Draft Complaint

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERL'J DISTRICT OF TENOES^::L' 

WESTERN DIVISION

j CLEA.KTEE GARNER, father and next of 
! kin of EDUARD EUGENE GARNER,
I a deceased minor.

Plaintiff,
vs.
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF 
MEMPHIS, Tennessee; VJYETH CiiANDLER, 
Mayor of Memphis; JAY W. HUBBARD, 
Director of Police of Memphis; and 
E.R. IPfMON, Police Officer of the 
City of Memphis,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION 
No.

COMPLAINT

1. On October 3, 1974, Edward Eugene Garner, a 15 year old 
black citizen of the United States and of the State of Tennessee,

ij residing in the City of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, v;as 
shot and killed by an officer of the Memphis, Tennessee Police 
Department. At the time the officer shot and killed Garner, ‘no 
v;as acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, 
customs and usages of the State of Tennessee, County of Shelby, 
and City of Memphis.

JURISDICTION

2. This is an action for damages brought pursuant to 42
I U.S.C. §§ ISOl, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1983 to redress the depriv-.j- 
tion of the rights, privil.eges and immunities of Plaintiff's 
deceased son, Edward Eugene Garner, secured by the Fourth, Fifth,

I Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ro r.he United States

- 1 ■.

■ ' v ' . V  ’v

/

m



Constitution. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 
U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The matter in controversy 
exceeds the sum or value of $10,000.00, exclusive of interests 
and costs.
3. The shooting and killing of Edward Eugene Garner by a 
police officer of the City of Memphis also deprived the deceased 
of rights, privileges and immunities secured him by the Constiuu- 
tion and laws of the State of Tennessee. This action, therefore, 
seeks damages for wrongful death and survival and also with 
respect to violations of the deceased's state-conferred rights 
through exercise of this Court's pendent jurisdiction.

Parties

4. Plaintiff Cleamtee Garner is an adult black citizen of
the United States and the State of Tennessee, residing in Memphis, 
Shelby County, Tennessee. Plaintiff is father and next of kin of 
Edward Eugene Garner, deceased minor, who died on October 3, 1974
as a result of defendants' policies, practices, customs and 
usages con'iplained of herein. At the tim>e of his death, Edward 
Eugene Garner, resided with plaintiff and was fifteen years old.
5. All of the individual defendants are citizens of the 
United States and the State of Ten.nessee, residing in Memphis, 
Shelby County, Tennessee. The defendants are as follows:

(a) The Memphis Police Department is a department or 
agency of the City of Memphis and is charged by law with the 
law enforce'mont responsibilities of the City of Memphis. The 
Department has a duty to operate in a lawful manner so a s  to 
preserve to the citizens of Memphis the rights, privileges 
and inimunities guaranteed and secured to them by the 
Constitution and laws of the United States.
(b) The City of Memphis is a municipal corporation

■T '

2 -

4

-w VVJV'W -V.

- ‘
• r  ^ “ t  I.



organized and existing under the laws of the State of }
!

Tennessee. The City, pursuant to- lav;, operates the defendant'IMemphis Police Department, which the City has the duty to : 
operate in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the 
United States.
(c) Wyeth Chandler is Mayor of the City and, as such, 
is the City's chief executive officer. . Defendant Chandler 
is responsible for all policies and practices and actions 
or om.issions of the Department and its members and has the 
duty to preserve to all citizens the rights, privileges and 
imjr.unities secured by t'ne Constitution and lav;s of the 
United States. Prior to becoming Mayor, on January 1, 1972, 
defendant Chandler was a member of the Mem.phis City Council, 
the City's legislative body. !
(d) Jay W, Hubbard is and was, at all times relevant
herein. Director of Police of Memphis. In that capacity as ;

1chief executive officer of the Memphis Police Department, I 
he is responsible for establishing general practices, pro- ' 
cedures and policies with respect to the operation of that 
Department. Pursuant to that authority he has promulgated : 
regulations relating to the use of lethal force by Memphis 
officers and has authorized the use of w'eaponry and amimuni-

I
tion by police officers both of v;hich acts are complained of 
herein. Defendant H-ubbard is sued individually and in his 
official capacity with the Department.
(e) Defendant E.R. Hymon is sued individually and in 
his official capacity. At all times relevant, he was an 
officer of the City of Memphis Police Departiaent. He is a 
citizen of the United States and of the State of Tennessee, 
residing in the City of Memphis.

3 -

■' ' - ■'t --V.



First Claim for Relief-----------------------------------------------------------  I
)}\ •■ j ' {

5. On information and belief, since February 5, 1974, offi- '
I

cers of the Department have been authorized by City and Department 
officials to employ deadly force in the following circum.stances ‘
after all other reasonable means to apprehend or otherwise '

Iprevent the offense have been exhausted:
a) defense of themselves or others when confronted with 

real and immediate threats of serious bodily harm or 
death;

b) v;here the offense involves a felony and the suspect uses
or attem.pts to use or threatens the use of physical >
force against any person; and |

I
c) v;here the offense involved is (1) kidnapping, (2) mvirder 

in the 1st or 2nd degree, (3) manslaughter, (4) arson,
(5) rape, (6) assault and battery v/ith intent to |
carnally know a child under 12 years of age, (7) assault , 
and battery v>’ith intent to commit rape, (8) burglary in 
the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree, (9) assault to commit murder  ̂
in the 1st or 2nd degree, (10) assault to conimit voluri- 
tary manslaughter, or (11) arm.ed and simiple robbery.

7. On information and belief, police officers of the 't
\

Department are issued .38 Smith & Wesson Special revolvers for 
use in the carrying out of their official responsibilities.

I

8. On informiation and belief, since the latter part of i
1973, police officers of the Departeent have been issued Reming­
ton 125 grain jacketed hoi].ow-point bullets for use in .38 ;
revolvers in the exercise of their official duties.
9. The Remington 125 grain jacketed hollow-point bullet is 
a member of a class of projectiles comn:\only referred to as 
"Dum-Dum" bullets. Named after an arsenal .near Calcutta, India 
where bullets of this type were first made, "Du.m-Dum" bullets

- 4 -

'i,'

5'-'’'’kC.'k'



j possess the very special quality of expanding and flattening 
j more easily in the human body than do traditional cartridges for 
.38 revolvers.
10. Because of the expanding and flattening quality of such
bullets upon entering the human body they, unlike traditional 
cartridges, do not exit immediately but tend, instead, to expend 
their enormous force within the body. This tendency to expend 
force^within the body means that persons wounded by such bullets 
in the head or torso areas will undoubtedly suffer grievous bodilv 
harm or death.I !

!l 11 . Because of the devastating effect of "Dum-Dum" type
bullets upon the human body, their use has bee.n outlawed in inter-'

fnational v;arfare as violative of bans in various international
I agreements against "projectiles or materials of a nature to ;
1
I cause superfluous injury" (Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 
i! 1899), "arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause!l
I unnecessary suffering" (Hagvie Convention on Land Warfare of 1907jj and the Oxford Manual of Naval War of 1913) among others, and
II prohibited by regulations of the United States military for use ]
i in warfare.
12. On information and belief, on or about October 3, 1974,
Edward Eugene Garner was observed by E.R. Hynion behind a resi-

I dence located at Vollintine in the City of Memphis at abouti
I 11 P.M. in the evening.
i 13. On information and belief, defendant E.R. Hymon, ordered
I the deceased. Garner, to halt, as the deceased v;as in the process
I

j of approaching or actually climbing a 6-foot cyclone fence that 
extended the length of the area behind the residence at 739 
Vollintine.
14. \7hen the deceased Garner, who at the time of his dealu

I  was about five feet tall and under 100 pounds in weight, did not
i |I respond to defendant Hymon's order, the defendant Hymon shot the

li

- 5 -

7

■ 'V*va



i

l i

j deceased in the haclv of the head with a Rernington 125 grain 
jacketed hollow-point bullee from his service revolver.

Edward Eugene Garner expired at the scene of the
 ̂ shooting shortly after sustaining the gun-shot wound to the back 
of his head.

i|
i! 16. On information and belief, the deceased. Garner, was
unarmed at ehe time he v;as mortally v/ounded by defendant Hymon.

using his service revolver armed w'ith "Dum-Dum" typo 
bullets, dexendant E.R. Hymon knew or should have known that his 

I apprehension of Edward Eugene Garner would be effected only at 
j the cost of severely v;ounding, maiming or killing the fleeing
j j
jj youth and v/ould prevent, u.nder normal circumstances, 
j; Garner's being subjected to the due process protections of being 
jj formally charged, tried by a court or jury, and, if guilty, 
j! punished by incarceration or probation. Defendant E.R. Kymon 
knew or should have knov;n, that his shooting of Garner would

sumjaary capital punishment, a penalty which even a court 
of law could not impose consonant with rhe Eighth and Fourteenth 
Am.enaments at the time the incident in question occurred.
^2- The ■wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by

jj defendant, Hjnnon, constituted a wanton, willful, malicious ancVor 
jj negligent violation of the deceased's right not to be subjected 
ji summary punishment and death at the hands of a law enforce­
ment oxficer, but rather to be charged and tried before a court 
of lavv and convicted, if guilty, for any crimes he allegedly 
comm.itted as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth 
Amendments to the United States Constitution, specifically by 
the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

1’he wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by 
defendant, Hjmon, constituted a wanton, willful, malicious and’or 
negligent violation of the deceased's right not to be subjected

8

. ~L .’X, J > y^ ty ,-._y -,r
• -  • ■ • ' f  -



to unreasonable seizures of his body as guaranteed by the Fourth 
and Fourteenth Amendrr.ents to tlie United States Constitution. In 
view of the fact that the deceased was unarmed and posed no 

) j  threat to the life or person of the defendant, H\m\on, or any 
j third oerson, the officer's resort to lethal force ■was unnecessary
i and unreasonable, designed not to apprehend the deceased, but
I i
! rather to cause his death or grievous bodily harm to him. •
I 20 - The v.’ounding and hilling of the deceased. Garner, by .
iI defendant, H\mnon, constituted a wanton, willrul, m.alicious andI ij i  negligent violation of the deceased's right not to be subjected 
Ij to cruel and unusual uunisliiTient as guaranteed by the Eighth and
|| Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that |1!
I , (; i  the lethal force used by defendant, liymon, was unreasonable and 
!| :
!j unnecessary to apprehend the deceased. Instead, the force usedI j
ji was excessive in that the natural and reasonable consequence of
|! , !
i! of its application to the deceased v;as death or grievous bodily |
i iI j  harra. !
21. As a result of his wounding, the deceased. Garner,

: suffered and was forced to endure intense pain and suffering
| i  prior to succumbing to the mortal damage sustained by his body.
ii 22. The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by
defendant, Hymon, occurred because the deceased v;as black, that
is to say, lethal force would not have been resorted to under

j the circumstances had the deceased been white. In that regard, 
j
! the deceased was deprived of his right to equal protection of theij laws irrespective of race as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
I
: Amendment to the United States Constitution and by 42 U.S.A.
§ 1981.

- 7

9

til ."v.- - .  .  ■. J . - ,  . „  ■ ' ' ' ' A t - —  Y  ■1 "
; V  ̂  v i  ■ i-’s * .



Second Claira for Relief

23. Plaintiff reasserts and r-eallegcs paragraphs 6 through 
22 above.

24. The wounding and hilling of the deceased, Garner, by
j defendant, Kyraon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaran- 
I teed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments 
I to the United States Constitution, was a direct and proximate
I

I result of the defendant, Memphis Police Department's hiring of
I

I defendant, Hymon, despite the fact that it knew or should have 
I kno.vvUi that defendant, hymon, was unsuited to perform the duties 
of a lav/ enforcement officer and tliat his employment in tliat 
capacity would result in his causing grievous bodily injury or

t
I death to parsons in the City of Memphis. •
i . . . .  iI The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by (i
aefendant, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaran­
teed by the fourth. Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments', 
to the United States Constitution was a direct and proximate |J
result of the defendant, Memphis Police Department's hiring

I defendant, Hymon, as a law enforcement officer with the authority 'I  I
j and capacity to cause grievous bodily injury to persons in the '
I ;

j City of Memphis without providing him \/itli adequate training in
I
the use of v.’eapons generally and in the proper use of non-lethal ■ 

i and lethal force in making apprehensions. '
The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by '

I

defendanc, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaranteed 
by the fourth. Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Foui'toenth Amendments to 
the United States Constitution was a direct and proximate result

I
of the defendant, Memphis Police Department's hiring defendant, ;!
Hymon, as a law enforcement officer with the authority and capa—  ̂

nity to cause death or grievous bodily har)u to persons in the |
i

- 0 -

10



city of Memphis without providing him with adequate training in j
1

the use of w'eapons generally and in the proper use of non-lethal | 
and lethal force in m.aking apprehensions and, in reckless and !

inegligent disregard for his lack of training, issuing him "Dum- !
Dum" type bullets, the use of which could result only in death |

I

or grievous bodily injury. i
I
t27. The wounding-and killing of the deceased. Garner, by the i

defendant, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaranteed
by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Aiaendiuents to
the United States Constitution was a direct and proximate result
of defendant, Memphis Police Department's (a) providing author!- ,
zation to officers such as defendant Kymon to shoot to prevent I

jl the escape of persons suspected of committing certain non-violent |
felonies but who pose no threat to the life or physical safety I
of the officer or of third persons and (b) ar.ming such officers
with "Dum-Dum" type bullets that assure that the alleged felon |

11 ■ ; 
jj will be grievously wounded or killed instantly obviating any 1
ij}j possibility that the suspecl; will be brought to justice in accord-'
! ance with accepted notions of due process. In so doing, the ■
1
!i defendant, Memphis Police Department, authorized the imposxtxon ;
jl ■ ' 'jl of suiiamary punishiment not the apprehension of criminal suspecLs : i ' ■ '!1 for disposition by the legal process. ;
i " :I 28 As a consequence of the reckless and negligent conduct
I i
! of the defendant, Memphis Police Department, as set forth in ,
I paragraphs 24 to 27 above, the defendant, Hymon, resorted to tlie . 
I use of lethal force where non-lethal force was appropriate, '
I
II mortally wounding the deceased. Garner.

- 9 -

11



Third Clain for Relief '■ 1
I

i
1 I

29. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges paragraphs 6 through '
• '  I

22 above.
j

30- The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by i
I

defenaant, Hyrr.on, in violation of the deceased's rights guaranteed
I
j by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to 
I, the United States Constitution was a direct and proximate result
il ■ ,
jj of the defendant. Jay V I. Hubbard's hiring of defendant, Hymon,
1|
j despite the fact that defendant, Hubbard, knew or should have 
j known that defendant, Hymon, was unsuited to perform the duties
j
I of a law enforcement officer and that his employment in that
i '
j capacity v7ould result in his causing grievous bodily injury or : 
j death to persons in the City of Memphis. '
I !j 31. The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by ;
defendant, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaranteed 
by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to 
j the United States Constitution was a direct result of defendant,
1 Jay W. Hubbard's hiring defendant, Hyr:>cn, as a law enforcement ^
I
j officer v;ith the authority and capacity to cause death or gri'evevis 
! bodily injury to persons in the City of Memphis without providing ‘
j i

i him with adequate training in the use of weapons generally and in
i ^  1j the proper use of non-lethal and lethal force in making appre- 
I hensions. ■
I 32. The wounding and Icilling of the deceased. Garner, by
j defenda.nt, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaranteed
iI by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
iIj the United States Constitution was a direct and proximate resultj ;
of defendant. Jay W. Hubbard's hiring defendant, Hymon, as a law 
e.nforcement officer with the authority and capacity to cause |
death or grievous bodily harm to persons in the City of Memphis

j

without providing him with adequate training in the use of weapons;

-  10 -

12

A,.'''*" • < • t. . aV*" .V.' . ' ”•
y,‘ 4., . . ^ V •• •

'•:OV



generally and in the proper use of non-lethal and lethal force
I!

in niaking apprehensions and, in reckless and negligent disregard ‘■ I
for his lack of training, issuing hiin "Dum-Druti" type bullets '
for his use on duty, the use of which could result only in !
death or grievous bodily injury. j
33. The v^ounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by the ■
defendant, Kyrnon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaran­
teed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth a.nd Fourteenth Araend- 
ments to the United States Constitution was a direct and oroximate!j

|j result of defenda.nt. Jay W. Hubbard's (a) providing authorization 
{l to officers such as defendant Ilyiaon to shoot to prevent the
escape of persons suspected of committing certain non-violent !



l i

35. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges paragraphs 6 through 
22 above.
36. The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by

Fourth C3aim for Relief

ji defendant, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaran-
i i  ■ ' i
I! teed oy the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Areend-I I
j ments to the United States Constitution v;as a direct and pro.ximate 
j! result of the defendant. City of Merr.ohis' hiring of defendant
i!II Ilymon, despite the fact that defendant City of Menphis knew
!|} or should have known that defendant, Hymon, was unsuited to
i perform the duties of a lav? enforcement officer and that hisj
1 employi\ient in that eapacity would result in his causing grievous 
jbodily injury or death to persons in the City of Memphis.
iI 37. The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner byi
I defendant, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaran-
i
!teed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and FourteenthI
1 Amendments to the United States Constitution was a direct result
ji
j of defendant City of Memphis' hiring defendant Ilymon as a lav.'I
j enforcement officer with the authority and cajjacity to cause
i
I death or grievous bodily injury to persons in the City of Mempivis
t

I without providing him with adequate training in the use of[
llv/eapons generally and in tlie proper use of non-lethal force in
! I

ji making apprehensions.I !
38. The wounding and killing of the deceased. Garner, by
defendant, H;̂ mion, in violation of the deceased's rights guaran- 
I teed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth 
Amendments to the United States Constitution was a direct and 
proximate result of defendant, City of Memph.is' hiring dsfendant 
Hymon as a law enforcement officer with the authority and

!l

-  12 -

14

vsv.' „ 'v'v'v.r



capacity to cause death or grievous bodily harm to persons in 
the City of Memphis without providing him with adequate training 
in the use of weapons generally and in the proper use of non- 
lethal and lethal force in m.aking apprehensions and, in .reckless 
and negligent disregard for his lack of training, issuing him 
"Dum-Dum" type bullets for his use on duty, the use of which

i

j  could result only in death or grievous bodily injury.
! 39, ' The wounding and killing of the deceased Garner, by
defendant, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guarein-

j teed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amend-
i
j merits to the United States Constitution was a direct result of
I

j defendant City of Memphis' (a) providing authorization to officer;
j such as defendant Hymon to shoot to prevent the escarae of nersonsi
II suspected to coamiitting certain non-violent felonies but vrhoi
i pose no threat to the life or physical safety of the officerij or of third persons and (b) arming such officers v;ith "Dum-Dum;"

1 !
type bullets that assure tliau the alleged felon will be grievously 
wounded or killed instantly obviating any possibility that th.e

• \.-v

!| suspect w'ill be brought to justice in accordance with acceptedii
j
I notions of due process. In so doing, the defendant. City ofi
[Memphis, authorized the imposition of summary iiunishimenL not
j the apprehension of criminal suspects for disposition by the 
1

i j  legal process.
Ij 40. As a consequence of the reckless and negligent conduct
I of the defendant. City of Memphis, as set forth in paragraphs
!I 36 to 39, the defendant Hymon resorted to the use of lethal 
;| force where non-lethal force was appropriate, mortally wounding 
the deceased. Garner.

- 13

l o



41. Plaintifr reasserts and realleges paragraphs 6 through
! 22 above.

v/ounding and killing of the deceased, Garner, by 
defendant, Hymon, in violation of the deceased's rights guaran­
teed by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth 
Amendrp.ents to the Constitution was a direct and proximate result 

j| of defendant Ivyeth Chandler's publicly exx^rcssed suoport for and 
i approval of, as a member of the City Council and since becoming 
I Mayor of the Cxty Council, sliooting by officers of the Memphis 
I Police Department to prevent the escape of persons suspected of
coimnitting certain non-violent felonies but v«/ho pose no throat 

i|
|j to tne life or physical safety of the officer or of third persons
l|
ji despite the fact that he knew or should have known that: (a) The
Memphis Police Dex^artment was hiring persons as police officers 
who wore unsuited to perform the duties of lew enforcement 

I officers and whose hiring would result in their improperly causing 
grievous bodily injury or death to x^orcons in the City of Memx-'his; 
(b) The Memxihis Police Department w'as hiring persons as police 
officers with the authority and capacity to cause death or griev­
ous bodily injury to persons in the City of Memphis without

I providing them v;ith adequate training in the use of weapons 
i
generally and in the proper use of non-lethal and lethal force 
in making apprehensions; (c) The Memphis Police Department was 
arming police officers with "Dum-Dum" type bullets, the use of 
which could result only in.death or grievous bodily injury, there­
by preventing any disposition of an alleged felon in accordance 
v.'ith eaceex^ted notions of due process.

publicly supporting the shooting by police officers ; 
of the Memphis Police Department to prevent the escape of x̂ <̂ rsons '

Fifth Claim for Relief ' ■

14 -

16



suspected of committing certain non-violent felonies but -who pose 
no threat to the life or physical safety of the officer or of 
third persons, despite the factors' mentioned in 42(a) through (c) 
above, defendant Wyeth Chandler placed the prestige and authority 
of his office as City Councilman and later Mayor of Memphis 
behind the imposition of surfimary capital punishment by Memphis 
police officers which■official policy was in fact effectuated 

I in the case of the deceased, Garner, as a result of his shooting 
by defendant, Hymon.

Pendent Claim

44. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges paragraphs 1 throug'n 
43 above.
45. The foregoing acts of defendants Hyaion, Memphis Police 
Department, City of Memphis, Hubbard and Chandler which resulted 
in the death of plaintiff's son, Edv;ard Eugene Garner, also

!
! violated the Constitution and lav;s of the State of Tennessee, 
including but not limited to TENN. Code Zuin. § 40-008, as 
authorit^rLively construed by the courts of Tennessee and served 
to deprive the deceased of rights granted by those provisions.'

Prayer

45. Plaintiff respectfully requests that compensatory and
punitive damages be awarded under the federal claims in the total 
amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for which the defend­
ants are jointly and severally liable.
47. Plaintiff respectfial ly requests that compensatory and

jpunitive damages be awarded under the pendent claim in the total 
I amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for which the defend- 

j ants Hymon, Hubbard and Wyeth are jointly and severally liable.

- 15

17



I
and reasonable hospital, med.ical, funeral expenses and expenses ^

I
of adrainistration necessitated by reason of injuries causing '

j

death to the deceased. Garner. 1

48. Plaintiff also requests that this Court grant declaratory 
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that the 
use of "Duai-Durn'' type bullets by Memphis Police officers to 
apprehend persons fleeing from the alleged co.nimission of non­
violent felonies who pose no throat to the life or physical 
safety to officers or of tiiird persons violates the Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu­
tion and federal laws enacted pursuant to those Amendments.
49. Plaintiff respectfully requests that costs and counsel 
fees be awarded and that such other, furthei" and additional 
relief as miay appear to the Court to be just and equitable be 
granted.

i Dated:
Respectfully submitted.

WALTER LEJC BAILEY, JR. 
D'ARMY BAILEY
Suite 901, Tenoho Building 
161 Jefferson Avenue 
Memp>his, Tennessee 38103
JACK GREENBERG 
CILARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
DREV7 S. DAYS, III 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiff

16

IS

■--vr. I . . . ' V  '‘.-T-r, ■
WS V^. .  " • -V . Av -k'-v i ,