Zieglers file amended complaint
The City of Sarasota has asked a senior U.S. District Court judge to dismiss two counts of the federal lawsuit that Bridget and Christian Ziegler of Sarasota filed against the city late last year, and the Zieglers have asked the judge to allow them extra time to respond to that motion, The Sarasota News Leader has learned.
In the meantime, the federal magistrate judge assigned to the case, Amanda Arnold Sansone, has ruled that evidence that was “at risk of destruction” must be preserved. That evidence was related to a 12th Judicial Circuit Court case that the Zieglers won, which has been on appeal to Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal.
In her Jan. 28 order, Sansone pointed out that the basis of the Zieglers’ complaint “is an alleged illegal search and seizure of Mr. Ziegler’s electronically stored information (ESI) … from Mr. Ziegler’s cell phone, Google Drive account and Meta/Instagram account seized pursuant to three state search warrants.”
In their Oct. 31, 2025 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, the Zieglers contended that their reputations have not recovered from a Sarasota Police Department investigation two years ago that revealed the couple’s engagement in sexual activity with other women.
Federal Magistrate Judge Sansone pointed out in her Jan. 28 order that the Circuit Court “concluded the City of Sarasota Police Department (SPD) violated Mr. Ziegler’s Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining unlawful state search warrants, and ruled that all data seized pursuant to the three search warrants constituted [his] private property. … Accordingly, the July 1, 2024 [Circuit Court] order determined the seized ESI is not a public record under Florida law and must be returned to Mr. Ziegler. The state court ordered the Office of the State Attorney for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit and the Sarasota Police Department to destroy all copies of the data seized in response to the three state search warrants,” the magistrate judge continued, and the court “also permanently enjoined the Office of the State Attorney for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit and the Sarasota Police Department from publicly disclosing the contents of Mr. Ziegler’s property …”
Sansone then noted that the case is on appeal.
“The City argues preservation is necessary to ensure the fair adjudication of the claims and defenses in [the Zieglers’ federal lawsuit],” she continued, claiming “it would face irreparable harm because the phone data ‘is the central evidentiary record of what was actually seized and how it was seized … and provides background information regarding the grounds of the search warrants.’ ”
Conversely, Sansone wrote, the Zieglers “argue ‘there is no concern for the continuing existence of the evidence … because the ESI is not relevant to any claim or issue in this [federal] case.’ ” Instead, Sansone continued, they “argue ‘[w]hat matters is what information was used to obtain the search warrant, not the items or information obtained as a result of the search.’ ”
Ultimately, Sansone agreed with the city about the preservation of “the contents of the seized ESI [because it is] directly at issue in [the couple’s federal] complaint.” She explained that the “Zieglers request damages for humiliation and embarrassment based on the communications seized, thereby putting the contents of the ESI in dispute. Without retaining the ESI,” she wrote, “the City would be unable to defend itself regarding what data was actually searched and seized.”
Along with the city, the defendants named in the Zieglers’ federal lawsuit, filed on Oct. 31, 2025, are two Sarasota Police Department detectives — Angela Cox and Maria Llovio. In an amended complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, on Feb. 6, the Zieglers have included Ed Brodsky, the state attorney for the 12th Judicial District, as a plaintiff in “his official capacity.”
Christian Ziegler is the former chair of the Republican Party of Florida and a former Sarasota County commissioner. His wife, Bridget, continues to serve on the Sarasota County School Board, a position she has held since June 2014, when then-Gov. Rick Scott appointed her to the District 1 seat to fill a vacancy.
Alleged violations of constitutional rights
As the News Leader has reported, the Zieglers’ complaint says that Christian Ziegler “continues to struggle and he has failed to achieve the same levels of business he attained prior to the [Sarasota Police Department’s] investigation.” Further, it contends that it cost Christian and Bridget Ziegler “hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees” to win the state court case that they filed in the aftermath of the law enforcement agency’s investigation.
They argue in the federal complaint that the “City’s policies … and customs violated Mr. Ziegler’s fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment rights” and “Mrs. Ziegler’s fourth and fourteenth amendment rights.” The complaint adds, “[T]he Zieglers have sustained general damages consisting of pain, suffering, anxiety, and other physical and emotional damages ins such sums as shall be determined.”
In the amended complaint, Count VI alleges “that the State Attorney’s continued possession [of] a small subset” of the seized materials is a violation of Christian Ziegler’s constitutional rights, as Brodsky declined to prosecute Christian Ziegler after he was arrested for an alleged October 2023 assault on a woman who was not identified in the federal litigation.
“Upon closing the investigation,” the amended complaint says, “the State Attorney lost any right to possess any of Mr. Ziegler’s private property that was seized pursuant to … three search warrants.”
Moreover, the amended complaint adds, “The State Attorney is the recipient of multiple public records requests under Florida’s Public Records Act seeking the seized material,” though the 12th Judicial Circuit Court has issued an order preventing Brodsky’s office from “producing the seized material” in response to those requests.
That count also points out that the Circuit Court ordered Brodsky’s office to “destroy all copies of the seized material,” though that order is on hold because of the appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal.
However, the count continues, Brodsky’s office should have [destroyed or returned all of the seized materials] immediately upon closing the investigation two years ago. For unknown reasons, it has chosen not to do so,” the amended complaint says.
Therefore, the complaint continues, the Zieglers are seeking a permanent injunction that would prevent Brodsky’s office from holding on to “any material obtained via the three search warrants and from disclosing any material obtained via the three search warrants in response to any public records request under state law.”
The city’s motion seeking dismissal of two counts
In a Feb. 20 filing, the City of Sarasota asked the federal court to dismiss Counts III and VII of the amended complaint.
“Count III attempts to transform the execution of judicially authorized search warrants during a criminal investigation into a Fifth Amendment takings claim,” the city argues. “The seizure and retention of property pursuant to the government’s police power in the course of enforcing criminal law does not constitute a compensable taking for public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.”
Count VII was added in the Zieglers’ amended complaint as a contention that Bridget Ziegler’s 14th Amendment rights were violated by the conduct of the city after Christian Ziegler’s materials were seized. Bridget Ziegler never was suspected of any crime, the amended complaint points out. Yet, it contends, “The City “intentionally reviewed, retained, preserved, and catalogued intimate marital communications, photographs, videos, and messages involving Bridget Ziegler that were unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement purpose and had no evidentiary value.”
Moreover, the Zieglers’ amended complaint continues, “The City further included this intimate personal information in police reports and investigative files and caused or permitted its disclosure to third parties, including members of the media, resulting in public dissemination, stigma, and severe reputational harm to Bridget Ziegler.”
Then it adds, “The City’s conduct was arbitrary, conscience-shocking, and lacked any legitimate governmental purpose, constituting an abuse of investigative authority in violation of Bridget Ziegler’s substantive due process and informational privacy rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The City says in its motion that the count “attempts to assert an independent Fourteenth Amendment claim on behalf of Mrs. Ziegler based on the alleged search of Mr. Ziegler’s devices and accounts.” Yet, the city motion adds, “Count VII impermissibly repackages a Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim as substantive due process; and second, Mrs. Ziegler alleges no invasion of her own constitutionally protected interest. Mrs. Ziegler seeks to vindicate an alleged constitutional injury that belongs, if at all, to Mr. Ziegler.”
Additionally, the city contends that, to establish “standing” — the legal right — to allege that 14th Amendment claim, Bridget Ziegler must show an “ ‘injury in fact’ — an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (a) ‘concrete and particularized’ and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,’ “citing judicial precedents as the basis for its argument.
Further, the city motion points out, “In the Fourth Amendment context, the Supreme Court has held that constitutional rights are ‘personal’ and ‘may not be vicariously asserted,’ citing the 1969 ruling in Alderman v. United States. “In this case,” the city continues, “Mrs. Ziegler attempts to assert a Fourteenth Amendment privacy theory, but the alleged invasion of privacy is derivative of a search conducted on property she did not own or control. To establish Fourth Amendment standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged search violated her own legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or items seized.”
Yet, the city continues, “[T]he Amended Complaint does not allege that Mrs. Ziegler owned, possessed, or exercised control over Mr. Ziegler’s cell phone or his Google or Instagram accounts. Nor does the Amended Complaint allege that any property belonging to Mrs. Ziegler was seized. The challenged warrants were directed to, and executed upon, Mr. Ziegler’s cell phone and online accounts.”
James O. Williams Jr. of the Jupiter law firm Williams, Leininger & Cosby is the lead attorney representing the city in the litigation.
Matthew Seth Sarelson and Zachary Stoner of the Dhillon Law Group in West Palm Beach are representing the Zieglers.
A national firm, the Dhillon Law Group also has represented President Donald Trump.