Case: 1:19-cv-O4838 Document#: 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 1 of 47 PagelD 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
. 
ARCHIE, for herself and 
on behalf of her minor children, SAVANNAH 
BROWN, TELIA BROWN, and JHAIMARION 
JACKSON, 

Plaintiffs, No.
v. 
District Court Judge
THE CITY OF Chicago police 
of?cers SCOTT P. WESTMAN (star #18472); Magistrate Judge
B. R. ANDERSON (#15660); CRAIG 
BROWN (#14136): and presently unnamed 
of?cers, 
Jury Demanded
Defendants. 

(LEM
INTRODUCTION

 

I. Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, The Law Offices of Hofeld,
Jr., LLC, bring this action against defendant City of Chicago pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 1983 for
traumatizing three young children with excessive force and violating their Constitutional rights
and those of their mother, and state as follows:

2. In the space ofjust five months this year, defendant officers have illegally
raided and searched plaintiffs? apartment three separate times, each time violating plaintiffs?
fundamental Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in their home and free of illegal searches and
excessive force.

3. On Friday evening, February 8, 2019, Chicago police officers chased the

target of a search warrant into plaintiffs? apartment. Officers did not have a search warrant for

Case: 1:19?cv?O4838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 3 of 47 PagelD 

(mom?s) food preparation business, which uses to supplement her single-parent income.
Plaintiffs had to literally dig out ofthe mess that of?cers created and left everywhere in their
apartment.

8. On Friday afternoon, May 17, 2019, Ms. Archie had just ?nished cleaning
up the monumental mess of?cers left after the second raid, when of?cers executed a third search
warrant for plaintiffs? apartment, the wrong apartment again, because of?cers failed to verify
that the target actually resided in or had physical access to plaintiffs? apartment. Of?cers
searched plaintiffs? entire apartment and did not ?nd narcotics or other contraband. Of?cers did
not arrest or charge any plaintiff or anyone connected with plaintiffs; of?cers even told plaintiffs
they knew they were not looking for them. And of?cers did not ?nd the target in plaintiffs?
apartment.

9. Of?cers did not knock and announce before bashing the back door open.
Of?cers pointed pistols at Ms. Archie and her friend, shouted profanity at them, ordered them to
the ?oor and kept them handcuffed for 45-60 minutes.

10. While Ms. Archie was reduced to tears because police had now raided her
home a third time and she felt violated and powerless, of?cers cracked jokes and laughed the
whole time.

11. In none ofthe three raids did Ms. Archie or her children pose any
apparent, actual or possible threat whatsoever to the of?cers. Of?cers did not explain or
apologize for their actions. Their actions toward the presence of the children were not just the
products of avoidable mistakes and sloppy police work; they displayed force that was excessive,
unnecessary, unreasonable, and without lawful justi?cation. And this was not an isolated

incident but one undertaken pursuant to the City of Chicago?s systemic, unof?cial policies of 1)

Lu

Case: 1:19hcv-O4838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 5 of 47 PagelD #11

18. At the time of all relevant events, Archie (?Ms Archie?)
was Savannah, Telia and Jhaimarion?s natural mother. She resided with her children at 68. S.
Dorchester, ?rst floor, in Chicago, where they have lived for approximately one year. Ms.
Archie is a single mother who works evenings as a bartender near her home. She also runs a
small food preparation business out of her home to supplement her income. For this purpose, her
kitchen contains cooking and food packaging equipment.

19. Ms. Archie is a law?abiding citizen with no history of any drug, weapon or
felony arrests or charges.

20. Plaintiffs are African-American.

21. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation under the laws of
the State of Illinois.

22. At the time of all relevant events, defendant Scott P. .Westman was a
Chicago police of?cer assigned to the Bureau of Patrol, Third District. He was the af?ant of the
complaint for search warrant 19 SW 4872. He and presently unnamed, defendant Chicago police
of?cers participated in executing this search warrant on February 8, 2019. A presently unnamed,
Chicago police lieutenant approved the complaint for search warrant before it was presented to a
judge.

23. At the time of all relevant events, defendant B. R. Anderson was a
Chicago police of?cer assigned to the Bureau of Patrol, Third District. He was the afflant of the
complaint for search warrant 19 SW 7535. He and presently unnamed, defendant Chicago police
officers participated in executing search warrant 19 SW 7535 on April 25, 2019. (He was also
an arresting officer at plaintiffs? address on February 8, 2019.). A presently unnamed, Chicago

police lieutenant approved the complaint for search warrant before it was presented to ajudge.

Case: Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 7 of 47 PageID 

30. None ofthe reforms that CPD has implemented or announced to date
purport to remedy or address the identi?ed problems.

31. The federal consent decree agreed to by the City of Chicago and the State
in 2018 does not address them.

32. recently revised use of force policy, does not expressly
require of?cers to avoid using unnecessary force against or in the presence of young children
whenever possible and does not require of?cers to use a trauma?informed approach to the use of
force in situations where some police force is necessary. search warrant policy, $09-14,
was not revised to incorporate these or similar changes.

33. Unlike other major US. metropolitan police departments - such as
Cleveland, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Baltimore, San Francisco and others CPD still does not
provide any training or supervision to of?cers concerning youth brain development or the
importance of preventing trauma to young children by utilizing a trauma-sensitive approach to
the use-of?force in situations where children are present.

34. The connection between trauma and child development and between
trauma and mental and physical health is well-established.

35. It is also well-known that many poor children of color have already been
subjected to multiple traumas in the neighborhoods and circumstances in which they live and,
therefore, police should be mindful that their use of unnecessary force against or in the presence
of poor, children of color would compound and deepen their trauma.

FACTS RELATING TO ALL COUNTS

Raid #1 of Plaintiffs? Apartment: February 8, 2019

Case: Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 9 of 47 PageID 

Of?cers came to the front door of plaintiffs? apartment, began knocking
and said they would kick down the door ifthey didn?t open it. Of?cers then bashed the door two
times, broke it down and entered. On information and belief, of?cers were wearing body
cameras and recorded the events that took place in plaintiffs? apartment.

42. Of?cers quickly arrested the two men who ?ed into plaintiffs? apartment.

43. When of?cers rushed inside and reached Savannah?s bedroom, where all
of the children were, they pointed assault ri?es at all of the children. They pointed assault ri?es
with scopes point-blank at Savannah?s face and neck as she sat on her bed. They pointed guns at
Telia from approximately 2?3 feet away as she stood next to Savannah?s bed. They told them to
put their hands up and get on the ?oor. Jhaimarion was sitting on the ?oor playing with a tablet.
Of?cers kept the children herded in Savannah?s bedroom.

44. Of?cers were making jokes.

45. Police would not allow Savannah to call her mother. Ms. Archie was
working nearby while 14?year-old Savannah watched her younger siblings.

46. Savannah hid her phone and snuck a call to her mother at but was
unable to speak due to shock, so she put another adult on the phone. Ms. Archie rushed home.

47. Police declined to Show Ms. Archie any search warrant. In response to
of?cers? question whether she had any guns in the house, Ms. Archie told of?cers she was a
legal gun owner with a current FOID card and a gun in the house. She led officers to the gun and
showed them the FOID card and her driver?s license. (Ms. Archie has a gun because she is a
petite woman who sometimes comes home from work alone and late in the evening. She always

stores the magazine in a separate location.)

Case: 1:19-cv-04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 11 of 47 PagelD 

55. At approximately on Thursday April 25, 2019, defendant officer
Anderson swore out and obtained search warrant 19 SW 7535 authorizing a search of a Ronald
Anderson with a nickname of?Peanut,? who was ?a Male Black, 48 old, 180 lbs, bald,
Brown Eyes, Medium Complexion,? and the premises at ?ti-S. Dorchester Ave floor. . 
The warrant authorized the seizure of ?Heroin. .. any paraphernalia. . .money and records? and
any residency documents.

56. No plaintiff knew a male person with this name or who fit this physical
description. In fact, no male of any kind resided, stayed or spent time in plaintiffs? apartment in
April, 2019.

57. The complaint for search warrant stated, based on information from a John
Doe con?dential informant, an admitted narcotics user, that Ronald Anderson was selling
narcoticson the back porch outside plaintiffs? apartment. 

58. Defendant officers simply assumed that Ronald Anderson resided in or
had access to plaintiffs? apartment without properly corroborating this assumption or without
verifying through other sources that Anderson resided or could be found in plaintiffs? apartment.
In fact, the ?rst-?oor back porch is small enough that, if a person walks down the building?s
common back stairs and stops on the ?rst level, he is directly in front of the back door to
plaintiffs? apartment.

59. The facts that a Chicago police officer alleges in a complaint for search
warrant are required to be ?credible and reliable.? (CPD $04-19, VI. B. To this end, a
Chicago police of?cer swearing out a search warrant under oath before ajudge is required to

?thoroughly conduct[]? the ?investigation leading up to the need for a search warrant.? (CPD

804?19).

Case: Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 13 of 47 PageID 

65. Consequently, in his complaint for search warrant of?cer Anderson
provided the court with an incorrect address for the target, 68' ts. Dorchester Ave, ?oor.
Of?cer Anderson did not have probable cause to believe that Ronald Anderson resided or could
be found inside plaintiffs? apartment and, therefore, to enter and conduct a search at that address.

66. Because of?cers failed in their of?cial duty to independently investigate
and verify the particular place to be searched, theirs was not a good faith error.

67. Similarly, the CPD lieutenant who approved the complaint for search
warrant, pursuant to CPD procedure, simply gave rubberstamp approval to of?cer Anderson?s
application for search warrant, without taking any steps to ensure that he or other of?cers had
performed the due diligence required by CPD Special Order 804-19. Taking such vital steps was
something he was of?cially required to do.

68. On April 25, 2019, defendant of?cers reasonably knew or should have
known that it was highly unlikely that the intended target of the warrant resided or could be
found in plaintiffs? apartment.

69. Moreover, as is customary in Chicago, the defendant of?cers, in the
course of obtaining and executing this search warrant, took no steps to ?rst determine whether
children resided in the ?rst ?oor apartment, to avoid entering at times when children were likely
to be present, or to deescalate their tactics when they unexpectedly encountered young children
at 68' S. Dorchester, ?oor. As a result, of?cers injured Savannah, Telia and Jhaimarion.

70. Between approximately 7:45 and on the evening oprril 25,
2019, plain?clothed Chicago police of?cers executed the search warrant at plaintiffs? apartment.
The children?s uncle, Ms. Archie?s brother, had been babysitting the children and had just left

?ve minutes earlier. Ms. Archie would soon be home from work.

Case: 1:19?cv?04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 15 of 47 PagelD 

80. The same of?cer alsojoked, ?the next time we come back, we?ll give you
a call.?

81. Plaintiffs noticed some of the of?cers were wearing body cameras that did
not appear to be on and recording.

82. Next, while the children were con?ned on the living room couch, of?cers
tossed and searched plaintiffs? entire apartment, unnecessarily making a huge mess in every
room and damaging and destroying plaintiffs? personal property. They searched for
approximately 45-60 minutes.

83. Of?cers did not ?nd any narcotics. related paraphernalia. cash or records
of transactions in plaintiffs? apartment. Of?cers did not arrest or charge any plaintiff or any
person connected with any plaintiff. They did not ?nd the intended target of the search warrant
in plaintiffs? apartment.

84. Police dumped all the family?s belongings that were neatly stored in totes
and boxes papers, receipts, hair rollers, keepsakes, etc. They unnecessarily dumped out
approximately 15?20 bottles of Ms. Archie?s cooking spices and seasonings, and they took
sausage, shrimp and other meat out of the freezer and left them out; Ms. Archie had to throw
them away. Baking powder was all over the kitchen. Ms. Archie has a small, home food
preparation business that helps her earn additional income on the side. Of?cers? cruel actions
caused her to lose several hundred dollars? worth of materials for her business and prevented her
from earning income for several weeks.

85. Of?cers also took out and tossed around plaintiffs? furniture and personal
belongings, including a new and a bathroom drawer. Both the front and back doors

were damaged. Of?cers unnecessarily broke even the plates of light switches on the wall. They

Case: Document #2 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 17 of 47 PagelD 

action against her if she ?led a complaint about of?cers. l-le implied CPD was targeting her
house because she had a connection to her second-floor neighbors, which she did not.
Raid #3 of Plaintiffs? Apartment: Mar 17. 2019

92. At approximately] on Friday May 17, 2019, defendant of?cer
Brown wore out and obtained search warrant 19 SW 8090 authorizing a search of an ?Unknown
male black, known as aka ?Lord who is approximately 40-45 years old, 5?10?-6?00? in height,
220-225 lbs., with a medium complexion,? and the premises ill "as. S. Dorchester Ave 
?oor. . The warrant authorized the seizure of any and

records? and any residency documents.

93. No plaintiff knew a male person with this name or who ?t this physical
description. In fact, no male of any kind resided, stayed or spent time in plaintiffs? apartment in
May, 2019.

94. Of?cer Brown?s complaint for search warrant stated, based on of?cer
surveillance of a controlled narcotics purchase by the RC1 on May 14, that the RC1 walked inside
the rear door of the ?rst?floor apartment and emerged again less than one minute later after
purchasing narcotics.

95. No such person entered plaintiffs? apartment, and no person ?tting the
description of?Lord was inside plaintiffs? apartment. It is possible that Ms. Archie?s children
left the security gate unlocked on May 14, as they sometimes do, and that the RC1 met someone
who had entered that area, but that is not the inside of plaintiffs? apartment.

96. Moreover, of?cers told Ms. Archie that the informant entered her from
door, not the back door. The building?s front door is a common door leading to a vestibule; it

does not lead directly into plaintiffs? apartment.

Case: 1:19-cv-O4838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 19 of 47 PagelD 

102. Between approximately 1:00 and on Friday, May 17, 2019,
defendants executed search warrant 19 SW 8090 in plaintiffs? apartment. Of?cers did not
?knock and announce?; they simply broke open the back door to the apartment with 3-6 big
blows. On information and belief, of?cers were not wearing body cameras.

103. Some of the same of?cers were at plaintiffs? apartment for the third raid.

104. Of?cers rushed into plaintiffs? apartment, pointed pistols at Ms. Archie
and her friend, who were sitting and talking in the living room, and shouted, THE FUCK
and THE FUCK DOWN ON THE Of?cers then handcuffed Ms. Archie
and her friend and con?ned them to the living room couch. They were kept in handcuffs for
approximately 45-60 minutes.

105. In tears, Ms. Archie asked of?cers why they had come to her house a third
time when she does not know the people they are looking for. An of?cerreplied, THE
FUCK 

106. Ms. Archie felt completely violated, powerless and in despair because this
was happening to her yet again.

107. Of?cers then began tearing apart and searching plaintiffs? entire apartment
again. Ms. Archie had just, days earlier, ?nished getting her apartment back in order before the
third raid took place.

108. Crying, Ms. Archie told of?cers it was not right for them to be back in her
apartment again. In response, of?cersjust laughed and joked. While Ms. Archie cried during
the entire raid, of?cers joked and laughed the whole time they were in her apartment.

109. For example, when Ms- Archie mentioned this was the third raid in a short

time, an of?cer quipped, ?Well, you can see that these are not the same of?cers.?

19

Case: 1:19-cv-O4838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 21 of 47 PageID 

1 19. Even though they presented no threat, of?cers repeatedly pointed their
guns at them and/or handcuffed them, and other of?cers did not ask their fellow of?cers to stop
pointing guns at them or to remove the handcuffs.

120. Moreover, plaintiffs posed no threat to of?cers after they quickly
discovered that the intended target of the warrants was not inside plaintiffs? apartment.

121. Plaintiffs have been harmed by of?cers? repeated unnecessary pointing of
guns, unlawful detention, unlawful search of their persons and home, and destruction of their
property.

Of?cers? Unnecessary Uses of orce Traumatized Plainti?rs, Especially the Children

122. Chicago police of?cers? terrorizing conduct toward Savannah, Telia, JJ
Ms. Archie caused them immediate, severe and lasting emotional and distress and
injury.

123. In addition to witnessing uses of force and threats of imminent violence
against themselves, the children were also subject to of?cers breaking down doors, shouting
commands, cruelly crackingjokes during their distress, and promising to return. This made for
unforgettable scenes of totally unnecessary terror.

124. Prior to February 8, 2019, Savannah, Telia and JJ were happy, healthy
children in a close, loving family. Prior to this date, they had suffered no emotional or
trauma ofany kind in their lives. That changed on February 8 and again on April
25, 2019 with defendants? actions.

125. Throughout their encounters with police, Savannah, Telia and 1] were
terri?ed and crying. Based upon what they witnessed, each child was afraid his or her siblings

were going to be shot. Savannah thought she was going to be killed.

21

Case: 1:19-cv-04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 23 of 47 PagelD #21

133. On information and belief, they now require high quality, long-term,
costly, care and counseling in order to cope with the long?term, 
injuries caused by defendants? terrorizing display of unnecessary force.

134. Ms. Archie is also suffering mental distress as a result of officers? conduct.
She was unable to return to work for at least one week following the May 17 raid.

135. She has also suffered financial distress, due to her inability to work and
the destruction of her cooking spices. She has been unable to use her kitchen to supplement her
income.

136. Of?cers? shocking actions of repeatedly pointing and training loaded guns
at close range on young children constituted serious abuses of power and authority.

137. Of?cers? actions including their inaction in the form of failing to
intervene torequest that fellow of?cers stop using excessive force - were directed towards seven-
twelve- andfourteen-year?old children. The children?s sensitivity and vulnerability to such
trauma-inducing violence was or should have been known to of?cers.

138. Of?cers? conduct was undertaken pursuant to and is part of a long-
standing and widespread pattern and practice, defacto policy or M0 of Chicago police of?cer
use of excessive force that includes the use of unnecessary force against and/or in the presence of
children, especially minority children.

139. Plaintiffs are highly likely to be the victims of unlawful or unreasonable
home entry and search and excessive force by Chicago police again in the near future.

140. Police have unlawfully and unreasonably entered and searched plaintiffs?
home and directed unreasonable force against plaintiffs three times in the last six months. In the

weeks since the last raid in May, 2019, Chicago police have returned to plaintiffs? block several

Case: Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 25 of 47 PageID 

three, speci?c, long-standing, interrelated, failures of of?cial policy, lack of of?cial policy, de
facto policies, widespread practices, and/or customs ofthe City of Chicago: 1) a pattern and
practice of using unnecessary or excessive force against children (ages 0-14); 2) a systemic
failure to investigate and discipline and/or otherwise correct allegations/incidents of of?cer
excessive force against children; and 3) an absence of of?cial policy and training to avoid the
unnecessary or excessive use of force against and in the presence of children. Each of these
policies existed for more than six years prior to May 17, 2019 (?the Marie]! period?).

147. First, defendant City of Chicago has a long-standing, pervasive practice
and custom of failing to adequately investigate, intervene with and discipline or otherwise correct
of?cers for the use of excessive force involving children (ages 0-14), including unnecessary force
directed at children and/or at adult family members in the presence of children.

120. This set of City?s widespread practices or customs directly encouraged,
authorized and caused of?cers? conduct toward Savannah, Telia and JJ. The City?s historical
failure, leading up to May 17, 2019, to properly intervene in, investigate and discipline of?cer
excessive force, especially excessive force against or in the presence of young children, caused
of?cers to act without appropriate restraints in the presence of Savannah, Telia and .

12]. This was facilitated by unjusti?ed exemptions from the bodycam mandate
and a complete lack of of?cial disciplinary consequences for of?cers who do not wear or do not
turn on their bodycams.

122. The City was on notice of each ofthese failures ofof?cia] policy from the

speci?c conclusions reached by and the data contained in the 2017 U. S. Department ofJustice

investigative and the PATF reports (citations above).

25

0

Case: 1:19-cv-04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 27 of 47 PageID 

c. continued failure to require officers seeking residential
search warrants to make reasonable efforts before obtaining and/or executing the warrant to
determine, through investigation and surveillance, whether children reside in the residence,
(ii) to avoid entry and search at times when children are likely to be present to de-escalate
themselves or change tactics when they unexpectedly encounter young children, and/or (iv) to
take other precautions to avoid traumatizing children, such as avoiding placing parents and
grandparents in handcuffs in the children?s presence;

d. rebuff, both before and since the U. S. Department of
Justice and PATF reports were released, of national and local legal and/or community
organizations that have offered to provide training on trauma-informed policing with children
and/or offered model use-of-force policies that included explicit provision for avoiding the
unnecessary use of force against and in the presence of children; and

e. City?s and refusal or failure to propose or agree to any
explicit protections for children from excessive force or any provisions requiring a trauma-
informed approach to policing children in the federal consent decree it negotiated with the State
of Illinois.

125. Third, the City?s lack of of?cial policies to protect children from
unnecessary of?cer use of force, combined with its failure to hold accountable of?cers who use
unnecessary force involving children, have resulted in a defacto City policy and practice of
using unnecessary or unreasonable force against young children and/or in their presence, as
concluded by the U. S. Department ofJustice investigation into the Chicago Police Department
and the PATF. The excessive force used against or in the presence of Savannah, Telia and 

was an example ofand the result ofthis defacto policy.

27

Case: 1:19-cv-04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 29 of 47 PagelD #11

129. CPD fails to investigate, discipline and otherwise hold accountable
of?cers who apply for and execute residential search warrants based on inaccurate, unreliable
and unveri?ed information.

130. Nor does CPD audit, monitor or track residential search warrants in the
aggregate, even on a sample basis, in order to identify police practice issues (such as whether
of?cers are doing enough to verify the current or correct address for the target) and improve
practices, including investigative and use of force practices, despite the fact that such measures
could boost ?positive? warrant results and in?ict less trauma on innocent bystanders, including
young children.

13]. During all times relevant to the incident involving Savannah, Telia and 
a ?code of silence? pervaded the police accountability system in Chicago, including BIA,
the Chicago Police Board, IPRA and COPA, contributingto these agencies? collective failure to
properly investigate and discipline of?cer excessive force, including excessive force against
children. Unjusti?ed exemptions from the bodycam mandate and a complete lack of of?cial
discipline and accountability for of?cers who do not wear or do not turn on their bodycams
reinforce the code of silence. Defendant of?cers? conduct toward Savannah, Telia and JJ,
including their failure to intervene and failure to report the actions oftheir colleagues, was the
direct result ofthe long-standing and systematic code of silence at work in the City?s police
investigative and disciplinary systems.

132. By means ofits pervasive customs and practices above and its failures,
after notice, to remedy of?cers" use of unnecessary force against and/or in the presence of young
children, defendant City of Chicago has manifested and manifests deliberate indifference to the

deprivation of Savannah, Telia and constitutional rights.

29

Case: 1:19-cv-04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 31 Of 47 PagelD 

141. As the direct and proximate result ofoffrcers? misconduct, plaintiffs
Savannah, Telia and JJ have suffered and continue to suffer severe, long?term emotional and
mental distress and trauma, including lasting or permanent injury.

142. One or more Officers had a reasonable opportunity to prevent or stop the
violations of Savannah, Telia and constitutional rights but stood by and failed to take any
action.

143. Officers? inactions in this respect were objectively unreasonable and
undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Savannah, Telia and 
constitutional rights.

144. As set forth above, the of?cer misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the
defacto policies, long-standing and pervasive practices and customs of defendant City of
Chicago, such that the City of Chicago-is also liable for of?cers? failure to intervene.

145. As the direct and proximate result of of?cers? misconduct, Savannah,
Telia and JJ suffered and continue to suffer injury and harm.

COUNT II UNLAWFUL SEARCH WITHOUT CONSENT 42 U. s. C. :5 1983
(All Plaintiffs)

146. Plaintiffs Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, Jackson, and Archie
re?allege paragraphs 1 144 above and incorporate them into this count. They assert this claim
against defendant of?cers and any as yet unknown officers who participated in executing the
search warrant in their apartment on February 8, 2019.

147. As set forth above, on this date defendants thoroughly searched plaintiffs?
apartment, damaging their personal property.

148. Defendants did not have a search warrant for plaintiffs? apartment on

February 8, did not have probable cause, plaintiffs did not give their consent for officers to

31

4-

Case: Document #2 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 33 of 47 PageID 

especially Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, and JJ Jackson, defendants? conduct merits an award

of punitive damages.

COUNT UNLAWFUL SEARCH INVALID WARRANTS 42 U. s. C. 1983
(All Plaintiffs)

155. Plaintiffs Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, Jackson, and Archie
re-allege paragraphs 1 144 above and incorporate them into this count. They assert this claim
against defendant of?cers and any as yet unknown of?cers who participated in obtaining the
April 25 and May 17, 2019 search warrants for their apartment.

156. Defendant of?cers unreasonably approved and/or obtained search
warrants for plaintiffs? apartment, the wrong location for the target, a fact which invalidated the
warrants from the start, prior to execution.

157. Of?cers? subsequent unauthorized entry and search of plaintiffs?
apartment violated plaintiffs? Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of
their persons and homes.

158. As the sworn applicants for the warrants, defendant of?cers Anderson and
Brown each had an of?cial duty to discover and disclose to the issuing magistrate whether he
had identi?ed the correct address or place to be searched and not the residence of an innocent
third party.

159. Defendant of?cers reasonably knew or should have known that the
intended target(s) of the warrants did not reside in plaintiffs? apartment or have physical access
to plaintiffs? apartment such that he could be found there.

160. Defendant of?cers had an of?cial duty to reasonably investigate and
verify information they received from the John Doe C1 and the RC1 about where the target(s)

resided or could be found.

Case: Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 35 of 47 PagelD #21

and searching citizens? residence constituted an abuse ofpower and authority. Defendant
officersE actions ofrelying solely on location information provided by a John Doe Cl and an
RC1 - were directed towards honest, hard?working citizens who were totally innocent of all
criminal conduct.

168. Defendant of?cers? conduct toward plaintiffs was undertaken with willful
and wanton disregard for the rights of others. Of?cers acted with actual intention or with a
conscious disregard or indifference for the consequences when the known safety and health of
plaintiffs was involved. Defendant of?cers acted with actual malice, with deliberate violence,
willfully or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others.

169. In light of the character of defendant of?cers? actions toward plaintiffs and
the lasting or permanent injury that defendants? conduct has caused plaintiffs,
especially Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, and JJ Jackson, defendants? conduct merits an award

ofpunitive damages.

COUNT IV UNLAWFUL SEARCH UNREASONABLE
MANNER OF ENTRY AND SEARCH 42 U. S. C. ti 1983
(All Plaintiffs)

170. Plaintiffs Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, Jackson, and Archie
re-allege paragraphs 1 144 above and incorporate them into this count. All plaintiffs assert this
claim against all defendant of?cers who entered and/or searched their apartment on February 8,
April 25, and May 17, 2019.

171 . The manner in which of?cers conducted their entry into and search of

plaintiffs? apartment were objectively unreasonable, in violation ofPlaintiffs? Fourth

Amendment rights.

Case: Document #2 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 37 of 47 PagelD 

deliberate violence, willfully or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of
the rights of others.

178. In light of the character of defendant of?cers? actions toward plaintiffs and
the lasting or permanent injury that defendants? conduct has caused plaintiffs,
especially Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, and Jackson, defendants? conduct merits an award

of punitive damages.

COUNT FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT 42 U. S. C. b; 1983
(Plaintiff Archie)

179. Plaintiff Archie re-alleges paragraphs 1 144 above and
incorporates them into this count. She asserts this claim against the defendant of?cer(s) who
handcuffed her.

180. Of?cers arrested and imprisoned plaintiff when, without a warrant for
her arrest and without probable cause to arrest her, they handcuffed and/or con?ned Ms. Archie
for a prolonged period when she did not present any security concern.

181. Of?cers? actions constituted a violation of plaintiff? 5 Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

182. When of?cers handcuffed and/or con?ned plaintiff for an unreasonably
long period, they unlawfully deprived her of their liberty to move about, despite the facts that she
had not done nothing illegal and that of?cers had no probable cause for her arrest and
imprisonment or reasonable concern about security. This violated plaintiffs? rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

183. One or more of?cers had a reasonable opportunity to prevent or stop the

violations of plaintiff?s constitutional rights but stood by and failed to take any action.

37

Case: 1:19-cv-04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 39 of 47 PagelD 

191. Plaintiffs Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, 11 Jackson, and Archie
incorporate paragraphs 1 144 above and assert this claim against defendant of?cers who
participated in the search of plaintiffs? residence.

192. As set forth above, defendants officer unnecessarily and willfully
converted, damaged or destroyed plaintiffs? personal property during the course of their search.
Defendant of?cers took these actions without any lawful basis and without ever returning
plaintiffs? property to them or paying them compensation for a taking/loss, damage or
destruction they caused. Defendant of?cers also intentionally damaged or destroyed plaintiffs?
property out of spite.

193. Defendant of?cers? actions constituted an unreasonable seizure of
plaintiffs? property, in violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendmentsto the U. S. Constitution, as well as a deprivation of property without due process
of law, in violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

194. Defendants? misconduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken
intentionally'with willful, malicious and reckless indifference to plaintiffs? constitutional rights.

195. Defendants? misconduct was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and
recklessness indifference to the rights of others.

196. As a result of defendant officers? misconduct described in this Count,
plaintiffs have suffered injury, including emotional distress and ?nancial harm.

COUNT VII ASSAULT STATE LAW
(All Plaintiffs)

197. Plaintiffs Savannah Brown, Telia Brown, 11 Jackson, and Archie
re?allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 144 above in this count. They assert this claim against

defendant City of Chicago.

39

Case: Document #1 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 41 of 47 PageID 

was a minor and not a threat or a target of the search warrant, brought about harmful and
offensive physical contacts to plaintiffs? persons.

206. The officers intended to bring about harmful and offensive physical
contact to plaintiffs? persons.

207. In the alternative, the conduct of defendant was willful and wanton and
constituted a course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or
which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of
others and/or their property.

208. The conduct of defendants in entering and executing a residential search
warrant are generally associated with a risk of serious injuries. Numerous prior injuries have
occurred to civilians in this context. Of?cers failed to take reasonable precautions after having
knowledge of impending danger to. plaintiffs.

209. The officers? actions were the direct and proximate cause of harmful and
offensive physical contact to plaintiffs? persons.

210. Plaintiffs were seriously harmed by officers? actions.

COUNT IX FALSE ARREST AND FALSE STATE LAW
(Plaintiff Archie)

21]. Archie re-alleges paragraphs 144 above and
incorporates them into this count. Plaintiff asserts this claim against defendant City of Chicago.

212. Officers arrested and imprisoned plaintiff when, without a warrant for
her arrest and without probable cause to arrest her or a security concern to detain her for a
prolonged period, they handcuffed and/or confined Ms. Archie in the living room for

approximately 45-60 minutes.

213. Officers? actions restrained plaintiffand confined her to bounded areas.

4]

Case: Document #2 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 43 of 47 PagelD 

probability that their conduct would cause such distress, or in reckless disregard ofthe
probability that their actions would cause such distress.

222. Of?cers, who occupied positions of special trust and authority, knew, had
reason to know or believed that plaintiffs, who were young children, were especially vulnerable
and fragile.

223. As a direct and proximate result of of?cers? extreme and outrageous
conduct, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer long-term, severe emotional distress and
trauma.

224. In the alternative, of?cers owed plaintiffs a duty of care that they breached
when they pointed guns at them and damaged, destroyed and/or converted plaintiffs? property.
Plaintiffs are direct victims of officers? negligent in?iction of emotional distress.

225. In the alternative again, the conduct of defendants was willful and wanton
and constituted a course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or
which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of
others and/or their property.

226. The conduct of defendants in entering and executing a residential search
warrant are generally associated with a risk of serious injuries. Numerous prior injuries have
occurred to civilians in this context. Officers failed to take reasonable precautions after having
knowledge of impending danger to plaintiffs.

214. Of?cers? conduct was a proximate cause ofplaintiffs? injuries and their

extreme, severe, long-term emotional distress and trauma.

COUNT XI - TRESPASS STATE LAW
(All Plaintiffs)

43

Case: Document #2 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 45 of 47 PagelD #11

Archie?s lawfully owned gun. Defendant of?cers wrongfully and without authorization assumed
control, dominion, and/or ownership ofplaintiffs? personal property and did not pay any
compensation for their theft, damage or destruction.

223. Plaintiffs, a poor family, had and have a right to their personal property.
They had and have an absolute, unconditional right to the immediate possession of that property.

224. In connection with the ?ling ofthis lawsuit, plaintiffs made a demand to
the defendant officers for the possession of their personal property.

225. The conduct of defendants in converting the personal property of
plaintiffs, obviously a poor family, was willful and wanton and constituted a course of action
which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or which, if not intentional, shows
an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others and/or their property.

226. As a direct and proximate result of defendants? misconduct described in
this Count, plaintiffs have suffered injury, including emotional distress and ?nancial harm.

COUNT RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR STATE LAW (All Plaintiffs)

227. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-144 and 197 226 above and incorporate
them into this count. Plaintiffs assert this claim against defendant City of Chicago.

228. In committing the acts and omissions alleged above, of?cers were at all
times members and agents of CPD and the City of Chicago and were acting within the scope of
their employment.

229. Defendant City ofChicago is, therefore, liable as principal for all common
law torts committed by its agents within the scope oftheir employment.

COUNT XIV INDEMNIFICATION STATE LAW (All Plaintiffs)

45

Case: 1:19-cv-04838 Document 1 Filed: 07/19/19 Page 47 of 47 PagelD 

Al Hofeld, Jr.

Law Of?ces ofAl Hofeld, Jr., LLC
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite #3120
Chicago, Illinois 60602

(773) 241-5844

Fax 312?372-1766

vin?valhofeldlawcom

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.

s/Al Hofeld. Jr.
Hofeld, Jr.

NOTICE OF LIEN

Please be advised that we claim a lien upon any recovery herein for 1/3 or such
amount as a court awards.


Al Hofeld, Jr.

NOTICE OF FILING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MEANS

I, Hofeld, Jr., an attorney for plaintiffs, hereby certify that on July 19, 2019,
?ling and service of the foregoing Complaint was accomplished pursuant to ECF as to Filing
Users, and I shall comply with LR 5.5 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to service on
any party who is not a Filing User or represented by a Filing User.

s/Al Hofeld. Jr.
Hofeld, Jr.

Al Hofeld, Jr.

Law Of?ces ofAl Hofeld, Jr., LLC

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite #3120

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(773) 241-5844

Fax - 312-372-1766

alf?ialhofeldlawycom



 

47