Case: 3:16-cv-50339 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/16/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
PHILIP WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF WOODSTOCK,
Woodstock Police Officers
ERIC SCHMIDTKE and
SHARON FREUND,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-cv-50339
Judge
Magistrate Judge

Jury Demand

COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, PHILIP WILLIAMS, by his attorneys, MEYER & KISS, LLC,
and complaining of Defendants, CITY OF WOODSTOCK, Woodstock Police Officers ERIC
SCHMIDTKE and SHARON FREUND, states as follows:
Introduction
1.

In August of 2016, Defendant SCHMIDTKE stopped Plaintiff’s vehicle, illegally

prolonged the traffic stop without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and performed an
illegal search of the car.
2.

Defendant FREUND arrived at the scene of the traffic stop and quickly learned

that Defendant SCHMIDTKE had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to prolong the
traffic stop, yet she was complicit with the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and
conspired with Defendant SCHMIDTKE to illegally detain then search Plaintiff and his vehicle.
3.

During the resulting criminal proceeding against Plaintiff, Defendant

SCHMIDTKE proceeded to write a false police report and testify falsely about the events
surrounding Plaintiff’s arrest.
4.

Unbeknownst to Defendants SCHMIDTKE and FRUEND, their conversation at

the traffic stop was captured on videotape. The videotape proves not only that Defendant
1

 Case: 3:16-cv-50339 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/16/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2

SCHMIDTKE authored a false police report and lied to the Grand Jury that indicted Plaintiff, but
that both Defendants were complicit with the lie.
5.

The criminal case having been resolved in Plaintiff’s favor, he now brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of Plaintiff’s
rights as secured by the United States Constitution.
Jurisdiction
6.

This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

the common law and statutes of the State of Illinois.
7.

Jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s federal claims is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a). Jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s state claims is based on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
8.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the claims

arose in this district as alleged below.
Parties
9.

Plaintiff is a resident of Woodstock, Illinois.

10.

Defendant Officers SCHMIDTKE and FREUND are duly appointed and sworn

Woodstock police officers. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendant-Officers were
acting in the course and scope of their employment, and under color of state law, ordinance
and/or regulation.
11.

The Defendant Officers are sued in their individual capacities.

12.

Defendant CITY OF WOODSTOCK is a municipal corporation, duly

incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and is the employer and principal of the
Defendant Officers.
Facts
13.

On or about August 28, 2016, Plaintiff was pulled over by Defendant

SCHMIDTKE for having an expired license plate sticker that had expired in July, 2016.
14.

After running Plaintiff’s license, which came back clear, Defendant

SCHMIDKTE approached Plaintiff’s vehicle and stated that before he let Plaintiff leave he
wanted to know if Plaintiff would be willing to allow a K9 dog walk to around Plaintiff’s car.
15.

Plaintiff told Defendant SCHMIDTKE he did not have his consent, and asked if
2

 Case: 3:16-cv-50339 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/16/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3

he could leave as the purpose of the traffic stop was completed.
16.

Defendant SCHMIDTKE told Plaintiff that he was not free to leave.

17.

By this point, ten minutes had already elapsed from the start of the traffic stop.

18.

There was no probable cause or any other legal justification to continue to detain

Plaintiff.
19.

Approximately two minutes later, Defendant FREUND arrived on the scene with

her partner Blue, a police dog.
20.

Defendant FREUND eventually ran Blue around Plaintiff’s vehicle.

21.

Blue allegedly alerted on Plaintiff’s vehicle.

22.

Following the unreasonable seizure, a bag containing marijuana was recovered

from the trunk of Plaintiff’s car. This bag was discovered only as a result of the illegal detention
of Plaintiff.
23.

The illegal detention and eventual search of Plaintiff car was unlawful. There was

insufficient legal justification to delay the traffic stop of Plaintiff.
The Criminal Case
24.

Based on the Defendants’ description of the traffic stop, as memorialized in their

police reports and as communicated to the State’s Attorney’s Office, Plaintiff was charged with
felony drug crimes.
25.

Defendant SCHMIDTKE intentionally included false information in his report.

26.

If convicted, Plaintiff faced years in prison. Accordingly, Plaintiff had to pay

thousands of dollars to retain a criminal defense attorney to fight the case.
27.

On or about September 22, 2016, Defendant SCHMIDTKE testified falsely before

a Grand Jury to secure an indictment against Plaintiff.
28.

Prior to the September 22, 2016, grand jury hearing, Defendant SCHMIDTKE

met with Defendant FREUND and reached an agreement to write reports and testify falsely
about how the traffic stop of Plaintiff was handled.
29.

Defendant SCHMIDTKE took the witness stand at the Grand Jury and gave a

false account of Plaintiff’s arrest.
30.

The perjury referred to in the preceding paragraph related to the reason why

Defendant FREUND was called to the scene.
3

 Case: 3:16-cv-50339 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/16/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4

31.

Defendant SCHMIDTKE wrote in his report and testified that when he first

approached Plaintiff’s car and was speaking with him, he was able to detect the order of cannabis
emitting from inside Plaintiff’s car. That was false. On the squad car video, Defendant
SCHMIDTKE can be clearly heard telling Defendant FREUND that he was not able to smell
anything in Plaintiff’s car.
32.

Defendant SCHMIDTKE lied about smelling the cannabis in an attempt to justify

the illegal prolonged detention of Plaintiff during the traffic stop.
33.

At the conclusion of Defendant SCHMIDTKE’s testimony, the Grand Jury

returned an indictment against Plaintiff.
34.

On October 20, 2016, at a status hearing for Plaintiff’s criminal case, the

McHenry County State’s Attorney’s nolle prosse’d the criminal case.
35.

Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney was expecting to receive the Grand Jury

transcript at this status.
36.

The criminal charges were dismissed against Plaintiff in a manner indicative of

his innocence.
Legal Claims
37.

In the manner described more fully above, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, causing him damage. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights under the
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
38.

Defendants’ conduct also constitutes the tort of malicious prosecution under state

and federal law.
39.

Defendants also reached an agreement to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional

rights via illicit means, and both of them took actions in furtherance of this conspiracy, all in
violation of both state and federal law.
40.

Defendant FREUND also failed to intervene to prevent the constitutional

violations described herein, notwithstanding a reasonable opportunity to have prevented those
constitutional violations.
41.

The misconduct described herein was objectively unreasonable, and undertaken

with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others such that the
Defendants’ actions shock the conscience.
4

 Case: 3:16-cv-50339 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/16/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5

42.

Plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by a policy and practice on the part of

the City of Woodstock to pursue wrongful convictions in drug cases through untruthful
testimony. In this way, the City of Woodstock violated Plaintiff’s rights by maintaining policies
and practices which were the moving force driving the foregoing constitutional violations.
43.

The above-described widespread practices, so well-settled as to constitute de facto

policy in the Woodstock Police Department, existed because municipal policymakers with
authority over the same exhibited deliberate indifference to the problem, thereby effectively
ratifying it.
44.

The widespread practices described in the preceding paragraphs were allowed to

flourish because the City of Woodstock declined to implement sufficient training and/or any
legitimate mechanism for oversight or punishment. Indeed, the Department’s system for
investigating and disciplining police officers accused of this type of misconduct was, and is, for
all practical purposes, nonexistent. As a result, officers are led to believe that they can act with
impunity, thereby encouraging the very type of abuses which befell Plaintiff.
45.

All of Defendants’ interactions with Plaintiff and the criminal case brought

against him were undertaken under color of law, and within the scope of their employment.
46.

Because each of the Defendants acted within the scope of their employment, the

City of Woodstock is therefore liable as their employer for any resulting damages and award of
attorneys’ fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, PHILIP WILLIAMS, respectfully asks that this Honorable
Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants CITY OF WOODSTOCK, ERIC
SCHMIDTKE and SHARON FREUND, awarding compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys’
fees, along with punitive damages against each of the individual Defendants in their individual
capacities, as well as any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiff, PHILIP WILLIAMS, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.

5

 Case: 3:16-cv-50339 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/16/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Louis J. Meyer
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Louis J. Meyer
MEYER & KISS, LLC
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 856
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 765-0100
louismeyer@meyerkiss.com

6