Plaintiff Kelly Brisson
115. Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen and others from the City were directly involved in
the intentional and malicious, discriminatory condemnation of Brisson’s property located at 297
Burgess Street. Although numerous properties in the City had serious Code violations that
Defendants ignored, Defendants selectively targeted Brisson as part of their discriminatory
policy, custom and practice.
116. Plaintiff Brisson owned his duplex located at 297 Burgess Street and lived in the
upper floor unit of this home. He had purchased the duplex on a contract for deed. Brisson
desired to rent the lower unit to help pay the contract.
117. Brisson’s prospective tenant was disabled, receiving Social Security Disability
payments and was eligible to receive Section 8 housing assistance from the PI-IA.
118. As part of the prospective tenant’s application to rent from Brisson and receive
33.public assistance, housing inspectors from PHA completed a Section 8 inspection of Brisson’s
duplex on April 3,2003. The inspectors determined that four items needed correction and
attention and Brisson immediately made the repairs. i
119. On April 14,2003, PHA inspectors reinspected Brisson’s duplex and issued
approval to Brisson under Section 8. The disabled tenant immediately moved in.
120. Thereafter, Dawkins, Martin and Koehnen began harassing Brisson with claimed
housing code vioIations and criminal housing citations related to his duplex. Brisson was in the
process of renovating his duplex which included repairing certain portions of the roof that had
been damaged by squirrels. As part of the renovation, debris collected on the ground. In the
summer of 2003, Defendant Martin issued Brisson two criminal citations for claimed roof, paint
and trash code violations.
121. Brisson had been a victim of identity theft and an unauthorized person ran up
electric bills in his name with the utility company. As a result, the electricity to Brisson’s
upstairs unit was suspended. However, the power was still connected and available in the lower
unit that Brisson’s disabled tenant occupied.
122. When Dawkins and Martin learned of the electricity suspension, Martin and
Dawkins prepared a written Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated July 15,2003, of
Brisson’s entire duplex, claiming the home as “Unfit For Human Habitation” and forwarded the
Notice and Order to Brisson through the mail.
3 4.123. The written Notice stated that the condemnation was based upon a “principal
violation” of “Lack of Electricity” in the home and that this condition constituted a “material
endangerment”. This ,was false as there was electricity to the lower unit.
124. In the July 15,2003, Notice of Condemnation, Martin and Dawkins .also cited
eleven items that they stated were code violations on the exterior of Brisson’s home. They
falsely stated in their written order that the windows and screens were missing, defective or in a
state of disrepair. The windows and screens were on the home and were in fine shape except that
Brisson still needed to add window casing trim to the newly installed windows. Martin and
Dawkins also falsely stated that there were missing or defective handrails and guardrails. In fact,
only one handrail/gardrail was temporarily detached to allow building materials to be brought
into the home for improvements.
125. As a result of the wrongful condemnation of both the upper and lower units of
Brisson’s duplex, Brisson and his disabled tenant were forced from their homes.
126. Brisson filed a legislative appeal of this Condemnation Order with the City. The
City legislative hearing officer, and later the City Council, denied his appeal.
127. On August 7,2003, Martin again inspected Brisson’s home. On August 12; 2003,
Dawkins and Martin prepared and issued a Revised Notice of Condemnation that again listed the
“Lack of Electricity” and eleven other violations listed on the July 15,2003, Notice of
Condemnation. Again, Dawkins and Martin forwarded this written Notice and Order to Brisson
3 5.by mail.
128. Martin and Dawkins also listed on the Revised Notice twelve additional interior
code violations claimed to have been discovered during Martin’s interior inspection on August 7,
2003. The Revised Notice included a total of 24 items and stated that due to the amount of
violations, Code Enforcement required a Code Compliance Certificate before the condemnation
was lifted.
129. Many of the items listed by Martin and Dawkins as violations on the August 12,
2003, Revised Notice of Condemnation were false. They falsely’listed the lack of electricity to
the building when in fact only the upstairs unit was disconnected. Martin and Dawkins falsely
stated that the home was “Lacking deadbolt door locks” on entry doors. Every entry door did
have deadbolt locks at the time of Martin’s inspection and at ah times before and after that. The
only exception was that a deadbolt lock on one door had been knocked loose from the door after
being hit with building materials: the new replacement deadbolt lock for that door was located
right next to the door ready to be put back into place. Inspector Martin observed all this.
130. In the August 12,2003, Revised Notice of Condemnation, Martin and Dawkins
also falsely stated that the windows and screens were missing, defective or in a state of disrepair.
This continued to be false as the windows were new and screens were fine. Brisson was going to
be adding window casing trim to the newly installed windows once a different inspector had
approved the installation of the windows. Martin and Dawkins also falsely stated that the front
36.storm doors were in disrepair. Brisson had replaced all three screen and storm doors, including
the fkont storm door.
131. Some of the violations that Martin and Dawkins listed in the August 12,2003,
Revised Notice were duplicates of other violations listed in the same written Notice. of
Condemnation, but listed as separate numbers, and said Defendants maliciously duplicated these
items in their effort to inflate the number of claimed violations so Defendants could wrongfully
demand a full “code compliance” on Brisson’s duplex.
132. Because of the condemnation by said Defendants of Brisson’s home and his
rental unit, Brisson was not allowed to live in his own home and his disabled tenant had to leave
his home following the July 15,2003, condemnation and order to vacate. B&son lived out of his
truck following the July 2003, condemnation and order to vacate.
133. After the July 2003, Notice of Condemnation, Brisson called Dawkins to tell
him that B&son’s home should not have been condemned. Brisson informed Dawkins
that the lower unit did have electricity and explained the false items listed in the Notice. Brisson
asked Dawkins to come out to look at Brisson’s home to see for himself. Dawkins refused.
B&son attempted many times to talk to Dawkins by phone but Dawkins would not take
Brisson’s calls.
134. Through Martin’s and Dawkins’ illegal condemnation of Brisson’s entire home,
they were able to deny Brisson the rental income he needed from his tenant.to pay contract for
3 7.deed payments and repairs and to maintain his investment in his property.
135. After Brisson received the August 12,2003, Notice of Condemnation he filed
another legislative appeal with,the City. On.August 26,2003, Brisson attended the legislative
i appeal hearing. B&son informed the hearing officer that his home had passed -a PHA Section 8
inspection just months before the harassment inspections by Martin and Dawkins, and Brisson
described to the hearing officer the true condition of his duplex. The hearing offrcer issued a
decision in Brisson’s favor and reversed the condemnation on his duplex. One of the City’s
inspectors present at the hearing stated that Brisson really did not need a “code compliance” on
hii home.
136. On September 2,2003, the Council upheld the hearing officer’s decision
and the Condemnation was officially removed fkom Brisson’s home. On September 22,2003,
Brisson received a letter by mail from Dawkins stating that the condemnation was lifted because
the City had determined that the conditions causing the condemnation and Order to Vacate, had
been corrected.
137. After the condemnation was lifted, Brisson and his tenant were able to occupy
their homes at 297 Burgess Street for ahnost one month.
138. On October 3,2003, a search warrant was requested by law enforcement
authorities seeking to find a “meth” lab on the premises of B&son’s home. The search warrant
was not executed until six days later on October 9,2003, when a law enforcement raid was made
3 8.of Brisson’s home.
139. Early in the morning of October 9,2003, law enforcement officers, without
announcing their presence or authority in violation of the express terms of the search warrant,
suddenly broke down Brisson’s door with a battering ram and immediately shot Brisson and his
dogs with a tire extinguisher. Brisson,had been asleep immediately before the raid. Brisson was
informed by law enforcement offricers that he was being arrested for two outstanding housing
court warrants that had been issued by Martin in June and July 2003. B&son was arrested and
held in jail for a day and a half, and then released from custody. He was not charged with any
crime related to the warrant.
140. Upon Brisson’s release from custody and return to his home, he discovered that
on October 9,2003, the day law enforcement officers had raided and destroyed his home, City
inspectors had inspected his upstairs unit. Brisson discovered that the law enforcement officers
had broken his entry door and had also tom out all of Brisson’s smoke detectors in his upstairs
unit; the detectors were still there, but were hanging by their wires from the ceiling. The offricers
had also punched large holes in Brisson’s walls, damaged the unit’s plumbing, damaged
Brisson’s furniture and thrown furniture all around the unit, and caused other damage to the unit.
141. At no time was Brisson involved with illegal drug manufacturing that would
give the government any reason to suspect him and provide probable cause to obtain a search
warrant to raid Brisson’s home. Brisson was not arrested for illegal drugs, nor charged for drug
39.possession or illegal drug manufacturing.
,I
142. On Qctober 14,2003, Brisson once again received from Dawkins through the
mail a written Notice of Condemnation of his home. Five code deficiencies were listed as the
’ basis for condemnation; each of the five were directly and maliciously caused by law
enforcement offricers during their raid. The Notice stated that Brisson’s building could not be
occupied and that the building must be vacated by October 9,2003, the day of the raid.
143. Brisson once again filed a legislative appeal. This time, his appeal was denied.
Brisson then appealed to the Council. Although Brisson had pointed out to the legislative
hearing bffrcer, and did so again to the Council, that the damagelisted in the October 14,2003,
Notice was a result of law enforcement conduct and that the damage listed related only to the
upstairs unit, not the Section 8 approved rental unit on the main floor, the Council denied his
appeal and the condemnation of the entire duplex was affirmed.
144. As a direct result of the discriminatory policy, custom and practice by Dawkins,
Martin and Koehnen and others directed at Brisson and his tenant, Brisson lost rental income
from his tenant and then was unable to afford to pay for the full “code compliance” Defendants
wrongfully demanded in order to again occupy and rent his duplex home. Brisson eventuahy had
to sell his duplex home as he could not make the payments on the contract for deed or pay for
other expenses on the duplex without rental income. Brisson also lost thousands of do&us
expended by him in remodeling and repairing his home in order to meet the demands of
40.Defendants, and he lost his business expectancy, including profits. Brisson also incurred
increased living costs due to loss of his duplex home, as well as attorney’s fees, as a direct result
of said Defendants’ discriminatory policy, custom and practice.
145. During the time period of Defendants’ wrongful conduct directed against Brisson
and his tenant, Brisson made significant efforts to meet Defendants’ demands and expended his
own funds and borrowed funds for demanded repairs and to make payments to Brisson’s tenant
to help him with housing expenses.
146. Although numerous other properties in the City had serious code violations, which
Defendants’ ignored, Defendants selectively targeted Brisson and his protected class tenant as
part of their discriminatory policy, custom and practice.