Civil rights lawsuit filed against former Joplin Police Department officers

Two Joplin Police Department officers submitted false reports that led to criminal charges being filed against two people who hadn't committed crimes in March 2023, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed today in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

The defendants in the lawsuit are former JPD officers Seth Lugenbell and Kyle Fallis. The Joplin Police Department is not being sued.

The plaintiffs Quinlyn Tosh and her brother Dausen Tosh, are being represented by Benjamin S. McIntosh of SWMW Law, St. Louis.

The six-count lawsuit alleges Lugenbell and Fallis used excessive force against Quinlyn Tosh, retaliated against the Toshes for exercising their First Amendment rights, falsely arrested them, maliciously prosecuted them, as well as two common law counts of false arrest and malicious prosecution.

The allegations are detailed in the petition.

On around March 20, 2023, Dausen Tosh was planning to go on a bicycle ride in Joplin, Missouri, with his stepbrother, Wyatt. The two departed for this bicycle ride sometime in the evening. They planned to
initially make a stop at a local gas station to fill up air in the tires of one of the bicycle, as it was
low. Specifically, they were riding their bicycles down B Street eastbound towards the Casey’s
convenience store located on Main Street in Joplin.

As they began their journey, a police officer drove by them in the neighborhood along B Street and inquired as to whether the two young men had been throwing things off a roof. They answered that, no, they had not been doing that, and the officer pulled away.

A few moments later, Dausen and Wyatt realized that they had forgotten to grab quarters so they could use the air machine at the gas station.

At the same time, Plaintiff Quinlyn Tosh was leaving her home to drive to the store. About three minutes into her drive, she saw her brothers—including Dausen—riding their bicycles near the intersection of B Street and Wall Avenue in Joplin. She noticed the tires were flat on one of the bicycles, so she pulled over to give them some change to get some air at Casey’s gas station nearby.

At this point, the three were chatting about the fact that officers had just pulled up to ask Dausen and Wyatt whether they were “throwing chairs over a balcony.” Dausen explained to his sister that they advised the officers they were not engaged in that activity, and the officers said to them: “Okay, if you were doing it, just don’t do it again. And if you weren’t, have a good night!” The group was actually laughing about how nice these officers were.

The three sat and chatted for a while until Defendant Lugenbell pulled up with a trainee, Defendant Kyle Fallis, in a Joplin Police Department squad car.

Officer Lugenbell was immediately aggressive and hostile toward Dausen and his stepbrother, and demanded they come to the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street to speak with him and Officer Fallis without explaining why.

Quinlyn and Dausen both inquired as to why they were being stopped and commanded to go to the sidewalk. Lugenbell would not answer, other than saying “because I’m telling him to,” and simply reiterated the command for Dausen and Wyatt to go to the sidewalk on the other side of the street.

Dausen then starts to coast his bicycle toward the area directed and says “I’m coming.” Dausen and Wyatt complied with Officer Lugenbell’s demands and went to the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, while Quinlyn Tosh pulled her vehicle to the side of the road to park and monitor the interaction.

Seconds later, Quinlyn exited her vehicle and leaned against it, situated approximately 20 feet away from where Dausen and Wyatt were standing.

Defendant Lugenbell immediately demanded that Quinlyn get back in her vehicle and says “you’re going to go in handcuffs if you don’t stay in your car.” Defendant Lugenbell never mentions anything about the way she is parked being a problem and does not ask her to move the vehicle. He just demands she get into the vehicle even though she was not interfering in any way.

Quinlyn, still leaning against her vehicle, says: “I’m asking what he did.”

Lugenbell then yells: “You’re interfering, get in your car!”

Fallis then approaches Quinlyn—who was a 23-year-old woman at the time—in an intimidating manner and yells at her: “get in your car or you’re going to jail for interfering with our investigating!”

Quinlyn asks, incredulously: “what investigation?”

Lugenbell immediately says: “hook her up,” ordering the arrest of Quinlyn despite the fact that she is not engaged in any criminal activity, but instead exercising her right to observe the officers’ actions. At this point, the Defendants still had not disclosed why they were stopping Dausen and Wyatt to question them. The two officers suddenly attack Quinlyn, tackle her to the ground, and started handcuffing her. Quinlyn did not resist the officers in any way.

Quinlyn suffered an injury to her leg as a result of being unnecessarily and unreasonably tackled to the ground by the Defendant Officers.

As the Defendants attacked her, Quinlyn screamed “no” and began crying, yelling “please don’t!”

Quinlyn was not interfering with the officers in any way. She was a significant distance from them and was not shouting or interrupting. She was legally observing while standing against her car.

Only approximately 14 seconds elapsed from the time Dausen had gotten to the sidewalk Lugenbell wanted him to go to until when the Defendant Officers tackled Quinlyn to the ground to arrest her. The Defendants unnecessarily and, quite ridiculously, escalated the situation in rapid fashion.

Quinlyn had every right to be present, lean against her vehicle, and observe the officers’ actions. The Defendant Officers had no right to order her to remain in her vehicle.

While Quinlyn was on the ground, crying and terrified, Dausen took out his cell phone to record the interaction from a safe distance. Dausen did not interfere with the officers in any way. He had every right to record the Defendant Officers’ actions. He simply stood at a distance to allow him to record the officers’ actions, while asking why the Defendant Officerswere taking these ridiculously aggressive actions.

While Dausen was recording their arrest of his sister, Officer Lugenbell pulled out

his department issued firearm and pointed it directly at Dausen, leading Quinlyn to tell him

“Dausen please stop” afraid the already aggressive officer would potentially shoot Dausen for

exercising his right to observe and record the interaction. The photograph below depicts Officer

Lugenbell pointing his weapon at Dausen while he was recording:

Officer Lugenbell continues to point his weapon at Dausen for a considerable period of time even though it is readily apparent that Dausen is holding a cell phone to record the interaction. Dausen complied and backed away further as Lugenbell instructed, yet Lugenbell continued pointing his firearm at Dausen. At no time did Dausen charge the officers or take any aggressive action toward them.

Officer Lugenbell appears to have pointed the firearm at Quinlyn as well while removing it to point it at Dausen.

Dausen repeatedly asks “what is happening” to the officers as they are arresting his sister for apparently no legal reason.

Dausen stops recording out of the fear created by Officer Lugenbell pulling his firearm and pointing it at Quinlyn and Dausen.

The Defendant Officers then lift up Quinlyn and bring her to their squad car. While up against the squad car, Officer Fallis says: “All this could have been avoided if you would’ve done what we said.” 

This statement was essentially divorced from reality. Dausen complied with the officer commands. Quinlyn was not interfering in any way and was simply attempting to observe the interaction, which she had every right to do.

Lugenbell doubles down on this fantasy, and says: “If you guys were cooperative this would have been avoided.” Dausen responds: “I did, I cooperated with you.” Dausen’s statement is objectively true from the video evidence.

As these interactions are occurring, other Joplin police officers appear at the scene. There were approximately six officers present in total.

While Quinlyn was in the squad car, she heard over the police radio that “those aren’t the right guys.” This radio communication was transmitted to the Defendant Officers while they were with Dausen and Wyatt, but they said nothing to them about the fact that they were mistaken in the first instance.

A few minutes later, after Quinlyn has been placed in the squad car, Dausen gets out his cell phone and records more of his interactions with the law enforcement officers. On this second video, he is questioning Quinlyn’s arrest, stating “we didn’t do anything wrong and she didn’t even do anything.” Dausen then says “sir, what is going on?”

Dausen then says to Officer Lugenbell “you pointed a gun at me for no reason.”

Officer Lugenbell responds “that’s right!” and Dausen responds “why?”

Officer Lugenbell then immediately responds, in retaliation for Dausen’s speech and recording the interaction: “turn around, you’re going to jail too.”

Dausen responds incredulously “what? I didn’t do anything wrong. I’m going to sue you,” to which Officer Lugenbell responds “sue me!”

Dausen asks multiple times “what am I going to jail for? Why am I going to jail?”

Officer Lugenbell would not answer him.

Officer Lugenbell then speaks with Wyatt, and again makes the fantastical claim that Dausen and Quinlyn weren’t complying. Wyatt—who was present during the whole interaction—timidly questions Lugenbell’s false account, stating: “he came over here”; that is, Dausen complied with officer commands. Wyatt’s statement is objectively true from the video evidence.

Displeased with Wyatt now questioning his power and authority, Lugenbell retorts: “you can go be a witness in court.”

While at the scene, Lugenbell described to other officers who arrived later what had occurred. He admits to pulling his firearm on Dausen, and says: “We’re hooking her up and he starts trying to walk towards us. Screw ‘em.”

Officer Lugenbell has a serious ego problem and apparently can’t handle an average, law abiding citizen questioning his authority and power in any manner, even while he illegally exercises it. As he so aptly put it, Officer Lugenbell decided to “screw” the Plaintiffs for hurting his fragile ego, even if it meant violating their constitutional rights.

Officer Lugenbell and Officer Fallis prepared reports regarding this incident. Both of their reports conveniently omit the fact that Officer Lugenbell pointed his firearm at Dausen with no legal justification for doing so. Officer Lugenbell also falsely stated in his report that Dausen did not back away when commanded when, in fact, Dausen complied with this command while Officer Lugenbell was pointing his firearm at Dausen. This became the basis for false charges against Dausen for interfering with an arrest.

Likewise, Officer Fallis falsely stated in his portion of the report that “While placing Quinlyn into custody, Dausen then began to interfere with the arrest,” which also became the basis for false charges against Dausen for interfering with an arrest. Dausen was not interfering. He was exercising his first amendment right to observe and record the officers’ actions.

Officer Lugenbell’s report admits that the complainant who initially called about kids throwing things off a balcony confirmed that Wyatt and Dausen “were not the subjects involved in the disturbance that was initially reported.”

No reasonable officer could believe that Officer Lugenbell and Officer Fallis had probable cause to arrest Quinlyn Tosh for lawfully observing police activity. Likewise, no reasonable officer could believe that Officer Lugenbell and Officer John Doe had probable cause to arrest Dausen Tosh, who was committing no illegal activity and was lawfully observing and recording police activity.

Dausen and Quinlyn were taken to jail by officers, booked, and locked up.

As described above, Officers Lugenbell and Fallis initiated false paperwork to charge Quinlyn with obstruction and resisting arrest and to charge Dausen with obstruction. These charges were patently false and were eventually dismissed.

After this arrest occurred, multiple officers within the Joplin Police Department apologized to plaintiffs for the actions of the officers.

One female officer at the police department advised Quinlyn that she “cannot stand” Officer Lugenbell and that this was not the first time something like this has happened with this officer.

As Quinlyn and Dausen were sitting in jail, the officers that had originally pulled up to Dausen and Wyatt—the ones the trio were chatting about as being nice—approached Dausen and Quinlyn to say they could not believe what had occurred and that, if it was them, “it would NOT have happened like that.”

Quinlyn and Dausen were eventually bailed out of jail.

On March 21, 2023, Quinlyn submitted a complaint to the Joplin Police Department about what occurred. She spoke with Sargeant Jason Stump about what had occurred, who admitted the Defendant Officers’ actions were wrong.

On May 4, 2023, the Joplin Police Department sent a letter to Quinlyn regarding her complaint. This letter stated: “Appropriate action has been taken based on our findings,” but nothing more could be said regarding personnel and disciplinary matters. The letter closed by stating: “Please rest assured that the review of your concerns has helped us improve our service and will help prevent future complaints of this nature.”

Dausen and Quinlyn had to hire attorneys to defend them against the false criminal charges lodged by the Defendant Officers. Those charges were all dismissed.

Dausen and Quinlyn Tosh suffered damages as a result of the Defendants actions, including reputational damages, physical injuries to Quinlyn Tosh, emotional distress, mental anguish, the incursion of attorney’s fees to defendant against false criminal charges, and being falsely imprisoned.

Quinlyn Tosh and Dausen Tosh are seeking fair and reasonable damages, punitive damages and attorney fees, according to the petition.