IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIJAH MURPHY, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 20-cv-04482

) Hon. Jorge L. Alonzo

vs. )

) Magistrate Judge Sunil Harjani

EVANSTON POLICE DETECTIVE LUIS )

VELEZ; EVANSTON POLICE DETECTIVE )

RYAN KLEINPASTE; and CITY OF )

EVANSTON. ) 

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant, City of Evanston (“City”), and Evanston Detectives Luis Velez and Ryan 

Kleinpaste (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorney, KELLEY A. 

GANDURSKI, Corporation Counsel, and through Nicholas E. Cummings, Deputy City 

Attorney, for their Joint Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Elijah Murphy’s 

Complaint at Law, state as follows:

PARTIES

1. At all relevant times, Mr. Murphy was a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.

2. At all relevant times, Defendant, Evanston Police Detective Luis Velez (“Velez”), was a 

resident of Cook County, Illinois and this Judicial District. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.

3. At all relevant times, Defendant, Evanston Police Detective Ryan Kleinpaste (“Kleinpaste”), 

was a resident of Cook County, Illinois and this Judicial District. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:25
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.

4. Defendant, City of Evanston, Illinois (“Evanston”), is a municipal corporation located in 

Cook County, Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter, and venue in this District is 

proper because each of the individual Defendants resides in this District, the City of 

Evanston is a municipal corporation located in this district, and all the events and omissions 

giving rise to Mr. Murphy’s claims occurred in this District. As set forth below, Mr. Murphy 

brings multiple counts under Federal law for civil damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for 

the deprivation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 

U.S.C. §1331 and §1343.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. On or about May 28, 2018, in the early evening hours, Mr. Murphy was lawfully sitting in a 

car, located in a parking lot at or near the location of 825 Hinnman Avenue in Evanston, 

Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendants admit Mr. Murphy was sitting in a car, located in a 

parking lot at or near the location of 825 Hinnman Avenue in 

Evanston, Illinois. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Mr. 

Murphy was there lawfully.

7. Mr. Murphy was dropped off at the parking lot by friends, and was waiting to meet his 

girlfriend, whose mother has rented the vehicle Mr. Murphy was sitting in. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:26
ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

7.

8. Mr. Murphy did not have any bags, guns, or drugs on his person – nor to his knowledge were 

there any in the car.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.

9. Mr. Murphy was not using or smoking marijuana in the car or anywhere near it. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.

10. Mr. Murphy exited the vehicle, and closed and locked it.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

10.

11. There was no smell or stench of marijuana in or near the vehicle.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.

12. After Mr. Murphy got out of the car, he walked directly towards Defendants. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.

13. Defendants Velez and Kleinpaste stopped Mr. Murphy and told Mr. Murphy that they needed 

to search him real quick or words to that effect.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 13.

14. Defendant Velez then used a key he obtained from Mr. Murphy to open and search the car. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14.

15. Neither the Defendants asked Mr. Murphy’s permission or received his authorization or 

consent prior to opening and searching the car. Mr. Murphy did not give the Defendants 

permission to open the car – or even take and use the key to do so.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 15.

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:27
16. Defendant Velez then searched the car.

ANSWER: Defendants admit Velez searched the vehicle .

17. The Defendants arrested Mr. Murphy based upon a gun that they recovered during the search 

of the car. The gun was not in plain view or visible to Mr. Murphy; instead it was in a bag 

that was on the floor of the passenger side of the car. That bag did not belong to Mr. Murphy 

but rather his girlfriend. The possessions in that bag were identifiable to Mr. Murphy’s 

girlfriend. There was no probable cause to believe the gun belonged to Mr. Murphy.

ANSWER: Defendants admit Murphy was arrested, but deny the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 17.

18. As the basis for Mr. Murphy’s arrest, Defendants claimed that they had probable cause to 

search the car based upon a purported strong odor or “stench” of marijuana outside the car. 

In fact, the Defendants falsely claimed that they could actually smell the strong “stench” of 

marijuana when they were across the parking lot from the car.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 18.

19. The Defendants took Mr. Murphy into custody that same night, and sought approval of 

felony charges from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.

20. The Defendants provided a false police report and information to the Cook County State’s 

Attorney’s Office, falsely indicating that they detected a stench of marijuana and that Mr. 

Murphy possessed a firearm. The Defendants falsely indicated that the firearm was in plain 

view, concealing the fact that the firearm was in a bag belonging to someone else and not 

visible to Mr. Murphy.

ANSWER: Defendants admit they told the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office 

they detected a stench of marijuana and that Mr. Murphy possessed a 

firearm, but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:28
20.

21. The incident report prepared by Velez included a number of false and fabricated claims, 

including that:

(a) There was a strong order of cannabis as the Defendants were “passing 

through” the parking lot;

(b) As they approached the vehicle Mr. Murphy was sitting in “the smell of 

cannabis intensified;” 

(c) There was “a long black object protruding from an open black bag on the 

floor board just to the right of the gear shifter,” which Velez recognized 

“to be a pistol magazine used to hold ammunition;” and

(d) “It should be noted, the handgun and extended magazine was protruding 

from the open small bag.” 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, including 

the allegations contained in subparagraphs a - d.

22. Defendant Kleinpaste related this false and fabricated information to a Felony Review 

Assistant State’s Attorney, who approved the charge of Armed Habitual Criminal, 720 ILCS 

5/24-1/7(a)(1)(2) – a Class X felony punishable by 6 to 30 years imprisonment. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit a Felony Review Assistant State’s Attorney 

approved the charge of Armed Habitual Criminal, 720 ILCS 5/24-

1/7(a)(1)(2), but deny the remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph 22.

23. This felony charge was approved based on the false information and report provided by the 

Defendants. As a result of the information supplied by Defendants, Mr. Murphy was also 

falsely charged with being in violation of his parole, pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/3/3-9; and of 

civil violation of 720 ILCS 550/4(a).

ANSWER: Defendants deny the felony charge was approved based on false 

information. Defendants deny Murphy was falsely charged with 

being in violation of his parole.

24. From the time of his arrest on the evening of May 28, 2018, until approximately October 17, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:29
2018, Mr. Murphy was in custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections at Cook 

County Jail located at 26th and California in Chicago. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

24.

25. During that time period, Mr. Murphy was detained and was forced to remain in the 

conditions of Cook County Jail, pending the outcome of the false State Court criminal 

proceedings instituted by Defendants. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

25.

26. During that time period, Mr. Murphy was required to appear in Cook County Criminal Court 

on various occasions for a crime for which he had been charged but which he had not 

committed. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge upon which to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained Paragraph 26.

27. On or about October 17, 2018, Mr. Murphy was taken in federal custody based on the false 

police report and false information provided by Defendants. The same false facts that were 

used as the basis for Mr. Murphy’s arrest and charging in Cook County Criminal Court were 

used to charge him in federal court. Mr. Murphy was falsely charged in federal court, in the 

Northern District in Illinois, Eastern Division (Chicago), with being a felon in possession of a 

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C., Section 922(g)(1). Upon institution of the federal criminal 

proceeding, the Illinois state criminal proceeding was dismissed via nolle prosequi by the 

State. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit Murphy was taken into federal custody, charged 

with being a felon in possession of a firearm, and that the Illinois state 

criminal proceeding was dismissed. Defendants deny the remaining 

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:30
allegations contained in Paragraph 27.

28. Mr. Murphy was detained in federal custody from on or about October 17, 2018, until or 

about November 2018 – at which he was finally granted released from the MCC pending the 

outcome of the federal proceedings. However, even then, Mr. Murphy, pursuant to the term 

of his release from federal custody, was essentially limited to his place of residence and was 

at all times on electronic monitoring. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient information and knowledge to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.

29. In federal proceeding, on or about December 10, 2018, Mr. Murphy’s counsel filed a motion 

to quash the arrest of Mr. Murphy, based upon the lack of probable cause to arrest him in the 

first instance. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 29.

30. On April 10, 2019, in the federal proceeding, the Honorable Judge Kennelly held an 

evidentiary hearing on Mr. Murphy’s motion to quash. At that hearing, both the Defendants

testified under oath. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 30. 

31. Judge Kennelly read his Opinion from the bench. Judge Kennelly granted Mr. Murphy’s 

motion to quash. In so finding, Judge Kennelly specifically found that the testimony of 

Defendants Velez and Kleinpaste was not credible. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.

32. On May 1 2019, the United States Attorneys’ Office for the Northern District of Illinois 

dismissed all charged against Mr. Murphy. 

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 32.

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:31
COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Unlawful Detention 

(Against the Individual Defendants)

33. Mr. Murphy repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as though fully set forth 

herein, as paragraph 33 of Count I.

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate and re-state all of its answers to Paragraphs 1 

through 32 as its answer to Paragraph 33 of Count I as though fully 

set forth herein.

34. Defendants caused Plaintiff to be unreasonably seized and improperly subjected to judicial 

proceedings for which they knew there was no probably cause. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 34.

35. Based on the false information supplied by Defendants, Mr. Murphy was unlawfully detained 

without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment for nearly one year. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35.

36. As a result of the misconduct of the Defendants described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered 

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional pain and suffering, 

lost wages, and other grievous and continuous injuries and damages. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 36.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights 

(Against the Individual Defendants)

37. Mr. Murphy repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as though fully set forth 

herein, as paragraph 37 of Count II.

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate and re-state all of its answers to Paragraphs 1 

through 32 as its answer to Paragraph 37 of Count II as though fully 

set forth herein.

38. The individual Defendants reached an agreement among themselves to deprive Mr. Murphy 

of his constitutional rights by unlawfully stopping and searching Mr. Murphy, fabricating 

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:32
evidence that would be used to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff, and withholding exculpatory 

information from Plaintiff’s defense and the prosecution, as described above. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38.

39. In addition, Defendants agreed among themselves to protect one another from liability for 

depriving Plaintiff of these rights.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 39.

40. In so doing, Defendants conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful means. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 40.

41. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of the Defendants committed overt acts and were 

otherwise willful participants in joint activity. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 41.

42. The misconduct described in this court was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken 

intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the rights of Mr. Murphy. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 42.

43. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this count, Plaintiff suffered loss of 

liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, emotional pain and suffering, and 

other grievous and continuous injuries and damages. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 43.

COUNT III – Indemnification (Against City of Evanston)

44. Mr. Murphy repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as though fully set forth 

herein, as paragraph 44 of Count III.

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate and re-state all of its answers to Paragraphs 1 

through 32 as its answer to Paragraph 44 of Count IiI as though fully 

set forth herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:33
45. In Illinois, public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages 

for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment activities. See 735 ILCS 

10/9-102. 77.

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 45.

46. Here, the individual Defendants are and were acting as employees of Evanston, and acted 

within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct described herein. 

ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 46.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray the allegations against them be dismissed, and judgment 

entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff and Defendants be awarded reasonable 

attorney’s fees, costs and other such relief as this Court deems just.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant, City of Evanston (“City”), and Evanston Detectives Luis Velez and Ryan 

Kleinpaste (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorney, KELLEY A. 

GANDURSKI, Corporation Counsel, and through Nicholas E. Cummings, Deputy City Attorney

assert the following affirmative defenses:

1. Defendants Luis Velez and Ryan Kleinpaste, conduct was at all times objectively reasonable 

and did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established Constitutional rights under the 

circumstances. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s 42 

U.S.C. §1983 claims.

2. Defendants Luis Velez and Ryan Kleinpaste cannot be held liable for Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 claims unless he or she individually caused or participated in an alleged constitutional 

deprivation because individual liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is predicated 

upon personal responsibility. See Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983).

3. Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for claims against Defendants in their official 

capacity. See Holly v. City of Naperville, 571 F. Supp. 668 (N.D. Ill. 1983).

4. The City is not liable to Plaintiff for any federal claim for which its employees or agents are 

not liable to Plaintiff. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986).

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:34
5. Under the Tort Immunity Act, the City is not required to pay punitive or exemplary damages 

in any action brought directly or indirectly against an employee by the injured party or a third 

party. 745 ILCS 10/2-102.

JURY DEMAND

Defendant, City of Evanston (“City”), and Evanston Detectives Luis Velez and Ryan 

Kleinpaste (collectively “Defendants”), hereby demand a jury trial for all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

KELLEY A. GANDURSKI 

Corporation Counsel

/s/ Nicholas E. Cummings 

 Nicholas E. Cummings

Deputy City Attorney

City of Evanston Law Department

Morton Civic Center

2100 Ridge Ave

Evanston, IL 60201

(847) 866-2937

ncummings@cityofevanston.org

Case: 1:20-cv-04482 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/01/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:35