Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COUNTYDEPARTMENTLAWDIVISION
ISMAELHARO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CaseNo.
CITYOFBLUEISLAND,MICHAEL
CORNELL,andKEVINSISK,
Defendants.
PlaintiffDemandsTrialByJury
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Ismael Haro, through his undersigned counsel, seeks redress against
DefendantsCityofBlueIsland,MichaelCornell,andKevinSisk,andinsupport,states
asfollows:
Jurisdiction
1.
Thecourthasjurisdictionoverthismatterpursuantto735ILCS5/2209
in that Plaintiff and the individual Defendants are citizens of the State of Illinois, and
DefendantCityofBlueIslandisamunicipalityincorporatedunderthelawsoftheState
ofIllinoisandislocatedwithintheStateofIllinois.
2.
Parties
3.
PlaintiffIsmaelHaroisaresidentofCookCounty,Illinois.
4.
PlaintiffhasbeenemployedasapoliceofficerwiththeCityofBlueIsland
since1998,andcurrentlyholdstherankofsergeant.
5.
lawsoftheStateofIllinoisandislocatedwithinCookCounty.
6.
policeofficerwiththerankofdeputychiefofpoliceandiscurrentlytheactingChiefof
Police.
7.
At all relevant times, Defendant Cornell acted within the scope of his
employmentandasagentofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.
8.
officerwiththerankofcommander.
9.
At all relevant times, Defendant Sisk acted within the scope of his
employmentandasagentofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.
FactsRegardingtheRobbieSilvaInvestigation
10.
OnDecember1,2005,ayoungboynamedRobertThomasSilva(Robbie
Silva) was killed in a hitandrun in Blue Island, and the case received significant
mediaattention.
11.
Defendants Cornell and Sisk, who then held the ranks of detective
sergeantandcorporal,weretwooftheofficersassignedtoinvestigatethecase.
12.
personofinterestsgirlfriendwasidentifiedasapotentialwitnesstothecrime.
13.
The girlfriend was also the sister of an individual who held significant
political connections in the City. This individual also owned a towing company that
heldthecontractforpolicetowsandwasonpersonaltermswithDefendantCornell.
14.
Apolygraphinterviewofthegirlfriendwasconducted,duringwhichthe
girlfriendprovidedanalibiforthepersonofinterest.DefendantCornellauthoredand
signed a subsequent report regarding the interview, which stated that the girlfriend
passedthepolygraphandthatsheistellingthetruth.
15.
Due to Defendant Cornells report that the girlfriend had passed the
polygraph,theleadwasnotpursued.
16.
Thecasewentcoldandwasneversolved.
17.
In March 2009, Beth Ann Thomas, the mother of Robbie Silva, contacted
Plaintiff, who was then a detective, and asked him to take a fresh look at the case in
ordertobringhersonsmurderertojustice.
18.
mishandledbyDefendantCornell.
19.
WhenPlaintifflookedforthecaseinthehomicidefiles,however,hewas
unabletolocateit.
20.
Plaintiff searched the archives for police reports related to the case and
wasalsounabletofindthem.
21.
himofthemissingfiles.ChiefHoglundsuggestedthatPlaintiffaskDefendantCornell
aboutthemissingfiles.
22.
Defendant Cornell admitted that he had the file in his possession and demanded to
knowwhyPlaintiffwasinterestedinthefile.
23.
PlaintifftoldDefendantCornellthatBethAnnThomashadaskedPlaintiff
toreviewthecase,towhichDefendantCornellrespondedtotheeffectof,Thatwoman
needs to get over it. Her son is dead and the offender in the case has likely fled to
Mexico.
24.
PlaintiffaskedDefendantCornellforthefilenonetheless,andDefendant
CornellsaidthathewouldgetthefiletoPlaintiff.
25.
Defendant Cornell did not provide the file to Plaintiff, but another
detectiveeventuallyobtainedthefilefromDefendantCornell.
26.
Uponreviewingthefile,Plaintiffdiscoveredthattheinvestigativefilehad
Multipleoriginalreportsweremissingfromthefile;
b.
approvedorsubmittedtotherecordsdepartmentforarchival;
c.
Reportsweredeficientandinadequate;
d.
Leadshadnotbeenexhaustedorfollowedupon;
e.
Noleadsheethadbeencreatedforthecase,andtherewas
nomanagementsystemforthecase;
f.
Thefiledidnotcontaininformationrelatedtothepersonof
interest.
27.
HoglundauthorizedPlaintifftoinformallyresumeinvestigationofthecaseastimeand
resourcespermitted.
28.
reports that had been missing from the case file, one of which was the original
polygraph report generated by the officer who conducted the polygraph interview on
thepersonofinterestsgirlfriend.
29.
The newly discovered original report stated that the polygraph was
inconclusive.
30.
Theseparatereportthathadalwaysbeenmaintainedinthecasefileand
which had been authored by Defendant Cornell, however, stated that the girlfriend
passedthepolygraphandthatsheistellingthetruth.
31.
Given the falsified police report, the incomplete state of the file, the
missing reports, the failure to follow up on leads, and the girlfriends political
connections, Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant Cornell had deliberately
failedtoproperlyinvestigatethecaseandhadillegallyfalsifiedthepolygraphreport.
32.
Hoglund, in particular his reasonable belief that Defendant Cornell had falsified the
reportregardingthegirlfriendspolygraphinterview.
33.
quietlyandtonotifyhimwhenthecasewasreadytobeformallyreopened.
34.
SuburbanMajorCrimesTaskForce(SSMCTF).
35.
commander of the SSMCTF, and informed him of Plaintiffs findings relative to the
RobbieSilvacaseandPlaintiffsreasonablebeliefthatDefendantCornellhadfalsifieda
criticalpolicereport.
6
36.
FormalreopeningofthecasewassetforthefirstweekofApril2012.On
themorningtheSilvacasewastobereopened,atabout2:00a.m.,atruckfromthetow
company,whoseownerwasthebrotherofthepersonofinterestsgirlfriend,wasseen
outsideofDefendantCornellsresidence.
37.
interview witnesses. Subsequently, the owner of the tow company complained to the
policedepartmentabouttheinvestigationandtheinterviews.
38.
of the tow company about the reactivation of the case and had then spoken with
witnessesaftertheyhadbeeninterviewedbytheSSMCTF.
39.
Thereopeningoftheinvestigationresultedintheidentificationofaclear
suspect,whowasthesamepersonofinterestwhohadpreviouslybeenidentified.Due
to the passageof time,however,thesuspectcould not be located and the suspect has
neverbeencharged.
FactsRegardingRetaliationAgainstPlaintiff
40.
triedtoremoveDefendantCornellfromhispositionasdeputychief.
41.
PhilContreraswasappointedthenewchiefofpolice.
42.
DefendantCornellremainedasthedeputychiefandimmediatelyordered
thatthedetectivedivisionwouldhenceforthreporttohim.
7
43.
updatehimoncurrentinvestigations,includingthereactivatedRobbieSilvamatterand
PlaintiffsbeliefsaboutthehandlingofthecasebyDefendantCornell,inparticularthe
falsepolicereportDefendantCornellauthoredinthecase.
44.
While Plaintiff stated that he would work on the case only as time and
resources allowed and that he would stay on top of any incoming cases, Contreras
directedPlaintifftoletsleepingdogslieandorderedhimtoconcentrateonnewcases
instead.
45.
Inthesummerof2012,PlaintifflearnedthatBethAnnThomashadfileda
complaint with the Cook County States Attorney regarding Defendant Cornells
handlingoftheRobbieSilvacase.
46.
Plaintiff met with the chief prosecutor of the Cook County States
Attorneys Public Integrity Unit and reported his findings in the case, including his
findingsregardingthefalsepolicereportfiledinthecasebyDefendantCornell.
47.
Soonafterward,DefendantCornellbeganquestioningPlaintiffshandling
ofcasesassignedtohimandaccusinghimofminordisciplinaryinfractions.
48.
InSeptember2012,DefendantCornellsignificantlyreducedtheresources
availabletothedetectivedivisioninanefforttodiscouragethereinvestigationofcold
cases, including the Robbie Silva case, and detectives within the division requested
reassignmentduetotheonerousworkingconditions.
8
49.
divisiontothemidnightpatrolshift.Plaintiffassumedcommandofthemidnightpatrol
shiftonSeptember29,2012.
50.
includingbutnotlimitedto:
a. AccusingPlaintiffofworkingunauthorizedovertimeontheSilvacase;
b. Accusing Plaintiff of failing to notify the chain of command about
incidentsinvolvingotherofficers;
c. Accusing Plaintiff of making disparaging statements in relation to the
staffingchangesinthedetectivedivision;and
d. AccusingPlaintiffofimproperlyinvestigatingcases.
51.
InMay2013,PhilContrerasretiredaschiefofpolice,andtheCitybegana
90day evaluation period to find a new chief. The 90day evaluation period expired
withouttheCityappointinganewchiefofpolice.
52.
InAugust2013,DefendantCornellbecameactingchiefofpolice.
53.
WhileDefendantCornellhadbeenconsideredasapossiblechiefofpolice,
members of the City Council refused to appoint him as chief of police because of
concernsabouthishandlingoftheSilvamatter.
54.
Defendant Cornell was aware that this was the reason he was not
appointedchiefofpolice.
9
55.
Defendant Cornell was aware that Plaintiff had reported his findings
regardingDefendantCornellsillegalfalsificationofthepolygraphinterviewreportto
formerChiefHoglund,theSSMCTF,andtheCookCountyStatesAttorneysoffice.
56.
Prior to becoming acting chief of police, Defendant Cornell did not have
theauthoritytoissuedisciplinetoofficers.
57.
officers,DefendantCornellinitiatedacampaignofunlawfulandunjustifieddiscipline
againstPlaintiff,including:
a. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of mishandling an internal investigation
involving another officer that Defendant Cornell required Plaintiff to
conduct;
b. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of submitting improper overtime, comp time,
anddayoffrequests;
c. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the detective
divisionregardingadeathinvestigation;
d. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failure to properly inspect the police
departmentkennels;
e. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the chain of
commandaboutauseofforceincident.
10
58.
InNovember2013,DefendantCornellcreatedthepositionofcommander,
whichwastobeanadministrative/managementpositionbetweentheranksofdeputy
chiefandpatrolsergeant.
59.
December2013.
60.
Immediatelyuponconclusionofthesecondinterrogation,DefendantSisk
notifiedPlaintiffofyetanotherformalinvestigationandalsoinformedPlaintiffthathe
wasbeingissueda90daysuspensionwithoutpaybyDefendantCornellinrelationto
thefirstformalinvestigation.
62.
No officer in the history of the Blue Island Police Department had ever
beensuspendedformorethan30days.
63.
The only prior discipline Plaintiff had ever received had occurred more
thantenyearsearlier.
64.
alleged prior disciplinary infractions that had never been documented and were not
containedinPlaintiffspersonnelfile.
11
65.
Asaresultoftheinterrogation,theexcessiveandunjustifiedsuspension,
andthenotificationofyetanotherbaselessformalinquiry,Plaintiffbecameillandhad
totakeamedicalleaveofabsence.
66.
shortnessofbreaththatrequiredmedicalcare,andPlaintiffsufferedpanicattackswhen
hereceivedphonecallsoriginatingfromthepolicestation.
67.
OnJuly9,2014,Plaintiffreturnedtoworkfrommedicalleave.
68.
DefendantSiskorderedPlaintifftoreporttohisofficeimmediatelyupon
arrival at work. When he arrived, Defendant Sisk served Plaintiff with an amended
notice of 90day suspension without pay, effective immediately, and demanded that
Plaintiffturnoverhisbadge,uniform,andidentification.
69.
interrogationregardingthethirdformalinquiry.
70.
OnJuly28,2014,DefendantSiskinterrogatedPlaintiffforthethirdtime.
71.
72.
pay.
orderedPlaintifftoreporttohisofficeimmediately.
12
73.
DefendantSiskservedPlaintiffwithnoticeofanother90daysuspension
without pay by Defendant Cornell in relation to the second formal inquiry, effective
immediately.
74.
Thesecond90daysuspensionwasnotjustifiedbyeitherfactorlaw.
75.
DefendantSiskorderedPlaintifftodepartthepremisesimmediately.
COUNTI
ViolationoftheIllinoisWhistleblowerAct
76.
When Plaintiff reported to Chief Hoglund, the SSMCTF, and the Cook
Defendants Cornell and Sisk each made, took part in, assisted in, or
discipliningandsuspendingPlaintiffwithoutpayforunlawfulretaliatoryreasonsand
notbecauseofhisworkperformance.
13
80.
guaranteedtohimbytheIllinoisWhistleblowerAct,740ILCS174/15.
81.
substantial losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, mental and
emotionalanguish,andembarrassmentandhumiliation.
WHEREFORE,PlaintiffpraysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsinanamountin
excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable,
includingbutnotlimitedtocompensatorydamages,backpay,frontpay,reinstatement
tohispriorposition,apermanentinjunction,prejudgmentinterest,lostfuturewages,
future pecuniary damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and
litigationexpensesasallowedbylaw.
COUNTII
IntentionalInflictionofEmotionalDistress
82.
andoutrageous.
83.
Defendant Cornell and Sisk knew that there was a high probability that
their conduct would inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff and they willfully,
wantonly,andrecklesslydisregardedthatprobability.
84.
Atallrelevanttimes,DefendantsCornellandSiskwereactingwithinthe
scopeoftheiremploymentandasagentsofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.
14
85.
sufferedsevereemotionaldistress.
WHEREFORE,PlaintiffpraysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsinanamountin
excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable,
including but not limited to compensatory damages, a permanent injunction, pre
judgment interest, lost future wages, future pecuniary damages, punitive damages,
reasonableattorneysfees,costs,andlitigationexpensesasallowedbylaw.
RespectfullySubmitted,
ISMAELHARO
DanaL.Kurtz,Esq.
JamesG.Vanzant,Esq.
KURTZLAWOFFICES,LTD.
32BlaineStreet
Hinsdale,Illinois60521
Phone:630.323.9444
Facsimile:630.604.9444
Email:dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us
Email:jvanzant@kurtzlaw.us
FirmNo.43132
s/JamesG.Vanzant
AttorneyforPlaintiff
15