Woods v. Vill. of Bellwood

Citation502 F.Supp.3d 1297
Decision Date24 November 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 19-cv-01214
Parties Isom WOODS, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD, a Municipal Corporation, Bellwood Police Department, Michael Adamski, and Cameron Woods-Ortiz, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)

Ramon A. Moore, Law Office of Ramon A. Moore, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Shawnte Miaundra Raines, John Patrick Reding, Jr., Ancel Glink, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendants Michael Adamski, Cameron Woods-Ortiz, Village of Bellwood.

Shawnte Miaundra Raines, Ancel Glink, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Bellwood Police Department.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Steven C. Seeger, United States District Judge Isom Woods celebrated his birthday with a night out clubbing in downtown Chicago. On his way home, he stopped for some late-night food, and then hopped on the interstate. But he soon noticed a change in his ability to drive. In his words, he felt "sleepy." So, instead of driving home, he decided to pull into a parking lot to rest. Woods was trying to be careful. But he ended up in the backseat of a police cruiser.

Hours after falling asleep in his truck, he awoke to two police officers shouting and banging on his windows, ordering him to get out of his vehicle. It turned violent. He claims that the two officers, Defendants Michael Adamski and Cameron Woods-Ortiz, dragged him out of his vehicle, tased him for no reason, and slammed him to the ground. But the officers tell a different story. They claim that Woods resisted orders and ignored their commands, necessitating the use of force.

They searched the truck, discovering a loaded semiautomatic handgun. That discovery led to criminal charges by the state for unlawful possession. But the state ultimately dropped the charges after the state court suppressed evidence of the gun, finding no probable cause for the search.

Woods later filed this case against the officers, the police department, and the Village of Bellwood, claiming false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and other claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment. By and large, the facts are hotly contested, with evidence on both sides, so a jury needs to sort it out. The motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff Isom Woods drove his red Chevy SUV to downtown Chicago for a night out. See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶ 1 (Dckt. No. 41). He drank "a few"he says two – Long Island iced teas, a beverage containing vodka, tequila, gin, rum, triple sec, sour mix, and cola. Id. at ¶ 2; see generally Long Island Iced Tea , Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_iced_tea (last visited Nov. 19, 2020) ("The drink has a much higher alcohol concentration (approximately 22 percent) than most highball drinks due to the relatively small amount of mixer."). Around midnight, Woods left the club, got into his vehicle, and decided to grab some late-night food. See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶ 3. He then headed home on I-290. Id. at ¶ 4.

Woods soon noticed a "marked change" in his ability to drive. Id. at ¶ 5. He started "getting sleepy." Id. So, he exited the expressway and pulled into a parking lot next to a gas station in Bellwood, Illinois. Id. at ¶¶ 5–6, 9. He parked his truck in a Dunkin Donuts parking lot. See Suppression Hr'g. Tr., Defs.’ Ex. B, at 7:7-21 (Dckt. No. 35-2, at 8 of 60).

He intended to "take a nap and then wake up and drive the rest of the way home." See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mtn. for Summ. J., at 2 (Dckt. No. 39). Woods says that he fell asleep around 1:00 a.m. Id. The nap lasted a while. He was still asleep at 5:30 a.m., more than four hours later.1 Id. ; see also Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶ 7 (Dckt. No. 41).

While Woods slumbered, a manager at a nearby BP gas station called 911 and reported the idled vehicle. See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶¶ 7, 9 (Dckt. No. 41). The manager reported that the truck had been sitting in the parking lot for over an hour. Id. at ¶ 7.

Officer Adamski ultimately received word of the 911 call. He received a complaint that someone was "passed out or sleeping in a red truck." Id. He was assigned to investigate a "suspicious vehicle." Id. at ¶ 8. When Adamski arrived on the scene, the gas station attendant pointed out the red truck. Id. at ¶ 11. (Adamski admits that he doesn't remember the manager saying anything – just pointing.) The parties disagree about whether the vehicle was appropriately parked in the parking spot. Id. at ¶ 12.

Officer Woods-Ortiz soon arrived, too. Id. at ¶ 17. The two officers approached the vehicle and observed someone "unresponsive in the front seat." Id. at ¶ 14. The unresponsiveness was not a good sign. Id. at ¶ 13. Officer Adamski thought that it was possible that the driver was just sleeping. Id. Or maybe it was a sign of drug use, intoxication, or death. Id. But the officers did not see any drug paraphernalia or open container of alcohol. See Defs.’ Reply to Pl.’s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 10 (Dckt. No. 50).

For three minutes, Officer Adamski pounded on the window, attempting to rouse Woods. See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶ 15 (Dckt. No. 41). Adamski yelled at Woods to wake up, and announced himself as a police officer. Id. at ¶ 16. No luck.

Officer Woods-Ortiz also began knocking on the passenger window, trying to wake Woods up. Id. at ¶ 17. It wasn't working. Despite the noise, Woods remained unresponsive. Id. at ¶ 18. As minutes passed, Adamski grew so concerned that he planned to call the paramedics for assistance with the seemingly-unconscious person. Id.

Finally, the persistent knocking and shouting did the trick. Id. at ¶ 19. Woods woke up, and saw the officers banging on the windows. Id. He had no idea how long the officers had been knocking on his windows. Id. at ¶ 20. Woods was disoriented. He was "startled and shaken up," and he "did not understand immediately what was going on." Id. at ¶ 22.

Adamski demanded that Woods open the door, and threatened to break the glass if Woods didn't comply. Id. at ¶ 24. The officers banged on the window, and Woods heard "get out the car, get out the car, get out the car." Id. at ¶ 26. Woods lowered his window halfway. See Defs.’ Reply to Pl.’s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 12 (Dckt. No. 50).

One of the officers ordered: "[L]et me see your hands, let me see your hands." See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶ 27 (Dckt. No. 41). The officers continued yelling and banging on the windows. Id. at ¶ 29.

In response, Woods showed his hands and then reached for something with his left hand. Id. at ¶ 28. He reached for the lever between the door and the driver's seat so that he could raise his seat. Id. at ¶¶ 28–29. He apparently reclined the seat before falling asleep to make himself more comfortable. Officer Woods-Ortiz saw Woods shift down toward the bottom of the seat. Id. at ¶ 30.

Maybe the act of reaching for something was a triggering event (according to the officers’ side of the story, that is). But Woods testified that he showed his empty hands to the officers after he raised his seat. See Suppression Hr'g. Tr., Defs.’ Ex. B, at 29:3-13 (Dckt. No. 35-2, at 30 of 60). He put up the seat, showed his hands again, and started to get out of the car:

Q: And when you went to raise your seat up, what did you do next?
A: I was showing him my hands and got out the car.
Q: And then you got out of the car? You did?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And that's the order that you did it in; right?
A: I let my seat up – I let my seat up. I'm showing him my hands, and I'm getting out the car.

Id.

Whatever the cause, the officers forcibly removed Woods from the vehicle. Eventually "the door was opened," but the use of passive voice hides who pulled the handle. See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶ 31 (Dckt. No. 41). Officer Adamski attempted to gain control of Woods to get him out of the truck. Id. at ¶ 30. It got physical. Id. at ¶ 32. Officer Adamski grabbed Woods by his arms and pulled him out. Id. at ¶ 31.

Up to that point, the parties largely agree on the underlying facts (except the part about Woods showing his hands after raising the seat). But from that point on, the stories diverge. The parties disagree about why things turned physical.

The officers claim that they were trying to deal with an unruly, non-compliant member of the public. The officers testified that Woods failed to listen to their verbal demands and failed to comply with instructions to open the door. Id. at ¶ 32. But Woods paints himself as a victim of heavy-handed police work. Woods testified that he "cooperated with the officers and obeyed their commands." Id.

Officer Adamski pulled Woods out of the truck. Id. at ¶¶ 33–34. Woods responded by pulling away. Id. Woods testified that he pulled away because the officer violently yanked and hurt his wrists. Id. Again, the parties tell different stories. The officers testified that Woods was resisting, and that Officer Adamski had a difficult time removing Woods from the vehicle. Id. at ¶ 36. But Woods insists that he was compliant. Id.

Things quickly escalated. Officer Woods-Ortiz shot Woods with the taser, hitting him in the back of his shoulder. Id. at ¶ 37. Again, the parties disagree about what happened next. The officers claim that Woods remained standing, so one of the officers grabbed him. Id. at ¶ 38. But Woods testified that one of the officers immediately slammed him to the ground after he was tased. Id.

Everyone agrees that the officers eventually restrained Woods on the parking lot pavement. Woods says that he suffered wrist lacerations

, a bloodied nose, and taser prong marks on his back. See Defs.’

Reply to Pl.’s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 18 (Dckt. No. 50).

One of the officers later discovered a loaded handgun in the truck. See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Statement of Facts, at ¶¶ 40–41 (Dckt. No. 41). The location of the gun is a point of contention, but the presence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ferguson v. Cook County, Illinois
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 22 d4 Julho d4 2021
    ... ... result of the proceedings."); Woods v. Village of ... Bellwood, 502 F.Supp.3d 1297, 1317 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ... (same) ... ...
  • Jinmei Zhang v. Schuster
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 2 d3 Março d3 2022
    ...indicative of innocence.” See Washington v. Summerville, 127 F.3d 552, 558 (7th Cir. 1997); see also Woods v. Village of Bellwood, 45 502 F.Supp.3d 1297, 1318 (N.D. Ill. 2020); Cui v. Kubycheck, 2021 IL App (2d) 200239-U, at ¶ 24 (2021). Even if the nolle prosequi was indicative of innocenc......
  • United States v. Roberson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 28 d3 Setembro d3 2022
    ... ... the police's caretaking function); Woods v. Vill. of ... Bellwood , 502 F.Supp.3d 1297, 1307 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ... (“The police ... ...
  • Pratt v. Logansport Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 25 d2 Janeiro d2 2022
    ... ... encounter did not implicate the Fourth Amendment.”); ... Woods v. Vill. of Bellwood, 502 F.Supp.3d 1297, 1307 ... (N.D. Ill. 2020) (“The police are ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT