Police Misconduct Lawsuit

8/13/2019 Police Misconduct Lawsuit

1/19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDY ALLEN and NICHOLAS TIMMONS, )

)Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT GROUP;)

LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT )

GROUP OFFICER DONALD FLORANCE; UNKNOWN )

AGENTS OF THE LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN )

ENFORCEMENT GROUP; and UNKNOWN POLICE )

OFFICERS, )

)Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, BRANDY ALLEN and NICHOLAS TIMMONS, by their

attorneys, LOEVY & LOEVY, complain of Defendants, LAKE COUNTY

METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT GROUP and LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN

ENFORCEMENT GROUP OFFICER DONALD FLORANCE, UKNOWN AGENTS OF THE

LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT GROUP, and UNKNOWN POLICE

OFFICERS (collectively, individual Defendants) and state as

follows:

Facts

1. Plaintiff Brandy Allen is a certified nursing assistant

who cares for residents of a nursing and rehabilitation center.

Plaintiff Nicholas Timmons performs home remodeling. Ms. Allen

Case: 1:13-cv-09278 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/28/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1


2/19

2

and Mr. Timmons live together, and jointly care for their four

children, who range in age from 6 to 15.

2. In the summer of 2013, the Plaintiffs and their

children resided in an apartment in North Chicago. On or about

July 24, Plaintiffs left their home to go grocery shopping.

3. Soon after leaving, Plaintiffs were pulled over. Four

Defendant Officers, clad in fatigues and bulletproof vests,

jumped out of an unmarked SUV. They were armed with assault

rifles. At least two of the Defendants pointed their assault

rifles at Plaintiffs, ordering them out of their van.

4. Mr. Timmons asked why the officers were doing this. One

of the Defendants pushed Mr. Timmons against his van and said

words to the effect of: you know what it isfor mother fucker.

5. The Defendant handcuffed and searched Mr. Timmons. He

repeatedly demanded that Mr. Timmons tell him where drugs and

guns were, and that he would make things easier on Mr. Timmons

if he gave the officer this information. Mr. Timmons insisted

that he had no information about guns or drugs.

6. Individual Defendants thoroughly searched and damaged

Plaintiffs van, ripping outpanels and carpeting. Nothing

unlawful was retrieved from the van.



3/19

3

7. Defendants kept Ms. Allen sitting on a curb during this

time. She was eventually handcuffed and placed in a police

vehicle for transport.

8. Plaintiffs were taken to an office of the Lake County

Metropolitan Enforcement Group (MEG). Defendants put them in

separate interrogation rooms.

9. Ms. Allen was searched, and Defendants interrogated her

multiple times. They asked whether she had seen Mr. Timmons with

guns or drugs. She insisted that she had not, and said that she

did not understand why the police were holding her and Mr.

Timmons. Despite this, a Defendant threatened Ms. Allen, stating

words to the effect of: with this kind of stuff, DCFS

[Department of Children and Family Services] could get involved

and take your kids.

10. Defendants, including Defendant Florance, a MEG

officer, repeatedly interrogated Mr. Timmons about drugs. Mr.

Timmons continuously insisted that he knew nothing about the

location of drugs. The Defendants urged Mr. Timmons to give them

names of people who had drugs, promising to make things easier

on him and to let him go. Defendants told Mr. Timmons that

otherwise he could go to jail, and DCFS could get involved.



4/19

4

11. In addition, a Defendant informed Mr. Timmons that

while he was being detained in the interrogation room, other

Defendants were raiding Plaintiffs home. Later, a Defendant

informed Mr. Timmons that they did not find anything during

their raid of Plaintiffs home.

12. After a number of hours, Plaintiffs were released. They

were not charged with any crime.

13. When Plaintiffs returned home, they discovered their

home ransacked and their valuable possessions gone.

14. The stolen valuables included flat screen televisions,

laptop computers, computer memory, a small amount of cash, their

childrens video game consoles and games, Plaintiffs

identification cards, and three blank money orders totaling

$1500. These money orders were Ms. Allensproceeds from her tax

refund.

15. Every room in the apartment had been upended, including

the childrens rooms, and furniture was ruined. The front door

frame was broken and the apartment could not be secured.

16. Ms. Allen called the Lake County MEG and asked that

they return her property. The Defendant to whom she spoke denied

that MEG had taken any of her property, telling her that her

property should all be at her home.



5/19

5

17. Yet Ms. Allen soon confirmed that Lake County MEG had

in fact cashed her $1500 in money orders. See Exhibit A,

attached.

18. Ms. Allen called the Defendant back and told him about

her proof that his agency had taken and cashed her money orders.

This time, the Defendant told Ms. Allen that MEG would not

return her money unless she hired a lawyer and proved that it

was not drug money. Yet neither Ms. Allen nor Mr. Timmons had

been charged with any crime, including any drug crime, by MEG.

19. On the day Defendants arrested Plaintiffs and raided

their apartment, Ms. Allen had just begun a new job as a

certified nursing assistant. For two days after her arrest, Ms.

Allen stayed home, worried that police would return to her

unprotected home. As a result, her new employer fired her from

her job.

20. As a result of Defendants raid onPlaintiffs home,

Plaintiffs landlord ordered them out of their home within five

days. The landlord also refused to return their security

deposit.

21. Without a security deposit or Ms. Allens income, and

with an eviction on their record, the Plaintiffs could not find

an apartment. They were forced to live in a motel, where they

struggled to pay the hundreds of dollars of weekly rent. They



6/19

6

were forced to turn to charities for aid, including for food.

Mr. Timmons young son lived at a relatives housebecause of

the lack of space in the motel room.

22. Plaintiffs and their family lived together in the

single motel room for three months.

23. Plaintiffs ultimately found a landlord willing to rent

to them. However, their new home is in a different city and

school district than the home from which they were evicted,

forcing Plaintiffs to drive their children to and from their

three separate schools each day. Defendants have not returned

Plaintiffspossessions, and Plaintiffs home remains largely

empty.

Jurisdiction and Venue

24. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of

Plaintiffsrights as secured by the United States Constitution.

25. This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1367.

26. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). Plaintiffs

reside in this judicial district, and the events giving rise to

Plaintiffs claims occurred within this district.



7/19


8/19

8

leading MEG employees to believe their actions will never be

scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging future abuses

such as those affecting Plaintiffs; and

c. Upon information and belief, MEG and the relevant

policy-makers have failed to act to remedy the patterns of

abuse, despite actual knowledge of the same, thereby tacitly

approving, ratifying, and causing the types of injuries alleged

here.

31. As a result of the individual Defendants Fourth

Amendment violations and the policy and practices of MEG,

Plaintiffs have suffered pain and injury, including emotional

distress.

32. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken

by one or more individual Defendants within the scope of their

employment and under color of law.

COUNT II -- State Law ClaimConversion

33. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated

herein.

34. As described more fully in the preceding

paragraphs, individual Defendants unlawfully exercised dominion

or control over Plaintiffs property, and the property was not



9/19

9

returned to Plaintiffs, even after they complained to MEG of the

theft.

35. The misconduct described in this Count was

undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference

to the rights of others.


undertaken by individual Defendants within the scope of their

employment and under color of law such that their employer is

liable for their actions.

37. As a result of individual Defendants misconduct

described in this Count, Plaintiffs have suffered injury,

including but not limited to their loss of property, loss of

their home, and emotional distress.

Count III -- 42 U.S.C. 1983Due Process


herein.

39. In the manner described more fully above, one or more

individual Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their property

without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.



10/19

10

40. The MEG procedures potentially available to Plaintiffs,

if any, were not and do not represent meaningful or adequate

remedies for the Defendants deprivation.

41. The state law procedures potentially available to

Plaintiffs were not and do not represent meaningful or adequate

remedies for the Defendants deprivation.


with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the

rights of others.


undertaken by individual Defendants within the scope of their

employment and under color of law such that their employer is

liable for their actions.


undertaken under the policy and practice of MEG in the manner

described above.

45. As a result of the above-described wrongful

infringement of their rights, Plaintiffs suffered damages,

including but not limited to emotional distress.

Count IV -- 42 U.S.C. 1983

Failure to Intervene


herein.



11/19

11

47. As described more fully above, one or more of the

Individual Defendants had a reasonable opportunity to prevent

the violation of Plaintiffsconstitutional rights as set forth

in the Complaint had they been so inclined, but failed to do so.

48. Individual Defendants actions were undertaken

intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to

Plaintiffsrights.

49. As a result of the individual Defendants failure to

intervene, undertaken pursuant to the MEGspolicy and practice

as described above, Plaintiffs have suffered injury, including

emotional distress.

Count V -- 42 U.S.C. 1983Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights


herein.

51. As described more fully above, there was an agreement

between individual Defendants and other unknown co-conspirators

to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.

52. Specifically, Defendants conspired by concerted action

to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means. In

furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators

committed overt acts and was an otherwise willful participant in

joint activity.



12/19

12

53. The conspiring Defendants actions were undertaken

intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to

Plaintiffsrights.

54. As a result of individual Defendants conspiracy,

undertaken pursuant to MEGSpolicy and practice as described

above, Plaintiffs have suffered injury, including emotional

distress.

Count VI -- State Law ClaimAssault


herein.

56. As described in the preceding paragraphs, the conduct

of one or more of the individual Defendants, acting under color

of law and within the scope of their employment, created in

Plaintiffs the reasonable apprehension of imminent harm,

undertaken willfully and wantonly, and proximately causing

Plaintiffsinjuries.

57. The actions of the individual Defendants were

undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference

to Plaintiffsrights and to the rights of others.

58. As a result of the individual Defendantsactions,

Plaintiffs have suffered injury, including emotional distress.



13/19

13

Count VII - State Law ClaimFalse Arrest / Detention / Imprisonment

59. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if

fully stated herein.

60. As described more fully above, Plaintiffs were arrested

and detained by one or more individual Defendant without lawful

justification.

61. In addition, Plaintiffs were handcuffed and taken into

police custody, and thereby had their liberty to move about

unlawfully restrained, despite individual Defendants knowledge

that there was no probable cause for doing so.

62. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively

unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with willful

indifference to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.


by individual Defendants within the scope of their employment

and under color of law such that their employer is liable for

their actions.

64. As a result of this wrongful infringement of

Plaintiffs rights, Plaintiffs have suffered injury, including

emotional distress.



14/19

14

Count VIII - State Law ClaimConspiracy

65. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if

fully stated herein.

66. In the manner described more fully above, individual

Defendants entered into an agreement among themselves and other

unknown co-conspirators to participate in an unlawful act or act

in an unlawful manner toward Plaintiffs.

67. The Defendants committed one or more overt acts to

further their common scheme of participating in an unlawful

manner toward Plaintiff.


by the Defendants within the scope of their employment and under

color of law such that their employer is liable for their

actions.

69. As a proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs

suffered damages, including but not limited to emotional

distress.

Count IX -- State Law ClaimRespondeat Superior


herein.



15/19

15

71. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding

paragraphs, one or more of the individual Defendants were

members and/or agents of the Metropolitan Enforcement Group

acting at all relevant times within the scope of their

employment.

72. Defendant Metropolitan Enforcement Group is liable as

principal for all torts committed by its agents.

COUNT X - State Law ClaimIndemnification

73. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated herein

74. Illinois law provides that public entities are

directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for

which employees are liable within the scope of their employment

activities.

75. One or more of the individual Defendants are or were

employees or agents of the Metropolitan Enforcement Group who

acted within the scope of their employment in committing the

misconduct described above.



16/19

16

WHEREFORE, BRANDY ALLEN and NICHOLAS TIMMONS respectfully

request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and

against Defendants, the LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT

GROUP, LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN ENFORCEMENT GROUP OFFICER DONALD

FLORANCE, UKNOWN AGENTS OF THE LAKE COUNTY METROPOLITAN

ENFORCEMENT GROUP, and UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, awarding

compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, along with punitive

damages against the individual Defendants in their individual

capacities, as well as any other relief this Court deems just

and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ Samantha Liskow

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Arthur Loevy

Jon Loevy

Mike Kanovitz

Samantha Liskow

LOEVY & LOEVY

312 North May, Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60607(312) 243-5900



17/19

Case: 1:13-cv-09278 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 12/28/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:17

EXHIBIT A


18/19



19/19


Documents

Police Misconduct Lawsuit