File Stamped - James Complaint

Case: 1:21-cv-06750 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/21 Page 1 of 45 PageID #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
)
QUARNITA JAMES, for herself and as next friend )
of her minor son, LAZERICK JAMES, and )
JAYLIN STIGER, )
)
)
Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 21-cv-6750
v. )
) District Judge
THE CITY OF CHICAGO; Chicago police )
officers GUADALUPE AGUIRRE (star #12810); )
MOHAMMED AHMED (#16497); ANDRIAN ) Magistrate Judge
ARSENYAN (#5830); AMIN ELMESQUINE )
(#17593); DANIEL GAJEWSKI (#5149); )
JESADA LAKSANAPROM (#7480); ALEX )
LOPEZ (#12666); KEVIN MCCORMICK )
(#16845); CHRISTOPHER PAREDES (#18109); )
MICHAEL POWERS (#1932); Sgt. SYED )
QUADRI (#2406); JEFFREY RIORDAN (#7712); )
Sgt. CHRISTOPHER STACHULA (#1668); )
ZOHAIB ZAIB (#10988); and other CURRENTLY )
UNKNOWN CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, )
)
Defendants. ) Jury Demanded
)
COMPLAINT
Summary
1. Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, The Law Offices of Al Hofeld,
Jr., LLC, bring this action against defendants City of Chicago and Chicago police officers
pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and Illinois state law for needlessly traumatizing two boys, and
violating their Constitutional rights, alleging as follows:
2. On Christmas Eve, 2019, in the space of just 20-25 minutes starting at
about 7:45PM, 13-year-old Lazerick and 16-year-old Jaylin, law abiding boys who had never
1
been arrested or had guns pointed at them, were accosted and abused six times at their own
apartment by defendant officers who had responded to the wrong address not knowing who they
were looking for after a vague 911 call. Police were disorganized, and three separate groups of
officers failed to communicate with each other. In the 20-25 minutes, the three groups of
officers tackled, pointed guns and a taser at the boys, handcuffed them three times, and entered
their apartment illegally, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
3. At all times, officers’ guns were loaded, and their fingers were on the
triggers. Plaintiffs immediately and fully complied with all officer instructions at all times.
Plaintiffs did not pose any apparent or actual threat to any of the officers whatsoever at any time.
Moreover, they repeatedly asked the officers what was going on. Officers simply ignored their
questions. Officers were rude, disrespectful and demeaning. They did not apologize for their
conduct.
4. Defendant officers’ complete blunder violated plaintiffs’ Fourth
Amendment Right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of their home and,
once again in Chicago, defendant officers’ indiscriminate pointing of guns at children of color
traumatized those children.
5. Officers’ excessive force against the children was not a rogue or isolated
event: it was undertaken pursuant to the City of Chicago’s systemic, unofficial policy of using
excessive police force against children and against their parents in the children’s sight, as
elaborated below.
6. As a direct result of this incident, the children now suffer severe, long-
term, emotional and psychological distress, including symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder.
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This action arises under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of
Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U. S. 658 (1978). This Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of plaintiffs’
state law claims.
8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1391(b). The underlying events
occurred within the Northern District of Illinois; defendant City of Chicago is a municipal
corporation located within the District; and all parties reside in the District.
PARTIES
9. At the time of all relevant events, plaintiff Jaylin Stiger was a 16-year-old
boy residing in his home with his brother and mother, Quarnita James, at 1227 W. Albion
Avenue, apartment 3D, in the Rogers Park neighborhood in Chicago. At the time, Jaylin was a
junior in high school, a champion wrestler and a standout football player.
10. At the time of all relevant events, plaintiff Lazerick James was a 13-year-
old boy residing in his home with his brother and mother, Quarnita James, at 1227 W. Albion
Avenue, apartment 3D, in the Rogers Park neighborhood in Chicago. At the time, Lazerick was
in seventh grade.
11. At the time of all relevant events, plaintiff Quarnita James was the mother
of Jaylin and Lazerick and a resident in her apartment at 1227 W. Albion Avenue, apartment 3D,
in the Rogers Park neighborhood in Chicago. She is employed full-time by Loyola University
in accounting. Ms. James brings suit for herself and as next friend of Lazerick, who is still a
minor.
12. Plaintiffs are African American.
3
13. At all relevant times, plaintiffs had a lawful and valid lease on apartment
3D at 1227 W. Albion Avenue, in Chicago.
14. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation under the laws of
the State of Illinois.
15. At the time of all relevant events, defendant officer Sgt. Quadri (star
#2406) was a tactical sergeant in charge of the tactical team on the scene that consisted of
defendant officers: Guadalupe Aguirre (#12810); Mohammed Ahmed (#16497); Andrian
Arsenyan (#5830); Amin Elmesquine (#17593); Daniel Gajewski (#5149); Jesada Laksanaprom
(#7480); Alex Lopez (#12666); Kevin McCormick (#16845); Christopher Paredes (#18109);
Michael Powers (#1932); Jeffrey Riordan (#7712); and Zohaib Zaib (#10988). Sgt. Christopher
Stachula (#1668) was called to the scene after the incidents transpired. Additional officers who
participated in stopping plaintiffs have not yet been identified. They include an officer Romero
Flores and a second “officer Lopez.”
16. When defendant officers interacted with plaintiffs and entered their
apartment on December 24, 2021, they were at all times acting under color of law and within the
scope of their employment as employees of the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) and the
City of Chicago.
The City Has Not Provided All Body Worn Camera Videos From the Incident
17. Despite multiple, pre-suit requests to the City of Chicago, including
COPA, the City has not yet produced body worn camera videos for all officers who were on
scene, including the officer who forcibly entered the back main door of the apartment complex.
There were at least four officers present on-scene who interacted with plaintiffs for whom the
City has not yet produced BWC videos; one is another officer “Lopez.” Plaintiffs also requested
4
that COPA produce security camera video that it obtained from the building, but COPA has not
done so. Since the City has withheld all of these videos, plaintiffs have no choice but to amend
their complaint once they are produced.
18. Moreover, as shown on the BWC videos produced, some officers
intentionally turned their BWCs off in order to hide misconduct they were about to commit, such
as unlocking and entering plaintiffs’ apartment without probable cause with keys they had taken
from Jaylin.
Overview: CPD’s M. O. is Excessive Force, Including

Against and in the Presence of Children of Color
19. Chicago police officers have a de facto policy, widespread practice or M.
O. of using unnecessarily or excessive force against citizens of color, including children, and
against their adult family members in front of the children, which traumatizes them.
20. The 2017 United States Department of Justice investigation of the CPD
concluded, among other things, that CPD has a pattern and practice of using excessive force
against citizens, including children. https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925846/download at 34.
DOJ also found that CPD’s uses of force, whether reasonable or unreasonable, disproportionately
involve Chicago’s citizens and youth of color, especially African Americans. (Id. at various).
DOJ also found that CPD’s excessive force runs the gamut of specific types of force and includes
pointing guns at citizens. (Id.).
21. In addition, the 2016 report of the mayoral-appointed Chicago Police
Accountability Task Force (“PATF”) contained similar or parallel conclusions. Among other
things, it concluded that most CPD officers are not trained or equipped to interact with youth.
https://chicagopatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PATF_Final_Report_4_13_16-1.pdf at 55.
5
PATF recommended a number of specific reforms, including training, in order to improve police
interactions with youth so as not to traumatize them. (Id.)
22. Despite clear, actual notice of these findings, CPD and the City did not
subsequently implement, prior to December 24, 2019, any changes in CPD policy, procedure or
training in order to remedy or otherwise address officers’ practice of using excessive force
against or in the presence of children. Further, none of the reforms and new training that CPD
did undertake in the wake of the DOJ and PATF reports addressed Chicago police officers’ use
of excessive force against children.
23. For instance, following the release of the DOJ report in 2017, CPD revised
its use of force policy, GO3-02, but did not include any changes that expressly require officers
not to refrain from pointing guns at or using force against or in the presence children, when
possible, or to otherwise use a trauma-informed approach to the use of force in situations where
children are present. Nor did CPD’s 16-hour officer training that accompanied implementation
of the new use of force policy include any instruction regarding the use of force and children or
the pointing of guns at them or others.
24. Similarly, through 2019, CPD did not revise its search warrant policy,
SO9-14, or its search warrant training to include any requirements or instruction that officers
refrain from pointing guns at or using force against or in the presence children, when possible, or
use a trauma-informed approach to the use of force in situations where children are present.
25. Moreover, in the federal consent decree the City agreed to with the State
of Illinois and that was entered by Judge Dow in January, 2019 in State of Illinois v. City of
Chicago, 17-cv-6260, the City did not commit to any reforms to remedy the problem.
6
http://chicagopoliceconsentdecree.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FINAL-CONSENT-
DECREE-SIGNED-BY-JUDGE-DOW.pdf
26. Further, unlike other major U.S. metropolitan police departments - such as
New York, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Baltimore and San Francisco - CPD still does not
have any policy or provide any training on policing children and youth in ways that are trauma-
informed and that avoids exposing them to police use of force.
27. In addition, the traumatic and long-lasting impact on children’s health
from exposure to violence is well-established scientifically and was well-understood by the City
of Chicago at all relevant times. Indeed, until approximately 2012 the Chicago Department of
Public Health had a program, Chicago Safe Start, that trained officers in two police districts
about the impact on young children of exposure to violence. Nevertheless, the City cut and
effectively terminated this training and failed to replace it, even after receiving actual notice of
the above findings regarding police and children in the DOJ and PATF reports.
28. In other words, despite the City’s extensive knowledge, via Chicago Safe
Start, that exposure to violence has a traumatic impact on children, CPD never implemented any
policy or training to prevent officers themselves from harming children by pointing guns at them
or using other unnecessary or excessive force against or in the presence of children.
29. It was also widely known by CPD, which extensively patrols “high crime”
neighborhoods in Chicago, including plaintiffs’ Rogers Park neighborhood, that many poor
children of color have already been traumatized by exposure to violence in their neighborhoods
before interacting with police. In other words, in such neighborhoods CPD officers expect to
encounter children with a preexisting history of trauma. Nevertheless, despite this knowledge
CPD failed to require or train officers to avoid pointing guns at and otherwise using excessive or
7
unnecessary force against and in the presence of children, with the result that they simply
compounded the trauma of the children they encounter.
30. On January 3, 2020, in response to over a year of lawsuits and media
coverage regarding officers pointing guns at and handcuffing children, CPD revised its search
warrant policy and training to nominally require officers to “maintain a sensitive approach and
use due care to safeguard the physical and emotional well-being” of any children present “to
minimize trauma following the execution of a search warrant.” (SO-19 VIII. E. 3.). However,
both the nebulous policy and the officer training done on the new policy during January and
February, 2020, failed to mandate or prohibit any specific conduct, including pointing guns at
children. Moreover, CPD has failed to enforce its new policy through appropriate discipline.
31. To this day, CPD has no policy regarding when it is appropriate for
officers to draw and point their firearms at civilians, including and especially children. CPD
does not even consider gun pointing a use of force. In December, 2019, CPD did not even
regard it as a reportable seizure.
FACTS RELATING TO ALL COUNTS
Defendant Officers Target Plaintiffs Based On Their Race
32. On Christmas Eve, 2019, in the space of 20-25 minutes between 7:45PM
and 8:15PM, 13-year-old Lazerick and 16-year-old Jaylin, law abiding boys who had never been
arrested or had guns pointed at them, were accosted and abused six times at their own apartment
by defendant officers who had responded to the wrong address – 1227 Albion instead of 1227
Arthur - and did not know who they were looking for after a vague 911 call. Officers were
completely disorganized, and three separate groups of officers failed to communicate with each
8
other. In the 20-25 minutes, the three groups of officers tackled, pointed guns and a taser at the
boys, handcuffed them three times, and twice entered their apartment.
33. Earlier there was a “suspicious person” that reported “six male blacks in a
stairwell” in a parking garage on Arthur. Responding officers then stopped several groups of
black males throughout the neighborhood. Officers did not know who they were looking or why.
A Sgt. asked the dispatcher, “What are they being chased for? Suspicious persons? Is that all we
got?” Later, defendant officers Gajewski and Lopez say to each other, “What are these guys
wanted?” and “Honestly, I don’t know.”
34. Minutes earlier, Lazerick and his mother Quarnita James had just finished
doing last-minute Christmas Eve errands, putting groceries away, wrapping presents and cooking
a pot roast. The boys’ mother then left for a few minutes to visit a female friend in the
neighborhood. Lazerick remained quietly at home watching TV and playing a video game.
Jalyin was on his way home on the train with friends and would be home shortly.
Jaylin’s First Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #1
35. At about 8:00PM on December 24, 2019, Jaylin and two friends, Terrell
and Elijah, got off the “el” at the Loyola Redline stop and walked the short distance to Jaylin’s
apartment building and entered the back of the building. Jaylin was stopping at home to change
shoes and get a coat before spending another hour with his friends. Jaylin had noticed police
officers at the train stop, but they did not say anything to him or his friends at that time.
36. What happened next is all visible on defendant officers’ body worn
cameras (BWC). When Jaylin and his friend exited the front door of his apartment building after
stopping briefly inside, Jaylin took about five steps across the lawn towards the street before he
saw approximately six (6) officers, including officer Riordan and Zaib, rushing towards him
9
from different directions. None of the officers were telling him to “stop” or giving him any other
commands or instructions. Some of the officers were in uniform, and some were plain-clothed.
37. As shown on BWC videos, one of the officers, officers Riordan,
McCormick, Zaib, Paredes and Quadri, ran at Jaylin and physically lunged at and tackled him to
the ground. This officer yelled “STOP!” after he had already tackled Jaylin to the ground. As
other officers ran at Jaylin, still others pointed their firearms directly at him. Jaylin did not
attempt to run or to resist any of the officers’ commands or actions. It was a sneak attack that
relied on the element of surprise, not a law enforcement action that first sought compliance with
an instruction and then escalated only if necessary. Officer Riordan also tackled Jaylin’s friend
to the ground.
38. When the first officer tackled him, he forced Jaylin to lie flat on the
ground on his stomach, and the officer got on top of Jaylin and sat on his back. Officer Quadri
then handcuffed Jaylin’s arms behind his back while other officers were holding him down. The
handcuffs were too tight and hurt him. Officers also patted Jaylin down and searched him.
While this was happening, Jaylin kept asking, “Why are you doing this to me? Why are you
handcuffing me?” Officers did not respond.
39. After Jaylin had been handcuffed for several minutes, officers started
asking him questions, including questions about his age and whether he lived in the building.
Jaylin immediately told officers that he is 16 years-old, lives in the building, and has his (high
school) student ID. The officer then asked him if he had a key to prove that he lived in the
building. Jaylin replied that the key was in his pocket. The officer then took his key from
Jaylin’s pocket and gave it to another officer, officer Ahmed. When officers asked Jaylin who
10
was in the apartment, he told them only his little brother was home and not to point guns at or do
anything to him.
40. Officer Ahmed, Sgt. Quadri, and officer Elmesquine then went to the front
door of the building, officer Ahmed put the key into the lock and opened the door, and the three
entered the building, walked up the steps to Apartment 3D, and used the keys to unlock
plaintiffs’ apartment front door and enter. Before they walked up the stairs, officer Ahmed or
Sgt. Quadri said, “TURN OFF YOUR BODY CAMS,” and officer Ahmed does so.
41. Back outside, officers had also handcuffed Jaylin’s friend, Terrell.
Lazerick’s First Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #1
42. Lazerick was still watching TV in his mother’s bedroom when he heard a
knock on the apartment front door. He heard someone outside the door say “police.” Lazerick
answered the door. Sgt. Quadri asked Lazerick to answer several questions to verify that Jaylin
was his brother, including these: Do you know a person with the name of Jaylin? What does he
look like? Does he live here? Lazerick answered all of the officers’ questions.
43. After Lazerick answered officers’ questions and closed the door, he called
his mother to let her know what had just happened. He then went back to watching TV. When
Ms. James receive his call, she immediately left her friend’s residence and drove home to make
sure her sons were alright.
44. When the officer who had entered the building and confirmed that Jaylin
lived there exited the front of the building, he told the other officers that Jaylin did live there and
told them to remove the handcuffs and let Jaylin up from off of the ground. Officers had kept
Jaylin handcuffed on the ground for a total of approximately 10 minutes. When they finally let
11
him up, Jaylin asked which officer had tackled him, but none of the officers would answer him
or identify the tackler.
Jaylin’s Second Encounter: Illegal Seizure #2
45. Once officers had “cleared” Jaylin and let him go, Jaylin walked his
friend to the Loyola “El” stop about a block-and-a-half away from his apartment building. As
shown on BWC videos, Jaylin and his friend were stopped at the “El” and questioned again by
different officers.
Jaylin’s Third Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #3
46. After officers had questioned and released Jaylin for the second time at the
“El,” he then walked back to his apartment building by himself. Jaylin entered the ground-level
back door to the building, which fronts on a resident parking lot squeezed between his building
and the “El” tracks. From the “El,” it is a shorter walk to the back entrance of the building than
it is to the front entrance.
47. As soon as Jaylin entered through the back entrance on the ground level
and started to climb the enclosed steps to his apartment, he noticed police officers inside the
common area of the building. At that moment, officers were knocking on another resident’s
door on the first floor in the building.
48. In fact, minutes earlier, the officers had forcibly entered the back entrance
of the apartment complex by breaking the lock with a knife or other tool. The officer who broke
the door tried to blame the boys for breaking the door, even though the boys had keys and lived
there. When Jaylin entered, he noticed that the back door was broken and open to the outside.
49. When the officers saw Jaylin, two officers – including one who was white,
in his late 30s, with dark blond mustache and hair - stopped him and questioned him, asking
12
where he had come from, whether he lived in the building, and who he lived with. Jaylin told the
officers that another group of officers had just talked with him. Jaylin asked the officers if they
had broken the back door. The officers ignored his question and continued questioning him.
These were different officers from the ones who had stopped, searched, and questioned him in
the front of the building minutes earlier.
50. After several minutes of questioning Jaylin, the officers let him go, and he
went upstairs and entered his apartment. As soon as went inside, he went and talked to his
brother, who was still watching TV in their mother’s room.
Jaylin’s Fourth Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #4
51. BWC videos shows that Jaylin had literally not been inside the apartment
or talking with his brother for more than a few seconds - he had just entered the apartment
through the back door after being stopped and questioned inside by officers inside the back
entrance - when he heard: a loud banging on the apartment front door; shouts of “POLICE!” and
“OPEN THE DOOR BEFORE WE BREAK IT DOWN!” This was yet another set of officers,
different from the ones who had stopped Jaylin the first, second, and third times. It was officer
Aguirre who threatened to break the door down.
52. As clearly shown on BWC, when Jaylin opened the apartment front door
at least two officers, including officer Aguirre, were standing in the hallway in front of the door
and pointing their guns directly at Jaylin from approximately an arm’s length away, and a third
officer, officer Laksanaprom, was pointing a taser directly at him. The officers ordered Jaylin to
“GET DOWN!” onto the floor. Jaylin immediately complied and got face down on the floor in
the hallway just outside the front door to his apartment. One of the officers then handcuffed
Jaylin’s wrist painfully.
13
53. Jaylin explained to the officers that different officers had already stopped
him twice or three times. These officers ignored Jaylin. This set of officers included an Asian
officer and a white officer. The Asian officer stayed with him.
54. When Lazerick, who was inside the apartment in his mother’s bedroom,
heard Jaylin being ordered to “GET DOWN ON THE GROUND!” at the front door, he called
his mother again. When she answered, she was in the car on her way home. She told Lazerick
that she wanted to speak to the officers and asked Lazerick to give the phone to them.
Lazerick’s Second Encounter: Illegal Seizure and Search #2
55. As Lazerick was talking with his mother on the phone and as shown on
BWC, officers Aguirre and Laksanaprom entered the apartment with their gun and taser drawn,
respectively, and held them pointed directly in front of them as he walked through the apartment,
entering and searching each room. Before this officer entered the apartment, Jaylin had told
them that his little brother was the only person inside and expressly asked the officer to put his
gun away.
56. As the officers walked down the main hallway pf the apartment towards
the bedrooms in the back of the apartment, they yelled out, “WHO’S IN HERE?!” Lazerick, still
in his mother’s bedroom talking to his mother on the phone, responded, “Just me.”
57. The officers then commanded Lazerick to “COME OUT WITH YOUR
HANDS UP!” Lazerick immediately complied. He exited the bedroom with his hands raised
above his head.
58. When Lazerick exited the bedroom and stepped into the hallway, officer
Aguirre pointed his gun and flashlight directly at Lazerick from six (6) feet away and held the
gun in that position for a sustained period of time. He then commanded Lazerick to get down on
14
his knees. Lazerick immediately complied. The officer then moved close to Lazerick and, for
no reason, pushed him hard into the wall. Lazerick’s chest hit the wall, and he screamed from
pain and fear. The officer then grabbed Lazerick’s right arm and handcuffed his right wrist
while holding the opposite end of the handcuff with his free hand (he was still holding his gun in
the other hand).
59. Throughout the time that officer Aguirre was mistreating Lazerick,
Lazerick was telling the officer that his mother was on the phone and that she wants to talk with
him. The officer said, “I DON’T CARE ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW,” and ignored Lazerick.
60. Next, while holding and pulling the opposite end of the handcuff, the
officer literally dragged Lazerick around the apartment on his knees for several minutes while
holding and pointing his gun and searching in the remaining rooms. Being dragged by a
handcuff attached to his wrist was painful to Lazerick.
61. When the officer had dragged Lazerick all the way into the kitchen, he
then commanded Lazerick to stand up and walk out of the apartment into the hallway where the
other officers were holding Jaylin. The officer did not remove the handcuff from Lazerick at this
point, and he continued to point his gun at him.
62. Finally, soon after Lazerick was brought into the hallway, Sgt. Quadri
entered the building, came up the stairs to the second-floor landing where Jaylin and Lazerick
were being held in handcuffs and told officers to “Let them go. Get them out of handcuffs.
We’ve already talked to them.” The supervisor explained to the officers that the two boys had
already been checked and “cleared” and to let them go. Jaylin was handcuffed for approximately
5 minutes. Lazerick was handcuffed for approximately three minutes.
15
63. The officers complied with their supervisor’s order but did not apologize.
In fact, after the officers had completely cleared the boys of any suspicion yet again and when
Jaylin asked why officers had come on so strong and used as much force as they did, officers
told them, “Don’t bitch,” “unless you want to spend Christmas in jail,” and “You’re getting coal
for Christmas.”
64. Had officers been professional and communicated with each other, they
would only have stopped Jaylin and Lazerick one time.
65. Officers never asked for permission to enter the boys’ apartment at any
time.
66. When Jaylin and Lazerick’s mother arrived at home moments later, she
called the police to inquire and/or complain about what had happened. Sgt. Stachula and officer
Laksanaprom arrived on scene in the parking lot behind the building to speak with her. They
were rude to her and did not apologize for mistreating her boys. They claimed there was a
robbery in the area involving an African American male and six black males running from the
train.
67. Ms. James asked for their badge numbers. Officer Laksanaprom had a
black band over his band number that completely covered it. On his uniform, he was also
wearing a skull logo, a Punisher symbol, which is a known far right hate symbol that was banned
by CPD.
68. Following officers’ repeated stops of Jaylin and Lazerick, officers
Aguirre, Laksanaprom, Quadri, and Powers completed police reports containing several false
statements. Their reports suggested that officers stopped the boys once or twice when, actually,
they illegally stopped and accosted them repeatedly. The reports also state that officers
16
discovered the main door to the complex unlocked when, actually, officers had broken in. The
reports also state that officers “gained access” to the front of the building when, actually, they
took Jaylin’s keys illegally and used them to enter the building.
69. On information and belief, some defendant officers failed to complete the
reports required for a gun-pointing incident. Those officers were never disciplined either for
pointing their weapons or for failing to make the required reports.
70. Ms. James promptly made a complaint to COPA. Over two years later,
COPA still has not completed its investigation.
Officers’ Excessive Force Against Plaintiffs, Especially 13- and 16-Year-Old Boys,
Was Totally Unnecessary
71. Plaintiffs presented absolutely no security threat, real or apparent, at any
time to any of the defendant officers who stopped them, entered and searched their home. They
did not resist, flee, refuse to follow instructions, or look anything like the alleged suspects.
72. Officers quickly discovered – within seconds – that the boys lived in their
building and apartment and that there was nothing suspicious about them, their background or
behavior.
73. Nevertheless and even though it was clear plaintiffs presented no threat,
defendant officers tackled Jaylin, repeatedly pointed their guns and taser at them, handcuffed
them, and no other officers intervened to ask their colleagues to stop using excessive force
against the boys, despite having, multiple reasonable opportunities to do so.
74. Plaintiffs have been harmed by officers’ unnecessary pointing of guns and
taser, unlawful detention and handcuffing, and unlawful entry and search of their home and
persons.
Officers’ Excessive Force Traumatized 13-Year-Old Lazerick and 16-Year-Old Jaylin
17
75. Chicago police officers’ terrorizing conduct towards plaintiffs caused
them immediate, serious and lasting emotional and psychological distress.
76. Prior to December 24, 2021, plaintiffs were happy and healthy people in a
close, loving family. They had never had police stop them, tackle them, handcuff them, enter
their home, or point guns or tasers at them. They had never suffered any kind of emotional or
psychological trauma. This all changed with defendants’ actions.
77. Throughout their encounters with police, plaintiffs were terrified. Based
upon officers pointing guns directly at his head, Jaylin was afraid that officers were going to
shoot him. When officers pointed a gun at Lazerick, he was afraid officers were going to shoot
him. The boys feared for their lives.
78. Officers’ conduct ruined plaintiffs’ Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
Rather than enjoying the spirit of Christmas, they were preoccupied with the feeling that they
were lucky to be alive.
79. Ever since the incident, plaintiffs have continued to re-live, in various
ways, how terrified they were that day.
80. The boys have had trouble sleeping ever since the incident and often stay
up most of the night. Jaylin has trouble falling asleep while Lazerick has trouble staying asleep.
81. Both boys have been emotionally fragile, with frequent crying. The boys’
moods have changed.
82. As a result of the incident, Jaylin’s ADHD symptoms became worse. He
had trouble focusing and got districted often.
83. As a result of the incident, Lazerick started wetting his bed every night
and sleep walking. He, too, too had trouble concentrating.
18
84. Both boys became withdrawn, stopped playing with their friends and
started staying in the house all the time. At the same time, the boys no longer feel safe or
comfortable in their own home.
85. The boys lost trust in the police, particularly in their ability to properly
handle situations involving black teens. Whenever they see police cars, they become
hypervigilant and paranoid.
86. Plaintiffs continue to experience and exhibit, unabated, these and other
signs of serious emotional and psychological trauma and distress.
87. On information and belief, all plaintiffs have, or have many of the
symptoms of, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
88. As a direct result of officers’ conduct, plaintiffs are now being medically
assessed for trauma inflicted by the Chicago police.
89. On information and belief, all plaintiffs will require counseling in order to
cope with the long-term, psychological injuries inflicted by defendants’ display of excessive
force.
90. Officers’ shocking actions of pointing and training a loaded gun at close
range on a 13- and 16-year-old children constituted serious abuses of power and authority.
91. Officers’ actions – including their inaction in the form of failing to
intervene to request that fellow officers stop using excessive force - were directed towards
children. Plaintiffs’ sensitivity and vulnerability to such trauma-inducing violence was or should
have been known to officers.
92. Officers’ conduct was undertaken pursuant to and is part of a long-
standing and widespread pattern and practice, de facto policy or MO of excessive force noted
19
above, which includes the use of excessive force against and/or in the presence of children of
color.
COUNT I – 42 U. S. C. § 1983 MONELL POLICY CLAIM

AGAINST THE CITY OF CHICAGO
93. Jaylin and minor plaintiff Lazerick re-allege all paragraphs 1-92 above,
including the Monell-related allegations of paragraphs 19-31 above, and incorporate them into
this count. Lazerick, through his mother as next friend, and Jaylin assert this claim against
defendant City of Chicago.
94. Defendant officers’ use of excessive force against Jalyin and Lazerick was
directly and proximately caused by one or more of the following four, specific, long-standing,
interrelated, failures of official policy, lack of official policy, and de facto policies, widespread
practices, and/or customs of the City of Chicago: 1) a pattern and practice of using unnecessary
or excessive force against citizens, including children; 2) a failure to have any policy about when
it is appropriate for officers to draw and point their firearms at citizens, including children; 3) a
systemic failure to investigate and discipline and/or otherwise correct allegations/incidents of
officer excessive force against citizens, including children and/or their close relatives in the
minors’ presence; and 4) an absence of official policy and training for officers to refrain from
pointing guns at or otherwise using excessive or unnecessary force against or in the presence of
children. Each of these policies existed for more than ten years prior to December 24, 2019 (“the
Monell period”) and was the moving force behind the officers’ conduct that resulted in the
violation of Jalyin and Lazerick’s constitutional rights and the direct causal link between the
City’s actions/inaction and the deprivation of their rights.
20
95. First, defendant City of Chicago has a long-standing, pervasive practice
and custom of failing to adequately investigate, intervene with and discipline or otherwise correct
officers for the use of excessive force against citizens, including children.
96. Of the hundreds of citizen misconduct complaints filed with BIA, IPRA
and COPA during the Monell period that involved allegations of officer excessive force against a
young child, including pointing guns at them, none were sustained, none resulted in any officer
discipline, and the vast majority of complaints were not even investigated. Moreover, as the DOJ
found, all excessive force complaints, including those involving the unjustified pointing of guns,
were inadequately investigated, rarely sustained, and even more rarely disciplined.
97. This set of City’s widespread practices or customs directly encouraged,
sanctioned, authorized and was the moving force behind officers’ conduct towards Jalyin and
Lazerick. The City’s historical failure, leading up to December 24, 2019, to properly intervene
in, investigate and discipline officer excessive force, especially excessive force against or in the
presence of children, sent officers the clear message that they had a general freedom and license
to engage in excessive force, including excessive force against children, without fear of being
corrected, investigated or disciplined. This caused defendant officers to act without appropriate
restraints towards Jalyin and Lazerick.
98. The City had actual and constructive notice during the Monell period of
each of these failures of official accountability from a) a long-standing, continual stream of
citizen excessive force misconduct complaints to IPRA and COPA that were not properly
investigated as well as from b) the specific conclusions reached by, and the data contained in, the
2017 DOJ and the 2016 PATF reports (see supra).
21
99. Second, contrary to commonly accepted standards and best practices in
law enforcement, CPD failed to have any official policy, guidance or training regarding when it
is appropriate for officers to draw their service weapons, have their guns out, and/or point them
at citizens, including and especially children. In fact, CPD has long refused and still refuses to
refer to an officer pointing a gun at someone as “a use of force.” Moreover, since 2019, CPD has
attempted to track the number of times officers point their firearms at citizens but has done
nothing with the data collected, including no re-training and no policy reform. These failures
gave officers official legal sanction and free reign to point their guns at citizens, including
children like Jalyin and Lazerick, without any official restraint or consequences.
100. Third, defendant officers’ conduct towards and in the presence of Jalyin
and Lazerick was undertaken as a direct consequence of defendant City of Chicago’s long-
standing failure to have any affirmative, official policies and/or training explicitly requiring
officers to refrain from pointing guns at and otherwise avoiding the use of excessive or
unnecessary force against or in the presence of children when possible.
101. Even after the DOJ and PATF findings regarding force and children were
known to final City policy makers in 2016 and 2017 – constituting actual notice to the City - the
City failed to implement any reforms to remedy the pattern and practice of excessive force
against or in the presence of children. This failure amounted to a deliberate and conscious
choice not to take action to prevent future violations of people’s constitutional rights, including
Jalyin and Lazerick. In other words, in the wake of the DOJ and PATF findings, the City opted
not to adopt any reforms despite the known and obvious risk that the pattern of excessive or
unnecessary force noted by DOJ and PATF would lead to constitutional violations in the future.
The City knew that, without reforms, children’s rights would continue to be violated. Thus, the
22
City’s failure to implement reforms was a foreseeable cause of Jalyin and Lazerick’s injuries. In
particular, the City’s decisions not to reform official policies and training include, without
limitation:
a. The continued absence of any provision in CPD’s official use of
force policy that would require or guide officers to refrain from pointing guns at or using
excessive or unnecessary force against or in the presence of children or to use a trauma-informed
approach to the use of force in situations where minors are present, and some force may
necessary.
b. CPD’s continued failure to add, in its official use-of-force training
curriculum and/or its on-the-job training and supervision of officers, any explicit requirement or
guidance that officers should refrain from pointing guns at or otherwise avoid using excessive or
unnecessary force against or in the presence of children or to use a trauma-informed approach to
the use of force in situations where minors are present, and some force may be necessary.
c. CPD’s continued failure to require officers seeking residential
search warrants to make reasonable efforts before obtaining and/or executing the warrant to
determine, through investigation and surveillance, (i) whether minors reside in the residence, (ii)
to avoid entry and search at times when minors are likely to be present (iii) to plan manner of
entry and force tactics based on whether minors are expected to be present; (iv) to de-escalate
themselves or change tactics when they unexpectedly encounter children or youth, and/or (v) to
take other precautions to avoid traumatizing minors and their close relatives, such as avoiding
pointing guns at or placing parents and caretakers in handcuffs in the children’s presence;
d. CPD’s rebuff, both before and since the U. S. Department of
Justice and PATF reports were released, of national and local legal and/or community
23
organizations that have offered to provide training on trauma-informed policing with children
and/or offered to provide or draft model use-of-force policies that included explicit provision for
avoiding excessive or unnecessary use of force against and in the presence of children;
e. City’s refusal or failure, despite its extensive knowledge, via
Chicago Safe Start, of the traumatic effect of exposing children to community violence, to
continue, expand, or reinstate any training to prevent officers themselves from harming children
by pointing their guns at them or otherwise using excessive or unnecessary force against them or
in their presence;
f. The City’s and CPD’s refusal or failure to propose or commit to, in
the consent decree it negotiated and is now implementing in State of Illinois, v. City of Chicago,
17-cv-6260, any explicit protections for children from officers who would point their guns at
them or otherwise not refrain from using excessive or unnecessary force against them and any
provisions requiring a trauma-informed approach to policing children.
102. The continual streams of excessive force complaints to IPRA and COPA,
including those in which children were complainants or victims, also constituted actual and
constructive notice to the City of a pattern and practice of excessive force that required remedial
action.
103. Fourth, the City’s lack of official policies to protect citizens, including
children from officers pointing guns at them and other excessive or unnecessary force, combined
with its failure to hold accountable officers who use excessive force, have resulted in a de facto
City policy and practice of using unreasonable force against citizens, including children, as
concluded by DOJ and PATF. This widespread practice was the moving force and direct causal
link behind the officers’ repeated pointing of guns at Jalyin and Lazerick on Augusts 7, 2019.
24
The excessive force used against Jalyin and Lazerick was an example of and result of this de
facto policy.
104. Similar incidents of excessive force against children are the direct and
foreseeable result of the same set of City policies. For example, on August 29, 2013, Chicago
police officers of the Area Central Gun Team executed a search warrant at 930 N. Keystone
Avenue in Chicago for a person with no connection to the residence and pointed a rifle with a
laser light directly at the chest of 3-year-old Davianna Simmons and pointed a handgun at her
grandmother Emily Simmons’ head in front of Davianna when neither presented any threat to
officers. The Simmons are African American. The officers were never investigated or
disciplined for the incident.
105. On January 29, 2015, while executing a search warrant at 1856 S.
Lawndale, 2nd floor apartment, in Chicago for a person who had long been incarcerated (because
officers failed to check the CPD CLEAR system or public records), Chicago police officers of
Narcotics Unit 189 and the SWAT Alpha team pointed their assault rifles directly at brothers
Justin and Jeremy Harris and Jaden Fields, ages 4, 6 and 11, respectively, and at their mother,
Jolanda Blassingame, when the family did not pose any apparent threat to officers. Ma.
Blassingame and her children are African American. The officers were never investigated or
disciplined for the incident.
106. On November 7, 2017, while executing a search warrant at 3557 S.
Damen Avenue, 2nd floor, in Chicago for a target who actually lived in the building’s 3rd floor
apartment, a group of patrol officers pointed a handgun and an assault rifle directly at 5- and 9-
year-old Jack and Peter Mendez and their parents, Hester and Gilbert Mendez, when none of
25
them presented any apparent threat to officers. The Mendez family is Latino. The officers have
not been investigated or disciplined for the incident.
107. On August 9, 2018, while executing a search warrant at 5033 S.
Hermitage, 1st floor apartment, in Chicago for a person with no connection to the apartment or
the residents (he was apprehended next door), members of the Area South Gun Team and the
Alpha SWAT team pointed assault rifles at a 4-year-old girl, Lakai’Ya Booth, her 8, 11 and 13-
year-old siblings, and their mother and grandmother, Ebony Tate and Cynthia Eason, when none
of them presented any apparent threat to officers. Ms. Tate, her children and mother are African
American. The officers have not been investigated or disciplined for the incident.
108. On March 15, 2019, while executing a search warrant at 8914 S. Laflin in
Chicago, members of the 7th District Tactical Team and the SWAT Alpha Team pointed assault
rifles at 6, 8, and 9-year-old Royalty, Royal and Roy Smart and their mother, Domonique
Wilson, as they walked from their house to the street with their hands up and then handcuffed 8-
year-old Royal for approximately 40 minutes when none of them presented any apparent threat
to officers. Ms. Wilson and her children are African American. The officers have not been
investigated or disciplined for the incident.
109. Through their combined failures above, before and after actual and
constructive notice, to enact official reforms that protect children from excessive and
unnecessary force and to hold accountable officers who use excessive force against them or in
their presence, the City has led police officers to be confident that such actions are acceptable
and will not be challenged, investigated or disciplined by CPD, CPD’s Bureau of Internal Affairs
(“BIA”), the Chicago Police Board, the Independent Police Review Authority (“IPRA”), the
Civilian Office of Police Accountability (“COPA”) or the City of Chicago Inspector General
26
(“IG”). These past failures directly authorized, encouraged and emboldened defendant officers’
conduct against and in the presence of Jaylin and Lazerick, providing them a general license to
use excessive force, including excessive force against minors, whenever it suited them.
110. Thus, through their combined failures, before and after actual notice, to
enact official policies protecting citizens, including children, from excessive or unnecessary
force and to hold accountable officers who use excessive force against or in the presence of
children, final City of Chicago policy-makers – including the Superintendent of police, the
Administrator of IPRA (now COPA), the head of CPD’s BIA, the IG, the Mayor, and the
Chicago City Council – condoned, approved, authorized, facilitated, encouraged and perpetuated
a de facto City policy and practice of unnecessary or excessive force against or in the presence of
children.
111. Finally, during all times relevant to the incident involving plaintiffs, a
“code of silence” pervaded the police accountability system in Chicago, including CPD’s BIA,
the Chicago Police Board, IPRA and COPA, contributing to these agencies’ collective failure to
properly investigate and discipline officer excessive force, including excessive force against
children and/or their close relatives in the minor’s presence. Defendant officers’ conduct toward
Jalyin and Lazerick, including their failure to intervene and failure to report the actions of their
colleagues, was the direct and foreseeable result of the long-standing and systematic code of
silence at work in the City’s police investigative and disciplinary systems.
112. By means of its pervasive customs and practices above and its failures,
after notice, to remedy officers’ use of excessive or unnecessary force, including against or in the
presence of children, defendant City of Chicago has manifested conscious and deliberate
indifference to the deprivation of Jalyin and Lazerick’s constitutional rights.
27
113. One or more of these four official policies, failures of official policy,
practices and customs collectively, were the moving force behind defendant officers’ conduct
that directly and proximately caused the violations of Jalyin and Lazerick’s constitutional rights
set forth above and below, such that the City of Chicago is liable for officers’ conduct.
The City of Chicago’s De Facto Policies Resulted in Violations of Plaintiff’s Constitutional

Right to be Free of Excessive Force
114. Officers’ conduct toward the minor plaintiffs constituted excessive force,
in violation of her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.
115. Under the circumstances, officers’ repeated pointing of guns at Jalyin and
Lazerick and other displays of force against them and in their presence were totally unnecessary,
unreasonable and unjustifiable.
116. Under the circumstances, officers’ uses of force against and in the
presence of Jalyin and Lazerick, undertaken in the presence of and witnessed by other plaintiffs,
were totally unnecessary, unreasonable and unjustifiable.
117. Officers’ misconduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken
intentionally with willful indifference to Jalyin and Lazerick’s constitutional rights.
118. Officers’ misconduct was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and
recklessness indifference to the rights of others.
119. The officers’ misconduct was undertaken pursuant to and as the direct,
foreseeable and proximate result of the Defendant City of Chicago’s de facto policy, failures of
official policy, absences of affirmative policy, and pervasive, long-standing practices and
customs, as set forth above, such that defendant City of Chicago is liable for officers’ use of
excessive force against and in the presence of Jalyin and Lazerick.
28
120. Further, no officer present on the scene intervened to stop officers from
pointing guns at Jalyin and Lazerick. One or more officers had a reasonable opportunity to
prevent or stop the violations of Lillie’s constitutional rights but stood by and failed to take any
action.
121. As set forth above, the officer misconduct was undertaken pursuant to the
de facto policies, long-standing and pervasive practices and customs of defendant City of
Chicago, such that the City of Chicago is also liable for officers’ failure to intervene.
122. Officers’ inactions in this respect were objectively unreasonable and
undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
123. As the direct and proximate result of officers’ misconduct, Jalyin and
Lazerick has suffered and continue to suffer severe, long-term emotional and mental distress and
trauma, including lasting or permanent psychological injury, as set forth above.
COUNT II – EQUAL PROTECTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Plaintiffs Lazerick and James)
124. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-19 and 32-92 above and
incorporate them into this count. They assert this claim against all named defendant officers who
profiled and targeted them, stopped, seized and detained them, and/or entered their building and
apartment on December 24, 2019.
125. In the manner described above, defendant officers violated plaintiffs’
constitutional rights, intentionally subjecting them to unlawful, unequal treatment on the basis of
their race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
126. Defendant officers created discriminatory effect by targeting plaintiffs for
police action based on their race.
29
127. Defendants’ misconduct described in this count was objectively
unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with willful indifference to plaintiffs’
constitutional rights.
COUNT III - UNLAWFUL SEARCH – WARRANTLESS ENTRY - 42 U. S. C. § 1983

(All Plaintiffs)
128. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-19 and 32-92 above and
incorporate them into this count. They assert this claim against all named defendant officers who
entered their building and their apartment on December 24, 2019, including officers Ahmed,
Elmesquine, Aguirre, Laksanaprom, and Sgt. Quadri.
129. Plaintiffs were innocent third parties with respect to defendant officers’
forcible entry into and search of their home and persons.
130. The Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits entry into
citizen’s residences without a search warrant or probable cause. It also prohibits the seizure of
persons without an arrest warrant or probable cause.
131. On December 24, 2019, defendant and non-defendant officers on the scene
did not have a search warrant or an arrest warrant for plaintiffs’ building/apartment or for any
plaintiff, respectively. Defendant officers did not even have reasonable suspicion with respect to
any plaintiff.
132. At no time on December 24, 2019 did any plaintiff provide any form of
consent to officers’ forced entry or search of their home. At no time did any plaintiff consent to
be seized, detained or arrested.
133. For reasons set forth above and below, defendant officers also lacked facts
constituting probable cause, exigent circumstances or any exception to the warrant requirement
30
in order to enter plaintiffs’ building and apartment and to arrest or detain any plaintiff inside or
outside.
134. Defendant officers did not know who the person was whom they were
looking for or pursuing.
135. In sum, officers had nothing but speculation or a mere suspicion that
anyone inside plaintiffs’ building or apartment had committed a crime.
136. Therefore, defendant officers’ repeated, unauthorized, forced entry into
and search of plaintiffs’ building and apartment violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their home and persons.
137. Consequently, defendant officers entered the wrong building and
apartment, plaintiffs’ building apartment, a place they never had probable cause to enter and
search. In light of all the facts and circumstances, their blunder was not objectively reasonable.
138. Officers’ actions in these respects were objectively unreasonable and were
undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
139. As the direct and proximate result of officers’ misconduct, plaintiffs
suffered and continue to suffer injury and harm.
Defendant Officers’ Conduct Was Willful and Wanton or Grossly Negligent
140. Defendant officers’ conduct under this count merits an award of punitive
damages. Defendant officers’ shocking action of unlawfully forcibly entering a residence,
plaintiffs’ residence, constituted an abuse of power and authority. Defendant officers’ actions
harmed honest, hard-working citizens who were totally innocent of all criminal conduct.
141. Defendant officers’ conduct toward plaintiffs was undertaken with willful
and wanton disregard for the rights of others. Officers acted with actual intention or with a
31
conscious disregard or indifference for the consequences when the known safety and health of
plaintiffs was involved. Defendant officers acted with actual malice, with deliberate violence,
willfully or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of the rights of others.
142. In light of the character of defendant officers’ actions toward plaintiffs and
the lasting or permanent psychological injury that defendants’ conduct has caused plaintiffs,
defendants’ conduct merits an award of punitive damages.
COUNT IV – EXCESSIVE FORCE – 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (Plaintiffs Jaylin and Lazerick)
143. Plaintiffs Jaylin and Lazerick re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 – 18
and 32-92 above into this count. All plaintiffs assert this claim, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983,
against all defendant officers who used force against them, including officers Riordan, Zaib,
McCormick, Paredes, Ahmed, Aguirre, Laksanaprom, and Sgt. Quadri.
144. These defendant officers’ conduct towards plaintiffs constituted excessive
force, in violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S.
Constitution. Under the circumstances, defendants’ use of force was totally unnecessary,
unreasonable and unjustifiable.
145. Defendants’ misconduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken
intentionally with willful indifference to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. One or more defendant
and/or non-defendant officers had a reasonable opportunity to prevent or stop the repeated
violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights alleged in this count but stood by and failed to take
any action despite opportunities to do.
146. Defendants’ misconduct was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and
recklessness indifference to the rights of others.
32
147. As the direct and proximate result of defendants’ misconduct, plaintiffs
have suffered and continue to suffer severe, long-term emotional and mental distress and trauma,
including lasting or permanent psychological injury.
COUNT V - UNLAWFUL SEARCH – UNREASONABLE

MANNER OF ENTRY AND SEARCH – 42 U. S. C. § 1983
(All Plaintiffs)
148. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-18 and 320-92 and
incorporate them into this count. They assert this claim against all defendant officers who
entered their building and apartment, seized them, and searched their apartment, including
officers Ahmed, Elmesquine, Aguirre, Laksanaprom, and Sgt. Quadri.
149. The manner in which defendant officers conducted their entry into
plaintiffs’ apartment, their seizure of plaintiffs, and their search of plaintiffs’ apartment was
objectively unreasonable, in violation of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.
150. For example, defendant and non-defendant officers did not have a search
warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances to enter plaintiffs’ apartment; when they
seized plaintiffs inside, defendants used excessive force by repeatedly pointing guns and tasers at
plaintiffs and handcuffing the children when they were fully compliant and did not pose a threat.
151. Officers’ manner of entry, seizure and search was objectively
unreasonable in these and other ways and was undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless
indifference to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
152. Under the circumstances, officers had reasonable alternative law
enforcement techniques available to them for an effective entry, seizure and search.
33
Defendant Officers’ Conduct Was Willful and Wanton or Grossly Negligent
154. Defendant officers’ conduct under this count merits an award of punitive
damages to plaintiffs. Defendant officers’ shocking displays of force against totally unarmed
children, including young children, constituted an abuse of power and authority. Defendant
officers’ actions set forth above were directed towards unarmed citizens who were fully
compliant and cooperative and innocent of all criminal conduct.
155. Defendant officers’ conduct toward plaintiffs was undertaken with willful
and wanton disregard for the rights of others. Officers acted with actual intention or with a
conscious disregard or indifference for the consequences when the known safety and health of
plaintiffs, including children, was involved. Defendant officers acted with actual malice, with
deliberate violence, willfully or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of
the rights of others.
156. In light of the character of defendant and non-defendant officers’ actions
toward plaintiffs and the lasting or permanent psychological injury that defendants’ conduct has
caused plaintiffs, defendants’ conduct merits an award of punitive damages.
COUNT VI – UNLAWFUL SEARCH/WARRANTLESS “ENTRY”/

FAILURE TO RETREAT – 42 U. S. C. § 1983
(All Plaintiffs)
157. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate re-allege paragraphs 1 –18 and 32-92
above and incorporate them into this count. Plaintiffs assert this claim against all defendant who
unlawfully stopped them after the first time, including officers Aguirre, Lopez, Gajewski, and
Sgt. Quadri.
158. These officers’ actions of stopping plaintiffs again, after they had been
cleared, and entering and searching plaintiffs’ building and apartment well after they were aware
34
that the plaintiffs were not suspects constituted a violation of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right
to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
159. From the moment defendant officers were aware that plaintiffs were not
the suspects they were looking for, they were no longer legally authorized to detain plaintiffs or
to enter or search their home; they were obligated to leave them alone. At that point, defendants
knew they lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause to detain plaintiffs or be in their
building and apartment.
160. Similarly, based upon these same observations, officers knew or
reasonably should have known that they made a mistake in believing that plaintiffs were the
supposed suspect(s) they were looking for and that, consequently, they lacked any justification to
detain plaintiffs or be in their building or apartment.
161. Within seconds of seizing plaintiffs and entering their building and home,
officers had information that put them on notice that they had stopped the wrong individuals and
entered the wrong building/apartment.
162. Nevertheless, officers did not leave plaintiffs alone or retreat from their
building or residence; well after they became aware that plaintiffs were not suspects, they
continued seizing, detaining and searching plaintiffs and continued to enter their building and
apartment.
163. One or more defendant and/or non-defendant officers had a reasonable
opportunity to prevent or stop the violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights alleged in this
count but stood by and failed to take any action despite opportunities to do.
164. Officers’ actions in these respects were objectively unreasonable and were
35
COUNT VII – FALSE ARREST

– 42 U. S. C. § 1983
(Plaintiffs Lazerick James and Jaylin Stiger)
166. Plaintiffs Lazerick and Jaylin re-allege paragraphs 1 – 18 and 32-92 above
and incorporate them into this count. They assert this claim against all defendant officers who
seized and detained them, including officers Aguirre, Laksanaprom, Riordan, McCormick, Zaib,
Paredes, and Sgt. Quadri.
167. Defendant officers falsely arrested and imprisoned plaintiffs when, (a)
without a warrant or consent, without probable cause and without reasonable suspicion, they (b)
commanded them to get on the floor at gunpoint (c) tackled Jaylin to the ground (d) searched
them and (e) kept them confined on the floor at gunpoint and dragged them around in handcuffs,
including long after they should have been aware that they were not suspects.
168. Officers’ actions constituted a violation of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
169. When officers commanded plaintiffs to get down on the floor/ground and
confined them there by physical force and at gunpoint, they unlawfully deprived them of their
liberty to move about, despite the fact that they had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to
think that they had done anything illegal. This violated plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.
170. Plaintiffs did not match the vague, general description of the supposed
suspect(s), and officers were at the wrong address.
36
171. Moreover, one or more officers had a reasonable opportunity to prevent or
stop the violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights but stood by and failed to take any action.
172. Through physical force and the invalid use of legal authority, officers
acted to arrest, restrain and confine plaintiffs to a bounded area.
173. Plaintiffs were acutely aware of and was harmed by officers’ confinement,
as detailed above. Inter alia, plaintiffs feared for their life and were in pain.
174. Officers’ actions in this respect were objectively unreasonable and
suffered and continued to suffer injury and harm.
COUNT VIII – ASSAULT – STATE LAW

and 32-92 above in this count. They assert this claim against all defendant officers who pointed
firearms and tasers directly at them, including Aguirre, Laksanaprom, Riordan, McCormick,
Zaib, Paredes, and Sgt. Quadri.
177. The actions of the defendant and non-defendant officers set forth above,
including pointing guns at close range at plaintiffs created reasonable apprehensions in plaintiffs
of immediate, unauthorized, and harmful contact to plaintiffs’ persons.
178. These actions exceeded defendants’ lawful authority under the
circumstances because a) they lacked probable cause to enter and seize plaintiffs and because,
even if they had had probable cause, b) pointing firearms at totally compliant people who do not
pose any threat to officer safety constitutes unreasonable or excessive force. For each reason,
defendants’ use of force against plaintiffs was not lawfully authorized.
37
179. When pointing their firearms at plaintiffs, officers intended to bring about
apprehensions of immediate harmful contact in plaintiffs or knew that their actions would bring
about such apprehensions.
180. In the alternative, the conduct of defendants, in pointing at fully compliant
people who posed no danger, including young children, was willful and wanton and constituted a
course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or which, if not
intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others and/or
their property.
181. The conduct of defendants in forcibly entering a residence with guns
drawn and pointed at the occupants is highly associated with the risk of serious injury.
Numerous prior injuries have occurred to civilians in this context. Officers failed to take
reasonable precautions after having knowledge of impending danger to plaintiffs.
182. The officers’ actions were the direct and proximate cause of plaintiffs’
apprehensions.
183. Plaintiffs have been seriously harmed by officers’ actions.
COUNT IX – BATTERY
(Plaintiffs Jaylin and Lazerick)
and 32-92 above into this count. They assert this claim against the defendant officers tacked and
pushed them and handcuffed them too hard and dragged them with handcuffs, causing pain.
This includes officers Aguirre, Laksanaprom, and Sgt. Quadri.
185. The actions of defendant officers set forth above, including throwing Mr.
Evans to the floor and holding him facedown with a gun to his head and a knee in his back
38
constituted unauthorized, offensive, and harmful, physical contacts to plaintiff’s person. These
actions caused immediate and lasting pain to plaintiffs.
186. These actions exceeded defendant officers’ lawful authority under the
circumstances because a) officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop plaintiffs
and enter their building and apartment, and because, even if officers had had reasonable
suspicion or probable cause, b) painfully tackling and dragging people when they were already
totally compliant and did pose any threat to officer safety constituted unreasonable or excessive
force. For each reason, defendants’ use of force against plaintiffs was not lawfully authorized.
187. Defendant officers intended to bring about harmful and offensive physical
contact to plaintiffs’ persons.
188. In the alternative, the conduct of defendants was willful and wanton and
constituted a course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or
which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of
others and/or their property.
189. The conduct of defendants in suddenly and forcibly entering a residence
without a warrant are generally associated with a risk of serious injury. Numerous prior injuries
have occurred to civilians in this context. Officers failed to take reasonable precautions after
having knowledge of impending danger to plaintiffs.
190. The defendant officer’s actions were the direct and proximate cause of
harmful and offensive physical contact to plaintiffs’ person.
191. Plaintiffs were seriously harmed by the defendant officers’ actions.
COUNT X - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION

OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS – STATE LAW
39
192. Plaintiffs Lazerick and Jaylin re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 – 18
and 32-92 above in this count and assert this claim against all defendant officers who seized and
detained them and forcibly entered their building and apartment, including Riordan, Zaib,
McCormick, Paredes, Aguirre, Laksanaprom, and Sgt. Quadri.
193. The actions, omissions and conduct of defendant officers set forth above –
including but not limited to seizing plaintiffs with excessive force, repeatedly pointing guns and
tasers at them, handcuffing them, and forcibly entering their building and apartment without
probable cause - were extreme and outrageous and exceeded all bounds of human decency.
194. Officers’ actions, omissions and conduct above were undertaken with the
intent to inflict and cause severe emotional distress to plaintiffs, with the knowledge of the high
probability that their conduct would cause such distress, or in reckless disregard of the
probability that their actions would cause such distress.
195. Officers, who occupied positions of special trust and authority, knew, had
reason to know or believed that plaintiffs, whom they saw included young children, women and
the elderly, were especially vulnerable and fragile.
196. As a direct and proximate result of officers’ extreme and outrageous
conduct, plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer long-term, severe emotional distress and
trauma.
40
198. The conduct of defendants in forcibly entering a residence without search
warrant and pointing guns at occupants are generally associated with a risk of serious injury.
Numerous prior injuries have occurred to civilians in this context. Officers failed to take
reasonable precautions after having knowledge of impending danger to plaintiffs.
199. Officers’ conduct was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries and their
extreme, severe, long-term emotional distress and trauma.
COUNT XI – TRESPASS/ENTRY – STATE LAW

(All Plaintiffs)
200. All plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 – 18 and 32-92 above and incorporate
them in this count. Plaintiffs assert this claim against all defendant officers who forcibly entered
plaintiffs’ building and apartment without probable cause or exigent circumstances, including
Ahmed, Elmesquine, Sgt. Quadri, Aguirre, Laksanaprom, Lopez, Gajewski, Zaib, Arsenyan.
237. By forcibly entering plaintiffs’ residence when they did not actually have
probable cause to believe that plaintiffs had committed a crime or that the supposed suspect(s)
had entered plaintiffs’ building or apartment, defendant officers were not lawfully authorized to
enter upon the premises and, therefore, they physically invaded plaintiffs’ right to enjoy
exclusive possession of their residence.
239. The conduct of defendants in forcibly entering a building and residence
without probable cause is generally associated with a risk of serious injury. Numerous prior
41
injuries have occurred to civilians in this context. Officers failed to take reasonable precautions
after having knowledge of impending danger to plaintiffs.
240. Officers’ actions caused a physical invasion of plaintiffs’ legal right to the
exclusive possession and enjoyment of their residence.
241. Plaintiffs were harmed by officers’ physical invasion of their residence.
COUNT XII – TRESPASS/FAILURE TO RETREAT – STATE LAW

(All Plaintiffs)
them in this count. Plaintiffs assert this claim against all defendant officers who repeatedly
seized and detained plaintiffs and re-entered and remained in their building and apartment after
they became aware that they lacked probable cause to seize/detain/enter/remain. This includes
officers Ahmed, Elmesquine, Sgt. Quadri, Aguirre, Laksanaprom, Lopez, Gajewski, Zaib,
Arsenyan.
242. By continuing to stop plaintiffs and enter and search their building and
residence (instead of leaving them alone) after they became aware that plaintiffs were not the
supposed suspect(s) and that the suspects were not in plaintiffs’ building or apartment, defendant
officers remained when they were not lawfully authorized to remain and, therefore, they
physically invaded plaintiffs’ right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of their residence.
244. Officers’ actions caused a physical invasion of plaintiffs’ legal right to the
exclusive possession and enjoyment of their residence.
42
245. Plaintiffs were harmed by officers’ physical invasion of their residence.
COUNT XIII – FAILURE TO INTERVENE – 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (All Plaintiffs)
them in this count. Plaintiffs assert this claim, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against all named
defendant officers for failing to intervene with their colleagues to prevent the violation of
plaintiffs’ civil rights.
247. Each defendant officer had reasonable opportunities to prevent or stop the
violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights but stood by and failed to take any action.
248. Defendant officers’ actions were undertaken intentionally, with malice and
reckless indifference to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
249. As the direct and proximate result of defendants’ misconduct, plaintiffs
COUNT XIV - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR – STATE LAW

(All Plaintiffs)
250. All plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 – 18, 32-92, and 172-250 above and
incorporate them into this count. Plaintiffs assert this claim against defendant City of Chicago.
251. In committing the acts and omissions alleged above, defendant officers
were at all times members, employees and agents of CPD and the City of Chicago and were
acting within the scope of their employment.
252. Defendant City of Chicago is, therefore, liable as principal for all common
law torts committed by its employees and agents within the scope of their employment.
COUNT XV – INDEMNIFICATION – STATE LAW

(All Plaintiffs)
43
253. All plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 – 18, 32-92, and 172-250 above and
incorporate them into this count. Plaintiffs assert this count against defendant City of Chicago.
254. Illinois law, 745 ILCS 10/9-102, directs public entities to pay any
common law tort judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are held liable
within the scope of their employment activities.
255. Defendant officers were and are employees of the City of Chicago who
acted within the scope of their employment when committing the actions and omissions detailed
above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF (ALL COUNTS)
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in
their favor and against defendants on each count for:
a. Compensatory damages;
b. Punitive damages where pled in the counts above;
c. Reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs and expenses; and
d. Such other or further relief as the Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Al Hofeld, Jr.

Al Hofeld, Jr.
Al Hofeld, Jr.
LAW OFFICES OF AL HOFELD, JR., LLC
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite #3120
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(773) 241-5844
Fax - 312-372-1766
[email protected]
44
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.
s/Al Hofeld, Jr.

Al Hofeld, Jr.
NOTICE OF LIEN
Please be advised that we claim a lien upon any recovery herein for 1/3 or such
amount as a court awards.
s/Al Hofeld, Jr.

Al Hofeld, Jr.
NOTICE OF FILING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MEANS
I, Al Hofeld, Jr., an attorney for plaintiffs, hereby certify that on December 20,
2021, filing and service of the foregoing Complaint was accomplished pursuant to ECF as to
Filing Users, and I shall comply with LR 5.5 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to
service on any party who is not a Filing User or represented by a Filing User.
s/Al Hofeld, Jr.

Al Hofeld, Jr.
Al Hofeld, Jr.
LAW OFFICES OF AL HOFELD, JR., LLC
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite #3120
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(773) 241-5844
Fax - 312-372-1766
[email protected]
45

File Stamped - James Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

File Stamped - James Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:21-cv-06750 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/21 Page 1 of 45 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1. Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, The Law Offices of Al Hofeld,

violating their Constitutional rights, alleging as follows:

2. On Christmas Eve, 2019, in the space of just 20-25 minutes starting at

their apartment illegally, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

4. Defendant officers’ complete blunder violated plaintiffs’ Fourth

traumatized those children.

term, emotional and psychological distress, including symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This action arises under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of

state law claims.

8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1391(b). The underlying events

junior in high school, a champion wrestler and a standout football player.

12. Plaintiffs are African American.

3D at 1227 W. Albion Avenue, in Chicago.

14. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation under the laws of

the State of Illinois.

defendant officers: Guadalupe Aguirre (#12810); Mohammed Ahmed (#16497); Andrian

Flores and a second “officer Lopez.”

17. Despite multiple, pre-suit requests to the City of Chicago, including

their complaint once they are produced.

18. Moreover, as shown on the BWC videos produced, some officers

Overview: CPD’s M. O. is Excessive Force, Including

19. Chicago police officers have a de facto policy, widespread practice or M.

against citizens, including children. https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925846/download at 34.

pointing guns at citizens. (Id.).

21. In addition, the 2016 report of the mayoral-appointed Chicago Police

interactions with youth so as not to traumatize them. (Id.)

of excessive force against children.

the pointing of guns at them or others.

informed and that avoids exposing them to police use of force.

27. In addition, the traumatic and long-lasting impact on children’s health

or using other unnecessary or excessive force against or in the presence of children.

compounded the trauma of the children they encounter.

30. On January 3, 2020, in response to over a year of lawsuits and media

regard it as a reportable seizure.

FACTS RELATING TO ALL COUNTS

Defendant Officers Target Plaintiffs Based On Their Race

wanted?” and “Honestly, I don’t know.”

Jaylin’s First Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #1

37. As shown on BWC videos, one of the officers, officers Riordan,

handcuffing me?” Officers did not respond.

Lazerick’s First Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #1

sure her sons were alright.

or identify the tackler.

Jaylin’s Second Encounter: Illegal Seizure #2

Jaylin’s Third Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #3

it is to the front entrance.

door on the first floor in the building.

the front of the building minutes earlier.

brother, who was still watching TV in their mother’s room.

Jaylin’s Fourth Encounter: Illegal Search and Seizure #4

Aguirre who threatened to break the door down.

Jaylin’s wrist painfully.

Lazerick’s Second Encounter: Illegal Seizure and Search #2

above his head.

the other hand).

handcuff attached to his wrist was painful to Lazerick.

point, and he continued to point his gun at him.

5 minutes. Lazerick was handcuffed for approximately three minutes.

would only have stopped Jaylin and Lazerick one time.

68. Following officers’ repeated stops of Jaylin and Lazerick, officers