UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

CASE NO. C-1-95-608

BOB EMERSON  
d/b/a, Cincinnati Computer
  Connection,
4466 Dogwood Drive
Batavia, Ohio 45103,

Plaintiff,

     vs.

SIMON L. LEIS, JR.
Hamilton County Justice Center
1000 Sycamore
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT  
Hamilton County Justice Center
1000 Sycamore
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL
COMPUTER CRIMES TASK FORCE
Hamilton County Justice Center
1000 Sycamore
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

UNION TOWNSHIP POLICE  
DEPARTMENT, A Division Of The
Public Safety Department Of Union
Township, Ohio
4312 Gleneste-Withamsville Road 
Cincinnati, Ohio  45245

CINCINNATI POLICE 
DEPARTMENT, A Division Of The
Public Safety Department Of The  
City Of Cincinnati
c/o Division 5
1012 Ludlow Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

MICHAEL BURNS
4312 Gleneste-Withamsville Road 
Cincinnati, Ohio  45245

MICHAEL SNOWDEN
c/o Division 5
1012 Ludlow Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

DALE MENKAUS 
Hamilton County Justice Center
1000 Sycamore
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

DETECTIVE SWISSHELM
Hamilton County Justice Center
1000 Sycamore
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

JANE/JOHN DOES
Law Enforcement Officers
Addresses Currently Unknown 

                    Defendants.  


COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND


     Now comes plaintiff, Bob Emerson, d/b/a Cincinnati
Computer Connection who for its complaint against
defendants, states as follows:

                    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

     1.   This is an action under the laws and Constitution
of the United States alleging that state law enforcement
officials from various jurisdictions in Southwest Ohio and
Northern Kentucky acting in concert as part of a "Regional
Computer Crimes Task Force," unlawfully and
unconstitutionally seized computer equipment, files, and
communications in furtherance of a campaign to impose a
prior restraint on the computer transmission of non-obscene
adult oriented forms of expression presumptively protected
by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

                        JURISDICTION

     2.   Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 18
U.S.C. Section 2707, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 28 U.S.C. Section
1343, 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, 28 U.S.C. Section 2202, 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. Section 1985, 42 U.S.C Section 1988,
and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa.

     3.   This is a suit authorized by law to redress
deprivations under color of state law of rights, privileges,
and immunities secured by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, the First
Amendment Privacy Protection Act, and Title II of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

     4.   Venue in this Court is appropriate as the various
acts complained of occurred within the Western Division of
the Southern District of Ohio.

                           PARTIES

     5.   Plaintiff Bob Emerson, an individual who resides
at 4466 Dogwood Drive, Batavia, Ohio 45103, owns and
operates a for-profit electronic computer bulletin board
system known as Cincinnati Computer Connection (hereinafter
"CCC").

     6.   Defendant, Simon L. Leis, Jr., is and was at all
times referred to herein the Sheriff of Hamilton County,
Ohio.  He is sued in both his personal and official
capacities.

     7.   Defendant, Hamilton County Sheriff's Department,
is a sheriff's department organized under the laws of the
State of Ohio.

     8.   Defendant, Hamilton County Regional Computer
Crimes Task Force, is a branch of the Hamilton County
Sheriff's Department organized under the laws of the State
of Ohio to utilize special skills and expertise in
investigating computer crimes.

     9.   Defendant, Union Township Police Department, is a
division of the Public Safety Department of Union Township
Ohio, organized under the laws of the State of Ohio.

     10.  Defendant, Cincinnati Police Department, is a
division of the Public Safety Department of the City of
Cincinnati, organized under the laws of the State of Ohio.

     11.  Defendant, Michael Burns, is and was at all times
referred to herein the Acting Chief of the Union Township
Police Department in Clermont County, Ohio.  He is sued in
both his personal and official capacities.

     12.  Defendant, Michael Snowden, is and was at all
times referred to herein the Chief of the Cincinnati Police
Department. He is sued in both his personal and official
capacities.

     13.  Defendant, Dale Menkaus, is and was at all times
referred to herein the Commander of the Regional Computer
Crimes Task Force.  He is sued in both his personal and
official capacities.

     14.  Defendant, Detective Swisshelm, is and was at all
times referred to herein a member of the Regional Computer
Crimes Task Force.  He is sued in both his personal and
official capacities.

     15.  Jane/John Doe, are individuals from the Regional
Computer Crimes Task Force and/or other police departments
from various jurisdictions whose names are currently unknown
whom plaintiff believes conspired with defendants and
participated in the acts against plaintiff complained of
herein.  Such individuals are sued in both their personal
and official capacities.

                    STATEMENT OF THE CASE

     16.  A computer bulletin board system, like CCC, stores
information in a central computer and allows subscribers to
access that information via telephone lines and personal
computer equipment.  By means of a computer bulletin board,
subscribers can converse, communicate and exchange various
types of information with each other as well as retrieve
information stored on the bulletin board itself.

     17.  Plaintiff has been operating CCC since 1982 and
has developed a list of monthly subscribers numbering in the
thousands, who pay a set fee for access to the bulletin
board.  CCC offers its subscribers the ability to send and
receive electronic mail (hereinafter "e-mail"), to
participate in on-line discussion groups, to utilize and
download software, to engage in computer games, and to
receive newspapers and periodicals of general as well as
highly specialized interest.  Included among the various
information and service options offered to subscribers of
CCC is non-obscene adult oriented material.  This category
of material represents approximately three (3) percent of
the total informational material and resources offered by
CCC to its subscribers.  Access to the non-obscene adult
oriented material on the CCC bulletin board is restricted to
a limited number of adult subscribers who requested such access.

     18.  Commencing sometime prior to June 16, 1995,
defendants, under color of state law and pursuant to and in
their official capacities for and on behalf of their
respective jurisdictions, conspired together and with others
unknown, and therefore not named as defendants, to violate
plaintiff's rights and privileges guaranteed to him by the
First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act,
and Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by
designing and implementing a campaign characterized by
harassment, express and implied threats of criminal
prosecution, and mass seizures of computer equipment and
information.  This campaign was initiated by defendants for
the purpose of causing plaintiff, and others, to cease
transmitting and/or receiving non-obscene adult oriented
material via computer technology.

     19.  Sometime on or about June 16, 1995, pursuant to
and part of this campaign, defendants, under color of state
law, sought a search warrant authorizing the search of all
computer equipment and accessories necessary for the
operation of CCC and authorizing the wholesale and
indiscriminate review of all computer electronic
communications transmitted to and from plaintiff and CCC's
subscribers including, but not limited to, e-mail and
personal correspondence that was stored in or exchanged in
electronic form by means of CCC's equipment and software.
At the time defendants made application for the
aforementioned search warrant, defendants knew or should
have known that no reasonable grounds existed to believe
that the contents of the e-mail and personal correspondence
sought were relevant or material to any on-going criminal
investigation.

     20.  On June 16, 1995, pursuant to and part of this
campaign, defendants, under color of state law, obtained and
executed a search warrant providing for the search of
plaintiff's personal residence for all computer equipment
and accessories necessary for the operation of CCC as well
as for all electronic communications transmitted to and from
CCC's subscribers including, but not limited to, e-mail and
personal correspondence that was stored in or exchanged in
electronic form by means of CCC's equipment and software. 

     21.   As a further part of this campaign, following the
execution of the aforementioned search warrant, defendants
seized and physically removed from plaintiff's residence
virtually the entire inventory of computer equipment and
accessories owned by plaintiff and necessary for the
operation of CCC.  Included among the numerous equipment and
accessories seized by defendants were computer hardware,
video display units, printers, software, data drives, and
internal or external information storage units.  As a
consequence of defendants' actions in removing the
aforementioned computer equipment and accessories,
defendants necessarily seized information transmitted to and
from CCC and its subscribers, including, but not limited to,
e-mail and correspondence stored or exchanged in electronic
form.  As a further consequence of these actions defendants
seized plaintiff's entire inventory of non-obscene adult
related material as well as all other forms of expressive
material.

     22.  At the time defendants sought, obtained, and
executed the aforementioned search warrant and seized all of
the computer equipment and accessories related to the
operation of CCC, as well as much of the information
provided by CCC to its subscribers which was contained in
such equipment, defendants knew or should have known:

i.   that items seized included work product and
documentary material containing mental
impressions, conclusions or theories of
individuals who authored or created such
materials for the purpose of disseminating
same to the public;

ii.  that the information seized included e-mail
and personal correspondence transmitted to
and from plaintiff and CCC's subscribers;

iii. that the information seized included
expressive material protected under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution that cannot be seized
without a prior judicial determination of
probable obscenity;

iv.  that the mass seizure of this computer
equipment and information would have a
devastating impact on the plaintiff's
business;

v.   that the mass seizure of this computer
equipment and information would prevent
plaintiff from transmitting any information,
including expressive material protected under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution;

vi.  that the search warrant under which authority
defendants ostensibly based their actions did
not by its terms authorize the seizure of any
materials or information;

vii. that there were less intrusive means of
obtaining the information defendants sought
to inspect for potential violations of state
law, and that such means, if utilized, would
have permitted  plaintiff to continue to use
and derive the economic benefit of his
computer equipment;

viii.  that there were less intrusive means of
obtaining the information defendants
sought to inspect for potential
violations of state law, and that such
means, if utilized, would have permitted
plaintiff to continue to receive and
transmit constitutionally protected
speech;

ix.  that there were less intrusive means of
obtaining the information defendants sought
to inspect for potential violations of state
law, and that such means, if utilized, would
have preserved the privacy interests of
plaintiff and his subscribers in the e-mail
and personal correspondence that was stored
in or exchanged in electronic form via CCC's
equipment and software; and

x.   that it was not necessary to physically seize
and remove the information sought or any of
the computer equipment owned by plaintiff
because defendants at all times were capable
of retrieving or "downloading" information
exchanged or stored in plaintiff's computer
equipment and by such means preserving said
information for any legitimate law
enforcement purpose determined by defendants.

     23.  Defendants' activities were conducted
purposefully, in bad faith, in conscious and reckless
disregard of plaintiff's federal and constitutional rights
to privacy, to free speech, and to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and with the intention to intimidate
plaintiff from his continued exercise of free expression and
to impose a prior restraint on the transmission of
presumptively protected forms of expression by plaintiff and
others by permanently removing from circulation non-obscene
adult oriented and other forms of expression and by
physically removing and retaining the computer equipment and
software by which computer-generated forms of expression are
transmitted.

     24.  As a direct and proximate result of defendants'
actions, as previously described, plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer damage to his business and
professional reputation in the following regards:

i.   plaintiff has lost the use of computer
equipment valued at approximately $45,000.00;

ii.  plaintiff has been forced to replace computer
equipment at the cost of approximately
$45,000.00;

iii.  plaintiff has lost revenue from subscribers
in the amount of approximately $28,000.00 per
month;

iv.  plaintiff has suffered a temporary and
permanent loss of a portion of his subscriber
base;

v.   plaintiff has lost good will associated with
the operation of a legitimate and lawful
computer service; and

vi.  plaintiff has been prevented from
transmitting presumptively protected material
to his subscribers.

     25.  Further, unless defendants are preliminarily and
permanently enjoined from continuing to engage in a campaign
to intimidate plaintiff, to chill the exercise of his
constitutional rights, and to impose a prior restraint upon
the distribution of presumptively protected forms of
expression, plaintiff will continue to suffer violations of
his constitutional rights, thereby incurring irreparable
injury for which plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM

COUNT ONE

     26.  Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) are
realleged as if fully rewritten.

     27.  The actions of defendants, as described herein,
deprived plaintiff of his right to free speech secured by
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

COUNT TWO

     28.  Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) are
realleged as if fully rewritten.

     29.  The actions of defendants, as described herein,
deprived plaintiff of his right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures secured by the Fourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.


COUNT THREE

     30.  Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) are
realleged as if fully rewritten.

     31.  The actions of defendants, as described herein,
deprived plaintiff of his right to privacy secured by the
United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.


COUNT FOUR

     32.  Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) are
realleged as if fully rewritten.

     33.  The actions of defendants, as described herein,
deprived plaintiff of the right to be free from deprivations
of property without due process of law as guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

COUNT FIVE

     34.  Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) are
realleged as if fully rewritten.

     35.  The actions of defendants, as described herein,
deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the First Amendment
Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa.

COUNT SIX

     36.  Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) are
realleged as if fully rewritten.

     37.  The actions of defendants, as described herein,
deprived plaintiff of rights secured by Title II of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2701.

COUNT SEVEN

     38.  Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-six (26) are
realleged as if fully rewritten.

     39.  The actions of defendants, as described herein,
constituted an illegal conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of
his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section
1985(3).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bob Emerson, d/b/a/ Cincinnati
Computer Connection, hereby demands judgment as follows:

     1.   A declaration that the actions of the defendants
constitute a prior restraint in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

     2.   A preliminary and permanent injunction
restraining, enjoining and prohibiting the defendants from
undertaking, enforcing, maintaining, or adopting any
policies, procedures, practices, campaigns, or acts against
or towards plaintiff which constitute a prior restraint upon
plaintiff's transmission of protected forms of expressive
non-obscene adult oriented materials;

     3.   An order requiring defendants to return to
plaintiff all computer equipment, accessories and material
seized from plaintiff;

     4.   An order awarding plaintiff compensatory damages
for his economic injuries in an amount not less than
$250,000.00;

     5.   Liquidated damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa;

     6.   An award of plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees
and costs incurred herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and

     7.   An award of such other relief in law and equity
that this Court deems just and proper in the premises.

JURY DEMAND

     Plaintiff demands the within facts be tried to a jury.

Respectfully submitted,

SIRKIN, PINALES, MEZIBOV & SCHWARTZ

/s/H. LOUIS SIRKIN
Ohio Bar No. 0024573

/s/MARC D. MEZIBOV
Ohio Bar No. 0019316

LAURA A. ABRAMS
Ohio Bar No. 0056183
920 Fourth & Race Tower
105 West Fourth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio  45202
Telephone (513) 721-4876
Telecopier (513) 721-0876
Attorneys for Plaintiff