Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 1 of 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : VS. : : MELVIN WEARING, BRIAN SULLIVAN, : THOMAS TROCCHIO, EDWARD KENDALL, : ESTATE OF ANTHONY DILULLO, by Lisa : Bull DiLullo, Legal Representative,: JOHN DOES, RICHARD LEVIN, : LINDA LORIMER, RICHARD BRODHEAD, : THOMAS CONROY, and JAMES PERROTTI, : Defendants. : JAMES VAN DE VELDE, Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. 3:01CV02296 (RNC)

MARCH ___, 2004

SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, against the defendants, individually and collectively, for the deprivation of rights guaranteed to the plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. law. 2. This case arises because the defendants, acting Plaintiff also seeks relief under Connecticut

individually and collectively, caused the plaintiff to be publicly identified as a suspect in the December 4, 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin, a Yale University student, in New Haven, Connecticut. Thereafter, the defendants, acting individually and collectively,

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 2 of 41

wrongfully and repeatedly named the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a suspect in the Jovin murder. 3. As discussed below, the repeated public branding of the

plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a suspect in the Jovin murder has resulted in enormous negative publicity -- locally, nationally, and worldwide. Defendants' wrongful conduct has damaged

plaintiff's reputation, his job status, his present and future career, and his health and well-being. Defendants' conduct has

destroyed the life plaintiff enjoyed before December 1998. 4. The effect of the repeated public "suspect" brandings,

coupled with defendants' other actions with respect to the plaintiff during the police investigation, has been to proclaim to the world plaintiff's guilt in a heinous murder. 5. The plaintiff has never been charged with the murder of All

Suzanne Jovin, and has consistently maintained his innocence. evidence points overwhelmingly to his innocence. 6.

Despite mounting evidence proving plaintiff's lack of

involvement in the Jovin murder, and an utter absence of evidence of his involvement, defendants have refused to retract the "suspect" label from him and clear his name. Instead, they have

continued to brand him a suspect, and to single him out as the only named suspect. 7. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and

money damages, for the wrongful invasion of his right to privacy

2

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 3 of 41

under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; for violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from unconstitutional seizure; for violation of his constitutionallyprotected liberty and property interests under the Fourteenth Amendment; for violation of his right under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws; and for violation of Connecticut law. II. JURISDICTION 8. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this action under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1441(a),(b), and (c), as well as the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions. 9. Plaintiff also invokes the jurisdiction of the Court

under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. 10. Plaintiff also invokes the Court's supplemental

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 with respect to causes of action arising under the laws of the State of Connecticut. 11. The value of the rights in question exceeds $100,000.00,

exclusive of interest and costs. III. PARTIES 12. Plaintiff James Van de Velde is an American citizen, and

a resident of the State of Virginia. 13. Defendant Melvin Wearing was, at all relevant times, the At all relevant times,

Chief of Police for the City of New Haven.

3

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 4 of 41

defendant Wearing was acting under color of state law. in his individual and official capacity. 14.

He is sued

Defendant Brian Sullivan was, at all relevant times, a At

detective for the police department of the City of New Haven.

all relevant times, defendant Sullivan was acting under color of state law. 15. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. Defendant Edward Kendall was, at all relevant times, a At

detective for the police department of the City of New Haven.

all relevant times, defendant Kendall was acting under color of state law. 16. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. Defendant Thomas Trocchio was, at all relevant times, a At

detective for the police department of the City of New Haven.

all relevant times, defendant Trocchio was acting under color of state law. 17. He is sued in his individual and official capacity. Defendant Lisa Bull Dilullo is the legal representative

of the Estate of Anthony Dilullo, who, prior to his death and at all relevant times, was a detective for the police department for the City of New Haven acting under color of state law. For ease of

reference, defendant's decedent, Anthony Dilullo, will be referred to as a "defendant" herein, along with the other defendants. Defendant DiLullo is sued in his individual and official capacity. 18. Defendant Brian Norwood was, at relevant times, a

detective for the police department of the City of New Haven, chief of detectives for that department, and later Deputy Chief of Police

4

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 5 of 41

for the City of New Haven.

At all relevant times, defendant He is sued in his

Sullivan was acting under color of state law. individual and official capacity. 19.

Defendants "John Does" were and/or are other police

officers engaged in the investigation of the December 4, 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin, acting under color of state law. sued in their individual and official capacities. 20. Defendants Wearing, Sullivan, Trocchio, Kendall, DiLullo, They are

Norwood and John Does (collectively, "the New Haven defendants") were, at all relevant times, engaged in the investigation of the December 4, 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin, acting within the scope of their employment, in the performance of their duties, and under color of state law. 21. At all times mentioned in this complaint, the New Haven Each

defendants acted jointly and in concert with each other.

defendant had the duty and the opportunity to protect the plaintiff from the unlawful actions of the other defendant(s), but each defendant failed and refused to perform that duty, thereby proximately causing plaintiff's injuries. 22. Defendant Richard Levin was, at all relevant times,

President of Yale University. 23. Defendant Thomas Conroy was, at all relevant times,

Acting Director of the Yale University Office of Public Affairs, and an official spokesperson for Yale University.

5

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 6 of 41

24.

Defendant Linda Lorimer was, at all relevant times, Vice

President and Secretary of Yale University. 25. Defendant Richard Brodhead was, at all relevant times,

Dean of Yale College. 26. Defendant James Perrotti was, at all relevant times,

Chief of Police of Yale University. 27. Defendants Levin, Conroy, Lorimer, Brodhead, and Perrotti

(collectively, "the Yale defendants"), were, as detailed below, at all times and in all events relevant to this Complaint acting in concert with one or more of the New Haven defendants, and therefore were for purposes of this action "state actors" acting under color of state law. 28. IV. FACTS A. 29. Overview As discussed above, the defendants collectively have All defendants are residents of the State of Connecticut.

caused the plaintiff to be branded as the only named "suspect" in the murder of Suzanne Jovin. This has been done in a series of

stages: (1) In December 1998, the New Haven defendants, in conjunction with one or more of the Yale defendants, anonymously caused plaintiff's name to be leaked to the press as the "prime suspect" in the case; (2) In January 1999, the Yale and New Haven defendants, acting in concert, officially caused plaintiff to be named and identified as a "suspect", singling him out from a pool

6

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 7 of 41

of suspects, and naming only him; (3) the New Haven defendants have continued to identify only the plaintiff as a "suspect" in the case, while declining to reveal the identities of other suspects and making affirmative statements clearing other potential suspects; (5) the Yale defendants have also continued to identify only the plaintiff as a "suspect" in the case in periodic public statements; and (5) the New Haven defendants have engaged in various activities designed to convey to the public that plaintiff was guilty of the Jovin murder, and which did in fact convey that message; and (5) the defendants have consistently refused to retract the destructive "suspect" label from the plaintiff, notwithstanding a complete lack of evidence linking him to the murder, and affirmative evidence establishing his innocence. B. 30. age. 31. In December 1998, plaintiff was employed as a lecturer in He Background Plaintiff James Van de Velde is currently 43 years of

Political Science at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. had been so employed since the Summer of 1998. 32.

At that time, plaintiff enjoyed an excellent reputation,

and had an excellent professional and educational background. After attending and graduating from Amity Regional High School in Woodbridge, Connecticut, where he excelled as a student and otherwise, the Plaintiff attended Yale University. He graduated

7

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 8 of 41

from Yale College, with honors, in 1982.

He then attended the

Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he received two scholarships for academic excellence. He received a

Ph.D. from the Fletcher School, with honors in American and Japanese Diplomatic history, in 1988. 33. Upon graduation from the Fletcher School of Law &

Diplomacy, the Plaintiff secured a position as an arms control diplomat with the United States Department of State. 34. At age twenty-nine, the plaintiff became a White House The plaintiff

appointee under then-President George H.W. Bush.

served in Geneva, Switzerland as the executive secretary of a strategic arms control delegation. 35. The plaintiff joined the United States Naval Intelligence

Reserves and served in various assignments in Panama, Naples, Singapore, Washington, D.C., Brussels, and Bosnia. The plaintiff

now holds the rank of Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Intelligence Reserves, and has received various awards for his service as an intelligence officer. He holds a "top secret/special

compartmentalized intelligence" security clearance. 36. In 1993, the plaintiff returned to Yale University to While Dean of

become Dean of Yale University's Saybrook College.

Saybrook College, he lectured on a part-time basis in the Political Science Department.

8

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 9 of 41

37.

In 1997, the plaintiff left Yale University and accepted a

position at Stanford University as Executive Director of the Asia Pacific Research Center, which was part of the Stanford University Institute for International Studies. 38. After a nine-month period, plaintiff left Stanford, by

mutual agreement between the plaintiff and Stanford, because the plaintiff missed, in part, teaching university students -- a function not included in his position at Stanford University. 39. In August, 1998, the plaintiff returned to Yale

University, and accepted a one-year contract as a lecturer in the Political Science Department. 40. During the Fall of 1998, in addition to teaching at Yale,

the plaintiff was enrolled in a master's degree program in broadcast journalism at Quinnipiac College in Hamden, Connecticut. C. 41. The Jovin Murder On Friday, December 4, 1998, Suzanne Jovin, a 21-year-old

Yale University senior, was found murdered in the East Rock section of New Haven. Ms. Jovin's body was found in the vicinity of According

Edgehill and East Rock roads, at approximately 10 p.m.

to published reports, she was alive when discovered, but died later at a local hospital. 42. According to published reports, Ms. Jovin was last seen

on the Yale campus less than 45 minutes prior to her discovery.

9

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 10 of 41

The distance from where she was last seen, and where her body was recovered, was approximately two miles. 43. According to published reports, Ms. Jovin died from

multiple stab wounds. D. The Immediate Murder Aftermath - Yale and New Haven Undertake Joint and Concerted Action 44. The news that a Yale student had been brutally murdered

in a quiet residential section of New Haven generated great publicity and concern, both in the New Haven community and on the Yale campus. Ms. Jovin was the first Yale student murdered in New

Haven since 1991, and the second since 1976. 45. As a result, the Jovin murder immediately became a "high

profile" case, with the media and the public intently focused on the circumstances surrounding Ms. Jovin's death, and the progress of the search for her killer. 46. Because of all the facts and circumstances surrounding

the Jovin murder, the police officials responsible for the murder investigation, including the New Haven defendants, were subject to great pressure to solve the crime quickly, or at minimum to demonstrate progress toward identifying the individual(s) responsible for Ms. Jovin's brutal slaying. 47. Likewise, the Yale University hierarchy, including the

Yale defendants, were also under great pressure to help effect a speedy solution to the crime, or to show progress toward

10

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 11 of 41

identifying the individual(s) responsible for the brutal slaying. The Yale defendants had a strong interest in minimizing the negative publicity to Yale arising from the violent death of one of its students. 48. News of the murder reportedly interrupted an ongoing Corporation trustees reportedly

meeting of the Yale Corporation.

devised a plan both to support the Jovin family in their time of tragedy, and to protect Yale's public image. Exhibit 12; Exhibit 15, pp.3-4. 49. The Yale defendants also had a strong interest in See Exhibit 10, p.3;

publicizing any information that Ms. Jovin was not the victim of a random act of violence; the 1976 and 1991 murders of Yale students in New Haven were the product of random violence, and generated significant negative publicity for the University, because they bolstered a negative image of the City of New Haven as a potentially unsafe place at which to attend school. 50. Accordingly, the Yale University administration and Yale

University police, including the Yale defendants, and the New Haven police, including the New Haven defendants, began working together, in concert with each other, in an intensive effort to solve the murder. 51. Yale University police officers are sworn police officers

in the State of Connecticut, and possess the same powers and responsibilities as City of New Haven police officers, including

11

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 12 of 41

the power to investigate crimes and arrest violators.

Defendant

Perrotti has been Chief of Police for the Yale Police Department from December 1998 to the present. 52. Defendant Perrotti stated on or about December 5, 1998

that the Yale Police Department was working "shoulder to shoulder" with the New Haven Police Department in the Jovin murder investigation. Defendant Perrotti further stated that six New

Haven detectives and three Yale detectives had been assigned to the case by 1:00 p.m. on December 5, 1998. 53. See Exhibit 10.

Later, on December 9, 1998, it was reported that Yale

University police had four detectives working with eight city detectives on the case. 54. See Exhibit 2, 11.

The collaborative effort between the Yale University law

enforcement personnel and New Haven Police Department personnel constituted, in effect, a joint Yale/New Haven law enforcement task force. 55. As detailed further below, the communication,

collaboration, and concerted effort between and among the New Haven defendants and the Yale defendants continued into January 1999 and beyond, at all times relevant to this complaint, with all parties still attempting to identify the person or persons responsible for the Jovin homicide.

12

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 13 of 41

E. 56.

December 1998 - Plaintiff's Name is Leaked as The "Prime Suspect" Prior to her death, Ms. Jovin had been a student in one Plaintiff had also served as her

of plaintiff's Fall 1998 classes. senior thesis advisor. 57.

Plaintiff's residence at the time, 305 St. Ronan Street

in New Haven, was approximately one-half mile from where Ms. Jovin's body was found. Numerous other Yale faculty and

administrators resided in the same residential neighborhood. 58. On Monday afternoon, December 7, 1998, plaintiff met

briefly with members of the police task force investigating the Jovin murder. The investigating officers asked plaintiff for a

copy of Ms. Jovin's senior thesis draft, which she had left with him on the afternoon of December 4, 1998. They also asked for, and

received, a copy of a brief cover note from Ms. Jovin to the plaintiff that accompanied the draft, indicating that she had incorporated changes based on plaintiff's comments on a prior draft. 59. On December 8, 1998, the New Haven Register published a

front-page article on the Jovin murder investigation, over a banner headline announcing that Suzanne Jovin "KNEW HER KILLER." Exhibit 1. See

The article quoted defendant Wearing as saying that the Defendant Wearing also stated,

police did not have a suspect.

however, that the police believed that "the victim was known to the assailant."

13

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 14 of 41

60.

In the same article, plaintiff was identified by name as

a lecturer in Yale's Political Science department, and Ms. Jovin's senior thesis advisor. It was also reported that Ms. Jovin had

seen plaintiff on the day of her death, when she dropped off her draft paper. Plaintiff was quoted as lauding Ms. Jovin and

lamenting her tragic death. 61. Plaintiff had previously offered similar comments at the

request of WVIT-Channel 30, a Connecticut television station at which plaintiff had recently concluded an internship. Plaintiff

was requested to speak briefly about Ms. Jovin when officials at the station -- his former employer -- learned that he had been her thesis advisor. 62. On Tuesday December 8, in the early evening, New Haven

police officers again visited plaintiff, and requested that he accompany them to New Haven Police Headquarters to view photographs, and answer additional questions. 63. Plaintiff agreed.

The December 8, 1998 interview turned into an Defendants Trocchio and During the course of the

interrogation spanning several hours. DiLullo conducted this interrogation.

interrogation, defendants asked plaintiff if he had killed Ms. Jovin. The tone of the interrogation was accusatory, offensive,

and distressing. 64. Plaintiff voluntarily submitted to this interrogation --

even after it became apparent that the defendants had

14

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 15 of 41

misrepresented their intent in asking him to submit to questioning. He flatly denied murdering Ms. Jovin. Plaintiff explained that he

had seen her very briefly on the afternoon of December 4th, when she dropped off her revised thesis draft at his office, in the Political Science department on Prospect Street in New Haven. 65. During the interrogation, plaintiff offered the defendant

officers the opportunity to search his vehicle, search his residence, subject him to a polygraph examination, and take blood and/or other DNA evidence from him. The officers searched

plaintiff's vehicle with his consent, but otherwise declined plaintiff's offers of assistance. 66. Plaintiff left the interrogation with the defendant

officers after approximately four hours, when the officers stated they had no further questions for him. Plaintiff voluntarily

answered every question put to him, and never sought legal advice or assistance. 67. The next morning, December 9, 1998, the New Haven

Register announced, in a 1.5 inch bold-face headline, "YALE TEACHER GRILLED IN KILLING." See Exhibit 2. A sub-heading read, "Prime The

suspect lives near where slain student found, sources say".

article, citing "city and university sources close to the case", stated that a Yale "educator" who taught Ms. Jovin was the "lead suspect" in the police investigation into her murder. It also

15

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 16 of 41

stated a "male Yale teacher" had been questioned "Monday and again Tuesday night." 68. Defendant Sullivan stated, on the record, that the police Defendant Wearing issued similar on-

did not have any suspects. the-record denials.

However, the information regarding plaintiff's

interviews, and the statement that plaintiff had been interviewed on Monday and Tuesday night and was the "prime suspect" or "lead suspect," could only have come, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the New Haven defendants. 69. Indeed, in an interview published more than two years

later in the Hartford Courant, defendant Wearing admitted that "you can blame the police to some extent" for the leaked publication and identification of the plaintiff -- and only the plaintiff -- as the lead suspect in the Jovin murder investigation. Defendant Wearing

conceded that it is "not a good thing for someone's name to get out there." 70. As noted, the December 9, 1998 Register article cited On information and belief, the

city and "university" sources.

"university" source or sources were one or more of the Yale defendants, who were kept apprised of the progress of the Yale/New Haven task force's investigation. 71. On information and belief, prior to the morning of

December 9, 1998, one or more of the Yale defendants learned from one or more of the New Haven defendants, or from another law

16

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 17 of 41

enforcement source, that plaintiff had been questioned at length by the New Haven police about possible involvement in the Jovin homicide. 72. Although plaintiff was not identified by name in the

December 9th Register article, it was apparent that Van de Velde was the individual to whom the article referred. One day earlier,

plaintiff had been identified by name as a Yale lecturer who taught Ms. Jovin -- in an article that proclaimed, according to the police, that Ms. Jovin "knew her killer." Likewise, the December

9th article identified the "prime suspect" as a Yale "educator" or "teacher" -- a label that applied correctly to a lecturer such as the plaintiff, but not to a professor. Plaintiff had been

identified as a Yale "lecturer" in the December 8th Register article. Read in context, the December 9th "Prime Suspect" article

effectively identified plaintiff. 73. Subsequent events demonstrated that plaintiff had On the morning of December 9th, while

effectively been identified.

approaching his dentist's office, a television news reporter ambushed plaintiff on the street, with cameras rolling, and asked if he was the individual referred to in that morning's newspaper story. The reporter asked plaintiff if he was responsible for Ms. After this report aired, plaintiff was approached

Jovin's death.

by numerous print and television news media, asking about his possible involvement in the Jovin murder.

17

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 18 of 41

74.

The public identification of plaintiff as the "prime

suspect" in the Jovin murder investigation generated a frenzy of publicity -- locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. 75. One television news outlet, WVIT-TV Channel 30,

specifically requested on behalf of the New Haven Police during a December 1998 newscast that anyone with information about the plaintiff come forward -- further reinforcing defendants' view that plaintiff was the "lead suspect" in the Jovin murder case. 76. The plaintiff suffered immediate and irreparable harm For instance, shortly after being

from the defendants' conduct.

identified as a suspect in the Jovin investigation, he was suspended from the Quinnipiac College Masters in Broadcast Journalism Program. The leaked disclosure cemented the plaintiff

in the public eye as the focus of the Jovin murder investigation, and as the person likely responsible for the crime. It spawned

intense public scrutiny of plaintiff's background and personal life, and triggered public speculation, which continues to this day, as to whether he killed Ms. Jovin. 77. The defendants' disclosure branded plaintiff as the

"lead" suspect in the Jovin murder case, even though there was not a shred of forensic or other evidence to link the plaintiff to the murder; there was no credible motive evidence; there was no evidence of any improper relationship between plaintiff and Ms.

18

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 19 of 41

Jovin; and there was no credible evidence regarding the plaintiff's background to link him to such a terrible crime. 78. Defendants' actions were undertaken with knowledge that

there was no evidence that would even approach the legally-defined level of "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" to believe that the plaintiff was responsible for the murder of Ms. Jovin. 79. Nevertheless, defendants anonymously caused plaintiff,

and only the plaintiff, to be identified as the "lead suspect" or "prime suspect" in the case. 80. The leaked disclosure of plaintiff as the "prime suspect"

served all defendants' interest in showing progress in the Jovin murder investigation, and in quelling public fear that a Yale student had been brutally murdered in a random act of violence in one of New Haven's most exclusive residential neighborhoods. It

conveyed a message to the public that the individual allegedly responsible for the Jovin murder -- the plaintiff -- had been identified. The disclosure of the plaintiff as the "prime suspect"

alleviated the pressure on the defendants connected with the Jovin murder investigation that had arisen in the immediate aftermath of Ms. Jovin's death. F. 81. January 1999 - Plaintiff Is Named An "Official" Suspect In An Otherwise-Anonymous Pool For approximately one month after the December 1998 leak

of plaintiff's name as the "prime suspect", the New Haven

19

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 20 of 41

defendants adopted an "official" position, in on-the-record comments regarding the Jovin murder investigation, that the inquiry was not focused on any individual in particular, and that there were no "suspects" in the case. 82. During this time, from approximately December 7, 1998 to

January 11, 1999, Yale University classes were in recess for the Christmas break. 83. During this time, between December 7, 1998 and January

11, 1999, New Haven police officials, including some or all of the New Haven defendants, spoke regularly with Yale officials, including one or more of the Yale defendants, about the general progress of the Jovin investigation, and specifically about the investigation of plaintiff. 84. According to published reports, defendant Lorimer was,

from the beginning, actively, regularly and continuously in communication with the New Haven Police Department, including the New Haven defendants, about the Jovin murder investigation. Exhibit 15, p.5. See

On information and belief, defendant Lorimer

discussed with the New Haven defendants plaintiff's status as a suspect. 85. The New Haven defendants shared with the Yale defendants

information about the Jovin murder investigation, and about plaintiff's status in that investigation, that was not shared with the general public.

20

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 21 of 41

86.

During this time, the New Haven police, including the New

Haven defendants and the Yale police continued to work together in a collaborative law enforcement effort. 87. For instance, on December 14, 1998, plaintiff attempted

to enter his office in the Yale political science department building. 88. Plaintiff was denied entry by Yale police officers, who

were under the general command of defendant Perrotti, until a Detective Rodriguez of the New Haven Police Department could be called to the scene. 89. Detective Rodriguez subsequently arrived at the scene.

He asked plaintiff if he and the Yale officers could search the plaintiff's office. search form. The officers handed plaintiff a consent-to-

Plaintiff declined to sign the form, stating to

Detective Rodriguez that, as previously directed, all communications should be with his counsel. 90. On the evening of January 10, 1999, the night before the

start of Yale University's spring semester, plaintiff was summoned to meet with defendant Brodhead. Defendant Brodhead, acting on

behalf of the Yale defendants, informed plaintiff that the two spring semester classes he was scheduled to teach had been cancelled. Plaintiff was advised that he could continue in his job

performing "research," but was denied the opportunity to teach in

21

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 22 of 41

the classroom, or to serve as a senior essay advisor or directed reading tutor for any students during the Spring 1999 semester. 91. Prior to January 10, 1999, the New Haven defendants

informed Yale University officials, including the Yale defendants, that plaintiff was among a "pool of suspects" in the Jovin murder investigation, and that police would be questioning Yale students in the coming weeks. 92. On January 11, 1999, Yale University, through defendant

Conroy, issued a statement in response to inquiries about the cancellation of plaintiff's spring classes. The statement said

that, although Yale presumed Van de Velde to be innocent of the Jovin murder, it had been informed by the New Haven Police Department that plaintiff was in a "pool of suspects" in the Jovin murder, and that police would be questioning people on campus about him in the coming weeks. 93. A spokesperson for defendant Wearing admitted that

defendant Wearing had been involved in formulating the "pool of suspects" statement released by Yale. 94. See Exhibit 13.

Yale University's January 11, 1999 statement was the

first official public disclosure of plaintiff's "suspect" status, and, when read in context with prior events, confirmed the "prime suspect" information that had been leaked in December 1998. 95. The other Yale defendants were aware of and/or approved

the statement issued by defendant Conroy prior to its release.

22

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 23 of 41

96.

The statement repeated information provided by defendant

Wearing and/or the other New Haven defendants about the plaintiff. After Yale released the "pool of suspects" statement, New Haven police officials, including the New Haven defendants, were called upon by the media to confirm plaintiff's "suspect" status. The New

Haven defendants confirmed that plaintiff was indeed in a "pool of suspects." 97. According to published reports, "Yale's decision to

cancel Van de Velde's classes" came after "weeks of discussion between Yale and police officials about what to do about Van de Velde's employment once the new semester started." 98. See Exhibit 14.

No other individual in the "pool of suspects" was To date, no other

publicly named and identified in January 1999.

member of the "pool of suspects" has been identified. 99. By contrast, the New Haven defendants have specifically

announced that Ms. Jovin's boyfriend, as well as an adult she was mentoring in a "Best Buddies" program on the evening she died, were not and are not suspects. 100. There was, and still is, no rational basis for the defendants to have identified the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a suspect, and not to have published the identities of the others in the "pool of suspects." 101. The formal announcement that plaintiff was a suspect in the Jovin homicide investigation triggered another, more intense,

23

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 24 of 41

frenzy of publicity.

National television news organizations, among

others, aired stories about the Jovin murder, and the fact that plaintiff, a respected former teacher of Ms. Jovin's, had been singled out as a suspect. 102. A common theme has infected virtually all media coverage that ensued in the wake of the January 1999 announcement -- the Jovin murder case was a tantalizing mystery, with a Yale faculty member as the prime suspect in that mystery. The common question

underlying the media frenzy was, "Is James Van de Velde a murderer?" The defendants' announcement legitimized and caused

such debate and speculation -- and further cemented Van de Velde's link to the Jovin murder. See Exhibit 3 (February 14, 1999 New

Haven Register article summarizing media coverage of plaintiff and Jovin murder; "Their pictures always appear together"). 103. For instance, prior to the January 11, 1999 official "pool of suspects" announcement, the Hartford Courant had declined to publish plaintiff's name, and had only reported that a Yale teacher had been questioned in the Jovin investigation. 104. After the January 11, 1999 announcement, the Courant determined such restraint was no longer necessary, and began printing plaintiff's name. On January 13, 1999 the newspaper

published a front-page article entitled "From Pillar to Pariah Yale Lecturer Combats Suspicions He Killed 'Inspiring' Senior". See Exhibit 4. The article discussed plaintiff's stellar

24

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 25 of 41

background and teaching record, but, citing "sources", claimed that he had been the subject of police complaints by television reporters. The implication of this report was that plaintiff may

have had some character flaw that made him capable of murder. 105. On information and belief, the anonymous "source" statements in the January 13, 1999 Courant article were provided by one or more of the New Haven defendants. They were another part of

a calculated campaign by the New Haven defendants to portray plaintiff as an individual capable of murder, and to further the public perception that he, the lone named "suspect," was guilty of murder. 106. Indeed, in a June 29, 1999 Courant article summarizing the state of the investigation, it was reported that "Police have mostly declined to speak on the record for months, and instead have leaked information to the media." 107. The publicity frenzy that ensued from the January 11, 1999 official branding of plaintiff as a "suspect" cemented plaintiff in the public eye as the Jovin murder suspect. In

effect, as a result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff was charged, tried and convicted in the media, and therefore in the minds of much of the public -- without regard to facts, logic, legal standards, or the rule of law.

25

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 26 of 41

G.

January 1999 - Continued Joint Action By Yale and New Haven Parties

108. The joint action between the Yale and New Haven defendants continued after the official announcement of plaintiff as a "suspect" in the Jovin homicide. 109. On January 21, 1999, plaintiff, who remained as a nominal lecturer and Yale employee after Yale cancelled his classes, was summoned to meet with Deputy Dean of Yale College Joseph Gordon, who was working under the direction of defendants Levin, Brodhead and Lorimer. 110. Gordon stated he had been "tasked" by defendant Lorimer to discuss certain questions with plaintiff about his political science classes. Gordon further indicated that the questions had

been prompted by a letter received by Yale from the family of Suzanne Jovin. 111. Plaintiff answered all of Gordon's questions relating to his classes. 112. Gordon continued to ask questions of plaintiff not related to the issues raised in the letter -- such as whether he had received e-mail from Suzanne Jovin, and when he had last seen her. 113. Well before the Gordon interview, on or about December 10, 1998, plaintiff had informed the New Haven defendants, through

26

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 27 of 41

counsel, that he would continue to respond to questions, but that all communication should be directed to him through his lawyers. 114. On information and belief, Gordon's inquiries into plaintiff's activities and interaction with Ms. Jovin during the week of her murder were undertaken at the request of the New Haven defendants, as part of the ongoing joint law enforcement collaborative effort with the Yale defendants. 115. On information and belief, the Yale defendants shared

the information gathered from plaintiff during the Gordon interview with the New Haven defendants. 116. In late April 1999, in a published report, defendant Lorimer stated that she had regular conversations with the New Haven police during the initial investigation, and that, as of April 1999, she still spoke with the New Haven police two or three times a week about the Jovin case. H. See Exhibit 15, p.5.

1999 to the Present - Defendants Continue To Brand Plaintiff A "Suspect", And To Identify Only Him As A Suspect, Even When Faced With Exculpatory Forensic Evidence

117. From 1999 to the present, the New Haven defendants have continued to label plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a "suspect" in the Jovin murder case, and have continued to preserve the confidentiality of other members of the "pool of suspects."

27

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 28 of 41

118. From 1999 to the present, the Yale defendants have likewise continued to label plaintiff a "suspect" in the Jovin murder, although not as frequently as the New Haven defendants. 119. Defendants have never identified another suspect in the Jovin murder case, even though the New Haven defendants have admitted that such suspects exist. 120. For instance, in a June 29, 1999 article in the New Haven Register, defendant Wearing stated that Van de Velde "has not been ruled out" of the pool of suspects. He stated further that

"[n]obody has been ruled out in the pool of suspects," but refused to identify any other suspects. See Exhibit 5.

121. Likewise, in an August 12, 1999 article in the New Haven Register, defendant Sullivan stated that plaintiff remained in the "pool of suspects." were identified. As in January, no other members of that pool

See Exhibit 6.

122. On December 3, 1999, defendant Wearing convened a press conference on the occasion of the one-year anniversary of Ms. Jovin's murder. Numerous representatives of the print and

electronic media attended this press conference. 123. At the conference, Wearing admitted that "ten people remain in the 'pool of suspects'". He reaffirmed that Van de Velde

remained a suspect, but did not state what evidence, if any, supported that label. Defendant Wearing again refused to identify

28

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 29 of 41

any of the other individuals in the "suspect" pool with the plaintiff. 124. Defendant Wearing admitted that the police "[had] a long way to go" before solving the case. After acknowledging the

difficulty of the investigation, defendant Wearing reaffirmed his department's resolve to find Ms. Jovin's killer, stating "If we have to ruffle feathers, disrupt some people's careers to do that, we will." See Exhibit 7.

125. The "ruffle feathers" comment was clearly directed at the plaintiff, and was consistent with the defendants' pattern of publicly targeting the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as a suspect in the case. Plaintiff's career had already been

significantly disrupted by the defendants' conduct. 126. Defendant Wearing also issued a written statement noting the world-wide media attention devoted to the Jovin murder investigation, and describing it as a high profile case. Exhibit 8. 127. In September 2000, defendant Levin referred to plaintiff as a "major suspect" in the Jovin murder investigation, in a public statement published in the Hartford Courant. See Exhibit 16, p.2. See

128. In or about late 2000, as part of their ongoing collaborative effort with New Haven in the Jovin murder investigation, the Yale defendants hired Andrew Rosenzweig, a private investigator, to assist in the murder investigation.

29

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 30 of 41

129. On information and belief, the New Haven defendants provided Mr. Rosenzweig, who at all times was acting on behalf of the Yale defendants, with access, either direct or indirect, to their Jovin case investigation file. Further, the New Haven

defendants provided Mr. Rosenzweig with a desk at the New Haven police department. 130. Case investigation files are typically kept confidential from private civilians, such as Mr. Rosenzweig. He was provided

access to the Jovin case file, on information and belief, as the result of an agreement between the Yale defendants and the New Haven defendants, among others. 131. In March 2001, as further part of their ongoing collaborative effort, Yale and the New Haven police convened a joint press conference to announce an increased reward for information solving the Jovin murder investigation, and to solicit the public's assistance with respect to a previously-unidentified light brown or tan van that was spotted at the crime scene at the time Ms. Jovin was stabbed. 132. The new reward money, $100,000, was offered by Yale to supplement a $50,000 reward previously offered by the State of Connecticut. 133. Defendant Wearing represented the New Haven Police at the press conference. Defendant Perrotti attended on behalf of Yale,

at the request of defendant Levin.

30

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 31 of 41

134. Defendant Levin stated in connection with the announcement of the new reward money that Yale had offered the increase to the state reward after investigators, which on information and belief included the New Haven defendants, requested it. 135. At this press conference, defendant Wearing reiterated yet again the plaintiff was a suspect in the Jovin homicide. He

acknowledged that other unnamed suspects ["a pool of suspects of several people"] "could have had the opportunity" to commit the murder, but refused to identify any of those individuals. 136. Defendant Wearing also declined to state what evidence supported plaintiff's continued status as a "suspect," and the only named suspect, in the Jovin case. 137. In a lengthy April 1, 2001 Hartford Courant article, defendant Wearing again reaffirmed that plaintiff was a suspect in the Jovin murder; he acknowledged that there were "a few" other suspects, but declined to disclose their identities. 138. In the same April 1, 2001 Courant article, defendant Wearing admitted that "you can blame the police to some extent" for the fact that plaintiff's name became public as a suspect in the Jovin murder. Id.

139. On April 25, 2001, in a front-page article in the New Haven Register, defendant Wearing stated again that "on the basis of everything we have been able to develop, [Van de Velde] is a

31

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 32 of 41

legitimate, bona fide suspect." identify any other suspects.

Defendant Wearing again did not

140. Between 1998 and the present, the defendants have steadfastly refused to remove the suspect label from the plaintiff, or to identify any evidence that justifies this destructive label. 141. During this same period of time, the defendants have stated that the investigation has "exhausted all avenues," that they have few if any leads, and little if any evidence identifying Ms. Jovin's killer. 142. In October 2001, the Office of the State's Attorney for the Judicial District of New Haven announced that unidentified male DNA had been recovered from the fingernails of Ms. Jovin. According to the State's Attorney's statement, the male DNA was commingled with Ms. Jovin's blood. 143. The existence of this DNA sample had not previously been revealed. Prior to this revelation, in April 2001, plaintiff

voluntarily provided a DNA sample when requested to do so during a meeting with Mr. Rosenzweig and another private investigator hired by the Yale defendants. 144. The October 2001 statement confirmed that the unidentified male DNA commingled with the blood from Ms. Jovin's fingernails did not match the plaintiff's DNA, and was not his. 145. Even in the face of this forensic evidence excluding the plaintiff as the source of critical DNA material, the defendants

32

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 33 of 41

have refused to retract the "suspect" label from the plaintiff, or to clear him of involvement in the Jovin murder. 146. In fact, defendants continue to label the plaintiff a "suspect" in the Jovin murder. In a February 1, 2004 article in

the Hartford Courant, defendant Brian Norwood, currently Deputy Chief of Police, was asked whether James Van de Velde was still a suspect in the murder investigation. "I would say the prime suspect." Defendant Norwood replied:

See Exhibit ___.

147. Defendant Norwood did not identify any other suspects, past or present, in the Jovin murder investigation in his public comments in the February 1, 2004 Courant article. 148. Defendant Norwood's comment labeling plaintiff "the prime suspect" accompanied another Courant article, authored by plaintiff, setting forth suggestions for how the Jovin murder could be solved. 149. As a result of defendants' December 1998 leak and repeated statements confirming his "suspect" status, plaintiff has been irretrievably linked with the Jovin murder. Virtually every

article about the Jovin murder identifies Van de Velde by name, as "the suspect" in the case. I. Other Conduct Designed To Establish

33

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 34 of 41

Plaintiff's Guilt In The Public Eye 150. Between December 1998 and the present, defendants have engaged in a continuing course of conduct designed to insinuate, and which did insinuate, plaintiff's guilt in the public eye. 151. The defendants' conduct was not limited to the repeated naming of plaintiff, and only the plaintiff, as the "suspect" in the "pool of suspects." 152. The defendants attempted to manipulate the media coverage of the Jovin murder investigation to increase the pressure on the plaintiff, and further the public perception that he was guilty of murdering Ms. Jovin. 153. For instance, in April 1999, the defendants enlisted the assistance of an amateur "treasure hunters" club -- a group of metal detector enthusiasts -- to help in the search for physical evidence connected to the Jovin murder. 154. The defendants notified members of the media in advance of this orchestrated search. Television film crews were present,

having been alerted by the defendants. 155. The defendants led the search, beginning in the vicinity of Edgehill and East Rock roads, where Ms. Jovin's body had been found. The search was interrupted, and resumed in the vicinity of See Exhibit 9.

305 St. Ronan Street -- where plaintiff resided.

156. The next day, the media reported that during the search an item was recovered on the '300' block of St. Ronan Street,

34

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 35 of 41

approximately 100 feet from plaintiff's residence.

Defendant Anonymous

Sullivan described the discovery as "forensic evidence."

"sources" said the recovered item was not the murder weapon. 157. In a subsequent newspaper article, similar anonymous "sources" reported that the item recovered was an automobile owner's manual, and "described the finding as potentially important." For the record, Defendant Sullivan declined comment.

See Exhibit 9 (series of articles). 158. The conduct of the metal detector search -- in the presence of invited media -- was intended to, and did, further emphasize plaintiff's status as "the suspect" in the Jovin murder, and further the public perception that plaintiff was responsible for the murder. The defendants' conduct, and comments about the

location and supposed significance of the recovered evidence, created a public perception that the investigative "net" was closing in on the plaintiff. 159. On information and belief, the item recovered was the owner's manual from plaintiff's Jeep Wrangler, which had been broken into in October 1998. Plaintiff's owner's manual had been

missing since that theft -- before the Jovin murder -- and therefore had no "forensic" significance. 160. Plaintiff informed the defendants of these facts, immediately after learning that the mystery "forensic evidence" was supposedly an automobile manual. The defendants did not issue any

35

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 36 of 41

subsequent statement disputing the potential significance of the alleged "forensic evidence" recovered near plaintiff's home, or correcting the public perception they had created that significant evidence relevant to the Jovin homicide investigation had been recovered near plaintiff's home. J. Conclusion and Damages

161. As described above, beginning in December 1998 and continuing to the present day, the defendants have repeatedly branded plaintiff as a "suspect," and the only named suspect, in the brutal murder of Suzanne Jovin, and have engaged in other conduct which created and furthered a public perception that plaintiff committed that murder. 162. As described above, the plaintiff has consistently maintained his innocence, and has never been charged with the Jovin murder. 163. The actions of the defendants were reckless or intentional, and violated the plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights. 164. The actions of the defendants were willful or wanton, and were undertaken without regard for plaintiff's rights. 165. As a result of the defendants' actions, plaintiff received a great amount of unfavorable publicity, irreparably damaging his reputation and causing him to experience humiliation,

36

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 37 of 41

disgrace, mental anguish, psychological trauma, and severe emotional distress. 166. As a further result of defendants' actions, plaintiff lost, and continues to lose, employment opportunities, suffered damage to his future earning capacity, and was forced to incur legal and other expenses. 167. As a further result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's job status at Yale University, and with the United States Navy Reserves, was altered. 168. As a further result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's standing within the Quinnipiac College Masters in Broadcast Journalism Program was damaged, and plaintiff was suspended from that program. 169. The devastating impact of defendants' actions on plaintiff's reputation and livelihood is illustrated by the comments of several students after plaintiff was first officially identified as a suspect, and after his classes were cancelled. One

student stated, "[a]lthough I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty, I would not register for a course with a professor who's been named a suspect in a murder." Another student was

quoted as saying: "I had registered for one of his seminars, and I redid my schedule. It's not worth the risk." Yet another student

stated, "There is this, like, maybe general sense in people's minds

37

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 38 of 41

that maybe he is guilty even though they haven't really proven anything yet." 170. Yet another student stated in January 1999: "By now it would be almost impossible for him [Van de Velde] to find another teaching job, no matter what he has to offer to students. the case is never solved, there will always be suspicion surrounding him wherever he goes." 171. Because no amount of money damages would be sufficient to remedy fully the damage plaintiff has suffered, plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law, and therefore seeks, in addition to money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court. Even if

38

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 39 of 41

FIRST COUNT (42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants) 172. Paragraphs 1 through 171 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as though fully set forth herein. 173. The individual, collective, and concerted actions of the defendants described above violated rights guaranteed to the plaintiff under the United States Constitution, as follows: a. plaintiff's right to equal protection of the laws, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; plaintiff's right to privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, i.e., the right to be free from governmental intrusion, and to be "left alone"; plaintiff's right to procedural and substantive due process, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including but not limited to his "liberty" and "property" interests thereunder; plaintiff's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

b.

c.

d.

174. The defendants' conduct also violated plaintiff's rights under the Constitution of the State of Connecticut. SECOND COUNT (Invasion of Privacy - False Light Against All Defendants) 175. Paragraphs 1 through 171 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as though fully set forth herein. 176. The individual, collective and concerted actions of the defendants described above, beginning in December 1998 and

39

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 40 of 41

continuing to the present day, caused plaintiff to be placed in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 177. In undertaking these actions, the defendants acted with knowledge of the falsity of the matters published, or with reckless disregard to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which plaintiff as a result would be placed. THIRD COUNT (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants) 178. Paragraphs 1 through 171 are hereby incorporated by reference and re-alleged as though fully set forth herein. 179. In engaging in the course of conduct described above between December 1998 and the present with respect to the plaintiff, defendants intended to inflict upon him severe emotional distress. 180. Defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress as the likely result of their actions. 181. The actions of the defendants with respect to the plaintiff in connection with the Jovin murder investigation were extreme and outrageous. 182. As a direct result of defendants' conduct, in addition to the damages already specified above, plaintiff suffered, and will suffer in the future, extreme mental anguish, nervousness, anxiety and illness, and emotional distress.

40

Case 3:01-cv-02296-RNC

Document 67-2

Filed 03/04/2004

Page 41 of 41

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Court: 1. Assume pendent party and pendent claim jurisdiction, if

necessary; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Award compensatory damages to the plaintiff; Award punitive damages to the plaintiff; Order appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief; Award costs of this action, plus attorney's fees; and Award such other and further relief as the Court deems

appropriate and just.

THE PLAINTIFF JAMES VAN DE VELDE By____________________________________ David T. Grudberg, ct01186 JACOBS, GRUDBERG, BELT & DOW, P.C. 350 Orange St. P.O. Box 606 New Haven, CT 06503 Ph.:(203) 772-3100 Fax:(203) 772-1691 Email: [email protected] James I. Meyerson 396 Broadway - Suite 601 New York, New York 10013 Ph.:(212) 226-3310 His Attorneys

41