected by the First

Amendment when, in a public forum established by Governor DeWine, he reported

on the Governor’s press conference regarding the train derailment in East

Palestine, Ohio and objected to Defendants’ interference with that reporting.

107. Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker, and Detective Haueter’s decision

to arrest and use force against Mr. Lambert was substantially motivated by his

exercise of his right to report the news by broadcasting during the Governor’s press

conference and his right to object to orders that interfered with his reporting.

108. Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker, and Detective Haueter’s decision

to arrest and use force against Mr. Lambert was not supported by probable cause or

a reasonable but mistaken belief that probable cause existed. Mr. Lambert’s

conduct did not disrupt the event and was consistent with his role as a reporter; the

purpose and character of the event; and any restrictions issued by Governor

DeWine or his authorized agents.

109. Detective Haueter and Chief Brown’s decision to accuse Mr. Lambert

of criminal conduct and file charges against him was substantially motivated by his

exercise of his right to report the news by broadcasting during the press conference

as well as his right to object to orders that interfered with his reporting.

110. Detective Haueter and Chief Brown’s decision to accuse Mr. Lambert

of criminal conduct and file charges against him was not supported by probable

25
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 26 of 40. PageID #: 26

cause or a reasonable but mistaken belief that probable cause existed. Mr.

Lambert’s conduct did not disrupt the press conference and was consistent with his

role as a reporter; the purpose and character of the event; and any restrictions

issued by Governor DeWine or his authorized agents. Mr. Lambert did not resist

arrest when unlawfully detained.

111. Mr. Lambert’s arrest, detention, and attempted prosecution would

chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to exercise his right to gather

and report newsworthy information.

112. In taking these actions, Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker,

Detective Haueter, and Chief Brown acted under color of state law.

113. In taking these actions, Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker,

Detective Haueter, and Chief Brown acted maliciously and with reckless disregard

for Mr. Lambert’s constitutional rights.

114. Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker, Detective Haueter, and Chief

Brown’s unconstitutional conduct proximately caused Mr. Lambert physical injury

and emotional distress.

COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of the First Amendment
(Interference with Newsgathering)
Against General Harris, Sheriff McLaughlin,
Deputy Tucker, and Detective Haueter in their personal capacities

26
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 27 of 40. PageID #: 27

115. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

116. General Harris’s order to Mr. Lambert to cease broadcasting burdened

his First Amendment right to gather and disseminate newsworthy information.

117. Sheriff McLaughlin’s order to Mr. Lambert to step outside, and the

enforcement of that order by Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter, burdened his

First Amendment right to gather and disseminate the news.

118. None of those actions were “narrowly tailored to serve a significant

governmental interest,” Ison v. Madison Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 3 F.4th 887,

893 (6th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted), “reasonable in light of the purpose served

by” the press conference, id. (citation omitted), or viewpoint neutral.

119. Mr. Lambert’s conduct did not disrupt the press conference and was

consistent with his role as a reporter; the purpose and character of the event; and

any restrictions issued by Governor DeWine or his authorized agents.

120. The actions of General Harris, Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker,

and Detective Haueter left Mr. Lambert with no alternative opportunity to report

on Governor DeWine’s press conference as it was happening.

121. In taking these actions, General Harris, Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy

Tucker, and Detective Haueter acted under color of state law.

27
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 28 of 40. PageID #: 28

122. In taking these actions, General Harris, Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy

Tucker, and Detective Haueter acted maliciously and with reckless disregard for

Mr. Lambert’s constitutional rights.

123. General Harris, Sheriff McLaughlin, Deputy Tucker, and Detective

Haueter’s unconstitutional conduct proximately caused Mr. Lambert physical

injury and emotional distress.

COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of the Fourth Amendment
(False Arrest)
Against Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter in their personal capacities

124. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

125. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter arrested Mr. Lambert without

probable cause to believe he had violated Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.33, Ohio Rev.

Code § 2911.21, or any other provision of law. Nor did Deputy Tucker and

Detective Haueter have any reasonable basis to believe probable cause existed.

Mr. Lambert was “gathering news about matters of public importance” and “[his]

actions violated neither rules nor laws.” Enoch v. Hogan, 728 F. App’x 448, 456

(6th Cir. 2018).

126. In taking these actions, Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter acted

under color of state law.

28
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 29 of 40. PageID #: 29

127. In taking these actions, Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter acted

maliciously and with reckless disregard for Mr. Lambert’s constitutional rights.

128. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter took these actions with

malicious purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton or reckless manner.

129. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter’s unconstitutional conduct

proximately caused Mr. Lambert physical injury and emotional distress.

COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of the Fourth Amendment
(Excessive Force)
Against Deputy Tucker, Detective Haueter,
and General Harris in their personal capacities

130. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

131. General Harris instigated a confrontation with Mr. Lambert and

forcefully shoved him without provocation.

132. The force General Harris used was objectively unreasonable in light

of the circumstances. General Harris initiated and escalated his encounter with Mr.

Lambert, yelling obscenities at Mr. Lambert and shoving him without provocation.

133. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter grabbed Mr. Lambert by his

arms and forcibly pushed him out of the door to the gymnasium. The officers then

bent Mr. Lambert’s hands behind his back, took hold of the collar of his shirt, held

his neck down, and shoved him to the ground without provocation.

29
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 30 of 40. PageID #: 30

134. The force used to arrest Mr. Lambert was objectively unreasonable in

light of the circumstances. Mr. Lambert had not committed a crime; did not pose a

threat to Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter; and offered no physical resistance

to his arrest. Mr. Lambert attempted to follow Deputy Tucker and Detective

Haueter’s instructions but could not have obeyed their contradictory commands.

135. In taking these actions, General Harris, Deputy Tucker, and Detective

Haueter acted under color of state law.

136. In taking these actions, General Harris, Deputy Tucker, and Detective

Haueter acted maliciously and with reckless disregard for Mr. Lambert’s

constitutional rights.

137. General Harris, Deputy Tucker, and Detective Haueter’s

unconstitutional conduct proximately caused Mr. Lambert physical injury and

emotional distress.

COUNT V
False Arrest
Against Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter

138. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

139. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter intentionally confined Mr.

Lambert without his consent when they forcefully restrained, arrested, and

detained him.

30
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 31 of 40. PageID #: 31

140. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter arrested Mr. Lambert without

probable cause to believe he had violated Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.33, Ohio Rev.

Code § 2911.21, or any other provision of law. Nor did Deputy Tucker and

Detective Haueter have any reasonable basis to believe probable cause existed.

Mr. Lambert was “gathering news about matters of public importance” and “[his]

actions violated neither rules nor laws.” Enoch v. Hogan, 728 F. App’x 448, 456

(6th Cir. 2018).

141. Mr. Lambert was held in custody for approximately five hours.

142. In taking these actions, Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter acted

maliciously and with reckless disregard for Mr. Lambert’s rights and safety.

143. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter took these actions with

malicious purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton or reckless manner.

144. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter’s arrest and confinement of Mr.

Lambert proximately caused his physical injuries and emotional distress.

145. At all relevant times, Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter were

acting in the course and scope of their employment.

COUNT VI
Battery
Against Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter

146. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

31
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 32 of 40. PageID #: 32

147. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter intentionally touched Mr.

Lambert without his consent when they forcibly pushed Mr. Lambert out of the

door to the gymnasium, bent his hands behind his back, took hold of the collar of

his shirt, held his neck down, and shoved him to the ground and arrested him.

148. The force used against Mr. Lambert was objectively unreasonable in

light of the circumstances. Mr. Lambert had not committed a crime, did not pose a

threat to Deputy Tucker, Detective Haueter or others, and did not offer any

resistance or attempt to escape.

149. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter’s use of force proximately

caused Mr. Lambert physical injuries and emotional distress.

150. Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter took these actions with

malicious purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton or reckless manner.

151. At all relevant times, Deputy Tucker and Detective Haueter were

acting in the course and scope of their employment.

COUNT VII
Malicious Prosecution
Against Detective Haueter
and Chief Brown in their personal capacities
152. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

32
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 33 of 40. PageID #: 33

153. General Harris made false statements to the police and public that

accused Mr. Lambert of disrupting Governor DeWine’s press conference and

instigating a physical confrontation that General Harris himself had instigated.

154. Knowing them to be false, Detective Haueter relied on General

Harris’s statements in filing a criminal complaint against Mr. Lambert in

Columbiana County Municipal Court that charged Mr. Lambert with trespass and

resisting arrest.

155. Detective Haueter’s affidavit in support of the complaint further

falsely alleged that Mr. Lambert failed to comply with the officers’ orders.

156. Knowing them to be false, Chief Brown echoed and adopted General

Harris and Detective Haueter’s justifications for Mr. Lambert’s prosecution.

157. No probable cause existed to believe Mr. Lambert had violated Ohio

Rev. Code § 2921.33, Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.21, or any other provision of law.

158. The prosecution of Mr. Lambert terminated in his favor with the

dismissal of all charges on February 15, 2023.

159. Detective Haueter and Chief Brown took these actions with malicious

purpose, in bad faith, and in a wanton or reckless manner.

160. At all relevant times, Detective Haueter and Chief Brown were acting

in the course and scope of their employment.

33
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 34 of 40. PageID #: 34

COUNT VIII
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of the First Amendment
Against Columbiana County and City of East Palestine

161. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

162. As set forth in paragraphs 102–120 above, Deputy Tucker, Detective

Haueter, Sheriff McLaughlin, and Chief Brown, acting under color of law, violated

Mr. Lambert’s First Amendment right to gather and disseminate the news.

163. Sheriff McLaughlin acts as a final decisionmaker for Columbiana

County “with respect to decisions to prosecute, charge, and arrest.” Ghaster v.

City of Rocky River, 913 F. Supp. 2d 443, 470 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Pembaur

v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 (1986)).

164. In that capacity, Sheriff McLaughlin ordered and personally

participated in Defendants’ retaliation against and interference with Mr. Lambert’s

newsgathering.

165. Chief Brown acts as a final decisionmaker for the City of East

Palestine with respect to EPPD practices around arrests, training, and discipline,

including “policing at the individual level.” Jackson v. City of Cleveland, 622 F.

Supp. 3d 636, 643 (N.D. Ohio 2022).

166. In that capacity, Chief Brown ratified the arresting officers’ “decision

[to retaliate against and interfere with Mr. Lambert’s newsgathering] and the basis

34
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 35 of 40. PageID #: 35

for it.” Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, 14 F.3d 1115, 1118 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting

City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988)).

167. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine

maintain inadequate policies on interactions between their officers and members of

the press.

168. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine have

failed to adequately train their officers on policies and practices that would prevent

unconstitutional interference with the newsgathering activities of journalists.

169. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine’s

inadequate policies and failure to train their officers reflect deliberate indifference

to the First Amendment rights of members of the press and public.

170. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine’s

inadequate policies and failure to train their officers proximately caused the

violation of Mr. Lambert’s First Amendment rights.

COUNT IX
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of the Fourth Amendment
Against Columbiana County and City of East Palestine

171. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of the Complaint.

172. As described in paragraphs 121–134 above, Deputy Tucker and

Detective Haueter, acting under color of law, violated Mr. Lambert’s Fourth

35
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 36 of 40. PageID #: 36

Amendment right to be free from arrest without legal justification and his right to

be free from excessive force.

173. Sheriff McLaughlin acts as a final decisionmaker for Columbiana

County “with respect to decisions to prosecute, charge, and arrest.” Ghaster v.

City of Rocky River, 913 F. Supp. 2d 443, 470 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Pembaur

v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 (1986)), and has final authority to

investigate and impose discipline for unconstitutional arrests and uses of force.

174. In that capacity, Sheriff McLaughlin ordered Mr. Lambert’s arrest and

ratified the arresting officers’ decision to use excessive force against Mr. Lambert.

175. Chief Brown acts as a final decisionmaker for the City of East

Palestine with respect to EPPD practices around arrests, training, and discipline,

including “policing at the individual level.” Jackson v. City of Cleveland, 622 F.

Supp. 3d 636, 643 (N.D. Ohio 2022), and has final authority to investigate and

impose discipline for his officers’ unconstitutional arrests and uses of force.

176. In that capacity, Chief Brown ratified the arresting officers’ decision

to arrest and use excessive force against Mr. Lambert.

177. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine

maintain inadequate policies on media relations and the use of force.

36
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 37 of 40. PageID #: 37

178. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine have

failed to adequately train their officers on media relations and use-of-force policies

and practices that would prevent unconstitutional use of force against journalists.

179. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine’s

inadequate policies and failure to train reflect deliberate indifference to the Fourth

Amendment rights of members of the press and public.

180. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine’s

inadequate policies and failure to train their officers proximately caused the

violation of Mr. Lambert’s Fourth Amendment rights.

COUNT X
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 11 – Unlawful Deprivation of Free
Speech and Freedom of the Press
Against Columbiana County and City of East Palestine

181. Mr. Lambert re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint.

182. The Ohio Constitution provides that “[e]very citizen may freely speak,

write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of

the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or

of the press.” Ohio Const. art. I, §11.

183. Mr. Lambert was engaged in activity protected by Ohio Constitution,

Article 1, §11 when, in a public forum established by Governor DeWine, he

37
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 38 of 40. PageID #: 38

reported on the Governor’s press conference regarding the train derailment in East

Palestine, Ohio and objected to Defendants’ interference with that reporting.

184. Despite the Ohio Constitution’s protections for a free press and free

speech, Defendants interfered with Mr. Lambert’s reporting and arrested him.

185. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine

maintain inadequate policies on interactions between their officers and members of

the press.

186. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine have

failed to adequately train their officers on policies and practices that would prevent

unconstitutional interference with the newsgathering activities of journalists.

187. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine’s

inadequate policies and failure to train their officers reflect deliberate indifference

to the rights of members of the press and public as set out in Ohio Constitution

Article 1, §11.

188. Defendants Columbiana County and the City of East Palestine’s

inadequate policies and failure to train their officers proximately caused the

violation of Mr. Lambert’s rights under Ohio Constitution Article 1, §11.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Mr. Lambert respectfully requests from this Court:

38
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 39 of 40. PageID #: 39

1) A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct complained of

herein violated Mr. Lambert’s rights under the Constitution of the United States

and Ohio law;

2) An injunction restraining Defendants Columbiana County and City of

East Palestine from retaliating against Mr. Lambert for his newsgathering or

reporting, interfering with Mr. Lambert’s newsgathering without lawful basis,

arresting Mr. Lambert without lawful basis, using excessive force against Mr.

Lambert, and maintaining the inadequate policies and training practices

complained of herein;

3) General and compensatory damages for Mr. Lambert from Defendants

Columbiana County and City of East Palestine for the violations of his rights under

federal and Ohio law, including but not limited to pain, suffering, and emotional

distress, to be determined according to proof;

4) General, compensatory, and punitive damages for Mr. Lambert from

Defendants General Harris, Sheriff McLaughlin, Chief Deputy Tucker, Chief

Brown, and Detective Haueter for the violation of his rights under federal and Ohio

law, including but not limited to pain, suffering, and emotional distress, to be

determined according to proof;

5) An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Ohio

Rev. Code § 2721.16;

39
 Case: 4:23-cv-02200 Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/23 40 of 40. PageID #: 40

6) Costs of suit;

7) Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and

8) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: November 13, 2023 /s/ Katie Townsend

Katie Townsend
[email protected]
Grayson Clary
[email protected]
Emily Hockett*
[email protected]
REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
1156 15th Street NW, Suite 1020
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.795.9300
Facsimile: 202.795.9310

/s/ Andrew Geronimo

ANDREW GERONIMO
[email protected]
/s/ Sara Coulter
SARA COULTER
[email protected]
First Amendment Clinic
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Telephone: (216) 368-2766

Attorneys for Plaintiff EVAN LAMBERT

* Pro hac vice application pending

40