Prokop v. Hileman
| Decision Date | 02 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-450 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | VICTORIA PROKOP and WAYNE COGLIANESE, Plaintiffs, v. BRANDON HILEMAN, et al., Defendants. |
This case is about a search of a home, gone wrong. The police executed a search warrant at the home of Joseph Gravelle, a suspected drug dealer. Except that it wasn't his home. It was his former home. Plaintiffs Victoria Prokop and Wayne Coglianese lived at the residence in question. And they were surprised to see the police at their door.
When the police showed up, Prokop and Coglianese didn't believe that they were the police. The officers were in plain clothes, and the copy of the warrant was illegible. It was right before Halloween, and Prokop and Coglianese thought that they were getting robbed.
When Prokop and Coglianese attempted to close the door, the police forced themselves in. A major fracas ensued, involving both fight and flight. The police fought with Coglianese, and eventually subdued him and placed him in handcuffs. Prokop meanwhile, fled the home with her cell phone, and called 911. The officers on the scene spoke with the 911 operator, and said what was happening.
After a few minutes, Prokop and Coglianese realized that the police really were the police. And the officers, for their part realized that Prokop and Coglianese weren't Gravelle.
The police realized that they were in the wrong home. The Chief of Police then showed up, and apologized. The officers then left.
Prokop and Coglianese responded by filing suit against seven Hometown police officers and the City of Hometown. They sued a Summit police officer and the City of Summit, too. They alleged a collection of claims under the Fourth Amendment and under state law. The Hometown Defendants and the Summit Defendants, in turn, moved to dismiss.
For the following reasons, both motions are granted in part and denied in part.
At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must accept as true the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint. See Lett v City of Chicago, 946 F.3d 398, 399 (7th Cir. 2020). The Court “offer[s] no opinion on the ultimate merits because further development of the record may cast the facts in a light different from the complaint.” Savory v Cannon, 947 F.3d 409, 412 (7th Cir. 2020).
In March 2018, Plaintiff Victoria Prokop bought the house at 8840 South Ryan Road in Hometown, Illinois, and has lived there ever since. See Cplt., at ¶ 16 (Dckt. No. 1). Two years later, in March 2020, Plaintiff Wayne Coglianese moved in with her. Id. at ¶ 27. The home is a duplex with a garage and a driveway, and the garage is visible from the street. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17.
Before Prokop purchased that home, Joseph Gravelle lived there. Id. at ¶ 20. Allegedly, Gravelle is a known drug dealer in the neighborhood. Id. at ¶ 21. After Prokop bought the place, Gravelle moved a few doors down (to 8885 South Ryan Road). Id. at ¶¶ 23-26. Plaintiffs have no relationship or association with Gravelle. Id. at ¶ 28. They just live in his old house.
On October 30, 2020, Defendant Brandon Hileman (a Hometown police officer) applied for a search warrant from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 31. Specifically, he asked to search Joseph Gravelle and the premises of 8840 South Ryan Road. Id. at ¶ 31.
Notice the address. At that point, 8840 South Ryan Road was the former home of Gravelle, and was the then-current home of Prokop and Coglianese. Gravelle hadn't lived there for more than two and a half years. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 22.
The application for a search warrant included the factual basis for the request. Apparently, a confidential informant (“John Doe”) spoke with Hometown's Chief of Police, Defendant Louis Dominguez, on October 27, 2020, meaning three days earlier. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 32. According to John Doe, Gravelle had 6-10 marijuana plants growing in his garage. Id. at ¶¶ 33- 34. They were 3-4 feet tall, and were only two weeks away from harvest. Id. at ¶ 34.
John Doe added that Gravelle is a drug dealer who peddled marijuana, synthetic heroin, and steroids. Id. John Doe also divulged that Gravelle uses his vehicle to transport drugs. Id. And most importantly, John Doe said that Gravelle “uses the house to store synthetic heroin and steroids.” Id.
The application for the search warrant also summarized a second conversation between John Doe and law enforcement. On October 29, 2020, the day before the warrant request, John Doe spoke with Defendant David Lis, a detective. Id. at ¶ 35. John Doe shared that he saw marijuana plants in Gravelle's garage on October 29, 2020 at 8:00 p.m. Id.
Hileman never independently verified any of the information from John Doe. Id. at ¶ 70. None of the other Defendants did, either. Id. at ¶ 71. They never performed a title search, which would have revealed that Prokop - not Gravelle - owned the property in question, meaning 8840 South Ryan Road. Id. at ¶ 72. They didn't conduct a Google search, check with the utility company, or search a database (like Accurint, Spokeo, or LexisNexis) to verify Gravelle's address. Id. at ¶¶ 73-75.
The search warrant was subscribed and sworn (the complaint does not say by whom) on October 30, 2020 at 3:15 p.m.[1] Id. at ¶ 38. The state court issued the warrant. Id. at ¶ 39.
With the warrant in hand, officers from the Hometown Police Department met to discuss the plan to search 8840 South Ryan Road. The group included seven officers: Defendants Hileman, Dominguez, Lis, James Sullivan, John Borgens, Timothy Casey, and Marcin Stafira. Id. at ¶ 39. Again, Dominguez is the Chief of Police. Id. at ¶ 7. Hileman, Lis, Sullivan, and Borgens are detectives. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 10. Casey and Stafira are police officers. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12.
The officers then set up surveillance at 8840 South Ryan Road, meaning Gravelle's former home and the then-current home of Prokop and Coglianese. Id. at ¶ 40. The stakeout began around 5:00 p.m. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 88. One police vehicle was near the residence, and other vehicles were parked nearby. Id. According to the police report, they waited for two hours without seeing Gravelle. Id. at ¶ 41.
Meanwhile, as the officers waited, at 5:35 p.m. that same day, Prokop was driving in her car in Hometown. Id. at ¶ 42. A marked Hometown police car pulled her over, and Officer Stafira approached her vehicle. Id. at ¶¶ 43-44. Stafira told Prokop that she did not use her turn signal. Id. at ¶ 46. But the dash camera video shows that she did, in fact, use her turn signal. Id. at ¶¶ 47-48.
During the stop, Stafira asked for her license, registration, and insurance. Id. at ¶ 49. Prokop's license listed an old address (that is, not 8840 South Ryan Road). Id. at ¶ 51. But she had updated the Illinois Secretary of State website to show 8840 South Ryan Road as her current address. Id. at ¶¶ 52, 55. Stafira ran Prokop's license, seemingly noticed the difference in address, and asked Prokop if the address on her license was correct. Id. at ¶¶ 53-54. Prokop explained that it was wrong, and that she had changed it online to the correct address. Id. at ¶ 55. She also told Stafira that she bought the home at 8840 South Ryan Road. Id. at ¶ 56. After all that, Stafira let Prokop off with a warning. Id. at ¶ 47.
The complaint alleges that Stafira told the other officers what happened during the stop. Id. at ¶ 58. That is, Prokop believes Stafira “told the other Defendant Officers of what had occurred at the traffic stop and had told them that Plaintiff Prokop resided at 8840 S. Ryan Road.” Id.
The complaint doesn't explain why Stafira told the other officers about the traffic stop. On its face, the traffic stop would seem to be unremarkable. But reading between the lines, and with the benefit of the response brief, it seems that Stafira was part of the stakeout of the home. Id. at ¶ 39. And once the group saw Prokop drive away from the home - meaning the home that was involved in the stakeout - Stafira pulled her over. And then he told the group what had happened.
That reading isn't the only way to read the complaint. But it is a plausible reading. And if something else happened that is important, Plaintiffs can amend.
After Stafira let her go, Prokop went to the grocery store. Id. at ¶ 76. Plaintiffs allege, on “information and belief, ” that unspecified “Defendant Police Officers” followed her into the store. Id. at ¶ 77. Plaintiffs don't explain how some or all the officers followed her into the store while also staking out their house. Regardless, the complaint does not allege that anything important happened in the store, apart from some possible shopping for the soon-to-be BBQ. When she finished shopping, Prokop returned home to 8840 South Ryan Road. Id. at ¶ 78.
When she got home, Prokop prepared dinner using an outdoor barbeque. Id. Both Prokop and Coglianese made multiple trips in and out of the house, and any passerby could see them from the street. Id. at ¶¶ 79-80.
Prokop also left the garage door open. Id. at ¶ 82. A passerby could see the open garage from the street, too. Id. at ¶ 83. Plaintiffs left the garage door open the entire time they were cooking, and they left it open when they returned inside after finishing their barbecue. Id. at ¶ 84. Plaintiffs didn't keep any marijuana plants in the garage, and they allege that any person looking into the garage could have seen the absence of marijuana plants. Id. at ¶¶ 85-86. But Hileman's police report did not mention that there were no plants in the garage. Id. at ¶ 87.
Meanwhile the police spent two hours surveilling the property. Id. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial