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.

Kykta v. Ciaccio

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division

November 6, 2019

MYRON J. KYKTA, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF CIACCIO and BOB BANDELIO JUANEZ, Defendants.

          JEFF CIACCIO, BOB BANDELIO JUANEZ, Defendants.

          PAUL CARPENTER, Assistant State's Attorney ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS.

          MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

          Thomas Durkin Judge.

         NOW 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:

         1. This 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.

         2. 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 law.

         3. “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).

         4. “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).

         5. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages against Defendants.

         6. In 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 home.

         7. The 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.

         Traffic stop

         8. 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”).

         9. 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 ...


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.