Amended Complaint Suing The City of Aurora, Illinois

Case: 1:20-cv-02549 Document #: 32-1 Filed: 11/03/20 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:141
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANDY HOPE WILLIAMS JR.; )
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Case No. 20-cv-2549
)
THE CITY OF AURORA, MAYOR RICHARD ) Hon. Judge John J. Tharp Jr.
IRVIN AND CITY COUNCIL OF AURORA; )
KRISTEN ZIMAN in her individual capacity; )
SARGEANT TATE, OFFICER MATTHEW )
HUBER; OFFICER TIMOTHY YOUNG; )
OFFICER STEVE MARTIN; and OFFICER )
ANTONIO PISCOPO in their individual capacities )
)
Defendants. )
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. Our nation’s founding doctrines provide a bulwark against violations of official
power, including abuses by law enforcement. The Constitution prevents police officers from
exploiting their positions of authority to subject individuals to unwarranted discrimination based
on race, color, or natural origin.
2. The City of Aurora engaged in and continues to engage in a pattern and practice
of performing vehicle stops which violate the right to be free from unreasonable stops, searches
and seizures as well as the right to travel. Acting through the Aurora Police Department
(“APD”), the City of Aurora promotes a culture of racial profiling and discrimination, especially
against people of color like the Plaintiff.
3. The APD’s pattern of these violations against people of color is well-documented
as it maintains a discriminatory traffic stop policy that dates back to the 1990’s. The American
Civil Liberties Union detailed in a report called Illinois Traffic Stop Statistical Study Act of
2003; traffic stops data in Aurora, Illinois for African American and Latino motorists were far
more likely to be asked for consent to search their vehicle – 2.36 times and 1.63 times more,
1
respectively. Yet white motorists who were consent searched were far more likely to have
contraband than African Americans (30% more) and Latinos (46% more). (racial profiling) The
City still maintains a discriminatory traffic policy against people of color, especially blacks. The
majority traffic stops are Blacks who make up only 12% of the population but account for the
majority of traffic stops as in comparison to whites who make up 50% of the population.
4. Plaintiff brings the suit to bring a stop to these discriminatory practices and to
receive damages for the unlawful practices of the employees of the City of Aurora.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Andy Hope Williams Jr. is a resident of Illinois and has global
citizenship.
6. Defendant Mayor RICHARD IRVIN, CITY COUNCIL OF AURORA, and CITY
OF AURORA (“the City”) is a municipal corporation under the laws of the City of Aurora,
located in the Northern District of Illinois. It is authorized under the laws of the State of Illinois
to maintain the AURORA POLICE DEPARTMENT (“APD”), which acts as the City’s agent in
the area of municipal law enforcement, and for which the City is ultimately responsible. The City
is a local government within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The City is responsible for
funding APD and for the acts or omissions of APD.
7. Defendant the City was, at all times material to this Complaint, the employer and
principal of the Defendant Officers described below.
8. Police Officers: MATTHEW HUBER; TIMOTHY YOUNG; STEVE MARTIN,
ANTONIO PISCOPO, SARGEANT TATE and KRISTEN ZIMAN who are City of Aurora
employees with the APD. Each is sued in his or her individual capacity for violating the
2
individual constitutional and human rights of the named Plaintiff. They are referred to
collectively herein as the “Defendant Officers”
9. At all times material to this Complaint, the Defendant Officers acted under color
of state law as police officers of the City of Aurora, and acted in the course and within the scope
of their employment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1367.
11. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2),
STATEMENT OF FACTS
12. APD is the chief law enforcement agency in Aurora and has jurisdiction
throughout the City.
13. During the course of conduct described in this Complaint, the City and APD have
received federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Justice, either directly
or through another recipient of federal financial assistance.
14. As a condition of receiving federal financial assistance, the City and APD
certified that they would comply with all requirements imposed by Title VI and the federal
regulations implementing Title VI. The assurances signed by the City bind subsequent recipients,
including APD to which the City disburses the funds. The City and APD are responsible for
ensuring that APD complies with the requirements of Title VI and its implementing regulations.
15. During the course of conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants have
received funds from the Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) that are subject to the requirements
of the Safe Streets Act.
3
16. As a condition of receiving OJP grants, the City and APD certified that they
would comply with all requirements imposed by the Safe Streets Act.
17. In the early 1990s, APD adopted zero tolerance policing strategies that prioritized
officers making large numbers of stops, searches, and arrests for misdemeanor offenses without
ensuring robust oversight to hold officers accountable for misconduct and protect the
constitutional rights of City residents.
18. This was part of the former Aurora Mayor, David Stover’s “two-pronged
approach “to quell gang violence which involves “high-impact policing” in certain
neighborhoods. The theme was “zero tolerance for gangs, “enforced by a beefed-up Gang
Intervention Unit.
19. In the mid 1990’s APD began targeting suspected crack cocaine dealers because
Aurora had been known as a staging area for drugs according to DEA Special Agent William
Morley.
20. In an ongoing effort to combat drug and gang violence, the City and APD have
continued with the policies from the 1990’s by randomly stopping Black and Latino whom they
arbitrarily deem to look like drug dealers or gang members by conducting unconstitutional traffic
stops.
21. Aurora has a history of being known as a city where gang and drug activity
occurs, so the City has a policy of stopping any vehicle that they suspect the occupants may be in
a gang or a drug dealer. The City through APD has stereotyped and racially profiled individuals
based on the color of skin, your vehicle, the neighborhood one is driving in, or based on your last
name when it is run through the database the police use. For many years, APD has employed
policing strategies in certain Aurora neighborhoods that emphasize officers making large
4
numbers of stops, searches, and arrests, often for non-violent misdemeanor offenses, and with
minimal supervisory review. These tactics disproportionately impact Blacks.
22. On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff was driving on High Street in Aurora, Illinois.
23. Plaintiff was on the phone with his Boricua when a Ford Explorer started
following him for several blocks.
24. At or around 3:40 p.m., the Ford Explorer started flashing lights behind the
vehicle Plaintiff was driving.
25. Plaintiff was pulled over and four undercover Officers exited the Ford Explorer
and approached the 2015 Chevy Equinox Plaintiff was driving.
26. Officer Timothy Young approached the driver’s side of the vehicle while Officer
Huber, Martin, and Piscopo approached the passenger side
27. Plaintiff was very uncomfortable as the Defendant Officers approached the
vehicle because they were not in a regular squad car and it was four of them.
28. Plaintiff rolled down the driver’s side window and the Officer Young asked the
Plaintiff do you know why he was pulled over.
29. Plaintiff said no.
30. Officer Huber came to the passenger front side of the vehicle while Officer
Martin and Piscopo stayed by the passenger front door and passenger rear door.
31. Officer Young asked Plaintiff for his driver’s license and insurance as well as
where Plaintiff was going and where Plaintiff was coming from.
32. Plaintiff told Officer Young that he was committing no crime and did not have to
tell the Officer Young anything as he handed him his license.
5
33. Officer Young falsely claimed Plaintiff failed to signal 100 feet before making a
turn, disobeyed a stop sign and it appeared Plaintiff was coming from a known gang drug house
on Claim.
34. Plaintiff shrugged his shoulders and said that was a bunch of crap because the
Plaintiff did not fail to signal, did obey the stop sign and the Officers were not in a position to
see if Plaintiff failed to use his signal. Plaintiff asked the Officer Young what is a gang house.
35. Officer Young, Martin, and Piscopo went back to the Ford Explorer while the
Officer Huber stared at the Plaintiff from the right passenger corner of the vehicle.
36. Plaintiff rolled down the passenger side window and asked the Officer Huber with
why he was staring at him.
37. Officer Huber leaned in the window and rested his arms and body on the window
frame.
38. Plaintiff asked the Officer Huber to please get off the window.
39. Officer Huber said he did not have to move off the vehicle in an attempt to
escalate the traffic stop and agitate the Plaintiff.
40. Plaintiff did get agitated and raised his voice towards Officer Huber in an attempt
to get him to move in which he did not.
41. Officer Young came back to the vehicle and asked Plaintiff what was going on.
42. Plaintiff explained Officer Huber was not acting in his scope of duties during a
traffic stop and needed to get off the frame of the window.
43. The Officer Young told Plaintiff the officer was there for their safety because
many officers are killed during routine traffic stops and offered statistics.
6
44. Plaintiff in fear for his own safety asked that Officer Huber remove himself from
the window for the third or fourth time.
45. Officer Huber did not remove himself and only continued to stare at Plaintiff
46. Plaintiff asked Officer Young that he was ready to leave as he had been detained
for too long.
47. Officer Young began yelling at Plaintiff and stated that he was not free to go
anywhere because he was the police and had authority over Plaintiff. Officer Young explained
that Plaintiff was not free to go until he was told he was free to go.
48. Plaintiff became very agitated and called his Boricua at 4:49 to let her know that
he loved her and was unsure of the outcome of the traffic stop.
49. Plaintiff’s Boricua pleaded with him to remain calm and encouraged him that she
loved him and wanted him to come home.
50. At or around 4:57, the Officer Young gave Plaintiff two tickets and said it was
because Plaintiff was uncooperative.
51. During the duration of the traffic stop, Officer Martin and Piscopo remained at the
Ford Explorer and said nothing to Plaintiff.
52. Plaintiff proceeded to the Aurora Police Department to talk to the Sergeant on
duty and file a complaint.
53. The Sergeant on duty was Officer Tate and he came out to speak with the
Plaintiff.
54. Plaintiff explained the events of what happened to which Sergeant Tate admitted
there was surveillance in the neighborhood and there was a known gang houses in the area.
54. Sergeant Tate stated the tickets were punitive, but there was nothing he can do.
7
55. Plaintiff gave Sergeant Tate his business card and asked if they could set up a
meeting to have a dialogue about better policing in the community.
56. Sergeant Tate has not called the Plaintiff as the date of the filing of this lawsuit.
57. On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff sent a text to Mayor Richard Irvin explaining the
incident and asked if the City of Aurora would be interested in an implicit bias training and if the
City had a plan in place for the oppressed people.
58. The Mayor did not respond to that text as has not responded as the date of this
filing.
59. Plaintiff posted the incident on Facebook and ten people who are black shared
stories about how they were stopped for failing to use their turn signal 100 feet before the stop
sign.
60. The City of Aurora through the APD uses a policy that fabricates the failing to
use a turn signal 100 feet as a justification for probable cause to stop people of color, primarily
blacks like the Plaintiff.
Count I -42 U.S.C. § 1983

Unlawful Seizure-Fourth Amendment
Defendant Police Officers and City of Aurora (Not Tate)
61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.
62. At all times relevant to this claim, the officers were acting under color of state law
in their capacities as Aurora law enforcement officers.
63. Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person against
unreasonableseizure through false arrest.
64. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known of this
8
clearly established right.
65. The Defendant officers intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and excessively
subdued, restrained, detained, and falsely apprehended Plaintiff without any reasonable
suspicion, justification, or probable cause that a crime had been committed or was about to be
committed.
66. The Defendant officers forcibly seized Plaintiff’s body and forcibly and
intentionally restrained Plaintiff against his will, despite lacking any legally valid basis to do so.
67. The Defendant officers did not at any time have probable cause, reasonable
suspicion, or any other legally valid basis to believe that Plaintiff committed or was committing
any violation of the law prior to seizing and continuing to restrain him.
68. Defendant officers did not at any time have a warrant authorizing such seizure of
Plaintiff’s body
69. The Defendant officers’ actions, as described herein, were
undertakenintentionally, maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and/or in reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s federally protected and unalienable rights.
70. The Defendant officers engaged in the acts and omissions described herein
pursuant to the custom, policy, and practice of City of Aurora and the Aurora Police Department
which encourages, condones, tolerates, and ratifies false arrests, discriminatory traffic stops
against Blacks, unlawful seizures, and deprivation of constitutionally protected interests by law
enforcement officers.
71. The acts or omissions of Defendant officers, including the unconstitutional policy,
procedure, custom, and/or practice described herein, were the legal and proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s damages.
9
72. As a direct result of Defendant officer’s unlawful actions as described above,
Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer actual physical harm, embarrassment, humiliation,
emotional distress and economic injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, ANDY HOPE WILLIAMS JR., seeks for judgment against Defendant,
CITY OF AURORA, awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount in
excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000), attorney’s fees, costs, plus interest, and any
further relief this Court deems appropriate and just.
Count II-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

False Arrest Fourth Amendment
Defendant Police Officers and City of Aurora
74. The actions of the Defendants described herein constituted a false arrest, without
legal cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment,pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
75. The actions by the Defendants in falsely detaining, arresting, andimprisoning
Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion or probable cause violatedPlaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment
rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure,pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
76. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and
was undertaken intentionally, with malice and knowing disregard for Plaintiff’s
clearlyestablished constitutional rights.
77. The actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the
violations of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, pain, suffering, mentaldistress, anguish,
humiliation, loss of liberty, loss of income, and legal expenses, as setforth more fully above.
10
Count III-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Denial of Equal Protection Fourteenth Amendment
Defendant Police Officers and City of Aurora
79. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Under the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, discrimination based on color is presumptively unconstitutional
and subject to heightened scrutiny.
80. Officer Huber has been involved in other racially discriminatory traffic stops
which one in particular involved a Latino which resulted in death of the driver.
81. Plaintiff was stopped solely based on the color of his skin which discriminates
against him because whites are not stopped as often or as frequently when they drive through
certain target neighborhoods.
82. The Defendants treat blacks different than white citizens who drive through
certain neighborhoods when it pertains to traffic stops.
83. It is the policy of the City through the APD and the Special Operations Group
Officers who were involved in this traffic stop to routinely pull over Blacks for allegedly failing
to signal 100 feet before making a turn, when there are rarely any whites who are stopped for
failing to use their signal 100 feet before turning. If whites are pulled over, they are not issued
tickets unless contraband is found.
11
84. The discrimination against Plaintiff based on his skin color denies him the equal
protection of the laws, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
85. Blacks have suffered a long history of racially and discriminatory traffic stops in
Aurora when white people do not suffer the same experience. The City through the APD, Special
Operation Groups and Gang Task Forces have continued to deny Blacks equal protection of the
law when it comes to discriminatory traffic stops since its inception in the 1990’s under Mayor
Stover.
86. Blacks are a discrete and insular group and have yet gained the political power to
protect our rights through the legislative process equally. We have largely been unable to secure
explicit local, state, and federal protections to protect us against discriminatory traffic stops. Had
Plaintiff been a white male driving in the neighborhood he was in, he would have not been
stopped unless he was known to the Officers.
87. The actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the
violations of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, pain, suffering, mentaldistress, anguish,
humiliation, loss of liberty, loss of income, and legal expenses, as set forth more fully above.
Count IV-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights
ALL Defendant Police Officers and City of Aurora
89. Each of the Defendants, acting in concert with other known and unknown
12
co-conspirators, conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by
unlawful means.
90. Each of the Defendants took concrete steps to enter into an agreement to
pull over Plaintiff and allege he disobeyed a stop sign in an effort to find contraband when they
knew he did not violate any traffic rules. This is the City and APD’s policy when they knowingly
lack probable cause to stop Blacks; they conspire and fabricate the reason for the stop.
91. The City is aware of these acts because they have issued ordinances that allow for
discriminatory stops. See Article 1, Sec 29-15 and they have lost on appeal in a 2004 case where
they fabricated a police stop in against Hugo Mendoza. The City misuses their police powers for
the purpose of violating Plaintiff’s rights by conspiring with APD which allows Officers to
fabricate and issue tickets which are not based on probable cause and violate the constitution.
92. The City knowingly along with the Chief of Police allow Officers to fabricate the
reason for police stops against blacks, issue tickets which in turn provide revenue back to the city
and promotions for the officers.
93. As a result of this ongoing conspiracy, each individual Defendant is therefore
liable for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights by any other individual Defendant because they all
work in agreement with each other and agreed to violate the rights of the Plaintiff as it is the
policy of the City.
94. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff
suffered damages, including pain, suffering mental distress, anguish, humiliation, loss of income,
and legal expenses, as set forth more fully above.
13
Count V-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Failure to Intervene
Defendant Police Officers
96. During the events described above, the Officer Martin and Officer Piscopo stood
by without intervening to prevent the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though they had the opportunityand duty to do so.
97. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was
undertaken intentionally, with malice and knowing disregard for Plaintiff’s clearlyestablished
constitutional rights.
98. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ failure to intervene, Plaintiff
suffered damages, including, pain, suffering, mental distress, anguish, humiliation, loss of
liberty, loss of income, and legal expenses, as set forthmore fully above.
Count VI-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

National Origin and Color Discrimination under Title VI
Against City of Aurora and City Council
100. City of Aurora, a recipient of federal funds, intentionally discriminated against
Plaintiff on the basis of his race, color, or ethnicity in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights
14
Act of1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., by the discriminatory manner in which they racially
profiled and discriminatory stopped Plaintiff without cause, violating his constitutional right to
be free from unreasonable stops, searches, and seizures thus restricting his liberty.
101. Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, specifically states:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race,

color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
102. The City of Aurora’s actions against Plaintiff violate the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a violation of Title VI, when
committed by a municipality like the City of Aurora that accepts federal funds.
103. Plaintiff has been and fears that he will continue to be injured by the City of
Aurora because the City of Aurora has and will continue to deny him equal constitutional
freedoms because he is black due to the City of Aurora’s intentionally discriminatory policies
and procedures, unless the relief below, and possibly other actions, are enacted.
Count VII-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Failure to Train and Supervise
Against Kristen Ziman (Individual Capacity)
105. Kristen Ziman, as Chief of Police of the Aurora Police Department, maintains the
officers’ policies and procedures for Aurora Police Department, but Kristen Ziman failed to
15
properly train, supervise, and discipline the officers that discriminatorily stopped Plaintiff and
other Blacks which lead to violations of Plaintiff’s fourth amendment rights being violated.
106. Chief Ziman is and at all times was aware that Officer Huber and Officer Young
as well as other officers employed by the APD routinely make traffic stops against Blacks that
lack probable cause done in certain neighborhoods.
107. Rather than address than racial disparities regarding the traffic stops, Chief Ziman
turns a blind eye and fails to properly train and supervise the few rogue officers thus allowing
discriminatory stops to happen against Plaintiff and other Blacks.
108. The harm to Plaintiff done by the Aurora Police Department’s violations of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were foreseeable and a consequence of the Aurora Police
Departments failure to properly train and supervise the Aurora Police officers, making Aurora
Police Department deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff by failing to
properly train, monitor, supervise, and discipline its employees with respect to the use of
unlawful seizures and false arrests. Chief Ziman has stated:
“Due to the sheer nature of their duties, police officers must be

able to act independently and make decisions within the scope of
the authority granted them based upon their training, experience,
and knowledge of the law. In order for police officers to effectively
accomplish this, they must be free to exercise their judgment and
discretionary powers so they may initiate appropriate action in a
lawful and impartial manner without fear of reprisal. The police
officer must strive to do all this and more, while at the same time
recognizing the constitutional, statutory, and human rights of
each and every individual.
Upon the Chief of Police rests the responsibility of providing
and maintaining a system that addresses and investigates the
public's complaints. This system will not only subject personnel
to corrective action when wrong-doing or inappropriate conduct is
determined, but will also serve to vindicate personnel when duties
are properly and reasonably performed. It is imperative that
provisions be made for the prompt and objective investigation and
16
disposition of personnel complaints and criticisms regarding the

conduct and job performance of employees of the Aurora Police
Department.” Chief Ziman
109. Chief Ziman could have and should have pursued reasonable methods of training,
monitoring, supervising, and disciplining her employees as she is keenly aware as posted on the
APD’s website. However, as a result of her failure to keep her word, the constitutional rights of
Plaintiff’s and Blacks continue to be violated through these discriminatory traffic stops and
Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages to be proven at trial.
110. Chief Ziman knows about the conduct of the officers because she has received
complaints from the community, has been in several meetings with the residents of the
community, yet she still condones the behavior.
“Complaints alleging disagreements on traffic tickets, parking

tickets, or probable cause for an arrest are examples of complaints
that may not be taken. These decisions are for the Court to make
and not normally subject to review by the Aurora Police
Department.” Chief Ziman
CHIEF ZIMAN and City of Aurora pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, awarding compensatory
damages and punitive damages in an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars
($75,000), attorney’s fees, costs, plus interest, and any further relief this Court deems appropriate
and just.
COUNT VIII – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981

Ratification
Against Defendant City of Aurora
112. At all relevant times, Plaintiff had a constitutional right to be free from
discrimination,unlawful seizure and arrest under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
17
Constitution, incorporated to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
113. Plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from discrimination, unlawful seizure and
arrest was violated on August 27, 2019 when he was stopped by the Officer Young, Huber,
Martin, and Piscopo.
114. Plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from discrimination, unlawful seizure
was violated by Officer Young, Huber, Martin, and Piscopo, who are Aurora police officers
acting under color of state law.
115. A final policy maker, such as the Aurora City Council, Chief of Police Ziman
and/or Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin, acting under color of law, who had final policymaking
authority and disciplinary authority concerning the acts of Officer Young, Huber, Martin, and
Piscopo, ratified Officer Young, Huber, Martin, and Piscopo acts preceding the Plaintiff’s
incident and the bases of them.
116. The final policymaker knew of and specifically approved of Officer Young,
Huber, Martin, and Piscopo acts preceding the Plaintiff’s incident, which permitted Defendant
officers to remain in their position to permit such acts described above.
117. A final policy maker has determined that the acts of Officer Young, Huber,
Martin, and Piscopo were “within policy,” which permitted Officer Young, Huber, Martin, and
Piscopo to remain in their position to permit such acts described above.
118. As a direct and proximate result of the above acts and/or omissions of the City of
Aurora, Plaintiff was unlawfully detained and arrested on August 27, 2019.
18
Count IX
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(State Law Claim Against Defendant Officers)
120. The individual Defendant Officers’ conduct described above was extremeand
outrageous. The Defendants' actions were rooted in an abuse of power or authority. Defendants
intended to cause, or recklessly disregarded the probability that theirconduct would cause, severe
emotional distress to Plaintiffs.
121. Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress as a direct and
proximate result of the individual Defendant Officers’ actions.
122. Plaintiff is afraid to drive in Aurora and gets nervous every time he thinks he sees
an undercover police car.
123. Plaintiff fears that the SOG and some police officers will retaliate against Plaintiff
and start harassing him because he works in the community to end police brutality and
discrimination.
124. Plaintiff continues to see the images of the police officers and remembers August
27, 2019 as the day he feared he was going to be shot during the discriminatory traffic stop.
19
COUNT X – State Law Claim

Respondeat Superior
(State Law Claim Against City of Aurora)
126. In committing the acts alleged in this Complaint, each of the individual
Defendant Officers were members of, and agents of, the City, acting at all relevanttimes within
the scope of their employment.
127. Defendant City of Aurora is liable as principal for all torts in violation of
state law committed by its agents.
COUNT XII – Indemnification

(State Law Claim Against the City of Aurora)
129. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay ant tort judgment for
compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment
activities.
130. The APD Defendants are employees of Defendant City of Aurora who acted
within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct described above.
131. Defendants City of Aurora are thus liable under the theory of indemnification.
20
Dated: November 3, 2020
Respectfully submitted;
By:/s/ Andy Williams Jr.
Andy Hope Williams Jr.

P.O. Box 681
Westmont, IL 60559
630-479-7330
Hope5780@yahoo.com
21

Amended Complaint Suing The City of Aurora, Illinois

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Amended Complaint Suing The City of Aurora, Illinois

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case: 1:20-cv-02549 Document #: 32-1 Filed: 11/03/20 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:141

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1. Our nation’s founding doctrines provide a bulwark against violations of official

exploiting their positions of authority to subject individuals to unwarranted discrimination based

on race, color, or natural origin.

against people of color like the Plaintiff.

3. The APD’s pattern of these violations against people of color is well-documented

6. Defendant Mayor RICHARD IRVIN, CITY COUNCIL OF AURORA, and CITY

funding APD and for the acts or omissions of APD.

principal of the Defendant Officers described below.

8. Police Officers: MATTHEW HUBER; TIMOTHY YOUNG; STEVE MARTIN,

collectively herein as the “Defendant Officers”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

§§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1367.

throughout the City.

or through another recipient of federal financial assistance.

of the Safe Streets Act.

constitutional rights of City residents.

minimal supervisory review. These tactics disproportionately impact Blacks.

following him for several blocks.

vehicle Plaintiff was driving.

and approached the 2015 Chevy Equinox Plaintiff was driving.

Huber, Martin, and Piscopo approached the passenger side

Plaintiff do you know why he was pulled over.

29. Plaintiff said no.

tell the Officer Young anything as he handed him his license.

why he was staring at him.

escalate the traffic stop and agitate the Plaintiff.

to get him to move in which he did not.

the window for the third or fourth time.

for too long.

loved him and wanted him to come home.

because Plaintiff was uncooperative.

Ford Explorer and said nothing to Plaintiff.

duty and file a complaint.

meeting to have a dialogue about better policing in the community.

City had a plan in place for the oppressed people.

blacks like the Plaintiff.

Count I -42 U.S.C. § 1983

61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

in their capacities as Aurora law enforcement officers.

Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person against

unreasonableseizure through false arrest.

clearly established right.

65. The Defendant officers intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and excessively

69. The Defendant officers’ actions, as described herein, were

undertakenintentionally, maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and/or in reckless disregard of

Plaintiff’s federally protected and unalienable rights.

72. As a direct result of Defendant officer’s unlawful actions as described above,

emotional distress and economic injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.

CITY OF AURORA, awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount in

further relief this Court deems appropriate and just.

Count II-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

73. Paragraphs 1 through 72 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

legal cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment,pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

75. The actions by the Defendants in falsely detaining, arresting, andimprisoning

Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion or probable cause violatedPlaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure,pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

clearlyestablished constitutional rights.

violations of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, pain, suffering, mentaldistress, anguish,

CITY OF AURORA, awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount in

further relief this Court deems appropriate and just.

Count III-Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983