Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

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.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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.

Sections 1343 and 1331 and 1367.

2. Venue is founded in this judicial court upon 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 as the acts

complained of arose in this district.

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

being sued in his individual and official capacities.

5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Maywood Police Commander Theodore

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.

6. At all times herein mentioned, Maywood Police Sergeant Daryl Fairley,

(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

Defendant is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

7. At all times herein mentioned Hearing Officer Pamela Harris was employed by

the Village of Maywood, Maywood Department of Administrative Hearings, Maywood

Ordinance Enforcement Department, and/or the Maywood Department of Community

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

the Maywood Department of Administrative Hearings.

9. The Maywood Department of Administrative Hearings is an entity created by 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.

2
 Case: 1:17-cv-01010 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/07/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

10. The Maywood Ordinance Enforcement Department is an entity created by 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.

11. The Maywood Department of Community Development is an entity created by

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

provide his identification.

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

engage in any illegal conduct.

15. When Talley demanded Plaintiffs identification a reasonable person in Plaintiffs

position would not have felt free to leave and thus he was seized. Talley did not have reasonable

suspicion for this seizure.

16. When Plaintiff did not produce identification Talley told Plaintiff that taking

photographs of the exterior of the Maywood Police Department was Illegal.

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

under custodial arrest.

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

Plaintiff provide his identification.

22. After Placing Plaintiff into custody Talley escorted Plaintiff inside the Maywood

Police Department and gave custody of Plaintiff to Defendant Fairley.

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

have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

25. After Plaintiff provided his identification Fairly signed and served Plaintiff with a

citation and complaint alleging that Plaintiff violated Maywood Municipal Ordinance

130.20(A)(5) which states that the following constitutes disorderly conduct:

Resisting or obstructing the performance of one known to be a police

officer or any authorized act within the police officer's official capacity, or
impersonating a police officer.

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

Police officer in the performance of any authorized act.

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:

Making, aiding or assisting in making any improper noise, riot,

disturbance, breach of the peace or diversion tending to a breach of the peace.

29. The second citation and complaint further alleged that Plaintiff :

Knowingly caused a breach of the peace by photographing officers

And civilians going in and out of the police station.

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

either citation and complaint against Plaintiff.

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

awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at

the time of trial.

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

provision set by law.

COUNT I
Plaintiff against Talley and Yancy for
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE

35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty four

(34) hereat as though fully set forth at this place.

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

the United States and laws enacted thereunder.

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

liable to Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

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

(34) hereat as though fully set forth at this place.

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

the United States and laws enacted thereunder.

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.

Therefore, Defendant in his individual capacity, is liable to Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

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

(34) hereat as though fully alleged at this place.

42. Defendants Talley, Fairley, and Yancy, who were employed by the Village of

Maywood, maliciously commenced and/or caused to be continued a legal proceedings against

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

43. Defendants initiated, facilitated, and/or continued this malicious prosecution by

giving false police reports, and/or preparing and/or signing a false complaint for the purpose of

causing the initiation or continuation of legal proceedings against Plaintiff.

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

he was found not liable.

45. As a result of Defendants initiating and/or continuing this baseless legal

proceeding Plaintiff was injured emotionally and otherwise.

46. The Village of Maywood is liable to Plaintiff for the acts of Talley, Yancy, and

Fairley pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

47. Therefore, Talley, Yancy, Fairley, and the Village of Maywood are liable under

the supplemental state law claim of Malicious Prosecution.

COUNT IV

Plaintiff against Village of Maywood, Village of Maywood Department of Administrative

Hearings, Maywood Ordinance Enforcement Department, Maywood Department of
Community Development, Hearing Officer Pamela Harris, Talley, Yancy, and Fairley for
ILLINOIS ADMINISTRTIVE REVIEW

48. Plaintiff hereby incorporates and realleges paragraphs one (1) through thirty four

(34) hereat as though fully alleged at this place.

49. On January 6, 2017 a final administrative decision affecting the rights of the

Plaintiff was issued by one or more of the Defendants.

50. The Village of Maywood, Village of Maywood Department of Administrative

Hearings, Maywood Ordinance Enforcement Department, Maywood Department of Community

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

5/3-103 of the Illinois Administrative Review Law.

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

the decision finding Plaintiff liable contained in Exhibit 1.

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.

requests judgment as follows against the Defendants, and each of them:

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.

BY: s/Garrett Browne

ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
300 West Adams
Suite 330
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 345-8877
gbrowne@efoxlaw.com

PLAINTIFF HEREBY REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY

BY: s/Garrett Browne

ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, Ltd.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
300 West Adams
Suite 330
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 345-8877
gbrowne@efoxlaw.com

10