October 2011

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2011.

$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.

Are Routine Strip Searches Constitutional?

October 12, 2011 in Cook County, Cook County Jail, Fourth Amendment, Illegal Search, Supreme Court by Adele Nicholas | No comments

Albert Florence thought he was going out to dinner with his wife and kids to celebrate the purchase of their new home one evening in 2005 when he was pulled over by New Jersey police officers and arrested on a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket. Florence had paid the fine two years before, but the warrant had never been removed from the courts’ computer systems. Instead of a celebratory dinner, Florence found himself in a humiliating six day ordeal in which he was held in county jails in Essex and Burlington counties in New Jersey while the courts sorted out the faulty record-keeping that led to his mistaken arrest. Adding to his horrible experience, Florence was strip searched at both jails. The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument today in the case Florence v. Burlington County, 10-945, in which Florence argues that the strip searches were unconstitutional.

In 1979, the high court held in Bell v. Wolfish that it was constitutional for jails to strip search every inmate after contact with a visitor. Attorneys for Florence argue that the issues are different when it comes to someone like Florence, who was arrested on sight by police for a minor ticketable offense and there is little risk that he’d be trying to smuggle contraband into the jail. They argue that it was unreasonable to strip search Florence in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that he was carrying concealed drugs or weapons.

The lower courts are divided on this question with the 9th and 11th Circuits siding with jails’ unconditional right to strip search all arrestees without regard to the presence of reasonable suspicion, and seven other circuit courts favoring a requirement that strip searches be supported by a reasonable basis to believe the arrestee is smuggling contraband. In Florence’s case, the 3rd Circuit sided with the jails.

Supreme Court rockstar Carter Phillips represents the jails. Susan Chana Lask represents Florence.

Strip search litigation has received a lot of attention here in Chicago in the past few years. In 2010, Cook County reached a $55.3 million settlement with detainees who were unnecessarily strip searched. In January 2011, the County agreed to pay another $4.2 million to compensate people who were strip searched after a judge had already dismissed their cases and found that they should be released.

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.

Do Police Need A Warrant to Track Your Movement Via GPS?

October 2, 2011 in Fourth Amendment, Illegal Search, Supreme Court by Adele Nicholas | No comments

The U.S. Supreme Court has several important civil rights cases on its docket for the fall term which started this week. Among the most interesting cases is United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259, in which the court will decide whether police need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect’s car.

In September 2005, FBI agents planted a GPS tracking device on Antoine Jones’ car while his vehicle was parked in a public lot in Maryland. Jones was suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. The GPS device tracked Jones’ movements for an entire month, transmitting his whereabouts to law enforcement every 10 seconds. After the device tracked Jones repeatedly frequenting a stash house where a lot of narcotics were stored, Jones was arrested and charged in a drug conspiracy.

The FBI had obtained a warrant to put the device on Jones’ car within ten days within the District of Columbia. But ultimately, they didn’t install the device until the 11th day, and did so in Maryland, not Washington, D.C. So essentially, the government is now arguing that it has the right to track people via GPS without a warrant at all.

In the trial court, Jones’ motion to quash was denied (except to the extent the device captured data while Jones’ car was parked in his private garage). Jones was convicted. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that monitoring Jones’ car 24 hours a day was an unreasonable search that violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted cert and will hear oral argument on November 8, 2011.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (whom I met and interviewed way back when he was a Jenner & Block partner) will argue for the government. Skadden partner Michael Scudder will appear for Jones.