United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. Zagel United States District Judge
Antwoine Hill and Clyde Jackson allege that they were
deprived of certain rights secured by the U.S. Constitution
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They allege that Defendant Chicago
Police Detectives, Roger Murphy and Thomas Carr, falsely
arrested them, conducted an unlawful search, conspired to
violate their constitutional rights, violated their right to
due process under the law, and maliciously prosecuted them.
They allege that the City of Chicago is also liable for these
constitutional deprivations. In their Second Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs also allege that the City of
Chicago is liable for maintaining a policy of permitting
police misconduct. Before me is Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the
following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted on all
counts except the policy claim against the City of Chicago.
case arises out of a murder, the Chicago Police
Department's investigation of that murder, and the
subsequent trial of the accused.
New Year's Day Shooting and Initial
January 1, 2013, Kelvin Jemison was fatally shot outside a
Chicago Housing Authority Apartment Complex in Chicago. At
the time of the shooting, Jemison was accompanied by his
friend Dwayne Rolle.
Chicago homicide detectives for the Chicago Police
Department, Detectives Roger Murphy and Thomas Carr
(“the detectives”) were assigned to the case and
arrived at the murder scene late in the afternoon the day of
the shooting. They contacted CHA video analyst Jon Hall to
obtain access to the security camera footage of the shooting
incident and asked to see all footage related to the event.
Two different security videos showed a man with a handgun
chasing Jemison and Rolle and firing at Jemison and Rolle.
The videos showed the shooter running back towards a parked
car after firing the handgun. A third video showed a dark
sedan driving away from the area of the parked car. None of
the video footage showed a lookout standing next to the
detectives spoke to the uniformed officers on location and
interviewed several witnesses. Two witnesses, Miranda and
Franshaun Delaney, provided the detectives with the names of
those suspects named by Miranda and Franshaun Delaney are the
two plaintiffs in this case, Clyde Jackson and Antwoine Hill.
The third suspect identified by the witnesses, Anthony
Robinson, was eventually found guilty of murdering Jemison.
The detectives obtained photographs of all three suspects and
used the photos to create three photo arrays. One witness,
Tikiea Poe, identified Anthony Robinson as the driver of a
vehicle around the apartment complex prior to the shooting.
Delaney told detectives that Jemison had slept over at her
home the night prior to the shooting with his friend Dwayne
Rolle. Delaney also told the detectives that after she heard
the gunshots, she saw Rolle running away from the gunshots
towards her apartment. When Rolle reached the apartment, he
told Delaney that that “B-A” and
“Twan” were the offenders. “B-A” is
Anthony Robinson's nickname and “Twan” is
Plaintiff Antwoine Hill's nickname. Delaney also
testified that she knew Jemison was having issues with a
rival gang and that Robinson and Hill were members of that
mother, Miranda Delaney, confirmed that Rolle ran back to the
house after the shooting, and she recalled Rolle saying that
Robinson, Hill and Plaintiff Clyde Jackson were responsible
for the shooting.
Dwayne Rolle's Participation in the
on the testimony of these witnesses, the detectives sought
out Rolle for questioning. The detectives brought Rolle to
the Area Central police headquarters on January 8, 2013 to
ask him about the shooting. At the time of questioning, Rolle
was 17 years old and had an active juvenile warrant for his
arrest. The detectives did not arrest Rolle, and Rolle
confirmed that he was free to leave throughout this
questioning. The police had Rolle view the three photo arrays
and sign a form acknowledging that the suspect may not be in
the photo spread, that he was not required to identify
anybody, and that he need not assume the person administering
the form knows which person is a suspect. Rolle then marked
an X over the photographs of Robinson, Hill, and Jackson on
three photo arrays.
Rolle meant by marking these three photos with an X is now
the subject of dispute. During subsequent questioning by Cook
County Assistant State's Attorney Marina Parra, Rolle
acknowledged that he marked an X over the photos of people he
thought were involved in the January 1 shooting. But when the
case was brought to trial, Rolle testified that he was
marking an X over people he knew, regardless of their
involvement in the crime. Even with this contradicting
testimony, it is undisputed that at the time Rolle marked the
photos with an X, he had just signed the photo array
acknowledgment which specifically mentions that the photos
might involve “suspects.” Rolle did not
communicate any confusion about the meaning of his markings
to the police at the time he made the marks.
the photo identifications, an Assistant State's Attorney
interviewed Rolle. During this interview, Rolle confirmed his
identifications of the three suspects.
February 12, 2013, the detectives sought and obtained felony
charges for first degree murder against Clyde Jackson.
Following the arrest, the detectives picked up Rolle, had him
sign the lineup advisory form again, and he identified
Jackson in a lineup. Again, the parties dispute the precise
meaning of this identification, whether Rolle was identifying
Jackson as a suspect in the January 1 shooting or just
pointing out that he knew Jackson. On February 14, 2013,
Rolle again filled out a spread advisory form and identified
Robinson in a line-up as the individual who shot his friend
February 14, Rolle sat down for questioning with Cook County
ASA Parra. In this videotaped interview, with the detectives
present, Rolle confirmed the following by responding
“yes” or “no” to the ASA's
questions. On January 1, 2013, Rolle and his friend Jemison
were going shopping for shoes. He saw a car and could see
Robinson in the front passenger seat, and the two plaintiffs,
Hill and Jackson, in the back seat. During the videotaped
interview, he identified each individual in a photo array,
identified Robinson as the shooter, and identified Plaintiffs
as passengers of the car that he saw just prior to the
shooting. Rolle testified that while running away from the
shooting, he glanced back to see Robinson shooting.
Furthermore, Rolle acknowledged that he intended the markings
on the photo arrays to identify the three suspects as being
involved in the shooting. Rolle told the ASA that the police
treated him well during the interview process, confirmed that
they had not made any threats or promises, and confirmed he
was making his statements freely and voluntarily.
Hill was arrested on February 23, 2013, and the detectives
sought and obtained felony charges for first degree murder
against Hill. On February 24, 2013, the detectives conducted
yet another photo line-up. Rolle signed the spread advisory
form and again identified Hill as one of the individuals in
the car on the day of the shooting.
detectives point to corroborating evidence to bolster their
argument that they had probable cause to arrest Hill and
Jackson. Plaintiffs point to evidence that contradicted the
story that Rolle told at the time he told it.
arresting Plaintiff Jackson, the detectives conducted a
polygraph exam with Jackson, and he showed deception on the
test when he denied knowledge or involvement in the homicide.
Jackson also offered an alibi for the day of the shooting.
When Detective Murphy contacted both alibi witnesses, they
could not corroborate the story. In his interrogation with
police officers, Jackson admitted to knowing the victim, said
that the victim had beat him up previously, and that Jackson
had been shot by members of the victim's gang. Detectives
suggest that this evidence gave them further proof that
Rolle's account was credible.
point to the surveillance video to argue that the detectives
unreasonably relied on the version of the story that Rolle
first provided to them. The video shows Rolle and Jamison
running down a parking area away from the shooter and then
shows the shooter running back to a car, but the video does
not show anybody standing by the car as a lookout.
Rolle's account of the events placed Hill and Jackson by
the car as lookouts. Defendants explain this discrepancy by
noting that the video analyst Hall told the detectives that
the video was motion activated and thus might not ...