Paragraphs 46 through 50 of the lawsuit includes information from employees in the individual video stores. We present the paragraphs as they appear in the lawsuit:
46. In one store, Defendant Police Officers obtained the movie by telling the manager on duty that possessing The Tin Drum was a felony.
47. In a second store, the manager on duty was advised by Defendant Police Officers that The Tin Drum had been "ruled Obscene by a judge" and "we're here to seize Blockbuster's copy."
48. In a third store, the manager on duty was nearly reduced to tears by the conduct of Defendant Police Officers. When asked to reveal the identify of a customer who had rented the movie, the manager asked the police whether she could contact the customer to return the copy of the movie in the morning. Defendant Police Officers told her that she could not, that possession of The Tin Drum was a felony, and that they needed the name and address of the customer so that they could "seize the movie tonight." When the manager on duty protested that it was against the company policy to reveal such information, she was advised by Defendant Police Officers that it was against the law to interfere with their investigation, and was asked if that was what she was doing. The manager on duty felt threatened and intimidated, and only then acquiesced to Defendant Police Officers' demands in their efforts to carry out the decision reached with Defendant Gonzales and Defendant Macy.
49. In a fourth store, when the manager on duty hesitated to provide confidential customer rental information being demanded, the manager was advised by Defendant Police Officers that it was against the law to have the movie, and that the manager "could go to jail" for not complying with the law. Defendant Police Officers insisted that they wanted the customer information at that time.
50. In a fifth store, the manager on duty had already heard from two colleagues at other stores that Defendant Police Officers had stated that possession was a felony and that resistance to providing the police with information they requested could constitute criminal interference. She was so intimidated by news of these raids that she did not resist at all.
Paragraph 53 quotes the Federal Video Protection Act, which allows video stores to disclose customer information in only very narrow circumstances. The last part of this paragraph reads:
The lawsuit charges the defendants with violation of the Video Privacy Act, unreasonable search and seizure, denial of due process and equal protection, and violation of liberty of speech under the Oklahoma Bill of Rights.