Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LUCIEN v. ROEGNER

November 8, 1983

RUDOLPH L. LUCIEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROBERT C. ROEGNER AND LEWIS E. STONEHOUSE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Rudolph L. Lucien ("Lucien") brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") action against DuPage County police officers Robert C. Roegner ("Roegner") and Lewis E. Stonehouse ("Stonehouse"), charging them with an allegedly unlawful search and seizure of Lucien's apartment. This Court's April 13, 1982 memorandum opinion and order (the "Opinion") granted defendants summary judgment on Complaint ¶ 1. Now Lucien's remaining claims are at issue:*fn1

    1. Both sides have moved for summary judgment
  on Complaint ¶ 2.
    2. Defendants have also moved for summary
  judgment on Complaint ¶ 3,

  while Lucien asks for voluntary dismissal of that
  Paragraph.

For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, Lucien's motions are denied and defendants' are granted.

Facts

Lucien was convicted in Illinois state court on a rape charge. This action arises out of defendants' December 13, 1979 search of Lucien's apartment where the rape took place. Lucien's Complaint alleged three defects in that search:

    1. Roegner falsely told the magistrate issuing
  the warrant that the victim left her purse in
  Lucien's apartment (Complaint ¶ 1).*fn2
    2. Roegner, Stonehouse and other DuPage County
  police officers seized items not named in the
  search warrant, a seizure not authorized by any
  exception to the warrant requirement (Complaint
  ¶ 2).*fn3
    3. Roegner and Stonehouse planted two items of
  evidence in Lucien's apartment (Complaint ¶ 3).

All items seized by defendants were used in evidence against Lucien in his state court trial after his unsuccessful motion to suppress under Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, § 114-12 ("Section 114-12"). Lucien seeks return of the items seized, together with compensatory and punitive damages of $1 million from each defendant.

Complaint ¶ 2

Defendants contend Lucien is estopped from relitigating his Complaint ¶ 2 allegations because he had a full and fair hearing on the same issues via his state court motion to suppress. Collateral estoppel does apply to such Fourth Amendment*fn4 claims later asserted in Section 1983 actions. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96-105, 101 S.Ct. 411, 415-420, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Blake v. Katter, 693 F.2d 677, 682 (7th Cir. 1982); Reineman v. Valley View Community School District No. 356-U, 527 F. Supp. 661, 664 (N.D.Ill. 1981). But the inquiry does not end there, for collateral estoppel principles must be applied in light of the considerations identified in Crowder v. Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1010 (7th Cir. 1982):

  In order to determine when a party may
  appropriately be precluded from relitigating an
  issue decided adversely to it in an earlier
  proceeding, a court must examine whether the
  issue on which collateral estoppel is asserted is
  identical to that determined in the prior action;
  whether the controlling facts or legal principles
  have changed significantly since the prior
  judgment; ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.