IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

DAWN DAVIS, ) 

 ) Case No. 12 CV 05843 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) JUDGE AMY ST. EVE 

 v. ) 

 ) 

OFFICER JUNG, UNKNOWN OFFICER, and ) 

THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANT JAEHO JUNG’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT,

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND JURY DEMAND

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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that this action is brought seeking damages under the Fourth 

and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Officer Jung denies 

engaging in the remaining complained-of conduct in paragraph 1. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 2. This Court has original jurisdiction of 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). 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that this Court has original jurisdiction of 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. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:24
2

Sec. 1983. Officer Jung admits that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district 

but denies engaging in any wrongdoing. Officer Jung admits that he resides in this district but 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to where Plaintiff resides. Officer 

Jung denies that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a) because Plaintiff 

brings no state law claims. 

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 American and 

all Amendments thereto. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 3. 

 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 the color 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4. 

 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 of 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that the City of Chicago is a municipal corporation organized 

and chartered under the laws of the State of Illinois and that the City of Chicago was the public 

employer of Officer Jung. Officer Jung denies that Plaintiff completely and accurately 

characterizes indemnification of City employees under Illinois law. Officer Jung lacks 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:25
3

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 5. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

Chicago Police Officers. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that on 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that the driver was asked to exit the vehicle and that he was 

asked for identification and insurance information, but denies that said events happened in that 

order. Officer Jung admits that 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that he and another officer approached the vehicle in which 

plaintiff was sitting at the time of the initial traffic stop. Officer Jung lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 8. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies engaging in the complained-of conduct in paragraph 9. 

 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 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:26
4

Plaintiff to get out of the car. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity concerning what Plaintiff said during her phone conversation. Officer Jung 

denies engaging in the remaining complained-of conduct in paragraph 10. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies the allegation contained in paragraph 11. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits, to the best of his recollection, that another police officer took 

Plaintiff’s cell phone from her hand. Officer Jung denies the remaining complained-of conduct 

in paragraph 12. 

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

causing her additional pain. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies engaging in the complained-of conduct in paragraph 13. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14. 

 15. Prior to being forcefully removed form 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies removing Plaintiff from the vehicle and, therefore, denies the 

allegations contained in paragraph 15. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:27
5

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that no other person was arrested at the scene of the traffic 

stop. Officer Jung denies that the driver of the vehicle was not charged with any crime, 

ordinance violation, or traffic offense. 

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

her. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of whether Plaintiff had marks on her arms. Officer Jung, to the best of his 

knowledge, denies that Plaintiff complained that Officer 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that Plaintiff was brought to the police station and charged ‘ 

with obstruction of identification and resisting/obstructing a police officer. Officer Jung 

admits, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff was released on a recognizance 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 19. 

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

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits upon information and belief that the criminal case against 

Plaintiff was dismissed, but denies that the dismissal was after two court appearances by 

Plaintiff. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:28
6

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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung incorporates his answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 as his answer to 

paragraph 21. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that Plaintiff enjoyed and possessed the rights described in 

paragraph 22. 

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

the Plaintiff without lawful justification. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies engaging in the complained-of conduct in paragraph 23. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies engaging in the complained-of conduct in paragraph 24. 

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

under 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies engaging in the complained-of conduct in paragraph 25 and, 

therefore, denies all allegations contained in paragraph 25. 

 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 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:29
7

continues to suffer injuries of a personal and pecuniary nature. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies engaging in the complained-of conduct in paragraph 26 and, 

therefore, denies all allegations contained in paragraph 26. 

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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung incorporates his answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 as his answer to 

paragraph 27. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that Plaintiff enjoyed and possessed the rights described in 

paragraph 28. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies any actions he took toward Plaintiff on May 19, 2011, were 

without lawful authority or other legal justification, and, therefore, denies all allegations 

contained in paragraph 29. 

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

charge before it was dismissed. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits upon information and belief that the criminal case against 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:30
8

Plaintiff was dismissed, but denies that the dismissal was after two court appearances by 

Plaintiff. Officer Jung denies that any charge brought against Plaintiff was unlawful. 

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

her to 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that he assisted in the arrest of Plaintiff and charged Plaintiff 

with obstruction of identification and resisting/obstructing a police officer but denies engaging in 

the remaining complained-of conduct in paragraph 31. 

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

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

and/or deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits he was acting under color of law at all times relevant to 

Plaintiff’s complaint but denies engaging in the complained-of conduct, and, therefore, denies all 

remaining allegations in paragraph 32. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies engaging in the complained-of conduct in paragraph 33 and, 

therefore, denies all allegations contained in paragraph 33. 

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 forth 

herein. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung incorporates his answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 as his answer to 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:31
9

paragraph 34. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that Plaintiff enjoyed and possessed the rights described in 

paragraph 35. 

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

intervene to prevent the unconstitutional and unreasonable search, detentions, arrest, seizure, 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung admits that he was acting under color of law and within the scope of 

his employment and at all relevant times set forth herein. Officer Jung denies engaging in the 

complained-of conduct and, therefore, denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 36. 

 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. 

ANSWER: Officer Jung denies that the complained-of conduct occurred and, therefore, 

denies all allegations in paragraph 37. 

COUNT IV 

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 VIOLATION 

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (MONELL LIABILITY)

 Officer Jung does not answer the allegations contained in Count IV because they are not 

brought against him, but against the Chicago Police Department. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:32
10

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendant Officer Jung respectfully requests that judgment be entered 

in his favor and against Plaintiff in this matter, including for costs of defending this suit, and any

other relief this Court deems necessary and proper.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Officer Jung is a government official who performs discretionary functions. At all 

times material to the events alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint, a reasonable police officer 

objectively viewing the facts and circumstances confronted by Officer Jung, could have believed 

his actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information that Officer Jung 

possessed. Officer Jung, therefore, is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. 

2. To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging a claim pursuant the Fifth Amendment, it should 

be dismissed. The “Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” applies only to federal 

officials.” LaBoy v. Zuley, 747 F.Supp. 1284, 1286 (N.D. Ill. 1990). Hence, since Plaintiff 

alleges that the Defendant Officers are City of Chicago Police Officers and not agents of the 

federal government, Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim must be dismissed. 

 3. An award of punitive damages would deprive Defendant Officer Jung of due process 

of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 

where a) liability for punitive damages has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least 

by clear and convincing evidence, and b) the award of punitive damages is disproportionate to 

actual damages. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:33
11

JURY DEMAND

Defendant Officer Jung hereby demands a jury trial for all issues so triable. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Scott Aaron Cohen

 SCOTT AARON COHEN 

 Assistant Corporation Counsel 

30 North La Salle Street, Suite 900 

Chicago, IL 60602 

(312) 744-2568 

Attorney No. 6292577 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:34
12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

DAWN DAVIS, ) 

 ) Case No. 12 CV 05843 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) JUDGE AMY ST. EVE 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

OFFICER JUNG, UNKNOWN OFFICER, and ) 

THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

NOTICE OF FILING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TO: John C. Greenlees 

 600 Holiday Plaza Drive - Suite 500 

 Matteson, IL 60443 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this 2nd day of November 2012, I have caused to be efiled with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division DEFENDANT JAEHO JUNG’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND JURY DEMAND, a copy of which is 

herewith served upon you.

 I hereby certify that I have served this notice and the attached document by causing it to 

be delivered by electronic means to the person named above at the address shown this 2nd day of 

November 2012. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Scott Aaron Cohen

 SCOTT AARON COHEN 

 Assistant Corporation Counsel 

30 North La Salle Street, Suite 900 

Chicago, IL 60602 

(312) 744-2568 

Attorney No. 6292577 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:35