STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WINNEBAGO COUNTY DIANE CHAVEZ, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. DAVID HOPKINS, KURT WHISENAND, ) DAVID LEE, TORRY REGEZ, ) DEWAYNE BEETS, ) Judge SCOTT MASTROIANNI, ) the ESTATE OF GREG LINDMARK, of the Rockford Police Department, ) JURY TRIAL JAMES VRONCH, ) DEMANDED CITY OF ROCKFORD, ) AND UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES ) of the City of Rockford ) ) Defendants. y COMPLAINT Plaintiff, DIANE CHAVEZ, pro se, for her complaint against defendants, DAVID HOPKINS, KURT WHISENAND, DAVID LEE, TORRY REGEZ, DEWAYNE BEETS, SCOTT MASTROIANNI, JAMES VRONCH, CITY OF ROCKFORD, the ESTATE OF GREG LINDMARK, AND UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ROCKFORD, states: INTRODUCTION 1. Diane Chavez, is an innocent woman who was wrongly charged with first, Obstruction of Justice, and with Tampering with Public Documents and who endured over seven years of hardship and extreme loss during critical years of her life before beingPage 2 finally acquitted of all charges resulting from the unconstitutional actions of the police officers who are named as defendants in this suit. With deliberate indifference to her welfare, those police officers concocted a falsehood that she lied to them in the course of a murder investigation and used it as the basis to criminally charge her with wrongdoing, and to jail her simply in order to try to convince a suspect to confess to that murder and because they suspected her of complicity with him but had no evidence of it. To maximize the pressure and ensure that Diane Chavez would remain jailed indefinitely as long as possible, their actions led to her bond being set at a high virtually unprecedented for any existing offense in the community despite her lack of any priors, and the charging of her offense raised from a misdemeanor to a felony level. ‘After Diane Chavez was arrested, these officers deliberately ransacked her duplex to such an extent so that they could request defendant City of Rockford, and it’s employee, defendant James Vronch to condemn the structure and board it up. When, after a month, Diane Chavez was able to bond out, the actions of these police officers led to her counsel being threatened that a second set of criminal charges would be quickly filed against her if she failed to cooperate by implicating the suspect to the police. When Diane Chavez was unable to cooperate due to lacking any knowledge, she was again promptly and falsely jailed for an additional 35 days using an inapplicable statute and charges of Tampering with Public Documents, with another overly large bond. Plaintiff's alleged falsehood had no relevance to the murder investigation itself whichPage 3 went officially cold after two years, yet the prosecution against Plaintiff was not dismissed but instead maintained with the utmost intensity. The actions of defendants have irreparably damaged Plaintiff's reputation and her relations with her family and friends; have incurred Plaintiff extreme loss of all financial security, property, and well-being, and have caused Plaintiff extreme emotional distress and other psychological trauma that continues to the present day and will forever haunt Plaintiff's life. The actions of the defendants were committed pursuant to the policies and practices of their employers, the City of Rockford, the Rockford Police Department, the Rockford Building Department, which are therefore liable for their actions. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to subsection (a) of Section 7.1 of the Criminal Conversation Abolition Act in accordance with 732 ILCS 5/13-202,; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. section 1331 and 1343 (a); the Constitution of the United States; and supplemental jurisdiction, as codified in 28 U.S.C. section 1367 (a). 3. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1391 (b) and Public Act 97-0585 because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district and the parties reside, or, at the time the events took place, resided in this judicial district. PARTIES 4, Plaintiff, Diane Chavez, is an Illinois resident. At the time of the events underlyingPage 4 this action, Plaintiff resided at 1113 Grant Ave, in the city of Rockford, Illinois. 5. Defendant David Hopkins was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Rockford Police Department as first a lieutenant, and then as Deputy Chief of it’s Investigative Services Bureau in the city of Rockford, IL. At the time of some or all of the wrongdoing alleged in this complaint Hopkins was employed in each capacity 6. Defendant Kurt Whisenand was at all times relevant to this action employed as a sergeant by the Rockford Police Department in the city of Rockford, IL. 7. Defendant David Lee was at all times relevant to this action employed as an detective by the Rockford Police Department in the city of Rockford, IL. 8. Defendant Torry Regez was at all times relevant to this action employed as a detective by the Rockford Police Department in the city of Rockford, IL. 9. Defendant Dwayne Beets was at all times relevant to this action employed as a detective by the Rockford Police Department in the city of Rockford, IL. 10. Defendant Scott Mastroanni was at all times relevant to this action employed as an detective by the Rockford Police Department in the city of Rockford, IL. 11. Defendant James Vronch was at all times relevant to this action employed as a Senior Inspector by the City of Rockford Community and Economic Development Department, in it’s Neighborhood Standards Division in Rockford, IL. 12. Defendant Greg Lindmark was at all times relevant to this action employed as Deputy Chief of the Investigative Services Bureau of the Rockford Police Department in the cityPage 5 of Rockford, IL. He deceased February 9, 2015, and exists in the form of the legal estate of Greg Lindmark in Winnebago County, IL. 13. Defendant City of Rockford is a duly incorporated municipal corporation and was the employer of defendants Hopkins, Whisenand, Lee, Regez, Beets, Mastroianni, Vronch, Cacciapaglia, and Lindmark, and is liable for their actions which violate Illinois law pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior. Defendant City of Rockford is additionally responsible for the policies and practices of the Rockford Police Department, the Rockford Community and Economic Development Department, and the Rockford Legal Department. 14. Each of the individual police officers defendants and police superior officer defendants named above engaged in the conduct complained of under color of state law and in the course and scope of his employment with the Rockford Police Department. Each of the individual police officer and police superior officer defendants is sued in his individual capacity. 15. Each of the individual city employee defendants named above engaged in the conduct complained of under color of state law and in the course and scope of his or her employment with the City of Rockford. Each of the individual city employee defendants is sued in his or her individual capacity. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT The Murder Whose Investigation Plaintiff Was Alleged to ObstructPage 6 16. On February 6, 2008, at about 1:55pm and during a severe snowstorm, criminal defense attorney Gregory Clark was murdered as he used a snowblower to clear the drive of his house located on the east side of Rockford, Illinois. An assailant, or assailants unknown reportedly drove up to his house and one individual or more came up behind him and shot him three times in the back before returning to the vehicle and driving away. 17. No one saw the shooting. Witnesses differed in their descriptions of both suspects and vehicles. No weapon, DNA, gunshot residue, fingerprints or footprints were recovered from the scene then or later. The police found no evidence at the scene linking anyone in particular to the crime. 18. The murder was intensively covered in the Rockford and Chicago region media. The cold-blooded and execution-style shooting murder of a criminal defense attorney at any time is a rarity and national news, and the Associated Press distributed the coverage nation-wide. The Rockford Police Department was immediately under enormous press to swifily solve the crime. 19. Within a couple of hours of the shooting a staff attorney of the Winnebago County Public Defender’s office related to defendant police officer Scott Mastroianni hearsay that Clark’s client, Richard Wanke, was unhappy with Clark because of a lost jury trial. 20. Defendant Mastroianni told this information to defendant Rockford Police Deputy Chief Greg Lindmark, who was in-charge of the entire Clark murder investigation. 21 Defendant Greg Lindmark knew Richard Wanke. They attended the same class yearPage 7 of Guilford High School. Defendants Greg Lindmark and Dave Hopkins were Rockford police detectives in 1991, when they arrested Richard Wanke for burglary. Richard Wanke filed lawsuits against both in federal court over their conduct during a disputed custodial interrogation but later failed to pursue the lawsuits and dropped them. 22. Defendant Greg Lindmark testified at trial and at sentencing against Richard Wanke and included in his testimony a claim that Richard Wanke had told him that he “wanted to be the Ted Bundy of serial burglars...” 23. On February 6, 2008, Richard Wanke was out on court bond, but was picked up by the Rockford police shortly afterward about Spm. There was no arrest warrant for Richard Wanke. A bond revocation order was later improperly requested and issued ex- parte at 11pm that evening at the home of a local judge Plaintiff Alleged Act of Obstruction 24. Plaintiff bought a frame, turn-of-century-duplex in 1997, located at 1111-1113 Grant Ave, Rockford, IL 61103. The building consisted of two separate un-renovated apartments located upstairs and downstairs with separate physical entrances. The lower apartment was 1111 Grant Ave. The upper apartment was 1113 Grant Ave. 25. On February 6, 2008, Plaintiff worked all day at her job as a Human Services Caseworker for the Illinois Department of Human Services and returned home. 26. At approximately 6:50 pm, Plaintiff answered a knock on her door to find defendants Lee, Regez, and Lindmark among a large group of Rockford police officersPage 8 present on Plaintiff's doorstep. 27. Defendant Lee asked Plaintiff who lived in the duplex. Plaintiff responded that she was the owner of the duplex which consisted of two apartments, upstairs and down, and that she lived in the upstairs apartment and that her tenant, Richard Wanke, lived in the downstairs apartment. 28. This was the only question the police ever asked plaintiff about who lived in the duplex. The police defendants did not ask plaintiff any follow-up questions about which individual lived where. They did not question plaintiff further as to her relationship with Richard Wanke, They did not ask plaintiff if he had access to her apartment. They did not ask if he had been in her apartment, and if so, the last time that had occurred. They did not ask plaintiff about the terms of Richard Wanke’s rental arrangements for use of the lower apartment, 1111 Grant Ave. They did not ask plaintiff anything her personal relationships and living arrangements. 29. If the police defendants had asked these questions of Plaintiff, she would have them: Plaintiff had a romantic relationship with Richard Wanke from 1995 until approximately 1999. It ended on good terms. In 1997, when plaintiff bought the duplex, they lived together in the upstairs apartment at 1113 Grant Ave. Plaintiff and Wanke remained roommates until 2006, when Wanke was charged with the theft of a laptop computer. While plaintiff’ and Wanke were stil friends, plaintiff became uncomfortable remaining roommates, and she asked him to move into the downstairs apartment 1111 asPage 8 her tenant, Plaintiff did not ask Wanke to move away, as he had no income and it was not possible for him to find anyone else to take him in with the stigma attached to him due to his legal problems. Plaintiff and Wanke agreed that in exchange for living in the 1111 Grant Ave unit, Wanke would arrange and pay for gas and electric service in his name, and, in lieu of paying plaintiff $200/month rent, he would also take care of the lawn mowing and snow clearance duties on six of investment properties plaintiff owned which were vacant lots and which had to be maintained in accordance to city ordinances. 30. Had the police defendants indicated they still questioned whether Richard Wanke truly lived downstairs, plaintiff could have advised them that Wanke spent 8 months in 2006 on court Daily Reporting, and that as a condition of his bond and status, staff from the County Pre-trial services had verified his residency in-person as 1111 Grant Ave. Plaintiff could have also told them that Daily Reporting had verified Wanke’s daily activities in mowing her vacant lots each day for months in the summer of 2006, and that attorney Clark obtained a court order authorizing Wanke to fulfill his tenant obligations to plaintiff while on bond. Plaintiff could also have shown the defendant police officers some of Wanke’s utility bills for residing in 1111 Grant Ave. 31. ‘The charge that plaintiff lied when she said that Richard Wanke did not live with her is a falsehood deliberately created on 2/6/08, by defendant police officers and maintained by them to the present. 32. Ather August 13, 2013, jury trial, defendant officers testified that when theyPage 9 arrived at 1111 - 1113 Grant Ave, they knocked first at the door of the 1111 Grant Ave apartment, and that they only knocked on plaintiff"s apartment door at 1113 Grant Ave because there was no response at 1111 Grant Ave. There was no response at 1111 Grant ‘Ave because the police already had the apartment resident, Richard Wanke, in custody when they knocked. 33. Defendant police officers also testified that in searching the duplex 111 - 1113 Grant Ave on February 7, 2008, that they made no attempt to locate evidence to distinguish who the resident was for each apartment; that they did not look at the mail or review magazine subscriptions for information, for example. This despite the wording of the search warrant issued for the search which directed the defendant police officers to look for such evidence. 34. On the evening of 2/6/08, when the police defendants knocked on plaintiff's door and questioned her, they were directed to her address by defendant Deputy Chief, Greg Lindmark who from his past experience testifying and participating in Richard Wanke’s burglary cases, knew of Wanke’s association with the plaintiff and that they had resided together at that time. When defendant Lindmark dispatched the defendant police officers to 1111-1113 Grant Ave, it was with the instruction that Richard Wanke would be found to be living with plaintiff. So, when the police defendants spoke to plaintiff at her door, they did so assuming that both she and Wanke still resided together. So, defendant police officers felt no need to ask her any questions about her living arrangements, although they shouldPage 10 have when she indicated a change in the nature of those living arrangements when she answered the door and told them that Richard Wanke was now her tenant. 35. The defendant police officers did not question plaintiff because to them the question of who lived where did not matter. Defendant Lindmark had also previously briefed them on his belief that plaintiff would be found to be romantically involved with Richard Wanke, and thus, probably also somehow also involved in assisting him in the Clark murder. It did not therefore matter to defendant police officers where either Wanke or plaintiff resided. They simply intended to search the whole of that residence; whatever it consisted of. 36. The Clark murder had occurred less than six hours prior and defendant Rockford Police Department was under the critical pressure of trying to resolve the crime in the first 48 hours when it was most likely to be solvable. It had an uncooperative suspect in custody and an address where it believed he resided and which could hold critical evidence. The defendant Rockford Police Department, in the person of it’s defendant Deputy Chief, Greg Lindmark was extremely anxious to search all of that address, the duplex located at 1111 - 1113 Grant Ave, for evidence as soon as possible. For that reason, the defendant Rockford Police Department felt it could dispense with obtaining a search warrant first. 37. The next question the police asked plaintiff as they stood in front of her apartment on the evening of 2/6/08, was if she would give them permission to search her duplex.Page 12 ‘They asked did not specify to plaintiff that they wanted to search 1113 Grant Ave, or 1111 Grant Ave. They referred to the duplex as a whole. 38. The plaintiff did not know anything about the Clark murder, but she did know that for her own protection, she needed to require a search warrant. Plaintiff did not know if there was anything incriminating in the downstairs apartment, but she knew that without a search warrant, the police could attribute anything found to herself as well as Wanke. For this reason, plaintiff responded to the police, “not without a warrant”, and the police stopped asking. 39. The defendant police officers alleged that on the evening of 2/6/08, plaintiff lied to them. And they claimed that the specific lie that she told them was that the suspect, Richard Wanke did not live with her on 2/6/08. The police also maintained that the plaintiff acted criminally and obstructed their investigation by that lie. 40. As shown above, the plaintiff was not lying when she told the police that Richard Wanke did not live with her but was her tenant and lived in the downstairs apartment, 1111 Grant Ave. 41. Second, inferences from their actions show the police were from the outset prepared not to and then did not rely upon anything the plaintiff told them in the course of the remainder of the conduct of their murder investigation, and that she never obstructed any of their authorized actions. 42. By early the next morning, 2/7/08, the defendant Rockford Police Department staffPage 13 were able to obtain a search warrant for the duplex located at 1111 - 1113 Grant Ave, and searched it later that morning. In requesting the search warrant, the police requested it for the entire duplex, not just 1111 Grant Ave where the plaintiff. advised them Richard Wanke lived. So, clearly, the police did not regard plaintiff's information as being reliable and just disregarded what she said. And, they wanted to search 1113 Grant Ave because they still believed in her involvement. 43. When the police searched the duplex, they searched both apartments and came up empty-handed with respect to anything incriminating and directly related to the Clark murder, While they confiscated documents related to Richard Wanke’s legal cases and his communications with Clark, they found nothing threatening in nature. And, they found no weapons or illegal substances in the duplex. 44. The police were able to thoroughly search the duplex on 2/7/08, because they had already removed the biggest obstacle to them for that search; that obstacle being the plaintiff who they had already arrested under a false charge they concocted amongst themselves as one they could use to their advantage; to remove her from the duplex and, at the same time, to put pressure on their suspect to confess to the murder. 45. Although the police defendants claimed at her 8/13/13 jury trial that they never regarded plaintiff as a suspect in the Clark murder trial, this obviously untrue in several respects. 46 Onthe evening of 2/6/08, when they had the plaintiff in custody, but had not yetPage 14 arrested her, the police took photographs of both her and Richard Wanke. These photos were front, side and rear profiles. Plaintiff did not learn until years later that they were not just upper body photographs but were full-length photos. These photos were independent of the photos taken of them later at booking, and were held for use as evidence in the Clark murder investigation. The police defendants would not have photographed her if they had not regarded her as a suspect. She is also listed as a suspect on a couple of police reports 46. Plaintiff was included in these photos because the police claimed that on the evening of 2/6/08, a Clark neighbor identified her as the woman she saw sitting in a van parked across the street from the Clark residence on 2/5/08, the day before the murder. The witness described the woman as a white woman, with dark wavy long hair who was in her 30’s. On 2/6/08, plaintiff was a 49 year old, Mexican-American, The only photograph in circulation that the police would have been able to access was that of her driver’s license which was an old photograph from some 8 or 9 years prior, and plaintiff had not updated it because it was so complimentary to her in appearance and lighting, In it, she appeared to be caucasian in coloring; had no grey in her hair and so appeared to be somewhere in her 30’s in age. This photograph sufficed for the police to use to convince the witness that this was the woman she saw outside the Clark residence. However, when the police saw plaintiff in person that evening, the age difference in her appearance was evident to police defendant officers enough that they knew they needed to get updated photos of her and did so. They did not dare however later re-approach the witness with the updated photos toPage 15 confirm her identification of the plaintiff as the person she allegedly saw. And, the police defendants did not do so was because they knew plaintiff was not the person seen and they had no interest in verifying information they knew was erroneous because they had created it. The witnesses’s sighting of the suspicious woman happened at noon on 2/3/08. Plaintiff's lunch hour was from 11:45am - 12:45pm. It made little sense for the police defendants to allege that she traveled across town on her lunch hour merely to pose by Clark house in a van for a few minutes before returning back across the city before the end of her lunch hour on 2/5/08. The police defendants knew they had to make this scenario more believable. 48. To do this, the defendant police officers manipulated the police report and statement of the witness to place plaintiff at the scene at 12:15 pm instead of noon on 2/5/08. The police notes and the reports and statements show the time manipulation by the different time notations. This manipulation by police was deliberate and done with the intent to create probable cause to obtain a search warrant for the duplex. It was also done to falsely implicate plaintiff with involvement in the Clark murder and to support arresting her on obstruction charges. Plaintiff’s Arrest and Manhandling by Defendant Police 32. The police asked to speak with her either inside or at the police station and kept insisting that she had to speak with them. After disagreeing with them for a few minutes, plaintiff finally agreed to go down to the police station with the police officers in their carPage 16 to speak further with them. She did not take her own vehicle because it was parked in the next block over according to the city snow parking ordinance, and she did not want to lose the spot. 49, Plaintiff told defendant police officers that she would get her coat and keys. Someone told her they would send an officer with her to get them. Plaintiff responded no, because there was no need for anyone to accompany her into her apartment. Plaintiff had already told the defendant officers that they could not search the apartment without a search warrant. Plaintiff was afraid that if she now allowed any of them in the apartment, that that would waive her request for a search warrant, Plaintiff quickly retrieved her keys and coat and left with the police officers after locking her apartment. 50. Once at the police station, Plaintiff was led into an interrogation room and left waiting. It was after hours at the station and there was no police staff present in the office area adjacent to the interrogation room plaintiff was placed in and left to wait. Plaintiff thought her questioning would be short because she knew nothing about the murder. Plaintiff was relieved when after about half an hour, defendants Lee and Regez came to question her concerning Richard Wanke and his whereabouts and activities on that day, because she thought she would be able to leave relatively quickly. $1. Plaintiff knew Richard Wanke had an on-going criminal prosecution case for burglary and was due to be sentenced on that case shortly. Plaintiff told defendants Lee and Regez that she did not believe Richard Wanke was. involved in the murder, but thatPage 17 because he was being prosecuted she would pass any information she had on to Wanke’s attorney to advise them of it. 52. The Plaintiff was not questioned long after her statement. Defendants Lee and Regez then asked her information about herself. She provided employment and basic contact and identification information. She was not questioned about her living arrangements at her duplex. 53. Defendants Lee and Regez left the interrogation room shortly and Plaintiff assumed they would be back shortly with any follow-up questions. It took awhile for anyone to return and before someone did plaintiff tried the door of the interrogation room and found it locked. She was dismayed to find it so and returned to waiting. 54. The next person who entered the room was defendant Deputy Chief Greg Lindmark. He entered the room rapidly and in a confrontational manner leaned over the middle of the table she was seated at, placed one hand down flat on the table on either side of her and leaned forward to face her and said to her emphatically, “They saw you! You think it was a quiet neighborhood, but they saw you!” Defendant Greg Lindmark did not explain further, but from his manner and the nature of his statement, plaintiff presumed that he was telling her that someone from the Clark neigborhood claimed to have seen her at the shooting earlier that day. Because she knew her job could confirm her presence at work all day, plaintiff very confidently responded back to defendant Lindmark, “ I was not there; I was at work all day!”. At her response, defendant Lindmark spun around and leftPage 18 with no further comment. 55. Plaintiff reflected on the nature of the exchange after defendant Lindmark had gone and it made her uneasy. She began to realize that not only would it take longer and not be so simple a matter to answer the police questions but that the police might be casting about for suspects in other directions including her own. She became intensely aware of the fact that it was after hours in the police station and very quiet in the building as if everyone had already left for the day, and that she did not have her own vehicle and so could not just walk home given the weather outside. While the door was again unlocked and no one had mentioned arresting her, she took the building quiet as an ominous portent and wished she had brought her own car. She waited for awhile longer in that interrogation room and after no one else came in, she then tried wandering out to find someone to release her. The floor was a maze of small offices surrounding her which were all darkened. She zig-zagged toward an area that seemed to be more lighted. It was quiet and she did not encounter anyone for awhile. When she got to the lighted area she saw a police officer defendant Scott Mastroianni who appeared to be the sole person present in an open office area with many work desks. He intercepted her. Rather than releasing her, he did not question her presence but placed her to a different interrogation room by him. Plaintiff then saw Richard Wanke close by in an open holding cell handcuffed to a bench. 56. ‘After more waiting in the interrogation room, plaintiff began calling out repeatedly to use a phone. After a few times, defendant Mastroianni came to her. HePage 19 roughly pulled her to her feet and started in the direction of the door. When plaintiff pulled back he responded, “resisting arrest?” Plaintiff responded that no, she was trying to get her coat. Defendant Mastroianni permitted her to get her coat and then he continued physically hustling her by the arm out the door, down a long corridor and into another section of the building and an open holding cell where he handcuffed her to a bench. Defendant Mastrioanni also confiscated her coat and personal items. 57. There was only one older police duty officer on the whole floor and present at a desk by the holding cell and defendant Mastroianni left plaintiff in his custody and returned to the detectives bureau. Plaintiff remained handcuffed in the holding cell for an hour before defendant Mastroianni also moved Richard Wanke to an adjacent holding cell and left him handcuffed there. 58. Defendant Lee appeared in the holding cell and asked plaintiff to identify her house keys for him in order to avoid her apartment door being broken down for entry. Plaintiff did so. A couple of hours later Lee reappeared briefly only to remark to her, “There’s 20 years of stuff in there!” He then left again. 59. Plaintiff called out to the duty police officer and attempted to find out how long she was going to be kept there, but he said he knew nothing about her situation. 60. Inthe early morning hours, plaintiff and Richard Wanke were moved to a hallway where photographs were taken of each of them. 61. As they were finishing up a large number of police officers including defendantsPage 20 Lee, Regez, and Lindmark suddenly and noisily arrived back into the police station in proximity. Defendant Lindmark came up to plaintiff and said, “You're going in.” Without further explanation, he told officers to get jail garb for plaintiff and Richard Wanke. Both plaintiff and Wanke were led off to separate rooms. A female police officer told plaintiff to undress and exchanged her clothing (which was bagged and collected) for jail garb and sandals. 62. Plaintiff was handed a written arrest notice and a bond notice. The arrest notice told her she was being charged with 2 counts of felony Obstruction of Justice for lying to police. The bond notice said her bond was $500,000. 63. Plaintiff and Wanke were then taken to the Winnebago County Jail via van and taken to jail processing where they were each booked. 64, Plaintiff was placed in the jail intake section and held there for a week before being moved to general population. Plaintiff’s Damages 65. Asa direct result of defendants intentional, bad faith, willful, wanton, reckless, and /or deliberately indifferent acts and commissions, plaintiff sustained injuries and damages, including the loss of her liberty for 65 days, pain and suffering, severe mental anguish, financial bankruptcy, emotional distress, loss of income, inadequate medial care, humiliation, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, and restrictions on all forms or personal freedom including but not limited to diet, sleep, personal contact, vocationalPage 21 opportunity, employment, personal fulfillment, family relations, travel, enjoyment and freedom of speech and expression. 66. ‘After 30 days, plaintiff bonded out by depositing $50K via cashier’s check. The Circuit Clerk staff had to have Winnebago County Circuit Clerk Thomas Klein show them in person how to process the bond payment because it was the first time they received such a large bond. 67. Plaintiff returned to her duplex to find it’s front and back doors boarded up and a notice of condemnation stuck on it’s front. When she entered the duplex she found no electric service to the downstairs unit. The gas was disconnected to the entire duplex. There was no heat, the building was freezing cold and the piping in both units was frozen throughout. The stove of the downstairs unit was pulled completely away from the wall. The entire contents of the duplex had been ransacked and searched by police and both units were disheveled such that there was only a narrow path left somewhat open to follow from the downstairs to the upstairs unit but access to the basement and rear door was blocked off. An open notice from the city of Rockford Standards division was found listing multiple violation issues and was signed by defendant James Vronch and dated 2/7/08. A copy of the search warrant obtained for the duplex and also dated 2/7/08 was also found. 68. In the upstairs unit, plaintiff found puddles of water in the kitchen and pantry and along the south wall of the unit and wet water damage resulting from a large amount of, water leakages from the duplex attic downward through the ceiling, Plaintiff also foundPage 22 large ceiling holes in the pantry made by raccoons. Intermixed with the water damage were various animal turds and pee and chunks of fallen ceiling plaster. There was evidence of lots of animal incursion into the kitchen area because boxes and bags of foodstuffs such as breads, flour, sugar, and grains were broken open everywhere and half-eaten by gnawing and tracked and spread across the floors, tables and chairs. Even the avocados were gnawed open and partly eaten. Crockery was broken and over-turned and scattered with utensils. 69. Plaintiff spent a first afternoon trying to begin cleaning of the water and animal damage and mess before she heard the soft plaintive sounds of her cat’s meows issuing from somewhere in the walls of the upstairs unit. The police had pulled apart the heat registers throughout the unit and exposed the heat ductwork. It took three days of calling to her cat and leaving it food and water before she was able to persuade it to emerge from the walls. The cat was starved thin and traumatized. 70. While plaintiff was jailed, at some point, lighting had stuck the electrical service to the building located on the south side of the duplex and it fried the electric service to the downstairs unit, Plaintiff later had to pay to replace this for safety reasons. In the short term, plaintiff was only able to further board up all lower windows of the duplex in- between her jail stays in order to afford it better security from break-ins because of it’s location on the near-northwest side of downtown Rockford. 71. Plaintiff was placed on judicial suspension from her job pending a verdict by thePage 23 State of Illinois at the outset of her criminal charges. She lost all job pay in March 2008 and all benefits. She was forced to move back into her parents house in Boone County because of the condemnation of her duplex. 72. In March 2008, when she first moved back home, only her father lived in the parental home. He was 83 and had been living alone for four years but was developing dementia. He had neglected the condition of the house, and plaintiff slowly had to assert authority over him and do repairs. In April 2009, plaintiffs 79 year-old mother also moved back into the Boone County home. She was a diabetic, prone to low blood sugars, and had more advanced dementia. Plaintiff assumed responsibility for the care of both of her parents as she was their only child able to do so. 73. Between 2008 and 2016, plaintiff installed two exterior fences at her parents home and moved another. She replaced the furnace, the water softener, the washer, the dryer, the refrigerator, the microwave, one toilet, the side-stoop steps, and installed a front disabled ramp, a side porch, and assist bars in the bathrooms and bedroom. Plaintiff foresaw the likelihood of her parents becoming bed-bound. She bought them hospital beds, wheelchairs, a scooter, walkers, special bed-pads and medical equipment and supplies. Plaintiff's mother broke her hip twice requiring surgeries and nursing home stays. Both times plaintiff accompanied her and stood with her 24/7 to ensure her proper care. Plaintiff has cared for both her parents with only minimal outside paid help. Plaintiff's position of financial dependence upon her parents due to her loss of income created on-goingPage 24 difficulties for her in decison-making with her father, which she could have avoided by paying for. 74. Plaintiff's mother died in November 2015. Plaintiff's mother was both bowel and urinary incontinent, virtually deaf, extremely limited in diet choices, and grew slowly rigid in all her limbs. She required complete daily washing and grooming and frequent changing and re-positioning in bed. She had both scalp and body psoriasis and was prone to bedsores. Plaintiff continues to care for her dad who is now also bed-ridden. 75. The defendant City of Rockford took plaintiff to hearing regarding the building standards violations it cited her with. Plaintiff had no money to either contest or repair the violations and was fined by the defendant City of Rockford $13,500 for them in 2008. 76. Plaintiff’s bond was not reduced on her motion. In mid-April 2008, plaintiff was re-arrested on 30 counts of Tampering with Public Documents with another $100,000 bond. After 35 days, plaintiff again bonded out after paying $10,000 more. 7 Plaintiff had many problems obtaining legal representation. There was widespread media coverage and adverse publicity towards plaintiff in local and regional news for months following her arrests. Mention of her arrest circumstances was even carried by the Associated Press nation-wide. Plaintiff had no prior criminal cases, but because of associations with the murder victim, attorney Greg Clark, most local attorneys were unwilling to even speak with plaintiff. B After one withdrawal of representation and one unsatisfactory experience,Page 25 plaintiff was forced to seek representation from outside Winnebago County and to rely upon suburban Chicago attorneys she was unacquainted with, She also had to pay high legal fees for their services and travel and could only evaluate their effectiveness over time. This process of legal costs plaintiff incurred ultimately bankrupted her financially and she remains indigent. 79. Plaintiff was discharged from her state employment, and at her age, and with a only a high-school diploma, in this present economy she has poor chances for re- employment and future prosperity. She has lost all personal and real property and owns nothing except a 1996 Dodge neon and a 1998 Dodge Caravan which still held by the State in connection with the Clark murder investigation. Plaintiff’s Exoneration 80. Plaintiff was acquitted of all criminal charges of Tampering with Public Documents on October 12, 2011, via a bench trial in Winnebago County Court in case 08 CF 1279. 81 Plaintiff was acquitted of all criminal charges of Obstruction of Justice on March. 9, 2015, via a stipulated bench trial in Winnebago County Court in case 08 CF 447. The Defendant Police Acted Pursuant to a Conspiracy 82. The defendant police, acting jointly and with other unnamed persons, including other investigative, supervisory, and command personnel, together, and under color of law, reached an understanding, engaged in a course of conduct, engaged in a joint action, andPage 26 otherwise conspired among and between themselves to deprive plaintiff of her constitution rights, and did deprive plaintiff of these rights, including her rights to be free from unreasonable arrest and seizure, from wrongful confinement and imprisonment and from false and malicious charges. The defendants also denied plaintiff her right to due process as protected by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States, Constitution. 83. In furtherance of this conspiracy, during the afternoon of 2/6/08, the defendant police officers Lee, Regez, Beets, Mastroianni, and Whisenand, met with defendant Deputy Chief Greg Lindmark where they reviewed the facts of the murder, including the complete lack of any reliable evidence that Plaintiff had any involvement with the crime. ‘At that time, defendants agreed that personnel would be dispatched to plaintiff's residence and that she was romantically involved with their suspect and would most likely be found to be complicit with him in the crime. This guaranteed that anything plaintiff had to say would be disregarded by defendants who would assume her guilt and later move forward to charge her. 84. In furtherance of this conspiracy, later that evening at the police station, the same defendant police officers met again to review information they amassed from plaintiff and to determine the course of action to take with respect to her. Again, they knew there was still no reliable evidence that plaintiff had any involvement with the crime except for an unreliable witness identification of her at the crime scene the day before which they hadPage 27 manipulated age-wise to apply to the plaintiff. Based on the evidence at hand, the defendants lacked sufficient evidence to charge plaintiff with involvement in the crime itself. The plaintiff presented no danger to anyone. Nor was she a flight-risk, There was no urgent need to arrest and charge her with any offense which could have been done in the days following if additional evidence presented itself. Instead of acting reasonably however, the defendants disregarded plaintiff's welfare and viewed her as simply a pawn; available to manipulate in the process of catching their bigger fish, the suspect they had in hand and who they viewed as being responsible for the crime. For this reason they decided to fabricate a charge against her and arrest her in order to pressure this suspect, Richard ‘Wanke to confess to the murder. The defendant, Deputy Chief Lindmark advised him personally they would arrest her if he failed to confess. When Richard Wanke did not instantly capitulate, the defendants acted as they Lindmark directed; they fabricated the charge that plaintiff lied to them when she told them that he did not live with her, and they arrested her. They reasoned doing so then would not on maximize the pressure on Richard Wanke when it was most critical to do so; in the first 48 hours, but would also ease their ability to obtain a search of the entire duplex which they wanted. Because defendants knew they were fabricating the offense against plaintiff, they knew they did not need to investigate or document it further. COUNTI (Malicious Prosecution Claim under Illinois Law)Page 28 85. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 86. ‘The criminal proceedings against Plaintiff were terminated in her favor on March 9, 2015. 87. Defendants Lee, Regez, Whisenand, Beets, Lindmark, Mastroianni, Hopkins, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, by fabricating lies and criminal charges against plaintiff and by deceiving the prosecutors who prosecuted plaintifi’s case, initiated and continued a malicious prosecution without probable cause against Plaintiff. This course of action was initiated under the direction of defendant Deputy Chief Greg Lindmark and originated out of his personal bias; but it was continued under the direction of his, successor, defendant Deputy Chief David Hopkins, who assumed control of the Clark murder investigation upon Landmark’s death in February 2015. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against these defendants for compensatory damages in the amount of 10 million dollars, and, because these individuals acted maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and/or with reckless disregard for Plaintiff's constitutional rights, for punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. JURY DEMAND