651 F.Supp.3d 917
N.D. Ill.2023Background
- Plaintiff Terrell Esco sued the City of Chicago and multiple officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and state-law malicious prosecution/indemnification/respondeat superior, alleging he was seized, searched, and prosecuted despite officers knowing he was not the person seen with a gun.
- Officers were surveilling a residence where a person emerged with a handgun, tossed it under a parked car, and fled; Esco was in the area, ran when officers approached, and was later apprehended after a foot pursuit.
- Body-worn camera (BWC) footage from Officers Segovia, Cledon, Rodriguez, and others captured (a) Segovia recovering a gun under a car, (b) Cledon pursuing and radioing a physical description matching Esco, (c) Esco being detained and admitting he had "a lot" of marijuana and "that’s why I ran," and (d) radio statements tying the apprehended person to the discarded gun.
- Esco contends the BWC actually shows officers saying he was not the person seen on the surveillance video and thus that the arrest/prosecution lacked probable cause; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting the BWC is integral and shows probable cause.
- The court reviewed the BWC footage referenced in the complaint, concluded the footage contradicted Esco’s theory, and found the officers had at least reasonable suspicion that ripened to probable cause (including post-arrest admissions), so dismissal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court consider BWC footage on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the complaint references it? | Esco relied on BWC to show officers knew he was not the gunman. | Defendants: footage is integral and may be considered and contradicts complaint. | Court: Yes; when a video is referenced and central, it may be considered and can control if it contradicts allegations. |
| Was there probable cause for Esco’s arrest (false-arrest §1983 claim)? | Esco: officers lacked probable cause because surveillance showed he was not the shooter. | Defendants: footage shows flight, matching description, radio reports, and Segovia’s identification of the person who tossed the gun—supporting probable cause. | Court: No §1983 claim; BWC shows officers reasonably believed Esco tossed the gun and had probable cause. |
| Did flight and surveillance observations supply reasonable suspicion/probable cause? | Esco: mere presence in area insufficient; he was only "in the area." | Defendants: unprovoked flight from a surveilled scene where a weapon was discarded, plus descriptive radio transmissions, justified a Terry stop and supported probable cause. | Court: Flight from the officers at a scene where a weapon was seen, coupled with description and pursuit, gave at least reasonable suspicion and contributed to probable cause. |
| Did Esco’s post-apprehension statements affect probable cause? | Esco: charged for weapons, not drugs; statements irrelevant to weapons charge. | Defendants: admissions that he had "a lot" of weed and officers’ discovery of contraband supplied independent probable cause for arrest. | Court: Plaintiff’s audible admission and discovery of contraband supplied probable cause; an arrest can be supported by probable cause for any offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video that plainly contradicts the complaint may be considered and can control on a motion to dismiss)
- Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2013) (documents or footage referenced in a complaint and central to the claim may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2016) (a video that clearly contradicts allegations controls over the complaint)
- Lenoir, 318 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2003) (flight upon seeing police supports reasonable suspicion to stop)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight in a high-crime area supports reasonable suspicion)
- Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2013) (defines probable cause as a practical, commonsense standard based on the totality of the circumstances)
- Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2014) (post-apprehension admissions can supply probable cause)
- United States v. Shields, 789 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2015) (probable cause for any offense supports an arrest regardless of the charge)