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.

David v. Hageman

February 27, 2007

EDWIN C. DAVID AND WESLEY E. DAVID, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JACK HAGEMAN, BRAD COLBROOK, MICHAEL LUSTER, JAMES JACKSON, MARK GLEASON, DICK HEISE, BRIAN HILE, MARK LANDERS, JAKE KITNER, AND TROY BONNETT, DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

This matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Bonnett's Motion for Summary Judgment [#27] is GRANTED, and the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Hageman, Colbrook, Luster, Jackson, Gleason, Heise, Hile, Landers and Kitner (the "State Defendants") [#37] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

The Central Illinois Enforcement Group ("CEIG") is a multi-jurisdictional narcotics unit that enforces laws against the sale and manufacture of illicit drugs and is comprised of law enforcement officers from police agencies that include the Illinois State Police, as well as county sheriffs' departments and local police departments.*fn1 Defendant Jack Hageman ("Hageman") is a Master Sergeant employed by the Illinois State Police who was assigned to the CEIG at the relevant time. Also assigned to the CEIG from their positions with the Illinois State Police were Defendants Brad Colbrook ("Colbrook"), Michael Luster ("Luster"), and James Jackson ("Jackson"). Mark Gleason ("Gleason"), Dick Heise ("Heise"), Brian Hile ("Hile"), Mark Landers ("Landers"), and Jake Kitner ("Kitner") were assigned as Inspectors with the CIEG from their employment with the Leland Grove Police Department, Morgan County Sheriff's Department, Taylorville Police Department, Logan County Sheriff's Department, and Lincoln Police Department respectively. An Inspector with the CIEG has the powers possessed by sheriffs and law enforcement officers in cities of the State of Illinois, except that those powers can be exercised statewide when enforcing the duties conferred upon the Illinois State Police to regulate the production, sale, manufacture, possession, delivery, and distribution of controlled substances and cannibas.

On April 20, 2003, Jackson met with a confidential source who advised that William Bryles had recently completed a meth cook and was preparing to do another with James Bryles, Suzie Bryles, and Kenneth Teitsort ("Teitsort"). Jackson then drove the confidential source past the Bryles residence and conducted a brief surveillance of the Bryles' residence from the public roadways and thoroughfares. Jackson had never met any of the Bryles or Teitsort.

On April 30, 2003, at 12:14 a.m., Hageman obtained a search warrant for the Bryles' residence and the person of William Bryles for the seizure of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. The warrant further authorized the search of the persons of James Bryles and Suzie Bryles.

Prior to executing the warrant, the CIEG officers had a planning session in which a risk assessment was done that included obtaining criminal histories and other intelligence to determine the propensity for violence of the individuals that the officers believed would be present at the location, and an operation plan was developed. The officers were told that the Bryles had contact with law enforcement agencies in the past and had a tendency to be combative with the police, but there was no indication that the Bryles had previously committed crimes of violence. The equipment was checked and the officers were assigned to ride in certain vehicles to the Bryles' residence.

The officers then traveled to Goofy Ridge, Illinois, a remote rural area where the Bryles' residence was located. Plaintiffs, Edwin David ("Edwin David") and Wesley David ("Wesley"), live next door to the Bryles. The Davids' residence is located approximately 200 feet from the county road and approximately 200 feet from the Bryles' residence. Neither house is marked with a number or address on the structure. Although there was some sort of a poorly maintained hedge row between the houses, there were no signs or fences that separated/distinguished the two properties.

On the evening of April 29, 2003, the Davids built a bonfire in their yard between their property and the Bryles' residence. The flames of the bonfire were about two to four feet in the air. The Davids had been consuming alcoholic beverages in the afternoon and evening of April 29 and continued to do so into the early morning hours of April 30, 2003.

Suzie Bryles, one of the subjects of the warrant, had spent the evening with the Davids until she went to sleep in the Davids' house.

The officers pulled a van into David's driveway at approximately 12:45 a.m. on April 30, 2003, and another car driven by Hageman pulled in the Bryles' driveway. Jackson correctly identified the Bryles' residence for the other CIEG officers, who then exited the van and walked in the dark in a line via the driveway. As the officers went towards the Bryles' residence, they saw a bonfire and two white males standing at the fire. The fire raised some heightened concern for them because they had information that the Bryles had just completed a methamphetamine cook and it is customary for methamphetamine manufactures to burn their waste. The CIEG officers did not know the Davids or the Bryles, and the Davids have no evidence refuting the CIEG officers' claim that they initially thought that the Davids, who were standing around the bonfire, could have been the Bryles.

The CIEG officers were wearing gear that identified them as police officers. Five or six CIEG officers approached the men at the bonfire and surprised them. An officer ordered the Davids to get to the ground. Less than one minute elapsed from the time that the van carrying the CIEG officers arrived until the Davids were ordered to the ground. Wesley immediately complied, and no force was exerted against him. Although Edwin David was blinded by the lights on the van and petrified, he realized that armed officers were ordering him to the ground. However, he testified that he could not get to the ground fast enough.

Here, the versions of the facts drastically diverge. Defendants contend that when Edwin David did not immediately comply with the order to the ground, he was assisted to the ground with a straight arm to the chest area by Sergeant Colbrook, who then proceeded to the Bryles residence. After Edwin David was on the ground, Sergeant Luster approached, told him that someone would be with him soon, and made sure another officer was with him before proceeding to help secure the Bryles' residence.

According to Edwin David, "I'm trying to get down on the ground, and I couldn't get down quick enough, and they stomped me down and hurt my chest, and I raised up a little bit and they stomped me again." While he cannot identify which officer did this, he has conceded that he had no contact with Defendants Gleason, Heise, Hile, Jackson, Kitner, and Landers.

The Davids were not handcuffed at any time, nor were their legs shackled. They were not patted down or searched. The Davids remained on the ground for approximately 10-20 minutes while the Bryles' residence was being secured. While on the ground, they were asked to identification from one officer and were allowed to obtain the information from their wallets to give to the officer. Once the Davids were identified, they were allowed to get up. Their drivers' licenses were returned to them, and they were free to move about. No CIEG officers entered the Davids' house on April 30, 2003. ...


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.