1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BRIAN OTERO, individually and ) 

on behalf of a class of similarly situated ) 

individuals, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No. 

 v. ) 

 ) Judge: 

THOMAS J. DART, ) 

SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY, and ) 

COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS, ) Magistrate Judge: 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 ) 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

NOW COMES PLAINTIFF, BRIAN OTERO (hereinafter “Plaintiff” and/or “Otero”), 

individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated people, by and through his undersigned Counsel of Record, and for his Class Action Complaint against Defendants, SHERIFF OF 

COOK COUNTY, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, (hereinafter “Defendants”), states as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff, Brian Otero, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendants, 

seeking damages for Defendants’ policy or practice of unlawfully detaining, holding in custody 

or imprisoning free citizens following a trial or other proceeding at which the citizen is found 

not-guilty or otherwise acquitted (the “Unlawful Detention Policy”). From the time of the “not 

guilty” verdict or judgment in favor of the criminal defendant, through the final processing step 

at the jail, Plaintiff and Class members are subjected to Defendants’ illegal policies and/or proCase: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
2 

cedures which result in class members being detained for unreasonable amounts of time and in 

an unreasonable manner. The Unlawful Detention Policy and related illegal conduct deprived 

Plaintiff and the putative class of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution. 

Defendants’ actions and the Unlawful Detention Policy constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

2. Plaintiff, in his representative capacity, seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policy or practice is unlawful pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, in his representative 

capacity, also seeks a permanent injunction and other equitable relief necessary to eliminate the 

Unlawful Detention Policy and to prevent such policy or practice from continuing to affect the 

liberty, freedom, and Constitutional rights of citizens in the future. The relief sought by Plaintiff 

includes, but is not limited to: affirmative restructuring of Defendants’ criminal defendant processing procedures, implementation of equitable relief to include declaratory relief and injunctive 

relief, reimbursement of expenses incurred in prosecuting this action, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff further seeks actual damages, emotional distress, and other equitable remedies and damages 

necessary to make him and members of the class whole. 

2. Plaintiff Otero brings his §1983 claim individually and on behalf of a class of all 

other similarly situated prior criminal defendants in Cook County, who stood trial while detained, were found not guilty or otherwise acquitted at trial, and were subsequently detained, 

held in custody, or imprisoned pursuant to Defendants’ Unlawful Detention Policy. Plaintiff 

Otero brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3. All allegations and claims are pled in the alternative to the extent such an interpretation is necessitated by law, required for proper construction under the law, and permitted under 

federal law. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
3 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343. This is a 

suit authorized and instituted pursuant to the Act of Congress known as the “Civil Rights Act of 

1991,” and the “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

5. Upon information and belief, the amount in controversy in this action exceeds 

$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 

6. Upon information and belief, at least one member of the Rule 23 Class is a citizen 

of a different state than that of Defendants. 

7. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) 

and (c). Defendants reside and do business in the Northern District of Illinois and the Plaintiff is 

a resident of the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in 

the State of Illinois for the purposes of this lawsuit. All or a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district. 

8. Plaintiff, in his class-wide claims, requests injunctive and declaratory relief and 

compensation for actual damages, emotional distress and punitive damages and/or any and all 

other damages permitted by applicable law, and attorneys’ fees and lawsuit costs. 

THE PARTIES

a. Plaintiff 

9. The representative Plaintiff, BRIAN OTERO, is a resident of the City of Chicago, 

in Cook County, Illinois. 

b. Defendants 

10. Defendants are the Sheriff of Cook County, Thomas J. Dart and Cook County, IlCase: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
4 

linois. The Sheriff is sued in his official capacity only. The County is joined pursuant to Carver 

v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 324 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2003). 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, individually, and as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. The Rule 23 Class is defined as: 

“All people who were criminal defendants in Cook County, were detained 

at the time of trial or other proceeding, were found not guilty or otherwise 

acquitted at trial or other proceeding and were subjected to Defendants’ illegal policies and/or procedures by being detained, held in custody, or imprisoned by Defendants after their not-guilty verdict or acquittal from 

April 27, 2010 through the present.” 

12. Excluded from the Rule 23 Class are Defendants’ legal representatives, officers, 

directors, assigns, and successors; the Judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of 

the Judge’s immediate family; and all persons who will submit a timely and otherwise proper 

request for exclusion from the Rule 23 Class. 

13. Numerosity: The persons in the Rule 23 Class identified above are geographically diverse and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The precise number of 

such persons is unknown, and the calculation of that number is presently within the sole control 

of Defendants. However, on information and belief, Plaintiff believes there are thousands of 

members of the class. Additionally, because the Unlawful Detention Policy is continuing, there 

are new class members every day. 

14. Commonality: There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Rule 

23 Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The questions 

of law and fact common to this Rule 23 Class that predominate over any question solely affecting individual members of the Rule 23 Class include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) Whether Defendants maintain a policy or practice that causes an unreaCase: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
5 

sonable duration and manner of detaining, holding in custody, or imprisoning free citizens, who stood trial as “detained” criminal defendants, after 

they have been found not-guilty or otherwise acquitted at trial or other 

proceeding (“Unlawful Detention Policy”); 

(b) Whether Defendants lacked policies and procedures that would ensure the 

prompt release of Class members and protect their Constitutional rights; 

(c) Whether Defendants’ Unlawful Detention Policy is so widespread, permanent, and well settled that it constitutes a custom or usage with the force of 

law; 

(d) Whether Defendants’ Unlawful Detention Policy was carried out under 

color of custom or usage of State law and whether Plaintiff’s and Class 

members’ constitutional rights were violated under the color of State law; 

and 

(e) Whether Defendants’ Unlawful Detention Policy violates Plaintiff’s and 

putative Class members’ constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. 

15. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the 

Rule 23 Class. Plaintiff’s claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the 

Class, namely, Plaintiff and the members of the Class were all subjected to and damaged by Defendants’ Unlawful Detention Policy. 

16. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Rule 

23 Class. Plaintiff’s interests and the interests of the Class members do not conflict. Plaintiff’s 

interests in pursuing this matter are aligned with the interests of the Class members. Plaintiff is 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
6 

willing to actively prosecute the class claims at issue in this case and has retained counsel experienced in and capable of handling class action lawsuits. 

17. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the controversy. 

18. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with 

respect to the class as a whole. 

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff suffered severe damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ 

illegal conduct, as alleged herein. 

20. All allegations herein are pled in the alternative to the extent necessitated for viable construction under applicable federal law. 

21. On November 23, 2009, the Chicago Police Department arrested Plaintiff for an 

alleged burglary. Plaintiff was subsequently charged with burglary and was held, pending trial, 

in Cook County Jail, since he could not afford to make bail. 

22. On July 18-21, 2011, Plaintiff stood trial for the alleged burglary. 

23. Plaintiff was in Defendants’ custody from the time he was arrested on November 

23, 2009, through his trial and subsequent post-acquittal processing. 

24. The jury found Plaintiff “not guilty” following a trial and acquitted him of all 

charges. The court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 

25. At the time of acquittal, Plaintiff had no outstanding warrants. 

26. When Plaintiff was acquitted, Defendants were obligated to process his release 

without unreasonable delay and ensure that his constitutional rights were protected. Defendants 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
7 

failed on both obligations. 

27. Following his acquittal, and despite the fact that there were no other pending 

charges or warrants against Plaintiff, Defendants placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and transported 

him back to the Cook County Jail. 

28. When they returned to the Cook County Jail, Defendants detained Plaintiff in the 

“bullpen.” 

29. Plaintiff was kept locked up in the bullpen for approximately twelve hours, from 

4:00 p.m. on July 21, 2011, until 4:00 a.m. on July 22, 2011. Sometime during this twelve hour 

period, Defendants conducted their procedure to “process” Plaintiff for release. 

30. While being detained, held in custody and imprisoned in the bullpen, other inmates asked Plaintiff about the outcome of his trial. After informing the prisoners that he had 

been found not guilty and would be leaving jail, one of the prisoners punched and pummeled 

Plaintiff about the face and body. Plaintiff sustained physical injuries as a result of the jailhouse 

beating he suffered while being detained by Defendants after his acquittal. 

31. Plaintiff did not report the beating to Defendants because he was afraid he would 

somehow catch another charge as a result of being beaten in the bullpen, and his release would 

be delayed further. 

32. The policy or practice followed by Defendants for detaining individuals who are 

found not guilty or who are otherwise acquitted at trial or other proceeding causes an unreasonable length and manner of detention in violation of the Constitution. Among other things, Defendants’ policy or practice is to detain individuals such as Plaintiff and Class members with the 

general prison population, which not only substantially and unnecessarily increases the procedural steps for processing out an individual, but also creates a serious risk that the individual will 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
8 

be the victim of a violent assault. Even though Defendants no longer have probable cause or any 

other right to detain or investigate individuals who were found not-guilty or who were otherwise 

acquitted, Defendants’ policy or practice is to hold such individuals in custody pending the completion of a post-release check for wants and holds. This is a laborious and time consuming process that unnecessarily prolongs an individual’s detention and which could have been done during the individual’s detention prior to his or her not-guilty verdict or acquittal. These and other 

aspects of Defendants’ policies or practices results in a post-acquittal detention of individuals 

that is unreasonable in both length and manner and, therefore, is unconstitutional. 

33. Defendants’ policy or practice of detaining, holding in custody or imprisoning 

free citizens, who stood trial as “detained” criminal defendants, after they are found not-guilty or 

otherwise acquitted at trial or other proceeding, is so widespread, permanent and well settled that 

it constitutes a custom or usage with the force of law. 

COUNT I

UNLAWFUL DETENTION IN VIOLATION OF THE 

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if 

fully set forth herein. 

35. Plaintiff brings Count I in both his individual and representative capacities. 

36. Defendants maintain a policy or practice of detaining, holding in custody or imprisoning free citizens for unreasonable amounts of time and in an unreasonable manner with 

deliberate indifference to their constitutional rights following a trial or other proceeding where 

the citizen is found not-guilty or otherwise acquitted, constituting violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

37. The aforementioned policy or practice deprived Plaintiff and the putative Class of 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
9 

liberty without due process, in violation of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

38. The aforementioned policy or practice deprived Plaintiff and the putative Class of 

rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. 

39. The aforementioned policy or practice was carried out under color of custom or 

usage of State law and Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ constitutional rights were violated under 

the color of State law. 

40. Defendants’ conduct is intentional, deliberate, willful, and conducted with disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class. In fact, Defendants have been sued on at 

least two prior occasions for, among other things, their unconstitutional policy or practice of detaining individuals for excessive and unreasonable periods of time after they were found notguilty or otherwise acquitted. See Watson v. Sheahan, et al., Case No. 94-cv-6891 (N.D. Ill.) and 

Bullock v. Dart, et al., Case No. 04-cv-1051 (N.D. Ill.). Despite being put on notice of their unconstitutional polices or practices and paying millions of dollars to settle prior class actions challenging those polices or practices, Defendants continue to adhere to their Unlawful Detention 

Policy. 

41. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ policy or practice of detaining, 

holding in custody or imprisoning free citizens for unreasonable amounts of time and in an unreasonable manner following a trial where the citizen is found not-guilty or otherwise acquitted, 

Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class have experienced extreme harm, including actual damages, emotional distress damages and other damages. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
10 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows: 

i. Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; 

ii. A declaratory judgment that the policies or practices challenged herein are illegal 

and violative of the Constitutional rights secured to Plaintiff and the Class; 

iii. A preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and their partners, 

officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all 

persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, customs and usages as set forth herein; 

iv. An Order requiring the Defendants to initiate and implement programs that: (1) do 

not violate the Constitutional rights of free citizens acquitted on criminal charges; 

(2) remedy the effects of the Defendants’ past and present unlawful practices; and 

(3) eliminate the continuing effects of the unlawful practices described herein 

above; 

v. Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure; 

vi. Designation of Plaintiff as representative of the Rule 23 Class, and counsel of 

record as Class Counsel; 

 vii. Awarding damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class for 

their injuries; 

 viii. Awarding actual, compensatory and emotional distress damages; 

 ix. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 

 x. Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action; 

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
11 

 xi. Awarding punitive damages; and 

 xii. Any and all other relief that this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial 

by jury on all questions of fact raised by the complaint. 

Dated: April 27, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/Robert M. Foote 

Robert M. Foote, Esq. (#03124325) 

Matthew J. Herman, Esq. (#06237297) 

Michael D. Wong, Esq. (#06291089) 

Foote Meyers Mielke & Flowers, LLC 

3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 

St. Charles, IL 60174 

Tel. No.: (630)232-6333 

Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. (#6255735) 

Chavez Law Firm, P.C. 

3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 

St. Charles, IL 60174 

Tel. No.: (630) 232-4480 

Peter L. Currie, Esq. (#06281711) 

The Law Firm of Peter L. Currie, PC 

536 Wing Lane 

Saint Charles, IL 60174 

Tel. No.: (630) 862-1130 

Myron M. Cherry, Esq. 

Jacie C. Zolna, Esq. 

Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC 

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Tel. No. (312) 372-2100 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:12-cv-03148 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/27/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11