1IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Mark R. McCoy, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-VS- )
) Case No. 10 L 75
CITY OF FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, a )
municipal corporation, JOSHUA )
ALEMOND, and AARON NYMAN )
)
Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES

NOW comes the Plaintiff, Mark R. McCoy, and hereby submits

his amended answers to Interrogatories propounded upon him by
Defendant, Aaron Nyman, as follows:

INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory Number 7: Did Plaintiff consume any alcoholic

beverage within 12 hours immediately prior to the alleged
incident on February 17, 2009? If so, state where it was
consumed, the particular kind and amount of alcoholic beverage so
consumed by Plaintiff, and the names and the current residence
addresses of all persons known by Plaintiff who have knowledge
concerning his consumption of alcoholic beverage(s) within the 12
hours immediately prior to the alleged February 17, 2009
incident.

AMENDED ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 7: Plaintiff maintains his

objection to Interrogatory Number 7 for points previously stated
by way of previous Answers.

Plaintiff further disagrees with Defendant’s claim that

Plaintiff’s objection is “unfounded”.

Page 1 of 6
Defendant claims that whether Plaintiff consumed alcoholic
beverages or a controlled substance is directly relevant to
Plaintiff’s “state of mind”. Plaintiff disagrees that his state
of mind has any bearing on the nature of this case, and further
disagrees that if such is the case then alcohol or drugs would
not be the only potentially exacerbating factors. Defendant does
not appear to be concerned with Plaintiff’s emotional state,
possible fatigue, consumption of any other stimulants or
depressants, or any other way possible to affect one’s state of
mind, but instead focuses solely on consumption of alcohol or
drugs and controlled substances, as though the Plaintiff was
under some chemically-induced influence rather than that of his
own free will.

Plaintiff asserts further that a span of 12 hours as requested by

the Defendant is not reasonable for inquiring into the
Plaintiff’s possible alcohol consumption.

If it is to be alleged by the Defendant that the Plaintiff is in

some way mentally impaired or suffering from some sort of mental
condition then Defendant has an option for recourse to support or
pursue such allegation through other means other than relying
upon the Plaintiff’s support by way of Interrogatory Number 7. If
the state of mind of the Plaintiff is relevant only to events on
the date of the occurrence then Plaintiff believes alcohol and
drug consumption do not speak accurately or comprehensively to
that state of mind and believes Interrogatory Number 7 to be
pretextual in nature by seeking information previously available
to the Defendant on the date of the occurrence but which the
Defendant either failed to pursue or had no reason to pursue and
thereby relying upon Interrogatory Number 7 to lend credence to
or otherwise justify Defendant’s actions on the date of the
occurrence.

In conjunction to the above foregoing objection, Plaintiff also

objects to the Defendant’s claim that he is entitled to said
Answer because Officer Alemond observed Plaintiff to be weaving
in his lane of traffic and suspected that Plaintiff was
intoxicated. What Alemond may believe is of no relevance if what
he believed was not reasonable. Alemond may be subject to any
number of beliefs, be they factual or fantastical, but unless
such beliefs are reasonable they are but as delusions,

Page 2 of 6
assumptions, hunches, or other attempts to bring emotion and
speculation within the realm of rationality.

If Defendant Alemond suspected Plaintiff of being intoxicated

then Plaintiff asserts there would be some mention of that
suspicion on the record along with actions and determinations
made pursuant to reasonable inquiry. Of the charges Plaintiff was
confronted with on the date of the occurrence nowhere is there a
mention of the Plaintiff being in any way impaired or under the
influence of anything alcoholic or drug-related. Even if
Plaintiff did “weave” as claimed by Defendant Alemond, there is
no offense cognizable to the law, which involves weaving within
one’s own lane.

What Plaintiff believes Defendant is attempting to establish or

support by way of Interrogatory Number 7 is that alleged weaving
within a lane amounted to reasonable suspicion, something of
which the Plaintiff has challenged the veracity from the
beginning. It is specious for Defendant Alemond to rely upon a
claim of weaving within one’s lane and yet fail to inquire about
the cause for the weaving once the Plaintiff had been detained
and to not bring any charges against the Plaintiff for alleged
intoxication.

For reasons stated herein, Plaintiff maintains his objection to

Interrogatory Number 7.

Interrogatory Number 8: Did Plaintiff consume any over the

counter or prescription medication or any controlled substance,
including any prescription drugs, and/or illegal narcotics within
48 hours immediately prior to the alleged incident on February
17, 2009? If so, state the names and addresses of those from whom
it was obtained, where it was consumed, the particular kind and
amount of such substance so consumed by Plaintiff, and the names
and current residence addresses of all persons known by Plaintiff
who have knowledge of his consumption of the said substances.

AMENDED ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 8: Plaintiff maintains his

objection to Interrogatory Number 8 for same reasoning applied to
Interrogatory Number 7.

Mark McCoy, Plaintiff

Page 3 of 6
 Date

Page 4 of 6
 ATTESTATION

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

)SS.

COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR )

Mark McCoy, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states
that he is a Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter; that he has
read the foregoing document, and the answers made herein are
true, correct, and complete to the best of his knowledge and
belief.

SIGNATURE

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me on this

day of , 2010.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Page 5 of 6
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I served the forgoing Plaintiff’s Answers to
Defendant’s Interrogatories for Case No.: 10 L 75 to the following person(s):

Joshua S. Abern
O’Halloran Kosoff Geitner & Cook, LLC
650 Dundee Road, Suite 475
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
jabern@okgc.com

and

Dawn A. Sallerson
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
P.O. Box 509
521 West Main Street, Suite 300
Belleville, Illinois 62222
dsallerson@hinshawlaw.com

via email on June 25, 2010; and U.S. Mail on June 26, 2010, by placing true and correct copies of
the same in an envelope(s) addressed as set forth above in a mailbox located at the U.S. Post
Office in Collinsville, Illinois, 62234.

Mark R. McCoy, Plaintiff

Page 6 of 6