IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Jamir Johnson, Kevin Nails, Jelisa Nails, Andre )

Watkins, Steven Dykes, and Randy Miller, )

) Case No. 20 CV 2736

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

) Jury Trial Demanded

City of Evanston and Police Chief Demitrous Cook, )

)

Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AT LAW

Plaintiffs Jamir Johnson, Kevin Nails, Jelisa Nails, Andre Watkins, Steve Dykes,

and Randy Miller, through their attorneys Hale & Monico, complains of Defendants City 

of Evanston and Police Chief Demitrous Cook and states as follows:

Parties

1. Plaintiff Jamir Johnson was, during the relevant time, a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois.

2. Plaintiff Kevin Nails was, during the relevant time, a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois.

3. Plaintiff Jelisa Nails was, during the relevant time, a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois.

4. Plaintiff Andre Watkins was, during the relevant time, a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois.

5. Plaintiff Steve Dykes was, during the relevant time, a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:263
6. Plaintiff Randy Miller was, during the relevant time, a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois.

7. Defendant Demitrous Cook was, during the relevant time, the chief of police for 

the Evanston Police Department and acted within the scope of his employment and under 

color of law.

8. Defendant City of Evanston is a municipal corporation organized and doing 

business under the laws of the State of Illinois. During the relevant time, Defendant City 

of Evanston employed Defendant Cook as the chief of police for the Evanston Police 

Department. Defendant City of Evanston is named as a party pursuant to the 

indemnification requirements of 745 ILCS 10/9-102.

Jurisdiction and Venue

9. This action arises under the Constitutional of the United States, under the laws of 

the United States, and under the laws of the State of Illinois.

10. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1343. Plaintiff also invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367.

11. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as the events complained of 

occurred within this district.

Facts

12. On or about February 17, 2020, Defendant Cook used his cell phone to take 

pictures of booking photos of individuals, including photographs of Plaintiffs.

13. Along with the individual’s photographs, Defendant Cook’s picture captured the 

individual’s name, date of birth, home address, and any nicknames. In addition, many of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:264
the individuals had “In custody” above their photograph. Some also had “DOA” (dead on 

arrival) handwritten next to the photograph; these individuals are deceased.

14. Defendant Cook took his pictures using his cell phone’s SNAPCHAT application.

15. SNAPCHAT is a mobile social media application that uses a camera to take 

pictures. The user then selects to whom the picture should be shared, along with the 

length of time the post will be available.

16. Upon using his SNAPCHAT application to take pictures of the individual’s 

photographs and personal information, Defendant Cook then shared the pictures on his 

SNAPCHAT account.

17. The pictures of the individuals and their personal information were then posted 

publicly and were viewed by numerous individuals in the community. These pictures –

including the individual’s date of birth and home address – were then copied and shared 

by an unknown amount of others in the community.

18. Defendant Cook was informed that the pictures were being shared by members of 

the public and took the pictures down from his social media profile.

19. On February 21, 2020 – approximately four days after he had publicly shared 

personal information for 30 individuals, including Plaintiffs – Defendant Cook made a 

public statement about the incident. Defendant Cook stated the individuals whose 

information he posted were “subjects previously identified in Evanston Police 

Department investigations” and that the “photos were taken to assist me with an 

investigation[.]” Defendant Cook further stated that did not realize that SNAPCHAT 

pictures “could be made public with the click of a button” notwithstanding the sharing of 

pictures with the click of a button being the purpose of the SNAPCHAT application. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:265
Defendant Cook then said he had reached out to members of the community who were 

upset.

20. Indeed, the City of Evanston Police Department has policies that prohibit, among 

other activities, the following things:

a. Making personal copies of recordings created while on duty or while acting in their 

official capacity;

b. Retaining recordings of activities or information obtained while on-duty, whether 

the recording was created with department-issued or personally owned recording 

devices;

c. Duplicating or distributing such recordings;

d. Using such recordings for the purpose of embarrassment, intimidation, or ridicule;

e. Sharing of any law enforcement information via social media; and

f. Releasing protected information.

21. Several of the individuals who had their personal information publicly disclosed 

by Defendant Cook are reputed members of street gangs. The public sharing of Plaintiffs’

home addresses puts Plaintiffs and their family at risk of physical harm from others who, 

due to Defendant Cook’s actions, now have Plaintiff’s home address.

22. During the relevant time, Defendant Cook owed Plaintiffs and the other individuals 

who had their personal information publicly disseminated a duty of reasonable case. 

Defendant Cook also had a duty to refrain from willful and wanton conduct.

23. In order to publicly share a picture taken with the SNAPCHAT application, the user 

must first click the “STORY” option and the confirm to have the picture posted. As such, 

the posting of the pictures on his SNAPCHAT Story by Defendant Cook was done 

intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the health and safety of each individual who 

had their picture posted, including Plaintiff.

24. As a direct result of Defendant Cook’s sharing of his information and the 

subsequent press conference, Plaintiff Jamir Johnson lost his employment and has been 

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:266
unable to secure employment subsequent. Plaintiff Jamir Johnson also had his property 

damaged following the public release of his information.

25. As a direct result of Defendant Cook’s sharing of her information and the 

subsequent press conference, Plaintiff Jelisa Nails lost her employment and has received 

threatening text messages, which include her home address.

26. As a direct result of Defendant Cook’s sharing of his information and the 

subsequent press conference, Plaintiff Kevin Nails has been threatened with the message 

including the address posted by Defendant Cook.

27. As a direct result of Defendant Cook’s sharing of his information and the 

subsequent press conference, Plaintiff Steve Dykes lost a job opportunity. 

28. As a direct result of Defendant Cook’s sharing of his information and the 

subsequent press conference, Plaintiff Andre Watkins has lost employment. Plaintiff 

Watkins was also shot by individuals who followed him from his home address and shot 

Plaintiff Watkins outside of another location.

29. As a direct result of Defendant Cook’s sharing of his information and the 

subsequent press conference, Plaintiff Randy Miller has had his property damaged.

Claims

Count I

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment Violation1

30. Plaintiffs incorporates all paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

31. On or about February 17, 2020, Defendant Cook posted the home address of 

Plaintiffs and other individuals. By sharing Plaintiffs’ home address and other personal 

1 Plaintiffs Jamir Johnson, Jelisa Nails, Kevin Nails, Randy Miller, and Andre Watkins replead this Count to allege 

injuries suffered as a result of Defendant Cook’s conduct.

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:267
information, Defendant Cook either intentionally, with deliberate indifference, or with 

reckless disregard created or substantially contributed to placing Plaintiffs in a position 

of danger that Plaintiff would otherwise not have faced. Indeed, by revealing Plaintiffs’

home address and date of birth, Defendant Cook placed Plaintiffs in actual danger of 

having reputed members of street gangs know said personal and private information.

32. Plaintiffs Jamir Johnson and Randy Miller have had their property damaged by 

bullets as a direct result of their home addresses being released by Defendant Cook and 

by having that public sharing subsequently promoted by Defendant Cook during the press 

conference.

33. Plaintiffs Jelisa Nails and Kevin Nails have received threatening messages, which 

include the address shared by Defendant Cook.

34. Plaintiff Andre Watkins has been shot by individuals who followed him from his 

home address, which was publicly shared by Defendant Cook.

35. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs Jamir Johnson, Randy Miller, Jelisa Nails, Kevin 

Nails, and Andre Watkins were proximately caused by Defendant Cook’s public sharing 

of Plaintiffs’ home addresses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jamir Johnson, Randy Miller, Jelisa Nails, Kevin Nails, and 

Andre Watkins pray for a judgment in their favor and against Defendant Cook on this 

count and requests an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ 

fees, costs, and any other relief that is just.

Count II

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment Violation

36. Plaintiffs incorporates all paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:268
37. Plaintiffs are all African-American.

38. Upon information and belief, all of the individuals who had their pictures and 

personal information shared by Defendant Cook were minorities.

39. Upon information and belief, even though white individuals have committed 

criminal acts in the City of Evanston, Defendant Cook did not publicly share booking 

photographs and personal information of white civilians.

40. The disparagement treatment between minorities and Caucasians in publicly 

sharing minority civilian’s personal information had no legitimate governmental purpose.

41. By treating minority civilians and Caucasian civilians in such a different manner, 

Defendant Cook violated Plaintiffs’ right under the Fourteenth Amendment to Equal 

Protection.

42. As a result of Defendant Cook’s conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for a judgment in their favor and against Defendant Cook 

on this count and requests an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief that is just.

Count III

42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Monell Policy Claim

43. Plaintiffs incorporates all paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

44. During the relevant time, Defendant Cook was the final policymaker for the City of 

Evanston’s police department; he had the authority to supervise and deploy personnel 

and resources, develop and implement the police department’s goals and policies, and 

overall monitoring of the police department’s performance and divisions.

45. As alleged above, Defendant Cook violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:269
46. As the final policymaker, Defendant Cook’s misconduct in violating Plaintiffs’

constitutional rights subjects Defendant City of Evanston to direct liability under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment in their favor and against Defendant City of 

Evanston on this count and requests an award of compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, 

costs, and any other relief that is just.

Count IV

Illinois State Law - Indemnification

47. Plaintiffs incorporates all paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

48. During the relevant time, Defendant Cook was as employee of Defendant City of 

Evanston and acted within the scope of his employment.

49. Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, Defendant City of Evanston is required to 

indemnify public employees – such as Defendant Cook – for any judgment against a 

public employee for acts or omissions done within the scope of their employment and is 

required to indemnify any employee for any judgment for acts or omissions done within 

the scope of their employment. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that Defendant City of Evanston be required to indemnify 

Defendant Cook for any award of compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs 

awarded against these defendants.

Jury Demand

50. Plaintiffs demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Shawn W. Barnett

Attorney No. 6312312

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:270
HALE & MONICO, LLC

53 West Jackson, Suite 337

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 870-6905

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:271
Certificate of Service

I, the undersigned attorney, certify that I filed this document using the Court’s 

electronic filing system. As a result, copies of the filed document were electronically 

served upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Shawn W. Barnett

Case: 1:20-cv-02736 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/28/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:272