United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division
MYRON J. KYKTA, Plaintiff,
JEFF CIACCIO and BOB BANDELIO JUANEZ, Defendants.
CIACCIO, BOB BANDELIO JUANEZ, Defendants.
CARPENTER, Assistant State's Attorney ATTORNEY FOR
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
COME the Defendants, JEFF CIACCIO and BOB BANDELIO JUANEZ, by
and through their attorney, Paul Carpenter, Assistant
State's Attorney for Winnebago County, Illinois, moves
this court, pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of
Procedure, to enter judgment in their favor as a matter law
with respect to Plaintiff's claim for compensatory and
punitive damages, and in support thereof states as follows:
is a Section 1983 Civil Rights action wherein Plaintiff
alleges Defendants stopped his car, and searched his person,
car, and home in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Defendants filed an affirmative defense, asserting that they
are entitled to Qualified Immunity for the actions that they
took in good faith, and were reasonable under the
circumstances, and did not violate any clearly established
“A plaintiff seeking to defeat a defense of qualified
immunity must establish two things: first, that she has
alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right; and second,
that the right in question was ‘clearly
established.'” Miller v. Harbaugh, 2012 WL 5064985
(7th Cir. Oct. 19, 2012), citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555
U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).
“Qualified immunity is intended to protect ‘all
but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate
the law, ', and will accommodate reasonable errors
‘because officials should not err always on the side of
caution because they fear being sued.'” Biddle v.
Martin, 992 F.2d 673, 678 (7th Cir. 1993), quoting Malley v.
Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d
271 (1986) and Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229, 112 S.Ct.
534, 537, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages against Defendants.
order to prevail on his claim for compensatory damages
Plaintiff must prove Defendants Ciaccio and Juanez each
unlawfully stopped his car and searched his person, car, and
incident which is the subject of Plaintiff's lawsuit
occurred in the course of arresting the Plaintiff. At all
times relevant to this cause of action, Defendants Ciaccio
and Juanez were deputy sheriffs acting within the scope of
their employment, and Plaintiff was the subject of an arrest.
Defendants Ciaccio and Juanez had information from a
confidential informant that the Plaintiff was delivering
drugs. This provided reasonable suspicion to stop his car, to
do an investigative stop (“Terry stop”).
Whether the confidential informant's conversations were
recorded, or was previously used as an informant is
irrelevant. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct.
2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), the Supreme Court held that
even an anonymous tip, if corroborated by independent police