Jermaine Walker v. Chicago Et Al.
Jermaine Walker v. Chicago Et Al.
Jermaine Walker v. Chicago Et Al.
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL WHITE, ERIC REYES,
)
SEBASTIAN FLATLEY, BRIAN DALY, )
the CITY OF CHICAGO, THOMAS
)
FINNELLY, COOK COUNTY,
)
ILLINOIS, and UNIDENTIFIED
)
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS AND
)
COOK COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY )
INVESTIGATORS,
)
Case No:
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Now comes Plaintiff, JERMAINE WALKER, by and through his attorneys,
LOEVY & LOEVY, and complaining of Defendants MICHAEL WHITE (Star No.
860), ERIC REYES (Star No. 10126), SEBASTIAN FLATLEY (Star No. 13734),
BRIAN DALY (Star No. 9364), THOMAS FINNELLY, the CITY OF CHICAGO,
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and unidentified Chicago police officers and Cook
County States Attorney investigators, states as follows:
Introduction
1.
University when he fell victim to misconduct all too common in todays society:
The Defendant police officers planted drugs on him, fabricated evidence, and
lied about it, causing Mr. Walker to spend a decade of his life falsely imprisoned
for a crime he did not commit.
2.
were caught framing Plaintiff, leading to Mr. Walkers exoneration and his later
receipt of a certificate of innocence. Two, Defendant Finnelly, a member of the
Cook County States Attorneys Office, misleading photographic evidence as part
of the Defendants plot to frame Plaintiff, a plot that took ten years to unravel.
3.
Mr. Walker was released from his wrongful incarceration, but has
struggled to recover all that he has lost. He missed the most formative years of
his life, when his peers were starting their careers, getting married, and having
children. He brings this suit to seek such redress for these losses as the law
allows.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
U.S.C. 1367.
6.
information and belief, all defendants reside in this district, and nearly all of the
events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within this district.
THE PARTIES
7.
this Complaint a Chicago Police Sergeant (Star No. 860) acting under color of law
and within the scope of his employment. Defendant White is sued in his
individual capacity.
9.
Complaint a Chicago Police Officer (Star No. 10126) acting under color of law
and within the scope of his employment. Defendant Reyes is sued in his
individual capacity.
10.
to this Complaint a Chicago Police Officer (Star No. 13734) acting under color of
law and within the scope of his employment. Defendant Flatley is sued in his
individual capacity.
11.
Complaint a Chicago Police Officer (Star No. 9364) acting under color of law and
3
within the scope of his employment. Defendant DALY is sued in his individual
capacity.
12.
State of Illinois. At the time of the events giving rise to this Complaint, the City of
Chicago was the employer of Defendants Michael White, Eric Reyes, Sebastian
Flatley, Brian Daly, and Unidentified Chicago Police Officers (together,
Defendant Officers) who acted pursuant to the Citys policies and practices.
As the employer of the Defendant Officers, the City of Chicago is liable for their
torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
14.
subdivision of the State of Illinois. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the
County funded the operations of the Cook County States Attorneys Office,
which employed Defendant Finnelly and Unidentified Cook County States
Attorneys Investigators. Illinois law requires that the County indemnify claims
against state employees where the County funds the state office that employs
them.
4
15.
On the evening of February 21, 2006, Mr. Walker and his brother
Russell Walker were headed to a family gathering at their sisters house on the
north side of Chicago.
18.
Mr. Walker was driving his car and Russell was in the passenger
20.
At about 8:30 pm, the brothers were parked in the parking lot of J.J.
seat.
Peppers at 4800 North Sheridan Road, where they had stopped to make a
purchase before going to their sisters home.
21.
As he pulled out of the parking lot, Mr. Walker turned onto West
Lawrence Avenue.
22.
understanding that he was being directed to pull over, he turned into an alley
adjacent to Lawrence House, an apartment building at 1020 West Lawrence
Avenue.
23.
Mr. Walker had not committed any infraction that would have
The Defendant Officers followed Mr. Walkers car into the alley.
25.
Defendant Reyes approached Plaintiffs car with his gun drawn and
Mr. Walker asked Defendant Reyes why he had been pulled over,
Defendant Reyes then ordered Mr. Walker to get out of the car so
that he exit his car and submit to an illegal search of his car.
6
30.
Knowing that the Defendants had no grounds to search the car, Mr.
Walker declined to exit his car. Instead, believing that his rights were being
violated, Mr. Walker asked to speak to a sergeant.
31.
Walker why he had been pulled over, Defendant White also ordered Mr. Walker
out of his car without justification.
33.
Mr. Walker was increasingly afraid for his safety, given the
When Mr. Walker delayed exiting his car, the Defendant Officers
began screaming at him. Fearing what the Defendant Officers might do, Mr.
Walker then exited the car, still without knowing why he had been stopped or
why he was being ordered out of his car.
35.
described above transpired. The camera was in plain sight to everyone present.
37.
the adjacent Lawrence House, was part of Lawrence Houses security system.
38.
While still inside his car, Mr. Walker noticed the camera capturing
the events. After the Defendants began beating him, he pointed out the camera to
the Defendant Officers and told them their unconscionable behavior was being
recorded.
39.
claimed that Plaintiff possessed narcotics while in the alley. This was a complete
fabrication.
41.
drugs had been possessed by Plaintiff. Those drugs were later used as evidence
against Mr. Walker at trial.
42.
All along, Mr. Walker contended that he had not been dealing
narcotics, but even if he had been, he would not have done so in front of the
camera in the alley recording all of the events. But without any photographs or
witnesses of his own, he could not corroborate his account.
43.
States Attorneys Office to go to the scene of the arrest to take pictures of the
alley and to photograph any camera that might be there, as part of his duties as
an investigator for the Office.
44.
Despite the presence of the camera in plain view on the west wall of
45.
the alley, clearly visible. The photographs below accurately portray the location
of the camera and the lack of obstructions surrounding the camera on February
21, 2006:
46.
10
48.
For example, rather than photographing the alley from the mouth of
the alley, which would depict the camera on the left side of the frame just inside
the alley, Defendant Finnelly walked into the alley just far enough that the
camera would not appear in the photograph.
49.
11
50.
52.
12
photographed, depicted above. Taking close-ups to rule out the possibility that
the objects might be cameras made it appear as if Defendant Finnelly had
scoured the alley for anything that might appear to be a camera, but found
nothing.
53.
13
54.
55.
14
56.
Mr. Walker could not afford his bail, so he was forced to prepare for
trial while imprisoned in Cook County Jail. Knowing he was innocent, Mr.
Walker asserted his right to a speedy trial as his only means to gain his release
from the false charges.
57.
61.
Defendants White and Reyes also testified at trial that there was no
15
63.
their planted evidence, and the misleading photographs, Mr. Walker was
convicted and sentenced to 22 years imprisonment.
65.
Mr. Walker appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court was
The Illinois Appellate Court agreed with the State, stating that the
presenting new evidence proving the cameras existence and demonstrating that
the Defendants lied under oath.
68.
While the petition was pending, the Cook County States Attorney
investigated Mr. Walkers claims about the existence of the camera. That
investigation led the States Attorney to conclude that Defendants Finnelly,
Flatley, and Reyes had perjured themselves.
69.
The State then filed its own motion to vacate Mr. Walkers
On March 25, 2016, after more than ten years of incarceration, the
Cook County Circuit Court vacated the indictment against Mr. Walker and
dismissed all charges.
17
71.
18
72.
On April 27, 2016, the same court granted Mr. Walker a Certificate of
Innocence.
MR. WALKERS DAMAGES
73.
Mr. Walker spent ten years in prison for a crime that he did not
commit.
74.
of the pleasures of basic human experience, from the most quotidian to the most
important, which all free people enjoy as a matter of right. For ten years, he was
unable to share holidays, births, funerals, and other life events with loved ones.
He was deprived of the opportunity to work, to vote, and the fundamental
freedom to live ones life as an autonomous human being.
75.
19
20
80.
prosecution of Plaintiff would not have been pursued, and Plaintiff would not
have been convicted.
81.
proximately resulted in the unjust and wrongful conviction of Plaintiff and his
wrongful imprisonment, denying him his constitutional right to a fair trial, in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
82.
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and wantonly, with malice and
willful indifference to Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights.
83.
right to a fair trial, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to loss of
liberty, physical sickness and injury, and emotional distress.
84.
(e) the City of Chicago has failed to act to remedy the patterns of
abuse described in the preceding sub-paragraphs, despite actual
knowledge of the same, thereby causing the types of injuries
alleged here.
85.
by maintaining policies and practices that were the moving force behind the
foregoing constitutional violations.
86.
City of Chicago, were able to exist and thrive because municipal policy makers
with authority over the Chicago Police Department exhibited deliberate
indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.
Count II 42 U.S.C. 1983
Failure to Intervene
87.
90.
not have been pursued, and Plaintiff would not have been convicted.
91.
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and wantonly, with malice and
willful indifference to Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights.
93.
right to a fair trial, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to loss of
liberty, physical sickness and injury, and emotional distress.
94.
24
train, supervise and control its employees, such that its failure to
do so manifests deliberate indifference;
(b) as a matter of both policy and practice, the City of Chicago
facilitates the very type of misconduct at issue here by failing to
adequately punish and discipline prior instances of similar
misconduct, thereby leading police officers in the City of Chicago
to believe their actions will never be scrutinized and, in that way,
directly encouraging future abuses such as those that affected
Plaintiff;
(c) as a matter of widespread practice so prevalent as to comprise
municipal policy, police officers in the City of Chicago abuse
citizens in a manner similar to that alleged by Plaintiff, yet the
City of Chicago makes findings of wrongdoing in a
disproportionately small number of cases;
(d) municipal policy-makers are aware of, and condone and facilitate
by their inaction, a code of silence in the City of Chicago Police
Department by which employees fail to report misconduct
committed by other employees, such as the misconduct at issue
in this case; and/or
25
(e) the City of Chicago has failed to act to remedy the patterns of
abuse described in the preceding sub-paragraphs, despite actual
knowledge of the same, thereby causing the types of injuries
alleged here.
95.
by maintaining policies and practices that were the moving force behind the
foregoing constitutional violations.
96.
City of Chicago, were able to exist and thrive because municipal policy makers
with authority over the Chicago Police Department exhibited deliberate
indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.
Count III 42 U.S.C. 1983
Conspiracy
97.
26
99.
in and facilitated numerous overt acts, including but not limited to those set forth
above such as fabricating evidence and withholding exculpatory evidence
and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity.
102.
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and wantonly, with malice and
willful indifference to Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights.
27
104.
not have been pursued, and Plaintiff would not have been convicted.
105.
unjust and wrongful prosecution and conviction of Plaintiff and his wrongful
imprisonment, denying him his constitutional right to a fair trial, in violation of
the Fourth Amendment and/or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
106.
right to a fair trial, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to loss of
liberty, physical sickness and injury, and emotional distress.
107.
28
29
by maintaining policies and practices that were the moving force behind the
foregoing constitutional violations.
109.
City of Chicago, were able to exist and thrive because municipal policy makers
with authority over the Chicago Police Department exhibited deliberate
indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.
Count IV 42 U.S.C. 1983
Fourth Amendment Malicious Prosecution
110.
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and wantonly, with malice and
willful indifference to Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights.
115.
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally and wantonly, with malice and
willful indifference to Plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights.
31
120.
participant in and committed one or more overt acts to further their common
scheme of acting in an unlawful manner toward Plaintiff.
124.
including but not limited to physical sickness and injury and emotional distress.
32
125.
Defendant Officers and Investigators within the scope of their employment and
under color of law such that their employers, the City of Chicago and Anita
Alvarez, in her official capacity as Cook County States Attorney, are liable for
their actions.
Count VII State Law
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
126.
of his right to a fair trial and by maliciously prosecuting him, the Defendant
Officers and Investigators engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.
128.
Investigators either intended to inflict or knew that there was a high probability
that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress.
129.
Defendant Officers and Investigators within the scope of their employment such
that their employers, the City of Chicago and Anita Alvarez, in her official
capacity as Cook County States Attorney, are liable for their actions.
33
131.
Defendant Officers were employees and agents of the City of Chicago and the
Chicago Police Department acting at all relevant times within the scope of their
employment.
134.
Illinois law requires public entities to pay any tort judgment for
compensatory damages against an employee acting within the scope of his or her
employment. Illinois law also requires that Cook County pay any tort judgment
for compensatory damages against a state employee where the County funds the
state office that employs the tortfeasor. The Cook County States Attorneys
34
the City of Chicago and the Cook County States Attorneys Office, who acted
within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct described
herein.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Jermaine Walker, respectfully requests that this
Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants MICHAEL WHITE,
ERIC REYES, SEBASTIAN FLATLEY, BRIAN DALY, THOMAS FINNELLY, the
CITY OF CHICAGO, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and UNIDENTIFIED
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS AND COOK COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY
INVESTIGATORS, awarding compensatory damages, costs, and attorneys fees
against each Defendant, along with punitive damages against each of the
individual Defendants, as well as any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, JERMAINE WALKER, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
35
Respectfully submitted,
36