IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAWN DAVIS, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No.

 ) 

OFFICER JUNG, UNKNOWN OFFICER, and )

THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, DAWN DAVIS, by and through her attorney, John C. 

Greenlees, Ltd. and complaining against the Defendant OFFICER JUNG and THE CHICAGO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought seeking damages as redress for Defendants’ violation of the 

Plaintiffs’ rights enumerated under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of 

the United States of America, which violations resulted from the Defendants’ unlawful and 

unauthorized use of excessive force and unlawful arrest, relating to a traffic stop on or about 

May 19, 2011 which caused the Plaintiff significant and severe damages, including personal and 

pecuniary injuries.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.1331 and 

Sec.1343(a)(3) as the Federal Claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 and venue pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. Sec.1391(b) as the majority of parties reside in this district and the events giving 

rise to the claims occurred in this district. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the 

Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.1367(a).

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
THE PARTIES

3. On May 19, 2011 the Plaintiff, DAWN DAVIS, a citizen of this country, enjoyed all 

rights and entitlements enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America and all 

Amendments thereto.

4. The Defendant, OFFICER JUNG was a duly sworn peace officer under the laws of the 

State of Illinois possessed of law enforcement authority under Illinois law, and at all relevant 

times set forth herein was acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment with 

the City of Chicago. Defendant Officer Jung is sued in his individual capacity. Upon 

information and belief, the Defendant resides in Cook County, Illinois. 

5. The Defendant, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (City of Chicago) is a municipal 

corporation organized and chartered under the laws of the State of Illinois, obligated to 

indemnify employees for judgments resulting from conduct occurring within the scope of 

employment and employing unknown police officers or police personnel herein. It is 

responsible for the policies, procedures, and practices implemented through its various agencies, 

agents, departments and employees and for injury occasioned thereby. It was also the public 

employer of Defendant Jung.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. On or about May 19, 2011 plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Chicago 

Police Officers.

7. The officers had the driver step outside the vehicle and asked for identification and 

insurance information. The driver produced his driver’s license and proof of insurance.

8. Two officers, one of whom was Defendant Jung, and an as yet unidentified officer, 

thereafter approached the vehicle where plaintiff was sitting, talking on her cellular phone.

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
9. The two officers, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe any crime 

was being committed, and without any reasonable or articulable fear for their safety, having 

already determined that the driver was properly licensed and insured, looked inside, and 

Defendant Jung yelled at the Plaintiff to get off the cell phone. 

10. Plaintiff began telling the person she was talking to that the police were yelling at her and 

Defendant Jung, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe any crime was being 

committed, and without any reasonable or articulable fear for his safety, ordered the Plaintiff to 

get out of the car.

11. Plaintiff was breaking off her cell phone conversation, and attempting to open the broken 

car door, when Defendant Jung suddenly yanked open the door from the outside, and forcefully 

grabbed the plaintiff’s arm.

12. The second, unidentified officer grabbed the cell phone from plaintiff’s hand and plaintiff 

was pushed to a police car, where Defendant Jung forcefully spread her legs, yelled at her, 

pushed her head on the car, and forced one arm back behind her back, lifting her up off the 

ground and injuring her wrist while twisting it, causing her intense pain.

13. Defendant Jung placed handcuffs on the plaintiff’s wrists extremely tightly, causing her 

additional pain.

14. Plaintiff had not violated any law, statute, or ordinance, and Defendant Jung did not have 

probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to believe she had committed any crime or violation of 

law.

15. Prior to being forcefully removed from the vehicle by Defendant Jung yanking her out by 

the arm, plaintiff had no physical contact with the officers and had not obstructed nor interfered 

with any action they were taking as police officers.

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
16. The driver of the vehicle was not charged with any crime, ordinance violation, or traffic 

offense. No other person was arrested at the scene of the traffic stop.

17. Plaintiff had marks on her arms, and complained that Defendant Jung had injured her.

18. Plaintiff was brought to the police station where Defendant Jung charged her with 

Obstruction. Plaintiff was thereafter released on bond.

19. After her release, Plaintiff obtained medical treatment for the injury to her wrist and 

injuries to her arms. As a result of her injuries Plaintiff had to miss work.

20. After two court appearances, the obstructing charge was dismissed.

COUNT I

FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION

EXCESSIVE FORCE 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983

21. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1 – 20 above as though fully set forth herein. 

22. At all relevant times herein, the Plaintiff enjoyed and possessed a right under the Fourth 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable searches and 

seizures and to be secure in her person, effects and property, including freedom from the use of 

unreasonable and/or excessive force against her. 

23. On May 19, 2011 Defendant Jung used unlawful and unreasonable force against the 

Plaintiff without lawful justification.

24. Defendant Jung unlawfully physically assaulted and/or brutalized the Plaintiff in a 

manner that was unnecessary to restrain her, obtain her compliance, or accomplish a lawful 

purpose in that he grabbed plaintiff by the arm, forcefully pulled her from the vehicle, pushed her 

head into the squad car, twisted her arm behind her back and applied excessive pressure, lifting 

her feet from the ground, and purposely placed handcuffs on her wrists so tightly they left marks.

25. As described above, the conduct of Defendant Jung was intentionally carried out, under 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
color of law and within the scope of her employment, with willful, wanton, reckless disregard, 

and/or deliberate indifference to the health and welfare, and rights, of the Plaintiff, and 

constituted the excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

26. As the proximate result of the unlawful and excessive use of force by Defendant Jung, 

which violated the rights of the Plaintiff Dawn Davis, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Jung for compensatory 

and punitive damages, costs incurred herein and attorney fees, in a sum in excess of $20,000.00.

COUNT II

FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION

UNLAWFUL ARREST, SEIZURE, AND RESTRAINT

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983

27. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1 – 20 above as though fully set forth herein. 

28. At all relevant times herein, the Plaintiff enjoyed and possessed a right under the Fourth 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable seizure of her

person and to be secure in her person from having her liberty unlawfully restrained. 

29. On or about May 19, 2011 Defendant Jung effected the unlawful seizure, detention, and 

restraint of the Plaintiff, without lawful authority in the form of reasonable articulable suspicion, 

probable cause, a judicial warrant or writ, or other factual or legal justification in that he placed 

Plaintiff in handcuffs, drove her to the police station, held her there against her will, swore out a 

complaint or otherwise caused plaintiff to be charged with Obstructing, and thereafter caused her 

to be released on bond following this arrest.

30. Plaintiff was required to appear in Court two times on this otherwise unlawful charge 

before it was dismissed.

31. Defendant charged and arrested plaintiff for the offense of obstructing, and caused her to 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
be held to bail for that offense, knowing that the plaintiff had not obstructed the defendant officer 

or any other officer in any way prior to her arrest. 

32. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Jung was acting under color of law and her 

individual conduct as described hereinabove was done with willful, wanton, reckless disregard, 

and/or deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff.

33. Defendants’ individual acts violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from unreasonable 

seizures of her person, and unlawful arrest and prosecution, as provided in the Fourth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution and has caused Plaintiff to suffer and will in the 

future continue to suffer, severe damages including loss of reputation, mental anguish, emotional 

distress and legal expenses as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Jung for compensatory 

and punitive damages, costs incurred herein and attorney fees, in a sum in excess of $ 20,000.00.

COUNT III

FOURTH, FIFTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION

UNLAWFUL SEARCH, EXCESSIVE FORCE AND DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

(FAILURE TO INTERVENE)

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983

34. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1 – 20 above as though fully set forther 

herein. 

35. At all relevant times herein, the Plaintiff enjoyed and possessed a right under the 

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable 

searches and seizures, including the use of excessive force, along with the right to be free from 

unlawful and false arrest, and to be secure in his person, personal effects, and property.

36. On or about May 19, 2011 an unknown sworn officer stood by and failed to 

intervene to prevent the unconstitutional and unreasonable searche, detentions, arrest, seizure, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
and use of excessive force, and to prevent physical violence and other damage to which Plaintiff 

was being subjected to at the hands of Defendant Jung. At all relevant times herein, Defendant 

Jung , and the unknown officer, were acting under color of law and within the scope of their 

employment.

37. As the proximate result of the failure of the Unknown Defendant Officer to 

intervene on behalf of the Plaintiff to prevent the use of excessive force, or the unreasonable 

search and seizure of his person and property, or the unlawful arrest and false charging, despite 

the clear need and unreasonable opportunity to do so, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature, loss of property, loss of reputation, 

humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant Unknown Officer 

for compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred herein and attorney fees, in a sum in 

excess of $20, 000.00.

COUNT IV

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 VIOLATION

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

(MONELL LIABILITY)

38. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1 – 20 above as though fully set forth herein.

39. At all relevant times herein, the Plaintiff enjoyed and possessed a right under the Fourth 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be free from unreasonable seizures of her

person, including the use of excessive force and the right not to be arrested or charged with any 

offense without probable cause.

40. During the events described herein, certain Supervisory Personnel, agents or employees 

of the City of Chicago Police Department with policy-making authority, whose names and titles 

are presently unknown to plaintiff, had a duty to supervise and set policy and standards for the 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
use of force, and procedures and standards concerning arrests, as well as to hire, discipline, and 

fire East Hazel Crest Police Officers. 

41. This individual or these individuals failed to adequately supervise, train, or set policy to 

prevent violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. These individuals encouraged the 

violation of plaintiff’s rights in that they failed to insure that officers did not convey false 

information, that standards were followed with respect to signing and approving complaints, that 

standards were set or followed with regard to the use of force, and that arrests and seizures were 

not made without probable cause or the appropriate legal standard. 

42. These individuals failed to adequately supervise, train, or set policy to prevent violations 

of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in that these individuals tolerated repeated violations of the 

civil rights of defendants at the hands of Officer Jung and did nothing to correct, train, discipline, 

or otherwise relieve Defendant Jung of authority or duties involving the use of force or the 

decision to arrest until plaintiff had been injured thereby.

43. These individuals failed to adequately or properly respond to the complaints of the 

plaintiff regarding the conduct of Officer Jung.

44. As a result of the individual or individuals failure to properly discipline or investigate 

officers, including specifically Officer Jung, Chicago Police Officers, including specifically 

defendant Jung, were encouraged and led to believe that their improper and unconstitutional 

conduct would not be scrutinized or punished. These failures created an informal policy or 

custom which resulted in the violations of the plaintiffs rights alleged herein.

45. This complete failure to address, discipline, or respond in any way to the continued 

unconstitutional actions of Officer Jung, committed on both the plaintiff and to other individuals, 

was the proximate cause of the violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights resulting from Jung’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
actions in May 2011. 

46. The supervisory failures of these individuals and unknown supervisory officers were the 

direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations visited on the plaintiffs.

47. As the proximate result of these individuals failure to supervise or otherwise set or 

enforce policy and procedures, the defendant City failed to prevent and in fact encouraged and 

caused the use of excessive force, false arrest and/or arrests without probable cause, and the 

unreasonable seizure and charging of plaintiff.

48. Prior to May 2011, through the actions and inactions of its policy-making personnel, the 

City of Chicago Police Department developed and maintained policies or customs exhibiting 

deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in Chicago, which proximately 

caused the violation of Plaintiff’s rights. 

49. It was the policy and/or custom of the Chicago Police Department and its officers to 

inadequately and improperly investigate or resolve complaints of police misconduct relating to 

the use of force and arrests for alleged battery to officers, and such acts of misconduct were 

instead tolerated by the City of Chicago Police Department. 

50. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of Chicago to inadequately supervise and train 

its police officers, including the Defendant officer, thereby failing to adequately discourage 

further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers. The City did not require 

appropriate in-service training or re-training of officers who were known to have engaged in 

misconduct or improper investigation. The City did not require or demand any in-service or 

re-training of defendant Jung despite complaints from citizens, including the plaintiff.

51. As a result of the above described policies and customs, police officers of the City of 

Chicago Police Department, including the Defendant officers, believed that their actions would 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and that misconduct would not be investigated 

or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.

52. The City of Chicago Police Department failed to train and supervise its officers, and 

failed to implement policies, to prevent constitutional violations relating to the use of excessive 

force on subject citizens and the arrests, seizures, searches, and detentions of citizens without 

probable cause.

53. The City of Chicago Police Department failed to monitor and supervise its officers 

regarding the use of force, failed to make reasonable regular inquiries into, or otherwise 

determine the level of force being utilized by officers during encounters with citizens including 

arrests, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent its officers from using excessive force.

54. The above described policies and customs demonstrated a deliberate indifference on the 

part of policymakers of the City of Chicago Police Department to the constitutional rights of 

persons within the Village, and were the proximate cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s rights 

alleged herein. As a direct and proximate result of the municipality’s failures and actions, 

plaintiff suffered physical injury, loss of reputation, humiliation, mental anguish, emotional 

distress, and legal expenses, as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, City of Chicago 

Police Department, for compensatory damages, costs incurred herein and attorney fees in a sum 

in excess of $ 20,000.00.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY

Respectfully submitted by:

By: /s/ John C. Greenlees

ARDC No. 6196135

600 Holiday Plaza Drive, Suite 500

Matteson, IL 60443

708-747-9440 fax 708-747-9445

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10