Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:151

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DISTRICT
CAPRICE HALLEY, TEVIN FORD, and
WILLIE DOUGLAS as Special
Administrator for Estate of ROBERT
DOUGLAS,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF CHICAGO and POLICE
)
OFFICERS WHERFEL (Star # 13234),
)
E.DOUGHTERY (Star # 10093),
)
A. GRANAT (Star # 18571),
)
D. BALESTERI (Star # 7510),
)
B. RODEKOHR (Star # 16315),
)
J. RECKARD (Star # 1779), R.FEDERICI )
(Star # 19848), T. CONLON (Star # 4235), )
)
Defendants.
)
)

No:

1:14-cv-0645

JURY DEMANDED

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COME the Plaintiffs CAPRICE HALLEY, TEVIN FORD, and WILLIE
DOUGLAS, Special Administrator of the Estate of ROBERT DOUGLAS, through their attorneys,
Jon Erickson and Michael Oppenheimer, of ERICKSON & OPPENHEIMER, LTD., and in
support of their complaint against

Chicago Police Officers WHERFEL (Star # 13234),

E.DOUGHTERY (Star # 10093), A. GRANAT (Star # 18571), D. BALESTERI (Star # 7510), B.

RODEKOHR (Star # 16315), J. RECKARD (Star # 1779), R.FEDERICI (Star # 19848), T.
CONLON (Star # 4235) and the CITY OF CHICAGO, state as follows:

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:152

INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the laws of
the State of Illinois to address deprivations of Plaintiffs rights under the Constitution of
the United States and the State of Illinois.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
1983 and 1985; the judicial code 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(a); the Constitution of the
United States; and pendent jurisdiction as provided under U.S.C. 1367(a).
PARTIES
3. Caprice Halley is a United States citizen who resides in the Northern District of Illinois.
4. Tevin Ford is a United States citizen who resides in the Northern District of Illinois.
5. Willie Douglas is the mother and special administrator for the estate of Robert Douglas
and is a United States Citizen who resides in the Northern District of Illinois.
6. Defendants WHERFEL (Star # 13234), E.DOUGHTERY (Star # 10093), A. GRANAT
(Star # 18571), D. BALESTERI (Star # 7510), B. RODEKOHR (Star # 16315), J.
RECKARD (Star # 1779), R.FEDERICI (Star # 19848), T. CONLON (Star # 4235)
were, at the time of this occurrence, duly sworn Chicago Police Officers. Each engaged in
the conduct complained of while on duty and in the course and scope of his employment
and under color of law. Each Defendant Officer is sued in his individual capacity.
7. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the laws of
the State of Illinois, and is the employer and principal of the Defendant Officers. At all

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:153

times relevant hereto, all Defendants were acting under the color of law and within the
scope of their employment with Defendant City of Chicago.
BACKGROUND FACTS
8. On or about May 23, 2013, at approximately 1:36 p.m., Caprice Halley and Tevin Ford
were passengers in a car that Mr. Dougals was driving southbound at approximately 9040
S. Laflin Street, Chicago, Illinois when their car was confronted head-on by two plainclothed officers in an unmarked Chicago Police car. The Defendants vehicle was
traveling towards Mr. Douglas and his passengers the wrong way on the one-way street.
9. Two of the Defendants removed Mr. Douglas and Mr. Ford from their vehicle, handcuffed
them and subjected them to a series of searches.
10. During one of these searches, and while standing in the middle of the public street, one of
the Defendants pulled up Mr. Douglass shirt, pulled his elastic waistband away from his
body, and searched down the front of his pants.
11. Shortly thereafter, two additional plain-clothed Defendants approached from opposite
directions on foot and one removed Ms. Halley from the car.
12. Without a warrant, exigent circumstances, consent, or any other legal justification or
cause, one of the Defendants began to search the front passenger interior of car where Ms.
Halley had been seated. At that time an additional Defendant arrived on the scene on foot.
13. One of the Defendants searched Mr. Douglas yet again, while another Defendant again
searched Mr. Ford. This time the Defendant searching Mr. Ford pulled Mr. Fords
waistband away from his body and searched down Mr. Fords pants.

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:154

14. When the extensive search produced nothing illegal, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Ford were
placed in the back of an unmarked squad while Ms. Halley was moved the rear of Mr.
Douglas car.
15. The Defendants then continued to search the interior of Mr. Douglas car for several
minutes without a warrant, exigent circumstances, consent, or other legal justification or
cause.
16. The Defendants then removed Mr. Douglas from the unmarked squad and walked him
back to the side of his car, where the search continued.
17. The Defendants forced Mr. Douglas to walk backwards while handcuffed off the street
and across a yard to the side of a home.
18. Once at the side of the house, the Defendants forced Mr. Douglas to reach up to one of the
windows on the side of the house that was covered by burglar bars. They shackled one of
his wrists to one of the window bars, pulled his pants down to his ankles, bent him over,
and searched his buttocks in the open air.
19. When one of the Defendants realized that they were being watched by a neighbor, they
discontinued the search, put Mr. Douglas back in the squad, placed Ms. Halley back in
Mr. Douglas car and relocated to an alley behind a large church at 9100 S. Bishop Street,
Chicago.
20. Once there, Defendant Wherfel arrived at the scene and ordered Ms. Halley out of Mr.
Douglas car. While Ms. Halley was surrounded by five male officers/defendants,
Defendant Wherfel ordered Ms. Halley to remove her pants. Ms. Halley pleaded with
Defendant Wherfel and explained that she was menstruating and was using a tampon.
4

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:155

21. Ms. Halley asked Defendant Wherfel if she was really going to make [her] strip in front
of these men, and Defendant Wherfel, while putting on blue latex gloves, coldly replied
with a yes.
22. Defendant Wherfel un-cuffed one of Ms. Halleys hands and ordered her to remove the
tampon. Shocked, humiliated and surrounded by male police officers, Ms. Halley tearfully
removed the tampon and discarded it on the alley pavement pursuant to Wherfels orders.
23. Wherfel then began to use her fingers to probe Ms. Halleys vagina while the five male
Defendant officers looked on and made jokes and comments about Ms. Halleys body.
24. Nothing illegal was recovered from Ms. Halley.
25. Defendant Wherfel then bent down near the side of Mr. Douglas car and reached towards
her own sock. She stood up holding a small bag of heroin and proudly announced that
shed found it in Ms. Halleys waistband.
26. Defendants then initiated criminal proceedings against Mr. Douglas and Ms. Halley for
false charges of delivery and possession of a controlled substance.
27. The criminal case against Mr. Douglas was abated upon his death on June 27, 2013.
28. The actions of the Defendants as described herein were willful, wanton, intentional, and
unreasonable.
COUNT I
UNLAWFUL SIEZURE 42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of all Plaintiffs)
29. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs.

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:156

30. Plaintiffs were improperly seized without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Plaintiffs were denied liberty without justification in violation of the 4th and 14th
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
31. Defendants forcefully imposed an unlawful restraint upon Plaintiffs freedom of
movement.
32. This seizure was unreasonable within the meaning of the 4th Amendment and was
undertaken with malice, willfulness and reckless indifference.
33. As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered
injuries, including without limitation loss of liberty, emotional distress and anguish.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the individual Defendants, jointly and
severally, in a fair and just amount sufficient to compensate them for the injuries they have
suffered, plus a sum in punitive damages as well as costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as
is just and equitable.
COUNT II
UNLAWFUL SEARCH 42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of decedent Robert Douglas)
34. Plaintiff Willie Douglas as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Douglas realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
35. The actions of the Defendants constituted a public, warrantless, unreasonable, and
unjustifiable strip search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of decedent
Robert Douglas, thus violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:157

36. As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of the Defendants, decedent Robert
Douglas was injured.
37. At all relevant times, the Defendants acted under color of law and within the scope of their
employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Willie Douglas as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert
Douglas demands judgment be entered in his favor and against the individual Defendants,
jointly and severally, and that he be awarded compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys fees, costs and expenses and such other and further relief that this Honorable Court
deems just.
COUNT III
UNLAWFUL SEARCH (of vehicle) 42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of decedent Robert Douglas)
38. Plaintiff Willie Douglas as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Douglas realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
39. The actions of the Defendants constituted a warrantless, unreasonable, and unjustifiable
search of Mr. Douglas vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, thus
violating decedents rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
40. As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of the Defendants, decedent Robert
Douglas was injured.
41. At all relevant times, the Defendants acted under color of law and within the scope of their
employment.

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:158

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Willie Douglas as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert

Douglas demands judgment be entered in his favor and against the individual Defendants,
jointly and severally, and that he be awarded compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys fees, costs and expenses and such other and further relief that this Honorable Court
deems just.
COUNT IV
UNLAWFUL SEARCH 42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of Mr. Ford)
42. Plaintiff Tevin Ford re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs.
43. The actions of the Defendants constituted a public, warrantless, unreasonable, and
unjustifiable search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of Mr. Ford, thus
violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42
U.S.C. 1983.
44. As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of the Defendants, Mr. Ford was
injured.
45. At all relevant times, the Defendants acted under color of law and within the scope of their
employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tevin Ford demands judgment be entered in his favor and against
the individual Defendants, jointly and severally, and that he be awarded compensatory and
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses and such other and further
relief that this Honorable Court deems just.

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:159

COUNT V
UNLAWFUL SEARCH 42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of Ms. Halley)
46. Plaintiff Ms. Halley re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs.
47. The actions of the Defendants constituted a warrantless, unreasonable, and unjustifiable
strip search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of Plaintiff Caprice Halley,
thus violating her rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
48. As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff Caprice
Halley was injured.
49. At all relevant times, the Defendants acted under color of law and within the scope of
their employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Caprice Halley demands judgment be entered in her favor and
against the individual Defendants, jointly and severally, and that she be awarded compensatory
and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses and such other and further
relief that this Honorable Court deems just.
COUNT VI
FALSE ARREST -- 42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of Mr. Douglas and Ms. Halley)
50. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs.

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:160

51. Defendants arrested Plaintiffs without a warrant, probable cause, or any other legal
justification to do so, in violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
52. As a direct and proximate result of this false arrest, Plaintiffs suffered damages, including
without limitation loss of liberty and financial and emotional damages, which will be
proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the
individual Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the
costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems
equitable and just.
COUNT VII
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of all Plaintiffs)
53. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs.
54. Each of the above named Defendant conspirators reached an agreement amongst
themselves to violate the Plaintiffs civil rights, including without limitation to frame Mr.
Douglas and Ms. Halley for a crime and to publicly strip search Mr. Douglas and Ms.
Halley and publicly search Mr. Ford by searching inside his pants. These actions deprived
Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, including Plaintiffs rights to be free of
unreasonable search and seizure and to due process and to a fair trial, all as described in
the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

10

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:161

55. Additionally, the Defendant Officers and other unknown co-conspirators further conspired
to deprive Plaintiffs Ms. Halley and Mr. Douglas of exculpatory information to which they
were lawfully entitled and which would have led to either their not being charged or their
acquittal.
56. Additionally, Defendants Dougherty and Balesteri reached an agreement amongst
themselves to cover up their unlawful acts as well as the unlawful acts of their coDefendants by agreeing to not obtain video footage of the incident and exclude mention of
the strip searches of Mr. Douglas and Ms. Halley and the public search inside Mr. Fords
pants from all reports and documents prepared regarding the incident.
57. In this manner, the Defendant Officers, acting in concert with other unknown coconspirators, conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by
unlawful means.
58. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators committed overt acts,
including but not limited to those set forth abovesuch as and without limitation
fabricating inculpatory evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, committing perjury
under oath, and conducting open air strip searchesand was an otherwise willful
participant in joint activity.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the illicit prior agreement referenced above, Plaintiffs
rights were violated, and they suffered without limitation physical harm, severe emotional
distress and anguish, and financial damages.
60. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken
with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights.
11

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:162

WHEREFORE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the

individual Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the
costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems
equitable and just.
COUNT VIII
FAILURE TO INTERVENE 42 U.S.C. 1983
(on behalf of all Plaintiffs)
61. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs.
62. In the manner described above and during the constitutional violations described herein,
one or more of the Defendant Officers stood by without intervening to prevent the
violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, even though they had a reasonable opportunity
to do so.
63. As a result of the Defendant Officers failure to intervene to prevent the violation of
Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Plaintiffs suffered without limitation physical harm, severe
emotional distress and anguish, and financial damages. These Defendants had a reasonable
opportunity to prevent this harm, but failed to do so.
64. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken
intentionally and with willful indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the
individual Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, punitive damages, the
costs of this action and attorneys fees, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems
equitable and just.
12

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:163

COUNT IX STATE LAW CLAIM

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(on behalf of Ms. Halley and Mr. Ford)
65. All previously pleaded paragraphs are restated and realleged herein.
66. Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous, exceeding all bounds of human
decency.
67. Defendants conduct was intentional and specifically designed to inflict severe emotional
distress.
68. Defendants engaged in this conduct in part with knowledge that their conduct was likely
to inflict severe emotional distress on Carpice Halley and Tevin Ford.
69. Defendants conduct was willful, wanton and malicious.
70. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Plaintiffs did in fact suffer severe
emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Caprice Halley and Tevin Ford demand judgment be entered in
their favor and against the individual Defendants, jointly and severally, and that they be
awarded compensatory damages, substantial punitive damages, costs and expenses and such
other and further relief that this Honorable Court deems just.
COUNT X STATE LAW CLAIM
BATTERY
(on behalf of all Plaintiffs)
71. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs.

13

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:164

72. The conduct of the Defendants was an unauthorized and offensive touching of the
Plaintiffs by the Defendants, and thus constitutes a battery under Illinois law.
73. The Defendants conduct that resulted in this battery was malicious, willful, and wanton.
74. As a proximate result of the above-detailed actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered
injuries, including without limitation physical harm and pain, emotional distress and
anguish, and financial damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment be entered in their favor and against the
individual Defendants, jointly and severally, and that they be awarded reasonable compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses and such other and further relief that this
Honorable Court deems just.
COUNT XI STATE LAW CLAIM
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(on behalf of Ms. Halley)

75. Plaintiff Caprice Halley re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in
the preceding paragraphs.
76. The Defendant Officers willfully and wantonly initiated legal proceedings against
Plaintiff, and/or caused these legal proceedings to continue against her, without probable
cause.
77. With malice, willfulness, and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights, the Defendant
Officers created false and/or inaccurate police reports and/or made false statements to
other police officers and prosecutors.

14

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:165

78. The legal proceedings against Plaintiff was terminated in her favor on December 1, 2014,
in a manner indicative of innocence.
79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Officers malicious prosecution, Plaintiff
suffered injury, including without limitation emotional and financial damages which will
be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment be entered in their favor and against the
individual Defendants, jointly and severally, and that they be awarded reasonable compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses and such other and further relief that this
Honorable Court deems just.
COUNT XII
INDEMNITY 745 ILCS 10/9-102
80. All previously pleaded paragraphs are restated and realleged herein.
81. Defendant City of Chicago is the employer of Defendant Officers.
82. The Defendant Officers committed the acts alleged above under color of law and within
their scope of employment as employees of the City of Chicago.
WHEREFORE, should the Defendant Officers be found liable on one or more of the federal
claims set forth above, Plaintiffs demand that, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, Defendant City of
Chicago be found liable for any compensatory judgment Plaintiff obtains against said
Defendants, as well as attorneys fees and costs awarded.
COUNT XIII STATE LAW CLAIM
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
83. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein.

15

Case: 1:14-cv-00645 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/15/14 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:166

84. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the individual Defendants
were agents of the City of Chicago and were acting at all relevant times within the scope
of their employment and under color of law.
85. Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal for all torts committed by its agents.
WHEREFORE, should Defendants be found liable on one or more of the state claims set
forth above, Plaintiffs demand that, pursuant to respondeat superior, Defendant City of Chicago
be found liable for any compensatory judgment Plaintiffs obtain against said Defendants, as well
as attorneys fees and costs awarded.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ronak Maisuria

Erickson & Oppenheimer, Ltd.

118 S. Clinton, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60661
312-327-3370
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT
Please be advised that all rights relating to attorneys fees have been assigned to counsel.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ronak Maisuria

16