Judge Castillo grants, in part, summary judgment in Warfield

Warfield v. City 2008 WL 2764862 (July 16, 2008) Judge Castillo granted in part summary judgment in Warfield v. City 05 C 3712. The Court ruled that plaintiffs, like an innocent bystanders, cannot recover for be shot by police, under a Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment theory. Under the Fourth, since plaintiff were "not the intended targets of the officers' bullets. In Bublitz v. Cottey, for example, a family was killed after their vehicle collided with the car of a fleeing felon when police officers used a tire-deflation device to stop the felon's car. 327 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir.2003). In that case, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that just because the officer intended to stop the felon's car, it does not follow that he therefore intended to stop any other car that could potentially become involved in a subsequent collision. Id. The Court held that the family's suffering was an "accidental and wholly unintended consequence;" because the family "was simply not the intended object" of the defendant officers' attempts to seize the fleeing criminal. Id. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment was not implicated and could not provide the basis for a Section 1983 claim. Id. Similarly, in the instant case, Plaintiffs were not the intended object of the officers' attempts to seize Smith, and so the Fourth Amendment is not implicated here." Under the Fourteenth: The Court explained that "[O]nly the most egregious official conduct can be said to be 'arbitrary in the constitutional sense...." Bublitz, 327 F.3d at 490. When officers are faced with a "dangerous, fluid situation, in which they were forced to make decisions in haste, under pressure," their conduct does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment unless it "shocks the conscience." Schaefer, 153 F.3d at 797-98 (citing Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846-47). In these cases, "even precipitate recklessness fails to inch close enough to harmful purpose to spark the shock that implicates the concerns of substantive due process." Id. "The sine qua non of liability" in these cases is "a purpose to cause harm." Id. In Schaefer, the defendant officers fired their weapons at a husband who was holding his wife hostage, and accidentally fatally shot the wife. Id. at 798-99. The Seventh Circuit held that the officers' conduct did not "shock the conscience" because the officers did not intend to shoot the wife. Id." The Court applied that same standard in this case where the officers "were in the type of "dangerous, fluid situation" to which the shocks the conscience standard applies. Smith had just pointed a gun at Officers Chatman and Collier, and the officers were giving chase. To "shock the conscience," the officers must have intended to cause harm to Plaintiffs. Schaefer, 153 F.3d at 798-99. Although the parties dispute whether the officers knew Plaintiffs were in the vestibule when the officers fired their guns, there is no evidence of any intention or purpose on the part of the officers to cause harm to Plaintiffs." After finding that no 4th or 14th amendment violation occurred from the shooting, Judge Castillo granted summary judgment on plaintiff's IIED claim explaining: "Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that they suffered sever emotional distress...the innocent bystander shot during Officers Chatman's and Collier's pursuit of Smith, is not a plaintiff in this case. In essence, all that remains are Plaintiffs' complaints of "fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, [and] worry," which are not sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." However, Judge Castillo denied summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful detention claim and explained that a question of fact existed as to whether plaintiffs who were brought to the police station for questioning were free to leave. Trial will be set on the remaining unlawful detention and false imprisonment claims of the multiple plaintiffs. Eileen Rosen of Rock Fusco and Andrew M. Hale of Andrew M. Hale & Associates represent the CIty of Chicago and the police officers. Jon Loevy of Loevy and Loevy represent the plaintiffs.

Michael Evans Denied A New Trial - Defense Verdict Affirmed

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a verdict in favor of the City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers and against Michael Evans, thereby denying Evans a new trial. Evans had filed suit seeking $60 million claiming the officers framed him for the rape and murder of nine-year old Lisa Cabassa in 1976. In August 2006, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers and City of Chicago, finding there to be no police misconduct. On appeal, Evans was seeking a new trial. In a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit held that Evans received a fair trial and was not entitled to a new trial. At trial, the police officers were represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen, Kevin Horan and John Rock of Rock Fusco, LLC. On appeal, the police officers were represented by Benna Ruth Solomon, Jenny Notz and Myriam Kasper, attorneys with the Corporation Counsel's appellate group. Evans was represented at trial and on appeal by Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy.

Jose Lopez Civil Rights Lawsuit Is Dismissed Due To Statute Of Limitations

Judge Der-Yeghiayan has dismissed the civil rights lawsuit filed by plaintiff Jose Lopez, stating: "Plaintiff has filed a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has alleged that he was 'arrested and charged' sometime in 2002. (Compl. Par. 7). Plaintiff also alleged that '[a]fter serving several years in jail . . . Plaintiff was tried on the false charges in 2005, whereupon Plaintiff was acquitted of murder.' (Compl. Par. 9). Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Northern District of Illinois on November 15, 2006. Thus, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Kato, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (2007), the instant action is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and we dismiss the instant action." Plaintiff Jose Lopez  was represented by Jon Loevy and Jon Rosenblatt from Loevy & Loevy. The defendants, the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Officers Robert Gliwa, James K. Sanchez, Adrian Garcia, Michael Pietryla and Thomas Flaherty, were represented by Andrew Hale and Eileen Rosen of Rock Fusco, LLC.

City Of Chicago Files Response To Michael Evans' Appeal

The City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers have filed their response to Michael Evans' Seventh Circuit appeal. In August 2006, a federal court jury found in favor of the City of Chicago and the police officer defendants, rejecting Evans' claim that he had been framed for the rape and murder of Lisa Cabassa back in 1976. Evans spent 27 years in prison before being released in 2003 when DNA found on a rectal swab did not match Evans. An eyewitness, Judith Januszewski, testified that she saw Evans and his friend Paul Terry abducting Lisa Cabassa on the evening she disappeared. In their appellate brief, the defendants argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony by police officers who fully complied with discovery. The defendants also argued that Evans' failure to ask the district court for additional time to conduct discovery waived any claim of prejudice. For example, the defendants' brief states "Tellingly, the primary relief Evans seeks is a remand to 'provide Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to take fact and expert discovery. Evans never sought this relief from the district court, although the officers suggested it. Evans wanted to go to trial as quickly as possible. Evans apparently now regrets this strategy, but his gamesmanship should not be rewarded with relief he never sought below. Indeed, because Evans never asked the district court for more time for discovery, this argument is waived." (Defendants' brief at p. 38). Defendants are represented on appeal by Benna Ruth  Solomon (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Myriam Zreczny Kasper (Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel), and Jane Elinor Notz (Assistant Corporation Counsel). Evans is represented on appeal by Jon Loevy, of Loevy & Loevy, who was also Evans' lead trial counsel. At trial, the defendants were represented by Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen and John Rock from Rock Fusco, LLC.

Michael Evans Appeals Jury Verdict In Favor Of Ten Former Chicago Police Officers

Plaintiff Michael Evans has filed his appellate brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Evans had sued ten former Chicago Police Officers claiming they framed him for the rape and murder of nine-year old Lisa Cabassa back in 1976. Evans was convicted of that crime in 1977 and spent 27 years in prison until being released in 2003 based on the results of DNA testing. Evans later received an innocence pardon from Governor Blagojevich. In August 2006, a jury found in favor of the ten Chicago Police Officers and against Evans. Evans had asked the jury to award him over $50 million in damages.The main issue raised in Evans' appeal is that several of the former Officers were allowed to give depositions shortly before trial after having previously asserted their Fifth Amendment rights. Evans claims he was prejudiced by these depositions, but did not ask District Court Judge David Coar to continue the trial date. The ten former Chicago Police Officers were represented by Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen and John Rock from the law firm of Rock Fusco, LLC. Michael Evans was represented by Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy, Flint Taylor from the People's Law Office and Locke Bowman from the MacArthur Justice Center.

Jose Lopez Files Suit Against City Of Chicago And Five Chicago Police Officers

Jose Lopez has filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Chicago and five Chicago Police Officers. Lopez alleges that the defendants violated his rights by framing him for a murder they knew he did not commit. Lopez spent two years in jail awaiting his murder trial. He was subsequently acquitted. Lopez is represented by Jon Loevy at Loevy & Loevy. The City of Chicago and the five Chicago Police Officers are represented by Andrew Hale and Eileen Rosen at Rock Fusco, LLC. The case is pending before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in the Northern District of Illinois.