Bergquist v. Milazzo

• Decision Date: 28 September 2021
• Docket Number: 18-cv-3619
• Parties: AMANDA JANE BERGQUIST, Plaintiff, v. DONALD MILAZZO, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

AMANDA JANE BERGQUIST, Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD MILAZZO, et al. Defendants.

No. 18-cv-3619

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

September 28, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Amanda Bergquist, a self-described “First Amendment auditor, ” went to the Bridgeview Courthouse in March 2018 to address three traffic tickets. At the security checkpoint, court security officers told her she could not bring the video camera she carried into the courthouse. Plaintiff subsequently began filming the exterior of the courthouse, scanning up and down with her camera. When officers noticed, they confronted her, asked for her identification, and attempted to ascertain her intentions for filming. Plaintiff refused to identify herself, remained uncooperative, and continued to record both the exterior and interior of the courthouse. The officers then detained her inside the courthouse, searched through her purse, wallet, and camera, and brought her before the presiding judge who ordered her to cease her recording.

Based upon these events, Plaintiff has sued four of the officers involved that day-Donald Milazzo, Jennifer Larson, Kenneth Dorociak, and Kelly Jackson-and

1

the Cook County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Thomas Dart under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourth Amendment injuries. The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. [107]; [112]. For the reasons explained below, this Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment [112] and denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [107].

I. Background

This Court takes the following facts from Plaintiff's Statement of Facts [108], Defendants' Statement of Facts [114], Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Statement of Facts [122], Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts [124], and Defendants' Statement of Additional Facts [125]. Because Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' Statement of Additional Facts [125], this Court deems those facts admitted. See Tabiti v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 13-CV-7198, 2019 WL 1382235, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2019).

A. The Parties

Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois at the time of the relevant events. [114] at ¶ 1; [122] at ¶ 1. Plaintiff describes herself as a “First Amendment auditor, ” meaning she “test[s] people on the First Amendment, ” specifically “people who are in law enforcement, government employees.” [107-2] at 49-50. Plaintiff maintains a YouTube page devoted to her First Amendment auditing activities and posts videos of her activities; she estimates that she has made 300 to 400 videos depicting “First Amendment auditing” and “cop watching.” Id. at 51, 59.

2

At all times relevant, Defendant Donald Milazzo worked as a lieutenant officer with the Cook County Sheriff's Office, [114] at ¶ 2; [122] at ¶ 2; Defendant Larson worked as a sergeant officer with the Cook County Sheriff's Office, [114] at ¶ 3; [122] at ¶ 3; Defendant Kenneth Dorociak worked as an officer with the Cook County Sheriff's Office, [114] at ¶ 4; [122] at ¶ 4; Defendant Kelly Jackson acted as a chief officer with the Cook County Sheriff's Office, [114] at ¶ 5; and Defendant Thomas Dart was (and remains) Sheriff of Cook County, [122] at ¶ 6. Defendant Cook County is a body politic and corporate under Illinois law. [114] at ¶ 5.

B. Plaintiff's Initial Encounter with Officer Barbaro

The Bridgeview Courthouse in Bridgeview, Illinois handles a variety of cases including traffic court, domestic violence, and felony matters. [125] at ¶ 1. Victims, witnesses, and jurors all use the front entrance. Id.; [107-12] at 47-48.

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff went to the Bridgeview Courthouse to address three traffic tickets. [108] at ¶ 1. She carried a Sony handheld camera in her purse. Id. at ¶ 2. At the security checkpoint of the courthouse, a Sheriff's deputy denied her entry because she possessed a handheld video camera; she was also advised to call the Sheriff's Department to inquire whether it could hold her camera while she was in court. [114] at ¶ 2; [124] at ¶ 3. Plaintiff stepped outside to call the Sheriff's Department; according to Plaintiff, the Sheriff's Department refused to hold her camera. [108] at ¶ 4; [124] at ¶ 4.

Plaintiff then stood outside the front entrance of the Bridgeview Courthouse and began filming. [114] at ¶ 3. Plaintiff asserts that she was recording her reflection

3

in the mirrored windows surrounding the building and the no-smoking sign, [108] at ¶ 6, while Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's recording captured activity both inside and outside the courthouse, including various people entering and exiting the courthouse, the entrance way, security features including the positioning of security personnel, locations of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, emergency exits, panic buttons, call boxes, and vehicular barriers, [124] at ¶ 6.

Officer Barbaro, a sheriff's deputy working security that day, testified at his deposition that he saw a “woman outside the building videotaping the building, scanning back and forth with the camera up and down, people coming in and out possibly, possibly videotaping through the glass at the security post that I work at of the entry procedure.” [114-5] at 3. Officer Barbaro came out, stood at the front entrance with the door propped open by his body, and asked Plaintiff what she was doing, to which Plaintiff responded that she was recording the building because she wanted to record it. [108] at ¶¶ 7-8; [114] at ¶ 10. Officer Barbaro also asked Plaintiff why she was recording (“for what purpose?”), and Plaintiff ignored him. [114] at ¶ 10; [114-2] (Bergquist's video). Plaintiff's video shows the interior of the courthouse entrance. [114-2].

According to Defendant Dorociak, who worked security that morning, someone standing at Plaintiff's distance to the courthouse would be able to see inside and videotape inside the building. [107-12] at 50. Dorociak additionally testified that, on the other side of the window from where Plaintiff was standing, “the front door security is laid out, ” including security equipment and the x-ray machine. Id. at 51.

4

C. Plaintiff's Encounter with Milazzo

Barbaro radioed for additional security and requested a supervisor response. [114] at ¶ 11; [114-2]. Defendant Milazzo then responded almost immediately by coming to the scene, and at the door of the building, Officer Barbaro said to Milazzo that “the woman is taping the building, I asked her why, and she said because she wants to.” [114-2]. At his deposition, Milazzo testified that “at the time we didn't know if she was videotaping people coming out, videotaping witnesses, videotaping people that were involved in domestic violence, videotaping people inside the door where the [security] posts were.” [107-5] at 14. Milazzo found it suspicious that “she was videotaping the building and possibly inside the doors.” Id. at 27-28.

Milazzo approached Plaintiff and told her that there exists a judicial order “that says you cannot tape this building.” [114-2]; [108] at ¶¶ 9-10. Plaintiff then asked Milazzo if she could see that judicial order, and Milazzo said “yeah, come on in, and we're gonna check your IDs, too.” [114-2]; [108] at ¶ 11. When Plaintiff responded, “oh, I'm not going in, ” Milazzo said, “no, no, no, we're gonna run you, too. We're gonna get your name, we're gonna do a report.” [114-2] at 2.

Plaintiff refused (“um, no”), after which Milazzo informed her that he was detaining her and that she was “doing something suspicious.” Id. Milazzo asked her to “come in” again, and Plaintiff responded, “I'm just gonna stay right here and continue recording.” [114-2]. Milazzo repeated, “you're gonna come in, and we're gonna find out who you are and what you're doing here.” Id. Plaintiff responded, “no, you're not.” Id.

5

At that point, Milazzo turned to the front door of the courthouse and asked, “who's got cuffs? She does not want to go agreeably, ” and Officers Larson and Dorociak appeared. Id. As clearly shown in Plaintiff's video footage, her recording again captured the interior of the courthouse's entrance as Larson and Dorociak exit the building toward her and Milazzo. Plaintiff then asked, “I'm being detained for just taking pictures of the building?” Id. Milazzo replied, “you're doing something suspicious and we need to know who you are and why you're doing it, ok?” Id.

Plaintiff then asked Milazzo if he was “familiar with the First Amendment”; in response, Milazzo grabbed Plaintiff's camera and ordered officers to handcuff and bring her into the courthouse. [114-2]; [108] at ¶¶ 18-19. Plaintiff's camera continued to record. [114-2].

D. The Officers Escort Plaintiff into the Courthouse

After being escorted inside, Defendants Milazzo and Larson made multiple requests for Plaintiff to identify herself, and both informed her she could go if she identified herself. [108] at ¶ 20; [124] at ¶ 20; see also [114-11] (Larson's bodycam video). Milazzo also stated he would detain Plaintiff until “he decided who she was.” [108] at ¶ 21; [114-2].

Plaintiff expressed her desire to remain silent and requested her lawyer. Id. at ¶ 22. She also refused to consent to the search or seizure of her camera and asked Milazzo if he had heard of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at ¶ 23. Milazzo responded “oh great, why do we always get the crazies.” Id. at ¶ 24. After this statement, the video footage from Plaintiff's video ends. Id. at ¶ 25.

6

Milazzo testified that, while Plaintiff remained detained, he contacted his supervisor, Defendant Jackson, who instructed him to contact the presiding judge's office for further instruction regarding Plaintiff. [114] at ¶ 24. According to Milazzo, he called the presiding judge's office, and an assistant told him to bring Plaintiff to Judge Peter Felice. Id. at ¶ 25.

At some point during Plaintiff's detention, Milazzo emptied...