2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 1 of 13

Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MEGAN PEARCE, individually and as

NEXT FRIEND of BABY B, her infant child,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 16-CVHon.
-vs-

Hazel Park Police Officer,

MICHAEL EMMI, in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________/
KEVIN ERNST (P44223)
JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: 313.965.5555
Fax: 313.965.5556
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com
kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com
_____________________________________________________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs, MEGAN PEARCE, individually and as NEXT FRIEND of BABY B, her
infant child, by and through their attorneys, Ernst and Marko PLC, and for their Complaint
against the above-named Defendant, state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Megan Pearce, a four-year veteran as a dispatcher in for the City of Warren Police
Department, was adjusting to her new life as a mother of her infant son, Plaintiff Baby B. On
Page 1 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 2 of 13

Pg ID 2

March 2, 2016, Ms. Pearces fianc and the father of Baby B, Cody Fuhrman, who was a
licensed caregiver under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, was arrested on marijuana
charges. His phone was seized by Defendant Michael Emmi of the Hazel Park police and placed
on evidence tag # 557675. Later that day, the phone was purportedly logged into evidence at the
Oakland County Jail Computer Crime Lab.
Ms. Pearce had a daily routine where she would take her infant son into the bath tub,
bathe him, nurse him, and put him to bed. At least one day after her fiancs phone was seized by
Defendant Emmi and purportedly logged into evidence at the Oakland County Jail, Ms. Pearce
noticed a small green light flashing on her Nest Cam baby monitor while she was nursing her son
in the sanctity of his nursery, while she and Baby B were naked after just leaving the bath tub.
The Nest Cam light flashes when the camera is being monitored by a designated device, such as
a cell phone, or I-Pad. The Nest Cam has a motion sensor, and sends an alert to the monitoring
device when there is motion in the babys room. There were only three devices designated to
monitor the Nest Cam in Baby Bs nursery: Ms. Pearces I-Phone, her I-Pad, and Cody
Fuhrmans I-Phone.
Shortly after she saw the light flashing, it occurred to Ms. Peace that since her fianc had
been arrested and she was in possession of the other two devices, she was being watched by
someone else; someone was violating the sanctity and privacy of her home and watching her
nurse her son in the nude. The only other device that could access that camera at the time was
Cody Fuhrman's I-Phone. She conducted a Find My I-Phone search, and discovered that the
phone was located at the home residence of Hazel Park Police Officer Defendant Emmi. So the
man in possession of her fiancs phone, the one that was that was illegally spying on her and her
infant son while she lay naked, nursing him in the sanctity of the nursery, was Defendant
Page 2 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 3 of 13

Pg ID 3

Michael Emmi. Ms. Pearce immediately tried to disable the phones monitoring capability, and
thought she was successful.
However, later on, while she was lying there nude nursing her infant son and talking to
her brother on her cell phone about the events surrounding her fiancs arrest, she noticed the
Nest Cam light flashing again. She sat there momentarily in shock and then cried out to her
brother, Oh my God, someone is watching me again. Seconds later, the light stopped blinking.
The peeping tom detective had been discovered.
Ms. Pearce's world has been shattered. She no longer feels safe and secure in her own
home. Defendant Emmi, who is paid to uphold the law, perversely and illegally spied on her and
her infant son, in one of the most intimate and private moments between a mother and her baby
imaginable, to satisfy his prurient voyeurism. She suffers daily from the memory of the events
of that day and lives in constant fear that the footage from the Nest Cam will wind up on the
internet.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
1.

This is an action for money damages brought against Defendant Michael Emmi

pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 1988, the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the
Federal Wiretapping Act, 18 USC 2511 et. seq, the Michigan Eavesdropping Act, MCL
750.539a-h. and under the common law of the State of Michigan.
2.

This lawsuit arises out of events occurring within the City of New Baltimore,

County of Wayne Macomb, State of Michigan.

3.

Jurisdiction is based upon 28 USC 1331 and 1367.

Page 3 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 4 of 13

Pg ID 4

PARTIES
4.
Michigan.
5.

Plaintiffs are residents of the City of New Baltimore, County of Macomb, State of

Defendant Michael Emmi is, upon information and belief, a resident of the City of

Macomb, County of Macomb, State of Michigan. He was acting in his capacity as a Hazel Park
police officer and under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint. He is sued in
his individual capacity.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6.

Cody Fuhrman is Plaintiff Pearce's fianc and the father of Baby B.

7.

Mr. Fuhrman is a licensed care giver under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

8.

At or around 2:00pm on March 2, 2016, Defendant Emmi, in concert with the

Hazel Park Police Department and the Oakland County Task Force N.E.T, executed search
warrants on several locations related to marijuana allegations against Mr. Fuhrman and arrested
him.
9.

One of the locations searched was a workshop at 1638 Nine Mile Road in Hazel

Park, Michigan.
10.

The officer in charge of the search was Defendant Michael Emmi.

During the search, Defendant Emmi, seized and searched Mr. Fuhrman's cell phone and Mr.
Fuhrman was arrested.
11.

The phone was tagged into evidence tag # 557675 and purportedly logged into the

Oakland County Jail Computer Crime Lab sometime later that day.

Page 4 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 5 of 13

12.

Pg ID 5

On March 2, 2016,at approximately 3:00 p.m., Defendant Emmi obtained a

search warrant for Plaintiffs home.

13.

At or around 4:00pm on March 2, 2016, Defendant, in concert with officers from

the Hazel Park Police Department, the Oakland County Task Force N.E.T, and the New
Baltimore Police Department searched Plaintiffs home pursuant to the search warrant.
14.

Defendant Emmi searched the nursery of Plaintiff Baby B, Plaintiff Pearce's

Infant son, wherein was located a Nest Cam, a wireless, remotely accessed baby room monitor.
15.

The Nest Cam can be monitored from designated devices like a cell phone or I-

16.

The Nest Cam camera, which has a motion sensor, sends an alert to the designated

Pad.

device when there is motion in the babys room. The Nest Cam sends a notification to each
registered device showing "Your camera noticed some motion in Kid's Room" and prompts
viewing of the camera when there is activity in front of the Nest Cam.
17.

When a designated device is viewing the Nest Cam, a light on the Nest Cam

flashes, alerting persons in the babys room that the Nest Cam is being viewed.
18.

The only devices designated to view Plaintiffs Nest Cam were her cell phone, her

I-Pad, and Cody Fuhrmans cell phone, the one that Defendant Emmi seized.
19.

Defendant Emmi completed the search of Plaintiffs' home, and, after finding no

Contraband, left at or around 6:30 p.m. on March 2, 2016, after announcing to Ms. Pearce that he
had completed his search.
20.

Plaintiff Pearce then went to the nursery where the Nest Cam was located and

spent two to three hours cleaning Baby Bs room that was left in total disarray from the search.

Page 5 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 6 of 13

21.

Pg ID 6

While cleaning Baby Bs nursery, Plaintiff Pearce thought she noticed the light

flashing on her Nest Cam baby monitor.

22.

Plaintiff would later discover that at or around 7:12pm on March 2, 2016, Cody

Fuhrman's cellphone showed data usage at a cell tower near the residence of Defendant Emmi.
23.

On or about March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Pearce gave her son Baby B his morning

bath and walked backed into the nursery room while both were still naked as she was getting
Baby B ready for bed.
24.

Plaintiff Pearce then preceded to breast feed her son.

25.

During the breast-feeding, Plaintiff Pearce noticed the green light flashing on her

Nest Cam.
26.

Plaintiff Pearce's Ipad was turned off and her IPhone was not monitoring the Nest

27.

Shortly after she saw the light flashing, it occurred to Ms. Peace that since Cody

Cam.

Fuhrman had been arrested and her two devices were not viewing the Nest Cam, she was being
watched by someone and that someone was violating the sanctity and privacy of her home and
watching her nurse Baby B in the nude.
28.

Since the only other device that could access Nest Cam was Cody Fuhrman's I-

Phone, she conducted a Find My IPhone search, and discovered that the phone was located at
the residence of Defendant Emmi.
29.

Plaintiff Pearce then tried to disable the Nest Cam monitoring capabilities of Mr.

Fuhrmans I-Phone, and thought she had successfully done so.

30.

However, after giving Baby B his evening bath, and while she was lying in the

nursery nude nursing Baby B and talking to her brother on her cell phone about her fiancs
Page 6 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 7 of 13

Pg ID 7

arrest, Ms. Pearce noticed the Nest Cam light flashing again.
31.

She lied there momentarily in shock and then cried out to her brother, Oh my

God, someone is watching me again.

32.

Seconds after Ms. Pearce screamed out that she was being watched, the Nest Cam

light stopped blinking.

33.

Again, Ms. Pearce's Ipad was turned off and her IPhone was not monitoring the

Nest Cam.
34.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Emmi was secretly watching Plaintiffs

while Plaintiff Pearce was naked and breast-feeding.

35.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's illegal acts and/or omissions,

Plaintiffs suffered the following injuries and are entitled to damages including, but not limited to:
a.

Violation of their constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment to the United
States Constitution including the right to be free from unreasonable searches;

b.

Loss of personal freedom and liberty;

c.

Fright and shock;

d.

Horror, outrage and indignity;

e.

Extreme emotional trauma and suffering;

f.

Violation of their right to privacy, seclusion, and solitude;.

g.

Violation of their personal integrity;.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Court award to the Plaintiffs and against the
Defendants the following damages and/or relief:
a.

Compensation for all allowable economic damages;

b.

Compensation for all allowable non-economic damages;

Page 7 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 8 of 13

Pg ID 8

c.

Punitive damages;

d.

Attorney fees and costs;

e.

Interest on all allowable damages;

f.

Any and all additional damages allowed under federal or Michigan law;

g.

Such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just under the
circumstances of this case.

COUNT I: 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

36.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

37.

Plaintiffs seeks damages for injuries suffered as set forth and described above

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendant who, while acting under color of law, violated
Plaintiffs' clearly established civil rights secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitutions including, but not limited to, the right to be free from unlawful searches.
38.

At all times relevant, Defendant, acting under color of law, was required to obey

the laws of the United States including those laws identified and described in the 4th
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
39.

Defendant was a willful participant in an illegal search upon Plaintiffs and their

residence.
40.

Defendant knew or should have known that by watching Plaintiffs through the

Nest Cam, he was violating their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches.
41.

Defendant's acts were intentional, objectively unreasonable, unnecessary,

excessive, reckless, and/or grossly negligent in violation of Plaintiffs' clearly established rights
Page 8 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 9 of 13

Pg ID 9

under the United States Constitution.

42.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983 and 42 U.S.C 1983, Defendant is liable for all

damages allowed under federal and Michigan common law.

43.

By these actions, Defendant has caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries as previously

described.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in their favor and against Defendant as well as award compensatory damages, costs, interest,
attorney fees and punitive damages.

COUNT II: FEDERAL WIRETAPPING ACT 18 U.S.C.A. 2511

44.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

45.

Defendant watched Plaintiffs on the Nest Cam, which includes audio, while Ms.

Pearce was talking on the phone to her brother about her fiancs criminal case.
46.

At no time did Plaintiffs consent to being watched by Defendant or give him

permission to watch them.

47.

Defendant did not have authorization from any governmental authority to listen to

Plaintiff Pearce's phone call or hack into the Nest Cam.

48.

Defendant could not, in good faith, have believed he had a right to watch and

listen to Plaintiff Pearce as she spoke on the phone in her own home.
49.

Defendant, while acting under the color of the law, intentionally intercepted oral

communications by Plaintiff Pearce.

Page 9 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 10 of 13

Pg ID 10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in their favor and against Defendant as well as award costs, interest, attorney fees, statutory, and
punitive damages so wrongfully incurred as allowed under 18 U.S.C.A. 2520.
COUNT III: MICHIGAN COMMON LAW INVASION OF PRIVACY
50.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

51.

Plaintiffs have a right to be left alone and be protected from any wrongful

intrusion into their lives that would outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a
person of ordinary sensibilities.
52.

Defendant's actions in viewing a private camera in a room of Plaintiffs' child and

monitoring Plaintiff Pearce in the nude was an unreasonable and serious interference with
Plaintiffs' right to seclusion.
53.

At no time did the Plaintiffs consent to such invasion of privacy.

54.

By these actions, Defendant have caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries as

previously described
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in their favor and against Defendant as well as award costs, interest, attorney fees and punitive
damages so wrongfully incurred.
COUNT IV: EAVESDROPPING MCL 750.539a-h
55.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

56.

Plaintiffs were in a private place in their home while being watched by Defendant.
Page 10 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 11 of 13

57.

Pg ID 11

Plaintiffs reasonably expected to be safe from intrusion or surveillance while in

their bedroom.
58.

Plaintiff Pearce did not give permission for Defendant to watch and listen to her

conversation.
59.

Defendant willfully used the Nest Cam to eavesdrop on Plaintiff Pearce's

conversation.
60.

By these actions, Defendant have caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries as previously

described.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in their favor and against Defendant and award actual and punitive damages, and grant any other
relief the court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan R. Marko

By/s/
KEVIN ERNST (P44223)
JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: 313.965.5555
Fax: 313.965.5556
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com
kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com
Dated: April 26, 2014

Page 11 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 12 of 13

Pg ID 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MEGAN PEARCE, individually and as

NEXT FRIEND of BABY B, her infant child,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 16-CVHon.
-vs-

Hazel Park Police Officer,

MICHAEL EMMI, in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________/
KEVIN ERNST (P44223)
JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: 313.965.5555
Fax: 313.965.5556
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com
kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com
_____________________________________________________________________________/
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Ernst and Marko Law, hereby request a trial by
jury in the above-captioned matter.
By/s/

Jonathan R. Marko
KEVIN ERNST (P44223)
JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERNST & MARKO, LAW, PLC
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Page 12 of 13

2:16-cv-11499-GCS-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 13 of 13

Pg ID 13

Phone: 313.965.5555
Fax: 313.965.5556
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com
kevin@ernstmarkolaw.com
Dated: April 26, 2014

Page 13 of 13