Janusz v. City of Chicago
797 F. Supp. 2d 884
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Janusz arrested December 6, 2001 on drug charges; charges were dropped for lack of probable cause.
- Keystone Funeral Homes employed Janusz; Keystone sued the Morizzo brothers in 2001 for non-compete issues and sought Janusz as a witness.
- Siragusa allegedly arranged the meeting and subsequent events leading to the arrest; officers Lucas, George, and Liberti arrested Janusz at a parking lot with Siragusa present.
- Cash, drugs, and other contraband were alleged to be found in Janusz's car and apartment; Siragusa received $10 to get a ride home, while Siragusa’s involvement was barely documented.
- Post-arrest, confidential police records were copied and sent to the Morizzo brothers, affecting Keystone’s civil suit and resulting in Janusz’s firing in January 2002.
- Judge Dernbach quashed the arrest in May–October 2002 proceedings, leading to dismissal of charges; this ruling underpins plaintiff’s §1983/malicious prosecution claims and cross-cutting claims in this federal action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest based on expired plates | Janusz claims lack of probable cause; expired plates viewed as potential cause | Officers could have probable cause to arrest for any crime including an expired plate per Atwater/Devenpeck | Fact issue; jury to determine when plates were noticed and whether probable cause existed |
| Liability of Mugavero-Lucas for false arrest | Mugavero-Lucas appeared at the scene and participated in arrest/Search | Only burden to show conspiracy; physical presence not required | Judgment for jury on role; may be liable depending on involvement |
| Apartment search consent (coercion) | Coercion by Lucas; Mugavero-Lucas present; Liberti not present per evidence | Liberti not present; could be valid if consent voluntary | Issues of proximity and consent factual; Liberti dismissed from this count |
| Conspiracy to taint Keystone witness | Outside conspirators (Siragusa, Morizzo brothers, Grizzoffi) involved; no requirement to sue all | Intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine; insiders only; evidence speculative | Fact question for trial; jury to assess whether conspirators acted with defendants |
| Damages: double recovery and collateral estoppel | Separate injuries; not indivisible; apportion damages between cases | Single recovery doctrine/collateral estoppel may bar; prior Keystone damages may preclude duplicative claims | Not resolved at summary judgment; issue remains open for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 317 (U.S. 2001) (probable cause to arrest for any crime supports arrest for minor offenses)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (objective probable cause required for arrest; subjective motives irrelevant)
- Carmichael v. Village of Palatine, 605 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2010) (probable cause assessment depends on what a reasonable officer would know)
- Thornton v. Garcini, 382 Ill. Dec. 284, 888 N.E.2d 1217 (Ill. App. 2008) (double recovery concerns in Illinois damages law)
- Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 604 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (conspiracy pleading considerations and non-exhaustive defendants} ,{)