City of Chicago

You are currently browsing the archive for the City of Chicago category.

Awesome Jury Verdict

November 29, 2012 in City of Chicago, Funny, Northern District of Illinois, Punitive Damages, Verdict by Adele Nicholas | No comments

Today a Northern District of Illinois jury returned a verdict of $50,000.75 in favor of the plaintiff in the case Ratliff v. Carroll, 10 C 739. The plaintiff, Pares Ratliff, was about to put air in his tires when the police approached him and said they had a warrant for his arrest. Ratliff responded that that wasn’t true. After a back and forth exchange, Ratliff said that he’d go with the officers if they gave him the $.75 he’d just spent to put air in his tires. Predictably, the officers didn’t like this comment. They arrested him for assault (claiming he threatened them) and left his car unattended on the street, where it was stolen. The gas station video contradicted the officers’ version of events.

The jury awarded the plaintiff the wonderfully precise sum of $50,000.75 — comprising $30,000 in compensatory damages, $15,000.75 in punitives against one officer and $5,000 in punitives against another — but not before sending an awesome note to the judge, asking if they could make the officers perform 100 hours of community service!

Congratulations to the plaintiffs’ lawyers Jared Kosoglad, Michael Oppenheimer and Bruce Mosbacher on their great work!

Tags:

Seven Officers Fired for Misconduct

January 25, 2012 in City of Chicago, Internal Investigations by Adele Nicholas | No comments

The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday that the Chicago Police Board terminated seven officers over the past four months for a variety of infractions, some of which are pretty out there. Here are some highlights:

> William Whelehan was fired for throwing a bag of dog feces on his neighbor’s porch and pointing a gun at the neighbor after a 2009 argument about whether Whelehan’s dog had urinated on the neighbor’s lawn. Whelehan is also a defendant in the case Geinosky v. City of Chicago, in which he and other officers in Unit 253 of the CPD issued two dozen false parking tickets to Mark Geinosky. Whelehan had been recommended for termination in connection with the Geinosky investigation, but the feces/aggravated assault case came up first.

> Two officers were fired for carrying their guns around while drunk. Dale Prince shot a gun in his backyard while he was drunk and off-duty in 2007. When other (on duty) officers came to investigate the gunfire, they found seven unregistered guns in Prince’s home. Prince said he was investigating a possible intruder. Brian Gentzle was carrying his duty weapon around while drunk in 2008 when police stopped him and another armed man in an apartment building near Fullerton and Clybourn.

> Kevin Carey was driving drunk when he pointed a gun at a civilian in another vehicle. When on-duty officers arrived, they ordered Carey to drop his gun, which he refused to do. Carey, whose BAC was determined to be more than twice the legal limit, called the man he was chasing a racial epithet. He was charged with DUI and aggravated assault, and ultimately pled guilty to the DUI only.

> The weirdest one is Matthew Riley. He was present during an illegal raid of a home with officers from the disgraced Special Operations Section in 2004. Without a warrant, officers broke down a door and searched a Northwest side home and stole $13,000 from the residents. Ultimately, though, Riley wasn’t fired for his role in the illegal search but rather for allegedly lying to investigators about the presence of a supervisor on the scene.

City Pays $3.9 Million in Lockup Death Cases

December 15, 2011 in City of Chicago, Denial of Medical Attention, Settlement by Adele Nicholas | No comments

The City agreed Monday to pay nearly $3.9 million to the families of people who died in Chicago police custody after police officers or lockup personnel ignored obvious signs of medical distress.

City council approved a settlement of more than $2 million in the case Cobige v. City of Chicago, 06 C 3807. Patricia Cobige died in the CPD’s 25th District lockup on June 12, 2006, two days after her arrest on drug charges. Her cell mate testified that Cobige was repeatedly asking for help and complained of severe abdominal pain, but was ignored by lockup personnel. Testimony at trial showed that the officers refused to take Cobige to bond court because she was so ill. According to court documents, medical evidence at trial established that Cobige had uterine tumors that would have caused pain. A doctor testified that her severe pain elevated epinephrine levels in her system, aggravating her pre-existing heart condition, and ultimately causing her death.

A Northern District jury awarded Ms. Cobige’s adult son Maurice $5 million after a jury trial before Judge Amy St. Eve. The city appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the verdict on liability, but remanded for a new trial on damages, finding that certain evidence of Ms. Cobige’s criminal history should have been admitted as relevant to damages. The Seventh Circuit opinion is available here. Rather than roll the dice again, the City settled.

City Council also approved a $1 million settlement in McMullan v. City. In that case, a 52-year-old man died in CPD’s central detention. He was found dead in full rigor mortis, hours after he passed away. According to news reports, other people in the lock up were prepared to testify that he had been screaming in pain for a long time, but received no medical attention.

Tribune coverage here.

$1.38 Million Verdict for Elderly Victim of CPD Abuse

October 21, 2011 in City of Chicago, Excessive Force, False Arrest, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Malicious Prosecution, State Court, Verdict by Adele Nicholas | No comments

A Cook County jury returned a verdict of $1.38 million on October 14 for a 67-year-old woman who suffered a heart attack and stroke after being shoved to the ground by 25th District Chicago police officer Jorge Cerda.

According to Plaintiff’s attorneys Jeff Neslund and Michael Robbins, Officer Cerda was trying to arrest the plaintiff’s daughter on the porch of her home when he shoved the plaintiff to the ground in the doorway. Plaintiff’s head hit the marble floor, causing subdural bleeding. When the plaintiff went to the police station to complain about the rough treatment, Cerda arrested her, charged her with aggravated assault and threatened to have her deported.

Plaintiff had a heart attack while in the police lock up and was hospitalized for two days. Only an hour after she was discharged, she was readmitted to the hospital, suffering an ischemic stroke, which left her permanently paralyzed on her left side.

The plaintiff asserted claims for battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The City of Chicago employed its foolish “no settlement” policy and offered the Plaintiff nothing to resolve the case prior to trial.

New Case: Montejano v. Chicago, 11 C 6838

October 2, 2011 in City of Chicago, Excessive Force, New Case by Adele Nicholas | No comments

According to a new case recently filed in the Northern District of Illinois, on September 29, 2010, Chicago police officers arrested George Montejano. While in a police lockup, Montejano became ill due to his diabetes and needed to be transported to the hospital. Defendant-Officers Benjamin Sanchez and Scott Pietryla allegedly put a handcuffed Montejano in the back seat of a squad car without a seat belt and then deliberately drove wildly so that Montejano would be injured while in the back seat. The complaint asserts claims under Section 1983 for excessive force and failure to intervene, along with state law claims for battery, negligence and willful and wanton conduct.

The case is George Montejano vs City of Chicago, 11 C 6838. Plaintiff Montejano is represented by Mark Parts and Faith Spencer. The complaint is available here.

Judge Zagel: Civilian Complaint Records Should Not Be Private

August 25, 2011 in City of Chicago, FOIA, Independent Police Review Authority, Internal Investigations, Office of Professional Standards, Public Access to Records by Adele Nicholas | No comments

As I’ve recently discussed, there has been a great deal of litigation about whether internal investigation files reflecting complaints of police misconduct should be accessible to the public.

Yesterday, Judge James Zagel issued a very helpful decision in the case Henry et al. v. Centeno, 10 C 6364. The City of Chicago challenged Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez’s decision that complaint registers (police department records reflecting civilian complaints of police misconduct, usually called “CRs”) should not be subject to a protective order prohibiting the parties from distributing and discussing the records. Judge Zagel upheld Judge Valdez’s decision, writing:

Privacy interests will often be sufficient to establish good cause for a protective order. Where the information at issue relates solely to the public duties of a public employee, however, the claim to that privacy interest is far more tenuous.

Judge Zagel rejected the City’s argument that records of “unsustained” or “unfounded” complaints (those that the department terminated in the officer’s favor) should be kept private because they were nothing more than allegations of misconduct. Judge Zagel approvingly cited the Illinois Appellate Court decision in Gekas v. Williamson, 912 N.E.2d 347 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009), in which the court explained:

…[C]itizens might want to see whether the Division is performing a fair and objective investigation of complaints. They might want to see whether complaints that the Division determined to be unfounded are really unfounded. Obviously, citizens cannot perform this critique … if so-called “unfounded” complaints are exempt from disclosure for the tautological reason that the public body decided they were unfounded.

Summary Judgment Denied on Intentional Infliction Claim against Chicago Police

August 18, 2011 in City of Chicago, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Adele Nicholas | No comments

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort claim that is notoriously difficult to plead and prove. The elements seem simple enough: that the defendant’s conduct was “extreme and outrageous”; that the defendant acted with the intention to cause severe emotional distress to the plaintiff (or with reckless disregard for a substantial likelihood that his conduct would cause severe emotional distress); and that severe emotional distress actually resulted from the defendant’s conduct. In practice, such claims are nearly always challenged and frequently dismissed, usually based on a finding that the plaintiff’s emotional distress was not sufficiently severe.

In an interesting decision yesterday, Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the City of Chicago’s motion for summary judgment on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim brought by Chicago resident Maritza Figueroa against two Chicago police officers, Michael Cosentino and Rosemary Accardo. The suit arises from an alleged incident in which Defendant-Officer Accardo threatened to shoot and kill Figueroa’s daughter (also a plaintiff in the case) and Defendant-Officer Cosentino grabbed the daughter by the hair. The officers allegedly fabricated charges against Figueroa to justify their arrest. The complaint alleges that the officers deliberately taunted the plaintiffs and joked about the charges they were going to fabricate, including a false claim that Figueroa jumped on an officer’s back.

Figueroa testified that after the incident she cried a lot, vomited, and eventually sought medical treatment for anxiety. The City argued that this presented insufficient evidence that Figueroa experienced severe emotional distress. The court disagreed, finding that there was a triable issue of fact with regard to whether Figueroa’s distress was sufficiently severe.

The case is Rosario et al. v. City of Chicago, 10 C 6067. The City is represented by outside counsel: Travis Richardson and Myron F. Mackoff. Shiller Preyar and Hamilton Law Office represent the plaintiffs.

Daley Will Have to Answer Questions about Burge Police Torture Coverup

August 11, 2011 in City of Chicago, Excessive Force, Jon Burge, Police Torture by Adele Nicholas | No comments

U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled that former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley will remain as a defendant in the case Tillman v. Burge et al., 10 C 4551. Michael Tillman was incarcerated for nearly 24 years before evidence came to light that he had been tortured into confessing to a rape and murder he did not commit by officers under the watch of former Area Two police commander Jon Burge. Tillman’s conviction was vacated in January 2010, and he received a certificate of innocence shortly thereafter. Burge was convicted last year of perjury for lying about his knowledge of police torture at Area Two.

Tillman’s civil suit names Daley as a defendant, alleging that he played a role in the conspiracy to cover up widespread police abuse and torture at Area Two. For now, Daley remains a defendant in the case, although his attorneys are requesting the judge reconsider her ruling. His deposition has been noticed for September 8.

New Case: Therkield v. City of Chicago, et al.

July 28, 2011 in City of Chicago, False Arrest, New Case by Adele Nicholas | No comments

On July 27, 2011, David Therkield sued his landlord, the City of Chicago and two police officers, Nicole Henkes and Nicholas Prazuch. The suit alleges that Therkield was a lawful tenant in a building near 68th and Morgan when his landlord decided to evict him without notice or first initiating legal proceedings. When Therkield resisted the landlord’s attempts to remove his belongings from the unit, the landlord allegedly attacked Therkield with a baseball bat, breaking his arm. When the Defendant Chicago police officers showed up, they arrested Therkield and refused to allow him to sign criminal complaints against the landlord. The case is Therkield v. City of Chicago et al., 11 C 5079, currently pending before Judge Dow in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint is available on the Northern District’s website.

Update on Civil Case against Anthony Abbate

July 27, 2011 in Anthony Abbate, City of Chicago, Excessive Force, Independent Police Review Authority, Internal Investigations, Monell, Office of Professional Standards by Adele Nicholas | No comments

In February 2007, Chicago police officer Anthony Abbate was captured on video attacking and punching 125-pound bartender Karolina Obrycka at Jesse’s Shortstop Inn near Belmont and Long on Chicago’s northwest side. Abbate allegedly became enraged when Obrycka refused to continue serving him alcohol after he was already intoxicated. Abbate claimed to be acting in self defense. You can evaluate that claim for yourself based on the infamous video (embedded below). Unsurprisingly, Judge John Fleming didn’t buy the self defense line, and convicted Abbate of aggravated battery and sentenced him in June 2009 to community service, anger management counseling, and two years of probation.

Obrycka has filed a civil lawsuit against Abbate and the City which is currently pending before Judge Amy St. Eve in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery.

Among the more interesting issues is Obrycka’s Monell claim, in which she argues that the City’s defective and biased procedures for investigating complaints of excessive force by Chicago police officers was a cause of the beating — essentially that Abbate knew he could act with impunity. In support of this contention, Obrycka’s lawyers have offered several expert witnesses, including Thomas Smith, the former chief investigator at the Office of Professional Standards (now known as the Independent Police Review Authority). Smith identified ten factors that negatively impacted OPS’s ability to adequately investigate complaints of police misconduct. Some of the factors Smith identifies are:

  1. A rule barring investigators from reviewing past civilian complaints against an accused officer;
  2. The policy of finding a complaint “not sustained” unless there is physical evidence to prove the civilian’s version of events;
  3. The fact that accused officers are not required to give an interview to an investigator, but rather can answer questions in writing;
  4. A lack of independence from the Chicago police department;
  5. The multiple levels of review and second-guessing after OPS made a disciplinary determination;
  6. The requirement that a complainant must submit a sworn affidavit before any investigation can commence.

Judge St. Eve ruled June 16, that these opinions were relevant and admissible.

After the SOS scandal, which resulted in the indictment of numerous police officers from the “Special Operations Section,” the City tried to clean up some of the problems with OPS by renaming it the “Independent Police Review Authority.” But many believe that’s just window dressing. The definition of “not sustained” is the same; the sworn affidavit requirement is the same; IPRA is even housed in the exact same office as OPS was.

Judge St. Eve’s ruling on the testimony of Thomas Smith is available for free here.

« Older entries