COMES NOW, Plaintiff Marc Perkel, pursuant to Rule 56(a), to move for partial summary judgement to determine liability only of issues where no genuine issues of controversy exist. In support of his motion plaintiff states the following material facts as to which there is no genuine dispute:

1. That on September 8th 1998 at or about 10:30pm at the Plaintiff's home at 1452 North Clay St., defendants Hollie and Shipley arrested the plaintiff.
2. That the arrest took place in spite of the fact that there was no arrest warrant issued.
3. That the alleged violation, trespassing, was not a felony.
4. That neither exigent circumstances nor any other legal excuse, privilege, excusable mistake, or other circumstances existed justifying the arrest of the plaintiff in his home without a warrant.
5. That it is well established in the law that warrantless arrests in the home are only justified when the offense is at least a felony, and that exigent circumstances exist precluding the possibility of the officer from first getting an arrest warrant.

Illegal Search of Plaintiff's Home

6. That the officers searched the plaintiff's home.
7. That the officers did not have a search warrant to search the plaintiff's home.
8. That the officers did not have the plaintiff's permission to search his home.
9. That no legal excuse, privilege, excusable mistake, or other circumstances existed justifying the search of the search of the plaintiff's home without a search warrant and without permission.

False Imprisonment - Denial of Bail - Denial of Attorney

10. That the plaintiff was handcuffed and taken against his will by Officers Hollie and Shipley to the city jail.
11. That the plaintiff was searched and is personal possessions, including his wallet, were taken by officers and other city employees at the jail.
12. That the plaintiff had more than $100 in cash on his person at the jail.
13. That the charge of trespassing carried a $100 bond.
14. That the officers and personnel at the jail knew that the plaintiff had enough money in cash at the jail to make bond.
15. That the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to make bond.
16. That the plaintiff requested to speak to his attorney and was denied.
17. That the plaintiff was incarcerated in the city intoxication tank for approximately ten hours.
18. That no legal excuse, privilege, excusable mistake, or other circumstances existed justifying the imprisonment, denial of bail, and denial of contact with his attorney.

Liability of City of Springfield

19. That on September 11^th 1998 plaintiff Marc Perkel filed an internal affairs complaint with the Springfield Police Department complaining about the arrest, search, and imprisonment at the hands of the police officers.
20. Sgt. Greer, who is the head of the Internal Affairs Department, conducted a full and thorough investigation of the plaintiff's allegations and on September 15^th 1998 Sgt. Greer informed the plaintiff by letter that he determined the complaint to be "unfounded".
21. Sgt. Greer further indicated in his letter that he determined "the actions of the officers were in full compliance with current department policy and/or state law."
22. Plaintiff responded to Sgt. Greer's determination and pointed out that the officer's own police report indicated that the plaintiff was in fact arrested in his home without a warrant, that his home was searched without a warrant, that he was subsequently imprisoned, denied bail, and denied contact with his attorney.
23. In response to the Plaintiff's second letter, Sgt. Greer confirmed his original decision by denying any further investigation.
24. On October 1^st 1998 the Chief of Police Lynn S. Rowe wrote a letter to the plaintiff in which the Chief stated, "I have personally reviewed the investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs Unit".
25. That Chief of Police Rowe concluded that the acts of the officers were lawful.
26. That the two letters from Sgt. Greer and the letter from Chief Rowe establish and admit that the conduct of Officers Hollie and Shipley represent policies and customs of the Springfield Police Department and the City of Springfield Missouri.
27. It is well settled in the case of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S., at 689, that municipalities and other local governmental bodies are "persons" within the meaning of Section(s) 1983.
28. That it is also well established in cases such as Monell that municipalities are liable under Section 1983 if the civil rights violations in question are "policies" or "customs" of the municipality.
29. That the plaintiff sent several letters to each and every member of City Council and the City Manager fully informing them of the issues involved with the plaintiff's arrest and imprisonment.
30. That the plaintiff implored the City Council and the City Manager to act, and that they had a duty to act, and that they failed to act.
31. That the inaction of the City Council and City Manager further establish that the conduct of the officers' conduct represents policies and customs of the City of Springfield.

Requested Findings:

1. That Officers Hollie and Shipley improperly arrested the plaintiff.
2. That Officers Hollie and Shipley improperly searched the plaintiff's home.
3. That Officers Hollie and Shipley improperly imprisoned the plaintiff.
4. That Officers Hollie and Shipley improperly denied the plaintiff the opportunity to post bond.
5. That Officers Hollie and Shipley improperly denied the plaintiff the opportunity to contact his attorney.
6. That the officers' improper conduct violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights to freedom, liberty, due process of law, and the right to be secure in his home and secure from searches and arrests without warrants.
7. That Officers Hollie and Shipley are liable to the plaintiff.
8. That the improper conduct of Officers Hollie and Shipley are policies and customs of the City of Springfield.
9. That the City of Springfield is a "person" within the meaning of Section 1983 of the U.S. Code.
10. That the City of Springfield is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the acts of Officers Hollie and Shipley.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff asks the court make these ten findings and in the interest of judicial economy that this court make whatever other findings it deems just and necessary, and that the court grant the plaintiff partial summary judgement on the issues presented here.

________________________________

Marc Perkel - Plaintiff - 04-15-99