The opinion of the court was delivered by: MATHEW KENNELLY, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Valerie Horne and several of her family members have filed a
six-count complaint against Maywood police officer Dwayne Wheeler
and the Village of Maywood, asserting claims pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental state law claims for defendants'
role in obtaining and executing a search warrant at the Horne
family residence. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that
defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by conducting
an unreasonable search of the premises, improperly detaining
them, using excessive force, and failing to knock and announce
before entering the home. Valerie, Verina, and Vernita Horne
assert state law claims of assault and battery. Finally, each
plaintiff alleges state law claims of intentional infliction of
emotional distress and false imprisonment. This case is before
the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the
reasons stated below, the Court grants Wheeler and the Village's motion with respect to the plaintiffs' federal claims and
dismisses the state law claims for lack of supplemental
On September 27, 2002, Wheeler obtained a search warrant from
Judge Donna Cervini to search "a M/B named Aaron Rice . . .
nicknamed `Hank' and the 1st floor apartment door located on the
east side of the building located at 2947 W. Warren Blvd.,
Chicago, Cook County, IL." Defs' Ex. 8. The apartment described
in the warrant is the Horne residence. Among other things, the
warrant provided that officers could seize heroin, guns, and drug
Wheeler's complaint in support of his request for the search
warrant stated that he had probable cause to believe that the
items to be seized were located upon Rice and in the premises.
The complaint contained a summary of information provided to
Wheeler by a confidential informant, including the informant's
belief that Rice resided at 2947 W. Warren and sold drugs out of
his bedroom in that apartment. The confidential informant, whose
name defendants have chosen not to reveal in this case, had been
arrested on September 26, 2002 after Wheeler and another officer
observed the informant selling heroin. The informant was charged
with possession of a controlled substance, aggravated fleeing,
and fleeing and eluding. Because the reliability of the
informant's statement is at issue, we will briefly discuss the
circumstances surrounding his statements to police.
Subsequent to his arrest, the informant admitted during an
interview with Wheeler and detective Lawrence Connor that he had
been selling heroin. He advised the police that he had been
selling heroin for fifteen years and that "Hank," whom he had
known for approximately five years, had been his supplier.
According to the informant's signed statement, he had purchased heroin from Rice over 300 times in the previous five years,
including fifteen times in the month prior to his arrest, the
most recent being the day before his arrest, when he purchased
the heroin confiscated by police. The informant stated that the
heroin transactions would occur in "Hank's bedroom" at 2947 W.
Warren and that he had seen three guns in the bedroom and living
room, and a scale and baggies in the bedroom. The informant also
provided police with a diagram of the apartment layout.
Defendants acknowledge that the confidential informant had
previously been arrested six times, including four times for
felony possession of a controlled substance and retail theft.
According to defendants, the informant was not promised any sort
of leniency for his cooperation.
Later on the evening of the informant's arrest, Wheeler and two
other officers drove the informant to 2947 W. Warren. The
informant directed them to the apartment, identified the
residence, and repeatedly confirmed that it was the location
where he had purchased drugs from Rice. The next morning,
officers conducted surveillance on the 2947 W. Warren address but
did not observe anyone entering or leaving the apartment.
After obtaining a statement from the informant, Wheeler
maintains, he visited the 11th District Police Station in Chicago
and spoke with tactical officers. The officers advised him that
"Hank" was Aaron Rice, a known drug dealer, whose house had
previously been hit with search and arrest warrants. According to
Wheeler, the officers also told him that Rice did not live at
2947 W. Warren, but instead lived kitty-corner to that building.
Wheeler ran a background check on Rice and confirmed that he
lived across the street from the apartment where the informant
said he had purchased drugs from Rice. Though Wheeler was aware
that Rice did not reside at the apartment listed in the warrant,
he did not include this information in his complaint, nor did he advise Judge Cervini of this fact. In addition, the police
took no steps to ascertain who actually resided at the address
listed in the warrant.
Prior to presenting the complaint to Judge Cervini, Wheeler
received authority to obtain the search warrant from his
superior, Lieutenant Jose Mazariegos, and also obtained approval
from an assistant state's attorney. Wheeler and the confidential
informant then met with Judge Cervini. Cervini questioned the
confidential informant under oath for approximately fifteen
minutes, asking him about his prior arrests for narcotics, the
body of the search warrant, whether the police had promised him
anything, the number of times he had purchased narcotics from the
apartment located at 2947 W. Warren, whether the officers had
taken him to that address, and whether he had pointed out the
exact address where he purchased the drugs. Defs' 56.1 Stmt. ¶
51. After reviewing the documents and conducting the interview,
Judge Cervini issued the search warrant.
At approximately 8:45 a.m. on September 28, 2002, Maywood
police officers executed the search warrant at 2947 W. Warren.
Though certain of the facts relating to what occurred during the
search are in dispute, it is clear that a group of police
officers breached the front door of the apartment using a
battering ram and entered the residence. The police officers were
wearing black gear and carried long-barrel rifles and "flash
bands," and some wore masks. Defendants state that Mazariegos was
the officer in charge at the scene and that Wheeler was assigned
to watch the back of the house and did not enter the premises
until after residents were secured in the living room.
At the time of the search, Valerie Horne was at home with her
children, Verina, age eighteen, Vernita, age sixteen or
seventeen, Verlisa, age eleven, Vernon, age seven or eight, and Valerie's granddaughter, Verlinsia, age three. The parties
dispute the level of force police used, but they agree that the
officers gathered the Horne family members in the living room,
where they remained for the duration of the search. It is
undisputed that Valerie, Verina, and Vernita were handcuffed
while the officers conducted the search. Defs' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 65,
67, 80, 81, 83. Likewise, it is undisputed that in the process of
gathering family members in the living room, a police officer
grabbed Verina's arm, threw her to the floor, and placed a gun to
her head. Id. ¶¶ 79-81. Plaintiffs also allege that officers
placed guns to the heads of Valerie and Vernita. The search
lasted for approximately thirty to forty-five minutes.
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). To
determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the
Court views the record in the light most favorable to the Hornes,
the non-moving party in this instance, drawing reasonable
inferences in their favor. Id. at 322. Nonetheless, a party
opposing summary judgment may not simply rest on the pleadings
but must instead affirmatively demonstrate that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 771
(7th Cir. 2003); see also Davis v. GN Mortgage Corp., 244 F.
Supp.2d 950, 955 (N.D. Ill. 2003) ("A defendant is entitled to
put the plaintiff to his proofs and demand a showing of the
evidence."). Thus, the Hornes must produce specific facts to
support their contentions rather than relying on speculation and
conclusions without factual support. Rand v. CF Industries,
Inc., 42 F.3d 1139, 1146 (7th Cir. 1994). The Court will address each count of the complaint in turn.
1. Unreasonable search ...