1 THE PEOPLE’S LAW FIRM, PLC.

Stephen D. Benedetto (#022349)

2 Heather Hamel (#031734)
645 N. 4th Avenue, Suite A
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Telephone: (602) 456-1901
4 Facsimile: (602) 801-2834
benedetto@the-plf.com
5 hamel@the-plf.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Erica Reynolds
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
9
10 ERICA REYNOLDS, a single woman, Case No.:
11 Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR SPECIAL
ACTION PURSUANT TO A.R.S. § 39-
12 v. 121.02 AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
13 CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal
corporation.
14
Defendant.
15
16
17 For her complaint against Defendants City of Phoenix (the “City”), Plaintiff Erica
18 Reynolds hereby alleges as follows:
19 OVERVIEW
20 1. This case strikes at the heart of the public policy underlying Arizona’s public
21 records laws.
22 2. It originally arose out of the Phoenix Police Department’s ongoing failure to
23 comply with a valid public records request by a woman whose constitutional rights and
24 bodily sovereignty were violated by Phoenix police officers.
25 3. Then, the Department, rather than respond to records requests, selectively
26 disclosed, to the media, documents seemingly favorable to the department, .
 1
2 4. During the process of assessing why records had not been produced, a far
3 greater concern was revealed – a deficient records-request processing system that likely
4 affects every citizen making a public records request to the Phoenix Police Department and
5 appears to violate Arizona’s public records laws on its face.
6 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
7 5. Plaintiff Erica Reynolds is a single woman residing in Maricopa County,
8 Arizona. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Ms. Reynolds was a 37-year-old mother
9 of two living in South Phoenix.
10 6. Defendant City of Phoenix is a municipal corporation, formed and designated
11 as such pursuant to Title 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
12 7. This action arises under the laws of the State of Arizona and the Arizona
13 Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-123, and venue is proper
14 in Maricopa County pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-401.
15 8. This matter concerns Ms. Reynolds’ rights under Arizona’s Public Records
16 law, A.R.S. § 39-121 et seq., and this Special Action is specifically authorized by A.R.S. §
17 39-121.02.
18 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19 The Cavity Search and First Public Records Request
20 9. On December 26, 2019, Phoenix Police Department (“PD”) officers pulled
21 Ms. Reynolds over during an ordinary traffic stop – and, after finding nothing of evidentiary
22 value in her vehicle or on her person, handcuffed her; transported her to the South Mountain
23 substation; brought her into an interrogation room; and instructed a female officer to
24 perform a warrantless search of the insides of her anal, rectal, and vaginal cavities.
25 10. When the officer found no evidence of a crime inside of Ms. Reynolds’ body,
26 Phoenix PD released her without charges.

-2-
 1 11. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Reynolds filed a complaint with Phoenix PD’s
2 Professional Standards Bureau (“PSB”).
3 12. On February 1, 2019, Ms. Reynolds’ counsel submitted a public records
4 request to the Phoenix Police Department (hereinafter, the “First PRR”), requesting the
5 production of (1) the police reports; (2) critical incident reports; (3) officer files; (4)
6 dashboard camera footage; (5) surveillance footage from inside the South Mountain
7 precinct at the time Ms. Reynolds was brought in; and (6) any PSB reports.1
8 13. That same date, this request was presented, in person, to Phoenix PD’s Public
9 Records unit.
10 14. Later that same day, the request form was returned to Ms. Reynolds’ counsel
11 with the determination that there was no police report relating to the December 26, 2018
12 incident.
13 The Cover-Up Arrest and Second Public Records Request
14 15. On February 5, 2019, Ms. Reynolds was released from Maricopa County
15 hospital following an emergency gall bladder surgery.
16 16. The next morning, February 6, 2019, Phoenix Police pulled Ms. Reynolds
17 over and arrested her without a warrant.
18 17. The officers transported her to a police substation, where they refused to allow
19 her to talk to her attorneys or transport her to the hospital until she made statements that she
20 had previously hidden undetected drugs inside her vaginal cavity on December 26, 2018.
21 18. After bringing Ms. Reynolds to the hospital for treatment, Phoenix PD then
22 brought her to the Maricopa County Jail where they booked her for numerous felonies based
23 on these coerced statements.
24 19. Ms. Reynolds was released from jail the following morning. Her counsel then
25 filed another Public Records Request (the “Second PRR”) with Phoenix PD’s Public
26
1 A true and correct copy of the First PRR is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

-3-
 1 Records division to request the materials concerning the February 6, 2019 detention,
2 interrogation, and arrest.2
3 Notice of Claim and Selective Release of Documents
4 20. On June 24, 2019, Ms. Reynolds, through counsel, filed a Notice of Claim
5 (“NOC”) against the City of Phoenix alleging that the December 26, 2018 warrantless and
6 nonconsensual cavity search of her anus, rectum, and vagina was unconstitutional and
7 amounted to sexual assault.3
8 21. As of the date of the Notice of Claim, the City still had not responded to either
9 of Ms. Reynolds’ public records’ requests.
10 22. Later, however, Phoenix PD issued a statement to the media (the “Public
11 Statement”) disclosing, for the first time, that PSB had not only investigated the December
12 26, 2018 detention and search of Ms. Reynolds, but had disciplined one of the officers
13 involved.4
14 23. In the Public Statement, Phoenix PD promised to release all public
15 information related to Ms. Reynolds’ investigation to any person or agency making a public
16 records’ request.
17 24. The next day, Phoenix PD publicly released only a portion of the police report
18 related to the February 6, 2019 interrogation (i.e., the materials documenting Ms. Reynolds’
19 alleged confessions). Phoenix PD withheld all other materials: Phoenix PD produced no
20 information from the December 26, 2018 detention and cavity search (no incident or
21 supplemental reports, no video footage, and none of the materials that PPD had recently
22 admitted its professional standards bureau had produced), and produced no information
23 from the February 6, 2019 request beyond the limited police report (no officer notes, no
24
25 2
PPD retained that request, and the only copy is in its possession.
3
26 A complete copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4Information obtained since suggests that the PSB investigation was ongoing as of the time of the
First PRR.

-4-
 1 supplemental reports, and video or audio recordings that might evidence Ms. Reynolds’
2 condition at the time of her alleged statements or her invocation of her right to counsel).
3 25. As of the time of this filing, Ms. Reynolds has yet to receive any documents
4 responsive to her First PRR. She has yet to receive any documents, audio, or video relating
5 to the illegal cavity search on December 26, 2018. And she has yet to receive any
6 documents, audio, or video relating to the February 6, 2019 arrest and interrogation (beyond
7 the limited information that the City of Phoenix publicly produced to the media following
8 Ms. Reynolds’ filing of the Notice of Claim).
9 Discovery of Phoenix PD’s Unlawful Request Processing Procedure
10 26. During the course of Ms. Reynolds’ follow-up efforts to obtain this
11 information, she discovered that the City had no record of her First PRR.
12 27. This didn’t make sense. Ms. Reynolds’ counsel had hand-delivered the
13 request to Phoenix PD’s Public Records Division and received the request back with the
14 handwriting of a City employee documenting Ms. Reynolds date of birth– confirming that
15 the request had been in the City’s possession and had presumably been processed.
16 28. In light of the foregoing, it appears that the City employee failed to document,
17 scan, or otherwise log the First PRR – constituting a separate violation of Arizona Public
18 Records law, insofar as a request for public records is, itself, a public record.
19 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20 (Special Action: Violation of A.R.S. § 39-121.02)
21 29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations contained in the foregoing
22 paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
23 30. Under A.R.S. § 39.12.03(D) any person may request access to review public
24 records maintained by any governmental agency, and the custodian of public records must
25 promptly provide access, or furnish copies, of the requested records.
26

-5-
 1 31. A.R.S. § 121.01(E) provides that if the custodian of public records does not
2 promptly respond to records requests and furnish records that are subject to disclosure,
3 access will be deemed denied.
4 32. Under A.R.S. § 39-121.02, any person who has requested public records
5 pursuant to Arizona’s Public Records Laws and who has been denied access may bring a
6 special action in the superior court.
7 33. Phoenix PD is a division of the City of Phoenix (the “City”), which is a public
8 entity subject to Arizona’s public records laws.
9 34. Plaintiff’s First Public Records Request, which she submitted to the Phoenix
10 PD on February 1, 2019, was a valid request under Arizona law.
11 35. Plaintiff’s Second Public Records request, which she submitted to Phoenix
12 PD on or about February 7, 2019, was also a valid request under Arizona law.
13 36. For nearly five months, the City refused to produce or otherwise make
14 available to Ms. Reynolds this public information until the Notice of Claim was filed – at
15 which point the City selectively disclosed small portions of the public records while
16 withholding all others.
17 37. To date, and despite numerous follow-up requests, the City has yet to produce
18 to Ms. Reynolds any documents responsive her First PRR, and has produced only a limited
19 number of documents responsive to her Second PRR.
20 38. The City’s refusal to furnish requested records to Ms. Reynolds violates her
21 rights under Arizona’s public records laws.
22 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23 (Statutory Damages under A.R.S. § 12-121.02 349)
24 39. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations contained in the foregoing
25 paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
26

-6-
 1 40. A.R.S. § 39-121.02(C) entitles a person whose rights under Arizona’s public
2 records laws have been violated to seek damages against the public body resulting from the
3 denial.
4 41. Here, the City’s denial of Ms. Reynolds’ right to her public records required
5 her to file a “blind” notice of claim, effectively requiring the public to wonder about the
6 veracity of the “allegations” of a body cavity search that she lacked the evidence to prove
7 happened.
8 42. When the City finally admitted that the illegal cavity search happened, it
9 issued a public statement summarizing the evidence without disclosing it – effectively
10 requiring the public to accept its word that one officer had been disciplined, without the
11 benefit of any back-up documentation.
12 43. When the City disclosed selected portions of the records and withheld others,
13 it resulted in the media reporting that Ms. Reynolds had “admitted” to having drugs on her
14 on her, and required the public to speculate about whether the search was ultimately
15 appropriate.
16 44. If Ms. Reynolds’ right to the public records of these two incidents had not
17 been violated, the City would not have been able to publicly smear her by selectively
18 disclosing records it deemed beneficial while withholding others.
19 45. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Reynolds has been damaged in an amount
20 to be proven at trial, including but not limited to double damages under A.R.S. § 12-349,
21 which provides that parties who defend matters “solely for the purpose of delay or
22 harassment” are subject to paying double damages as a sanction for their abuse of the
23 litigation process.
24
25
26

-7-
 1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Declaratory Relief: Illegality of Phoenix PD’s Document Processing Procedures)
3 46. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations contained in the foregoing
4 paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.
5 47. Arizona’s public records law, A.R.S. § 39-121 et al, requires all “public
6 bodies” to retain and make available to the public all records that are “reasonably necessary
7 or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of their official activities and any of their
8 activities which are supported by monies from this state or any political subdivision of this
9 state.”
10 48. The City of Phoenix is a “public body” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 39-
11 121.01(A)(2).
12 49. The Phoenix PD’s Public Records Division is a division of the City of
13 Phoenix, and is therefore obligated to maintain records of their “official activities” –
14 including but not limited to the receipt and processing of public records requests.
15 50. Upon information and belief, Phoenix PD’s Public Records Division
16 maintains a procedure of processing public records request that results in the City failing to
17 maintain records of requests being made unless those requests result in the production of
18 documents.
19 51. Phoenix PD’s Public Records Division fails to maintain records of public
20 records request that do not result in the production of documents.
21 52. Ms. Reynolds’ First PPR was impacted by this policy, and she is entitled to
22 Declaratory Relief that this policy violates Arizona’s public records law.
23
24
25
26

-8-
 1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Reimbursement for Attorneys’ Fees and Reasonable Costs)
3 53. A.R.S. § 39-121.02 provides that a party who is required to file a Special
4 Action to obtain public records, and prevails on such an action, is entitled to seek
5 reimbursement of their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.
6 54. By virtue of the City’s failure or refusal to produce indisputably public
7 documents in a reasonably timely manner, Plaintiff has been forced to incur costs and
8 attorneys’ fees.
9 55. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of her costs and attorneys’ fees to compensate
10 her for this expenditure of unnecessary funds.
11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff Erica Reynolds hereby requests that the Court enter
13 an order granting relief as follows:
14 A. Injunctive relief compelling the City of Phoenix to produce all materials
15 responsive to the First and Second Public Records Requests to Ms. Reynolds;
16 B. For compensatory damages Ms. Reynolds has incurred as a result of the City’s
17 violation of Arizona’s Public Records law;
18 C. For declaratory relief declaring that the City of Phoenix’s policy of not
19 retaining, logging, or otherwise documenting public records requests that do not result in
20 production violates A.R.S. § 39-121 et al.;
21 D. For her attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121.02;
22 E. For double her compensatory damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349; and
23 F. For any and all other relief as the Court should deem just.
24 DATED this 10th day of July, 2019.
25 THE PEOPLE’S LAW FIRM, PLC
645 North 4th Avenue, Suite A
26 Phoenix, Arizona 85003

-9-
 1
By:
2 Stephen D. Benedetto
Heather Hamel
3
Attorneys for Plaintiff Erica Reynolds
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-10-