Sutton v. Caro

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: Sunil R. Harjani, United States District Judge
• Docket Number: 1:25-CV-03923
• Decision Date: 18 December 2025
• Citation: Sutton v. Caro, 1:25-CV-03923 (N.D. Ill. Dec 18, 2025)
• Parties: ROBIN SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. JOSE R. CARO et al., Defendants.

1

ROBIN SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. JOSE R. CARO et al., Defendants.

No. 1:25-CV-03923

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

December 18, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Sunil R. Harjani, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Robin Sutton alleges that she was sitting in her parked gray car, while her son slept in the back seat, when a police car stopped next to her. Though she did not match the description of the suspect-a man in a red hoodie in a black car-the officers approached her and asked if she had seen anyone who did. She responded no and rolled up her window. But that did not end the encounter. The officers asked her to roll down her window, ordered her to exit the car, and, when she did not comply with these commands, forcibly removed her from the car. As she was handcuffed, the officers searched her bag and found a gun, leading to her arrest. Arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search and seize her, her son, and her belongings, Plaintiff asserts Fourth Amendment claims and state law claims against the officers^[1]and the City of Chicago.

Defendants argue that body-worn camera footage and Plaintiff's criminal file discredit Plaintiff's allegations and establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause for their conduct. On that basis, they move to dismiss the Complaint. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court's role is to ensure that Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief while assuming the truth of her allegations. Through that lens, Plaintiff sufficiently pled her unlawful detention and illegal search federal claims, and her state law claims of false imprisonment and battery until the time when Defendants discovered the gun. However, the Court finds that there is clear probable cause for her arrest after discovery of the gun, which warrants partial dismissal of her detention and state law claims and complete dismissal of her claim of unlawful seizure of her son. Additionally, her allegations are insufficient to plead excessive force. For these reasons the motion [17] is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

The Complaint alleges the following set of events, which are taken as true on a motion to dismiss. On November 10, 2024 Defendants-officers responded to a call of “a male wearing a red hoodie as seen with a gun in his hoodie pocket while sitting in a black Nissan sedan w/3 other occupants outside.” [1] ¶ 37. Plaintiff, a woman, sat parked in front of 5932 Elizabeth Street in Chicago, Illinois, in a gray Nissan with her two-year-old son when Defendants arrived. Id. ¶¶ 78, 10, 40, 43. She was not wearing a red hoodie. Id. ¶ 39. No other person was in the vicinity. Id. ¶¶ 9, 44. Officer Caro approached Plaintiff at her driver's side window and said, “[w]e're looking for someone - did you see someone come out here with a red hood[ie] somewhere?” Id. ¶ 11-13. Plaintiff said no and raised her window. Id. ¶ 14. Another officer opened her door, but Plaintiff pulled it shut. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. Officer Caro ordered her to lower the window and told another officer that “just one person” was in the car. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Plaintiff complied, but Officer Caro asked her to further lower the window, and then to step out of the car. Id. ¶¶ 19-21. When she refused, Officer Caro opened the door and attempted to pull her out of the car. Id. ¶¶ 24-26. Plaintiff argued that her son was in the car, but Officer Caro responded that her son was sleeping and insisted that Plaintiff exit the car, which another officer echoed. Id. ¶¶ 27-30. Officer Caro also asked her what she had in the bag across her chest, and he then reached for it. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff requested a supervisor before the officers forced her out of the car and handcuffed her hands behind her back. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. While other officers handcuffed Plaintiff, Officers Caro and Rico grabbed her bag, searched it, and removed a gun. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. After Plaintiff was placed in custody, Officer Rico drove her car, with her son inside, to the police station without Plaintiff's consent. Id. ¶¶ 48-49.

Alleging police misconduct, Plaintiff brings four federal claims for violations of her Fourth Amendment rights, and state law claims for false imprisonment and battery against all officers. She has also brought a state law indemnification claim against the City of Chicago. Defendants move to dismiss the six claims brought against the officers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the officers had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain and search Plaintiff, and that the officers are also immune from suit.

Discussion

On a motion to dismiss, the well-pleaded facts in the complaint are accepted as true, and reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff's favor. Esco v. City of Chicago 107 F.4th 673, 678 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S 544, 556 (2007)). “‘Under the federal rules' notice pleading standard, a complaint must contain only a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

I. Body-Worn Camera Footage and Police Reports

With their motion, Defendants submitted video exhibits of three of the officers' body-worn camera footage, which they assert contradicts Plaintiff's allegations and warrants dismissal. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider video footage attached to the motion if it is also “attached to the complaint” or is “referenced in the pleading [and] central to the claim.” Esco, 107 F.4th at 678. By considering a document that is referenced in the pleading and central to the claim, a court guards against a plaintiff evading dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “simply by failing to attach to his complaint a document that proved that his claim had no merit.” Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2004). At the same time, the reference requirement ensures that each party has notice of the opposing party's supportive evidence before the court uses it to rule on a claim. Id. (citing Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991) (“Where plaintiff has actual notice of all the information in the movant's papers and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint the necessity of translating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one under Rule 56 is largely dissipated.”)). The Seventh Circuit has indicated that a document submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff did not attach to the complaint but “has at least quoted from” is within the scope of appropriate materials at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Id. at 739.

An analogous case to ours is Haligas v. City of Chicago, 609 F.Supp.3d 619 (N.D. Ill. 2022), in which the complaint only made a cursory reference to body-worn camera footage submitted with the defendants' motion to dismiss. Id. at 624. The district court still found that the footage was incorporated by reference because some allegations asserted facts the plaintiff knew only from viewing the footage, such as her description of the defendants-officers' encounter with her son's father, and were central to the claims relying upon those allegations. Id. Though Plaintiff did not attach the footage to her Complaint or explicitly cite it, her allegations refer to it through direct quotations of the officers. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Caro asked her, “We're looking for someone - did you see someone come out here with a red hood[ie] somewhere?” [1] ¶ 13; [17-1] at 3:30-3:45. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that her son began crying when Officer Rico took him to the station, and Officer Rico told him, “It's okay. Relax, your mom's here.” [1] ¶ 50; [17-2] at 16:20-16:32. Plaintiff was not present for that interaction, but the statement is evident from Officer Rico's footage. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Plaintiff does not object to the Court's consideration of the footage and references it in her brief. See, e.g., Walker v. Gatsios, 2024 WL 4476118, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2024) (considering body-worn camera footage where plaintiff did not object and footage provided a complete picture of the arrest). Given all of this, the Court finds it entirely appropriate to consider the footage to ensure that Plaintiff's claims are plausible. Nevertheless, when considering the video footage, the Court will follow the Supreme Court's holding in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), that a plaintiff's allegations cannot be accepted where a video “utterly discredit[s]” them such that no reasonable jury could have believed the allegations. Haligas, 609 F.Supp.3d at 624 (quoting Scott, 550 U.S. at 380); Hyung Seok Koh v. Graf, 2013 WL 5348326, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2013) (same); see also Esco, 107 F.4th at 679 (confirming that the principle from Scott applies at the motion-to-dismiss stage). In considering whether Plaintiff states a plausible claim, the Court will consider the footage in the light most favorable to her. Esco, 107 F.4th at 679.

Along with the footage, Defendants attached to their motion Plaintiff's criminal file as of November 14, 2024, which contains her arrest and incident reports. Like the footage Plaintiff does not cite the reports in her Complaint, but her allegations quote the arrest report for the reported call of “a male wearing a red hoodie as seen with a gun in his hoodie pocket while sitting in a black Nissan sedan w/3 other occupants outside” and Defendants' description of her car as a “dark Nissan Sentra.” [1] ¶¶ 37, 41; [17-4] at 4. For the same reasons, these reports are also incorporated into the Complaint by reference. Haligas, 609 F.Supp.3d at 624; Hyung Seok Koh, 2013 WL 5348326, at *9-10. Similar to the camera footage, ...