NICHOLAS J. BUA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Placido LaBoy, Jr. is an inmate at the Cook County correctional facility. Seeking to recover monetary damages for several alleged violations of his civil rights, LaBoy asserts a variety of claims against Chicago police officers Richard P. Zuley, William Dorsch, and John Boyle. Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. For the reasons stated herein, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
On July 10, 1987, the Chicago Police Department received a report of an armed robbery. Upon arriving at the scene of the crime, the responding officer interviewed the victims of the robbery. The victims gave a description of their assailant and the vehicle he was driving. Several hours later, officers Zuley, Dorsch, and Boyle arrested Placido LaBoy -- the owner of the vehicle. The officers took LaBoy to the police station and placed him in a lineup. LaBoy was identified in the lineup as the perpetrator of the crime.
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, LaBoy was convicted of armed robbery and attempted criminal sexual assault. (87 CR 9971.) Shortly thereafter, LaBoy was charged in a separate indictment with committing three murders in 1979. (89 CR 13008.) He is currently awaiting trial for the alleged triple murder.
Claiming that he was unlawfully arrested and convicted of the armed robbery, LaBoy now seeks an award of monetary damages against Zuley, Dorsch, and Boyle.
LaBoy alleges that defendants, acting under color of law, violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In seeking damages for these alleged constitutional violations, LaBoy asserts a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. LaBoy further alleges that defendants conspired to obtain a conviction through the use of fabricated evidence and an overly suggestive lineup, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) and 1985(3). In addition, LaBoy seeks to hold defendants liable for perjury and subornation of perjury. LaBoy also asserts a claim for malicious prosecution against defendant Zuley. The court will now address each of these claims separately.
A. Section 1983
In support of his § 1983 claim, LaBoy alleges that he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. LaBoy further contends that defendants violated his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
As defendants correctly point out, LaBoy cannot pursue a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment: that clause applies only to federal officials. Johnson v. Carroll, 694 F. Supp. 500, 504 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Since defendants are employees of the Chicago Police Department, and not the federal government, the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable.
Whether or not LaBoy can maintain a claim under the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a more difficult question. As support for his Fourth Amendment claim, LaBoy alleges that defendants lacked probable cause for the arrest. LaBoy intimates that defendants impaired his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by fabricating evidence
and creating an overly suggestive lineup.
Defendants contend that LaBoy is estopped from litigating these issues because he raised the same issues in a prior state court proceeding. After his criminal trial, LaBoy filed several post-trial motions, including a motion to quash the arrest, a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the arrest, and a motion to suppress the lineup identification. The trial judge conducted a three-day hearing on these motions, in which both parties presented witnesses. After listening to the arguments of both sides and considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the judge denied all of LaBoy's post-trial motions. (Tr. 122.) The denial of LaBoy's post-trial motions, defendants argue, precludes LaBoy from recovering monetary damages in this civil rights action.
The defense of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, may be asserted in a § 1983 action to preclude relitigation of an issue of fact or law that was resolved in a prior criminal proceeding. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 103-05, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308, 101 S. Ct. 411, 419 (1980); Melmuka v. O'Brien, 574 F. Supp. 163, 165 (N.D. Ill. 1983). In deciding whether the prior state court proceeding is given preclusive effect, the district court must apply the preclusion laws of the state in which the prior judgment was rendered. Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81-83, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56, 104 S. Ct. 892, 896 (1984).
The Seventh Circuit has recognized that under Illinois law, evidence of a conviction is not admissible in a subsequent civil case as conclusive evidence of the facts underlying the conviction. See Brown v. Green, 738 F.2d 202, 206 (7th Cir. 1984) (citing Thornton v. Paul, 74 Ill. 2d 132, 384 N.E.2d 335, 23 Ill. Dec. 541 (1978); Bay State Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 96 Ill. 2d 487, 451 N.E.2d 880, 71 Ill. Dec. 726 (1983)). "The limited preclusive effect Illinois accords the fact of conviction is an apparent recognition of the difficulty in some cases of determining exactly what facts were necessary to establish the conviction." Stevenson v. City of Chicago, 638 F. Supp. 136, 138 (N.D. Ill. 1986). In contrast to the uncertainty concerning the exact factual basis underlying a conviction, a suppression hearing addresses a single, precise issue -- i.e., the admissibility of the disputed evidence. Id. There can be little doubt as to the factual and legal issues determined in such a hearing.
Admittedly, an Illinois court has yet to address the issue presented in this case: whether a plaintiff in a civil case is barred from relitigating issues resolved in a prior criminal suppression hearing. However, other courts in this district have applied the doctrine of issue preclusion to bar a § 1983 plaintiff from relitigating issues resolved in a suppression hearing in a prior state criminal case. See Stevenson, 638 F. Supp. at 141; Lucien v. Roegner, 574 F. Supp. 118, 120 (N.D. Ill. 1983); see also Melmuka, 574 F. Supp. at 165-66. Applying issue preclusion under such circumstances protects the "litigants from the burden of retrying an identical cause of action or issue with the same party or privy, and . . . enhances judicial economy by prohibiting repetitive litigation." Spiller v. Continental Tube Co., 95 Ill. 2d 423, 432, 447 N.E.2d 834, 838, 69 Ill. Dec. 399 (1983). To effectuate this underlying policy, the court concludes that issue preclusion may be used in a civil action to bar relitigation of issues determined in a suppression hearing.
The only question remaining is whether such a defense may be asserted in this case. Under Illinois law, issue preclusion is applicable if:
(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with one presented in the case under review, (2) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior litigation, (3) there has been a final judgment on the merits in the former suit, and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit.
Stevenson, 638 F. Supp. at 142 (citing Raper v. Hazelett & Erdal, 114 Ill. App. 3d 649, 652, 449 N.E.2d 268, 270, 70 Ill. Dec. 394 (1983)).
LaBoy, the party against whom the estoppel is asserted, was naturally a party to the prior criminal proceeding. LaBoy certainly cannot argue that he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues he now raises. The trial judge provided LaBoy with an extensive post-trial hearing. The judge heard evidence for three days. LaBoy even presented witnesses who did not testify at his trial. (Tr. 113.) In addition to presenting his own evidence, LaBoy had an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution's witness. Having participated in a full hearing, LaBoy cannot relitigate any issue that was decided in the hearing.
The first issue presented by LaBoy in this case is whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest. In his post-trial motion to quash the arrest, LaBoy raised the identical issue. After considering LaBoy's motion, the judge stated: "They certainly had probable cause. So I don't think the defendant had any basis at all to question the probable cause." (Tr. 118.) The judge then denied the motion. (Tr. 122.) The denial of LaBoy's post-trial motion prevents him from relitigating the same issue in this civil rights action. See Stevenson, 638 F. Supp. at 142 ("an order denying a motion to suppress may estop a subsequent damage claim against the arresting officer"). Indeed, the existence of probable cause is an absolute bar to a civil rights claim for false arrest. Friedman v. Village of Skokie, 763 F.2d 236, 239 (7th Cir. 1985); Terket v. Lund, 623 F.2d 29, 31 (7th Cir. 1980). Defendants' motion to dismiss that claim is granted.
In regards to the question of the suggestive lineup, that issue was also specifically addressed and ruled upon by the judge. In denying the motion to suppress the lineup identification, the judge stated: "There is no question in my mind that the four individuals in the line up looked extremely alike, extremely. . . . So as far as the motion to suppress the identification based on the suggestiveness, I heard no suggestiveness. . . . I don't feel that there is any suggestability [sic] in the identification." (Tr. 116-17.) In light of this ruling, LaBoy cannot contest the validity of the lineup in a subsequent action for civil damages. LaBoy's § 1983 claim based on the suggestiveness of the lineup cannot survive defendants' motion to dismiss.
Although LaBoy is estopped from asserting claims based on the arrest and subsequent lineup, issue preclusion is not an available defense with respect to the issue of fabricated evidence. At the post-trial hearing, the trial judge did not find it necessary to make an explicit finding on the question of fabricated evidence:
The defense brought out some inconsistent testimony of the police officer. It was indeed inconsistent. Why, I don't know. It concerned the hair on his pants which is a part of the evidence during the trial. Whether or not it was a crucial part of the trial, I am not certain. I don't think it would have made any difference one way are [sic] the other, whether they had the hair or they didn't have the hair. Why the testimony is inconsistent, I don't know. There is no reason for the officer to deliberately testify today inconsistently with his testimony before. So the only thing I can really attribute it to, certainly no one would outwardly commit perjury on two separate transcripts. I take it that he made an error. Whether the error was in the first testimony or the second testimony, I am not certain. But I don't think it -- I think it didn't effect the outcome of the case in any way whatsoever in my opinion.