1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JAIME SMITH, as next friend of J.S. and 

K.S., minor children and next kin of 

GREGORY THOMAS SMITH,

 PLAINTIFF,

vs.

LAKE COUNTY, LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF 

JOHN BUNCICH, and UNKNOWN 

OFFICERS,

 DEFENDANTS.

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, JAIME SMITH (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”), as 

mother and next friend of J.S. and K.S., minor children and next of kin of GREGORY 

THOMAS SMITH, by and through her attorney, Blake W. Horwitz, Esq., from The 

Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd., pursuant to this Complaint at Law, against the above 

named Defendants LAKE COUNTY, LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH,

and UNKNOWN OFFICERS, and states as follows:

I. JURISDICTION

1. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 1983; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343(a); the Constitution of the 

United States; and this Court’s supplementary jurisdiction powers.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00123-RLM-JEM document 1 filed 03/31/15 page 1 of 7
2

II. PARTIES

2. J.S. and K.S. are the minor children and next of kin of GREGORY THOMAS 

SMITH. J.S. and K.S.’s mother, JAIME SMITH, brings this action on behalf of J.S. and 

K.S.

3. DEFENDANTS, UNKNOWN OFFICERS, were at all times material and 

relevant hereto employed by and acting on behalf of DEFENDANTS LAKE COUNTY

SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH and LAKE COUNTY.

4. DEFENDANT, LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH, was at all times 

material and relevant hereto an officer of DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY, and the 

supervisor of Lake County Jail.

5. DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH is a duly 

constituted local public entity, and is liable for any judgment entered against the 

DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS arising out of their employment.

6. DEFENDANT, LAKE COUNTY, is a duly incorporated municipal corporation. 

At all times material to this Complaint, the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS were

acting under color of state law, ordinance and/or regulation, statutes, custom and usages 

of DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY.

III. FACTS

7. GREGORY THOMAS SMITH was a resident of Hobart, Indiana.

8. On or about March 25, 2015, GREGORY THOMAS SMITH was arrested in 

Hobart, Indiana, by officers of the Hobart Police Department.

9. On or about March 25, 2015, GREGORY THOMAS SMITH was transferred into 

the custody of the Crown Point Police Department.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00123-RLM-JEM document 1 filed 03/31/15 page 2 of 7
3

10. On or about March 25, 2015, GREGORY THOMAS SMITH was taken to the 

Lake County Jail, located at 2293 North Main Street, Crown Point, Indiana 46307.

11. While being held at Lake County Jail, DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS 

used a taser on GREGORY THOMAS SMITH.

12. The DEFEN DANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS’ use of the taser on GREGORY 

THOMAS SMITH was unnecessary.

13. The DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS used the taser to unnecessarily 

modify GREGORY THOMAS SMITH’S behavior when he was having an episode of 

emotional instability, and not being aggressive towards the officers.

14. DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS’ tasering of GREGORY THOMAS 

SMITH proximately caused GREGORY THOMAS SMITH to go into cardiac arrest.

15. As a result of being tasered by the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS, 

GREGORY THOMAS SMITH died.

16. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of the DEFENDANT 

UNKNOWN OFFICERS, GREGORY THOMAS SMITH went into cardiac arrest and

died.

17. On or about March 25 and March 26, 2015, the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN 

OFFICERS were on duty at all times relevant to this Complaint, and were deputized 

police officers of DEFENDANTS LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH and 

LAKE COUNTY.

18. The DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS engaged in the conduct complained 

of on said dates, in the course and scope of their employment by DEFENDANTS LAKE 

COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH and LAKE COUNTY, and while on duty.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00123-RLM-JEM document 1 filed 03/31/15 page 3 of 7
4

COUNT I

§1983 Excessive Force

(DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS)

19. PLAINTIFF incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 18.

20. The DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS’ actions in using unreasonable force 

unto GREGORY THOMAS SMITH amounted to an excessive use of force and violated 

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

21. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS were 

the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations set forth above, and the 

PLAINTIFF suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFF demands judgment against the DEFENDANT 

UNKNOWN OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just.

COUNT II

State Law Battery Claim

(DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS)

22. PLAINTIFF incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 18.

23. The DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS tasered GREGORY THOMAS 

SMITH, intentionally, without consent and without justification.

24. The conduct of the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS was in violation of 

the laws of the State of Indiana.

25. The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS were 

the direct and proximate cause of the injuries set forth above.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00123-RLM-JEM document 1 filed 03/31/15 page 4 of 7
5

WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFF demands judgment against the DEFENDANT 

UNKNOWN OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just.

COUNT III

Wrongful Death under I.C. 34-23-1-1

(DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS)

26. PLAINTIFF incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 25.

27. The DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS, through their wrongful acts or 

omissions, caused the death of GREGORY THOMAS SMITH.

28. The wrongful acts or omissions of the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS 

that caused the death of GREGORY THOMAS SMITH violated Title 34, Article 23, 

Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Indiana Code.

WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFF demands judgment against the DEFENDANT 

UNKNOWN OFFICERS, and such other additional relief as this Court deems equitable 

and just.

COUNT IV

Supplemental Respondeat Superior Claim

(DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH)

29. PLAINTIFF incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 18 and 22 through 28.

30. The aforesaid actions of the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS were 

committed in the scope of their employment as police officers and, therefore, 

DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH, as principal, is liable for 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00123-RLM-JEM document 1 filed 03/31/15 page 5 of 7
6

the actions of its agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior for all state law claims 

herein.

WHEREFORE, the PLAINTIFF demands judgment against DEFENDANT 

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH, and such other additional relief as this 

Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT V

Indemnification Claim

(DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH)

31. PLAINTIFF incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 28.

32. DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH is the employer of 

the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS alleged above.

33. The DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS, as alleged above, committed the 

acts under color of law and in scope of employment of DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY 

SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH.

WHEREFORE, should the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS be found 

liable for any of the alleged counts in this case, the PLAINTIFF demands that, pursuant 

to Indiana law, DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF JOHN BUNCICH pay the 

PLAINTIFF any judgment obtained against the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS 

as a result of this Complaint.

COUNT VI

Indemnification Claim

(DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY)

34. PLAINTIFF incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1 through 28.

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00123-RLM-JEM document 1 filed 03/31/15 page 6 of 7
7

35. DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY is the employer of the DEFENDANT 

UNKNOWN OFFICERS alleged above.

36. The DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS, as alleged above, committed the 

acts under color of law and in scope of employment of DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY.

WHEREFORE, should the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS be found 

liable for any of the alleged counts in this case, the PLAINTIFF demands that, pursuant 

to Indiana law, DEFENDANT LAKE COUNTY pay the PLAINTIFF any judgment 

obtained against the DEFENDANT UNKNOWN OFFICERS as a result of this 

Complaint.

JURY DEMAND

The PLAINTIFF demands trial by jury. 

Respectfully submitted,

THE BLAKE HORWITZ LAW FIRM

Attorney for Plaintiff

By: ______S/ Blake W. Horwitz

Blake W. Horwitz

The Blake Horwitz Law Firm

111 W. Washington St., Suite 1611

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 676-2100

bhorwitz@bhlfattorneys.com

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00123-RLM-JEM document 1 filed 03/31/15 page 7 of 7