Plaintiffs 1

st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


DENISE MCVEA,
Plaintiff;

v.

SAPD OFFICER T. SWAN, SAPD
OFFICER SCOTT, SAPD OFFICER
BARRAJAS (OR BARAJAS),
UNKNOWN OFFICER 1, SAN
ANTONIO POLICE DEPT., CITY OF
SAN ANTONIO,
Defendants.
















CASE NO.

SA-14-CA-0073-DAE

PLAINTIFF DENISE MCVEAS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR FALSE ARREST, ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE,
FALSE DETENTION, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION & CONSPIRACY

I. NATURE OF CASE
1. This is a claim for violations of plaintiffs civil rights as protected by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U. S, Constitution; 42 U.S.C. 1983, and 42 U.S.C. 1985(2)(3).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that members of the San Antonio Police Department
violated her constitutional rights to be free from false arrest, illegal search and seizure,
false detention, and malicious prosecution when they arrested, transported, and
detained her under the pretext of her not possessing a municipal administrative permit
to conduct a garage sale at her place of business on January 21, 2013. Plaintiff also
alleges that said police officers, through their false arrest, false detention, and
malicious prosecution of Plaintiff did knowingly and wittingly join an ongoing
conspiracy against Plaintiff and through their actions assisted an illegal and unlawful
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
2
conspiracy against Plaintiff, in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional right to be free
from such unlawful deprivations. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the San Antonio Police
Department and the City of San Antonio violated Plaintiffs enumerated constitutional
rights by failing to properly hire, train and supervise the officer defendants and
through policies or customs contributed to SAPD officers deprivations of Plaintiffs
enumerated constitutional rights. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants denied her due
process and access to a fair and impartial proceeding.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiffs full name is Denise Elaine McVea. She is a resident of Bexar County, Texas.
3. Defendant T. Swan is an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department. The
municipality under whose authority defendant officer acted is the City of San Antonio.
He is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
4. Defendant Scott is an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department. The
municipality under whose authority defendant officer acted is the City of San Antonio.
He is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
5. Defendant Barrajas (or Barajas), erroneously named as Officer Bernal in the Original
Complaint, is an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department. The
municipality under whose authority defendant officer acted is the City of San Antonio.
He is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
6. Defendant Unknown Officer is an officer employed by the San Antonio Police
Department. The municipality under whose authority defendant officer acted is the City
of San Antonio. He is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
3
7. Defendant San Antonio Police Department is a government agency located in Bexar
County, Texas. It is the employer of the individual officer defendants named in this suit.
8. As to plaintiffs federal constitutional claims, the municipality of City of San Antonio is
a defendant only in regards to any and all custom or policy allegations made in this
complaint.
III. JURISDICTION

9. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343 and 1367;

IV. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
10. Plaintiff Denise McVea is a black female who is a resident of Denver Heights, one of
the poorest and most disenfranchised neighborhoods of Eastside San Antonio, Bexar
County, Texas. Historically a poor working class black neighborhood, over time the
demographics have shifted to include a large working class Hispanic population.
Plaintiff, a published writer, historian, and community advocate, had grown up in the
solidly lower middle class neighborhood of Eastwood Village on the Eastside. From the
time that plaintiff can remember, Denver Heights, and particularly the Hackberry
corridor, has had a citywide reputation for poverty, crime, blight, drugs, and lack of
social services. Plaintiff, who speaks fluent Spanish, moved to the neighborhood out of a
sense of social responsibility; as a college-educated black woman, she personally
believed that black flight from poor minority neighborhoods contributed to inner city
deterioration. As community advocate who had worked in rural Mexico for nearly 10
years, Plaintiff was encouraged by San Antonio city leaders public pledge to contribute
equitably to the development of struggling Eastside neighborhoods. She purchased a
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
4
109-year-old home in need of renovations directly across from the notorious Hackberry
corridor. Until recently, Hackberry Street had long had a reputation for unchecked
criminality; drug dealers, prostitutes, and human traffickers catered daily to a steady
stream of non-residents who would descend upon the corridor looking to purchase drugs
or women. Notably, the criminal street activity that plagued the corridor was in the vast
majority of instances being conducted by sellers and buyers who were not residents of
the area. Working with neighborhood groups, SAPD vice officers, and neighbors,
Plaintiff and others were able to reverse that longstanding trend, and now the Hackberry
corridor is free of the street activity for which it had become infamous. However, almost
immediately upon moving to Denver Heights, Plaintiff experienced disparate treatment
from SAPD patrol officers when she reported crimes. Plaintiffs white associates and
witnesses will testify that, for the most part, when they called police, they received
respectful, attentive responses to their concerns. Plaintiff, on the other hand, has
documented numerous occasions whereby SAPD police officers refused to adequately
report, investigate, document, or even acknowledge complaints by Plaintiff when she
was a witness to or victim of a crime. During these encounters, White, black and
Hispanic male officers treated Plaintiff with distinctive disdain because of her race,
gender and perceived socioeconomic background. The officers, dismissive in the
extreme, repeatedly attempted to rationalize their actions or inaction by falsely citing
local and state law. Many of Plaintiffs neighbors, while good people and solid citizens,
are often unclear about the myriad constraints, expectations, subtleties, and vagaries of
the local laws and policies affecting them. These residents rightfully depend on the
police and other public servants they encounter to correctly explain to them their rights
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
5
and obligations under the law. At the very least, they do not expect that police officers
will falsely cite the law. To Plaintiffs belief and information, police officers assigned to
the Eastside Substation are deliberately taking advantage of the residents ignorance of
the law to further disenfranchise them. Plaintiff contends and evidence will show that
San Antonio Police Department officers have been permitted to maintain a
constitutionally abusive policy when engaging citizens in Denver Heights and other poor
minority neighborhoods on the Eastside. The evidence at trial will show that San
Antonio police officers customarily and routinely feed false information to vulnerable
minority residents of the citys Eastside a class to which Plaintiff belongs that
unlawfully and illegitimately expands the officers powers and discretion and diminishes
the Constitutional protections afforded every American citizen. Plaintiff contends that
when the officers encountered Plaintiff, a poor black female living in the Hackberry
corridor in Denver Heights, they had no reason to believe she would be any more
knowledgeable than the numerous residents that they had already repeatedly
bamboozled. When Plaintiff verbally corrected their false citations of law, officers
routinely became hostile, abusive, and threatening. Plaintiff asserts that her status as a
black female living in a historically disenfranchised part of town contributed to her
inability to persuade SAPD officers to adequately investigate crimes against her, to
follow due process laws, and which, ultimately, caused her to be repeatedly arrested on
pretexts and her affects and personal property unlawfully seized -- in violation of her
constitutional rights to be free of such unrestrained and malicious deprivations. Plaintiff
also asserts that officers racial animus towards her contributed to their decision to enter
into conspiracy to deny her constitutional protections.
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
6
11. Police officers have arrested Plaintiff on pretexts three times since she moved to Denver
Heights on two occasions after she had been the victim of assault. Conversely, police
often cited constitutional limitations when Plaintiff was the victim of a crime. On or
about June 15, 2010, a violent, mentally unstable felon attacked Plaintiff with a tree
branch outside her home. She avoided being battered with the tree branch only by
running into the street, narrowly avoiding being struck by oncoming traffic. When police
arrived, they found Plaintiffs attacker, who had a lengthy rap sheet, walking down
Hackberry Street. They issued him a citation and released him.
12. On or about November 19, 2010, Plaintiff called police when she discovered her
organizations warehouse being burgled by an unknown thief, later identified by police
as a heroin addict and habitual offender. When police officers arrived, however, they
refused to conduct an adequate search, even though Plaintiff explained that she had
watched the Plaintiff enter through a door that had now been locked from the inside.
Throughout her encounter with the responding officers, she was treated with impatience,
patent disregard, and annoyance. Police left after a cursory walkthrough. Plaintiff later
discovered the burglar hiding under a piece of furniture after being alone in the building
with the burglar for approximately two hours. She quickly escaped the building, locked
it behind her, and then watched (again) from the middle of the street as the burglar
wiggled out of a hole he had previously made by prying open metal panels. With the
help of neighbors (a high school football player chased down and tackled the absconding
thief), Plaintiff was able to capture and hold the burglar for police.
13. However, the assigned SAPD investigator, Detective Freeman, attempted to convince
Plaintiff not to press charges against the thief using a variety of tactics. First, Freeman
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
7
attempted to appeal to Plaintiffs sympathy, urging her to give the burglar one more
chance. He then attempted to refuse to press charges. When Plaintiff insisted, he typed
up an affidavit and attempted to get Plaintiff to sign it without reading it. Upon close
reading, however, Plaintiff saw that Freeman had written that Plaintiff did not want to
press charges. When Plaintiff pointed out the anomaly, Freeman professed inadvertence,
and corrected the affidavit. This incident is significant. Between October 8, 2013, and
November 16, 2013, conspirators implicated in title fraud repeatedly burglarized the
property; they would tell responding SAPD officers that Officer Freeman is helping us.
Officer Freeman has the title. Officer Freeman knows whats going on; he can explain it
to you, and etc. During those burglary incidents police refused to document the names
of the people involved in the break-ins. Title fraud and conspiracy charges are pending
against the burglars. Freemans involvement in the burglaries, which Plaintiff contends
is part of a wider scheme, directly links the San Antonio Police Department to the
conspiracy. At the time of the false arrest incident that is at the crux of the above styled
and numbered action, Detective Freeman was assigned to the Eastside substation and
was a line superior of all the defendants in this cause.
14. On or about February 23, 2011, SAPD officer Robert Munoz arrested Plaintiff after she
was denied entry onto a Greyhound bus and then attacked by security guard David
Galbreath, who then quickly fled his employment without notice. Although
approximately 30 people witnessed the encounter between Plaintiff and the bus driver
Gary Daniels and Galbreath, Munoz refused to interview a single witness. He arrested
McVea on the word of her attacker, who has now absconded and cannot be served in a
tort case pending in state court. While Plaintiff sat handcuffed in the back of his patrol
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
8
car, Munoz painstakingly created a false police report to justify his failure to interview a
single available uninvolved witness when he had dozens at his disposal. Shortly after
that false arrest, Plaintiff attempted to file a complaint with SAPDs Internal Affairs
office but was turned away.
15. On or about May 2, 2013, Plaintiff called police to report the theft by deception of
firearms from her mothers home by an acquaintance of her mothers. Plaintiffs mother,
who suffers from Alzheimers disease, was persuaded to sell several shotguns and rifles
that were bequeathed to Plaintiff and her siblings by her deceased father for a small
fraction of their actual value. Although the state penal code is clear that obtaining
firearms in that method is a crime on several levels, the responding officer (Badge #27)
refused to even take a report, insisting it was a civil matter. He was asked to leave the
house when he became belligerent and abusive. Plaintiff later spoke with Sgt. Pelfry of
the Eastside Substation who denied that the law offered specific penalties for persons
who gained property be defrauding people with dementia. When Plaintiff faxed him a
copy of the relevant code, Sgt. Pelfry cut off communication.
V. FACTS OF THIS CASE
16. Plaintiff is the executive director of the Auris Project, a non-profit organization she
founded in 2003. The Auris Projects mission is to assist poor and otherwise
marginalized communities in gaining access to key rights and development information.
The organizations motto is Because the right information can change the world.
From 2003 to 2007, the organization conducted volunteer and development programs in
rural Mexico, but began expanding its focus to include the Eastside of San Antonio in its
mission. Since 2005, Plaintiff had conducted donation runs from San Antonio to
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
9
Central Mexico, transporting a portion of the donations collected from San Antonio
donors to isolated villages in Mexico. However, random cartel violence along the
NAFTA Highway caused Plaintiff to indefinitely postpone all programs in Mexico.
Donations piled up. Plaintiff decided to sell a portion of the donations to help complete
the information center that the Auris Project had been constructing on Martin Luther
King Drive, which was located on the route of the citys annual MLK Day March. The
site is located in the municipality of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The event had a
dual purpose: 1.), To decrease the amount of donations crowding office space, and 2.),
to introduce the organization and its mission to the thousands of people participating in
the Martin Luther King Day March. The sale would also include an information table
that included books, Huichol art, brochures, PSAs, and a volunteer sign-up sheet.
17. On or about January 21, 2013, Plaintiff and two volunteers had set up several hundred
items for sale, as well as the information and book table and were preparing for the
marchers to reach their location when a drunken vendor across the street began playing
vulgar and offensive hip hop music at high volume and dancing in a lewd manner
towards Auris volunteers. When he refused to turn down the music, plaintiff or one of
her volunteers called the police. At approximately 9 a.m., Officer T. Swan arrived in his
patrol car. Very quickly, several other police squad cars arrived at the scene and several
officers descended on or near the property. Defendant Swan began exhorting Plaintiff
and her volunteers to clean up this mess. Although Plaintiff was the complainant,
Officer Swan did not evince any interest in the noise complaint. He demanded to see a
garage sale permit for the fundraiser. Plaintiff explained that the sale was part of a
business operation, and that as such does not qualify for a garage sale permit. She also
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
10
explained that the location was not her home but her office, and that garage sale permits
are only issued for home addresses listed on Texas drivers licenses. At one point, Swan
demanded to see Plaintiffs drivers license. The drivers license depicted Plaintiffs
address as different from the MLK property. When Sgt. Scott later arrived she explained
the same thing to him. At some point in the encounter, Sgt. Scott informed Plaintiff that
he would call code enforcement and the station for guidance. When he got off the
phone, he told Plaintiff that he would be issuing her a citation and that she would have to
sign it. He further told Plaintiff that by signing the citation, she would be agreeing to end
the event and return the donations to storage. She told him she would sign the citation
but that she intended to continue with her event and that the police had no jurisdiction
over business events that were not criminal in nature. Plaintiff repeatedly asked him
what criminal code gave him the authority to seize her property. He repeatedly ignored
the question. Scott then told her that if she signed the citation but refused to restock her
donations and end her event, she would be arrested. Plaintiff then indicated to defendant
that the demand amounted to coercion and that she would not sign the citation. Scott
ordered her arrested. After placing Plaintiff in handcuffs, Scott then told Plaintiffs
volunteers that if all of the items were not removed from the yard in 15 minutes they
too would be arrested. He then stood over and monitored their progress. One of
Plaintiffs volunteers was pregnant and some of the items were heavy and/or oversized.
Scotts order and threat forced the two women to accomplish in 15 minutes what had
taken three women more than two hours to accomplish. As Plaintiff sat handcuffed in
the patrol car, she watched as her volunteers struggled to move the items. Witnesses
overheard Swan, Scott, Barrajas and other officers discussing how to rationalize the
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
11
arrest in the police report. Witnesses will testify that one of the officers suggested
writing that Plaintiff had been detained for resisting arrest. When Plaintiff asked Swan
what criminal charge she was being arrested under, he told her failure to sign citation.
When he transported Plaintiff to the city jail, Swan wrote on her booking sheet she was
being arrested and jailed for failure to obtain a permit, and listed the violation as a class
C criminal misdemeanor. Tellingly, the jail book-in sheet did not have any check blocks
for code violations. After several hours of detention, detainees were informed that the
magistrate had arrived and that the prisoners would be taken before him in a single line.
However, as the line of inmates were being led to the magistrate courtroom, Plaintiff
was pulled out of line, taken to the booking desk, and released. The officer who released
Plaintiff attempted to make light of the situation, saying with a chuckle, Next time, just
sign the ticket. Texas law requires that all inmates arrested in Texas be taken before a
magistrate within a prescribed amount of time. Art. 14.06(a). CCP, Art. 15.17(a) CCP.
18. Even though the SAPD and jail officials refused to permit Plaintiff to appear before a
magistrate as required by the Fourth Amendment, they nevertheless pursued a
misdemeanor case against her. When Plaintiff asked for a trial by jury, she was given a
trial date. Although both Plaintiff and Defendant Swan appeared for trial, the suit was
dismissed without opening a record. On the face of it, the defendants actions reveal that
they knew they had no probable cause to arrest and imprison Plaintiff and seize her
affects. The above facts support Plaintiffs allegations that:
a. Defendants arrested and seized plaintiff without probable cause to believe that
plaintiff had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime;
b. Defendants searched plaintiff and her property without a warrant and without
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
12
probable cause;
c. Defendants seized plaintiffs personal property and effects without a warrant
and without reasonable cause or due process;
d. Conspired together and with others to violate one or more of plaintiffs civil
rights; and
e. Failed to intervene to protect plaintiff from violation of plaintiffs civil rights
by one or more other defendants.

VI. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
19. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 - Supreme Court 2007, citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47,
78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, ibid.; Sanjuan v. American Bd. of
Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (C.A.7 1994), a plaintiffs obligation to
provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, see
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a
motion to dismiss, courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation"). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1216, pp.
235-236 (3d ed.2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) ("[T]he pleading must contain
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
13
something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a
legally cognizable right of action"),
[3]
on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) ("Rule 12(b)(6) does not
countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual
allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)
(a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very remote
and unlikely"). A suit may not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that
[Plaintiff] can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to
relief.'" Heaney, 756 F.2d at 1217 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99,
101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). In the present case, Plaintiff alleges that when police
officers handcuffed her and placed her in the back seat of the squad car, they had
affectively seized her. When they ordered her workers to throw all of her materials inside
and arrested Plaintiff for refusing to comply with the order to pack up her items, they
effectively seized her material affects. Whether or not they had probable cause to seize her
and her belongings is a question of law for the courts.

Plaintiffs Claim Under 42 U.S.C. 1983
20. Commonly referred to as "section 1983", 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides in relevant part that
every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
14
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleges that SAPD officers deprived
her of her right to be free from unlawful search and seizure and her right to be secure in
her person and affects when they intruded on her property, disrupted her commerce,
took control of her workers, and arrested and detained and then prosecuted her under the
(patently false) pretext of Plaintiff having violated a municipal code.
21. Plaintiff complains that because of the culture that exists in the SAPD, it was precisely
her status as a black female residing in a poor minority neighborhood that convinced
SAPD officers that she would not know the difference between a code violation and a
criminal violation and that she would not have the resources to advocate for her
constitutional rights. If there is any dispute that SAPD officers treat poor minority
residents differently that others, there shouldnt be. The local backdrop to Plaintiffs
unlawful arrest, detention and prosecution is a fractured police department suffering a
lamentable leadership void, a general lack of effective oversight in local government
agencies, the resultant rise in corruption, a subpar lawyer class, lowered standards in
police hiring, millions in taxpayer dollars set aside for rigorous police defense regardless
of culpability, and the increasing marginalization of our most vulnerable citizens.
Because Plaintiff possesses certain racial and socioeconomic attributes that tend to bias
and embolden SAPD officers, the defendant officers fully expected that she would not
question the theoretically false and actually dangerous notion that they could enter her
property at will and take control of her, her workers, and her possessions as de facto
privileges bestowed upon them by the State.
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
15
22. Plaintiff maintains that SAPDs policy of allowing patrol officers great latitude and
discretion on how they choose to enforce, interpret (and in some cases write) the law
contributed to Plaintiffs false arrest and other constitutional deprivations on January 21,
2103.

Plaintiffs Claim Under 42 U.S.C. 1985(2)(3)
23. 42 U.S.C. 1985 grants a civil cause of action for damages caused by various types of
conspiracies aimed at injuring a person in his/her person or property, or denying him/her
a Federal right or privilege. To state a claim under 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege
facts demonstrating (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving a person of the
equal protection of the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) which
causes injury to a person or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the
United States. Hilliard v. Ferguson, 30 F.3d 649, 652-53 (5th Cir.1994). Additionally,
the conspiracy must also have a racially based animus. Id. at 653. Plaintiff alleges and
will show that police officers have engaged in a criminal conspiracy with persons
outside of the San Antonio Police Department to punish, harass, discredit, abuse, distract,
and impoverish Plaintiff because of her relentless documentation of corruption,
obstruction of justice, and other crimes perpetrated on her and her class by judicial
officers, officers of the court, police, and other conspirators. Under 42 U.S.C. 1983(2)
and (3), it is a constitutional violation to obstruct justice by intimidating a party, witness,
or juror in court proceedings; or conspire to deprive a person of her rights or privileges
under the law.
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
16
24. At the time of Plaintiffs arrest that is at issue in this cause of action, Plaintiff had
already named Officer Munoz in a constitutional suit in Bexar County Court related to
her false arrest at Greyhound (#14). Plaintiff contends that knowledge of that suit
contributed to defendant officers decision to join and contribute to the active conspiracy
against Plaintiff. To prevail on a civil conspiracy claim, Plaintiff must show that (1) a
"single plan" existed, (2) Defendant officers "shared in the general conspiratorial
objective" to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights, and (3) "an overt act was
committed in furtherance of the conspiracy that caused injury" to Plaintiff. Hooks v.
Hooks, 771 F.2d 935, 944 (6th Cir.1985). "Express agreement among all the
conspirators is not necessary to find the existence of a civil conspiracy [and] [e]ach
conspirator need not have known all of the details of the illegal plan or all of the
participants involved." Id. "Rarely in a conspiracy case will there be direct evidence of
an express agreement among all the conspirators to conspire[; thus,] circumstantial
evidence may provide adequate proof of conspiracy." Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514,
528 (6th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Circumstantial evidence alone
may suffice to prove conspiracy, which is rarely evidenced by explicit agreements. Mack
v. Newton, 737 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (5th Cir.1984). Plaintiff alleges that the conspiracy
began in 2010 when Plaintiff publicly announced that the Auris Projects new mission
would be to create an information center for Eastside residents and document corruption
in Bexar County. Evidence will show that the single plan involved discrediting,
overwhelming, demoralizing, and impoverishing Plaintiff so that her plans for
organizing on the Eastside may never be realized.
25. Freemans actions alone, all of them centered around the property where Plaintiff was
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
17
arrested and visibly in concert with outside persons implicated in title fraud allegations,
gives a motive for his underlings unconstitutional actions against Plaintiff on the day of
her arrest. Freemans actions and his relationship to defendants support Plaintiffs
allegations that the police officer defendants in this cause knew that they had no
probable cause for Plaintiffs arrest, but took deliberate actions that violated Plaintiffs
constitutional rights and protections anyway, in furtherance of an already well advanced
conspiracy against her. 42 U.S.C. 1983(2)(3). "Probable cause exists when the totality
of the facts and circumstances within a police officer's knowledge at the moment of
arrest are sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed
or was committing an offense." 203 F.3d 902, 903 (5th Cir.2000) (emphasis in brief).
Importantly, Defendants have the burden of showing that probable cause existed for the
arrest, detention, and prosecution of Plaintiff.
26. As stated before, defendants have, through years of poor leadership on the part of SAPD
administrators, acted in a predatory and dismissive manner against poor black residents
living in Denver Heights. The protracted attacks and constitutional deprivations against
Plaintiff continued to escalate precisely because she was a poor black woman. It was her
status as a poor black woman that embolden defendants to falsely arrest her on a pretext
on Martin Luther King Drive on Martin Luther King Day in view of hundreds of
minority witnesses celebrating civil rights. Aware of the corruption permeating all levels
of local city government and courts and the SAPDs repeated failures to adequately
supervise them, the defendant officers could conceive of no scenario whereby Plaintiff
would not be powerless against them.
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
18
27. Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations on the part of the San Antonio Police
Department and the City of San Antonio for their failure to properly monitor and
supervise SAPD officers. Plaintiff further alleges that SAPD and City officials have long
known that certain policies maintained by the department had an emboldening effect on
bad actors in its ranks. The departments lack of control over its officers is well
documented and has resulted in a culture of impunity that encourages routine and
customary constitutional deprivations against Plaintiff and members of her class.
28. After the Greyhound false arrest, Plaintiff attempted to file a complaint with SAPDs
Internal Affairs Department Internal Affairs officers told her that they could not take her
complaint because they had reached their quota pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement with the police officers union. Plaintiff asserts that the San Antonio Police
Departments policy of limiting the number of internal affairs complaints it will hear
from citizens per year contributes to the impunity enjoyed by street officers, tacitly
encouraged defendants unconstitutional arrest, detention, and prosecution of Plaintiff,
and is a major cause of the constitutional deprivations suffered by Plaintiff at the hands
of its officers on January 21, 2013 and other times.
29. The police department also maintains policies, custom, and procedures that actually
reward abusive and unconstitutional action of its officers. According to a 2011 Texas
Civil Rights Project Human Rights Report, SAPD Internal Affairs has 180 days to
investigate, rule and impose punishment on offending officers. But because police
attorneys routinely drag the investigative process out in an effort to avoid sanctions on
their clients, and the offending officer continues receiving his salary, Internal Affairs
investigations often amount to six months of paid vacations for abusive and sometimes
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
19
criminal cops. Police Misconduct in San Antonio: The need for more accountability,
transparency, and responsiveness. Texas Civil Rights Project, Austin, Texas 78741.
Plaintiff alleges that this policy encourages routine constitutional violations against
Plaintiff and other members of her class, and was a deciding factor in her false arrest,
detention and prosecution.
30. Plaintiff further complains that the District Attorneys Offices refusal to prosecute even
well documented criminal acts of San Antonio Police officers contributes to the culture
of impunity that precedes the type of constitutional deprivations suffered by Plaintiff.
31. Plaintiff also complains that the San Antonio Police Department has an effective policy
of not requiring their officers to follow their own operational procedures. Plaintiff will
show that defendant officers repeatedly sidestepped operational procedures in order to
violate her constitutional rights and those procedural departures were theoretically not
supposed to be permitted by supervisors.
Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment Claim
32. To implement the Fourth Amendment's protection against unfounded invasions of
liberty and privacy, the Court has required that the existence of probable cause be
decided by a neutral and detached magistrate whenever possible. Johnson v. United
States, 333 U. S. 10, 13-14 (1948):
33. To establish a Fourth Amendment Claim, Plaintiff must show that she was (1)
unreasonably (2) seized (3) by a government actor. Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d 374,380,
382 (4
th
Cir. 2007). Clearly, by handcuffing Plaintiff, placing her in the squad car and
then transporting her to and locking her up in the city jail, defendant police officers
communicated to Plaintiff that she was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
20
go about [her] business. Chestnut, supra. at 569. Hodari SD.499 U.S. at 628.
34. Police officers have stated that they took Plaintiff into custody on a code enforcement
violation because she declined to sign the citation. However, police deliberately imbued
their request for signature as proof of an agreement that Plaintiff was not prepared to
make. Defendant Scott told Plaintiff that by signing the citation she would be agreeing
to restock all of her donations and shut down her event. When she declined to sign or
close her event, she was arrested. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a
refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective
justification needed for a detention or seizure. Delgado. Supra. at 216-217; Rover, 460
U.S., at 498 (plurality opinion); Brown v. Texas 443 U.S. 47, 52-53 (1979). Further, an
individual may decline an officers request without fearing prosecution. Brief for the
United States as Amicus Curiae 25.

VII. INJURY
35. The site of plaintiffs arrest is located along the route of the historic Martin Luther King,
Jr. Day March. Plaintiffs primary purpose on January 21, 2013 was to introduce the
Auris Project and the pending Information Center to the thousands of marchers who
would pass along the route. When Plaintiff was arrested, she had been preparing to reach
out to marchers that day as a civil rights advocate dedicated to working on behalf of the
community. The arrest caused Plaintiffs reputation to be sullied in the worst possible
way in a neighborhood she had been working diligently to serve. Plaintiff also suffers
from General Anxiety Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Her arrest caused
Plaintiff extreme distress and anxiety, and a profound sense of insecurity that persists to
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
21
this day. She experienced a severe panic attack while handcuffed alone in the squad car
when she attempted to yell instructions to her workers and found that the squad car was
soundproof. Today she experiences an unpleasant sensation of anxiety and fear every
time she sees a uniformed police officer or police squad car. She is unable to interact
with any uniformed police officer without feelings of great fear and revulsion.
36. Plaintiff expected to earn approximately $2200 that day through the sale of donations,
auction items, and books to the thousands of marchers passing her site on MLK Day.
That money was to be used to travel to Mexico, take donations, conduct business, and
secure real property that she owned in the municipality of Catorce, San Luis Potosi,
Mexico. Because of police interference and the malicious prosecution, more than
$20,000 of real and personal property was illegally seized in Mexico. The arrest also
caused her to be unable to afford a lawyer when, on the basis of fraudulent quitclaim
deeds, the police assisted criminals in repeatedly burglarizing, then illegally seizing
more than $150,000 worth of real and personal property legally possessed in Bexar
County by Plaintiff. The repercussions of the false arrest and malicious prosecution that
is that the base of this suit continue to be felt throughout Plaintiffs professional,
personal, community, and business endeavors.

VIII. JURY REQUEST
37. Plaintiff asks that the case be tried by a jury.

IX. RELIEF
38. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff asks for the following relief:
Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
22
a. Damages to compensate for all bodily harm, emotional harm, pain and suffering,
loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, property damage and loss, and any other
injuries inflicted by defendants;
b. Punitive damages against the individual defendants; and
c. Such injunctive, declaratory, or other relief as may be appropriate, including
attorneys fees and reasonable expenses as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1988.

Respectfully submitted:

X. _______________________________________
Denise McVea, Pro Se
1006 Wyoming Street
San Antonio, Texas 78203
(210)316-3638
dmcvea@aurisproject.org



Plaintiffs 1
st
Amended Complaint/ SA-14-CA-0073-DAE
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument was
electronically served on the 10th day of October, 2014 via e-filing, facsimile, digitsl
transmission or USPS Mail to the following:

Mark Kosanovich
Fitzpatrick & Kosanovich
PO Box 831121
San Antonio, Texas 78283-1121
COUNSEL FOR SAPD OFFICERS
(210)207-7259


Michael Siemer
Assistant City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
Litigation Division
111 Soldedad, 10
th
Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205








x._____________________________

Denise McVea, PRO SE
1006 Wyoming Street
San Antonio, Texas 78203
(210)316-3638
dmcvea@aurisproject.org