Henry Bennett Lawsuit

Case 9:17-cv-80334-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2017 Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 9:17-CV-80334
FELICIA MITCHELL, in her individual capacity,

and as Personal Representative of the Estate of HENRY BENNETT, III, deceased;
and
HENRY BENNETT, in his individual capacity,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW, Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida,

in his official capacity; and,
ANDREW CANO, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff FELICIA MITCHELL, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of HENRY BENNETT, III, deceased, and HENRY BENNETT,
in his individual capacity, Plaintiffs, and hereby files this Complaint by and through the
undersigned counsel against the above-named Defendants SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW,
Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, in his official capacity; and ANDREW CANO, in his
individual capacity, for causing the death of HENRY BENNETT, III, on January 16, 2016, for
which Plaintiffs now seek damages, and in support thereof alleges as follows:
VENUE, JURISDICTION, AND PARTIES
1. This action is brought for wrongful death pursuant to Floridas Wrongful Death
Statute 768.21, and United States Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, 42 U.S.C. 1983.
1

Plaintiff Felicia Mitchell has complied with all conditions precedent set forth by the state of
Florida pursuant to Florida Statute 768.28.
2. Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office (hereinafter PBCSO) is a Florida
corporation or political subdivision of the state of Florida, organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Florida, and operating and conducting business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
PBCSO employs Defendant SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW and Defendant officer ANDREW
CANO; and as such, SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW, in his official capacity, is ultimately liable
for officers actions and inactions that result in injury to citizens.
3. Defendant Officer ANDREW CANO was a resident of Palm Beach County,
Florida, at the time of the incident.
4. Defendant SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW was a resident of Palm Beach County,
Florida, at the time of the incident.
5. Decedent HENRY BENNETT, III, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida,
at the time of the subject incident.
6. Plaintiff FELICIA MITCHELL, is the natural mother and Personal Representative
of the Estate of HENRY BENNETT, III, and was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, at
all times material to the subject incident and as of todays date.
7. Plaintiff HENRY BENNETT is the natural father of HENRY BENNETT, III, and
was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, at all times material to the subject incident and as
of todays date.
8. All of the acts or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in Palm Beach
County, Florida.
2

9. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida as the incident arises out of Palm
Beach County, and Defendants operate businesses and/or a governmental agency and/or reside
and/or work in Palm Beach County.
10. This is an action seeking damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys fees.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. HENRY BENNETT, III was a nineteen year-old, African-American man that was
shot and killed by Palm Beach County Sheriffs officer Defendant Andrew Cano on January 16,
2016.
12. On January 16, 2016, Defendant Cano was on duty and in the course and scope of
his employment with Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office when he began following decedent
Henry Bennett, IIIs vehicle and conducted a traffic stop without lawful reasonable suspicion,
and ultimately shot and killed decedent.
13. On January, 16, 2016, Defendant Cano was on duty when he conducted a traffic
stop without lawful reasonable suspicion of the vehicle driven by Henry Bennett, III. As soon as
Henry Bennett, III, stopped his vehicle, he opened his door and ran full speed away from the
vehicle and Defendant Cano. Henry Bennett, III, did not pose any risk to Defendant Cano as he
fled running at full speed, nor to any other person or citizen. At all times during the subject
incident Henry Bennett, III, ran full speed away and in the opposite direct of Defendant Cano.
Video footage of the shooting confirms that within 2-4 seconds of decedent Henry Bennett, III
exiting the vehicle, Defendant Cano began to fire shots; ultimately shot him four times in the
head, chest, and back. Henry Bennett, III, landed in a pile of garbage; yet somehow still alive.
3

14. Members of the community including a nurse begged to render CPR and offer
first aide to Henry Bennett, III, but were refused and told, to get the fuck back; as Defendant
Cano stood over his body. Several eyewitnesses and neighbors confirmed that Henry Bennett,
III was still alive for some time after he was shot, and that Defendant Cano stood over him
refusing to render first aide, and preventing others from rendering first aide. Defendant Canos
actions actually and proximately caused the death of Henry Bennett, III.
15. Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office officials, namely Defendant Sheriff Ric
Bradshaw, attempted to justify and cover-up the shooting of Mr. Bennett. Defendant Sheriff Ric
Bradshaw held an immediate press conference and stated that he had to shoot Mr. Bennett
because he turned around and pointed a gun directly at Defendant Cano. Defendant Sheriff Ric
Bradshaw misinformed the public despite eye witnesses that directly contradicted his statements.
Several eyewitnesses standing in close proximity in broad daylight specifically said that Henry
Bennett, III, did not have a gun in his hand and was running away from Officer Cano the entire
time. Enhanced video footage confirms that decedent Henry Bennett, III, did not have a gun in
his hand and did not point the gun at any time at Defendant Cano, and was running full speed
away from him. Henry Bennett, III did not pose a risk to Defendant Cano or any other citizen
person at the time he was shot and killed. Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office officials
attempted to justify and cover-up the shooting by stating that Henry Bennett, III, had something
black in his right hand and that he yelled numerous commands that he does not recall. The
video evidence shows clearly that the only verbal commands Officer Cano gave were: Get on
the ground. Get on the ground now. He begins firing as he finishes the word now without
even a second passing to give Henry Bennett, III time to comply. Furthermore, Officer Cano
claims he had a weapon in his hand, but never gave Henry Bennett, III, a command to drop his
4

weapon, freeze, or to put his hands in the air. Officer Cano stated that after Henry started
running away from him, that he turned his upper body towards him with a gun in a hip shooting
position; an act that would have been virtually impossible based upon the video evidence.
Again, eyewitnesses testimony and video evidence discounts Defendant Canos statement of the
events. The first deputy on the scene was Jeremy Campbell. Deputy Campbell indicated in his
statement that he approached Henrys body, noted the head wound, and saw a gun sticking out
from under Henrys midsection. Deputy Campbell called for a camera but conveniently the
batteries were dead. No officer on the scene took a photo or video of the gun using a cell phone.
Deputy Campbell then stated that he removed the firearm from under decedent Henry Bennett,
III, and secured it in the trunk of his patrol vehicle. Although Defendants claim that Henry
Bennett, III, had the gun in his hands and he was bleeding profusely from his wounds, the gun
did not have a single fingerprint or drop of blood on it. In fact, there was no DNA evidence
found on the stolen gun. Photographs taken by eyewitnesses and other persons present at the
scene immediately after the shooting contradict Deputy Campbells assertion that there was a
gun sticking out from under decedents midsection. Furthermore, Defendants incredulous
version of the facts requires one to believe that if he was holding a gun in his hands he did not
lose control of it and drop it after being shot in the back, chest, and head, but instead held onto it
and it miraculously landed under his body where nobody could see it, escaping even the lens of
the camera, only Deputy Campbell.
16. Defendant Canos prior and subsequent uses of excessive force against other
citizens, racially biased behavior, and violent propensity, placed Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw on
notice of his propensity to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. Additionally, PBCSO and
Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw were on notice that Defendant Cano posed a risk to the citizens
5

of Palm Beach County as the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office internal flag system alerted
Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw to review Defendant Canos use of force on several occasions.
PBCSO automatic system generated red flag warnings of Defendant Canos use of excessive
force that were ignored and/or improperly handled by supervisors. Defendant Cano was not
subject to any discipline or any additional training as a result of the red flags generated by the
system regarding his use of excessive force. Thus, PBCSO supervisors and Defendant Sheriff
Ric Bradshaw ratified his misconduct. In addition, Defendant Cano was involved in the
following incident prior to shooting and killing decedent Henry Bennett, III:
A) Defendant Cano and Deputy Campbell pointed a gun at Bennett Gilbert while he
was in a car as a possible suspect.
B) Defendant Cano and Deputy Campbell used force and a canine on Roosevelt
Mitchell who had to be taken to the hospital because the officers said he resisted
arrest.
C) Sheila Knicks owns a store and alleged Defendant Cano and Deputy Campbell
used profanity against her. Deputy Campbell said, I dont know if its a man or
woman, and Officer Cano said, its female cant you see it has tits. Deputy
Campbell then called her a stupid it.
D) A few months prior to shooting and killing Henry Bennett, III, Defendant Cano
broke a womans arm in a case of mistaken identity.
E) Defendant Cano arrested a pregnant woman whom was a victim of domestic
violence, handcuffed her behind her back and left her in a car for an extended
period of time, ultimately causing her to deliver a child prematurely. The baby
died 2 months later.
Defendant Cano is still empowered and employed as a PBCSO deputy and has never been
disciplined for any of the above-referenced incidents, nor for killing Mr. Bennett. Defendant
Cano has a history of abusing his authority to use excessive force against citizens in Palm Beach
County depriving them of their lives, and Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw has a history of
condoning it.
17. Defendant Cano had not been properly trained in the use of force, de-escalation
techniques, non-lethal uses of force, the application of the Equal Protection Clause, or the
6

Substantive Due Process right to familial relationships. Defendant Cano was not properly
supervised nor disciplined by PBCSO and/or Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw. Defendants
PBCSO and Sheriff Ric Bradshaws failure to properly train, discipline and/or terminate Officer
Cano ratified his conduct, placed decedent Henry Bennett, III, in danger, and continues to place
citizens of Palm Beach County in danger.
18. Furthermore, as discussed infra, Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO
have a pattern and practice and/or custom and policy of violating citizens clearly established
constitutional right to be free from excessive force, rights to due process of law, rights to equal
protection based on race, and substantive due process rights, pursuant to the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, respectively.
19. Defendants individual and collective actions and omissions actually and
proximately caused the death of Henry Bennett, III. Plaintiffs and the Estate of Henry Bennett,
III, are entitled to damages pursuant to Floridas Wrongful Death Act and the Constitution of the
United States of America, for the value of decedents life and the value of their losses, including
but not limited to the following:
(a) Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs;
(b) Award costs of this action to Plaintiffs;
(c) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiffs on Federal 1983
Counts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
(d) Loss of past and future support and services with interest;
(e) Loss of earnings and net accumulations to the Estate of Henry Bennett, III;
(f) Any and all medical and/or funeral expenses incurred due to the wrongful
death of the Decedent;
7

(g) Loss to Plaintiffs of familial relationship with decedent, companionship,
comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of decedent, and the mental
pain and suffering from the past date of injury through the future,
compensation for medical bills as a result of psychological and physical
injury, as a result of Henry Bennetts death;
(h) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENTS IV AND XIV, 42
U.S.C. 1983, FOR THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, USE OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE, DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS, AND VIOLATION OF
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE-
DEFENDANT CANO
20. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-19 as though fully set forth herein.
21. This is an action brought against Defendant Cano pursuant to the United States
Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
22. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cano was an employee and/or agent of
Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO, and acting within the course and scope of his
employment with same, and acting under color of law, to wit, under color of the statutes,
ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of PBCSO.
23. This Count is being brought against Defendant Cano in his individual capacity
pursuant to U.S.C. Amendments IV and XIV, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
24. Defendant Cano, unreasonably searched and seized, and used unnecessary,
excessive, and deadly force on Henry Bennett, III, depriving him of the right to be free of
unlawful search and seizure, bodily integrity, life, liberty, and due process of law. Defendant
Cano lacked lawful reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle driven by Henry Bennett, III. The
amount of force used by Defendant Cano was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and
8

circumstances confronting Defendant Cano. One of the motivating factors in the use of
excessive force on decedent Henry Bennett, III, was his race; the fact that he was African-
American.
25. The laws prohibiting violations of citizens rights to be free of unreasonable
search and seizures, due process of law, unconstitutional use of force, and inequitable treatment
based on race, were clearly established at the time of the incident in the United States
Constitution via Amendments IV and XIV.
26. Defendant Cano knew or should have known, and every reasonable officer in that
position would have concluded, that Defendant Cano lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the
traffic stop, and that the force used against Mr. Bennett was unjustifiable and unlawful.
27. Defendant Cano knew or should have known, and every reasonable officer in that
position would have concluded, that using excessive force against Mr. Bennett because he was
an African-American was unjustifiable and unlawful.
28. On January 16, 2016, Defendant Cano shot and killed African-American Henry
Bennett. Defendant Cano conducted an improper traffic stop as he lacked lawful reasonable
suspicion. The fact that Defendant Cano shot decedent Henry Bennett, III, as he ran full speed
away within 2-4 seconds of him exiting the vehicle, is evidence that he did so in bad faith, with
malicious purpose, in a willful and wanton manner disregarding human rights, safety and
property. Further evidence that Defendant Cano acted in a willful and wanton manner
disregarding human rights, safety and property, is the fact that he fired multiple rounds in close
proximity of other citizens endangering their lives.
29. Defendant Cano has a pattern and practice of prior and subsequent uses of
excessive force against other citizens and racially biased behavior, as cited supra paragraph 16.
9

30. Defendant Cano has a history of abusing his authority to use excessive force
against citizens in Palm Beach County depriving them of their lives. Defendant Cano had not
been properly trained to conduct constitutional traffic stops, use of force, de-escalation
techniques, non-lethal uses of force, the application of the Equal Protection Clause; nor was he
properly disciplined or supervised.
31. Defendant Cano did not have any probable or lawful cause to conduct a traffic
stop of decedent Henry Bennett, III. Defendant Cano conducted the traffic stop without probable
cause, without calling radio dispatch to notify them, without calling for back up, and knew that
Henry Bennett, III was in the motor vehicle prior to stopping it.
32. Henry Bennett, III attempted to flee the scene and ran at full speed away from
Deputy Cano, who shot him in the back, chest, and head, at least four times within four seconds
of Henry Bennett, III exiting the vehicle. The use of force was unreasonable and clearly
excessive.
33. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendant Canos acts, omissions, and
clear use of excessive force, Defendant Cano deprived Henry Bennett, III of the rights
guaranteed to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
In particular, Defendant Cano deprived decedent of his rights to be free from unlawful search
and seizure, due process of law, to be free of excessive force, bodily integrity, equal protection
clause, and right to life.
34. Plaintiff Felicia Mitchell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Henry
Bennett, III, claims damages on behalf of the Estate of Henry Bennett, III, as provided by the
Florida Wrongful Death Act and the United States Constitution for the value of decedents life,
including but not limited to the following:
10

(a) Loss of past and future support and services with interest;
(b) Loss of earnings and net accumulations to the Estate of Henry Bennett, III;
(c) Any and all medical and/or funeral expenses incurred due to the wrongful
death of the decedent;
(d) Loss to decedent's survivors of companionship with decedent, and the
mental pain and suffering from the past date of injury through the future, as
a result of Henry Bennett, IIIs death;
(e) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiff on Federal 1983
Count pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988
(f) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Felicia Mitchell demands damages in an amount in excess of
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00), together with post judgment interest
and costs.
COUNT II
CUSTOM/POLICY AND/OR PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF VIOLATION OF
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENTS IV AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. 1983,
USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS, AND VIOLATION
OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE-
DEFENDANT SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW
35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-19 as though fully set forth herein.
36. This is an action brought against Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw pursuant to the
United States Constitution Amendments IV and XIV in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and
1988.
37. Prior to January 16, 2016, Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO
developed and maintained customs and policies and/or a pattern and practice, exhibiting
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the community, including
11

systemic deprivation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, which caused the violation of
decedent Henry Bennett, IIIs rights. The systemic deprivation of rights constituted a
widespread pattern sufficient to notify Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO, and were
obvious, flagrant, rampant and not isolated occurrences.
38. Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO maintained a custom and policy and/or
pattern and practice of the use of excessive force, unequal treatment of African-Americans,
deprivation of due process, of failing to adequately and properly train, retrain, supervise,
discipline officers, and of failing to conduct fair and impartial investigations of complaints of
police misconduct and officers use of excessive force and racially-biased policing patterns.
39. PBCSO has a history of excessive force, unequal treatment of the mentally-ill
and African-Americans, and Constitutional rights violations by their officers, and failed to
discipline, correct the misconduct, or properly train and/or supervise officers; therefore,
exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the community,
specifically, decedent Henry Bennett, III whose constitutional rights were violated pursuant to
the United States Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, and he was ultimately deprived of his
right to life.
40. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO were aware of problems with
employees actions, acting under the color of law, use of excessive force, violation of citizens
rights under equal protection, due process of law, and as employer, failed to investigate and/or
reprimand such behavior and failed to discharge said officers for their misconduct thereby
ratifying said misconduct and resulting in a deliberate indifference to citizens constitutional
rights.
12

41. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO maintained a policy and custom
and/or pattern or practice of failing to properly train its officers, including but not limited to, how
to use appropriate levels of force, how to properly assess levels of threat, the use of de-escalation
techniques and the use of non-lethal force, on the equal treatment of African-Americans, on how
to lawfully conduct traffic stops, and on due process of law. PBCSO failure to properly train its
officers is tantamount to a deliberate indifference to their constitutional rights.
42. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO also maintained a policy and
custom and/or pattern or practice of failing to conduct fair and impartial investigations into
officer misconduct, use of excessive force, police shootings, mistreatment of African-American
citizens, resulting in a deliberate indifference to citizens constitutional rights.
43. The abovementioned acts of misconduct were ratified, perpetuated, tolerated and
not reprimanded by Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO. Thus, Defendant inadequately
discouraged constitutional violations perpetrated by its officers. As a result of the policies and
customs and/or patterns and practices of Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO fostered
an environment wherein officers believed that their misconduct would not be subject to
monitoring by supervisors, would not be subject to proper investigations, and would not lead to
any sanction or discipline but would instead be tolerated by Defendant.
44. Defendants Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO had evidence of Palm Beach
County Sheriffs Office officers custom and policy and/or pattern and practice of the violation of
citizens constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, including the use of excessive force, racially biased policing, failure to properly
train and supervise officers, failure to conduct fair and impartial investigations, covering up
13

officers misconduct, and failure to terminate the employment of officers that violated citizens
constitutional rights.
excessive force against other citizens, racially-biased behavior, as aforementioned in paragraph
16 supra, sufficient to place Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw on notice of his propensity to violate
the constitutional rights of citizens as it generated several red flags for review in PBCSO
electronic internal review system.
46. Defendant Cano is still empowered and employed as a PBCSO deputy, has never
been disciplined for killing Mr. Bennett, and has a history of abusing his authority to use
excessive force against citizens in Palm Beach County depriving them of their lives. Defendant
Cano was not properly trained in how to conduct lawful traffic stops with reasonable suspicion,
lawful use of force, de-escalation techniques, non-lethal uses of force, the application of the
Equal Protection Clause, or the Substantive Due Process right to familial relationships.
Defendant Officer Cano was not properly supervised nor disciplined by PBCSO and/or
Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaws failure to properly train,
discipline, supervise, and/or terminate Officer Canos employment ratified his conduct, placed
decedent Henry Bennett, III, in danger, and continues to place the citizens of Palm Beach County
in danger.
47. Defendants Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO systemically fail to train and enforce
officers use of non-deadly force options, such as Tasers or batons. Deputies only sought less
lethal options in eight shootings since 2000. PBCSO and Defendant Ric Bradshaw failed to train
and/or enforce polices and customs to de-escalate situations and on using less than lethal force.
PBCSOs pattern and practice of using excessive force, racial bias, and mistreatment of the
14

mentally-ill, along with other constitutional violations is so widespread and notorious that the
Palm Beach Post collaborated with WPTV Channel 5 on a series called: Line of Fire: Police
Shooting Probes: PBSCO Shielded by the Badge Disturbing Patterns and Practices.
48. The Palm Beach Post and WPTV conducted an investigation into police shootings
from 2000-2015 and provided evidence and statistical analysis demonstrating PBCSO pattern
and practice of unconstitutional conduct using research of particular incidents, statistical
analysis, and legal experts. The Palm Beach Post found that the Palm Beach County Sheriffs
Office, Never holds its deputies accountable when they fire their weapons, even in cases
where policy violations seem apparent. Their internal investigators ignore or downplay
evidence that could be critical of the deputy. They dont question a deputys statement, even
when facts show the deputy didnt tell the truth. Their reports often leave out basic information,
such as how many shots the deputy fired and whether the suspect lived. Of the agencys 123
shootings since 2000, it found only 12 violated the departments shooting policy. Bradshaw
often publicly declares shootings justified at the scene, at the earliest stages of the investigation.
After deputies shot and killed a woman wielding a knife on her husband in 2013, Bradshaw said
they had to do what they had to do. After a deputy shot and killed a man outside a bar in
2012, Bradshaw was unyielding: We had to take this action. After a deputy killed a man
wielding a hammer and shears in 2012, he said the deputy took the action he had to take.
49. Dennis Root, a former Martin County Sheriffs Office Deputy and national use of
force expert said in regards to Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office:
That [behavior] can bias an investigation by placing pressure on internal affairs

investigators. If youve already announced that this was a good shooting that this was
a justified application of deadly force will the investigation be thorough and
complete? Or will it be an investigation to ensure that it meets the opinion thats already
been rendered? It is not our jobs 10 minutes later to say it was a good shooting. We owe
15

it to our community that we are actually looking at it, investigating it and verifying that
we did the right thing.
50. PBCSO rarely found fault with a deputys decision to shoot and often based their
decision on cursory or incomplete investigations. Since 2000, the agencys deputies have shot
and killed 45 people and wounded 38 others. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and his
investigators found nothing wrong in all but one of the fatal shootings. Investigators often rely
solely on the deputys version of events, ignoring or downplaying conflicting evidence such as
videos to justify deadly force, even when it seems apparent that the deputy violated agency
protocol. Defendants failure to hold deputies accountable created an atmosphere that endangers
the public and deputies themselves and erodes the trust of the people they protect. The
investigation found that Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office was involved in 123 shootings, in
roughly one of every four shootings, Palm Beach County deputies fired at unarmed suspects.
PBCSOs rate of shooting at unarmed people, 25 percent, is much higher than other cities and is
evidence that they have a pattern and practice and/or custom and policy of the use of excessive
force. In comparable cities including the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department it was 12
percent, and at the Philadelphia Police Department was15 percent; two agencies in which federal
authorities have intervened in recent years.
51. PBCSO deputies disproportionately shoot at young African-American men, more
than one-third were African-American and one-third of whom were unarmed. Although African-
Americans make up 15 percent of people in the area PBCSO patrols, they have been shot at more
than twice that rate or 35 percent. Despite the alarming and disproportional rate at which
unarmed African-Americans are shot, Defendants took no corrective actions to reduce the use of
excessive force or racially-biased policing tactics exhibiting a deliberate indifference to citizens
constitutional rights.
16

52. At least 11 percent of the people shot at by PBSO are mentally-ill; however, the
actual percentage may be higher as reports often fail to mention whether or not the person was
mentally-ill. Although roughly half of PBCSOs deputies have been trained in crisis
intervention to better deal with mentally-ill people, the agency provides them no follow-up
training a critical oversight that experts and the Justice Department have highlighted in other
agencies. Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw said that PBCSO is developing a program to recertify
officers, but has not yet been implemented.
53. The following incidents provide evidence that PBCSO has a pattern and practice
of the use of excessive force, violating the equal protection clause using disproportionate force
against African-Americans, and violating the rights of mentally-ill citizens.
54. On December 25, 2008, PCBSO deputy Michael Woodside intentionally used
excessive force against Maria Paul and unlawfully caused her injury when he pulled her over
twice in one day, the first time for having a loud stereo system and no registration, the second
time from a traffic stop. The second time PBCSO deputy Woodside pulled her over, he removed
her from her car put her in a choke hold, slammed her to the ground, and then punched her in the
face after she was placed in the back of his patrol car. PBCSO deputy Woodside was sued in
federal court in 2007 for a false arrest, he had three use-of-force complaints in his file for his first
year of work, and an internal affairs report showed that he made inappropriate comments online
about people he had arrested, including one post where he bragged about roughing up a woman
he arrested two weeks before he arrested Maria Paul. A jury held that PBCSO deputy Michael
Woodside intentionally used excessive force, violated her civil rights and unlawfully caused her
injury.
17

55. In January 2009, PBCSO Deputy Thomas LaRoche tried to stop a shoplifter.
When he drove away, Deputy LaRoche stood in his path, fired multiple times into the car. Two
of the deputys rounds went into the arms of 50-year-old Broderick Hay. Another went into the
chest of the 42-year-old woman sitting beside him. The departments strict policy tells deputies
not to stand in front of a car and not to shoot into it if they can get out of the way. However,
PBCSO internal affairs investigators found nothing to fault. Two lieutenants, a captain and
Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw signed off on the report, which never even referenced the
departments policy against shooting into cars.
56. In 2008, Corporal Richard Logsdon shot Adam Phillips in his car after he thought
Phillips was reaching for a gun. Phillips, who was unarmed, died. The 26-page internal affairs
report summarizes 16 witness statements, including other deputies; however, it fails include a
summary of the most important persons statement; the officer that shot Adam Phillips- Corporal
Logsdon.
57. In 2005, Deputy Nicholas Lentini shot into a stolen vehicle after the driver,
Kareem Foulks, tried to get away. However, the report does not include basic facts, such as how
many rounds the deputy fired or whether anyone was hit.
58. In 2005, a group of deputies opened fire on 37 year-old John Garczynski, a
suicidal man with a gun to his head, after a deputys stumble startled the other officers.
59. In 2006, Chester Washington was shot and killed by a Deputy Sheriff near
Jupiter, Florida after being stunned by a Taser and appearing to reach into his pants. Deputies
later learned he was carrying a pocket knife but no gun.
60. In 2007, an unarmed 21 year-old, Andy Jackson II, was shot in the head by a
Deputy Sheriff who claimed that Mr. Jackson lowered his hands toward his waistband as if
18

reaching for a weapon. Mr. Jackson fell into a coma and was placed on life support, but he was
able to survive the shooting, suffering permanent partial memory loss and loss of full use of his
dominant hand.
61. In 2010, Deputy Jason Franqui shot a 17 year-old boy with Down syndrome when
he said the boy drove a car at him. The internal affairs investigator said video confirmed the
deputys statement, but the video actually shows Jeremy Hutton driving away from the deputy.
The report also failed to include the fact that the bullets went into the side and back of the
minivan, and two went into a passing car. Jeremy Hutton survived the shooting and can provide
testimony.
62. In 2008, Deputy Eric Bethel shot and killed Ruben DeBrosse, a 16 year-old who
earlier that year had been the sheriffs top Eagle cadet. Ruben DeBrosse had backed into
Bethels patrol car during a traffic stop.
63. In January 2011, Deputy Juvencio Rivera was driving his personal SUV in Belle
Glade with his fiancee and toddler when he saw a car drive erratically around them. Rivera
decided to pursue the car because he thought the driver was impaired. In reality, the driver, Jean
Claude Mila, Jr., was racing to a hospital because his brother had been shot. During the pursuit,
Mila thought Rivera was trying to attack him, so he shot at Riveras car. Rivera used his
department-issued handgun to fire back, then kept pursuing, with his wife and toddler huddled on
the floor of the car. One of Milas passengers called 911 to report Rivera, and Mila ended up
driving to the police station for help. Defendants Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO conducted no
investigation and did not prepare an internal affairs report.
64. In 2013 Palm Beach County Sheriffs Deputy Adam Lin shot unarmed Dontrell
Stephens a Black male with dreadlocks, leaving him partially paralyzed. An internal
19

investigation and the State Attorney cleared Lin to return to duty four days after the shooting. 20
year-old Mr. Stephens was bicycling across Haverhill Road, talking to a friend on a cellphone.
When Mr. Stephens turned down a side road, Lin followed, stepping on the gas, turning on the
siren and then the lights. He thought the way Mr. Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He
thought the way Mr. Stephens got off his bike was suspicious. Four seconds after Deputy Lin
got out of his patrol car, he shot Mr. Stephens four times leaving him paralyzed from the waist
down. Deputy Lin said he opened fire because Mr. Stephens was reaching in his back
waistband, possibly for a gun. A jury concluded that Deputy Lins used excessive force
violating Dontrell Stephens constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Lin had a
prior citizen complaint that he uses racially-biased language including the word nigger while
on duty. However, Defendants maintain Deputy Lins employment and he has taught
community policing and officer safety.
65. PBCSO also shot a man named Jamil Murray. Palm Beach County Sheriffs
Office Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said that Jamil Murray attacked a deputy with a knife and that is
why the deputy had to shoot him. However, the deputy who shot and killed Jamil said that Jamil
never attacked him. Despite the officers own admissions, Defendants failed to discipline the
officer and maintained his employment.
66. In 2014 Deputy Russell Brinson shot a man during a foot chase, saying the
suspect turned toward him with a gun, however the gun was later found on the other side of a
fence. PBCSO had received many warnings about Deputy Brinson. During a 20-month stretch,
hed been involved in 18 uses of force. In two of those, his fellow deputies complained that his
actions were excessive, such as when Deputy Brinson put a chokehold on a man to make him
unconscious. Two deputies said Deputy Brinson smiled and seemed to take joy in it. Despite all
20

of the evidence that Deputy Brinson was unfit for his position and violated citizens
constitutional rights, Defendants maintained his employment.
67. In 2012 Seth Adams was unarmed and killed on his own property by undercover
Sergeant Michael Custer. Sergeant Custers supervisors and underlings considered him wholly
incompetent for his elite job supervising a tactical team. An evaluation the year before was
brutal, describing him as a stubborn supervisor who had difficulty assessing critical incidents
and making sound decisions under pressure. However, Sgt. Custer was protected by PBSOs
second-in-command, Mike Gauger. He complained to Gauger, who made Sgt. Custers
supervisor revise the evaluation, and Sgt. Custer kept his assignment. He was working that job
the night he killed Mr. Adams. Despite his known incompetence for his position, Defendants
maintained his employment.
68. In 2012 Michael Camberdella an 18 year-old mentally-ill boy was involved with a
domestic incident with his mother. When police arrived he was standing in front of his home
with a hammer and hedge shears. Officers alleged he ignored verbal commands and walked
toward them, and the officers fired shots and killed the boy without using less lethal force
including his Taser.
69. In 2012 Victor Arango was shot and killed by a PBCSO deputy outside a Boynton
Beach bar. Mr. Arango reportedly was trying to break up a fight involving his girlfriend. The
deputy claimed that Mr. Arango began fighting with another deputy and reached for a gun in his
waistband. Claims of the threat posed by Mr. Arango were belied by the fact that he had broken
his left hand just days before the shooting and he was still wearing a cast. Moreover, witnesses-
including a rookie deputy said the Deputy Sheriff disarmed Mr. Arango and then opened fire,
directly contradicted the testimony.
21

70. In February 2014 Anesson Joseph was naked in the street when he ran toward
Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office officer and was shot three times killing him.
71. In March 2014, Anthony Ribiero was arguing with a Deputy Sheriff while
holding a wine glass. When he raised the glass the Deputy Sheriff claiming to be in fear for his
safety, shot Mr. Ribiero three times.
72. In April 2014 Matt Pollow suffering from mental health issues and having run out
of his medicine called 911 looking for help. A short time later, Pollow allegedly lunged at a
Deputy Sheriff with a screwdriver. The officer said he thought it was a knife and shot him dead.
On April 7, 2014, Deputy Cantu shot and killed unarmed mentally-ill Tinoris Williams in his
apartment whom was not committing any unlawful activity. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw
immediately justified the killing of Tinoris Williams by Deputy Cantu just like he did in the
instant matter, and mislead the public by stating that he was armed and that he had broken into or
was unlawfully inside of the apartment. However, it was quickly revealed that he was unarmed,
and that his mothers name was on the address and he lived at the apartment. Despite misleading
the general public and making a cursory announcement justifying the shooting of Tinoris
Williams, Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw nor PBCSO ever held a subsequent press conference to
correct the misinformation or properly inform the public, further evidencing their intention to
cover-up for Deputy Cantu as they have covered up for Defendant Deputy Cano in the instant
matter.
73. Defendant Cano has exhibited the same pattern and practice and/or custom and
policy of use of excessive force and racially biased policing as his employer Defendant Sheriff
Ric Bradshaw and the PBCSO. As previously mentioned, PBCSO internal electronic system has
flagged him for review on multiple occasions for use of excessive force; and each red flag has
22

been dismissed by supervisors and Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw. The following are a few of the
specific incidents involving excessive force and racially biased policing:
A) Defendant Cano and Deputy Campbell pointed a gun at Bennett Gilbert while he
was in a car as a possible suspect.
B) Defendant Cano and Deputy Campbell used excessive force and a canine on
Roosevelt Mitchell who had to be taken to the hospital because the officers said
he resisted arrest.
C) Sheila Knicks owns a store and alleged Defendant Cano and Deputy Campbell
used profanity against her. Deputy Campbell said, I dont know if its a man or
woman, and Officer Cano said, its female cant you see it has tits. Deputy
Campbell then called her a stupid it.
D) A few months prior to shooting and killing Henry Bennett, III, Defendant Cano
broke a womans arm in a case of mistaken identity.
E) Defendant Cano arrested a woman whom was a victim of domestic violence,
handcuffed her behind her back and left her in a car for an extended period of
time, ultimately causing her to deliver a child prematurely. The baby died 2
months later.
74. As clear from the evidence of individual incidents and statistical analysis
demonstrated above, Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO has a widespread pattern and
practice and/or custom and policy of unconstitutional conduct, including the use of excessive
force, unconstitutional racially-biased policing practices against African-Americans, failure to
conduct fair and impartial investigations, failure to properly train and supervise officers, failure
to discipline and/or terminate officers, thereby ratifying and perpetuating unconstitutional
conduct and exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the citizens of Palm
Beach County and constituting the moving force behind the violation of unarmed, African-
American Henry Bennett, IIIs constitutional rights pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
75. The above facts denote a deliberate indifference on the part of Defendant Sheriff
Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO policy makers and custom enforcers, to uphold the constitutional
rights of citizens of Palm Beach County including decedent Henry Bennett, III; in particular
23

citizens right to be free from excessive force, to be treated equally without regard to race under
the equal protection clause, and not to be denied due process of law. Defendant Sheriff Ric
Bradshaws deliberate indifference to decedents constitutional rights actually and proximately
caused the violations of Henry Bennett, IIIs constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and
PBCSOs numerous failures, actions and inactions perpetrated and ratified unconstitutional
policing as aforementioned, and were the moving force behind Defendant Canos actions
actually and proximately caused the violation of decedents clearly established and
constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Bennett, III claims damages on behalf of the Estate of Henry Bennett, III, as provided by the
Florida Wrongful Death Act and the United States Constitution for the value of decedents life,
including but not limited to the following:
(e) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiff on Federal 1983
(f) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
24

and costs.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT XIV, 42
U.S.C. 1983, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS- DEFENDANT CANO
77. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-19 as though set forth fully herein.
78. This Count is brought against Defendant Cano in his individual capacity pursuant
to XIV Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
79. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cano was an employee of Defendant
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO and was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with same, and under color of state law.
80. Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett, have a cognizable interest under the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in being free
from state actions that cause an unwarranted interference with their right to a familial
relationship with decedent Henry Bennett, III.
81. Defendant Cano deprived Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett of their
right to a familial relationship with their son Henry Bennett, III, in a way that shocked the
conscience of the community.
82. Namely, Henry Bennett, III was gunned down within 2-4 seconds of exiting his
vehicle during an unlawful traffic stop, and while running at full speed away from Defendant
Cano and not posing any threat to his person or any other person. Defendant Cano shot Henry
Bennett, III four times in the back, chest, and head, and he landed in a pile of garbage still alive
in full view of the community. Defendant Cano fired the shots in close proximity of other
25

residents and endangered their lives. Defendant Cano acted with deliberate indifference to the
constitutional rights of decedent and Plaintiffs without any legitimate law enforcement objective.
83. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Canos acts, omissions, and
deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional right to their familial relationship with their
son, Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett have been deprived of the life-long love,
companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of decedent, and will continue to
be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
84. At the time of the incident, substantive due process right to familial relationships
was clearly established within the United States Constitution.
85. Plaintiffs loved Henry Bennett, III, their natural son, and Plaintiffs have suffered
extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs
have ongoing and permanent injuries and damages, and as such are entitled to recover for such
damages including but not limited to:
(a) Loss to decedent's survivors of companionship, comfort, support, society,
care and sustenance of decedent, familial relationship with decedent, and
the mental pain and suffering from the past date of injury through the future,
injury, as a result of Henry Bennett, IIIs death;
(b) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiffs on Federal 1983
(c) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett demand damages in an
amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00), together with post
judgment interest and costs.
COUNT IV
CUSTOM AND POLICY AND/OR PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF VIOLATION
OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT XIV, 42 U.S.C. 1983,
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS-
DEFENDANT SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW
86. Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett hereby incorporate paragraphs 1-76
as though set forth fully herein.
87. This Count is brought against Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO
pursuant to XIV Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.
88. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cano was an employee of PBCSO and
Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and was acting within the course and scope of his employment
with same, and under color of state law.
89. Prior to January 16, 2016, Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO
developed and maintained customs and policies and/or a pattern and practice, exhibiting
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the community, including
systemic deprivation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, which caused the violation of
Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett, and decedents rights.
90. Defendants maintained a custom and policy and/or pattern and practice of the use
of excessive force, unequal treatment of African-Americans, deprivation of due process, of
failing to adequately and properly train, retrain, supervise, discipline, and of failing to conduct
fair and impartial investigations of complaints of police misconduct and officers use of
excessive force and racially-biased policing.
27

91. PBCSO has a history of excessive force, unequal treatment of African-Americans
and Constitutional rights violations by their officers, and failed to discipline, correct the
misconduct, or properly train and/or supervise officers; therefore, exhibiting deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the community, specifically, decedent
Henry Bennett, III, whose constitutional rights were violated pursuant to the United States
Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, and he was ultimately deprived of his life.
92. Defendants Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO were aware of problems with
employees actions, acting under the color of law, use of excessive force, violation of citizens
rights under equal protection, due process of law, and as employer, failed to investigate and/or
reprimand such behavior and failed to discharge said officers for their misconduct thereby
ratifying said misconduct.
93. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO maintained a policy and custom
and/or pattern or practice of failing to properly train its officers, including but not limited to, how
to use appropriate levels of force, how to properly assess levels of threat, the use of de-escalation
techniques and the use of non-lethal force, on the equal treatment of African-Americans, and on
due process of law and substantive due process.
94. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO also maintained a policy and
custom and/or pattern or practice of failing to conduct fair and impartial investigations into
officer misconduct, use of excessive force, police shootings, mistreatment of African-American
citizens, and substantive due process violations.
95. The abovementioned acts of misconduct were perpetuated, tolerated and not
reprimanded by Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO. Thus, Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw
inadequately discouraged constitutional violations perpetrated by its officers. The improper
28

policies and customs and/or patterns and practices of Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and
PBCSO fostered an environment wherein officers believed that their misconduct would not be
subject to monitoring by supervisors, would not be subject to proper investigations, and would
not lead to any sanction or discipline but would instead be tolerated by Defendant Sheriff
Bradshaw.
96. The above facts denote a deliberate indifference on the part of Defendant Sheriff
Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO policy makers and custom enforcers, to uphold the constitutional
rights of citizens of Palm Beach County, including Plaintiffs and decedent Henry Bennett, III, in
particular citizens right to be free from excessive force, to be treated equally with regard to race
under the equal protection clause, and not to be denied due process of law, which actually and
proximately caused violations of their constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The systemic deprivation of rights
constituted a widespread pattern sufficient to notify Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO,
and were obvious, flagrant, rampant and not isolated occurrences.
97. Defendant Ric Bradshaw and PBCSOs aforementioned actions and inactions
directly and proximately denied Plaintiffs substantive due process rights and caused the violation
of Plaintiffs familial relationships with Henry Bennett, III, pursuant to United States
Constitution, Amendment XIV.
98. Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett, decedents natural parents have a
cognizable interest under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution in being free from state actions that cause an unwarranted interference with
their right to a familial relationship with decedent Henry Bennett, III. Said right was clearly
established at the time of this incident.
29

99. Defendant Cano deprived Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett of their
right to a familial relationship with their son Henry Bennett, III, of their right to a familial
relationship with their son in a way that shocked the conscience of the community.
100. Henry Bennett, III was gunned down within 2-4 seconds of exiting his vehicle
during an unlawful traffic stop, and while running at full speed away from Defendant Cano and
not posing any threat to his person or any other person. Defendant Cano shot Henry Bennett, III
four times in the back, chest, and head, and he landed in a pile of garbage still alive in full view
of the community. Defendant Cano fired the shots in close proximity of other residents and
endangered their lives. Defendant Cano acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional
rights of decedent and Plaintiffs without any legitimate law enforcement objective.
101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSOs
acts, omissions, and deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional right to their familial
relationship with their son, Plaintiffs have been deprived of the life-long love, companionship,
comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of decedent, and will continue to be so deprived
for the remainder of their natural lives. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSOs
numerous failures, actions and inactions that perpetrated and ratified unconstitutional policing as
aforementioned were the moving force behind Defendant Canos actions, and actually and
proximately caused the violation of decedent and Plaintiffs constitutionally guaranteed rights.
102. Plaintiffs loved Henry Bennett, III, their natural son and have suffered extreme
and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs have
ongoing and permanent injuries and damages, and as such are entitled to recover for such
damages including but not limited to:
30

(a) Loss of familial relationship with decedent, companionship, comfort,
support, society, care and sustenance of decedent, and the mental pain and
suffering from the past date of injury through the future, compensation for
medical bills as a result of psychological and physical injury, as a result of
Henry Bennett, IIIs death;
(b) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiffs on Federal 1983
(c) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell and Henry Bennett demand damages in an
amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00), together with post
judgment interest and costs.
COUNT V
NEGLIGENCE- DEFENDANT SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW
104. This is an action brought against Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw pursuant to the
Florida Wrongful Death Act for negligence.
105. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cano and Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw
were employees and/or agents of PBCSO, and acting within the course and scope of their
employment with same, in furtherance of the interest of PBCSO, and with PBCSOs consent.
106. As such, Defendants Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO are liable for all of its
employees and/or agents acts and omissions that gave rise to this action, including the actions of
Defendant Cano and Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw as final policymaker of PBCSO.
107. Defendant Cano, Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO by and through its
employees and agents, owed a duty to Henry Bennett, III, to act in a prudent and reasonable
31

manner with regard to his health and safety. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO and
owed a ministerial duty to provide responsible and effective operations of its Sheriffs office.
Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO further have a ministerial duty to establish proper
policies, customs, and regulations of its Sheriffs office. Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and
PBCSO owe a legal duty to supervise PBCSO deputies, discipline said deputies and retain only
those fit for duty, and to properly train and retrain said deputies.
108. Upon information and belief and as cited supra, prior to the death of Henry
Bennett, III, Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO had a custom or policy of failing to
properly train, retrain, supervise, and discipline officers including Defendant Cano on the use of
excessive force, de-escalation techniques, use of non-lethal force, requirement to treat African-
Americans equally to other citizens, on conducting lawful traffic stops; and on conducting fair
and impartial investigations. PBCSO automatic system generated red flag warnings of
Defendant Canos use of excessive force that were ignored and/or improperly handled by
supervisors. Defendant Cano was not subject to any discipline or any additional training as a
result of the red flags generated by the system regarding his use of excessive force. Thus,
PBCSO supervisors and Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw ratified his misconduct. The
aforementioned failures surmounted to violations of non-discretionary duties Defendant Sheriff
Bradshaw owed to citizens of Palm Beach County including decedent, Henry Bennett, III. As
such Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw breached duties including ministerial duties owed to decedent.
109. Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSOs failure to reprimand and intervene
and/or take corrective action in its deputies, including Defendant Canos consistent misconduct,
is evidence that Defendants ratified and promulgated misconduct, provides evidence of their
32

breach of the duties owned to the citizens of Palm Beach County including decedent Henry
Bennett, III.
110. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO have not
formally amended their training and/or policies and/or disciplinary measures and/or supervision
techniques, to eradicate similar instances of the unjustifiable use of deadly force, further breach
of duties owed to citizens of Palm Beach County, Florida. Said breach of duties resulted in
Defendant Cano breaching the duty he owed by using unreasonable use of force against African-
American Henry Bennett, III, when he shot multiple times, including in the head, leaving him
dead.
111. Defendants Sheriff Bradshaw and PBCSO knew or should have known of the
dangers posed by failing to properly train, re-train and supervise its officers, negligently
retaining its officers, and failing to conduct fair and impartial investigations, and that said actions
and inactions were likely to result in violations of citizens rights, and as such were reasonably
forseeable.
112. During the course of Defendant Canos employment, Defendant Bradshaw and
PBCSO became aware or should have become aware of problems with Defendant Cano that
exhibited, that he was unfit for employment as a law enforcement officer, needed training and
retraining, frequently violated citizens rights and used excessive force yet retained him despite
the known risk posed to citizens as aforementioned by the red flags generated by PBCSO
internal electronic system review.
excessive force against other citizens, and racially-biased behavior as indicated supra in
paragraph 16.
33

114. Defendant Cano owed a duty to Henry Bennett, III, to be reasonable in his
conduct as a law enforcement officer. Defendant Cano breached the duties owed Henry Bennett,
III, when he conducted a traffic stop without lawful reasonable suspicion, and shot him four
times 2-4 seconds after decedent exited his vehicle and running away from Defendant Cano at
full speed. Decedent Henry Bennett, III, did not pose any threat to Defendant Cano or any other
citizen as he ran away.
115. Defendant Cano has a history of abusing his authority to use excessive force
against citizens in Palm Beach County depriving them of their bodily integrity and lives.
Defendant Cano had not been properly trained in the use of force, de-escalation techniques, non-
lethal uses of force, or the application of the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant Sheriff Ric
Bradshaw failed to properly supervise, train, and negligently retained Defendant Cano. As
mentioned above, PBCSO automatic system generated red flag warnings of Defendant Canos
use of excessive force that were ignored and/or improperly handled by supervisors. Defendant
Cano was not subject to any discipline or any additional training as a result of the red flags
generated by the system regarding his use of excessive force. Thus, PBCSO supervisors and
Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw ratified his misconduct.
116. Defendant Cano, Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw, and PBCSOs actions and
omissions were unreasonable and breached the duties owed to Plaintiffs, and actually and
proximately caused the death of Henry Bennett, III.
Florida Wrongful Death Act for the value of decedents life, including but not limited to the
following:
34

(e) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
and costs.
COUNT VI
BATTERY- DEFENDANT CANO
119. This is an action brought against Defendant Cano for battery pursuant to the laws
of the State of Florida.
PBCSO and Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw, and acting within the course and scope of his
employment with same, in furtherance of the interest of Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and
PBCSO and with Defendants consent.
121. Decedent Henry Bennett, III, suffered a harmful and offensive contact when he
was shot and killed by Defendant Cano.
122. Defendant Cano acted intentionally, in bad faith or with malicious purpose, or in a
manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, and/or property. To wit,
35

Defendant Cano conducted a traffic stop without lawful reasonable suspicion, and shot decedent
Henry Bennett, III, approximately 2-4 seconds after decedent exited his vehicle and was running
away from Defendant Cano at full speed. Decedent Henry Bennett, III, did not pose any threat to
Defendant Cano or any other citizen as he ran away. Furthermore, Defendant Cano fired the
shots in a neighborhood in close proximity of other citizens whose human rights and safety were
similarly disregarded by Defendant Cano. Decedent Henry Bennett, III, did not pose any risk to
Defendant Cano as he fled the scene running at full speed nor any other citizen.
123. The fact that Defendant Cano conducted an unlawful traffic stop, fired four shots
2-4 seconds after decedent Henry Bennett, III exited his vehicle including in the back, chest, and
head, are all evidence that he acted intentionally, in bad faith or with malicious purpose, or in a
manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, and/or property. His
actions after shooting Henry Bennett, III, including standing over his body and refusing to allow
anyone to render first aide or resuscitative measures, and failing to do so himself is further
evidence he was acting in bad faith or with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton
and willful disregard of human rights, safety, and/or property.
124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Canos harmful and offensive
contact, decedent Henry Bennett, III, suffered ongoing and permanent damages; namely death.
Florida Wrongful Death Act for the value of decedents life, including but not limited to the
following:
36

a result of Henry Bennetts death;
and costs.
COUNT VII
BATTERY DEFENDANT SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW
126. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-19 and 118-125, as though fully set
forth herein.
127. This is an action brought against Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw for battery
pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida.
PBCSO and Defendant Sheriff Bradshaw, and acting within the course and scope of his
employment with same, in furtherance of the interest of Defendant and with Defendants
consent.
129. Decedent Henry Bennett, III, suffered a harmful and offensive contact when he
was shot and killed by Defendant Cano.
144. Defendant Cano acted intentionally, but not in bad faith or with malicious
purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, and/or
property.
37

145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Canos battery, decedent Henry
Bennett, III suffered ongoing and permanent damages; namely death.
146. Defendant Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and PBCSO are vicariously liable for the battery
suffered by decedent Henry Bennett, III.
Bennett, III, claims damages on behalf of the Estate of Henry Bennett as provided by the Florida
Wrongful Death Act for the value of decedents life, including but not limited to the following:
and costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Felicia Mitchell individually and as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Henry Bennett, III, and Plaintiff Henry Bennett, respectfully requests that this Court
award the following damages, jointly and severally against Defendant Cano and Defendant
38

Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, as provided by the Florida Wrongful Death Act and the United States
Constitution, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff;
(b) Award reasonable attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiff on Federal 1983
Counts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
(c) Loss of past and future support and services with interest;
(d) Loss of earnings and net accumulations to the Estate of Henry Bennett,
III;
(e) Any and all medical and/or funeral expenses incurred due to the
wrongful death of the Decedent;
(f) Loss to Plaintiffs of familial relationship with decedent, companionship,
comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of decedent, and the
mental pain and suffering from the past date of injury through the future,
injury, as a result of Henry Bennett, IIIs death;
(g) Any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
TRIAL BY JURY
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff FELICIA MITCHELL, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of HENRY BENNETT, III, deceased, and Plaintiff HENRY BENNETT, hereby
demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DATED this_14th day of March, 2017.
Respectfully Submitted,
_/s/Jasmine Rand________
Jasmine Rand, Esquire
39

FBN: 0077047
RAND LAW, L.L.C.
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 300
Miami, Florida 33134
(305) 906-6400 Telephone
(305) 503-9235 Facsimile
Attorney for Plaintiffs
40

Henry Bennett Lawsuit

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Henry Bennett Lawsuit

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 9:17-cv-80334-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2017 Page 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO.: 9:17-CV-80334

FELICIA MITCHELL, in her individual capacity,

HENRY BENNETT, in his individual capacity,

SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW, Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida,

ANDREW CANO, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual capacity,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff FELICIA MITCHELL, individually and as Personal

undersigned counsel against the above-named Defendants SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW,

VENUE, JURISDICTION, AND PARTIES

Florida pursuant to Florida Statute 768.28.

2. Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office (hereinafter PBCSO) is a Florida

for officers actions and inactions that result in injury to citizens.

3. Defendant Officer ANDREW CANO was a resident of Palm Beach County,

Florida, at the time of the incident.

4. Defendant SHERIFF RIC BRADSHAW was a resident of Palm Beach County,

Florida, at the time of the incident.

at the time of the subject incident.

6. Plaintiff FELICIA MITCHELL, is the natural mother and Personal Representative

all times material to the subject incident and as of todays date.

and/or work in Palm Beach County.

10. This is an action seeking damages in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars

($75,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys fees.

and ultimately shot and killed decedent.

the camera, only Deputy Campbell.

citizens of Palm Beach County in danger.

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, respectively.

but not limited to the following:

(a) Award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs;

(b) Award costs of this action to Plaintiffs;

Counts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;

death of the Decedent;

(g) Loss to Plaintiffs of familial relationship with decedent, companionship,

compensation for medical bills as a result of psychological and physical

injury, as a result of Henry Bennetts death;

Constitution Amendments IV and XIV, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of PBCSO.

pursuant to U.S.C. Amendments IV and XIV, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988.

25. The laws prohibiting violations of citizens rights to be free of unreasonable

Constitution via Amendments IV and XIV.

an African-American was unjustifiable and unlawful.

proximity of other citizens endangering their lives.

properly disciplined or supervised.

clause, and right to life.

34. Plaintiff Felicia Mitchell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Henry

including but not limited to the following:

death of the decedent;

(d) Loss to decedent's survivors of companionship with decedent, and the

a result of Henry Bennett, IIIs death;

Count pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Felicia Mitchell demands damages in an amount in excess of

SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00), together with post judgment interest

deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the community, including

obvious, flagrant, rampant and not isolated occurrences.

exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in the community,

ratifying said misconduct and resulting in a deliberate indifference to citizens constitutional

officers is tantamount to a deliberate indifference to their constitutional rights.

officer misconduct, use of excessive force, police shootings, mistreatment of African-American

citizens, resulting in a deliberate indifference to citizens constitutional rights.

any sanction or discipline but would instead be tolerated by Defendant.

excessive force against other citizens, racially-biased behavior, as aforementioned in paragraph

electronic internal review system.

and practice of unconstitutional conduct using research of particular incidents, statistical