Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PATRICK SWENIE )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No.:
)
v. )
) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
Village of Maywood, Village of ) CIVIL RIGHTS
Maywood Department of Administrative )
Hearings, Maywood Ordinance )
Enforcement Department, Maywood )
Department of Community Development, )
Hearing Officer Pamela Harris, Maywood ) JURY DEMANDED
Chief of Police Valdimir Talley, Police
Commander Theodore Yancy, and Police
Sergeant Daryl Fairley
Defendants.
1. This action arises under the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of
1871 (42 U.S.C. Section 1983). This court has jurisdiction under and by virtue of 28 U.S.C.
2. Venue is founded in this judicial court upon 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 as the acts
PARTIES
3. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff Patrick Swenie (Swenie) was and is a
citizen of the United States, and was within the jurisdiction of this court.
4. At all times herein mentioned, Maywood Police Chief Valdimir Talley, (Talley)
was employed by the Maywood Police Department, and was acting under color of state law and
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
as the employee, agent, or representative of the Maywood Police Department. This Defendant is
Yancy, (Yancy) was employed by the Maywood Police Department, and was acting under
color of state law and as the employee, agent, or representative of the Maywood Police
Department. This Defendant is being sued in his individual and official capacities.
(Fairley) was employed by the Maywood Police Department, and was acting under color of
state law and as the employee, agent, or representative of the Maywood Police Department. This
7. At all times herein mentioned Hearing Officer Pamela Harris was employed by
development, and presided over the administrative hearing that found Plaintiff liable for
violating a portion of the Maywood Municipal Code. This Defendant is being sued only in her
official capacity as a necessary party under the Illinois Administrative Review Law.
8. At all times herein mentioned, the Village of Maywood was a political division of
the State of Illinois, existing as such under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all relevant times,
the City of Chicago maintained, managed, and/or operated the Maywood Police Department and
Village of Maywood to adjudicate alleged violations of Maywood ordinances and impose civil
liability penalties where violations of ordinances are found by a preponderance of the evidence.
2
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
Village of Maywood to adjudicate alleged violations of Maywood ordinances and impose civil
liability penalties where violations of ordinances are found by a preponderance of the evidence.
the Village of Maywood to adjudicate alleged violations of Maywood ordinances and impose
civil liability penalties where violations of ordinances are found by a preponderance of the
evidence.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. On or about August 29, 2016, Plaintiff was lawfully located on a public sidewalk,
outside the Village of Maywood Police Department, in the Village of Maywood, County of Cook,
State of Illinois.
13. On that day and place Talley approached Plaintiff and requested that Plaintiff
14. At the time Talley requested Plaintiffs identification Talley did not possess facts
sufficient to create reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiff had engaged, or was about to
position would not have felt free to leave and thus he was seized. Talley did not have reasonable
16. When Plaintiff did not produce identification Talley told Plaintiff that taking
3
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
17. Taking photographs of the exterior of the Maywood Police Department from a
public sidewalk was not illegal, and was protected activity under the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
18. When Plaintiff did not provide Talley with his identification Talley placed Plaintiff
19. Defendant Yancy was present for the custodial arrest of Plaintiff and participated in
the arrest.
20. There was not probable cause for Defendants Talley or Yancy to arrest Plaintiff.
21. After Placing Plaintiff under custodial arrest neither Talley nor Yancy requested that
22. After Placing Plaintiff into custody Talley escorted Plaintiff inside the Maywood
23. After Plaintiff was taken under the control of Defendant Fairley, and after Defendant
Fairley confirmed that he was arresting Plaintiff, Plaintiff provided his identification to Defendant
Fairley.
24. Fairley was not told, and did not possess, any facts creating probable cause to
believe that Plaintiff had committed, or was about to commit any crime. Therefore Fairley did not
25. After Plaintiff provided his identification Fairly signed and served Plaintiff with a
citation and complaint alleging that Plaintiff violated Maywood Municipal Ordinance
4
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
26. Plaintiff did not resist or obstruct Talley, Yancy, Fairley, or any other Maywood
27. On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff appeared in Maywood pro se to defend himself against
the allegations contained in the citation and complaint served on August 29, 2016.
28. Immediately before his hearing Plaintiff was served with a second citation and
complaint signed by Defendant Fairley alleging that on August 18, 2016, Plaintiff had violated
Maywood Municipal Ordinance 130.20 (A)(1) which states that the following constitutes disorderly
conduct:
29. The second citation and complaint further alleged that Plaintiff :
30. However, far from making any noise, riot or disturbance, prior to his arrest by
Talley and Yancy Plaintiff had said little, and spoke in a low tone of voice that did not disturb
anyone.
31. There was no legal cause for Fairley, Talley, or Yancy to cause the prosecution of
32. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of Fairley, Talley, and Yancy,
Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to, humiliation and indignities, and suffered
great mental and emotional pain and suffering all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained.
33. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive
and done with reckless indifference to and/or callous disregard for Plaintiffs rights and justify the
5
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
34. By reason of the above-described acts and omissions of Fairley, Talley, and Yancy
Plaintiff was required to retain an attorney to institute, prosecute and render legal assistance to him
in the within action so that he might vindicate the loss and impairment of his rights. By reason
thereof, Plaintiff requests payment by Defendants, and each of them, of a reasonable sum for
attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, the Equal Access to Justice Act or any other
COUNT I
Plaintiff against Talley and Yancy for
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE
35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty four
36. By reason of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff was deprived of rights, privileges and
immunities secured to him by the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of
37. The arbitrary intrusion by Defendants, into the security and privacy of Plaintiffs
person was in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and not authorized by law. Defendants
violated Plaintiffs rights in the following manner: (1) their initial seizure of Plaintiffs person
was not supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) their custodial arrest of Plaintiff was not
supported by probable cause. These acts were in violation of Plaintiffs Fourth and/or Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, in their individual capacity, is
6
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
COUNT II
Plaintiff against Fairley for
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE and FAILURE TO INTERVENE
38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty four
39. By reason of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff was deprived of rights, privileges and
immunities secured to him by the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of
40. The arbitrary intrusion by Defendant, into the security and privacy of Plaintiffs
person was in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and not authorized by law. Defendant
violated Plaintiffs rights in the following manner: (1) His independent decision to continue
and/or failure to stop the custodial arrest of Plaintiff that he knew was not supported by probable
cause. These acts were in violation of Plaintiffs Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
1983.
COUNT III
Plaintiff Against Talley, Fairley, Yancy, and The Village of Maywood For
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
41. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty four
42. Defendants Talley, Fairley, and Yancy, who were employed by the Village of
Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff violated the Maywood Municipal Ordinance 130.20(A)(1).
7
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
giving false police reports, and/or preparing and/or signing a false complaint for the purpose of
44. On January 6, 2017, the legal proceedings regarding the charge that Plaintiff
violated the Maywood Municipal Ordinance 130.20(A)(1) terminated in Plaintiffs favor when
46. The Village of Maywood is liable to Plaintiff for the acts of Talley, Yancy, and
47. Therefore, Talley, Yancy, Fairley, and the Village of Maywood are liable under
COUNT IV
48. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty four
49. On January 6, 2017 a final administrative decision affecting the rights of the
Development, and/or Hearing Officer Pamela Harris, Tally, Yancy, and Fairley in their official
capacities, wrongfully caused Plaintiff to be found liable for violating Maywood Municipal
8
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
Code 130.20 (A)(5). A copy of that Finding, Decision & Order is attached hereto as Exhibit
1.
51. The decision finding Plaintiff liable was not in accordance with Illinois law or
the U.S. Constitution, and therefore Plaintiff seeks review of this decision pursuant to 735 ILCS
52. Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies under the Illinois
Administrative Review Law, and has no further plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
53. Defendants are requested pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-108 file an answer to this
count that includes a certified copy of the entire record of the administrative proceedings
including all recordings, transcripts, and evidence heard of/during the proceeding that resulted in
54. Pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/3-103 Plaintiff
requests that this Court reverse the Finding, Decision & Order that Plaintiff was liable
attached as Exhibit 1.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.
1. That the Defendants in Counts I - III be required to pay Plaintiffs general damages,
including emotional distress, in a sum to be ascertained;
2. That the Defendants in Counts I - III be required to pay Plaintiffs special damages;
3. That the Defendants in Counts I - III be required to pay Plaintiffs attorneys fees
pursuant to Section 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code, the Equal Access to
Justice Act or any other applicable provision;
9
Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10
4. That the Defendants Talley, Yancy, and Fairley be required to pay punitive and
exemplary damages in a sum to be ascertained;
5. That the Defendants in Counts I - III be required to pay Plaintiffs costs of the suit
herein incurred; and
6. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
10