IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________________
ISAAC STERLING INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF TERRENCE STERLING
105 Kirby Parkway
Fort Washington, MD 20744
FLORENCE STERLING
105 Kirby Parkway
Fort Washington, MD 20744
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICER BRIAN TRAINER
Individually and in his official capacity as a
Metropolitan Police Officer
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
UNKNOWN OFFICER
Individually and in his official capacity as a
Metropolitan Police Officer
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Serve on: Muriel Bowser
Mayor of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Karl A. Racine
Attorney General for the District of
Columbia
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1100 South
Washington, DC 20001
Peter Newsham
Interim Chief of Police, District of
Columbia
300 Indiana Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Serve on: Muriel Bowser
Mayor of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Karl A. Racine
Attorney General for the District of
Columbia
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1100 South
Washington, DC 20001
Peter Newsham
Interim Chief of Police, District of
Columbia
300 Indiana Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Office of the Attorney General
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Serve on: Muriel Bowser
Mayor of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Karl A. Racine
Attorney General for the District of
Columbia
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1100 South
Washington, DC 20001
Defendants.
____________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs, Isaac Sterling individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Terrence Sterling (hereinafter, Estate) and Florence Sterling, by undersigned attorney Jason G.
Downs of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A., hereby sue Defendants and state:

1438-051/368830

INTRODUCTION
1.

In 2013, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) began researching the best

practices for the deployment of Body Worn Cameras (BWCs) for its police officers. After
studying best practices, on or about October 1, 2014, MPD launched a six month pilot program
giving BWCs to officers employed by MPD to determine the best model BWC to address the
needs of the community and police officers alike.
2.

Around November of 2015 the District of Columbia (Defendant District) signed

a contract with Taser International to provide Axon Body and Axon Flex BWCs to all police
officers employed by MPD.
3.

BWCs worn by officers employed by MPD are constantly recording. However,

the data is retained longer when an officer activates his body camera. The officer activates the
body camera by tapping on it twice. The first 30 seconds have no sound because the BWC
retroactively saves the video 30 seconds prior to activation. Once the body camera is activated,
the microphone starts recording.
4.

At least as early as March 11, 2016, MPD enacted a policy requiring a police

officer to activate a BWC under numerous circumstances, including, but not limited to, as soon
as a call is initiated via radio or at the beginning of any self-initiated police action or vehicle
and foot pursuits or all traffic crash scenes or suspicious activities.
5.

MPD explicitly acknowledges the foregoing BWC policy is to use BWCs to

further the mission of the Department, promote public trust, and enhance service to the
community by accurately documenting events, actions, conditions, and statements made during
citizen encounters, traffic stops, arrests, and other incidents, and to help ensure officer and public
safety.

1438-051/368830

6.

MPD failed to properly train its officers to use BWCs, which in turn, failed to

ensure public safety. Defendant MPD had actual or constructive knowledge that its police
officers routinely failed to properly use BWCs. Defendant MPD failed to take proper steps to
correct the misuse of BWCs by its officers.
7.

On September 11, 2016, MPD Officer Brian Trainer (Defendant Trainer), aided

and abetted by Defendant Unknown Officer, shot Mr. Sterling in his back and neck, killing Mr.
Sterling from the safety of a police vehicle despite Mr. Sterling being unarmed and having posed
no danger to Defendants Trainer, Unknown Officer or any other person.
8.

Officer Trainer was equipped with a BWC that he failed to activate properly

during the encounter with Mr. Sterling, causing the loss and/or destruction of valuable evidence
of the circumstances of Mr. Sterlings death. The Estate of Terrence Sterling and Mr. Sterlings
parents Mr. Isaac Sterling and Mrs. Florence Sterling bring this action against Defendants to seek
redress for the wrongful death of Mr. Sterling caused by Defendants Trainers and Unknown
Officers negligence, battery, and unlawful use of excessive force, and by MPDs negligent
training, supervision, and retention of Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer.
9.

Plaintiffs seek damages for the pain and suffering caused to Mr. Sterling, his

consequent death, the pain and suffering caused to his family, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief to ensure that Officers of the Metropolitan Police Department activate their
BWCs while on duty, even in incidents where they were not dispatched, to ensure the safety of
the community by those sworn to protect and serve it.
JURSIDICTION AND VENUE
10.

1438-051/368830

Subject matter jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to D.C. Code 11-921.

11.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to D.C. Code

13-422 and 13-423(a)(3).

12.

Venue in this Court is proper because the events or omissions giving rise to this

action occurred in the District of Columbia.

PARTIES
13.

Plaintiff Florence Sterling is the mother of the decedent, Terrence Sterling. At all

times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Florence Sterling was a resident of Fort Washington,
Maryland.
14.

Plaintiff Isaac Sterling is the father of Terrence Sterling and the Personal

Representative for the Estate of Terrence Sterling. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Plaintiff Isaac Sterling was a resident of Fort Washington, Maryland.
15.

At the time of his death, Mr. Sterling was thirty-one years old and was employed

as an HVAC technician for twelve years. He was also a loving and supportive son and brother.
16.

Defendant Trainer was a police officer employed by Defendants MPD and

District at all times relevant to this Complaint.

At all times relevant to this Complaint,

Defendant Trainer acted as an agent, servant and/or employee of Defendants MPD and District,
within the scope of employment, and in the furtherance of the business of the MPD and the
District of Columbia. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the conduct described herein by
Defendant Trainer was of the same general nature as the conduct MPD and the District of
Columbia authorized, or Defendant Trainers conduct was incidental to conduct authorized by
MPD and the District of Columbia. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Trainers
use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia. Defendant
Trainer is sued in his individual and official capacities.

1438-051/368830

17.

Defendant Unknown Police Officer was a police officer employed by Defendants

MPD and District at all times relevant to this Complaint. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Defendant Unknown Police Officer acted as an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendants
MPD and District, within the scope of employment, and in the furtherance of the business of the
MPD and the District of Columbia.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, the conduct

described herein by Defendant Trainer was of the same general nature as the conduct MPD and
the District of Columbia authorized, or Defendant Trainers conduct was incidental to conduct
authorized by MPD and the District of Columbia. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
Defendant Trainers use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of
Columbia. Defendant Unknown Officer is sued in his individual and official capacities.
18.

Defendant MPD is a government agency and an agent of the Defendant District.

Defendant MPD, through its agents, servants and employees, hired, supervised, trained, and
retained Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer, who acted and act as MPDs agents, servants
and employees.
19.

Defendant District is a municipal corporation and the local government of

Washington, D.C. that maintains and controls Defendant MPD.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20.

On the early morning of September 11, 2016, Mr. Sterling drove his motorcycle

southbound on 3rd Street, NW toward the intersection of 3rd Street, NW and M Street, NW.
Defendant Unknown Officer drove into the intersection shortly before Mr. Sterling to block a
portion of the intersection with the police car he was driving to prevent Mr. Sterling from
traversing that intersection.

1438-051/368830

21.

Mr. Sterling attempted to avoid an inevitable impact between his motorcycle and

the police car, but he could not. His motorcycle sideswiped the police vehicle with minimal
force and he did not fall from the motorcycle. Instead, Mr. Sterling tried to maneuver his
motorcycle around the police vehicle but could not because his motorcycle was trapped between
the curb and the street.
22.

As Mr. Sterling attempted to maneuver around the police vehicle, Defendant

Trainer attempted to open the passengers side door of the police car. Defendant Trainer was
unable to open the passengers side door completely because Mr. Sterlings motorcycle was
between the police car and the curb. Unable to open his door, Defendant Trainer partially rolled
down the passenger-side window, and from the safety of his vehicle, pointed his gun at Mr.
Sterling, and shot him in his back and neck and killed him.
23.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer were equipped with and wearing

BWCs. Contrary to MPD policy, Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer failed to activate
their BWCs when they encountered Mr. Sterling. Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer
activated their BWCs after Defendant Trainer shot and killed Mr. Sterling.
24.

Mr. Sterling was pronounced dead on September 11, 2016, at 4:54 a.m. from two

gunshot wounds to his neck and back.

25.

Defendant MPD had promulgated general orders for BWCs in force at the time

Mr. Sterling was killed that required MPD officers to activate their BWCs under various
circumstances, including, but not limited to, the circumstances where Defendants Trainer and
Unknown Officer first encountered Mr. Sterling and before they shot and killed him. Despite
Defendant MPDs general orders, Defendants MPD and District failed to train MPD officers to
follow them and to discipline MPD officers appropriately who did not, thus failing to deter other

1438-051/368830

officers, including Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer, from failing to activate their
BWCs.
26.

Defendants MPD and District failed to enforce MPDs general orders with

compliance measures to safeguard evidence of citizen encounters with MPD officers.

27.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer caused Mr. Sterling excruciating pain

and suffering by blocking Mr. Sterlings motorcycle, pointing the gun at him, shooting him and
causing him to bleed to death.
28.

Defendants Trainer, Unknown Officer, MPD and District caused Mr. Sterling

pain, suffering and death without any legal justification.

29.

Defendants actions caused Plaintiffs Isaac and Florence Sterling severe

emotional harm and other damages from the loss of their only son.
30.

Had Defendant Trainers BWC been activated, there would be evidence that

accurately reflected the events as they occurred. Instead, the BWC was not activated, depriving
Mr. Sterling and Plaintiffs Isaac Sterling, individually and on behalf of Mr. Sterlings estate, and
Florence Sterling of valuable evidence.
31.

Defendant District failed to properly train its officers, including Defendants

Trainer and Unknown Officer, on how to use a BWC, including when it would be necessary to
turn it on and permissible and appropriate to turn it off. Defendant Districts failures to train and
discipline MPD officers, including Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer, substantially
caused Defendants Trainers and Unknown Officers failure to activate their BWCs, their failure
to record what happed, and their failure to preserve this evidence.
32.

Before October 1, 2015, when Defendant MPD published its Report on MPDs

Use of Body-Worn Cameras (10/2015), Defendants had been on notice that MPD officers have

1438-051/368830

violated MPD general orders by improperly failing to activate and deactivate BWCs on
numerous occasions during citizen interactions before this shooting.

On April 1, 2016,

Defendant MPD admitted in its Report on MPDs Use of Body-Worn Cameras (04/2016) that
there had been an increase of nearly six times the number of such incidents since its October
2015 Report. In the April 2016 report, there are at least twelve sustained incidents of misconduct
involving officers failing to activate properly and/or deactivate properly their BWCs in
accordance with the appropriate general orders and their training or lack thereof. Despite these
reports which put MPD and the District on notice that this training had been woefully ineffective,
no effective efforts were made to adjust, modify or repeat officer training that would have
prevented officers Trainer and Unknown officer to have properly used their body cameras on this
occasion.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Wrongful Death (D.C. Code 16-2701)
Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Gross Negligence;
Negligent Training, Supervision, and Retention
33.

Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt each allegation contained in the preceding and

subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

34.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer breached at least four separate

standards of care as set forth by the MPDs General Orders, including, but not limited to,
General Orders 301.03 and 901.07. A reasonable police officer, under similar circumstances,
would use ordinary care by following the standards set forth in the General Orders.
35.

According to MPD General Order 301.03, Defendants Trainer and Unknown

Officer owed a duty of care to Mr. Sterling not to place themselves in a position to be in front of
his on-coming motorcycle where the use of deadly force would become more probable. By

1438-051/368830

doing so, Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer, while acting within the scope of their
employment as agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendants MPD and District, breached
this duty of care by placing themselves in front of Mr. Sterlings on-coming motorcycle where
the use of deadly force would likely be the outcome. Defendant Trainer and Unknown Officers
conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD and the District of Columbia
authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct.

Defendant Trainer and Unknown

Officers use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.
36.

According to MPD General Order 301.03, Defendants Trainer and Unknown

Officer owed a duty of care to Mr. Sterling not to intentionally cause contact between their
police vehicle and Mr. Sterlings motorcycle and not to attempt to force Mr. Sterlings
motorcycle into another object or off the roadway. Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer,
while acting within the scope of their employment as agents, servants, and/or employees of
Defendants MPD and District, breached their duty of care by using their police vehicle to block
Mr. Sterlings path of travel, placing their police vehicle in front of Mr. Sterlings on-coming
motorcycle, causing a collision and trapping Mr. Sterling between the curb and the police
vehicle. Defendant Trainer and Unknown Officers conduct was of the same general nature as
that which MPD and the District of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized
conduct. Defendant Trainer and Unknown Officers use of force was foreseeable or expected by
MPD and the District of Columbia.
37.

According to MPD General Order 901.07, Defendant Trainer owed Mr. Sterling a

duty not to draw or point his firearm in the direction of Mr. Sterling. Defendant Trainer, while
acting within the scope of his employment as an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendants
MPD and District, breached his duty of care not to draw his gun and point it in the direction of

1438-051/368830

10

Mr. Sterling. Defendant Trainers conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD
and the District of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct. Defendant
Trainers use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.
38.

According to MPD General Order 901.07, Defendant Trainer owed a duty of care

to Mr. Sterling not to discharge his gun at or from a moving vehicle. Defendant Trainer, while
acting within the scope of his employment as an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendants
MPD and District, breached his duty of care by firing his gun from a moving police vehicle at
Mr. Sterling and/or at his moving motorcycle while Mr. Sterling was aboard.

Defendant

Trainers conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD and the District of
Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct. Defendant Trainers use of
force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.
39.

Defendant Trainer committed negligence per se by violating District of Columbia

Law. District of Columbia law provides that [a]ny officer who uses unnecessary and wanton
severity in arresting or imprisoning any person shall be deemed guilty of assault and battery, and,
upon conviction, punished therefor. D.C. Code Ann. 5-123.02. This statute is meant to
promote safety, Mr. Sterling is a member of the class of persons to be protected under the statute,
and the statute imposes a specific duty on Defendant Trainer because he is a member of the MPD
and he was trying to arrest or imprison Mr. Sterling.
40.

Defendant Trainer, while acting within the scope of his employment as an agent,

servant, and/or employee of Defendants MPD and District, violated D.C. Code Ann. 5-123.02
by using excessive force in arresting or imprisoning Mr. Sterling by drawing his firearm,
pointing his firearm in the direction of Mr. Sterling, and shooting Mr. Sterling with his firearm.
Defendant Trainers conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD and the District

1438-051/368830

11

of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct. Defendant Trainers use of

force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.
41.

D.C. Code Ann. 5-123.02 was designed to protect members of the public,

including Mr. Sterling, from being injured or killed by MPD police officers.
42.

Defendants Trainer owed Mr. Sterling a duty of care to only discharge his firearm

under circumstances where a reasonable police officer would be afraid for his life. Defendant
Trainer, while acting within the scope of his employment as an agent, servant, and/or employee
of Defendants MPD and District, breached his duty of care when he discharged his firearm from
the safety of his police vehicle despite the fact that Mr. Sterling was unarmed and on a
motorcycle. Defendant Trainers conduct in discharging his firearm was of the same general
nature as that which MPD and the District of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to
authorized conduct. Defendant Trainers use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and
the District of Columbia.

Defendant Trainers act of discharging his firearm under these

circumstances is an extreme deviation from the ordinary standard of care as to support a finding
of wanton, willful and reckless disregard or conscious indifference for the rights and safety of
others.
43.

Defendant Trainer, in pointing his firearm and shooting at Mr. Sterling, acted with

evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or with intent to injure, or in willful
disregard for Mr. Sterlings rights and his conduct was outrageous, grossly fraudulent, or
reckless toward Mr. Sterlings safety.
44.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer were unfit or incompetent to serve as

police officers and use a BWC, a gun, and a police vehicle because, inter alia, Defendants MPD
and District failed to properly train, supervise, retain and continue to train in the use of deadly

1438-051/368830

12

force and to follow the duties and responsibilities contained in the various general orders cited
above.
45.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer unfit or incompetent to serve as police

officers and to use a BWC because, inter alia, Defendants MPD and District failed to properly
discipline MPD officers for failure to properly activate BWCs.
46.

Defendants MPD and District knew or should have known that Defendants

Trainer and Unknown Officer were unfit or incompetent because, inter alia, it was the MPDs
failure to properly train and discipline that rendered the officers unfit or incompetent.
Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officers incompetence posed a foreseeable risk to the public
that the officers would fail to properly activate their BWCs, fail to properly use their police
vehicle, and use excessive force with a service weapon.
47.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officers incompetence harmed Mr. Sterling

because the officers failed to activate their BWCs, failed to properly use their police vehicle and
caused a collision with Mr. Sterlings motorcycle, and Defendant Trainer improperly fired his
service and killed Mr. Sterling.
48.

Defendants MPD and Districts negligence in failing to properly train, supervise,

retain and continue to train in the use of deadly force and to follow the duties and responsibilities
contained in the various general orders cited above was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs
injuries, including, the value of services Mr. Sterling would have provided to his family,
including loss of care, education, training, guidance and personal advice, pecuniary losses (e.g.
loss of Mr. Sterlings future earning capacity and support), loss of life, loss of valuable evidence
depicting the circumstances surrounding Mr. Sterlings killing, and other damages.

1438-051/368830

13

49.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful acts, each breach of

each standard of ordinary care, and/or negligence, Plaintiffs assert that they have incurred all
damages cognizable under the District of Columbia Wrongful Death Statute, D.C. Code
16-2701, et seq., including but not limited to, loss of financial support, loss of services, loss of
society, loss of companionship, loss of comfort, loss of attention, loss of advice, loss of counsel,
loss of economic damages, and funeral expenses.
50.

Plaintiffs injuries, damages, losses and death were directly and proximately

caused by the negligence and breaches of applicable duties by Defendants with no negligence on
the part of Mr. Sterling himself or his Estate contributing thereto.
COUNT II
Survival Action (D.C. Code 12-101)
Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Gross Negligence;
Negligent Training, Supervision, and Retention; Assault
51.

Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt each allegation contained in the preceding and

subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

52.

According to MPD General Order 301.03, Defendants Trainer and Unknown

Officer owed a duty of care to Mr. Sterling not to place themselves in a position to be in front of
his on-coming motorcycle where the use of deadly force would become more probable. By
doing so, Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer, while acting within the scope of their
employment as agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendants MPD and District, breached
this duty of care by placing themselves in front of Mr. Sterlings on-coming motorcycle where
the use of deadly force would likely be the outcome. Defendant Trainer and Unknown Officers
conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD and the District of Columbia
authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct.

Defendant Trainer and Unknown

Officers use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.

1438-051/368830

14

53.

According to MPD General Order 301.03, Defendants Trainer and Unknown

Officer owed a duty of care to Mr. Sterling not to intentionally cause contact between their
police vehicle and Mr. Sterlings motorcycle and not to attempt to force Mr. Sterlings
motorcycle into another object or off the roadway. Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer,
while acting within the scope of their employment as agents, servants, and/or employees of
Defendants MPD and District, breached their duty of care by using their police vehicle to block
Mr. Sterlings path of travel, placing their police vehicle in front of Mr. Sterlings on-coming
motorcycle, causing a collision and trapping Mr. Sterling between the curb and the police
vehicle. Defendant Trainer and Unknown Officers conduct was of the same general nature as
that which MPD and the District of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized
conduct. Defendant Trainer and Unknown Officers use of force was foreseeable or expected by
MPD and the District of Columbia.
54.

According to MPD General Order 901.07, Defendant Trainer owed Mr. Sterling a

duty not to draw or point his firearm in the direction of Mr. Sterling. Defendant Trainer, while
acting within the scope of his employment as an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendants
MPD and District, breached his duty of care not to draw his gun and point it in the direction of
Mr. Sterling. Defendant Trainers conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD
and the District of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct. Defendant
Trainers use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.
55.

According to MPD General Order 901.07, Defendant Trainer owed a duty of care

to Mr. Sterling not to discharge his gun at or from a moving vehicle. Defendant Trainer, while
acting within the scope of his employment as an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendants
MPD and District, breached his duty of care by firing his gun from a moving police vehicle at

1438-051/368830

15

Mr. Sterling and/or at his moving motorcycle while Mr. Sterling was aboard.

Defendant

Trainers conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD and the District of
Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct. Defendant Trainers use of
force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.
56.

Defendant Trainer committed negligence per se by violating District of Columbia

Law. District of Columbia law provides that [a]ny officer who uses unnecessary and wanton
severity in arresting or imprisoning any person shall be deemed guilty of assault and battery, and,
upon conviction, punished therefor. D.C. Code Ann. 5-123.02. This statute is meant to
promote safety, Mr. Sterling is a member of the class of persons to be protected under the statute,
and the statute imposes a specific duty on Defendant Trainer because he is a member of the MPD
and he was trying to arrest or imprison Mr. Sterling.
57.

Defendant Trainer, while acting within the scope of his employment as an agent,

servant, and/or employee of Defendants MPD and District, violated D.C. Code Ann. 5-123.02
by using excessive force in arresting or imprisoning Mr. Sterling by drawing his firearm,
pointing his firearm in the direction of Mr. Sterling, and shooting Mr. Sterling with his firearm.
Defendant Trainers conduct was of the same general nature as that which MPD and the District
of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to authorized conduct. Defendant Trainers use of
force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and the District of Columbia.
58.

D.C. Code Ann. 5-123.02 was designed to protect members of the public,

including Mr. Sterling, from being injured or killed by MPD police officers.
59.

Defendants Trainer owed Mr. Sterling a duty of care to only discharge his firearm

under circumstances where a reasonable police officer would be afraid for his life. Defendant
Trainer, while acting within the scope of his employment as an agent, servant, and/or employee

1438-051/368830

16

of Defendants MPD and District, breached his duty of care when he discharged his firearm from
the safety of his police vehicle despite the fact that Mr. Sterling was unarmed and on a
motorcycle. Defendant Trainers conduct in discharging his firearm was of the same general
nature as that which MPD and the District of Columbia authorized, or it was incidental to
authorized conduct. Defendant Trainers use of force was foreseeable or expected by MPD and
the District of Columbia.

Defendant Trainers act of discharging his firearm under these

circumstances is an extreme deviation from the ordinary standard of care as to support a finding
of wanton, willful and reckless disregard or conscious indifference for the rights and safety of
others.
60.

Defendant Trainer, in pointing his firearm and shooting at Mr. Sterling, acted with

evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or with intent to injure, or in willful
disregard for Mr. Sterlings rights and his conduct was outrageous, grossly fraudulent, or
reckless toward Mr. Sterlings safety.
61.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer were unfit or incompetent to serve as

police officers and use a BWC, a gun, and a police vehicle because, inter alia, Defendants MPD
and District failed to properly train, supervise, retain and continue to train in the use of deadly
force and to follow the duties and responsibilities contained in the various general orders cited
herein.
62.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officer unfit or incompetent to serve as police

officers and to use a BWC because, inter alia, Defendants MPD and District failed to properly
discipline MPD officers for failure to properly activate BWCs.
63.

Defendants MPD and District knew or should have known that Defendants

Trainer and Unknown Officer were unfit or incompetent because, inter alia, it was the MPDs

1438-051/368830

17

failure to properly train and discipline that rendered the officers unfit or incompetent.
Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officers incompetence posed a foreseeable risk to the public
that the officers would fail to properly activate their BWCs, fail to properly use their police
vehicle, and use excessive force with a service weapon.
64.

Defendants Trainer and Unknown Officers incompetence harmed Mr. Sterling

because the officers failed to activate their BWCs, failed to properly use their police vehicle and
caused a collision with Mr. Sterlings motorcycle, and Defendant Trainer improperly fired his
service and killed Mr. Sterling.
65.

Defendants MPD and Districts negligence in failing to properly train, supervise,

retain and continue to train in the use of deadly force and to follow the duties and responsibilities
contained in the various general orders cited above was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs
injuries, including, the value of services Mr. Sterling would have provided to his family,
including loss of care, education, training, guidance and personal advice, pecuniary losses (e.g.
loss of Mr. Sterlings future earning capacity and support), loss of life, loss of valuable evidence
depicting the circumstances surrounding Mr. Sterlings killing, and other damages.
66.

Defendant Trainer, while acting within the scope of his employment as an agent,

servant, and/or employee of Defendants MPD and District, assaulted Mr. Sterling by unlawfully
pointing his service weapon at Mr. Sterling intentionally causing Mr. Sterling to fear being shot.
67.

Defendant Trainers conduct in pointing his gun at Mr. Sterling is of the same

general nature of the conduct authorized by the MPD and the District as the he was empowered
as an MPD officer. Defendant Trainers actions were foreseeable by Defendants MPD and
District as he was provided a firearm to use a police officer.

1438-051/368830

18

68.

Defendant Trainer, in pointing his firearm and shooting at Mr. Sterling, acted with

evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or with intent to injure, or in willful
disregard for Mr. Sterlings rights and his conduct was outrageous, grossly fraudulent, or
reckless toward Mr. Sterlings safety.
69.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of the

Defendants, and the assault on Mr. Sterling, Mr. Sterling suffered conscious physical, mental,
and emotional pain and suffering, incurred medical expenses including all reasonably necessary
medical and hospital services furnished, lost future earnings, and suffered other economic and
non-economic damages recoverable under the applicable District of Columbia law.
70.

Plaintiffs injuries, damages, losses and death were directly and proximately

caused by the negligence and breaches of applicable duties by Defendants with no negligence on
the part of Mr. Sterling himself or his Estate contributing thereto.
71.

Under D.C. Code 12-101, Mr. Sterlings right of action for these injuries prior

to his death survives in favor of Plaintiff Estate of Terrence Sterling.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff the Estate of Terrence Sterling, Florence Sterling and Isaac
Sterling pray this Court grant the following relief:
a.

enjoin Defendants from engaging in further misconduct described herein and

direct it to take all affirmative steps necessary to properly train MPD officers and prevent
additional instances of such conduct, including, but not limited to, failure to activate BWCs,
from occurring in the future;
b.

grant a judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the full and just

amount of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00), plus interest and costs, pre and post judgment

1438-051/368830

19

interest, and attorneys fees, costs, and expenses, and such other and further relief as the court
deems just and proper;
c.

enter an award for punitive damages because Defendants Trainer and Unknown

Officer acted with evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or with intent to
injure, or in willful disregard for Mr. Sterlings rights, and Defendant Trainers conduct was
outrageous, grossly fraudulent, or reckless toward Mr. Sterlings safety.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/_________________________________
Jason G. Downs
D.C. Bar No. 979476
MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY, P.A.
One South Street, 23rd Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
T: 410-951-8744
F: 410-539-6599
jason.downs@murphyfalcon.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Dated: December 15, 2016

1438-051/368830

20