"

o

o

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRlCT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL LEDFORD, JR., and

)

KAREN LYNN and on behalf of

LalEl DpeFrOsoRnDs ,siimndiliavrildyuall\yl,.\)~\\

situated,

~~t~;. ~-

JUDGE HART

Plaintiffs,

\~~
~)

v.

)

No. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEYS

)

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,

)

OOC 4212

)

Defendant.

)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, make their Complaint against defendant as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights class action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983

and 1988 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for

violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Equal

Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title

VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and the administrative

regulations of the United States Department of Justice effectuating Title VI, 28 C.F.R. §

42.101 et seq.

II, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).

3. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because all of

-

• ,

o

o

the events giving rise to the claims in this Complaint occurred within the Northern District of Illinois.
III. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Michael Ledford, Jr. is a resident of the City of Highland Park, Illinois. He is and appears to be African-American. 5. Plaintiff Karen Lynn Ledford is a resident of the City of Highland Park, Illinois. She is and appears to be African-American. 6. Defendant the City of Highland Park is a duly constituted municipal corporation under the laws ofthe State of Illinois. The City operates the Highland Park Police Department ("HPPD").
IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 7. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who in the past have been, or who in the future are subjected to any policy, practice or custom which has the result of or requires Highland Park Police Department officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.
8. All of the prerequisites to a class action as stated in Rule 23(a) are satisfied
by this class: (a) Numerous individuals have been or will be subjected to the
policies, practices, and customs alleged herein. Therefore, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

2

o
(b) There are questions of law and fact common to the plaintiff class. The common questions include whether the policies, practices, and customs described herein violate the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clausc, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Department of Justice regulations promulgated pursuant to Title VI.
(c) The claims of plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class: they were targeted for surveillance, stopped, detained, interrogated, and/or searched pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs challenged here, as was each member of the class.
(d) Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class: they have no interest antagonistic to the class; they seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the entire class and such relief will benefit all members of the class; and they are represented by counsel who are competent and experienced in civil rights and class action litigation.
9. The class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because defendant has engaged in a course of conduct common to all members of the class, and final declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiff class is therefore appropriate.
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Defendant maintains policies, practices, and customs which have the result of or require HPPD officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race. 11. On repeated occasions during 1998 and 1997, HPPD officers stopped, detained, interrogated, and/or searched Michael Ledford, Jr. pursuant to the policies, practices and customs set forth above.
3

.
12. On April 11,2000, an HPPD officer targeted Karen Lynn Ledford for surveillance pursuant to the policies, practices and customs set forth above. On at least one prior occasion, HPPD officers stopped, detained, and interrogated Karen Lynn Ledford pursuant to the policies, practices and customs set forth above.
13. During the time relevant to each of the incidents above, plaintiffs did not violate any local, state or federal law, and there was no cause to believe they had done so.
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 14. Defendant's actions discussed above violate plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 15. Defendant's actions discussed above violate plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 16. Defendant's actions discussed above violate 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. 17. Defendant's actions discussed above violate 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Enter a declaratory judgment that defendant's policies, practices, and customs described above violate the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Department of Justice regulations effectuating Title VI. B. Enter a permanent injunction:
(a) prohibiting all HPPD officers from considering in any fashion and to any degree the race or ethnicity of civilians in deciding to surveil, stop, detain, interrogate, request consent to search, or search; except that in circumstances where
4

•

o

HPPD officers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for a specific individual sought in connection with a specific crime who has been identified or described in part by race or ethnicity, HPPD officers may rely in part on race or ethnicity in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought;
(b) requiring defendants to collect and maintain comprehensive records of all contacts with persons subjected to surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches in Highland Park, including those contacts that do not result in the issuance of citations, and to include in these records the race and ethnicity of all individuals involved;
(c) ordering defendants to submit a plan to the Court for its approval providing for effective preventive mechanisms to ensure that racially discriminatory surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches do not continue in the future.
C. Award plaintiffs' costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
D. Award such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

5

•

o

DATED: July 12,2000

HARVEY GROSSMAN ADAM SCHWARTZ Roger Baldwin Foundation
of ACLU, Inc. 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 201-9740

PAUL E. GREENWALT III MATTHEW J. FISCHER CAROLYN MOREHOUSE Schiff Hardin & Waite 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5500

6

· ,
()
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Adam Schwartz, an attorney, hereby certify that on the 12th day of July, 2000, I caused to be served to the party listed below a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT, via messenger delivery, before the hour of 5:00 pm.
TO: Steven M. Elrod Holland & Knight 55 W. Monroe, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60603
J~~
By:-+__+-__'__'~~T-~--~~ One1of the Plainti

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
tlOtlE1£ FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS" EASTERN DIVISION

~ MICHAEL LEDFORD, JR., and
KAREN LEDFORD, individually and on

behalf of all persons similarly situated,

~

Plaintiffs,

)

.It: 14 'ld
,JUDGE HART

(n ,-

/'.Lf~

I.X)
t:;;
~ LI~J I c:.:;

:;::
"I~
"J

'.;;)
Iw'::>
>::::t-
C!:,:U
tun::
~"-!l-

0(1)

L~"~ --:::-:,:',}

a

(I)

0 CJ

:::)

)

v.

) )

NOOOC 4212

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,

)

)

Defendant.

)
'MAGISTRATE lODGE KEYS

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: Steven M. Elrod Holland & Knight 55 W. Monroe, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60603

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 12th day of July, 2000, we filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, a COMPLAINT, a copy of which is attached hereto and served upon you.

HARVEY GROSSMAN ADAM SCHWARTZ Roger Baldwin Foundation
of ACLU, Inc. 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 6060 I (312) 201-9740

PAUL E. GREENWALT III MATTHEW 1. FISCHER CAROLYN MOREHOUSE Schiff Hardin & Waite 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5500

JS 44 (Rev. 12/96)

·rd- -n

n

CIVIL COVER SHEET'

The JS-44 civil cover sheet an

containBf;i herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service 01 pleadings or other papers as requirec

by law. except as provided by local rules of court. This form. approved by tI1e Judicial Conference of tI1e United States in Seplember 1974. is required Ie< It1e US

of tI1e Cieri< of Court for the purpose of initiating tI1e civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

~~PAA...~roDGE Kf YSEFENDANTS

A '>1.2 NICHAEL LEDFORD, JR.
KAREN LYNN LEDFORD

Mt\

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK

O~I~('i ~c~ RE~~1 all'persons similarly situated

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRSi USTED PLAINTIFF :-::L::a"'k:::::ec-_ _ _ _.:::._',

OF

" ,

EFENOANT =:"L~aEl&,,"'--__";;,,,;-,_-'-_

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASIES:PN LV}

is

NOTE:

IN LANO CONDEMNATION CASES, U]S'~lE LOOATION Qf)THE

TRACT OF LAND INVOLVeo.

~~'•"j

~ "';;-0

~r

Harvey Grossman \tV (c) ATTORNEYS (FlAM NAME. ADDRess. AND TELEPHONE NUMB"\'1 w

• , .'
n~

,.a, \1\ Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. t))VW

180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago IL 60601

~

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

\R; 0W ,,..,'..,I L_010>:-:

~J:~yen M. Elrod

\ ,UtI)

Hoiland & Knight

'w-,_-:3 0

55 W. Monroe, Suite 800

-,

rh',

TT <,,<,,~

Cl

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

(PLACE AN "X" !N ONE BOX ONLY)

o 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

lI3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN 'X" ,N ONE BOX FOR P.....NW

(For Diversity Cases Only)

AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)

PTF DEF

PTF IlEF

Citizen of This Stale

01 01 Incorporated or Principal Place 04 04 of Business In This State

o 2 U.S. Government Defendant

04 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties
in Item III)

Citizen of Anctl1er Stale 0 2 02
Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Country

Incorporated and Principal Place 05 05 01 Business In Another State

Foreign Nation

DB O!

IV. ORIGIN
XI , Original
Proceeding

0 • RemOVed from Stale Court

(PLACE AN 'X" IN ONE BOX ONLy)

0 3 Remanded tom o 4 Reinstated or

Appellate Court

Reopened

Transferred from o 5 another district
(specify)

o • MuitidistrJet
Litigation

Appeal to 0isIIic Jud~e from
o 7 Magistra1e
Judgment

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN 'X"IN ONE BOX ONLy)

CONTRACT
0110 Insurance 0120 Marine
o 130 Miller Act o 140 Negotiable InstrUment
o 150 Recovery of OVe6FJiyment & Enforcement Judgment 0151 MedlcareAct
o 152 RecovelY of Defaulted Student Loans IExc!. Veterans)
o 153 Recovery or OVerpayment of Veteran' s Benefits
o 180 Stockhoiders'Suits o 190 Other Contract o 195 Contract Ptoduct Liability
REAL PROPERTY
o 210 Land Condemnation o 220 Foreclosure o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 240 Torts to Land o 245 Tort Product Uab!!1ty o 290 All Other Real Property

TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONALINJURV
o 310 Airplane o 315 Airplane Product
Uabliity
o 320 Assault. Libel & Slander
o 330 Federal Employers' LIability
o0340 Marine 345 Marine PrOduct Liability
o 350 Motor Vehicle o 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
o 360 Other PerSOnal Injury
CIVIL RIGHTS
o 441 Vollng o 442 Employment o 443 Houslngl
Accommodations
~welfare Other CIVIl Rights

PERSONAL INJURY o 362 Personal Injury -
Med. Malpractice
o 365 Personal In~~ProCIuct ua II
o 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Ptoduct Uability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
o 370 Other Fraud o 371 Truth In Lending o 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
o 385 Property Damage Product Uabillty
PRISONER PETITIONS
o 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence
o HABEAS CORPUS: 530 General
o 535 Death Penalty
o 540 Mandamus & Other
o 550 OM! Rights o 555 Prison COndition

o 610 Agriculture o 620 Other Food & Drug
o 625 DNg Related seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
o 630 l.lquor laWS o 840 R. R. & Truck o 650 Airline Regs o 880 Occupational
Salety/Health 0890 Other
LABOR
o 710 Fair Labor Standards AC1
o 720 LabOr/Mgmt Relations o 730 Labor/Mgmt. Reporting
& Disclosure Act
o 740 Railway LabOr Act o 790 Other Labor Utlgatlon
Cl 791 Emp!. Ret. Inc Security Act

BANKRUPTCY
o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 151
PROPERTY RIGHTS
o 620 Copyrights o0830 Patent
840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
0861 HIA (1395t1)
o 862 BlacK Lung 1923} o 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g}) o 864 SS10 Title XVI o 885 RSI {405(911
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
o 170 Taxes (U.S. Plalntlff a or Defendant)
871 IRS - Third Party 26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES
o 400 State Reapportionment o 410 AnUtrusl o 430 Banks and Banking o 450 CommercellCC Rates/ere. o 410 Deportation o 470 Racketeer Influenced and:
Corrupt OrganIzations
o 810 Selectlve saNlee o 8SO SecurltleS/Commodltlesj
Exchange
o 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC 341Q
o 891 Agricultural Acts o 892 Economic Stabilization Act o 893 Environmental Matters o 894 Energy Allocation Act o 895 Freedom of
Information Ac1
o 900 Appeal 01 Fee Determlnatior Under Equal Access to Jus1l
o 950 COnstitutionality of State Statutes
o 810 Other Statutory Actions

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVlL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FlUNG AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE. 00 NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS OIVERSITY.)

Fourth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, 42 U'S"C Sec. 2000d et seq., and 28 C.F.R. Sec. 42.101 et seq.

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT

-" CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION '"'IJNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only ~ demanded in complain

JURY DEMAND:

0 YES

',~NO

VIII.

This case

I!l is not a refiling of a previously dismissed action.

o is a refiling of case number

ously dismissed by Judge _ _ _ _ __

DATE

UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT

,,",.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

to _.

r.: <
:~

j::>

JUDGE HART

(G} ;: ;: <:.:> :.-:r:::1-

In the Matter of

t~\.'\\\ MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEYS

~ MICHAEL LEDFORD, JR., et a1.t\!

v.

"

~ Case Number:

~\~ OOC 421~ THE C[TY OF HIGHLAND PARK

,:'
'" -_ "'-'-. --.,

c~<...)
lWi52
~...J J--. (-~~
C. u) ;:j

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BYTHE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR:

Michael Ledford, Jr., Karen Lynn Ledford, and all persons similarly situated.

V11w

I - Ada~ Schwartz ~

ARM

FIRM

Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc.

~,?ger: Baldwin Foundation of.\ACLU, Inc

SfR£ET ADDRESS
180 N. Michigan Ave.
ClTYISTAlEJZIP
Chicago, IL 60601

Suite 2300

ImlEETAWHtSS
180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300
ClTYISTATEIZIP
Chicago, IL 60601

TEl£PHONE NUMBER
312-201-9740
MBER (SCE II"EM' ON

TElEPHONE ~UMBER
312-201-9740
IDENT""'"TION NUMBER (SCE ITEM' ON

ln71h?Q
aEMBER Of TRIAl BAR?

YES IiU

NOD

h?,An,n
MEMBER OF TRW.. BAR?

0 YES

It<ALATTORNEYI

NOD

lltAlATTORNEYI

YES ID

OESIGNATEO AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

0 YES

(C)
SIGNATURE

FIRM mlEET ADDRESS

TElEPHONE NUMBER

IU<NTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM. ON RevERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? llIAlATTORNEYI

0 YES 0 YES

NO 0 0 NO

(0)
SIGNATURE

NAME

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

ClTYlSTAreJZlP

TELEPHONE NUMBER

IDENTlFlCAllON NUMBER (Sec" eM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBEROfTRIALBAR? lltAlATTORNEYI

0 YES 0 YES

0 NO NO 0

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL LEDFORD, JR., and KAREN LYNN LEDFORD, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, Defendant.
Judge William T. Hart No. 00 C 4212

CONSENT DECREE
Plaintiffs Michael Ledford, Jr. and Karen Lynn Ledford, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, and defendant the City of Highland Park, through their respective counsel, have agreed to enter into this Consent Decree.
I. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION
1. Plaintiffs Michael Ledford, Jr. and Karen Ledford are residents of the City of Highland Park, Illinois. They are African-American. They brought this suit on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated.
2. Simultaneously with the parties' joint submission of this Consent Decree, plaintiffs have filed their Complaint against defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and the administrative regulations of the United States Department of Justice effectuating Title VI, 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq.
3. In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendant has maintained policies, practices, and customs which have the result of or require officers of the Highland Park Police Department ("HPPD") to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.
4. On July 27, 2000, the Court certified a plaintiff class based upon allegations of racial profiling set forth in the Complaint. The plaintiff class defined by the Court consists of the following persons:
All persons who (a) have in the past and are likely in the future to be and (b) all persons who will in the future be, subjected to any policy, practice or custom which has the result of or requires Highland Park Police Department officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 2 of 9

5. Defendant the City of Highland Park is a duly constituted municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Illinois. The City operates the Highland Park Police Department.
6. Defendant the City of Highland Park denies that the City, or any of its employees, representatives, or officers has engaged in any racial profiling or any other discriminatory law enforcement practices, or that the City has adopted, approved or condoned a policy, practice or custom that requires its law enforcement officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detention, interrogations, requests for consent to search, or searches on the basis of race or ethnicity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City of Highland Park categorically denies that the City, or any of its employees, representatives, consultants, or officers has engaged in racial profiling or any other discriminatory law enforcement practices with respect to plaintiffs Michael Ledford, Jr., and Karen Lynn Ledford.
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a). Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all of the events giving rise to the claims in the Complaint occurred within the Northern District of Illinois.
II. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTED CLAIMS
8. This Consent Decree is a compromise and settlement of disputed claims, and does not constitute a determination of entitlement or liability with respect to the claims of racial profiling asserted in the complaint. Nothing herein shall be interpreted or construed as any weakness of proof on the part of the plaintiffs concerning their claims of racial profiling by the City of Highland Park. Nothing herein shall be interpreted or construed as an acknowledgement, admission, or evidence of liability on the part of the City of Highland Park with respect to the plaintiffs' claims or any other claims of discriminatory law enforcement practices, nor shall this Consent Decree be interpreted or construed as an acknowledgement, admission, or evidence of any violation of applicable law or the existence of a policy, custom or practice by the City's enforcement officials that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Nor shall this Consent Decree be interpreted or construed as a waiver of any defenses or immunities available to the City of Highland park and its elected and appointed officials, representatives and officers under the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Illinois. This Consent Decree shall not be used by any plaintiff, plaintiff class member or other party as evidence in any other proceeding, claim, case, or lawsuit.
9. The parties enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of avoiding the risks, burdens and expense of litigation. This Consent Decree is in the public interest because it promotes effective, nondiscriminatory law enforcement within the City of Highland Park, and avoids the diversion of resources to adversarial litigation.
10. This Consent Decree and Judgment shall constitute a final resolution of all claims arising out of the incidents alleged in the Complaint, whether asserted therein or not. Without limitation, such claims hereby resolved include requests by the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class for: (i) declaratory relief, (ii) injunctive relief, and (iii) costs and expenses, including expert and consulting fees, and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or any other law or act cited therein. This Consent Decree and Judgment shall be binding upon plaintiffs Michael Ledford, Jr. and Karen Lynn Ledford and the plaintiff class, and upon the defendant and its officers, agents, employees, and successors in office. However, this Consent Decree has no effect on any unnamed class member's right to bring a suit for damages.
11. The City of Highland Park shall not be required to pay the plaintiffs Michael Ledford, Jr., and Karen Lynn Ledford money damages (both compensatory and punitive), nor shall the City of Highland Park be

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 3 of 9

required to pay said plaintiffs or their counsel attorneys fees, costs or expenses as a result of any of the matters alleged in the Complaint.
12. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the City of Highland Park has agreed to enter into this Consent Decree based, in part, on the adoption and continued effectiveness of a resolution by the Board of Governors of the RBF declaring the RBF's intention that it will not sponsor or file any other claims of racial profiling, as defined in this Consent Decree, against the City of Highland Park arising from events occurring on or prior to the date of filing of the Complaint in this case.
III. IMPLEMENTATION PROVISIONS
13. NOW, THEREFORE, upon consent of the parties and approval of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
A. Definitions
14. The term "HPPD" means the Highland Park Police Department.
15. The term "RBF" means the Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc.
16. The term "officer" means any law enforcement officer employed by the HPPD, who is on duty or otherwise acting or purporting to act in his official capacity, including any supervisor.
17. The term "civilian" means any person who is not an officer.
18. The term "incident" means all contact between an officer and a civilian that involves a surveillance, stop, detention, interrogation, request for consent to search, or search.19. The term "racial profiling" means the consideration by an officer, in any fashion or to any degree, of the race or ethnicity of any civilian in deciding whether to surveil, stop, detain, interrogate, request consent to search, or search any civilian; except when officers are seeking to detain, apprehend or otherwise be on the lookout for a specific suspect sought in connection with a specific crime who has been identified or described, in part, by race or ethnicity and the officer relies, in part, on race or ethnicity in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
20. The term "surveillance" means the intentional visual observation of a civilian in a moving vehicle for two minutes or longer by an officer in a moving vehicle. The circumstance of an officer in a moving vehicle being in close proximity to the vehicle of a civilian solely as a consequence of the regular flow of traffic shall not constitute surveillance.
21. The term "stop" means every stop of a civilian in a vehicle by an officer.
22. The term "detention" means every encounter between a civilian and an officer in which a reasonable civilian would have believed that he or she was not free to leave, whether the civilian is on foot or in a vehicle.
23. The term "interrogation" means the questioning of a civilian during a stop by an officer concerning matters not reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first instance.
24. The term "search" means every search by an officer of a civilian or a civilian's vehicle or other property, whether or not contraband is found.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 4 of 9

25. The term "contraband" means any item the possession of which is prohibited by local, state, or federal law.
26. The term "target" means select.
27. All references to collecting, reporting, or analyzing information by "race or ethnicity" mean collecting, reporting, or analyzing information using the following categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian.
28. The term "complaint" includes any allegation by a civilian or officer that an officer engaged in any form of misconduct.
29. The term "complainant" means any person who makes a complaint against an officer or the HPPD.
B. Consideration of race
30. Officers shall not engage in racial profiling. Officers may not consider in any fashion or to any degree the race or ethnicity of any civilian in deciding to surveil, stop, detain, interrogate, request consent to search, or search any civilian, except as provided in paragraph 31 of this Consent Decree.
31. Where officers are seeking to detain, apprehend, or otherwise be on the lookout for a specific suspect sought in connection with a specific crime who has been identified or described in part by race or ethnicity, officers may rely in part (but not solely) on race or ethnicity in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
C. Documentation of incidents
32. For every incident involving a stop, detention, interrogation, and/or search, the officer involved shall document the incident and record:
(a) the name and identification number of the officer(s) involved;
(b) the date, time, and location of the incident;
(c) the name and address given by the civilian(s) involved;
(d) the gender and race or ethnicity of the civilian(s) involved;
(e) whether a vehicle was involved, and if so a description of the vehicle, the state of the vehicle's license plate, and the state in which the driver is licensed to drive;
(f) the basis for the stop or detention;
(g) whether a civilian was frisked, and if so the basis for the frisk;
(h) whether consent to search was requested, and whether consent was granted;
(i) whether a non-consensual search was performed, and if so the basis for the search;
(j) whether a drug-detection canine was deployed, and if so the basis for the deployment, the identity of

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 5 of 9

the canine, and whether an alert occurred; and
(k) whether contraband was discovered, and if so the nature of the contraband.
33. Whenever an officer documents the race or ethnicity of a civilian pursuant to paragraph 32, he or she must do so on the basis of the officer's perception of the civilian's race or ethnicity, and may not do so by asking the civilian to identify his or her race or ethnicity.
34. For every incident referred to in paragraph 32, the officer shall record the required data, whether or not the officer issues a citation or written warning to the civilian.
35. The HPPD will facilitate the collection of the data required above by providing appropriate written forms to its officers. The information specified in paragraph 32(j) may be recorded on a form separate from the other information specified in paragraph 32.
36. The HPPD shall facilitate the analysis of the data required above by recording and storing the data on a computerized data system.
D. Video and audio equipment
37. The HPPD shall equip with audio and video equipment every marked HPPD patrol vehicle, except two-wheel vehicles (motorcycles) and four-wheel, all-terrain vehicles (ATV's) and every other HPPD vehicle regularly used to enforce traffic laws. The exception of motorcycles and ATV's is based expressly upon the City's representation that such vehicles are not regularly used to enforce traffic laws. The HPPD shall begin installing this equipment within six months, and shall complete the installation process within one year.
38. The HPPD shall train all officers operating a patrol vehicle on the proper use of the audio and video equipment, and shall ensure the equipment is regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired.
39. Officers shall use the video and audio equipment to record every stop - and every detention, interrogation, and/or search conducted during a stop - in which they participate. The recording shall begin when the stop commences, or when the officer arrives at the scene of an ongoing stop. The recording shall continue until the civilian or the officer departs, whichever occurs first.
40. The video and audio equipment mandated in paragraphs 37 through 39 shall be used in a manner consistent with the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS 5/14-1 et seq., as may be amended from time to time.
E. Supervision
41. The City shall develop and implement an effective program for reviewing documentation of incidents and any associated audio and video recordings obtained in accordance with paragraphs 32 and 39 hereof to evaluate compliance with Section III(B) of this Consent Decree. The HPPD supervisory personnel shall be responsible for reviewing such documentation and recordings regularly. Whenever supervisory review reasonably indicates a possible violation of Section III(B) of this Consent Decree, the HPPD shall refer any incident for investigation by the HPPD internal investigative unit. Appropriate investigation and disposition by the internal investigative unit shall be made.
42. The City shall develop and utilize a protocol for analyzing the computer data set forth in paragraph

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 6 of 9

36 in such a manner as to assure compliance with Section III(B) of this Consent Decree. Such analysis shall be performed and documented on at least an annual basis. The protocol shall include specific numerical or statistical benchmarks by which compliance with Section III(B) of this Consent Decree by individual HPPD officers will be evaluated.
F. Civilian Complaints
43. The City shall develop and implement an effective program to inform civilians that they may make complaints or provide other feedback regarding the performance of any officer, including a complaint that an officer's conduct during any incident was motivated by the civilian's race or ethnicity.
44. The City shall require all officers to inform civilians who object to an officer's conduct that civilians have a right to make a complaint. The City shall prohibit officers from discouraging any civilian from making a complaint.
45. Civilians may initiate a complaint either in person, by mail, by telephone, by facsimile, or over the internet. The City shall accept and investigate complaints filed by civilians other than the alleged victim of misconduct. The City shall not require that a complaint be submitted in writing to initiate a misconduct investigation.
46. The City shall assign and record a case number for each complaint.
47. In every complaint investigation, the City shall make findings based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
48. In every misconduct investigation, the City shall consider circumstantial evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determination, if feasible. There shall be no automatic preference for an officer's statement over a civilian's statement, or for a civilian's statement over an officer's statement. There shall be no automatic judgment that there is insufficient information to make a credibility determination where the only or principal information about an incident is the conflicting statements of the involved officer and civilian.
49. Subject to and in conformance with the terms of the HPPD collective bargaining agreement, the HPPD shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against any officer who is the subject of a substantiated misconduct adjudication.
50. The HPPD shall require officers to report, based on personal knowledge, any conduct by other officers involving civilians that reasonably appears to constitute:
(a) a violation of Section III(B) of this Consent Decree;
(b) an intentional failure to follow any of the documentation requirements of this Consent Decree; or
(c) the intentional provision of false information in a misconduct investigation.
G. Training
51. The HPPD shall train all recruits and officers in cultural diversity, which shall include training on interactions with persons from different racial, ethnic, and religious groups; communication skills; and integrity and ethics, including the duties of truthfulness and reporting misconduct by fellow officers, the

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 7 of 9

importance of avoiding misconduct, professionalism, and the duty to follow civilian complaint procedures and to cooperate in misconduct investigations. This training shall be reinforced through mandatory annual in-service training covering these topics.
52. The HPPD shall train all officers regarding their respective duties under this Consent Decree.
H. Inspection of records
53. Except as provided in Paragraph 55, and subject to any and all restrictions imposed upon law enforcement agencies by the Illinois State Police and the Department of Justice governing the availability, use, or dissemination of LEADS or NCIC data or other information, the HPPD shall make the following documents and records available for inspection by attorneys of the RBF:
(a) all reports of incidents involving stops, detentions, and/or searches, as set forth in paragraph 32;
(b) all data recorded and stored on a computerized data system, as set forth in paragraph 36;
(c) all protocols and analysis required to be developed and performed as set forth in paragraph 42; and
(d) all complaints by citizens concerning allegations of racial discrimination in law enforcement as well as the City's investigation and disposition of such complaints, as set forth in paragraphs 43 through 50, except that the City shall have no obligation to disclose the names of any complainants who expressly withhold their consent to the disclosure of their names.
54. Inspection of records and documents pursuant to paragraph 53 shall occur on a quarterly basis, upon request of attorneys at the RBF.
55. Notwithstanding paragraph 53, the HPPD may not disclose to attorneys at the RBF:
(a) any civilian complaint subject to an ongoing investigation; or
(b) any law enforcement record or juvenile court record that must be maintained as confidential pursuant to Sections 1-7 and 1-8 of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/1-7, 1-8).
56. With advance notice to the City's Corporation Counsel, attorneys at the RBF may disclose information contained in the materials specified in paragraph 53 to the Court. In addition, RBF attorneys may disclose to the public any information from said materials that does not identify any particular civilian(s) or officer(s). However, nothing herein shall preclude the City from seeking a protective order limiting the scope of disclosures to the public of information contained in the materials specified in paragraph 53.
I. Resolution of disputes
57. The parties to this Consent Decree seek to encourage voluntary discussions of disputes concerning compliance with this Consent Decree in order to avoid unnecessary Court intervention. Accordingly, it is agreed that the following procedure for resolving claims of non-compliance with the decree shall be established:
(a) In the event of any claims that defendants have failed to comply with the decree, members of the plaintiff class shall implement the following procedure:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 8 of 9

(i) Any member of the plaintiff class, either individually or by counsel, shall request a meeting with representatives of the City. Such meeting shall be held within seven (7) days of such request. At such a meeting, the parties thereto may attempt to resolve the dispute without recourse to this Court.
(ii) Prior to or at such meeting, the member of the plaintiff class may request that the City produce documents relevant to the dispute.
(b) Upon receipt of a claim of violation of any provision of the Consent Decree, the City shall:
(i) advise plaintiffs' counsel of such claim; and
(ii) advise the person making such claim that they are entitled to counsel at the meeting provided for in subsection (a) of this paragraph.
(c) The procedures provided in this paragraph shall be in addition to any other remedies available to members of the plaintiff class. More particularly, the members of the plaintiff class retain their right to enforce this decree at any time, prior to its termination, upon motion before this Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the named plaintiffs and their counsel agree to provide the defendant City with 10 days notice, within which time the City may cure any alleged noncompliance, prior to the filing of any such motion.
(d) Any failure by plaintiffs or defendants to seek Court intervention to enforce or modify the decree after the discussions provided for in this paragraph will not constitute a waiver of the parties' rights in subsequent proceedings to seek relief from or to enforce the Consent Decree.
IV. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
58. The Court retains jurisdiction of this action for all purposes.
59. This Consent Decree shall terminate five years after its date of entry; provided, however, this Consent Decree shall terminate three years after its date of entry if both of the following conditions are met:
(a) The HPPD is in compliance, as of the third anniversary of the date of entry of this Consent Decree, with all provisions and obligations set forth in Sections III(B), III(C), III(D), III(E), III(F), III(G), and III (H) of this Consent Decree; and
(b) Either (i) the documents and records required to be made available for review pursuant to this Consent Decree reveal no incidence of racial profiling during the term hereof, or (ii) in the event that there has been an allegation of racial profiling during the term hereof, there has been an investigation and response by the HPPD that the plaintiffs and their attorneys at the RBF consider to be effective, timely and adequate.
SO ORDERED this ___ day of ______ , 2000.
By:
______________________________ United States District Court Judge

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Approved:
______________________________ One of plaintiffs' attorneys
HARVEY GROSSMAN ADAM SCHWARTZ Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 201-9740
PAUL E. GREENWALT III MATTHEW J. FISCHER CAROLYN MOREHOUSE Schiff Hardin & Waite 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5500
______________________________ One of defendant's attorneys
STEVEN M. ELROD JAMES R. CARR Holland & Knight 55 W. Monroe, Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 263-3600

Page 9 of 9

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/Highland_CD.htm

1/9/2007

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 6

KEYS, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-04212

Ledford, et al v. Highland Pk, Cty of Assigned to: Honorable William T. Hart Demand: $0 Case in other court: 00-03863 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Michael Ledford, Jr

Date Filed: 07/12/2000 Date Terminated: 10/05/2000 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Harvey Michael Grossman Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601-7401 (312) 201-9740 Email: hgrossman@aclu-il.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keevan David Morgan Morgan & Bley, Ltd. 900 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 4 East Chicago, IL 60607-4111 (312) 243-0006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam D. Schwartz Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601-7401 (312) 201-9740 Email: aschwartz@aclu-il.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carolyn L. Morehouse Law Offices of Ronald N. Primack, LLC 18401 Maple Creek Drive #100

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?762427442895466-L_353_0-1

1/10/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 6

Plaintiff Karen Lynn Ledford individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
V. Defendant City of Highland Park, The

Tinley Park, IL 60477 (708)444-0277 Email: clm@rnplaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Fischer Schiff Hardin LLP 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 258-5500 Email: mfischer@schiffhardin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Edwin Greenwalt, III Schiff Hardin LLP 6600 Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 258-5500 Email: pgreenwalt@schiffhardin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Harvey Michael Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam D. Schwartz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carolyn L. Morehouse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Fischer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Edwin Greenwalt, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven M. Elrod Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?762427442895466-L_353_0-1

1/10/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 6

Date Filed 07/12/2000
07/12/2000 07/12/2000 07/12/2000 07/17/2000 07/18/2000 07/19/2000
07/19/2000 07/19/2000

Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263-3600 Email: steven.elrod@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Roland Carr Holland & Knight LLC 131 South Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 263-3600 Email: james.carr@hklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Harvey Michael Grossman and Adam D. Schwartz as attorney(s) for plaintiffs (original and one copy of summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3). (srb) (Entered: 07/14/2000)

RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 7/12/00 in the amount of $150.00, receipt #1067508. (srb) (Entered: 07/14/2000)

6 MOTION by plaintiffs for certification of plaintiff class (Attachment); Memorandum in support; Notice (ar) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

7 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs and defendant for entry of consent decree (Attachments); Notice (ar) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Paul Edwin Greenwalt III, Matthew J. Fischer, Carolyn L. Morehouse (ar) (Entered: 07/18/2000)

3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Steven M. Elrod and James Roland Carr ; Notice (las) Modified on 07/19/2000 (Entered: 07/19/2000)

4 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : Leave given plaintiffs' to file, instanter, additional appearance of attorneys Paul E. Greenwalt, Matthew J. Fischer and Carolyn L. Morehouse, of Schiff Hardin & Waite. No notice. (las) (Entered: 07/20/2000)

5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Paul E. Greenwalt, Matthew J. Fischer and Carolyn L. Morehouse (las) (Entered: 07/20/2000)

8 MINUTE ORDER of 7/19/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : Plaintiffs' motion for certification of plaintiff class [6-1] and joint motion for entry of consent decree [7-1] are entered and continued. Ruling on said motions will be by mail. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?762427442895466-L_353_0-1

1/10/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 6

07/27/2000
08/02/2000 08/04/2000
08/14/2000 08/14/2000 08/16/2000 08/16/2000 09/12/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/25/2000

9 MINUTE ORDER of 7/27/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : Plaintiffs' motion for certification of plaintiff class is granted [6-1] in part and denied in parat. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), a class is certified. Joint motion for entry of consent decree is granted [7-1] in part and denied in part. The notice contained in the Appendix to this opinion shall be published (see Opinion for particulars). Fairness hearing set for 1:30 p.m. on 09/27/00. By 09/22/00, plaintiffs shall file with the court all comments of class members that they have received. Any response to comments or objections that a party desires to file shall be filed by 09/2/200. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Attachment) Notices mailed by judge's staff (jmp) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
10 CONSENT DECREE by parties ; Notice (las) (Entered: 08/04/2000)
11 MINUTE ORDER of 8/4/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : The modified consent decree filed on 8/2/00 is preliminarily found to be a fair and reasonable settlement. Paragraph 10's waiver of costs, expenses, and fees is construed as being limited to costs, expenses, and fees in the present case. It does not waive any unnamed class member's claim for costs, expenses, or fees in any suit for damages. Mailed notices by judge's staff. (las) (Entered: 08/07/2000)
12 MOTION by defendant for modification of 7/27/00 order (Attachments); Notice (las) (Entered: 08/17/2000)
13 AGREED MOTION by plaintiffs to file spanish-language version of class notice (Attachment); Notice (las) (Entered: 08/17/2000)
14 AMENDMENT by defendant to its motion for modification of 7/27/00 order [12-1] (Attachment) (las) (Entered: 08/17/2000)
15 MINUTE ORDER of 8/16/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : Agreed motion to file spanish-language version of class notice is granted [13-1]. Defendant's motion for modification of the 7/27/00 order is granted [121]. Counsel to submit draft order. No notice. (las) (Entered: 08/17/2000)
16 OBJECTIONS by certain class members' Lorenzo Rodriguez, Roberto Calderon, James Lockhart and Lee Pratt to proposed settlement (Attachments) ; Notice (las) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
18 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to the objectioons to the proposed consent decree of Lorenzo Rodriguez, Roberto Calderon, James Lockhart and Lee Pratt [16-1](Attachment); Notice. (cem) (Entered: 09/26/2000)
23 MOTION by defendant City of Highland Park to amend proposed consent decree by defendant City of Highland Park (Attachment); Notice (hp) (Entered: 10/02/2000)
17 RESPONSE by defendant to certain class members' objections to proposed settlement [16-1]; Notice. (mw) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
19 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Keevan David Morgan. (cem) (Entered: 09/26/2000)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?762427442895466-L_353_0-1

1/10/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 6

09/25/2000 09/25/2000
09/26/2000 09/27/2000
10/05/2000 10/27/2000 10/27/2000 10/27/2000 11/01/2000 11/06/2000 11/08/2000 11/17/2000
01/18/2001 02/07/2001 02/07/2001

20 REPORT of Thomas P. Sullivan to the Highland Park City Council; Notice (1 vol) (rmm) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
21 MINUTE ORDER of 9/25/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : Objectors are given leave to file side-bound the Report of Thomas P. Sullivan to the Highland Park City Council. No notice (rmm) Modified on 09/28/2000 (Entered: 09/28/2000)
22 REPLY by class members' Lorenzo Rodriguez, Roberto Calderon, James Lockhart, Lee Pratt in support of their settlement objections [16-1]; Notice. (cem) (Entered: 09/29/2000)
24 MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : Fairness hearing held. Defendant's motion to amend proposed consent decree is granted. [23-1] Parties are to submit signature order. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 10/02/2000)
25 MINUTE ORDER of 10/5/00 by Hon. William T. Hart : (Entered Consent Decree.) terminating case Mailed notice by judge's staff (tlm) (Entered: 10/06/2000)
26 NOTICE OF APPEAL by objectors Lorenzo Rodriquez, Roberto Calderon, James Lockhart, Lee Pratt from order terminating case [25-1], minute order [25-2] ( $105.00 PAID) (mak) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
27 LETTER regarding docketing statement acknowledged by counsel for objectors (mak) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
RECEIPT No 1045955 in the amount of $105.00 payment of appeal (mak) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal [26-1] . Mailed notice to all counsel. (mak) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
28 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal [26-1] USCA 00-3863. (mw) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
29 CIRCUIT Rule 3(b) Notice (las) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal no. 003863 consisting of one volume of pleadings and one volume loose pleadings on appeal [26-1] Mailed notice to all counsel. (mak) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
30 COPY of Order dated 1/16/01 from the 7th Circuit. It is ordered that this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute( 00-3863). (las) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
31 CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: It is ordered that this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute [26-1] . ( 00-3863) (yap) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
32 LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 00-3863 consisting of 1 volume of pleadings and 1 volume of pleadings (yap) (Entered: 02/09/2001)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?762427442895466-L_353_0-1

1/10/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 6 of 6

03/03/2003

33 NOTICE by James Carr attorney for defendant of change of address; Notice. (gcy) (Entered: 03/04/2003)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

01/10/2007 09:57:35

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

3

Cost:

ddalton 1:00-cv-04212 0.24

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?762427442895466-L_353_0-1

1/10/2007

 
 Ledford v. City of Highland Park, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Distinguished by Sheikh v. Lichtman, N.D.Ill., April 19, 2012
2000 WL 1053967 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern
Division.
Michael LEDFORD, Jr., and Karen Lynn Ledford, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v.
THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, Defendant.
No. 00 C 4212. | July 31, 2000.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Harvey Grossman, Adam Schwartz, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, Paul E. Greenwalt III, Matthew J. Fischer, Carolyn Morehouse, Schiff Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Illinois, for Plaintiffs.
Steven M. Elrod, James R. Carr, Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HART, J.
*1 In this putative class action, plaintiffs Michael Ledford, Jr. and Karen Ledford, both of whom are African–American, allege that defendant City of Highland Park, Illinois “maintains policies, practices, and customs which have the result of or require HPPD [Highland Park Police Department] officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race.” Allegedly, Michael has been repeatedly subjected to this policy of racial profiling. Karen allegedly has been subjected to it twice. It is also alleged that both named plaintiffs are likely to continue to be subjected to this policy in the future. In the complaint, plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief and costs and attorney fees. They do not pray for damages.
Prior to the filing of this action, the parties had agreed to the entry of a consent judgment.1 Both because it is a consent judgment and because, as is discussed below, this case will be certified as a class action, the settlement requires court approval. Presently pending is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

23(b)(2), which is unopposed by defendant. Also pending is the parties’ joint motion for entry of a consent order, which seeks preliminary approval of the consent order pending the holding of a fairness hearing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).
Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition is: “All persons who in the past have been, or in the future are subjected to any policy, practice or custom which has the result of or requires Highland Park Police Department officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.” There is a problem with this proposed definition. Since plaintiffs seek prospective relief only, in order to have standing, they must be persons who will be or are likely to be subjected to these practices in the future. Having been a past victim of the alleged practice is not a sufficient basis for seeking the requested relief. Because the named plaintiffs are likely to be subjected to racial profiling in the future, they have standing to bring the claims. Cf. Anderson v.. Cornejo, 1999 WL 258501 *2 (N.D. Ill. April 21, 1999). The class should not include all persons who were subjected to racial profiling in the past; only such persons who are likely to be subjected to it in the future or who actually will be subjected to it in the future. Therefore, the class that will be considered for certification will be defined as follows:
All persons who (a) have in the past and are likely in the future to be and (b) all persons who will in the future be, subjected to any policy, practice, or custom which has the result of or requires Highland Park Police Department officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.
*2 As to this class, it is found that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are satisfied. Although no specific numbers or estimates have been provided, this class appears to be large enough in number such that the joinder of all members is impracticable. Common questions of law or fact exist, including whether or not the alleged practice of racial profiling exists. There is nothing to indicate that the named plaintiffs’ claims are atypical. Also, named plaintiffs do not appear to have any conflicts that preclude them from being adequate representatives of the class’s interests and plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified and capable. Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied because defendant allegedly has acted in conformity with a regular practice. This case will be certified as a class action.
1

Ledford v. City of Highland Park, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

The next question is whether the proposed consent order falls within the range of reasonableness such that it can preliminarily be found to be a fair settlement. At the time the parties’ presented their motion, they were informed that they needed to make one modification to the consent judgment in order to obtain preliminary approval. Although the parties’ proposed notice to the class states that the settlement has no effect on any unnamed class member’s right to bring a suit for damages, no such express provision is contained in the consent judgment itself. The parties do not object to adding such language to the consent order. Within one week from the date of today’s order, the parties shall file a modified consent order containing such a provision. Conditional on making such a modification, it is preliminarily found that the proposed settlement is fair.
The parties have provided a proposed notice to the class. Attached to this opinion as an appendix is the approved version of the notice. This notice is to be published in the Highland Park News, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun–Times, and Exito once per week for three consecutive weeks beginning the week of August 20, 2000. Each of the notices published in the Chicago Tribune and each of the notices published in the Chicago Sun–Times shall be on different days of the week. One of the Chicago Tribune notices and one of the Chicago Sun–Times notices shall be in a Sunday edition. The City of Highland Park shall pay the costs of publication. Within two weeks, plaintiffs shall file with the court the Spanish-language version of the notice that will be published in Exito.2 The fairness hearing will be held on September 27, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. In the notice, class members will be directed to mail any written comments or objections to plaintiffs’ counsel, who shall be responsible for providing copies to defendant and the court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), a class is certified consisting of all persons who (a) have in the past and are likely in the future to be and (b) all persons who will in the future be, subjected to any policy, practice, or custom which has the result of or requires Highland Park Police Department officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.
*3 (2) Joint motion for entry of consent decree is granted in part and denied in part. Within one week, the parties shall submit a modified consent order containing language expressly providing that the consent decree does not affect any unnamed plaintiff’s right to bring a claim for damages. Conditional on the parties agreeing to

modify the consent order, the consent order is preliminarily approved as a fair settlement of this class litigation.
(3) The notice contained in the Appendix to this opinion shall be published in the Highland Park News, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun–Times, and Exito once per week for three consecutive weeks beginning the week of August 20, 2000. The notice in Exito shall be in Spanish and, within two weeks, plaintiffs shall file with the court the Spanish version of the notice. Defendant shall pay the costs of publication.
(4) Fairness hearing set for September 27, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. By September 22, 2000, plaintiffs shall file with the court all comments of class members that they have received. Any response to comments or objections that a party desires to file shall be filed by September 22, 2000.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Description of the Lawsuit
This lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2000 by Michael Ledford, Jr. and Karen Lynn Ledford on behalf of all persons who (a) have in the past and are likely in the future to be and (b) all persons who will in the future be, subjected to any policy, practice, or custom which has the result of or requires Highland Park Police Department (“HPPD”) officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity. Plaintiffs claim that these policies, practices, or customs violated the United States Constitution and laws.
APPENDIX
The defendant in this lawsuit is the City of Highland Park. The defendant denies that the City, or any of its employees, representatives, or officers has engaged in any racial profiling or any other discriminatory law enforcement practices, or that the City has adopted, approved, or condoned a policy, practice, or custom that requires its law enforcement officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detention, interrogations, requests for consent to search, or searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.
2

Ledford v. City of Highland Park, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

Purpose of the Notice
This notice is being given to all class member as required by Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by order of the court: (a) to advise class members of the existence of this lawsuit and that the court has ruled that the case may proceed as a class action; (b) to inform class members of their rights; (c) to inform class members of a proposed settlement agreement that has been reached; and (d) to inform class members as to the procedures for commenting on the proposed settlement. A fairness hearing to consider approval of the settlement will be held on September 27, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
*4 The proposed settlement, if approved by the court, will be a final decision on the issues raised in the lawsuit, and because the case is a class action suit, the settlement will be binding upon all class members. This case did not raise and the proposed settlement does not resolve any claim which class members other than the named plaintiffs may have for money damages arising from the challenged policies, practices, or customs.
This notice should not be understood as an expression of any opinion by the court concerning the merits of this action. However, the court has made a preliminary determination that the proposed settlement agreement is within the range of fair, reasonable, and adequate settlements.
Definition of the Plaintiff Class
A class has been certified allowing plaintiffs to sue on their own behalf and on behalf of the following class of persons:

(“Consent Decree”) of all disputed claims in the case. Under the settlement, the City of Highland Park will:
(1) Prohibit all HPPD officers from considering race or ethnicity, in any fashion or to any degree, in deciding whether to surveil, stop, detain, interrogate, request consent to search, or search any civilian; except when officers are seeking to detain, apprehend or otherwise be on the lookout for a specific suspect sought in connection with a specific crime who has been identified or described, in part, by race or ethnicity in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists that a given individual is the person being sought.
(2) Document every incident involving a stop, detention, interrogation, and/or search of a civilian, including the race of the civilian involved, and facilitate the analysis of this data by recording and storing it on a computerized data system.
(3) Install audio and video equipment in certain HPPD vehicles.
(4) Use the materials in paragraphs (2) and (3) above to supervise HPPD officers.
(5) Maintain a system of investigating and resolving civilian complaints regarding HPPD officers.
(6) Provide specific training for HPPD officers.
(7) Allow plaintiffs’ counsel to inspect materials in paragraphs (2), (4), and (5) above.
The court will retain jurisdiction for three to five years to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree.

All persons who (a) have in the past and are likely in the future to be and (b) all persons who will in the future be, subjected to any policy, practice, or custom which has the result of or requires Highland Park Police Department officers to target persons for surveillance, stops, detentions, interrogations, requests for consent to search, and searches on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Other Matters
The complete terms of the Consent Decree are available upon request. If you want a copy of the Consent Decree, or if you have any questions about the proposed settlement, you can call Adam Schwartz, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff class at 312/201–9740. Also, the record in this case is available for examination at the Clerk’s Office, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, 20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois during regular business hours.

Proposed Settlement The parties have negotiated a proposed settlement

*5 The lawyers for the plaintiff class have reviewed the settlement proposal and believe that the settlement is in the best interest of the plaintiff class. Accordingly, the lawyers have recommended to the class representatives and other class members that they accept the proposed
3

Ledford v. City of Highland Park, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

settlement.
Notice of Hearing on Proposed Settlement
The proposed settlement will become final only after the court holds a hearing and approves it as fair, reasonable, and adequate. You have the right to comment on the settlement or participate in the hearing if you so choose.
A hearing will be held on September 27, 2000 in Room 2243 of the United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, to determine whether to approve the settlement.
Written comments or objections of class members should be mailed to Adam Schwartz at the address below by September 15, 2000. Attendance at the hearing is not required. Class members wishing to be heard orally in support of or in opposition to the proposed settlement

should appear at the hearing. Subject to reasonable time limitations, such persons will be heard regardless of whether they have previously submitted written comments. However, it is preferred that speakers also submit written comments. Class members who approve the settlement do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.
If you wish to present any written comments or objections, mail them to:
Adam Schwartz, Esq. Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mr. Schwartz will provide copies to the court and counsel for defendants.
	  

Footnotes

1

In agreeing to the consent judgment, defendant does not admit the truth of the allegations of the complaint.

2

Plaintiffs need not file a Spanish translation of their proposed version of the notice.

	  

4