1:18-cv-03619
N.D. Ill.Feb 14, 2020Background
- On March 28, 2018 Amanda Bergquist was denied entry to the Bridgeview Courthouse after security found a handheld camera; she then filmed the courthouse exterior.
- Deputy Milazzo confronted Bergquist, claimed a judicial order prohibited taping the courthouse, and ordered her detained; deputies handcuffed her, took her camera, led her inside, and detained her for about three hours.
- While detained, deputies pressed for identification, threatened jail, deleted footage from her camera, searched her purse, and brought her before a judge who ordered her SD card turned over; Bergquist later recovered the deleted footage.
- Bergquist filed a second amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting First Amendment retaliation, multiple Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure/search claims, Monell municipal liability (policy and failure-to-train) against the Sheriff’s Office and Cook County, and an abuse-of-process claim.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court denied dismissal of the First and Fourth Amendment claims and Monell claims against the Sheriff’s Office (official-capacity), but dismissed the abuse-of-process claim with prejudice, dismissed Cook County as a substantive defendant (retained only for indemnification), and dismissed Sheriff Dart in his individual capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (Counts I–II) | Bergquist was engaging in protected activity by filming a public building; detention/handcuffing were retaliation | Defendants lacked retaliatory motive and relied on a courthouse filming prohibition as a lawful restriction | Claim survives pleading stage; court accepts plaintiff's allegations of retaliatory motive and finds the cited general order covers only inside the courthouse, so dismissal is inappropriate |
| Fourth Amendment detention/search/seizure (Counts III–VII) | No probable cause existed to detain/arrest or to seize/search camera/purse | Officers had probable cause based on the courthouse general administrative order prohibiting devices | Claims survive dismissal: court cannot find probable cause as a matter of law (order addressed inside courthouse only); searches incident to arrest not resolved at pleading stage |
| Monell (Counts IX–X) — Cook County, Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Dart (official capacity) | Sheriff’s Office maintained a policy/practice since 9/11 of detaining/handcuffing people photographing courthouse and failed to train deputies | Cook County lacks authority over Sheriff’s Office hiring or courthouse policy; municipalities require policy or deliberate indifference to be liable | Cook County dismissed substantively (remains only for indemnification); Monell claims against Cook County Sheriff’s Office and Dart in official capacity survive; but Dart and Sheriff’s Office are dismissed from Counts I–VII (no vicarious liability) |
| Abuse of process (Count VIII) and Dart individual-capacity liability | Constitutional abuse of process based on detention, court appearance, property seizure; Dart liable as supervisor | Illinois law supplies an abuse-of-process tort remedy; Dart lacked personal involvement/knowledge | Abuse-of-process dismissed with prejudice (state remedy exists); Dart dismissed in his individual capacity for lack of personal involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must give fair notice and facial plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard and treatment of legal conclusions)
- ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir.) (recording government officials/activities is protected First Amendment activity)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (what constitutes a seizure—reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (probable cause is required to lawfully detain; absence supports a Fourth Amendment claim)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (deliberate indifference standard for failure-to-train Monell claims)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train can be a municipal policy when it reflects deliberate indifference)