Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BEN BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

COMPLAINT
1.

Plaintiff Ben Baker brings this suit to overturn Defendant FBI’s refusal to produce

records concerning FBI’s widely and self-publicized investigation of now-incarcerated corrupt
Chicago police officer Ronald Watts on the alleged basis of his personal privacy.
PARTIES
2.

The Plaintiff in this case is Ben Baker.

3.

Defendant FBI is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 5

U.S.C. § 552, with an office in Chicago, Illinois.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This case is brought under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and presents a federal question

conferring jurisdiction on this Court.
5.

Venue is proper under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) because the records at issue in this

case are FBI records concerning an investigation that occurred in the Northern District of
Illinois, and upon information and belief, some or all of the records at issue are located in this
district.

 Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2

BAKER’S FOIA REQUEST
6.

On January 31, 2014, BAKER requested under FOIA records concerning FBI’s

investigation of Ronald Watts. A true and correct copy of BAKER’s January 31 request is
attached as Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND ON RONALD WATTS
7.

At the time of FBI’s investigation, Mr. Watts was a not a private citizen, but a

Chicago police officer, and FBI’s investigation into Mr. Watts pertained to illegal activities he
engaged in his capacity as a Chicago police officer.
8.

More specifically, Mr. Watts was a police sergeant who pled guilty in 2013 to

stealing thousands of dollars from a purported drug courier who was actually an informant for
the FBI in an undercover sting.
9.

Watts regularly demanded protection payoffs from drug dealers for multiple years

in the Ida B. Wells public housing complex in Chicago, but Watts was only charged with a single
count of stealing money belonging to the United States.
10.

In its response to Watts’ Sentencing Memorandum, the United States described

“years” of illegal corruption by Watts and the tremendous harm as it caused, while at the same
time acclaiming FBI’s role in bringing “so many” such criminals to justice:
As a Chicago Police officer, defendant Ronald Watts took an oath
to serve and protect the residents of Chicago from crime. He swore
to bring criminals to justice. He swore to act with honor and
integrity. He swore to play by the rules and enforce the rule of law
to guarantee that the constitutional and civil rights of Chicagoans
were protected. For years, however, the defendant used his badge
and his position as a sergeant with the Chicago Police Department
to shield his own criminal activity from law enforcement scrutiny.
He recruited another CPD officer into his crimes, stealing drug
money and extorting protection payments from the drug dealers
who terrorized the community that he, the defendant, had sworn to
protect. Ultimately, he was brought to justice in the same way as so
2

 Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3

many other criminals who come before this Court – in an FBI
undercover sting operation.
A true and correct copy of the response brief is attached as Exhibit B.
11.

The United States emphasized the harm that Watts’ corruption caused to

vulnerable residents living in public housing:
As set forth in the government’s version of the offense and
admitted by co-defendant Kallatt Mohammed, beginning no later
than December 11, 2007, through at least May 22, 2008, the
defendant and Watts covered the Ida B. Wells public housing
complex as part of the duties with the Chicago Police Department.
Like so many other housing projects, crime, drug dealing, and
gang activity plagued the residents living in that community. The
defendant, a sergeant working out of the Chicago Police
Department’s 2nd District, and Mohammed, a junior CPD officer,
worked together, seemingly to protect the residents of the complex.
Instead, however, they protected the heroin and crack cocaine
dealers, extorting protection payments from them in exchange for
agreeing not to arrest them. Mohammed estimated that he picked
up between $20,000 and $25,000 in these protection payments for
the defendant and at the defendant’s direction.
12.

In describing Watts’ corruption, the United States noted that “by virtue of his

badge, his rank, and his authority as an officer with the Chicago Police Department, [Watts]
thought himself untouchable for the crimes that he was committing.”
13.

The United States still further highlighted the distrust of law enforcement that

Watts’ conduct caused and Watts’ breach of the trust given to him as a police officer:
By many accounts, the defendant is a loving father and a good
friend. He successfully performed some of his duties as a law
enforcement officer, receiving the awards and recognition offered
by the defendant with his sentencing memorandum. None of these
qualities, however, explains why the defendant chose to betray his
oath as a police officer and the people he swore to protect with
years of crime. Despite his years of service in the military and the
Chicago Police Department, where the qualities of honor, integrity,
and honesty are esteemed and expected, the defendant chose to
support those very criminals he was expected to bring to justice.
He chose to turn a blind eye to the drug trafficking and crime in
order to enrich himself with the drug money that he extorted from
3

 Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4

the drug dealers and stole from their couriers. The good qualities
from which those closest to him benefitted are the same qualities
that should have prevented him from engaging in the crimes that
bring him before the Court for sentencing. ***
With his crimes, the defendant not only enriched himself with the
drug money that was earned by the drug dealers who peddled
poison – heroin and crack cocaine – into the community, he
undermined the criminal justice system. Sworn law enforcement
officers are held to a higher standard of conduct, not only because
of the authority that they enjoy, but because society relies on their
trustworthiness, their honor, and their integrity in upholding and
enforcing the laws that protect the community.
Every time the defendant chose to take cash from the drug dealers,
to turn a blind eye to their crimes, and to risk the safety of a
homeless man who purportedly carried bags of cash for drug
dealers, the defendant gave the community reason to doubt law
enforcement, reason to challenge its authority, reason to believe
that law enforcement cannot be trusted. He supported the criminal
activities in the same community that he had sworn to protect.
With his crimes, the defendant gave the community reason to
doubt all other law enforcement officers, to challenge their
truthfulness in court and in their administration of their duties, and
to challenge the legitimacy of warrants, prosecutions, and
convictions in the criminal justice system. His sentence should
speak to all of that. ***
The defendant’s sentence should account not only for his crimes
but should send a message to the law enforcement community -- to
good cops and bad cops alike -- that they will be prosecuted and
punished to the fullest extent of the law when they use their
position to commit crimes. In doing so, it helps to restore the
legitimacy of the criminal justice system that was tarnished by the
defendant’s crimes.
14.

According to media accounts, at his sentencing, the court described Watts’

conduct as a betrayal of his community and “unconscionable,” stating: “You betrayed your
community: the law enforcement community, the African-American community and the South
Side community.”

4

 Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5

15.

Consistent with the United States’ claim that Watts engaged in this deplorable

criminal conduct “for years,” according to media accounts, the court described Watts’
unconscionable criminal conduct as “ongoing.”
16.

The Watts case was widely reported in Chicago and national media. True and

correct copies of news articles about Watts are attached as Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E;
Exhibit F.
17.

The FBI itself promoted its arrest of Ronald Watts to the media. A true and

correct copy of the press release is attached as Exhibit G.
FBI’S IMPROPER DENIAL OF BAKER’S FOIA REQUEST
18.

Despite the obvious public interest in the disclosure of this information, on March

27, 2014, in response to BAKER’s request, FBI asked BAKER to provide documentation
showing the public interest in disclosure. A true and correct copy of FBI’s March 27 letter is
attached as Exhibit H.
19.

BAKER did not respond to FBI’s request by the deadline, but on June 5, 2014,

through his attorneys, BAKER provided information about Mr. Watts’ lack of privacy interest in
the records and the public interest in disclosure. A true and correct copy of BAKER’s June 5
letter is attached as Exhibit I.
20.

On September 29, 2014, FBI denied BAKER’s appeal, prioritizing the alleged

privacy interest of a corrupt law enforcement officer engaged in “years” of “betraying” his
community over the public’s interest in disclosure of information about this corruption and FBI’s
efforts to combat it, and did so even though the FBI itself had used the Watts case to promote
FBI’s anti-corruption work to the media. A true and correct copy of FBI’s September 29 letter is
attached as Exhibit J.

5

 Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6

21.

On October 15, 2014, through his attorneys, BAKER provided further

information and evidence in support of his position regarding the public interest in disclosure of
the records, but on October 22, 2014, FBI affirmed its denial. A true and correct copy of the
October 15 email and a true and correct copy of FBI’s October 22 response are attached as
Exhibits K and L.
22.

Under Illinois law, Illinois police officers and public officials have no expectation

of privacy with regard to their official conduct. Therefore, the records simply cannot be exempt
on privacy grounds because there is no privacy interest to protect.
23.

Even if a corrupt Illinois police officer had some privacy interest in FBI records

showing investigations into that corruption, the public interest in disclosure far outweighs that
alleged privacy interest.
24.

There is a known problem with public corruption in Illinois. The then-head of

FBI in Chicago truthfully stated in 2008: “If [Illinois] isn't the most corrupt state in the United
States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor."
25.

There is a significant public interest in the disclosure of information about public

corruption, as indicated at least by the media coverage and FBI’s press release of the Watts case
and public corruption more generally, the strongly worded condemnations of Watts’ conduct by
the United Sates, and the principle underlying our democratic society that no person is above the
law.
26.

There is also a significant public interest in the disclosure of information that

would show how vigorously FBI investigates corruption in the Chicago Police Department and
FBI’s substantive law enforcement policy regarding public corruption.

6

 Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7

27.

FBI promotes in the media and through its website arrests involving public

corruption.
28.

FBI states on its Public Corruption webpage: “It’s our top priority among criminal

investigations—and for good reason.

Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our

national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured
and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts…to the quality of our
roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks,
wasting billions in tax dollars every year.

The FBI is singularly situated to combat this

corruption, with the skills and capabilities to run complex undercover operations and
surveillance.” A true and correct copy of the webpage is attached as Exhibit M.
29.

This public interest is especially acute in Watts’ case: according to the United

States, Watts engaged in this criminal conduct “for years,” yet he was charged only with stealing
$5200 in funds belonging to the United States on a single occasion.
30.

Because an Illinois public official has no privacy interest in information related to

official conduct, and because there is a strong public interest in the disclosure of information that
would inform the public about public corruption in Illinois and the veracity of FBI’s efforts to
combat that corruption, the requested records are not exempt and must be produced.
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FOIA
31.

The above paragraphs are incorporated herein.

32.

Defendant FBI is an agency subject to FOIA.

33.

The requested records are not exempt under FOIA.

34.

Defendant FBI has refused to produce the requested records.

7

 Case: 1:14-cv-09416 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/24/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8

WHEREFORE, BAKER asks the Court to:
i.

Order FBI to produce the requested records;

ii.

Award BAKER attorney fees and costs; and

iii.

Enter any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/s/ Matthew V. Topic
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BEN BAKER

Matthew Topic
LOEVY & LOEVY
312 North May St., Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 243-5900
matt@loevy.com

8