An Orem woman is suing the American Fork Police Department, alleging officers illegally entered her home two years ago.
Brenda Powell-Zeeman's 4th District Court suit also names an attorney she originally hired to pursue the matter.Powell-Zeeman's present attorney, Linda Q. Anderson, filed a notice of intent to file a claim with American Fork City on March 24. Since more than 90 days have passed, a suit has officially been filed, as provided by law.
Powell-Zeeman is seeking $965,000 in damages from the involved officers and for civil rights violations as well as compensation from Butterfield.
Powell-Zeeman contends she and a male friend were at her former American Fork home on Sept. 29, 1990. The friend left and then returned a short time later to retrieve something he had left behind. At that time, Powell-Zeeman was in the bedroom changing clothes, the suit says.
Two American Fork police officers came through the front door without knocking and without permission and entered the bedroom where Powell-Zeeman was only partially clothed. Other officers were in the yard of Powell-Zeeman's home.
The suit says police then issued the male friend a ticket for driving without a license and the officers left.
In her suit, Powell-Zeeman charges that the officers trespassed on her property and that she suffered severe emotional distress because officers she saw later in the day smirked and laughed at her.
She says her constitutional rights were violated, that officers entered her home illegally and were not in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing criminal.
Powell-Zeeman hired Frank Butterfield to represent her in action taken against the city. The suit claims Butterfield was negligent in filing the proper forms in the proper manner.
At one time Butterfield promised her the case had been settled and she would get $5,000, the suit says. Later, Butterfield told her she would get only $500 because the city had changed insurance companies. Powell-Zeeman says Butterfield never filed an intent as is required by law.
The suit charges Butterfield with negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud and infliction of emotional distress because he was "well aware of the fragility of plaintiff's emotional and psychological composure."